Individual Monitoring Devices for Industrial Radiographic Personnel, 3116-3120 [2019-01792]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
3116
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 28 / Monday, February 11, 2019 / Proposed Rules
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act
Analysis
In accordance with the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601–
612), AMS is required to examine the
impact of the proposed rule on small
entities. Accordingly, AMS has
considered the economic impact of this
action on such entities.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit
regulatory actions to the scale of
businesses subject to such actions so
that small businesses will not be
disproportionately burdened. The Small
Business Administration (SBA) defines,
in 13 CFR part 121, small agricultural
producers as those having annual
receipts of no more than $750,000 and
small agricultural service firms
(importers) as those having annual
receipts of no more than $7.5 million.
It is estimated that there are about 120
mushroom producers in the United
States and about 20 importers eligible to
serve on the Council. The majority of
these producers and importers would be
considered small entities as defined by
the SBA. Persons who produce or
import organic mushrooms or who
produce or import 500,000 pounds or
less on average of mushrooms annually
for the fresh market are exempt from the
requirements of the Order.
This proposal invites comments on
reallocating the membership of the
Council under the Order. The Order is
administered by the Council with
oversight by USDA. This action was
recommended by the Council after a
review of the geographic distribution of
the volume of mushroom production
throughout the United States and the
volume of imports. The number of
Council members would be revised in
two of the four regions under the
program. This action is necessary to
provide for equitable representation of
producers and importers on the Council.
Section 1209.230 which is currently
reserved, would be added accordingly.
Authority for this action is provided in
section 1209.30(d) of the Order and
section 6104 of the Act (7 U.S.C. 6104).
Regarding the economic impact of this
proposed rule on affected entities,
revising the number of members in
Regions 1 and 3 would impose no
additional costs on industry members.
Eligible producers and importers
interested in serving on the Council
would have to complete a background
questionnaire. Those requirements are
addressed in the section below titled
Reporting and Recordkeeping
Requirements. The changes are
necessary to provide for the equitable
representation of producers and
importers on the Council.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:28 Feb 08, 2019
Jkt 247001
Regarding alternatives, one option to
the proposed action would be to
maintain the status quo and not revise
the number of Council members
representing Regions 1 and 3. However,
the Council’s analysis of the assessment
data and NASS and GATS data support
the proposed changes. USDA concludes
that the changes are necessary and
appropriate.
Reporting and Recordkeeping
Requirements
In accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35), the background form,
which represents the information
collection and recordkeeping
requirements that are imposed under
the program, have been approved
previously under OMB number 0581–
0093. The mushroom Order requires
that two nominees be submitted for each
vacant position. With regard to
information collection requirements,
producers and importers interested in
serving on the Council must submit
background forms (Form AD–755) to
USDA to verify their eligibility for
appointment to the Council. However,
serving on the Council is voluntary, and
the burden of submitting the
background form would be offset by the
benefits of serving on the Council.
As with all Federal promotion
programs, reports and forms are
periodically reviewed to reduce
information collection requirements and
duplication by industry and public
sector agencies. USDA has not
identified any relevant Federal rules
that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with
this proposed rule. AMS is committed
to complying with the E-Government
Act, to promote the use of the internet
and other information technologies to
provide increased opportunities for
citizen access to Government
information and services, and for other
purposes.
Regarding outreach efforts, this action
was discussed by the Council at its
meeting held in February 2018 where
the Council unanimously made its
recommendation. All of the Council’s
meetings are open to the public and
interested persons are invited to
participate and express their views.
AMS has performed this initial RFA
regarding the impact of this proposed
action on small entities and invites
comments concerning potential effects
of this action.
A 30-day comment period is provided
to allow interested persons to respond
to this proposal. All written comments
received in response to this proposed
rule by the date specified would be
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
considered prior to finalizing this
action.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1209
Administrative practice and
procedure, Advertising, Consumer
information, Marketing agreements,
Mushroom promotion, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, 7 CFR part 1209 is proposed
to be amended as follows:
PART 1209—MUSHROOM
PROMOTION, RESEARCH AND
CONSUMER INFORMATION ORDER
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR
part 1209 continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 6101–6112 and 7
U.S.C. 7401.
2. Section 1209.230 is added to read
as follows:
■
§ 1209.230
members.
Reallocation of Council
Pursuant to § 1209.30 of the Order,
the number of members on the Council
shall be as follows:
(1) Region 1: All other States
including the District of Columbia and
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
except for Pennsylvania and
California—3 Members.
(2) Region 2: The State of
Pennsylvania—4 Members.
(3) Region 3: The State of California—
1 Member.
(4) Region 4: Importers—1 Member.
Dated: February 5, 2019.
Bruce Summers,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2019–01727 Filed 2–8–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–02–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
10 CFR Parts 34, 36, and 39
[Docket No. PRM–34–7; NRC–2016–0182]
Individual Monitoring Devices for
Industrial Radiographic Personnel
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; partial
consideration in the rulemaking
process.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) will consider in its
rulemaking process one issue raised in
a petition for rulemaking (PRM), PRM–
34–7, submitted by the American
Society for Nondestructive Testing
(ASNT) and the Nondestructive Testing
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\11FEP1.SGM
11FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 28 / Monday, February 11, 2019 / Proposed Rules
Management Association (NDTMA), and
is denying one aspect of PRM–34–7. The
petitioners request that the NRC amend
its regulations to authorize the use of
‘‘improved’’ individual monitoring
devices for industrial radiographic
personnel.
DATES: The docket for the petition for
rulemaking, PRM–34–7, is closed on
February 11, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID
NRC–2016–0182 when contacting the
NRC about the availability of
information for this petition. You may
obtain publicly-available information
related to this action by any of the
following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking website: Public
comments and supporting materials
related to this petition can be found at
https://www.regulations.gov by searching
on the petition Docket ID NRC–2016–
0182 or the future rulemaking Docket ID
NRC–2019–0031. Address questions
about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher;
telephone: 301–415–3463; email:
Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For technical
questions, contact the individual listed
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this document.
• The NRC’s Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publiclyavailable documents online in the
ADAMS Public Document collection at
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
adams.html. To begin the search, select
‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then
select ‘‘Begin Web-Based ADAMS
Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS,
please contact the NRC’s Public
Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by
email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The
ADAMS accession number for each
document referenced (if it is available in
ADAMS) is provided the first time that
it is mentioned in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section.
