ML23151A591

PR-030,031,032,040,070 - 61FR00295 - Public Workshop on the Regulation of Radioactive Devices - Notice of Meeting

ML23151A591
Person / Time
Issue date:	01/04/1996
From:	Knapp M Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
To:
References
PR-030, PR-031, PR-032, PR-040, PR-070, 61FR00295
Download: ML23151A591 (1)

Text

DOCUMENT DATE:

TITLE:

CASE

REFERENCE:

KEYWORD:

ADAMS Template: SECY-067 01/04/1996 PR-030,031,032,040,070 - 61 FR00295 - PUBLIC WORKSHOP ON THE REGULATION OF RADIOACTIVE DEVICES -

NOTICE OF MEETING PR-030,031,032,040,070 61FR00295 RULEMAKING COMMENTS Document Sensitivity: Non-sensitive - SUNSI Review Complete

DOCKET NO. PR-030, 031, 032, 040 l 070 (61FR00295)

DATE DATE OF In the Matter of PUBLIC WORKSHOP ON THE REGULATION OF RADIOACTIVE DEVICES - NOTICE OF MEETING TITLE OR DOCKETED DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT

01/03/96 12/28/95 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE OF MEETING 01/24/96 01/15/96 COMMENT OF FACTORY MUTUAL RESEARCH CORPORATION

{CARLE. MILLER, SENIOR VP & COO) (

1) 01/29/96 01/26/96 COMMENT OF LFE INDUSTRIAL SYSTEMS CORPORATION (WILLIAM R. PRENDERGAST) {

2) 01/30/96 01/26/96 COMMENT OF INTEGRATED INDUSTRIAL SYSTEMS

{RANDY S. STEVENS) {

3) 01/30/96 01/30/96 COMMENT OF STATE OF NEW JERSEY {JILL LIPOTI) {

4) 01/31/96 01/29/96 COMMENT OF EUROTHERM GAUGING SYSTEMS 01/31/96 02/07/96 02/07/96 02/07/96 01/30/96 01/20/96 01/21/96 01/22/96 (RICHARD F. MURPHY, VICE PRESIDENT) (

5)

COMMENT OF EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY {JOSEPH M. GRECO) {

6)

COMMENT OF ABB INDUSTRIAL SYSTEMS, INC

{JOHN {JACK) R. DUKES) {

7)

COMMENT OF TN TECHNOLOGIES, INC (RALPHS. HEYER) {

8)

COMMENT OF BERTHOLD SYSTEMS, INC (MARY DEDOLA) (

9) 02/07/96 01/22/96 COMMENT OF HONEYWELL, INC {GARY L. CAINES) (

10) 02/07/96 01/24/96 COMMENT OF UNION CARBIDE CORP (MICHAEL L. GREEN) {

11) 02/07/96 01/29/96 COMMENT OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 02/07/96 02/07/96 01/29/96 01/30/96

{RITA ALDRICH) {

12)

COMMENT OF MEASUREX CORP {ELSA NIMMO) (

13)

COMMENT OF AMERSHAM HOLDINGS, INC (BRYAN W. BAKER) {

14) 02/07/96 01/30/96 COMMENT OF VALMET AUTOMATION (USA), INC

{JAMES L. HOEY, JR.) (

15)

DOCKET NO. PR-030, 031, 032, 040 & 070 (61FR00295)

DATE DATE OF TITLE OR DOCKETED DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT 02/07/96 01/31/96 COMMENT OF ADAPTIVE TECHNOLOGIES, INC (ROBERT J. ROY) (

16) 02/07/96 01/31/96 COMMENT OF NUCLEAR RESEARCH CORP {GARY ROBERTSON) {

17) 02/07/96 02/02/96 COMMENT OF STEEL MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION

{CHRIS STACEY) (

18) 02/07/96 02/05/96 COMMENT OF HEALTH PHYSICS ASSOCIATES, INC 02/08/96

{TONY LAMASTRA) {

19) 02/01/96 COMMENT OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION

{PAUL J. MERGES) {

20) 02/09/96 02/05/96 LTR FM CHRIS STACEY, STEEL MANUFACTURERS ASSOC, SUBMITTING REPLACEMENT LETTER FOR 2/2/96 COMMENTS

{COMMENT NO. 18)

STEEL MANUFACTURERS ASS~6c\\{l1f~N Suite 907 I I c; 1730 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 21 0 -3101 Fax: (202) 296-2506 Chris Stacey Environmental Manager

'96 FEB -9 P 3 :35 (202) 296-1515 cfstacey@aol.c<'m Mr. Joel Lubenau U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission MIS T-8F5 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001

Dear Mr. Lubenau:

February 5, 1996 OFFICE o~* S[r ~E TJ\\R"(

DOCKET!' G Z. :.ER\\111.!

BRA Ch The Steel Manufacturers Association urges the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to resolve the problem of radioactive materials in the ferrous scrap stream.

We are encouraged that the NRC has appointed a task force to address this problem, and we appreciated the opportunity to participate in the advisory group at the NRC-State Working Group public meeting in January, 1996. We support the regulatory scheme endorsed by the advisory group participants, which would require annual reporting for users of licensed sources that pose health and financial risks to the workers and companies in scrap-based metals industries.

At the meeting, the NRC indicated that applying more stringent reporting requirements to all licensed sources would be difficult to achieve because it would not be economically feasible. The NRC requested that roundtable participants submit a priority list of sources in most need of stronger reporting requirements.

While the steel industry understands th~t the NRC has budget limitations, the SMA cannot emphasize enough that each and every radioactive c.'evice that ends up in scrap entering a steel mill has a significant economic impact on the U.S. steel industry. The expense and amount of workforce time required to discover, handle, and properly dispose of or store a radioactive source is a continual drain on the steel industry's resources.

Per the request of the NRC, the SMA has identified a number of sources ( circled on the attached list) that can cause multi-million dollar accidental smeltings at steelmaking facilities. Also circled on the list are other radioactive materials that steel producers find in incoming scrap shipments with such frequency as to cause serious detriment to steel companies' operations.

This highlighted list is not meant to be comprehensive, nor to exclude the fact that other radioactive materials are problematic. It is meant to be used as a general guideline in confronting the radioactive scrap problem in the short term.

In addition to the attached list, the SMA favors a maximum limit on the size of sources that can be generally licensed. We propose a system of threshold sizes, measured in Curies, varying by radioactive isotope according to the risk each isotope poses. Such limits would reduce the possibility of a very large source being mishandled by a generally licensed user who may not understand the kind of proper attention and disposal a large source requires. We therefore implore the NRC-State Working Group to consider size limits.

..;.S.,~Ut,c.~ -*

r1L ~ vU-, rCJR COMMlSSIOI\\

DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Postmark Date..J.\\JI~~~~::...::::::~~""'""'.._

Coples Received~ ___ _._ __ _

Add'l Copes Reproduced --=-----

Special DlstrlbutionG:,.)ttQ "°'>~

February 5, 1996 Mr. Joel Lubenau Page2 We hope the attached list is useful for the NRC, and we look forward to working with the NRC to ensure that all radioactive materials threatening to worker health and safety, the environment, and the competitiveness of the steel industry are properly regulated.

Sincerely, Chris Stacey

[mtiNte o( Scrap ~

Industries, Inc.

R.ccommcndcd Practice and Procedure Examples Scrap Bearing Sealed Radioactive ~Iaterials (See Appendix A for explanation of element symbols)

Possible Scrap Component Possible Radioactive Material Air~aftde~ccs,luminous 3H, 147pm, ~

90sr, asKr (Air ionizing devi~

3H, 210po, ~a, 241 Am I/Automobile shift quadr~

3H Compass. marine: navigation.al equipment 3H,~a Dewpoint gauges

~a, Th Electron & vacuum tubes 3H, 60eo, ~1, asKr, mes, 1'47pm, ~a, Th Fire/smoke detcc:ors u, ~241Am

('.Qa~thic:kness, cahoration, proass control, 24tAm, 241Am/Bc, 90sr 1nes, 60co, ~a, asKr, level measurement)

~a/Be, 1921r Ice detector 90Sr (Industrial radiography souraj 60Co, 192Ir, ~a

( Irradiators. self-contained)

I 60co, 137es Lightning rods I 2;a. Th Loc.k illuminators. automobile I 1i, l47Pm, 14C Luminous signs 3H, 147Pm, asKr, 2:?6tla

~ ~edical de..,ice~rachytherapy, telcthcrapy) 24tAm, 60co, t37es, 67Ga, 1921r, usl. ~a, 90sr Radiation leak detectors asKr Q_efractory bri0 60Co Cf hipping contain~ shielded 137es, ~a, 19'21r, 241Am K]park gap irrad.i.aco"a)(fucl oil burners) 60Co (Static eliminato?s')

24tAm, 210p0, ~a Thermostat (dials. pointers) 3H, 147pm

(:w*eu logging too~

137es, ~a, ~a/Be, 241Am/Be Tunepieccs Th, 3H, 147pm. 2:?6tla Symbols and Names of Elements Contained in this Document I:

Iodine Ra: Radium Am: Americium Ir:

Iridium Rn: Radon Be: Beryllium Kr: Krypton Sc: Scandium N"

Nickel Sr: Strontium Co: Cobalt 1:

Po: Polonium Th: Thorium Cs: Cesium Pm: Promethium Tl: Thallium Ga: Gallium Pu: Plutonium U: Uranium H: Hydrogen I

I I

I

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Solid & Hazardous Materials DOCKETED Bureau of Pesticides & Radiation USNRC 50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York 12233-7255 518-457-2225 FAX 518-485-8390

'96 FEB - 8 A10 :02 OFFICE OF SECHETARY OOCKE T!tt.; & i:-EF~V ICE BR.AMI~

February 1, 1996 Michael D. Zagata Commissioner Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Att: Docketing and Service Branch

Dear Secretary Chilk:

The purpose of this letter is to respond to the Commission's recent reques t for comment s on the control of radioactive devices.

I have the following proposals to reduce the loss of radioactive sources and their potential smeltering in steel mills:

Eliminate the Nuclear Regulatory Commission' s general licensing of radioactive devices.

Require that radioactive sources be manufactured so that a vial of mercaptan i s physically attached to the device into which the source i s installed.

The vial should be des igned to fail so that the mercaptan can escape, if the source i s mistreated as would be the case if it were discarded as scrap metal.

The mercaptan would thus alert anyone in the area of the source that something 11 foul 11 was located in this pile of scrap metal.

Several vials designed to break under increasingly severe treatment would be even more alerting.

Thank you for providing me the opportunity to comment on this important safety and environmental contamination issue.

Sincerely, e~~x.D.

Chief, Bureau of Pesticides & Radiation Division of Solid & Hazardous Materials

-rm-r Acknowfedged by card................. :... ~.:~:... ~

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOl'-

OOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Oocument Statistics Postmark oate -=~~\\s-+~-'-'k::r;;.__ __ _

Coples Received._...:..\\ _____ _

Ad<fl Copies Reproduced _.+/- ____ _

Special Disbibution~,,. *...,n._ ~. S) !ii?~ >

~

\\::-RI J> =>

I

- FEB 05 '96 14: 08 HEAL TH PHYSICS ASSOC 2157560042 P.3/6 HEALTH -PHYSICSJ~BOCIATES, INC.

USNRC 1005 Qi..D ROU1'8 22

~TSVll.J...E, PA 19534 (610) 75641S3 (VOICE)

'96 FEB - 7 p 2 :36 (610) 756-0042 (FAX)

OFF1 : 1,.

, ~CF.E t RY DOCKET! 1~

J,~r.-"l\\,,r*-

t...')

\\

\\

BP./1. '.. -

February s, 1996 Joel Lubenau os Juclear Regulatory commission Mail Stop T-8P5 DOCKET NUMBER PR PROPOSED RULE ao :3 \\ 5 Washington, oc 20555-0001

( (o\\fR.'a9 5J re: NRC/Agreement State Working Group Radioactive Materials in the Scrap Stream

Dear Joel anc,

. Work.i,.ng Group Members:

I regret that I couldn't att*nd the public meeting (Janu*ry 18-19, 1996). It was difficult ~o justify the additional c9st.

However, I have u strong interest in this matter :and wis~ to ctter co~ent's tor your consideration.

I hope this is n~t too late.

The_.p~oblam ~f radioactive *aterial entering thJ scrap strealll is obviously.a eriou~ proclem and one that may not have a satisfa9t¢ry sQlution for all the af.fected parties.

1 It is obviou, if one looks at the idantifiabl~ sea1e4 ~urces found in sc.r p, that the problem is not caused 011ly b~ G sources.

Fr m personal m,cperience dating ~aok to my ;e latory days, *specifically licensed sources have been. ** probl~m

• f tll loss ot control. :'rhus:, any solution must ~ddress.both specif!cally licensed and gen_erally licensed sourcos.

First, I ~liave ~*-regulatory agen:ies *have been r~is in th~ir regulat.ory control *over s~alad source inv.entory 1c:>nt;rol *.

Thi~ is espeoi~l~~ true in the case. *of GL sources. ~e agencies have bean fo~ciligi manu.taet:.urers to supply the identit i es of C?U*tomars to~*~e~~d~, yet, very little ~as been :don~ :w~th the intoraation *o!rec*jve,d, even. to. the ~int of r.ot be1~g ~ble to identify the *p~~ec~ors c,f such devices.

If control 9yer sealed sources is to occur, ther.c has to ~ a central.f,zed datjabase,.

s!-.i*lar to the !9ou:rce a.nd Device Registry.

