ML20198G157
| ML20198G157 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/04/1997 |
| From: | Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| FRN-61FR3334, RULE-PR-20 PR-970804, NUDOCS 9708130368 | |
| Download: ML20198G157 (4) | |
Text
.
DOCXETED U1 M l0 01-P]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 20 RIN:
3150 AF44 0F F ICE '.f E[' E E M','
DOCHET c>
Reporting Requirements for Unauthorized Use of Licensed Radioactive Material AGENCY:
Nuclear Reguictory Commission.
sOCMT NUMBER PROPOSED RULE $ @
ACTION:
Proposed rule:
Withdrawal.
SUMMARY
- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is withdrawing a notice of proposed rulemaking that was published in the Federal Register on January 31.
1996. regarding the intentional unauthorized use of licensed radioactive material by individuals.
The majority of commenters stated that the costs of implementing the proposed rule would outweigh the benefits that might result from the rule.
After reviewing these comments, the Commission has reconsidered the need for the proposed rule and is withdrawing it.
l FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary L. Thomas. Office of Nuclear Regulatory i
Research. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Washington. D.C. 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-6230. E-mail MLT1@NRC. GOV.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
On January 31. 1996. the NRC published a proposed amendment to 10 CFP Part 20, in the Federal Register (61 FR 3334), that would have required licensees to report events involving intentional unauthorized use of licensed
[ Lf~) S O
}$ l(
g81 368 970804 84b. m gg 97 20 61FR3334 PDR
[hlfilDTD at sp y m qg
'9 radioactive material to-the NRC Operations Center within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> of discovery.
Eighty-six comment letters were received on the proposed rule:-12 from power reactor licensees. 11 from industry representative groups. 8 from Agreement States. 14 from Agreement State licensees.-30 from NRC material licensees.-10 from private citizens, and one from a public interest group.
Eighty-two of the commenters opposed the proposed rule: four were in favor of j
the proposed rule.
In addition, comments were received from the Advisory Committee on Medical Uses of isotopes (ACMUI) at a meeting _ held on February 22, 1996.
The commenters addressed the regulatory analysis, the severity level that would be assigned to violations for failure to report. and t e backfit analysis as well as the proposed rule itself.
Because the proposed rule is being withdrawn, only,the comments received on the proposed rule itself are discussed here. All of the comments received on the rule are available for review in the NRC's Public Document Room.
Comment:
Forty commenters stated that the concept presented in this rule was not consistent with the ALARA principle.
They also stated that the rule would require every event of contamination and exposure to be reported regardless of the level of contamination or exposure.
Several commenters argued that using
.a reporting threshold that included any " allegedly intentional" unauthorized use was too broad and would result in licensees spending more time and money than the 20 hours2.314815e-4 days <br />0.00556 hours <br />3.306878e-5 weeks <br />7.61e-6 months <br /> to evaluate an incident estimated in the proposed regulatory analysis for the proposed rule and would detract from their ability to 2
=-
r
l..
_ perform their other duties.
They stated that this would place an undue burden on small licensees whose resources are already limited.
Thirty-two commenters suggested that the requirement to report events where unauthorized use could not be ruled out within 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> be deleted.
They stated that it was too vague, burdensome, and restrictive, and they would be forced to report every contamination to avoid a Severity Level 111 violation.
Forty nine commenters suggested that the NRC be more specific with respect to the type of events to be reported.
Thirty-six commenters suggested that the proposed rule be withdrawn.
They stated that basing a rulemaking on only two incidents was not justified.
Of this group, 26 commenters stated that regulations already exist to cover such incidents, such as 10 CFR 30.10. Deliberate misconduct, 10 CFR 20.2201, Reports of theft or loss of licensed material, 10 CFR 20.2202, Notification of incidents, and 10 CFR 30.50(a), Reporting requirements.
Of the eight Agreement States that provided comments, all stated that the proposed rule should be withdrawn.
One Agreement State commented that this rule may violate the intent of that State's Regulatory Reform Act of 1995 that requires the State's regulatory system not impose excecsive, unreasonable, or unnecessary obligations.
Four comments were received in favor of the proposed rule.
One commenter supported the proposed rule without changes; the other three supported the intent of the proposed rule but suggested changes to further clarify the intent and to make the rule less burdensome.
As discussed below, the Commission recognizes that regulations already exist requiring repcrting of events when certain established dose thresholds have been reached.
The j
Commission believes that a requirement to report events below these 3
)
established thresholds would not provide any additional protection and the cost would not be justifled.
Resoonse:
The Commission examined the comments received on the proposed rule, and concluded that a sufficient basis does not exist to promulgate a rule at this-time.
The Commission recognizes that regulations already exist requiring reporting of events when certain dose thresholds have been reached.
The established thresholds in these existing requirements capture any e._nt where the occupational dose limits have been exceeded. Therefore, any additional protection achieved from reporting events below the established thresholds would be low and the costs of both the reporting by licensees and the subsequent follow-up actions by the NRC staff would not be justified.
For the above reasons. the Commission is withdrawing the proposed rule.
Dated at Rockville. Maryland, this f - day of August,1997.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, a <
d
$1")
Johnff. Hoyle.'
Secnetary of the Commission.
4