ML19209A737
| ML19209A737 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/11/1979 |
| From: | Minogue R NRC OFFICE OF STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT |
| To: | Gossick L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19209A738 | List: |
| References | |
| RULE-PRM-20-12, TASK-OH-904-3, TASK-OS NUDOCS 7910050302 | |
| Download: ML19209A737 (3) | |
Text
.
i.oce o: Accessien L' nit Roon C30 Phillips Building Frc.-
fj)af /W nu n w
- vv3 - s 77o Please place-the attached docunent in t'.e PDP. using the follo.-ting file and file r
points:
POR File Additional Info (Select one and enter number)
(Enterifappropriate)
Proposed Rule (PR)
ACRS Minutes No.
Reg. Guide Relates to Proposed Rule (FR) s
-> Petition (P.4M).20 -/2 c6,,,<>p Relates to Reg. Guide f,
. -,,. g Effective Rule TRti)
Relates to Petition (PRM) x d',
AMSI Relates to Effective Rule TRM)
IAEA Federal Register Motice SD Task No.
ru 001-3
/
x.._y NUREG Report Contract No.
Subiect;
&,.,.5 J 8t=f;,,4,&fwf;,, v) Clwe /f; Ak 4~,af'"AdiL &a" 0
/
/
cc:
Central Files 1115 173
In arcg
-C o
UNITED STATES
]' g g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ygg
<c WASHINGTON. D. C. 20s55 o, n g
%, '*****/
SEP 11 1979 PRM-20-12 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Lee V. Gossick, Executive Director for Operations FROM:
Robert B. Minogue, Director Office of Standards Development
SUBJECT:
DENIAL OF PETITION FOR RULEMAKING TO CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF " RADIATION AREA" Enclosed for your signature are (1) a letter notifying a petitioner of the denial of his petition (Enclosure A), and (2) a Federal Register notice of denial of petition for rulemaking (Enclosure B).
By letter dated October 17, 1978 (Enclosure D), Louis Ray Urciuolo requested the NRC to amend $20.202(b)(2),* 10 CFR Part 20, i.e.,
the definition of radiation area, such that posting as a radiation area would be required for any area that cannot meet the requirements of S20.105** regarding levels of radiation in unrestricted areas.
Receipt of the petition was noticed in the Federal Register on November 30, 1978.
Eight comments on the petition were received (Enclosure E); five opposed the petitioned change.
Two of the three commenting in favor of the petition were the States of Nei/ada and Texas.
They indicated that the difference between the definition of radiation area and the dose rate permitted in A
S20.202(b)(2) " Radiation area" means any area, accessible to personnel, in which there exists radiation, originating in whole or in part within licensed material, at such levels that a major portion of the body could receive in any one hour a dose in excess of 5 millirem, or in any 5 consecutive days a dose in excess of 100 millrems."
ns$20.105(b) "Except as authorized by the Commission pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, no licensee shall possess, use or transfer licensed material in such a manner as to create in any unrestricted area from radioactive material and other sources of radiaticn in his possession:
(1) Radiation levels which, if an individual were continuously present in the area, could result in his receiving a dose in excess of two milli-rems in any one hour, or (2) Radiation levels which, if an individual were continuously present in the area, could result in his receiving a dose in excess of 100 millirems in any seven consecutive days."
1115 174 sitri'pesog ;w-
Lee V. Gossick 2
'SEP 11 1979 unrestricted areas has presented problems to many of their licensees.
At the same time Nevada noted that installations constructed to meet 5 millrems/
hour requirements may require structural modification in order to meet a 2 millrems/ hour requirement.
After careful consideration of the petition and the public comments, the staff has concluded that the petition should be denied, principally because there does not appear to be any reduction in risk associated with the petitioned change.
Indeed, there is a potential for unnecessary exposure of workers es a result of less posting under the petitioned change.
Further, there is a potential for increase in cost to the industry associated with backfitting facilities, changing present posting, and instructing workers as to the significance of the petitioned posting.
There is also the recognized cost to the NRC and other regulatory agencies to change their regulations and implement the changes.
The staff has concluded that problems with the definition of radiation area result from failure to understand the relationship between levels of radiation permitted in unrestricted areas, the establishment of restricted areas where access is controlled for purposes of radiation protection, the provisions for posting radiation areas and high radiation areas, and other control require-ments of 10 CFR Parts 19 and 20.
The staff has discussed these matters with officials from Nevada and Texas and has included a similar discussion in the notice of denial.
It is my view that the petition for rulemaking (PRM-20-12) is of a minor or nonpolicy nature where the grounds for denial do not substantially modify existing precedent.
In accordance with 10 CFR 1.40(o), I recommend that you approve the publication of the enclosed Federal Register notice for denial and the letter to the petitioner.
Following your approval, note that:
(1) Appropriate Congressional Committees will be notified of the dunial by letter such as Enclosure C; (2) The Commission will be informed of the denial through the Weekly Report; (3) The issuance of denial will be published in Nuclear Regulatory Commission Issuances; and (4) No public announcement will be issued on this matter.
Coordination:
The Offices of Inspection and Enforcement, Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Nuclear Reactor Regulation, and State 1115 1/5
Lee V. Gossick 3
SEP 11 1979 Programs concur in this memorandum.
The Office of the Executive Legal Director has no legal objection.
The Office of Public Affairs concurs that a public announcement is not warranted.
/ v b i O b'k n y
Robert B. Minogue, Dirdctor Office of Standards Development
Enclosures:
A - Letter from Gossick to Urciuolo B - Federal Register Notice C - Draft Letter to Congressional Committees D - Letter from Urciuolo dated October 17, 1978 E - Public Comments (8)
Approved for Publication Under 10 CFR 1.40(o), the Executive Director for Operations has been dele-gated authority to deny petitions for rulemaking of a minor or nonpolicy nature, where the grounds for denial dt-qot substantially modify existing precedent.
I have found that the enclm r. Jenial is in this category and am proceeding to issue it.
^ 0w'I
/
V 7 Lee V. Gossick Executive Director for Operation 1115 1/6