This d~s l~ot. have to evalv* inco a large l>ureatucracy, and may be abl* to b~ contracted out, with somaioversight ~Ya r~gulatory agency (or ~e *C.RCPO) *

. The database :stj9uld be *upd.at.ed annually through submi.~tal_s by tile licensaes,,al~~o~gh I do *nqt feel semi-annual sub~i.tt~ls would

~FEB 1 2 1995~

RADIATION PROTEC.'TION CONSULTANTS Acknowledged by card.......................... m*J

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOI\\

OOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRET ARY OF THE COMMISSION Doalment Statistics PoSlmark Date i;."~ ~

~ £~1:eo*._

Coples Received_ \\ ____

\\ __ _

Ad<fl Copies Reproduced,_._ ___ _

Special Distribution 0,,==~

, ----:P~

FEB 05 '96 14: 08 I-EAL TH PHYSICS ASSOC 2157560042

.J~l LU~a'\\1 DC/Agre*ut at.at* WortiD9' Group Radioactive **~*~ials in ~b* :*~*P *~~*aa

~B~UJ' 5 1 lit 6 i

P.4/6 I

creat~a sever* *burdan ~or even those licensees. having hundreds ot *o ces...I am a. very strong proPOnent of smaller govermaant.;

howev,, I feel this wo~ld be a *mall price to pay and would have the glfeatest etfec::t on reducing the-probability of loss ot contr~l.

I diaagree with th~ SMA 1.s proposal to attach severe pena~i.as to r.. on-repartinq.

I would auqqaat tha.t. a lt1.ck of repo be promptly followed up by~- reminaer letter with a limit respona* time for a reply, parhapc 30 daya.

A failure to reply to this notice would prompt elther a phone 00ntaet or a visit by the regulatory aqency.

I anvision a large up-front cost to inattitute and launch auch a. program (I have not attempted to coat qut such a proqram); however, annual maintenanea eosta, once the p~ogram waa est.ablished ~ould not be that great.

Any

• datab~se and reportinq_must raf,reno* the manufacturer, JDOdel and seria~ n\\Jllb*r of the s~l*d so~rce device, unless there is a reasoJi.able probability that the source can b* eacily removed.

Xn this ~ase both the device and the sealed source must be referEµtced.

All sealed sources and devices must have ident~fication that is not easily removed.

The use ot a thin alumitjua plate that is pop riveted ~o th* houaing ic not adequ~te.

Alwninum is the le~st durable material in many indus t'.i.al environmanta.

Ideally,

• it should ba embossed on the souro housing, although-this would be a costly requirement tor the m~nufacturer.

X *uepect* thera i* *a moro cost eff*ct:.ive alte:"lative, such as embossed stainless steel that is spot welded to th~ hou*ing.

EVen it this tag ic removed, it is unlikely that someo~e would deliberately attempt to obliterate the markings on the s~urc* capsule.

Thus, if the device wac rooovored, it ahould be po sible to track down *the initial licensee from the source capsu o identification.

z do ~ot a9reo with all. the.inventory data auggeated by Jack Duk***! I believe the requlatory agencies needs can be adequately met i~ tho eource/devioe is uniquely identified ond a contact perso~ (with address, phone, PAX) is supplied. in any reporting.

The i~-houae inventory ahould contain more intor:uaation, but lt ia not n~oessary to report actual.location, etc. to the regulatory agency,.

It would only make the dotc:lbase unnecessarily l<<rge witho1t real _benefit.

Part df the problem with loss of control has been the regulatory mind$elt that "gauqe*"* are not~ great problem and require minimal reCjJUlatory control. While I do not want to see a significant i*ncreojse in reCJUlato:ry e££orte:; directed toward gauges (tor selfiSjh reasons), I have *been h*intin; at the need tor a greater aware~e5a o~ tb* :re9ulatory commwiity toward iaug***

The regulajtory coJlllllunity has to make a differentiation between use oondi~iona ana the cond!tions that lead up to loss ot control.

It is possible for any licensee to lose control of a sealed

- FEB 05 '96 14:09 HEALTH PHYSICS ASSOC 2157560042 Joel L'UJ:teuau

-.CiACJreae11t State wo~king Group ltadio*otive Jla.t*:rial* in* the a.crap str...

J'tlbi,aary 5, 1,,,

P.S/6 3

source device; *however, there are policies that should be in place _that will reduQe such a probability to a minimum.

Many of these are already required b,y existing regulations.

A periodic inventory being the foremost one.

Another practice is an internal licensee one of routinely having (weekly to quarterlyi depending on the need) someone check the device and associated warnlng signs.

These should J::>e the things that inspectors cQncentrate on ~uring an inspection.

'lbese program items might not always J::>e subject to enforcement, but they will show whether a company is serious about being on top of their radiation safety progrt\\111 or not.

Those :radionuclides that pose a* minimal personnel or environmental radiologiQal hazar~ probably should not be included in the reporting requirements.

I would include those with short half-lives (less than 120 days), and those that even it they are relea~ed to the environment (inoluding being melted in a furnace or ending up in the scrap stream). would not poae an internal or external exposure potential gr*~t*r than 10 percent ot the general pw:,lic limits.

7 do riot feel tbe establishment. of a *program that pays for the discovery of lost sources is desirable.

What is needed is a means :for some government agency to accept receipt of any source found in the acrzap stream. It a scrap yard or metal refining plant could simply call an 800 number and know that the source would *be removed at no cost to them, it would be a great assistance.

No matter how small a fae is paid, it will increase the likelihood ot source/devices being improperly disposed through this route.

My December 18, 1995 letter addressed my views in this area, however, I have repeated some of them here in modified fora.

• I have* never seen a governmental estimate for a new regulation or program that adequately assess.ed the real cost to industry.

This is especially true with the unknown cost ot future disposals.

We are dealing with a loss of control by both a licensee (GL or specific) and a regulatory agency, and the impact on someone who has probably apent a considerable amount of time and money in installing a detection system (these costs go well beyond the cost of the detection system components, into other engineering and installation costs, training of peraonnel, and the development of response procedures).

If the cost of funding the regulatory program i* placed on the victims, I believe it is likely that the companies will lobby their representatives tor more realistic relief.

No matter how muoh the safe disposal ot a found source may benefit-the mill or scrap yard, they do not buy

FEB 05 '96 14: 10 1

I-EAL.TH PHYSICS ASSOC 2157560042.

Joel LUl>enau DC/Agrea,nt state *Worting Group a.4ioaot1v* Xat*~1*1* iD ~h* aor*~ atroaa J'et>ruary 5, 1,,,

4 scrap with the underatanding that it is likely to contain rad.ioact:ivity.

In fact aost ooapanies have includad clauses into their purcha** orders that specifically rej*ct scr*p aontainin9 rad~oaetivity.

'l'bua. the mill i&

the victim and should not be saddled with the costs of iaplel&Qftting the prograa.

Thi* ahould coma from licensees. both specific and general.

But again, it should only apply to those souroos likoly to cause a problem.

• It should also be kept in mind. that many point level gauge ayat... cAn be puroh~scd for under $1500.

Ot.hor eimple gauges are also less than $2500.

To add a cost that eppl:'Oachcs 101 of thia cost could cause severe economic impact on the gauge manufacturer.s.

As regulatory fees tor any activity increaae, industry will seek other more coet effective means to accomplish their goals..

'the reason radioactivity is used is that it is more cost eff*c:tive than mechanical lllethocls, or it allows a ~ans ot gauging that cannot be effected by other tueano.

If the coat becomes prohibitive, industry will cease making the ws4aurementa, it thi* is p~ac::ticol, 0the~ise th* coat ot the product increases or other overhead is cut.

• Any evaluation of effectiveness must also measure the

• ucceaa at preventin9 the entry cf so~~ces int0 the scr~p metal stream.

Thia is a difficult quantity to measure; however, some measure can be made it a deoline in detections involving sealed sources occurs, and also tnrougn tne 1nventory reporting process.

• Tne GL concept is goOd ana usetul to both industry and government, but it is open to ~isuse and it does cost government to implement. It may be ti** tor the NRC to re-examine the entire GL concept. If something is truly "idiot proof" and would not cause a real hazard if control and containment were lost, perhaps it should be license exampt.

Possible examples a~* exit signs and other small sources. The NRC and the states should have at least a minimal enforcement program directed at GL users (inventory/leak test reporting).

,~

A. LaMastra certified Health Physicist

STEEL MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION Suite 907 DOCKETED i

1730 Rhode Island Avenue,

.W., Washington, D.C. 200 Fax: {202) 296-2506 Chris Stacey Environmental Manager Mr. Joel Lubenau U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission MIS T-8F5 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001

Dear Mr. Lubenau:

February 2, 1996

• 96 FEB -7 P 2 :36 (202) 296-1515 cfstacey@aol.com OFFI CJ:."" pr. ~ ::--.nr-I' R)

\\J

\\.._..

DOCK -,,

,- -*, I(

I.....

~....,,_,...,'-I' BR..:...: 1_.1-1 The Steel Manufacturers Association urges the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to resolve the problem of radioactive materials in the ferrous scrap stream.

We are encouraged that the NRC has appointed a task force to address this problem, and we appreciated the opportunity to participate in the advisory group at the NRC-State Working Group public meeting in January, 1996. We support the regulatory scheme endorsed by the advisory group participants, which would require annual reporting for users of licensed sources that pose health and financial risks to the workers and companies in scrap-based metals industries.

At the meeting, the NRC indicated that applying more stringent reporting requirements to all licensed sources would be difficult to achieve because it would not be economically feasible. The RC requested that roundtable participants submit a priority list of sources in most need of stronger reporting requirements.

While the steel industry understands that the NRC has budget limitations, the SMA cannot emphasize enough that each and every radioactive device that ends up in scrap entering a steel mill has a significant economic impact on the U.S. steel industry. The expense and amount of workforce time required to discover, handle, and properly dispose of or store a radioactive source is a continual drain on the steel industry's resources.

Per the request of the NRC, the SMA is attaching a list of sources that can cause multi-million dollar accidental smeltings at steelmaking facilities. Also included on the list are other radioactive materials that steel producers find in incoming scrap shipments with such frequency as to cause serious detriment to steel companies' operations. This list is not meant to be comprehensive, nor to exclude the fact that other radioactive materials are problematic. It is meant to be used as a general guideline in confronting the radioactive scrap problem in the short term.

In addition to the attached list, the SMA favors a maximum limit on the size of sources that can be generally licensed. We propose a system of threshold sizes, measured in Curies, varying by radioactive isotope according to the risk each isotope poses. Such limits would reduce the possibility of a very large source being mishandled by a generally licensed user who may not understand the kind of proper attention and disposal a large source requires. We therefore implore the NRC-State Working Group to consider size limits.

Acknowledged by eard 7FB 1 2 199~

• • • tffH** H.............. ~tlf!t

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOt,.

DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Postmark Date~

1Q r G., J, Qn-c o *

• Coples Received__._\\-----'-

~ ---

Add'l Copies Reproduced --'~=-----

Special Distribution C:s:::r::o-n.Rc::>,3>.t>e.,

February 5, 1996 Mr. Joel Lubenau Page2 We hope the attached list is useful for the NRC, and we look forward to working with the NRC to ensure that all radioactive materials threatening to worker health and safety, the environment, and the competitiveness of the steel industry are properly regulated.

Sincerely,

/ ~J JJY<t-~

Chris Stacey

Institute of Scrap R.cqdin& Industries, Inc.

R.ccommendcd Practice and Procedure Examples Scrap Bearing Sealed Radioactive Materials (See Appendix A for explanation of element symbols)

Possible Scrap Component Possible Radioactive Material Aircraft devices, luminous 3H, U7pm, ~

91Jsr, SSKr

~

ionizing devi~

3H. 210p01 ~a, 241Am I/Automobile shift quadr~

3H Compass, marine: navigational equipment 3H,~a Dewpoint gauges

~a, Th Electron & vacuum tubes 3ff, 60Co, ~a, 81cc, mes, 147pm, ~a, Th Fircismoicc dcteaors u, ~a, 241Am

@a~thickncss., cah'bration, process control, 241Am, 241Am/Bc, 90sr mes, 60co, ~a, ssKr, level measurement)

~a/Be, t921r Ice detector 90Sr Jndustrial radiography sour~

60Co 192Ir ~a

/ Irradiators, self-contained) 60Co, 137Cs Lightning rods

~a,Tb Loa illuminators, automobile 3H 147pm 14c t

Luminous signs 3H, 1-'7Pm, asKr, ~a

~

Medical devices)brachytherapy, tcletherapy) 241Am, 6()Co, t37es, 67Ga, t92Ir, 12\\ ~a, 90Sr Radiation leak detectors asKr (E.efractory briV 6()Co (5hipping contain~ shielded 137Cs, ~a, 1921r, 241Am

Spark g2p i."'!'adi.a~(fue! oil burners) 60Co (Static eliminato~

241Am 210p0 ~a Thermostat (dials, pointers) 3H, 147pm lWell logging too~

1J7Cs, ~a, ~a/Be, 241Am/Be Tunepieces Th, 3H, 147Pm, ~a Symbols and Names of Elements Contained in this Document I:

Iodine Ra: Radium Am: Americium Ir: Iridium Rn: Radon Be: Beryllium Kr: Krypton Sc: Scandium Ni: Nickel Sr: Strontium Co: Cobalt Po: Polonium Th: Thorium Cs: Cesium Pm: Promethium TI: Thallium Ga: Gallium Pu: Plutonium U: Uranium H: Hydrogen

• ,.I-_.:

I.. '

..... ~. *: :*.... : ; :

~ -~-

~

NUCLEAR RESEARCH CORPORATION INDUSTRIES I

Gary.Robertson Nuclear Research Corp.

125 Titus Ave.

Warrington, Pa. 18976 January 31~ 19~6 _ * * :

Mr. Joel 0. Lubena~

96 FEB -7 P 2 :36 Office_ofNuclear.Materials Safety and Safeguards Mail Stop T-8F5 _

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Mr. Lubenau:

-+70 Unfortunatelyl-_was not aware of the Public Workshop on the Regulation of Radioactive Devices, until Jack Dukes informed last week. As a manufacture of General License - Gauging Instrumentation; my.

company has a vested interest in the final disposition of your work group's recommendations. I would like to attend the next meeting of your group. _

e I have reviewed both Mr. Dukes' six point proposal and Mr. Heyer's comments. Like Mr Reyers I would appreciate a copy of your committee's previous minutes. I have to agree whole heartily with Mr. Reyers comments. While I agree with Mr. Dukes proposals in general. Regulators must maintain the database and identify non-compience without substaintualy encumbering manufacturers: Any revenue needed to

. *maintain the database or to cover-regulatory compliance should come for penalties for non-compliance and

• not by burdening an already price sensitive gauging *product.

I appreciate your efforts in this matter and look forward to future correspondence.

\\.

Sincerely,

u.S. ;JJCLlAR FiEGlJLATORY COMMISSIOI\\.

DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Postmark Date]tc'J) L G. R,,Ri!ftrte-,,

Coples Received_.___'i; __

~ ---

Adcfl Copies Reproduced -'~=------

Special Distribution C:_..r:s:::r:i2N>f:: 17?.I>eJ

31 January 1996 DOCKETED US RC ATL

'96 FEB -7 P 2 :36 Adaptive Technologies, Inc.

Mr. Joel Lubenau Of FIC1-r

• ~

Tl 1'Y United States Nuclear Re ry ldommissionL r Office of Nuclear Materials Safe 1c\\tnd S feguards M/S T-8F5 Washington, DC 20555-0001

Subject:

Working group to review the regulation of devices containing radioactive materials

Dear Joel and Working Group Members:

i was pieasantly surprised by the productivity and progress made at the recent public meeting. The meeting was well run and the conversation was kept on a constructive rather than destructive course. I did not think it was possible to get a concensus on a solution to any aspect of this problem from a group with such a varying stake in the matter. Yet I feel there was an overwhelming consensus for the proposal that Jack Dukes of ABB outlined for improving accountability and control of materials/devices that have not already been abandoned, lost, stolen or misplaced.

Although the extent of the problem goes beyond generally licensed devices, I would like to stress that the current general license provisions are sufficient to have limited the improper disposal of generally licensed devices, if regular communication with all licensees had occured from the outset.

If there is anything lack~ng from a regulatory standpoint it is the discretion shown in granting General Licenses for devices containing significant amounts of radioactive material that could be classified as a potential public health risk. In addition, more severe financial and civil penalties on individuals/organisations that knowingly endanger public safety by improperly disposing of any regulated radioactive material or device would be prudent.

Sincerely,

/P)f/

Robert J. Roy Radiation Safety Officer radresp.wri Acknowled ed b rd 'FEB 1 2 1998 * :

g

¥ ca.... "......................., *.

5330-D Spectrum Drive

• Frederick. MD 21703 301 -607-0159 (FAX) 301 -607-034 l

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIO~

DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Copies Received__. ___

Ad<fl Copies Reproduced _--5:;;.__ ___ _

Special Distribution C:QN>>R:ncc. 3M 1

".Js;\\1;>$

~

VALMET Automation January 30, 1996 DOCKETED

'I"' *oc L;'.>, II

'96 FEB - 7 P 2 :36 OFFI CE ('

S !'Rt,A ~y OOCKL lli~ 1:

I 'y, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission 8 4 ~

~

11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 Attention: Joel Lubenau

Subject:

Joint Agreement State -

NRC Work Group Valme! Automation (USA) Inc.

3100 Medlock Bridge Road Suite 250 Norcross, GA 30071 Telephone: (404)446-7818 Telecopier: (404) 446-8794 Review of the Regulation of Devices Containing Radioactive Material

Dear Mr. Lubenau,

We were made aware of the public workshop held in Rockville, MD on January 18 & 19, 1996 regarding the regulation of devices containing radioactive materials.

Unfortunately, it was too late to allow us to attend that meeting.

Our intent is to participate in future meetings of this nature.

I have been brought up to date on the events of this meeting by several of the persons who were attendance.

We have a copy of the agenda and the background information package, and I have been in contact with Mr. Jack Dukes of ABB and he has provided us with a copy of the proposal he has submitted to the work group.

From the comments I have heard, and the documents I have read, it is apparent that your meeting was well prepared and organized.

I congratulate you on holding such informative public sessions, and look forward to attending one in the future.

Valmet Automation by Mr. Jack Dukes January 20, 1996.

comments:

(USA) Inc. is in support of the plan presented of ABB, submitted to you in writing, and dated We would also like to add the following We understand the concerns and problems faced by the scrap metal industry, both in the United States and worldwide.

We are actively involved with the metals industry, as several models of our on-line gauging devices are used in metals' applications.

Valmet is in support of minimizing the risks of accidentally smelting a device containing radioactive material.

All of our devices are distributed under General License, and there would be a significant effect on our business if these types of licenses were to be discontinued.

Our customers, some of which are small companies, would also be adversely affected if they were required to obtain Specific Licenses in order to utilize a gauging device at their site.

Acknowledged by card.. ~.~.!... ?... !.~~~.,

U.S. NUCLEAR rJEGu:...sTQR': COMMISSiOJ\\.

DOCKEl ING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRET ARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Postmark Dat8Se 1il1 - Q ~.S1..,...,e-, *-

Copes Recei~~~.____\\ __ *_

• ~*---

Add'l Copies Reproduced -=-----

Special Distribution C0e~

-

?S}f i;

Valmet Automation It appears that devices which end up in metal scrap yards are those which were "lost" from older installations.

These would most likely be customers who had stored such devices "on site" and ultimately forgotten they were there.

Valmet has a practice of advising customers not to "store" gauges at their locations.

Generally, our customers do not have a license to store radioactive material, and in these cases Valmet offers storage facilities for this purpose.

Valmet also accepts back for disposal, sources from all of our devices and those of other manufacturers as well (this is usually from a device where the original mariufacturer has either gone out of business or otherwise cannot accept radioactive sources).

We appreciate the opportunity to respond to your request for comments on the licensing of devices containing radioactive material.

Please contact my office directly at 770-246-7218 if there is any other information you may require.

You may also use my email address: jim.hoey@valmet.com Sincerely, VALMET AUTOMATION (USA), INC.

f;;;j '&/:p:J

• Radiation Safety Officer

January 30, 1996 Joel Lubenau US Nuclear Regulatory Ccmmission Office of Nuclear Materials Safety & Safeguards MIS T-8F5 11545 Rockville Pike Two White Flint North Rockville, MD 20852 RE:

Regulation of Radioactive Sources

Dear Mr. Lubenau:

DOCKETED LIS RC

'96 FEB - 7 p 2 :J6 Amersham Holdings, Inc.

2636 S. Clearbrook Drive Arlington Heights, IL 60005 tel (708) 593-6300

,.-Amersham The Health Scie11ce Croup Thank you for providing Amersham the opportunity to participate in the January 18-19, 1996, public workshop on the above topic. I thought it to be a very productive workshop and certainly gave all panelists and the public an opportunity to express their views.

Amersham supplies a wide variety of sealed sources, including many to manufacturers of radioactive devices. Then, we also lease a comprehensive range of static eliminators containing Polonium-210 as generally licensed devices, and many of our customers for these products do not have a radiation safety officer per se, but designate a contact person.

The lease period for our static eliminator is twelve (12) months.

I am also writing this letter to express Amersham's full support of the proposal made by Mr. Jack Dukes (ABB) at the workshop to improve control and accountability for radioactive devices. We also support Mr. Dukes' further development of his proposal as stated in his letter to you dated January 20, 1996, which we firmly believe will provide the necessary control and accountability for generally and specifically licensed devices.

Critical to the success of his proposal will be the identification of radionuclides, chemical/

physical forms and quantities of concern. As stated at the workshop, there is a very significant difference between a static eliminator containing a few mCi of Polonium-210 compared to a device containing a multi-Curie Cesium-13 7 source, and the same controls are not needed for devices at the lower end of the spectrum.

Acknowledged by card *mr 1 2 199~

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOt-.

DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Postmark oate-£.~il L a :R. S1>9ece ** _

Coples Received l

~

Add'! Copies Reproduced _-3 Special Distribution ~

~ ~ J:;g_"

\\.

We are particularly in favor of the general licensee having a back-up to the contact person since we have experienced difficulty obtaining information from a general licensee when the original contact person is no longer with the organiz.ation.

We also consider it imperative that implementation of Mr. Dukes' proposal is made an item of Division l for NRC/ Agreement States compatibility.

Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions concerning this letter.

I'll be pleased to discuss them with you and may be reached by phone at 847/593-6300, extension 379.

Sin~y, J~

/ ~

Bryan W. Baker, Ph.D.

Corporate Manager Nuclear Licensing and Industrial Liaison BWB:clk cc:

Docket Office Jack Dukes, ABB George Brown, Ohmart Mary Dedola, Berthold Systems Gary Caines, Honeywell Duane Hall, 3M Company Ralph S. Heyer, 1N Technologies J. David McGraw, NRD Elsa Nimmo, Measurex M. Doruff J. Waterman H. Evans Page2

measurex C ORP O RATI ON 29 January 1996 DOCKETED

~!lJMRULEBERpR USN RC n,vr~

• ..1-:::.:.iiMil,ii,l,1111:&:i==--~D...-"'lO Joel Lubenau

(~\\~~95) ~

~

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Sealed Source and Device Branch Division of Industrial and Medical Nuclear Safety M/S T-8F5 Washington, DC 20555-0001

'96 FEB -7 P2 :36 OFFICE CF :ECRETARY DOCKETlt u &. SERVICE BHA CH

Subject:

Proposal for Improving the Control of Generally & Specific~lly Licensed Devices

Dear Joel and Working Gr,

• 1-1 Members:

On be'.-~!' * 'Measurex Corporation, I wish to record my strong support for the proposal described by Jack Duk at the 18 and 19 January public workshop and the more detailed description he submitted on 20 January. We believe that routinely requiring General and Specific Licensees to report (or to respond to a request to report) their physical inventory of sealed sources/devices is key to preventing radioactive sources from becoming lost or out of control. We believe that it is equally essential that the applicable regulatory agency consistently make use of the information (or lack of information) submitted by licensees to identify discrepancies in radioactive source/device inventories and to follow-up appropriately.

As discussed at the January public workshop, licensees should be required to maintain records and submit annual reports on all types of sealed sources/devices, not just ones received after any new regulations are adopted. We also encourage the Working Group to explore the feasibility of including in the database sealed sources/devices that contain naturally occurring and accelerator-produced radioactive material.

Jack Dukes' proposal discusses having the licensee device/source reports submitted in a standard format. We agree that this is very important and essential to the long-term success of this program.

With standardization, the regulatory costs of maintaining a database will be minimized.

Standardization will also allow device distributors to assist their customers with the annual reports, significantly reducing the number of cases requiring regulatory agency action.

On the larger scale, we support standardizing all of these device/source inventory requirements by making them Division 1 for Agreement State/NRG compatibility. The problem of source/device control is -- at a minimum -- an interstate one which requires a consistent national approach.

We understand that the working group will also need to address problems that exist due to the discovery of uncontrolled sources and the need for proper disposal. However, we feel that Jack Dukes' proposal represents a much-needed and effective approach to the "front-end" of the problem

-- preventing sealed sources/devices from falling into an uncontrolled condition in the first place.

Sincerely, Elsa Nimmo Radiation Safety Officer MEASUREX CORPORATION ONE RESULTS WAY CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA 95014-5991

( 408) 255-1500 Acknowledged by card !J!:.!.. ?...1m.~. ~... _

U.S. NUCLEAR Rr.~t;i..,'\\TORY COMMISSIOt-.

DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Postmark Date....iv;!c:..,a(...,J.<..,..,,i,__,\\....J.>,.-i~

~--

Coples Received__._ ____ __ _

Add'1 Copies Re roduced.>....4----

Special Dlstribution~:uss::az:i.etc:..,...J~,s._

DOCKETED US RC I

J ail STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF LABOR DIVISION OF SAFETY AND HEAL TH Radiological Health Unit Building #12, Room 457 State Office Building Campus Albany, NY 12240

.96 FEB - 7 P 2 :36 OF FICE n SE( Rf f/\\RY OOCKE. Tl;',3 l~ SfR VW B~A CH Mr. Joel Lubenau U.S. Nuclear Regulatmy Commission Mail Stop T-8F5 Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Mr. Lubenau:

Januaty 29, 1996 DOCKET NUMBER Pff PROPOSED RULE e o} ~*\\J:@,LL\\C"'70 (b\\ Fi2.~C\\5 @

Disseminating infmmation to the scrap and metal mill industly on sources reported as lost or stolen, stmck us as a good idea a few years ago too. When we got a PN from NRC on a lost source we would call up !SRI and find that they already knew about it, but didn't seem tenibly interested. I recall asking them if mills would also be notified and the answer was indefinite.

After a little while the exercise seemed pretty pointless. When you think about it --

what good would such notifications do and what actions would anyone take as a result?

In the first place it would only concern sources repotted to be missing (i.e., sources well enough controlled that someone knows they are missing). We seem to have agreed at the Rockville meeting that the sources that get into scrap are not well tracked or controlled.

Also, although NRC seems unsure that its specifically licensed gauge users are properly controlling sources, the states feel that their specific licensees are doing a good job. A corollary to this is that it is the generally licensed sources we need to worry about, and I have vety little confidence that a missing source would be known of and/or reported within any timeframe that would petmit an effective tracking action to be taken.

I think that the industiy should be given a realistic response on this. Effective monitoring of all scrap on an ongoing basis is the only defense that can be effective. It would be counterproductive for them to adopt a mind set that special monitoring or tracking could or would be done when a specific source is reported missing. If they begin to think this way, they will fall into the trap of lax monitoring when we are not in "lost-source alert" status.

mr 1 2 1996"'

Acttnowtedged by card..........................,..,.

!=AX* 51R-457-5.t;45

u.s, J('.LC: *.,r,,~ELvLA rORY COMMISSIOt-.

DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRET ARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Postmark Date ~

~

~

~

~~...s::1,~~"°'"'""""-

Coples Received _ _,__ _____ _

Add'I Copies Reproduced -"~=-----

Special Distribution C~RT> > ~

Even when we make a regulatory fix for the current GL system, some sources will get away from us and it would be foolish to expect timely notification of such losses. Only constant vigilance will provide a safety margin, and that's not going to prevent all accidents either.

RA:jmp cc:

Martha Dibblee Bob Free Robin Haden Jim Myers Jim Yusko Sincerely, Rita Aldrich Principal Radiophysicist

UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION P.O. BOX B381, SOUTH CHARLESTON, WV 25303 DOCKETfD USNRC

.96 FEB -7 P 2 :36 OFFICE m St 1'R~ TARY DOCKET!~~

Sl!{VICE BRM1C Mr. Joel Lubenau January 24, 1996 USNRC rvv-tn!'I" NUMBER Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards 1.1\\J\\A\\C, PR -

MIS T-8F5 PROPOSED RULE

.&> 3\\ ~~ ~-+-10 Washington, DC 20555-0001 (C.:.\\FR..~9.S") ~

1 1

Ref: NRC/Agreement State Working Group-Radioactive Materials in the Scrap Stream

Dear Mr. Lubenau:

I attended the subject workshop on the 18th and 19th of January and would like to congratulate you on a productive and very well run meeting. Elsa Nimmo of Measurex has provided me with a copy of Jack Dukes' letter to you dated January 20, 1996 in which he outlines his 6 point proposal for dealing with the subject problem.

I agree with and support Mr. Dukes' proposal. The radiation safety programs at various locations within Union Carbide are such that it would not be difficult to comply with this proposal immediately. I would like to suggest that Item 1 be changed from "records of all RAM" to "records of all RAM subject to regulatory control".

I strongly support Item 3 in which the regulatory agency would specify radioisotopes and quantities which are of regulatory concern. I believe that a specification for concentrations of radioisotopes also may be necessary.

In Item 4 Mr. Dukes suggests the reporting of all RAM that could get into waste streams and the environment. This could be a major problem if applied universally. There is a great deal of NORM that is unmonitored and uncontrolled. NORM occurs both in "natural" concentrations and in incidentally enhanced concentrations due to human activities. If these materials are to be regulated, due consideration should be given to the economic impact of measuring and controlling these materials for an unknown benefit to public health.

I would like to be advised of, and if possible, participate in future activities related to devices containing radioactive material. I am a member of the Health Physics Society, the senior corporate technologist for radiation safety and applications within Union Carbide, the Radiation Safety Officer of our So. Charleston, WVTechnical Center and I provide training and guidance to UCC RSO's located through out the United States and various international locations. If you need to contact me, my telephone number is 304n47-5314 and my FAX is 304n47-5570.

Yours truly,

/~~~~/:L--

Michael L. Green cc: Jack Dukes, ABB

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0MMISSI0~

DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRET ARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Postmark Date:Tf;.p {=Q, ~,S)&c, ~~

Coples Received.--'\\,....___7 ___ _

Addi Coples Reproduced -~==------

Special Distribution c... 'IS:T'>&Z'V':ZD l~J

Honeywell January 22, 1996 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards Attn: Mr. Joel Lubenau MIS T-8F5 Washington, DC 20555-0001 DOCKETED S. C

• 96 FEB -7 P 2 :36 REF: Joint Agreement State - NRC Working Group To Review The Regulation Of Devices Containing Radioactive Materials

Dear Mr. Lubenau:

DOCKET NlllBER PR PROPOSED RULE

~

-o\\

(bl F"R.~q.s I attended the public workshop in Rockville, MD January 18-19, 1996. I would like to congratulate you and the other members of the Working Group on this public forum. I think it was well organized and developed some very good ideas. The Industrial Automation & Control division of Honeywell, Inc. basically supports the plan presented by Jack Dukes of ABB presented verbally in the Workshop and the expanded version subsequently submitted to you in writing and dated January 20, 1996.

Honeywell would like to make the following statements and proposals.

1.

Honeywell, Inc. realizes that the scrap metal industry in the United States and worldwide faces a significant problem involving the potential of smelting radioactive materials in scrap metal streams. However, the significance of the risk involved in a potential smelting of radioactive materials is very much dependent on the isotope involved and the quantity. The vast majority of historical and potential problems exist from smelting Cobalt-60 and Cesium-13 7. The devices Honeywell presently sells in the United States utilize Fe-55, Kr-85, Pm-147, and Sr-90 in quantities of 400 mCi or less. It would be very unlikely that any of these sources could cause a problem if smelted and Kr-85, being a noble gas with no progeny, could never cause a problem.

2.

Honeywell, Inc. sells devices exclusively to General Licensees under the provisions of 10 CFR 31.5. Most other manufacturers of similar devices also sell most of their devices to General Licensees. If the provisions of IO CFR 31. 5 are revoked and Honeywell is forced to sell devices to Specific Licensees, Honeywell's business will be significantly adversely affected.

3.

Small companies that purchase these types of devices as General Licensees from Honeywell and other manufacturers are much more likely to be adversely affected than their larger competitors. Many of these smaller companies only have one generally licensed device and the burden of requiring a Specific License could be substantial in relation to the value of the device.

• m 1 2 1995..

Acmowledged by card.... -_..............-.

HONEYWELL INC., 1190 WEST DRUID HILLS DRIVE NORTHEAST, ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30329-1266

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULA iORY COMMISSIOI\\.

DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics PostmaTk Date J)a,!~~_,,Gu J, iS)M'2T-~

Co~ s Received _ _._ __ 7 ___ _

AMI Copies Reproduced ~~~----

Special Distribution ~

l ::E~..J

\\,

4.

From what I have personally observed, I believe that the vast majority of devices owned by General Licensees are 'in control'. Honeywell and most other distributors of devices to General Licensees try to keep track of all sealed radiation sources and devices distributed and are doing an excellent job in this regard.

5.

Honeywell, Inc., like most other distributors, is willing to accept back any previously distributed sealed sources or devices for recycling or disposal for a small fee. Honeywell also routinely accepts depleted sources and devices manufactured by third-parties from General Licensees for recycling or disposal on a case-by-case basis or refers the General Licensee to the device manufacturer.

6.

Honeywell, Inc., like most other distributors, instructs all licensed engineers to be on the lookout for devices at customer facilities that are obviously in need of attention or look like they are_ not in current use.

The recommended solutions provided by Jack Dukes of ABB and previously submitted to you by ABB are fully endorsed by Honeywell, Inc. and presented again in this document, with the permission of ABB. Honeywell has provided the following addendums to the ABB/Dukes Plan.

HONEYWELL ADDENDUMS TO ABBillUKES PLAN The following regulations should be amended to the following wording or similar or have the following wording added.

1.

10 CFR 31.5(c)(I) Shall assure that all labels affixed to the device at the time of receipt and bearing a statement that removal of the label is prohibited are maintained thereon, remain legible, and shall comply with all instructions and precautions provided by such labels;

2.

10 CFR 31.5(c)(8) The serial number of the device, isotope, model number of source and serial number of source should be included.

3.

10 CFR 31.5(c)(9) The serial number of the device, isotope, model number of source and serial number of source should be included.

4.

10 CFR 32.52(a) The serial number of the device, model number of the source and serial number of source should be included.

5.

In the event a licensee, manufacturer or distributor of Generally Licensed or Specifically Licensed devices or other radioactive material ceases as a business entity, the records should be turned over to the USNRC or the appropriate Agreement State for storage and maintenance to aid in the identification of 'out of control' radioactive material.

ABB/DUKES PLAN (I) Require all licensees to maintain current records of all RAM in their possession and all RAM that has been transferred or otherwise disposed of.

- all GL as well as all SL licensees under NRC and agreement state jurisdiction

- all radioactive materials, including NORM & NARM

- inventory records to show: device name, model number, and serial number (if applicable) and manufacturer; source form; source serial number; isotope, quantity, and date of manufacture; device/source use and whether fixed or portable; physical location(s); date of last location verification; name of person verifying its location; all transfers or disposals of devices/sources to other licensees; and the name of the current radiologically responsible person (and a backup person).

- the "radiologically responsible persons" can be anyone in authority who has responsibility for complying with radiological regulations and license conditions such as the radiation safety officer, the plant safety officer, the firm's regulatory compliance officer, knowledgeable corporate officers, etc.

- inventory records to be available at all times for inspection by regulatory authorities.

(2) Require all licensees to perform semi-annual physical inventories.

- must account for all inventory changes since the last physical inventory and report any unresolved discrepancies to the appropriate authorities.

- physical inventories might logically be done in conjunction with the required periodic source leak testing and radiological safety feature checks of devices (shutter mechanisms, ON-OFF indicators, shielding, labels, etc.).

- if the radiological inspections, physical inventory and inventory records are done under 3rd party service contracts, the licensee (RAM possessor) must acknowledge completion and concurrence with the results by affixing signature of the radiologically responsible person or backup person.

(3) The regulatory authority (NRC) must identify the radioisotopes and quantities which are to be of regulatory concern for annual reporting (see point (4) below).

( 4) Require all licensees to report annually to their appropriate regulatory authority.

- as a minimum, they must report all devices/sources which are of regulatory concern (see point (3) above). [From the broader concern of accountability and control of RAM for health and safety of the public it would be desirable to consider reporting all RAM that could get into the various waste streams and the environment.]

- report must include the current inventory, and all transfers to other licensees, disposals, methods of disposal, etc. since the last annual report.

- report must also include the names of the current radiologically responsible persons (primary and backup).

- reports should be in a standardized format suitable for electronic transfer or, if on paper, suitable for scanning and electronic processing.

- if these reports are completed and submitted under 3rd party service contracts, they must be verified/authenticated by the radiologically responsible person ( or backup) of the licensee possessing the RAM and identify the service organization submitting the report.

( 5) Make this a Category 1 level requirement for compatibility between the agreement states and the NRC.

( 6) Regulators must maintain a current database and enforce the rules.

- a single national registry of devices/sources should be implemented and contain all of the information identified in point (1) above.

- using a 3rd party to maintain the data base was suggested by George Brown, Ohmart Corp., at the public workshop. This might ease NRC manpower and priority issues and facilitate joint funding by all involved regulatory agencies (federal and state).

- the data base program should be capable of: finding discrepancies between consecutive inventory reports submitted by each licensee; detecting differences between the manufacturer's and distributor's quarterly GL distribution reports and the licensees inventory reports; and, preparing reports for follow-up review and actions by the appropriate enforcement agency.

- the follow up with licensees could be by phone, mail, visit or other means which is determined to be appropriate on a case-by-case basis.

Related requirements:

• good communications between vendors, customers, regulatory agencies, and other stakeholders

• proper incentives for regulatory compliance and removal of disincentives

• appropriate penalties for non-compliance

• means of funding Thank you very much for allowing Honeywell, Inc. to provide comments for the record.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. I can be reached by telephone at 404-248-2350, by fax at 404-248-2593 or by e-mail at CAINSGAB@bbms.iac.honeywell.com.

Sincerely, Gary L Caines, Radiological Operations Manager Copies:

Vicki Chouinard MikeChunko ClaudeDuss Dr. Werner Hagen Tim Hodges Frank Lynott David McQuillin Tyler Moore Kathleen Muller George Underwood Heinrich Wiest Dr. Bernd Wormann

January 22, 1996 DOCKETED us~~Rc

'96 FEB -7 P 2 :36 BERTHOLD SYSTEMS, INC.

Process Control Instruments Hopewell Business & Industrial Park 1 01 Corporation Drive Aliquippa, Pennsylvania 15001-4863 Telephone: (412) 378-1900 Telefax: [412) 378-1926 Mr. Joel Lubenau USNRC OFFICE Cf. SECRE TARY Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards DOCK ~-..,, ' G "- '~ '.'.i * ' : Cc-

.... f i \\

1_. ~,._

y I

, L.

BP i'.l.i' ::f--'

M/S T-8F5 Washington, DC 20555-0001 DOCKET NlNBEAPR "'-

PROPOSED RULE

~ 9 :,.\\.;s.~-o -;-/C (lott:R::.a.9s)@:)

Dear Mr. Lubenau:

This letter is as per your request to submit written suggestions to the Working Group for review during the January 18 & 19th Public Workshop.

We would like to endorse Jack Dukes' proposal that General Licensee's and Specific Licensee's report inventories annually to the NRC.

We would like to add that the 6-month physical inventories, with r~ports of lost devices, continue to be required for Specific Licensee's and now imposed on General Licensee's.

We feel that this can also help in the control lost devices.

On the subject of compatibility between the Agreement states and the NRC, we feel that this should be a Category 1 level requirement for compatibility.

The Agreement States should not be given the option to be more stringent than the NRC. We feel this is necessary to help the newly reporting General licensee's to feel comfortable and not overwhelmed with the new r eporting requirements.

As was stated by Mr. Duane Hall of 3M company, his plants are in various states and he would l ike to see one type of reporting so as to prevent confusion for his office.

Mr. Bob Free of Texas mentioned that this could pose a problem because each state handles the different types of radioactivity in a different manners.

Our suggestion:

The Agreement states have categorized the different types of radiation used when applied to Reciprocity fees.

It would be beneficial if the Working Group could use these categories, of course possibly adding to the list, and set the rules for each state by the category in which the radioactivity lies.

As an example:

Gauging devices, NORM, Medical devices, etc.

This will enable at least a

conformity of the categorized devices distributed, manufactured and serviced within the states.

Another suggestion, that may categorizing the material as Potential" problem.

