ML20128M053
| ML20128M053 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/18/1984 |
| From: | Minogue R NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| To: | Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20127B584 | List:
|
| References | |
| FRN-50FR13797, RULE-PR-19, RULE-PR-39 AB35-1, NUDOCS 8505310557 | |
| Download: ML20128M053 (34) | |
Text
m h
o aro UNITED STATES 8\\
I *n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION h,
.c
~
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 f
O MEMORANDUM FOR: William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations FROM:
Robert B. Minogue, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
SUBJECT:
PROPCSED RULE: WELL-LOGGING OPERATIONS (10 CFR 39)
Attached for your signature is a notice of proposed rulemaking that would add 10 CFR Part 39.
The new part would specify radiation safety requirements for the use of licenced materials in well-logging operations.
Current NRC regula-tions do not provide specific requirements for well-logging operations but impose them by licensing conditions.
The proposed rule would provide (1) comprehensive and consistent regulations applicable to well-logging operations; (2) uniform reuirments in NRC and Agree-ment States regulations to facilitate reciprocity; and (3) safety requirements designed to reduce the likelihood of accidents involving the rupture of radio-active sources in well-logging operations (5 accidents occured between August 1982 and September 1983).
A new part (Part 39) is proposed for well-logging operations.
Because well-logging companies use byproduct, source and special nuclear materials, if a new part is not proposed, safety requirements would have to be fragmented in Part 30 (byproduct material), Part 40 (source material), and Part 70 (special nuclear material) and some requirements may have to be repeated at least in two separate parts.
I recommend that you sign (under authority delegated in 10 CFR 1.40(c) and (d))
the enclosed notice of proposed rulemaking for 10 CFR Part 39 (Enclosure 1).
As provided in the "EDO Procedures Manual" at page 11-20b, a draft entry for the Weekly Report to notify the Commission has been prepared for their information before submitting the proposed rule to the Federal Register (see Enclosure 3).
Contact:
A. N. Tse, RES 443-7902 e505310557 850530 PDR PR PDM 34
F William J. Dircks 2
Following your approval of this proposed rule, I will notify the appropriate Congressional Committees (see Enclosure 2).
Copies of the notice of proposed rulemaking will be distributed to affected licensees and other interested persons by the Office of Administration.
i Coordination: The Offices of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, State Programs, Inspection and Enforcement, Administration, Resource Management, Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data, and the Regions concur in the attached proposed rulemaking for 10 CFR Part 39.
The Office of Executive Legal Director has no legal objection.
The Office of Public Af* airs has prepared the draft public announcement (Enclosure 4).
Robert 8. Minogue, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
Enclosures:
1.
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 2.
Oraft Congessional Letter 3.
Oraft Weekly Report 4.
Draft Public Announcement 5.
Draft Regulatory Analysis Approved for Publication In.a final rule published March 19, 1982 (47 FR 11816), the Commission delegated to th9 E00 (10 CFR 1.40(c) and (d)) the authority to develop and promulgate rules as defined in the APA (5 U.S.C. 551(4)) subject to the limitations in NRC Manual Chapter 0103, Organization and Functions, Office of the Executive Director for Operations, paragraphs 0213, 038, 039, and 0310.
The enclosed proposed rule entitled " Licenses and Radiation Safety Requirements for Well-logging Operations" would propose specific safety requirements for the use of licensed materials in well-logging operations.
l
+
i William J. Dircks 3
'This proposed rule does not constitute a signficant question of policy, nor.
does it amend regulat. ions contained in 10 CFR Parts 0, 2, 7, 8, 9 Subpart C and 110.
I therefore find that this proposed rule is within the scope of my rulemaking authority and am proceeding to issue it.
i Date William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations t
l l
i i
Y 4
William J. Dircks 3
This proposed rule does not constitute a signficant question of policy, nor does it amend regulations contained in 10 CFR Parts 0, 2, 7, 8, 9 Subpart C and 110.
I therefore find that this proposed rule is within the scope of my rulemaking authority and am proceeding to issue it.
Date William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations DISTRIBUTION:
DCS JDavis, HMSS CHRON RDeYoung, IE RBMinogue JFouchard, PA DFRoss CHeltemes Jr. AEOD FGillespie TMurley, RI MLErnst J0'Re111y, RII JMalaro JKeppler, R111 CBelote JCollins, RIV ANTse (w/all enclosures)
JMartin, RV PNorry, ADM R Cunningham, NMSS GCunningham, ELD DNussbaumer, SP W01mstead, ELD LCobb, IE GWKerr, OSP JFelton, DRR LBarry, RM CRESS:S$
RAMRB DRA0/RES
/RES I
DD. RA ES 0/RES 5520/sc ANTS di MLEr F
W 08/28/84 09/[Q 4
0 4
'[C/84 0)
/
09/
84 DD:RES DIR:RES AE0D
- RM*
NMSS*
ELtf DFRoss RBMinogue CHeltemes Jr.
LBarry JGDavis GCunningham 09/ /84 09/ /84
/(0/84
/84
./84 y /2.
84 SP
- ADM
- PA*
REGI REG 11 REGI!!
GWKerr PNorry DeYoung JFouchard TMurley J0'Re111y JKeppler
/h84 g/g/84 g/84 09/f 84
/2./84
/ 3 /84
/ 3 /84 2
(
REGIV
- REGV
- EDO JCollins JMartin WDircks
/84 Of//V84 09/ /84
- See attached memo or note for conc, QI ffG Y
$l l
i
l t
[i [ 3 'S b L
7i,,j>/]
l l
l I
PART 39 PROPOSED RULE RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM DIVISION REVIEW NMSS Comment No.
1.
Page 30, Section 39.13 (a): "Section 40.32 of this chapter for l
source material" needs to be included since the general requirements t
of this section are applicable to the depleted uranium sinker bars j
specified in Section 39.49 of the rule.
RESPONSE: The comment was incorporated.
l 2.
Page 31, Section 39.13 (d) should be modified to require the l
following:
e a.
Submission of the applicant's in house inspection program.
f b.
The frequency of inspection, c.
Inspection of each logging supervisor and logging assistant at the specified frequency.
There is currently in preparation a rule change for 10 CFR Part 34 which may be helpful.
RESPONSE
a.
Comment (a)wasincorporated.
l
- b. & c.
Annual internal inspection was specified.
3.
Page 35, Section 39.33 " grandfathers" 0.1 through 20 mR/hr instru-1 ments but does not specify any time frame for licensees to get 0.1 through 50 mR/hr instruments (now 100 mR/hr). A time frame should be established.
t t
RESPONSE: The comment was incorporated. A period of five years,
(
estimated life of a field survey instrument, is specified as the maximum period for the grandfather clause.
