ML20206E945

EDO Control of Rulemaking Package Re 10CFR34, Industrial Radiography Radiation Surveys & Licensee Performance Insp Program. Continuation of Rulemaking Approved

ML20206E945
Person / Time
Issue date:	06/07/1985
From:	Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To:	Minogue R NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES)
References
NUDOCS 8606240048
Download: ML20206E945 (46)

Text

\\

lM}

/

JUN 0 71985 MEMORANDUM FOR:

Robert B. Minogue, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research FROM:

William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations

SUBJECT:

CONTROL OF NRC RULEMAKING By memorandum of February 13,1984, " Control of NRC Rulemaking by Offices Reporting to the EDO," Offices were directed that effective April 1,1984, (1) all offices under ED0 purview must obtain my approval to begin and/or continue a specific rulemaking, (2) resources were not to be expended on rule-makings that have not been approved, and (3) RES would independently review rulemaking proposals forwarded for my approval and make reconinendations to me concerning whether or not and how to proceed with the rulemakings.

In accordance with my directive, the following proposal concerning rulemaking has been forwarded for my approval.

Proposed rule 10 CFR Part 34, Industrial Radiography Radiation Surveys and Licensee's Performance Inspection Program.

(Sponsored by RES - memorandum, Minogue to ED0 dated May 21,1985.)

I approve continuation of this rulemaking.

In pursuing this rulemaking activity, the staff should clearly identify the safety benefit to be achieved in requiring quarterly audits of each radiographer and radiographer's assistant in contrast to a management review program which would include a random selection and audit _

of radiographers. Does this proposed change increase assurance of safety and will the change be worth the cost? In addition, some of the cost estimates seem low in that they do not appear to include travel costs and documentation and followup time for the quarterly audits or equipment setup time for the measurement device surveys. The staff should address these issues in the devel.

opment of this rulemaking activity.

The NRC Regulatory Agenda (NUREG_0936) should be modified to reflect the status of this rulemaking.

i Signed William J.Dirck 8606240048 850607 I

EDO RM William J. Dircks PDR Executive Director for Operations cc:

V. Stello Distribution:

l J. Roe WJDircks QSniezek H. R. Denton VStello WSchwink l

J. Taylor EDO rf JHenry i

J. G. Davis DEDROGR cf JPhilips P. G. Norry Central File AV E._:.EDO OFC :ROGR/S

RO /D

QE

/s

_____. w.

....__:. 4.

NAME :98f ek

VStello

WDi DATE :6/4/85

6/ /85

6/7/85

6/1 /85

(

I L

2 :, a Date nouTino Ano TRANSINWAl. SUP.

MAY 211385-Tot (Nemo. ofice symbol, reem number, initiale Date -

6edsda' g, Agency / Peso n.06D0(

DGDeosR) 3.

S.

I r

/

4' E

XAction Fue Note end Retum Appro.el For Cleerence Per Conversation As ftequested For Correction Propero fleply Cieculate For Yots Information See Me -

C: - f inweetsgate Signature t

T-_^

Justify b

A_.... a

& ress -W.

up~ o.,M W, N,1.

a L w.....+ % ~~ ~.u %

fy3  :(90 3 W -

(

\\p bk,W j

r

. oo nor.e.

a n,

- e =CoRo se r eis..o-orr.n e, es,ossie.

steerences, and similar actions FR000:(Neme, org symbol, Agency / Post)

Room No.-81dg.

)

)

yj

. o gnnoae%g =(Re 7-m -.

F

==

es.,n

-, n,.. m.m m.,

hMlc p.s(

uw

'8-UNITED STATES

/g j

.p.

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g

E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20556

+-

j use*

NAY 211985-

. MEMORANDUM FOR: William J. Dircks' Executive Director for Operations FROM:

. Robert B. Minogue, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

SUBJECT:

CONTROL'0F NRC RULEMAKING: RES REVIEW 0F ONG0ING RES SPONSORED RULEMAKING i

Based on our review of ongoing RES sponsored rulemaking entitled, " Industrial Radiography Radiation Surveys and Licensee's Performance Inspection Program--

10 CFR Part 34," RES recommends that the'NRC should proceed with this rulemaking. - This recommendation, in draft form, has been coordinated with the l

user office NMSS. The proposed rule was published for comment on October 4, 1984 (49 FR 39168). Twenty comments were received, 55% were in favor 45%

against the time of storage survey and 30% were in favor 70% against performance inspections.of radiographers.

L The basis for our recommendation is as follows:

- -Radiography exposures occur at a rate which is double that of radiation workers in other fields. Also, although' reports on radiography incidents j

are often incomplete, the AE0D data base for 1980-1983 includes eleven l

overexposure incidents involving failure to survey. The staff is aware of at-least two other incidents involving the storage of radiography devices while the source was in an unshielded position.

- The proposed rule clarifies the present 134.11(d) to require performance l

inspections of radiographers and radiographer assistants at intervals-not -

l.

to exceed three months. Licensees are misinterpreting the existing l

~l34.11(d) and are making spot checks of only a few radiographers and radiographer assistants.

'The' additional time-of-storage survey requirement of the~ proposed rule will prevent the storage of a radiography device with the sealed source outside its proper location within the device. This additional survey I.

will reduce the overexposures and potential overexposures attributable to

. improper storage procedures.

The complete RES review package has been sent to OED0 (Attention: DEDROGR) c L

and to the Director, NMSS.

b!

R ert B. Minogue, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research l

i

m E

Distribution:

e

~

DRPES WK RD 9

ORPB RD/SUBJ

{,

R'iinoaue e

Dross KGoller

~

RAlexander f

DNellis MAY 211985 E

MEMORANDUM FOR: William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations FROM:

Robert B. Minogue, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

SUBJECT:

CONTROL OF NRC RULEMAKING:

RES REVIEW OF ONGOING RES SPONSORED RULEMAKING Based on our review of ongoing RES sponsored rulemaking entitled, " Industrial Radiography Radiation Surveys and Licensee's Performance Inspection Program--

L 10 CFR Part 34," RES recommends that the NRC should proceed with this rulemaking. This recommendation, in draft form, has been coordinated with the user office NMSS. The proposed rule was published for comment on October 4, 1984 (49 FR 39168). Twenty comments were received, 55% were in favor of the p

time of storage survey and 30% in favor of perfonnance inspections of radiographers.

The basis for our recommendation is as follows:

1 Radiography exposures occur at a rate which is double that of radiation workers in other fields. Also, although reports on radiography incidents l

are cften incomplete, the AEOD data base for 1980-1983 includes eleven l

overexposure incidents involving failure to survey. The staff is aware of at least two other incidents involving the storage of radiography i

devices while the source was in an unshielded position.

l The proposed rule clarifies the present 634.11(d) to require performance inspections of radiographers and radiographer assistants at intervals not to exceed three months. Licensees are misinterpreting the existing 134.11(d) and are making spot checks of only a few radiographers and radiographer assistants.

The additional time-of-storage survey requirement of the proposed rule will prevent the storage of a radiography device with the sealed source outside its proper location within the device.

This additional survey will reduce the overexposures and potential overexposures attributable to improper storage procedures.

I The complete RES review package has been sent to OEDO (Attention: DEDR0GR) and to the Director, NMSS.

obert B. Minogue, Director

• See previous c ncurrence.e of Nuclear Regulatory Research Offic ct 5/10/85 k ihelD' 0FC:

5:0RPB : RES:0RPB "RES:DRPES :RES

/

B

}v-

.....)...._,fj,KGo,er,,,,{,,,,,,,,,,,[,,j,ge,,,[,gt),7 ^ '*""de Dross n [. _ _.".')) _.S 5N85 SM/85 DATE: 5/ /85 : 5/ /85 : 5/ /85

5/ /85

Distributicn: g. DRVt3 WK RD y ORPB RD/SUBJ g RMinogu2 y Dross y KGoller RAlexander e i I DNellis v MEMORANDUM FOR: William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations FROM: Robert B. Minogue Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Res rch

SUBJECT:

~ CONTROL OF NRC RULEMAKING: S REVIEW OF ONGOING RES SPONSORED RULEMAKING Based on our review of ongoing RES sponsored rulemaking entitled, " Industrial Radiography Radiation Surveys and Litensee's Perfomance Suspection Program--- T 10 CFR Part 34," RES recomends tha't the NRC should proceed with this >F rulemaking. This recomendatior)(in draft form, has been coordinated with the user office,NMSS. The proposed' rule was published for comment on October 4, 1984 (49 FR 39168). 3 The basis for our recomen ation is as follows: The proposed rule arifies the present 634.11(d) to require performance inspections off'adiographers and radiographer assistants at intervals not to exceed th months. Licensees are misinterpreting the existing 534.11(d) a are making spot checks of only a few radiographers and radiograph assistants. The addt onal time-of-storage survey requirement of the proposed rule will r/ event the storage of a radiography device with the sealed source outsfde its proper location within the device. This additional survey j wip reduce the overexposures and potential ovgrexposures attributable to i proper storage procedures. The complete RES review package has been sent to OEDO (Attention: DEDROGR)and t the Director, NMSS. Robert B. Minogue, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research ct 3/12/85 t% N, OFC: RES:0R

R5 B

RES:DRP

RES

RES

..___........._____.h MAME: DNellis

RA{ennder : KGoller

Dross

RMinogue DATE:

3//g/85 3/p85 3/ 3/85

3/ /85

3/ /85 f

1 i

N ,f,' v e ? + RES REVIEW PACKAGE l l f i l l l 4 l

[ RES INDEPENDENT REVIEW BOARD VOTING SHEET 3 TO: RIRB FROM: F. P. Gillespie, Chairraan, RIRB TITLE OF RULEMAKING: Radiation Surveys and In-House Inspection Systems in Radiography (Part 34) 1 _ AGREE WITH RECOMENDATIONS j IN RES RULEMAKING REVIEW PACKAGE MODIFY RECOMENDATIONS IN N T PARTICIPATING. RES RULEMAKING REVIEW PACKAGE AS INDICATED BELOW COP 9 TENTS AND SUGGESTIONS: k N ke V$ %k N () [ ed do M LD d U( M rk[Soj 6 73 ag w h5 6 CM N C n Na w 'us n64.enhow y & A Q.t yw\\.g (,w & b0

b. hivlj et/ct w 4D cdM e oca ab g V W ko S

h4 bo f j b k -d. D v004%" 'Ch c)V k M k A %l iL I NN LW"" l 5 .. ~ F.P.Gillesfie Chairman, RIRB DATE

T ? I* E Y' RES INDEPEfiDEfil F.EVIEW BOARD ^ VOTING SHEET T0: F. P. GILLESPIE, CHAIRMAN, RIRB FROM: W. M. Morrison, Member, RIRB TITLE OF RULEMAKING: Radiation Surveys and In-House Inspection Systems in Radiography (Part 34) x AGREE WITH RECOMMENDATIONS IN RES RULEMAXING REVIEW PACKAGE MODIFY RECOMMENDATIONS IN NOT PARTICIPATING * .r RES RULEMAKING REVIEW PACKAGE AS INDICATED BELOW COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS: Straight approval. ((N N NfM$R h MARCH 25, 1985 DATE

7 1 Y ?' RES INDEPENDENT REVIEW BOARD VOTING SHEET T0: F. P. GILLESPIE, CHAIRMAN, RIRB FROM: G. A. Arlotto, Member, RIRB TITLE OF. RULEMAKING: Radiation Surveys and In-House Inspection Systems in Radiogranhy (Part 34) AGREE WITH RECOMENDATIONS ME IN RES RULEMAKING REVIEW PACKAGE ~ MDDIFY RECOMENDATIONS IN MOT PARTICIPATING. RES RULEMAKING REVIEW PACKAGE AS INDICATED BELOW CON 4ENTS AND SUGGESTIONS: s O !l ( / MEFSER RI ll/ Y/,h DATE em 4

1y R n0UTN00 AND TIWIStNTTAL SUP MAR 151985 m g e geream ammae,. .e.te.e e

3. W. M. Morrison, Member, RIRB g F. P. Gillespie, Chairman, RIRB g G. A. Arlotto, tiember, RIRB E

l X neuen fue mnee and astum mapreust For CIserence per Convereseon ns asemesess per correnden peepero neper Disculate For Your informetlen See Me menunent 1. alsneture r n ^^ - Juste#y l asamutus a.L Aw M. h -/!: s - Tc L=M-= S ee-o (f3 3+) f n RIRB memben s are requested to conduct an independent review of the attached RES rulemaking review package and provide the Chairman, RIRB, with their voting sheets indicating their positions on the rulemaking.. MAR 2 9 E Responses by c.o.b. will be appreciated. RAMRB will use the voting sheets to assemble the complete RES review package for eventual transmittal to the OEDO and the Director of the user office. .0 000T ese this term os e REo0RD et approsels, eencurrences, disposals, esserences. and aimlier actions FR004. (Nes4, erg. symael, Agency / Post) Hoom No.-Sids RAttRB stafff peu, e peo. l sus-see ..m2-pter. 7 76) . pones 41 ..r.. .... c............, 1 l l I .-.L

f* 1 [ I TASK LEADER REVIEW PACKAGE WITH DIVISION DIRECTOR CONCURRENCE I L l 1

5 Distribution _: i DRPt5 WK RD ?4 ORPB RD/SUBJ RMinogue t Dross KGoller RAlexander DNellis MEMORANDUM FOR: William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations FROM: Robert B. Minogue, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

SUBJECT:

CONTROL OF NRC RULEMAKING: RES REVIEW OF ONGOING RES SPONSORED RULEMAKING Based on our review of ongoing RES sponsored rulemaking entitled, " Industrial 'x Radiography Radiation Surveys and Licensee's Performance $ pection Program--- 10 CFR Part 34," RES reconnends that the NRC should proceed with this i rulemaking. This recomendation, in draft fom, has been coordinated with the user office,NMSS. The proposed rule was published for comment on October 4 e 1984 (49 FR 39168). The basis for our recomendation is as follows: The proposed rule clarifies the present 634.11(d) to require performance inspections of radiographers and radiographer assistants at intervals not to exceed three months. Licensees are misinterpreting the existing $34.11(d) and are making spot checks of only a few radiographers and j, radiographer assistants. The additional time-of-storage survey requirement of the proposed rule will prevent the storage of a radiography device with the sealed source outside its proper location within the device. This additional survey will reduce the overexposures and potential overexposures attributable to improper storage procedures. The complete RES review package has been sent to OED0 (Attention: DEDROGR)and to the Director, NMSS. Robert B. Minogue, Director L Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research s et 3/12/85 b/A

1. A luu

'/ y 0FC: RES:0RPB

R B i : RES:DRP

RES

RES NAME: DNellis

RA$dtnder : KGoller

Dross

RMinogue DATE:

3//g/85 3/ 3/85

3/ /85

3/ /85 3/p85

/ .=.-

a s d ~ l e 1 l l NRC REGULATORY AGENDA ENTRY l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l 1 ~ ~

5E !s -t REGULATORY AGENDA ENTRY TITLE: Radiation Surveys and In-House Inspection Systems in Radiography CFR CITATION: 10 CFR 34 ) ABSTRACT: The proposed rule would require that the in-house inspection description in a radiography license application specify a method for inspecting each radiographer and radiographer's assistant's knowledge of applicable regulations, license conditions, and performance of established procedures at intervals not exceeding three months. This action is intended to further ensure that radiographic operations are conducted safely, and is to be viewed as a clarification of the existing 534.11(d). The cost of performing the inspection is estimated to be $120.00 per worker or $432,960 per year for the entire industry. There is no impact i on the NRC staff. The proposed rule would also require a licensee to perform and record a radiation survey of a radiographic exposure device made when storing the device after use instead of recording the results of the radiation survey made after the last exposure. This action, which is taken in response to petition for rulemaking (PRM-34-3) is intended to provide an acceptable procedure for assuring that the sealed source has l been properly stored within the device. Alternatives to rulemaking which were considered included preparation of guidance recommending a time-of-storage survey or license condition. These approaches would not have a regulatory basis and also would not be adaptable by agreement states. Requiring an additional rt.diation survey at the time of storage provides additional assurance that accidental exposures will not occur to members of the public as well as workers. The cost of this survey requirement to the entire industry is estimated to be $541,200 annually ($150.00 per radiographer). There are no additional record-keeping costs. Impact on NRC staff is negligible since inspectors will review the time-of-storage survey record rather than the last use survey record. NRC staff time for processing this rule to final publication is estimated to be 0.4 staff years. Twenty comments were received on the proposed rule, most of which were opposed to the 3 month inspection of radiographers with a roughly 50-50 split on the storage survey issue. TIMETABLE: Petition for Rulemaking (PRM-34-3) 11/23/82 47 FR 52722 NPRM 10/04/84 49 FR 39168 NPRM Comment Period Begin 10/04/84 49 FR 39168 NPRM Comment Period End 11/18/84 Next Action Analysis of.Coments - 6/15/85 j Enclosure D 4 ,,---.---w- -, -. - -.. -

---

,-,--a e.

M

1. .y.

(fa '} LEGAL AUTHORITY: v* 42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2232; 42 USC 2233; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Undetermined TITLE: Radiation Surveys and In-House Inspection Systems in Radiography AGENCY CONTACT: Donald 0 Nellis Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington,. DC 20555 (301) 427-4588 1 i Enclosure D

m_ _ b_ r d. i e .M' RULEMAKING AS CURRENTLY PROPOSED

t w lk if 1 i r " Storage area" means any location, posiuse.De entianiscumference of the exposure devloe ammet be aerwIyod."k addusa, for devices havlag ty,or special vehicle at orin which e resopaphic exposure devios or seerage sontainer is secured, when act a sourse outlet part,a maammenent of h use.by led or phyoloal barrier so as he endiaties espoeme sets at this entist to prevent accidental

are, part. emith the oefety plug lasteued, must tempering with or una removal as takaa.

et the device. M ne konnees aban ensure that a ' socord af the survey repired in i 4.b l Kit, parayeph (d)is revised pareraph (el af this seenen,lacleding g,,,sg gogow. Semaneummentof theradiation esposere sets at the source outlet port. 6mit tueuense er spessac asernester esiah the nedsty instaned le enade mese eteses eenmesesperar

andas meanimised two year i

(d) n e cent has estahlinhad and sebmite a of anin-boese a y-esa= program adequate to ensere that the t'a==ta= ton's regulatory requiressents and the applicants operating and eenerpacy procedures am fo5 owed by radiographere and endiographore* ensistente.De l inspection must: l (1) lac! ation of and I toosedhe of the ormance of eed: r *, f_ z radiographer's sosistant during en actualredi c m atlatervals not to ex Mr_ _e months; e