• The NRC’s PDR: You may examine
and purchase copies of public
Comment #
1
2
3
4
5
documents at the NRC’s PDR, O1–F21,
One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Edward M. Lohr, Office of Nuclear
Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555–0001, telephone:
301–415–0253; email: Edward.Lohr@
nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
function alarm ratemeter/electronic
dosimeter’’ and ‘‘dual-function
electronic dosimeter/alarm ratemeter’’
to describe devices that combine the
functions of the alarm ratemeter and
direct reading dosimeter required under
§ 34.47(a). This document uses the term
‘‘EADs’’ to describe these dual-function
devices.
I. The Petition
The NRC received and docketed a
petition for rulemaking (ADAMS
Accession No. ML16228A045) dated
July 14, 2016, filed by Dr. Arny Bereson
of ASNT and Mr. Walt Cofer of
NDTMA.1 On November 9, 2016 (81 FR
78732), the NRC published a notice of
docketing and requested public
comment on the petition.
The NRC identified two issues in the
petition, as follows:
Issue 1: The petitioners request that
the NRC amend its regulations to
authorize the use of digital output
personnel dosimeters to satisfy the
requirements in § 34.47(a) in title 10 of
the Code of Federal Regulations (10
CFR).
Issue 2: The petitioners request that
the NRC amend its regulations to
authorize the use of dual-function
electronic alarming dosimeters (EADs)
to satisfy the requirements in § 34.47(a).
The petitioners interchangeably use
the terms ‘‘improved individual
monitoring devices,’’ ‘‘electronic
personnel monitoring dosimeters,’’
‘‘electronic dosimeters,’’ and ‘‘digital
personnel dosimeters’’ to describe
‘‘improved’’ personnel dosimetry. This
document uses the term ‘‘digital output
personnel dosimetry’’ in place of these
terms, and clarifies that digital output
personnel dosimety is a specific type of
personnel dosimetry used to
demonstrate compliance with the
occupational dose limits in § 20.1201.
The petitioners use the terms ‘‘dual-
The notice of docketing of PRM–34–
7 invited interested persons to submit
comments, and the comment period
closed on January 23, 2017. The NRC
received 13 comment submissions on
the PRM.2
In the notice of docketing, the NRC
requested public comment and
supporting rationale in three specific
areas: (1) How the use of dual-function
EADs could achieve the current safety
purpose of using independent devices;
(2) whether changes similar to those
proposed in the petition should be
applied to other radiation protection
regulatory requirements, such as those
in 10 CFR part 36, ‘‘Licenses and
Radiation Safety Requirements for
Irradiators,’’ and 10 CFR part 39,
‘‘Licenses and Radiation Safety
Requirements for Well Logging’’; and (3)
what experiences or challenges users
have encountered in the use of digital
output personnel dosimeters. Not all
commenters submitted comments on all
three specific areas of interest. None of
the commenters referenced publiclyavailable technical, scientific, or other
data or information to support their
positions.
Public comments were received from
industry, government and nongovernment organizations, and members
of the public. The name of the
submitter, the submitter’s affiliation (if
any), and the ADAMS accession number
for each unique comment submission
are provided in the following table.
ADAMS Accession No.
II. Public Comments on the Petition
Commenter
Affiliation
Private Citizen.
Private Citizen.
Anonymous.
Private Citizen.
International Radiography Inspection Service Non-Destructive
Testing.
Anonymous.
Private Citizen.
Nuclear Energy Institute.
State of Washington.
TEAM Industrial Services, Inc.
Consumers Energy.
.....................................................
.....................................................
.....................................................
.....................................................
.....................................................
ML16326A439
ML17039A670
ML16349A645
ML16356A574
ML16356A658
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
Sander Perle .................................
Cody A. Bayn ...............................
Anonymous ...................................
Brian Companik ............................
Kyle Ledbetter ..............................
6 .....................................................
7 .....................................................
8 .....................................................
9 .....................................................
10 ...................................................
11 ...................................................
ML16356A663
ML17017A339
ML17018A431
ML17024A384
ML17024A400
ML17024A415
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
Anonymous ...................................
Rick Ruhge ...................................
Nima Askeboussi ..........................
Steve Matthews ............................
David Tebo ...................................
John Merrill ...................................
1 The November 2016 Federal Register notice
incorrectly identified each petitioner’s organization.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:28 Feb 08, 2019
Jkt 247001
3117
2 One commenter retracted his original comment
and submitted a replacement comment.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\11FEP1.SGM
11FEP1
3118
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 28 / Monday, February 11, 2019 / Proposed Rules
Comment #
ADAMS Accession No.
Commenter
12 ...................................................
13 ...................................................
ML17024A440 ..............................
ML17024A447 ..............................
Mark Salasky ................................
James A. Brink .............................
The NRC binned the public comments
into three groups based on the areas of
interest highlighted in the notice. The
NRC reviewed and considered the
comments in its decision to accept or
deny the issues raised by the
petitioners. The following discussion
provides a summary of each area of
interest addressed in the public
comments and the NRC’s response to
those comments.
NRC’s Responses to Comments on PRM–
34–7
Area 1: Could the use of dual-function
EADs achieve the current safety purpose
of using independent devices?
Comment: The new technology is
more reliable, more accurate, and less
likely to give false readings than the
devices currently allowed under
§ 34.47(a). The new technology offers
more safety options for the worker, such
as vibrating, audible, and visual alarm
capabilities. (Commenters 1, 2, 4, 5, and
7 through 11)
NRC Response: The NRC agrees with
the comment. In a memorandum dated
April 4, 2017 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML17095A319), the NRC concluded that
dual-function EADs were reliable and
had a proven track record at nuclear
power plants. Furthermore, on
September 19, 2017, the NRC issued
Regulatory Issue Summary (RIS) 2017–
06, ‘‘NRC Policy on Use of Combination
Dosimetry Devices during Industrial
Radiographic Operations’’ (ADAMS
Accession No. ML16137A077),
clarifying that dual-function EADs (also
referred to as combination dosimetry
devices in the RIS) may be used to
satisfy the requirements in § 34.47(a).
Comment: Defense-in-depth safety
that is provided by the use of singlefunction devices will be lost if dualfunction EAD devices are allowed to be
used to meet the requirements in
§ 34.47(a). (Commenters 3 and 6)
NRC Response: The NRC disagrees
with the comment. Dual-function EADs
that combine the functions of an alarm
ratemeter and a direct reading dosimeter
do not compromise defense-in-depth
(backup) provided by the single devices.
