ML19209A747
| ML19209A747 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/12/1979 |
| From: | Gossick L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19209A738 | List: |
| References | |
| RULE-PRM-20-12 NUDOCS 7910050324 | |
| Download: ML19209A747 (7) | |
Text
NUCLEAR RECULATORY COMMISSION (Docket No. PP"-20-12)
URCIUOLO Denial of Petition for Rulemaking to Change the Definition of " Radiation Area" Please take notice that a petition for rulemaking to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has been denied.
The petition was submitted by a letter dated October 17, 1978, from Louis Ray Urciuolo who requested the NRC to amend its regulations in 10 CFR Part 20, " Standards for Protection Against Radiation."
This petition has been denied by the Executive Director for Operaticns in accord-ance with 10 CFR S 1.40(o).
Mr. Urciuolo indicates that S20.105, " Permissible levels of radiation in unrestricted areas," implies that restrictions may be necessary in any area where radiation levels could exceed either 2 nillirems in an hour, 100 millirems in 7 consecutive days, or is likely to exceed 500 millirems in a year.
He peti-tioned the NRC to amend the definition of " radiation area" set forth in 620.202(b)
(2), to specify dose rates comparable to S20.105 rather than the 5 millirems in an hour and 100 millirems in any 5 consecutive days currently specified in S20.202(b)(2).
The proposed change would require any area that could not qualify as an unrestricted area to be posted as a radiation area.
Mr. Urciuolo offers three bases for his petition:
1.
Under present requirements, an area may require restriction due to the presence of radiation, but that area ic.ay not necessarily be required to be posted with a warning.
Any area which is restricted because of 1115 1/8 7910050 3 1
the presence of an increased hazard level should be posted with a sign that will warn or instruct any individual entering the ara' of the hazard involved.
This should be consistent with OSHA 29 CFR 1910.145(a), (b), and (c).
2.
This proposition better illustrates the close interrelationship between a restricted area and a radiation area.
It simplifies understanding of this interrelationship by removing unnecessary complicating differ-ences between the two definitions.
3.
The proposed change would provide, as a byproduct, more complete post-ing and, thus, be consistent with the spirit of 10 CFR 19.12.
A notice of filing of petition, Docket rio. PRM-20-12, was published in the Federal Register or. November 30, 1978 (43 FR 56108).
The comment period expired January 29, 1979.
Eight persons submitted ccaments; five opposed the petitioned change and three favored the change.
Those commenting favorably on the petition stated that the differences between the F.finition of radiation area and the dose rate permitted in unrestricted areas has confused sore persons.
The NRC staff has concluded that these problems result from failure to understand the relationship between control requirements of 10 CFR Parts 19 and 20.
Detailed discussion of these relationships follows.
The arguments presented by commenters opposing the petitioned change basically were similar to those of the NRC staff and are set forth below.
H~storically, S20.105, " Permissible levels of radiation in unrestricted areas", was deliberately worded differently from the definition of radiation area set forth in 820.202(b)(2).
The underlying philosophy was that, because licensees cannot control the activities of individuals in (unrestricted) areas 1115 179
outside of the licensees control, the regulations should be expressed in terms of limitatior.: on the levels of radiation and the concentrations of radioactive raaterial in effluents that licensees may permit to be released to unrestricted areas. These radiation levels and effluent concentrations were derived such that, with assumed probabilities, including full-time occupancy (7 days per week), it would be unlikely that any individual in the population would receive doses greater than 10 percent of the occupational dose-limiting standards recom-mended by the International Commission on Radiolegical Protection (ICRP), the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), and the Federal Radiation Council (FRC).
The FRC function is now part of the responsibility of the Environmental Protection Agency.
The NRC's regulations in 10 CFR Part 20 provide for the control of personnel exposures to radiation and radioactive material through the establishment of five different types of areas with varying degrees of prescribed protection.
There are two basic types of areas, unrestricted and restricted; within restricted areas there may be radiation areas, high radiation areas, and air-borne radioactivity areas.
An unrestricted area is one that is not controlled by the licensee for purposes of radiation protection.
However, permissible levels of radiation in unrestricted areas are specified (g20.105, and listed above), as are concentra-tions of radioactive material that may be released in effluents to unrestricted areas.
If one or more of the limits is likely to be exceeded, the affected area must be classified as a restricted area.
A restricted area is any area access to which is controlled by the licensee for purposes of radiation protection.
Within a restricted area a graduated scale 1115 180 3
.o in
' :ne eg 4e of hazard present.
of protective measures is imposeJ Included in these protective measures are requirements for caution signs for the types of areas mentioned above.
A radiation area is one in which the dose to personnel could exceed 5 millirems in 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> or 100 millirems in any 5 consecutive days, and must be posted with a sign or signs bearing the radiation symbol and the words CAUTION -
RADIATION AREA.
If the dose could exceed 100 millirems in 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br />, the area must be classified as a high radiation area, must be posted with a sign or signs bearing the radiation symbol and the words CAUTI0ft - HIGH RADIATION AREA, and additional controls imposed.
An airborne radioactivity area is one in which the concentration of airborne radioactive material exceed specified limits.
