ML20236K889
| ML20236K889 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/18/1996 |
| From: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Dicus G, Shirley Ann Jackson, Rogers, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236J269 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-62FR28948, RULE-PR-150, RULE-PR-30, RULE-PR-34, RULE-PR-71 AE07-2-013, AE7-2-13, NUDOCS 9807100129 | |
| Download: ML20236K889 (4) | |
Text
, _ _ _ - _ - _ - _ _ - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ . _ _ _ _
A E 0 7- 2 (I D tt-
^
I2-p p nec<,
- b. .4 UNITED STATES lo C
} NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 205554KKH
- s /
March 18, 1996 MEMORANDUM T0: Chairman Jackson .
Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Dic L. i FROM: James M. Taylor, xecutive rector for perations
SUBJECT:
EARLY COMMISSION CONSULTATION ON REVISION TO PART 34, RADIOGRAPHY A final rule incorporating a number of changes to the current radiography regulations will be forwarded for Commission. approval. The final rule, as drafted, does not incorporate one of the major provisions of the proposed rule, namely that at least two qualified persons be present whenever radiographic operations are conducted at a temporary job site. The staff requests Commission guidance on whether to include this provision in the final rulemaking package based on consideration of the two available options discussed below.
OPTION A - Do'not adopt the two person provision based on the negative I cost / benefit analysis.
To be responsive to concerns raised by the Agreement States in the February ,
1996 OAS briefing the cost estimate in the final regulatory analysis provides '
a range of costs for the two person requirement. The staff estimates that the annual cor,t for this provision ranges between $720K and $4.3M. This range is based on en a',sumption that under the current rule 70-85 percent of radiography operations (200-400 per day) would require the presence of a ~'
second qualified individual, and that if a requirement for a mandatory two- i person crew were not adopted it is likely that 50-75 percent (or 100-300 per l day) of these licensees would use two individuals anyway. This translates j into 30-60 radiography licensees needing to add 1-3 radiographer's assistants y to meet a two-person crew requirement. Based on which end of the range is !
selected, adoption of the two-person requirement could result in a final rule l' that is cost-effective or one with a significant cost to industry.
Based on NRC data, the maximum likely annual benefit to NRC licensed activities is one to two avoided overexposure with a range of 6 to 100 rem of ;
averted dose. In addition, two to three severe extremity or skin exposures '
with deterministic effects might be avoided over a ten year period. Even if NRC could assume complete elimination of radiography overexposure at the
, level experienced in the last ten years, the $2,000/ person-rem guideline would j l indicate the annual cost would need to be less than $80,000 to justify '
inclusion of the two-person requirement.
I 9807100129 900611 PDR PR g@
. ~g s v o -- -
t 2 .
Final Rule Language As Drafted In lieu of adopting the 2-person requirement, the language in the staff's present version of the final rule maintains the performance based provision that ~ exists currently for surveillance of high radiation areas and includes a provision requiring radiographer who are working alone to post the restricted area with large, conspicuous, signs to alert the public of the potential danger (see Attachment A). While this could help to protect the public in the event the radiographer became incapacitated, the presence of a second qualified individual would also enable the radiographer to receive assistance I and to perhaps take actions necessary to control the situation, such as returning the source to the shielded position. {
Background on Proposed Regulatory Analysis The proposed rule included the two person provision, thus the staff examined the associated costs of the requirement based on available data, and estimated an annual industry cost of $4.8M. The regulatory analysis solicited comments on the how the proposed requirements would effect small entities and how the regulations could be modified to achieve the same level of safety but impose less burdensome requirements. Some small licensees stated that adoption of this requirement would put them out of business because at their level of job activity they could not afford to maintain a second trained person on their payroll. Additionally, several commenters on the proposed rule stated that ,
the two-person provision would be detrimental to the ALARA concept because l additional workers would be exposed to radiation. As drafted, the decision rationale in the regulatory analysis for the final rule indicates that although the NRC regulation will be less consistent with the Agreement States, adopting the two-person provision would also result in a substantial cost to the radiography industry OPTION B - Adopt the two person provision to ensure uniform increased radiation safety standards nationwide for the most mobile category of licensees.