9) provide that,if a radiographer and v

-- L F- 's asetetant has not perticipated in a radiographic operation sbr more than three months since the last hopection that individual's pedormona mustbe ebeerved and recorded the next time the individeal PART34-UCEteSES FOR pwtedpehe h a re&oyspWe opwation-RADIOGRAPHY A'AD RADIATM ,,g SAFETY REOUNtEltENTS pOR (3)latiede rekntion of N OPERATMS records for two years se ormance of _. _2.ne authority citation for part M is ---redleyephem and rs@'s revised to read as follows: Authertty: Seco. 31. tet.1t!.1e3. es Stat. 5.Section K43 is revloed to read as 936. 948,953,954, se smended 142 USC 2111. g,gg,,,'. 3301. 2232. 2233); sec. 301, se Stat.1242. es i l emended (42 UAC sort). I 34.43 Rosemen surveys. j Section R32 also tuned under eec. 20s. se (e)ne licensee sheD enenre that et j Stat.1246 (42 USC esee). leest one celibrated and operable For the porposes of sec. 223.se Stat.see. ee radiation servey lastrument is evalleble amended (42 USC 2273):16 34.22. M23. et the location of todiagraphic M24. M25 to). (b) end (d). M.28. M.29. M.31 oPweh demver mWie (a) and (b) M 32. 23.33 (a). (c) and (d). M.41, operations are being performed, and at M 42. M.43 (e)(b) and (c) and 3444 are the etorage ame as denned in 5 34J(g) 1ssued under sec. Setb. es Stat. sea as whemm a re&oyepbic exposum a=aad=d (42 UAC 220t[b)): and iI R11 (d). deelee is being placed in storep. M25 (c) and (d) 34.30. H.27. H.as(b). Mas (c). R31(c). M.33 (t) and le) and R43(d) MDe licensee shau ensure Abela are leeued under sec. se10. es stat. eso, se survey artth a selfbreted and operable amended (42 UAC 2aostol). radiation survey instroenent is made H K 3, u tt n aa.H Ja, u se, a s1 aher meh exposum to determine thas 34Ja,R46-34.44,NJi and Appeeds A the asaled acerce bas been returned to lamenced) its sidelded position.no entire

2. Remove the authority citations dscumfesonoe of the radiographic fouowing Il R2. K11.MJ2. K3a.

• 1Poeure devios must be surveyed. If the R29. 34J1. M.32. 34J3. K43. M.44.

radiopephic e device bas a Est.and Appendix A. ocene guide toba,the survey must

3. In i R2 paragraphs (3) s.nd (b) en include the pide tube.

redesignated as parayaphs (h) and (i), Tc4 The hcensee eheu ensure that a and a new parayaph (3)is added to survey with a sehbrated and operable reed'as foBows re& aeon servey instrument le made at the time a radicysphic exposure devios IStJ Deerssene. le placed la a storage area to detennine that the sealed source is la its eineided r

is

z..

+ P \\ ~ ~ TASK LEADER EVALUATION l

,~ l' t' Draft RES Recommendations to EDO Concerning Ongoing Rulemaking on Industrial Radiography Radiation Surveys and Licensee's Performance Inspection Program. 10 CFR Part 34 The proposed rule clarifies the present 534.11(d) to require performance inspactions of radiographers and radiographer assistants at intervals not to exceed three months; and further requires an additional survey of the radiographic exposure device be made at the time the device is placed in storage and a record of the survey be made. RES recommends continuation of this ongoing rulemaking for the following reasons: (1) The proposed rule clarifies the present $34.11(d) to require performance inspections of radiographers and radiographer assistants at intervals not to exceed three months. Licensees are misinterpreting the existing 534.11(d) and are making spot checks of only a few radiographers and radiographer assistants. (2) The additional time-of-storage survey requirement of the proposed rule will prevent the storage of a radiography device with the sealed source outside its proper location within the device. This additional survey wil1 reduce the overexposures and potential overexposures attributable to improper storage procedures. l l Enclosure C '~ ~ ^^

Xy. 9. If Assessment of Compliance by RES With Procedures and Guidance for Rulemaking 10 CFR Part 34 This rulemaking action is responsive to a petition for rulemaking (PRM-34-3), dated 11/23/82 and to requests for other amendments to 10 CFR Part 34 received by RES from NMSS. The proposed rule has been reviewed by and concurrence received from NMSS, OSP, IE and ADM. OMB clearance was requested by NMSS and approval granted on 8/10/83, OMB

1. 3150-0007.

3 Draft RES recommendations to the ED0 have been reviewed and concurrence received from the user office NMSS. A regulatory analysis was prepared indicating reasonable cost / benefit. (See Enclosure B). Cost / benefit estimates are based on industry input. To the best of our knowledge this rulemaking is in compliance with NRC procedures and guidance for rulemaking. e i l Enclosure E. l

t= 4* I N' Y e e 9 SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION I l

W ,ep 9 REGULATORY ANALYSIS FOR PART 34 AMENDMENTS REGULATORY ANALYSIS -- END-OF-DAY STORAGE SURVEY 1. Statement of the Problem The Nuclear Regulatory Commission received a petition for rulemaking from the Chicago Bridge and Iron Company. The petition was assigned Docket No. PRM-34-3. The Commission requested comments on the petition in the Federal Register on November 23, 1982 (47 FR 52722). The petitioner suggested an amend-ment of the Commission's rules, 6 34.43(c). The suggested amendment would require that each licensee survey a radiographic exposure device when it is placed in storage. This survey would be made with a radiation survey instru-ment at a point on the surface of the device specified by the licensee in his operating procedures. This last survey would occur at or near the place of storage. The intent of the petitioner is to provide a recorded survey that would be useful in determining that the radiographic exposure device is stored with the sealed source in a safe location within the device. Under the current regulations, 8 34.43(b) requires that, after each radio-graphic exposure, the radiographer perform a radiation survey of the radio-graphic device to ensure that the sealed source has been returned to its shielded position. Paragraph (c) of 5 34.43 requires that the radiographer record the results of the survey that is made following the last radiographic exposure made before locking the device and ending direct surveillance of the operation. This survey is made where the device is last used. The licensee must keep a record of the survey for 2 years. The petitioner contends that the current regulation does not ensure safe storage of the sealed source in the radiographic device, yields equivocal records, and is inconvenient. More specifically, the petitioner contends that the device may be subject to rough handlir.g when being moved from the area of use to the area of storage under field conditions. If the source were dis-lodged during the movement to the storage area, the radiographer might store 1 Enclosure B ..rmi.,, ,m

T. {- k L the device with the sealed source outside of its proper location within the device. The petitioner contends that, by requiring that the radiographer make f J the final survey at a licensee-specified point on the device, the recorded exposure rate would provide unequivocal assurance that the source was properly located within the device, and would also provide a check on the decay of the sealed source and the constancy of the survey instrument. The petitioner con-tends that it is easier to record the survey data at the location of storage than at the location of use because of weather and work conditions that are encountered in field radiography. The Commission received one telephone and three written comments on the petition. Three commenters concurred completely with the petition. One com-menter said that the survey should be made at the sealed source outlet port with the safety plug installed. One commenter said licensees should not be

+

required to submit modified procedures for review until it was time for them to renew their licenses. The petitioner's suggested amendment would eliminate the requirement that the last-use survey be recorded, and put in its place a requirement that the new time-of-storage survey be made and recorded. Although the staff is aware of only one overexposure that was caused by failure of the locking mechanism (NUREG/BR-0024, p. 153, case 461) followed by moving the radiographic device, several incidents have been observed where the radiographic devices were stored with the source in an unshielded position caused by failure to lock the mechanism. In addition it is considered to be good safety practice to survey at the time of storage and many radiographers include this survey in their routine procedures. The probability of occurrence and the consequences of this type of event seem to be of sufficient magnitude to justify the time-of-storage survey requirement suggested by the petitioner. Therefore the Commission agrees that it is desirable to require that the time-of-storage survey be made and recorded. However, this would not relieve licensees from requiring that radio-graphers make a survey immediately after the last exposure and before transport t:o the storage area, although the record requirement for the last-use survey is being deleted. i 1 Copies of NUREG/BR-0024 may be obtained from the GPO Sales Program, Division j of Technical Information and Document Control, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commis-sion, Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301)492-7333. l 2 Enclosure B - - - -,. - -,.,,. -,. - - - - - - - -. - - - - - - -. - - - - - - - ~,, - -. - - - - - -,

~. -... t q,- 1 The Commission also agrees that the measurement of the exposure rate at a consistent point on the surface of a device would provide further assurance that the sealed source was properly stored within the device, as well as useful safety related data on source decay and instrument operabiltiy. However, stor-age survey procedures should also be consistent with the survey procedure required after each exposure. Therefore, the proposed amendment would require that the time-of-storage measurement be made around the entire circumference of the radiographic exposure ddvice and that the survey include a measurement of i the radiation exposure rate at the source outlet port. A record of the time-of-storage survey result would provide assurance to the Commission that the radiographer had surveyed the device prior to placing 2 the source in storage. The staff agrees that it may be more convenient as well as more precise to record the results of a survey taken at the location of stor-age than one taken in the field. i 1 2. Objectivei \\ \\ The objective of the proposed regulatory action is to require licensees to make and record the results of a radiation survey made at any time a device is placed in storage to ensure that the sealed source is properly stored within the radiographic device. \\ 3. Alternatives i f The staff is not aware of any alternative to a radiation survey that would provide adequate assurance that a source was properly stored. The staff is not l aware of any alte'rnative to recording the results of a survey to show that the survey was performed. 4. Consequences' The total cost to the industry of the requirement to perform a storage 4 survey would be about $541,200 each year. This cost is approximately $150.00 per radiographer per year or about 30 cents per survey. This estimate is based on the following calculation: 3 Enclosure B . -,-., - - - _.,,-...+ ---,m -,-.--.e.,m,nn,_,w,.,,-._.. .y_,-a.

