ML23151A417

PR-039 - 64FR19089 - Energy Compensation Sources for Well Logging and Other Regulatory Clarifications

ML23151A417
Person / Time
Issue date:	04/19/1999
From:	Miraglia F NRC/EDO
To:
References
PR-039, 64FR19089
Download: ML23151A417 (1)

Text

ADAMS Template: SECY-067 DOCUMENT DATE: 04/19/1999 TITLE: PR-039 - 64FR19089 - ENERGY COMPENSATION SOURCES FOR WELL LOGGING AND OTHER REGULATORY CLARIFICATIONS CASE

REFERENCE:

PR-039 64FR19089 KEYWORD: RULEMAKING COMMENTS Document Sensitivity: Non-sensitive - SUNSI Review Complete

Docket No.: PR-039 11/01/2000 FR Cite: 64FR19089 In the Matter of Energy Compensation Sources for Well Logging and Other Regulatory Clarifications Comment Comment Docket Document Miscellaneous Accession Number Submitted by Representing Date Date Description Number

- 04/02/1 999 03/31/1999 Federal Register Notice -

Proposed Rule Joseph G. Klinger Illinois Department of 06/28/1 999 06/24/1999 Nuclear Safety 2 Richard A. Ratli ff Texas Department of 06/30/1 999 06/29/ 1999 Health, Bureau of Radiation Control 3 Raymond Dickes Schlumberger Technology 07/06/ I 999 07 /02/ I 999 Corporation 4 Marc S. Nadeau AEA Technology QSA 07/08/1999 07 /02/ I 999 Inc.

Docket No.: PR-039 11/01/2000 FR Cite: 64FR19089 In the Matter of Energy Compensation Sources for Well Logging and Other Regulatory Clarifications Comment Comment Docket Document Miscellaneous Accession Number Submitted by Representing Date Date Description Number Jefrey Pettigrew Halliburton Energy 07/21/1999 07/16/1999

- 5 Services, Inc.

10/17/2000 04/03/2000 FRN - Final Rule 2

DOCKETN IV BER RO - . . .~ RULE 3 .

{ 4'L/ FR I CJD8q) [7590-01-P]

'- ,..,,. 17 nr *":l 11,, *...,; l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COM.\IDSSION fj 10 CFR Part 39 RIN 3150-AG14 Energy Compensation Sources for Well Logging and Other Regulatory Clarifications AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its regulations governing licenses and radiation safety requirements for well logging. The final rule modifies NRC regulations dealing with: low actjvity energy compensation sources; tritium neutron generator target sources; specific abandonment procedures in the event of an immediate threat; changes to requirements for inadvertent intrusion on an abandoned source; the codification of an existing generic exemption; the removal of an obsolete date; and updating regulations to be consistent with the Commission's metrication policy. The amendments to NRC's regulations are necessary to improve, clarify, update, and reflect current practices in the well logging industry.

--pJ:i,. a,,._ mfi1/oo a;c 65Pf<. Jo33'7

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Haisfield, Office of Nuclear Material Safety

• and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-6196, e-mail MFH@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is amending its regulations to acknowledge and

• accommodate.the use of well logglng technology that was not incorporated when the NRC issued the existing well logging regulations (March 17, 1987; 52 FR 8225). This technology I allows licensees to lower a logging tool down a well at the same time that the hole for the well is being dril.led instead of requiring drilling to stop, removing. drilllng pieces, and lowering a logging tool down the well. This technology is commonly referred to as "logging while drilling.* This process uses a relatively small radioactive source within the logging tool in addition to the larger radioactive sources currently used in logging a well. The 1987 regulations were based on the use of the larger radioactive sources and include provisions that are unnecessary and potentially burdensome for the additional small sources. These changes will have no significant Impact on public health and safety and the environment while reducing potential.burdens to licensees. Licensees will no longer need to comply with unnecessary regulatory requirements for these small sources or to request licensing exemptions from the NRC for actions dealing with these small sources. Other changes are also being implemented to improve, clarify, and update NRC's well logging regulations to reduce confusion. These changes may also reduce the need for licensees to request exemptions from unnecessary requirements.

J 2

Introcltu:i:iimTh Oil and gas come from a~umulations in the pore-5~Qifi>:M01Woir rocks (usually sandstone, limestone, or dolomites) and are removed via a Mil ~ the amount of oil and gas in these pore spaces is dependent upon the rock's c h a ~ tthe oil and gas industry often needs to detennine the characteristics of underground formations to predict the commercial viability of a new or existing well. Licensed radioactive materials are used to obtain information on certain properties of an underground formation, such as type of rock, porosity, hydrocarbon content, and density. These properties are important in the evaluation of oil and gas reservoirs.

One method to obtain information about oil and gas reservoirs is by using well logging tools. Licensed radioactive materials (sealed radioactive sources with associated radiation detectors) are contained in well logging tools. Americium-241 and cesium-137 are the radioactive materials most frequently used for this purpose. Traditionally, these tools are lowered into a well on a wireline. The depth of the well could range from several hundred feet to greater than 30,000 feet. Information collected by the detectors is sent to the surface through the wireline and plotted on a chart as the logging tool is slowly raised from the bottom of the well. Licensed radioactive materials are also used for similar purposes in coal and mineral exploration.

The licensing and radiation safety requirements for well logging are provided in 10 CFR Part 39. When the existing regulations for well logging were promulgated in 1987, the well I

logging process required drilling to stop while parts of the drilling pieces were removed before lowering a logging tool down a well. More recent technology, referred to as logging-while--

drilling (LWD), allows well logging to be accomplished during drilling. This technology employs an additional low-activity radioactive source within the well logging tool known as an energy 3

compensation source, or ECS. The ECS is!JllSed to calibrate the well logng tool while the well is being drilled.

LWD provides real time data during drilling operations and impr.tues the evaluation of geologic fonnations while reducing drilling costs. The real-time informa1ion can aid in decision making because, evaluating a fonnation can be planned as soon as the drill bit r~ches a fonnation.

Background

Based on the changing technology in the well logging industry, the NRG developed a Rulemaking Plan to* consider the need to update 10 CFR Part 39. On May 28, 1997, the NRG provided Agreement States a draft Rulemaking Plan for comment entitled, "En~rgy Compensation Sources for Well Logging and Clarifications - Changes to 10 CFR Part 39." The draft Rulemaking Plan was contained in SECY-97-111, also dated May 28, 1997. Comments were received from the States of Utah, Illinois, and Washington. These States generally supported the proposal and provided specific information and comments. Where appropriate, these comments were incorporated ,into the final Rulemaking Plan contained i,n SECY-98-105, dated May 12, 1998, and approved by the Commission in a Staff Requirements Memorandum dated June 25, 1998.

In the final Rulemaking Plan, the NRG proposed to modify the existing regulations in 10 CFR Part 39 to account for the use of ECSs. The changes would reduce regulatory burden on N~C and Agreement State licensees with no significant impact to public health and safety.

In addition, there are other sections within 10 CFR Part 39 that should be changed to improve, clarify, and update the existing regulations. The final Rulemaking Plan provides the rationale used in the development of this proposed rule. The NRG published the proposed rule in the 4

FEDERAL REGISTER pn April 19, 1999 (64 FR 19089). The NRC received five ~ents on the proposed rule. These comments and responses are discussed in the "Commems on the Proposed Rule" section.

Regulatory Action The* NRC i's making seven*specific changes to improve, clarify, and update the requirements in 10 CFR Part 39. ,

1. The principal objective of this rulemaking is amending 10 CFR Part 39 to accommodate the radioactive ECSs that are used in some well logging applications. The ECS is a low activity source, typically less than 1.85 MBq {50 microcuries), compared to the normal 1'10.GBq to 740 GBq (3 to 20 curies) sources used in well logging. 10 CFR Part 39, originally promulgated in 1987, does not provide any specific provisions for these low activity sources.

Many of the requirements in 10 CFR Part 39, when applied to an ECS, are not appropri.ate or necessary to protect public health and safety and the environment. Therefore, the NRC is changing the existing regulations.

Because the existing regulations do not allow for variations based on the activity of the; source, licensees who use al')' ECS would need to meet all the requirements for larger sources.

Examples of requirements which are overly burdensome for licensees using ECSs include those addressing well abandonment(§§ 39.15 and 39.77), leak testing(§ 39.35), design and performance criteria for sealed sources (§ 39.41 ), and monitoring of sources lodged in a well

(§ 39.69). The NRC is requiring that only those sections dealing with leak testing (a revised

\ § 39.35 specifically addresses ECSs), physical inventory(§ 39.37), and records of material use

(§ 39.39) will apply to the use of an ECS.

5

Oil and gas wells use a surface casing to protect fresh water aquifers. However, if a I

surface casing is not used, the NRG would retain the well abandonment requirements.

Requirements established in other parts of NRG regulations (e.g., 10 GFR Parts 20, 30, 40, and 70) still apply to the possession and use of licensed material and are adequate to protect public health and safety and the environment.

Therefore, the NRG is amending 1O GFR Part 39 to recognize the use of an EGS in well logging and to provide requirer;nents governing its use. These provisions include radioactivity limits on the EGS and leak testing requirements. The most significant change will exclude an EGS from the costly procedures for well abandonment in the event only an EGS is lost within the well. The requirements for well abandonment, in addition to specific reporting and approval requirements, require the source to be immobilized and sealed in place with a cement plug which must be protected from inadvertent intrusion, and the mounting of a permanent plaque at the surface of the well. In the Regulatory Analysis (RA) conduct~d for this rulemaking, a limited survey of EGS users indicated that about eight EGSs are abandoned per year. Although estimated abandonment costs varied significantly by survey respondent, the estimated savings to the industry to avoid eight abandonments per year is $5 million.

The NRG is establishing 3.7 MBq (100 microcuries) as the limit for an EGS. Existing EGSs typically use up to 1.85 MBq (50 microcuries) of americium-241 (cesium-137 sources are smaller). One licensee noted that they have calibration sources that use more than 100 microcuries. The 3.7 MBq (100 microcuries) limit will allow licensees flexibility in designing new sources of this kind while maintaining their radioactMty within an environmentally safe level.

These EGS sources will not be required to meet the requirements in § 39.41. However, the EGS sources for use in well logging applications will be required to be registered pursuant to 1O GFR 32.21 O. 1O GFR 32.21 O requires an evaluation using radiation safety criteria from 6

accepted industry standards. Applicable standards for calibration SOl!iJ!ce:s Imay be found in American National Standard Institute (ANSI) standards (e.g., ANSI/HPS N-43.6--1997).

ECSs are used for logging oil and gas wells, which use casings to ,protect fresh water aquifers. Hence, the only potential exposure hazard these sources would present is to workers, and worker exposure could only occur if an ECS were ruptured. If ruptured, workers could be

)

exposed to the radionuclide through ingestion or by absorption through the skin. However, if the source were ruptured, it would be contained within hundreds to thousands of cubic feet of drilling mud which also contains hazardous chemicals and is controlled and monitored to protect

\.J workers as part of drilling operations.

j The Environmental Assessment (EA) conducted for this rulemaking demonstrates that there would be no significant impact to public health and safety*or the environment resulting from this .amendment. The EA evaluated a worst case scenario of a 3.7 .

MBq (100 microcuries) source ruptured by a drill _bit and brought to the surface in the drilling mud. The most significant expoi;;ure from this scenario would be from ingestion of the drilling mud. The most dangerous radionuclide considered for this worst case scenario was curium-250. This radionuclide was

_used because the rule does not restrict the radionuclide used for ECS sources. Also, the

• scenario involved a source twice as large as most typical ECSs in use., For this worst case scenario, the estimated dose would be about 56 millirem, which is below the Federal annual dose* limit to an individual member of the public of 0.1 rem (100 millirem) or 1 millisievert (see 10 CFR 20.1301 ). For a 3. 7 MBq ('100 m,icrocuries) source of americium or cesium (the actual rndionuclides used) the estimated dose would be less than 3 millirem and 1 millirem respectively. Therefore, the NRC believes that eliminating potential costly requirements for these sources, in the evenf that such sources become unretrievable, will not significantly impact public health and safety or the environment.

7

Section 39.35 specifies leak testing requirements for sealed sources. Because of the small amount of radioactive material in an ECS (by definition less than 3.7 MBq (100 microcuries)) less stringent leak testing requirements are being established for ECSs.

Also, the ECS is contained within a logging tool that is designed to withstand significant stress and pressure. The ECS is mounted inside a steel pressure housing in the interior of the logging tool, thereby providing additional encapsulation to protect the ECS from operational impacts.

The NRC believes that it is unnecessary and overly burdensome to require that drilling operations stop because an ECS has exceeded the existing 6-month time interval requirement to be leak tested. The Regulatory Analysis conducted for this rulemaking surveyed a sample of the drilling industry to determine a normal maintenance period at which time a licensee would take a logging tool out of service for routine maintenance or other servicing. The NRG believes this maintenance period would be an appropriate time to conduct any necessary leak testing on an ECS. Although the survey results varied, these tools generally receive some type of out-of-field servicing every 18 months.

Based on this information, and the NRC's belief that ECSs should normally only be leak tested during normal maintenance or when a logging tool is out of service for other repairs, the NRC is requiring that a leak test be performed at a minimum of every three years. This requirement should not be a burden for licensees if the logging tool is being properly maintained and, in fact, should provide licensees some flexibility. This is also consistent with an extended leak test frequency that has been established by license*conditions for certain other sealed sources and devices.

Many ECSs are already exempt from all leak testing requirements. Section 39.35 exempts all beta or gamma emitting radioactive material with an activity of 3.7 MBq (100 microcuries) or less. Because cesium-137 is a beta\gamma emitter, all of these types of ECSs are already exempt from the existing leak testing requirements in § 39.35.

8

2. The NRC is revising existing 10 CFR Part 39 requirements for tritium neutron generator target sources. Tritium neutron generators help determine the porosity of the reservoir rock formation, which indicates the amount of liquid in the reservoir and the reservoir's permeability. Tritium neutron generator target sources are not used in logging while drilling tools. These sources are used in the more traditional well logging procedure where drilling is stopped and the tool is lowered downhole. Because tritium neutron generator target sources produce a significant neutron stream only when a voltage is applied, tritium neutron generator target sources are less hazardous than the typical americium or cesium sources currently being used in well logging applications.

For well logging applications, the NRC is requiring that tritium neutron generator target sources be subject to the requirements of 10 CFR Part 39 except for the sealed source design and performance criteria (§ 39.41 ), and the well abandonment procedures (§§ 39.15 and 39. 77) when a surface casing is used to protect fresh water aquifers, a practice that is standard for oil and gas wells. The potential hazard of these sources when a surface casing is used does not warrant the existing requirements for well abandonment in the event that the source becomes lost. The design and performance criteria associated with sealed sources for well logging were not intended for tritium neutron generator target sources and the revised regulations will provide clarity.