Each state for each of these divisions.

be easier to implement, is BPotential Problem" and "Non-could have compatible regulations rmr 1 2 1 96'"

Acknowledged by card................... ".,;.._.,

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOt-DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRET ARY Of THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Postmark Date~~.Q ~

G..J). i)....,.._...._

Coples Received__. _____ 7 ___ _

Add'! Copies Reproduced....:-3:::,__ ___

Special Distribution ~.

?Cta

During the meetings it was stated that an identification of the radioisotopes and quantities that are to be considered a potential problem was to be addressed.

The topic had surfaced a few times but never answered, Before any categorizing can be done to implement the above suggestion, these isotopes and quantities must be identified.

The Manufacturers and distributors of the devices should be permitted to comment on the quantities and isotopes as any limitations set could greatly affect our General Licence business.

As stated by Jack. Dukes, of ABB and Bryan Baker, of Amersham, Berthold Systems, Inc. accepts the return of their devices from each customer.

We charge a fee for this service because we are in-turn charged for the return shipments to Berthold Germany.

The labeling situation is a puzzling one in our eyes.

Even the most durable label can be destroyed by

beating, painting, dislodging, etc. on its way to the scrap yards.

We feel that finding a label to withstand all conditions preceding the scrap yard would be impossible.

We do suggest that the scrap yards review their process to see if there would be a solution in the way the scrap was sorted, loaded and scanned, that might cost a minimal amount in comparison to the astronomical amount the melting facilities are contending with at present.

There were a few times in the beginning discussions and again on January 18th that the option of doing away with the General Licensee completely, requiring each device be taken under a specific license was mentioned.

We would like to elaborate on what that would do to Berthold Systems, Inc.

and other vendors if this occurs:

The majority of our General License customers own one or two of our gauges.

These companies have small facilities and are in no need of more gauges.

The monies needed to obtain and possess a specific l icense for these plants are not available.

Also, with one or two gauges the customer would opt to use another measuring device instead of handling all the paperwork needed to obtain a license.

These users we call the "Bread and Butter" of our organization.

Without them we, Berthold Systems, Inc., would not exist.

Our larger customers usually have other radioactive gauges in there facilities, therefore, would only need to amend their license's to add Berthold Systems, Inc.

But, these larger customers, although important, only make up all percentage of our customer population.

In taking away the General Licensee you would in essence destroy away the Industrial gauging market!

Toward the end of the last meeting this suggestion of eliminating the GL category was not listed as an option, but we feel that if the subject would come-up again in the Working Group Meetings we would like the consequences of this action to be noted.

Berthold Systems, Inc. uses the booklet titled "Working Safely with Nuclear Gauges" as a handout during start-up of our gauges. As a suggestion, one page should be added in this booklet stating the consequences of losing a source. This booklet is widely used among our customers and we feel that this would be a great way to make people knowledgeable of the consequences of there actions when handling radioactive devices.

As I stated in the meeting, Berthold is willing to offer it's help in i~plementing the results of the Working Groups efforts.

We are willing to submit information needed by the NRC and would like to be the contact for our customers.

We would like to, again thank you for the ability to be a part of this process, I have learned a great deal from the discussions and enjoyed being able to interact with all parties with a stake in this rule making process.

• This morning we have received a copy of the letter from Mr. Jack Dukes to Joel Lubenau, re-iterating his proposal.

We strongly endorse the recommendations made in this letter.

Sincerely,

~'o/-~

Mary Dedola Assistant Radiation Safety Officer Berthold systems, Inc.

cc:

Charles Ferrin

TN 1echnologies A Thermo Instruments Company January 21, 1996 Mr. Joel 0. Lubenau Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Mail Stop T-8F5 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington D.C. 20555 RE: Public Workshop on the Regulation of Radioactive Devices

Dear Mr. Lubenau and Working Group Members:

DOCKETED USNRC

'96 FEB - 7 P 2 :36 DOCKET NlMBER PR.

PROPOSED RULE 39, 2, :as :\\-0...,o (fol ~e~9.S) © I appreciated the opportunity to provide verbal comments on January 18, 1996, at the *Public Workshop on the Regulation of Radioactive Devices.* Many thoughts and ideas were conveyed during this meeting and I would greatly appreciate receiving the transcript from this meeting. Since I was unable to attend the December 1995 Working Group meeting I would appreciate those minutes also.

Initially, I believed that the overall content of the meeting seemed beneficial. However, throughout the meeting the discussions and ideas that were presented by certain representatives from the *institute of Scrap Recycling Industry* and the

• American Iron and Steel Institute* seemed to take precedence over the objectives of the meeting and presented me with the greatest concern.

Specifically, such ideas as stamping the source head as a means of another form of identification in addition to the required label markings, the possibility of designing the source capsules in some ceramic form, and the idea of requiring the manufacturer to periodically notify the end-user to determine whether the device remains in their possession. These ideas appeared not to have been completely thought through.

All device manufacturers are required to have their respective sealed sources and devices approved by the NRC or respective Agreement State prior to distribution and must meet the requirements in 10 CFR 32 or Agreement State equivalent. The devices are manufactured and distributed with legible and durable tags. However, *real world* working environments often compromise those tags. Therefore, the provision of the rules (such as 10 CFR 31.5(cll are in place to require replacement.

It is unclear how placing another tag or marking would accomplish better accountability or make it easier to visibly identify radioactive material. During the meeting it was stated that individuals cannot always visibly identify devices that contain radioactive material, especially if they are painted over or are already physically damaged. The primary source for identifying radioactive material must be through effective and proper use of survey instrumentation - not just through visual observation. Ceramic designs of sealed sources may be convenient for the steel industry but not other industries that use sealed sources of radioactive material. To require the manufacturer to periodically notify the end-users is inappropriate and is a regulatory function. What happens if the manufacturer is required to notify the end-user and they do not have the device 7 What legal ramifications will that present to the manufacturer? What happens if a manufacturer goes out of business? Is the manufacturer to assume the regulatory and enforcement roles also?

"FEB* 1 2 1996-Acknowledged by card**""............ -.........._

TN Technologies Inc.

• 2555 North Interstate 35

• P.O. Box 800

• Round Rock, Texas 78680-0800

• 512/388-9100

• Fax: 512/388-9200

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIQt..

DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Postmarkoa~

~ ~ cl ££)Jf'?s;e-~

Coples Received~ L~

Add"I Coples Reproduced -"-"C..----

Speclal Dlsb'lbution C.----e >u::ft:>, ~J

Page Two Mr. Joel 0. Lubenau January 22, 1996 It was my understanding, based on the Working Group Charter, that issues regarding all radioactive material were to be considered. However, the perceived tone and direction of the meeting continued to focus on *gauges.* I realize that this was a public forum and that there were certain representatives (from various industries) present at the table, but I feel that the direction of the meeting was somewhat misdirected from the Charter. It was unclear how representatives were selected to be present at the table discussions, but TN Technologies _Inc. wishes to provide separate and additional comments.

As detailed in my November 29, 1995, correspondence I wish to reiterate that any recommendations that are made to the Commission nQ1 strictly focus on generally licensed (GL) gauges as being the primary or sole source of the scrap metal smeltings. There are many other devices which are both GL devices and specifically licensed that must be considered. I continue to believe that regulatory agencies (federal ;1nd state) ~hoµld striv~ to mQr~ effectively utilize existing avenues to address the entire issue of radioactive material accountability. Specifically, initial efforts by government agencies should be to utilize manufacturer provided data (i.e., quarterly reports) combined with an active inspection and enforcement program.

If the magnitude of the problem of smeltings warrants such drastic approaches as presented by the

• institute of Scrap Recycling Industry* and the *American Iron and Steel Institute* then the entire radioactive material licensing and inspection programs must be reevaluated with defined direction toward active inspection and enforcement. This would included industrial radiography, medical facilities that use radioactive material for therapeutic and diagnostic purposes, and academic institutions that use radioactive material for research and development.

I am not minimizing the importance of preventing *unaccountable* radioactive material from ending up anywhere, regardless if it is in a smelter or in the general public arena. However, I am advocating a logical approach for establishing accountability based upon fiscal and budgetary limitations through the effective use of limited resources with a primary emphasis on health and safety.

In a September 14, 1989, Policy Issue report to the Commissioners (SECY-89-289) the Staff clearly outlined the problems of loss of control, disposal, and low regulatory priority citing budgetary constraints. The later of which is key to what NRC needs to address. The NRC must inspect general licensees on a specified frequency and justify the resources. The NRC has stated that the general license category is believed to be *in a low-risk category.* Perhaps NRC must now redefine this position, established clear criteria and regulations, and develop an active inspection and enforcement program.

I firmly believe that placing the burden of smelted radioactive material on the device manufacturer is inappropriate and insupportable. This issue of smelted generally licensed gauging devices has not been identified or defined as the primary or secondary source of smeltings. Should this be the case then I believe it more appropriate for the NRC to first define the extent of the problem directly related to generally licensed devices and associated smeltings.

I would continue to encourage the development of specific guidelines for controlling the number of devices through the review of existing quarterly report data provided by the manufacturers and establishing a viable data base (perhaps similar to the Sealed Source and Device Registry System).

Page Three Mr. Joel 0. Lubenau January 22, 1996 The mechanism for requiring the manufacturer to provide improved *quality assurance* toward a goal of providing a greater degree of accountability already exists under 10 CFR 32.210. TN Technologies Inc. has for the past 20 years documented and reported distribution information to the appropriate Agreement State, the NRC and until 1995 the NRC Regional Offices, but has never received feedback from the NRC.

I believe it is the end-user's responsibility to properly use and account for the radioactive material in their possession (whether under general license provisions in 10 CFR 31.5 or under specifically licensed requirements). It has been and continues to be the respective regulatory agency's (federal or state) responsibility to develop effective rules and guidelines that licensees adhere to and to inspect and enforce users of radioactive material.

Those Agreements States which have had initiative to develop more aggressive general license rules, regulations, licensing, and inspection programs have shown tremendous progress in demonstrating accountability of GL devices and have valuable data that the NRC should consider. I encourage the NRC take the same approach.

In conclusion, I support the following:

1. Primary accountability and control by *responsible contact person(s)* should be with the end-user. Developing, documenting, implementing, and maintaining records to assure tracking (transfer and legal disposal) of radioactive material must be essential. It should be emphasized that a general license can not transfer to another general license except through proper redistribution by the device manufacturer.

2. Physical inventory and accountability by the end user at six month intervals. This would not only include identifying that the device remains at the documented location but assess the condition of the device. Results and corrective action must be evaluated and any corrections documented. This would also should include verification that labels/tags are properly affixed and legible, shutter (*on* and *off*) mechanism is functional, and unit is still operational.

Should the unit not be functional then the manufacturer must be notified to perform appropriate maintenance and repair.

3. Consistent application of regulatory requirements among the NRC and Agreement States.

Assurance of co:;sistsnt application through a ciearly defined **compatibility - Level I" rating.

Should you have any questions, comments or require additional information please advise. I can be contacted by telephone: 512/388-9287, fax: 512/388-9333, or Internet: RSHEYER@AOL.COM.

Sincerely, Rf:rH!ft:ger Regulatory Affairs

January 20, 1996 Mr. Joel Lubenau USNRC Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards M/S T-8F5 Washington, DC 20555-0001 DOCKETED US RC

'96 FEB - 7 P 2 :36

6)

Ref: NRG/Agreement State Working Group -- Radioactive Materials in the Scrap Stream

Dear Joel & Working Group Members:

Thank you for the opportunity to be a panelist at the January 18-19, 1996 public workshop in Rockville. I felt this was a very productive session. I was pleased with the positive response to the 6-point proposal I presented for reducing the potential of radioactive sources and devices from accidentally getting into the metal scrap and other public waste streams. There appeared to be a strong consensus among the interested parties that this could be a viable approach to achieve improved accountability and control of sources and devices containing radioactive materials.

I gave you a printed copy of the 6-point proposal which I presented. This was in a very abbreviated form. I thought it might be useful for the Working Group if I expanded this outline with more detailed recommendations, some of which we did not discussed at the meeting. (Some of these details were in my letter of January 2, 1996). The expanded proposal is attached for your further consideration.

I hope this more detailed proposal will be helpful in your ongoing review and final recommendations to the Commission. Since NORM and NARM have been identified as problems in this issue I would hope that the NRC could at least recommend these materials be included in the national data base.

This would facilitate the effort of agreement states in exercising greater control over these non-AEA radioactive materials.

Sincerely, john (Jack) R. Dukes, Director Nucleonics and Radiological Operations NRC01_206.DOC Acknowledged by card.:.mt::J:~..m~.t::~

ABB Industrial Systems Inc.

650 Ackerman Road P. 0. Box 02650 Columbus, Ohio 43202-1502 Telephone:

614/261-2000 Telex:

246675 Telefax:

6141261-2172

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULA TORY COMMISSIOt-.

DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY Of THE COMMISSION Postmark Da Copl s Rece Document Statistics Add'1 Copies Reproduced _-3=-----

Dlstrlbution~:i.i::s:::s:l.lil,l:!,~4-*7.

-L~

l

NRG/AGREEMENT STATE WORKING GROUP PUBLIC WORKSHOP January 18-19, 1996 Panelist: Jack Dukes, ABB Industrial Systems Inc.

Issue:

Improper disposal of radioactive materials (RAM) and devices containing RAM that:

(1) result in entry of RAM into the metal scrap recycling streams and then being accidentally smelted (primarily an economic issue);

(2) represents potential health & safety hazards to individuals involved and the public.

Cause: Primarily an accountability and control problem

[An awareness (or lack of awareness) problem that results in unidentified, misplaced, lost, abandoned, and stolen devices/sources. Disincentives may also contribute to willful improper disposal.]

1) Inadequate inventory control of RAM & devices containing RAM (2) Improper disposal of RAM & devices containing RAM Recommended Solution:

(1) Require fill licensees to maintain current records of all RAM in their possession and all RAM that has been transferred or otherwise disposed of.

