ML20205Q892
| ML20205Q892 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/16/1999 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| FRN-64FR40295, REF-10CFR9.7 AG03-1-018, NUDOCS 9904220107 | |
| Download: ML20205Q892 (134) | |
Text
,
=
....l
(
'Ita I84J eb w
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
BRIEFING ON MATERIAL CONTROL OF GENERALLY LICENSED DEVICES PUBLIC MEETING Location:
Rockville, Maryland Date:
Friday, April 16,1999 (3
/
{-i)}
Pages:
1 - 94 o2000 M[e #Y
'~
t
~
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
1025 Connecticut Avenue,NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.20036 (202) 842-0034 99042$0107990416 ei". 7 9
enn
s C
4 DISCLAIMER This is an unofficial transcript of a meating of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on April 16, 1999, in the Conmission's office at One White Flint North,. Rockville, Maryland.
The meeting was open to public attendance and observation.
This transcript has not been reviewed, corrected or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.
The transcript is intended solely for general informational purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not-part of the formal or informal record of decision of the matters discussed.
Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determination or beliefs.
No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in any proceeding as the result of, or addressed to, any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize.
?
?
S-1 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
4 BRIEFING ON 5
MATERIAL CONTROL OF GENERALLY LICENSED DEVICES 6
7 PUBLIC MEETING 1
8 9
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 10 Commissioners' Hearing Room 11 One White Flint North 12 11555 Rockville Pike 13 Rockville, Maryland 14 15 Friday, April 16, 1999 16 17 The Commission met in open session, pursuant to 18 notice, at 9:09 a.m.,
the Honorable SHIRLEY A. JACKSON, 19 Chairman of tne Commission, presiding.
20 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
21 SHIRLEY A.
- JACKSON, Chairman of the Commission 22 NILS J. DIAZ, Member of the Commission 23' EDWARD McGAFFIGAN, JR., Member of the Commission 24 GRETA J. DICUS, Member of the Commission 25 JEFFREY S. MERRIFIELD, Member of the Commission ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue,_NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
f.
s a
S-2 1
STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT THE COMMISSION TABLE:
2 ANNETTE L.
VIETTI-COOK, Assistant Secretary 3
WILLIAM TRAVERS, Executive Director for Operations 4
CARL PAPERIELLO, NMSS 5
DONALD COOL, NMSS 6
PETER HERNANDEZ, Vice President, American Iron and 8
Steel Institute 9
THOMAS A. DANJCZEK, President, Steel Manufacturers 10 Association 11 MICHAEL PETERS, Vice President, Environment 12 Structural Metals, Inc.
13 ROLAND FLETCHER, Radiological Health Program, 14 Organization of Agreement States 15 JILL LIPOTI, Conference of Radiation Control 16 Program Directors, Inc.
17 JAMES TURDICI, OCFO/DAF, NRC Staff 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
o e
S-3 1
PROCEEDINGS 2
[9:09 a.m.)
3 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Good morning, ladies and 4
gentlemen.
Today the NRC Staff, the American Iron and Steel 5
Institute, the Steel Manufacturers Association, the j
i 6
Organization of Agreement States, and the Conference of 7
Radiation Control Program Directors will provide the 8
Commission with their views on the draft requirements 9
proposed by the Staff for certain generally licensed 1
l 10 industrial devices containing byproduct material.
l l
11 The Commission has been concerned for a number of l
12 years about occurrences where generally-licensed devices 13 have not been handled or disposed of properly.
i l
14 Recent events overseas involving lost sources and 15 large exposures to members of the public have heightened the i
16 attention of the Commission to the potential for lost 17 sources in the U.S.,
and I would like to say parenthetically.
18 that Commission Dicus particularly brought a lot of focus to 19 this area.
20 In July, 1995 with assistance from the 21 Organization of Agreement States NRC formed a working group 22 to evaluate the issues related to the loss of control of l
23 licensed sources of radioactivity.
In April 1998 the 24 Commission directed the Staff to develop by rulemaking a 25 registration and follow-up program for generally licensed AJRJ RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
o e
S-4 1 1 sources and devices identified by the working group to 2
assess fees to these general licensees and to incorporate 3
requirements for the permanent labelling of the sources.
4 The Staff now has drafted the requirements to 5
improve the accountability of certain generally licensed 6
devices for the Commission's consideration in SECY-99-108.
7 This Commission paper, which recently was made publicly
(
(
8 available, is now before the Commission.
Because of the 1
9 l
various interests associated with this ection the Commission 10 l
has requested the stakeholder presentations we will hear 11 this morning.
The NRC Staff will open witl an overview of 1
l 12 l
the proposed rulemaking.
This will be followed by the other l
13 l
presentations that will focus on points of agreement and 14 disagreement with the Staff's proposal and related issues.
15 I will thank all of you in advance for your 16 participation in this meeting.
In an effort to keep the 17.
meeting on schedule, the Commission only will interrupt the 18 presents.from time to time --
19
[ Laughter.]
20 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
-- to ask very pertinent 21 l
questions, and I will try to control myself.
I am usually 22 the culprit -- and then at the close of each presentation I 23 will open the discussion to additional questions from the 24 Commission.
25 I understand that copies of the viewgraph and the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticat Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 l
(202) 842-0034 i
S-5 1
SECY paper are available at entrances to the meeting room, 2
and unless my colleagues have anything to add, Dr. Travers, 3
please proceed.
4 MR. TRAVERS:
Good morning, Chairman and 5
Commissioners.
Chairman, as you have indicated, we did 6
provide to the Commission earlier this month a proposed rule J
j 7
on generally licensed devices, and today we are here to l
8 summarize the proposals that we have made for your l
9 consideration.
10 Joining me at the table are Carl Paperiello, i
i 11 Director of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and l
12 Safeguards; Don Cool is the Director of the Division of 13 Industrial and Medical Nuclear Safety, NMSS; and John i
14 Lubinski, who has been the Project Manager on the i
l 15 development of this rule.
16 With that, let me jump right into the presentation 17 and turn it over to Don Cool.
18 DR. COOL:
Good morning, Madam Chairman and 19 Commissioners.
Today -- and if I can go right ahead to l
20 Slide Number 2 -- I want to briefly outline for you the l
l 21 proposed rule changes tha you have in front of you that 22 were in the SECY paper tLat discussed the options that we I23 looked at in terms of collecting fees from general 24 licensees -- that also is part of the paper that was 25 provided for you -- and then to briefly update you on the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036-(202) 842-0034 t
S-6 1
status of the rest of the project, because this is in fact 2
more than a single rule.
There are a whole series of 3
related and coordinated activities in order for us to 4
actually be able to implement this program of which this 5
rule is only one particular piece.
6 Slide 3 gives you just a quick outline.
I'll 7
spend a couple minutes on the first rule, which actually 8
formed the legal basis, spend the majority of the time with 9
the rulemaking that you havg in front of you and the fees, 10 and then to briefly discuss how we have gone about in terms 11 of participating with our industry groups and the Agreement 12 States to try and make sure that this was moving towards a 13 national program.
14 By way of background, and this is Slide 4, Madam 15 Chairman, as you have pointed out, we have been looking at 16 this and concerned about this for a large number of years.
17 The genesis of this activity actually comes from the results 18 of the NRC and Agreement State working group that looked at 19 accountability devices and made a number of specific 20 recommendations.
Those recommendations were incorporated in 21 the rulemaking that we have in front of us today.
22 This particular action along with a number of 23 related actions result from the January briefing of last 24 year and the April 13th Staff requirements memorandum that 25 sent us off to actually do this particular work.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036
)
(202) 842-0034
r c
S-7 1
If I could have Slide 5, I want to first spend a 1
2 moment or two on a rulemaking which is already well underway 3
but which is related to this activity.
In our jargon down l
4 in the Staff this is Rule 1, which formed the legal basis l
l 5
for registration.
That rulemaking, a very short rulemaking 6
which was published in December of last year, provided the 7
legal basis for us to actually establish a contact and 8
return process.
It added a new 10 CFR 31.5 (c) (11) 9 paragraph, which provided that the general licensee has to 10 respond to requests for information from the NRC in 30 days 11 or as specified.
12 It gave me the basis for going and specifically 13 making those contacts and follow-up.
That comment period l
14 closed in February.
We received seven comment letters, l
15 three from the states, three from folks in the steel 16 industry, and you will be hearing from them in a little bit, 17 and one from an individual.
18 In general, all of those comments were very 19 supportive of the rulemaking.
They made a number of 20 suggestions, a number of which were actually focused more 21 towards the contents of this rulemaking than it was per se 22 that specific legal basis.
23 When the Commission approved that proposed rule l
24 last October, you asked the Staff to specifically look at 1
j 25 potential follow-up activities as a result of going through ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 I
Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
S-8 1
the rulemaking process -- this is Slide Number 6.
As we 2
usually do, we tried to provide copies of the rulemaking 3
action to the affected class of licensees.
T:.s is one of 4
the biggest ones around.
We mailed 47,000 copies of that 5
Federal Register notice to the general licensees who are 6
general licensees sunder 31.5 of the regulations that went 7
out on December 15th.
8 As of the end of March, we had not quite 9,000 of 9
those come back as undeliverable.
That is about a 20 10 percent return rate, and if I look more specifically at the 11 population of general licensees who would be subject to this 12 registration program, that is approximately 6,000 13 registrants, 816 or roughly 14 percent of those have 14 currently come back as undeliverable.
15 We established a process with the contractor who 16 currently manages the old mainframe database, the general 17 license database, to try and do some follow-up activities.
18 the first thing was to simply see whether we had the right 19 mailing address and thus far, and they have only started of 20 course the process of cranking through these, about a third 21 of those are simply corrections to the mailing address 22 accounting for those unreturns.
23 We have a process established where they will then 24 go look, search the Internet, search local Chambers of 25 Commerce, eventually try to make contact with vendors for i
f ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 j
{
i
f~
l
]
l i
S-9 1
whom we believe those devices are as additional steps to 2
follow up, and then eventually come to a point wh',re we i
l l
3 would put regional resource into following up on some of l
4 these if we have not been able to establish why those 5
particular licensees could not be contacted and as part of 6
the FY 1999 planning and budgeting process we have 7
reallocated some resource for the region out of my non-core 8
inspection program for late in this fiscal year if that need 9
arises in order to be able to cover that activity.
10 Moving then onto Rule 2, the rule which you have 11 before you, in a brief overview of that rule, there are some 12 clarifications in terms of the applicability of sections of 13 Part 30 to Part 31.
This is more or less housekeeping we l
14 are doing at the same time as going in and making some other i
15 amendments because over the course of time it was not clear l
16 that things like employee protection, providing complete and 17 accurate information, deliberate misconduct provisions of 18 Part 30 were applicable for this class of licensees, and so 19 there are some editorial adjustments to make that clear.
20 There are some additions and clarifications to all 21 of the-31.5 class of general licensees.
Those are the l
22 gauging, measuring most of the fixed tritium exit signs, by 23 far the largest class of gener il licensees that are in Part 24 31.
Then there are the specific provisions for those l
25 subcategories who would become registrants and we have taken ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 I
L_
S-10 1
this opportunity to make some additions and clarifications 2
in the requirements that apply to the vendors of these kinds 3
of devices.
4 Moving on to the next slide, looking a little more 5
at what we did for all of the 31.5 general licensees, first 6-is to place a requirement in there to have an appointment of 7
a responsible individual.
Previously there has been a point 8
of contact.
That unfortunately has in many cases been the 9
poor person down in the stockroom or ordering or purchasing 10 who ended up being the person who had to actually sign the 11 little slip in order for them to be able to buy it and had 12 no ongoing knowledge of or other activities associated with 13 where that went and how it came about.
14 This would now put in place the requirement for 15 the general licensee to specifically identify an individual 16 who would be responsible for this and would be able to 17 execute the responsibilities that the general licensee has 18 in terms of that device.
19 It adds some requirements for change of address 20 reporting.
As we already have seen, a good third of the 21 initial returns were simply because the post office box had 22 changed or something else like that, in order to try and 23 keep that updated.
24 We would add to the report trat gets made when 25 someone comes in and takes over the factory, buys the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
I S-11 1
factory, there is a change of ownership or other activities, 2
so that that gets updated, including having whom the new 3
responrible individual is if there is a change in those 4
sorts of activities.
Again, to try and make sure that there 5
is an ongoing line of accountability and knowledge as those 6
sorts of transactions happen, because again one of the 7
things we have observed over the course of time, someone 8
else comes in, someone else comes in, someone else comes in, t
9 over a 10 or 15 year period, the person who might have 10 originally known a long time ago -- long ago and far away --
l 11 moved on to something else and that chain of knowledge has l
12 been broken.
l 13 We would add to the report on the transfers of 14 specific licensees a requirement for the recipient's license 15 number, serial number, and the date of the transfer, This 16 is another piece of information which is just critical if we 17 are going to track each of the devices as they move through 18 the system so that we know if the general licensee sends it l
l 19 back to the vendor or to some other licensee that we know 20 where it went, which model it was, which serial number it l
21 was in order to be able to track those.
l 22 Then in addition to that we have added some i
23 restrictions on the time allowed in storage and the testing 24 that can be done while it is in storage.
This is in many 25 senses very similar to equivalent timeliness rule provisions I
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
)
i_
o S-12 l
1 which are in place for specific licensees.
2 One of the things we have seen happen is a 3
licensee will go through and do modifications of process 4
lines or otherwise they will put it over in the corner.
5 They will forget it is over in the corner.
At some future 6
time, maybe only a few months, maybe a few years later 7
somebody will go through and decide to clean up that corner 8
and bye-bye, the device is gone, and so this would restrict 9
the amount of time that those devices could sit there.
10 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD:
Chairman, may I ask a 11 clarifying question?
12 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Of course.
13 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD:
See, I go first that 14 way.
You don't have to worry about chipping in later.
15 What information are we requesting of the 16 licensee?
Would it be their name, their address and their 17' telephone number or are there any other identifying 18 information we are asking?
19 DR. COOL:
The general licensee who will become a 20 registrant, this rule will end up having them name, address, 21 model, serial numbers, isotopes, activities, responsible 22 individual, place of use.
23 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD:
Okay 24 DR. COOL:
I may have missed one or two but that 25 is the specific sorts of things that we would be looking at, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
l' S-13 1
and for which we would be tabbing and updating that each f
2 year.
I 3
COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD:
If I may make a 4
suggestion, having dealt with some of this before, because 5
we are having such difficulty tracking the people we have in 6
the past I don't know if you have given some consideration 7
asking they also provide the taxpayer identification number.
8 That may also provide a source of information that would 9
make it more easy for us to track them down in the future.
i l
10 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Since he started, I'll just ask 11 one question and I'll come back.
Has the Staff considered 12 bankruptcy reporting for all 31.5 general licensees as
(
13 suggested by the Steel Manufacturers Association?
14 DR. COOL:
We have.
This rule would apply it i
15 specifically to that category under the registrations, being 16 the ones that posed the greatest risk, the ones with the l
17 contamination levels if you did break it then that device l
18 would always post the highest levels.
l 19 One of the things which in fact wasn't in that i
20 slide is it does clarify that bankruptcy notification would 21 come in for a registrant.
l 22 COMMISSIONER DIAZ:
That includes purely cessation 23 of business, not necessarily financial bankruptcy -- if a 24 business closes for any reason?
25 DR. COOL:
John, let me make sure that you get it ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 1
S-14 1
right.
2 DR. LUBINSKI: -Actub]ly I believe it is specific 3
in the regulations in Part 30 and we are referencing the 4
Part 30 regulation, which applies to specific licensees, and 5
this is the filing of bankruptcy, either voluntarily or 6
involuntarily under Chapter 11, so that is all it applies 7
to.
8 DR. COOL:
So you could get the financial or the 9
reorganization.
10 COMMISSIONER DIAZ:
That's it.
I just wanted to 11 make sure that specifically we addressed the issue of 12 cessation lists might be more significant than bankr~ptcy.
13 That's interesting.
14 DR. COOL:
Moving on then to Slide Number 9, this 15 rule adds the specifics for the actual registration program.
16 The details for the registration, the criteria for the 17 devices to be registered.
This comes directly from the 18 recommendations of the NRC Agreement State working group, 1 19 millicurie of Cobalt, 10 millicuries of Cesium, a tenth of a 20 millicurie of Strontium or a millicurie of Americium.
21 The Cesium and the Americium account for 75 22 percent or so of the total number of devices that would be 23 captured, which is roughly 24,000 and approximately the same 24 percentage of the actual general licensees that are out 25 there, a population that would be covered by this l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 L
i s-15 1
approximately 6,000 general licensees today and contains the 1
specifics of the information that would be required upon 3
registration, which were the things that I just suggested to 4
Commissioner Merrifield.
5 It would also add specifics associated with the 6
registration fee and we'll get to the fee issue in just a l
7 moment.
8 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Madam Chairman?
9 CHAIRMAN JACKSCN:
Please.
10 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
There is currently under 11 study by the Staff the possibility I believe with a couple 12 of Agreement States of adding about 1100 additional 13 licensees if we -- to this category of folks that are going 14 to be registered.
It involves certain portable moisture 15 density gauges, et cetera.
16 Where does that stand?
When is that -- how are 17 the two going to come together?
18 DR. COOL:
The Commission's direction to us, 19 because we had been looking at a specific application, was l
20 to get together with the states and to do that within the 21 context of the risk review study, which the Staff had also l
22 had done.
The Staff plans to have that available in June i
23 and to be entering that specific discussion with the states.
l f
24 I know Roland plans to address it and I don't want to l
25 specifically touch his -- I know there is great concern ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
I S-16 1
about portable gauges being registered.
While safety is 2
built _nto these devices for the most part, they wander 3
around a lot more because they are portable, which 4
immediately ups that probability of them getting somewhere 5
where you didn't really want them to be.
It's a lot more 6
likely than if you bolt them to the steel I-beams somewhere, 7
and so there will be a number of discussions this summer on i
j 8
that particular topic.
9 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Is it with all Agreement 10 StateE or two particular Agreement States that I understood 11 the discussion was likely to occur?
12 DR. COOL:
We will have specific discussions with i
13 some of the states, and some of the others in particular.
I l
14 fully expect before this gets done that it will have gotten i
15 vetted through the Organization of Agreement States.
16 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Okay.
17 Slide 10.
The revisions for the vendors.
There 18 are some revisions to the quarterly material transfer l
l 19 reports.
These reports are already required, there's 20 updates and add some specificity to those to be more 21 specific in terms of model number, serial numbers.
The i
l 22 information on devices returned.
I 23 Another one of those things that happens that you 24 don't necessarily get a good handle on is a GL will send it 1
25 back and ask for a replacement.
So we are asking that the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
f 1
S-17 1
vendors update those which they get back and replace with a i
2 different device, simply so that, again, we can track each 3
of the devices by serial number through the different change 4
in pathways.
5 From the vendors, the name and the phone number of l
6 the responsible individual that has been identified by the 7
general licensee.
That will actually be the first place 8
that we will hear about that information when we get that 9
quarterly report.
10 The address specified is the mailing address for 11 the location of use.
And this got to be a rather 12 interesting little thing because you can envision a couple 13 of scenarios that wouldn't be particularly helpful to us.
14 One being a corporate office which might be here in 15 Rockville, Maryland.
The actual place of use might be over l
16 in Tyson's Corner, Virginia.
W/11, it doesn't help me very 17 much to go to Rockville, Maryland.
I can't see the device l
18 or inspect it if I want to.