T h i 250 days 2 surveys . 01 hr $30 $541,200 ~ 3,608 radiographers x x x x yr day survey hr yr Based on a recent survey of licensees that was conducted by the NRC Office of Administration, the staff has estimated that there are about 3,608 radiographers empicyed by NRC licensees. There are 250 working days each year. The staff assumes that each radiographer would work, at most, at two locations each day, that a time-of-storage survey would take.01 hours, and that the hourly wage plus overhead for a radiographer is $30. The cost of revising procedures was not included in the calculation of the industry cost because the revision would only be a one or two line pen and ink change to existing procedures. Since the survey method is similar to that currently used by licensees, there will be no need for additional training. l The benefit of this new regulatory requirement is the provision of greater assurance that radiographic devices are stored when not in use so that the source is in the shielded position. The staff is not aware of any adminis_trative or technical problems that would affect the implementation of the proposed regulation. 5. Decision Rationale The staff believes that the proposed procedure provides an acceptable assurance that a sealed source has been properly stored and that a survey has been made. Therefore, the staff believes that the propused regulation should be published for comment. The staff does not anticipate any future rulemaking activities that would affect radiography device survey requirements. l l 6. Implementation If the Commission implements the proposed rule, a copy will be sent to each affect : licensee. A cover letter will inform the licensee that the new survey method should be used by licensees without requesting a license amend-ment. Licensees will need to revise their survey procedures and inform their radiographus of the change. 4 Enclosure B

i REGULATORY ANALYSIS -- QUARTERLY INSPECTION 1. Statement of the Problem The regulations require that each applicant who wants to use sealed sources in radiography have a quarterly in-house inspection program to assure that radiographers and radiographers' assistants' are following the regulations, license conditions, and procedures established by the licensee. The staff believes that, to ensure that each individual is following instructions, the performance of each individual must be inspected quarterly. This is not clear in the current wording of the regulation. The proposed rule would specifically require that the applicant's quarterly inspection program include each indi- ' vidual working as a radiographer or radiographer's assistant. 2. Objective i The intent of the proposed rule is to provide continuing assurance that j radiographers and radiographers' assistants are following safety instructions. 3. Alternatives Similar assurance could be provided by increasing NRC inspection and enforcement activities or by requiring third party certification with periodic renewal. 4. Consequences The estimated aanual cost to the radiography industry is $432,960 based on the following calculat' ion: 4 inspections 1 hour $30 $432,960 3,608 individuals x x = individual inspection hour Based on a recent survey of licensees that was conducted by the NRC Office of Administration, the staff has estimated that there are 3,608 radiographers employed by NRC licensees. The staff has no estimate of the number of radio-graphers' assistants. However, informal contact with individuals familiar 5 Enclosure B

T y with the industry indicates that the number is small compared to the number of radiographers. Each individual radiographer or radiographer's. assistant would have to be observed four times each year. Each inspection would take one-half hour of inspector time and one-half hour of inspectee time. The hourly wage plus overhead for a wcrker is estimated to be $30 per hour. The staff has not included travel time because the inspection could be coupled with other plan-ned management field trips, or it could be conducted at the licensee's base of operations. This cost is approximately $120.00 per radiographer per year or about $30 per inspection. The NRC Inspection and Enforcement staff could inspect the performance of each individual. Since an inspector would probably have to travel to several 1 field sites in one or a few days in order to inspect each individual, and would have to spend time learning each licensee's procedures, the staff estimates that an inspector would be able to inspect about four individuals each day. Since there would be about 14,432 individual inspections in a year, and there are 250 working days in a year, an NRC radiographer inspection program would need a staff of about 14 individuals. 1 man-day 1 man-year 14.4 man years 14,432 inspections x x = i 4 inspections 250 man-days 1 i l. The NRC staff does not believe that the dedication of this amount of time would be an efficient utilization of resources for the purpose of protecting the public health and safety. Licensees and the NRC staff are both capable of inspecting worker performance. More frequent NRC inspections would have a significant adverse impact on NRC's ability to inspect other materials licensees. Therefore, the responsibility to determine that radiographers are working safely should continue to lie with the licensee. At this time there is no third party organization that certifies radio-graphers. Therefore, this is not an acceptable alternative. The effect of requiring a quarterly performance inspection of each radio-grapher and radiographer's assistant is expected to be minimal because these 6 Enclosure B l

=- bI inspections are currently required by license condition. There will be no effect on NRC programs. This clarification of the inspection regulation may reduce the time needed to issue a radiography license or renewal because, as currently worded, the regulation does not clearly instruct the applicant to establish a program to inspect the performance of each radiographer and radio-grapher's assistant quarterly. The staff is not aware of any administrative or technical problems that would affect the implementation of the proposed rulemaking. 5. Decision Rationale The staff has recommended that license applicants must have a program for inspecting the performance of each radiographer and radiographer's assistant 3 quarterly. These inspections are needed to help ensure that these individuals are following safety instructions. The staff does not feel that utilization of agency resources to conduct the inspections would be in the best interest of the j public. 6. Implementation Since a quarterly performance inspection of each radiographer and radio-j grapher's assistant is currently required by license condition, the staff does not expect that any action on the part of licensees will be necessary. No staff action will be necessary. The staff is also evaluating a recommendation that third party certifica-4 tion of radiographers be required (47 FR 19152; May 4, 1982). The staff has i received public comments on the recommendation, but has not yet made a recom-mendation to the Commission. If certification were required it might obviate the need for a quarterly performance inspection of certified individuals. At i this time there is no third party organization that certifies radiographers. The staff estimates that, if the Commission decided to require certification of radiographers, it would take about 2 years to establish the certification 1 program. 4 I 7 Enclosure B J d . ~ ~ - - - - .. - ~... .._.._-,._._..._._,,,___m. .__.,_,._.____.,m.,,

t [7590-01] b' t 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l 10 CFR Part 34 ~ Industrial Radiography Radiation Surveys and Licensee's Performance Inspection Program AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is proposing to amend its regulations that apply to industrial radiography. The proposed rule would require industrial radiography licensees to perform an additional survey of any radiography device at any time the device is put into stor-age, and would change an existing recordkeeping requirement. Currently, each licensee must record the required survey of the device made after the last exposure before storage. The proposed rule deletes this record-keeping requirement and substitutes a requirement that a record of the new storage survey be maintained. The proposed rule would also require that each license application describe the program the licensee will use to evaluate the performance of each radiographer and radiographer's assist-ant at intervals not exceeding 3 months to ensure that they are following the Commission's regulatory requirements and the licensee's operating and emergency procedures when performing radiography. This action is intended to provide additional assurance that radiographic operations are conducted safely. DATE: Submit comments by (*** insert 45 days after publication in the Federal Register ***). Comments received after this date will be con-sidered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration can-not be given except as to comments received on or before this date. ADDRESSES: Send comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commis-sion, Washington, DC 20555, ATTN: Docketing and Service Branch. Hand deliver comments to: Room 1121, 1717 H Street NW., Washington, DC, 1 Enclosure A

y pseFmg [. L '[ between 8:15 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Examine comments received and the regu- ~ 1atory analysis at: NRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street NW., ~ } Washington, DC. Obtain regulatory analysis (single copy) from: Donald O. Nellis, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301)427-4588. t FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald O. Nellis, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301)427-4588. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is consider-ing three amendments to its regulations pertaining to industrial radio-l1 graphy. One amendment would require licensees to perform an additional radiation survey of the radiographic exposure device at the time of stor-age, delete an existing requirement to record the radiation survey made of the device immedistely after the last exposure prior to storage, and add a requirement to make and maintain a record of the storage survey. 1 This amendment to S 34.43 would provide a method of ensuring that the )- sealed source is in the proper position within the device when the device is stored. The second amendment would revise $ 34.11(d) to specify that I each license application must describe a program by which the licensee will evaluate the performance of each radiographer,and radiographer's assistant at intervals not exceeding 3 months. This amendment would clarify the requirements for the description of the in-house inspection program that the applicant must provide in the license application. The l third amendment provides a definition of " storage area" in S 34.2, l l " Definitions". This definition is provided so that it is clear at what locations the storage survey is to be made. Interested persons are invited to comment on any or all of the proposed amendments. Radiation Survey and Record The Commission received a petition for rulemaking, assigned Docket No. PRM-34-3, from the Chicago Bridge and Iron Company. The Commission j requested comments on the petition in the Federal Register on November 23, 1982 (47 FR 52722). As discussed below, this proposed rule would in t 2 Enclosure A 't t .me---w =-

[7590-01] +O 9

1..

r f effect grant the petition. The petitioner suggested an amendment of 10 CFR 34.43(c) that would require that each licensee survey a radio-graphic exposure device when it is placed in storage. This survey would be made using a radiation survey instrument at a point on the surface of the device specified by the licensee in its operating procedures. This last survey would occur at or near the place of storage, and would pro-vide a record showing that the radiographic exposure device had been stored with the sealed source in a safe location within the device. Under the current regulations, S 34.43(b) requires that, after each radiographic exposure, the radiographer perform a radiation survey of the radiographic device to ensure that the sealed source has been returned to its shielded position. Paragraph (c) of 5 34.43 requires that the radiographer record the results of the survey following the last radio-graphic exposure made before locking the device and ending direct surveil-l lance of the operation. This survey is made where the device is last f;used before storage. The licensee must keep a record of the survey for !2 years. i The_ petitioner contends that because no check of the sealed source position is required, the current regulation does not ensure safe storage of the sealed source in the radiographic device, yields equivocal records, and is inconvenient." More specifically, the petitioner contends,that the devicemaybesubjecttoroughhandlingwhenbeingmovedunderfield c'onditions from the area of use to the area of storage. If the source were dislodged during the movement to the storage area, the radiographer night store the device with the sealed source outside of its proper location within the device. The petitioner contends that, by requiring that the radiographer make the final survey at the time of storage and at a point on the device specified by the licensee in its operating procedures, the recorded exposure rate would provide unequivocal assurance that the source was properly located within the device, and would also provide a check on the decay of the sealed source and the constancy of the survey instrument. The petitioner also contends that it is easier to record the survey data at the location of storage than at the location of use because of weather and work conditions that are encountered in field radiography. 3 Enclosure A

L [7590-U1J y t*4 F The Commission received one telephone and three written comments on y the petition. Three commenters concurred completely with the petition. { One commenter said that the survey should be made at the sealed source i outlet port with the safety plug insta11e'd. One commenter said that licensees should not be required to submit modified procedures for review until it was time for them to renew their licenses. The petitioner's suggested amendment would eliminate the requirement that the last-use survey be recorded, and put in its place a requirement that a time-of-storage survey be made and recorded. Although the Commis-sion is aware of only one overexposure that was caused by failure of the locking mechanism (NUREG/BR-0024, p. 153, case 462) followed by moving the radiographic device, several incidents have been observed where radio-graphic devices were stored with the source in an unshielded position caused by failure to lock the mechanism. The probability of occurrence and the consequences of this type of event seem to be of sufficient magni-tude to justify the time-of-storage survey requirement suggested by the petitioner. In addition it is considered to be a good safety practice to survey at the time of storage, arid many radiographers include this survey in their routine procedures. Therefore, the Commission agrees that it is desirable to require that the time-of-storage survey be made and recorded. However, this would not relieve licensees from requiring that radiographers make a survey immediately after the last expcsure and before transport to the place of storage, although no record of the last use survey would be required. The Commission also agrees that the measurement of the exposure rate at a point on the surface of a device, during the storage survey, would provide additional assurance that the sealed source was properly stored within the device as well as data on source decay and instrument opera-t bility useful to both the licensee and NRC inspectors. However, storage survey procedures should also be consistent with the survey procedure required after each exposure. Therefore, the proposed amendment would require that the time-of-storage survey be made around the entire circum-forence of the radiographic exposure device, consistent with existing 3 Copies of NUREG/BR-0024 may be obtained from the GPO Sales Program, Division of Technical Inforn:ation and Document Control, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301)492-7333. 4 Enclosure A I r

V D590-01] }y V }f survey procedures (10 CFR 34.43(b)), and that the survey include a measurement of the radiation exposure rate at the source outlet port [ with the safety plug installed, as recommended by one commenter. A record of the time-of-storage survey result would provide assur-ance to the Commission that the radiographer had surveyed the device after the last exposure. The Commission agrees that it may be more convenient to record the results of a survey taken at the location of storage than one taken in the field, and that this storage survey record may be more impor. tant to safety. Since the time-of-storage survey and record procedure are similar to the currently required last-use survey and record procedure, licensees I would not be required to submit modified procedures for review. If the Commission implements the proposed rule, a' copy will be sent to each licensee. A cover letter will inform the licensee that the new survey and record method should be used and that a license amendment need not be requested. Performance Inspection of Radiographers and Radiographers' Assistants In order to receive a specific license for radiography, the appli-cant presently must have an in-house inspection program to ensure that radiographers and radiographers' assistants are following NRC regulatory requirements and the licensee's operating and emergency procedures. The in-house inspection must be conducted by the licensee every 3 months. This requirement was intended to be explicit in 6 34.11(d) of the Commission's rules. The Commission intends that the applicant describe in the license application the program that will be used to inspect the work methods of each radiographer and radiographer's assistant during an actual radio-graphic' operation to ensure that each individual is following applicable regulatory requirements and operating and emergency procedures. Each inspection would be conducted by having an individual who knows the applicable requirements and procedures observe each worker during an actual radiographic exposure to ensure that each worker is following the requirements and procedures. The proposed rule clarifies this require-ment. Some license applicants and licensees believe that a system of 5 Enclosure A

77 [7590-01] t 4 Y [ spot checks of some radiographers and radiographers' assistants is suffi-cient to meet the requirement of existing regulation. The Commission ~ does not agree that a system of spot checks is adequate to provide assur-ance that radiographers are working safely. The Commission is proposing that the regulation be revised to specify that a description of the inspec-tion program be included in license applications and that the inspection program provide for the inspection of the work methods of each radiographer and radiographer's assistant actively engaged in radiography, at intervals not to exceed 3 months. If a radiographer has not participated in a radiographic operation for more than three months, the rule provides that individual's performance will be observed and recorded the next time he or she participates in a radiographic operation. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION The NRC has determined that this proposed regulation is the type of action described in categorical exclusion 10 CFR 51.22(c)(3)(1) and (iii). Therefore, neither an environmental

• impact statement nor an environmental assessment has been prepared for this proposed regulation.

PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT STATEMENT This proposed rule amends information collection requirements that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3051 et seq.). l This rule has been suomitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review and approval of the paperwork requirements as part of the 1983 renewal for 10 CFR Part 34. Approval of the paperwork requirement was granted 08/10/83, OBM No. 3150-0007. i REGULATORY ANALYSIS The Commission has prepared a regulatory analysis on this proposed regulation. This analysis examines the costs and benefits of the alternatives considered. The analysis is available for inspection in the Public Document Room, 1717 H Street NW., Washington, DC. Single 6 Enclosure A '~ .v-, n om,_

T> [7590-01] + k:.'E {- copies of the analysis may be obtained from Donald O. Nell.is, Office of i Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, [ Washington,DC20555,telehhone(301)427-4588. Public comment on the analysis is requested. Comments may be sub-mitted to the NRC as indicated under the ADDRESSES heading. REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY CERTIFICATION As required.by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Commission certifies that this rule, if adopted, will not have a sign'ificant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The NRC has currently issued 369 licenses for the performance of industrial radiography that would be affected by this proposed rule. w Although a substantial number of these licensees would be considered small entities, the proposed requirements are not expected to have a significant economic impact on these licensees. The proposed radiation survey and record amendment requires an addt-tional. survey upon storage of the radiographic device, which is considered a minimal regulatory burden. The amendment substitutes a storage survey record requirement for the currently required last use survey record, which imposes no additional regulatory burden. The quarterly performance inspection of each radiographer and radiographer's, assistant is already required of license applicants. The proposed rule clarifies what informa- ^ tion must be submittied with a license application. The additional time-of-storage survey is estimated to cost about $150.00 per radiographer per year. This is based on each radiographer ( working 250 days each year, at two locations each day, an estimate that it takes about 0.01 hours to complete a storage survey, and that the hourly wtge for the average radiographer, plus overhead, is $30.00. Each survey can be estimated to cost approximately 30 cents. The benefit of this additional survey requirement is significantly increased assurance that radiographic sources are safety stored in the shielded position. Since the quarterly performance inspection of radiographers is already required by license condition, there will be no new or additional burden on NRC licensees. The total cost of the quarterly performance inspection 7 Enclosure A .z 2.

[7590-01] L1; program, whether required by license condition or regulation, is about $120 per worker each year, assuming each inspection take.s one-half hour ~ of worker time and one-half hour of inspector time. The NRC does not believe these costs constitute a significant eco-nomic impact on small entities. However, the Commission is seeking com-ments and suggested modifications, especially from small entities, because of the widely differing conditions under which many licensees operate. Any small entity subject to this regulation which determines that, because of its size, it is likely to bea'r a disproportionate adverse economic impact should notify the Commission of this in a comment that indicates the following: (a) The licensee's size in terms of annual income or revenue and number of employees; (b) How the proposed regulation would result in a significant economic burden upon the licensee as compared to that on a large licensee; g (c) How the proposed regulations could be modified to take into account the licensee's differing needs or capabilities; ano (d) Whether the assumptions that a radiographer works an average of ~ two locations a day and that a radiation survey takes about 0.01 hour to complete accurately reflect the licensees' actual work experience. LIST OF SUBJECTS IN 10 CFR PART 34 I Packaging and containers, Penalty, Radiation protection, Radiography, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Scientific equipment, Security measures. 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 34. 8 Enclosure A S = + --~ .+gg-.e-%*4 m