The NRC is establishing 1, 11 0 GBq (30 curies) of tritium as the limit for a tritium neutron generator target source. Existing tritium neutron generator target sources typically contain less than 740 GBq (20 curies) of tritium. The 1,110 GBq {30 curie) limit would allow licensees flexibility in designing new sources of this type while maintaining their radioactivity within an environmentally safe level.

When these sources are used for logging oil and gas wells, a surface casing is used to protect fresh water aquifers. The only exposure hazard these sources present are to workers if 9

these sources .were ruptured and the tritium was ingested. If a tritium source was ll'Uptured, it would be contained within hundreds to thousands of cubic feet of drilling mud. As mentioned, this drilling mud contains hazardous chemicals and is controlled and monitored as part of drilling operations.

The EA conducted for this rulemaking demonstrates that there would be no significant impa<?t to public health and safety or the environment resulting from this change. The EA evaluated the worst ~se scenario of a 1, 11 0 GBq (30 curie) tritium source ruptured by a drill bit and brought to the surface in the drilling mud. The most significant exposure would be through ingestion of this drilling mud. For this worst case scenario, the estimated dose would be 14 millirem, which is well below the Federal annual dose limit to an individu~I member of the public of 100 millirem or 1 millisievert (see 10 CFR 20.1301 ). Therefore, the NRC believes that I

I eliminating potential costly requirements for these sources, in the event that such sources become unretrievable, Will not impact public health and safety or the environment.

3. Section 39.77 provides the requirements for notification and procedures for abandoning irretrievable well logging sources. This section specifies that the NRC must approve implementation of abandonment procedures before abandonment. In some circumstances, such.as high well pressures that could lead to fires or explosions, the delay required to notify NRC could cause an immediate threat to public health and safety. The NRC is revising this section to allow licensees to u~e their judgement to abandon a well immediately, without prior NRC approval, if the licensee believes a delay could cause such a non-radiological

.J threat. This modification will allow licensees greater procedural latitude. In the rule, the language has been modified to require licensees, in the event of immediate abandonment, to notify the NRC and justify the need for an immediate abandonment after the fact.

10

4. Section 39.15 provides requirements for abandoning irretrievable sealed sources.

The NRC is revising this section to provide performance-based criteria for inadvertent intrusion 1

on the source. This modification will allow licensees greater procedural latitude while continuing to ensure source integrity. The existing requirements may be more restrictive than is necessary to protect an abandoned source, depending upon the individual well abandonment. For example, if a significant amount of drilling equipment is abandoned with the well, the equipment itself may be effective in preventing inadvertent intrusion on the source. However, the abandoned equipment would not meet the existing requirements of§ 39.15. The existing paragraph (a)(5)(ii) of § 39.15 had prescriptive requirements for irretrievable well logging sources, specifying the use of a mechanical device to prevent inadvertent intrusion on the source, at a specific location within the abandoned well.

The NRC is requiring that licensees "prevent inadvertent intrusion on the source." This

• will require that the source be protected but allow licensees the flexibility to determine the best method. The revision will not affect the requirement in § 39.15(a)(5)(i) that a well logging source be immobilized with a cement plug, the requirement in § 39.15{a)(5)(iii) thaJ a perman*ent identification plaque be mounted at the surface of the well, or the requirement in

§ 39.77 that the licensee must obtain NRC approval prior to implementing abandonment procedures (except as provided by the change in§ 39.77 for immediate abandonment, as discussed in it~m 3).

5. Two revisions are being made to § 39.41, "Design and performance criteria for

_sealed sources." The first will incorporate within NRC regulations an existing generic, exemption for sealed sources that were manufactured before 1989 and met older standards. The second will add an optional acceptable standard by referencing oil-well logging requirements in 11

ANSI/HPS N43.6-1997. The existing requirements wiU.alsD:remain as am,option within this section.

The NRG issued a generic exemption from the existing design and performance criteria for sealed sources in 1989. This exemption allow$ the use of older sealed s,ources which were not tested agair:ist the existing criteria, but which were tested in accordance with an earlier standard used for well logging sources. This exemption is currently in practice, but was not included in the existing 10 CFR Part 39. The NRG is modifying the regulations to include this existing generic exemption within 10 CFR Part 39.

Sealed sources that were manufactured before July 14, 1989, r:nay use design and performance criteria from the United States of America Standards Institute (USASI) NS.10-1968, "Classification of Sealed Radioactive Sources" or the criteria in § 39.41. The us~ of, the USASI standard is based on an NRG Notice of Generic Exemption published on July 25, 1989 (54 FR 30883). Existing NRG regulations had not incorporated the USASI N5.10-1968 requirements for older sealed sources. The primary difference between the USASl standard and the existing requirements is that*the existing requirements includes a vibration test that is consistent with current national standards. The USASI standard considered a vibration 'test and concluded that, to pass the other requirements, the source would be so rugged there was no reason to include a vibration test.

The exemption allowing the use of the USASI standard was intend~d to avoid a situation in which well logging licensees might be unnecessarily forced out of business and have to dispose of their sources. This situation could arise because the original source manufacturers tested. against the USASI standard, but did not retest these sources against the standards that became effective in 1989. The NRG determined that those sealed source models ryieeting the USASI standard would not adversely affect public health and safety. These sources had been used for years in operational situations and had demonstrated through actual use that vibration 12

from drilling operations had not caused failure. The survey of licensees conducted for the RA and EA for this rulemaking conflnned that these older sources have not presented a problem I

during actual use. Therefore, the NRG is codify5rllg within this section the existing practice to use, as an option, the USASI standards for sealed sources that were manufactured before July 14, 1989. Because many of these older sealed sources contain radioactive material with half-lives that allow their continued use (i.e., americium-241 and cesiu~-137 have half-lives of 458 and 30 years respectively), this modification to the existing regulations is appropriate:

However, a vibration test has been included in ANSI standards since 1977, and by NRG 1'

regulations which-were promulgated in 1987. Based on survey infonnation done for-this rulemaking, it is estimated that the cost to test a source to see if it meets the vibration requirement in § 39.41 is $2,400. Only the prototype for each design requi~es testing. The I

number of prototype designs each year is small. The only survey respondent on this topic indicated that they produce, at most, one new prototype per year and they did not indicate that vibration testing is burdensome. The NRG believes that the cost for vibration testing is not overly burdensome and is consistent with (1) ANSI N542-1977, "Sealed Radioactive Sources,*

Classification," published by the National Burequ of Standards [(NBS) currently the National Institute of Standards and Technology] in the 1978 NBS Handbook 126 and (2) ANSI/HPS N43.6-1997, "Sealed Radioactive Sources - Classification" approved in November 1997.

ANSI/HPS N43.6-1997 is the revised update to ANSI N542-19n. The* NRG has decided to.

retain the requirements for vibration testing.

The second revision to this section is to meet Public Law 104-113, "National Technology and Transfer Act of 1995" and Office of Management and Budget Circular A-119, "Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Confonnity Assessment Activities." This law encourages agencies to use "voluntary consensus standards" (i.e., standards developed by a voluntary consensus body and made available to all interested 13

parties). The existing NRC requirements are based on the older ANSI M542-1977 standard, and allow licensees flexibility in determining how to conduct testing and ensuring integrity of the source. The NRC is adding an optional method of meeting the design requirements by referencing the newer, current ANSI standard (ANSI/HPS N43.6-1997} within 10 CFR Part 39.

Although the existing NRC requirements and ANSI/HPS N43.6-1997 are quite similar, the NRC does _not want to eliminate the ability to meet the existing NRC regulatory requirements - that could result in a problem similar to that experienced iA 1989. That .is, existing approved sealed sources might not have been tested or evaluated exactly as specified in ANSI/HPS N43.6-1997,.

C ,

which could result in well logging licensees having to dispose of acceptable sealed sources.

This action does not constitute the establishment of a standard that contains generally applicable requirements. There.'1-'.ere no public comments regarding NRC's approach in the use of these standards.

6. For- clarity and to avoid confusion, the NRC is updating § 39.49 because it contains a date that has passed and is no longer appropriate. This section is being amended to remove the obsolete date.

7. The NRG is updating §§ 39.15, 39.35, and 39.41 to conform with the agency's metrication policy published on June 19, 1996 (61 FR 31169), by stating parameter values in dual units with International System of Units (SI) first and with English units in brackets.

Comments on the Proposed Rule This section presents a summary of the principal comm'ents received on the proposed rule, the NRC's response to the comments; and changes made' to the final rule as a result of 14

these comments. It includes a section-by-section description of the proposed changes, comments received, NRC's response, and any changes to the :final rule. General comments are included after the specific section comments.

The NRG received five comment letters. Two were from Agreement States and three were from industry. All five commenters supported this rule and four provided specific comments to clarify or improve the proposed rule. Copies of these letters are available for public inspection and copying for a fee at the Commission's Public Document Room, located at 2120 L Street, NW (Lower Level), Washington, DC.

Section 39.2, Definitions, would be amended by adding definitions for an energy compensation source (ECS) and a tritium neutron generator target source.

Comment No comments.

Paragraph 39.15(a)(5)(ii) would be amended to allow a more perfonnance-based approach to prevent inadvertent intrusion on an abandoned source.

Comment: One commenter indicated that State regulatory agencies having jurisdiction 9ver drilling and well operations may have well abandonment procedures that are more restrictive than those proposed by the NRG.

Response:. The commenter indicates that because the State agencies that control drilling and well operations may require more restrictive abandonment procedures, the State radiation control agency may have no choice but to also impose similar procedures. The NRC's intent is to make the rule more performance-based and would hope that States would do likewise, if allowed; however, the requirements in § 39.TT{c) are Compatibility Category C which allows States to impose more restrictive requirements as long as NRC's essential objectives are met.

Paragraphs 39.35(b), (d), (e)(4), (e)(5), and 39.41(d)(1)(v) (previously 39.41(a)(3)(v))

would be amended to meet the NRC's metrification policy.

15

Comment No comments.

Paragraph 39.35(c)(1) and (c)(2) would allow a 3 year leak testing interval for ECSs.

Comment No comments.

Section 39.41 would be amended to describe the applicable requirements for a sealed source.

Comments: Three commenters provided comments regarding requirements for sealed sources. One commenter requested that an NRC memorandum dated November 1, 1991, be specifically referenced in our regulations because our changes_ to § 39.41 do not cover all the sources listed in this memorandum. This memorandum lists sources that have been given a generic ex~mption from the requirements in § 39.41.

Two commenters requested that the new§ 39.41 (f) be clarified because this section implies that all ECS's are to be registered pursuant to § 32.210. They believe that this is I

incorrect because this would imply that isotopes considered exempt quantities under §-30.1 S(a) would be required to be registered pursuant to § 32.210. Also, one commenter believes that based on an NRC position statement, registration is not required in all cases.

Response: The NRC memorandum dated November 1, 1991, does not need to be.

specifically referenced in the regulations because the changes to § 39.41 supersede the memorandum, and cover all the sources listed in this memorandum. However, NUREG-1556, Vol. 3, "Consolidated Guidance About Materials Licenses - Applications for Sealed Source and Device Evaluation and Registration" and Vol. 14, "Consolidated Guidance About Materials Licenses - Program-Specific Guidance About Well Logging, Tracer, and Field Flood Study License" each include an appendix which provides a list of the sources that fall within the generic exemption.

The NRC staff does intend to require that all ECS's be registered pursuant to § 32.21 O or applicable Agreement State regulations. It is expected that ECS's will at least meet 16

appropriate ANSI criteria for calibration sources that cam~ ltl.Bl ~ iff .1:he sources are registered by the NRG or an Agreement State. This cmeria*-mflhe~ regardless of sou~ce activity. Although it is true that there is NRC guidance (NUBPG-~, '\fol. 3, "Consolidated Guidance About Materials Licenses - Applications for Sea.led StMrm and Device Evaluation and Registration") which indicates that sources with activities below certain limits do not need to be registered, that guidance will not be applied to ECS's .. The NRC staff notes that the_guidance also indicates that it is applied on a case-by-case basis in individual licensing situations and that the licensee may be expectecl to have authorization to possess and use unsealed material in similar qu~ntities. This situation would not apply in t~is setting.

Section 39.41 (f) does not need to be clarified concerning sources obtained per

§ 30.1 B(a). The NRG staff believes* the commenter may have misinterpreted the regulations regarding exempt quantities. Pursuant to § 30.18, a person possessing very small quantities of radioactive material may be exempt from licensing 1,mder limited circumstances. The NRG staff

-believes, in g~neral*, that these limited circumstances would not apply to ECS sources used in a well logging tool, and therefore they would not be exempt. However, if a company does receive a source that NRG has authorized for distributiOn to persons exempt from licensing, the company could use ttiat source, without modification, in a well logging tool. In this situatiqn, the sources would not need to meet§ 39.41 criteria. Note that§. 30.1 B(c) does not allow the incorporation of exempt sources into devices for commercial distribution. Therefore, companies who incorporate these sources into their loggin~ tools, would not be allowed to commercially distribute* such tools.

Section 39.49 would be amended to remove an obsolete date.

Comment: No comments.

Section 39.53 would be added to provide requirements for ECSs.

17

\'

Comments: Two commenters had comments on this section. One believes that there are additional requirements within 10 CFR Part 39 that should apply to ECSs. Specifically,

§ 39.43 (Inspection, maintenance, and opening of a source or source holder),§ 39.61 (Training), § 39.63 (Operating and emergency procedures), and § 39.71 (Security).

The other commenter noted that this section limits ECSs to 100 microcuries based on the belief that there are no ECSs exceeding 50 microc:uries. They have specifically licensed ECSs meeting the requirements of 10 CFR Part 39 which contain 200 microcuries of Am-241.

Therefore, they request a reassessment of the environmental impact based on 200 microcuries

- of Am-241 to allow 200 microcuries to be the maximum activity within an ECS.

Response: The NRC staff does not agree that there is a need to impose additional

• 1 O CFR Part 39 requirements for possession of these small sources, due to the low risk, and discussed these concerns with the commenter who, after further consideration, agreed.

However, whe~ authorizing ECS's, the NRC does intend to provide guidance for license conditions that would prohibit .opening the source. This will be done in NUREG-1556, Vol. 14, "Consolidated Guidance About Materials Licenses - Program-Specific Guidance About Well Logging, Tracer, and Field Flood Study License."

The NRG staff does not agree with the commenter suggestion to increase the ECS limit to 200 microcuries. The Environmental Assessment did not support a 200 microcurie limit for all isotopes. Although the risk varies with individual isotopes, the NRC staff believes that a single ,limit should be applied to allow efficient implementation. The 100 microcurie limit is consistent with the long standing maximum limit NRC has established for exempting beta/gamma sources from leak testing requirements, which reflects the lower risk associated with lower activity sources of 100 microcuries or less.