P 1
i
NMSS - Contir;ue 4.
Page 40, Section 39.43 (c): The term "non routine maintenance" appears to be too vague for a rule.
It is suggested that a definition of non-routine maintenance be added to Section 39.2 or clarification be provided under Section 39.43 (c). As applicable to well-logging licenses, we would interpret non-routine maintenance to l
l mean any maintenance performed on sources, holders (pressure housings
[
l or compartments in logging tools in which sources are placed during logging procedures), or any maintenance performed on other equipment
'in which licensed material is used which is not covered by the manufacturers' or suppliers' step-by-step written instructions, or other written instructions approved by the NRC as part of the license application.
l l
RESPONSE: The comment was incorporated.
l 5.
Page40,Section39.43(d): The phrase, "that could lead a sealed source rupture and result in radioactive contamination," should be i
l removed.
This wording could lead an individual to perform these l
operations so long as he did not believe they would result in source damage. Such operations should be prohibited.
RESP 0NSE: The comment was incorpoarated.
6.
Page44,Section39.61(e):
Subitems (5) and (6) should be deleted l
sincetheseitemsarealreadylistedinSection39.61(a)(2)(111).
RESPONSE: The comment was incorporated.
7.
Page 51: Appendix A should be placed at the end of the rule, RESPONSE: Appendix A was deleted.
E10 Misc. Comments - appropriate comments were incorporated.
2
l l
OSP B.1. Page 8, Radiation Detection Instruments.
l l
We do not be'.leve a " grandfather clause" should be provided for 20 mR/hr survey meter >.
It is important that regulatory requirements be the same for all licensees.
If there is a sound safety basis for increasing the range to 50 mR/hr (now 100 mR/hr), then all licenses should be required to meet the requirement, following a reasonaole implementation period.
In the discussion of the needs of a licensees to " have available" other radiation detection instruments, 2" x 2" NaI :rystals sensitive enough to detect Am-241 contamination is the only unlikely event used as an example.
We think radiation detection instruments "available" to licensees should include high range meters since a large number of incidents involving well logging licensees have resulted in contamination reading in the hundreds or mR/hr and up into the R/hr range.
RESPONSE
.a.
Although it is desirable to have a survey instrument that is capable to measure 100 mR/hr, the use of the existing survey instruments (meet 20mR/hr)shouldnotbediscontinuedbecausethecostsinvolved to replace these survey meters may be substantive. However, as suggested by NMSS (see NMSS Comment No. 3), a period of 5 years has been incorporated in the proposed rule as the maximum period for the grandfather clause.
b.
A sentence is added to the discussion to indicate that a high range meter might be needed under accident conditions.
C.S. Page 36 $ 35(c).
We suggest using the wording of 10 CFR 34.25(b) in place of the proposed 539.35(c)1)and(c)(2).
$ 39.35(c)(3) should be deleted since judgments and opinions are unenforceable in the regulations.
RESPONSE: The comments were incorporated.
3
).
C.9. Page 41, 6 39.47.
We suggest >his,section be revorded as follows:
"The licensee shall use only those radioactive markers containing exempt quantities or less of licensed material is specified...."
RESPQSf: Thecommentwaspeorporated.
',P ge'43. $ ?9.61(c).
C.10.
i Theterm" periodic"istoovaguethbeintheregulations.
We si.ggest the section and with "... at intervalo not to exceed (some time frame)." Also, delete " periodic."
Also, the items listed in 5 39.61(e)(1) should be attached as an appendix as they were in earlier drafts.
RF90MSE:
a.
The term" periodic" is replaced by annually, b.
ELD and DRR/ADM reggest that the contents of the training should be in the text of the rule, rather that in the " appendix.
?
\\
Misc. comments - appropriate comments were incorp' orated.
i s
\\.
1 LE 1.
P. 34 6 3911 - Itam (b}
We suggest that the title of thfs item be changed to read " Security Precautions" since it de ls w'th the security precautions during storage and trar.sportation of tha sources cortaining radioactive material.
Then the section would read as follows:
b.
Security Precautions
+
~
1.
Storage - the licensee shall store each source containing
~
lit ensed material in a starage or transportation package.
The ptekage mu?t be locked and physically secured to prevent tamper-tag or unauthorized removal of licensed material from storage by lAnauthorized personnal.
The licensee shall store licensed
.mri.orial in ( manner which will minimize danger from explosion
.or fire.,
,i c
\\
N3 i
jk 6
2.
Transportation - the licensee shall lock and physically secure the transport package containing licensed material to or within the transport vehicle, in such a manner as to prevent accidental loss, tampering or unauthorized removal of the licensed material from the vehicle.
RESPONSE: Most points made in this comment were incorporated. However, the suggestion to include the word "within" in Section b. (2) was not adopted.
If the word "within" is used as suggested in the comment, the package may sit loosely within the vehicle as long as the vehicle door is locked.
The package should be physically locked to the vehicle.
2.
P. 34 6 39.31 Item (c)
This item should refer to the applicable provisions for safe packaging I
and transportation regulations that the license should comply with the it should read as follows:
c.
Transportation Precautions 1.
The licensee shall comply with the applicable provisions of the transportation regulations as prescribed in 49 CFR Parts 171 through 178 and 10 CFR 71 (see 10 CFR 71.5(a)). These require-ments include provisions for proper packaging, marking and labeling, placarding of transport vehicles, monitoring, accident reporting and shipping papers.
RESP 0NSE: The comment was essentially incorporated.
3.
P. 34 6 39.33 Radiation Detection Instruments We suggest that the radiation instrument be capable of measuring beta gamma radiation from 0.1 milliroentgen per hour through 100 milliroentgens per hour.
RESPONSE: The comment was incorporated.
ORR/ADM 1.
Additional information must be included in the Regulatory Flexibility certification statement that appears in the preamble to the proposed rule.
This information must be sufficient to support the conclusion that the proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 5
number of small entitles. Merely because many of the requirements con-tained in the proposed rule have been imposed on licensees as license J
conditions in the past is not sufficient to relieve NRC from considering the economic effect of these requirements. As we have discussed in our memorandum to Anthony Tse, dated April, 1984, the cost impact of each requirement imposed on licensees for the first time by regulation must be considered as a new burden on the licensee for purposes of the Regulatory
. Flexibility Act. At a minimum, the cost impacts presented in the Regula-tory Analysis must be summarized in the Regulatory Flexibility Certifica-tion statement.
RESPONSE: A summary of cost impacts presented in the Regulatory Analysis was incorporated in the Regulatory Flexibility Certifica-tion statement.