The upgrading of radiography regulations by NRC and the Agreement States has been ongoing for some time. The upgrades include: safety improvements in radiography equipment, personnel monitoring, and training. A number of the l
Agreement States stated that improvements in radiography safety are maximized when all of these provisions are adopted. The NRC already adopted most of these requirements. Eighteen of the 29 Agreement States have also adopted a provision for a 2-person crew, and these Agreement States may require NRC licensees working under reciprocity in their jurisdiction to use a two-person crew.
The decision rationale used in the regulatory analysis for the proposed rule was that adoption of the provision would improve consistency with the i Agreement States and provide additional assurance that the.public health and l safety would be protected. Further., the Federal Register notice for the
'. proposed rule stated that the estimated cost of the two-person crew could be significant but that the Commission believed there would he an increase in
s l
3 assurance that operational safety measures and emergency procedures would be more effectively implemented with adoption of this requirement. ,
The majority of commenters favored adoption of the two-person provision because it would enhance safety. In addition, some cited the need to " level the playing' field" since a number of less safety conscious licensees were able to underbid them in the market place by using only one individual. With a i
cant stant. national standard, practices and procedures used by radiographer in an Agreement State where a two-person crew was required would need to be modified jurisdiction.
if the licensee elected to use a sole radiographer for work in NRC Radiographer are the most mobile of NRC licensees with the potential for high radiation exposures, and field radiographic operations are the most difficult to inspect. The presence of a second qualified individual could improve the safety performance of field operations. Another reason cited by some of the Agreement States for having a second qualified individual is thata two than single people may be able to resolve an emergency situation more quickly individual. On the other hand, the presence of a second individual could result also in two over-exposures if the emergency was handled incorrectly.
SUMMARY
In summary, the primary difference between adopting option 8 over option A is that adoption of option B could cost the radiography industry up to $30 million over 10 years. However, other factors, such as having a uniform national safety standard and removing the economic disadvantage for licensees who always use at least two-persons, might be considered by the Commission in reaching a decision on whether to include this provision in the final rule.
SECY, please track.
Attachment:
As stated cc: SECY OGC OCA OPA DOCUMENT NAME: [a:comm34.jrs]
- see previous concurrence Offc: RPHEB:DRA RPHEB:DRA RES:DRA NMSS OGC OE Name: CTrottier JGlenn BMorris DCool STreby JLieberman Date: 2/28/96* 2/28/96* 2/29/96* 02/27/96* 2/28/96* 02/23/96*
Copy: Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Offc: OSP DEDSJP E Name: RBangart HLThpfpson o J 3 lor Date: 02/28/96. 3 /[S /96 /jV/96 Copy: Yes/No Yes/No es No
e Attachment A- draft final rule language 5 34.41 Conducting industrial radiographic operations.
(a) During industrial radiographic operations performed at a location '
j other than a. permanent radiographic installation, only the radiographer or the radiographer's assistant under the direct observation of the radiographer may perform industrial radiographic operations. Either the radiographer or j i
radiographer's assistant must maintain continuous direct ~surveilichce of the l operation to protect against unauthorized entry into a Ligh radiation area.
(b) In the event a lone radiographer is conducting radiographic operations: large, conspicuous, and readable notices must be posted at all accessible approaches to the restricted area where industrial radiography is to be conducted, to alert the public to the hazards, and to tell the public what to do when an emergency situation is discovered. The notices shall
)'
contain, as a minimum, the following words:
DANGER HIGH RADIATION AREA DO NOT ENTER (or) KEEP OUT FOR EMERGENCY HELP CALL i (Insert phone number of company RS0) l OR i
(Insert phone number of local civil authorities) '
(c) All radiographic operations conducted at locations of use authorized on the license must be conducted in a permanent radiographic installation, ,
unless specifically authorized by the Commission. l (d) A licensee may conduct lay-barge, offshore platform, or underwater radiographyState.
Agreement only if procedures have been approved by the Commission or by an i
L .- ._ _ _ - _ _ . . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . .