Text

Informs of Concurrence W/Revised Part 34,submitted w/960509 Memo
	ML20236L593
Person / Time
Issue date:	05/30/1996
From:	Bangart R; NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP)
To:	Morris B; NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES)
Shared Package
ML20236J269	List: ML20236J266; ML20236J326; ML20236J343; ML20236K772; ML20236K795; ML20236K807; ML20236K831; ML20236K851; ML20236K871; ML20236K878; ML20236K889; ML20236L567; ML20236L576; ML20236L593; ML20236L685; ML20236L699; ML20236L748; ML20236M005; ML20236N976; ML20236P130;
References
	FRN-62FR28948, RULE-PR-150, RULE-PR-30, RULE-PR-34, RULE-PR-71 AE07-2-017, AE7-2-17, NUDOCS 9807130088
	Download: ML20236L593 (1)
	v • d • e

_ _ _ - - _ _

cc: Glenn p aa Nelli s UNITED STATES A

0 7 2.

g j

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ppg e

WASHINGTON, D.C. 2055!M001 May 30, 1996 (f

MEMORANDUM TO:

Bill M. Morris, Director Division of Regulatory Applications Office of Nuclear Regulatory arch 7

FROM:

Richard L. Bangart, Director } M Office of State Programs k

4g v

SUBJECT:

OFFICE CONCURRENCE: REVISED PART 34 We have reviewed the revisions to Part 34 submitted with your memorandum of May 9, 1996 and concur in the changes.

The incorporation of the requirement for two qualified individuals to be 3 resent during radiography operations and certification of radiographer will 1elp establish uniform, national standards in industrial radiography.

The return to the language currently used in Part 34.20 (b)(2), (e) and (f) will lessen confusion about performance standards for radiography equipment during time needed to re-evaluate the requirement.

If you have any questions regarding this correspondence, please contact me or the individual nancd below.

POINT OF CONTACT: Jim Myers TELEPHONE:

(301) 415-2328 FAX:

(301) 415-3502

-INTERNET:

JHM@NRC. GOV cc:

C. Trottier, RES 4

i 9807130088 980611

$ b Rmre ai1 riam

A E~0 7 - 2.

hL lv July 3, 1996 SECY-96-152 FOR:

The Commissioners FROM:

James M. Taylor, Executive Director for Operations

SUBJECT:

FINAL RULEMAKING - REVISION T0 10 CFR PART 34, LICENSES FOR INDUSTRIAL RADIOGRAPHY AND RADIATION SAFETY REQUIREMENTS FOR INDUSTRIAL RADIOGRAPHIC OPERATIONS AND REVISION TO THE NRC ENFORCEMENT POLICY PURPOSE:

To obtain Commission approval of the final rule and the associated revision to the enforcement policy.

SUMMARY

The attached final rulemaking package incorporates a number of changes to 10 CFR Part 34 that have been underway for several years. The primary changes involve requirements for: 1) use of two qualified individuals whenever radiographic operations occur outside a permanent facility; 2) mandatory certification of radiographer; 3) a radiation safety officer; and

4) additional training for radiographer' assistants.

These changes were originally proposed to make NRC regulations more compatible with the Agreement States that have already upgraded industrial radiography requirements. There may be some cost associated with these new requirements, but most will be offset by burden reductions in the final rule on the frequency of field inspections conducted by licensees to evaluate radiographer performance. The requirement for two-person crews may result in some cost for those licensees not already using two-person crews, but the staff's analysis shows that for the majority of licensees, the rule will result in a cost savings.

CONTACT:

Cheryl Trottier, RES i

415-6232 l

James Lieberman, OE 415-2741 SECY NOTE: TO BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE MIEN THE FINAL SRM IS MADE AVAILABLE.

w p//3/9[f 7 xe y

X+

(96Cf7//0325 o R>

The Commissioners 2

i BACKGROUND:

The staff was directed by a Staff Requirements Memorandum, dated April 25, 1991, to prepare a proposed rule revising certain portions of 10 CFR Part 34 to make it more consistent with the approaches taken by the Agreement States in the " Suggested State Regulations for Control of Radiation." The industrial radiography safety concepts embodied in this revision evolved during a 5-year collaborative process involving NRC staff, the Agreement States, American Society for Non-Destructive Testing (ASNT), radiography equipment manufacturers, radiography licensees, radiographer and industry.