2.
In the Regulatory Analysis, the cost figures of $10/ hour for labor,
$20/ hour to develop procedures, and $50/ hour for attorney fees appear to l
be too low.
In other rulemaking actions, minimum figures used were
$60/ hour for professional work and $30/ hour for clerical work. A proposed l
. rule currently under consideration for radiographers uses a figure of
$30/ hour for the hourly wage of an average radiographer plus overhead.
We suggest that the hourly rates in this proposed rule be revised upwards
[
to reflect these figures.
RESPONSE: The hourly cost figures were revised as follows:
For labor and l
clerical work - $30/ hour; for professional work - $60/ hour.
3.
A more detailed explanation concerning the environmental impact of the proposed rule is needed to support the finding of no significant environ-mental impact. Simply stating that many of the proposed requirements are already imposed as license conditions does not provide an indication of the environmental alternatives available.
Indeed, the establishment of a consistent regulatory program that would ensure a consistent and adequate level of safety needed to protect the public and the environment is one of the reasons for conducting the rulemaking. The explanation presented in the finding of nonsignificant environmental impact should summarize the issues considered in the environmental assessment (see 10 CFR 51.30 and 51.32).
6
-RESPONSE: This comment was incorporated. An environmental assessment was prepared.
Misc. comments - appropriate comments were incorporated.
AEOD 1.
Recommendation 1 in the preliminary case study report recommended that licensees have available survey instrumentation capable of measuring at least 100 mR/hr. The proposed Part 39 Section 39.33 requires that radiation detection instruments be capable of measuring exposure rate levels of at least 50 mR/hr. While we understand that the normal and primary use of survey type instruments in well logging operations is to measure radiation levels within the 0.1 to 20 mR or 0.1 to 50 mR/hr range, there may be circumstances such as lost sources or accidents where it will be necessary for the licensee to define a high radiation area as required in 10 CFR 20.203 (10 CFR 20.203 (c)(2) requires definition of a zone bounded by a 100 mR/hr isodose line). We feel that the capability of radiation survey instruments required by the regulations should be con-sistent with the regulatory requirements for defining different radiation levels or areas. As a result, we continue to recommend that licensees have available survey instrumentation capable of measuring at least 100 mR/hr.
We also feel that licensees not possessing survey instrumentation that measures at least 100 mR/hr should not be grandfathered, but should be l-required to obtain such instrumentation within a specified time period.
RESPONSE
a.
The comment on the 100 mR/hr was incorporated.
b.
The comment on a specific time period for meeting the new re~uirement q
of 100 mR/hr was also specified:
5 years.
2.
Recommendation 1 in the preliminary case study report also states that
" licensees immediately notify the proper regulatory authorities if a well logging source is ruptured." Part 39 addresses licensee requirements to notify regulatory authorities in Section 39.77 (Notification of incidents and lost sources, abandonment procedures for irretrievable sources). We feel that the definition of an incident in 39.77 should be clarified.
Although Section 39.77(a) refers the licensee to Part 20 for the definition of a reportable incident, we found that in three of the five well logging incidents covered in our case study report licensees were apparently unable to make a timely determination that an incident as described in 10 CFR 7
4 w
~
20.403.had occurred.
In~ addition, the introduction of a. precise definition of. reportable events into Part 39~will make the propo' sed regulation inde-pendent'of-any changes-in Part 20.
RESPONSE
a.-
Reporting of ruptured source - This requirement has already r
been s'pecified in the draft proposed rule (see S 39.77 (d), now redesignated a~s'39.77(a)).
.bi
. Incorporate Part 20 definition of reportable events in Part 39 -
This comment was not adopted for the following reasons:
1.
S 20.402,-20.403, and 20.405 specify the conditions for reports to the NRC.
It is unnecessary to repeat the whole requirement-in Part 39.
2.
It is undesirable to make the definition of reportable events
.in Part 39 independent to that of Part 20 because the licensees H
may be confused with the differences if Part 20 were revised.
However, any additional requirement, such as source rupture, should be added to Part 39 and the requirement is in the draft proposed rule.
' 3.
Recommendation 3 in the preliminary case study report states that Part 39 should preclude _ licensees from removing, or attempting to remove, sources
.from source holders without specific authorization in the license..The draft Part-39, Section 39.43 addresses the opening of sources and source
-holders. Under this_ requirement licensees would be prohibited from performing non-routine maintenance or any operations such.as drilling, cutting, or chiseling on a source holder or logging tool unless specifi-cally licensed:to perform these operations. We feel that in addition to-these' restrictions, licensees should.also.be prohibited from removing sources from source holders unless specifically-authorized in their license since we did not find evidence:that the removal of sources from source holders _is a routine procedure in well logging operations. By.
~
-requiring licensees to submit procedures for removal of e.ources from
- source holders for review by NRC, there will be -a higher assurance that adequate procedures and criteria for their~use will be developed.
RESPONSE: The comment was incorporated.
8
=-
RES/0RPES Misc. comments - appropriate comments incorporated.
RM/CAG 1.
Separately from our cost analysis review, we note that in Section 3.1 of the regulatory analysis you state that the current rules applying to well-logging or the " status quo" are " unacceptable." Since the current rules have been in effect for some time you are implying here that NRC's rules regarding well-logging operation have been unacceptable for some years.
You make enough points in Sections 3.1 and 3.2 to show that your proposed L
alternative is superior to the status quo, but we think it might be inappropriate to term these present NRC practices as " unacceptable."
RESPONSE: The cpmment was incorporated.
2.
Section 4.1.1 i -
With regard to NRC costs, from the data you've supplied and appropriate cost assumptions you should be able to determine the total NRC costs in dollars. You do not state whether the one NRC staff year required is a one-time cost or an annual cost.
If it is an annual cost you should calculate present value discounted cost for a time period of, say, 20 years.
(Beyond this time period the present value discount factor is so small it can usually be ignored.) We also recommend a present value discount rate of 10%.
RESPONSE
a.
Total NRC cost in dollars - This comment was incorporated.
b.
One-time costs or annual cost - This point was clarified as one-time cost.
3.
Section 4.1.2 Again, for the costs of the other Government agencies, you should be able to determine a total dollar cost.
RESPONSE: The comment was incorporated.
4.
Section 4.1.3 The annual costs for licensees for each part of 10 CFR 39 as referenced in Table 1 are detailed in an excellent manner. But the section as a whole leaves questions; (1) are there any initial one-time costs for licensees? (2) is the annual cost for 1 year expected to continue at a 9
I
constant level into the future? As indicated in our comment on Sec-tion 4.1.1, a single year's annual cost is not sufficient, you should determine the present value for a sum of about 20 years of annual costs.
