ML20129G646

Radioactive Matls in Metal Scrap & General License Concept, Presented at 900626,35th Annual Meeting of Health Physics Society in Anaheim,Ca

ML20129G646
Person / Time
Issue date:	06/26/1990
From:	Lubenau J NRC OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS (OIP)
To:
Shared Package
ML20129G101	List: ML20129G094 ML20129G104 ML20129G127 ML20129G157 ML20129G178 ML20129G214 ML20129G335 ML20129G360 ML20129G479 ML20129G515 ML20129G543 ML20129G573 ML20129G614 ML20129G646 ML20129G662 ML20129G685 ML20129G732 ML20129G737 ML20129G757 ML20129G795 ML20129G806 ML20129G831
References
NUDOCS 9610300164
Download: ML20129G646 (52)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:. . ~ - _ . ~ _ .~. e 4 REVIEW CR;UP - RADIOACTIVE DEVICES i i i j ~ 1 u l j RADI0 ACTIVE MATERIALS IN ETAL SCRAP AND l THE GENERAL LICENSE C0fCEPT ~ JoEL 0. LUBENAU, C.H.P STATE PROGRAMS i U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0m!SSION i Presented at the Governmental Health Physics Section Program, 35th Annual Meeting of the Health Physics Society June 26, 1990, Anaheim, California i i This paper does not represent agreed upon staff positiens of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission nor has the Comission approved the technical content. 9610300164 960830 PDR REVGP NRORDRG PDR i 2 yr-

e 7 I i 10 CFR 31.5 DEVICES AEROSOL tEUTRAllZER 9,600 BETA BA0(SCATTER GAUGE 7,000 ELECTRON CAPTURE DETECTOR 8,000 ELECTROSTATIC VOLTETER 3,000 FUEL DENSITOMETER EMITTER 945 ~ GAUGES 16,000 FILL LEVEL GAUGES 4,200 IN-FLIGHT BLADE INSPECTION 1,000 LIQUID SCINTILLATION SPECTROETERS 7,000 SELF LUMIN0US SIGNS 180,000 STATIC ELIMINATORS 160,000 X-RAY FLUORESCENCE 720 ~ 4 l p

~.... _ i THE 10 CFR GEERAL LICENSE POPULATION

• 35,000 GENERAL LICENSEES
• 400,000 10 CFR 31.5 DEVICES

- (VS. 4,000 IN 1959, THE DATE OF PART 31.5) \\ l 1 9

l ] i j i i i i [ 16,000 GAUGES 8 1,900 AM-241 (0.5 - 5 CI) 1 e 600 Co-60 (0.5 - 1 CI) r i 4 8,500 Cs-137 (0.5 - 4 CI) 1 1,600 SR-90 (0.5 - 1 CI) 1 i 1,600 Ka-85 (0.5 - 1 CI) 2 i 1,800 OmER I 9

1 l.- i i l l-k i l. l l CURRENT NRC OVERSIGHT Fm GENERAL LICENSEES INITIAL INSPECTION OF GLs SLESEQUENT INSPECTIONS FOR CAUSE ONLY FOR GLc NEVER INSPECTED, RAND 0tl.Y SELECT FOR TELEPHONE CONTAi.'S C0tEISSION IS CONSIDERING INCREASING OVERSIGHT OF GLs 1 l 0 i f

._. _ _. ~. - - __ 1 I ? l \\ l l l l I a i l STLTING OF RADIDACTIVE SOURI S l

• SINCE 1983, TEN (10) DOMESTIC INSTANCES OF TE ACCIDENTAL ST LTING 0F RADI0 ACTIVE SOURCES 1
• 6 Cs-137; 1 Co-60; I RA-226; 1 Acc.

L i b l l

4 i DISCOVERIES OF RADIDACTIVE MATERIAL IN ETAL SCRAP SELECTED DATA 1985 - APRIL 1990 44 CASES NOT INCLUDING S ELTINGS i l NORM 32% RA 16% ACCELERATOR 4% EC N UNKNOWN 21% l l r i l l l

l l l l [ L l l DISCOVERIES OF RADIDACTIVE MATERIAL IN ETAL SCRAP SELECTED DATA 1985 - APRIL 1990 i 11 CASES NOT INCLUDING SELTINGS Cs-137 4 CO-60 2 SR-90 1 U/TH 4 TOTAL EC 11 (25%) l i

I.. __._ -. _. _ _. _. _.. _... _... _ _.. _ _.. _... _ _ _ _. -. _. _.. _ t t i t' i 1 f L l i i i r E C LICENSED SOURCES-IN ETAL SCRAP 1985 - APRIL 1990 SELTINGS 8 FOUND IN SCRAP FEED 11 TOTAL 19 l l i i-i l l i i. l l l i l l 1 j i f

. _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ -. _. _ _. _ _ ~ _ _ h l f i 19 NRC LICENSED SOURCES IN ETAL SCRAP 10 CASES INVOLVING Cs-137 SOURCES i ...] CONFIRED CASE If#0LVING GL SOURCES j ~ (2-200 MCI GAUGES) F 3 CASES.- Co-60 l i 1 CASE - SR-90 l 5 CASES - TH OR U i i i u l I I i { l I 1

\\ l l FOR 19 NRC SOURCES IN ETAL SCRAP ASSERTIONS THAT ARE DIFFICULT TO REFUTE: 1 I

• SOE OF TE OTER 10 Cs-137 CASES IWOLVED GL SOURCES

~ t

• MOST OF TE U/TH CASES IWOLVED GL SOURCES i

i i 1 j l L l 4

l '

l PATHWAYS T RADI0 ACTIVE MATERIALS IN STEEL MAKING FlRNACES l' ELEENT LIKELY PATHWAY 1 Cs,PB,Po FLUE DUST l CO, IR STEEL l RA,AM,SR,PU,U,TH SLAG i i i l l

l- \\ SOE IPPACTS OF RADI0 ACTIVE MATERIALS i IN ETAL SCRAP FOR MILLS AND SCRAPYARDS:

• COSTS OF INSTALLING MONITORS ($5K - $30K+ PER UNIT)
• COSTS OF SEGREGATING / EVALUATING / RETURNING SCRAP ($?)

COSTS OF CLEANUP IF SELTED ($500K - $2.2M+) i

I O IPPACTS CONTIMJED FOR GOVERMiENT (1.E., TAXPAYER): I

• NRC AND STATE RESOURCE EXPENDITURES FOR RESPONSES ($?)

FOR WORKERS:

• ALTHOUGH SERIOUS EXPOSURES OF WORKERS ARE NOT KNOWN TO HAVE OCCURRED IN THE U.S., THEY ARE POSSIBLE (EXICAN STEEL INCIDENT) l i

O

1 l i CONCLUSIONS RADIDACTIVE SOURCES WILL CONTINUE TO APPEAR IN METAL SCRAP FOR NEAR TERM f l

• NORM AND RA ARE MAJOR SOURCES, BUT fEC LICENSED

~ MATERIAL ALSO APPEARS

• OF 19 KNOWN CASES, ONLY 1 CASE DOCLPENTED GL DEVICES PROBABLY OTHER GL INVOLVEMEtU 4

l

l.. I i

• I i

i 1 l l CONCLUSIONS CONTINUED IS COSTLY T0 FETAL INDUSTRY - PROTECTION - CLEAN UP 1 l i 4 I

JUf4-38-SS l'3 42 EROM2 DH - f< AO l t.'I l ON COdTHCL I D. b t i' G36 EG54 PACE 1/e (T REVIEW GROUP - RADI0 ACTIVE DEVICES l Texas Depar: ment of Health l Bureau of Radiation Control l 1100 West 49th Street l Austin, Texas 78756-3189 l 9 l l \\ _f of_Pages > 9 ~ ~ 'TO: FROM: i bh lA 1Y4 l D U " COMPANY / AGENCY: COMPANY / AGENCY. 7 ) DEPARTMENT / DIVISION: DE1PARTMENT/ DIVISION: Radiation Control FAX /TELEP ONE #: FAX / TELEPHONE #: / / 512-834-6654 / 512-834-6688 k / V./S~ 4 1 fo/ es'JL'f J {s' f r / /

- 2 e.% u. c m m :ca. - w. m a e...m m. 20.u12 eau ees4 root 2e .w n w cumn x. m mca nw v.e s [ RADIOACTIVE DEVICE WORKING GROUP QUESTIONNAIRE ,,a The Working Group reviewed information from a number of sources. They included; steel manufacturars, metal scrap processors and users of the radiological devices potentially encountered in scrap and waste streams. To approach a solution, the working group separated the problems into three groups. They are inadequate accounting, impropar disposal and orphaned devices. '2he working group also attempted to identify devices of greater concern and developed a table with assistance from agreement state and vendor participants. Inadesuate accountina includes the loss of devices due to inaccurate inventories or no inventor.y. ranroner dismenal includes the disposal, knowingly or unknowingly, so that a device reaches an area that is no longer controlled to prevent exposure to' nembers of the public. This may be non radiation workers within plants where devices are used or areas outside the boundaries cf the facility where the source was to be tusad. l ornhaned devices include sources that are no longer in the control of a parson lictsnsed to posasss or use them. The following survey questions are categorized to address each of the problem areas. Please indicate a Tes, No or Undecided response by marking the box after each question with a Y, N or U. Feel free to use the space between statements or the back of the page for comments. Inadequate accountability: The following applies to devices.identifieed as higher concern". Do you agree with the following statements? 1. Semiannual inventorics vould i:aprove accountability. i 2. Annual reporting of. inventories to regulatory agencies by users would improve acccuntability. 1

J UN - kts-Ell 13>4J F R C P. 'ID H - R/4D I/ T I Ot3 C O a41 Te O ' IC S.2 934 S'i s 4 P/,G E 3 'a Jm 76 ' W atEr canearwit: sv p, y,3 l_, 3. Users :nust maintain current inventory records. l' 3 4. General licensees must assign a Radiologically Responsibla Person and a backup as contacts, (The duties of the RRP will be to assure accuracy of i invantory, sign off en or perrom leak tests and report inventories and losses.) t 5. The durability of the label on the device should meet or exceed i the durability of the device. _d 6. The label should contain the currantly required information and I a serial number, l (current rules require, on the label, instructions and l precautions for safe'insta11ation, leak test requireasents, testing on-off system, radioisotope, activity, date of assay l as well as a statement indicating the devices are under Mac and-Agreement state jurisdiction, that labels are to be maintained in a legible condition, removal of labels is prohibited.a the words caution - radioactive material

• are to a

l be included and the name of the nanufacturer or initial transferor. 1 Improper Disposal: Do you agree with the following statements? 7. Annual reporting cf ihventcries should be required of users. 1 e w

~-...- ~. J UN 9 [3 11.44 FRCH,TOH-RACIATION CONTROL D.512 GM GG54 PACE 4.' O ^ ?!N ~6 ' M d's. 2P! MD $@ WCT:~ *1 '.O '/ p,4ca 8. Users must be acle to demonstrate preper disposal or pay penalty. j fY 1 N UlY W Y s _a sf (?C Q WB W OR '. I d b 9. Regulatory agencies should review reports of device transfers and receipts. e { M6T

10. Users should provide worker training to improve knowledge of

~ l health and safety risks, penalties for violations, identification and locations of devices. { TW ,$ ca k \\A)WW 1 AL

n. Distributors should provide disposal information to include options, costs, etc. to users at the tima of initial transfer.

Manufacturers and some agreement state representatives have suggested the creation of a national inventory for the devices included in the WG recommendations. The database for such an inventory would receive reports from regulatory agencies and would identify discrapancies from previous submittale. l In light of the preceding suggestion, do you agree with tha l following statements? i l

12. A national database is necessary to adequately track devices in 1

distribution. ) i fl l l

13. A nauional database would benefit state regulatory programs' l

attempts to track devices? 3 em 4

___...__________._-m._. _ ~.. _. _ _.. J L'N - 2 G -GU 10:44 Fh0M,TOH-RADIAllON C O S3 T R O L IDe b i '.! 034 F,6 6 4 PACE. 5/O I tw EE '?e 0;.25An du or rwgU.1 SEc. / pafg. T l see

14. A national database for tracking devices of higher risk should be established by the NRC.

LU Q0 b ) MO / Anticipated orphaned Devices: Do you agree with the fo11 ewing statements?

15. _In addition to current labelin Q equirementn, labels conspicuously identi-Wg the device ar. rad:.cactive should be affixed to devicas in the 2sost likely visible location if the device is lost.

Id

16. Labels should be permanently a:' fixed to the device, e.g.,

embossed, engraved, etc. and the strength and durability of the label must meet or exceed that of the davice.

17. Innocent " finders" of orphaned ddVices shculd not be required to taxa responsibility for possession, storaga and/or disposal of radioactive materials.

9 1 fsold%7 }[Rc should take the lead in.the _followitw oronasad__ solutions:

18. Arrange for manufacturer to recycle or DOE / EPA disposal of orphaned sources (can be accomplished via MOU between NRC, DOE and EPA).