Section 39.55 would be added to provide requirements for tritium neutron generator target sources.

18

)

Comments: Two commenters had comments on this section. One commenter noted that neutron generator target sources require above-ground testing mr operability and calibration. When energized, these devices can produce radiation fE:Nels that may constitute "High Radiation Areas." The commenter believes that the revised reguJations should allow testing and operation provided arrangements are made via facility design or engineered safety equipment to reduce the radiation levels and ensure adequate written safety procedures have been developed and are in use by trained personnel.

The other commenter noted that these devices typically contain less radioactive material (tritium) than is used in commercially available "glow in the dark" emergency exit signs. The I

commenter noted that based on the construction of neutron generators, any exposure from a damaged neutron generator would be small compared to an exit sign, and therefore, believes j

that the proposed rule is appropriate for these devices.

Response: The NRC agrees with the first commenter's concept. Tritium sources-are and will remain subject to § 39.63 - Operating and emergency procedures. The NRC also agrees with the points made by this commenter.

Section 39.77(c)(1 )(i), (ii), and (d)(9) wpuld be amended to allow an option to immediately abandon a well without prior NRC approval when the licensee believes there is an immediate threat to public health and safety. For this type of immediate abandonment, the licensee is required to justify to NRC in writing why it was necessary.

Comment: One commenter requests clarification how a l,icensed party will make the decision to abandon these sources (i.e., RSO or authorized user) and what criteria will be used to determine if there is an immediate public health concern from explosions of other hazards.

The commenter requests that if these items are* not included in the regulations, the NRG identity how they are to be reso!Ved.

19

r Response: The purpose of this proposed change was to allow licensees ilexibility in the use of their best judgement when there is the possibility of an immediate threat to public t)ealth and safety. To add specific requirements as to who makes the on-the-spot decision and what specific criteria they are to use would negate some of the flexibility that the NRG was seeking to add. For example, what should the licensee do if the specified person was not on-site or the situation was not foreseen in established criteria? The NRC expects that this provision will be J

rarely used. However, if used, the licensee is required to justify why the immediate abandonment was necessary. If, after implementation, the NRC believes that this provision is being misused or useciiinappropriately, the NRC will consider modifying this section at a later time.

General Comments:

Comment A State commenter noted that not all of their comments on the draft Rulemaking Plan were addressed in the proposed rule. .

Response: The NRC responded to the comments that the States made qn the draft Rulemaking Plan in the final Rulemaking Plan. Although these comments and responses were not repeated. in the Federal Register notice, they were incorporated, where appropriate, in the

' ~

proposed rule.

Comment A commenter would like the rule to include requirements for tool design and loading of all sources .. The commenter noted that during a recent investigation of loading procedures, they found that a few States and at least one NRC region are not consistently evaluating the design of tools or their loading procedures during the licensing process. If this is the case, the commenter does not believe that NRC can assume that the well logging tool will afford significant protec:tion for any source much less the ECS sources. The commenter noted that the proposed regulation states that part of the reason for many of the exemptions for the ECS sources is the additional protection provided by the logging tool.

20

Response: Historically, the NRC has not regulated source holders or the well logging devices in which the source holders or sources are placed. The sealed sources themselves must meet 10 GFR Part 39 requirements that are essentially equivalent to ANSI criteria for use in well logging and does not take into account any prbtection provided by the tool or source holder) NRG also notes that there has been no history of problems with the source-tool combinations.

Comment A commenter noted that it was approached in 1993 by a well logging licensee to implement rule changes regarding EGSs used in logging while drilling (LWD) operations. The commenter noted that this was the only licensee in the State using EGSs and that they preferred ~o handle this technology through license conditions. As of June 1999, only one of Texas's licensees has requested changes to allow for LWD technology. The commenter asks whether the NRC has assessed how many well logging_ licensees are currently using LWD technology.

Response: The NRG conducted a limited survey of nine licensees (the NRC staff did not feel it was necessary to conduct a larger survey that would have required 0MB approval) in the preparation of the proposed rule. Of these nine, six use ECSs and one is planning to use an ECS in the future. Based on this response, plus the fact that four of these licensees use

' I neutron generator target sources, the NRC believes that proposing generic requirements is appropriate.

Comment A commenter supports the proposed changes and noted that these* changes offer the well logging industry simplified rules without decreasing public safety. The commenter also noted the significant differences in design between the stand:alone sources used in logging tools, and the permanent aspect of ECSs and neutron generator target sources that are built into logging to9ls. The commenter noted that because the ECSs and neutron generator 21

target sources are protected from the well conditions and have much smaller inherent risks, the current requirements in 10 CFR Part 39 are too restrictive.

Response: The NRC agrees with the points made by this commenter.

Comment: A commenter noted that the Supplementary Information and Introduction sections of the proposed rule implied that only LWD tools utilize ECSs. The commenter noted that this is not the case and that ECSs have been in use for many years within many standard wireline logging tools.

Response: The NRC will clarify this information in the preamble by changing the implication that ECS's are only used in logging while drilling tools. This will not impact the regulatory text to the final rule.

Anal rule: As noted above, the preamble will be clarified. There are no changes being made to the regulatory text of the final rule.

Specific Changes in Regulatory Text The following section is provided to assist the reader in understanding the specific changes made to each section,or paragraph in 10 CFR Part 39. For clarity of content in reading a section, much of that particular section may be repeated, although only a minor change would be made. Using this section should allow the reader to effectively review the specific changes without reviewing existing material that has been included for content, but has not been significantly changed.

Section 39.2: This is being revised to add two new definitions for ECS and tritium neutron generator target source.

Paragraph 39.15{a)(5)(ii): This is being revised to allow a more performance-based approach to prevent inadvertent intrusion on an abandoned source.

22

Paragraph 39.15(a)(5)(iii): This is being revised to'meet the NRC's metrification policy.

Paragraph 39.35{b): This is being revised to meet the NRC's metrification policy.

Paragraph 39.35{c)(1): This essentially repeats the existing paragraph on leak testing frequency, but notes that ECSs are not included in this paragraph.

Paragraph 39.35{c)(2): This is a new paragraph allowing a 3 year leak testing interval for ECSs.

Paragraph 39.35(d): This is being revised to meet the NRC's metrification policy.

Paragraph 39.35{e)(1 ): This is an editorial change to indicate that hydrogen-3 and tritium are the same.

Paragraphs 39.35(e)(4) and (5): This is being revised to meet the NRC's metrification policy.

Section 39.41 has been significantly revised as described below:

Paragraph 39.41 (a): This is a new paragraph describing the applicable requirements for a sealed source which includes requirements from the existing § 39.41 (a)(1) and (2).

Paragraph 39.41 (b): This is a new paragraph to allow pre-1989 sources to meet USASI standards.

Paragraph 39.41 (c): This is a new paragraph providing for the use of current ANSI standards.

Paragraph 39.41 (d): This replaces the existing § 39.41 (a)(3).

Paragraph 39.41 (d)(1 )(v): This is being revised to meet the NRC's metrification policy (the existing § 39.41 (a)(3)(v)).

Paragraph 39.41 (e): This replaces the existing § 39.41 (b) and is edited to be consistent with the above changes.

Paragraph 39.41 (f): This is a new paragraph clarifying that this section does not apply to ECSs.

23

Section 39.49: This is being revised to eliminate an obsolete date.

Section 39.53: This is a new section providing requirements for ECSs.

Section 39.55: This is a new section providing requirements for tritium neutron generator target sources.

Paragraphs 39.TT(c)(1)(i) and (ii): This is being revised to allow an option to immediately abandoning a well without receiving prior NRC approval when the licensee believes there is an immediate threat to public health and safety.

Paragraph 39.TT(d)(9): This is a new paragraph requiring the licer:,see to justify in

- writing why it was necessary to immediately abandon a well without prior NRC approval.

Criminal Penalties For the purposes of Section 223 of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA), the Commi~ion is issuing the final rule under one or more of sections 161 b, 161 i, or 161 o of the AEA. Willful violations of the rule will be subject to criminal enforcement.

Compatibility of Agreement State Regulations The compatibility of the provisions in 10 CFR Part 39 have been determined in accordance with the NRC's "Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs" approved by the Commission on June 30, 1997, and published in the Federal Register on September 3, 1997 (62 FR 46517)." The definitions for an "Energy compensation

• " source" and a "Tritium neutron generator target source" are assigned Compatibility Category B.

Agreement States will need to adopt essentially identical definitions. Since the sources are routinely transported across jurisdictional boundaries for use, this level of compatibility is 24

needed to assure uniform regulation. The new § 39.53, Energy compensation source, and

§ 39.55, Tritium neutron generator target source, are assigned Compatibility Category C.

Agreement States are not required to adopt identical rules, however, they must adopt rules that address the essential safety objectives of, and are no less stringent thap, the NRC sections.

The NRC is not changing the compatibility of those sections of 10 CFR Part 39 that are being modified. The existing Compatibility Categories for the modified sections are: Section 39.41, Compatibility Category B; and§§ 39.15, 39.35, 39.49, 39.77(c) and (d), Compatibility Category C.

Specific information about the NRC's Compatibility Policy and the levels of compatibility assigned to the existing rule may be found at the OSP Procedures area of the Office of State Program's Web site, http://www.hsrd.ornl.gov/nrc/home.html. [View Procedures SA-200 and SA-201]

Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact: Availability The Commission has determined under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51, that this rule will not be a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, and therefore, an environmental impact statement' is not required. The rule will modify NRC regulations dealing with: {1) low activity energy compensation sources; (2) tritium neutron generator target sources; (3) specific abandonment procedures in the event of an immediate threat; (4) changes to requirements for inadvertent intrusion on an abandoned source; (5) the codification of an existing generic exemption; (6) the removal of an obsolete date; and (7) updating 10 CFR Part ~9 to be consistent with the Commission's metrication policy. The environmental assessment evaluated the maximum annual public health risk to members of the 25

public as a result of these changes and determined that there is no significant environmental

)

impact as a result of the changes.

The environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact on which this determination is based are available for inspection at the NRG Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW: (Lower Level), Washington, DC. Single copies of the environmental assessment and the finding of no significant impact are available from Mark Haisfield, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, WashingtoQ_, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-6196.

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This final rule increases the burden on licensees to justify in writing the immediate threat to public health and safety that resulted in the implementation of abandonment procedures prior to NRG approval. The burtden to include the justification in the existing report required in 10 CFR 39.77(d) is estimated to increase from 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> to 4.25 hours2.893519e-4 days <br />0.00694 hours <br />4.133598e-5 weeks <br />9.5125e-6 months <br /> per impacted report.

Because the burden for this information collection requirement is insignificant, Office of Management and Budget (0MB) clearance is not required. Existing requirements were approved by the 0MB, approval number 3150-0130.

Public Protection Notification 1

If a means used to impose an information collection does not display a currently valid 0MB control number, the NRG may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, the information collection.

26

Regulatory Analysis The Commission has prepared a final regulatory analysis on this final regulation. The analysis examines the costs and benefits of the alternatives considered by the Commission.

The analysis is available for inspection in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW.

(Lower Level), Washington, DC. Single copies of the analysis may be obtained from Mark Haisfield,_ Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulrtory Qommission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-6196.

Regulatory Flexibility Certification J

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the Commission certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities. All of the amendments are to 10 CFR Part 39* and are intended to either reduce regulatory burdens from unnecessary requirements or to clarify and update regulations to reduce confusion. Therefore, any economic impact to a small entity using 10 CFR Part 39 should be either neutral or positive.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act In accordance with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, the NRC has determined that this action is not a major rule and, has verified this determination with the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget.

27

Backf it Analysis The NRC has determined that the backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109, does not apply to this rule, and therefore, a backfit analysis is not required because these aniendments do not involve any'provisions that would impose backfits as defined in 10 CFR 50.109{a)(1).

List *of Subjects 10 CFR Part 39 Byproduct material, Criminal penalties, Nuclear material, Oil and gas exploration - well logging, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Scientific equipment, Security measures, Source material, Special nuclear material.

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 adopting the following amendments to 10 CFR Part 39.

PART 39--LICENSE;S AND RADIATION SAFETY REQUIREMENTS FOR WELL LOGGING

1. The authority citation for Part 39 continues to read as follows:

AUTHORITY: Secs. 53, 57, 62, 63, 65, 69, 81, 82,161, 182,183,186, 68 Stat. 929, 930, 932, 933, 934, 935, 948, 953, 954, 955, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 u.s.c. 2073, 2077, 2092, 2093, 2095, 2099, 2111, 2112, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2282);

28

secs. 201, as amended, 202,206, 88 Stat.1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846).

2. Section 39.2 is amended by adding definitions, in their proper alphabetic order, of the terms energy compensation source and tritium neutron generator target source to read as follows:

§ 39.2 Definitions.

Energy compensation source (ECS) means a small sealed source, with an actMty not exceeding 3.7 MBq [100 microcuries], used within a logging tool, or other tool components, to provide a reference standard to maintain the tool's calibration when in use.

Tritium neutron generator target source means a tritium source used within a neutron generator tube to produce neutrons for use in well logging applications.

3. Section 39.15 js amended by revising paragraph (a)(5){ii} and the introductory text of paragraph (a)(5)(iii) to read as follows:

§ 39.15 Agreement with well owner or operator.

(a)

(5)

(ii) A means to prevent inadvertent intrusion on the source, unless the source is not accessible to any subsequent drilling operations; and (iii) A permanent identification plaque, constructed of long lasting material such as stainless steel, brass, bronze, or monel, must be mounted at the surface of the well, unless the 29

mounting of the plaque is not practical. The size of the plaque must be at least 17 cm

• [7 inches] square and 3 mm [1/8-inch] thick. The plaque must contain--

4. Section 39.35 is amended by revising paragraphs (b), (c), (d)(1), (e)(1), (e)(4) and (e)(5) to read as follows:

§ 39.35 Leak testing of sealed sources.

. (b) Method of testing. The ~pe of a sealed source must be performed using a leak test kit or method approved by the Commission or an Agreement State.* The wipe sample must be taken from the nearest accessible point to the sealed source where contamination might accumulate. The wipe sample must be analyzed for radioactive contamination. The analy~is must be capable of detecting the presence of 185 Bq [0.005 microcuries] of radioactive material on the test sampl_e and must be performed by a person approved by the Commission or an Agreement State to perform the analysis.

(c) Test frequency. (1) Each sealed source (except an energy compensation source (ECS)) must be tested at intervals not to exceed 6 months. In the absence of a certificate from a transferor that a test has been made within the 6 months before the transfer, the sealed source may not be used until tested.

(2) Each ECS that is not exempt from testing in accordance with paragraph (e) of this section must be tested at intervals not to exceed 3 years. In the absence of a certificate from a transferor that a test has been made within the 3 years before the transfer, the ECS may not be used until tested.