- all GL as well as all SL licensees under NRC and agreement state jurisdiction

- all radioactive materials, including NORM & NARM

- inventory records to show: device name, model number, and serial number (if applicable) and manufacturer; source form; source serial number; isotope, quantity, and date of manufacture; device/source use and whether fixed or portable; physical location(s); date of last location verification; name of person verifying its location; all transfers or disposals of devices/sources to other licensees; and the name of the current radiologically responsible person (and a backup person).

- the "radiologically responsible persons" can be anyone in authority who has responsibility for complying with radiological regulations and license conditions such as the radiation safety officer, the plant safety officer, the firm's regulatory compliance officer, knowledgeable corporate officers, etc.

- inventory records to be available at all times for inspection by regulatory authorities.

(2) Require all licensees to perform semi-annual physical inventories.

ABB: JRD

- must account for all inventory changes since the last physical inventory and report any unresolved discrepancies to the appropriate authorities. NRC01186.DOC

- physical inventories might logically be done in conjunction with the required periodic source leak testing and radiological safety feature checks of devices (shutter mechanisms, ON-OFF indicators, shielding, labels, etc.).

- if the radiological inspections, physical inventory and inventory records are done under 3rd party service contracts, the licensee (RAM possessor) must acknowledge completion and concurrence with the results by affixing signature of the radiologically responsible person or backup person.

(3) The regulatory authority (NRG) must Identify the radioisotopes and quantities which are to be of regulatory concern for annual reporting (see point (4) below)..

(4) Require sill licensees to report annually to their appropriate regulatory authority

- as a minimum, they must report all devices/sources which are of regulatory concern (see point (3) above). [From the broader concern of accountability and control of RAM for health and safety of the public it would be desirable to consider reporting all RAM that could get into the various waste streams and the environment.]

- report must include the current inventory, and all transfers to other licensees, disposals, methods of disposal, etc. since the last annual report.

- report must also include the names of the current radiologically responsible persons (primary and backup).

- reports should be in a standardized format suitable for electronic transfer or, if on paper, suitable for scanning and electronic processing.

- if these reports are completed and submitted under 3rd party service contracts, they must be verified/authenticated by the radiologically responsible person (or backup) of the licensee possessing the RAM and identify the service organization submitting the report.

(5) Make this a Category 1 level requirement for compatibility between the agreement states and the NRG.

(6) Regulators must maintain a current database and enforce the rules.

ABB: JRD

- a single national registry of devices/sources should be implemented and contain all of the information identified in point (1) above.

- using a 3rd party to maintain the data base was suggested by George Brown, Ohmart Corp., at the public workshop. This might ease NRG manpower and priority issues and facilitate joint funding by all involved regulatory agencies (federal and state)

- the data base program should be capable of: finding discrepancies between consecutive inventory reports submitted by each licensee; detecting differences between the manufacturer's and distributor's quarterly GL distribution reports and the licensees inventory reports; and, preparing reports for follow-up review and actions by the appropriate enforcement agency.

- follow up with licensees could be by phone, mail, visit or other means which is determined to be appropriate on a case-by-case basis. NRC01186.DOC

Related requirements:

• good communications between vendors, customers, regulatory agencies, and other stakeholders

• proper incentives for regulatory compliance and removal of disincentives

• appropriate penalties for non-compliance

• means of funding ABB: JRD NRC01186.DOC

NI Secretary, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 ATTN: Docketing and Service Branch DOCKETED USNRC

'96 JAN 31 P 3 :31 JMG-180 DOCKET NUMBER PR PROPOSED RULE

?A,?l :,,v,o January 30, 1996

( (o\\~~C\\5) ©

SUBJECT:

Regulation of Radioactive Devices under 10 CPR Parts 30, 31, 32, 40 and 70 To the NRC:

As the RSO of a company which uses approximately 1,000 radiation sources, the majority of which are generally licensed, I have the following comments concerning the potential planned modification of regulation of devices which contain radioactive material.

Role of Vendor /Manufacturer Comments:

I do nQi support putting vendors in a position of enforcement, including having customers send inventories or reports to vendors on whereabouts of the gauge or radioactive material. This is not nor should it be their responsibility, purpose, or area of expertise. How would this be enforced? In a disagreement between a vendor and customer, who would have greater credibility, and why? What happens to vendors who go out of business, or unscrupulous vendors? I believe this would create more problems than it would solve.

Training Comments:

In general, training would help to increase control of radioactive sources.

However, in order for it to be effective, the.righ1 people must be trained by qualified instructors at the proper interval.

General Licenses Comments:

This concept, which initially made sense for certain devices, has probably gotten out of hand, especially for gauges containing higher activities of the more hazardous isotopes, such as Cs-137, Co-60, Ra-226, etc.

The GL concept may need to be re-thought, and include only devices which are relatively innocuous and widely used, such as smoke detectors, tritiated watches, exit signs, voltmeter probes, etc. The higher activity /hazard materials should be held under a specific license or equivalent, which would require more cradle-to-grave control over the source, including the issues listed next.

Acknowledged by card.. ".. !22.._!!~-

Eastman Kodak Company, Building 320, Kodak Park, Rochester NY, 14652-6261, (716)-588-3324 Kodak Official Imaging Sponsor of the Olympic Games Q%)

U.::>. 1-.JUGLc f-l, 1 '1L u ULA TORY COMMISSIOf\\.

DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Postmark Date Q,,-£),.,..,...., ~noo)

Copies Received-Jo ______ _

Add'! Copies Reproducad ~~~----

Special Distribution~

a-.;3:'bR, _

JMG-180 Inspections, Responsible Person, Inventory & Documentation, Labeling, Funding Comments:

These activities would be in place if higher activity /hazard sources were held under a specific rather than a general license. Inspections would be conducted on a regular frequency; a responsible person would be named as the RSO; inventory would be updated every six months; all sources would be required to have the labeling intact (checked during inventory time); and a fee would be charged for the specific license. I do not believe that this would place an undue burden on either potential licensees or regulators in light of the potential additional control over these sources.

1hank you for this opportunity to comment on these issues.

Sincerely,

'a~~

Joseph M. Greco Radiation Safety Officer Occupational Health and Safety Programs cc:

W. Goodsell P. LaFleur H. Lockhart J.Nau R. Aldrich, NYSOOL

January 29, 1996 Secretary DOCK ETED US RC

'96 JAN 31 All :37 OFFIC E. OF SECRETAKY OOCKE fl ~JG & ~i:'~V1Cf BPA CH U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attn: Docketing and Service Branch

Dear Sir:

EUROTHERM GAUGING SYSTEMS This letter is our written response for consideration by the Joint Agreement State - NRC Working Group to Review Devices Containing Radioactive Materials.

Unfortunately Eurotherm Gauging Systems was not notified of the workshop held in Rockville, MD January 18 - 19, 1996. However, we have been informed of some of the content of the workshop and some of the recommendations.

We support the plan presented by Mr. Jack Dukes of ABB and covered in his letter of January 20, 1996.

Eurotherm Gauging Systems recognizes the problem of radioactive materials entering scrap metals recycling streams and, in general, the loss of control of General Licensed devices.

The steps outlined in Mr. Dukes letter will go a long way to minimizing the potential hazard.

The magnitude of the hazard should also be considered relative to the nuclides used. The gauging devices most commonly utilized in our industry use Kr-85, Sr-90, Pm-147, Am-241. Seldom are Co-60 or Cs-137 used for on-line thickness gauges. Any consideration on restricting the use of General Licenses should take into account the minimal hazard posed by some of these nuclides. For example, I believe that Kr-85 is the most commonly used nuclide for on-line thickness gauging and, being a noble gas, it presents virtually no hazard in the scrap metal recycling stream.

I would like to receive any materials from the January 18 - 19 meetings and receive notification for any future meetings or planned actions relative to this matter.

~°J::k~d Richard F. Murphrr7 Vice President EUROTHERM GAUGING SYSTEMS INC 900 MIDDLESEX TURNPIKE, BLDG. 6, BILLERICA, MA 01821 -3930, USA TELEPHONE: (508) 663-2300 FAX: (508) 663-0089

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSK>r-.

DOCKETING & SERVICE ECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Postmark Date -4~~.,___ ___

Copies Recei1*td_.,__ _____ _

Add'l Copies Rer,0..,1.;.;~.::..J-----

Speclal Distribution ~hO<::,._.~--

~tate of ~efn Werse~

Christine Todd Whitman Governor Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner and Division of Environmental Safety, Health Analytical Programs Radiation Protection Programs CN 415 Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0415 Phone:

609-984-5636 Fax:

609-633-2210 January 30, Secretary, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attention:

Docketing and Service Branch Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission:

OFFICt..tr

~~ I: F< /

OOCKl 11* t..

-~L l'.'f BhAr J This is in response to your invitation for comments regarding devices containing radioactive materials licensed under the various Parts of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulation (10 CFR).

The State of New Jersey is responsible for naturally occurring and accelerator produced radioactive materials (NARMs),

but does not regulate radioactive materials covered under the Atomic Energy Act (AEA).

Although we are not an Agreement State, we are involved with incidents dealing with NARM and AEA radioactive materials.

Therefore, we are concerned with regulations dealing with the possession and control of all radioactive materials.

During the past five years, there has been an increase in the number of incidents involving radioactively contaminated waste and recycled materials which have found their way to disposal and recycling facilities.

According to the U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commissions (NRCs) "Draft Evaluation of the General License Program", it appears that generally licensed i terns represent a major portion of the problem.

This may result from the fact that many general licensees are not fully aware of their regulatory responsibility and in some cases are not even aware that they are in possession of regulated radioactive materials.

Enclosed is a summary of responses to a 1995 questionnaire regarding general licensing of NARMs.

The questionnaire survey was performed by a member of our staff who is concerned about the lack of appropriate control of general licensed NARMs.

The survey was sent to all 50 states and the results of the survey indicate similar concerns that the NRG has for AEA materials.

Copies of the results of the survey were submitted to members of the Joint Agreement State -

NRG Working Group (WG) at the January 18, 1996 Public Workshop.

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer Recycled Paper FEB 1 2 100&,

Acknowledged by card.. "*-*"".:...... ""'"""~

U.S. NUCLEAR fl~ C.. !.ATORY COMMISSIOtli DOCKETING.. 3EfWICE SECTION OFFICE or-1,E.... ECRETARY OF TliE COM'...l!3SION Postmm Dn~ w~~.Q ~~

Coples Rec:)

J Adcfl Copi ~s r *c _,,.

3__ _ __

Special Distribu. 0rG,rnol1-CO,:ft>g,J

As part of the solution to the problem, we recommend the following requirements be incorporated into appropriate parts of 10 CFR:

1.

We agree with the WG suggestion to convert some general licensed devices to specific licenses.

It would be prudent to limit the use of the general license to items containing smaller quantities of shorter lived nuclides whenever possible.

2.

As discussed at the WG Public Workshop, the NRG should limit the general license to the possession of not more than a specified number of such items (e.g., possession of more than 20 such devices should require a specific license).

3.

Vendors should be required to inform prospective customers of general licensed devices of the regulatory responsibilities prior to receipt of generally licensed items.

4.

Specific licensees authorized to distribute generally licensed items should be required to keep records of signed certification statements from the general licensees who received their products, stating that they (general licensee) received a complete legible copy of the pertinent regulations, and are fully responsible for compliance with the regulations and cost for disposal.

5.

A general license registration program should be established, which requires periodic (e.g.,

annual) certified mail-in updates to the registration.

This would not only give the regulating agency a current inventory for all the general licensees, but would also remind the general licensee of the fact they possess radioactive materials.

A minimum fee should be charged which would cover the cost of the registration program and establish a fund to be used to recover orphaned sources.

A fee would also impart a greater sense of responsibility to the general licensee, since the licensee would have to justify payment of the fee to their management.

6.

7.

8.

/

The regulations should be modified to allow for criminal or civil penalties for abandoning radioactive sources.

The penalties should be sufficiently large enough to encourage the licensee to dispose of the radioactive source(s) properly rather than pay a costly penalty.

It may be of value to include a statement on the device label that if the device is found to call the regulatory agency ( list the agency's phone number) that authorized its distribution for assistance and a possible reward.

As discussed at the WG meeting leasing the general licensed source from the vendor should be considered since it keeps the vendor as the owner with regulatory responsibilities and would require the vendor to maintain closer ties with the general licensee.

9. It may be of value to include a deposit cost to the general licensee when they purchase a device.

This deposit would be an incentive for the general licensee to return the device to the vendor for maintenance or disposal as appropriate.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Please call me at 609-984-5636 if you have questions.

Sincerely, E+/-:*Ph.D.

Assistant Director Enclosure

SUMMARY

OF RESPONSES TO THE 1995 GENERAL LICENSE QUESTIONNAIRE FOR NATURALLY OCCURRING AND ACCELERATOR PRODUCED RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS The following is a summary of the responses to the General License Questionnaire For Naturally Occurring And Accelerator Produced Radioactive Materials. The questionnaire was originally sent to all 50 states as well as New York City, District of Columbia, Puerto

Rico, Mexico, Canada' and Guam.

Nineteen (19) responses we.re received from the 56 questionnaires sent out, resulting in a 34%

overall response rate (or a 38% response rate from the states). Not*

all of the respondents answered all of the questions. Some of the questions required more time than most states had available.

Therefore, questions that elicited less than 3 responses were dropped from the survey. Should you have any questions regarding the survey please call: John Feeney of the NJDEP; (609)984-5555.

A.

Does your State issue General Licenses (GLs) for naturally occurring and accelerator produced radioactive materials (NARMs)?

YES=ll, NO=8.

(One of the NO responders expressed the opinion that general licenses provide dubious control and another NO responder emphasized the point that if the device or materials present a health risk they should be specifically licensed.)

B.

Is your State an Agreement state?

YES=9, NO=4.

If you are an Agreement State:

1.

Does your GL program for byproduct or source radioactive material (BSRM) differ from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requirements?

2.