1 asoh ~ 1 4 i

. -. - - -.. ~.. -.. .. - ~.... -., i ,,/ :J N *i E* + 9 5 13s cG FROS 7Dh-RADIA!!ON CCNTROL 30+612 024 SGb4 PAGE 6/O e l .7124 ?l, '36 El1 E iC 1 C+C EHD F C E.7 :Z,4, pg (,

19. A fund should be established to pay for disposal of orphEned sources under certain circumstances.

1

20. Develop nonuser training recommandations to improve safety and recognition of devices.

The Institute of Scrap Recycling Inc. (ISRI) has done this for its me:nbership, but its members do not include all recyclers. I I i The Working Group, with assistance from some agreement state representatives and vendors, attempted to derive a table expressing the isotopes and factors of concern for radioactive devices. The resulting table attached to this page is the result of the participants' work experience in dealing with radioactive devices. The table represents isotopes of concern versus factors of concern and ranks the isotopes n high, sedium or low level of concern. The factors of concern are': EXT Irr. EXP = external exposure EXP. = internal exposure QTY = quantities most canononly encountered DISP T1/2 = half life DIFF 5 Disposal difficulty cost DISP = cost of disposal The Working Group has also attempted to identify activities of concern at this time two opt. ions are being considered. One is to use 1000 times the exempt quantity limits in 30.71 (10CFR 30.71) and the other is to use 1 aci for the isotopes in the table with a limit to be determined later for the transuranics. Please. review the attached table and respond to the following:

21. Do you agree with the Working Group's ranking of isotopes et concern?

Please indicate cnanges you would make. _1 i 1 I e 5

~. JUN-2G-SG :3 41 F G.OP IDH-H AO: A'110N CONTROL f G f.,12 6'34 GE54 PAGE ?.e s An a 'a m 2e 0-D sc P+ T." s & v P. 7, s l

22. Do you agree with the " factors of Concern?

Please indicata your suggested changes. bCb4d d h~b D mRE % i<'cl"df 70'zlO > tA~ ~ ' w km % CM sad %Lhd,", i

23. What suggestions would you make for activItf es of concern?

l picces 10?PR 5I Apf D & < Nn e er T20

24. What other suggestions would you mak"e?

% d u @1 i Kn~'- ) The questions and statements above lead to a possible set of _l recommendations that would address the three problems ' stated at the beginning of this questionnaire. j

25. What comments would you offer relating to implementation of the implied solutions.

W-W5Y4 ,, h ma.if SCtJL Vir( S h QM , che c k vendu re wrt$ Ye-

• S y

,'De> Re(J suwop ih Leckt cwa <fc<. 64 pe bec The following questions are an attempt to gather information on issues for the solutions we have identified. Compatibility with NRC rules is a major concern for these reccamendations in terms of the way states accept and implement them because dua consideration should be given to the transboundary impacts of placing radioactive. devices into interstate commerce.

25. In light of the above statements, What compatibility level would you recommend?

e7l--

27. With individual states taking independent action to control the problems mentioned at the beginning, do you feel that this would lead to one state's rules effectively overriding another state's rules when disvices cross state boundaries?

MO 6 l ~ l l I

-.._,_ ~... . -~ .~ ( JUN-2G-HG 10 4G FROH TCH F.ADIA'11CN CCHIROL 1C 512 634 GG34 PAGE e/O JUN 26 ' M 'd100PM 013 Fi,L MOTEC T 3E4v p, g,g

28. What other reciprocity issues do you see as concerns?

dedctc wrns - 30 YEf \\ S Please complete the questionaire and'-return i't to Bob Free during the conference or mail it to: l i Robert Free Bureau of Radiation Control Texas Department of Healta 1100 v.49th St. Austin, T)t 78756 .~ O I

05/26/96 11:33 T4 BR' 001 {; 1 Y2EW GROUP ? g IO M xyg DEVICES j Texas Department of Health i a i Bureau of Radiation Control i i 1100 West 49th Street Austin, Texas 78756-3189

l@

O i i I ,.c et..., /0 l &jyf f9l [m i 1 l COMPANY / AGENCY: COMPANY / AGENCY : { TDH/BRC l DEPARTMENT /DIY1510N8 DEPARTMENT /DIVISIONt Radiation Control I FAX / TELEPHONE #8 FAX / TELEPHONE #1 39//y[p g3f9 512-834-6654 / S12-434-6688 i i l 1 i

. _. _. _. _ _. _.... _. - ~. _ _ _ _ 05/26/95 11:33 TX BR: 002 1 s i i { ', I RESPONSES TO WG SURVEY i i, 1 .Y__. J Y..- 1.._ y y y y y y y u n 3 y u y y y y y y y y n y y S y y y y y y y y y y y y y i 4 n y y y y y y y y y y y y 8 y y n y y y y y y y u y y j i l s y y y y y y y y y y y y y j 7 y y y y y y y y y y u y y ) 8 y y n y y y y y y y y n y l 9 y y y y y y y y y y y u y 10 u y y u y y y y u y u y y j 11 y u y y y y y y y y y y y ) 13 n y n n y n y n u y u u y as_ u y n y y u y u y y y y y 14 u u _n n y u y n y y y y y 15 u y y y y u y y y y y y y j _1s y_ y n y y. y y y y .L..y .y_ y i 17 y y y y y y y y y y y y y i l 18 y_ u y y y y y y y y_ y y y j 19 y y y y y u u y y y y y y i as y y y u y y y y y y y y y k 31 y y y y _y y y y y y y y y 33 y n y y y u y y y y y y y 33 y c 0 0 0 0 0 y c c y y 0 } 34 0 c 0 0 ? 0 0 0 e c 0 0 0 j 35 ? ? 0 0 c 0 e c c c c c c f, 35 3 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 o 2 2 j 17 y y n y n c c y c c n u n se o y o 0 0 0 0 0 o c 0 c o i f=YE6 C=MADE CONMKNT i N=NO ?= ASKED CIARIFICATION } U= UNDECIDED 1,2,3= COMPATIBILITY DIVISION RECOMMENDED j O=NO RESPONSE f i ) 1.

06/26/56 11:aa Tx BR: 303 I ass Pouss To svavar guasTzoNs 1

1. Y= 11 14.Y= 7 27.Y= 4 O= 4 N= 1 N= 3 U-1 N= 4 U= 3 U= 1

2. Y= 11 15.Y= 11 28.Y= 1 C= 3 N= 1 N= 0 N= 0 0= 9 U= 1 U= 2 Um 0

3. Y= 13 16.Y= 11 N= 0 N= 2 Um 0 U= 0 1

i

4. Y= 12 17.Y= 13 N= 1 N= 0 U= 0 l

U= 0

5. Y= 11 18.Y= 12 N= 1 N= 0 U= 1 U= 1

6. Y= 13 19.Y= 11 N= 0 N= 0 Um 0 U= 2

7. Y= 12 20.Y= 12 N= 0 N= 0 U= 1 U= 1

8. Y= 11 21.Y= 13 N= 2 N= 0 U= 0 U- 0 j

9. Y= 12 22.Y= 11 N= 0 N= 1 U= 1 U= 1 10.Y= 9 23.Y= 4 0=5 N= 0 N= 0 C=4 U= 4 U= 0 11.Y= 12 24.Y= N/A 0= 9 N= 0 N= N/A C= 3 I

U= 1 U= N/A ?= 1 12.Y= 5 25.Y= N/A 0= 3 N= 5 N= N/A C= 8 l U= 3 U= N/A 7= 2 l t 13.Y= 9 26.Y= N/A 1= 3 N= 1 Na N/A 2= 8 i U= 3 U= N/A 3= 1 l c= t ! ummmmme--- 1

05/26 45 11:40 T/: BR 004 s i ! ~ l RADIOACTIVE DEVICE WORKING GROUP QUESTIONNAIRE i l The Working Group reviewed information from a number of sources. They -included; steel manufacturers, metal scrap processors and j users of the radiological devices potentially encountered in scrap and waste streams. To approach a solution, the working group separated the problems into three groups. They are inadequate l accounting, improper disposal and orphaned devicea. The working group also attempted to identify devices of greater concern and developed a table with assistance from agreement state l and vendor participants, i i rn..a--u.e. neaountina includes the loss or devices due to j nga g g Q j u n f.nfjg y g,gg,1 M dAlEL, Knowingly or unknowingly, so t ut a device reaches an area that is no longer controlled to { prevent expor,ure to members of the public. This may be non radiation workers within plants t<here devices are used or areas outside the boundaries of the facility where the source was to be l us.d. i orphaped davions include sources that are no longer in the control l of a person licensed to possaan or use them. i I The following eurvey questions are categorized to address each of the problem areas. Please indicate a Yes, No or Undecided responsa j by marking the box after each question with a Y, N or U Feel j free to use the space between statements or the back of the page I for comments. J l Imadequate aseeuntability: The following applies to devices identified as " higher concern", Do you agree with the following statements? i 1. semiannual inventories would improve accountability. i 2. Annuel reporting of inventories to regulatory agencies by users j would improve accountability. 4 i i t i j 1 i l

J Users must maintain current inventory records. 3. 1 l ) 4. General licensees must assign a Radiologically Responsible Person and a backup as contacts. (The duties of the RRP will be to assure accuracy of inventory, sign off on or perform leak testa and report inventories and losses.) \\ ~' i i 5. The durability of the label on the device should meet or exceed j the durability of the devioo. 1 l l G. The label should contalu thw uurrently required information and a serial number. i (current rules require, on the label, instructions and precautions for safe installation, leak test requirements, testing on-ort system, radioisotope, activity, aate of assay as well as a statement indicating the devices are under NRC l end Agreement state jurisdiction, that labels are to be maintained in a legible condition, removal of labels is prohibited. the words " caution - radioactive material" are to l be included and the name of the manufacturer or initial transferor. i i Improper Disposal: i Do you agree with the following statements? i 7. Annual reporting of inventories should be required of users. I 2 l I a 4

35 25 45 n:42 T< im a35 4 ) 's l l 8. Users must be able to demonstrate proper disposal or pay j penalty. i 9. Regulatory agencies should review reports of device transfers and receipts. j i l

10. Users should provide worker training to improve knowledge of health and safety risks, penalties for violations, identification and locations of dovices.

i l ~ I ~ j

11. Distributors should providw disposal information to include 3

options, costs, etc. t.u users at tt?e time of initial transter. i l l ~ Manufacturers and some agreement state representatives have t i suggested the creation of a national inventory for the devices included in the WG recommendations. The database for such an inventory would receive reports from regulatory agencies and j would identify discrepancies from previous submittals. l In light of the preceding suggestion, do you agree with the j following statements? 4 i

12. A national database is necessary to adequately track devices in

} distribution. a { i l

13. A national database would benefit state regulatory programs' i

attempts to track devicos? ( i b 3 i d 1 4

14. A nattenti dStcbs30 for trocking d:vicas of highsr rick cheuld g

be cctchliched by tha Nac. j i 2 i j 1mtielpatoa ourphanee Devisees Do you agree with the following statements?

15. In addition to current labeling requirements, labels oonspicuously identifying the device es radioactive should be offixed to devices in the must likely visible location if the device is lost.

4

]

t 1

16. Labels should be permanently affixed to the device, e.g.,

embossed, engraved, etc. and the strength and durability of the label must meet or exceed that of the device. t I e 4 1 i )

17. Innocent " finders" of orphaned devices should not be required to take responsibility for possession, storage and/or disposal of radioactive materials.

i I i wee should tare the lead in the followina nrot Saad solutionm2 'i i a it. Arrange for manufacturer to recycle or DOE / EPA disposal or orphaned sources (can be occomplished via mod between NRC, DOE and BPA). I. i i 4 j 3 5 k 4 1 i I

l 092&95 11:47 Te,ER; 301 1 i h l

19. A fund should be established to pay for disposal of orphaned j

sources under certain circumstances. .l 1

20. Develop nonuser training recommendations to improve safety and i

recognition of devices. The Institute of scrap Recycling Inc. [ISRI) has done this for its membership, but its members do not :.nclude all recyclers. i 1 4 The Working Group, With assistance from some agreement state i representatives and vendors, attempted to derive a table expressing j the isotopes and factors of concern for radioactive devices. The { resulting table attached to this page is the result of the participants' work experience in dealing with radioactive devices, i The table represents isotopes of concern versus factors of concern ) and ranks the isotopes as high, medium or low level of concern. The factors of comoern are i EXT INT. 3 j EXP = external exposure EXP. = internal exposure i QTY = quantities most commonly encountered l i j DISP T1/2 = half life j j DIFF = Disposal difficulty 4 i COST DISP = cost of disposal l The Working Group has also attempted to identify activities of ) concern at tnis time two options are being considered. one is to use 1000 times the exempt quantity limits in 30.71 (10CFR 30.71) and the other is to use 1 act for the isotopes in the table with a limit to be determined later for the transuranics. Please review the attached table and respond to the questions following it 5

e m 2 -,,s a s m., i i~ i ~ l l ISOTOPE BIT. IET. QT7 Disp T cost oyeurs so.71 m EXP. EXP. DIFF BIsp RATING R1000 (aci) C8137 E N E N N E E 10 1 1 C040 E E L M E E 1 j AM241 L M E E E N N 5590 M N N N E E E 6.1 l DU L E E E E E E j Imitt W L E L L M M 10 MS L L E L M L L 2000 N163 L I L L L I L 10 1135 L M L L L M L 1 i Emes L L M L L L L 10e PM147 L L L L M L L to 1 i posto L 2 M L L L L 6.1 1 ALL j TRANs i 4 t l .,m_ i LEGEND 8 j M e EIGE i M a MEDIUM L = LOW 1 m UNEROWE 1

21. Do you agram with the Wnrking (:enup's ranking of isotopes of cnnearn?

01amme indicate changes you would make. i 1

22. Do you agree with the " factors of Concern?

Picase indicate your suggested changen.

23. Whrt suggestions would you make for activities or concern?

6 ree

t:8 ha 49:IT 9992/90

2+'26/55 11: 43 T4 BC 23 > i l l

24. What other suggestions would you make?

l The questions and statements above lead to a possible set of recommendations that would address the three problems stated at the beginning of this questionnaire. ) 1

25. What comments would you offer ruleLiny to implementation of the l

implied solutions. l The following questions are an attempt to gather information on issues for the solutions we have identified. i Compatibility with NRC rules is a major concern for theos recommendations in terms of the way states accept and implement them because due consideration should be given to the transboundary impacts of placing radioactive devices into interstate commerce.

26. In 11ght of the above statements, what compatibility level would you recommand?

27. With individual statos taking independent action to control the problems mentionod at the beginning, do you feel that this would lead to one state's rules effectively overriding another state's rules when devices cross state boundaries?