(d) Removal of leaking source from service. (1) If th_e test conducted pursuant to paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section reveals the presence of 185 Bq [0.005 microcuries] or 30

more of removable radioactive material, the licensee shall remove the sealed source from service immediately and have it decontaminated, repaired, or disposed of by an NRG or Agreement State li'censee that is authorized to perform these functions. The licensee shall check the equipment associated with the leaking source for radioactive contamination and, if contaminated, have it decontaminated or disposed of by an NRG or Agreement State licensee that is authorized to perform these functions.

(e)

(1) Hydrogen-3 (tritium) sources; (4) Sources of beta- or gamma.:.emitting radioactive material with an activity of 3.7 MBq

[100 microcuries] or less; and (5) Squrces of alpha- or neutron-emitting radioactive material with an actMty of 0.37 MBq [1 O microcuries] or less.

5. Section 39.41 is revised to read as follows:

§ 39.41 Design and performance criteria for sources.

(a) A licensee may use a sealed source for use in well logging applications-if --

(1) The sealed source is doubly encapsulated; (2) The sealed source contains licensed material whose chemical and physical forms are as insoluble and nondispersible as practical; and (3) Meets the requirements of paragraph (b), (c), or (d) of this section.

(b) For a sealed source manufactured on or before July 14, 1989, a licensee may use the sealed source, for use in well logging applications if it meets the requirements of USASI 31

N5.10-1968', "Classification of Sealed Radioactive :Sa,mnes;,,"' 1Hrtfue :fBqUirements in paragraph (c) or (d) of this section.

(c) For a sealed source manufactured after .July '14, *t9'89~ a licensee may use the sealed source, for use in well logging applications if it meets the oil-well logging requirements of ANSI/HPS N43.6-1997, "Sealed Radioactive Sources - Classification."

(d) For a sealed source manufactured after July 14, 1989, a licensee may use the sealed source, for use in well logging applications, if -

(1) The sealed source's prototype has been tested and found to maintain its integrity after each of the following tests:

(i) Temperature. The test source must be held at -40° C for 20 minutes, 600° C for 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br />, and then be subject to a thermal shock test with a temperature drop from 600° C to 20° C within 15 seconds.

(ii) Impact test. A 5 kg steel hammer, 2.5 cm in diameter, must be dropped from a height of 1 m onto the test source.

(iii) Vibration test. The test source must be subject to a vibration from 25 Hz to 500 Hz at 5 g amplitude for 30 minutes.

(iv) Puncture test. A 1 gram hammer and pin, 0.3 cm pin diameter, must be dropped from a height of 1 m onto the test source.

(v) Pressure test. The test source must be subject to an external pressure of 1.695 x 107 pascals [24,600 pounds per square inch absolute].

(e) The requirements in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d) of this section do not apply to sealed sources that contain licensed material in gaseous form.

(f) The requirements in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d) of this section do not apply to energy compensation sources (ECS). ECSs must be registered with the Commission under

§ 32.21 O of this chapter or with an Agreement State.

32

6. Section 39.49 is revised to read as follows:

§ 39.49 Uranium sinker bars.

The licensee may use a uranium sinker bar in well logging applications only if it is legibly impressed with the words "CAUTION--RADIOACTIVE-DEPLETED URANIUM* and *NOTIFY CIVIL AUTHORITIES (or COMPANY NAME) IF FOUND.*

7.

• Section 39.53 is added to read as follows:

§ 39.53 Energy compensation source.

The licensee may use an energy compensation source (ECS) which is contained within a logging tool, or other tool components, only if the ECS contains quantities of licensed material not exceeding 3.7 MBq [100 microcuries].

(a) For well logging applications with a surface casing for protecting fresh water aquifers, use of the ECS is only subject to the requirements of §§ 39.35, 39.37 and 39.39.

(b) For well logging applications without a surface casing for protecting.fresh water aquifers, use of the ECS is only subject to the requirements of§§ 39.15, 39.35, 39.37, 39.39, 39.51, and 39.77.

8. Section 39.55 is added to read as follows:

§ 39.55 Tritium neutron generator target source.

(a) Use of a tritium neutron generator target source, containing quantities not exceeding 1, 11 O MBq [30 curies] and in a well with a surface casing to protect fresh water aquifers, is subject to the requirements of this Part except§§ 39.15, 39.41, and 39.77.

(b) Use of a tritium neutron generator target source, containing quantities exceeding 1, 11 O.MBq [30 curies] or in a well without a surface casing to protect fresh water aquifers, is subject to the requirements of this Part except § 39.41.

33

9. Section 39.77 is amended by revising paragraphi 1G)({)._ 1ra:designating paragraphs (d){9} and (d}{10) as paragraphs (d)(10} and (d}{11}, and addir.rga:newrparagraph (d)(9) to read as follows:

§ 39.77 Notification of incidents and lost sources; abandonmentmocedures for irretrievable sources.

(c)

(1) Notify the appropriate NRC Regional Office by telephone of the circumstances that resulted in the inability to retrieve the source and --

(i) Obtain NRG approval to implement abandonment procedures; or (ii) That the licensee implemented abandonment before receiving NRG approval because the licensee believed there was an immediate threat to public health and safety; and (d) 34

t (9) The immediate threat to public health and safelyjllftil,.ffiita:fo:m ffo.11 iimp1ementing abandonment if prior NRG approval was not obtained in accon':iatiu witliq1:>aragraph (c)(1)(ii) of 1

this section; Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of _A~p_r_i_l___ , 2000.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

W.illiam D. Tra

• rs, Executive Director for Operations.

L 35

DOCKET NUMBER R PROPOSED RULE 3 'I )

Jeffrey Pettigrew iPI/ fR I 'tD8Cf Radiation Safety Officer Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. '99 JUL 21 A8 :26 2135 Hwy 6 South Houston , Texas 77077 l./*

16 July, 1999 'I

.AD,!,

Secretary Attn: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555-0001 RE: RIN 3150-AG14; Proposed Rule Concerning Energy Compensation Sources for Well Logging and Other Regulatory Clarifications

Dear Secretary,

Halliburton Energy Services (Halliburton) agrees with the general spirit and intent of the proposed rule change to clarify the use of energy compensation sources (ECSs) within well logging tools and the treatment of tritium containing neutron generators. The following specific comments are offered:

• The Supplementary Information and Introduction sections of the proposed rule imply that only Logging While Drilling tools utilize ECSs. This is not the case, as these types of sources have been in use for many years within many standard wireline nuclear logging tools. Therefore the proposed rule addresses a long-standing question on whether ECSs ever needed to comply with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 39, especially if these sources also met the requirement of an exempt quantity under 10 CFR Part 30.71 Schedule B.

• The proposed rule would require that ECSs not contain an activity exceeding 100 rnicrocuries. This activity was based on the belief that there are no ECSs exceeding 50 rnicrocuries each. Contrary to this belief, Halliburton has specifically licensed ECSs meeting the requirements of 10 CFR Part 39, which contain 200 rnicrocuries of Am-241. It may also be possible to reduce the activity of this type of source if the double encapsulation requirement were removed. The double encapsulation reduces the counts and alters the spectrum of the low energy gamma rays emitted by this isotope. Therefore, Halliburton would request a reassessment of the environmental impact based on 200 rnicrocuries or Am-241 to allow 200 rnicrocuries to be the maximum activity within an ECS.

• The proposed rule would require that all ECSs be registered pursuant to 10 CFR Part 32.210. Note that 32.210 itself states: "(a) Any manufacturer or initial distributor of a sealed source or device containing a sealed source whose product is intended for use under a specific license may submit a request to NRC for evaluation of radiation safety information about its product and for its registration. " The use of the word

'may' rather than 'must' clearly implies that registration is optional, at least in certain cases. NRC has a position statement regarding the registration of sources that states that registration is not required in all cases. It is acknowledged that agreement states may have more rigid requirements. It also is agreed that it would be desirable to have ANSI classification from the manufacturer of ECSs. However, this should not be a requirement for ECS models already in use. Also sources already meeting the exempt quantity definition of 10 CFR Part 30.71 , Schedule Bare should not be subject to this requirement.

• Regarding tritium containing neutron generators, it should be noted that these devices typically contain less radioactive material (tritium) than is used in commercially available "glow in the dark" emergency exit signs. As the tritium is absorbed into the matrix of the metal target material of the neutron generator, the JUL 2 6 l999_

~eknowfedged by card ...... " --=-

U.S CLEAR REGULATOR COMM SSIO 1 RULEM S&ADJUOfCATI STAFF I EO THE SECRETARY 0 THE M ISSI

likelihood of any exposure to a member of the public from a damaged neutron generator would seem very small compared to these types of exit signs. Therefore the proposed rule is appropriate regarding these types of devices.

Halliburton appreciates the opportunity to comment on this proposed rule which directly affect its operations and employee's safety. Halliburton, along with other wireline companies, actually helped the NRC author the predecessor to the current Part 39 logging regulations known as Part W. Halliburton continues to strongly support the safe use of radioactive materials and radiation producing devices within our industry and supports the NRC's (with exceptions noted above) proposed rule change.

Sincerely, Jeffrey Pettigrew Radiation Safety Officer

July 19, 1999 NOTE TO: Emile Julian Chief, Docketing and Services Branch FROM: Carol Gallagher /1 ,, J1 O,.. . ). _:

i ADM, DAS ~ ~Od """._.,,,

SUBJECT:

DOCKETING OF COMMENT ON PROPOSED RULE - ENERGY COMPENSATION SOURCES FOR WELL LOGGING AND OTHER REGULATORY CLARIFICATIONS Attached for docketing is a comment letter related to the subject proposed rule. This comment was received via e-mail July 16, 1999. The submitter's name is Jeffrey Pettigrew, Radiation Safety Officer, Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. , 2135 Hwy 6 South, Houston, Texas 77077. Please send a copy of the docketed comment to Mark Haisfield (mail stop T9-F-31) for his records.

Attachment:

• As stated cc w/o attachment:

M. Haisfield

DO C r-. ~D AEA Technology

[I') .. ,

QSA Inc.

40 N orth Avenue "99 JUL -8 P3 :52 Burlington , MA 0 1803 Telephone (78 1) 272-2000 Telephone (800) 815-1383 I

AO..,: Facsimile (78 1) 273-22 16 Secretary US Nuclear Regulatory Commission DOCKET NlJM"""",.....,...

Washington , DC 20555-0001 Attention : Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff PROPOSED RULE. 3C/

fo4 FR I 'f 08Cf)

July 2, 1,999 i

RE : Proposed Changes in 10CFR39 for Well Logging ECS's.

Dear Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff:

After reading the new proposals for well logging sources concerning ECS's, clarification of paragraph 39.41 (f) is needed . The proposed change in 10CFR39 implies all ECS's are to be registered . This cannot be a correct interpretation since an isotope, for example, such as Cs-137 which is less than 10 microCuries is considered an exempt quantity per 30 .71 Schedule B when referencing paragraph 30.18(a).

One suggestion is to modify the paragraph to clarify that sources distributed by persons licensed under section 32.18 are not required to register under section 32 .210 if they are used as ECS's.

Only ECS sources that would require a specific license would need to go through the registration process specified in section 32 .210 .

Marc S. Nadeau Regulatory Affairs l I 3 \999

~cknowledged by card**------~

AEA Tec hnology pk registered offi ce 329 Harwell, D1dcot, O.x-fordsh1re OX 11 ORA .

Registered m England and Wales number 3093862

11hi1 iuM4M41

!Schlumberger Technology Corporation Raymond Dickes Radiation Safety Officer JUL -6 A11 :55 Schlumberger Technology Corporation

• 99 200 Gillingham Lane Sugar Land, Texas 77478 July 2, 1999 o~11r ADJ ~

Secretary Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D .C. 20555-0001 Re : Proposed Amendments to Well Logging Regulations (10 CFR 39)

Dear Sir/Madam:

Schlumberger Technology Corporation has reviewed your proposed amendments to 10 CFR 39 covering well logging. Schlumberger supports these changes as written in the proposed amendments. We believe that the changes proposed for both the energy compensation source (ECS) and the tritium neutron generator target source offer the well logging industry simplified rules without decreasing public safety.

The NRC is correct in distinguishing between the traditional "logging source" with an activity of one or more Curies and ECS and tritium neutron generator target sources. The traditional logging sources were not designed as permanent components of the logging tools but as stand-alone components added and removed with each use of the tools. Since they were designed as stand-alone components and exposed to the same well conditions as the tools themselves, these sources needed the greater care and review as covered in the current Part 39. Schlumberger has always supported these measures.

However, ECS and tritium neutron generator target sources are very different. These were designed as permanent components of the tools and as such are contained within the tools themselves. Since these sources are protected from the well conditions and have much smaller inherent risks, the current requirements in Part 39 are too restrictive for them.

Schlumberger Technology Corporation has always taken our role as a user of radioactive materials very seriously.

Many of the current requirements within Part 39 have been in use by Schlumberger for many decades, a time period longer than the age of the regulations themselves. We know that the NRC has given very careful study to these devices and that the changes should be adopted . As a leader in the safe use of radioactive materials in well logging, we support the proposed changes.

Sincerely, Raymond Dickes JJJL I 3 1999

~cl<nowtedged by card **- ..........,, .,

• U hn L.vvl..hlU11Y liUMNIIS 10 IAKINGS &ADJUDICATIONS STAF OFflC OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION D

- -u--

1 ____

~~Ii~

July 2, 1999 NOTE TO: Emile Julian Chief, Docketing and Services Branch FROM: Carol Gallagher /) ,, /L O() A _ j __/

ADM, DAS ~ ~,--v---

SUBJECT:

DOCKETING OF COMMENT ON PROPOSED RULE - ENERGY COMPENSATION SOURCES FOR WELL LOGGING AND OTHER REGULATORY CLARIFICATIONS Attached for docketing is a comment letter related to the subject proposed rule. This comment was received via the rulemaking website on July 2, 1999. The submitter's name is Raymond Dickes, 200 Gillingham Lane, Sugar Land, TX 77478. Please send a copy of the docketed comment to Mark Haisfield (mail stop T9-F-31) for his records .

Attachment:

As stated cc w/o attachment:

M. Haisfield

DOCKET NUMBER June 29, 1999 PROPOSED RULE p J_tj v'lfRJ'loaq)

Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission *99 JUN 30 Pl2 :J2 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 o,.-

Attn: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff AM~ RIN 3150-AG14

• I

Dear Secretary:

Staff members of the Texas Department of Health, Bureau of Radiation Control (BRC) have reviewed the proposed rule entitled, "Energy Compensation Sources for Well Logging and Other Regulatory Clarifications," and offer the following comments for consideration.

The BRC was approached in 1993 by one of our well logging licensees to implement rule changes regarding energy compensation sources used in logging-while-drilling (LWD) technology. At that time, that licensee was the only licensee in the state using energy compensation sources. It proved more efficient for the BRC to handle the LWD technology by license condition. As of June, 1999, only one out of 55 Texas well logging licensees has requested changes to its license to allow for the LWD technology. Has the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission assessed how many well logging licensees are currently using the LWD technology?

We have no objection to the proposed language. However, the proposed revision to Sec.

39.15(a)(5)(ii) allows more flexibility because the term, "A means to prevent inadvertent intrusion on the source .. ." is proposed to replace the term, "A mechanical device to prevent inadvertent intrusion ... " It should be noted that state regulatory agencies having the jurisdiction over drilling and well operations may have well abandonment procedures that are more restrictive. Thus, states radiation control agencies may have language that incorporates or references such abandonment requirements and will therefore, be more restrictive than NRC.

• We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments. If you have any questions, please contact me at (512)834-6688 or E-mail address: richard.ratliff@tdh.state.tx.us.

Sincerely, Richard A. Ratliff, P.E., Chief Bureau of Radiation Control 1100 West 49th Street Austin, TX 78756 JUL - 7 1999

~c"'1clwfedged by card **...................* ... ,'l!J"'

June 29, 1999 NOTE TO: Emile Julian Chief, Docketing and Services Branch FROM: Carol Gallagher ADM,DAS

SUBJECT:

DOCKETING OF COMMENT ON PROPOSED RULE - ENERGY COMPENSATION SOURCES FOR WELL LOGGING AND OTHER REGULATORY CLARIFICATIONS Attached for docketing is a comment letter related to the subject proposed rule. This comment was received via the rulemaking website on June 29, 1999. The submitter's name is Richard Ratliff, Texas Department of Health, Bureau of Radiation Control, 1100 West 49 th Street, Austin, TX 78756. Please send a copy of the docketed comment to Mark Haisfield (mail stop T9-F-31) for his records.

Attachment:

As stated cc w/o attachment:

M. Haisfield

CD oocK 1EO DEPARTMEN ~ --lrlt.'

,-'. :r-

....;:-.-,,"Y-'~.~....... EAR sKIT~TY 1035 OUTER p rllMlll,lL-',~ - ~PH-111)111-1--LINOIS 62704.rl'l J 28 p 3 53

) ';:7 21 George H . Ryan Thomas W. prtciger Governor DiredoG ,

f-\ .

June 24, 1999 DOCKET UMBER Secretary PROPOSED RULE p 3 'f Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff (pl/ FR tCfogq U.S . Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington , D.C. 20555-0001

• Re: Proposed Amendments to Well Logging Regulations (10 CFR 39)

Dear Sir/Madam:

The proposed amendments to 10 CFR 39 would allow the use of low activity energy compensation sources (ECS) in well logging. The Department believes this is an important rule change that will allow well loggers to use this new technology without significant impact on their operations.

The Department commented on the Draft Rulemaking Plan regarding these proposed changes in our letter of July 9, 1997 to Jim Myers (Attachment 1). Some of our comments have been addressed. Others apparently were not. The following comments apply to the latest proposed amendments:

1. In Item 4 of our July 9, 1997 letter, the Department suggested that a procedure for above ground operability and calibration tests be included for neutron generator devices. This is not included in the proposed amendment. Please indicate if this was determined to be a licensing issue or if it was simply not considered.

2. In Item 5 of this letter, the Department sought clarification on which licensed party will make the decision to abandon these sources (i.e. , RSO or authorized user) and what criteria will be used to determine if there is an immediate public health concern from explosions or other hazards. If these items are not to appear in the regulation, please identify how they are to be resolved.

@ recyc lable

-cmowtedged by card *HJUN 3 O1999 col 4!,U:

• ~~ REGULATORY COMMJ&;t i FIJI.JEIMKN~&ADJUDICATIONSSTt.

OA=IICEOFlHESECRETARY COMMISSION Docllment Statistics bj;;s/97 F

• U,.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page2

(

3. In Item 7 of this letter, the Department requested that the memorandum from John Glenn~ November 1, 1991 (Attachment 2) be specifically referenced in the regulation. This memorandum specifies the sources that may be exempt from prototype testing as well as those that are not exempt. The proposed amendment does not cover all the sources listed in this memorandum. Please review this list and ensure that all sources are addressed in the proposed amendment.

4. In Item 8 of this letter, we requested the inclusion of specific procedures in. the regulation*for loading of well logging tools. These are not included in the latest amendment. During a recent investigation of loading procedures in Illinois, the Department found that a few states and at least one NRC region are not consistently evaluating the design of tools or their loading procedures during the licensing process. If this is the case, the Department does not believe that NRC can assume that the well logging tool will afford significant protection for any

• source much less the ECS sources. The pr:oposed regulation states that part of the reason for many of the exemptions for the ECS sources is the additional protection provided by the logging tool. Again, the Department would like to see requirements for tool design and loading of all sources included in this regulation. Please address this issue.

5. Section 39.53 states that ECS sources are subject only to certain portions of the regulation. The Department believes that there are other portions of the regulation that apply to ECS sources such as Sections 39.43, 39.61, 39.63 and

39. 71. Please include these sections in the proposed amendment.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this proposed rule .. NRC's efforts to obtain input based on Agreement States' experience with the licensed community certainly improve the quality of regulations. Please contact me or Gibb Vinson at (217) 785-9947 if we can be of additional assistance.

JGK: CGV :lrjg Attachments cc: Marie Haisfield Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards U ~S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001

/

Jim Edgar 1)1omas W. Ortciger Governor Director July 9, 1997 Jim.Meyers Office of State Programs US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

• Re: Draft Rulemaking Plan to Revise Well Logging Regulations (10 CFR 39).

Gentlemen; The Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety (Department) hereby submits its comments on the referenced notice. The proposal represents changes to 10 CFR 39 that would make minor regulato:ry changes and accommodations for updated technologies associated with well logging. Ow- specific comments are as follows:

\_

1. Regarding the regulation of Energy Compensation Sources (ECS), the Department agrees that Part 3 9 should be revised to reflect their use. However, we disagree on the lack of need for leak testing these sources. Although most sources may be of small

• activities, should their activity exceed 100 uCi for beta/gamma emitters or 10 uCi for alpha emitters, they should be leak tested according to the current regulation for similar activity sources. As such, ECS should not be categorically exempted.

2. If a logging string with an ECS is lost near the surface and is under consideration for abandonment, protections must be incorporated into the regulations such that it is unlikely that the borehole may be rebored or excavated. Although we agree rigorous recove:ry operations and costly abandonment procedures are unnecessary, some degree of protection of the abandoned string should be in place.

US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page2 July 9, 1997

3. Policy and Guidance Directive 84-22; Rev. 1 should be used to determine when ECS should be subjected to design and performance criteria. ECS should not be categorically excluded from evahµ1tion. We suggest that ECS be viewed as calibration and reference sources when interpreting the policy. Absent any technically rigorous environmental impact assessment to suggest other values, the value of 100 uCi for beta/gamma emitters and 10 uCi for alpha emitters should continue to be used. In addition we ask th.at the NRC keep in mind when developing these regulations that although the NRC does not regulate Ra-226, this nuclide may be used as an ECS. Also, we suggest that the NRC refrain from use of the illustrative example of gas and aerosol detectors with regard to exempt sources authorized for

• distnoution. These materials represent a different form and authorized use than those under consideration in this proposal.

4. Neutron generator devices containing tritium targets also require above-ground testing for operability and cahoration. When energized, these devices can produce radiation levels which may constitute "High Radiation Areas". Therefo!e, to acknowledge this use, language should be incorporated in the regulations to allow such testing and operation provided arrangements are made via facility design or engineered safety equipment to reduce the radiation levels and ensure adequate written safety procedures have been developed and are in use by trained personnel.

5. We agree that in some emergencies, prior notification of source abandonment to a

• regulatory agency is not in the best interest of public health and safety. Allowances should be made for immediate abandonment notwithstanding the radiological threat if a determination of immediate threat to public health and safety is made by responsible on-site personnel. Such decisions should be made given due consideration to the possibility of fire, explosion, or unstable working environments such as high winds, tornadoes or-lightning. To the extent possible, these circumstances should be defined in emergency procedures. *

6. We support the allowance of alternate means to prevent inadvertent intrusion into an abandoned well, provided immobilization and protection is still accomplished and the regulatory agency approves of the alternate measures.

7. We recommend that the past exemption and list of sources allowed under the generic exemption be directly referenced in the proposed rulemaking to clarify those older sealed sources which may still be used, with some reservation (see next comment).

/

US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 3 July 9, 1997

8. In addition to those'items in the Draft Rulemaking Plan, the NRC may wish to consider for inclusion in the regulation, the need for evaluation or specification of how sealed sources may be loaded into source holders. Recent events involving the Department, an Illinois licensee and an NRC licensee suggest the interaction of the source within the holder as a potential cause of source degradation has not be thoroughly evaluated. _Comments from the SSS Section indicate that vibration of a sealed source within a source holder may have lead to a loss of containment Therefore, the assumption that sources built under the USASI standard would be so rugged so as to preclude a public health and safety problem has been called into question. It may be necessary 1mder these circumstances to determine once again if

• well logging licensees would be unnecessarily forced out of business ( either from cost of disposal of these sources or replacement costs) should these concerns prove to be valid or generic in nature.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this draft rulemaking. It is through these cooperative efforts that both the Agreement States and the NRC can benefit the most and take advantage of the limited resources available. If you have any questions regarding these .comments, do not hesitate to call me, Joe Klinger or Daren Perrera at (217) 785-9947.

Sincerely,

~t--~-~

Steven C. Collins, Chief Division of Radioactive Materials SCC:dmp cc: Jim Lynch, State Agreements Officer

..01r1.:-:32 15: 36 301 504 2620 Il't-lS 119 P02

. UNITED STA TES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON. D C. 2()!65 NOV 11 ? 1891 TO: All Well Logging Licensees

SUBJECT:

STATUS OF WELL LOGGING SOURCES In a 1Je110randum dated August*10. 1989~ we informed Nuclear Regulatory Connission {NRC) well logging licensees of a temporary generic exemption published in the Federal Register on July 25, 1989 (54 FR 30683). The generic exemption exempted well logging licensees from the requirement to use only sealed sources that meet the prototype testing requirement specified in 10 CFR 39.4l(a)(3). The exemption applied to (and allowed the continued use of) well logg1ng sources that meet certain alternate prototype testing' criteria.

The notice indicated that the exe111ption would remain in affect until NRC published its final findings in the Federal Re~1ster. Thus far, NRC has been unable to initiate this act1on due to h1g er priority activities; however. NRC now anticipates co11111encing this task in the n@ar future.

Included in the merorandum with the Federal Register notice were three enclosures that listed various sealed source 1110dels common to well logging and 1dentif1ed their suitability for continued use in well logging operations.

There have been a fe'tl changes to the lists since first transmitted. There are a few sources which we have determined meet the criteria specified in 10 CFR Part 39, and have added the sources to the approved list.

Enclosed are the three enclosures which have been updated on a one-t1me-only basis ta show the apparent current status of known well logging sources.

Enclosure 1 lists thosa sourca models which appear to meet Section 39.41 requirements and are approved for continued use. Enclosure 2 lists those source models whose continued use is authorized under the temporary generic exemption. Enclosure 3 lists those source models that do not'ineet the requirements of Section 39.41 or the generic exemption. When a seated source 1s contained (and nonnally stored) within a device (logging tool), the sealed source manufacturer and model nulllber is shown below the entry. When NRC has been able to determine that a sealed source model was manufactured/distributed by another co~any. or 1110re than one model designation may have been used, this information is shown in parentheses below the entry. Neutron generators are shown by the designation "Nu GEN." An asterisk(*) indicates that the source is used within the logging tool's electronics package.

08-12-=2 15:3'1 301 504 2520 nNS 119 P03

..i..

-- - NO\' o 1 IJIO~ -

We do not intend to update these lists in the future. Due to the time which has passed, we believe that all questions concerning sources identified on the unapproved list should have been answered. Any new well logging source introduced by source manufacturers nrust be designed to meet the criteria specified in 10-CFR 39.41. Therefore, it will not be necessary to update the list to include a new source, as the NRC or Agreement State registration sheet for the source will indicate that use of the source in well logging operations

• is acceptable.

If you have any questions, please contact Torre Taylor at (301) 492-0611 or J. Bruce Carrico at (301) 492-0634.

John E. Glenn, Chief Medical. Academic, and Connercial Use Safety Branch Division of Industrial and Medical Nuclear Safety, NMSS

Enclosures:

As stated

08-12-32 15:313 301 504 2620 It1-IS 119 P04 WELL LOGGING SEALED SOURCES APPROY£0 UNDER PART 39 REQUIREMENTS \

MANUFACTURER MODEL AMERSHAM CORPORATION AMN.CYn (n :r l to 14)

AHERSHAM CORPORATION AHN.CY!

AMERSHAH CORPORATION AMN.PEn (n

• 1 to 4)

AHERSHAM CORPORATION CDC.CYn (n

• Z to 12)

AMERSHAM CORPORATIOH CKC.CDn (n = 2 to 12)

AHERSHAM CORPORATION CKC.800 SERIES AMERSHAM CORPORATION CVN.CDn ( n

• 2 to 12)

AMERSHAM CORPORATION VD(HP)

(GAMMA INDUSTRIES, GENERAL NUCLEAR)

AMERSHAM CORPORATION CVH.CY2 ANADRIU. INC.* S6S-AA 1 S6S-BA 1 OR SGS-CA ISOTOPE PRODUCTS MODEL 274 SEALED SOURCE

• COMPROBE, INC.

GAJt4A INDUSTRIES HODEL VO-HP SEALED SOURCE GULF NUCLEAR, INC. MODEL VL-1 SEALED SOURCE DRESSER INDUSTRIES INC. (Nu GEN) 1203 DENSITY PROBE C-58301>> C-107298 E.I.DUPONT DE NlJIOURS & CO. NER-571 (NEW ENGLAND NUCLEAR)

GEARHART INDtJSTRtES, INC. (Hu GEN) 013-1004-000 GENERAL ELECTRIC. CO. GE(N)-Cf-100 SERIES GULF NUCLEAR, INC. VL-1 (NEE!)

GULF NUCLEAR, INC. 71-1

{NEEI) (NEEI-AHBE-71-1)

KAHAN SCIENCES CORPORATION (Nu 6EN) A-3061 KAMAN SCIENCES CORPORATION (Ntr GEN) A-320 KAMAN SCIENCES CORPORATION (Nu GEN) A-520 KAMAN SCIENCES CORPORATION (Hu GEN) E-3010 AND E-3020 MONSANTO CO ** DAYTON LABORATORY H-245258 (NSR-M)

MONSANTO CO ** DAYTON LABORATORY 24113 MONSANTO CO.* DAYTON LABORATORY 24154-C

-.,.,. * *~"' ,.,.. naVTnu I ADnD&TnDV 24174

'".MONSANTO CO.: DAYTON LABORATORY 24174

_MONSANTO CO ** DAYTON LABORATORY 24181

-MONSANTO CO.* DAYTON LABORATORY 24183 R Enclosure 1

~12-92 1S:41 301 !504 2620 I1'1'6 120.P03 WELL LOGGING SEALED SOURCES APPROVED uNDe:R* -!_HE liENERIC EXEMPTION MANUFACTURER MODEL' COMPROBE, INC. 1203 DENSITY PROBE GULF NUCLEAR, INC. HODEL CSV SEALED SOURCE COMPROBE, INC. 2103 DENSITY PROB£

-, GAMMA INDUSTRIES (~TRON) MOOEL AH-HP SEALED SOURCE E.l.OUPONT DE HUMOURS &CO. NER-572, NER-582 1

(NEW ENGLAND NUCLEAR)

GAMMA INDUSTRIES CS-1000 (HP)

(GENERAL NUCLEAR, INC.)

GAM-tA INDUSTRIES GNI-NB (HP)

(GENERAL NUCLEAR. INC.)

GA19IA INDUSTRIES NB (HP)

GAHHA INDUSTRIES NHP-A-1 (GENERAL NUCLEAR. INC.)

GAMMA INDUSTRIES Wl.6-1 GA1fitATRON I I NC. AH-HP (NUCLEAR SOURCES ANO SERVICES. INC.)

GAMHATRON, INC. AN-HPG, RN-HP (NUCLEAR SOURCES ANO SERVICES, INC.}

GAMHATRON, INC. DA-20 (NUCLEAR SOURCES AND SERVICES, INC.)

GAMHATRON, INC.. DA-5 (NUCLEAR SOURCES AND SERVICES, INC.)

GAMMATRON I I NC. GT -6HP \

(NUCLEAR SOURCES AND SERVICES, INC.)

GULF NUCLEAR. INC. AMBE-71-2A (NEEI)

GULF NUCLEAR, INC. C-73-2 (NEEi)

GU~ NUCLEAR* INC. CS-2 (NEE!)

GULF NUCLEAR, INC. CSY (NEE!)

MONSANTO CO ** DAYTON LABORATORY 24112 MONSANTO CO., DAYTON LABORATORY 24120 PARKWELL LABORATORIES. INC. PL-104

{US NUCLEAR)

Enclosure 2

03;-12-92 15:41 301 504 i:E20 11'1-lS 120 P02 WELL LOGGING SEALED SOURCES APPROVED UNDER PART 39 REQUIREMENTS (cont 1 d)

MANUFACTURER MODEL P.A. INCORPORATED H-2~5258 (NSR-M)

(MONSANTO)

P.A. INCORPORATED* P-194693 SCHLUMBERGER DWG H-115686 (MONSANTO. NUMEC)

SCHLUHBER6£R DWG H-142108 SCHlUHBERGER DWG H-239681 SCHLUMBERGER WELL SERVICES* P-194693 SCHLUMBERGER wnL SERVICES NSR-R UNC NUCLEAR INDUSTRIES PA2A, PA2B. PT2A, PT28, PS2A, PS2B (OLD: SH-100)

E.l.OUPONT DE HUMOURS & CO. (HEN) HODEL 478C SEALED SOURCE US DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY SR-CF-100 SERIES

1

~12-92 15:42 301 504 2620 Il"NS 120 P04 KNOWN SEALED SOURCES NOT APPROVED FOR USE IN WEU LOGGING MANUFACTURER HODEL AMERSHAN CORPORATION CO CQ 5987 AMERSHAM CORPORATION COC.800 SERIES (.801 TO .811)

DRESSER ATLAS 889596, 889597. 889598

• FRONTIER TECHNOLOGY CORP.

- GAMMA INDUSTRIES (GENERAL NUCLEAR, INC.)

GAMMA INDUSTRIES (GENERAL NUCLEAR. INC.)

100 GNI-OL-4 GHI-NB-S-5.0 GAMMA INDUSTRIES NB-s-s. NB-S-20 6AHHA INDUSTRIES PL-AHBE-2. 7 (GENERAL NUCLEAR. INC.)

GAMMA INDUSTRIES RC-1 {HP)

GAJ,l,IA INDUSTRIES S-14 GAMHATRON 1 IMC. GT-6 (NUCLEAR SOURCES AND SERVICES, me.)

GENERAL NUCLEAR, INC. GHI-C(G}M-5 GULF NUCLEAR, INC. C0-50 (NEEi}

GULF NUCLEAR. INC. CS-50 (NE£I)

GULF NUCLEAR. INC. T6-l (NEEI)

GULF NUCLEAR. INC. 72-C0-200 (NEEI)

HASTINGS RADIOCHEMICAL WORKS CS-III-A-100 ICN PHARMACEUTICAL, INC. 373 (US NUCLEAR)

ICN PHARMACEUTICAL. INC. 374 (US NUCLEAR) lCN PHARMACEUTICAL. INC. 376 (US NUCLEAR)

ICN PHARMACEUTICAL, INt. 3146 Enclosure 3

r

. * .. . i.le3-12-92 15: 42

~ ')

301 504 2620 Il"NS 120 P0S

~

-* r KNOWN SEALED 1 SOURCES NOT APPROVED FOR USE IN WELL LOGGING (cont'd)

MANUFACTURER ISOTOPES SPECIALTIES MODEL C-0037 LFE CORPORATION CS-15 (TRACERLAB)

MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING 4F68 MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING 4F6H (REDESIGN OF MOOEL 4F6B)

MINNESOTA MINING ANO MANUFACTURING 4F6S MINNESOTA MINING AHO MANUFACTURING 4P6F MINNESOTA MINING ANO MANUFACTURING 4P6U MINNESOTA MINING AND HANUFACTIJRING 4P6W MONSAHTO CO., DAYTON LABORATORY H-142525 (SCHLUMBERGER WELL SERVICES)

MONSANTO CO., DAYTON LABORATORY H-207947 (SCHLUMBERGER WELL SERVICES)

MONSANTO CO ** DAYTON LABORATORY MRC MONSANTO CO., DAYTON LABORATORY MRC-N-SS-W-AMBE(R)

MONSANTO CO ** DAYTON LABORATORY NS-WELEX MONSANTO CO., DAYTON LABORATORY 2410 MONSANTO CO. DAYTON LABORATORY 1 24154*8 NUCLEAR MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT CORP. NtllEC*AM* 62. 63, 100, 123, 154 NUCLEAR MATERIALS ANO EQUIPMENT CORP. NUHEC DWG. 11-8-208 PARKWELL LABORATORIES, INC. PL-AMBE SCHLUMBERGER DWG H-1061850 SCHLUMBERGER DWG H-123515 SCHLUMBERGER DW6 H-123837 SCHLUHBER6£R OWG H-218733 SCHLUMBERGER 0116 X-113176

~ELL RECONNAISANCE. INC. 10411 AMERSHAM/SEARLE MODEL X.154 SEALED SOURCE WSI M794

DOCKET NUM~ .

DOCKETED PROPOSED RIJLE.iffll 31 ~f.;) U~1-P]

( l,'f FR /108~

"5-8 APR -2 A8 :42 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 39 RIN 3150-AG14 Energy Compensation Sources for Well Logging and Other Regulatory Clarlflcatlons AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Is proposing to amend its regulations governing licenses and radiation safety requirements for well logging. The proposed rule would modify NRC regulations dealing with: (1) low activity energy compensation sources; (2) tritium neutron generator target sources; (3) specific abandonment procedures In the event of an immediate threat; (4) changes to requirements for Inadvertent intrusion on an abandoned source; (5) the codification of an existing generic exemption; (6) the removal of an obsolete date; and (7) updating 10 CFR Part 39 to be consistent with the Commission's metrication policy. The proposed amendments are n~ssary to reflect developments that have occurred In well logging technology since the existing regulations were adopted.

°"~ 0 tC/91 DATE: The comment period expires (76 says after p, 1blicati0R). Comments received after this date will be considered if It is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.

ADDRESSES: Send comments by mail or addressed to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff.

Hand-deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, between 7:30 am and 4:15 pm on Federal workdays.

You may also provide comments via the NRC's Interactive rulemaking web site through the NRC home page (http://www.nrc.gov). From the NRC home page, select "Rulemaking" from the tool bar. The interactive rulemaking website can then be accessed by selecting

• "Rulemaking Forum." This site provides the availability to upload comments as files (any format), If your web browser supports that function. For Information about the Interactive rulemaking site, contact Ms. Carol Gallagher, (301) 415-5905; e-mail CAG@nrc.gov.

Certain documents related to this ruiemaking, including comments received and the environmental assessment and finding of no significant Impact, may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW., (Lower Level), Washington, DC. These same documents also may be viewed and downloaded electronically via the Interactive rulemaking website established by NRC for this ruiemaking.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Haisfield, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-6196, e-mail MFH@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

2

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is proposing to amend its regulations to acknowledge and accommodate the use of well logging technology that has been developed since the NRG issued the current well logging regulations (March 17, 1987;52 FR 8234). This new technology allows licensees to lower a logging tool down a well at the same time that the hole for the well is being drilled instead of requiring drilling to stop, removing drilling pieces, and lowering a logging tool down the well. This technology is commonly referred to as ulogglng while drilling.* This process uses a relatively small radioactive source within the logging tool In addition to the larger radioactive sources currently used in logging a well. The existing regulations were based on the use of larger radioactive sources. These regulations include

• provisions which are unnecessary and potentially burdensome for the additional small sources.

The proposed changes would have no significant impact on public health and safety and the environment while reducing potential burdens to licensees. Licensees would no longer need to comply with unnecessary regulatory requirements for these small sources or to request licensing exemptions from the NRG for actions dealing with these small sources. Other changes are also being proposed to improve, clarify, and update well logging regulations to reduce confusion. These changes may also reduce the need for licensees to request

• exemptions from unnecessary requirements.

Introduction Oil and gas come from accumulations in the pore spaces of reservoir rocks (usually sandstone, limestone, or dolomites) and are removed vi_a a well. Because the amount of oil and gas in these pore spaces is dependent upon the rock's characteristics, the oil and gas industry often needs to determine the characteristics of underground formations to predict the commercial viability of a new or existing well. Licensad radioactive materials are used to obtain 3

information on certain properties of an underground formation, such as type of rock, porosity, hydrocarbon content, and density. These properties are important in the evaluation of oil and gas reservoirs.*

One method to obtain information about oil and gas reservoirs is by using well logging tools. Licensed radioactive materials (sealed radioactive sources with associated radiation detectors) are contained in well logging tools. Amerlclum-241 and cesium-137 are the radioactive materials most frequently used for this purpose. Traditionally, these tools are lowered into a well on a wirellne. The depth of the well could range from several hundred feet to greater than 30,000 feet. Information collected by the detectors is sent to the surface through the wireline and plotted on a chart as the logging tool is slowly raised from the bottom of the well. Licensed radioactive materials are also used for similar purposes In coal and mineral exploration.

The licensing and radiation safety requirements for well logging are provided in 10 CFR Part 39. When the regulations for well logging were promulgated in 1987 (52 FR 8225, March 17, 1987), the well logging process required drilling to stop while parts of the drilling pieces were removed before lowering a logging tool down a well. More recent technology, referred to as logging while drilling (LWD), allows well logging to be accomplished during drilling. This technology employs an additional low activity radioactive source within the well logging tool known as an energy compensation source, or ECS. The ECS is used to calibrate the well logging tool while the well is being drilled.

LWD provides real time data during drilling operations. It has also provided the ability for improved evaluation of geologic formations and can reduce drilling costs. The real-time information can aid In decision making because formation evaluation can be planned as soon as the drill bit reaches a formation.

4

Background

Based on the changing technology in the well logging industry, the NRC developed a Rulemaking Plan to consider th*e need to update 10 CFR Part 39. On May 28, 1997, the NRC provided a draft Rulemaklng Plan entitled, *Energy Compensation Sources for Well Logging and Clarttlcatlons - Changes to 1o CFR Part 39* to the Agreement States for their comment.

The draft Rulemaklng Plan was contained In SECY-97-111, also dated May 28, 1997.

Comments were received from the States of Utah, Illinois, and Washington. These States generally supported the proposal and provided specific infonnation and comments. Where

• appropriate, these comments were incorporated Into the final Rulemaking Plan which was contained in SECY-98-105, dated May 12, 1998.

In the final Rulemaking Plan, the NRC proposed to modify the existing regulations In 10 CFR Part 39 to account for the newer technology. The changes would reduce regulatory burden on NRC and Agreement State licensees with no significant impact to public health and safety. In addition, there are other sections within 10 CFR Part 39 that should be changed to Improve, clarify, and update the regulations. The final Rulemaking Plan provides the rationale used in the development of this proposed rule.

Proposed Regulatory Action The NRC Is proposing seven specific changes to Improve, clarify, and update the requirements In 10 CFR Part 39.

1. The principal objective of the proposed rulemaking is to amend 10 CFR Part 39 to accommodate the radioactive ECSs that are now used in some well logging applications. The ECS is a low activity source, typically less than 1.85 MBq (50 microcuries), compared to the 5

normal 110 GBq to 740 GBq (3 to 20 curies) sources used in well logging. Because this Is an emerging technology, 10 CFR Part 39, originally promulgated In 1987, does not provide any specific provisions for these lqw activity sources. Many of the requirements In 10 CFR Part 39, when applied to an ECS, are not appropriate or necessary to protect publlc health and safety and the environment. Therefore, the NRC believes the regulations should be changed.

Because the existing regulations do not allow for variations based on the activity of the source, licensees who use an ECS must meet all the requirements for larger sources found In 10 CFR Part 39. Examples of requirements which are overly burdensome for llcensees using ECSs include those addressing well abandonment(§§ 39.15 and 39.77), leak testing(§ 39.35),

design and performance criteria for sealed sources (§ 39.41 ), and monitoring of sources lodged In a well (§ 39.69). The NRC Is proposing that only those sections dealing with leak testing (a proposed revised§ 39.35 specifically addresses ECSs), physical Inventory(§ 39.37), and records of material use (§ 39.39) should apply to the use of an ECS.

Oil and gas wells use a surface casing to protect fresh water aquifers. However, if a

/-

surface casing Is not used, the NRC would retain the well abandonment requirements.

Requirements established in other parts of NRC regulations (e.g., 10 CFR Parts 20, 30, 40, and 70) would still apply to the possession and use of llcensed material and are adequate to protect publlc health and safety and the environment.