Furthermore, Maryland -- that l
19 Maryland address would have led us to believe that it was l
20 agreement state general licensee, when, in fact, it was l
21 within our jurisdiction.
So the address is specified as to l
22 location of use.
I 23 The other thing this helps us deal with is i
24 locations would end up being general licensees.
So if you 25 are a large corporation with many, many sites, each of those ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, L'ID.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
S-18 1
sites would effectively be a registration sheet with the 2
five, ten, however many devices you had there, and I would 1
3 have a separate sheet for the other one that you had in 4
Richmond and the other one that you had over -- wherever it 5
might be, so that we knew where those devices were.
6 We would add to the labeling requirements as 7
suggested by that working group.
More durable permanent 8
labels associated with these particular devices, and some 9
separate labeling associated with sort housings or other 10 things if it became disassociated with the overall device, 11 so that in the event that they do get separated and we are 12 trying to track back, there is a higher probability of being 13 able to identify and track it back to its originally 14 intended location.
15 Some revisions to the vendor reporting 16 requirements and the vendor record keeping.
How long the 17 records have to be kept, moved up to several years past the 18 expected life or the known disposition of the device and 19 some provisions, so that if a vendor goes out of business, 20 there is still some provision that those records stay around 21 so that somebody else can get to that information on an 22 ongoing basis.
23 And revises the timing and the content of the 24 information to be provided to the customers.
In particular 25 here, that information has to be to that customer prior to l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
a S-19 1
Theodore receipt of the device, rather than showing up sort 2
of in the packing materials, which we all, of course, read 3
all of the packing materials and instructions and the 4
details and all those other things that come up with every 5
little piece of appliance and things that we always get, and l
l 6
we always go through those in great detail.
It is a little 7
bit late after that to discover that you have got some 8
obligations.
9 So this would make it a requirement for that 10 information to be transmitted prior to the time, and would 11 include applicable regulations which contain the 12 requirements, the services that can only be conducted by a 13 specific licensee such as servicing, change-outs, i
14
,Information with regards to potential disposal options that 15 would be available to the general licensee, and the 16 regulatory point of contact, whether that be us or if it is 17 being distributed to someone in agreement state, the 18 appropriate agreement state regulatory point of contact.
19 Slide number 11.
The resources to implement this 20 program.
And I think maybe one of the most important points 21 here is that these resources go well beyond what you might 22 look at in terms of a typical regulatory analysis for this 23 nile, because in f act these resources are the resources 24 necessary for us to execute this entire program.
And a good 25 part of it is implementing that which already exists in the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
S-20 1
regulations.
Licensees, general licensees have already been 2
required to keep account of their devices, to provide 3
certain reports to us.
That hasn't always occurred.
So 4
this adds to it, the actual administration of the 5
registration program, updating the database, sending out the 6
. registration sheet for them to check off this is an 7
agreement, make the corrections, come back and then the 8
follow-up activities that would be associated with that.
9 There are significant costs early in the program 10 to do the follow-up anf much of the cost that we have here 11 is driven by the assumption that we are going to have to do 12 fairly significant follow-up in the first couple of years of 13 this program to sort out why there are inconsistencies, why 14 there are discrepancies, and where those devices are.
15 COMMISSIONER DIAZ:
Excuse me.
Do you have a
'16 ballpark figure about what the extra cost to the licensees l
l 17 is going to be?
Is it 10 percent more, 20 percent more, l
t 18 what they normally -- what they have been doing?
19 DR. COOL:
For the licensees themselves, and I 20 will make the assumption it is a licensee who has been 21 complying with the existing 31.5, it is a relatively small 22 amount.
They will need to identify a responsible individual 23 and tell me that.
They will need to respond to my request 24 and check those off, and they will need to send me in the 25 fee.
And that is really about all there is, because l
l ANN RILEi' & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
S-21 1
virtually everything else, they should have been doing 2
already.
3 COMMISSIONER DIAZ:
So that is minor.
[
4 DR. COOL:
It is relatively minor.
1
)
5 COMMISSIONER DIAZ:
The only real problem are the l
6 ones that have not been complying.
7 DR. COOL:
For those who have not been complying, 8
the story will not be the same.
9 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Are there presently budgeted 10 program areas that will be significantly affected by the 11 enhanced program for generally licensed device licensees?
12 DR. COOL:
This program is within the budget 13 proposal that we are sending forward for FY 2000-2001 and 14 the following years.
I have it all covered under the 15 planning, budgeting process that we have been going through.
16 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
So it won't have any negative 17 impact on the other areas?
18 DR. COOL:
That's correct.
19 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Okay.
20 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Madame Chairman.
21 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Yes, please.
22 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
On the fee issue, not 23 for the general licensees who are going to go into the 24 registration program, but this year, FY '99, as I understand 25 it from the paper, the costs are 8.6 FTE and $910,000.
How ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters j'
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
S-22 1
did we, in the fee rule that is out for comment at the 2
moment -- since there is no registration program, we are not i
3 getting any money at the moment.
How is that money handled?
J 4
Was there a category of licensees who -- the vendors, or i
5 whatever, who had a significant increase in their annual 6
fees as a result of us starting this program?
7 DR. COOL:
I will start, but I think I am going to 8
try and turn to Mr. Turdici to perhaps provide you a little 9
more.
We are in fact eating that out of the smeared i
1 10 surcharge that gets charged across to all licensees.
j 1
11 MR. TURDICI:
All material licensees, that is 12 correct.
13 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
So it is all material 14 licensees.
15 MR. TURDICI:
Share in that cost, that is correct.
16 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
And what was the per 17 licensee cost that -- if I could add it up, it is about two 18 million bucks, so it is a few dollars per licensee, or $10 19 or $20?
20 MR. TURDICI:
I could look and see if we can come 21 up with that number while we continue rather than holding it 22 up right now.
I don't know it right off --
23 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Why don't we let him do that?
24 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Okay.
25 DR. COOL:
The last item that I wanted to mention, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
S-23 1
the costs of the program, we would expect to decline.
Quite i
l 2
frankly, our performance goal and, in fact, the metrics that l
l 3
we are setting up, success in great measure can be tracked j
4 by whether or not you see a consistent trend downward in the 5
number of disconnects that you have each year.
And so that I
6 is one of the performance goals and metrics that we have 7
established for ourself.
And as we get some years down the 8
road and that settles down, we will look very hard at what l
9 we are actually expending and have that translate to the l
l 10 appropriate fee.
l 11 COMMISSIONER DIAZ:
I notice that in the paper you 12 were exploring, I think is the word, whether you could 13 contract with agreement states to do some of the follow-on 14 work.
Had you progressed from that exploration?
Is there 15 anything you can tell us of how this is going to be done 16 regarding agreement states?
x 17 DR. COOL:
We are at this point still in l
18 exploration.
We have been looking at the formalized 19 arrangement which would end up being modifications to the 20 agreements under 274.
That has got enough red tape in it to 21.
gag almost anything.
22 It ould be wonderful if I had 50 or 60 Jim 23 Tedescos around.who were doing things on their own and with 24 whom.
With informal activities we could do a bunch of l
25 things.
Unfortunately, I know of only one of those, unless ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 I
I
S-24 1
Joe was hiding some of the --
2 COMMISSIONER DIAZ:
But we are discussing your j
3 abilities that you could actually --
4 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Madame Chairman, I have j
5 one more question, something that Don said.
6 You said this is really the cost for the whole 7
program.
And looking at your costs, they do decline.
But 8
is this really the whole program?
There is also this 9
program you are working with tt states on, the CRCPD and 10 the E-34 Committee for how to d
- with sources once they do 11 turn up, on a national basis, our share, the states' share, 12 DOE's share, et cetera.
And I guess EPA is funding that in 13 the initial years.
14 Is this the whole program, or is this the whole 15 program minus whatever decision is made on that program?
16 DR. COOL:
Let's see, unfortunately, I am not sure 17 which version of whole program.
When I meant whole program, 18 I mean my process of touching a general licensee, making 19 sure they are in the database and following up with them.
20 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Not the other program.
21 DR. COOL:
It does not include the activities that 22 we might pursue with CRCPD or other groups to deal with the 23 actual orphan source, nor does it deal with my routine 24 program for responding to events, event tracking, the 25 activities that we do in terms of interacting with DOE for ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
S-25 1-pickups when sources are found in the public domain and 2
those others pieces.
3 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Mr. Turdici, do you have any 4
intelligence for us at this stage?
5 MR. TURDICI:
Depending on how it was budgeted, it 6
depends on how we split the dollars among the specific 7
licensees.
For example, we take a portion out for agreement 8
states.
That then goes into our surcharge.
At maximum, it 9
would be probably no more than $400.
10 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Per licensee?
11 MR. TURDICI:
Per licensee.
Because we have about 12 6,000 licensees.
Now, that is at the high side.
I would 13 have to go back specifically to see how we budgeted, how 14 much was distributed back to the surcharge category, and how 15 that was split out.
Assuming zero dollars there, taking $2 16 million approximately and backing it into 6,000 licensees, 17 we get approximately 4,000, at the high side.
I would guess 18 it is --
19 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
$4,000 or $400?
20 MR. TURDICI:
I am sorry, $400.
Six thousand 21 licensees, $400 at the high side.
22 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
But how many of those 23 licensees -- I mean we are going to get into the fee roll, 24 so we could probably just quit at some point.
But how many 25 of those get small business exceptions?
Quite a few them, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 l
S-26 1
don't they?
That they are capped by -- we try to reduce 2
fees.
3 MR. TURDICI:
That is correct.
There is 4
approximately $5 million, I think this year in the fee roll 5
it is even a little higher, that we supplement because of 6
those small licensees.
7 Do we know offhand approximately how many?
Twelve 8
hundred of the 6,000.
9 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
- Okay, 10 MR. TURDICI:
I can get specific information and l
11 feed that back to you on how we handle it in this fee roll.
i 12 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
I have opened up a can 13 of worms, I will back off.
14 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Okay.
Thanks very much.
15 DR. COOL:
Moving on then to slide number 12 and 16 the fee options.
Last year you asked us specifically to 17 look at the options for how to assess the fee.
We looked at 18 four fundamental different activities:
A flat fee per 19 licensee; a fee per device.
Some sort of sliding scale, if 20 you had 1 to 15, 16 to 50, or more than 50.
We are trying 21 to actually do a breakout of the actual costs that were 22 expended to each licensee.
23 We looked at those options, trying to keep in mind 24 several key activities and things, working very closely with 25 Mr. Turdici's folks in the CFO's office, those being trying ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 i
3 S-27 1
to recover the costs for providing the service.
A,d when 2
you look at the kinds of activities that I will be doing and 3
how that relates, most of that in fact relates to a general 4
licensee.
I will send them out a registration.
5 The difference between sending out a sheet which 6
has one or two devices and 50 devices is a few lines, as the 7
computer spits out the package.
Likewise, a follow-up.
8 Once they have identified, I am following up with them 9
whether it is one on the list that was out of sync or 10 whether it is three, four, five of them that are out of 11 sync.
So a lot of the activities to be conducted translated 12 to a pro licensee type of activity rather than translated to 13 individual devices.
14 We were trying to use, to keep it a simple 15 process, trying to keep it as simple and straightforward and 16 the CFO's office was very concerned about trying to be s
17 consistent with the existing policies that they had laid 18 before you.
The net result of those considerations was the 19 proposal that we have in the SECY paper for you of a flat 20 fee per licensee rather than trying to move to something 21 which would be a sliding scale or per device, or an actual 22 cost per licensee.
23 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD:
Chairman.
24 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Please.
25 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELDs It was not clear to me, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 l
S-2'8 1
if you have an individual that goes and purchases a new 2
device that will be subject to this registration 3
requirement, at what point would they have to pay a fee?
Is 4
there an overlap?
I mean I don't understand when they would 5
pay their fee.
6 DR. LUBINSKI:
The way the fee is structured at 7
this point it would be submitted with the application for 8
registration.
Currently, we are going to impose that by 9
having NRC send out the request for registration.
If 10 someone is a brand new licensee, has not received any 11 devices, that would be, quote, their anniversary date, if 12 you will.
We would send them out a registration form at 13 that time requesting them to register.
We get their name 14 and information from the vendor to do that.
That l's the 15 first time they would pay the fee.
And then annually we
~
16 would ask them to re-register.
17 However, if they are an existing licensee, an
'8 existing general licensee that has gauges, and they receive 19 an additional gauge at that point in the process, they would 20 not have to register that gauge with us until their current 21 anniversary date, that is the next time that the 22 registration occurs, and they will pay a fee at that time.
23 So what we are doing is calling it an application 24 fee, but because the registrations will go out on an annual 25 basis, it has the same effect as an annual fee for the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
S-29 1
general licensees.
The reason we did that is we did not 2
want to have someone who is receiving devices during the 3
year, additional devices, be subject to two or three times 4
the fee of someone else just because of timing.
5 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
You had another question?
6 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD:
I have a comment, but I 7
am going to hold that for later.
8 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Okay.
9 DR. COOL:
Okay.
Moving in then to slide number 10 13.
The staff requested last fall the Commission's 11 permission to do this rulemaking activity with early public 12 input.
The Commission agreed to that.
So the Federal 13 Register notice on this staff draft was sent out at the end 14 of December.
It made people aware that a staff draft of 15 this rule was available on our web site.
16 Now, a number of people have taken a look at it, 17 although not a whole lot of folks actually chose to upload 18 comments via that web site.
We have also gone through two 19 rounds of interactions with the agreement states.
An early 20 version of this last fall was provided only to the agreement 21 states, and specific discussion during the agreement state 22 meeting in Bedford back in October, and then all of those 23 folks again participating in and looking at the open 24 discussions, and a specific request for the agreement states 25 to comment during the December, January, February type of ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington,.D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
S-30 1
timeframe.
2 There were some contacts to the steel industry to 3
try and make sure that they were aware that this was up.
4 There was also a note of that in the Federal Register notice j
5 on Rule 1 which we discussed earlier, so that they were l
6 aware that this would be available, and a specific letter to 1
l 7
the vendors, not necessarily a licensee, to make sure that 8
they were aware, because it contained requirements that were 9
changing for them.
So we have done a number of those l
10 things.
11 COMMISSIONER DICUS:
Madame Chairman.
l 12 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Please.
13 COMMISSIONER DICUS:
In addition, of course, to 14 the steel industry and the vendors, as well as the states, 15 what about companies that specialize in the demolition of 16 buildings and plants?
Has there been any contact with them?
17 DR. LUBINSKI:
We have early in the process had 18 contact with the National Association of Demolition 19 Contractors on this rulemaking and moving forward.
They 20 have been on routine mailing lists on information.
In this 21 case they did not receive any specific phone calls for 22 comments on this rulemaking package.
However, they were in 23 the past involved, even as far back as the working group in 24 1995, kind of the link.
25 COMMISSIONER DICUS:
What about the scrap ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
S-31 1
recycling industry?
2 DR. LUBINSKI:
The scrap recycling industry has 3
also been involved.
ISRI, the Institute of Scrap Recycling 4
Industries are also on the mailing list.
And with respect 5
to this actual rulemaking, I can not say whether or not they 6
were actually co"tacted.
I believe they were, but I can not 7
verify that.
8 DR. COOL:
Slide 14.
We talk about agreement 9
state compatibility.
Key to having a consistent national 10 program is for our folks in the agreement states' to also be 11 moving in this direction.
And here you will find some 12 differences in views.
The regulated community has supported l
13 a number of different forums.
A relatively strict kind of 14 compatibility in order to try and facilitate commerce, have l
15 a consistent playing field, particularly vendors and other 16 folks, and a lot of the steel manufacturers.
Consistent i
17 approach no matter where you are within the country.
18 The proposal that is before you has two 19 categories, that being first for the distributors, which 20 would be a category B, elements essentially identical, so j
21 that all the vendors were providing similar sets of 22 information, whether they were a vendor which was located in 23 an NRC state or a vendor which was located in an agreement 24 state, so that the database would be consistently fed with 25 that kind of information.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
)
S-32 j
1 For the states themselves, for their requirements 2
on general licensees, category 3, which is the essential 3
objectives of the rule, essential objectives.
Getting 4
contact, maintaining accountability, having a responsible 5
individual identified.
But the exact approach that would be 6
taken by the agreement state could vary.
There are a number 7
of states out there who are already doing something, they 8
are ahead of us in this particular game.
Oregon, North Carolina, for example, have registration or 10 registration like programs.
11 Presuming those had the accountability and touch 12 sorts of things built in as part of the -- those, we would l
13 view as being compatible here.
Likewise, if a state was 14 doing this by a specific license, as we believe the state of 15 New York is actually issuing a specific license and 16 re-upping that each year.
17 Again, the underlying objective of contact and 18 accountabilit;" being achieved, consistent with compatibility 19 level C.
We have tried to do this in such a way that those 20 states that are out in front of us and doing the job don't 21 have to go in and make substantial changes to their program 22 just because NRC has finally gotten itself together and is 23 moving forward in that arena.
24 There is one particular area where this package 25 would specifically request comments, and that is with ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
1 1
S-33 1
regards to some early implementation of the vendor reporting 2
more quickly than the standard three years, which the 3
agreement states are allowed to become compatible, so that 4
we very rapidly get consistent vendor reporting information 5
out of that.
And that is the specific question that the 6
package asks.
7 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Please.
8 COMMISSIONER DIAZ:
I was just going to ask, if 9
those states that are really not away ahead of us, how do we 10 plan to assist them in getting up to par?
Do we have a 11 program that looks at what agreement states wi31 require to 12 become, you know, compatible?
13 DR. COOL:
We have done a lot of talking with them 14 and in a moment or two, I am going to talk about some of the 15 other pieces of the program.
That was a consideration and 16 part of the things that we were looking at as we were 17 developing our IT solution.
Can we build a system which, 18 when they see it running, they will say, I would like to buy 19 this?
The details of how they might go about doing that, 20 and exactly to what extent the NRC would provide that to the 21 state, you know, provide assistance to them to modify it for 22 their particular provisions and otherwise, is still being 23 worked out.
There are some precedents in terms of us 24 providing assistance with the Internet to the events 25 database, and some of those sorts of things.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
S-34 1
The part that is going to be more difficult is the 2
same problem that we have talked about a number of times, 3
which is the initial follow-up of the activities.
And 4
there, short of us moving into an agreement state to 5
follow-up on their activities, which I don't think would be 6
too well received, that is going to be some resource that 7
the state is going to have to find a way to deal with just 8
as we have.
9 COMMISSIONER DIAZ:
Okay.
But if that become a 10 very resource intensive issue, maybe the Commission should 11 know.
12 DR. COOL:
Certainly.
13 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
I think Commissioner --
14 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD:
Commissioner Dicus can 15 go first.
16 COMMISSIONER DICUS:
Looking at what the state is 17 doing with regard to their agreement state to their 18 registration program, would that be part of the impact 19 review?
Is that intended?
l 20 DR. COOL:
Quite frankly, we haven't gotten down 21 to that level yet.
22 COMMISSIONER DICUS:
Okay.
23 DR. COOL:
It certainly could be at some point we 24 try to look at the common elements.
We might at sor' point 27 be coming to the Commission with a revision to that ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NF, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
F
]
i S-35 1
management directive which could add some criteria.
We have 2
not yet at this point tried to draft up such an apprcach, l
l 3
this being only a proposed rule at this time.
4 COMMISSIONER DICUS:
Okay.
l l
5 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD:
Was there in your IT l
l 6
analysis, was there some consideration given to trying to l
l 7
have an electronic database that is equally useful across 8
the country?
