Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 74 / Monday, April 17, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 20337

(7 CFR part 1b), and (4) APHIS’ NEPA

Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part

372).

Copies of the environmental

assessment and finding of no significant

impact are available for public

inspection at USDA, room 1141, South

Building, 14th Street and Independence

Avenue SW., Washington, DC, between

8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except holidays. Persons

wishing to inspect copies are requested

to call ahead on (202)690–2817 to

facilitate entry into the reading room. In

addition, copies may be obtained by

writing to the individual listed under

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule contains no new

information collection or recordkeeping

requirements under the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501

et seq.).

List of Subjects in Part 94

Animal diseases, Imports, Livestock,

Meat and meat products, Milk, Poultry

and poultry products, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Accordingly, we are amending 9 CFR

part 94 as follows:

PART 94—RINDERPEST, FOOT-ANDMOUTH DISEASE, FOWL PEST (FOWL

PLAGUE), EXOTIC NEWCASTLE

DISEASE, AFRICAN SWINE FEVER,

HOG CHOLERA, AND BOVINE

SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY:

PROHIBITED AND RESTRICTED

IMPORTATIONS

1. The authority citation for part 94

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 147a, 150ee, 161, 162,

450; 19 U.S.C. 1306; 21 U.S.C. 111, 114a,

134a, 134b, 134c, 134f, 136, and 136a; 31

U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 4331 and 4332; 7 CFR

2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(d).

§ 94.1 [Amended]

2. Section 94.1 is amended as follows:

a. In paragraph (a)(2), by adding the

words ‘‘Republic of South Africa except

the foot-and-mouth disease controlled

area (which extends from the Republic

of South Africa’s border with

Mozambique approximately 30 to 90

kilometers into the Republic of South

Africa to include Kruger National Park

and surveillance and control zones

around the park, and elsewhere extends,

from east to west, approximately 10 to

20 kilometers into the Republic of South

Africa along its borders with

Mozambique, Swaziland, Zimbabwe,

Botswana, and the southeast part of the

border with Namibia),’’ immediately

after ‘‘Republic of Korea,’’.

b. In paragraph (a)(3), by adding the

words ‘‘and the Republic of South

Africa’’ immediately after ‘‘Greece’’.

c. In paragraph (b)(1), by removing the

reference to ‘‘part 92’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘part 93’’.

§ 94.11 [Amended]

3. In § 94.11, paragraph (a) is

amended by adding, in the first

sentence, the words ‘‘Republic of South

Africa except the foot-and-mouth

disease controlled area (which extends

from the Republic of South Africa’s

border with Mozambique approximately

30 to 90 kilometers into the Republic of

South Africa to include Kruger National

Park and surveillance and control zones

around the park, and elsewhere extends,

from east to west, approximately 10 to

20 kilometers into the Republic of South

Africa along its borders with

Mozambique, Swaziland, Zimbabwe,

Botswana, and the southeast part of the

border with Namibia),’’ immediately

after ‘‘Republic of Korea,’’.

Done in Washington, DC, this 11th day of

April 2000.

Bobby R. Acord,

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 00–9491 Filed 4–14–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

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 activity

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.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 17, 2000.

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 logging technology that was not

incorporated when the NRC issued the

existing well logging regulations (March

17, 1987; 52 FR 8225). This 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 ‘‘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.

Introduction

Oil and gas come from accumulations

in the pore spaces of reservoir rocks

(usually sandstone, limestone, or

dolomites) and are removed via 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.

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.

20338 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 74 / Monday, April 17, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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

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 lowactivity 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 and improves the

evaluation of geologic formations while

reducing drilling costs. The real-time

information can aid in decision making

because evaluating a formation can be

planned as soon as the drill bit reaches

a formation.

Background

Based on the changing technology in

the well logging industry, the NRC

developed a Rulemaking Plan to

consider the need to update 10 CFR Part

39. On May 28, 1997, the NRC provided

Agreement States a draft Rulemaking

Plan for comment entitled, ‘‘Energy

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 in

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 NRC

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 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 existing regulations. The

final Rulemaking Plan provides the

rationale used in the development of

this proposed rule. The NRC published

the proposed rule in the Federal

Register on April 19, 1999 (64 FR

19089). The NRC received five

comments on the proposed rule. These

comments and responses are discussed

in the ‘‘Comments on the Proposed

Rule’’ section.

Regulatory Action

The NRC is 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

110 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

appropriate 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

an 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.

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) still

apply to the possession and use of

licensed material and are adequate to

protect public health and safety and the

environment.

Therefore, the NRC is amending 10

CFR Part 39 to recognize the use of an

ECS in well logging and to provide

requirements governing its use. These

provisions include radioactivity limits

on the ECS and leak testing

requirements. The most significant

change will exclude an ECS from the

costly procedures for well abandonment

in the event only an ECS 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) conducted for this rulemaking, a

limited 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 establishing 3.7 MBq (100

microcuries) as the limit for an ECS.

Existing ECSs 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

radioactivity within an environmentally

safe level. These ECS sources will not be

required to meet the requirements in

§ 39.41. However, the ECS sources for

use in well logging applications will be

required to be registered pursuant to 10

CFR 32.210. 10 CFR 32.210 requires an

evaluation using radiation safety criteria

from accepted industry standards.

Applicable standards for calibration

sources may be found in American

National Standard Institute (ANSI)

standards (e.g., ANSI/HPS N43.6–1997).

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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 74 / Monday, April 17, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 20339

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 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

exposure 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

microcuries) source of americium or

cesium (the actual radionuclides 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

event that such sources become

unretrievable, will not significantly

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 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 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.

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.

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 1,110 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

these sources were ruptured and the

tritium was ingested. If a tritium source

was 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 EA conducted for this rulemaking

demonstrates that there would be no

significant impact to public health and

safety or the environment resulting from

this change. The EA evaluated the worst

case scenario of a 1,110 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

individual member of the public of 100

millirem or 1 millisievert (see 10 CFR

20.1301). Therefore, the NRC believes

that 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 use their judgement to abandon a

well immediately, without prior NRC

approval, if the licensee believes a delay

could cause such a non-radiological

20340 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 74 / Monday, April 17, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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.

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 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) that a permanent

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 item 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 ANSI/HPS N43.6–1997.

The existing requirements will also

remain as an option within this section.

The NRC issued a generic exemption

from the existing design and

performance criteria for sealed sources

in 1989. This exemption allows the use

of older sealed sources which were not

tested against 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 NRC is

modifying the regulations to include

this existing generic exemption within

10 CFR 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,

‘‘Classification of Sealed Radioactive

Sources’’ or the criteria in § 39.41. The

use of the USASI standard is based on

an NRC Notice of Generic Exemption

published on July 25, 1989 (54 FR

30883). Existing NRC regulations had

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 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 rulemaking confirmed that these

older sources have not presented a

problem during actual use. Therefore,

the NRC is codifying 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

cesium-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 NRC regulations which were

promulgated in 1987. Based on survey

information 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 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 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

is the revised update to ANSI N542–

1977. The NRC 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

Conformity 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 parties). The existing NRC

requirements are based on the older

ANSI N542–1977 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 in 1989. That is, existing

approved sealed sources might not have

been tested or evaluated exactly as

specified in ANSI/HPS N43.6–1997,

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 were no

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 74 / Monday, April 17, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 20341

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 NRC 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 comments received on the

proposed rule, the NRC’s response to

the comments, and changes made to the

final rule as a result of 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 NRC 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 performancebased approach to prevent inadvertent

intrusion on an abandoned source.

Comment: One commenter indicated

that State regulatory agencies having

jurisdiction over drilling and well

operations may have well abandonment

procedures that are more restrictive than

those proposed by the NRC.

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 § 39.77(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.

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 exemption 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 incorrect because this

would imply that isotopes considered

exempt quantities under § 30.18(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

§ 32.210 or applicable Agreement State

regulations. It is expected that ECS’s

will at least meet appropriate ANSI

criteria for calibration sources that can

only be assured if the sources are

registered by the NRC or an Agreement

State. This criteria will be applied

regardless of source activity. Although it

is true that there is NRC guidance

(NUREG–1556, Vol. 3, ‘‘Consolidated

Guidance About Materials Licenses—

Applications for Sealed Source 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 expected to

have authorization to possess and use

unsealed material in similar quantities.

This situation would not apply in this

setting.

Section 39.41(f) does not need to be

clarified concerning sources obtained

per § 30.18(a). The NRC 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 under limited

circumstances. The NRC staff believes,

in general, 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 NRC has authorized for

distribution to persons exempt from

licensing, the company could use that

source, without modification, in a well

logging tool. In this situation, the

sources would not need to meet § 39.41

criteria. Note that § 30.18(c) does not

allow the incorporation of exempt

sources into devices for commercial

distribution. Therefore, companies who

incorporate these sources into their

logging 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.

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 microcuries. They

have specifically licensed ECSs meeting

the requirements of 10 CFR Part 39

which contain 200 microcuries of Am241. Therefore, they request a

reassessment of the environmental

impact based on 200 microcuries of Am241 to allow 200 microcuries to be the

maximum activity within an ECS.

20342 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 74 / Monday, April 17, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Response: The NRC staff does not

agree that there is a need to impose

additional 10 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,

when 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 NRC 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.

Comments: Two commenters had

comments on this section. One

commenter noted that neutron generator

target sources require above-ground

testing for operability and calibration.

When energized, these devices can

produce radiation levels that may

constitute ‘‘High Radiation Areas.’’ The

commenter believes that the revised

regulations 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

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 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)

would 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 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

of other hazards. The commenter

requests that if these items are not

included in the regulations, the NRC

identify how they are to be resolved.

Response: The purpose of this

proposed change was to allow licensees

flexibility in the use of their best

judgement when there is the possibility

of an immediate threat to public health

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 NRC 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

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 used inappropriately, 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 on 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 protection 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.

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

CFR Part 39 requirements that are

essentially equivalent to ANSI criteria

for use in well logging and does not take

into account any protection provided by

the tool or source holder. NRC 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 ECSs used in logging

while drilling (LWD) operations. The

commenter noted that this was the only

licensee in the State using ECSs and that

they preferred to 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 NRC 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 OMB 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 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 tools.

The commenter noted that because the

ECSs and neutron generator 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.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 74 / Monday, April 17, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 20343

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.

Final 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 performancebased approach to prevent inadvertent

intrusion on an abandoned source.

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.

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 39.77(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 health 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.

Criminal Penalties

For the purposes of Section 223 of the

Atomic Energy Act (AEA), the

Commission is issuing the final rule

under one or more of sections 161b,

161i, or 161o 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 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 than, 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 39 to be consistent

with the Commission’s metrication

policy. The environmental assessment

evaluated the maximum annual public

health risk to members of the 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 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 from

Mark Haisfield, Office of Nuclear

Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001, telephone

(301) 415–6196.

20344 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 74 / Monday, April 17, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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 NRC approval. The

burden to include the justification in the

existing report required in 10 CFR

39.77(d) is estimated to increase from 4

hours to 4.25 hours per impacted report.

Because the burden for this information

collection requirement is insignificant,

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) clearance is not required.

Existing requirements were approved by

the OMB, approval number 3150–0130.

Public Protection Notification

If a means used to impose an

information collection does not display

a currently valid OMB control number,

the NRC may not conduct or sponsor,

and a person is not required to respond

to, the information collection.

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

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555–0001, telephone (301) 415–

6196.

Regulatory Flexibility Certification

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.

Backfit 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 amendments do not involve any

provisions that would impose backfits

as defined in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1).

List of Subjects in 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—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, 2236,

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 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

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)(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

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 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

microcuries] 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 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 microcuries] 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,

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 74 / Monday, April 17, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 20345

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 gammaemitting radioactive material with an

activity of 3.7 MBq [100 microcuries] or

less; and

(5) Sources of alpha- or neutronemitting radioactive material with an

activity of 0.37 MBq [10 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 N5.10–1968,

‘‘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, ‘‘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 hour, 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 × 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 § 32.210 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—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 1,110 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 1,110 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), redesignating

paragraphs (d)(9) and (d)(10) as

paragraphs (d)(10) and (d)(11), and

adding a new paragraph (d)(9) to read as

follows:

§ 39.77 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) * * *

(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 3rd day

of April, 2000.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

William D. Travers,

Executive Director for Operations.

[FR Doc. 00–9468 Filed 4–14–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE BOARD

12 CFR Part 910

[No. 2000–19]

RIN 3069–AB02

Amendments to the Freedom of

Information Act Regulation

AGENCY: Federal Housing Finance

Board.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Federal Housing Finance

Board (Finance Board) is amending its

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)

regulation to reflect an agency

reorganization. Responsibility for

administering the Finance Board’s FOIA

program has been transferred from the

Executive Secretariat to the Office of

General Counsel and the Deputy

General Counsel of the Administrative

Law Division has replaced the Secretary

to the Board of Directors as the Finance

Board’s FOIA officer.