In developing the proposed rulemaking, the staff solicited recommendations on radiography issues from the Agreement States at the All-Agreement States l

meeting in October 1991, and from NRC Regional Offices, radiography equipment l

manufacturers, and radiography licensees. Also, a workshop was held on November 18, 1992, in Dallas, Texas, to discuss the recommendations received from the Agreement States and licensees. The staff held separate discussions with the Agreement States and members of the public on mandatory radiographer l

certification at the May 1991 Conference of Radiation Control Program i

Directors (CRCPD), Annual Meeting in Wichita, Kansas, and at a workshop on l

May 27-28, 1992, in Mobile, Alabama.

The proposed rule also addressed a petition for rulemaking filed by the International Union of Operating Engineers (IU0E), Local No. 2, in October 1992, that requested revision of 10 CFR Part 34 that would require a minimum of two radiographic personnel when j

performing operations with radioactive material at temporary jobsites.

The proposed rule addressed five major changes to the present regulations.

The first proposed change would require a minimum of two individuals to be present any time radiographic operations occur outside of a permanent radiographic installation. The second proposed change would require mandatory third party certification for radiographer.

The third proposed change, in l

10 CFR Part 34, involved identifying specific requirements related to the qualifications and duties of a radiation safety officer. The fourth proposed l

change would upgrade the training requirements for radiographer's assistants and the last major change was to revise the definition of a permanent radiographic installation to remove the ambiguities regarding its purpose.

By a Staff Requirements Memorandum, dated January 7, 1994, the Commission approved publication of proposed revisions to 10 CFR Part 34. The proposed rule was published for comment on February 28, 1994 (59 FR 9429), for a period of 90 days.

DISCUSSION:

l Fifty-eight comment letters, representing approximately 31 percent of the NRC l

licensees and 21 percent of the Agreement States, were received in response to the Federal Register notice on the proposed rule. The staff held a workshop on December 13-15, 1994, in Houston, Texas with the Agreement States and the public to discuss the major issues identified during the resolution of comments.

Five additional comment letters were received after this workshop, two from NRC licensees and three from Agreement States.

Subsequent to the l

workshop, the staff re-evaluated the impact of the two proposed changes to the l

r l

L

)

\\

l The Commissioners 3

regulations that would impose the greatest cost to the NRC licensees:

the requirement for a minimum of two individuals to always be present whenever radiography is performed at a temporary jobtite, and the requirement for mandatory certification of radiographer.

The most expensive change considered in the proposed rule, was the obligation to have at least two radiographer or one radiographer plus one other individual who, as a minimum, has met the training requirements of a radiographer's assistant to be present any time radiographic operations occur outside of a permanent radiographic installation. A major factor cited by industry as a reason for adopting the two-person requirement is that it would level the playing field for all radiography licensees, in that it would l

prevent competing radiography firms from underbidding radiography work based solely on the use of a one-person crew.

Commenters supporting the proposed two-person provision stated that the cost to hire additional workers would not really impact them because they would simply pass this cost on to their customers. Although 77 percent of the comments received on this requirement favored adoption of the requirement as proposed, some comments (primarily from small licensees) opposed this requirement.

These commenters expressed concerns about the financial impact of this requirement on their operations.

A frequently raised comment in support of the two-person crew questioned the effectiveness of one individual in providing surveillance of radiographic operations. The current NRC regulations already require licensees to maintain adequate surveillance of the restricted area during radiographic operations to prevent the public from inadvertently entering the restricted area. Most NRC licensees already use more than one individual to comply with the existing requirement.

One advantage cited by commenters of requiring a minimum of two qualified individuals is to provide redundancy.

For example, in the event a malfunction occurs causing the source to not be in a shielded position, two individuals may be better at solving the problem than one.

At a meeting with members of the radiography industry in March 1995, the staff stated that several of the major provisions of the proposed rule might not be recommended for adoption in order to reduce the implementation cost of the final rule.

This staff position was also provided to Agreement States representatives during the April 1995 workshop for Agreement States program managers.

Subsequent to these meetings, 26 additional letters were received, including letters from 11 of the Agreement States.

The Agreement States and the industry representatives who responded expressed dissatisfaction that the NRC might consider finalizing the revisions to 10 CFR Part 34 without two key requirements:

the two-person requirement and mandatory certification of radiographer.