M

28. What other reciprocity issues do you see as cencerns?

r l l 4 7 i j i i s

,. Y - '$ ll w ^ -{ : i,

• 1

,,g ) INTER-OFFICE iml0BARDL41 REVIgW Group., RADI0 ACTIVE DEVICES M I4 ?'M DATE /2/26/'fd m, % 4%A atradd 4 a sa2;i,^ Q "; su dtvr E v 4 ) a 4 3% bACddG; ' al > pub ' e pwd Adeux /ur c c p m% ' kJ Maduth $ \\ OA 705 2 (9-72) N.Y. - DEPT. OF LABOR l ? 1 l

-__ _. _ _.. -. _ _. ~.. _. _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _.. _ _ _ _. _. _ _ e i i " Bullets" For Workshop L Radioactive sources and loose radioactive materials have been found in loads of ferrous and non-ferrous scrap, municipal waste and other inappropriate locations. ' Some of these sources and materials were required by regulation to be controlled and properly disposed of(although some were exempted fmm regulation and some were l naturally occurring radioactive materials). l The increasing use of radiation detectors has been effective in locating most sources before they were smelted or breached. However, considerable cost is involved in ' finding the source after a detector alarms, and in properly disposing of it. l Some sources subject to regulation have escaped detection and been smelted, causing mills to incur millions of dollars in clean-up and other costs. l l Although radioactive materials which are not properly controlled also present exposure l hazards, our experience indicates that no major health impacts have resulted from these incidents. The subject of today's workshop is achieving better control over regulated sources; primarily to prevent the costs associated with retrieving them fmm scrap and waste loads, and the much larger cost of clean-ups when sources are smelted or breached. 1 l i l l { i i } i I 0 BUUITS.41CS j 8 i 4

.. - - -.... -. -..... -. -.. -. -.. -.. - - -. ~. -.. -. - -.... l, REVIEW CROUP - RADIOACTIVE DEVICES 1 l-i l Exposures and Overexposures i 1 Radiation Exposure Information and Reporting System Mary L. Thomas Omce of Nuclear Regulatory Research -w e

l l REIRS covers a period of time from 1974 and to the present. i Pre-1984 i 4 l NUREG-0713 for the reactors i NUREG-0714 for the materials licensees 1984 NUREGs combined Available as NUREG-0713 from 1984 to the present i

Categories of licensees required to submit annual occupational exposure reports in accordance with 10 CFR 20.2206: Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors Industrial Radiographers Fuel Processors and Fabricators Manufacturers and Distributors of Byproduct Material Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations Low Level Waste Geologic Repositories for High Level W aste

.4 Gauge users do not fall into any of the seven 20.2206 categories. 1983 NUREG-0714, volumes 4 and 5 contains an overexposure for a gauge manufacturer. l i

• t REIRS does not cover the Agreement States.

If an Agreement State licensee possesses an NRC license and falls into one of the seven 20.2206 categories then the Agreement State licensee is required to submit annual occupational exposure data.

2. c REVIEW CROUP -- RADICACTIVg DEVICES OREGON'S EXPERIENCES DERING ESTABLISHMENT OF GENERAL LICENSE REGISTRATION

1-i l BACKGROLXD 1 l

• CONDE CTED INSPEC-l TIONS BY MAIL
• IMPLEMENTED GL REGISTRATION FEES IX 1984
• PHYSICAL INSPECTIONS DONE WHEN FEASIBLE
• GENERAL LICENSES WERE DISCOERAGED i

i u- --.

• GENERAL LICENSE DEVICES ESED AT TEMPORARY SITES REQLIRED SPECIFIC LICENSE
• WE ERRED IN NOT REQLIRING A LICENSE FEE FOR LARGE GL PO-210 FIXED GALGES

i~ THE PROGRAM TOOK 1 APPROXIMATELY ONE FTE l TO SET LP & l LMPLEMEMENT: i SUPPORT STAFF: 500 HRS t l (DATA ENTRY? / j RML MANAGER: 500 HRS i (STATUTES, RULES, DATABASE) i TECHNICAL STAFF: 500 HRS l (RULE REVIEW, DATA REVIEW) a PROGRAMMING: 500 HRS

OREGON'S ENTIRP MATERIALS PROG 1 iW BECAME SOURCE / DEVICE BASED

• SPECIFIC SOLRCES ARE CHARGED BY THE

" PIECE"

• HEALING ARTS LICENSES ARE CHARGED BY USE I

4 1

• FACILITY LICENSES INCLLDE ONLY INDUSTRIAL RADIOGRAPHY &

BROAD SCOPE A

STATISTICS

• OREGON HAS 99 GENERAL LICENSE DEVICES
• THERE ARE OVER 1800 RECORDS IN THE MATERIALS DATABASE e WE HAVE 539 PORTA.BLE GAUGES e WE HAVE 1294 SEALED SOURCES

DISADVANTAGES OF THE REGISTRATION / LICENSE SYSTEM e TIME CONSLMING & LABOR INTENSIVE e REQLIRES ACCLRATE DATA ENTRY STAFF

• REQLIRES FISCAL DETAIL & ATTENTION TO ADD ADDITIONAL SOERCES

i. ADVANTAGES OF THE REGISTRATION / LICENSE SYSTEM

• WE KNOW THE LOCATION, TYPE, AND QUANTITY OF MATERIALS
• OTHER AGENCIES HAVE ACCESS TO OUR DATA FOR FIRST RESPONSES

4 } i l i 1 I f l SYSTEM f i a CONSIDERED r 1 i ) i A SUCCESS! i I i i

OREGON EXPERIENCE WITi SCRAP ALARMS o 50 RESPONSES ANNUALLY i o 0.2 FTE / S20,000 o NORM CONTAMINATION OF RAILCARS IS A PROBLEM CAUSE FALSE ALARMS CAUSE REPEATED FALSE ALARMS i s

wwn use mn ae2 ef

o REVIEW oRoUP -

RADIOACTIVE DEVICES l' A S l ' Ridard A. Radiff, P.B., Chair T. R. Stmag, Chair Bloct l Rotmt R. Kullkuwaki, Pts.D., Punt Chair V Tagess Mul, Secretary i ogminalen d Ayounsnt seem l i J i i i i k TO: Agreement State Radiation Program Directors l PROM: Richard A. Radtff, P.E., Chair, Organharion of Agreement States f I DATE: December 14,1995 ) SURIECT: GL Work Group Questionnaire i As you am awarc, the NRC and Organizadon of Agreement Staics have entered into a joint effort to review the regulation of y==ily, and some specifically, licensed devices. The review is for the purpose of maldag secom==darians to provida 5reater consrol of these devices in order to prevent the -b and heakh and safety lampacts that occur when day arv encountered in the public domain. A working group (WG) has boon fbrmed involving members thun the Organizadon of Agreement States (OAS) and the Nuclear Regulatory Crunminaion. Oregon, New York, North Camlina, arvt Texas are pmviding % 4atives froen the OAS. h group is conducting public wi s and will host a public workshop to collect comments and suggestions thxn the t regulated wrnmurdty, industrics affbcted by the loss of control of the devices, and public si.yawaatives wishing to attend. As part of the review effort, the WG asks that you respond to the attached queariaaanine and return to the address shown below. The questionnaire is short and socks your opinion on some of the laues idendnad by dae WO. Your repiles art valuable to the progress of the WO. Please take time to respond. Thank you for your assistance. If you have any questions, please contact Bob F= of the Texas Bureau of Radiation Control at $12-834 668^. Please Reply To: Robert E. Free Bureau of Radiation Control Texas Department of Health 1100 West 49th Street Austin, TX 78756-3189 OR Internet Address: rfree@brcl.idh. state.tx.us m, f -" (_ /' p, l 4 l lU ' " 2 pp

~ eo i 4 1 The joint NRC/Agreemeal State wonking group on regulation of generally and specifically l licensed devices (WG) is reviewlog regutak= and other controls on devices that impact the l pubuc and industrial thcilities processing scrap materials. The WO is seeking infbreation from j the Agreenwat States regarding their individual concerns for these devices. d j The psobiets kkertflM by the WO is that there is inadequase inventory contrut mal huproper disposal by both general and specific licensees. In onter to gather information fkom your staes the WO would appreciate your rwsponse, whether l brief or detailed, to the fo8owing questions: PART1 i l 1. Do you agree that there is a problem with the regulation / control of the devices descdbed l above? i i l 2. Do you agree with the WO definition of the problern? If not, hou' would you define the l problem? i l 3. Has your state addressed the pmblem of inadequate inventory comrol? If so, how is it j implemented and enforced? 4. If your state has not addressed the problem could you propose an option to address it? 5. Has your state addressed the problem of liign% disposal? If so, how is k '@=- = i i and enforced? 6. If your state has not addressed improper disposal, could you propose an option to address it? I 7. If your state has NOT addressed either inadequate inventory control OR improper disposal, would you be in favor ofimplernenting a solution derived by the WO? If your state has a regulatory pro 5 ram that maintains statistical data or if you are willing to extract the data from existing flies, please respond to the following questions: PART 2 1. Picasc provide a list of YOUR categories of specific and gen ral licensees, e.g. nuclear ga ges, static climinators, small irradiators, etc. 2. Numbers of devices in each category. 3. Inspection data on noncompliances relatin6 to control and accountability, marking and labeling transfer and disposal. 1

12/21/95 15:23 31 E4.TH P1Y3105 SXS 223-3W-06 002 W Hedh Physke Services 3M Cenur. BuMing 220 3We PO Box 33283 REyygg g,0Up " AADIoACTIVE DEVICEg St. Paul.MN $5133 3283 612 736 0496 612 736 2285 Fax l \\ December 1,1995 USNRC Office d Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards M/S T-8P5 Washington. DC 20555-0001 FAX 301/415-5369 Attention: JoelLubenau.Co chair Joint Agreement State /NRC Working Group Devices Containing Radioactive Materials This is in response to your request of attendees at the October 24-25,1995 meeting of the Joint Agreement State-NRC Working Group to Review Devices Containing Radioactive Materials to provide information on concerns and possible solutions to better control the use of such devkaos. I arn providing infbrmation from the perspective of a umor having 450 gauging devices,350 Po-210 static climinators,150 tritism static measuring meters d and 150 tritium exit signs used in 48 facilities located in 25 difforent states. Please note the data in the attached tabla. I have probably provided more observations than potential solutions, but hopefully they will be useful in your deliberations. Sources of Concern Olven that the primary concern of the working group is lost sources that end up being tecycled and smelted in a steel mill, the souices that should be addressed are Co-137, Co-60, Can-244 and Am-241. Pu-238 sources are also used, but not to a large extent. Determining source size threshold values below which there are no concerns may be appropriate. 'Ihese wlB be dependent on the respective firections of the melted activky that end up in the steci mill motal product output and in the waste stream, i.e., the baghouse. For example,if Cm-244, Am-241 or Pu-238 end up in the metal phase, the hazard will be minhnized because of the low energy radiath emissions. The Co-60 and the relatively few Cs-137 soortes used in self ablended or pool type irradiators and some large Co-60 and Co-137 sources in stool mills can definitely present lift threatening problems. However, sources in industrial gauges do not provide a life threatening problem. Although possible, it is unlikely that there would be a problem in the US with large

adivy sphy, amared thes apy or gamma irradl=*~ sourcce like those that have preecated probleens on the international scene. 'Ihese devices are under much botter control in the US.

C ;j i 2._ l 2_ C1 a $ y,h t

.._m 12/a1/95 15:21 3M -E'LTH PHY5ICS SJC5 220-3W-06 003 USNRC December 1,1995 Page 2 l l l l It is not obvious how sources containing Pm-147, Sr-90 and TI 204 should be considered. t As a minimum, source aim threnhold values should be determined. Again, those values l will be dependent on the division of activity between the metal phase and the wasic stroum. Pur purposes of discussion sotative to concems for inadveneet AW of bypsoduct radioactive material sources, the tritium, Ni-63 and Po-210 and gaannus anusces (Kr-R5) used in gauges need not be included. Tritium is the least toxic otradioactive materials j and in a steel mill will vaporize and quickly dilute to nonhazarduus levels. Ni-63 suuwe. I am small and have very low beta radiation emissions. Po-210 is primarily an alpha eminer and thus presents no external radiation hazard. Further it has a short half of only 138 days. Ahhough one might be concerned about internal exposures because Po 210 is an alpha emitier, experiences with Po-210 static eliminatars woukiindicate that no exposures would be encountered in the recycling process. Po-210 vaporizes at relatively I low temperatures. In a steel mill, it woukt definitely vaporize and as soon as it came into contact with a cool metal surface it would plate out and remain strongly affixed to that surface during its mlatively quick decay to nonhazardous levels. Kr-85 is an hwat gas and as soon as the source is ruptured either mechanically or by high temperattwos it will galckly dilute to nonhazardous icvols. In summary, there are certain isotopes that probably do not nood to be coniilerod at all. Pur the isotopes of concern, threshold values could bc dceosmined boks whloh thans is j; no concern. Above this a tiered regulatory appreadi could be considered 4 a4Q use, distribution requireraents, etc., depending on the source isotope and activity and M1; characteristien. iI Recyding FacEtty Moottoring Considerstaums i! Since there can be no guarantee that a radioactive sousco will never be inadvertently divooted to a recycling facility, the recycling feellity shand annume it will happen and develop a program to detect them. l l Recycling fa:ility portal monitors will see rnost Cs-137 and 0o 60 sources. It is doubtful that a portal monitor will detect sources such as Am-241, Cm-244, Pm-147, Sr-90 or T1-204. If the recycling industry wants to detect these devices, some nther monitoring snethods will have to be employed. VendorKwia-se Interaction On of the major keys to better control of radioactive devices is good commimication between gauge vendors and customers. Vendors should be communicating directly with j j matotner safety /regulatnry com& organizations. Comar-My ordy whh local plant engineers or operations personnel doesn't normally sufBce. The customer must be i made aware of the presence of a radioactive source and radiation fleids. Putting written information in the shipment package is not sufficient, it need,s to be made known to the l

1 12/01/95 15:21 31 -E4_TH P-iY51 5 SJC3 223-3W-05 004 USNRC December 1,1995 Page 3 custorcer safety / regulatory compliance organization prior to sale of the device so that all safety concerns and opdons are considered. Ahhough tho hazanti favm moet radioactivo meterial ausins devices is minimal l 5 compared to other industrial hazards, the political, -amW and corporate image i psublems associated with the loss and incorrect disposal of a gaugo me;st be effectively 1 communiustal to customer penonnel. Vendors shouldn't try to minianize the importance of the fact that the device contains a radioactive source. 'Ihe vendor should instead cup 8-do ys escauc uf die radioactive soume and the importance of proper use of the device and an effective accountability program even though making the sale may be more difficult. La?. 4 Conspicuous labeling is essemial. This may be difficult on very small devices but in very important. Some generally licensed devices are presently authorized to be distributed with smallinconspicuous labels which are not the standard yellow and mage.nra labels. More attention needs to be paid to the durability of the label, including the adhesive, if that is how it is at11xed. Moutine checks to ensure tbut labels remain legible are extremely important. Time intervals between chet.ks depend on the application. Some industrial ,l environments are extremely dirty and checks may need to be pdunr44 monthly. As a minimura, chocks should be perforsned nemiannually. Regulations and Licensing-Accountability Responsible Pere Uniformity of regulations thicughout all the states is important. Many cornpanies have uposations la multiple stasos. Wbsther a device is specifically licensed or generally licensed probably is not the main issue, although there is presently less emphasis givce to accounting for generally licensed devices. It is important that in any regulatory /11 censing framework there are requirements tbr the device umor to conduct au c5pctive accountability prosmm and to ranke a person, by name, liable for radioactive source accountability. In addition some incentive must be provided to make sure that the liable person effectively felfills his/her responsibility. This could be in t's form of more inspections by regulatory agencies, increased levels of fines for lon sources, formal written annual accountability reports, etc. Consideration should be given to mguiring Gm uses to retain an independent qualified third party to pr hiii annual audits such as donc in some European countries. Waste Disposal It appears that the Inixed woute innue has been addressed by the NRC and EPA and that guidelines for acceptable waste disposal of steel and bagbouse waste have been enacted. If not, this should be donc so there is at least an acceptable method to dispose of the waste when a radioactive soutre rmit necurs.