YES=3, NO=6.

If the answer regulations for NRCs?

MORE=3, LESS=0.

to the above is yes, are your GL BSRM more or less restrictive than the

3.

Is your NARM GL program run differently than your BSRM GL program?

YES=l, NO=7.

4.

Would you recommend that NARM GL and BSRM GL programs be run exactly the same?

YES=7, NO=l.

GENLIC

c.

Do you charge a fee for NARM GLs?

YES=S, NO=7.

If yes:

1.

How long of a time period does the fee cover? Circle the appropriate number of years:

lyr=4,

2yrs, Jyrs=l,

4yrs, 5yrs, other

2.

Is the fee intended to cover the cost of your GL program?

YES=J, N0=2.

3.

Does the fee actually cover the cost of your GL program?

YES=l, N0=2.

D.

Do you believe charging a fee for NARM GLs would impart a sense of responsibility to the General Licensee (GLEE) for the GL activity?

YES=9, N0=2.

E.

Do you inspect your NARM GLEEs?

YES=8, N0=4.

If yes:

1.

What is the inspection frequency? Please circle the time period between inspections:

lyr, 2yrs, Jyrs=l, 4yrs=3, 5yrs, Random=4, Never, After an Incident=4*.

• (this includes one state that also inspects every four years, two states that aiso inspect randomly

\\

and one state that does not normally inspect, except after an incident.)

F.

Does your Agency have records of your NARM GLEEs?

YES=l0, NO=0.

1.,

If you do have records on GLEEs, how does your Agency generate, maintain and update these records (Do you use a computerized data base (C) or hard copy files(H)?

C=l, H=4*, or C+H=5.

• (2 of the 4 respondents retain only records of the quarterly reports from the distributor.)

G.

How many radiation incidents occurred in your state involving NARM GL devices and or quantities of radioactive materials (GLD/Q) in the past:

a.

1 year __

b.

2 years __

c.

3 years __

GENLIC I

I

/

H.

d.

5 years __

e.

10 years __ *

(With few exceptions, most responders did not have adequate time to go through their incident files to determine if the cause of the incidents were generally or specifically licensed sources. However, some responders expressed the opinion that GLD/Qs were the cause of some contaminated scrap metal incidents where the source responsible for the event could not be determined).

How costly to the NARM GLEE have these inci~ents been?

Can you estimate the total cost to the GLEE to resolve the worst incident involving a GLD/Q? In your estimate, include the cost for person hours as well as cleanup, decontamination, disposal and replacement costs as applicable.)

(Only one respondent was able to report a cost and that amounted to $33,000,000 for one site. This resulted from a

company that acquired used aircraft gauges that contained 10-15 µCi/gauge near the* end of World War II.

This event preceeded licensing requirements, but demonstrates how items which could be generally licensed COtJld cause significant problems if they are not properly regulated.)

I.

Have any of the incidents involving NARM GLD/Q resulted ip significant radiation exposure to members of the public?

J.

YES=l, N0=4.

Have any of the incidents involving N~ GLD/Q resulted in significant radiation exposure to the GLEE?

YES=l, NO=3.

K.

Do you believe there is a relationship between the number of incidents involving NARM GLD/Qs and the degree of regulatory control exercised (i.e., would more direct regulatory control by the regulating agencies lead to fewer incidents)?

YES=7, NO=0. (One respondent answered "Maybe".)

L.

Do you recommend more or less regulatory control over NARM GLD/Qs?

MORE=S, LESS=0. (One respondent ~nswered "No opinion".)

M.

Would more frequent contact between the regulating agency and the NARM GLEE (eg. periodic mail-in registration updates) be better than more regulatory control?

YES=6, NO=l. (One respondent answered "Yes in some cases"

~ENLIC

and another answered "No, but better than nothing".)

N.

If you have any concerns that were not addressed, please

o.

record them below or include as attachment 21.

The following is a summary of the concerns:

"The increased number of incidents involving contaminated steel may be a result of not only an increase in monitors but also improperly maintained or disposed of generally licensed devices. i, "The main problem with general licenses is that once the material is delivered to the user there is no longer any Lcontrol over the material and no real "carrot or stick" to make the user handle the material properly. That is why so many level/density gauges end up in scrap yards."

What type of regulatory control would you recommend to ensure that NARM GLD/Qs are appropriately'controlled so they do not find their way to.the general public? Please explain below or include as attachment.

The following is a summary of the recommendations:

"Make initial

contact, then follow-up.

Send out questionnaire surveys with follow-up if there is no response to the questionnaire."

"Licensing agencies should be more aggressive in regulation of the manufacturers and distributors to ensure: that the items are appropriately labeled, that records of recipients are complete and that general licensees are made aware of their responsibilities. If this can not be done then the generally licensed devices should be specifically, licensed."

"General licensees should receive a copy of the general licensee responsibilities before receiving the general licensed items."

"Require all persons possessing regulated quantities to at least register their devices and pay an annual fee."

A state which has been registering general licensed devices since 1967 believes that their registration program has minimized the number of incidents and lost general licensed items.

"Limit the use of general license to devices containing smaller quantities. of shorter lived radionuclides (eg. <1 year). 11 GENLIC

GENLIC An agreement state responded that they have a very limited general license program and they require specific licenses for many items that the NRC would allow under a general license (eg. level gauges/density gauges).

"Tracking of general licensees by periodic mail-in works."

A.

INTERGRATED INDUSTRIAL U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Secretary Washington, DC 20555 1996 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch

Subject:

Radioactive materials in Recycled

Dear Sirs,

DOCKETED US~RC

'96 JAN 30 A 9 :23 DOCKET NUMBER PR PROPOSED RULE

~.R!u,3319;-7 o Materials((p\\FR..;f\\S) @

As a manufacturer of rolling mills and related equipment, including a gamma thickness gauge, we are understandably concerned by the activities of your committee. our primary concern is that the outcome of your investigation should not place any additional burden on an already depressed industry.

The current condition of the American metals industry is no secret. The six o'clock news has the stories of foreign governments supporting the efforts of their metals producers in "dumping" their product on the American market. our government has recognized many of these issues and import sanctions are currently in place. In addition to unfair foreign trade practices, many American metals producers have antiquated equipment. While it is tempting to cast stones and place the balance of blame on the industry itself, it is none the less a statement of fact that moneys for investment are scarce.

In order to receive the largest bang for the buck, most companies begin their road back to current technology with the addition of AGC (Automatic Gauge Control). This allows them to improve their quality and accountability of the materials they produce. One of the key items of this system is a precision thickness gauge. Once upon a time, a good quality contact gauge could fill the bill. However, in todays market, not only are specific, tight tolerances an everyday expectation, but so is surface condition of the material. With this in mind, what is most desired is a noncontact high precision thickness gauge. The most cost effective gauge of this type is an isotope gauge. The current general licensee program has allowed many companies to make dramatic improvements in their ability to compete in an open market without the burden of excessive regulatory and financial restrictions. It is vital that this situation continue.

Recognizing the need for the general licensee program, it is incumbent on your committee to find a solution for the current problem of discarded isotopes that is not punitive to those that need the general licensee program and abide by the rules. We would like to make a few recommendations.

First, additional regulations are not the solution. A simple review of current regulations quickly illustrates that there are

-Fm-1 2 1996~

Ackrlovwtedged by card................................

475 MAIN STREET* YALESVILLE, CT, U.S.A. 06492-1723

• TEL: (203) 265-5684

• FAX: (203) 284-1819

U.S. NUCLEA11 ~i:GULATORY COMMISSIQt,.

DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Postmark Date ---4-1--'..........,f-L".,__ ___

Copies Received_~ - -----

Adcft Copies Reproduced --"--3"------

Speclal DistributionC:o......,h-Cl:C, 1 ?n R.,

~

Randy S. Stevens Director of Customer Relations

& Radiation Program Director

.!N.'ERGRATED INDUSTRIAL

..-~~

SYSTEMS ROLLING MILL SPECIALISTS-WORLDWIDE/

475 MAIN STREET YALESVILLE, CT 06492 United States of America

• TELEPHONE: (203) 265-5684

• OFFICE FAX0 (203) 284-1819

U.S.N.R.C.

Page 2 more than ample regulations regarding this matter. The question, t herefore, is how to insure that these existing regulations are closely adhered to. To begin with, the original manufacturer has to be very hands on with their customers. This includes many years after the initial sale. over the last five years we have twice incurred the cost of mailing by registered return receipt mail updated copies of our customer manual (which contains copies of all pertinent regulations) to every single customer that has ever purchased a gauge from us. This produced two benefits. The first was to better inform our customers as to their obligations and responsibilities. The second was that we were able to update our customer directory as to who has responsibility for these gauges.

The second step is a more hands on approach from the regulatory bodies. In 1991 we were deluged by inquiries from panic stricken customers. The reason? The NRC had sent a survey asking what sources they had. As you are aware, the NRC had found many holes i n their records and sent out the survey as a means of updating their files. This has to be a more than a once in a lifetime event. If the end user knows that the NRC or Agreement State regulators are keeping tabs on who has what, and where, they are going to be more diligent in their own housekeeping. Requiring the end user to perform a once a year physical inventory would serve as a reminder that they have the obligation to maintain proper records of their sources. Also, we would like to point out that a once a year inventory and report is not going to impose an inordinate expense to any gauge user, or the regulatory bodies.

Last, is the extra ounce of prevention. As the problems have shown up at the scrap metal producers it is obvious that incoming radiation detectors are a necessity. While this is not a solution to discarded gauges being improperly disposed of, at least there would be a dramatic decrease in the level of concern for public safety.

It is our belief that these and other items offer a common sense solution to this problem. It is our concern that American companies be allowed to continue to grow and prosper. It is our hope that the general licensee program be maintained so that they have the opportunity to pursue these goals.

Thank you for taking the time to consider our views and ideas.

QJ:;~~

Randy s. Stevens Radiation Program Director Intergrated Industrial systems, Inc.

A Mark IV Company DOCKETED US. 1RC 55 Green Street

Clinton, Massachusetts 01510 Telephone (508) 365-3400 January 26, 1996 Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attn: Docketing and Service Branch

Dear Sir/Madam:

• 95 JAN 29 p 2 :35 0

The comments in this letter are intended for review by the Joint Agreement State - NRC Working Group to Review Devices Containing Radioactive Materials (Robert Free and Joel Lubenau, Co-Chairs).

I agree that the problem of radioactive materials entering the scrap metal recycling streams needs to be addressed. In the background information, the problem is defined as improper disposal of radioactive devices with general licensees as major contributors to the problem. I believe that the problem has been stated correctly. However, the underlying problem, in my opinion, is the almost complete lack of oversight by NRC and many Agreement States of general licensees and, to a degree, specific licensees other than the device manufacturers. General licensees are rarely, if ever, inspected by NRC. In many cases, due to lack of contact by the regulators, general licensees do not feel that they are licensees at all. I have heard comments such as "We are operating under the manufacturer's license." This misunderstanding leads to many problems. The general licensee's Radiation Safety Officer, if he or she exists, usually has other duties. The other duties often involve making money for the company and, as a result, receive priority over the RSO duties. Too often, the RSO has little authority and inadequate resources.

Devices, generally licensed or specifically licensed, present no problems when in use. The problems arise when the devices are taken out of service. Users may decide to place a device in storage for possible later use. Rarely are devices returned to service. Recently an LFE customer discovered a device that had been in storage for at least 20 years. The user may prefer to dispose of the device when it is no longer needed. However, when he learns the cost and difficulty of disposal, he may decide to place the device in storage.

The cost and difficulty of disposal have contributed to the problem of improper transfer and disposal. At one time, LFE accepted the return of devices at no charge to the customer. However, LFE has found it necessary to charge for the return of devices.

Some device manufacturers will not accept the return of their devices. Other device manufacturers have gone out of business. In these cases, the user is left with few options.

When a device is stored, it is often forgotten. Then a manager orders an immediate clean FEB 1 2 1996-Acknowledged by card, __ ___...... ~....

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOt.

DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRET ARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Postmark Date I\\ &LP\\9 LP

---, =-I-', '-=------

Coples Received___....._ _____ _

Add'l Copies Reproduced -=-3,:__ ___ _

Special Distribution (\\>~

,3>M.J

LFE A Mark IV Company up of the storage area ( called the bone yard in some companies) and the device is disposed of as scrap metal. When an LFE customer plans to store a device, I attempt to discourage him from storing it. If he will not be discouraged, I advise him to mark the device very clearly "Radioactive Material: Do Not Dispose. If you have questions please contact John Smith." Of course, John Smith may not be employed there when questions arise.

The general licensing program was introduced by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission for the purpose of encouraging and promoting the industrial use of radioactive materials.

Because the general licensing program has made it relatively easy for companies to acquire and use nuclear devices, their devices have been widely accepted by many industries.

Nuclear devices in industrial use have acquired an enviable safety record. The result of the use of nuclear devices has been an increase in quality and a decrease in cost of many products. The entire basis for using an LFE device is "Better and Cheaper." For example, automobile tires and many other consumer products exhibit higher quality and lower cost than they would without the use of nuclear devices. We must avoid denying these benefits to the general public. There are thousands of general licensees. Only a tiny fraction of general licensees are responsible for improper transfer and disposal of devices. Let us correct the problem at its source. Let us not punish the many for the sins of the few.

Actually, there is only one problem pertaining to the general licensing program and that problem is the lack of oversight by the regulators. All devices shipped by LFE and other manufacturers to general licensees bear labels which include the statement "Abandonment or disposal prohibited unless transferred to persons specifically licensed by NRC or an Agreement State." Enforcement of this requirement would eliminate all problems involving improper transfer and disposal. As long ago as January 1982, I suggested to NRC that NRC contact general licensees on a regular basis. NRC appeared to agree and some contact was initiated but the effort has not been sustained. Some Agreement States contact general licensees and charge a fee.

