ML20196H772
| ML20196H772 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/19/1998 |
| From: | Knapp M NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| FRN-63FR66492, RULE-PR-31 AG06-1-022, PR-981119-01, PR-981119-1, NUDOCS 9812090187 | |
| Download: ML20196H772 (18) | |
Text
__
sJ 00CKET NUMBER S'
~g, ho[oM CRCPOSED RULE Ek J/
t@ r a (63FR Sy12) 38 HD" 27 P2 :38 NUOLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION a
1 b
AD)
RIN 3150 - AG06 i
Requirements for Those Who Possess Certain Industrial Devices Containing Byproduct Material to Provide Requested Information i
j r
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
r ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY
- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) proposes amending its regulations to add an explicit requirement that general licensees who possess certain measuring, gauging, or controlling devices that contain byproduct material provide the NRC with information concerning these devices. The NRC intends to use this provision to request information concerning devices that present a comparatively higher risk of exposure to the public or property damage.
The proposed rule is intended to help ensure that devices containing byproduct material are 7
maintained and transferred properly and are not inadvertently discarded.
/
/6j /7D DATES: Submit comments by (h:P. dc 75 d:, 2"r ph""=tinn d*). Ccmments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
9812090187 981119 75ll PM PR 31 63FR66492 PDR f%A. en wk/w
ADDRESSES: Send comments by mail to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff.
Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, between 7:30 am and 4:15 pm on Federal workdays.
You may also provide comments via the NRC's interactive rulemaking website through the NRC home page (http://www.nrc. gov). This site provides the availability to upload comments as files (any format), if your web browser supports that function. For information about the interactive rulemaking site, contact Ms. Carol Gallagher (301) 415-5905; e-mail CAG@nrc. gov.
Certain documents related to this rulemaking, including comments received and the regulatory analysis, may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room,2120 L Street NW.
(Lower Level), Washington, DC. These same documents also may be viewed and downloaded electronically via the interactive rulemaking website established by NRC for this rulemaking.
FOR FURTHER INFORlWATION CONTACT: Catherine R. Mattsen, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cornmission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-6264, or e-mail at CRM@nrc. gov; or Jayne McCausland, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-6219, or e-mail at JMM2@nrc. gov.
2
!?.a SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
'y February 12,1959 (24 FR 1089), the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) amended l
its regulations to provide a general license for the use of byproduct material contained in certain measuring, gauging, or controlling devices (10 CFR 30.21(c)). Under current regulations (10 CFR 31.5), certain.oersons may receive and use a device containing byproduct material under this generallicense if the device has been manufactured and distributed according to the specifications contained in a specific license issued by the NRC or by an Agreement State. A l
specific license authorizing distribution of generally licensed devices is issued if a regulatory authority determines that the safety features of the device and the instructions for safe operation of that device are adequate and meet regulatory requirements. The generallicensee must comply with requirements for labeling, instructions for use, and proper storage or l
disposition of the device. For some devices, the general licensee must also comply with leak testing requirements. The generallicensee is also subject to the terms and conditions in 10 CFR 31.2 concerning generallicense requirements, transfer of byproduct rnaterial, reporting l
l and recordkeeping, and inspection. The generai iscensee must comply with the safety l
l ir,atructions contained in or referenced on the label of the device and must have the testing or l
servicing of the device performed by an individual who is authorized to manufacture, install, or service these devices.
A generally licensed device usually consists of radioactive material, contained in a i
l sealed source, within a shieded device. The device is designed with inherent radiation safety features so that it can be used by persons with no radiation training or experience. Thus, the 4
3
general license is meant to simplify the licensing process so that a case-by-case determination of the adequacy of the radiation training or experience of each user is not necessary.
There are about 45,000 general licensees under 10 CFR 31.5 who possess about 600,000 devices that contain byproduct material. In the past, the NRC has not contacted general licensees on a regular basis because of the relatively small radiation exposure risk posed by these devices and the very large number of generallicensees.
However, there have been a number of occurrences where generally licensed devices containing radioactive material have not been properly handled or properly disposed of. In some cases, this has reselted in radiation exposure to the public and contamination of property.
For example, when a source is accidentally melted in a steel mill, considerable contamination of the mill, the steel product, and the wastes from the process, the slag and the baghouse dust, can result.
Because of these incidents, the NRC conducted a 3-year sampling (1984 inrough 1986) of generallicensees to assess the effectiveness of the generallicense program and to determine wheth r there was an accounting problem with generally licensed device users and, if so, what action could be taken. The sampling revealed several areas of concern regarding the use of radioactive material under the general license provisions of 10 CFR 31.5. The NRC concluded that -- (1) Many general licensees are not aware of the appropriate regulations, and (2) Generally licensed devices are inadequately handled and accounted for.
Approximately 15 percent of all general licensees sampled could not account for all of their generally licensed devices. The NRC concluded that these problems could be remedied by more frequent and timely contact between the general licensee and the NRC.
On December 27,1991 (56 FR 67011), the NRC published a notice of proposed rulemaking concerning the accountability of generally licensed devices. The proposed rule 4
contained a number of provisions, including a requirement.for general licen13es under l
10 CFR 31.5 to provide information to the NRC upon request, through which a device registry l
could be developed. The proposed rule also included requirements in 10 CFR 32.51a ar.d 32.52 for the specific licensees who manufacture or initially transfer generally licensed devices.
Although the public comments received were reviewed and a final rule developed, a final rule was not issusd because the resources to implement the proposed rule properly were not available.
The NRC has continued to consider the issues related to the loss of control of generally licensed, as well as specifically licensed, sources of radioactivity. In July 1995, the NRC, with assistance from the Organization of Agreement States, formed a working group to evaluate these ;esues The working group consisted of both NRC and Agreement State personnel and encouraged the involvement of all persons having a stake in the process and its final l
recommendations. All working group meetings were open to the public. A final report was completed in July 1996 and published in October 1996 as NUREG-1551, " Final Report of the NRC-Agreement State Working Group to Evaluate Control and Accountability of Licensed l
Devices."
In considering these recommendations, the NRC has decided, among other things, to initiate an annual registration program of devices generally licensed under 10 CFR 31.5 that would be similar to the program originally proposed in the December 27,1991, proposed rule.
l However, the NRC has decided to do so only for those devices that present a higher risk l
(compared to other generally licensed devices) of potential exposure to the public and property loss if control of the device is lost. Initially, the NRC will use the criteria developed by the working group to determine which devices should be registered.
~
5
i j
This proposed rule presents the proposed addition of an explicit requirement to provide information in response to requests made by the NRC for a second round of comment. While the proposed rule would apply to all 10 CFR 31.5 general licensees, the NRC plans to contact only those general licensees identified by the working group for the purpose of the registration program.
The NRC is withdrawing the December 27,1991, proposed rule. The NRC plans to review the other provisions contained in the December 27,1991, proposed rule and the recommendations of the working group and develop additional requirements in a separate rulemaking.
Discussion The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA), as amended, authorizes the NRC to request appropriate information from its licensees concerning licensed activities. However, the Commission has not included such an explicit provision in the regulations governing 10 CFR 31.5 generallicensees. Although 10 CFR 2.204,30.34(e), and 30.61(a) require information from licensees by order or demand, these provisions are not considered appropriate for the initiation of a routine registration program. In a previous rulemaking, the Commission (then AEC) had proposed the inclusion of a registration requirement for general;y licensed devices before receipt of devices (February 5,1974; 39 FR 4583). In response to comment on that proposal, the Commission decided not to institute a registration requirement as part of the final rulemaking on that action (December 16,1974; 39 FR 43531). Given this history, establishing a device registration program without a rulemaking process is also considered j
inappropriate.
6
(
l-This proposed rule would add an explicit requirement to 10 CFR 31.5 that would require generallicensees to respond to written requests from the NRC for information concerning j
products that they have received for use under a generallicense in a timely way.
The proposed rule would require a response to requests within 30 days or such other L
time as specified in the request. For routine requests for information,30 days should be adequate in most instances, and an extension can be obtained for good cause. If more i
complicated requests are made or circumstances recognized that may require a longer time, the Commission may provide a longer response time. In the unusual circumstance of a significant safety concern, the Commission could demand information in a shorter time. The l
NRC is specifically soliciting comments on this time period. Also, a phone number will be i
provided in the request for information in case additional guidance is necessary.
The NRC inter.ds tc use this provision primarily to institute an annual registration program for devices using certain quantities of specific radionuclides. The registration program is primarily intended to ensure that ge wi.uilicensees are aware of and understand the requirements for the possession of devices containing byproduct material. The registration process would allow NRC to account for devices that have been distributed for use under the generallicense. The NRC believes that if generallicensees are aware of their responsibilities they would comply with the requirements for proper handling and disposal of generally licensed devices. This would help reduce the potential for incidents that could result in unnecessary radiation exposure to the public as well as contamination of property.
l~
The general licensees covered by the registration program would be asked to account j
for the devices in their possession and to verify, as well as certify, information concerning:
1.-
The identification of devices, such as the manufacturer, model and serial numbers; j
2.
The persons responsible for r npliance with the regulations; i
7 1
i i
4 4
e n
n.
n ww
3.
Tne disposition of the devices; and 4.
The location of the devices.
While the proposed rule would apply to all 10 CFR 31.5 general licensees (about 45,000), the NRC would only contact, for purposes of registration, approximately 6000 general licensees, possessing about 24,000 devices. This estimate is based on the criteria recommended by the working group for determining which sources should have increased oversight. Requests for information would be sent to general licensees who are expected, l
based on current NRC records, to possess devices containing at least 370 MBq (10 mci) of j
cesium-137,3.7 MBq (0.1 mci) of strontium-90,37 MBq (1 mci) of cobalt-60, or 37 MBq (1 mci) of any transuranic (at this time, the only generally licensed devices meeting this
{
criterion contain americium-241). The majority of the devices meeting these criteria are used in
)
commercial and industrial applications measuring thickness, density, or chemical composition in petrochemical and steel manufacturing industries. The requests will include the information contained in NRC records concerning the possession of these devices. The licensees will be asked to verify, correct, and add to that information. The NRC records are based on information provided to NRC by distributors under 10 CFR 32.52(a) and from general licensees as required by 10 CFR 31.5(c)(8) or (9). If a generallicensee no longer possesses devices meeting the criteria, it would be expected to provide information about the disposition of the devices previously possessed. Errors in current NRC records concerning these general licensees could be the result of: (1) errors made in the quarterly reports of manufacturers or initial distributorc, (2) generallicensees not reporting transfers, or (3) errors made by NRC or its contractors in recording transfer information.
In additica to the 6000 general licensees identified for registration, the NRC may occasionally request information from other general licensees on a case-by-case basis as 8
l
necessary or appropriate. For example, this might involve investigating the extent that other users have experienced a problem that has been identified with the design of a particular device model. However, significant modifications to the registration program to include a larger class of licensees would be done through rulemaking.
Although the proposed amendment would impose some additional costs on licensees, the NRC has estimated these costs to be minimal. This cost is the estimated administrative cost expended by gereral licensees to verify the information requested by the NRC regarding licensed devices._ The NRC believes that the proposed rule's intended effect of increased compliance by general licensees with regulatory requirements and resulting NRC and public confidence in the general license program potentially afforded by these new requirements outweigh this nominal administrative cost.
lne NRC is currently considering additional rulemaking concerning the control and accountability of devices generally licensed under 10 CFR 31.5. The recommendations made in NUREG-1551 will be considered at that time. That anticipated rule would address fees for registration, additional labeling requirements for 10 CFR 32.51 licensees, and compatibility of Agreement State regulations in this area. Public comments on this current proposed rule l
should only address the requirements proposed in this action. Comments concerning possible l
l future rulemaking and the possible imposition of fees will not be addressed in any rule resulting l
from this proposed action.
Public Comments on the Original Proposed Rule l
The NRC reviewed the comments received on the December 27,1991, proposed rule.
There were 28 comment letters received from a variety of sources including private and publicly 9
held corporations,' private citizens, citizens groups, the Armed Forces, and State governments.
These comments have been considered to the extent applicable to this more limited proposed rule and will be considered in the development of a subsequent rulemaking concerning the accountability of devices generally licensed under 10 CFR 31.5. A detailed analysis of the comments received on the December 27,1991, proposed rule will not be presented in either 1
action as many of the specific comments pertain to specific provisions that have been withdrawn, much time has passed since these comments were made, and additional opportunity for comment is being provided.
Comments received on the December 27,1991, proposed rule demonstrated that there j
was considerable opposition to the rule as proposed, some of it specifica!'y concerning a registration requirement. Most of this opposition was related to the breadth of the proposal which would have made the registration program applicable to all of the 10 CFR 31.5 general licensees, accounting for as many as 600,000 devices. Some respondents questioned whether i
this was justified or cost effective. Some thought the impacts were underestimatsd, particularly for general licensees possessing many devices, and that the provision would have serious impacts on certain industries. Registration was specifically opposed for devices used by the airline industry, self-luminous signs, static eliminators, and some other devices which present relatively low risks.
The NRC found the working group process valuable in identifying criteria for categorizing devices that are more likely to present a significant risk by exposure of the public or through contamination of property. Therefore, the registration of devices under this proposed rulemaking would be limited to those devices meeting the criteria recommended by the working group. For the most part, generallicensees using devices meeting these criteria j
have a limited number of devices that would require registration. The NRC is exploring 10
i 4
i approaches to minimize the administrative effort for both general licensees and the NRC in implementing this requirement.
This proposal includes a provision to request an extension to the time interval to provide a complete response to requests for information, if the general licensee is having difficulty in i
meeting the time limit. This provision was included in response to comments on the December 27,1991, proposed rule. Although this difficulty is much less likely to arise within the limited population of generallicensees covered by the current proposal, the Commission believes that the additional flexibility is desirable.
Interim Enforcement Policy As had beel planned at the time of the 1991 proposed rule, the Commission intends to establish an interim enforcement policy for violations of 10 CFR 31.5 that licensees discover and report during the initial cycle of the registration program. This policy will supplement the norma! NRC Enforcement Policy in NUREG-1600, Rev.1. It will be issued in the near future and will remain in effect through one complete cycle of the registration program.
Under the current NRC Enforcement Policy, significant violations, such as those involving lost sources, may result in escalated enforcement action including civil penalties. The interim policy would provide that enforcement action normally would not be taken for violations identified by a licensee and reported to the NRC if appropriate corrective action is talen. For the period that the interim policy is in effect, it would also apply to general licensees not subject to the registration requirement if they identify and report violations and take appropriate corrective action. This change from the current NRC Enforcement Policy is intended to remove any disincentive to identify deficiencies that might be caused by a concern over potential 11
enforcement action. This action would encourage general licensees to search their facilities to ensure sources are located, to determine if applicable requirements have been met, and to develop appropriate corrective action when deficiencies are found. A Notice of Violation (NOV) without a civil penalty still may be issued if the NRC staff believes that taking this action is justified by the safety significance of the violation or the need to record and document the general licensee's corrective action in the formal manner required in a response to an NOV.
In addition, escalated enforcement action still will be considered for violations involving i
failure to provide the information requested, tailure to take appropriate corrective action, or for willful violations including the submittal of false information. Sanctions in those situations may include significant civil penalties as well as orders to limit or revoke the authority to possess radioactive sources under a general license.
The Commission also intends to increase the civil penalty amounts specified in its current Enforcement Policy in NUREG-1600, Rev.1, for violations involving lost or improperly i
disposed sources or devices. This is to ensure that such civil pe'1alties are significantly higher than the costs avoided by the failure to properly dispose of the source or device.
Agreement State Compatibility Under the " Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs" approved by the Commission on June 30,1997 (62 FR 46517), this proposed rule is classified as Compatibility Category D. Category D means the provisions are not required for purposes of compatibility; however, if adopted by the State, the provisions should not create any conflicts, duplications, or gaps in the regulation of AEA material. Ultimately an enhanced l
l oversight program is expected to include provisions that wih require a higher degree of 1
12 l
l l
l i
compatibility. This will be considered in a subsequent rulemaking to add more explicit requirements for the registration program and additional provisions concerning accountability of generally licensed devices.
Environmental Impact: Categorical Exclusion i
The NRC has determined that this proposed rule is the type of action described in the categorical exclusion 10 CFR 51.22(c)(3)(iii). Therefore, neither an environmentalimpact statement nor an environmental assessment has been prepared for this regulation.
l j
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This proposed rule amends information collection requirements that are subject to the l
l Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq). This rule has been submitted to the Ofnce of Management and Budget for review and approval of the information collection l
requirements.
The public reporting burden for this information collection is estimated to average
)
I 20 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data j
L f
sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the i-l information cellection. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is seeking public comment en the potential impact of the information collections contained in the proposed rule and on the following issues:
1 13
9 1.
Is the proposed information collection necessary for the proper p?rformance of the functions of the NRC, including whether the information will have practical utility?
4 l
2.
Is the estimate of burden accurate?
'3.
. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected?
4.
How can the burden of the information collection be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques?
Send comments on any aspect of this proposed information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Records Management Branch (T-6 F33), U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, or by Internet electronic mail at i
BJS1@NRC. GOV; and to the Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, NEOB-10202 (3150-0016), Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503.
I Comments to OMB on the information collections or on the above issues should be submitted by (insert date 30 days after publication in the Federal Register). Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given to comments received after this date.
Public Protection Notification if an infcrmation collection does not display a currently valid OMB control number,'the NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, the information collection.
l 14 i
?
o j
i Regulatory Analysis 4
The NRC has prepared a draft regulatory analysis for this proposed regulation. The analysis examines the cost and benefits of the alternatives considered by the NRC. The comments received on the earlier draft regulatory analysis have been considered to the extent that they apply to this more limited action. The regulatory analysis is available for inspection in the NRC Public Document Room,2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC. Single copies of the analysis may be otstained by calling Jayne McCausland, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Washington, DC,20555-0001; telephone (301) 415-6219; or e-mail at JMM2@nrc. gov.
Regulatory Flexibility Certification i
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the Commission certifies i
that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule would require generallicensees who have received specific devices to respond to requests for information from NRC. The proposed rule would apply to the approximately 45,000 persons using products under an NRC general license, many of whom may be classified as small entities. However, the NRC intends to request registration information from only approximately 6000 of these generallicensees about the identification of the devices, accountability for the devices, the persons responsible for r
l compliance with the regulations, and the disposition of the devices The NRC believes that the l
economic impact of the proposed requirements on any generallicensee would be a negligible increase in administrative burden. The proposed rule is intended to ensure that general 15
s licensees understand and compi.y with regulatory responsibilities regarding the generally licensed radioactive devices in their possession.
Backfit Analysis The NRC has determined that the backfit rule,10 CFR 50.109, does not apply to this proposed rule and, therefore, a backfit analysis is not required because these amendments would not involve any provisions that would impose backfits as defined in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1).
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 31 Byproduct material, Criminal penalties, Labeling, Nuclear materials, Packaging and containers, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Scientific equipment.
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and 5 U.S.C.
553, the NRC is proposing to adopt the following amendments to 10 CFR Part 31.
i l
16 l
.~....
L L
PART 31 - GENERAL DOMESTIC LICENSES FOR BYPRODUCT MATERIAL l
r l
- 1. The authority citation for Part 31 continues to read as follows:
i AUTHORITY: Secs. 81,161,183,68 Stat. 935,948,954, as amended (42 U.S.C.
2111,2201,2233); secs. 201, as amended,202,88 Stat.1242, as amended, 1244 (42 U.S.C.
5841,5842).
Section 31.6 also issued under sec. 274,73 Stat. 688 (42 U.S.C. 2021).
I
- 2. Section 31.5 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(11) to read as follows:
)
10 CFR 31.5 Certain measuring, gauging, or controlling devices.2 j
(c)
(11) Shall respond to written requests from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to provide information relating to the generallicense within 30 calendar days of the date of the request, or other time specified in the request. If the generallicensee cannot provide the l
requested information within the allotted time, it shall, within that same time period, request a longer period to supply the information by submitting a letter to the Director, Office of Nuclear l
2 Persons possessing byproduct material in devices under a general license in 10 CFR 31.5 before January 15,1975, may continue to possess, use, or transfer that material in accordance j
with the labeling requirements of 10 CFR 31.5 in effect on January 14,1975.
17 i
i o.
Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001 and provide written justification as to why it cannot comply.
Dated at Rockvil:e, Maryland, this /9 ay of I2Pv'(/# b @ 1998.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
./
3 Malcolm R. Knapp Acting Executive Director for Operations.
l 18