[7590-01] } ? PART 34 - LICENSES FOR RADIOGRAPHY AND RADIATION SAFETY REQUIREMENTS FOR RADIOGRAPHIC OPERATIONS 1 1. The authority citation for Part 34 is revised to read as follows: AUTHORITY: Secs. 81, 161, 182, 183, 68 Stat. 935, 948, 953, 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2111, 2201, 2232, 2233); sec. 201, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5841). Section 34.32 also issued under sec. 206, 88 Stat. 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5846). For the purposes of sec.-223, 68 Stat. 958, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2273); SS 34.22, 34.23, 34.24, 34.25(a), (b) and (d), 34.28, 34.29, 34.31(a) and (b), 34.32, 34.33(a), (c) and (d), 34.41,34.42,34.43(a), (b) and (c) and 34.44 are issued under sec. 161b, 68 Stat. 948, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(b)); and SS 34.11(d), 34.25(c) and (d), 34.26, 34.27, 34.28(b), 34.29(c), 34.31(c), 34.33(b) and (e) and 34.43(d) are issued under sec. 1610, 68 Stat.950,asamended(42U.S.C.2201(o)).{ 2. Remove the authority citations following SS 34.2, 34.1,1, 34.22, 34.28, 34.29, 34.31, 34.32, 34.33, 34.43, 34.44, 34.51, and Appe'ndix A. 3. In 5 34.2, paragraphs (g) and (h) are redesignated as paragraphs (h) and (1), and a new paragraph (g) is inserted to read as foll,ows: S 34.2 Definitions, \\ (g) " Storage area" means any location, facility, or special! vehicle at or in which a radiographic exposure device or storage container is secured, when not in use, by lock or physical barrier so as to prevent accidental exposure, tampering with or unauthorized removal of the device. A 4. In S 34.11, paragraph (d) is revised to read as follows: S 34.11 Issuance of specific licenses for use of sealed sources in f radiography. (d) The applicant has established and submits a description of an in-house inspection program adequate to ensure that the Commission's l 9 Enclosure A

[7590-01] ':{ t- [- regulatory requirements and the applicant's operating and emergency proce-dures are followed by radiographers and radiographers' assistants. The h inspection program must: (1) Include observation of and recording of the performance of each radiographer and radiographer's assistant during an actual radiographic operation at intervals not to exceed three months; (2) Provide that, if a radiographer or a radiographer's assistant has not participated in a radiographic operation for more than three months since the last inspection, that individual's performance must be t:,oserved and recorded the next time the individual participates in a radiographic operation; and (3) Include retention of inspection records for two years on performance of radiographers or radiographers' assistants. 5. Section 34.43 is revised to read as follows: 'e* $ 34.43 Radiation surveys. (a) The licensee shall_ ensure that at least one calibrated and operable radiation survey instrument is available at the location of radiographic operations whenever radiographic operations are being per-formed, and at the storage area as defined in S 34.2(g) whenever a radio-graphic exposure device is being placed in storage. (b) The licensee shall ensure that a survey with a calibrated and operable radiation survey instrument is made after each exposure to deter-mine that the sealed source has been returned to its shielded position. The entire circumference of the radiographic exposure device must be surveyed. If the radiographic exposure device has a source guide tube, the survey must include the guide tube. (c) The licensee shall ensure that a survey with a calibrated and operable radiation survey instrument is made at the time a radiographic exposure device is placed in a storage area to determine that the sealed source is in its shielded position. The entire circumference of the radio-l graphic exposure device must be surveyed. In addition, for devices having a source outlet port, a measurement of the radiation exposure rate at this ' outlet port, with the safety plug installed, must be taken. 10 Enclosure A

!?[ [7590-01] si ' (d) The licensee shall ensure that a record of the survey required in paragraph (c) of this section, inculding the measurement of the radiation exposure at the source outlet port, with the safety plug insta11e'd, is made and is maintained for two years. Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this day of 1984. For the Nuclear Reglatory Commission. William J. Dircks, Executive Director for Operations. 9 a .A l 11 Enclosure A

s&v., _y_O

• a 17,

E. ' h r. 1 USER OFFICE CONCURRENCE i i

A 7 1 UNITED STATES b k NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y WASHINGTON, D. C. 20066 g...../ AUG 0 21984 MEMORANDUM FOR: Richard E. Cunningham, Director Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety, MSS FROM: Karl R. Goller, Director Division of Radiation Programs arid Earth Sciences, RES

SUBJECT:

DRAFT REC 0ftiENDATIONS TO ED0 CONCERNING WHETHER AND HOW TO CONTINUE WITH ONG0ING RULEMAKING SPONSORED BY RES - 10 CFR PART 34: INDUSTRIAL RADIOGRAPHY RADIATION SURVEYS AND LICENSEES PERFORMANCE INSPECTION PROGRAM Enclosed for your consideration are draft recommendations supported by a draft office review concerning whether and how to continue with an ongoing rulemaking sponsored by RES for which your office is identified as the user ^ office. This responds to the new procedures for quarterly update of the regulatory agenda which includes requesting EDO approval for continuing the project. This memorandum constitutes sqy concurrence in the enclosed draft recomenda-tions. I plan to dispatch this memorandum with the enclosed draft recomenda-tions to the Director, RES, two weeks from the above date. Please acknowledge receipt by returning this memorandum with or without com-ments on the draft recommendations as indicated below. /rOEa4 Karl R. Goller, Director l Division of Radiation Programs and Earth Sciences, RES

Enclosure:

Draft Recomendations Receipt acknowledged. No comments. Receipt acknowledged. Coments as follows: l l ( f Richard E. Cunningham, Director ' ~~ Division of Fuel Cycle \\ and Material Safety, NMSS Enclosure F.

F=lsal Regiser / Vol. 49 No.194 / Th irsday, October 4,1984 / Propoad Rul;s 39168 (c) Segregation by color. Table honey also require that each license for processed honey. Unprocessed in eligible containers shall, insofar as is application describe the program e honey often contains substances, such practicable, be segregated into lots by licensee will use to evaluate t e Es pollen, wax, and comb, which do not color to ccoform with the color performance of each radiograp er an tifect the quality of raw honey.The categories which are set forth in the radiographer's assistant at intervals not Agricultural Marketing Service has ASCS Specifications for Unprocessed exceeding 3 months to ensure,that they developed the ASCS Specifications for are followmg the Commission s Unprocessed lioney in cooperation with floney. If a lot of honey is not ~ the ASCS staff in Washington, D.C.. and segregated so that it can be certified as regulatory requirements and the one color in accordance with the ASCS licensee's operating and emergency field locations. ne specifications were developed to equitably determine the Specifications for Unprocessed lioney, procedures when performing quality of unprocessed boney delivered the rate of settlement for honey radiography.This action is intended to to CCC M nettlement of honey price delivered under a loan or purchase provide additional assurance itat support loan and purchase agreements. agreement shall be based on the darkest radiographic operations are conducted The specifications will be available at color shown on the inspection safely. local county ASCS offices. Accordingly, certificate.Ilowever,if theinspection oATE: Submit comments by November certificate at time of delivery to CCC 18,1984. Comments received after this it is proposed that the regulations shows that a farm-stored or identity-date will be considered if it is practical governing the price support program be preserved warehouse-stored tot of to do so,but assurance of consideration Emended to provide that ASCS honey contains more than z colors and if cannot be given except as to comments Specifications for Unprocessed IIoney the number of samples of the darkest rece ved on or before this date. shall be used to grade unprocessed color shown on such certificate is not honey delivered to CCC under the price more than one-sixth of the total number Aponessts: Send comments to: support Ican and purehase program, of samples, the color for the purpose of Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1434 settlement shall be the next lighter color. Commission, Washington, DC 20555, ATTN: Docketing and Service Branch. lioney, Loan programs-agriculture, than the darkest color. fland deliver comments to: Room 1121, ( Price support programs, Warehouse. 171711 Street NW., Washington. DC, j (Sec. 4, S2 Stat.1070, as amended (15 U.S.C. between 8:15 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Exam, e m PART 1434-[AMENDEDI 714b): sec. 5,62 Stat.1072, as amended (15 comments received and the regulatory 'l U.S.C. 714c); secs. 201,401. 63 Stat.1052, a s Proposed Rule amended.1054, as amended (7 U.S.C.144a* analysis at: NRC Public Document Accordingly,it is proposed that 7 CFR, 1421)) Room.171711 Street NW., Washington. 1434.17 (b) and (c) be revised to read as Signed at Washington. D.C. on September DC. Obtain regufatory analysis (single i 27,1984. copy) from: Donald O. Nellis, Office of follows: Everett Rank, Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. I ' *" U***""I"**** *O****Y' Executive Vice Pn>sident. Commodity Credit Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Corpomtion. Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301) (b) Qualityforsettlement-(1) Form p o,,e es.m rwm na,,, 427_45gg. stomge in eligible contoiners. When snaneo cooe ses-es-u FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: honey is delivered to CCC in eligible Donald O. Nellis, Office of Nuclear I containers from farm storage, its quality y - Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear and color shall be determined by the NUCLEAR REGUt.ATORY Regulatory Commission, Washington, Processed Products Branch, Fruit and COMMISSION DC 20555, telephone (301) 427-4588. L Vegetable Division, Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS). In accordance 10 CFR Part 34 suPPt.EMENTARY INFORMATION:The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is with the ASCS Specifications for Industrial Radiography Radiation considering three amendments to its l Unprocessed lioney on the basis of Surveys and Ucensee's Performance regulations pertaining to industrial I samples drawn by ASCS Inspection Program radiography. One amendment would r representatives supervising delivery. Samples shall not be drawa until the AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory require licensees to perform an additional radiation survey of the f producer has designated alllots. Single Commission. radiographic exposure device at the time l containers shall not be considered as ACTtON: Proposed rule. lots unless necessitated by color or of storage, delete an existing floral source.ne cost of quality and suMMany:The Nuclear Regulatory requirement to record the radiation color determmation for a maximum of Commission is proposing to amend its survey made of the device immediately four lots shall be for the account of CCC. regulations that apply to industrial after the last exposure prior to storage. (2)ldentity-preserved warehouse-radiography.ne proposed rule would and add a requirement to make and I stored. When honey stored identity-require industrial radiography licensees maintain a record of the storage survey. preserved in containers in an approved to perform an additional survey of an) This amendment to 134.43 would warehouse is delivered to CCC,its radiography device at any time the provide a method of ensuring that the i grade, and color shall be determined by device is put into storage, and would sealed source is in the proper position i the Processed Products Branch, Fruit change an existing recordkeeping within the device when the device is and Vegetable Division, Agricultural requirement. Currently, each licensee stored.The second amendment would Marketing Service (AMS),in accordance must record the required survey of the revise i 34.11(d) to specify that each withthe ASCSSpecificationsfor device made after the last exposure license application must describe a Unprocessed lioney on the basis of before storage.The proposed rule program by which the licensee will samples drawn by ASCS - deletes this recordkeeping requirement ' evaluate the performance of each i representativws supervising deh,very. and substitutes a requirement that a radiographer and radiographer's The cost of such determination shallbe record of the new storage survey be assistant at intervals not exceeding 3 i for the account of CCC. maintained.The proposed rule would months. This amendment would clarify 1 g i

