ML20217K955
| ML20217K955 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/22/1999 |
| From: | Mccausland J NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Lanham D NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20217K959 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-63FR42269, RULE-PR-31 AG06-2-001, NUDOCS 9910270037 | |
| Download: ML20217K955 (2) | |
Text
,.
{
s's s?.CE*y
'Il UNITED STATES g
g j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WAS;:lNGTON, D.C. 2055fM001
...../
October 22,1999 MEMORANDUM TO:
Don Lanh m, OClO/IMD/RMB
, %.Wa0R n FROM:
Jayne M.
c ausland, RGB, IMNS, NMSS
SUBJECT:
REGULATORY HISTORY FOR REQUIREMENTS FOR THOSE WHO POSSESS CERTAIN INDUSTRIAL DEVICES CONTAINING BYPRODUCT MATERIAL TO PROVIDE REQUESTED ACTION (10 CFR PART 31)
Attached are regulatory documents considered to be of central relevance to the subject final rulemaking. Also attached is an index of these documents. The designator is AG00-2 and is noted in the upper right hand corner of the cover page for each document.
Thank you for your assistance, and please call me at 415-6219 if you have any questions.
- 1. Index 7 Documents cc w/att 1: Doris Mendiola, RDB/ADM n
c... s i '
\\
l
/
po '
l 5,
l pyI
@d 9910270037 991022 PDR PR 31 63FR42269 PDR ffl0570A3f 00l
7
-4 o
AG-06-2 i
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS FOR FINAL RULE 10 CFR PART 31," REQUIREMENTS FOR THOSE WHO POSSESS CERTAIN INDUSTRIAL DEVICES CONTAINING BYPRODUCT MATERIAL TO PROVIDE REQUESTED INFORMATION RIN 3150-AG06 PDR 1.
Public comment letters:
- 1.
National Steel Pellet Co. (Jc,nn M. Given) dated 01/15/99
- 2.
State of Illinois (Thomas W. Ortciger) dated 01/20/99
- 3.
Steel Manufacturers Association (Thomas A. Danjczek) dated 02/05/99
- 4.
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Robert M. Hallisey) dated 02/10/99
- 5 State of New Jersey (Jill Lipoti) dated 02/11/99
- 6.
American Iron and Steel Institute (Peter Hernandez) dated 02/16/99
- 7.
Diab Elmashni, undated 2.
05/14/99 Memo to Paul H. Lohaus et al. from Fred Combs requesting Office review and concurrence on proposed rule to amend 10 CFR 31.5 3.
Interoffice Comments:
05/21/99 Memo from Shelton to Meyer forwarding RMB comments 05/21/99 Memo Shelton to Mattson forwarding RMB comments 05/21/99 Memo Wilson to Cool forwarding ADM comments / concurrence 05/28/99 Email Schneider to Mattsen w/OSP concurrence 06/07/99 Email Abbott to Mattsen/McCausland with OCFO concurrence 06/21/99 Email Kraus to Mattsen w/ concurrence and comments Uncated OGC markup of final rule 4.
07/28/99 Memo to D. Meyer from C. Haney forwarding final rule package 5,
08/02/99 Final Rule 6.
08/04/99 FRN - 63 FR 42269 - Final rule r
j B6r0 6 -
m
)
Ty';d!M g Natiorud Steel Pellet Company
'99 JAN 20 P2 :13 PO Box 217 Keewatin MN 557530217 (218) 778-8700 Phene OF{
(218) 778-6112 Fax AD?
DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE E0,31 January 15,1999 (G3FR66y92)
Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission h
Washington, D.C. 20555-0001
-M d
f}67 Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff RE:
Written Ccmments on the December 2,1998 Proposed Rulemaking:
Requirements for Those Who Possess Cert sin Industrial Devices Containing Bynroduct Materisil to Provide Dauested Information
Dear Sir / Madam:
Enclosed please fmd the original comments of the National Steel Pellet Company on the proposed amendment adding a requirement that general licensees who possess certain devices containing byproduct material provide the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission with information conceming these devices. This proposal was published at 63 Fed. Reg. 66492 on December 2,1998.
If you have any questions regarding the enclosed ecmments, please contact me at 018) 778-87M Sincerely, h)
- b. !.
J hn M. Given, Radiation Safety Officer and Manager - Electrical Systems and Mainteriance l
Enclosure 1..
l
~ON 2 v o
() g,,
h ' Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- January 15,1999 Page 2
-cc: LaTisha R.~ Ulrich (w/ enclosure)~
' John K. Heintz(w/ enclosure) l.
John J. Moran, Jr., Esquire -
Chester R. Babst III, Esquire J
\\
d
'}-.