I mean it would seem to me that if you have a 9
lost source that you find in a steel mill, you go to the NRC 10 and you look at our database, then you are confronted with 11 individual databases around the country.
I mean if we don't 12 merge that system together very well in an electronic 13 format, it is going to be very non-user-friendly.
14 DR. COOL:
To say the least.
15 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Well, in fact, hasn't the 16 American Iron and Steel Institute even recommended 17 electronic reporting, and so it is kind of -- and then we 18 have ATOM's implementation.
So there is kind of a 19 motivation to go in the direction that Commissioner 20 Merrifield is talking about.
21 DR. COOL:
There is.
Part of the systems 22-requirements that we were looking at was to try and have a 23 system that was easily scalable so that I could go to that 1
24 level and those number of inputs, if we had the interest and 25 ability to move that.
They are trying to have a system i
I ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
S-36 1
which would be sufficiently user-friendly and comfortable 2
that they would. ant to buy into the process, because that 3
would be important.
4 It has provisions for electronic access, although 5
that is not built into this system, that being pacing with 6
the agency's other activities in terms of electronic 7
transmittal and submissions of information that will come 8
along with the ATOM's part.
So I haven't tried to build 9
that into the s;. tem, but the system requirements included 10 provisions for those kind of interfaces to be available and 11 ready.
12 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD:
Just to provide prior 13 advertising, I would be interested in getting the states' 14 view on that issue as well, because the coordination between 15 the agreement states and between us is very vital, I think, 16 to make that work.
17 DR. COOL:
Did you want to add something?
18 DR. LUBINSKI:
If I can add to that.
In the 19 comments, as you are saying, from the agreement states, and 20 their views on that, a couple of issues that do come up that 21 would be very much hurdles in the national database of 22 generally licensed devices is, number one, to actually do 23 that in an. effective manner, you would have to change the 24 compatibility requirement of this general license rule to a 25 compatibility B, which now means that you would have to go ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 1
S-37 l
1 to some of the states that currently have registration
{
2 programs and require them to make changes to their program.
l 3
You would also restrict -- one example Don gave 4
was allowing states to issue specific license, rather than 5
general license registrations in this area.
That would 6
restrict that type of program and would require the states 7
to implement general license registration programs.
So that 8
is one of the concerns that the states would need to 9
discuss.
10 The second would be --
11 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD:
If I can stop you here 12 for a second.
i 13 DR. LUBINSKI:
Sure.
14 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD:
I appreciate that.
I 15 mean my concern is here, we are at a steel mill, or we are 16 at a facility.
We have found a device, it is now lost -- or i
17 is now found.
We don't know who the rightful owner is.
And 18 it is a question of, you know, how do we come up with a 19 system that works right?
And what I am getting here is we 20 can go to the NRC, and if it is a non-agreement state and it 21 falls within that category, we can get it.
But, otherwise, 22 we are going to have to go state by state by state, and that 23 seems cumbersome.
24 DR. LUBINSKI:
I agree with your statement.
And I 25 guess what I was trying to only provide is not any arguments i
l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
l Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
4 5
S-38 1
against your statements, but more in talking with the states 2
and getting feedback, just some issues that we are go" 7 to 3
need to be aware of.
Because if we do decide to go to what, 4
this is one issue.
5 The second is confidentiality of information.
6 Much of the information is submitted -- or all the 7
information currently is submitted by vendors of the 8
devices, and they have requested-because this is their 9
customer list, to keep this proprietary.
N the question 10 is, when you have one national database, ci... we keep 11 agreement state information proprietary, or withhold that 12 information from public disclosure?
And vice versa, can the 13 states withhold ours from public disclosure since they have 14 access to the system?
Again, not that there is an argument against a Tr.'lonal database at this point, just these are 15 c
16 some hurdles that wo11d need to be overcome in achieving 17 that objective.
18 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Yes, but presumably, you know, 19 that is true w.#.th automobile registration, I mean, and, you 20 know, you are able to track them down.
So it just strikes 21 me that this is a resolvable issue.
It just -- it is going 22 to require some little thought put to it.
It doesn't make 23 sense otherwise.
24 You, yourself, Dr. Cool, talked about having a 25 licensee whose headquarters is in one place and the use of ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters l
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 1
o
r S-39 1
the device or devices is somewhere else, and it could be a 2
different state.
And it may not even be contiguous states.
3 And so one has to really have an ability to track these 4
around.
So I don't see that one can get away from the issue 5
of some national database.
And so I think these issues are 6
going to have to be addressed.
7 Commissioner McGaffigan, did you have a comment?
l 1
8 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
No.
9 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Please.
10 DR. COOL:
Moving on then, slide 15.
As I 11 mentioned at the beginning of the discussion, there are a l
12 series of related activities in order for my folks to be i
13 ready to run this program.
Part of the package actually 14 submitted with the SECY paper included the draft standard 15 format and content guidance document on NUREG-1556, Volume 16 16, to help deal with these issues.
17 We have also been working on the inspection i
i i
18 guidance instructions that would be necessary for our 19 inspectors to do the follow-up activity, how to go about 20 conducting that, and that will be ready in time to do the 21.
follow-up activities this summer, if necessary.
22 The Commission aas already had an opportunity to l
23 examine how the proposal with the interim enforcement 24 policy, and that was in fact published a little over a month 25 ago.
And we have already spent a few minutes talking about ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
f~
\\.
j S-40 1
the IT upgrades.
We are carefully pursuing through the 2
system development life cycle methodology with the chief 3
information officer.
The staf; is in fac in receipt as of 4
yesterday of the contractor's formal proposal.
5 We have a date with the IT Business Council on I i
6 believe it is May 5th.
And with their approval and with the t
l 7
EC's approval, we will go into the actual building mode of i
8 that process.
We have completed the SEPIC analysis and that 9
is what we will be briefing the IT Business Council on in 10 just about two weeks.
So we are moving along on a pace and 11 right on the ochedule which we had provided in a memorandum 12 in January listing out the significant milestone dates in 13 terms of the development of the system.
And that system 14 really is the pacing item for when I can actually send out 15 the first wave of these cards, which would be by June of 16 next year, that system completely on line, uploaded.
The 17 information from the existing general license database 18 transferred over and actually sending out the actions.
19 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Madame Chairman.
20 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Please.
21 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Can I ask on that, did 22 we end up finding something that was cheap, commercial, off 23 the shelves, something some other federal agency with a 24 registration program already was using, or whatever?
25 Because some of the numbers you shared with us earlier in ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 j
Washington, D.C.
20036 l
(202) 842-0034 t--
S-41 1
the year were sort of astounding for something that you 2
would think some of the programs we all get with our -- when 3
we buy a computer, again, we all get a database program and 4
it costs nothing.
Maybe it is worth nothing, but they are 5
widely used by small businesses.
And you guys were using 6
numbers several orders of magnitude higher, so.
7 DR. COOL:
The analysis -- and I am going to be a 8
little bit circumspect here because we haven't gone through 9
the Business Council and things.
10 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Right.
You are in 11 procurement mode, right.
12 DR. COOL:
We looked at a range of options from 13 staying on the existing old mainframe system to a series of 14 things constructed with the same underlying SI base, 15 power-builder sorts of things which underlie the rest of 16 this agency's IT infrastructure, to a number of Access based 17 systems, the typical databases, and had that ranked against 18 a whole series of pros and cons in terms of usability, 19 expandability, and a variety of things like that.
20 The answer is there is no cheap one in the sense 21 that I am going to be able to walk down to CompUSA and buy 22 it for $39.95 a package.
What I can tell you is that this l
l 23 analysis comes out and tells me that vis-a-vis staying on 24 the old system and trying to keep that running, I will 25 recoup the entire cost of the system in year one.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
4 S-42 1
CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Let me just say this, 2
Commissioner, I think it would be appropriate to follow-up 3
your questions, in fact, with the CIO, because he mentioned 4
that it hasn't gone through the Business Council.
And part 5
of the examination through the Business Council and by the 6
CIO office, in terms of the whole process for procurement of 7
this kind of a system, requires, in fact, addressing the 8
questions that you have brought up.
9 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
The reason I am raising 10 the question, I didn't pile on when Commissioner Merrifie10 11 was raising it, but for a state, an agreement state that it 12 going to be trying to do something similar, my suspicion is 13 that they are not going to be able to afford what we are 14 going to afford, even if it pays itself back as quickly as 15 you say.
I mean they are going to try to find that $39.95 16 thing at CompUSA.
So in thinking about this, you know, 17 within the bounds of federal procurement confidentiali y or 18 whatever, you may want to talk to some of the states about 19 what they are experiencing.
20 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
No, but I am saying that the 21 way this happens in this agency is he has his proposal.
22 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Right.
23 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
He has his user requirements in 24 terms of what the system has to be able to do.
And, in 25 fact, it is the responsibility of the CIO, under the CIO ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 4
Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 i
S-43 1
Act, to look for where the opportunity exists for 2
commercial, off-the-shelf software, and where it can be used 3
and to accommodate what we need.
And so that is actually --
4 I mean rather than --
5 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Right.
I understand.
6 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
He lays out what the 7
requirements have to be in order to do the job.
Under the 8
regulations, the CIO has to do the job of getting it in the l
9 most optimized way possible.
And I think the issues you 10 raise are valid in terms of compatibility and affordability 11 by the states.
And I think that has to be folded into the 12 CIO's considerations.
But I don't think we are going to be 13 able to go any further on it with Dr. Cool at this point.
14 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
My concern only -- what 15 I have discovered I think in the time I have been here is 16 that it is real hard for us to use commercial, off-the-shelf 17 technology because of all the other constraints that come in 18 from the ITC system itself.
19 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
We should then have the CIO, 20 Mr. Gallante, come and sit at the table if we are going to 21 pursue that, because I don't think we can get to it with Dr.
22 Cool this morning.
23 DR. COOL:
Let me put one final note on that, if 24 you would allow me.
Part of our --
'25 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
You had better quit while you l
l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 1
l l
4 f
S-44 1
are ahead.
2
[ Laughter.)
3 DR. COOL:
Part of our process in fact 4
specifically looked at a number of things the states were 5
doing both in the byproducts material arena and some of the 6
things they were doing on the X-ray registration side, as 7
part of the CIO's requirements to go look at what was 8
available.
9 Slide 16 then, and to wrap this up just very 10 quickly.
We have in front of you the rule which I believe 11 would substantially improve our ability to tracx this class 12 of folks, to understand where they are, to increase their 13 accountability.
We have looked hard at the costs to try and 14 minimize the burden that is associated with that, to try and 15 develop the IT infrastructure necessary to be efficient in 16 that process as we execute the program.
The package that we 17 have in front of you makes the recommendation that the 18 proposed rule be approved for public comment.
This would 19 formally put it in the Administrative Procedure Act Public 20 Comment process and continued interactions with the states.
21 And that completes my presentation.
22 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Do any Commissioners have any 23 further questions or comments?
Commissioner Merrifield?
I 24 am going to go that way -- just go down the table here.
25 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD:
Currently there are ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
f S-45 1
requirements, a variety of requirements for holders of 2
general licenses.
These requirements are specified in Part 3
31 and include among other things accountability and proper 4
disposal procedures.
5 Does the NRC have authority to enforce these j
6 actions, and given the fact we do not inspect licensees or 7
general license devices, have we ever conducted enforcement I
8 actions against these licensees and why or why not?
9 DR. COOL:
The answer is yes and yes.
I do have 10 the ability to do --
11 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD:
Please explain.
12
[ Laughter.]
13 DR. COOL:
I do have the ability to go in and do 14 inspections.
Those have been pretty much done as a reaction 15 to an event or other activity.
I can cite a case we had 16 just in the last -- a little over a year ago which involved 17 an Americium source that showed up shredded in some 18 non-ferrous auto fluff, and we were in fact able with the 19 assistance of DOE and the Los Alamos laboratory get a serial 20 number off of that source.
We were able to backtrack it to 21 the general licensee who was supposed to have it.
These 22 were one of these folks who had taken them off the line, 23 stuck them in a corner, and we in fact pursued enforcement i
24 action with them.
l 25 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD:
All right.
The second ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 L
S-46 1
question I have is really going back to the fee issue we 2
discussed earlier, j
I 3
In Attachment 2 onto the paper that we were given t
4 it talked about the issue of sliding scales, of fees, and 5
there was a very brief sentence on that, which concluded by 6
saying the determination of -- I'm sorry -- the Commission 7
has previously rejected the approach of using sliding fees 8
and establishing fees and sort of close it off there.
9 It strikes me that one of the reasons we are in --
10 we are undergoing a process to try to identify this because 11 we have got a problem because these sources are lost.
As a 12 matter of old-fashioned common sense, it seems to me that if 13 you have an individual who has one device and you have an 14 individual that has 50 devices or 100 devices, there is a 15 greater likelihood that the person who has got 50 is more 16 likely to lose one, so there's some innate logic, it seems 17 to me, of having a higher fee for someone that has a lot of 18 devices versus someone that has one.
19 I am wondering in your ar.11ysis did you merely 20 make the conclusion, well, the Commission has rejected this 21 before and we don't really need to worry about it, or did 22 you really go through the thought process to determine 23 whether or not a sliding fee would be appropriate?
24 DR. COOL:
Well, I believe we went through an 25 analysis process, and I am going to turn to Jim in just a ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
I S-47
)
1 moment to talk about the CFO side of this.
2 In the end I think we came back to the issues 3
associated with what was it costing me to follow up with 4
their activities.
5 We did not try to go into a detailed what is the 6
probability of a person who has one.
He's probably going to 7
pay attention because he's only got one.
That curve 8
probably actually isn't a straight downward slope or 9
otherwise you'd get to a few and he's probably going to pay 10 less attention.
By the time he's got 50 or more, he may 11 have a big enough program that he's in fact starting to pay 12 attention again, because he's got enough of those and they 13 have become more important to the business and his quality 14 control aspect, so-I am not quite sure that I am in fact 15 able to quantify in any sort of serious way a31 of those 16 influences back through, so I ended up coming back to 17 looking at the issues of what was it costing me to do this 18 work and how did that translate into my actions to the 19 individuals which brought me back to the licensee --
20 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD:
Let me put on my old 21 hat.
I remember having testimony up on Capitol Hill.
You 22 always get the small business folks from NFIB come in, who 23 would say, gee, you know, you are treating me -- little 24 small guy -- I got three employees -- the same as you are 25 treating a big Fortune 500 company that's got 10,000 l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
I
~
S-48 j
1 employees and that is unfair.
I have only got one device 2
He's got 100 and you are charging me the same as you are 3
charging him.
(
4 I don't know if you have gotten those responses 5
yet.
I would imagine we may.
l 6
DR. COOL:
We may, and at this point --
7 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Jim, do you have any comments l
8 you may wish to make?
l l
9 MR. TURDICI:
Only that part of our logic was that 10 we were following the same logic that we do for specific 11 licensees today.
The specific licensees today, whether they 12 have one device or 10 devices, they are paying one annual 13 fee.
This is a registration fee as opposed to an annual j
14 fee, but we followed that same logic.
15 We have been generally going toward -- and by the l
16 way, that annual fee includes any inspections that we may I
17 have.
Recently in fact we have also included any amendment 18 fees, so we are trying, we were trying as much as possible 19 to make it as simple a process as possible and not burden 20 the licensee.
21 Another approach would have been to separate and 22 have a separate license fee strictly for registration and 23 then any inspections that were performed, we can do it per 24 the cost like we do for reactors, as an example.
25 That is another approach that can be taken that ANN RILEY & AS: JIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
i S-49 1
gets to your point of burdening.
It would take the burden.
2 But as Don indicated earlier, we envision that 3
early on we would be informing more inspections until we got 4
this program further along and then the resources would i
5 diminish and so therefore would the price but that was part
)
6 of the logic that we used in terms of the policy we kind of 7
established on this specific side.
8 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Commissioner McGaffigan?
9 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
I see you are 10 bouncing --
l 11 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
I am not.
I am going in an 12 order.
13 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Okay.
It just wasn't 14 clear to me what the order was.
Now it is.
15 CHAlRMAN JACKSON:
Now you know.
16 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Now I understand.
l 17
[ Laughter.)
18 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
The EPA unfortunately 19 wasn't able to be here today because the person is ill'but l
20 my understanding is they are quite supportive of what you l
21 have been doing and have been involved in discussions with I
1 l
22 you.
I 23 DR. COOL:
Yes.
I had a discussion with Mary 24 Clark of EPA, who was the individual who was close to the i
25 effort, unfortunately, she is ill, about a week and a half ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
S-50 1
ago.
They are very supportive of these activities.
2 As I believe you mentioned, Madam Chairman, EPA in 3
fact has provided some of the initial funding to CRCPD, 4
looking at related issues in terms of orphan sources and 5
otherwise.
This is an arena where we are in fact working 6
very well together.
7 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Thank you.
l 8
CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Commissioner Diaz.
l 9
COMMISSIONER DIAZ:
Yes.
I know that the answer 10 to this question changes according to the issue, but you 11 have proposed to have a press release before the notice goes 12 to the Federal Register and on occasions we have found that 13 that works and on other occasions we found that that doesn't 14 work.
15 Is there a particular reason why we should have a 16 press relaase that does not have the specific date or the 17 information in the Federal Register or would it be better 18 just to do it with the notice in the Federal Register so you 19 have the proper information at that time?
20 DR. COOL:
Quite frankly, I am guilty of trying to I
21 anticipate, based on your desire to have a press release 22 immediately after the meeting last year.
23 COMMISSIONER DIAZ:
I was wondering whether that 24 was the issue.
25 (Laughter.]
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
l Court Reporters l
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 l
S-51 1
CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
See, we are at fault as r
(
2 usual --
3 DR. COOL:
As you wish --
4 COMMISSIONER DIAZ:
No, I know that Commis ioner 5
McGaffigan's particular -- you normally have some preference 6
in the way these things are.
I wonder if you want to state 7
them.
8 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
I have not a clue, i
9
[ Laughter.]
10 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
I hope that's not the l
11 deal-breaker.
Commissioner Dicus.
12 COMMISSIONER DICUS:
Okay.
You mentioned DOE a 13 while ago and I want to make the point or at least one point i
14 that recognizing that whatever registry that we have at the l
I 15 NRC and to whatever extent we are to have some sort of l
16 national registry including those registered by the 17 Agreement States, still we are only going to be covering l
18 just a portion of the devices, generally licensed devices, 19 that are available, notwithstanding the norm material and 20 accelerator produced, but DOE has a very large number among 21 their contractors of these devices and I am aware last 22 summer in some DOE rulemaking they did include a section on l
23 accountability of devices, but I have lost track of where l
24 that rulemaking is.
I don't know if it's been finalized or 25 not.
L ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
S-52 1
Do you'have a feel for DOE's program for registry 2
of the devices that are under their control?
l 3
DR. COOL:
Not in sufficient dL_ ail to want to try 4
and risk representing them today.
We could get you that
(
5 information.
6 COMMISSIONER DICUS:
I think it might be useful to 7
have a feel as to what sort of program they have given the 8
fact that they have a rather large number of sources I think 9
stretched over the DOE complex.
10 Another question that I have has to do, and maybe 11 we are not far enough along in the program to address this 12 at this time, but do you have criteria or have you thought 13 of the criteria that you would want to have to make the 14 decision that a device is indeed lost and we should not 15 expend further resources looking for it?
16 DR. COOL:
We have had long discussions on those 17 but I don't have a number today, and in fact I am not sure 18 that it actually boils down to a single number.