oT Federal Register / Vr.l. 49. Nr.194 / Thursdry. Octtber 4.1984 / Proposed Rules 39169 the requirements for the description of final survey at the time of storage and at additional assurance that the sealed the in-house inspection program tha_t the a point on the device specified by the source was properly stored within the applicant must provide in the license licensee in its operating procedures, the device as well as data on source decay application.The third amendment recorded exposure rate would provide and instrument operability useful to l provides a definition of " storage area" unequivocal assurance that the source both the licensee and NRC inspectors. In i 34.2. " Definitions". This definition is was properly loca'ed within the device, liowever. storage survey procedures provided so that it is clear at what and would also provide a check on the should also be consistent with the l locations the storage survey is to be decay of the sealed source and the survey procedure required after each made. Interested persons are invited to constancy of the survey instrument. The exposure.Therefore, the proposed comment on any or all of the proposed petitioner also contends that it is easier amendment would require that the time-amendments. to record the survey data at the location of storage survey be made arous the Radiation Survey and Record Istorage than at the location of use entire circumference of the radiographic because of weather and work conditions exposure device, consistent with The Ccmmission received a petition that are encountered in field for rulemakirg. assigned Docket No. radiography. existing survey procedures (10 CFR PRM-34-3. from the Chicago Bridge and The Commission received one 234.43(b)), and that the survey include a Iron Company. The Commission telephone and three written comments measurement of the radiation exposure requested comments on the petition in on the petition. Three commenters rate at the source outlet port with the safety plug installed as recommended the Federal Register on November 23, concurred completely with the petition. by one commenter. 1982 (47 FR 52722). As discussed below. One commenter said that the survey this proposed rule would in,effect grant should be made at the sealed source A record of the time-of-storage survey the petition.He petitioner suggested an outlet port with the safety plug installed. result would provide assurance to the amendment of 10 CFR 34.43(c) that One commenter said that licensees Commission that the radiographer had would require that each licensee survey should not be required to submit surveyed the device after the last a radiographic exposure device when it modified procedures for review untilit exposure.The Commission agrees that it is placed in storage. This survey would was time for them to renew their may be more convenient to record the be made using a radiation survey licenses. results of a survey taken at the location Instrument at a point on the surface of The petitioner's suggested amendment of storage than one taken in the field. the device specified by the licensee in would eliminate the requirement that . and that this storage survey record may Its operating procedures. This last the last-use survey be recorded, and put be more important to safety. survey would occur at or near the place ,in its place a requiremen* that a time-of-Since the time-of-storage survey and of storage. and would provide a record storage survey be made 9nd recorded, record procedure are similar to the showing that the radiographic exposure Although the Commission is aware of currently re quired last-use survey and device had been stored with the sealed only one overexposure that was caused record procedure, licensees would not source in a safe location within the by failure of the locking mechanism be required to submit modifie4 device. Under the current regulations. (NUREG/BR-0024. p.153. 6.ase 46 ') ' ujg s ev followed by moving the radiographic g )> e proposed I 34.43(b) requires that, after each device, severalincidents have been rule a copy e h radiographic exposure, the radiographer observed where radiographic devices c,y g etter 11 inform the perform a radiation survey of the were stored with the source in an licensee that the new survey and record radiographic device to ensure that the unshiel.ded position caused by failure to method should be used and that a sealed source has been returned to its. lock the mechanism. The probability of license amendment need not be shielded position. Paragraph (c) of occurrence and the consequences of this requested. l 34.43 requires that the radiographer typ? of event seem to be of sufficient Performance Inspection of record the results of the shrvey following the last radiographic exposure magnitude to justify the time-of-storageRadiographers end Radiographers' made before locking the device and survey requirement suggested by the. Assistants ending direct surveillance of the betitioner. In addition it is considered to e a good safety practice to survey at In order to receive a sp,ecific license operation.This survey is made where the time of storage, and many f r radiography, the applicant presently the device is last used before storage. ne licensee must keep a record of the radiographers include this survey in must have an in. house inspection their routine procedures. Therefore, the program to ensure that radiographers I survey for 2 years. Commission agrees that it is desirable to and radiographer's assistants are The petitioner contends that because require that the time-of storage survey following NRC regulatory requirements no check of the sealed source position is be made and recorded. Ilowever, this and the hcensee's ophrating and required the current regulation does not would not relieve licensees from emergency procedures. The in-house ensure safe storage of the sealed source requiring that radiographers make a inspection must be conducted by the in the radiographic device yields survey immediately after the last licensee every 3 months..This equivocal records, and is inconvenient. exposure and before transport to the requirement was intended to be explicit a More specifically, the peiitioner place of storage, although no record of -la i 34.11(d) of the Commission's rules. contends that ti e device may be subject the last use survey would be required. The Commission intends that the, l to rough handling when being moved The Commission also agrees that the applkant describe in the license under field conditions from the area of measurement of the exposure rate at a ' application the program that will be use to the area of storage. lf the source ' point on the surface of a device, during used to inspect the work methods of were dislodged during the movement to. the storage survey, would provide each radiographer and radiographer's the storage area the radiographer might assistant during an actual radiographic store the device with the sealed source 'Copm of PEREC/BR-c024 may be obtained outside of its proper location within the from the CPO 5 ales Prosram Division of Technical operation to ensure that each individual - is following applicable regulatory device. ne petitione'r contends that, by ENND"n$,%%%g requirements and operating and requiring that the radiographer make the wephone ponnez-nas, emergency procedures. Each inspection 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ ~ - - ' '

39170 Federal Register / WI. 49, No.194 / 'Illursdty, October 4,1964 / Proposed Rules [ would be conducted by having an Nuclear Regulitory Commissi:n.' Commisdon is sieking comments and I individual who knows the cpplicable Washington, DC 20555, t;lephon2 (301) suggested modificztions, especia!!y from ( r'.quirements and procedures observe 427-4588. small entities, because of the widely 1 erch worker during an actual Public comment on the analysis is differing conditions under which many N ridiographic exposure to ensure that requested. Comments may be submitted licensees operate. each worker is following the to the NRC as indicated under the Any small entity subject to this f ~ requirements and procedures.He ADORESSES heading. regulation which determines that. 6 Regulatory MexMty Cartmcadon because Qs h. R is % W (ear a j om n ap t andb nsees

• p believa that a system of spot checks of As required by the Regulatory pact sh ul o y e Co sion of some radiographers and radiographers' Flexibility Act of 1980,5 U.S6C. 605(b),

this in a comment that indicates the 5 cssist:nts is sufficient to meet the the Commission certifies that this rule, if requirement of existing regulation.h adopted, will not have a significant gogg *I"8' ( w Commission does not agree that a economic impact on a substantial (a) %e licensee,s size in terms of g system of spot checks is adequate to number of small entities.%e NRC has annualincome or revenne and number j provide essurance that radiographers currently issued 3091icenses for the of employees; i tra working safely.ne Commission is performance of industrial radiography (b) How the proposed regulation l pr: posing that the regulation be revised that would be affected by this proposed would result in a significant economic l to specify that a description of the rule. Although a substantial number of burden upon the hcensee as compared q Inspection program be included in these licensc. would be considered to that on a large licensee: b license applications and that the small entities, the proposed (c) How the proposed regulations Inspection program provide for the requirements are not expected to have a could be modified to take into account d inspection of the work methods of each significant economic impact on these thelicensee's differing needs of 5 r:diogrzpher and radiographer's licensees. capabilities: and 1 essi-tml actively engaged la The proposed radiation survey and (d] Whether the assumptions that a C ridiogrrphy, at intervals not to exceed 3 record amendment requires an radiographer works an average of two y months.If a radiographer has not additional survey upcn storage of the locations a day and that a radiation h h participated in a radiographic operation radiographic device, which is survey takes about 0.01 hour to comptete for more the three months, the rule considered a minimal reguls tory burden. accurately reflect the licensees' actual c provides that individual's performance he amendment substitutes a storage work experience. P will be observed and recorded the next survey record requirement for the 1 9 tima h1 or she participates in a currently required last use smvey List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 34 q is radiographic operation. record, which imposes no additional Packaging and containers, Penalty. h 4 Y Radiation protection. Radiography. I EnvironmentalImpact: Categorical "g' 'y8 TAclusion p radiographer and radiographer's Reporting and recordkeeping y r3 %e NRC has determined that this assistant is already required of license requirements. Scientific eqmpment proposed regulation is the type of action applicants. The proposed rufe clarifies

• • ""'I"'*****

'i i% describ:d in categorical exclusion 10 what information must be submitted For the rewons set out in the q 1 CFR 51.22(c)(3) (i) and (iii). nerefore, ' with a license app!! cation. preamble and under the authority of the a neith1r cn environmentalimpact ne additional time-of-storage survey Atomic Energy Act of1954, as amended, y r statem:nt nor an environmental is estimated to cost about $150.00 per the Energy Reorganiza tion Act of 1974. j a 00 asussment has been prepared for this radiographer per year. His is based on as amended, and 5 U.S.C 553. the NRC is j, proposrd regulation, each radiographer working 250 days proposing to adopt the fo!!owing P:perwork Reduction Act Statement each year, at two locations each day, amendments to 10 CFR Part 34. .i and estimate that it takes about 0.01 to l This proposed rule amends hours to complete a storage survey, and PART 34-LICENSES FOR pg information co!!ection requirements that that the hourly wage for the average RADIOGRAPHY AND RADIATION i fo era subject to the Paperwork Reduction radiographer, plus overhead, is $30.00. SAFETY REQUIREMENTS FOR lad Act (44 U.S.C. 3051 et seq l. %Is rule has Each survey can be estimated to cost RADIOGRAPtilC OPERATIONS

.]

pp bien submitted to the Office of approximately 30 cents. %e benefit of Minigsnunt and Budget for review and this additional survey requirement is

1. The authority citation for Part 34 is II rej pg revised to read as follows-approvalcf the paperwork requirements eigelficantly increased assurance that j

ad ae pIrt of the1983 renewal for 10 CFR radiographic sources are safety stored in Authority: Secs. st.1of.181183. 68 Stat. re Part 34. Approval of the paperwork the shielded position. 935,948. 953. 954. as amended (42 U.S.C 2111. requirement was granted 08/10/83 OMB Since the quarterly performance 22et. 223a 22337. sec. 201. sa Stat.1241 as raz No. 3tsom07. Inspection of radiographers is already amended (42 U.S.c 5841). .as; l Regulatory Analysis required by Ilcense condition, there will Section 34 32 also issued under sec. 20s. as + be no new or additonal burden on NRC Stat.1246 (42 U.S.C 5846). g Tha Commission has prepared a licensees. The total cost of the quarterly For the purposes of sec. 223,68 Stat. 958. as folg regulttory analysis on this proposed performance inspection program, amended (42 U.S c 2273); il 34.22. 34.23. regul: tion. His analysis examines the whether required by license condition or st24 34 25 (a). Ib) and (d). 3428,34.29. 3131 lN costs cnd benefits of the alternatives regu' tion,is about $129 per worker k'['2, Indfn)")le"' g$ ( considered. He anal sie is available for each year, assuming each inspection issued under sec. tetb. es stat. wa. as '"f inspection in the Pub ic Document takes one-half hour of worker time and amended (42 U.S.c 2201(b)); and il 34.11 (d). Room,1717 II Street NW., Washington, one-half hour ofInspector time. 34.2s (c) end (d). 34.2a. 34.27,34 28(b). DC. Single copies of the analysis may be ne NRC does not believe these costs st29(cl. 34.31(c), st331b) and (e) and at43!d) N obtrined from Donald O. Nellis, Office centtitute a significant economic impact are issued under sec. toto. 68 Stal 950, as UN of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. on small entities. Ilowever, the amended (42 U.S C 220tiol). the ' l l /

Federal Regi:ter / Vol. 49, No.194 / '111ursday October 4,1984 / Propos d Rul:s 39171 H N.2, M.11. M 22. u.2s, u.2s. 34.s t-whenever a radiographic exposure Representatves. By this notice, the N.33,34.43-34.44, 34.51 and Appendis A device is being placed in storage. Copyright Office invites public (Amendedl (b)ne licensee shall ensure that a comment, views and information to

2. Remove the authority citations survey with a calibrated and operable assist it in the preparation of regulations following ll 34.2,34.11,34.22,34.28, radiation survey instrument is made on specific issues such as the nature of 34.29,34.31, 34.32, 34.33. 34.43, 34.44, after each exposure to determine that identifying material to be deposited in 34 51, and Appendix A.

the sealed source has been returned to connection with an application for

3. In l 34.2 paragraphs (g) and (h) are its shielded position.he entire registration of a claim to protection in a redesignated as paragraphs (h) and (i),

circumference of the radiographic mask work and recommended methods and a new paragraph (g)is added to exposure device must be surveyed. If the for affixation and positions of mask read as follows: radiographic exposure device has 2 work notice. source guide tube, the survey must Since the time available to complete a 134.2 Dennnkna. include the guide tube. regulatory proceeding on the registration (c)%e licensee shall ensure that a of mask works in the Copyright Office 4 (s)" Storage area" means any location, survey with a calibrated and operable and other related matters is limited in M facility, or special vehicle at or in which radiation survey instrument is made at the pending bills, the comment period AJ a radiographic exposure device or the time a radiographic exposure device set in this notice is accordingly short. storage container is secured, when not is placed in a storage area to determine h la use, by lock or physical barrier so as that the sealed source is in its shielded fc br n ash ngto D C. 6 to prevent accidental exposure, position.The entire circumference of the tempering with or unauthorized removal radiogra hic exposure device must be Anyone desiring to testify should submit D surveye in addition, for devices having a request by letter or telephone no later 9 of the device. a source outlet port, a measurement of than October 16,1984. To assist the I ? 4 la 134.11. paragraph (d) is revised the radiation exposure rate at this outlet Copyright Office in scheduling M ess s &' "bl' E to read as follows: with the safety plug installed, must h to beerv[th b for [Li 13411 losuance of specific Ncenses for (d) The licensee shall ensure that a requesting time to testify, even if written C see of sueled sources in radiogregmy, record of the survey required in statements are submitted later. Ten -, (d)The applicant has established and paragraph (c) of this section. including C pin oMten statements dould b the measurement of the radiation received by the Copyright Office by 4:00 submits a description of an in. house exposure rate at the source outlet port, p.m., October 16,1984, if at all possible. laspection program adequate to ensure with the safety plug installed,is made In any case, persons who testify should that the Commission's regulatory and is maintained for two years. file written statements no later than seqalrements and the applicant's October 31.1984. Interested persons aparating and emergency procedures are Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 27th day who do not wish to testify should submit leEswed by radiographers and g Ausuit, us4. ten copies of written statements by "..iM assistants.The For the Nuclear Regulatory Commissios. - ! October 31,1964. O se e g oc o e L har.lu sers ti ofand iv D torfor opemtions. scenens of the performance of each (R Du Ms3m7 M'et 16444 H8 m) in the Dining Room. A. I.M-620 of the ...As and radiographer's muses coes tsams ammieuat during an actual radiogra hic James Madison Memorial Building of the a Intervals not to excee 1.ibrary of Congress, First and UBRARY OF CONGRESS Independence Ave., SE., Washington. iriiie'nWe's'is i7p'r'e7eni testimony ' cs* s';is, ::fts ar aher nd s .s Cogyrighi Otrice and ten copies of written statements, Ndin a radiographic operation 37 CFR Ch. Il supplementary statements, or s 1in vi e IRM 84-4) comments, should be submitted as i pelwmence must be observed and s 8tendal the nest time the individual implementauon of the Semiconductor Ubrary of Congress, Department D.S., W#drotse la a radiographic opera tio"*- Chip Protection Act of 1984;Inqu;ry Washington. D.C. 20540. esd asid of Public Hearing If delivered by hand, copies should be ,,M,4bdea,mtention ofIns ection brought to: Office of General Counsel. AoENcy:Ubrary of Congress, Copyright Per OIII James Madison Memorial Building. seesysywn$*,",d g Sr8phers Room 407. First and Independence ACTION: Notice ofinquiry and of public Avenue, SE., Washington, D.C. sedenesis, 'i** hearing. Fon runTHan INFoRMArnoN CONTACT: I b'81*a M43 is revised to read as sumuAny:His notice of inquiry and of Dorothy Schrader, General Counsel, U.S. a public hearing is issued to advise the Copyright Office, ubrary of Congress, i$th[ public that the Copyright Office of the Washington, D.C. 20559, (202) 287-8300. ?- ""'"F8' '%ghwaeM sheD ensure that at ubrary of Congress willinstitute a SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:At the rulemakir.a proceeding to implement time this notice was prepared for ,sehbrated and operable certain provisions of the Semiconductor publication, the Senate and the House of < ge,g of radiographicmewy Instrurnent is available Chip Protection Act of1984, provided Representatives had passed two that the bill is enacted before the 98th different bills (S.1201 and H.R. 5525) to

I gusama *6see,,r radiographic am Congress adjourns. Different bills (S.

afford protection for" mask works" g ***being performed, and at ~, 1201 and H.R. 5525) have passed the (defined as a " series of relued images" %1 _ 88 denned in l 34.2(g) Senate and the House of in the Senate bill and "2-nimensicnal lilM+. k _}}