12/01/95 15:22 31 -E4 TH P-iY31^S S45 223-3W-05 005 l USNRC l, Decemter,1995 Page 4 C ^". y Fund i It appears that tho socyclers and stool mills would likc to soo a opetiagoney fund i established by users and vendon to cover the cost of sourec melt cleanup when it occurs. } 11 Is would very likeiy lead to the demise of the use of gauging devicem containing radioactive nousees. i R +g-^111ty fur preventing a mxave ftwa 5ettlug intu the acrap metal cycle is not soir.ly that of device vtsdors and users. Some responsibility also rests with the regulatory i agencies and the recyclers. In any business, regardless of the type of materials neceived ftorn a vendor, the scipient of materia's assunees some responsibility for ensuring that the received materials comply with pn determined specifications assood to by the vendor and customer. If there needs to be a contingency Aind, it would appear apprvpriato that responsibility for that fund be shared by all entitles involved. Own or Lease Methode Although there is some thought being given to requir$ng that radioactive source gauges be leased, experience with leasing of stade alientantars would indicate that leasias is far from perfect and does not guarantee that devices will bo properly accounted for. h also puts most liability on the voodors which snay not be to their benefit. If leasing programs were adopted and west well run they could minimize the ficquency of lost devices. However, vendors would need to be given proper authorhy to ensure that users followed all the accessary rules. Voodor inspections of user facilifm would pivbably be necessary, especially for long half-lifo motorial source devices. A provision to requite vendors to soport problems with their Isences to the appropriate regulatory agency with appropriane fbliowup by the segulatory agency would have to be included in ths segulatory frameworlt Sincesely A &.. (. SAL Doane C. Itall, Manager Ionizing Radiation scacc. dot i

f 3M RADIOACITVE MATERIAL GAUGING SYSTEMS l STATES p 0F N OF IHmWER OF 1R%IBER OF MuteER(Rr l FACIIJTES GAUGES FO 120 STA11C TRITIUM IEFITUDEEnr m234INATORS STATEC SIGN 5 ME1ERS

1. Abbemia

• 2 70 0

4 0

2. Alaska 1

0 0 2 o

3. Asimons

• 1 1

0 1 0

G

4. h

• 1 0

0 o

5. Cahfornsa

• 4 11 21 15 o

4w

l. BEnois

• 2 25 0

0 0

7. Indilan, 1

10 0 I O ~

8. Iowa

• 1 16 0

5 0 E ' O!

9. Kanmarty

• 1 8

0 3 0 10.Massachusens 1 1 0 0 o

11. Michinesi 1

6 0 1 0 9.Minnesces 13 158 177 72 60 3 34 2 17 2 y [ Missouri .4. New Jersey 1 3 0 2 o 4 ~~ 8 15.New Yoak

• 2 4

30 7 i4 f-I 3.Noeth Dakota

• 1 0

1 0 o 17.(klaharma 1 5 28 4 0 f b

18. W

• 1 10 50 2

'72 U

19. Penasylvania 1

8 1 0 o

20. SodaCarolism 1

27 0 2 0 a

21. Soek Dakota 2

21 0 0 0 E Tem

• 2 E

O 5 0 f

23. West V'=winia 1

1 3 1 0

24. wi.renmin 3

11 45 3 0 8 10TALS 43 1 453 358 147 14g ucensubc olmT5) g

5 REVIEW CROUP - o RADICACTIVE DEVICES l olimart COHPOHA Y I ON November 30,1995 l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Sealed Source and Device Branch Division of Industrial and Medical Nuclear Safety M/S T-8F5 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Attn: Joel Lubenau Re: Working Group To Review Devices Containing Radioactive Materials

DearJoel:

I would like to thank you for the opportunity to work with you and the other members of the working group. As one of the oldest manufacturers of fixed gauges we find that most of our custemers have excellent control of and practice good safety with our products. However, as we know some don't. We find this most distressing. The Ohmart Corporation has always worked very hard to meet all of the requirements as a manufacturer and to educate our customers on the safe and proper use of the radioactive material that is used in our products. The vast majority of end users do apply this same philosophy and as a result only a very few of these devices find their way into the scrap metal waste stream. Unfortunately, the results of these few are very costly. The problems, as we discussed, are twofold: lack of control that results in the source getting into the waste stream and the cost of clean up if it is smelted. The cost of clean up is high because the resulting waste from the bag houses is not classified by its real hazard or effect on the environment. There is no scientific reason that it could not be considered hazardous waste and put in existing RCRA type landfills. The hazards and effects of other components such as the heavy metal are much worse. I point this out because it is not reasonable to assume that any level of regulation or control will stop this from ever happening again. As a result I feel that a primary goal of the working group should be to work with the EPA and adopt reasonable guidelines for safe and cost effective disposal. Notwithstanding the above comment, I do feel that some increase of control and j awareness on the part of end users will help this problem in the future. Over the years l we have been involved with several " discoveries" of gauges. Some were just i abandoned as plants were shut down, others were " thrown away" because people were not educated enough to realize the need for controls. Any regulation must be worded l THE oHMART CORPORATION + 4241 ALLENDORF DRIVE. CINCINNATI. OHtO 45209 + (513) 272-0131 + TELEX 21-2071 OHMUSA-UR <,(

a,17 54 1

( a l dd b g

Jgan J

1, ) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission November 30,1995 Page 2 ) i such that it affects manufacturers as they possess or distribute the material or the end users who is responsible to the appropriate licensing agency while the material is in his possession. Putting a vendor in a position that would require them to be an enforcement arm is not in anyone's best interest. For instance rules that say leak tests j must only be done by the manufacturer would be unfair to any service company that wants to contract that service. It would also be unfair to the user if he wem to have l several manufacturers at a particular site and wanted one company to handle all of his leak test. Some specinc areas that could be addressed in this manner are:

1. The current general license in 10CFR31.5 is too broad. The controls required and hazards associated with laboratory equipment or scanning gauges that have just Krypton gas are very different from Cesium or Cobalt devices that are located in the piping of a process chemical plant. A classification should be added that would allow the receipt of the device without a specific license but still require the user to have more control. For instance, requiring the posting of NRC Form 3 and/or requiring some training as specified in 10CFR19.12 would add some general awareness. Some states have programs that require registration for which they charge a nominal annual fee. This would keep management aware that they have material on site.

2. It should be understood that this is not just a General License problem. I know of specifically licensed devices that were recovered in the scrap metal j

waste stream. More frequent inspection would help. Annual mail-in registrations of source inventories would be little additional burden.

3. The scrap and steel industries are doing a good job of trying to monitor incoming material and reject loads that may have radioactive material in them. The majority of these discoveries are NORM or other forms of unlicensed material. Training and workshops that involad manufacturers and regulators would help them identify potential problems with the types of items that are the real problems when smelted. I was told in confidence by a scrap hauler that he knew which yards had the tightest controls and avoided them if possible. At another yard I was told that passing coal trains would cause the monitor to trip so they would turn them off and forget to turn them back on.

l As we learned in the first meeting this is a very important and complex issue. I think j that we all agreed that the existing rules should have prevented any of these incidents { from occurring. In fact, it is impossible to know how many incidents have been l prevented because of the existing rules and controls. I would estimate that over 100 i gauges a month are taken out of service and properly retumed to the manufacturer or 1

5 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission November 30,1995 +, Page 3 other disposal agency. We have a system that is working but needs some refinement. Just adding regulations that agencies don't have the manpower or budget to enforce will not solve anything. Increasing the training and awareness of all of the stake holders is the way best to prevent these incidents. I am looking forward to the next meeting in December. I hope it will be as informative and productive as the last. Sincerely, THE OHMART CORPORATION ggo e gn,n. George W. Brown Radiation Safety Officer Training Manager i

10/02/1995 14:39 CRCPDPfNAFRX UF-60 ART 502 223 7026 P.01 1 ,4 REVIEW CROUP - ) RADI0 ACTIVE DEVICES t TF1 MNMER t#'"-^-"_'Z24.TWW. i Date: onesber 2,1995 1 To: JoelLubenau i From; Terry Devine, CRCPD, Ph. 502/2274543, Fax. 500/227 7882 : Nr. of Pp:;_jt_ (inclueng thle page) i i { Re. the wortehop on devlose, I should mention that the recyding of material seems to be j increasing sisadley. Menuteceurers hwe been dealing with multi curie sources of mo i and they might be prevailed upon to recyoie serpe numbers of amen devioso. such recy j would allow signiscent economies, reistive to burial or licensing, in consolidallon of sourc colisellon campelone and in the records involved. I have asked notng and isotope Products to provide eettmates of ooet twr anali source f.o.b., but mey need encouragement from the reg and insurers, i 4 1 My contacts at manutecturers have said that the Ce or Co in some devioso hee deosyed j furt)er use but it seems to me that recovered material could be mee#veled or, se Bet >g oner 4 leolopically enriched by centrfuge, et a price rapidy being overteheft by itet of LLRW buriel l } i l I 1 ] l 1 1 i i ) i i j i I k i D ( ) i ,jg f[ /VJd 4 j

. 10/02/1995 14:31 CRCPDPAtFFfK t.F-GOOAT 502 223 7026 P.02 5 i Radioactke Materials and Devices Sought CRCl*D Notes of Auglast 1995 As one of its services,tfie conference of Radisson Control Program Directors, ino., mamtains a tiet et Arms that recycle usolui panttles of talhosoWre materleis, or flat have mediets for woddng devices. H >1 hcl; Tom Canley, Serennah Rever tatt 80$/725-7301 8 Behip ino., anos Mangen, 312/251- 0611 ges: Esdt signe; John I.meh, Chern-Nuoiser,303/259-1119, fox 80$/541-7302 Emit signe; self powenut 1.lghting Jce Zandondnc. 914/393.8230 Co " J. L Shepani & Assoc., 818/ses-2361, les 818/361-8085 Joe Tenette, e.E. Venisoisse tah, stareaHass 25 kCt; Mieheel Bortsky,301/394-221s Kr Quai-X ., Art Mahon, 614/881-5543 as Bellig Inc., Konges,312/251-4611 Sr "I Y " >1 Ci; Betsip ino., Scott Mangas,312/251-4611 J. L thopere a Aenee. Rl8/895-2361, fes 818061-8095 l l -1 Cl; Jeff Crormee8 4794-0506 l Cs'" J. L shepard a Assoc., a1s/ses-236, fox sisG61-80e5 >3 Cl solutpie compound; Karl Amlauer, lectope Producte 818/843-7000 I >l Ci narsso; Behig Inc., Scott Kan048. 312/251-0611 25-40 MCI needles or tubes; Jeff Cromwell 51W794-4006 l Ru ", Ce ", and otner unueuel raoloisotopes; Nunh American Sonntmo, Al Zhes, sis /50M201 8 leotopes > Pb W) MCI: unsealed a soluble. Karl Amlauer, lootope Products, $18/843-7000 210 Ra,2as >50 mg; Robert Schenier. Westmghouse Hanfore,509/376-3935. for 6933 Ra Al Zhee, North Amenaan Selenese, s18/9o5-9301 Ao8 Th23' Retiert Schenter, Westinghouse Hanfoed,300/376-3955 Th & U As or nouns N001,713d641-4391 < I Th motel alloys Seq Inc., Soolt Konges,312/251-0611 U Nat., Dep., or Enr, laut unirredlesled; Tom Winn, 615/576 4630

• Pu

-50 MCI soluhte: Karl Amleper,lootope Produals,81844M000 8 -1 moi; Jim Wunems, Amensen ecology,7t.wead-1900 l n seween Regater with Jones, Las Alamos, 305f866-2712 Pu *se t l Pu Regens with Tom , Serennah River, son /725-7301,.far -A272 l Pu n eswuns Sherry Jones, Las Alamos, 505/865-27a 8 Am * >l Cl sources; A8 led Ecology, 510f465-9280 >l Cl; Bellig ino.: Scott Kariges,312/251-0611 l -1 Cl solucee; Marl Amiewer, lootope Produces 815443-7000 l -1 Ct; J. L Shepent 4 Assoc, 818/995-2361, fax 818/361-4085 l -1 Cl; Jeff Cromwee s10794-osos J Am