I have some comments and suggestions:

1. Do not destroy the general licensing program. It is a good program that provides benefits to the general public.

2. Initiate and sustain contact between regulators and general licensees. Contact may be by letter or in person or both. Contact with general licensees must be at the highest level of the organization (President, CEO, General Manager, etc.). When contacting the general licensee, the regulator should review the requirements for transfer or disposal and emphasize the need for the general licensee to provide the R.S.O. with sufficient authority and resources to do the job. Stress the need for continuity in the R.S.O. position.

3. Require from general licensees an annual inventory of devices in their possession.

Follow up if it is not received. Inventory dates should be staggered to avoid a huge peak in any month.

LFE A Mark IV Company

4. Initiate contact with the general licensee within 30 days of receipt of the quarterly report from the manufacturer.

5. Nuclear devices create no problems when they are in use. Storage creates the problems. Therefore, discourage storage for more than 30 days of devices that have been in use. A short storage period may be necessary when facilities are being modified, changed, or updated.

6. Introduce new and revised requirements only to the extent that NRC and Agreement States have the resources to support them. Could thousands of specific license applications from current general licensees be processed by NRC and Agreement States in a reasonable time? I think not. If additional regulation might involve applications, licenses, registrations, etc. prior to the transfer of a new device from manufacturer to user, NRC and Agreement States must be prepared to complete the process within 60 days (preferably within 30 days).

7. Do not force all current general licensees to become specific licensees. There may be specific groups that should be specific licensees. If the user is faced with the decision to become a specific licensee or give up the use of his device, he may choose to give up his device. But how is he going to transfer it or dispose ofit.? With the disposal situation as difficult and expensive as it is, he may be tempted to make an improper transfer or disposal. Forcing all general licensees to become specific licensees might have an effect opposite to the desired effect. Improper transfer and disposal could increase instead of decrease.

8. Encourage the radiation monitoring of scrap metal.

9. Concentrate on the problem areas. From the background material provided, it appears that the main problem areas are those involving devices using Cobalt-60 and Cesium-137. There is no indication that beta sources such as Promethium-147, Krypton-85, and Strontium-90 and low energy gamma sources such as Americium-241 have contributed to the problem. Therefore, exempt beta sources and low energy gamma sources from additional regulation.

10. Generally licensed devices have an excellent safety record while in use. To a substantial degree, this record results from the requirement for meeting stringently-designed safety features. Prior to specific licensing of a manufacturer for distribution to general licensees, device designs are reviewed for safety by NRC and Agreement States.

If all users are specific licensees, this independent design review would be lost since it would not be possible for regulators to review the design of all devices sold to specific licensees. Safety could be compromised.

11. LFE and other manufacturers maintain close contact with most customers. For the customers in close contact, LFE essentially maintains an inventory of LFE devices possessed by the customer. Checks are made at intervals not exceeding six months. A

LFE A Mark IV Company missing device would be easily detected. However, some users choose not to maintain contact with the manufacturers of their devices. Lost contact leads to lost devices.

12. A non-regulatory suggestion listed in the background material involves third party inspections by G.L. manufacturers. I assume that this means that manufacturers would be substitute inspectors for NRC and Agreement States. We are doing this now in cases where we maintain contact with customers. For LFE to inspect customers who choose not to maintain contact with LFE, a regulatory requirement would be necessary.

Otherwise, the customer could refuse the inspection or at least refuse to pay for it. Also, if the customer possessed devices from several manufacturers ( as is often the case), would each manufacturer inspect the customer?

13. Develop a single national registry of devices possessed by users. The registry should include current inventory at each site, transfers, disposals, etc. The names of the top management officer, the Radiation Safety Officer, and his/her backup should be included.

14. The final action must be a Category 1 level requirement for compatibility between NRC and the Agreement States.

15. The regulators must enforce the regulations.

Please send me minutes of the meeting of January 18-19, 1996, notices of future meetings, and agenda/background material for future meetings.

Very truly yours, William R. Prendergast Radiation Safety Officer LFE Industrial Systems Corporation

DOCKETED US RC Factory Mutual Research January 15, 1996

'96 JAN 24 A10 :08 OFFICE OF Sfrrn*TARY oocKE T 1G & ':iE - '/ 1 CE BRANCH 1151 Boston-Providence Turnpike P.O. Box 9102 Norwood, Massachusetts 02062 Telephone (617) 762-4300 Fax (617) 762-9375 Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 DOCKET NUMBER R PROPOSED RULE p ~,~\\ a s2i..-4tH-,o Attention: Docketing and Service Branch

Subject:

Regulation of Radioactive Devices

Dear Mr. Secretary:

(6\\ FR..<Q95) (D The following is in response to the request for written comments from interested parties regarding suggested changes for the regulatory program for radioactive sources.

Factory Mutual Research Corporation is a service organization providing loss prevention information to three member insurance companies. The insurance companies provide property da.'llage and business intehiiption insurance to about one third of industry in the United States.

Radioactive contamination is one of the perils we insure against. We attempt to reduce insurance ccsts by redµcing frequency of incidents and by reducing the dollar value of the incident. If a peril is not properly controlled the result is lower insurance limits and higher rates for the insurance coverage available.

Improvements in detection capability have helped metal recyclers detect radioactive devices. Not all metal recycling companies have highly sensitive radiation detection equipment. Even where this equipment is provided there is the chance that a radioactive device will get past the detectors. A source melted in a furnace has severe economic impact. Furnaces served by the bag collector will be shuidown until the bag collector can be cleaned. Lost production, cleanup costs, an.d storage or disposal of radioactively contaminated dust are expected to be*several million dollars.

It was reported at the December 1995 Working Group Meeting that there are approximately 85,000 radioactive devices which if improperly disposed of could result in radioactive contamination of scrap metal. The problem has been identified as inadequate control of these devices. The devices may be lost, misplaced or stolen. This may happen whether the user of the device has a general or specific license.

We ~.eliev~ irtjiovemen\\ is *needed in two areas to further reduce the chance of a' radioactive

~cl~~~'befn~!n;1~~de1 -~~SC'n(p hietal.

'.. I rs1

U.S. NUCU.:.a.h r,t:Gl-:...ATORY COMMlSSIOt,.

DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Documert Statistics Postmark Date ~

.1-4->4;.,._ ___

Coples Received._...._ _____ _

Add'! Copies Reprcducetl -"'""'------

Special Oistribution,~ ib,),c_..~m--1---

---

* *-*- **---~-

Scrap Dealers Scrap dealers should be able to tum in radioactive sources and not incur a disposal cost.

Radioisotope U sen

1. Establish a data base for devices which are judged to present a problem to the scrap metal industry. The data base should show:

a. Who owns the device and where the device is located.

b. The type of radioactive source.

c. The serial number of the device.

2. Track the device annually to be sure that the user still has the device. Tracking could be done using a form sent to the user by the regulatory agency. It should be completed by the user and returned within 30 days. The form should be signed by the Radiation Safety Officer or by an officer of the company. If the device location has changed this should be identified. If a form is not returned within 30 days, regulatory officials should determine what happened to the device.

Very Truly Yours aid~

Carl E. Miller Senior V.P. & Chief Operating Officer

DOCKETED USNRC

• 96 JAN -3 A 8 : 1 6 OFF ICE 0.- SECRET! RY Copy to SECY-D,fgtnaf sent to the Office flt lhe Fedetil Regista, for p.;b/icabl DOCKET NUMBER PR PROPOSED RULE

?9*?'133.;\\0~1 ~

( ~\\ ~e-8-95) o~Jtit Ft~i{;~1]r-0Rf-coMMissrnN

[7590-01-P]

10 CFR Parts 30, 31, 32, 40 and 70 Public Workshop on the Regulation of Radioactive Devices AGENCY:

Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

SUMMARY

The NRC will hold a public workshop in Rockville, Maryland to review the regulatory program for devices containing radioactive materials licensed under 10 CFR Parts 30, 31, 32, 40 and 70.

Interested members of the public are welcome to attend the meeting, however, for efficient conduct of the workshop, participation will be in the format of a round table discussion among invited representatives of potentially affected parties.

The NRC has prepared a workshop agenda.

This and related documents are available for review prior to the workshop and interested parties are encouraged to review 9

this information.

The NRC will accept and consider written comments from interested parties on this regulatory issue.

DATES: The workshop will be held on January 18, 1996 from 9:00 am to 5:00 pm.

The workshop will continue, if necessary, on January 19, 1996 from 9:00 am to 12 noon.

Comments on this regulatory issue should be received no later than January 31, 1996.

2 ADDRESSES:

The public workshop will be held in the NRC auditorium at Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.

Visitor parking around the NRC building is limited, however, the workshop site is adjacent to the White Flint station on the Metro Red Line.

Written comments can be provided at the workshop or by January 31, 1996 to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention:

Docketing and Service Branch.

Copies of the agenda and related documents can be obtained from the NRC's Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW, Washington DC 20037; Phone: 202-634-3273; Fax: 202-634-3343.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Francis X. Cameron, Mail Stop 0-15818, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555; Phone: 301-415-1642; Fax: 301-415-3200; INTERNET:FXC@NRC.GOV.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Inadequate control of radioactive devices by licensees has lead to radioactive materials being included in metal scrap intended for recycling (see J. Lubenau & J. Yusko, "Radioactive materials in Recycled Metals," Health Physics, 68:4, April, 1995).

Radioactive sources have been accidentally smelted in metal mills resulting in radioactive contamination of mills, metal products and mill byproducts.

In the U.S., costs attributable to decontamination, waste disposal and temporary mill closures following a smelting of a radioactive source have been as much as $23,000,000 per event.

There is a risk of radiation exposure to unsuspecting workers and members of the public.

In 1990, the Commission determined that the problem needed to be addressed and directed a rulemaking to improve oversight of generally licensed

3 devices.

The proposed rule was published for public comment in 1991 (56 FR 67011, 26 December 1991).

In 1993, however, finalization of the rule was deferred because of resource constraints.

Instead, the Commission directed the staff to pursue alternatives.

In 1995, the Commission approved formation of a joint Agreement State - Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Working Group to review the regulation of ill devices containing licensed radioactive materials to assess the current regulatory program for these devices and provide recommendations to the Commission.

The Working Group held its initial meeting October 24-25, 1995, and a second meeting on December 19-20, 1995, in Rockville, Maryland.

The Working Group members are Robert Free, Texas and Joel Lubenau, NRC, Co-chairs; Robin Haden, North Carolina, Martha Dibblee, Oregon; Rita Aldrich, New York (alternate); Lloyd Bolling, NRC and John Telford, NRC.

James Yusko, Pennsylvania, is serving as liaison to the Working Group for the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors.

James Richardson, NRC Nuclear Safety Attache in Vienna, Austria is serving as liaison for the International Atomic Energy Agency.

At its initial meeting, in addition to the Working Group members, 28 representatives of the metal recycling and steel manufacturing industries, devices vendors and users, health physics consultants and government agencies attended.

Minutes of the first and second meetings of the Working Group and other background information are available for public inspection and copying for a fee at the NRC Public Document Room, under the file, "Review Group - Radioactive Devices."

The public workshop is intended to provide an opportunity for stakeholders to have an input into the Working Group assessment of the need for regulatory changes and development of recommendations, as needed, for regulatory options to improve controls of licensed devices and assure their

4 proper disposal. A target date of May 1996 has been set for the Working Group to develop and finalize its recommendations.

For efficient conduct of the workshop, the meeting format will be a round table discussion among invited representatives from affected interests, e.g., the metal recycling industry and recycled metal consumers, device vendors and users, Federal and state regulators and citizen groups.

The workshop will be open to the pubiic, and the public will be provided opportunities throughout the workshop to co1JV11ent on the issues presented for discussion.

• If the Working Group recoll!llends changes in NRC regulations and the Commission agrees, such changes would be proposed through a subsequent NRC public rulemaking process.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this,Jo*.,-ct:ay of December 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ma com Office of and Safeguards

' \\

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Public Affairs Washington, DC 20555 Phone 301-415-8200 Fax 301-415-2234 Internet:opa@nrc.gov No.

96~06 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE (Friday, January 5, 1996)

NRC TO HOLD WORKSHOP JANUARY 18-19 IN MARYLAND ON RADIOACTIVE DEVICES The ~uclear Regulatory Commission ha*s*.* s*cheduled a workshop in Rockville, Maryland, January '18 and 'f9 to discuss the need for changes in the regulatory program for certain devices containing radioactive materials.

Chairman Shirley Ann Jackson will present brief remarks to open the workshop, which will be held in the NRC auditorium at 11545 Rockville Pike from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on January 18, and will continue, if necessary, from 9:0U a.m. to noon the following day.

Radioactive material devices to be discussed'may include gauges used to measure the thickness of material, self-luminous exit signs, gas chromatographs used in.chemical analysis, and static eliminators.

~ ;...

As a result of inadequate licensee control, some devices have been mixed with metal scrap intended to be melted down and recycled into other products.

In.some cases, these devices have been accidentally smelted in steel mills, resulting in radioactive contamination of the mills themselves, metal products of the mills, and mill byproducts such as slag and furnace dust.

In the United states, the costs of mill decontamination, waste disposal and temporary mill closings following the smelting have been as high as $23 million per event.

There also is a risk of radiation exposure to unsuspecting workers and members of the public.

A working group with seven members from the NRC and Agreement States (which are states that have assumed, by mutual agreement, part of the NRC's regulatory authority) is assessing the need for regulatory changes and developing recommendations for improving controls of the devices and ensuring proper disposal.

The group hopes to complete its work in May.

The forthcoming workshop will provide interested persons an opportunity for input into the working group's assessment.

Anyone may attend.

Formal participation, however, will be

focused on a roundtable discussion among invited representatives from the metal recycling industry and recycled metal consumers, device sellers and users, federal and state regulators, and citizen groups.

Nonetheless, the public will be given opportunities throughout the workshop to comment on the issues presented for discussion.