I
-Comments of the NATIONAL STEEL PELLET COMPANY on the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Proposed Rulemaking:
REQUIREMENTS FOR THOSE WHO POSSESS CERTAIN 1NDUSTRIAL DEVICES CONTAINING BYPRODUCT MATERIAL TO PROVIDE REQUESTED INFORMATION 63 Fed. Reg. 66492, December 2,1998 Submitted on January 15,1999 via First Class U.S. Mail I
l
p-COMMENTS OF THE NATIONAL STEEL PELLET COMPANY ON THE PROPOSED RULEMAKING REGARDING i
REQUIREMENTS FOR THOSE WHO POSSESS CERTAIN INDUSTRIAL DEVICES CONTAINING BYPRODUCT MATERIAL TO PROVIDE REOUESTED INFORMATION 1
L INTRODUCTION National Steel Pellet Company ("NSPC"), a subsidiary of National Steel Corporation, operates a 5.3 million long ton per year iron ore pellet production facility in Keewatin, Minnesota. NSPC's manufacturing activities involve the use of byproduct material covered by an U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") general license. Ifpromulgated as proposed at 63 Fed. Reg. 66492 on December 2,1998 (hereinafter referred to as the " Proposed Rulemaking"), the information request provision would directly impact NSPC. Accordingly, NSPC thanks the NRC for this opportunity to submit comments and requests that the NRC take these comments into account prior to finalizing the Proposed Rulemaking, i
IL SPECIFIC COMMENTS NSPC does not oppose the regulatory language proposed at 10 C.F.R. 31.5(c)(11). However, NSPC is concerned with the NRC's selected methodology for initially targeting licensees for registration. As discussed in the preamble language at 63 Fed. Reg. at 66493, la col.:
Initially, the NRC will use the criteria developed by the working group to determine which devices should be registered.
The working group's criteria was provided at 63 Fed. Reg. at 66493,3'd col.:
Requestsfor information would be sent to general licensees who are expected, based on current NRC records, to possess devices containing at least 370MBq (10 mci) ofcesium-137, 3. 7 MBq (0.1 mci) ofstrontium-90, 37 MBq (1 mci) ofcobalt-60, or 37 MBq (1 mci) ofany transuranic (at this time, the only generally licensed devices meeting this criterion contain americium-241). The majority of the devices meeting these criteria are used in commercial and industrial applications measuring thickness, density, or chemical composition in petrochemical and steel manufacturing industries.
NSPC believes that NRC's resources would be more appropriately spent by targeting general licensees that do not currently maintain byproduct material under a specific NRC license. Specifically, Page1 J
.h L"t NSPC believes that because businesses with device-specific licenses are required to have a Radiation Safety Officer (s) and actively perform specific testing and inspections, as 'well as maintain written i
documentation, these businesses are almost always aware of the-byproduct material regulations applicable' to byproduct material managed under a general license and are more likely to adequately
. account for and handle devices containing byproduct material in accordance with the regulatory requirements. In contrast, NSPC believes that businesses without specific licenses are more likely to be unaware of the appropriate regulations and are mme likely ts inappropriately account for and handle
- devices containing byproduct material.
In addition, NSPC is concerned that the information obtained through the registration process will be readily available to the public through posting on the intemet. Although NSPC does not oppose making the registration information available through the Freedom ofInformation request process, due i
to ".. the relatively small radiation exposure risk posed by these devices..." (sce 63 Fed. Reg. 66492, 3"8 col.), NSPC does oppose posting this information on the internet. NSPC believes that such posting
- will unnecessarily cause public concem over the presence and use of these low level radiation devices.
i III.
- CONCLUSION -
EAgain, NSPC thanks the NRC' for this opportunity to submit written comments on the Proposed i
Rulemaking. Consistent with these comments, NSPC recommends that the NRC reconsider its plarmed approach for deciding which general licensees should be selected for participation in the contemplated registration process. Further, NSPC requests that the registration information not be placed on the internet. Such information should only be available through a Freedom ofInformation request process.
l' l
l l
s Page 2 m
@b
/ M O lo - b jy L / ;
~
n.,,..
STATE OF ILLINOIS
'$f O -
DEPARTMEN
'OF NUC. LEAR SAFETY s
~, -
3 1035 OUTER PAEK DRIVE
- SPRINGFIF1D' ILLINOIS 62704 9 Jtd 25 i:'" e -
217 785-9900% 217 782-6133 (TDD)
George H. Ryan Thomas W. Ortciger C
)
Governor Director
{
January 20,1999 DOCKET NUMBER Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission PROPOSED RUI.E b 31 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 g
Attn: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff Re:
Proposed Rule, " Requirements for Those Who Possess Certain Industrial Devices Containing Byproduct Material to Provide Requested Information" (RIN 3150 -
AG06) 4 Sir or Madam:
The Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety hereby submits the following comment on the above-identified proposed rule. The Department agrees with NRC that the proposed change would increase accountability and control over generally licensed radioactive devices.
When contacting general licensees for the purposes of registration as described at 63 FR 66493, we recommend that NRC contact licensees possessing not only americium-241, but also curium-244. There is a group of general licensees in Illinois that possesses devices containing curium-244 in quantities that would require registration under the proposed rule. The statement at 63 FR 66493 is in error by declaring that americium-241 is the only transuranic radionuclide found in generally licensed devices in quantities exceeding 37 megabecquerels (1 millicurie).
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposed rule. If you have questions, please contact Joe Klinger at 217-785-9930.
Sincerely.