1 The 11 Agreement States submitting letters after the April 1995, workshop stated that a number of changes (radiographer certification, improved equipment standards and two-person crews) are needed to produce the best assurance for the protection of public health and safety and believe that NRC's decision not to include a requirement for two-person industrial radiography crews in this rulemaking provides a lesser degree of safety than the regulatory approach being followed by the Agreement States. Additionally,

_--------_---__------_m

The Commissioners 4

these Agreement States expressed a view that the NRC was disregarding the collective regulatory experience of.the Agreement States and the safety experience of the industry, and by not adopting the two-person requirement, inconsistency among regulatory programs will continue.

A recurrent theme, expressed by the Agreement States, was that this NRC position could undermine the progress of recent years in developing rules through a participatory process. A view expressed by some of the Agreement States was that failure on the part of the NRC to adopt the two-person provision in the final rule could pose a hardship on NRC licensees working under reciprocity in those Agreement States requiring two-person crews.

These Agreement States indicated that NRC licensees wishing to work under reciprocity in these States would be expected to use two-person crews.

Currently,18 of the 29 Agreement States have adopted a requirement for a minimum of two qualified individuals to perform radiography at temporary jobsites.

Several of these States (Illinois and Texas) currently have requirements more stringent than those proposed by NRC, in that they require both individuals to be certified radiographer.

In a memorandum, dated March 18, 1996, the staff requested Commission guidance on whether to include the two-person provision in the final rule package.

In COMSECY-96-006, the Commission approved the staff's proposal to include the two-person requirement in the final rule, provided the cost-benefit analysis supports such an inclusion.

The final rule does include the requirement that at least, two qualified individuals, a radiographer and a radiographer's assistant, be present whenever radiographic operations occur outside a permanent installation.

The staff is recommending adoption of this provision on the basis that while there will be some additional cost for a few licensees, the benefit of having two individuals always present will justify the additional cost. Although the staff believes that adopting the requirement to always use at least two individuals at temporary jobsites could force a few licensees out of the radiography business, NRC licensees working in many Agreement States are already using two-person crews, and adcption of this provision would result in a uniform National standard.

The enclosed regulatory analysis (Enclosure 3) indicates that the implementation cost for each of the 30-60 affected licensees would be between $24,000 and $72,000 per year, with a 10-year operating and maintenance cost between $168,480 and $505,440 per licensee for the two-person provision. The range used in the analysis assumes that only these 30-60 NRC licensees would need to hire any assistants and that these licensees would hire 1-3 assistants.

The primary benefit will be an increase in assurance that operational safety measures will be implemented effectively and if an incapacitating injury to the radiographer should occur, the second individual could possibly prevent unnecessary radiation exposures to the worker and the public.

In addition, adoption of a consistent National standard will level the field for those licensees that to enhance safety currently elect to use two individuals.

If the Commi.ssion chooses to not adopt the provision that at least two qualified

The Commissioners 5

individuals be present when radiographic operations are undertaken outside of a permanent installation, the Commission would deny the petition from the IV0E. This final rule completes NRC action in response to the petition.

The second major issue in the proposed rule addressed mandatory certification for radiographer. Some of the larger licensee organizations objected to the requirement because they believed their in-house training programs were adequate and could see no need to rely on an outside organization to certify the training of their radiographer.

Twelve of the Agreement States strongly supported the NRC adopting mandatory certification and stated that, along with other upgrades discussed earlier that have been adopted by a number of Agreement States, they have seen an overall improvement in safety awareness with their adoption of the mandatory certification requirement for radiographer. The majority of letters favoring adoption of mandatory certification were from the Agreement States.

The staff is proposing to adopt the provisions for mandatory certification, primarily in light of the positive results observec by the Agreement States and because it provides a consistent standard for measuring the training of all radiographer and will reduce the burden on licensees in confirming the training status of newly hired radiographer.

For those licensees that objected to adoption of this provision because they already have a strong training program, the burden to follow a uniform testing program should be minimal. As discussed in the attached Regulatory Analysis, the cost to certify an individual radiographer is not great.

The final rule will require radiographer to become certified 2 years after the effective date of the rule.