I suspect 19 it's going to boil down to a set of things which would 20
. include the activity, how many years ago was the last touch, 21 and perhaps several other things in terms of trying to 22 decide how much further to send the inspectors and if it is 23 a relatively recent one, I am probably going to do more than 24 if it was last seen in 1970 because the rate of return on 25 that is just simply not going to be as good.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
f Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
S-53 1
COMMISSIONER DICUS:
Okay.
I understand the Staff 2
has seen Dr. Lipoti's slides, which contain some additional 3
recommendations.
Do you have any comments on those you 4
would like to share with us at this time?
5 DR. COOL:
I really don't want to pre-judge what 6
Dr. Lipoti's going to say.
I'll just make one or two 7
general observations, which really is sort of potential next 8
steps beyond this, because certainly there's been a lot of 9
thought about getting this up and running and then perhaps 10 where do you go from there.
11 There are certainly issues that we really 12 seriously need to look at in terms of what about specific 13 licensees who have devices which are essentially identical 14 to these, and should we be recommending to you at some point 15 trying to move those into this system as a better approach.
16 We are looking at those issues.
17 Should we extend this to other kinds of devices?
18 Well, if this proves to be an efficient and effective 19 system, then we would certainly want to look at that and 20 provide additional recommendations to you there.
I don't 21 know exactly how those play out, so I don't really have the 22 ability today to tell you that on "x" date certain we will 23 be making a specific recommendation, but those are high on 24 our screen of awareness.
25 As we looked at our IT solution, in fact one of ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
T S-54 1
the things I was looking at was the expandability, and my 2
basic bottom line on it was if every single thing I do out 3
there ends up in this system, can we handle it?
4 COMMISSIONER DICUS:
Okay.
Now let me close with 5
just a couple of quick comments, and I appreciate what you
'6 just said.
I also appreciate the work that you have done 7
and the Staff has done on this issue.
It does represent a 8
tremendous effort.
9 It's going to represent even greater effort in the l
l 10 next couple of years and that is definitely appreciated.
It 11 is good work.
12 I would also like to say that we do need to more l
13 forward as quickly and as effectively as we possibly can, 14 because the United States is actually lagging 15 internationally in this program.
Other developed countries 16 including developing countries already have registration 17 programs, so we are a little bit behind the curve already, 1
18 and I think we are all aware that the IEA has this on their 19 agenda now as well and are beginning to establish these 20 programs to help other countries establish them, so I just 21 wanted to close with that comment.
Thank you.
22 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
I want to thank the Staff very j
23 much.
Now I will call forward the steel industry i
24 representatives who are prese'nt, and I am going to ask each 25 presenter to be as succinct as possible, and we will try to l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 I
S-55 1
discipline ourselves to be as succinct as possible.
2 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD:
Chairman?
3 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Yes.
4 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD:
I assume we can 5
represent to the individuals testifying that we've read 6
their testimony and, therefore, a summary of that would be 7
in order.
8 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
I think we've -- as the 9
Commissioner has suggested, you can assume that we've 10 actually read your testimony and, therefore, a summary would 11 be in order.
Why don't we begin with Mr. Hernandez-.
12 MR. HERNANDEZ:
Thank you, Chairman Jackson.
Good 13 morning.
My name is Peter Hernandez.
I'm Vice President, 14 Foreign Relations, American Iron and Steel Institute, a 15 non-profit trade association, which 38 domestic member 16 companies account for about 70 p'.rcent of the raw steel 17 production in the United States.
I'm here to present AISI's 18 views on the actions that NRC and its staff has taken or 19 plan to take, in order to improve control over and 20 accountability for generally licensed devices.
21 As you indicated, you've read our testimony and we 22 appreciate the action that the Commission has taken thus far 23 to really move this issue forward.
And while we believe 24 that the actions that you are proposing will go along way to 25 address some of the concerns about lost sources, we are --
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
S-56 1
we remained concerned that other devices hopefully will be 2
put into the registration program, as time goes on, and you 3
amass at least your initial database.
4 The -- as we noted in our February 16th comments, 5
we believe the NRC should permit licensees to report 6
required information electronically, in order to minimize l
7 the paperwork burden.
And we, also, respect the Commission l
8 to develop a universal reporting form that can be used in 9
filings with both the NRC and the agreement statements.
And 10 we think it makes sense to exclude from this registration 11 program for generally licensees any generally licensed 12 devices that appear on specific licenses, since they already i
13 have detailed -- more detailed reporting requirements under 14 the specific license.
In addition to supporting the 15 Decenber 2 proposed rule, we agree with the interim 16 enforcement policy that was announced March 9th.
And we 17 believe that this interim enforcement policy should help 18 prevent an interim melt during the time that elapses before 19 the full registration program becomes operative.
20 As we noted before, however, simply identifying 21 devices that cannot be accounted for is not sufficient.
The 22 Commission must also determine why the licensee cannot 23 account for the device.
And so an active role by the 24 Commission comparing annual inventories and transfer reports l
l 25 and then resolving any discrepancies is a critical component ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
S-57 1
of an effective oversight and accountability program.
We 2
believe any costs that would be involved and separate can be 3
funded through additional fees of penalties that are levied 4
on licensees with shortcomings and make follow-up action 5
necessary.
6 As I also was gratified to see the other working 7
group recommendations, such as requiring vendors to report 8
to transfers and providing proper disposal information to 9
customers and ansuring that devices being transferred be 10 clearly visible and durable identification on labels are 11 included in the staff's draft proposed rule of December 16, 12 1998.
That was the date, by the way, that appeared on the 13 Internet Website.
The document, itself, was not dated, 14 specifically.
Moreover, given the severe consequences 15 associated with the loss of accountability, we urge the 16 staff's proposals to secure the resources needed to fund the 17 registration program through fees imposed on general 18 licensees is reasonable and appropriate.
As holders as both 19 general and specific licenses, our member companies would be 20 willing to pay the proposed $370 annual fee for this 21 purpose.
At the same time, we are encouraged to note that 22 the NRC believes these annual fees will decrease over time.
23 While the staff's draft proposal deals with many 24 issues involved in ensuring better control over and 25 accountability for generally licensed devices, it does not ANN RILEY & ASSOCIT.TES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
S-58 1
address the problems that arise when there is a loss of 2
accountability.
Such losses have occurred in the past and, 3
undoubtedly, will still occur in the future, though with 4
reduced frequency, if the staff's draft rule is adopted.
5 And I might just also make a side note that the steel 6
industry is not tha only major industry that could be 7
affected by these sources.
Any other industry that melts 8
the hot metal, including aluminum and non-ferrous foundries, 9
would also benefit from your ections.
10 COMMISSIONER DICUS:
With regard to that, I'd like 11 to point out, just very recently, the Commission has given 12 us that guidance to work on the alternate source issue.
So, 13 that is under consideration.
T'ank you, very much.
This draft 14 MR. HERNANDEZ:
h 15 rule does not address this -- regarding the orphan issues is 16 understandable and we appreciate the fact that you're 17 working on it.
18 As we stated previously, under the current system, 19 a pe sn, who unwittingly and involuntarily takes possession 20 of source device is an innocent victim of inadequate 2'1 oversight.
Yet, as a practical matter, if that innocent 22 victim makes an effort to identify and acknowledge 23 possession of the device, he or she must bear the burden of 24 substantial costs for managing and disposing of radioactive 25 material.
The current system thus creates a disincentive ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
S-59 1
for non-licensees to screen for radioactive devices and an 2
incentive for them to pass the devices onto others, without 3
notification when they are found.
From the standpoint of 4
accountability and public health, this is a perverse 5
incentive structure.
6 A better system is needed to identify and remove 7
radiation sources from the scrap supply.
There must be a 8
simple means for those who find the source to be able to 9
dispose of it without incurring any costs.
Non-licensees 10 should be given an incentive, not a disincentive, to look 11 for orphan sources and the materials to handle and to take 12 appropriate action when such devices are found.
The 13 responsibility for removing and disposing and paying for 14 disposal of orphan sources must be clearly assigned to l
15 appropriate government bodies, both domestically, where l
16 responsibility should be delineated clearly among DOE, the 17 Commission, and agreement states, and internationally, since 18 radioactive scraps may enter the U.S.
recycling system from i
19 abroad.
The government funding to accomplish this public 20 health and safety objective must be made available through I
21 new legislation, if necessary.
22 Developing and implementing a coordinated 23 international system to ensure that orphan devices are 24 properly and safely removed from the scrap screen and 25 disposed of properly is a project that should be given very ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
S-60 1
high priority.
Towards that end, the work being undertaken 2
through the E34 committee should be expedited.
And more 3
generally, the Commission should do what is necessary to 4
move forward on this issue, in parallel with its efforts to 5
promulgate the staff's proposed rule.
6 In closing, I'd like to say that with its December 7
2, 1998 rulemaking and the March 9th interim enforcement 8
policy of 1999, we believe the NRC has taken an important 9
first step to prevent a serious accident involving American 10 workers in the local community.
We urge the committee --
11 the Commission to implement these measures promptly and to 12 act with appropriate urgency on the remaining steps that 13 need to be taken by publishing the staff's draft rules for 14 public comment as soon as possible, and by adopting a 15 program for the removal and disposal of orphan devices at no 16 expenses to those who discover such devices in their 17 possession.
Thank you.
18 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Thank you.
Mr. Danjczek.
19 MR. DANJCZEK:
Chairman Jackson, Michael Peters 20 will be making the comments for us, please.
21 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Okay.
22 MR. PETERS:
Good morning.
My name is Mike I
23 Peters.
I'm the Vice President and Environmental Manager 24 for SMI Texas.
I'm speaking on behalf today of the SMA, 25 which is a trade association of 59 North American steel ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
S-61 1
companies.
I've been working with the SMA's efforts 2
regarding NRC and its efforts to improve accountability.
3 I've participated in several meetings with NRC staff.
These 4
are some bullet points.
And Chairman, you got our regular 5
statement here, so I'm not going to read that.
6 The Steel Manufacturers Association, just to give 7
you a background, is the largest steel trade association in 8
North America and the primary trade association for the 9
electric ARC furnace steel producers, which make steel from 10 feed stock, for virtually 100 percent scrap.
My company 11 alone, with operations in Texas, Alabama, and South 12 Carolina, recycles about two million tons of scrap each 13 year.
So, out of the -- we're one of the major participants 14 and the beneficiaries of these new rules.
15 Last year, the industry recycled 50 million tons 16 of iron and steel scrap, which would otherwise have been 17 land filled or littered the countryside.
Steel is the 18 nation's most recycled material.
With the SMA member 19 companies recycling 80 percent of that 50 million tons, I 20 guess it's easy to understand why this issue is important to 21 us.
Radioactive sources in the ferrous scrap supply produce 22 significant, unanticipated economic consequences, and health 23 and safety risks to our steel workers and to the general 24 public.
SMA member companies have taken the initiative to 25 take unwanted and orphan radioactivity out of their mills ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
S-62 1
and have become more of the second net to catch improperly 2
discarded sources that escaper NRC's regulatory regime, and 3
we do this at considerable ce cs to ourselves.
4 Member companies of the SMA have an interest in 5
NRC's proposal, not only because we receive radioactive 6
scraps or sources in our scrap supply, it's also because we 7
are general licensees ourselves, and, therefore, be held to 8
many of the proposed new requirements, also.
The NRC has 9
been aware of the lack of accountability and control on its 10 general licensed programs since 1983.
This is the first 11 time that there was an inadvertent melting of a radioactive 12 source at a steel mill and it's clearly within, we believe, 13 the NRC's authority to amend its licensing regime.
With 14 respect to the proposal -- the staff proposal, on the 15 responsible ladividual, all SMA companies already designated 16 individuals within their own companies to be responsible 17 with complying with NRC regulations.
We believe that all 18 licensees should be required to do this.
19 Regarding labeling, we support the NRC's proposed 20 labeling requirements.
And although I usually use the 21 expression preaching to the choir, at this particular forum, 22 I feel like I'm preaching to a house of bishops.
But, I 23 have some pictures here of some of the types of sources that 24 we see coming in, in our scrap supply.
If you haven't seen 25 these already, you might find it amusing, if not ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
S-63 1
interesting.
With respect to labeling, we support the NRC's 2
proposed labeling requirements, including the requirement of 3
a permanent labeling.
Steel companies have received, on i
4 several occasions, improperly discarded sources and source 5
housing from which the labels have been removed.
A marking 6
of the serial number on the source housing will alert the 7
NRC and the public to the existing of the missing source.
8 With respect to additional reporting requirements, 9
we, also, support the additional paperwork requirements, 10 such as requiring a license number and a date for all 11 transfers.
This information would provide additional 12 verification of the licensee's identity and additional way 13 for the NRC to monitor the sources it licenses.
14 Quarterly distributor notification:
we support 15 this particular provision, because it would alleviate the 16 compatibility problem associated with the NRC agreement 17 state regime, where the NRC can't track devices when they 18 move from one to the other.
The requirement will not add 19 significant burden to current reporting requirements.
20 Rather, this proposal would efficiently mend part of the 21 regulatory net, by providing the NRC a mechanism to track 22 sources of which it would othetwise could lose control.
23 Vendor control:
it is more efficient for the NRC 24 to control devices upstream, rather than downstream.
25 Distributors are specific licensees and are limited in ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
S-64 1
number.
It's easier for them to report on sources they have 2
sold to the approximately 45,000 general licensees.
3 Simplified notice to one office at NRC:
the SMA 4
supports the simplified notification procedure, because it 5
encourages general licensees to notify the NRC of incidents, 6
where sources become unsealed or lost, more promptly.
7 Bankruptcy notification:
bankruptcy notification 8
would bring to the NRC's attention facilities, in which 9
there is increased likelihood of lost or impropur discarded 10 sources.
It should apply to all licensees, regardless of 11 whether they're included in the registration program.
12 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
What about Commissioner Diaz's 13 question about those, who has ceased completely?
14 MR. PETERS:
I think the same thing holds for 15 those.
We don't see a whole lot of difference, from our 16 standpoint, on that.
17 MR. DANJCZEK:
If we had thought of it, we would 18 have put it in our comments.
19 MR. PETERS:
Also, I'd like to add the contacts 20 we've made with the trade association that does the 21 ventilation is also a very important one, too.
We see that 22 coming in quite a bit.
23 Notification before purchase:
all prospective 24 licensees should be notified of the general license 25 requirements before they purchase these devices.
By ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
S-65 1
providing notice in the regulations and the potential costs 2
of proper disposal, the prospective general licensee can 3
make an informed decision, regarding the purchase.
There's 4
no excuse.
5 Finally, the $370 registration fee:
the current 6
regulatory regime has shifted the cost of lax accountability 7
on the steel makers, insurers, and the taxpayers.
General 8
licensees do not pay for their licenses, nor provide 9
information directly to the NRC about the sources they hold.
10 The costs also fall on the general public, in the form of 11 increased risk to health, safety, from unanticipated 12 exposure to dangerous levels of radioactivity.
General 13 licensees, who benefit economically from their manufacture, 14 sale, and use should be required to shoulder their fair 15 share to protect the public.
Accordingly, the $370 fee per 16 source is not only equitable, but entirely reasonable.
17 In conclusion, the SMA supports the NRC staff's 18 latest proposal in their current form, with a few 19 modifications that we have suggested and urge their swift 20 implementation.
I always appreciate the staff's efforts in 21 drafting this proposal.
I look forward to working with the 22 Commission, the staff on the issues that we have raised.
23 We, also, applaud the comments, Commissioner Dicus, you made 24 regarding accountability on the part of DOE.
That's it.
25 COMMISSIONER DICUS:
Your welcome.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 l
S-66 1
CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Okay.
Thank you.
Mr.
2 Merrifield.
3 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD:
Mr. Peters, in your 4
testimony, you mentioned -- you believe that the fee of $370
)
5 per source is equitable.
Here, we're saying -- really, it's 6
not $370 per source, it's $370 per licensee, which is the 7
staff proposal.
I question the staff, as to the issue of 8
whether we ought to consider the notion of having a sliding 9
fee, so that licensees, who have multiple sources, might pay 10
.. ore than licensees, who have a single source.
I don't know 11 whether you or Mr. Hernandez had any comments on that issue.
12 MR. DANJCZEK:
I might do, more from my 13 background, as a general manager of steel plant.
I don't 14 know the number that we had in the plant, but there probably 15 were 20 plus devices in the plant that I had.
We had a very 16 detailed program with how to do it.
Individually, it needs 17 to be controlled.
I think the issue might be how best to 18 control it.
I don't think we're particularly -- on what the 19 dollar amount is, as long as it's a reasonable amount 20 vertically to the small users.
I -- we don't think you made 21 the mistake of the $370.
I don't know if you would say that 22 or not, Pete.
23 MR. HERNANDEZ:
Well, we are willing to pay the 24 fee on our end.
Right now, steel is not an investor --
25 maybc. we --
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
I S-67 1
COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD:
Yeah, well, you members I
2 are a little bigger than some of those that have one source.
3 MR. PETERS:
With regard to that, I think Tom was l
4 speaking on the part of the general licensee holder.
As l
5 part of the scrap procedures, we would like to the fees be j
(
6 as high as they possibly can be, to make sure that people
\\
j 7
hold accountability.
8 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Well, I guess it boils down to, 9
does it make sense to have this structure and have it on a i
10 per source basis -- per source held or per license.
l 11 MR. HERNANDEZ:
From our perspective, we would l
12 prefer to see it on a per license basis, because I agree is with the comments made by the NRC, that companies that hold 14 multiple sources tend to have professionals, who are charged 15 with making sure all the requirements are met.
And so, 16 they're already bearing an increased cost for that.
And if 17 you really want this to work with minimal opposition, if you 18 will, from larger sources of holders and to the single --
19 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
But, $370 per source is not 20 excessive.
21 MR. HERNANDEZ:
That's true, but --
22 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
No, no, no, I'm not -- are you 23 saying $370 per source is excessive?
24 MR. HERNANDEZ:
No.
We're saying that our members 25 would be willing to pay $370 per license.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
p i
F S-68 j
1 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
No, no, no, I know, I know.
1 l
2 And I 3
MR. HERNANDEZ:
I'm not sure the $370 per source 4
is -- you certainly would get a lot more money that way.
5 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Well, if it's amortized over --
6 if the net cost is amortized over the sources, in principle, 7
it'may be less per source.
But, the real question is 8
whether -- what approach -- or per licensee approach is the 1
l 9
more equitable one.
l 10 MR. HERNANDEZ:
If you took a per source approach, l
11 and let's say instead of $6,000, you're now talking about i
12
$60,000, and the fee would drop to $37 per source, if that's l
l 13 14 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
But, it would be -- those with l
l 15 multiple sources would pay more than those with one.
l l
16 MR. HERNANDEZ:
Right.
But, I think the 17 difficulty is $37 per source sufficient to get somebody's 18 attention; whereas, $370 might be, i
l 19 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Well, what you're saying is to 20 put in, to be a threshold built in.
21 MR. HERNANDEZ:
That's correct.
i 22 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
The attention getting 1
23 thresholds.
24 MR. HERNANDEZ:
Right.
25 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Okay; all right.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
l Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
j S-69 1
COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD:
The second question I 2
have relates to, just from my understanding, particularly as 3
it relates to -- and this is directed to Mr. Peters -- you i
4 got mills that you represent that are 100 percent -- you'll 5
use any version of product.
It all comes from recycling of 6
materials that were previously utilized in the marketplace.
7 Where are the sources of those materials?
Does, you know, a 8
large percent of it come first through members of the 9
Institute for Scrap Recycling?