• n sewees Regleter with Jones,t.as Alames, 505465-2712 l

>1 Cl; J.L 4 Assoc., 818/896-2361,. fem 810061-40P5 Am *Be n sources >l Ci; Robig inc; Scott Kongen,312/251-4611 Cf s2 J. L Shepent 4 Assoc., 415/ges-2361, fax 818/361-8085 2 Joe Termet(0.E. Vallecitos Lab, 510re62-4256 Tarn Winn, Oak ftdge Operemone, 613/5'NN 630, fez -3401 TRU > Am Tom Wme, Oak Ridge Operseena. 615/576-0630. fox-5401 - Modeel deviose Carl torres, Pan Am World HeaNh Orgentzellen,262/961-3222 j Therapy deviose Troy Hedger, Alpha Ome0s Services Irn,30&346-7894 l A let s also maintained of unusual rasionuchdes or large amounts that are avainbis kar adophon. ) For aschions or corrocoons to inese mean, peseos telephone Terry Devine, sos /227-4843. The Normoeon 4 not so be coneeued me an endorsement by CRCPD of As services alsnoted h thsee mies. 4 TOTAL P.02

REl VIEW CROUP RADIoACTIV3 DEVICES p neo ( [ UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [ g g REGION !!! j o, of 801 WARRENVILLE ROAD USLE. ILUNOIS 80632-4351 e,,,e* Novenber 22, 1995 EA 95-184 Champion International Corporation . ATTN: Daniel J. Maheu, Vice President / Operations Manager 601 North B Street Hamilton, OH 45013

SUBJECT:

PENALTY - $2,500 NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED (NRC INSPECTION REPORT NO. 99990003/95017(DRSS))

Dear Mr. Maheu:

Hamilton Mill facility in Hamilton, Ohio.This refers to the ins The purpose o,f the inspection was199 9enerally licensed gauge containing krypton-85.to review 31, 1995 sposal of a on July The report docume,nting our inspection was sent to you September 18, 1995. r dated that you provided in your OctoberBased on the information develo , and the infomation 16, 1995 response to the i the NRC has detemined that a violation of NRC requirements oc nspection report, violation involves the failure to properly dispose of generally lic curred. The material in accordance with 10 CFR 31.5(c)(8). ensed Penalty and the circumstances surrounding the vio osition of Civil detail in the inspection report. scribed in On July 31, 1995, the NRC notified you that a Taylor Betanik krypton-85 was found in a truck of scrap metal located at Hamilt e gauge containing gauge was traced to Champion through the manufacturer's records on Scrap. The indicated that a shutter test had been perfomed 1983. September 28, installed location and stored in a remote storage area for a nu On or about July s 17, 1995, in an effort to clean-up the locati 4 was inadvertently placed in a shipment of scrap metal. on, the gauge. { responsible for the oversight of the nuclear gauge December 1993. i i i gauge was found with a maximum radiation level of t ase. The closed, and the source holder was intact. , the shutter was unused metal in areas not normally occupied by plan 4 n Mill with Therefore, it i ye

i Champion International Corporation was unlikely that any individual received a radiation exposure in excess of regulatory limits. However, this violation is of significant regulatory concern because uncontrolled licensed materials entered the public domain. The NRC entrusts responsibility for radiation safety to the management of Champion International Corporation. Incumbent upon each NRC licensee is the licensed materials are controlled at all times. responsibility to protect the p Therefore, this violation has been categorized in accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and i 34381; June 30, 1995) Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions" (Enforceme at Severity Level III. In accordance with the Enforcement Policy, a base civil penalty in the amount of $2,500 is considered for a Severity Level III violation. Although the NRC recognizes that application of the civil penalty assessment process would not l result in a civil penalty in this case, the NRC is exercising discretion in a civil penalty of $2,500.accordance with Section VII.A.l(g) of the Enforcement Po Discretion is being exercised because the loss of the gauge (which was not identified and reported by your staff) put uncontrolled radioactive material in the public domain. Therefore, to emphasize the need to strictly control licensed material, I have been authorized, after consultation with the Director, Office of Enforcement, and the Deputy Executive Director for Nuclear Materials Safety, Safeguards, and Operations Support, to issue the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty (Notice) in the base amount of $2,500 for the Severity Level III violation. One violation, not assessed a civil penalty, is cited in Section B of the Notice. The violation involves the unauthorized removal of the installed krypton-85 gauge prior to its disposal. This violation is of concern because your staff was unaware of the proper procedures for handling licensed material. You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the enclosed Notice when preparing your response. In your response, you should document the specific actions taken and any additional actions you plan to prevent recurrence. After reviewing your response to this Notice, including your proposed corrective actions and the results of future inspections, the NRC will determine whether further NRC enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with NRC regulatory requirements. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter, its enclosure, and your response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR). To the extent possible, your response should not include any personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards information so that it can be l placed in the PDR without redaction.

1 l { Champion International Corporation The responses directed by this letter and the enclosed Notice are not subject ] to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Pub. L. No. 96-511. i Sincerely,,, i l Hu rt J. Miller j Regional Administrator Docket No. 99990003 { General License c

Enclosure:

Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty i l l I

~ t 'e Champion International Corporation DISTRIBUTION: PDR LPOR SECY CA JTaylor, ED0 HThompson, DEDS JLieberman, OE LChandler, OGC JGoldberg, OGC CPaperiello, NMSS DCool,-NMSS Enforcement Coordinators RI, RII and RIV EHayden, OPA DWilliams, OIG GCaputo, 01 RBangart, OSP EJordan, AE00 LTremper, OC NMamish, OE OE:EA (2) NUDOCS State of Ohio i RAO:RIII ~ SLO:RIII PAO:RIII s l W

NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY Champion International Corporation Hamilton, Ohio Docket No. 99990003 General Licensee EA 95-184 Ouring an NRC inspection conducted on August 14-15, 1995, violations of NRC requirements were identified. In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," NUREG-1600 (60 FR 34381; June 30, 1995), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposes to impose a civil penalty pursuant to Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (Act), 42 U.S.C. 2282, and 10 CFR 2.205. The particular violations and associated civil penalty are set forth below: A. Violation Assessed a Civil Penalty 10 CFR 31.5(c)(8 re receives, possess)es, quires, in part, that any person who acquires, uses or transfers byproduct material in a device pursuant to a general license shall, except as provided in 10 CFR 31.5(c)(9), transfer or dispose of the device containing byproduct material only by transfer to persons holding a specific license pursuant to 10 CFR Parts 30 and 32 or from an Agreement State to receive the device. Contrary to the above, on or about July 17, 1995, the licensee disposed of a Taylor krypton-85 gauge containing a nominal activity of 190 millicuries of krypton-85 (42.5 millicuries as of July 1995) and this disposal was not made to a person holding a specific license pursuant to 10 CFR Parts 30 and 32 or from an Agreement State to receive the device (the exceptions in 10 CFR 31.5(c)(9) did not apply). Specifically, the device was disposed of in a shipment of scrap metal to Hamilton Sciap, an unlicensed company. (01013) This is a Severity Level III violation (Supplement VI). Civil Penalty - $2,500. B. Violation Not Assessed a Civil Penalty 10 CFR 31.5(c)(3) re receives, possesses, quires, in part, that any person who acquires, uses or transfers byproduct material in a device pursuant to a general license shall assure that removal from installation involving the radioactive material, its shielding or containment, are performed: (1) in accordance with the instructions provided by the labels; or (2) by a person holding a specific license pursuant to 10 CFR Parts 30 and 32 or from an Agreement State to perform such activities. The label affixed to the licensee's Taylor 1.rypton-85 gauge states, in part, that relocation involving shielding or containment of the radioactive material shall be performed b', persons specifically licensed by the NRC or an Agreement State. id vo1

I<. l Notice of Violation 1 Contrary to the above, at an indeterminate time between September 28, l l 1983, and July 17, 1995, removal of the licensee's Taylor krypton-85 gauge containing a nominal activity of 190 millicuries of krypton-85 was i not performed in accordance with the instructions provided by the labels l or by a person holding a specific license pursuant to 10 CFR Parts 30 and 32 or from an Agreement State to perform such activities. Specifically, the licensee removed and relocated the gauge, including its shielding and containment, and does not hold a specific license pursuant to 10 CFR Parts 30 and 32 or from an Agreement State to perform such activities. (02014) This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement VI). Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Champion International Corporation (Licensee) is hereby required to submit a written statement or explanation to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, within 30 days of the date of this Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty (Notice). This reply should be clearly marked as a " Reply to i a Notice of Violation" and should include for each alleged violation: (1) admission or denial of the alleged violation, violation if admitted, and if denied, the reasons w(2) the reasons for the hy, (3) the corrective steps that have been taken and the results achieved, (4) the corrective steps that will be taken to avoid further violations, and (5) the date when full compliance will be achieved. This reply may incorporate information previously submitted to the NRC to avoid repetition, but such incorporation must specifically reference, by citing page and paragraph numbers of, the previously submitted documents. If an adequate reply is not received within the time specified in this Notice, an order or a Demand for Information may be issued as why the license should not be modified, suspended, or revoked or why such other action as may be proper should not be taken. Consideration may be given to extending the response time for good cause shown. Under the authority of Section 182 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 2232, this response shall be submitted under oath or affirmation. Within the same time as provided for the response required above under 10 CFR 2.201, the Licensee may pay the civil penalty by letter addressed to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, with a check, draft, money order, or electronic transfer payable to the Treasurer of the United States in the amount of the civil penalty proposed above, or may protest imoosition of the civil penalty in whole or in part, by a written i answer addressed to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Should the Licensee fail to answer within the time specified, an order imposing the civil penalty will be issued. Should the Licensee elect to file an answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 protesting the civil penalty, in whole or in part, such an',wer should be clearly marked as an " Answer to a Notice of Violation" and may: (1) deny the violations listed in this Notice, in whole or in part, (2) demonstrate extenuating circumstances, (3) show error in this Notice, or (4) show other reasons why the penalty should not be imposed. In addition to protesting the civil l [

O e ' Notice of Violation penalty in whole or in part, such answer may request remission or mitigation of the penalty. In requesting mitigation of the proposed penalty, the factors addressed in l Section VI.B.2 of the' Enforcement Policy should be addressed. Any written answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 should be set forth separately from the l statement or explanation in reply pursuant to 10 CFR 2.201, but may j incorporate parts of the 10 CFR 2.201 reply by specific reference (e.g., citing page and paragraph numbers) to avoid repetition. The attention of the Licensee is directed to the other provisions of 10 CFR 2.205, regarding the procedure for imposing a civil penalty. I Upon failure to pay any civil penalty due which subsequently has been determined in accordance with the applicable provisions of 10 CFR 2.205, this matter may be referred to the Attorney General, and the penalty, unless compromised, remitted, or mitigated, may be collected by civil action pursuant to Section 234c of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 2282c. The response noted above (Reply to Notice of Violation, letter with payment of civil penalty, and Answer to a Notice of Violation) should be addressed to: James Lieberman, Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852-2738, with a copy to the Regional Administrator, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region III, 801 Warrenville Road, Lisle, IL 60532-4351. Because your response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR), to the. extent possible, it should not include any personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards inforestion so that it can be placed in the PDR without redaction. However. if you find it necessary to include such information, you should clearly indicate the specific information that you desire not to be placed in the PDR, and provide the legal basis to support your request for withholding the information from the public. Dated at lisie, Illinois this 22hd day of November 1995 1

j FCV 28 95 11:05AM ME N p,g REVIEW CRCUP - ,. 4 RADICACTIVE DEVICES o 4 d aq \\ 0V. pcg ,O: -.uoo ,._ U o e n. a a e hr. F M: r_. 5 d INimmo n o 9 4 :.r(9 qjg,n a4

_.._.__...m P.2 r40V 28 '95 11:05AM FEASUREX i meaSureX l CoRPOAATtON i i i l N November 19g5 i i Joel Lubenou U.S. Nucieer Regulatory Commission Sealed Sourre and Device Branch Division of Industrial and Medical Nuclear Safety M/S T-8F5 i Washington, DC 20666 0001

Subject:

Proposal for improving the Control 3 Generally Lloonsed Devices

Dear Joel:

l From the information presented by Jim Yusko et the October meeting, it is clear that the i problem of radioactive material in metal scrap and in smelted metal cannot be solved solely by better control of Generally Ucensed devices. Jim's data showed that naturally-occurring j radioactive material and Specifically Uconsed devices are involved in a makr - likely the j major-fraction of incidents. However, control of Generally Licensed devices can be improved j and this letter will propose a way to accomplish that. l

1. 8et up a program to test the effeds of ei&G,v the existing regulations. As noted at the i

Odober meeting, there has never been a consistent, prolonged, U8-wide attempt to check compilanos with the requirements that apply to Generally Uoonsed device users, i i Some have su00ested the addition of new requirements and restridions on General j Ucensees and on those who distribute devices to them. The actual Generally Ucensed device requirements - both for those on the distribution side and those on the user side - are comprehensive and quite well thought out. It is not etwious that any change to those particular regulations is required. However, to set up a reasonable inspection and enforcement program, other regulatory and/or procedural changes are probably necessary, as described below. i l o The regulations may need to be modified to give the NRC the authority to: o inspect and enforce compliance with the existing regulations (e.g. those in l 10 CFR 31.5), if such authority does not surrently exlet. l Require Agreement State radiation control programs to have the same inspedion o and enforcement authority. I Elther regulations or official procedures should be modified to describe the inspection i o i program and to insure both the NRC ana Agreement States follow it. Given the { interstate nature of the device control problem, the efficacy of inspection and enforcement can't be established unless the NRC and Agreement States use their j authority, and do so in a consistent manner. i 1 unmunscosromrcN i ans susuus wy CupWmin OEIPOINA OROW4EM M E9** 1

i NOV 28 '95 ' 11:06AM tEASUREX P.3 l 9 i l Some Agreement States already have programs for the inspec6on of compliance with General Ucense requirements. These existing programs, the proposed 4 i 10 CFR 31.5(c)(11) as published in the 27 December 1g91 Federal Register, and other proposels (e.g. detailed inspection and enforcement proposals solicited from 'stakeholders' in the future), should be reviewed, with the idos that selected features from one or more of these sources may be suitable for general adoption. 1