The survey meter required under
§ 34.49(a) provides redundancy
(backup) for the function of the
operating alarm ratemeter. An
individual’s personnel dosimeter,
required by § 34.47(a), provides
redundancy (backup) for the function of
the direct reading dosimeter.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:28 Feb 08, 2019
Jkt 247001
Comment: Having all the dosimetry
concentrated in a single device will
present an all-or-nothing scenario to
industrial radiographers who forget the
device. It is extremely likely that the
temptation will be there for a company
or individual to use his or her
multimeter as a survey meter of sorts.
By doing so, he or she negates the value
of the dosimetry, which will no longer
correspond to the exposures
experienced by his or her body. In the
event of an exposure event, the
individual’s dosimetry will therefore
likely report a higher value than
actually experienced. (Commenter 6)
NRC Response: The NRC interprets
this comment to mean that combining
all the functions of the devices required
by § 34.47(a) (the alarm ratemeter, the
direct reading dosimeter, and the
personnel dosimeter) would
compromise the defense-in-depth safety
provided by three single devices. The
NRC determined that the comment was
out of scope as the petitioner’s request
was specifically for the use of dualfunction EADs and not for a single
device that combined all the functions
required by § 34.47(a). Although this
comment is beyond the scope of PRM–
34–7, the NRC may consider this subject
in a future rulemaking that will
potentially propose performance-based
standards for 10 CFR part 34
(‘‘Industrial Radiographic Operations
and Training’’ rulemaking, Docket ID
NRC–2017–0022).
Comment: It is possible for a ‘‘single
advanced electronic device’’ to fulfill
both operational needs of timely dose
evaluations and integrated dose
reporting, improving dosimetry
monitoring of the individual and
management of the entire radiological
program. (Commenter 12)
NRC Response: Although the
technology may be available now or in
the immediate future to have a single
electronic device that meets all the
requirements in § 34.47(a), current
regulations do not have a performance
standard for this type of device.
Although this comment is beyond the
scope of PRM–34–7, the NRC may
consider this subject in a future
rulemaking that will potentially propose
performance-based standards for 10 CFR
part 34 (‘‘Industrial Radiographic
Operations and Training’’ rulemaking,
Docket ID NRC–2017–0022).
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Affiliation
Landauer, Inc.
American College of Radiology.
Comment: Electronic transfer of
dosimeter data utilizing the internet and
wireless communication will improve
data integrity and compliance compared
to hand recording and data transfer.
Advanced digital electronic devices can
include additional features to determine
irradiation conditions (e.g., geometry
and motion) and compliance (e.g., was
the dosimeter worn?). These additional
features should be considered in any
evaluation concerning the modification
of any regulations or guidelines.
(Commenter 12)
NRC Response: The NRC agrees with
the comment that additional features
built into electronic devices for use as
personnel dosimeters may have safety
and operational benefits. Although this
comment is beyond the scope of PRM–
34–7, the NRC may consider this subject
in a future rulemaking that will
potentially propose performance-based
standards for 10 CFR part 34
(‘‘Industrial Radiographic Operations
and Training’’ rulemaking, Docket ID
NRC–2017–0022).
Comment: How will the proposed
combination device be calibrated for
correct response to radiation? An
alarming ratemeter already has
calibration requirements under 10 CFR
part 34, but what of the dosimetry
functions? Users of film badges never
had to worry about this because they
were sent out for processing.
(Commenter 6)
NRC Response: The NRC interprets
this comment to mean the commenter
was concerned that dual-function EADs
will have different calibration
requirements than devices currently
required under § 34.47(a). The NRC
disagrees with the comment. The direct
reading dosimeter part of the dualfunction EAD is still considered a
‘‘secondary’’ dosimeter; that is, it is not
intended to be used for directly
determining an individual’s dose of
record. The worker is still required to
use a ‘‘primary’’ personnel dosimeter
such as a film badge,
thermoluminescent device, optically
stimulated luminescence device, or
other approved personnel dosimeter for
the dose of record. Therefore, any
calibration procedures previously used
for the direct reading dosimeters, such
as those used for a personal ionization
chamber, would continue to apply for
the direct reading dosimeter part of the
dual-function EAD.
E:\FR\FM\11FEP1.SGM
11FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 28 / Monday, February 11, 2019 / Proposed Rules
Comment: How long can a multimeter
be trusted to function within the
required ranges? (Commenter 6)
NRC Response: The NRC interprets
this comment to mean the commenter
was concerned that dual-function EADs
(multimeters) will not stay in calibrated
ranges for the period between
calibrations. The NRC disagrees with
the comment. In a memorandum dated
April 4, 2017 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML17095A319), the NRC concluded that
dual-function EADs were reliable and
had a proven track record at nuclear
power plants. All aspects of the use of
dual-function EADs, including
calibration, were reviewed and no
issues were identified.
Area 2: Should changes similar to
those proposed in the petition be
applied to other radiation protection
regulatory requirements, such as those
in 10 CFR parts 36 and 39?
Comment: While the PRM focuses on
10 CFR part 34, emerging monitoring
technologies can be adopted by other
licensees that will also benefit from
revised rule language and related
guidance. Therefore, in principle, we
support the PRM and recommend that
the NRC revise rule language and
related guidance to allow a more
performance-based approach that
recognizes the use of emerging
personnel monitoring technology to
demonstrate regulatory compliance.
(Commenter 8)
NRC Response: The NRC agrees with
the comment. Amending the
requirements for personnel dosimetry at
10 CFR parts 36 and 39 would provide
other licensees the same benefit of
access to modern dosimetry as
requested for part 34 by the petitioners.
When appropriate, NRC develops
regulations and guidance that are
performance-based.
Comment: While PRM–34–7 was
submitted for NRC consideration with
industrial radiography stakeholders in
mind, the American College of
Radiology believes the spirit of the PRM
should be adopted and explicitly
applied to medical radiation workers
(i.e., via the pertinent subparts of 10
CFR part 20) to protect the continued
use of advanced technology dosimeters
within the medical community,
including medical applications of
radiation not directly under the NRC’s
oversight. (Commenter 13)
NRC Response: The NRC interprets
this comment to mean that the
commenter did not want any changes
made to the regulations that will hinder
the current use of digital output
personnel dosimetry by 10 CFR part 35
licensees. The NRC agrees with the
comment. In authorizing the use of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:28 Feb 08, 2019
Jkt 247001
digital output personnel dosimeters to
satisfy the requirements in § 34.47(a)
(i.e., accepting Issue 1), the NRC intends
to expand the availability of digital
output personnel dosimeters to
licensees licensed under 10 CFR parts
34, 36, and 39 and not hinder the
current use of the dosimetry by other
licensees.
Comment: If the NRC were to deny
PRM–34–7, it will set a detrimental
precedent for State programs that will
likely sweep across the broader
stakeholder spectrum, thereby
disallowing continued use of advanced
technology dosimeters in these other
occupational domains. (Commenter 13)
NRC Response: The NRC agrees with
the comment. Under the Agreement
State Program, the requirements in
§ 34.47 are categorized as a
compatibility level C. This means that
the essential objectives of a program
element are adopted by the State to
avoid conflicts, duplications, or gaps.
The manner in which the essential
objectives are addressed by the
Agreement States need not be the same
as the NRC’s, provided the essential
objectives are met. Because the essential
objectives are met for personnel
dosimetry (i.e., personnel dosimetry is
used to determine an individual’s dose
of record), several Agreement States
have allowed the use of digital output
personnel dosimeters to meet the
monitoring requirements for industrial
radiography and other areas. In
accepting Issue 1, the NRC intends to
expand the availability of digital output
personnel dosimeters to licensees
licensed under 10 CFR parts 34, 36, and
39 and not impede the current use of the
dosimetry by Agreement State licensees,
including reciprocity activities in NRC
jurisdictions.
Currently, several Agreement States
allow the use of digital output personnel
dosimeters to meet the monitoring
requirements for industrial radiography
and other areas. Agreement State
regulations for individual monitoring of
occupational dose do not have to be
identical to NRC regulations, but need
to meet the NRC’s health and safety
objectives. For the most efficient
regulation of activities conducted in
different jurisdictions under reciprocity,
personnel dosimetry standards should
be similar for both NRC and Agreement
State licensees.
Area 3: What experiences or
challenges have users encountered in
the use of digital output personnel
dosimeters?
Comment: During incidents and
emergency situations, current
monitoring badges must be returned to
the processor for emergency evaluation.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
3119
This requires that the individual be
suspended from operations until the
results of the processing are received,
resulting in potential lost wages.
Projects may also be put on hold
awaiting results, resulting in down time,
lost revenue, and additional cost and
time to complete projects. With the new
digital dosimeters, readings can be
immediately downloaded (even at the
jobsite), allowing the radiographer to
potentially return to work and saving
time and cost. Required reports to the
appropriate agency are also provided
within a much quicker time frame
(sometimes as soon as the next day),
allowing for the issue to be resolved in
a much shorter timeframe than with the
current technology. (Commenters 1, 2, 7,
and 10)
NRC Response: The NRC
acknowledges that digital output
personnel dosimeters may provide
enhanced capabilities that allow for
expedited dosage determinations.
Digital output personnel dosimeters do
not have to be sent offsite for evaluation,
making the determination of a potential
dose for an individual more timely.
Comment: The benefits of advanced
technology dosimeters have been
apparent in the medical community for
nearly a decade. In clinical
implementation, advanced technology
dosimeters have enabled data-rich and
accurate real-time worker dose
monitoring, thereby better informing
licensees and enhancing the ability to
plan and control occupational dose.
Advanced technology improves
monitoring by enabling date/time of
exposure, providing multiple nondestructive readouts of dose (without
needing to return the devices to vendors
for processing), allowing reassignment
to other users, and generating better
compliance by the medical
professionals who wear them.
(Commenter 13)
NRC Response: The NRC
acknowledges that digital output
personnel dosimeters may provide
enhanced capabilities for dosage
measurements and has evaluated the
technical specifications of these
dosimeters in various applications and
environments. Digital output personnel
dosimeters have been used by NRC
medical licensees successfully for a
number of years without any reported
issues. Additionally, several Agreement
States have allowed the use of these
dosimeters in medical and other areas,
including industrial radiography, for
years without any incidents noted by
the NRC.
E:\FR\FM\11FEP1.SGM
11FEP1
3120
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 28 / Monday, February 11, 2019 / Proposed Rules
III. Reasons for Consideration
The NRC will consider Issue 1 in the
rulemaking process.
Digital output personnel dosimetry
does not currently meet the
requirements for personnel dosimetry in
10 CFR parts 34, 36, and 39. The NRC’s
position has been that personnel
dosimetry used to meet the
requirements in these parts must be
processed as described in § 20.1501(d).
In evaluating the issues raised in this
petition, the NRC reviewed the
technical specifications of currently
available digital output personnel
dosimeters to determine whether the
use of this personnel dosimetry design
would meet the NRC’s health and safety
objectives. The NRC determined that
these dosimeters meet or exceed the
environmental requirements (e.g.,
temperature, humidity) and dose range,
and have the quality control necessary
for use in industrial radiographic,
irradiator, and well logging operations.
From a literature search of technical
journals, the NRC did not find any
articles that highlighted generic
performance problems with the use of
these dosimeters. Digital output
personnel dosimeters have been used
successfully by NRC licensees in other
operational areas, by several Agreement
State licensees in all areas including
industrial radiography, and
internationally in multiple applications.
Based on these findings, the NRC
determined that rulemaking should be
initiated to allow the use of digital
output personnel dosimeters to satisfy
the personnel dosimetry requirements
in 10 CFR parts 34, 36, and 39.
IV. Reasons for Denial
The NRC is denying Issue 2 raised by
the petitioners.
Since the promulgation of 10 CFR part
34, there have been several
technological advances in dosimetry for
personnel monitoring during industrial
radiographic operations. On September
19, 2017, the NRC issued RIS 2017–06,
‘‘NRC Policy on Use of Combination
Dosimetry Devices during Industrial
Radiographic Operations’’ (ADAMS
Accession No. ML16137A077),
clarifying that licensees may use dualfunction EADs (also referred to as
combination dosimetry devices in the
RIS) for meeting the direct reading
dosimeter and the alarm ratemeter
device requirements specified in
§ 34.47(a). The RIS explained that dualfunction EADs have been used routinely
and reliably for over 25 years as a
secondary dosimeter in the operating
environment of nuclear power reactors
with no subsequent degradation in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:28 Feb 08, 2019
Jkt 247001
personnel safety. This determination
was based on the NRC staff not finding
any evidence of generic performance
problems with EADs in an industrial
setting in a review of the recent
literature and NRC documents, or in
discussions with NRC, military, and
industry health physicists with EAD
experience. Further, the NRC staff did
not identify any adverse trends that
would preclude using EADs as a dualfunction device in industrial
radiography operations to meet the
requirements in § 34.47(a). The many
years of operational experience in the
reactor arena have demonstrated that
EADs are effective for monitoring dose
and dose rate, as well as for providing
visual/audible alarms for preset
thresholds. Therefore, the NRC
determined, as stated in the RIS, that
licensees may use dual-function EADs
for meeting the direct reading dosimeter
and the alarm ratemeter device
requirements specified in § 34.47(a).