Or are you getting it l
10 directly from individual corporations that are getting rid 11 of these materials?
Just to give me some indication --
j l
12 MR. DANJCZEK:
I would answer that, sir, in two 13 ways, if I might.
First of all, I look at it from a source 14 of materials.
Since the steel industry produces 15 approximately 20 percent of its production goes towards the 16 automotive industry, you are -- you can see that 20 percent, 17 or about 15 million cars a year e.re recycled.
So, I would 18 think that the first source, whether that's in shredded form 19 or whatever form that's in, the automotive source.
20 In many cases, it varies.
There's not a single 21 answer.
Michael could answer for his company, or if it's l
22 owned by CMC.
In many cases, our members have relationship 23 with scrap' brokers, who are members of ISRI.
Sometimes, 24 they, themselves, own the scrap company.
Sometimes, there i
25 are three or four brokers outside the gate, who manage it.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
r S-70 1
I'm afraid that there isn't a singular answer, but in most 2
cases, we're dealing through scrap companies, who prepare
(
3 and marshal the material, as an oversimplified statement.
4 Michael, would you comment on your company?
5 MR. PETERS:
Yes.
We don't deal with those types l
6 of vendorr.
We go out and we go to mom and pop shops, l
7 whoever they may be, and bring in the scrap from them, sort l
l 8
of the collector yard.
9 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD:
By mom and pop shop, you 10 mean individual scrap dealers?
11 MR. PETERS:
Exactly; exactly, yeah, bring those 12 in.
We, also, work through some of the larger scrap yards, 13 some of which are owned by the company, some of which are 14 outside.
But, in some of those, we'll process the scrap 15 ahead of time, by putting it through a shredder or something l
16 likh chat.
17 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD:
Can some of these 18 material may come from abroad, as well?
19 MR. PETERS:
Uh-huh.
20 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD:
What percentage of --
21 MR. PETERS:
Of our scrap comes from abroad?
i 22 MR. DANJCZEK:
The scrap from abroad may come in 23 two forms.
As a general comment, we are -- as a country, we 24 are scrap exporters.
We typically export -- if we generate 25 60 million tons a year, we typically export about eight ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
L S-71 1
million tons.
With the Pacific problem last year, I think 2
it dropped to a magnitude of five or six.
But, scrap does 1
3 come -- for example, during the hard times in the former CIS l
4 countries, there's been a fair amount of scrap coming in.
I 5
don't know the numbers.
I could supply them.
They are 6
available through Commerce, on what the import numbers are.
7 I just don't know them off the top of my head.
Do you, 8
Pete?
9 MR. HERNANDEZ:
I don't.
l 10 MR. DANJCZEK:
I think -- I'm guessing -- I'm 11 guessing on the magnitude of several million tons, like a 12 two million type magnitude, while we export about six or 13 seven million.
But if that's wrong, we will supply that to 14
- staff, 15 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Maybe if you could just that 16 information.
17 MR. DANJCZEK:
Fine.
18 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Thank you.
19 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD:
Just as a follow-up of 20 my last question, in the testimony both organizations have J
21 given this morning, you talked about the notion of having 22 cost of the orphan sources picked up, so it's no longer 23 placed on you, and presumably that might come from fees that 24 we would impose on licensees.
But, I guess some of the 25 questions, since we haven't enforced from abroad and some of ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
f S-12 >
these working sources may be from non-licensees or may be 1
2 from individuals, who are not registering in this program, 3
we struggle 'ere, because we're required to obtain j
l l
4 reimbursement for what we do here at the NRC from our fees.
\\
5 But, we have made requests in the past for taxes to general l
6 revenues for individual programs.
Do you believe that the cost of picking up on an orphan source program like this is 7
8 something that is appropriate to pass on to other licensees l
l 9
or is this something that you believe would be more l
revenues?
i 10 appropriate to pass on to genert_
11 MR. HERNANDEZ:
I really -- we really would have j
12 no acceptance.
However, I may note that we're not the only j
13 ones, who might detect a source, in terms of the economic 14 disincentive.
Many of the scrap dealers, who handle the 15 material, are the first to come in contact with it.
And so, l
16 it's important for them not to have an economic 17 disincentive; for the mom and pop shops, who discover 18 someth.
to turn this over in a very simple way to the them take care of it and properly dispose l government and let f
19 i
l 20 of it.
I 21 MR. PETERS.
Let me add one comment to that, that j
and, again, a preacher to the house of bishops here, but 22 23 it's much easier to find a source, when the scrap is at its I
24 lease dense.
Most of the scrap that we get is going to be 25 brought in, in either 100 ton loads on a rail car or 20 ton ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 i
n
F-S-
73 1
loads in a truck.
It would be much easier if we could have 2
it found when it's coming in in a small pickup or whatever.
3 So, if we can put that as far downstream as possible, it 4
would make it, I think, the most efficient way of finding l
5 this orphan sources or whatever.
So, if that gives you any 6
sort of insight as to general revenue or source, you know, 7
take that as you will.
8 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Do you intend tc have detection l
9 devices at the entrances to a facility?
l l
10 MR. PETERS:
No, we don't intend to; we do.
11
[ Laughter.]
12 MR. DANJCZEK:
Absolute.
At every railroad I
i 13 access, at every truck, now it's on the magnets to the 14 cranes.
The liability is in -- one company had an l
15 experience of a $16 million problem.
We pay significant i
l 16 insurance bills to mitigate those risks.
The insurance l
27 carrier and the companies insist on it.
l l
18 CRAIRMAN JACKSON:
Got you.
l 19 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD:
Do you require scrap l
20 dealers that you deal with to provide -- to obtain equipment 21 of that nature, as well?
l l
22 MR. PETERS:
Yes, we do.
And we assist them, in a 23 lot of cases.
Our member companies assist the scrap yard.
24 If they are marginal economic profitability, we will assist 25 them in putting in the appropriate equipment.
l l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 i
S-74 1
MR. DANJCZEK:
In both the AISI, I believe Pete 2
and myself have had a lot of -- long relationship with ISRI, 3
the scrap recyclers, and they have participated with us in 4
seminars, etc.
I don't think our views are significantly 5
different, in terms of how it's managed, sir.
6 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Commissioner McGaffigan?
7 COMMISSIONER MCGAFFIGAN:
This is a question you 8
all may not be able to answer, except to the extent that you 9
own some of these sources.
How much does a source -- what 10 is the variation in costs, when you originally buy one of 11 these 6,000 sources, we're going to put into the 12 registration program?
Is $370 a year for 20 years a 13 significant fraction of the cost or is it a trivial fraction 14 of the cost?
15 MR. DANJCZEK:
I can only answer for myself, the 16 steel mills, and I'll mention two places where we have 17 sources.
We have thickness gauges off a hot strip mill.
We 18 have level detection sources on a caster to control the 19 liquid level.
The systems for those, not just the source --
20 COMMISSIONER MCGAFFIGAN:
Right.
21 MR. DANJCZEK:
-- you might answer, you don't Just 22
-- but during level two of the hardwar are typically in 23 the magnitude of several hundred thousand dollars, the steel 24 mill equipment.
25 MR. HERNANDEZ:
That's right-that's right.
- Also, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES,
_.J.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 i
Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
f S-75 1
our folks will use moisture -- the moisture density gauges 2
that you made reference to in the draft proposal.
3 COMMISSIONER MCGAFFIGAN:
In following up on l
'4 Commissioner Merrifield, I do think -- this isn't a 5
question, it's more.a statement -- I do think that we run 6
into these fairness and equity issues on parts of this 7
program, maybe not all of it, maybe it's right, but the 8
orphan source piece that we'll be working with other 9
agencies -- EPA, for example, made a contribution to start 10 the E-34 committee and that comes out of a general fund.
11 Our involvement -- when it's an orphan source, all we can do 12 is fine somebody and that fine goes to the treasury.
- But, 13 then, our licensees, who are fine outstanding citizens, may 14 get the pay.
15 So, there may well be fairness and equity issues 16 that, as the Commission tries, thus far with minimum 17 success, to get more of its fairness and equity issues into 1
18 the general funds and off of the fee base, this may be a 19 category that we need to consider.
I just agree with l
20 Commissioner Merrifield on that.
21 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Commissioner Diaz?
22 COMMISSIONER DIAZ:
I want to just agree with that 23 point.
24 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Commissioner Dicus?
25 COMMISSIONER DICUS:
I just want to make a r
i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025~ Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
S-76 1
comment, with regard to the radiation detectors and all the 2
scrap metal companies.
Perhaps, the states can address this 3
even more.
I've gott-tway from it for a few years.
- But, 4
many states, if not most states, have set up programs to this goes back to one of Commissioner Merrifield's 5
assist 6
earlier questions -- to assist scrap metal dealers, in
{
I 7
setting up these detectors, particularly some of the 8
smaller, like mom and pop operations, and have gone out even 9
to test them periodical */ for them.
So, I just wanted that, 10 as a matter of the record, if the states may be able to 11 provide a little bit more information on that.
12 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Thank you, very much, 13 gentlemen.
14 I'd like to call forward Mr. Roland Fletcher and 15 Dr. Jill Lipoti, Mr. Fletcher from the Organization of 16 Agreement States and Dr. Lipoti from Conference of Radiation
{
17 Control Program Directors.
I have to tell you, I may have 18 to leave before you are done.
Mr. Fletcher, would you like 19 to begin, please?
20 MR. FLETCHER:
Chairman Jackson, members of the 21 Commission, good morning, and it's once again a pleasure to 22 come before you and to talk about this rulemakings.
23 I'm very pleased to bring you support from the 24 Organization of Agreement States for this rulemaking and to 25 recommend very strongly that this be given Commission ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
S-77 1
approval and sent forward.
Now, having said that, there are 2
some things that have been noted that we would like to bring 3
-- to have further concern, further discussion on.
And 4
though I represent Sam Marshall and the OAS executive, I 5
must point out that there are bound to be some individual 6
comments from some of the states on some of the issues.
7 You have, I believe, a summary of the main things 8
that I wanted to talk about.
Let me first of all point out 9
that this is considered a very beneficial result of a joint 10 undertaking between the Agreement States and the NRC.
This 11 is the kind of product -- beneficial product that the 12 Agreement States have long worked for.
As has been brought 13 up in many cases, the whole aspect of locating and insuring 14 the proper disposal of certain GL devices has been 15 burdensome to the states, because, quite frankly, we just 16 didn't know where they were and they would be located under i
17 circumstances that required our response, rather than our 18 knowledge ahead of time, particularly at scrap yards, 19 particularly orphan sources appearing at landfills.
- But, 20 these are areas that the Agreement States have long been 21 concerned about and we're very happy that this rulemaking is 22 underway.
23 Let me point out some concerns that have already 24 been elevated, with regard to GL devices.
And one, I'm not 25 sure this rulemaking addresses, and we may want to comment i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
S-78 1
on further, and that is the fact the establishment of what 2
constitutes a GL device, in certain circumstances.
We have 3
at least a few states that want to limit certain GL devices, 4
particularly those that are gamma emitters to one currie or 5
less.
The problem is we have some specific licenses that 6
have a lower activity and exposure concern than some of the 7
general licenses, and we want to try to establish some kind 8
of balance:
beta emitters, 30 curries or less; alpha 9
emitters, 1 currie.
As I said, more specific comments are 10 going to be brought forward in that area.
11 COMMISSIONER DICUS:
Would those specific comments 12 give the technical basis for these recommendations?
13 MR. FLETCHER:
Yes.
14 COMMISSIONER MCGAFFIGAN:
Madam Chairman, on this, 15 it strikes me the comment may go beyond the rulemaking, in 16 some sense, because the comment essentially says that we 17 should be moving devices into the specifically licensed 18 category.
Do we do that by rule or do we do that by 19 guidance, at the current time, I honestly don't know.
- But, 20 it could be that this comment may go, in legal terms, beyond 21 the scope of the rulemaking, as proposed, and it would 22 require separate rulemaking.
23 MR. COOL:
Our view, at this point, is that it 24 would need to be by rulemaking, and that is, in fact, part 25 of what we were looking at with the materials restudy and ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
S-79 1
that whole process, which should be within registration, 2
which should be a specific license.
The study, which you l
3 have in front of you, is one of the basis of understanding 4
that baseline, understanding the kinds of risks, the kinds 5
of barriers that can be imposed, and then come back and say, 6
okay, what makes the most appropriate regulatory structure.
i 7
But, then, that should be done by rule, with the additional 8
rulemaking.
9 COMMISSIONER MCGAFFIGAN:
But, you're not 10 soliciting comment in this rulemaking on this subject.
You 11 intend to solicit comments in the future rulemaking on this 12 subject, is that correct, as we understand that?
13 MR. COOL:
You are correct.
That is not in this 14 rulemaking.
That would need to be the subject of its own 15 rulemaking activity and discussion.
And i would expect that 16 we would do that only after coming to you with an initial 17 proposal, before we start through that process.
- Because, 38 that would be one with a great deal of discussion.
We would 19 need to have all of the folks here and other ones.
Because 20 when we start to change a system like that, you've got some 21 major ramifications to the system.
22 MR. FLETCHER:
Also, there have been some 23 discussion about some of the gauges.
And, at this point in 24 time, let me point out that the Agreement States have a 25 great deal of difficulty allowing the gauges to be anything l
l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 l
S-G0 1
but specifically licensed.
Now, I'm sure there are going to 2
be more specific -- more comments on that.
But, we have a 3
great deal of problem with gauges being lost, stolen, etc.
4 And one of the ways that we reduce that probability is to 5
ensure that the program for radiation, safety, and control 6
within the facility is maintained, an RSO was trained, is on 7
board.
Having someone, who is just given the responsibility 8
for a device, doesn't measure up, at least in current 9
thinking, to the RSO that would be required for these types 10 of devices.
So, we're really concerned about not, you know, 11 expanding into that area, for the time being.
12 Right now, the Agreement States -- the 30 i
13 Agreement States probably have about 70 percent of the 14 specific licenses.
I would imagine that the general license 15 numbers are within the same ballpark, as far as their 16 locations are concerned, and we have a very high vested 17 interest in insuring that this rulemaking, this registration 18 goes forward and helps improve our ability to maintain a 19 level of control.
20 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
When you say the exit signs, 21 static eliminators, and counterweigat should be allowed -- I 22 mean, are you suggesting a definition -- a change in the 23 definition of general -- of what should be a general license 24 device?
25 MR. FLETCHER:
Well, I think -- yeah.
That ties ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
r:
S-81 1
to the other comment, that requires separate --
2 CRAIRMAN JACKSON:
Right.
And so, again, I mean, 3
if we're talking of changing the definitions, you know, in 4
terms of categorization of the device -- of the licenses, 5
then those both would be required.
6 MR. FLETCHER:
Have to be addressed.
7 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
So, they -- are you suggesting 8
that we ought to hold up the rule that's been proposed, in l
9 order to address these questions?
Or are you --
10 MR. FLETCHER:
No, I don't want to --
l l
11 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
-- saying this is something 12 that should be addressed?
l l
13 MR. FLETCHER:
I think it's something that should 14 be addressed.
I don't want the rule to be held up to 15 address it.
But, it is something that the Agreement States l
16 would like to have addressed.
l 17 On one of your other points, and I will just now l
18 try to remember some of the points that were made that you l
19 wanted to me to address, as far as the equitability of 1
l 20 whether or not a licensee should be assessed per one -- per 21 each source or per total number of sources, and I think Dr.
22 Lipoti is going to cover it in more detail, we turn to what 23 we do in our radiation machines program, my x-ray machines 24 program, whereby we have a registration program and it is on l
25 a per machine basis.
So -- because, from our philosophy, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l
l l
S-8h the larger facilities also have the ability to multiply 1
2 their use of the device and, therefore, their profit making, 3
and, therefore, it should be on a per source -- from our 4
perspective, it can be on a per source basis.
5 The only other thing I'd like to comment on is, as 6
far as the system is concerned, to ensure that all states 7
can implement the same system.
There are various way of 8
approaching this, and I realize cost is one of things that 9
we have to consider, and I th:
.t, once again, Dr. Lipoti is 10 going to go into more detail.
But, we have systems, whereby 11 in order to insure a maximal system, and I can only think 12 about tr mammography quality assurance program under the 13 For"
... Jrug Administration, whereby to insure that everybody was on the same page and had the same basis of 14 15 communication, there was a distribution of the devices and 16 the communication systems to every state, and that way there 17 was an insurance that every state was reporting the same 18 information the same way.
19 I'll now --
20 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
I think Commissioner Merrifield 21 has a comment that he has to make, because he has to leave.
22 And, unfortunately, I'm going to have to leave in a few 23 minutes.
24 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD:
I'll just make it brief.
25 Madam Chairman, thank you, very much.
I just did want to ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
S-83 1
make mention, and I appreciate the states coming in, and I 2
apologize for having to leave, as I have another engagement 3
coming up, but I will instruct my staff to carefully go 4
through your testimony.
I will review it in the transcript.
5 And I look forward to -- I did have a question that I 6
posited earlier about coordination between the states and 7
the NRC in the electronic database, and I particularly look 8
forward to your response to that.
And I appreciate the 9
initial response on the fee issues.
10 Thank you, very much.
Thank you, Chairman.
11 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Thank you.
12 COMMISSIONER MCGAFFIGAN:
Madam Chairman, can I --
13 the Food and Drug Administration president, basically, is 14 distributing the software, is that what I understood you to 15 say.
16 MR. FLETCHER:
Hardware and software.
17 COMMISSIONER MCGAFFIGAN:
Hardware and software.
18 How much was that?
19 MR. FLETCHER:
I don't know what the cost is.
I 20 can probably --
21 COMMISSIONER MCGAFFIGAN:
D9t, they basically gave 22 you a computer terminal, which would be -- which would 23 connect to theirs and the software to go with it and 24 everybody then just --
25 MR. FLETCHER:
Yes.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
S-84 1
COMMISSIONER MCGAFFIGAN:
Okay.
I'm not sure 2
we're going to get there.
3 CHAIRMAN JACKSOM:
Dr. Lipoti, I'm going to have 4
to apologize to you, too, but I do want to hear the first 5
few remarks.
So, I'm going to ask you to do me a favor and 6
that is -- you know, they say sometimes the best talk is to 7
say what your bottom line is in the beginning, give your 8
talk, and then say it at the end.
So, I'm going to ask you 9
to tell me the bottom line, and then -- so, I know that I 10 would have heard it.
- But, I,
too, like Commissioner 11 Merrifield, will weight everything that you said, in making 12 any judgment on this rulemaking.
13 DR. LIPOTI:
Thanks.
I had to provide comments by 14 last Friday, but I only got the document on Tuesday.
So, I 15 changed my comments from last Friday and you should read my 16 updated comments, because I did make changes, because you 17 did make changes. -Also, my comments are updated, because I 18 received concurrence from the other members of the board of 19 directors.
There's a concurrence process in CRCPD; before I 20 can speak to you on their behalf, I have to get concurrence.
21 Six other states have unanimously endorsed these comments.
'22 The states are:
Illinois, Washington, California, Texas, 23 Alabama, and Massachusetts.
And so, I think you have a good 24 cross section of large states, small states, different 25 demographics.
And for them all to buy into this, I think ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 t
s S-85 1
it's a pretty strong statement of what states believe on 2
this subject.
3 The bottom line is I think you should add two 4
things to the rulemaking before it goes out.
One is a very l
5 brief change, and that is that you include a backup 6
responsible individual, not just a responsible individual.
7 That was recommended by the NRC Agreement State Working 8
Group and it's not in the regulation.
And it is really true 9
that there is a lack of institutional memory, if that 10 responsible individual moves on.
And the responsible 11 individual doesn't have the training that an RSO does, and l
12 so it isn't part of a big job description.
And if you lose 13 that responsible individual, nobody might look in his file 14 to see that, in fact, they possess radioactive materials.
15 And, in fact, there's no limit to the amount of GL devices 16 at any facility.
That responsible individual could have 17 more radioactivity under their control, than an RSO at a i
18 specific licensee.
And so, I think it's essential that you 19 include a backup.
20 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Do you think the backup 21 responsible individual, would it be the primary mechanism 22 for maintaining institutional memory?
23 DR. LIPOTI:
Yes.
24 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
So, there are no others that 25 you think would be as effective?
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 l
S-86 1
DR. LIPOTI:
I don't think so.
I think it's 2
important to have a person.
3 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Okay.
4 DR. LIPOTI:
The second recommendation that I 5
think should be considered before the rulemaking goes out is 6
to include some guidance on what to do if an incident 7
occurs.
I made the suggestion of something like a materials 8
AP data sheet, just because that's -- people have files, 9
where they keep all the materials AP data sheets for all of 10 the hazardous materials on their facility.
It would be easy 11 to have a fact sheet, or whatever you want to call it, in 12 that file, so if there's an incident, they go there and look 13 for what to do.
And it goes along with that institutional 14 memory and the ability to look up what should happen, in the 15 event of an incident.
16 I realize that incidents at the facility are few 17 and far between.
But, even your own cost impact statement 18 projects seven incidents per year, which would require you 19 to look over a decommissioning plan.
So, clearly, there are 20 incidents where radioactive materials could get loose and 21 you should have someplace to go for instruction.
22 Those are the only two -- you wanted the bottom 23 line first, that's the only two that I think should hold up 24 to the rulemaking, or should be put in place --
25 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
To put in place before the ANN RI L ASSOCIATES, LTD.
t Reporters 1025 Connect Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Was.
- ton, D.C.
20036
- 32) 842-0034
S-87 1
rules --
2 DR. LIPOTI:
The other ones are comments on 3
several other matters that I'll go on to talk about.
4 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Please; go ahead.
5 DR. LIPOTI:
I think that the prioritization of 6
the first 6,000 facilities is correct, because it's based on l
7 experience and we have 40 years of experience with GL 8
licensees, and the NRC Agreement States Working Group was 9
correct in recommending those as the initial.
But, like 10 Roland, I suggest that we use the byproduct material risk 11 review, as an opportunity for really determining what is an 12 appropriate level for a general license and what is 13 appropriate for a specific license.
And I read your SECY 14 paper 062 on that and I understand the schedule will now 15 come out and the states vill comment on that risk document.
l 16 The second one is sales literature.
I still think l
l 17 that sales literature is an important way of conveying that, 18 in fact, this product contains radioactivity.
There is no 19 requirement for the sales literature to say anything.
And I t
20 don't know -- I mean, the buyers may think it works by 21 magic, but, in fact, there's nothing that says that 22 radioactivity is in this device, until they get the next 23 communication, when they're about to buy it from the vendor, 24 and that's when they find out that, oh, yeah, there's a lot 25 of cost if you try and dispose of the device.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
S-8'8 1
1 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Full disclosure.
2 DR. LIPOTI:
Right.
So, I really recommend that 3
that be an early disclosure.
4 The third one is some definition of what might be 5
inappropriate conditions for the use of these devices.
- Nov, 6
it's left to the manufacturer to advise those, who are 7
purchasing the device, on what might be inappropriate uses t
8 of the device.
And, in fact, there's an incentive for the 9
manufacturer to say anything is appropriate, because then 10 they can sell more devices; and that guidance from a 11 regulatory agency, I think, would be useful.
12 The rest of my comments are really in respon'se to 13 a number of other things that came up this morning.
The 14 orphan source program is a great program.
And, although 15 your direction on the orphan source program, the SECY paper 16 99-038, was not public before this meeting, so I couldn't 17 read it in preparation, I am happy that EPA, NRC, and DOE 18 are working together on this program.
19 Commissioner McGaffigan mentioned that this -- the 20 rulemaking for this effort was supported by fees from all of 21 the licensees.
So, I have one of your NRC licenses.
I'm a 22 licensee.
And, so my $400 went towards this.
23 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Are you happy how it's done?
24 DR. LIiGTI:
It was well spent.
25 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Okay.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
1 S-89 1
DR. LIPOTi:
But, next year, I'll pay the license 2
fee again and I would t:uggest my $400 perhaps should go to 3
the orphan source program next year.
4
[ Laughter. ]
5 COMMISSIONER MCGAFFIGAN:
This comes up in 6
Congress all the time, Madam Chairman.
We had something 7
called the World Peace fund for those who didn't want to 8
contribute to the Pentagon.
I don't think in collecting 9
taxes, the federal government lets people say just quite how 10 they're going to --
11 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
It would be 400, plus 370.
12 DR. LIPOTI:
Oh, no, I'm a specific licensee.
l 13 I did want to commend you on the use of 14 performance indicators and to say that we very much have to 15 monitor the performance indicators on how well the 16 registration program works for GL devices owners, how well 17 the orphan source program works for providing recovery and l
18 disposition of those sources, and how well the international 19 effort is going at detecting radioactivity before it enters 20 our recycling facilities.
21 We need to constantly make corrections in our 22 regulations, to make sure that there are appropriate level 23 of regulation.
There's a wide range between volunteered and 24 heavily regulated.
We're always looking for the right 1
25 price, where should regulators be.
As a regulator in a ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
r S-90 1
state, there's a whole bunch of low-dose sources that are 2
coming on the market now.
And I look at the GL experience 3
and I say, well, let's be very careful not to just dismiss 4
these out of hand and let's find the appropriate level of 5
regulation.
So, I'm looking to your performance indicators, 6
as well as ours, to see what the proper regulation is.
7 The last comment I'll make is on the national 8
database issue and the Food and Drug Administration has a 9
national database for mammography.
And they began with a 10 national database for inspection of mammography facilities.
11 And all of our inspectors have laptops and their inspection 12 information is uploaded automatically to the FDA database.
13 And that enables the FDA to make some very good decisions on 14 where they need to concentrate their resources.
15 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
So, let me make sure I 16 understand.
So, you think it's a good thing?
17 DR. LIPOTI:
It's a good thing.
18 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
And you don't believe that it's 19 impossible to do?
20 DR. LIPOTI:
It's not impossible, because I just 21 went from an inspection program of the states as accrediting 2:
bodies and our states as certifiers.
It was a pilot program 23 with Illinois, California, and Iowa.
As long us managers 24 got out of the way and let the computer people talk to the 25 computer people, they solved the problems.
And so, I think ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Repor~ers 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
S-91 1
it is possible and they can use the FDA experience.
2 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
We want the Commissicners to 3
get out of the way and let the computer people talk to the 4
computer people.
5 (Laughter.)
6 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
On that note, let me just thank 7
you.
8 DR. LIPOTI:
Ask me questions.
9 COMMISSIONER DICUS:
Okay.
And I would point out 10 that we do still have a quorum, so we can still go forward, 11 except you can't leave.
12 (Laughter.]
13 COMMISSIONER DICUS:
Commissioner Diaz, do you i
14 have a question or comment?
15 COMMISSIONER DIAZ:
Well, I don't have some 1
l 16 questions.
I appreciate the comments and they will l
17 certainly be taken into account.
18 COMMISSIONER DICUS:
Commissioner McGaffigan?
19 COMMISSIONER MCGAFFIGAN:
I'll make a comment and 20 it's to commend both the Organization of Agreement States 21 and CRCPD for their efforts in this area.
On the 22 information technology issue, I don't know, and this 23-question really goes to the staff, is it a requirement of 24 the CPIC process, as you've been trying to put together 25 proposals for how we're going to do this database, that ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
r l
S-92 1
there would be opportunities for the states to leverage it, I
l 2
if we're not going to quite provide laptops and the l
l 3
software, itself?
Is that a requirement, at the moment, or l
l 4
is that something that you're not requiring?
l i
5 MR. COOL:
That is a requirement, which will field 1
6 into our analysis.
I don't believe that's a formal l
7 requirement of the CIOCPIC process, itself.
8 COMMISSIONER MCGAFFIGAN:
It's not a formal 9
requirement.
But, in going forward, you're advocating that 10 as a requirement for whatever is chosen?
11 MR. COOL:
What we have, and this was in our l
12 systems specifications, and there are several -- the system 13 requirements in the requirements documents, into the capital 14 planning investment control analysis, which analyzes the l
l 15 options it would meet that set of requirements.
Part of the l
16 requirements we laid out was usability with ourselves, 17 expendability with ourselves, usability and supportability 18 with the states, because we would want to try, if we could, 19 to move to that national system.
20 COMMISSIONER MCGAFFIGAN:
Okay.
Well, there's a l
21 tendency to stovepipe everything and if there -- you know, 22 it we need to encourage, I certainly encourage that we --
23 that that requirement that you have in there be taken l
24 seriously, as the process goes on.
We don't want to be 25 penny-wise and pound foolish and do something that will hurt ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
(
S-93 1
the compatibility issue.
I'm not sure -- you probably 2
shouldn't hold your breath for the laptops and the software.
3 But, maybe even the software, itself -- I don't know whether 4
-- you know, if it's off the shelf, it's a lot easier than 5
if it's, you know, some proprietary thing that nobody is --
6 they want to make money off of all of you guys.
But, I hope 7
that that's a requirement that sticks through the process.
8 And I don't know quite -- as I said earlier, I don't know 9
quite how we canc in a federal procurement setting, we can l
10 bring these folks in.
But, maybe we need to find a way to 11 make sure that what we're doing is indeed compatible or 12 whatever.
13 COMMISSIONER DIAZ:
Excuse me, and the software is 14 probably the easiest, because, you know, everybody has 15 enough hardware now.
So, it's an issue of software more 16 than the issue of the hardware.
l 17 COMMISSIONER DICUS:
Good point.
Thank you.
I'd 18 like to thank each of the presenting organizations for the 19 information you've provided in this briefing.
We recognize 20 that it takes time and effort to prepare to come in, to I
21 provide this kind of testimony, plus just coming in'and of
)
1 22 itself.
But, you provide invaluable service to us and to
]
23 your own interest, and just want you to know how much it is 24 appreciated very much.
I'd also like to, again, thank the I
l 25 staff for a job well done.
It's been, as I mentioned ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l
Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 L
3 i
i S-94 1
earlier, a major undertaking, but it is -- you've done a 2
very good job and thank you.
3 The Commission, obviously, will give serious j
4 consideration to the views that we've heard today, including i
l 5
the new recommendations that have come forward and, also, in 4
6 our review of the NRC staff proposed requirements, to 7
improve the accountability of certain generally licensed j
8 devices.
It does appear, and I'm gratified for this, that l
9 there is general agreement with the need to enhance control 10 of generally licensed devices, without imposing an l
11 unnecessary burden.
However, there are some issues that i
12 have been raised this morning that will require close l
13 attention by the Commission, as we go forward in our 14 assessment of SECY-99-108.
And I assure you, we will 15 consider these issues, as we review the proposals.
16 Any further comments from the Commissioners?
Then 17 we stand adjourned.
18
[Whereupon, at 11:10 a.m.,
the briefing was 19 concluded.]
20 21 22 23 24 25 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
e 1
CERTIFICATE l.
l l
This is to certify that the attached description of a meeting of the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission entitled:
TITLE OF MEETING:
BRIEFING ON MATERIAL CONTROL OF GENERALLY LICENSED DEVICES PUBLIC MEETING
)
PLACE OF MEETING:
Rockville, Maryland
~
i DATE OF MEETING:
Friday, April 16, 1999 l
was held as herein appears, is a true and accurate record-of the meeting, and that this is the original transcript thereof taken stenographically by me, thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction of the court 1
reporting company Transcriber:
Rose Gershon Reporter:
Jon Hundlev 1
l l
ys d
ter f a a u Sg r
e n
af s
a o
e e
rl S c
ec o
ud l
i t
uv cNn Re el a r
D ay d
9 i
ct ed 9
Die se 9
df
, ea l
os 1
o pn OMS l
oe 6
Cd a I
r c
1 ni r
Pi dae L
l i
l t
r al a ny p
a nim ol A
ot l
r a
gr sr ne Dua d e if n
r l
nc ee DI u irG f
B oN f
n o o e is c ivf i
ifDO
e lah r
t y
e t
n e c
l t
r e
n e o js e
gf oe r
e r
n eb po r
un h
co t
y et s l
t t s e i
~
eta o
r n
nl r
i c
e e
ai pr m
c l
t b pr i
a u u d
l up s c la n h
sr o e r
a t
r e
t s
e o a
nt f
s gl s
en eta ge e
na v
av eh em f
t h
o i
cr g
hh tc p
nm 2
t s
e ep a
i t
nl i
op l
j l
cr b
ua ega m
v t
r O
r o
r l
r o
o d
o lo pr o
f c
d e
c p
pc n
sn f
np e a a
oo ooa r
pis t
i w
os st r
s n ri n ao u e e
rf t
pm ot arr i
sn v
i t
u em pgo s
t i
r c
e h
o oes a
i t
v sC s
s r
g en O
s e usm sei di id ur g
co cnm vu n
sf se o
rol c e
c n
i i
i fe Db DliC Pi irB
+
+
+
i
no i
t a
r g
ts nn g
k o i
i i
e at a
R mt e n y
3 t
C e
i l
l Resum b
i NiR e i
t t
a r v elp p
i oiv ms m
t i
csin f
san os os r
rCie isp eoi t
t hf t
a u po ei esOf f
v B
t r
i e
Eat s
wp t
c l
c e c
aomr nSA r
i dgl u
l p
uot neoo ot d
o uLFCsctin o-eu aetey T
r imiaa n
r f
r o
g1 1 2 RtSd ecm k eeeC eo r
eor sm e
cl l
l n
auuuReogsu BRRRNFCAAS i
l tu O ++++++++++
en n
h o o
i Tis se s
sh i t
.i fo d sm md e ee y
cm mteh t
nio ocr t
i iv l
b meC Crfeo i
a ad i
t x
e ed m n
edh h
a t t u
et r r os pso d agp r
unt epou cc a oes f
r o
e npr a e r
cn i
y Gl o b
i r
nG i
t u5 glyi t
o t
aig a
s o1 nl b
iad rht n
et ai a n k r n
rk a
r e dh on e dMt r
s l
Wem oRio etne gm eSeW h
g r r e
t d o k
,r e
eo anc a8 ah 4
cm 9t t
t ae t
n s9 ny S
r or c
d1 eb co t is f
nf t n
,md i i n s ec a3 ee e e med f 1 l
i pe e c f
f pi l
bi e sd aimt r
v e
r t
n se rh a s pi e
ad gt w C Add h
Ao r
ni bo Re d
/
h as ne Cf f
Nt e
os Rop pe s o is n s e Ntyu 8 al s o
9 wen c
i d
ml abG i
r ve l
ni 9
i ec t
n 1
l mly a
udl i
u
,t g
ol 5n n6 ys l
a r
o Cr 9ui9 a etoa r
r r
e 9ork 9 u
f e g
en 1 co1 nef na k
h e c
aht e n aWin JTSg c
Tg I
aB
+
+
+
f1l
5
.n l
1 o 3i ee
@ta ts m
l lar m
o n
gf o
o nn 8
r f
e 9
iir r
uo u
9 3
l i
r 1
qf s
es d
e e
2 n
r t t
s o
ye s
r a
b o
e 9
t i
p b
9 S
t u
a nq o
m 9
m r
oe rp e
1 t
i r o
t s
a c
r rC o
e 6
f f
i g
sR D
t 1
3l a e
iN n
y R
g o
n r
s u 5
eo o
a rd i
t C
a u
ei r t r
v t
r R
Cd c
e i
t b
ed i
Rn l
t N
o b
s e
n l
Np u
g F
i t in n r s p
e d
e a ro oe d
R e
m f
f r e
s m
s so v
a o
m l
o i
its o
r or l
e c
s a s r
cf 8
a b e p
d d
1 9
B e
p e
o 7
9 d
a s a
F l
ir d
1 n
la gn n
n e
e p
v a e e o3 i
g c
i s
e s, l
i2 d
t e
sl i
sr e
n ce L
el ie h
e ei a
r mb s
m d r r t s
iv e i
mto m
Cu lb 1
on r e oc u
o Rd e
Pg CO P
C Nn l
i uR
+
+
+
+
+
e l
r a
e e
t i
t w
n a
s i
y e
r e
p e
e l
t e
s o
o s
ta e
p r
n ps m
h h
pe e
t t
c f
as i
i i
xo o
w a
l e c r
r 6
s h
o p
1 e
t e f
p d h s
i 8
t a
v n
e i
t f
i e
o i
uo t
t t 8 c
o v
i l
t 9 b
n9 a
a f d i
t r
e1 p
si c
re ah a
u t
s v
h p
s5 i
e u
w l
r a1 e
wr d
o on o
w t
l e
n c
lo ay o
eb u
f l
rl c
l im s
t e
o l
t
.a nt f
oe asi a
ei o
e t
Nc d en cm 6
s e
t e
e s ex et i
i e
eD n ng h o p
r a
l i
r c
s n u en t
t mo t r i
o t c
,p i
v g
el m.d p ol i
i sea ct i
es r
r o
t noewr n
c Re e
l of l
r e e
r i
eo wn A
s 9 et esif i
l a
a n 9wrapnv r
s sc p
ee 9
t ee u
d c ssic r s r
s r
1 e
o o el gigrlisr i
t
,n eon ed ct c w
Fl 1
e a
i tco sd a
r r
3i l
iaa pr o
e e al at r a c st h
a h
n cmi g
n n l
l t
t t r o
f e r
nnt en o
i og a0 eoishl c
l i
a F
M4t c gf a n e t i y0 8o 8pArOm oh e
p0 f
t 1
o 0, o
gt i
c ea 7
s e
A4 A
Rht luR
+
+
+
1 l
3 a
s t
r e
r e
e a
n s
P e
n g
e l
la c
5 i
l r
s o
1 r
l f
3 a
o r
y e
d p
n n
l l
p a
e e
l a
g v
r r
0 o
5 o
f f
3 1
s r
t 3
s t
t a
n n
P e
e r
7 m
o m
fo e
f e
r s
r s
i i
u n
u n
o q
on q
e so e
i i
t r
r i i ces s
vt a
s se e
or e
r t w
e f
ps f
i i
h i
i i
s r
r e
c n a
cg a
i i
e i
v h
e c
l f
l r
c i
re wic c
d s
eo d
l v
sl ne pt n
O ea ae st a
r c
i f
s e
s se s
ir n
2 a n d
dj d
e b
e d
d u
d l
c e
Cg Al As A
i lu R
+
+
+
+
,e g
e
)
n s
I i
R n
t r
s
(
e r
e e
c of l
t a
f s i
l s
u l
t n
r la d
a n a e
r er f
i r
v e
t e
d n
mf e
i d
n n
e eo r
d g
ie i
e e
ut n
w qa a
G l
b e
ed y
is n
r 5
l n
,d n
y en o
1 o
b ea 3
p e
s r
s r
r g
9 e
e e n e a
r v
e ob c
o b
r l
tn m
m l
i a
n t
l o
e u cu s
i r
p g
k n if n
r o
p n
al cl f
8 o
i a
eia f
a t
i i
d t
r er pr s
o o
e e
e t
s t
i n
p s s s
w s
e nd o
o o
e r
t r
l s
e e n i
r e la s
h a eb s
s f
iv n
e wo sm e
c d
en nu m
e e
r f
an i
R i
d d
r t
i l
I t
f a
aR e
o l
y a
m o
f s
r f
r n
h r
e o
o rf r e e
t a
n e
ot oc g
t tg m
e g
pn pl er n a i
g n
ee es o
i l
r s
s a
r e
h m
r
't st Pe t
s o
on r
c e
t t e c
e u
s si sp g
i r
ir i
t n
2s q
d d
di si u
n e
d d q r
d c e u e e R
A Ar Ar Rd e
e luc i
RL
+
+
+
+
+
o t
tce j
b u
S se n
e o
s i
t n
d a
e e
r t
r c
s e
i i
t g
L s
e ig r
la e
n 9
r r
e o
e p
n n
b u
e o
o G
i t
d t
a r
r s
e t
r o
s e
e i
c u
e f
i g
q f
i v
s e
e r
e n
r n
d o
f o
o r
t n
i o
a i
o s
s i
f t
r t
i l
a vn a
a s
i m
i eo i
t r
g e
e r
Ri d
o e
t t
r a
r i
f r
s c
n s
i 2t d
d s
d d
ei A
A g
lue RR
'e
'e
s s
r e
o c
d e
n i
v pe e
l e
e v
d m s e.