In addition, although you specify the current number of licensees affected by this new rule, do you anticipate an increase in the number of such licensees over the next 20 years? If so, you should include the present value discounted costs for these additional licensees over the period during which they are in operation.
RESPONSE
a.
All the costs are annualized by assuming expected time period for repeated cycles. Therefore, no one-time costs was assumed.
b.
The annual cost is expected to remain constant if there is no inflation. Otherwise, the cost per year should be adjusted by inflation rates.
c.
The sum of 20 years costs was incorporated.
d.
The comment on the expected number of licensees was incorporated -
expected to remain relatively constant.
5.
There is one more general comment that may require another section and/or table. We recommend that you provide a summary cost / benefit section.
You should be able to provide dollar costs for all cost categories (making the appropriate explicit assumptions). And although you may not be able to quantify all benefits, you can at least enumerate them and determine how much the total benefits associated with this new rule would cost.
RESPONSE
a.
Summary of costs - This comment was incorporated - a section was added to summarize all costs.
b.
Summary of benefits - This comment was not adopted because a table would merely list the same description given in Section 4.2 and would not offer any additional information.
10
-ev
,~,-
REGION I No comments.
REGION II 1.
S 39.51, the rule should permit the use of mineral (coal) logging sources without surface casing to the extent that the borehole is drilled in. solid rock.
RESPONSE
If the borehole for mineral logging is drilled in solid rock, this condition could be considered as equivalent protection. The licensee may, under the draft proposed rule, to request NRC's permission to perform the well logging.
2.
S Appendix A, the proposed wording for the Plaque For Identifying Wells Containing Abandoned Sealed Sources, was omitted from our version.
RESPONSE: A copy of the Appendix A was sent to Mr. J. Potter on July 20,
.1984.
Sorry about this omission.
3.
S 39.43, the licensee should be required to visually inspect source holders, source handling tools, etc., for damage after each use, rather t:1an every 6 months.
RESPONSE: The draft proposed rule is intended to include the daily inspection by the field personnel (See p.12, the second paragraph under Sec F.) S 39.43 was revised to clarify this point.
4.
S 39.67(a), specify the occasions for conducting radiation surveys including but not limited to the circumstances in (b) thru (c) below.
RESPONSE: The comment was incorporated.
5.
S 39.2, redefine " Subsurface tracer study," to include release in multiple wells rather than just a single well, as in field flooding studies for secondary recovery activities.
11 l
RESPONSE
Field flooding operations are different from well-logging operations, including subsurface tracer, for the following reasons.
1.
Field flooding uses much larger quantities of unsealed radio-active materials than the quantities used in well-logging activities. Thus, the problems and the conditions on radiation safety may be different.
2.
There are only several licensees who are authorized to perform field flooding operations.
They are different from several hundreds of well-logging licensees. Thus, there is no clear advantage to combine the safety requirements for the two dif-ferent areas in the same part.
In fact, the combination may even cause confusion between the two different groups of licensees on which requirements are applied to whom.
Therefore, this comment was not adopted.
6.
S 39.43(c), define "nonroutine maintenance" to distinguish it from
" routine maintenance." For example, nonroutine maintenance could be defined as S 39.43(d) or (e) activity or any other chemical, or mechanical ' operations that could reasonably be expected to subject the sealed source to a breach of integrity or otherwise result in excessive exposure.
RESPONSE: The term "nonroutine maintenance" was deleted and the text in S 39.43(c) was revised.
(See NMSS Comment No. 4).
REGION III:
1.
Page 8, Section B, Radiation Detection Instruments We disagree with the proposal of a " grandfather clause"'to exempt current licensee's from increasing the range of their survey instru-ments. Most of the current licensees have provided us data to justify the need for a higher range. instrument. Therefore, a grandfather clause is not appropriate. All well loggers need adequate radio-logical instrumentation.
We disagree with the proposed criteria for survey instruments. A range of 0.1 mR/hr to 50.0 mR/hr (now 100 mR/hr) is too low to handle unlikely events such as a ruptured sealed source, monitoring 12
for a high radiation area, 00T surveys and source loading surveys.
We recommend a minimum range of 0.1 mR/hr to 10 R/hr or 1 R/hr instru-ment that will not saturate in high fields.
Consideration should also be given to requiring survey instruments for detection of neutron and alpha activity.
RESPONSE
a.
The grandfather clause is provided to reduce the economic impact of the rule.
If a license would like to own a higher range survey meter, he could own one because the 20 mR/hr (or the 100 mR/hr in the proposed rule - revised) is a minimum requirement.
b.
As' stated in the draft proposed rule, the purpose of the survey meter is to conduct routine radiation and contamination surveys, 0.1 mR/hr to 100 mR/hr should be sufficient to provide adequate measurements.
Under accident conditions, the licensee should, in general, determine that there is a source rupture or contamination problem, seal the area and call experts for help.
The licensee should not, as the Shelwell Services, Inc. did, perform surveys to determine the extent of the contamination or perform clean-up operations. They should not even try to determine whether there are 500 mR/hr or 1 R/hr.
If their survey meter is off scale, they should get out and call help.
Therefore, the recommendation on 1 R/hr or 10 R/hr was not incor-porated.
The proposed rule requires, under accident conditions, the licensee to have sufficient radiological instrumentation, including a high range survey meter if such a survey meter is needed.
c.
Survey instruments for detection of neutron and alpha activity are not needed for routine survey. Under accident conditions, the pro-posed rule requires the licensee to have available those instruments F
if needed.
13
2.
Page 11, Section E, Sealed Source Performance Criteria We fully support ANSI testing criteria for sealed well-logging sources. However, allowing a 2 year period.to replace an unqualified source which may be simply encapsulated is too long. We recommend a 1 year period.
Records of sealed source performance criteria which include chemical and physical forms should be maintained by the licensee when it is in possession of sealed sources. The licensee needs this information to evaluate the. hazards should a sealed source rupture.
RESPONSE
a.
~After the effective date of the rule, licensees with old sources should contact source manufacturers to certify that the source meet the requirements. One year may not be a sufficient time period for all licensees to obtain the certification.
b.
S 39.'41(c) in the draft proposed rule already requires that a licensee keep the record, including chemical and physical forms for 3 years after source transfer or disposal.
3.
Page 13-14, Section G, Subsurface Tracer Studies An upper limit of volatile activity should be specified in the rule which would require a bioassay program. We recommend the same standards'as imposed on other industries.
RESPONSE: The comment was incorporated, a limit was given in Section G of the preamble.
4.
Page 17, Section M, Personnel Monitoring and Radiation Surveys We recommend that well logger users be required to wear extremity devices (ring badges).