Therefore, the NRC is proposing to amend 10 CFR Part 39 to accommodate the use of an ECS In well logging and to provide requirements governing its use. These provisions would include radioactivity llmlts on the ECS and leak testing requirements. The most significant change would exclude an ECS from the costly procedures for well abandonment in the event an ECS is lost within the well. Current requirements for well abandonment, in addition to specific reporting and approval requirements, require the source to be immobilized and sealed in place with a cement plug which must be protected from. Inadvertent intrusion, and the mounting of a 6

permanent plaque at the surface of the well. In the draft Regulatory Analysis (RA) conducted for this proposed rule, a survey of ECS users Indicated that about eight ECSs are abandoned per year. Although estimated abandonment costs-varied significantly by survey respondent, the estimated savings to the industry to avoid eight abandonments per year Is $5 million.

The NRC Is proposing to establish 3.7 MBq (100 microcuries) as the limit. for an ECS.

Current ECSs typically use up to 1.85 MBq (50 microcurles) of amerlclum-241 (cesium-137 sources are smaller). The 3.7 MBq (100 microcuries) limit would allow licensees flexibility in designing new sources of this kind while maintaining their radioactivity within an environmentally safe level. In addition, the sources would be required to be registered pursuant to 10 CFR 32.21 O as ECSs for use in well logging applications. These sources would not be required to meet the requirements In § 39.41. However, they would be expected to meet the general requirements for calibration sources as established in American National Standard Institute (ANSI) standards.

Because ECSs are used for logging oil and gas wells, they use surface casings to protect fresh water aquifers. Hence, the only potential exposure hazard these sources. would present is to workers, and worker exposure could only occur if an ECS were ruptured. If ruptured, workers could be exposed to the radionuclide through ingestion or by absorption through the skin. However, if the source were ruptured, it would be contained within hundreds to thousands of cubic feet of drilling mud which also contains hazardous chemicals and is controlled and monitored to protect workers as part of drilling operations.

The draft Environmental Assessment (EA) conducted for this proposed rulemaklng demonstrates that there would be no significant impact to public health and safety or the environment resulting from this amendment. The EA evaluated a worst case scenario of a 3.7 MBq (100 microcuries) source ruptured by a drill bit and brought to the surface In the drilling mud. The most significant exposure from this scenario would be from ingestion of the drilling 7

mud. The most dangerous radionuclide considered for this worst case scenario was curium-250. This radionuclide was used because the rule, as proposed, does not restrict th~

radionuclide used for ECS sources. Also, the scenario involved a source twice as large as any in current use. For this worst case scenario, the estimated dose would be about 56 millirem, which is below the Federal annual dose limit to an indMdual member of the public of 0.1 rem (100 milllrem) or 1 millisievert (see 10 CFR 20.1301 ). For a 3. 7 MBq (100 microcurles) source of americium or cesium (the actual radionuclides used, but with larger actMty) the estimated dose would be less than 3 millirem and 1 milllrem respectively. Therefore, the NRC believes that eliminating potential costly requirements for these sources, in the event that such sources become unretrievable, would not impact public health and safety or the environment.

Section 39.35 specifies leak testing requirements for sealed sources. Because of the small amount of radioactive material in an ECS (by definition less than 3. 7 MBq (100 microcuries)) less specific leak testing requirements are being proposed for ECSs. Also, the ECS is contained within a logging tool that is designed to withstand significant stress and pressure. The ECS is mounted inside a steel pressure housing in the interior of the logging tool, thereby providing additional encapsulation to protect the ECS from operational impacts.

The NRC believes that it is unnecessary and overly burdensome to require that drilling operations stop because an ECS has exceeded the current 6-month time interval requirement to be leak tested. The draft Regulatory Analysis conducted for this proposed rulemaking surveyed a sample of the drilling Industry to determine a normal maintenance period at which time a licensee would take a logging tool out of service for routine maintenance or other servicing. The NRC believes this maintenance period would be an appropriate time to conduct any necessary leak testing on an ECS. Although the survey results varied, these tools generally receive some type of out-of-field servicing every 18 months.

8

Based on this Information and the NRC's belief that ECSs should normally only be leak tested during normal maintenance or when a logging tool Is out of service for other repairs, the NRC is requiring that a leak test be performed at a minimum of every three years. This requirement should not be a burden for licensees If the logging tool is being properly malntained and, in fact, should provide licensees some flexibility. This is also consistent with an extended leak test frequency that has been established by license conditions for certain other sealed sources and devices.

Many ECSs are already exempt from all leak testing requirements. Section 39.35 exempts all beta or gamma emitting radioactive material with an activity of 3.7 MBq (100 microcuries) or less. Because ceslum-137 is a beta\gamma emitter, all of these types of ECSs are already exempt from the existing leak testing requirements in § 39.35.

, 2. The NRC Is proposing to revise 10 CFR Part 39 requirements for tritium neutron generator target sources. Tritium neutron generators help determine the porosity of the reservoir rock formation, which Indicates the amount of liquid In the reservoir and the reservoir's penneability. Tritium neutron generator target sources are not used In logging while drilling tools. These sources are used In the more traditional well logging procedure where drilling is stopped and the tool Is lowered downhole. Because tritium neutron generator target sources produce a significant neutron stream only when a voltage Is applied, tritium neutron generator target sources are less hazardous than the typical americium or cesium sources currently being used in well logging applications.

For well logging applications, the NRC is proposing that tritium neutron generator target sources be subject to the requirements of 10 CFR Part 39 except for the sealed source design and performance criteria(§ 39.41), and the.lwell abandonment procedures(§§ 39.15 and 39.77) when. a surface casing is used to protect fresh water aquifers, a practice that is standard for oil 9

and gas wells. The potential hazard of these sources when _a surface casing Is used does not warrant the existing requirements for well abandonment In the event that the source becomes lost The design and performance criteria associated with sealed sources for well logging were not Intended for tritium neutron generator target sources. However, 10 CFR Part 39 does not make this intent or distinction clear.

The NRG is proposing to establish 1, 11 O GBq (30 curies) of tritium as the limit for a tritium neutron generator target source. Current tritium neutron generator target sources typically contain less than 740 GBq (20 curies) of tritium. The 1,110 GBq (30 curies) limit would anow licensees flexibility in designing new sources of this type whlle maintaining their radloactfvity within an environmentally safe level.

When these sources are used for logging oil and gas wells, a surface casing is used to protect fresh water aquifers. The only exposure hazard these sources present are to workers and worker exposure could only occur If such sources were ruptured and the tritium was ingested. If a tritium source were ruptured, it would be contained within hundreds to thousands of cubic feet of drilling mud. As mentioned, this drilling mud contains hazardous chemicals and

• • is controlled and monitored as part of drilling operations .

The draft EA conducted for this proposed rulemaking demonstrates that there would be no significant Impact to public health and safety or the environment resulting from this change.

The draft EA evaluated the worst case scenario of a 1, 11 O GBq (30 curies) tritium source ruptured by a drill bit and brought to the surface in the drilling mud. The most significant exposure would be through ingestion of this drilling mud. For this worst case scenario, the estimated dose would be 14 mllllrem, which is well below the Federal _annual dose limit to an indMduaJ member of the public of 100 mllllrem or 1 mlllislevert (see 10 CFR 20.1301 ).

Therefore, the NRG believes that eliminating potential costly requirements for these sources, in 10

the event that such sources become unretrievable, would not Impact public health and safety or the environment.

3. Section 39.77 provides the requirements for notification and procedures for abandoning irretrlev~ble well logging sources. This section specifies that the NRC must approve Implementation of abandonment procedures before abandonment. In some circumstances, such as high well pressures that could lead to fires or explosions, the delay required to notify NRC could cause an immediate threat to public health and safety. The NRC believes that this section should be modified to allow licensees to use their judgement to abandon a well immediately, without prior NRC approval, if the licensee believes a delay could cause such a non-radiological threat. This modification would allow llcensees greater procedural latitude. In the proposed rule, the language has been modified to allow licensees to notify the NRC and justify the need for an immediate abandonment after the fact.

4. Section 39.15 provides requirements for abandoning irretrievable sealed sources.

The NRC believes that this section should be modified to provide performance-based criteria for Inadvertent intrusion on the source. This modification would allow licensees greater procedural latitude while continuing to ensure source integrity. The current requirements may be more restrictive than Is necessary to protect an abandoned source, depending upon the Individual well abandonment. For example, if a significant amount of drilling equipment Is abandoned with the well, the equipment Itself may be effective in preventing inadvertent Intrusion on the source.

However, the abandoned equipment would not meet the current requirements of § 39.15.

Paragraph (a)(5)(ii) of § 39.15 has prescriptive requirements for irretrievable well logging sources, specifying the use of a mechanical device to prevent inadvertent intrusion on the source, at a specific location wit~in the abandoned v,ell.

11

r The NRG is proposing that licensees *prevent Inadvertent intrusion on the source.* This would require that the source be protected but allow licensees the flexibility to determine the best method. The proposed change would not affect the requirement in § 39.15(a)(5)(i) that a ,

well logging source be Immobilized with a cement plug or the requirement in § 39.15(a)(5)(ili) that a pennanent Identification plaque be mounted at the surface of the well.

5. Two changes are being proposed for § 39.41, "Design and perfonnance criteria for sealed sources." The first would Incorporate within NRG regulations an existing generic exemption for sealed sources that were manufactured before 1989 and met older standards.

The second would add an optional acceptable standard by referencing oil-well logging requirements in ANSI/HPS N43.6-1997. The existing requirements would also remain as an option within this section.

The NRG Issued a generic exemption from the current design and performance criteria for sealed sources in 1989. This exemption allows the use of older sealed sources which were not tested against the current criteria, but which were tested In accordance with an earlier standard used for well logging sources. This exemption is currently in practice, but is not included in 1O GFR Part 39. The NRG is proposing to modify the regulations to include this existing generic exemption within 1O GFR Part 39.

Sealed sources that were manufactured before July 14, 1989, may use design and performance criteria from the United States of America Standards Institute (USASI) N5.10-1968, aGlasslfication of Sealed Radioactive Sources" or the criteria in § 39.41. The use of the USASI standard Is based on an NRG Notice of Generic Exemption published on July 25, 1989 (54 FR 30883). NRG regulations have not incorporated the USASI N5.10-1968 requirements for older sealed sources. The primary difference between the USASI standard and the existing requirements is that the existing requirements Includes a vibration test that is consistent with 12

current national standards. The USASI standard considered a vibration test and concluded that, to pass the other requirements, the source would be so rugged there was no reason to include a vibration test The exemption allowing the use of the USASI standard was intended to avoid a situation In which well logging licensees might be unnecessarily forced out of business and have to dispose of their sources. This situation could arise because the _original source manufacturers tested against the USASI standard, but did not retest these sources against the standards that became effective In 1989. The NRC determined that those sealed source models meeting the USASI standard would not adversely affect public health and safety. These sources had been

• used for years in operational situations and had demonstrated through actual use that vibration from drilling operations had not caused failure. The survey of licensees conducted for the RA and EA for this proposed rulemaking confirmed that these older sources have not presented a problem during actual use. Therefore, the NRC is proposing to codify within this section the existing practice to use, as an option, the USASI standards for sealed sources that were manufactured before July 14, 1989. Because many of these older sealed sources contain radioactive material with half-lives that allow their continued use (i.e., americium-241 and ceslum-137 have half-lives of 458 and 30 years respectively), this modification to the regulations Is appropriate.

However, a vibration test has been included In ANSI standards since 1977, and by existing NRC regulations which were promulgated in 1987. Based on survey Information done for this rulemaklng, it is estimated that the cost to test a source to see if it meets the vibration requirement in § 39.41 is $2,400. Only the prototype for each design requires testing. The number of prototype designs each year is small. The only survey respondent on this topic Indicated that they produce, at most, one new prototype per year and they did not Indicate that vibration testing is burdensome. The NRC believes that the cost for vibration testing is not 13

overly burdensome and Is consistent with (1) ANSI N542-1977, "Sealed Radioactive Sources, Classification," published by the National Bureau of Standards [(NBS) currently the National Institute of Standards and Technology] in the 1978 NBS Handbook 126 and (2) ANSI/HPS N43.6-1997, "Sealed Radioactive Sources - Classification" approved in November 1997.

ANSI/HPS N43.6-1997 ls the revised update to ANSI N542-1977. However, the oil-well logging requirements have not changed between the two ANSI standards and the NRC has decided to retain the current requirements for vibration testing.

The second proposed change to this section is to meet Public Law 104-113, "National Technology and Transfer Act of 1995M and Office of Management and Budget Circular A-119, "Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and In Conformity Assessment ActMties." This law encourages agencies to use "voluntary consensus standards" (i.e., standards developed by a voluntary consensus body and made available to all interested parties). The existing NRC requirements are based on the older ANSI N542-1977 standard, and allow licensees flexibility In de.termining how to conduct testing and ensuring Integrity of the source. The NRC is proposing to add an optional method of meeting the design requirements by referencing the newer, current ANSI standard (ANSI/HPS N43.6-1997) within

• 10 CFR Part 39. Although the current NRC requirements and ANSI/HPS N43.6-1997 are quite similar, the NRC does not want to eliminate the ability to meet the existing NRC regulatory requirements; that could result in a problem similar to that experienced in 1989. That is, existing approved sealed sources might not have been tested or evaluated ~xactly as specified In ANSI/HPS N43.6-1997, which could result in well logging licensees having to dispose of acceptable sealed sources.

The NRC is inviting public comment on whether adding this voluntary consensus standard (ANSI/HPS N43.6-1997) to 10 CFR Part 39 is appropriate for use by manufacturers of sealed sources for use in well logging.

14

6. For clarity and to avoid confusion, the NRC is proposing to update § 39.49 because It contains a date that has passed and is no longer appropriate. This section would be amended to remove the obsolete date.

7. The NRC Is proposing to update §§ 39.15, 39.35, and 39.41 to conform with the agency's metrication policy published on J.une 19, 1996 (61 FR 31169) by stating parameter values in dual units with International System of Units (SI) first and with English units in brackets .

• Specific Changes In Regulatory Text The following sectlon is provided to assist the reader regarding the specific changes made to each section or paragraph In 10 CFR Part 39. For clarity and content, a substantial portion of a particular section or paragraph may be repeated, while only a minor change Is being made. This approach will allow the reader to effectively review the specific changes without cross-reference to existing materlal that has been Included for content, but has not been significantly changed.

Section 39.2: Two new definitions are being added for ECS and tritium neutron generator target source.

Paragraph 39.15(a)(5)(ii): This Is being revised to allow a more performance-based approach to prevent inadvertent Intrusion on an abandoned source.

Paragraph 39.15(a)(5)(iii): This Is being revised to meet the NRC's metrlfication policy.

Paragraph 39.35(b): This Is being revised to meet the NRC's metrificatlon policy.

Paragraph 39.35(c)(1 ): This essentially repeats the existing paragraph on leak testing frequency, but notes that ECSs are not Included in this paragraph.

15

Paragraph 39.35(c)(2): This is a new paragraph allowing a 3 year leak testing interval for ECSs.

Paragraph 39.35(d): This is being revised to meet the NRC's metrificatlon policy.

Paragraph 39.35(e)(1 )~ This is an editorial change to indicate that hydrogen-3 and tritium are the same.

Paragraphs 39.35(e)(4) and (5): This is being revised to meet the NRC's metrlfication policy.

Section 39.41 has been significantly revised as described below:

Paragraph 39.41 (a): This is a new paragraph describing the applicable requirements for a sealed source which includes requirements from the existing § 39.41 (a)(1) and (2).

Paragraph 39.41 (b): This is a new paragraph to allow pre-1989 sources to meet USASI standards.

Paragraph 39.41 (c): This is a new paragraph providing for the use of current ANSI standards.

Paragraph 39.41 (d): This is the existing § 39.41 (a)(3).

Paragraph 39.41 (d)(1 )(v): This is being revised to meet the NRC's metrification policy

• (the old § 39.41 (a)(3)(v)).

Paragraph 39.41 (e): This is the old § 39.41 (b) and is edited to be consistent with the above changes.

Paragraph 39.41 (f): This is a new paragraph clarifying that this section does not apply to ECSs.

Section 39.49: This is being revised to eliminate an obsolete date. .

Section 39.53: This Is a new section providing requirements for ECSs.

Section 39.55: This is a new section providing requirements for tritium neutron generator target sources.

16

Paragraphs 39.77(c)(1)(i} and (ii): This is being revised to allow an option to immediately abandoning a well without receiving prior NRC approval when the licensee believes there is an immediate threat to public healU., and safety.

Paragraph 39. 77(d)(9): This is a new paragraph requiring the licensee to justify in writing why it was necessary to immediately abandon a well without prior NRC approval.

Compatibility of Agreement State Regulations The compatibility of the provisions in 10 CFR Part 39 have been determined in accordance with the NRC's "Statement of Principle and Policy for the Agreement State Program; Polley Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs" that was published on September 3, 1997 (62 FR 46517). The NRC is adding definitions for an "Energy compensation source" and a "Tritium neutron generator target source" to § 39.2 and adding two new sections to 1o CFR Part 39. The definitions for an ECS and a tritium neutron generator target source are assigned Compatibility Category B. The new § 39.53, Energy co~pensation source, and § 39.55, Tritium neutron generator target source, are assigned

• Compatibility Category C. The NRC is not proposing compatibility changes for those sections of 10 CFR Part 39 that are being modified. The present Compatibility Categories for the modified sections are: Section 39.41, Compatibility Category B; §§ 39.15, 39.35, 39.49, 39.77(c) and (d), Compatibility Category C.

Specific information about the NRC's Compatibility Policy and the levels of compatibility assigned to the present rule may be found at the Sp.ecial Documents area of the Office of State Program's Web site, http://www.hsrd.ornl.gov/nrc/home.html.

Plain Language 17

The Presidential Memorandum dated June 1, 1998, entitled, "Plain Language In Government Writing,* directed that the Federal government's writing be in plain language. The NRC requests comments on the proposed* rule speyifically with respect to the clarity and effectiveness of the language used. Comments should be sent to the address listed above.

Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact Availability The Commission has determined under the National Environmental Polley Act of 1969, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in Subpart A of 1O,CFR Part 51, that this rule, if adopted, would not be a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, and therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required. The proposed rule would modify NRC regulations dealing with: (1) low activity energy compensation sources; (2) tritium neutron generator target sources; (3) specific abandonment procedures in the event of an Immediate threat; (4) changes to requirements for Inadvertent intrusion on an abandoned source; (5) the codification of an existing generic exemption; (6) the removal of an obsolete date; and (7) updating 10 CFR Part 39 to be consistent with the Commission's metrication policy. The draft environmental assessment evaluated the maximum annual public health risk to members of the public as a result of these proposed changes and determined that there is no significant environmental Impact as a result of the proposed changes.

The NRC has sent a copy of the environmental assessment and this proposed rule to every State Liaison Officer and requested their comments. The environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact on which this determination Is based are available for Inspection at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC. Single copies of the environmental assessment and the finding of no significant impact are available 18

from Mark Haisfield, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-6196.

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This proposed rule increases the burden on licensees to justify in writing the immediate threat to pubUc health and safety that resulted in the implementation of abandonment procedures prior to NRG approval. The burden to include the justification in the existing report required in 10CFR 39.77(d) will increase from 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> to 4.25 hours2.893519e-4 days <br />0.00694 hours <br />4.133598e-5 weeks <br />9.5125e-6 months <br /> per impacted report.

Because the burden for this .information coUection requirement is insignificant, Office of Management and Budget (0MB) clearance Is not required. Existing requiremen~ were approved by the 0MB, approval number 3150-0130.

Public Protection Notification If a means used to impose an information coUection does not display a currently valid

• 0MB control number, the NRG may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, the information collection.

Regulatory Analysis The Commission has prepared a draft regulatory analysis on this proposed regulation.

The analysis examines the costs and benefits of the alternatives considered by the Commission. The draft analysis Is available for inspection in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC. Single copies of the draft analysis may be 19

obtained from Mark Haisfield, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-6196.

The Commission requests public comment on the draft regulatory analysis. Comments on the draft ,analysis may be submitted 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 significant economic Impact upon a substantial number of small entitles. All of the proposed amendments are to 10 CFR Part 39 and are intended to either reduce regulatory burdens from unnecessary requirements or to clarify and update regulations to reduce confusion. Therefore, any economic impact to a small entity using 10 CFR Part 39 should be either neutral or positive.

Any small entity subject to this regulation which determines that, because of its size, it is likely to bear a disproportionate adverse economic impact should notify the Commission of this in a comment that indicates the following:

(a) The licensee's size and how the proposed regulation would result in a significant economic burden upon the licensee as compared to the economic burden on a larger licensee.

(b) How the proposed regulations could be modified to take Into account the ncensee's differing needs or capabilities.

(c) The benefits that would accrue, or the detriments that would be avoided, if the proposed regulations were modified as suggested by the licensee.

20

(d) How the proposed regulation, as modified, would more closely equalize the impact of reg_ulations or create more equal access to the benefits of Federal programs as opposed to providing special advantages to any individual or group.

I (e) How the proposed regulation, as modified, would still adequately protect public health and safety.

Backfit Analysis The NRG has determined that the backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109, does not .apply to this proposed rule, and therefore, a backfit analysis is not required because these amendments do not involve any provisions that would impose backfits as defined in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1 ).

List of Subjects 10 CFR Part 39 Byproduct material, Criminal penalties, Nuclear material, Oil and gas exploration - well

• logging, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Scientific equipment, Security measures, Source material, Special nuclear material.

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 NRG is proposing to adopt the following amendments to 10 CFR Part 39.

21

PART 39-LICENSES AND RADIATION SAFETY REQUIREMENTS FOR WELL LOGGING

1. The authority citation for Part 39 continues to read as follows:

AUTHORITY: Secs. 53, 57, 62, 63, 65, 69, 81, 82, 161, 182, 183, 186, 68 Stat. 929, 930, 932, 933, 934, 935, 948, 953, 954, 955, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 u.s.c. 2073, 2077, 2092, 2093, 2095, 2099, 2111, 2112, 2201, 2232, 2233, 22~6, 2282);

secs. 201, as amended, 202,206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846) .

• 2. Section 39.2 is amended by adding definitions, In their proper alphabetic order, of the tenns energy compensation source and tritium neutron generator target source to read as follows:

§ 39.2 Definitions.

Energy compensation source (ECS) means. a small sealed source, with an activity not exceeding 3.7 MBq [100 microcuries], used within a logging tool, or other tool components, to provide a reference standard to maintain the tool's calibration when in use.

Tritium neutron generator target source means a tritium source used within a neutron generator tube to produce neutrons for use in well logging applications.

3. Section 39.15 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(5)(ii) and the introductory text of paragraph {a)(5)(1ii) to read as follows:

22

§ 39.15 Agreement with well owner or operator.

(a) * * *

(5) * * *

(ii) A means to prevent inadvertent intrusion on the source, unless the source Is not accessible to any subsequent drilling operations; and Oii) A permanent Identification plaque, constructed of long lasting material such as stainless steel, brass, bronze, or monel, must be mounted at the surface of the well, unless the mounting of the plaque is not practical. The size of the plaque must be at least 17 cm

[7 inches] square and 3 mm [1/8-lnch] thick. The plaque must contain-

4. Section 39.35 is amended by revising paragraphs (b), (c), (d)(1 ), (e)(1 ), (e)(4) and (e)(5) to read as follows: .

§ 39.35 Leak testing of sealed sources.

(b) Method of testing. The wipe of a sealed source must be performed using a leak test kit or method approved by the Commission or an Agreement State. The wipe sample must be taken from the nearest accessible point to the sealed source where contamination might accumulate. The wipe sample must be analyzed for radioactive contamination. The analysis must be capable of detecting the presence of 185 Bq [0.005 microcurles] of radioactive material on the test sample and must be performed by a person approved by the Commission or an Agreement State to perform the analysis.

(c) Test frequency. (1) Each sealed source (except an energy compensation source (ECS)) must be tested at intervals not to exceed 6 months. In the absence of a certificate from 23

a transferor that a test has been made within the 6 months before the transfer, the sealed source may not be used until tested.

(2) Each ECS that Is not exempt from testing in accordance with paragraph (e) of this section must be tested at intervals not to exceed 3 years. In the absence of a certificate from a transferor that a test has been made within the 3 years before the transfer, the ECS may not be used until tested.

(d) Removal of leaking source from service. (1) If the test conducted *pursuant to paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section reveals the presence of 185 Bq [0.005 mlcrocurles] or more of removable radioactive material, the licensee shall remove the sealed source from service immediately and have It decontaminated, repaired, or disposed of by an NRC or Agreement State licensee that Is authorized to perform these functions. The licensee shall check the equipment associated with the leaking source for radioactive contamination and, If contaminated, have it decontaminated or disposed of by an NRC or Agreement State licensee that is authorized to perform these functions.

(e) * * *

(1) Hydrogen-3 (tritium) sources; (4) Sources of beta- or gamma-emitting radioactive material with an actMty of 3.7 MBq I100 mlcrocuries] or less; and (5) Sources of alpha- or neutron-emitting radioactive material with an actMty of 0.37 MBq [10 mlcrocurles] or less.

5. Section 39.41 is revised to read as follows:

§ 39.41 Design and performance criteria for sources.

24

(a) A licensee may use a sealed source for use in well logging applications if -

(1) The sealed source is doubly encapsulated; (2) The sealed source contains licensed material whose chemical and physical forms are as insoluble and nondlspersible as practical; and (3) Meets the requirements of paragraph (b), (c), or (d) of this section.

(b) For a sealed source manufactured on or before July 14, 1989, a licensee may use the sealed source, for use In well logging applications if It meets the requirements of USASI NS.10-1968, "Classification of Sealed Radioactive Sources,* or the requirements in paragraph (c) or (d) of this section.

(c) For a sealed source manufactured after July 14, 1989, a licensee may use the sealed source, for use In well logging applications If It meets the oil-well logging requirements of ANSI/HPS N43.6-1997, "Se?led Radioactive Sources - Classification."

(d) For-a sealed source manufactured after July 14, 1989, a licensee may use the

• sealed source, for use in well logging applications, if -

(1) The sealed source's prototype has been tested and found to maintain its integrity after each of the following tests:

(I) Temperature. The test source must be held at -40° C for 20 minutes, 600° C for 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br />, and then be subject to a thermal shock test with a temperature drop from 600° C to 20° C within 15 seconds.

(ii) Impact test. A 5 kg steel hammer, 2.5 cm In diameter, must be dropped from a height of 1 m onto the test source.

(iii) Vibration test. The test source must be subject to a vibration from 25 Hz to 500 Hz at 5 g amplitude for 30 minutes.

(iv) Puncture test. A 1 gram hammer and pin, 0.3 cm pin diameter. must be dropped from a height of 1 m onto the test source.

25

(v) Pressure test. The test source must be subject to an external pressure of 1.695 x 107 pascals [24,600 pounds per square inch absolute].

(e) The requirements in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d) of this section do not apply to sealed sources that contain licensed material in gaseous form.

(f) The requirements In paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d) of this section do not apply to energy compensation sources (ECS). ECSs must be registered with the Commission under

§ 32.21 0 of this chapter or with an Agreement State.

6. Section 39.49 is revised to read as follows:

§ 39.49 Uranium sinker bars.

The licensee may use a uranium sinker bar in well logging applications only if it is legibly impressed with the words *cAUTION-RAD.IOACTIVE-DEPLETED URANIUM* and *NOTIFY CIVIL AUTHORITIES (or COMPANY NAME) IF FQUND.*

7. Section 39.53 Is added to read as follows:

§ 39.53 Energy compensatjon source .

• The licensee may use an energy compensation source (ECS) which is contained within a logging tool, or other tool components, only if the ECS contains quantities of licensed material not exceeding 3.7 MBq [100 microcuries].

(a) For well logglng applications with a surface casing for protecting fresh water aquifers, use of the ECS is only subject to the requirements of §§ 39.35, 39.37 and 39.39.

(b) For well logglng applications without a surface casing for protecting fresh water aquifers, use of the ECS Is only subject to the requirements of §§ 39.15, 39.35, 39.37, 39.39, 39.51, and 39.n.

26

8. Section 39.55 .is added to read as follows:

§ 39.55 Tritium neutron generator target source.

(a) Use of a tritium neutron generator target source, containing quantities not exceeding 1, 11 O MBq [30 curies] and In a well with *a surface casing to protect fresh water aquifers, Is subject to the requirements of this Part except §§ 39.15, 39.41, and 39. n.

(b) Use of a tritium neutron generator target source, containing quantities exceeding 1, 11 O MBq [30 curies] or In a well without a surface casing to protect fresh water aquifers, is subject to the requirements of this Part except § 39.41 .

• 9. Section 39.77 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(1), redeslgnating paragraphs (d)(9) and (d)(10) as paragraphs (d)(10) and (d)(11), and adding a new paragraph (d)(9) to read as follows:

§ 39.n Notification of incidents and lost sources: abandonment procedures for Irretrievable sources.

(c) * * *

(1) Notify the appropriate NRC Regional Office by telephone of the circumstances that resulted In the Inability to retrieve the source and -

(i) Obtain NRC approval to Implement abandonment procedures; or (ii) That the licensee Implemented abandonment before receiving NRC approval because the licensee believed there was an Immediate threat to public health and safety; and (d) * * *

. 27

(9) The immediate threat to public health and safety justification for implementing abandonment If prior NRC approval was not obtained In accordance with paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section; Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this M day of ""!fa,.-e,J,., 1999.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

~J ~

Acting Executive Director for Operations.

28