The NRC determined that RIS 2017–
06 provides clarification regarding the
issue raised by the petitioners with
respect to the use of dual-function EADs
and, therefore, rulemaking is not
necessary to address this petition
request.
V. Conclusion
For the reasons cited in this
document, the NRC is denying the
petitioners’ request to amend the NRC’s
regulations to authorize the use of dualfunction EADs to satisfy the
requirements in § 34.47(a) (Issue 2); the
NRC finds that rulemaking is not
necessary to address this issue. The RIS
2017–06 provides clarification that
dual-function EADs may be used to
satisfy the requirements in § 34.47(a).
The NRC will consider in the
rulemaking process the petitioners’
request to amend the NRC’s regulations
to authorize the use of digital output
personnel dosimeters to satisfy the
requirements in § 34.47(a) (Issue 1). As
noted in Section III. ‘‘Reasons for
Consideration,’’ in this document, the
NRC determined that these dosimeters
meet or exceed the technical
specifications for use in radiographic
operations. Additionally, digital output
personnel dosimeters have been used
successfully by NRC licensees in other
operational areas, by several Agreement
State licensees in all areas including
industrial radiography, and
internationally in multiple applications.
The review that NRC staff performed
regarding the use of digital output
dosimeters included the environmental
and technical considerations for use by
10 CFR part 36 and 39 licensees. Based
on these findings, the NRC intends to
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
expand the scope of this rulemaking to
address requirements for personnel
dosimetry in 10 CFR parts 36 and 39.
The NRC will conduct rulemaking on
Issue 1 raised by the petitioners as
resources become available.
The NRC tracks the status of all rules
and PRMs on its website at https://
www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/
rulemaking/rules-petitions.html. The
public may monitor the docket for the
rulemaking to address Issue 1 on the
Federal rulemaking website, https://
www.regulations.gov, by searching on
Docket ID NRC–2019–0031. In addition,
the Federal rulemaking website allows
members of the public to receive alerts
when changes or additions occur in a
docket folder. To subscribe: (1) Navigate
to the docket folder (NRC–2019–0031);
(2) click the ‘‘Email Alert’’ link; and (3)
enter an email address and select the
frequency for email receipts (daily,
weekly, or monthly). Publication of this
document in the Federal Register closes
Docket ID NRC–2016–0182 for PRM–
34–7.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day
of February, 2019.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2019–01792 Filed 2–8–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 430
RIN 1904–AE26
Energy Conservation Program: Energy
Conservation Standards for General
Service Lamps
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
and request for comment.
AGENCY:
On January 19, 2017, the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) published
two final rules adopting revised
definitions of general service lamp
(GSL), general service incandescent
lamp (GSIL) and other supplemental
definitions, effective January 1, 2020.
DOE has since determined that the legal
basis underlying those revisions
misconstrued existing law. As a result,
DOE is issuing this notice of proposed
rulemaking (NOPR) proposing to
withdraw the definitions established in
the January 19, 2017, final rules. DOE
proposes to maintain the existing
regulatory definitions of GSL and GSIL,
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\11FEP1.SGM
11FEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 28 (Monday, February 11, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3116-3120]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-01792]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Parts 34, 36, and 39
[Docket No. PRM-34-7; NRC-2016-0182]
Individual Monitoring Devices for Industrial Radiographic
Personnel
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; partial consideration in the
rulemaking process.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) will consider in
its rulemaking process one issue raised in a petition for rulemaking
(PRM), PRM-34-7, submitted by the American Society for Nondestructive
Testing (ASNT) and the Nondestructive Testing
[[Page 3117]]
Management Association (NDTMA), and is denying one aspect of PRM-34-7.
The petitioners request that the NRC amend its regulations to authorize
the use of ``improved'' individual monitoring devices for industrial
radiographic personnel.
DATES: The docket for the petition for rulemaking, PRM-34-7, is closed
on February 11, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0182 when contacting the
NRC about the availability of information for this petition. You may
obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of
the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking website: Public comments and supporting
materials related to this petition can be found at https://www.regulations.gov by searching on the petition Docket ID NRC-2016-
0182 or the future rulemaking Docket ID NRC-2019-0031. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-
3463; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For technical questions, contact
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this document.
The NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management
System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in
the ADAMS Public Document collection at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and
then select ``Begin Web-Based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS,
please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The
ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available
in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.
The NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of
public documents at the NRC's PDR, O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward M. Lohr, Office of Nuclear
Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone: 301-415-0253; email:
Edward.Lohr@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. The Petition
The NRC received and docketed a petition for rulemaking (ADAMS
Accession No. ML16228A045) dated July 14, 2016, filed by Dr. Arny
Bereson of ASNT and Mr. Walt Cofer of NDTMA.\1\ On November 9, 2016 (81
FR 78732), the NRC published a notice of docketing and requested public
comment on the petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The November 2016 Federal Register notice incorrectly
identified each petitioner's organization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NRC identified two issues in the petition, as follows:
Issue 1: The petitioners request that the NRC amend its regulations
to authorize the use of digital output personnel dosimeters to satisfy
the requirements in Sec. 34.47(a) in title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR).
Issue 2: The petitioners request that the NRC amend its regulations
to authorize the use of dual-function electronic alarming dosimeters
(EADs) to satisfy the requirements in Sec. 34.47(a).