y is n s n
.s eu b
ot ac d
r f
n oel o e
i
.s opcl d
an i
t t r
ear i
o arl o
v pmy pei o
nta r
e r
p erl r e c r o el go e
f t
r l
nri b
l eiawe r
f h o o
s & qR uI t
f t
n s d s n
a r 's e ns o
r e rh ae t
i b ot r
t lamdf nd a
s e u noiod m
ir r
t n er sa ro o
al ves g f
0
.s n
i 1
d miaob min t
i m
n g
r t l
mi e
n o
f n
yet u a
r s n o
l i
e e
,e Cm m
p g
n V
e e
n sme s
r e
tr r
i ne a u
k m
r a ee i
b c oh o
uq aht d q
d i
t r
f ml pne e
o
~d f
r s
oup ef c
n i
ed ec g
e a
i n
n s
r n n
r awe o
ne o t
l i
t r
r t p n
le o
edf ee s e
is b
d n od mb s a
n nr t
t s iv omea tc s e
oe l
e c
nna e l
sr r
a v
cm R
sd uend n
s so t
edt h od o
e et s
e t
s s s iArTcA i
u i
i i
2 v
d v
v c e
d e
e e
R A
R Rt o luR
+
+
+
+
fo s
r e
a c e n y a m
el r
i ep e
m t
r h
t o
g t c n
s o
r n l
i r
f o e
m nn v
s a
f i
o r
n r
o n
go e
e t
h p o
oi n
sr c gu i
i t
epa c
l i
a h w lu np e
tn ou eo r
d e
gi bl n l
1 oo o
t 1
naw of m
i t
r t
it t o
t f a
d e
s sl d or l
e ixgfo i
t l
ees t
p e e c
t si f r e a
g e
m u
of a mare p
t I
x oi r
n r
t c
i o
onp seh e
oo eb g m
i f
t u
air en o a
t s
ap
- t r
r or e
enr p aih g
c d et a t
s sat o
uming r
r t t d
p l
u c ein sn e
ipmk oer o
nl i
f s
cme o
e smd a r
v s
AT ole o t
t I
R s
jpc s
a o
o mn Miu C
C C
RN
+
+
+
ne k
e a
t t
av h
c i
to a
m o
rp to p
s n
a e
c e
s i
iv c
d i
e v
n d
re a
fo s
n r
g o
i e
n tp b
id o
m s
iv u
o e
de i
n r
c r
p i
r f
l o
r o
e f
s o
p f
e t
e n e r
g s
e e p
t i
n s
cf s
2 a
o i
g f
f 1
f f
r c
ein a
ro e r
t t
t f e e
sis s
v t s ox e
en oc me h
se t
e h
sic r
st s
i i el s
i w
s e
o tp e
eh n
t e
f c e
t n
h a o
d e n s
s e
c e o
n i
e t
d nt n
t e
i i
t c ewr a
n os ec p
c o
r e
cs i
i i
ief l
l vl e
n n O
eeat d
io t
r r
n s
yc n
e i
pd c o p
e s c s
i er r
r oie o
t r
e e
epna n
aicb e gl i
u vl s
ee i
f t
s u
o sapt u
u f
l i
s edt eh mu t
c n
a el c C
eei tar l
i u
o FFSA FbSM c
l l
r y
n Fin i
t t
p e
o S
O K
C ee F
+
+
+
)s e
ro ta d
tS ne t
v ne d
m na ee y
r r
t g
s A
u d
-n n
o i
n le d
e n
t a
(S e
t e
.s ag r
3 t
n Sa e
1 o
k d
t c
i l
ta na o
p ep h
c m
e i
e k
el i
e u a
tr t
a r
s r
s p
gg h
tr c
An t
i i
o i
f p w
l f
b o o f
u t
l E
n e c
p ov a
n d
t ie n
t o
e ad t
s p
o i
a a
in c
ci y
n e
it f i
r rf r
l d
c aa a
r n
t Ps E
o I
oC
+
+
+
n i
y t
B C
i l
ib y
y i
r r
ta o
o p
g g
g e
e n
m t
t yi t
o a
a r
l r c
C C
a o ep t
)
s e
c 2
t nr i r 3
n or t
e o
s tr d
a m
sd t
e P
e nn t
r ee r
(
iu mv o
s q
pp n
e mte t
ed oa r
u y
n t
e cS s
m a t
s e
e t
i 4
r
,s st l
1 a
i gn e n b
e u n e u e i
h c
qi i
yr k
c qm t
t e
d e a
r al e e i
l i
p nm u
r ml e
r o
a r
m u
l m
wt er g
o l
i o
m e
wA l
o u u n C
mc eb r e
ef l
i oe ur g g u o l
e ct r tsn r
t a
if n
a dt di t o d o d
t ei e
a eis i
l t t l
t t c sl l
S a a oasa san l
i t
uf p
s ot e l
e n
pek pem n
go o e c o me r
e et pe e a
r r
KnM pei m
e s
r r
u e
ep l
e d
i q
h r h
hTirme e
To T
r g
A
+
+
+
)
)8 0
n 5
o 1
i t
1 ce R
p F
)m sn 46 e
I t
d s
n 9
y a
9 S
9 g
n 1
o n
i 9
k i
t e
a c
c r
h a
t c
r n
s r
T a
i d
g a
e M
e 5
u R
(
s 1
i G
n y
e
,g c
c e
i n
i e
o L
l i
s s
P l
n n
a e
e t
r s
c c
n e
e n
i i
e L
L m
e i
t f
f (G
o o
e iv c
i t
t r
t n
n o
s c
e e
f e
A m
me n
d E
a d
p pc r
e o
on m
g a
p t
l l
a e
ed ir v
vi e
U ic e
eu t
o D
DG n
T I
I ssA
+
+
+
+
i
~
ero l
uf e
r h
r c
d c n
ie ea a
s o h
i or l
t p
d pp m
op n
r a a
o p
c d
s e e
'L n
h d o
t G
n f
n oe k
f c
o nm a
p om r
i t
u o
t o
ws a c o L' c e t
i r
G b
l y
l lo t
u e i
f h l
ph ib oi t
t 6
1 a
w g g e.
t s
et n ne uc i
C' d
a o u n i
vd s R
r t
e mn pc c l
N o
pni a
r c
ai/
l e
t e
v gh o
og sne r
d ef rp pu nmf o
e o
m foh m m r
n i
oo d
st mci t
d l
t u
s e o c c o
or cie
.s y
we ce ebl l
l r
r v
r c
u o a
ei oo pc ff v
jc l
m u e a
a r e n
t m
Rd Mu Sfoe f
u S
+
+
+
Comments on Registration for Generally Licensed Devices And Orphan Source Initiative Jill Lipoti, Ph.D.,
New Jersey Thpartment of Environmental Protection And On behalf of the Board of Directors of the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors April 16,1999
1 o
Comments on Registration for Generally Liernsed Devices And Orphan Source Initiative As I was reading BEIR VI, it came to me that our regulatory programs are perturbations in the ability of radiation to cause cancer or hereditary effects. Our regulations stand between the gamma ray or the alpha particle and their ability to serve as a cancer initiator or cancer promoter. So let's consider what effect our puny human efforts can have on the ability for radiation to cause cancer.
There has been a significant increase in the number of incidents involving radioactive materials over the last 8 years in New Jersey. See Attachment 1. From a low of 24 incidents in FY91 to a high of 85 incidents in FY97, the staff has been busy responding to various calls involving radioactive material on the loose. shows the breakdown of the various incidents in New Jersey from the last four years. The radiation incidents that occurred fall into seven general categories:
- 1. Contaminated Waste / Trash - all were contaminated with radionuclides resulting from nuclear medicine procedures that have relatively short half-lives.
- 2. Contaminated Metal - all were contaminated with longer lived radionuclides
- 3. Lost, Stolen or Abandoned Devices - containing radioactive materials with half-lives of 0.5 to 30 years.
- 4. Damaged Devices - containing radioactive materials with half-lives of 0.5 to 30 years.
- 5. Naturally occurring radioactive materials in soil, sand or debris - with long half-lives of >10E6 years.
- 6. Transportation incidents -involving radioactive materials in transit,. The majority of these shiprnents involve radionuclides used for nuclear medicine procedures.
- 7. All other types of incidents - from allegations of improper acti'ities while using radioactive materials, improper use of radioactive materials placards and labels, discovery of a radioactive rock in a science classroom, etc.
It is clear from this information that a registration program for Generally Licensed devices should decrease the number of incidents for response, but will not allow us to stop responding to alarms at waste handling facilities.
Lest you think that the alarms at landfills and scrap metal facilities are set at an inappropriate level, and that if the alarms were set at a higher percentage of backgraund we would be able to prioritize the responses, we analyzed incidents that caused us to issue a DOT exemption.
We found that 50% of the incidents were due to contaminated scrap metal containing discrete sources or gauges. The levels ranged from 20-98% above background.
Contaminated Shredded Auto fluff accounted for 15% of the incidents and readings were 400-900% above background.
Contaminated Hazardous Waste such as that containing K-40 potassium sulfate caused 15% of the incidents and readings were 200% above background.
Naturally occurring radioactive material in sand, soil, or debris were only 10% of the incidents 1
but the readings were among the highest - 400-500% above background. The highest readings were due to waste contaminated with medical radionuclides such as 1-131, and while only 10%
of the incidents, the readings were 200-5,000% above background.
I have used the New Jersey data to characterize the problem because it was close at hand.
and I believe your staff will be providing you with nationwide data. I believe the NJ examples are in about the midpoint of states as far as responses go. While we are a small state, we are bisected by many major transportation routes. There are a number of scrap metal facilities located on these major transportation routes. We are also home to many cancer treatment facilities, pharmaceutical industries, and have some soils with high concentrations of naturally occurring radioactive materials.
The proposed GL device regulations would require registration information from 6,000 of the 45,000 general licensees, accounting for about 24,000 of the 600,000 devices in use. The devices were chosen based on the recommendations from the Agreement State / NRC task group.
Another NRC effort is on-going that will characterize all materials on the basis of risk, and when those results are public, there will be a reexamination of the GL device registration program, I imagine. Clearly, the registration of these GL devices is necessary since the NRC's own investigation demonstrated that approximately 15% of these general licensees couldn't account for all of their sources.
GL device registration is one of a multifaceted approach to keep stray devices and people apa' t.
Although the universe of GL devices that is planned for registration is small, it was a prioritization based on the experience of regulators at the state and federal level. I hope that the benefits of increased tracking of the GL devices outweigh the administrative costs for the registration program and that it will be expanded to include more and more devices.
All regulation is a compromise between complete control and voluntary efforts. The regulations proposed for even these devices are not a perfect solution to the problem. Prevention is always easier than cleaning up problems later. Misunderstandings could arise since there are no provisions to clearly communicate that these GL devices are subject to regulation as described in the sales literature. In fact, some of the sales literature does not even mention that the device contains radioactive materials.
However, the new rule would require that copies of the applicable sections of the regulations including information regarding disposal options for the devices being transferred would be sent to a potential buyer before the final decision to purchase.
This new provision should minimize misunderstandings, if the potential buyer reads them. There is no signed statement that the buyer has read and understood his responsibilities. W'ithout a signed " certification statement" how can anyone prove that they were or were not properly informed of their obligations as a general licensee?
There are clearly inappropriate conditions for use of general licensed devices. Regulators do not issue guidance on these conditions, instead leaving it to the buyer to determine for him or herself if their intended use is appropriate. The manufacturer may or may not communicate their infonnation on appropriate usage, depending on their motivation to sell their product.
2
The relatively uninformed GL device purchaser needs to have clear instructions on the correct measures to take when an accident occurs to reduce the radiological impact. Proper methods for detection of the radioactivity should be included. The range of exposure that can be expected during an accident should be described including the assumed accident parameters.
The additional information to be communicated from the manufacturers and distributors would be similar in nature to that contained on Material Safety Data Sheets, a common communication tool that most facilities have come to rely upon for chemical hazards. The mechanisms are already in place for managing this type ofinformation and people are already trained to access the information in case of accidents or incidents.
The new requirements for GL devices include a " responsible individual". However, there is no back up. Unlike a specific license where there would be a radiation safety officer and authorized users, there may only be one person in the whole company who has a real understanding that the device is generally licensed and contains a radioactive source. When that Responsible Individual leaves or is let go the general licensed device may be the farthest thing from his mind. This has occurred on many occasions in New Jersey and ultimately led to abandonment of the devices that entered the public domain.
Also, there is no limit on the number of GL devices that a facility could possess before a specific license would be required. The Responsible Individual could have more radioactivity under theirjurisdiction than a specific licensee could, and no back up for their responsibilities.
They don't even have a MSDS to refer to for instructions in case of spills or incidents. It makes it much too easy for devices to enter the waste stream.
Let's not forget the profile of incident responses. GL devices are only part of the problem but there are other efforts underway. The orphan source effort is aimed at getting materials recovered from waste streams disposed of economically. The beauty of this effort is that while the materials are not permanently removed from the biosphere, they are at least isolated from human contact to a facility regulated to provide no more than a 25 mrem annual dose at the fenceline. And that level is rarely approached.
The question remains about how to provide funds for permanent disposal of orphaned devices. It is not equitable to expect the recycling and other waste handling facilities to pay for disposal of sources which only entered their facilities due to improper handling by the owner. It appears that increased licensing fees for manufacturers and distributors of general licensed devices could create some sort of fund for supporting the recovery and dispositioning of orphaned sources.
One area that we have to be especially careful about is the effort within NRC to provide
" Clearance Levels" for the release of materials into regular trash. While these are no doubt based on health and safety criteria for public exposure, it may be possible that material at the clearance level could set off detectors at waste facilities. Response to these " false alarms" could lead to the same problem with false fire alarms. While the state responders are determining that there is no i
health.and safety problem at the waste facility, this is time taken away from their other regulatory duties.
3 l
g Additionally, the patient release criteria in Reg Guide 8.39 allow patients treated with such materials as 1-131 to go home where they excrete and their diapers wind up in municipal trash. A good outreach effort should accompany the use of this reg guide to make sure that patients are aware of the importance of keeping their excreta out of the municipal trash.
Provisions for retuming it to a hospital for storage for decay would be helpful since most people have an aversion to keeping diapers in their freezer for decay, and they would have no instrumentation for checking to be sure background was reached before disposal.
The efforts at registering a segment of the GL device owners, providing for recovery and dispositioning of orphan sources, and the international effort at detecting radioactivity before it enters recycle facilities are all worthy efforts for perturbing the ability for radiation to cause or l
promote cancer. As our regulatory programs become more results oriented, performance l
indicators for these programs should be closely watched to ensure that we have made the right decisions in implementing these programs.
There are a number oflow dose x-ray radiation sources, such as people scanners and bone densitometers that have recently entered the market. It would be easy to dismiss them to a category of very limited regulation just as GL devices were initially treated. However, the trick l
is to find the appropriate level of regulation - and all of us are still struggling with that balance.
l I am encouraged by NRC's efforts to revisit the GL device regulations and to make changes. I put it in the category of a good start. Don't let it end there. Let's work together to find that appropriate regulatory level that prevents problems instead ofjust reacts to them. Let's start by including provisions for a back-up responsible individual and clear instructions for what to do in an incident.
Thank you for allowing me to address you. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
L i
4 i
i I
f 4
I
~
s tne d
icn s
I E
no i
t 8
a 9Y g
F i
7 t
9 4
Y s
F e
69 v
YF n
5 1
I 9
TN Y
E R
t F
I n
ICA 4
T 9
T e
Y A
F d
3 i
9 c
Y F
n 2
I 9Y J
F N
1 9Y
- F 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
9 8
7 6
5 4
~
no h
i t
s n
a a
J e
t r
d r
l T
o e
o N
gMs
/
t p
S e
l a
r t
a/
mR n
e s
t t
o aO a h a
e s
r t
n WMLDNTO i
EEOEEEE s
t ne 89 d
" YF ic j
2 T
n NEM li I
7 CA 9
TT Y
o F
A t
se 6
9 s
Y n
F 3
op 5
s 9Y e
F R
~
5 0
0 5
0 5
0 0
4 4
3 2
2 1
1
Statement ofthe Steel Manufacturers Association regarding the l
l l
l l
Staff Draft Proposed Rule - Requirements for Certain Generally Licensed Industrial Devices Containing Byproduct Material before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
l l
April 16,1999 l
l l
l SteelManufacturers Association 1730 Rhode Island Ave., NW Suite 907 Washington,DC 20036 l
tel. (202) 296-1515 l
fax (202) 396-2506 http://www.steelnet.org l
l l
f L
I.
Introduction Good morning. My name is Thomas Danjczek, and I am the President of the Steel Manufacturers Association ("SMA"). The SMA appreciates the opportunity to provide our views with respect to proposed rulemaking for Generally Licensed Devices ("GLD").
Presenting on behalf of the SMA, a trade association of 59 North American steel companies.
are two knowledgeable gentlemen from Structural Metals, Incorporated ("SMI"), in Seguin Texas.
Michael Peters is Vice President: Manager, Environment, and Stephen Larick is Environment i
Department Compliance Supervisor.
II.
The Steel Manufacturers Association A.
Reeveling Contribution The SMA is the largest steel trade association in North Americe, and the primary trade l
association for electric arc furnace ("EAF") steel producers which make steel from a feedstock of virtually one-hundred percent scrap. The fifty United States member companies of the SMA are geographically dispersed across the country and account for almost half of total domestic steel production. Last year, the EAF steel industry recycled over 50 million tons ofiron and steel scrap l
which would have otherwise been landfilled or littered the countryside. Steel is the nation's most recycled material, and SMA members comprise the largest recycling industry in the United States.
A list of SMA member companies is attached to this statement.
j Unfortunately, from time to time radioactive sources have been " lost" and allowed to enter the scrap supply system. This is due, we believe, to inadequate control over the licensed sources.
The presence of spent radioactive sources in the ferrous scrap supply, however, has produced significant, unanticipated economic consequences and health and safety risks to steel workers and the general public.
B.