From Region III's experience, it appears
~
that most well loggers typically handled sealed source holders without remote handling devices so as to speed up the loading process. We realize that this is a violation of NRC requirements, however, we will never have the resources to inspect this particular type of operation with any degree of reliability to ensure compliance.
As a minimum, if-we require extremity monitoring, we may have data to show whether this may or-may not be a significant exposure to a well logger. As a minimum, we will be able to inspect to verify if 14
extremity monitoring is in use and to verify its usage in field operations.
RESPONSE: The limiting dose pathway for logging supervisors and logging assistants is probably the whole body dose because:
(1) The source (inside a holder) is handled only for a very brief period, and (2) the radiation dose standard for hands is much higher than for the whole body.
Furthermore, the use of ring badges may cause interference with the well-logging operations.
Therefore, ring badges were not specifically required in the draft proposed rule.
For verification of whether a logging supervisor or a logging assistant uses remote tools to handle the source assembly, field inspection may be the best solution.
5.
Page 19-20, Section Q, Notification of Incidents and Lost Sources, Abandonment Procedures of Irretrievable Sources Proposed Rule 39.77(e) should define immediate notification to be 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br />. We believe the licensee should immediately notify the NRC so the consequences of serious incident could be mitigated. Clearly, in the case of the Shelwell incident, if the licensee would have immediately notified the NRC, the event would have been limited to an onsite problem.
RESPONSE: The term "immediate notification" is used in Part 20, Section 20.403 (a), but Part 20 does not have a definition for the word "immediate." -The Part 20 revision panel considered to define "immediate" but decided not to set a time limit. There are several reasons not to set a time limit:
1.
The NRC should be notified as soon as the licensee learns that there is a problem which requires immediate reporting, sometimes it should be even less than 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br />.
2.
The report should be made as quickly as the licensee can but sometimes he/she could be in an area that a phone is not available, thus, the licensee may not be able to notify the NRC until they can access a phone.
15
3.
'Part 20 and Part 39 should be consistent.
Therefore, this comment was not adopted.
6.
Page 35, Section 39.35, Leak-Testing of Sealed Sources We believe these records should be maintained for a period of 3 years in lieu of 2 years. Currently, OIE requires this type of license to be inspected at a 3 year frequency.
Page 39, Section (C)
We recommend a 3 year retention of sealed source certification
-records.
Page 43, Section (3)(d)
We recommend a 3 year retention of training records for terminated employees.
Page 47, Section 39,67(f) Radiation Surveys We recommend retention of survey records for a 3-year period.
Page 12, Section F, Inspection, Maintenance, and Opening Source or Source Holder We recommend the licensee be required to maintain records of maintenance checks. The retention period should be 3 years.
RESPONSE: The NRC (Lead Offices TIDC and ADM/DRR) is considering to publish a proposed rule entitled " Retention Period for Records" which will standardize the record retention period to: 2 years;
-5 years; 10 years; and life.
Since the rule on standard record retention periods has not yet been finalized, we have adopted the comment and changed the record retention periods from 2 years to 3 years.
We will continue to coordinate with TIDC and DRR and will consider this issue further when the final rule on " Retention period for Record" is published.
16
7.
Page 36' Section 39.35(d) Removal of Leaking Source from Service We recommend the following requirement be added:
(3) If the test reveals the presence of significant leakage of.005 uCi or greater, the licensee shall immediately stop all activities with the source and shall immediately (1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br />) notify the NRC.
RESP 0NSE:
a.
Section 39.35 (d) (1) would require that, if the test reveals the presence of leakage of 0.005 uCi or more, the licensee shall remove the' sealed source immediately from service.
The source must be decontaminated, repaired, or disposed.
The comment suggested to use "immediately stop~all activities with the source." This phrase means the licensee must keep hands off the equipment and the source and wait until next action following notifi-cation to NRC.
It appears that this approach is overly restrictive because the licensee should remove the leaking source from service as soon as the leakage is identified.
b.
Section 39.35 (d) (2) would require that the licensee report leaking sources to the NRC within 5 days of the leak test.
It may not be compatible with Parts 20 and 34 reporting requirements if the proposed rule requires an immediate report for 0.005 uCi or more of leakage. However, Section 39.77(a) requires immediate notification to the NRC on sealed source rupture. Therefore, this comment was not adopted.
_8.
Page 43, Section (3)(c)
We recommend periodic retraining be changed to annual retraining.
The word periodic has no regulatory definition.
RESPONSE: The comment was incorporated.
(Also see OSP Comment C.10.)
9.
Page 43-44, Fundamentals of Radiation Safety (Training Subjects)
-We see no merit in training well loggers on radiation survey calibration. Most well loggers use outside vendors for instrument 17
77 calibration. Any well-logging licensee who wants to calibrate his own survey instruments can, on a case by case basis, describe that program to the NRC, and that program can be made a condition of the license.
RESPONSE
Instrument calibration is included in the training for the purpose of providing them with the~ basic knowledge of how instruments work. The inclusion of calibration is not intended for them to perform an accurate calibration. Well-logging licensees who want to calibrate their own instruments still need to describe the program to the NRC. Therefore, the comment was not adopted.
10.
Page 39, Part 39.41(4)(IV) Puncture Test This test specifies a 1 gram hammer puncture test. This seems rather small.
Is this an error?
RESPONSE: The mass of the hammer (with a pin fixed to the hammer) is 1 gram for well-logging sources (See ANSI N542, Sealed Radioactive Sources, Classification, issued July 1978).
In' addition to this puncture test, there is an impact test which uses a hammer with a mass of 5 kg for well-logging sources.
11.
Page 40, Part 39.43(b)(c)
This section should better define routine vs non-routine maintenance.
RESPONSE: The term "non-routine maintenance" has been eliminated (see NMSS Comment No. 4).
. REGION IV 1.
The in-house inspection system to assure compliance with the Commission's regulations, as outlined in 10 CFR 39.13(d), is a good idea but we would like to see it expanded to include a specific frequency assigned for conducting these in-house inspections.
Additionally, we would like to have required onsite audits of each well-logger, not just paperwork audits.
18 l
L
RESPONSE: Annual internal inspection was incorporated (sce NMSS Comment No. 2).
2.
10 CFR 39.37 requires that the licensee shall conduct a physical inventory each quarter.
Region IV feels that quarterly inventory is a bit ambitious and since inventories heretofore have been conducted on a 6-month frequency to correspond with leak testing requirements we would like to see this practice continue. The first sentence in 10 CFR 39.37 should read, "Each licensee shall conduct a 6-month physical inventory."
RESPONSE: The comment was incorporated.