\\
B Thomas W. Orte ge Director cc: James Lynch, State Agreements Ofhcer mG -
-N-O26/0 82 7 ~
g 0> j 8
r i
STEEL MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION
{
Suite 907
....- ; 3 1730 Rhode I. land Avenue, N.W., W..hington. D.C.hn36 3101" % O g ->
F.x: (202) 296-2506
. Thomas A; Daniczel 202) 296-1515 President W FEE 16 P 3 sAa: a.njn(etg ceetne.o,,
l l
c l
pr February 5,1999 DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RUl.E PR al
)
l l
Secretary -
(G3FR%ffa)
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Attn: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff 1
l Re:
Comments on Pronosed Rule: Reauirements for Those Who Possess l
Certain Industrial Devices Containing By Product Material to Provide Reauested Information. 63 Fed. Reg. 66.492 (1998)
Dear Sir or Madam:
On behalf of the Steel Manufacturers Association ("SMA"), we submit the following
- comments regarding the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") proposal to require registration by general licensees of certain industrial devices. 63 Fed. Reg. 66,492 (1998). We believe that the proposal is a positive, although small, step toward minimizing the risk associated with improper disposal of spent sources in the scrap supply.
I.
The SMA The SMA is the primary trade association of electric are furnace ("EAF") steel producers, l
often referred to as "minimills," which make new steel products from a feedstock of nearly 100%
iron and steel scrap. The SMA also includes severalintegrated steel companie's'that.make steel from a mix ofiron ore, coke and scrap, as well as companies engaged in hot and cold ^ rolling of steel mill products. The forty-nine United States member companies of the SMA are geographicallydispersed l
across the country and account for almost halfortotal domestic steel production (see attached list).
According to the SMA, the EAF steel industry last year recycled over forty-five million tons of steel scrap, which would have otherwise been discarded in landfills or littered the countryside.
SMA members make a valuable contribution to the environment by recycling and remain one of the most competitive and cost efficient segments of the world steel industry. The presence of spent l
l 0
J
.x e
. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission February 5,1999 I
Page 2 -
radioactive sources in the ferrous scrap supply, ho)vever, has produced significant, unanticipated L
' cconomic consequences and health and safety risks to steel workers and the general public.
The SMA has been urging NRC for over the.past six years to promulgate rules for tighter i-accountabilityand control over generally licensed sources. The SMA undertook this effort for the
. following reasons:(1) to reduce the costly impact of radioactive scrap on steel mills; (2) to protect.
worker health and safety; and (3) to protect the health and safety of the general public that may be unknowingly exposed to improperly discarded sources.
II.
Statement of the Problem A.
General License Proeram Under NRC's current regulatory regime for control and accountability oflicensed devices, 10 C.F.R.-
31, there is little economic incentive to discard generally licensed radioactive sources properly, The regulation provides a general license, automatically and without filing an application, to firms, institutions,and individuals,to acquire, receive, possess, use, or transfer radioactive sources designed and manufactured for detecting, measuring, gauging or controlling thickness, density, level, interface location, radiation, leakage, and chemical composition. The general license saves time fer licensees and regulatorsbecause they do not have to spend the time and effort to complete and file license applications. 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").
l This licensingregime renders it difficult for NRC to collect informationdirectly from holders of certain radioactive sources. Consequently,NRC has insufficient control over generally licensed sources, and licensees have minimal accountability. The result is that sealed sources are often improperly discarded in shipment of ferrous scrap destined for steel mills, presenting major risks to human health and safety ifinadvertently breached in a scrap shredder or melted in a steel making furnace.
B.
Cost to the Steel Industry i
l
- The steelindustry has responded to the inadequate control oflicensed devices by installing sophisticateddetection systems to monitor all incoming shipments of scrap. Most SMA members have installed additional detectors at the charge bucket t ad baghouse to improve detection. While steel mills usually detect the sources, no system is comple'ely effective in tietecting sources buried in the middle of a truck load of scrap. If a steel mill int dvertently 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.
L l-
)
L 4
l 1
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission February 5,1999 Page 3 l
SMA member companies have taken the initiative to keep radioactivity out of their mills, and j
have become the "second net" to catch improperly discarded sources that escape NRC's regulatory regime. Steel companies perform this function at considerable cost, as they must fmance the purchase and installation of detection equipment, incur production delays, and pay for worker time and training in detection and handling of radioactive scrap.
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 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.
C.
Ilistory 1.
Licensing In enacting the Atomic Energy Act ("AEA") the United States Congress established a licensing regime to promote private sector technological developments for peacetime uses while protecting national security interests. 42 U.S.C.
2011 et seq. SEN. REP. No.1699, reprinted in I
1954 U.S.C.C.A.N.3456,3472. Previously,the United States government was the exclusive owner and user of radioactive materials. The AEA allowed private persons, under license, to possess and use nuclear materials, for the first time. Id., at 3456-65.
i l
The Congress delegated to the forerunner of.NRC, the Atomic Energy Agency, the responsibility of developing the licensing regime. 42 U.S.C.
2111,2134. It is unlikely that the Congress would have foreseen at that time the potential threat to human health and safety from the
- type of sources found in measuring gauges and hospital equipment, that are so common today. See SEN. REP. 1699 (1954), reprinted in 1954 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3456,3456-65.
2.
NRC Duty The AEA states that "the development, use, and control of atomic energy shall be directed so as to promote world peace, improve the general welfare, increase the standard of living, and strengthen free competition in private enterprise."42 U.S.C.
2011(b). NRC has been aware of the lack of accountability and control in its general license program since 1983, when the first known l
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 i
health and safety, the environmental, and the economic viability of United States steel companies.
j Yet, NRC has not responded to the radioactivescrap problem by making even minimal substantive l
changes to its regulations to improve control and accountability over generally licensed sources.
j
1 1
)
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission February 5,1999 Page 4 3.
1974 Pronosal l
i 1
NRC proposed a registration program for generally licensed sources in 1974. See 39 Fed.
Reg. 43,531 (1974). NRC retracted that proposal shortly thereafter in response to comments opposing the program. Scrap-based EAF steel production was not a major component of the steel industry at that time, however, and the risks posed by source.s in metals recycling industries were generally unknown. Sufficient time has elapsed in the last twenty-five years to warrant reconsideration of the proposal.
III.
Summary of the Proposal On December 2,1998, NRC again proposed to amend 10 C.F.R. { 31.5 by requiring general licenses to respond to requests from NRC to provide information relating to their general licenses.
63 Fed. Reg. 66,492 (1998). In proposing this amendment,NRC intends to help ensure that generally licensed sources that pose the most threat to steel mills and the public are maintained and transferred properly. Id.
A.
Scope of Survey NRC stated in the proposal that it would use its authority under the amended rule to survey
{
approximately 6,000 general licensees, accounting for approximately 24,000 sources that pose the most threat to steel mills. NRC would base its selection of respondents on information that source distributors have reported to the agency. NRC estimates that the total number of general licensees j
is approximately 45,000.
B.
Response Period Licensees that NRC contacts would be required to respond with the infbrmation within a i
thirty-day period. 63 Fed. Reg. at 66,495-96.The amendment would also allow general licensees to obtain an extensions to the thirty-day deadline, which NRC may grant at its discretion. Id.
C.
Information Requested NRC plans to ask the 6,000 general licensees to verify, correct, and add to the information in NRC's records regarding: (1) identification of the devices, including manufacturer, model and serial numbers; (2) persons responsible for compliance with the regulations; (3) disposition of the devices; and (4) location of the devices.
l J
l
,.t ',
li l
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
4 l
February 5,1999 L
Page 5 D.
Enforcement -
NRC stated that it plans to establish an interim enforcement policy for violations of 10 C.F.R. 31.5.
1.
Self-reporting The enforcement policy would include a self-reporting component which would allow facilities that self report and correct deficiencies to do so without incurring any penalties.
2.
Escalated Enforcement
. NRC's enforcement policy would include escalated enforcement action including civil penalties for significant violations, including failure to provide the infom1ation requested.
I l:
3.
Penalty Increait i
l The enforcementpolicy would increase the civil penalties for improper disposal of sources to amounts significantly higher than the cost of proper disposal.
i l
IV.
SMA Comments on the Proposal i
i I
l A.
The Administrative Burden on General Licensees is Reasonable Many SMA members are general licensees and could thus be subject to the proposed j
registration requirementthemselves. SMA members agree that the administrativeburden on general licensees to provide the minimal information that NRC proposes to request is reasonable. The thirty-i j.
day period in which general licensees have to respond, with a extensions granted for good cause, l
is also reasonable. The SMA recommends that NRC provide the means for electronic reporting of information to save time, mailing expenses, and paper. NRC should also ensure that its database has an adequate data quality verification system and can easily flag inconsistencies.
l B.
The Pronosed Amendment'Would Not Explicitiv Provide for an Annual Renistration Proeram The language of the proposal does not call for a periodic, e.g. annual or semi-annual, reporting requirement, which the SMA and the Working Group have been encouraging NRC to
. adopt. Rather, the proposed amendment would merely re-state NRC's authority to collect
~ information from licensees. NRC already has this authority under 42 U.S.C. s 2095, and in its own regulations, at 10 C.F.R. Q 30.34.
l
{o l
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission February 5,1999 Page 6 We urge NRC to explicitly call for a periodic registrationprogram in the amended regulation.
A registration program requiring reporting on at least an annual frequency would remind general l
licensees that they have licensed radioactive sources and that there are responsibilities attached to their licenses. It would also indicate that the govenunent has knowledge of their sources and the authority to enforce prohibitions un improper disposal.
C.
The Proposal Lacks Other Components Necessary for Accountability and Control The limited registration program that NRC proposes would have minimal impact on the radioactive scrap problem ifit is the only amendment that the NRC proposes. NRC stated in the announcement that it will propose additional regulations amending or establishing requirements for registration fees, labeling, and compatibility with Agreement States requirements at a later date.
NRC is behind the schedule that the Commissioners established in their memorandum to the staff regarding rulemaking for additional amendments. See Staff Requirements Memorandum from Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Acting Secretary,NRC (April 13,1998). The SMA urges the NRC to move forward with these additional rulemaking as expeditiously as possible.
Furthermore,the Working Group Report recommended far more comprehensive measures, including a requirement for maintenance of inventory records, comparison and reconciliation of discrepancies, mandatory reporting to NRC in the event of bankruptcy, and physical inventories and inspections at intervals not to exceed twelve months. It is imperative that NRC give more serious consideration to all of these measures. Otherwise, sources will continue to be lost and fm' d their way into the scrap stream.
D.