Present compatibility procedures require Agreement State adoption of this requirement no later than 3 years after the effective date of the rule for NRC licensees. Given the above time constraints, it may take 5 years from the effective date of the rule before Lational radiographer certification is fully achieved. Assuming the NRC's rule is effective in 1996, this may create a situation where there are differing certification requirements in the Agreement States until the year 2001.

The staff believes, however, that this is a minor matter because approximately eight Agraoment States have certification requirements already in place and two more ho rs adopted such a requirement but have yet to implement it. Most of the States where this requirement is in place also have the largest populations of industrial radiography licensees, e.g., Texas and Louisiana.

A collateral issue related to radiographer certification where the staff is continuing to work with the Agreement States, the Organization of Agreement States (0AS), CRCPD, ASNT, and the regulated community involves development of a national certification program.

It is anticipated that as this program evolves, tne staff will develop a mechanism to exchange information about the certification status of individual radiographer. This will enable licensees and regulators to take prompt action to prevent a poor performer whose certification has been revoked from simply moving to another State with an invalid card. This issue will continue to be discussed among the participants 4

l The Commissioners 6

to complete the administrative framework required to support a national certification program.

A third major modification in the proposed rule involved requirements for a Radiation Safety Officer (RS0) and was adopted from the Texas regulations.

The final rule specifies the qualifications and duties of the RSO.

The RS0 is the key licensee individual charged with the responsibility to ensure that the requirements in the license are followed.

By listing the specific duties of the RSO, and requiring additional training for this position, this individual should be qualified to provide the appropriate attention to radiation safety under the employ of the licensee.

A number of commenters were in favor of adopting this requirement.

Those opposed were primarily against the qualification requirement that only an individual who had 2000 hours0.0231 days <br />0.556 hours <br />0.00331 weeks <br />7.61e-4 months <br /> of documented experience as a radiographer would be qualified to be an RSO. This requirement was an issue for some licensees who have a variety of licensed activities for the RSO to oversee and where the use of a radiographer for this purpose would not be appropriate.

To address these concerns an additional paragraph 34.42(b) was added stating that the Commission will. consider alternatives to the qualifications listed under 5 34.43(a) when the individual has the appropriate training and expe*ience.

The last two major modifications included in the proposed rule:

increased training for radiographer's assistants and a revised definition for permanent radiographic installations, received only a few comments involving some clarification of terms and minor editorial changes. These have remained essentially as originally proposed. Although not originally identified as major modifications, several provisions of the proposed rule would actually result in burden reduction to licensees, i.e., by reducing the frequency of survey meter calibrations and the frequency of licensee inspections of radiographer performance.

Several Agreement States have raised a concern that the additional training received by the radiographer's assistant is still not sufficient.

In particular, these Agreement States require the radiographer's assistant to receive training in radiation safety subjects that are identified in 534.43(g).

Several States use the term trainee, rather than radiographer's assistant, because they also expect them to become certified radiographer within a set period of time.

This requirement has not been adopted in 10 CFR Part 34. A number of licensees at the Houston, Texas, workshop stated that they would find it a buHen to upgrade all radiographer's assistants to the status of radiographs,

3ecause these regulations are primarily a Division 2 level of compatibility, t'..e Agreement States are not prohibited from requiring the additional training for radiographer's assistants, or from establishing a separate category, using the term " trainee," in place of radiographer's assistant.

The consensus of the Agreement States, expressed at the December 1994, Houston, Texas, workshop was that one provision in the current rule provided little, if any, safety benefit.

This provision requires the use of alarming ratemeters to alert the wearer of high radiation. The Agreement State

The Commissioners 7

representatives stated that in many situations they may actually contribute to incidents due to their misuse as a survey instrument.

In addition, the Agreement States questioned the statistics on reductions in overexposure the NRC has used to justify the continued use of alarming ratemeters. The staff strongly supports maintaining this requirement in the final rule because the evidence (fewer overexposure since the rule was promulgated) supports its continuance.

The staff believes it is unlikely that dropping the requirement for the alarming ratemeter would have any bendicial effe-t on whether the appropriate surveys are completed.

While the staff was preparing the final rule, a number of licensees contacted the NRC requesting clarification of what radiography equipment components would need to comply with the performance requirements in 5 34.20.

In 1991, the radiography equipment requirements were revised and licensees were given until January 1996, to comply.

In response to thase requests, IN-95-58 was issued on December 18, 1995, reminding licensees of the January 10, 1996, effective date and informing them which components met the new requirements.

After the Information Notice (IN) was issued, subsequent communications from licensees and manufacturers indicated that many components in use and not listed in the IN had not been subjected to prototype tcsting or an engineering analysis. Another IN was issued, on April 4, 1996, to provide licensees with information on acceptable means for demonstrating the acceptability of associated equipment in use. These circumstances demonstrate that the current requirements for radiography equipment may need re-evaluation.

The staff will begin a review of the current equipment requirements promulgated in 1991, to determine the minimum set required and whether a better approach would be to use a performance standard in place of the ANSI standard in the existing regulation. The FRN for this rulemaking includes a statement addressing this issue.

As a result of the revision to 10 CFR Part 34, amendments are needed to the Enforcement Policy. The proposed revisions are described in the enclosed Federal Register notice.

The revision would be effective concurrently with the amendments to 10 CFR Part 34. They will also be reflected in the next revision to NUREG-1600.

RESOURCES:

Resources required to implement these amendments are included in the NRC Five-Year Plan.

This rule should have no significant impact on NRC's industrial radiography licensing and inspection programs. While NRC's radiography licensees would be expected to revise their procedures to implement the revised or new requirements within 60 days, licensees would be permitted to wait until their next renewal to submit the revised procedures to the NRC for review, which may be up to 10 years in some cases, due to the recent one-time extensf on on materials license renewals.

In the interim, NRC inspection staff would confirm, as part of its regular inspection activity, that licensees had implemented the revised regulatory requirements.

There may be a slight increase in time required to conduct license reviews and inspections; however,

The Commissioners 8

the staff believes that the resources required should be minor and can be accounted for within existing resource allocations.

COORDINATION: The Office of the General Counsel has no legal objection to this paper.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the Commission:

1.

Approve the Notice of Final Rulemaking and Revision to the NRC Enforcement Policy for publication (Enclosures 1 and 2).

2.

Note:

a.

That a final Regulatory Analysis will be available in the Public Document Room (Enclosure 3);.

b.

The staff has prepared ar, environmental assessment (Enclosure 4).

The assessment concludes that the action will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment; c.

That in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared. The analysis indicates that this rule will not have a major adverse economic impact on radiography licensees, and, in fact, there should be an overall cost savings to all licensees based on reductions in existing regulations that offset any additional asts.

Approximately 90 percent of these licensees are cor"idered to be "small entities." The estimated costs are not considered to be overly burdensome in light of the resultant benefits derived.

i d.

That the final rule' contains information collection requirements that are subject to review by OMB. Upon Commission approval, formal request for DMB review and clearance will be initiated; j

e.

That the Agreement States have been provided with a copy of the final rule and their comments have been considered in developing the final rule; f.

A public announcement will be issued (Enclosure 5);

g.

The appropriate Congressional committees will be. informed l'

(Enclosure 6);

.h.

The staff ha's determined that, under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, this is not a " major rule" because'although it may effect some small businesses, the majority of licensees already voluntarily use two-persons or must do so to meet Agreement State regulations. The appropriate letters have been prepared.(Enclosure 7); and

)

l l

j

The Commissioners 9

i.

Copies of the Federal Register notice of final rulemaking will be distributed to all 10 CFR Part 34 licensees.

The notice will be sent to other interested parties upon request, aesM.Thlor ecutive Director for Operations

Enclosures:

As stated (7) i Commissioners' comments or consent should be provided directly to SECY by COB Friday, July 19, 1996. Commission staff office comments, if any, should be submitted to the Commissioners NLT July 12, 1996, with an information copy

)

to SECY.

If the paper is of such a nature that it requires additional review and comment, the Commissioners and the Secretariat should be apprised of when comments may be expected.

i This paper is tentatively scheduled for affirmation at an open meeting during the week of July 29, 1996. Please refer to the appropriate weekly Commission schedule, when published, for a specific date and time.

DISTRIBUTION:

Commissioners OGC OCAA OIG OPA OCA EDO SECY

_-_____-_a

The Commissioners 9

i.

Copies of the Federal Register notice of final rulemaking w,ill be distributed to all 10 CFR Part 34 licensees.