3.
10 CFR 39.65(a) identifies the requirement for providing film badges or thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) to individuals acting in the
~
capacity of well-logging supervisor or well-logging assistant.
Region IV feels that the wear frequencies should be specifically given monthly for film badges and monthly or quarterly for TLDs.
Additionally, a statement should be provided to indicate that TLDs or film badges should be processed immediately or shortly after the wear period.
RESPONSE
a.
The comment on wear frequencies was incorporated, b.
The sentence on the processing the film badges of TLDs was inserted per ELD suggestion that we can not require the licensees to keep records from the processors without requiring that the badges be processed.
Therefore, this comment was not incorporated.
4.
10 CFR 39.73 should have added to current line items the statement, "A copy of applicable regulations (NRC cc Agreement State)."
RESPONSE: The comment was incorporatec in 6 39.73.
REGION V 1.
Sections 39.15(a) and 39.69 make reference to the release of areas and equipment for unrestrict;d use. Acceptable limits for decontamination should be specified or where they may be found.
19 s
RESPONSE: A sentence was added to Item A in the preamble to indicate that limits similar to those in Regulatory Guide 1.86 should be used as acceptable limits for' decontamination.
2.
Section 39.15(b). refers to a " cement" plug. The proper terminology would be a " concrete" plug. Also, the thickness of this concrete plug should be specified.
RESP 0NSE:
a.
This word " cement" is used in Part W of the Suggested State
~
Regulation and is used by the industry. Although it is more tech-nically correct to use " concrete" to refer to the hardened solid mass made from cement, it is better to be consistent. Therefore this comment was not incorporated.
b.
The thickness of the cement plug may vary depending on the condi-tions of the well.
It is more logical to let the industry determine the proper thickness of the plug..Therefore, this comment was not adopted.
3.
Section 39.35(a) refers to the records of leak testing for sources.
The 2 year period appears to be too long since the requirement for radiographers in 10 CFR 34.25(c) is for only 6 months after the next required leak test. The requirements should be compatible.
RESPONSE: The NRC is considering to establish standard record retention periods: 2 years; 5 years; 10 years; and life. The recordkeeping require-ment in Part 34.25(c) will be changed to a standard period if the rule becomes finalized.
4.
Section 39.43(c) refers to non-routine maintenance of the sealed sources. -Non-routine maintenance should be defined.
" Maintenance activities for which no step-by-step procedures were submitted for review during the licensing process," is a suggested definition.
Section 39.47.
The words "or less" are redundant and should be deleted from this section.
20
M
'Section 39.61(a)(2)(1). The logging' supervisors should also receive copies of and instructions in 10 CFR Part 30.
k Section 39.61(c) requires " periodic" retraining of logging supervisors and logging assistants.
If this requirement is to be enforceable,'a time period (such as annually) must be stated.
Section 39.65 does not state the " change out" frequency for film K
badges or TLDs. The draft reviewer's guide emphatically states that film badges are to be exchanged at least monthly and TLDs are to be exchanged at least quarterly. This frequency requirement for exchange should be either incorporated into the regulation or licensing guidance should be moddified.
Section 39.65(c) requires dosimetry records to be kept "until the Commission terminates the license." Part 20.401(c)(1) and Part 34.33(e) specify that such records shall be kept "until the Commission authorizes disposal." There should be uniform wording in the different parts of the regulations governing the same issue.
RESP 0NSE: These comments were incorporated.
5.
Section 39.33 requires instruments reading 0.1-50 mR/hr.
Item 9.4 of the reviewer's guide references 0-20 mR/hr.
The guide should be amended.
Section 39.37 states that the licensee must conduct quarterly physical inventories.
Item 10.2.6 of the reviewer's guide should be amended to reference quarterly, rather than 6-month inventories.
Section 39.41 gives design and performance criteria for sealed sources. This should be discussed in the guide.
Section 39.49 describes labeling for uranium sinker bars. This should also be included in Item 10.2.8 of the guide.
Section 39.61(a)(1)(ii) states 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> of. formal training is required for unsealed materials. The reviewer's guide should also incorporate this training requirement.
Section 39.47 requirements pertaining to radioactive markers should also be discussed in the reviewer's guide.
Section 39.75 requires having copies of shipping papers required by
-71.5 at each field site. This should be referenced in Item 10.5.3 of the reviewer's guide.
Section 39.73 does not require the licensee to have copies of the regulations at each field site; however, the draft reviewer's guide states that they must. There should be an agreement between the two documents.
21
RESPONSE: 'NMSS and RES are working together to eliminate these inconsistencies.
AGREEMENT STATES-ARKANSAS 1.
. The smaller well-logging firms may not find it financially feasible to obtain sodium iodide crystals or survey meters capable of detect-ing the higher exposure rate. Also, in many cases, we would have reservations about a well-logging supervisor attempting source recovery or contamination control procedures associated with source recovery. Currently, the performance of procedures such as these is limited by the license to specifically. trained individuals and thus allows a well-logging firm to obtain outside assistance with these efforts. Therefore, it is imperative that this option be maintained through, for example, the exemption clause.
RESPONSE: The proposed rule would not require a licensee to buy or own sodium iodide detectors or high range survey meters. The proposed rule, however, requires that the licensee should make arrangements such that adequate instruments will be available, through a consultant or other means, for use in the event an accident. Therefore, the comment was essentially incorporated in the draft proposed rule.
ALABAMA 1.
The title should include the words "and Subsurface Tracer Studies' since the radiation safety requirements for such studies are included in the text although no licensing requirements for tracer studies are included.
RESPONSE: The phrase "Well-logging operation" is defined as all activities relating to a well, including subsurface tracer studies. Therefore, the title and S 39.13 include the use of radioactive materials for subsurface tracer studies.
2, Licensing requirements for Subsurface Tracer Studies should be-included as 10 CFR 39.12. The fact that NRC took 7 years to renew the Teledyne Isotopes license is justification for inclusion of the requirements resulting from that exercise.
10 CFR 39.2 The definition of " Subsurface Tracer Study" should not be restricted to releases in a single well. Many studies conducted by such 22
licensees as Teledyne Isotopes involve releases in many wells.
If the single well definition is retained, the safety requirements will not be applicable to multiple release studies.
RESPONSE: The comment was not adopted (see Region II Comment No. 5).
.3.
10 CFR 39.13 The requirements for training of logging supervisors and assistants and an in-house inspection system should be radiation safety require-ments and not a condition for approving an application.
Such a change would make the requirement enforceable even though the license writer fails to include the requirement in the license.
RESPONSE: The training requirements are specified in S 39.61.
The requirement for internal inspection system was added in S 39.63(p).