The Recistration Program Should Be More Inclusive-The SMA strongly encourages NRC to adopt a mandatory registration program for all sources, not merely those which present the most risk to steel mills. A fee-based system for all general licensees would ensure that NRC recovers the minimal cost to initiate and maintain the reporting program. Such a registration program would enable NRC to account for all soure-, that have been distributed. The program could be designed to allow steel companies and the general public to trace the origins of an improperly disposed sources. This would help steel companies in determining liability for the multi-milliondollar clean-up costs the steel companies and their insurers incur when sources are inadvertently melted. It would provide federal and state nuclear regulators L
that handle orphan sources a means to obtain reimbursement.The end result would be an additional deterrent against improper source disposition.
j United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
February 5,1999
. Page 7 E.
The Proposal Does Not Address the Cost Shift The current regulatory regime has shifted the costs oflax accountability and control onto steel makers, insurers,and the taxpayers. Currently, general licensees do not pay for their licenses j
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 i
disposal, and on steel producers and their insurers to pay the cost when a source is inadvertently melted. General licensees should be required to shoulder their fair share.
F.
Accountability Must Be Upstream Rather than DowBurce NRC must impose requirements at the origin of the radioactive scrap problem, where it is most easily and efficiently addressed. General licensees are in the best position to control the dispositionof their sources. Better licensee accountability would reduce the risk from the transit of
' improperly disposed sources and minimize the economic impact of sources released into the scrap supply. Requiring all general licensees to complete a simple form requesting the information that NRC would request in its current proposal, and to update it on an annual basis, imposes a reasonable burden on licensees that is preferable to the risk of radioactive source incidents at steel mills.
G.
The SMA Supports the Proposed Interim Enforcement Policy
' The SMA would support any enforcement program that deters improper disposal of radioactive sources. The SMA believes that, in the past, source holders who violated their general licenses were fined amounts significantlyless than the cost of proper disposal. Increasing minimal penalty levels to amounts significantly higher than the cost of proper disposal will provide general licensees with a new and realincentive to dispose of sources properly. The SMA also endorses the provision allowing general licensees to report and correct violations without incurring penalties.
This provision would encourage licensees who are not sure about what sources they hold to remedy the problem, rather than improperly dispose of their sources in an attempt to avoid high penalties.
V.
Conclusion The SMA supports the NRC proposal but emphasizes that NRC has the authority to accomplish much more through the rulemaking process towards mitigating the risk of radioactive sources in the scrap supply. NRC's past inaction and its current proposal for a limited registration program demonstrate that the agency is not adequately fulfilling its mandate under the AEA.
Accordingly, we encourage NRC to implement a more comprehensive registration program. If, however, NRC determines that it must choose between further inaction and the current proposal, we support the current proposal,and urge the agency to propose the additional measures necessary for an effective accountability and control of radioactive sources as soon as possible.
j
,,v 7....
a-LUnited States Nuclear Regulatory Commission -
)
February 5,1999 :
Page 8 '
Please'do not hesitate to call us if you have any questions.
1 Sincerel Thomas. Danjczek cc.
Hon. Shirley Ann Jackson, Chairman, NRC.
' Hon. Greta Joy Dieus, Commissioner, NRC Hon. Nils J. Diaz, Commissioner, NRC Hon. Edward McGafligan, Jr., Commissioner, NRC
~
Hon. Jeffrey S. Merrifield, Commissioner, NRC -
Joel Lubenau, NRC Simon Friedrich, Office ofIndustrial Technologies, Department of Energy Peter Hernandez, American Iron & Steel Institute 1
'E
!! p
[
STEEL MANUFACTURERS ASSECIATIUN
~
49 MEMBER COMPANIES y
Teh (202) 296-1515 Fax:(202) 296 2506 A.B. Steel Mill, Inc.
Cincinnati, Ohio l,
- AmeriSteel Tampa, Florida Arkansas Steel Associates :
Newport, Arkansas l
Auburn Steel Company, Inc.
Auburn, New York Bayou Steel Corporation Laplace, Louisiana
' Beta Steel Corporation Portage, Indiana Bethlehem Lukens Plate Coatesville, Pennsylvania Birmingham Steel Corporation Birmingham, Alabama
' Border Steel, Inc.
El Paso, Texas Calumet Steel Company Chicago Heights, Illinois
- Cascade Steel Rolling Mills, Inc.
McMinnville, Oregon Charter Manufacturing Company, Inc.
Mequon, Wisconsin Chicago Heights Steel Chicago Heights, Illinois Claymont, Delaware CitiSteel USA inc.
Commercial Metals Steet Group Seguin, Texas
' Connecticut Steel Corporation Wallingford, Connecticut.-
. CSC, Ltd.
Warren, Ohio FirstMiss Steel, Inc.
Holisopple, Pennsylvania Gallatin' Steel Ghent, Kentucky Geneva Steel Corporation Provo, Utah GS Industries Charlotte, North Carolina -
lspat inland Bar Products East Chicago, Indiana
' IPSCO Steel Inc.
Muscatine, Iowa
- J & L' Structural, Inc.
Aliquippa, Pennsylvania
. Jersey Shore Steel Company Jersey Shore, Pennsylvania
. Kentucky Electric Steel, inc; Ashland, Kentucky -
Keystone Steel and Wire Company Peoria, Illinois i
Koppel Steel Corporation ~
Beaver Falls, Pennsylvar.la Laclede Steel Company St. Louis, Missouri Lone Star Steel Company Lone Star, Texas Marion Steel Company Marion, Ohio Mcdonald Steel Corporation Mcdonald, Ohio North Star Steel Company.
Minneapolis, Minnesota North Star BHP Steel, Ltd.