The petitioners interchangeably use the terms ``improved individual
monitoring devices,'' ``electronic personnel monitoring dosimeters,''
``electronic dosimeters,'' and ``digital personnel dosimeters'' to
describe ``improved'' personnel dosimetry. This document uses the term
``digital output personnel dosimetry'' in place of these terms, and
clarifies that digital output personnel dosimety is a specific type of
personnel dosimetry used to demonstrate compliance with the
occupational dose limits in Sec. 20.1201. The petitioners use the
terms ``dual-function alarm ratemeter/electronic dosimeter'' and
``dual-function electronic dosimeter/alarm ratemeter'' to describe
devices that combine the functions of the alarm ratemeter and direct
reading dosimeter required under Sec. 34.47(a). This document uses the
term ``EADs'' to describe these dual-function devices.
II. Public Comments on the Petition
The notice of docketing of PRM-34-7 invited interested persons to
submit comments, and the comment period closed on January 23, 2017. The
NRC received 13 comment submissions on the PRM.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ One commenter retracted his original comment and submitted a
replacement comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the notice of docketing, the NRC requested public comment and
supporting rationale in three specific areas: (1) How the use of dual-
function EADs could achieve the current safety purpose of using
independent devices; (2) whether changes similar to those proposed in
the petition should be applied to other radiation protection regulatory
requirements, such as those in 10 CFR part 36, ``Licenses and Radiation
Safety Requirements for Irradiators,'' and 10 CFR part 39, ``Licenses
and Radiation Safety Requirements for Well Logging''; and (3) what
experiences or challenges users have encountered in the use of digital
output personnel dosimeters. Not all commenters submitted comments on
all three specific areas of interest. None of the commenters referenced
publicly-available technical, scientific, or other data or information
to support their positions.
Public comments were received from industry, government and non-
government organizations, and members of the public. The name of the
submitter, the submitter's affiliation (if any), and the ADAMS
accession number for each unique comment submission are provided in the
following table.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment # ADAMS Accession No. Commenter Affiliation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................... ML16326A439............ Sander Perle........... Private Citizen.
2.................................... ML17039A670............ Cody A. Bayn........... Private Citizen.
3.................................... ML16349A645............ Anonymous.............. Anonymous.
4.................................... ML16356A574............ Brian Companik......... Private Citizen.
5.................................... ML16356A658............ Kyle Ledbetter......... International
Radiography Inspection
Service Non-
Destructive Testing.
6.................................... ML16356A663............ Anonymous.............. Anonymous.
7.................................... ML17017A339............ Rick Ruhge............. Private Citizen.
8.................................... ML17018A431............ Nima Askeboussi........ Nuclear Energy
Institute.
9.................................... ML17024A384............ Steve Matthews......... State of Washington.
10................................... ML17024A400............ David Tebo............. TEAM Industrial
Services, Inc.
11................................... ML17024A415............ John Merrill........... Consumers Energy.
[[Page 3118]]
12................................... ML17024A440............ Mark Salasky........... Landauer, Inc.
13................................... ML17024A447............ James A. Brink......... American College of
Radiology.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NRC binned the public comments into three groups based on the
areas of interest highlighted in the notice. The NRC reviewed and
considered the comments in its decision to accept or deny the issues
raised by the petitioners. The following discussion provides a summary
of each area of interest addressed in the public comments and the NRC's
response to those comments.
NRC's Responses to Comments on PRM-34-7
Area 1: Could the use of dual-function EADs achieve the current
safety purpose of using independent devices?
Comment: The new technology is more reliable, more accurate, and
less likely to give false readings than the devices currently allowed
under Sec. 34.47(a). The new technology offers more safety options for
the worker, such as vibrating, audible, and visual alarm capabilities.
(Commenters 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7 through 11)
NRC Response: The NRC agrees with the comment. In a memorandum
dated April 4, 2017 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17095A319), the NRC
concluded that dual-function EADs were reliable and had a proven track
record at nuclear power plants. Furthermore, on September 19, 2017, the
NRC issued Regulatory Issue Summary (RIS) 2017-06, ``NRC Policy on Use
of Combination Dosimetry Devices during Industrial Radiographic
Operations'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML16137A077), clarifying that dual-
function EADs (also referred to as combination dosimetry devices in the
RIS) may be used to satisfy the requirements in Sec. 34.47(a).
Comment: Defense-in-depth safety that is provided by the use of
single-function devices will be lost if dual-function EAD devices are
allowed to be used to meet the requirements in Sec. 34.47(a).
(Commenters 3 and 6)
NRC Response: The NRC disagrees with the comment. Dual-function
EADs that combine the functions of an alarm ratemeter and a direct
reading dosimeter do not compromise defense-in-depth (backup) provided
by the single devices. The survey meter required under Sec. 34.49(a)
provides redundancy (backup) for the function of the operating alarm
ratemeter. An individual's personnel dosimeter, required by Sec.
34.47(a), provides redundancy (backup) for the function of the direct
reading dosimeter.
Comment: Having all the dosimetry concentrated in a single device
will present an all-or-nothing scenario to industrial radiographers who
forget the device. It is extremely likely that the temptation will be
there for a company or individual to use his or her multimeter as a
survey meter of sorts. By doing so, he or she negates the value of the
dosimetry, which will no longer correspond to the exposures experienced
by his or her body. In the event of an exposure event, the individual's
dosimetry will therefore likely report a higher value than actually
experienced. (Commenter 6)
NRC Response: The NRC interprets this comment to mean that
combining all the functions of the devices required by Sec. 34.47(a)
(the alarm ratemeter, the direct reading dosimeter, and the personnel
dosimeter) would compromise the defense-in-depth safety provided by
three single devices. The NRC determined that the comment was out of
scope as the petitioner's request was specifically for the use of dual-
function EADs and not for a single device that combined all the
functions required by Sec. 34.47(a). Although this comment is beyond
the scope of PRM-34-7, the NRC may consider this subject in a future
rulemaking that will potentially propose performance-based standards
for 10 CFR part 34 (``Industrial Radiographic Operations and Training''
rulemaking, Docket ID NRC-2017-0022).
Comment: It is possible for a ``single advanced electronic device''
to fulfill both operational needs of timely dose evaluations and
integrated dose reporting, improving dosimetry monitoring of the
individual and management of the entire radiological program.
(Commenter 12)
NRC Response: Although the technology may be available now or in
the immediate future to have a single electronic device that meets all
the requirements in Sec. 34.47(a), current regulations do not have a
performance standard for this type of device. Although this comment is
beyond the scope of PRM-34-7, the NRC may consider this subject in a
future rulemaking that will potentially propose performance-based
standards for 10 CFR part 34 (``Industrial Radiographic Operations and
Training'' rulemaking, Docket ID NRC-2017-0022).
Comment: Electronic transfer of dosimeter data utilizing the
internet and wireless communication will improve data integrity and
compliance compared to hand recording and data transfer. Advanced
digital electronic devices can include additional features to determine
irradiation conditions (e.g., geometry and motion) and compliance
(e.g., was the dosimeter worn?). These additional features should be
considered in any evaluation concerning the modification of any
regulations or guidelines. (Commenter 12)
NRC Response: The NRC agrees with the comment that additional
features built into electronic devices for use as personnel dosimeters
may have safety and operational benefits. Although this comment is
beyond the scope of PRM-34-7, the NRC may consider this subject in a
future rulemaking that will potentially propose performance-based
standards for 10 CFR part 34 (``Industrial Radiographic Operations and
Training'' rulemaking, Docket ID NRC-2017-0022).
Comment: How will the proposed combination device be calibrated for
correct response to radiation? An alarming ratemeter already has
calibration requirements under 10 CFR part 34, but what of the
dosimetry functions? Users of film badges never had to worry about this
because they were sent out for processing. (Commenter 6)
NRC Response: The NRC interprets this comment to mean the commenter
was concerned that dual-function EADs will have different calibration
requirements than devices currently required under Sec. 34.47(a). The
NRC disagrees with the comment. The direct reading dosimeter part of
the dual-function EAD is still considered a ``secondary'' dosimeter;
that is, it is not intended to be used for directly determining an
individual's dose of record. The worker is still required to use a
``primary'' personnel dosimeter such as a film badge, thermoluminescent
device, optically stimulated luminescence device, or other approved
personnel dosimeter for the dose of record. Therefore, any calibration
procedures previously used for the direct reading dosimeters, such as
those used for a personal ionization chamber, would continue to apply
for the direct reading dosimeter part of the dual-function EAD.
[[Page 3119]]
Comment: How long can a multimeter be trusted to function within
the required ranges? (Commenter 6)
NRC Response: The NRC interprets this comment to mean the commenter
was concerned that dual-function EADs (multimeters) will not stay in
calibrated ranges for the period between calibrations. The NRC
disagrees with the comment. In a memorandum dated April 4, 2017 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML17095A319), the NRC concluded that dual-function EADs
were reliable and had a proven track record at nuclear power plants.
All aspects of the use of dual-function EADs, including calibration,
were reviewed and no issues were identified.
Area 2: Should changes similar to those proposed in the petition be
applied to other radiation protection regulatory requirements, such as
those in 10 CFR parts 36 and 39?
Comment: While the PRM focuses on 10 CFR part 34, emerging
monitoring technologies can be adopted by other licensees that will
also benefit from revised rule language and related guidance.
Therefore, in principle, we support the PRM and recommend that the NRC
revise rule language and related guidance to allow a more performance-
based approach that recognizes the use of emerging personnel monitoring
technology to demonstrate regulatory compliance. (Commenter 8)
NRC Response: The NRC agrees with the comment. Amending the
requirements for personnel dosimetry at 10 CFR parts 36 and 39 would
provide other licensees the same benefit of access to modern dosimetry
as requested for part 34 by the petitioners. When appropriate, NRC
develops regulations and guidance that are performance-based.
Comment: While PRM-34-7 was submitted for NRC consideration with
industrial radiography stakeholders in mind, the American College of
Radiology believes the spirit of the PRM should be adopted and
explicitly applied to medical radiation workers (i.e., via the
pertinent subparts of 10 CFR part 20) to protect the continued use of
advanced technology dosimeters within the medical community, including
medical applications of radiation not directly under the NRC's
oversight. (Commenter 13)
NRC Response: The NRC interprets this comment to mean that the
commenter did not want any changes made to the regulations that will
hinder the current use of digital output personnel dosimetry by 10 CFR
part 35 licensees. The NRC agrees with the comment. In authorizing the
use of digital output personnel dosimeters to satisfy the requirements
in Sec. 34.47(a) (i.e., accepting Issue 1), the NRC intends to expand
the availability of digital output personnel dosimeters to licensees
licensed under 10 CFR parts 34, 36, and 39 and not hinder the current
use of the dosimetry by other licensees.
Comment: If the NRC were to deny PRM-34-7, it will set a
detrimental precedent for State programs that will likely sweep across
the broader stakeholder spectrum, thereby disallowing continued use of
advanced technology dosimeters in these other occupational domains.
(Commenter 13)
NRC Response: The NRC agrees with the comment. Under the Agreement
State Program, the requirements in Sec. 34.47 are categorized as a
compatibility level C. This means that the essential objectives of a
program element are adopted by the State to avoid conflicts,
duplications, or gaps. The manner in which the essential objectives are
addressed by the Agreement States need not be the same as the NRC's,
provided the essential objectives are met. Because the essential
objectives are met for personnel dosimetry (i.e., personnel dosimetry
is used to determine an individual's dose of record), several Agreement
States have allowed the use of digital output personnel dosimeters to
meet the monitoring requirements for industrial radiography and other
areas. In accepting Issue 1, the NRC intends to expand the availability
of digital output personnel dosimeters to licensees licensed under 10
CFR parts 34, 36, and 39 and not impede the current use of the
dosimetry by Agreement State licensees, including reciprocity
activities in NRC jurisdictions.
Currently, several Agreement States allow the use of digital output
personnel dosimeters to meet the monitoring requirements for industrial
radiography and other areas. Agreement State regulations for individual
monitoring of occupational dose do not have to be identical to NRC
regulations, but need to meet the NRC's health and safety objectives.
For the most efficient regulation of activities conducted in different
jurisdictions under reciprocity, personnel dosimetry standards should
be similar for both NRC and Agreement State licensees.
Area 3: What experiences or challenges have users encountered in
the use of digital output personnel dosimeters?
Comment: During incidents and emergency situations, current
monitoring badges must be returned to the processor for emergency
evaluation. This requires that the individual be suspended from
operations until the results of the processing are received, resulting
in potential lost wages. Projects may also be put on hold awaiting
results, resulting in down time, lost revenue, and additional cost and
time to complete projects. With the new digital dosimeters, readings
can be immediately downloaded (even at the jobsite), allowing the
radiographer to potentially return to work and saving time and cost.
Required reports to the appropriate agency are also provided within a
much quicker time frame (sometimes as soon as the next day), allowing
for the issue to be resolved in a much shorter timeframe than with the
current technology. (Commenters 1, 2, 7, and 10)
NRC Response: The NRC acknowledges that digital output personnel
dosimeters may provide enhanced capabilities that allow for expedited
dosage determinations. Digital output personnel dosimeters do not have
to be sent offsite for evaluation, making the determination of a
potential dose for an individual more timely.
Comment: The benefits of advanced technology dosimeters have been
apparent in the medical community for nearly a decade. In clinical
implementation, advanced technology dosimeters have enabled data-rich
and accurate real-time worker dose monitoring, thereby better informing
licensees and enhancing the ability to plan and control occupational
dose. Advanced technology improves monitoring by enabling date/time of
exposure, providing multiple non-destructive readouts of dose (without
needing to return the devices to vendors for processing), allowing
reassignment to other users, and generating better compliance by the
medical professionals who wear them. (Commenter 13)
NRC Response: The NRC acknowledges that digital output personnel
dosimeters may provide enhanced capabilities for dosage measurements
and has evaluated the technical specifications of these dosimeters in
various applications and environments. Digital output personnel
dosimeters have been used by NRC medical licensees successfully for a
number of years without any reported issues. Additionally, several
Agreement States have allowed the use of these dosimeters in medical
and other areas, including industrial radiography, for years without
any incidents noted by the NRC.
[[Page 3120]]
III. Reasons for Consideration
The NRC will consider Issue 1 in the rulemaking process.
Digital output personnel dosimetry does not currently meet the
requirements for personnel dosimetry in 10 CFR parts 34, 36, and 39.
The NRC's position has been that personnel dosimetry used to meet the
requirements in these parts must be processed as described in Sec.
20.1501(d). In evaluating the issues raised in this petition, the NRC
reviewed the technical specifications of currently available digital
output personnel dosimeters to determine whether the use of this
personnel dosimetry design would meet the NRC's health and safety
objectives. The NRC determined that these dosimeters meet or exceed the
environmental requirements (e.g., temperature, humidity) and dose
range, and have the quality control necessary for use in industrial
radiographic, irradiator, and well logging operations. From a
literature search of technical journals, the NRC did not find any
articles that highlighted generic performance problems with the use of
these dosimeters. Digital output personnel dosimeters have been used
successfully by NRC licensees in other operational areas, by several
Agreement State licensees in all areas including industrial
radiography, and internationally in multiple applications. Based on
these findings, the NRC determined that rulemaking should be initiated
to allow the use of digital output personnel dosimeters to satisfy the
personnel dosimetry requirements in 10 CFR parts 34, 36, and 39.
IV. Reasons for Denial
The NRC is denying Issue 2 raised by the petitioners.
Since the promulgation of 10 CFR part 34, there have been several
technological advances in dosimetry for personnel monitoring during
industrial radiographic operations. On September 19, 2017, the NRC
issued RIS 2017-06, ``NRC Policy on Use of Combination Dosimetry
Devices during Industrial Radiographic Operations'' (ADAMS Accession
No. ML16137A077), clarifying that licensees may use dual-function EADs
(also referred to as combination dosimetry devices in the RIS) for
meeting the direct reading dosimeter and the alarm ratemeter device
requirements specified in Sec. 34.47(a). The RIS explained that dual-
function EADs have been used routinely and reliably for over 25 years
as a secondary dosimeter in the operating environment of nuclear power
reactors with no subsequent degradation in personnel safety. This
determination was based on the NRC staff not finding any evidence of
generic performance problems with EADs in an industrial setting in a
review of the recent literature and NRC documents, or in discussions
with NRC, military, and industry health physicists with EAD experience.
Further, the NRC staff did not identify any adverse trends that would
preclude using EADs as a dual-function device in industrial radiography
operations to meet the requirements in Sec. 34.47(a). The many years
of operational experience in the reactor arena have demonstrated that
EADs are effective for monitoring dose and dose rate, as well as for
providing visual/audible alarms for preset thresholds. Therefore, the
NRC determined, as stated in the RIS, that licensees may use dual-
function EADs for meeting the direct reading dosimeter and the alarm
ratemeter device requirements specified in Sec. 34.47(a).
The NRC determined that RIS 2017-06 provides clarification
regarding the issue raised by the petitioners with respect to the use
of dual-function EADs and, therefore, rulemaking is not necessary to
address this petition request.
V. Conclusion
For the reasons cited in this document, the NRC is denying the
petitioners' request to amend the NRC's regulations to authorize the
use of dual-function EADs to satisfy the requirements in Sec. 34.47(a)
(Issue 2); the NRC finds that rulemaking is not necessary to address
this issue. The RIS 2017-06 provides clarification that dual-function
EADs may be used to satisfy the requirements in Sec. 34.47(a).
The NRC will consider in the rulemaking process the petitioners'
request to amend the NRC's regulations to authorize the use of digital
output personnel dosimeters to satisfy the requirements in Sec.
34.47(a) (Issue 1). As noted in Section III. ``Reasons for
Consideration,'' in this document, the NRC determined that these
dosimeters meet or exceed the technical specifications for use in
radiographic operations. Additionally, digital output personnel
dosimeters have been used successfully by NRC licensees in other
operational areas, by several Agreement State licensees in all areas
including industrial radiography, and internationally in multiple
applications.
The review that NRC staff performed regarding the use of digital
output dosimeters included the environmental and technical
considerations for use by 10 CFR part 36 and 39 licensees. Based on
these findings, the NRC intends to expand the scope of this rulemaking
to address requirements for personnel dosimetry in 10 CFR parts 36 and
39.
The NRC will conduct rulemaking on Issue 1 raised by the
petitioners as resources become available.
The NRC tracks the status of all rules and PRMs on its website at
https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/rulemaking/rules-petitions.html. The public may monitor the docket for the rulemaking to
address Issue 1 on the Federal rulemaking website, https://www.regulations.gov, by searching on Docket ID NRC-2019-0031. In
addition, the Federal rulemaking website allows members of the public
to receive alerts when changes or additions occur in a docket folder.
To subscribe: (1) Navigate to the docket folder (NRC-2019-0031); (2)
click the ``Email Alert'' link; and (3) enter an email address and
select the frequency for email receipts (daily, weekly, or monthly).
Publication of this document in the Federal Register closes Docket ID
NRC-2016-0182 for PRM-34-7.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day of February, 2019.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2019-01792 Filed 2-8-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