4.
10 CFR 39.33 A survey instrument should be specifically required at each temporary job site.
It is impossible to nake radiation surveys at the temporary job site if the. instrument is back at the field station. This section requires an instrument at the field station but not at.the temporary job site. The field station and the temporary job site may be 1000 miles apart.
RESPONSE: A survey instrument is required at each temporary job site as shown in S 39.33(a).
5.
Item (2) should read "at two or more widely separated (at least half scale) points, other than zero, on each scale. The proposed words would allow calibration at any two points on each scale which can be no better than single point calibration.
RESPONSE: The comment was essentially incorporated.
6.
This section will require that most logging supervisors and assistants have both gamma and neutron dosimetry since most operations involve tools with sources emitting both radiations.
Your supporting cost analysis shows no additional cost attributable to this requirement 23
Such is not but maintains that it is already required by 10 CFR 20.
the case, 10 CFR 20.202 requires monitoring only for those persons likely to receive 25% of the allowable absorbed dose. Since this new section requires personnel monitoring without regard to the likely absorbed dose,.it will generate an additional cost to the l
licensee and should not be advertised as free.
RESPONSE: The combination of Part 20 requirements and the licensing conditions has imposed the requirement that logging supervisors and logging assistants wear personnel monitoring equipment. Therefore, the addition of 5 39.65(a) would not impose an additional cost to the industry.
7.
" Appropriate bioassay services" is too vague to be enforced.
RESPONSE
Regulatory Guide 8.20 was mentioned in the preamble. Also, the same Guide should be mentioned in the " Guide for Reviewers of Well-
-Logging Applications."
- 8.
This section should include security requirements for subsurface tracer studies.
' RESPONSE: This section does include security requirements for subsurface tracer studies because the definition of "well-logging operations" includes subsurface tracer studies.
l 9.
In the case of slant drilling, depth of source does not accurately locate the lost source. The entry should be " location of the source relative to the entry hole."
l RESPONSE: Most wells have some kind of angle to verticle line.
It would l
be quite difficult to describe the location relative to the entry hole.
Therefore, the comment was not adopted.
I 24
ARIZONA 1.
It is recommended that a new paragraph 39.53 be added to read:
S 39.53 other Requirements.
Nothing in these regulations, nor in any license condition granted pursuant to S 39.45.B, or 39.51, above, shall relieve the licensee of responsibility to comply with any other law or regulation administered by other agencies which may be designed to protect drinking water supplies.
RESPONSE
It may not be necessary to state specifically in Part 39 that the licensee may be subject to the regulations of other regulatory agencies.
ELD /NRC agrees with this discussion.
2.
On page 8 of the preliminary regulatory analysis, in the second paragraph under Item B, Radiation Detection Instruments, it is noted that the licensee would be required to have available, when needed, radiation detection instruments suitable for detecting low level contamination of Americium-241 in mud. A statement within parenthesis reads:
"For example, 2" by 2" sodium iodide crystal detectors." It is suggested that there are instruments currently on the market with sufficient sensitivity and energy response to detect low level contamination which use a less expensive 1" x 1" sodium iodide crystal, or even a special low energy crystal detector.
It is of concern to the staff that licensees may misinterpret the comments in the analysis to be a requirement to purchase the more expensive 2" x 2" crystal detector.
1 RESPONSE: The comment was incorporated; CALIFORNIA i
1.
We are pleased to see the prohibition against use of sealed sources in wells without surface casing contained in the proposed rule (Section 39.51).
Some discussion of acceptable alternatives to casing would be useful if the invitation with respect to alternative procedures in the proposed rule remains.
Discussion could include such matters as use of short lived and less toxic radioactive materials as well as a determination that casing is not required because there are no potable aquifers to protect.
RESPONSE: The suggested alternatives will be considered by NMSS to be incorporated in Regulatory Guide.
l 25 i
L.
r 2.
Notice requirements in the proposed rule (Section 39.77) should include notice to the regulatory agency as fishing is ordered. This notice would permit oversight by field engineers for agencies such as the California Division of 011 and Gas which regulates in this area.
RESPONSE: Sirce the NRC does not regulate fishing operations unless there is a rupture source or contamination accident, the NRC should not require the licensee to report to the NRC-as fishing is offered.
If any other State regulatory agency, such as Division of 011 and Gas, would like to know when a fishing operation is ordered, that agency should require reporting under its authority.
Therefore, the comment was not adopted.
3.
The agreement between the logger and the well owner or operator required by proposed rule (Section 39.15) should include provision for logger control of fishing operations since the fisher is normally retained and paid by the well owner. The point of this provision is logger implementation of the portion of the proposed rule which bars recovery which could result in rupture (Section 39.15(a)(2)).
RESPONSE
In S 39.15(a)(2), the well owner or operator must agree to control the fishing operation if the licensee believes that the fishing operation could result in sealed source rupture.
KENTUCKY 1.
Paragraph 39.2 Definitions states " personal supervision" means guidance and instruction by logging supervisior who is physically present at the temporary job site and in such proximity that contact with logging assistant can be maintained and immediate assistance given as required.
It is noted that the Suggested State Regulations Section W.3 phrase "and watching the performance of the operation" is omitted.
It is suggested the SSR phrase be adopted to more clearly mandate an active supervisory role by the logging supervisor.
RESPONSE: The phrase "and watching the performance of the operation" is omitted because the logging supervisor can not " watch" the logging assistants at all times. The supervisor must perform his/her own duties, it maybe impossible to watch the assistants at the same time.
26
r 2.
Paragraph 39.33 Radiation detection instruments requires the licensee shall "have available additional calibrated radiation detection instruments...." The supplementary information states the licensee could own the equipment or use a consulting service.
It is suggested the wording of Paragraph 30.33 should more clearly reflect the apparent intention of the requirement that the licensee may have an instrument available through a consulting service.
It would be helpful to note the limits assigned to the term available.
For example, would the licensee be expected to have a contractural agreement with the consulting service, would the licensee have to be able to access within a specified time period, etc.
In a related matter, wculd the requirements of Paragraph 39.33(b) apply to an instrument available through a consulting service as appears to be suggested by tFe regulation?
RESPONSE
a.
The comtr.ent on clarification of 5 39.33 was incorporated. Detailed discussions should be in the Guide, rather than in the regulations.
b.
S 39.33(b), now changed to (c),' applies only to survey instruments, not to the more sophisticated detection instruments.
3.
It is suggested that Paragraph 39.43(c) relating to "non-routine maintenance" be phrased to more closely reflect the intent of the requirement, which is apparently to prohibit unauthorized operations in which the worker could receive a significant dose unless a specific procedure is used." It is suggested the term "non-routine" could be variously interpreted.
It appears the intent of the requirement is that " maintenance involving removal of a sealed source from source holder or logging tools, including changing a sealed source from one source holder to another source holder, and maintenance of a source holder in which a sealed source is present shall not be performed unless the licensee is specifically authorized to perform such maintenance by the Commission or an Agreement State."
RESPONSE
The comment was essentially incorporated (see NMSS i
Comment No. 4).
l i
l 27 l
4.
From the wording of Paragraph 39.47 regarding radioactive markers and the supplementary information 8.H., it may be inferred that licensed material (in this case radioactive material) becomes exempt through decay to quantities less than those specified in 10 CFR 30.71.
Schedule B.
Note the phrase in the supplementary information that
"... a licensee... is responsible for the licensed material until 7
the material is decayed below the exempt quantity or the licensee properly' disposes of the material."
It has been the policy of this program that licensed material does o
1 not become exempt material through decay to a prescribed quantity,
{
although disposal may be authorized following approved means of confirmation of decay of the licensed material to background levels.
It was the understanding of this program that a similar interpretation was held by the NRC..It is suggested to us by the term " licensed material" in the proposed regulation that the intention of the regulation may be "... execpt for markers contain-ing quantities of licensed material not exceeding the quantities specified in Paragraph 30.71 of this chapter...."
It is assumed the NRC will avail its licensees, in the form of regulatory guidelines, of procedures to be taken to comply with this provision (i.e., will the licensee be required to do decay calculations, assays,etc.)
RESPONSE: The comment was incorporated. The exception is only for markers with activities less than specified quantities at the time when the marker is installed.
5.
Paragraph 39.61 Training raises the following questions:
(a) Would the 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> or 40 hour4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> requirement for formal training be a requirement for the NRC to grant reciprocity to an Agreement State licensee?
(b) Does Paragraph 39.61(3) intend the logging engineer must have completed 3 months on-the-job training with the licensee or 3 months on-the-job training at an equivalent program?
(c) It is suggested Paragraph 39.61(c) specify the frequency required for periodic retraining.
It is suggested the interval be proposed as annual.
RESPONSE
a.
It would not be a requirement for the NRC to grant reciprocity to an Agreement State licensee.
28
b.
Three months on-the-job training can be with the licensee or with other licensees with an equivalent program.
~
-c.
The comment was incorporated.
6.
Paragraph 39.65 Personnel Monitoring requires the licensee to keep reports from the film badge or dosimeter processor and from bioassay for inspection until the Commission terminates the license.
It is suggested the phrase "until the Commission authoirzes their disposition" be used to conform with established requirements on records retention.
RESPONSE: The comment was incorporated.
7.
Paragraph 39.67(d) requires certain actions if the licensee suspects damage to source encapsulation.
It is not clear how the regulatory agency would determine whether or not the licensee suspected damage.
It is assumed a criteria would be established whereby to judge the licensee's actions and such criteria could be expressed by the regulations.
RESPONSE: The discussion should be in the Guide.
Examples could be given in the Guide.
8.
Paragraph 39.73 does not require the licensee to have copies of applicable regulations at field stations.
It is recommended such provision be included.
RESPONSE
The comment was incorporated.
-9.
Based upon the supplementary information, "NRC and Agreement States' Role," it appears a compatibility determination has been reached regarding the proposed regulation. Does NRC anticipate compatibility
-to require identical wording of all provisions?
RESPONSE: The section on "NRC and Agreement States' Role" describes only the relationship between the NRC and the Agreement States, and the desirability of making NRC and Agreement States' regulations compatible.
This'is one of the reasons to justify the proposed NRC rulemaking action.
29 L
Compatibility may not necessarily have identical wording of all provisions.
OSP/NRC agrees with this discussion.
10.
It is mentioned (but not necessarily suggested) that it may be appropriate for the agreement described in Paragraph 39.15 to include a provision for the well owner or operator to agree to abide by or enforce the security actions of the licensee specified by Paragraph 39.71.
RESPONSE: 'The security must be maintained by'the licensee personnel to prevent unauthorized entry into a restricted area by any personnel, including the personnel from the well owner or operators company, rigging company, and other contractors.
Therefore, it is not needed to put this condition in the Agreement.
VERBAL COMMENTS FROM LOUISIANA AND TEXAS 1.
Suggests to add a sentence to the preamble, under J "Use of Sealed Source in a Well Without Surface Casing," to request comments specifically from mineral logging companies.
RESPONSE: The comment was incorporated.
2.
Suggests the use 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> training for all logging supervisors.
RESPONSE
The comment was incorporated.
t I
l 30
p;
& \\
cp
,, r-?
7 t
f
~
a.
s.
e OCT 101984 t
HEMORANDUM FOR:
Frank Gillespie, Director Division of Risk Analysis and Operations Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research FROM:
C. J. Heltemes, Jr., Director Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data
SUBJECT:
OFFICE CONCURRENCE REQUEST:
PROPOSED RULE OH WELL-LOGGING OPERATIONS (10CFRPART39)
AE00 has reviewed the subject document.
We believe the incorporation of the well-logging regulations into a single new part of 10 CFR to be sound regulatory policy, one that will contribute to improved performance by both licensees and the NRC.
v ~.:
AE00 completed a case study on well logging that was issued in final form
.J on September 21, 1984 Since your Part 39 was issued on September 18, 1984, the recommendation in our study directed to Part 39 could obviously not be incorporated in the. document circulated for office concurrence.
RES personnel have informed us by telephone that the recommendation in' our September 21,.1984 memorandum to Robert B. Hinogue (attached) will be incorporated in Part 39. AEOD therefore concurs in Part'39 subject to the~ revision.-
We would like to thank RES for its cooperation in responding to the AEOD' recommendations.
driginalsigned W C.*J. Heltemes, Jr.
C. J. Heltemes, Jr., Director Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data
Attachment:
Distribution:
As Stated AEOD CF C. J. Heltemes
/. Black PDR K
cc:
R. B. Hinogue, RES UAS CF S. Pettijohn NAS SF cnnet>,,, C,/,yAS,
,,,,,D/
....n-------.
~~~~~.-.---.
--.-~~~.~.--
-.-~~n..---n
.~.-n.~.---.
u= = '>. E.9 ch.:.ch....CJ.U.gt)/84 m....
.....- - - - - ~ ~
- - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " - -
- " - " - ~ ~ - -
~ ~ - - - - - - -
--"-~~"-"
-up lo/%.../84 10/ p
..............l..............~.....--.~.--.-~~ -~~.-----.-~~~.-~.--....--....--~.~.~...
.