Delta, Ohio Northwestem Steel and Wire Company Sterling, Illinois
' Nucor Corporation-Charlotte, North Carolina Oregon Stoc: ?.T::, inc.
Portland, Oregon Prnnsylvania Steel Technologies Steelton, Pennsylvania Qualitech Pittsboro, Indiana Republic Engineered Steel, Inc./Bar Technologies Inc.
Massillon, Ohio Roanoke Electric Steel Corporation Roanoke, Virginia Sheffield Steel Corporation '
Sand Springs, Oklahoma Steel Dynamics, Inc.
Butler, Indiana TXI (Chaparral Steel) -
Midlothian, Texas TAMCOz Rancho Cucamonga, California Tuscaloosa Steel Corporation Tuscaloosa, Alabama USS/KOBE Steel Company Lorain Ohio W. Silver, Inc.
El Paso, Texas Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corporation -
Wheeling, West Virginia 1750 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W., Suite 907 2/5/99 Washington, D.C. 200563101 a
th 1
[
- p The Commonwealth of Massachusetts V
l j,f Executive Office of Health and Human Services
- y Department of Public Health 1
Radiation Control Program -
I 174 Portland Street,5* Floor, Boston, MA Off15 N
'O ARGEO PAUL CELLUcci (617) 727-6214 (617) 727-2098 - Fax GOVERNOR JANL SWIFT LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR.
E RET Y N @ M sn ((
Q
"~
([,3 Fgg p9p HOWARD K. KOH, MD, MPH COMMISSIONER Fehntary 10,1999 Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Attn: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff RE:
Comments on Proposed Rule:
" Requirements for Those Who Possess Certain Industrial Devices Containing Hyproduct Material To Provide Requested Information" (RIN 3150-AG06)
Dear Secretary:
The Massachusetts Radiation Control Program has reviewed the above identified proposed rule and agrees with the establishment of a registration program and annual reporting requirements for certain categories of generally licensed devices as described in the proposed rule.
The Massachusetts Radiation Control Program currently implements a registration program for general licensees in which they are required to provide similar information as would be required in the proposed rule.
Sincerely, M-Robert M. Hallisey, Director Massachusetts Radiation Control Program RMH:jed N
[w
'f
{
.~.
t
$ tate of pfefu 3Jersetj Christine Todd Whitman Department of Environmental Protection co FcP 3ofe2 binn, J r.
)
covernor
' Division cf Environmental Safety,IIcalth and Analytical Programs "
commissioner Radiation Protection Programs g
[#
PO llox 415 c
Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0415 I
Phone: (609) 984-5636 AC gh-M Fax:
(609) 633-2210 J
February 11,1999 l
Secretary DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE PR aI 1
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.ission Washington, DC 20555-0001 D
Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff
Dear Sir or Madam:
We support your proposed nde entitled " Requirements for Those Who Posses Certain Industrial Devices containing Byproduct material to Provide Requested Information." We have responded to a number ofincidents where generally licensed devices were improperly sent to a scrap metal recycling facility, landfill, or incinerator. We have also responded to notifications of lost generally licensed (GL) devices, to try to locate them. We are pleased that NRC is taking this first step in requiring information from the approximately 6000 general licensees that were identified by the working group. We hope that the exercise of responding to the request for information will raise the consciousness level of the licensees,'and they will be more cognizant of complying with their GL requirements. We hope that you will keep good statistical records of the responses from these first 6000 licensees as an indicator of the status oflicensee compliance for the other 600,000 licensees.
Your interim enforcement policy seems appropriate'to encourage general licensees to search their facilities to ensure sources are located, to determine if applicable requirements have been met, and to develop corrective action plans when deficiencies are found. It is extremely important to remove any incentive for a general licensee to attempt to discard their source rather than comply with the reporting requirement. We know what happens when people get rid of their GL devices in a hurry - we have to go out and find them in mountains of trash or scrap metal. It isn't pleasant.
We agree with your intent to increase the civil penalty amounts for violations involving lost or improperly disposed sources or devices. These penalties must be significantly higher than the costs avoided by the failure to properly dispose of the source or device.
NRC should reconsider one of the provisions in the proposal put forth in 39 FR
' 4583 that required registration of the general licensed device BEFORE customers are allowed to New Jersey is an Equal Opporturuty Employer Recycled Paper o' 9@/Wsn Sg
s I
?, !
1 l
receive them. This would ensure and document that general licensees have received copies of the regulations and that they are aware of the rights and responsibilities of a general licensee.
i
\\
l NRC should fbilow the recommendations listed in the NUREG-1551 " Final i
Report of the NRC-Agreement State Working Group to Evaluate Control and Accountability of l
Licensed Devices". Specifically, there should be a responsible individual (RI) and Back-up Responsible Individual (BRI) for each general license. Unlike a specific license, where you have a Radiation Safety Officer and Authorized Users, there may be only one person who has a real understanding that their facility possesses a generally licensed device that contains a radioactive i
source. When the RI dies, retires., resigns, or is laid off, there may be no one at the facility with j
)
any understanding or appreciation of the significance-of the general licensed device. There have been incidents in our state where gauges containing Curie qualities of Cs-137 found their way to public auctions and were di3 covered at demolition sites due to the fact that the RI left the
{
i organization and there was no one else with any knowledge of what was being disposed or l
abandoned. The addition of one extra name and phone number to the records should not be too j
burdensome on the licensee, and it may help to avoid the burden of responding to a radiation incident involving the device.
l l
1 l
We look forward to the future rulemaking addressing fees for registration, additional j
labeling requirements, and compatibility requirements for Agreement States, j
1 i
Sincerely, i
f' 6
/
J)11 Lipoti, Ph.D.
Assistant Director l
i l
i I
l i
l I
I l
L L.
[
t l ll l lll 1101 17th Strest. N.W.
Suits 1300 Arnerican Iron and Steel Institutef '
I wa="mstaa. o.c. 2003 -4700 (202) 452-7100
({ {E Fan (202) 463-65 73 "9
FF iB n? T5 February 16,1999
- eer A - e 0
. Secretary 7,. y United States Nuclear Regulatory Commissio~n d&
Washington, DC 20555-0001 DOCKET NUMBER Attn: Rulemaking and Adjudication Staff PROPOSED RULE M st Re:
Requirements for Those Who Possess Certain Industrial Devices Containing By Product Material to Provide Requested Information,63 Fed.
- Reg., No. 231, pp. 66,492 et seg. December 2,1998
Dear Madam or Sir:
The American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) herein submit its comments regarding the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) proposal to require registration by general licensees of certain industrial devices. AISI represents thirty-eight domestic members that account for approximately 70% of the raw steel production in the United States and employ over 125,000 in their steel producing operations.
AISI's members recycled over thirty million tons of steel scrap in 1998, most of which was purchased scrap. Due to the precautions taken by our members to monitor purchased scrap using sensitive portal monitors, to date they have not experienced the melting of a large source. However, our members have detected and returned radioactive sources to scrap dealers after notifying appropriate federal and/or state regulatory authorities. The melting of a large source could produce a substantial adverse economic impact and create a health and safety problem for our members, their workers, and the local community. It could also produce similar problems for other hot metal producers, including aluminum, ferrous, and non-ferrous metals.
American Iron and Steel Institute initially alerted the scrap dealers about the existence of a problem nearly twenty years ago and more recently joined with the Steel Manufacturers (SMA) to ask the NRC to promulgate rules that provide tighter accountability and control over all major licensed sources. AISI also actively participated in the NRC-Agreement State Working Group's (Working Group) comprehensive deliberations regarding this matter and reiterated its concerns before the NRC in January 1998. AISI is pleased the NRC is proposing to begin addressing the problem and concurs with the SMA statement that NRC's " proposal is a positive, although small, step toward minimizing the risk associated with improper disposal of spent sources in the scrap supply."
- W
r i
a l.
, Problem with the Current NRC General Licensing Process The NRC became aware of serious problems associated with licensee reporting, control, and accountability pursuant to the Commission's specific and general license programs after the Auburn Steel incident in 1983. As a result, the Commissioners created the NRC-Agreement State Working Group (Working Group) to Evaluate Control and Accountability of Licensed Devices several years ago. As noted above, AISI was active in the Working Group's comprehensive deliberations.
Tr,9 Final Report of Working Group noted that the current NRC regulatory model provWs little economic incentive for general licensees to discard radioactive sources in an appropiate manner. Current rules also make it difficult for NRC to collect information @ectly from licensees on a timely basis. Consequently, sealed sources have been improperly discarded into recycled scrap destined for aluminum, non-ferrous and ferrous melting operations. The NRC Working Group recognized that transporting or melting of orphan radioactive sources presents a potential significant adverse health risk to the public and to workers in the scrap recycling and metals producing industries.
As noted above, A!Si members responded to this potentially serious problem well
'before 1983 by installing radiation detection systems to monitor all incoming shipments of scrap. These companies paid (and continue to pay) to train their employees to detect and properly handle potentially radioactive scrap. However, as AISI noted in its earlier comments to the NRC, no radiation detection system is failsafe because radioactive sources that are shielded by dense scrap in a truck or railcar can pass undetected through even the most sensitive detectors. And as NRC is aware, the inadvertent melting of orphaned sources by domestic steel producers has resulted in decontamination, disposal, and lost production costs ranging between ten million and twenty-four million dollars at electric furnace mills. The cost of a similar incident occurring in a major integrated steel mill could easily exceed $100 million.
II.
The December 2,1998 NRC Proposal On December 2,1998, the NRC proposed to amend 10 C.F.R. @ 31.5 by requiring general licenses to respond to requests from the NRC to provide information relating to their generallicenses. In proposing this amendment, NRC said it intends to help ensure that generally licensed sources posing the greatest threat to steel mills and the public are maintained and transferred properly.
The NRC proposes to use its authority under the amended rule to survey approximately 6,000 general licensees that account for approximately 24,000 sources considered to pose the greatest threat to steel mills. NRC estimates the total number of general licensees is approximately 45,000 and would select respondents based on information
. reported to the Commission by licensed source distributors. Licensees would be required to respond with the information within a thirty-day period but the NRC could, at its discretion, grant an extension to the thirty-day deadline.
2
a y
The NRC plans to ask 6,000 general licensees to verify, correct, and add to the information contained in NRC's records regarding: (1) identification of devices -
including manufacturer, model and serial numbers; (2) persons responsible for compliance with the regulations;(3) disposition of devices; and (4) location of devices.
The NRC also said it plans to establish an interim enforcement policy for violations of this amended rule. The enforcement policy would include a self-reporting component i
allowing affected facilities to correct deficiencies without incurring any penalties. The NRC would pursue escalated enforcement action, including civil penalties for significant violations and for failure to provide the information requested. The enforcement policy would increase the civil penalties to amounts higher than the cost of proper disposal when sources are improperly disposed.
11.
AISI Comments AISI members typically have both specific and general licenses and would be subject to the proposed NRC registration requirement. As generallicensees, AISI members agree the administrative burden to provide the minimal information and the timeframe NRC proposes are both reasonable. The proposal to grant an extension for good f
cause is also reasonable. However, AISI recommends NRC also permit licensees to report the required information electronically, for example through a secure page on the [
NRC Internet web site. (The NRC could use the employer's tax identification number and a password to secure the information.) The NRC database should include a data
/
quality verification system to quickly identify and immediately notify licensees of any reporting inconsistencies. Employers could also be required to annually verify the accuracy of the inventory.
However, we are concerned that this limited registration program would have minimal impact on the radioactive scrap problem if NRC does not follow through with additional regulations amending or establishing requirements for registration fees, labeling, and compatibility with Agreement States requirements. We also note, that the Working Group recommended comprehensive measures, including a requirement for NRC to maintain inventory records, compare and reconcile related discrepancies, mandate reporting the bankruptcy of a licensee to the NRC, and State /NRC site inspections and inventories at regular intervals. NRC must give serious consideration to each of these measures in order to prevent the continued loss of licensed sources in the future.
While a fee-based system for all general licensees would permit the NRC to recover the anticipated modest cost of initiating and maintaining the reporting program, our members are concerned that the institution of such a fee schedule could slow or prevent implementation of the entire proposal. If that is correct, we recommend NRC retain the proposal as published.
3
T.
4 Current NRC regulations have inadvertently and improperly shifted the costs for accountability and control onto hot metal producers,' insurers, and taxpayers. Steel producers are being forced to pay the cost of detecting orphaned sources, to arrange for proper. disposal, and to pay for the cleanup when a source is inadvertently melted.
l
- General licensees should be. required to pay their fair share of these costs. Improving licensee. accountability would also reduce the risk of the illegal release of generally licensed material into public scrap supply.
We believe general licensees who violate their general licenses should be fined using a schedule that is proportionate to the damage actually caused by the lost source. (For example, the. cost for cleaning a steel mill contaminated by melting such a source.)
. Because the NRC's proposed penalty is not much higher than the current fine of $2500 per loss that has been assessed to licensees, it would not significantly deter illegal behavior. Increasing the current relatively minimal penalty levels to amounts that reflect the real world damage caused by loss of a licensed source will provide general licensees with a substantive economic incentive to dispose of their sources legally.
AISI also supports allowing general licensees to report and correct violations without incurring any penalties.' This provision would encourage licensees t,o maintain a careful inventory and to dispose of their sources properly to avoid a substantive penalty.
Ill.
Conclusion Unfortunately, NRC ' staff is behind the schedule established by the Commission in the April 13,1998 memorandum regarding this matter. We respectfully urge the NRC staff
.to quickly finalize this rulemaking and to proceed with the additional rulemakings we described above. AISI appreciates the opportunity to submit its comments on the NRC proposal. Please do not hesitate to advise me if you have any questions about these comments. We look forward to continuing to work with NRC and NRC staff on this critical issue.
Sincerely,
[
(W<
r Peter Hernandez cc.
Alsi Radiation Task Group Mr. Tom Danjczek - steel Manufacturers Association 4-
7 DOCKET NUMBER.
PROPOSED RULE 3:3/
GU'T 15 C
[63pg(,/, c/9a]
- Diab Elmashni 1859 Berry Ct.
jf,'
i
- g Fremont, CA 94539
'99 MAR -1 A 9.51 '
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Public Affairs AOd
~
h O[-N f
J j
~ Washington, DC 20555 l
Re.: No.98-214 NRC Proposed Changes to Regulations for Devices Containing
]
Radioactive Material u
I feel it is very important to have a tight control on how many licensed radioactive devices'there are in use. The problem is'that radioactive material posses
- an extreme threat to the public's health and safety, even if it is disposed of properly; because just the capability of causing a health hazard can be seen as a threat. I feel this change in the NRC's regulation of the licenses of these commercial radioactive devices would force thdlicensees to be aware of who using their licensed device, how many they have, and how they are being disposed of. This change in regulations should have been proposed and passed years ago. In my eyes, it appears quite ludicrous that there was never an explicit provision demanding that licensees ~ respond to the ing'uires of the NRC.
There needs be a great dea _1 of improvement upon these regulations to know the whereabouts of these licensed devices and that they are being disposed of properly. - Also, a license should not given out to a person to own as many devices as
~
l they please. A license should be given out per device, that way the number of devices that are available will be limited and the number of devices in use will be known. As stated earlier this is a public health and safety issue and I would hope that the NRC
~
would not allow an excessive amount of devices to be in use which could in turn pose a great danger to the public.
This proposal will not completely solve the regulatory problems of the NRC when it comes to the regulation of radioactive devices, however, it is a step in the right direction.-
p Thank you, W[g A
Diab Elmashni
&$NbW k
a