2. If after a set period of time (3 - 8 years?), the program of consistent inspection and j

enforcement of the requirements for General Ucensees reveals a continuir:g devios control l problem, the enforcement and General Ucense program should be n> assessed. Under these circumstances, it would be appropriate to reconsider what classes of devices should be approved for distribution to General Ucensees in the future. Many possible dividing lines between potential Geners::y Uconsed devices and Specifically Ucensed device could be considered. The activity as a function of the radionuclide and the source form could be used as the criteria. For example, the activity limit for Generally Uoonsed i devices could be set at a fraction (0.17 0.5?) of the applicable activity in 4g CFR 173.435, j taidng into account whether the source involved is Special Form or not. l 1 hope these comments are useful to the ongoing discussions of improving device control. i l Sincerely, MEA 8 UREX CORPORATION 1 Elsa Nimmo i Radiation Safety Officer j CC: Brendan Brady John Preston i i ) i h l i m,

l$

• • • • EW croup h

ggg' ^C'EIVE DEVECEs TN Technologies A nanekennuecanem l l l November 29,1995 l I i Mr. Joel O. Lubenau Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Mail Stop T-8F5 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington D.C. 20555

Dear Mr. Lubenau and Working Group Members:

I recently reviewed the November 14,1995, " Draft Minutes - NRC Working Group to Review Devices Containing Radioactive Materials." I have little additional comments to add to what was mentioned during the meeting. However, I wish to reiterate those J areas I believe to be of most importance. First let me say that the October meeting war. very beneficial and informative for me i as well as all parties involved. Due to scheduling conflicts, on my part, I will be unable to attend the December meeting and would appreciate being kept informed. As I mentioned during the meeting (and as addressed on page 3 of the draft meeting minutes) it is important that Working Group (WG) not strictly focus on generally licensed (GL) gauges as being the primary or sole source of the scrap metal smeltings. There are many other devices which are both GL devices and specifically licensed that should be considered. I concur with Dr. Paperiello's statement that "...whatever the solution will be, it will be a tough sell" - with regard to the potential additional regulatory efforts that may result based on recommendations of the WG. However, I firmly believe that regulatory agencies (federal and state) should strive to more effectively utilize existing avenues to address the entire issue of radioactive material accountability. Specifically, initial efforts by government agencies should be to utilize manufacturer provided data (i.e., quarterly reports) combined with a more active inspection and l enforcement program. I believe this to be a reasonable starting point without imposition of additional regulatory burden on the manufacturer. i ^,,(p - >,, m m (; V j L- )OV 3 / yy TN Technologies Inc.

• 2555 North interstate 35
• P.O. Box 800
• Round Rock, Texas 78680-0800
• 512/388 9100
• Fax: 512/388-9200

1 l 4 k Page Two Mr. Joel O. Lubenau November 29,1995 Those Agreernents States which have had initiative to develop rnore aggressive general license rules, regulations, licensing, and inspection programs have shown tremendous progress in demonstrating accountability of GL devices and have valuable data that the NRC should consider. I encourage the NRC through the Office of State Programs to contact the Organization of Agreement States and the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors for information and data collection. l For your information, the following is some statistical information: l TN Technologies Inc. i General Licensa Dats Number of GL records: 8449 100 mci or less 7059 100 mci < x < 500 mci 626 500 mci or more 764 l Number of GL portable devices: 1089 l Model 9266 658 Model 9277 388 Model 9290 43 l Note:

1. The above numbers are vethin plus or minus five percent accuracy.

2. " Record" is a record of a source and not necessenly of a device.

3. The above data is for the period of 1975 to present.

t Should you have any questions or require additional information please advise. I can be contacted by telephone: 512/388-9287, fax: 512/388-9333, or Internet: RSHEYER@AOL.COM. i J l Sincerely, i 4 \\ i l Rai S.He , Manager l Regulatory fairs

4 . REVIEW CRIUP - RADIcACTIVE ZEVICES November 15, 1995 i i NOTE T0: WG Members e FROM: .Joel 0. Lubenau, Co-chair l Joint Agreement State - Work ng Group to Review the Regulation of Devices Containing Rad active Materials i

SUBJECT:

COMUNICATIONS TO THE WG Since the inception of the Working Group, several individuals have communicated their thoughts and suggestions to address the problem of maintaining control of radioactive devices. Attached are 4 such documents: i

1. Letter from F. J. Bradley dated August 28, 1995.

2. Fax from Terry Devine dated October 2, 1995.

3. Fax from Martha Dibblee dated October 23, 1995.

4. Letter from Stan A. Huber dated October 27, 1995.

I apologize for the delay in sending you copies of these documents, - particularly the first two. With the first meeting of the WG out of the way, i I should be able to distribute similar_ correspondence to you on a more timely i . basis in the future. A'so, please note that such communications will be 'l routinely made available to the public by placing copies in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR). j t Attachments: As stated cc w/ attachments: WG Liaisons i M. Schwartz, OGC F. Cameron, OGC C Ryder, RES NRC PDR l l n r 1-sg

STAN A. HUBER CONSULTANTS, INC. O 200 NORTH CEDAR ROAD D NEW LENoX, IL 60451 O (815) 485-6161 O fax (815) 485-4433 i l l October 27,1995 l Joel O. Lubenau, CHP Senior Health Physicist . Sealed Source and Device Branch Div. of industrial and Medical Nuclear Safety l Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission M/S T-8F5 ) Washington, DC 20555-0001 RE: Joint Agreement State - NRC Working Group to Review the Regulation of l Devices Containing Radioactive Materials REF: October 24-25,1995 Meeting

Dear Mr. Lubenau:

Thank you and Co-chair Robert Free, and the members of the Working Group, for l inviting me and the other various stakeholder representatives, to participate in the above refert nced meeting. In my thirty years experience in providing health physics, l nuclear decontamination and rad-waste services, the Working Group meeting was one i of the best outreaches and sincere exchanges of information and ideas among regulators, industry and other groups, in which I have had the pleasure to participate. This is a fine example of the way govemment should operate. Assisting in working toward an optimum solution to the multi-faceted problem, without writing a book in the process, is not easy. However, I will attempt to be concise in offering a number of options or thoughts for consideration, as follows: 1. The General Problem 1.1 Inadequate control of licensed devices by both general licensees and specific licensees includes the end result of improper disposal. Loss or l improper disposal of a nuclear device which can cause health / safety l problems or serious financial loss is the ultimate demonstration of inadequate control. 1 l l , c& WiVJ' i 2 99

1 0 l Page 2 1.2 Inadequate control can be due to a number of factors whmh include: a.) Inadequate initial and continuing training of licensees (general or specific). b.) Inadequate reporting and/or usage of data reports on the national distribution of nuclear devices (NRC and Agreement States). c.) Inadequate follow-up checks of device inventories, compliance with leak test requirements and records of disposal to correlate with the national universe of nuclear devices / gauges in existence at any point in time. This is a dynamic flow, with new and recycled sources entering the U.S. inventory every week and old nuclear sources and devices leaving the U.S. inventory every week by way of disposal (proper or improper), or export. 2. The General Solution The impressions I had from the two day NRC-State Working Group Public Meeting regarding general solution approaches are: 2.1 Existing regulations and proposed refinements of regulations are adequate to deal with the problem. However, the methods of licensing and of interpreting the regulations, and using the required device inventory data reports are another matter. Those methods and actions, along with new and continuing communications with the community of general and specific licensees will be critical to eliminating, or achieving a lowest possible number of improperly disposed nuclear devices / gauges. 2.2 The changes to be made do not need to be drastic, nor costly, nor rushed, nor necessarily all dependent upon the NRC or Agreement States for implementation. Indeed, these criteria seem to be embodied in the Charter of the Working Group. 3. Soecific Solutions 3.1 One example of a specific partial solution involves the Statement of the Steel Manufacturers Association that was submitted to the Working Group. In that document it is stated that there is an economic disincentive l for individual scrap dealers to identify lost sources due to high costs for i disposal. It seems that the 123 steel plants which belong to the SMA l could easily contribute $2,000 each, for example, to create a $246,000 l pool of " Nuclear Device Bounty Reward" money to pay each scrap yard " finder" $100 each for gauges that are identified and secured for pick-up l by a licensed collection or transfer agent for proper return to the

1 e D Page 3 i ~ manufacturer or, if necessary, disposal. The regulatory agency could then i j be called in to track the owner and make the owners or shippers pay for o i disposal or recycling transport costs and possible fines. If the device is non-traceable or damaged, e'tc. then either money from the SMA Bounty fund or from a federal or state agency may be needed for the more drastic or unusual cases. The point is that the $246,000 pool could pay for a discovery of 2,460 nuclear devices and not be a hardship for any individual steel mill. The fund could be replenished as needed from i penodic dues. This would convert a "disincentive" into an " incentive" at j_, very low cost and with less involvement of regulatory agencies compared j to the attemative of being concemed with smelted gauges, facility j downtimes and facility decontamination and close-out surveys and more public relations hazards. If the SMA and Working Group is interested in this concept, I would be glad to describe specifics and collection facilities that could be used. It is much easier and less costly for an Association to set up such an incentive system for the special interests of its members, i than it would be to expect any regulatory agency to administer such a j function. i 3.2 At the same time that the most affected parties can take some actions { themselves toward corrective measures, it is true that the NRC and i Agreement States need to evaluate what their roles should be in most l efficiently and eifd;Of establishing controls that are now lacking, and to j maintain such coduvis from now on, it will take time, but the former lack j of adequate controls will eventually work themselves out of the overall system of gauge and device tumover, most likely in the 10 to 30 year time frame. Good "retrofitting" of controls can reduce that time frame. Examples of specific regulatory ager'cy retrofitting that could be effective j at relatively low cost are: j 3.2.1 Examine existing NRC and Agreement State databases, by license ] category code numbers or other methods, for a listing of: j i) All known manufacturers of sealed source devices or gauges above 500 millicuries Cs-137 equivalent activity { content. (About 15 years ago I was told by an NRC licensing " guru" that millicurie amount was the unwntten policy for maximum activity for general licensing { consideration). t' ii) All known manufacturers of nuclear sources or devices i below the 500 millicuries Cs-137 equivalent activity content jl level. Then, cull the short-lived devices such as Po-210 static eliminators, or low problem devices, such as H-3 exit signs, from this list. i l l

Page 4 iii) Ask the aforementioned existing manufacturers of higher risk devices to detail or estimate how many nuclear devices they have distributed each year over their history and how many are retumed for disposal, etc. Any information they can offer should be useful. 3.2.2 Examine NRC and Agreement State databases for general and specific licensed users to obtain an overview of the true aumerical scope of potential uncontrolled sources or devices. 3.2.3 Examine existing licensing procedures of manufacturers and users to determine adequacy of options to assure proper disposal such as: i) Leasing arrangements where ownership remains with the manufacturer. Lost or damaged sources are then reported by the manufacturer, ii) Potential financial surety or bonding requirements for proper disposal. iii) Potential need for user licensee written commdment to retum device to manufacturer or licensed processor or. disposal facility. 4 iv) Definition of specific recycle or retum options that exist. v) Require simple documentation of general licensee awareness of proper posting, labeling, inventory, leak test and retum/ disposal requirements. The fact that the manufacturer provides the information does not guarantee that the user received, understood, agrees, or continuously cares about the information. vi) Consider the need for administrative ontrol for each licensee to post facility sketch (es) showing the location (s) of each nuclear gauge or tracked device in their facility. This can aid in reducing problems resulting from personnel tumover; " institutional memory loss" with time; waming sign-age loss in harsh environments, demolition of facilities, and j other factors leading to loss of control of gauges / devices. 3.4 Implement telephone contact procedures similar to those for i Priority 7 Licensees, as issued by the NRC on 4/17/95. A copy of j the procedures and simple report form is enclosed for reference. l l

~ Page 5 Or, consider the North Carolina or other Agreement State similar phone contact systems. Breaking down this ovarall communication and tracking system among the NRC Regions and 29 Agreement States should make the overall accountability and " compliance encouragement" task achievable at lowest possible overall costs. l. The end result should also achieve greater overall awareness of 1 the true scope of source accountability (or non-accountability) as well as much improved user awareness of the regulations and need for compliance, as well as demonstrate the existence of concemed regulators. The conduct of that survey will also be a part of the comprehensive measure of the success, or definition of j needs for further improvement, of the regulatory program. 4. On the subject of NRC and Agreement State Compatibility, I believe this should be a Level I category of required compatibility with no flexibility for more stringent j measures by individual states. Non-uniformity breeds confusion, loopholes and j misunderstandings and the issues facing the Working Group certainly do not need to be made any more difficult. j 5. On the subject of Cost and Fee Considerations, the reasoning of Agreement . States (such as North Carolina's $75 fee per licensee) could be examined to determine NRC and other agency fees needed to improve the control and l accountability structure. Also, in item 3.1 in this letter, an example of low cost industry financing of a part of the problem / solution was also given. if any parts of this letter need clarification or additional input, please contact me at any of the letterhead numbers. Again, thank you for an excellent meeting. Ilook forward to i receiving the minutes and attendee list and to the future sessions. } Sincerely, j Stan A. Huber Consultants, Inc. l 4 WAk Stan A. Huber President SAH: ac

~. EXAMPs ES OF VIOLA 110NS THAT CAN BE CITED ON NRC FORM 591* i t 1. Inventories not performed at the required frequency on one ar two occasions, that did not result in any consequences (e.g.,, lost material). 1 2. Licensee observed

eating, drinking, etc.,

in laboratories where i. , megabequerel ' microcurie) quantities of radioactive materials are stored, but not useo (survey should be performed to confirm the absence of contamination). i 3. Failure to calibrate survey hestruments, &larm ratameters, and pocket dosimeters at the required frequency, en one or two occasions. s 4. Failure to use a dedicated check si.wce before each use of a survey instrument, on one or two occasions. 5. Failure to perform routine surveys (e.g., radiation, contamination, air flow checks, or fume hood monitoririg) at the required frequency on a few occasions. 6. Rare failures of the radiation safety committee to meet at the required frequency. l 7 Failure to have a quoruc at all radiation safety committee meetings. 8. Rare failures to exchange film badges or thermoluminescent dosimeters j monthly, but with no loss of dosimetry data. l g. Failure to have properly prepared shipping papers with shipment. dl~ 10. Failure to include the emergency phone number or reportable quantity (RQ) designation on shipping papers. J 11. Occasional failure to meet all transportation (e.g., paperwork) requirements of 19 CFA. 1 l 12. Users of radioactive materials are adequately trained, but not as stated l in the license application. { 13. On rare occasions, dose calibrator tests are not performed as required. 14. Isolated cases of missed or late leak tests. j 15. Missed dose calibrator tests. l 16. Failure to appropriately post areas where radioactive material-are stored or used. l i I i i 4 l

• This list is not all-inclusive. Many Severity Level IV or V violations may be cited on an NRC Form 591. See the Enforcement Manual for j

additional guidance. l Issue Date: 04/17/95 E6-1 2800, Enclosure 6 l

STAleARD RESPONSE TO LICENSEES CONTACTED BY TELEPHONE (VIOLATIONS) i l- ~ i. License No. Docket No. I ~ Sir or Madam: l This ret'rs to a telephone contact conducted on , 19_. The mtset was an examination of activities conducted under your license as they relt,te to radiation safety and to compliance with the commission's rulesi and i requiations and with tise conditions of your license. The contact consisted of j discussions with d As a result of this examination of activities, regulatory concerns were noted and i are specified below. These may be evaluated at an onsite inspection at your facility soon. As you descriad on the telephone, the following apparent regulatory concerns were identifimi: l-(Lis! apr'.irent violations - for any violation that :ppears to rise to Severity Level ill, or otherwise to indicate lack of prograana:ic oversight, the region should promptly conduct an inspection and take enforcement action, as l appropriate, based on the results of the inspection.) You should examine your license and Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations to d;termine how you can correct the apparent regulatory concerns that were discussed on the telephone. In addition, we would like to highlight ~ the j following items that licensees should pay particular attention to, as follows: ) j a. maintaining awareness and control of licensed material b. proper transfers and disposal of radioactive sources c. promptly reporting losses or thefts of licensed materials If you have any questions about this contact, you may contact us at ( ) Sincerely, , Chief Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (Branch or Section) bec DCS/RS8 (RIDS) Issue Date: 04/17/95 E4-1 2800, Enclosure 4 l

1 . mw,ww c.w....... FC?. License No. I ~ Docket No. ) i Sir or Madam: 1 This refers to a telephone contact conducted on , 19_. The contact was an examination of activities conducted under your license, as they relate to radietion safety and to compliance with the commission's rules and i regulatiens and with the conditions of your license. The contact consisted of discussions with No regulatory concerns were identified. If you have any questions about this contact, you may contact us at ( ) Sincerely, , Chief Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (Branch or Section) \\ bec DCS/RSB (RIDS) Issue Date: 04/17/95 E5-1 2800, Enclosure 5 l

I f I t L t rt1Uttt Luft l ML t rMuttuunts run rK10M111 i Litte13ts 1. PROGRAM _0BJECTIVES: In the nast, there have been times when manpower limitations have required exempting priority 7 licensees from routine inspection by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. As a result of this practice, the regions were left with a large number of licensees that had never been inspected. To improve general performance of these priority 7 licensees, this telephone contact procedure was developed so each licensee would be interviewed at least ence during the duration of the license and at some periodic frequency thereafter, to be determined by the regional staff. 2. PROCEDURES a. Select license to interview at random (see Section 2800-04) from the l computer listing of licenses that are not yet inspected or have only had an initial inspection. After this is done, select licensees that have had initial inspections (priority 7). J l l b. Pull the license file and review the file to determine the person to contact for information needed to complete interview questionnaire j (Enclosure 3). c. Telephone licensee and complete questionnaire. Note that not all licenses require each procedure mentioned in the questionnaire. d. l If the licensee reports any problems, namely: l 1. doses in excess of the occupational dose limits specified in 10 CFR l 20.1201, 20.1207, or 20.1208, i 2. lost licensed material, l= 3. leak tests indicating source leakage, 4. any event the licensee considered unusual, or 5. change in ownership or bankruptcy proceedings, the person filling in the questionnaire should promptly notify the inspector's ilmsediate supervisor. The supervisor and/or other regional management may determine if an inspection of the facility is required, or i if a letter transmitting a Notice of Violation is sufficient. If an inspection is required, the caller should note that decision on the questionnaire, and give the questionnaire and file to the cognizant supervisor for further action. If a letter is sufficient, the caller should prepare a response back to the licensee (Enclosure 4)'. e. If the licensee responses confirm no problems are present, prepare the l appropriate draft transc:lttal letter (Enclosure 5) for signature by the inspector's immediate supervisor. f. Send package to the inspector's immediate supervisor for review. l l Issue Date: 04/17/95 E2-1 2800, Enclosure 2 l

_ - ~ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ EVALUATION OF POSSESSION AND USE OF BYPRODUCT MATERIAL (Fcr use with prierity 7 licensees only) lPhoneNum I License Number: Name: Address: ( ) l FAX Number: ( ) l l

1. Name and Title of person responsible for radiation safety program:

2. Describe how you safeguard the byproduct material from:

l (a) use by unauthorized personnel: l (b) loss or theft: l

3. Describe controls that prevent individuals who work in the area around the material from becoming exposed to radiation:

4. Do you have a personal monitoring program for your employees, such as film badges, dosimeters, etc.?

Yes O No O I If yes, what was the maximum dose received since 7 (year of iast telephone contact or inspection)

5. Do you perform surveys to detect external radiation.in the area around l.

the byproduct material? Yes O No O If yes, how often are the surveys performed? What instrument is used to perform the surveys? When was this instrument last calibrated?

6. On what date was the last physical inventory of all byproduct material in your possession performed?

Were all sources accounted for? /_ / j Yes O No O N/A O

7. Do you perform leak

• tests on the sealed cource? Yes O No O N/A O If yes, how often are these leak tests performed?

Who evaluates the leak test results? If no, describe the provisions you have made to have the leak tests done:

8. Describe your provisions for repair and maintenance of your device or source holder:

9. Describe any unusual events involving the byproduct material or device (s) in which it is used:

l Name of person filling in questionnaire: Date:_/_/_ j

Title:

Issue Date: 04/17/95 E3-1 2800, Enclosure 3 l

OGT 23 '95 04:00PM OHD RAD PROTECT SERV P.1 ) State of Oregen Health Division i Radiation Protection Scryices j (503)731-4014 j FAX: (503)731-4081 l DA TE: \\0 0 h6L. h 6f)Mf TO: FROM: kWA 30W i l PAGES (including this cover page): \\' i 1 Mes age: $w As of wth we. Nacc- %s) G Es. w b 04N A.3ds bT F \\ h R.dCS2.F l it A cs iso, coe. sv q0 m4,v1291 a j Cowuc > ' m Ci ree157er Q r M L kse 5hed T Arasse. J g 3 Ensare. W: w f.9 /cy e n c y % a cc t W ic-ArioN oe Device lso0rce. f 3Gf-Mt*tWikH.th30 0f i L

l OCT 23 '95 04:01PM OHD RAD PROTECT SERV P.2 l l INFORMkTICK EULLETIN FOR f,CR&P MBTAL DEALERS, STERL MILI.8, MIELTERS AMD OTIER METAL PROCESSORS 1. Review the potential for radioactive materials to be found in scrap material. Cost ( of clean up. 2. Types of adioactive material e Industrial sealed sources l monM (foundry materials, fertiliser, rock, sand, pipe scale, etc) l e e Essapt sources l e consumer products (especially those containing radium) l Contaminated steel in transport vehicle 3. Notifications - RC8, ODOE, PUC, OERS Nota: PUC was at one time looking into installing monitors, similar to those at OR Steel, at the ports of entry. l 4. Options e Reject and return undisturbed (emphasise this is best and cheapest option) using DOT Exemption authorised through CRCPD Remove material and process usable materials dispose of RAM properly e e n.o.s. license required if radioactive material is to be onsite more than l 7 days. S. Reco - e d and/or Statuatory Procedures e set up RNE Monitoring system with licensed EP consultant assistance (Na2 Scintillation detectors with proper siae/ configuration and proper orientation) e Contract with licensed WP consultant for at least annual recalibration and appropriate adjustment of alarm levels of detection system e Verify proper functioning of detector system at least monthly (or as recommended by manufacturer) with appropriate activity check source i e Upon detection of source material and alarm system activation, take the following actions: 1 a. Report Incident to Duty officer b. Contsch licensed EP aonsultant to assist in returning shipment to i l originating facility (Requires use of DOT enespeion for shipping per 49 CFR requirements, available from RML Duty officer) c. If f acility and HP consultant agree to remove material from shipment, receiving facility becomes responsible = possessor

• of radioactive material and and only the following options exist in statutei 1)

Arrange to ship RAM for disposal with assistance of licensed EP consultant withis seven (7) days or I 2) Make application for RML license to possess radioactive i materials within seven (1) days. ] 6 \\peditesuee44eeesta.Ge%9/M/H48 H s

l OCT 23 '95 04:08PM OHD-RAD PROTECT SERV P.3 (503)num FAX (503) me 'DD-Nonvoles (503) 73241 ./ DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES i HEALTH DIVISION ENPORCEMENT BULLETIN 95-3 To: All General Licensees l From: Martha Dibbles, Manager ~ l Radioactive Materials Program i Please complete the enclosed Inspection by Mail form and FAX or mail to this office by June 30,1995. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. MOD:clh i L i;WhhsadT34610:11 h %T Mua vaa~ d John A. Kit =Imbr: ,N 800 NE Street p 21

Portland, 97232 2162 l

N-(5tB) 731-400 Emergency (503) 252 7978 TDD ^ Ew. oui 343 (Rev.1244)

OCT 23 '95 04:02PM OHD RAD PROTECT SERV P.4 OR500N NEALTH DIVISI0er RADIATICK PROTBCTION SERVICES 800 N.E. OR500N, 921, SUI'!E 705 70RTLAleD, OREGCN 97232 PEINE (503) 731-4014 FAX (503) 731-4081 E N BULLETIN 95-3 INSPECTION SY MkIL GENERAL LICENSE MEASURING DEVICE, DSPLETED U.;ANIUM, OR IN VITED IAE Instructions: Please type or print. Mail or FAX the ocupleted form to tiiis office by June 30,'1995.

1. Licensee Name

2. Address

3. City, State, Eip

4. Phone Number

( )

5. FAX Number

( ) ~

6. License Number

7. License types

( ) Fixed Gauge [ ] ECD (XRF or Gas Chromatograph Detector) [ ] In Vitro Lab [ ] Depleted Uranium [ ] Source Material

s. List persons who use general license devices or materials

s. Describe how general license radioactive materials are used.

10. Describe the radiation safety training that personnel have had.

11. Corporate structure Attach a current organisational chart. Describe any changes in the scope of your business including corporate take-overs or other significent corporate changes.

l OCT 23 '95 04:02PM OHD RAD PROTECT m P.5 b. I GENERAL LICENSE INSPECTION BY MAIL -- PAGE 3 V

12. Administrative maquirements Do you havet a copy of the General License Rules?

[ ] yes [ ] no l Are all general license materials properly labelled? [ ] yes [ ] no l l Did any general license device require leak testing? [ ] yes [ ] no were leak testa performed as required? [ ] yes [ ] no Attack copies of leak test records with this foss. Were radiation surveys required for any devices? [ ] yes [ ] no Attaek eeples of surveys with this foss. I Were any general license materials transferred j to another person? [ ] yes [ ] no Attack copies of all transfers with this form.

13. Inventory Complete the following chart showing all radioactive materials possessed and used. Attach

( cxtra pages if required. Key Device number to Safety Inspection Form on next page Manufacturar Model no. Isotone & Activity @ cation i l w 14 Certificate 1 l

• (a)

I certify that the information provided on this form is true and complete to the best of ry knowledge and belief. l (b) I have read and understand the provisions of the general license in OAR 333-102-1 0 (in vitro 1mbs), 333-103-115 (measuring, gauging, or controlling i devices), or 333-102-103 (depleted uranium), and I understand that I am I required to comply with these provisions as to all radioactive material that I l possess and use in Oregon under the general license. i signature Title Print name _ Data eeeeee

• • • • • • • +, ** eeeee
              • eeee*****eeee. ******e *************************ee*****

ccostawTs on QUssTIoms g , de 8

OCT 23 '95 04:03PM OHD RAD PROTECT SCRV P.6 GENERAL LICENSE DEVICE SAFETY INSPSECTION FORM i, ' Instruettenes List att devfees below. Provide the Inferentien for each devise in setuana teheted 1, 3, 3, and 4. Use enether s form for more devlees. MVIES8 1 2 3 4 j escord toestfene and devies 10 ensdnere Record derfee madet numbers le Redfoestive itseerfst 18 tehet present en et toast 1 ofde tahould he both eldes if both eldes visible) of head eentelnie eeurest twee or no) le infermetten testMe en 10 Lehetet If 10 Lehets are not present er legible certify (Inttiet/yee) that ropeire wti1 he stad and ereyfde settessed resefr date. ~ Record eeures serieI nushere. Record feetense 8 emntity (e.e. Co 137,100 act) Are devices operablet (yes scene operable; ne scene not instetled or not usereM e) Test sed *0FF" eschenlem manuelty. De shuttore move between esenten end stened#grF sceltlen essekhtvt Are sem redletten lease 08 4 BB leeps 0FF neon. shuttore er eeurses are in eleoedtgFF sanftlerfP Are my refletten Leips W & Mage lauge grF then shutters er eeuroes are in amenMul meeltlant De ett Ifiterteshe/sofety features aparate seterding to a nutestater's assoffleettenet generd seated eeuree steek testa intervel (e.g. 6 ) unnths, 3 weers) assord teos steek teste q,g, neeerd test

• leek testa result in storesuries CtesEETS er eutsflossa 1

P C8eTIP'.CATE t/we eartify that the teformelen shove le eseurete ord true ta sy/eur kneutedse and hellef. Lfconsee: Lfsense lie. _, Signed Date Print nees iltle umanessmassmmieu o

OCT 23 '95 04:03PM OHD RAD PROTECT m p,7 (5m) ystac14 FAX (503) my JD Nonvoice (5(D) mmoI-w. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN S*Ptember 20,1994 RESOURCES HEALTH DIVEON TO: Oregon Radioactive Materials Licensees FROld: Martha Dibblee, Manager Radioactive Matedals Program RE: Radioactive Materials Inventory i ENFORCEMTNT BULLETIN 94-6 Radioactive materials licensees must account for all radioactive matedal received, transferred, and disposed under administrative rules in OAR 333-100-055. Please review the attached form, which is a list of radioactive materials that are authorized on your radioactive materials license. Please enter the total number of sources and the s, total amount of radioactive materialin the blanks provided. j Please mail or FAX (503 7314081) the completed form u soon as l possible, but no late than October 15.1994. Responses aceived after this date cannot not be included in otar current database update. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office.

i. w m so m e m m e e w w e n aarbers nahens Govemer O

800 NE Oregon Street # 21 Portland, OK 77232 2162 (sm) 7st 4030 nmargency (503) 252 w/8 IDD W w as m.v.t o l

OCT 23 '95 04:04PM OHD RAD PROTECT SERV P,8 $l

• P gd No.

12 ,t 09/2'0/93 1 i i ENTER THE INTRR THE t TOTAL No. TOTAL SOURCES AMOUNT IN MILLICURIES 1 MACILITY NAME: duiser Bingham Punps, Inc. l

• LICENSE Nt2ESER ORE.0027-1 l

ptf-(0 Sealed Source 1 / d t h e m,L l Atf-do sealed Source t # 1/ - m,1 # 5/ 1.4 11 -,1 /3 p-22ssealedSourge / M.m.;. ] f g-q92SealedSourye M-I / 11X an A VI h37 Sea 16d Source t / in mi q$ sealed Source d-1\\os.Sested teueds- --t -- J --- - 5 m&J. i / q L7-M' l l l I w RtcElven \\ L-h S{? 2 7 1994 i 9o l cA M

=== =c

V'W' q i (gs f l i g _ i_ i i I 1 TOTAL P.02 l

l OCT 23 '95 04:04PM OHD RAD PROTECT SERV p,9 a _m (503)ss>5P9F i FAX (503)m i 4mvidco (503) 229474I I { November 13,1991 DEPARTMENT OF i l lIUMAN I RESOURCES l ENPORCEMENT BULLETIN 911 HEALDI DIVISION l kWvL-Tji l 10: All general licensees who possess nuclear fixed l gauging devices i FROM: Martha Dibblee, Manager, Radioactive Materials l Licensing i SUIMECT: Inspection by Mail for General Licensees possessing j nuclear gauges m Oregon Health Division Radiation Control Section regulates l nuelaar Esad gauging devices in Oregon. - l ) Our records show that you possess a.w.11y IIcensed nuclear j gauge. Plasse complete the following form, following instructions j on the cover sheet. l The Inspection by Mail Fonn must be completed and returned to i this office by hbr 31,1991. i l Thank you for your attention to this bulletin. l l Should you have questions, you may contact this office at 503/229-l 5797. j i i Sirperely, j 4 "U D"' j Martha G. Dibblee, Manager 1 Radioactive Materials Licensing l Radiation Control Section i im m se Av e MGD:clh Portland, OR 97201 i Enclosure (503) 22*.ssee smergene (MD) 252 797: TDD 1 I?mergency i

j OCT 23 '95 04:04PM OHD RAD PROTECT SERV P.10 j '4 ] r J Q Jy 'T g ig ip f, }ah ~$$f + d4 j -y 3 N l 5 l '. 9 FS f %.[ r 31t I ;t E.k ?a J ? d g !i.[5 9 ss u n ) r E v L c r ( ~ .hh h kk b h h k. k kP 5 /% $5 I $1 E $ $ k I' I a j;e, A l RE I h E F Ph ) f k S!L $ O k S us I l

• A F5 1 i ? J B

B $ R1 A 3 f g K K E s $ F A t-eQ l 4 R 7 $ 4] ~ 3 M F 5 's ? 5 FI F i F A 4 5 %.,% I ) i % f ( Ft ? E \\ ? S E F E F R ; 4 i l R E El _ ef4, 3 3 3: 3

• i
• 3 3

9 s %,4 l

*A

^* F $ t M %] F $ Q S E S A. % R" 7 3 5 7 A F. 6., ] l '~ t' 76,f,'.q ) A S-R p 5 5 8 rGa

i. i j

3 r 5 3 3 ~ ~ f 3 $.if E E1 9 R 5 l ) +- f-t- 4 f }. t ik $ t t t 4 /o n,,-

3, + 3 ;

+ + + $ +. & & 'e 3 f-F f ik '*

• F J 5.5 t-t

// l /zQ, j f 5 i E n B B 7 6 i 8 F egg i ; R.; 3 3 3 ; ? f ) f F i P i E 9 E 3 F 'y % ~ k b $ Y-h Y $1 $ h h b.b I.'I /J N 4 ..m

OCT 23 '95 04:05Pt1 OHD RAD PROTECT SEW P.11 !~ qb q. j H b p '4 i i Y i i t-g 1 a T } h l i g f5 ) 2k 1 3 VA F 1r' F L -b,e-r, I I E aQ A <,e g E = S f 3 r~% I f 5% 3 5 g i ,'W y E I b%M t 3 f L E k ~~

4.~

f /hc mL,- i ~ ^ y

; 1_ rw k

,? o 8dM A %. h

• 9

/D -% r-i t 8 ~~ /=.[4 / i e i I ) 7 /2 '%% y E E Y /3@ i 4 F F ? /Y8w - f

• & N %~

l ,s

) i 10/02/1995 14:30 CRCPDf4NAFAX UF-600AT 502 223 7026 P.01 i. 1 4 j TF1 NER er""~_"?ATvw. i ) Date: October 2,1995 To: Joel tubenau l From: Terry Devhe, CRCPD, Ph. 501t/2274543, Far. 502227 7862 ; i Nr.of Pedes:_2_ (includhg this page) Re. the wortehop on devices, I should mention that the recyding of materlei esems to be j increasing steadNy. Manulaclurers haWe been dealing with multi-curie soufges of most isok j and they might he' prevailed upon to recyois tarpe nutntwrs of emeN devices. Such recycEng j would allow alonlAcant economies, relative to burial or licensing, in consolidadon of sources during cottoction campaigns and in me records involved. I have asked Bobig and isotope Products to g ] provide estimates of oost per email source f.o.b., but they nood encouragemerit from the regulators j and insurme. My coniaois a manuncturwe new ese inat the ce or co in some devices has deoeyed beyond further use but it seems to me that recovn d matmies oeuid be roseevened or, se setsg onws, isotopically enriched by centrouge, a a price rapidly being owrteien ty that of LLRW buriel l - <, c ^h b l l [ /([, b 0 g

1 10/02/1995 14:31 CRCPDPANAFAX UF-600AT 502 223 7026 P.02 4 i .). Radioactive Materials and Devices Sou0ht i CRCPD Notes of August 1995 l I As one of ks services, the 00nference of Radisson Control Program Disectors, ino., mamtains a tiet of firms that recycle useful quantitles of radcaodve meterials, or that have meAets for working devices. H >1 kcl; Tom Canter, Savannah Rever ld 803/725-7301 3 ges; Sabig Inc., Soot Manges,312/251 0611 Exit signe; John t.aeh. Chem-Nucieer,303/2$9-1119, fax 805/541-7302 Est signe; se6f Powemt IJghtia0. Joe Zandordino. 91N592-8230 Co " J. L Shepard & Assoc., 818/895-2361, fax 818/361-8085 Joe Tenerto, G.E. Velocess Lab, 510r962-4256 25 kCI; henheel Bonsky,301/394-2218 Kr Qua6-X Corp., Art Mahon, 614/881-5543 as BetWg ino., soor Kangas, 312/251-0611 Sr "I Y " >1 Ci; Sields ino., Scott Kansas,312/251-0611 J. L thepose & Asmac. 218295-2361, faz $18/361-4095 -1 Cl; Jef Cromwel 510r796-4506 Cs '87 J. L shepard a Assoc., 818/954-2361, fax 518/361-40 5 >3 Cl solutne osmpound; Kort Amlauer, lootope Produote 818/841-7000 J >l Ci narale; Sahig inc., Scott KanGaa. 312/251-0611 25-40 mCl needles or tuees; Jeff Cromwell 510/7944806 Ru ",Ce **, and cener unusual reasoleotopes; Nu:th Amerman Soontmo, Al Zirnes,818/5s-0201 8 lootopes > Pb Mn encl; uneseled & soluble. Kari Ammuor,lootope Products, $18/843-7000 N Ra "8 >50 rn0; Robert Schenter. Westi Hanfore,508/376-3935. fez-6033 Ra Al Zithes, North Amenean 8sie s18/ sos-9301 Ac8. Th as' Robert Schenter, WestMhouse Henford,500/376-3935 Th & U Aserresem N001,113/641-4391 c Th motel alloys Be4 ino, Scott Mangen,312/251-0611 U Nat, Dep., or Enr., Iput unitradisaied; Tom Winn, 615/57tH630 ' 8 -50 mCl solutde; Kort Amlauer, lootope Produale,8181843-7000 Pu -1 rnCl; Jim Wlmems, Amensen Ecology,713434-1900 n sewess Regator with Jones, Las Alamos, 30$dsdi6-2712 Pu *38 2 Fu Regimess with Tom , Serenna5 River, sos /725-7301,. fax Jt272 Pu n sewsus Sherry Jones, Las Alamos, 505/465-2712 8 Am * >l Ci sources, Adled Ecology, $10/465-9230 >1 Ci; Betig ino.: Scot Marigen,312/251-0511 -1 Ci solues; Karl Amiauer, lootope Produs% steeds-7oop -1 Cl; J. L Shepent & Assoc., 818/895-2361, fax 818/361-8095 -1 Cl; Jeff Cromwee stewa nam Am

• n sewees Roelster with Jones Las Alames, 505465-2712

>1Cl,J.L a Assoo., 518/895-2361,.fas $18/361-4095 Am"Be n sources >1 Cl; Babig incJ Scott Kangas,312/251-4611 Cf s: J. L Shepesd & Assoc., 818/896-2361, tax 818/361-8005 t Joe TerWG.E. Venectos 1.sh, 510rB62-4256 Tom Winn, Oak Aldge Operatens, 615/3WHM30, tax -5401 TRU > Am Tom Winn, Oak Ridge Opershone, 615/S76-0630 fox -5401 - undical devios. Cart annes, Pan Am World Heanh orgentremon,2ca/861-3222 Therapy doinoes Troy Hedger, Alpha Omega Services Inc.,800r346-7894 A let s also maintained of unusual radionuotidos or large amounts lhet are avainbie for adophon. i For asettions or connotons to thens inte, pieces telephorm Terry Devine, son /227-4s43. TNe informe8on As not to be constved as an endorsement by CMCPD e(me somcas Adonedsofin mese Abes. T7/AL P.02

u F. J. BRADLEY HEALTH PHYSICS CONSULTANT 605 East 82nd Street New York, New York 10028 Voice (212) 628-6580 Fax August 28, 1995 Mr. Joel Lubenau U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Dear Mr. L l I read your recent article with J. Yusko on contaminated scrap metal in the April 1995 Health Physics Journal. It was quite interesting and provides an excellent update and overview of a problem that I believed originally was an aberration when it occurred at Auburn Steel-in 1983. Your data indicates otherwise. With Cesium-137 the predominant nuclide, one cannot ignore the f act I that nuclear gauges are a prime culprit. While attacking the problem at the scrap dealer and mill is important, I believe the licensed gauge owner. has to be held accountable first and foremost. Since the gauge owners are unknown in many cases, whether the gauges were possessed under a specific or general license is unknown. But, there have been. reports of melted gauges in both categories. I believe, however, that the GL regulation for uniformity's sake should be restricted to sources of less than one curie when the half life is five years or greater. As I had noted previously, with a specific activity of about 20 nanocuries-per gram (assuming a melt of 50 tons), such contamination levels do not pose a great risk - even if all control measures fail. The NRC should consider promulgation of a regulation for GL devices requiring registration and a triennial ' fee which would l include a requirement to submit a leak test and a recent photograph of the gauge as well. It should also be made a compatibility requirement for Agreement States. This would establish a data base and could be used to track the gauge. New York State regulations, i Code Rule 38, has always had a registration requirement and, until suspended by budgetary restrictions, an inspection program i involving'such gauges. However, there is no renewal provision for registered GL ded.ces. 1 ggll2-/Ci=71 m

~. _. -. i Possibly a hefty fine might make compliance easier for industry. The NRC civil penalty of $250 against the Virginia Mining Company noted in your article stands with the $100 fine that New York State levied against Radium Chemical Company for abandoning their radioactivity. j In addition, I have recently done some overseas consulting l (Albania) where I noted that the privatization of the economy is [ opening up a whole new area of potential future problems since an l .i.nfrastructure of licensing and inspecting private firms is totally l lacking in the Eastern Bloc economies. I would like to commend you and J. Yusko for highlighting a problem that continues to haunt us. Sincerely, j. 1 F J. Bradley FJB/wp i l l l l 6 l .}}