The notice will be sent to other interested parties upon request.

i James M. Taylor s

Executive Director for Operations

Enclosures:

As stated (7)

RECORD NOTE:

A draft copy of the final rule was sent to 0IG for information on November 24, 1995.

DOCUMENT NAME:

[0:\\NELLIS\\COMPAP.P34] g /,,

p..

See previous concurrences Offc: RPHEB:DRA PHEB:D_Af DRA:R M

NMSS R

Name: DNelli JGlenn G-B Morrison CPaperiello O [MorrYbs/p/96

(,/JO/96 5/30/96 Date: /,//f /9 pt_ (,//t/96

. /

Copy: Yes/No Yes/No No Tes/No Yes/No Offc: OGC(phone) OE(phone) 1RM*

OSP(phone) ADM*

EDO Name: STreby/KCyr JLieberman GCranford RBangart*

MLesar JTaylor Date: 4/19/96*

5/29/96*

12/07/95 5/30/96 12/13/95

/ /96 Copy: Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY RES NO.3A-3

Action: Morrison, RES/

[

UNITED STATES l

3 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Cys:

Taylor mOk

."

3 WASHINGTON, 0.C. 20555-0001 Milhoan e

Thompson n

l Y

d October 11, 1996 IN RESPONSE, PLEASE l7 o, 5

,o 4*++.

REFER TO:

M961002 OFFICE OF THE Blaha SECRETARY Miraglia, NRR Lieberman, OE E Imes M.

Taylor B,angart, SP MEMORANDUM FOR:

d Executive Director for Operations Scroggins, OC Jordan, AE0D John F.

Cordes, Acting Director Meyer, ADM offic Co mission Appellate Adjudication Shelton, IRP

.iA---

AMurphy,RES FROM:

John Hoyl, Secretary Schneider,RES McGuire,RES

SUBJECT:

STAFF REQUIREMENTS - AFFIRMATION SESSION, CTrottier,RES 11:00 A.M.,

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 2,

1996, Weller,NMSS COMMISSIONERS' CONFERENCE ROOM, ONE WHITE FLINT NORTH, ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND (OPEN TO PUBLIC ATTENDANCE)

L SECY-96-100 - FINAL AMENDMENTS TO 10 CFR PARTS 20 AND 35 ON CRITEPIA FOR THE RELEASE OF INDIVIDUALS ADMINISTERED RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL The Commission approved a final rule which clarifies the applicability of 10 CFR Part 20 and 10 CFR Part 35 concerning patient release criteria.

These amendments:

(1) provide a l

significant expansion of the discussion on breast-feeding, (2) clarify that 10 CFR 35.75 governs patient release, and (3) revise the criteria for release of patients administered radioactive i

l material for medical use under 10 CFR 35.75 to permit a maximum likely total effective dose equivalent of 5 millisieverts (0.5 rem).

The staff should revise the Statements of Consideration and other supporting documents, where appropriate, to be consistent with the dose limit as specified in the final rule.

Also, the guidance should be published at the same time as the rule.

In a related matter. the staff should address the Petition for Rulemaking filed by the University of Cincinnati (PRM-020-024). on an expedited basis.

(RES) 9600154

-(EDO)- (RES)

(SECY Suspense:

11/22/96) 9200203 IL SECY-96-118 - AMENDMENTS TO 10 CFR PARTS 50, 52, AND 100, AND ISSUANCE OF A NEW APPENDIX S TO PART 50 The Commission approved a revision to the basic reactor siting criteria to reflect advances in the earth sciences and earthquake engineering.

The change revises 10 CFR Part 100 to contain a new section on nonseismic siting criteria as well as the geologic and seismic siting criteria.

A new Appendix S to Part 50 provides earthquake engineering criteria.

c}

t 1y:5'? 054 ~ - 1 W g

Q The Commission has approved the use of the " worst" (or "any") two hours for the period used to evaluate dose to the public at the exclusion area boundary.

The staff should publish the final rule in the Federal Recister with the modifications contained in the EDO's memorandum to the Commission dated July 10, 1996 and incorporating the comments and l

editorial changes provided in Attachment 1.

(EDO)

(SECY Suspense:

11/22/96)

III. SECY-96-136 - AMENDMENTS TO 10 CFR PART 60 ON DISPOSAL OF l

HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTES IN GEOLOGIC REPOSITORIES --

DESIGN BASIS EVENTS FOR THE GEOLOGIC REPOSITORY OPERATIONS AREA -- FINAL RULEMAKING The Commission approved amendments to 10 CFR Part 60 to address measures necessary to protect public health and safety for a i

broad range of normal and accident conditions during the operational period of a geologic repository.

The final rule addresses measures that are required to provide defense in depth against the consequences of " design basis events."

The staff should publish the final rule in the Federal Recister and include the Senate Energy Committee (Murkowski, Johnston) and the Nevada delegation in the Congressional notifications.

(EDO)

(SECY Suspense:

11/22/96)

Commissioner Diaz, although approving this item, would have 1

preferred to wait until after the receipt of public comments on the HLW strategic assessment paper.

IV.

SECY-96-152 - FINAL RULEMAKING - REVISION TO 10 CFR PART 34, LICENSES FOR INDUSTRIAL RADIOGRAPHY AND RADIATION SAFETY REQUIREMENTS FOR INDUSTRIAL RADIOGRAPHIC OPERATIONS AND REVISION TO THE NRC ENFORCEMENT POLICY i

The Commission approved amendments to 10 CFR Part 34 to make NRC regulations more compatible with the Agreement States that have already upgraded radiography requirements.

The primary changes involve requirements for: 1) use of two qualified individuals-whenever radiographic operations occur outside a permanent facility; 2) mandatory certification of radiographer; 3) a radiation safety officer; and 4) additional training for radiographer's assistants.

The staff should publish the final rule in the Federal Recister with the changes provided in Attachment 2.

(EDO)

(SECY Suspense:

11/22/96)

Additionally, the staff should explore a mechanism for improving its capability to conduct cost-benefit analyses as required in NUREG/BR-0058 for regulations like Part 34.

y.

SECY-96-185 - LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES (CLAIBORNE l

a

ENRICHMENT CENTER); ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION (RESOLVING CONTENTIONS H.

L.

AND M)

LBP-96-7 The Commission approved an order responding to the Citizens Against Nuclear Trash's petition for Commission review of an April 26, 1996, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Partial Initial Decision (LBP-96-7).

The order denies in part and grants in part the petition for review, and directs that the emergency plan, the Safety Analysis Report (SAR), and the Safety Evaluation Report be i

amended to reflect the clarified role for the on-site fire brigade.

(Subsequently, on October 2, 1996, the Secretary signed the Order.)

EL.

SECY-96-209 YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY (YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION). DOCKET NO. 50-029-DCOM. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Grantino Motion for Summary Disposition)

LBP-96-18 The Commission approved an order to (1) establish a filing schedule for any petition for review and responses thereto regarding the Licensing Board's order granting Yankee Atomic Electric Company's motion for summary disposition; and (2) extend the Board's 12-day " housekeeping stay" of the effectiveness of LBP-96-18, pending further order of the Commission.

The Commission approved the proposed order with the changes in John Cordes memorandum to the Commission dated October 1, 1996.

(Subsequently, on October 2, 1996, the Secretary signed the Order.)

Attachments:

As stated

~

cc:

Chairman Jackson Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Dicus Commissioner Diaz Commissioner McGaffigan OGC OCAA OCA OIG Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ACNW, ASLBP (via E-Mail)

PDR - Advance DCS - P1-24

t Comments and editorial changes to the Federal Recister Notice (SECY-96-118 - Amendments to 10 CFR Parts 50, 52, and 100, and Issuance of a New Appendix S to Part 50):

1.

The last two sentences on the bottom of page 20 regarding plant shutdown in the event of an operating basis earthquake (OBE) need to be revised in that they are worded in a manner that implies that structures, systems and components that are designed to withstand a safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) may not be able to withstand an OBE.

This appears contrary to the stated purpose of SSE design requirements.

2.

On page 30, line 6, delete the word "the" just prior to the word "public."

3.

On page 37, line 4, delete the redundant "the."

{

}

4.

On page 38, item (3), delete the "(ii) " at the end of the sentence.

5.

On page 39, at the end of item (3), add "and the licensing basis is maintained."

ML20236L593

Contents

Text

SUBJECT:

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

Enclosures:

Enclosures:

SUBJECT:

Navigation menu

ML20236L593

Text

SUBJECT:

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

Enclosures:

Enclosures:

SUBJECT:

Navigation menu

Search