SMA Environment Committee I have been participating in the SMA's efforts since 1992 to encourage NRC to improve its control and accountability over the devices the agency has licensed through its general licensing program. I have attended meetings with NRC staff and Commissioners and have been active in SMA activities, including exchange information on lost sources, incidents and maximization of detection capability. The SMA has undertaken these efforts for the following reasor.s:
(1) to protect worker health and safety; (2) to protect the health and safety of the general public that may be unknowingly exposed to improperly discarded sources; and (3) to reduce the costly impact of radioactive scrap on steel mills
Steel Manufacturers Association Page 2 C.
Steel Company Efforts SMA member companies have taken the initiative to keep radioactivity out of their mills, and have become the "second net" to catch improperly discarded sources that escape NRC's inadequate regulatory regime. Steel companies perform this function at considerable cost, as they must finance installation, use, and maintenance of detection equipment, production delays, and worker time for training and detection.
D.
Cost to the Steel Industry The steel industry has responded to the inadequate control oflicensed devices by installing sophisticated detection systems to monitor all incoming shipments of scrap. Many SMA members have also installed additional detectors at the charge bucket to improve detection. While steel mills usually detect the sources, no system is completely effective in detecting sources buried in the middle of a tmek load of scrap. If a steel mill inadvertently melts a radioactive source, it can incur
$10 - 24 million dollars in unanticipated costs for decontamination, disposal of contaminated materials, and lost production time. The cost can bankrupt a small or medium sized minimill.
t E.
Public Health and Safety Risks The impact of radioactive sources is not only economic. The health and safety risks are evident from the several documented incidents that have occurred in the United States and l
worldwide where lost sources have been stolen by petty thieves, abandoned in shuttered factories, or hidden under fences and in private homes. There is clearly a public policy interest in holding general licensees accountable for the sources they use.
III.
NRC's Current Program for Control and Accountability of Licensed Devices Under NRC's current regulatory regime for control and accountability oflicensed devices in 10 C.F.R. & 31, there is little economic incentive to discard generally licensed radioactive sources properly. The regulations enable members of the public to obtain a general license automatically and without filing an application.'
(
This licensing regime renders it difficult for NRC to collect information directly from holders ofcenain radioactive sources. Consequently, NRC does not have sufficient control over generally licensed sources, and licensees have minimal accountability. The result is that sealed sources are
' Final Report of the NRC-Agreement State Working Group to Evaluate Control and Accountability of Licensed Devices, NUREG-1551,10 (1996) (hereinafter " Working Group Report").
i Steel Manufacturers Association t
Page 3 often improperly discarded in shipment of ferrous scrap destined for steel mills, presenting major l
risks to human health and safety ifinadvertently breached in a scrap shredder or melted in an electric arc furnace.
l IV.
NRC's Obliention to Imnrove Control and Accountability of Licensed Devices NRC has a statutory obligation to protect public health and safety.2 NRC has been aware of l
the lack of accountability and control in its general license program at least since 1983, when the l
first known inadvertent melting of a radioactive source in a steel mill occurred. It is clearly within NRC's authority to amend its licensing regime to minimize the threat that radioactive sources pose to human health and safety, the environment, and to the economic viability of steel companies.
j Over the years, however, NRC has been largely unresponsive to the radioactive scrap problem and to our requests for a more stringent regulatory regime. Recently, however, the NRC
)
staff has taken positive, although small, steps to minimize the risks associated with improper disposal of spent sources in the scrap supply, in response to directives in the Commission's Staff l
Requirements Memorandum.' The NRC staff has not yet fulfilled all of the requirements.
I V.
NRC's Recent Propa==In Reemrdine Generally Licensed Devices t
On December 2,1998, NRC proposed to amend its regulations by requiring general licenses l
to respond to requests from NRC to provide cenain information.' The SMA provided written comments in support of that limited proposal in February. Additionally, NRC announced on March 9,1999, that it is revising its enforcement policy to provide amnesty to licensees who are out of compliance but report their violations and undertake corrective action.5 This proposal was not open for comment.
l l
Recently, the NRC staff made available on a Web site materials related to yet another rulemaking, the Staff Draft Proposed Rule Requirements for Certain Generally Licensed Industrial Devices Containing Byproduct Material, and has requested comments.6 The most recent preposal 2 2 U.S.C. { 2011(b).
4
' Staff Requirements Memorandum from Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Acting Secretary, NRC (April 13,1998).
d63 Fed. Reg. 66,492 (1998).
564 Fed. Reg. I1,508 (1999).
6 Staff Draft Proposed Rule - Requirements for Certain Generally Licensed Industrial (continued...)
e I
Steel Manufacturers Association Page 4 contains more explicit requirements for the registration process, including registration fees, and clarifies requirements applicable to general licensees. This draft proposal also modifies reporting requirements of specific licensees who distribute generally licensed material.
VI.
Comments on the Staff Draft Proposed Rule The member companies of the SMA have an interest in NRC's proposal not only because they are the unwilling recipients ofimproperly discarded sources, but also because they are general licensees and would therefore be held to many of the proposed new requirements. The additional burdens, including paperwork, reporting, and licensing fees, associated with NRC's proposals, comprise a modest insurance premium against the serious economic consequences, and the threat to public health and safety, that improperly discarded sources pose.
NRC must implement a solution that addresses the problems of inadequate control and accountability upstream of the user, by regulating distributors and general licensees, rather than j
downstream, after the sources have been improperly discarded. Accordingly, we generally support NRC's draft proposal and provide additional comments as follows:
A.
Personal Accountability The SMA supports the proposed requirement of designating an individual to be responsible for ensuring compliance with NRC regulations in instances where the licensee is a firm or organization. This is a routine operational practice at SMA member companies, and it would significantly enhance licensee accountability if required and enforced at all licensee facilities.
Furthermore, any limitations on operational flexibility imposed by designating a responsible individual would be negligible compared to the risk posed by lost sources, or a fine imposed under a more stringent enforcement regime.
NRC should require general licensees who take over facilities containing devices to provide the name of the new responsible individual. NRC should also require that the responsible individual have knowledge of the device, general license, and relevant regulations.
I 6(... continued)
(December 18,1998) <http://techconf.llnl. gov /cgi-bin /downloader/genlic_2_ lib /046-0001.htm>.
NRC notified the SMA on April 5,1999 of the availability of the draft on an NRC Web site and that the NRC proposal to be considered by the Commissioners would not be available until April 12, 1999, at the earliest. NRC also requested that we provide this statement on April 9, before the staff's draft proposed rule would be available.
i
u Steel Manufacturers Association Page 5 B.
Two-year Limitation on Storage The SMA suppons the proposed requirement to limit the period during which a device may be stored and unused to two years. We agree that when a device is not used for a prolonged period of time, it is susceptible to neglect and improper disposal. This provision would compel licensees to decide whether to use, retum, or properly dispose of their sources, and would hold licensees accountable for their decisions. This requirement will need to be supponed by a system of accountability.
C.
Flexibility in Transfer The SMA suppons the proposal to provide general licensees the Dexibility to transfer spent sources directly to the disposal facility, provided NRC adequately enforces the accompanying documentation provision.
D.
Inclusion of License Number The SMA suppons the proposed requirement ofincluding a license number and date in the report of transfer, because this information would provide additional verification of the licensee's identity and an additional way for NRC to monitor the transfer.
E.
Oumrterly Reports of Distributors The proposed revisions to the distributor notification requirement would help alleviate the compatibility problems associated with the NRC-Agreement State regime which render it difficult for NRC to track the location oflicensed devices when they are moved to an Agreement State, or from one Agreement State to another. Requiring distributors to provide additional, more specific information, including the serial number, date of transfer, and similar information regarding replacements, would not add significantly to current reporting requirements. Rather. this proposal would efficiently mend pan of the regulatory " net," by providing NRC a mechanism to track sources over which it would otherwise lose jurisdiction.
The proposed requirement also compons with the principle that licensed devices are more easily and efficiently controlled upstream, rather than downstream. Requiring the distributors, who are specific licensees and limited in number, to report information quanerly on the sources they have sold to approximately 45,000 general licensees would provide NRC an additional means of tracking the location of generally licensed sources.
l l
l l
[
l Steel Manufacturers Association Page 6 F.
Simplified Notificathn j
The SMA supports the simplified notification procedure because it would encourage general licensees to notify NRC ofincidents where sources become unsealed or lost, and to do so more promptly.
G.
Bankruptev Notification Bankruptcy notification would bring to NRC's attention facilities in which there is an increased likelihood oflost or improperly discarded sources. NRC should not limit the bankruptcy notification requirement, however, to only the licensees to be covered in the registration program that NRC proposed on December 2,1998. The requirement imposes little additional burden on licensees, and the possibility that they could lose their sources is heightened following bankruptcy.
Therefore, it would not be unreasonable to require all licensees to comply with this requirement.
l H.
Recordkeeping j
The SMA supports the extension of the time penod throughout which heensees must retam records on final disposition of devices, from three to five years after the expected useful life of the device or final disposition. We do not believe it is appropriate to include the phrase "if known,"
because licensees should be assumed to have knowledge of the useful lives of the devices in their possession and their final disposition.
I.
Labeling The SMA supports the requirement of additional labeling on source housing. Steel companies have received on several occasions improperly discarded sources and source housings on which the label has been removed. A marking of the serial number on the source housing would alert NRC and the public to the existence of the missing source.
The SMA also supports the requirement that labels be embossed, etched, stamped, or engraved on the devices, for the reasons NRC listed in its proposal. Permanent labeling would help alleviate the problem of removed labels. It would also help prove criminally improper disposal, as the effort and deliberation required to remove such labeling would indicate the willfulness of the offense.
(
a Steel Manufacturers Association Page 7 J.
Notification of Requirement Prior to Purchait The SMA agrees with NRC that prospective licensees should be notified of general license requirements before purchase of devices. By providing notice of the regulations and potential cost of proper disposal, the prospective general licensee can make an informed decision regarding the purchase.
K.
Registration Requirement When NRC Fails To Contact Licensee NRC requested comments on whether the registration program should require general licensees to complete the registration by a date certain. NRC must, in fact, require registration of stil licensees, including those whom NRC fails to contact. To do otherwise would provide an incentive for licensees to " lose" their request for registration when they receive it and use this as an excuse not to respond. Instead, the NRC would meet its burden of notification by sending out notices to licensees and announcing the registration program in the Federal Register.
L.
Registration Fees NRC's regulatory analysis' budgets a fee of $370 per generally licensed device for the registration program. The current regulatory regime has shifted the costs of tax accountability and control onto steel makers, insurers, and the taxpayers. Currently, general licensees do not pay for their licenses nor provide information directly to NRC about the sources they hold. The cost has instead fallen on steel producers to detect the sources, on the steel producers and taxpayers to arrange for proper disposal, and on steel producers and their insurers to pay the cost when a source is inadvertently melted. The cost ofimproperly discarded sources has also fallen on the general public, in the form ofincreased risk to health and safety from unanticipated exposure to dangerous levels ofradioactivity. General licensees, who benefit econo;nically from the manufacture, sale and/or use of radioactive devices, should be required to shoulder their fair share to protect the public.
Accordingly, a fee of $370 per source is not only equitable, but entirely reasonable.
VII.
Conclusion The SMA supports the NRC staff's latest proposal in its current form, with the few modifications that we have suggested, and we urge swift implementation. We appreciate the NRC staffs efforts in drafting this proposal and look forward to working with the NRC Commissioners l
and staff on the issues that we have raised.
7 Regulatory Analysis: Requirements for the Possession ofIndustrial Devices Containing Byproduct Material (December 18,1998) <http://techeonf.llnl. gov /cgi-bin /downloader/genlic_2_ lib /
046-0002.htm>.
I
)
l Stan Marshall. Chair Edgai llailey. Chair-Elect Roland G. IIrtcher. Past Chair Richard RatlitT. Secretan
+ AGREEMENT STATE PERSPECTIVES +
RULEM AKING ON GENERALLY LICENSED DEVICES L
OAS SUPPORTS Tills RULEMAKING AND RECO3DIENDS COSDilSSION APPROVAL. OAS CONSIDERS TlHS A STEADY FORWARD STEP IN STRENGT11ENING TIIE PARTNERSIIIP PROCESS.
LL Tills RULEMAKLNG IS A POSITIVE OUTGROWTH OF Tile JOINT NRC/O AS WORKGROL'P AND REFLECTS Tile IIENEFIT OF TIIE PROCESS.
j III.
Tile REGISTRATION OF CERTAIN GL DEVICES % ILL 11ELP TO STANDARI)l7,E REGULATORf CONTROL AND ACCOUNTABILITY NATIONWIDE.
IV.
TIIIS RULEMAKING INCORPORATES REMEDIES FOR PERPETUAL OAS GL DEVICE CONCERNS ESPECIALLY LOCATION AND PitOPER DISPOSAL.
V.
TilERE IS SOME OAS CONCERN REGARDING GL DEVICES TilAT IIAVE lilGIIER ACTIVITY TH AN SPECilIC LICENSED MATERIAL. CONSIDERATION SilOULD IIE l
GIVEN TO LIMITING GL DEVICES AS FOLLOWS:
l A. LDfiT GAMMA EMlITERS TO ONE CURIE OR LESS.
C. LDIIT ALPIIA EM1TTERS TO ONE CURIE.
VL TIIERE ALSO REMAINS CONCERN ABOUT MOBILE GL's. ONI Y EXIT SIGNS.
STATIC ELDIINATORS AND COUNTERWEIGIITS SIIOUI.D I!E ALLOWED.
Vll.
THE OAS WILL PERFORM A COMPLETE AND DETAILED REVIEW OF TIIIS DOCUMENT AND PROVIDE COMMINTS. INDIVIDUAL STATES MAY llAVE SPECIFIC CONCERNS TO EXPRESS AND WILL LIKELY DO SO. FIRST D1PRESSIONS, IIOWEVER. ARE TIIAT Tills RULEMAKLNG IS IIEING RECTIVED WITII APPROVAL AND A GENERAL SENSE OF ACCOMPLISIBIENT.
4
(.
S E
C I
V y
tc r E
le a
Et e D
- r r
c i e ah S
('
D 1
f
. i yll E
e a
liaI t
S t
d I
r a
S N
r a
gh di E
c E
l El V
s g
C e
I T
r t
n i
I a
C a
f L
h S i
t E
se e
C P
t t
ir S
Y a
t n
t S
s e
l 9 R
L
_s 3 '( Q) a t
l m
n 9
E y P
/
e m
n9 e
P L
b e
Sf e
o1 r
r E
A d
e g
e i
r u
g s
l e h s
T N
A i
ir O
R A
t A
c n
A t
f f
mp T
E e
e v
o o
s l
n A
e F n
m S
o N
r it o
P o6 T
a r'
\\
i C
N E
G i
z t
1 n
a jl\\
d z
ag E
G n
i rO C
M a
n a
l R
E R
o g
r R
r N
E ia O
O h
R C
G F
tsa rP A
G ia r h e Ch N
c l,t l
e I
aH s.
K h
aG r
Md A
n n a a
l M
o t
t SI E
L U
R
. American Iron and Steel
. institute m
Testimony of Peter A. Hernandez m
Before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission
~
on Proposed Rulemaking for Generally Licensed Devices April 16,1999
/
a
+
BEFORE THE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION APRIL 16,1999 TESTIMONY OF PETER A. HERNANDEZ for l
AMERICAN IRON AND STEEL INSTITUTE on Prooosed Rulemakina for Generally Licensed Devices L
Good morning Madam Chairwoman and Commissioners, my name is Peter A. Hemandez. I am the Vice-President for Employee Relations of the American Iron and l
Steel Institute (AISI), a non-profit trade association whose 38 domestic member companies l
account for approximately 70 percent of the raw steel production in the United States. I am j
here today to present AISI's views on the actions that the NRC and its staff have taken or plan to take in order to improve control over and accountability for generally licensed l
devices.
l l
As our President and CEO, Andrew G. Sharkey lil, testified before the Commission in January of 1998, orphaned sources pose a serious threat to all steel producers. To date, large integrated steel mills have managed to avoid a radioactive melt -
l due in part to the use of sensitive scrap monitoring systems and careful screening of incoming scrap to identify potentially radioactive material. Nevertheless, our members l
remain at risk of melting a large concealed source - which, for a major integrated steel mill, i
could involve $100 million in decontamination, disposal, and lost production costs. For that reason, as Mr. Sharkey noted last year, we support the recommendations of the NRC-Agreement State Working Group for:
Enhanced regulatory oversight of general and specific licensees possessing devices exceeding designated activity thresholds;--
increased responsibilities and obligations for licensees and device vendors; e
Significant penalties for lost devices; and e
A program for handling and disposing of " orphaned" devices.
l Against this background, I am pleased to appear here today to commend the l
NRC for moving forward with proposed regulations to enhance control over and l
accountability for larger generally licensed devices. As indicated in Comments that we filed on February 16,1999, AISI supports the NRC's December 2,1998 proposal to add an explicit provision to its rules, requiring general licensees who possess certain industrial l
devices containing byproduct material to provide the Commission with requested l
information about their status. This would be a first step toward establishing an annual registration program for such devices. We note, however, that limiting the registration program and related requirements to the larger sources of the most commonly used I
isotopes means that steel mills still will confront the risk of receiving a concealed source in scrap purchased for melting. Thus, while we believe that focusing on these sources is a sensible way to begin, we hope the Commission will consider expanding the registration program to include a broader range of isotopes.
l l
r '-
l That the Draft Rule does not address this issue is understandable, since it % des on adopting new requirements for regulated entities. However, this problan needs to be addressed in some fashion - and with some urgency.
As we have stated previously, under the current system, a person who unwittingly and involuntarily takes possession of an orphan device is an innocent victim of inadequate oversight. Yet, as a practical matter, if that innocent victim makes an effort to identify and acknowledge possession of the device, he or she must bear the burden of j
substantial rosts for managing and disposing of radioactive material. The current system 1
I l
thus creates a disincentive for non-licensees to screen for radioactive devices and an incentive for them to pass the devices on to others - without notification - when they are found. From the standpoint of accountability and public health, this is a perverse incentive l
structure, j
A better system is i.eeded to identify and remove radiation sources from the scrap supply. There must be a simple means for those who find a source to be able to dispose of it without incurring any cost. Non-licensees should be given an incentive - not a disincentive - to look for orphan devices in the materials they handle and to take appropriate action when such devices are found. The responsibility for removing, disposing, and paying for disposal of orphaned devices must be clearly assigned to appropriate governmental bodies - both domestically (where responsibility should be delineated among DOE, EPA, the Commission, and Agreement State authorities) and internationally, since radioactive scrap may enter the U.S. recycling system from abroad. Governmental funding to accomplish this public health and safety objective must be made available through new legislation,if necessary.
l Developing and implementing a coordinated intemational system to assure l
that orphan devices are promptly and safely removed from the scrap stream and disposed i
of properly is a project that should be given a very high priority. Toward that end, the work
' being undertaken through the E-34 Committee should be expedited. And, more generally,
' the Commission should do what is necessary to move forward on this issue in parallel with its efforts to promulgate the Staff's Proposed Rule.
l In closing, I want to say that with its December 2,1998 rulemaking proposal and the March 9,1999 Interim Enforcement Policy, we believe the NRC has taken an important first step to prevent a serious incident involving American workers and the local community. We urge the Commission to implement these measures promptly and to act with appropriate urgency on the remaining steps that need to be taken by publishing the Staff's Draft Rule for public comment as soon as possible and by adopting a program for the removal and disposal of orphan devices at no expense to those who discover such devices in their possession.
Thank you.
3 l