These areas must be posted with a sign or signs bearing the radiation symbol and the words CAUTI0ft - AIRBORNE RADI0 ACTIVITY AREA.
In addition, any area in which radiaoctive materials exceed-ing specified limits are used or stored must be posted with a sign or signs bearing the radiation symbol and the words CAUTION - RADI0 ACTIVE MATERIALS.
In their simplest form, these area designations envision a restricted area, defined for example by a fence for access control, and a building and rooms within posted as radiation areas, high radiation areas, etc.
If operations planned by a licensee could result in dose rates outside of the fence that may exceed one or more of the limits established for unrestricted areas (620.105),
the licensee must either modify the operations or the facilities in which they are to be conducted to reduce the dose rates, or take steps to restrict the additional area in which the dose rates may exist.
The regulations in 10 CFR Part 20 recognize the practicality of establishing a restricted area and control-ling access for purposes of radiation protection at some physical barrier that 1115 181
may be remote from the radioactive material and any associated radiation dose rates.
Inside of the restricted area there may exist dose rates above 2.Mili-rems per hour without further required posting until dose rates reach 5 milli-rems per hour at which time the area must be posted as a radiation area.
Inside of the radiation area dose rates may exist above 5 millirems per hour without additional posting until dose r.ates reach 100 millirems per hour at which time the area must be posted as a high radiation area and other controls imposed.
Posting of areas is only one of the controls licensees are required to establish at and within of restricted areas.
The individuals entering the licensee's restricted area are to be subject to the licensee's control, must be instructed commensurate with the risk (S19.12, 10 CFR Part 19), must be monitored according to S20.202, and the individuals' doses maintained as low as is reasonably achievable as well as below the dose-limiting standards specified in SS20.101 and 20.104, 10 CFR Part 20.
These controls ensure that individuals are aware of their entry into a restricted area.
The NRC staff believes that the additional measure of posting signs at the restricted area boundary i.e unnecessary.
As an individual progresses inside of a licensee's restricced area, the regulations provide for progressive levels of posting for radiation areas and high radiation areas and for varying degrees of control by alarms and interlocked devices that prevent entry until the dose rates are reduced or automatically reduce the dose rates present.
If the petitioned changes were made to the definition of radiation area, licensees would be required to post at lower instantaneous dose rates than at present, that is, at 2 millirems rather than 5 millrems per hour.
Posting would also be required at lower steady-state dose rates because the petitioned change would specify 100 millrems in any 7 rather than 5 consecutive days, that is at i115 182 5
0.6 rather than 0.8 millirems per hour, even though a majority of workers are on the job 5 days a week.
It would appear that these changes would result in only very small improvement in radiation protection practices and very little or no reduction in radianion doses to workers.
Indeed, the petitioned change would be counterproductive for it would have the disadvantage of eliminating the requirement for posting of any warning signs inside of the restricted area until dose rates reached 100 millirems per hour.
The NRC staff is concerned that this could result in unnecessary exposure of workers.
Further, as noted by persons commenting on the petition, those installations constructed to meet 5 millrems per hour requirements may require structural modifications in order to meet a 2 millirems per hour requirement.
The petitioned amendment to the regulations in 10 CFR Part 20 would require establishment and posting of the restricted area boundary at the point where the dose rate equals that permitted in unrestricted areas.
The staff does not consider such action desirable because it would not recognize the practicality of establishing the restricted area at some physical barrier that may be remote from the areas in which radiation dose rates exist, or necessary in view of the other controls licensees are required to impose at the boundary of the restricted area.
The petitioner referred to 0$HA's regulations in S1910.145, 29 CFR 1910, that call for the provision of warning signs to " define specific hazards of a nature such that failure to designate them may lead to accidental injury to workers or the public." However, OSHA's specific regulations dealing with ionizing radiation in S1910.96, 29 CFR 1910, contain definitions of radiation area, unrestricted and restricted areas, and posting and labeling requirements 1115 183 6
that are the same as those in 10 CFR Part 20.
Therefore, in this area, the NFC's regula m ns are considered to be consistent with OSHA's regulations.
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 as a result of less posting under the petitioned change.
Further, there is a poten-tial for increase in cost to tha 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.
In view of the foregoing, the petition for rulemaking filed by Mr. Urciuolo on October 17, 1978, is hereby denied.
Copies of the petition for rulemaking, the comments thereon, and the NRC's letter of denial are available for public inspection in the NRC's Public Document Room at 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
Dated at 3ethesda. ?M.
this 12th day of sewe-Sar
, 1979.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Ed
, q'o m
e DMJ v/ Lee V. Gossick Executive Director for Operations 1115 184
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No.183 / Wednesday. Septernber 20, 1979 / Notices 55445
~~~"
The Commission has determined that specified in i 20.2021b)(2) The proposed levels and effluent concentrations were the issuance of this amendment will not chance would require eny area that derived such that with assumed result in any significant environmental could not qualify as an unrestricted area probabilities, including full-time impact and that pursuant to 10 CFR to be posted as a radiation area. Mr.
occupancy (7 days per week). it would
$ 51.5fd)(4) an environmental impact Urciuolo offers three bases for his be imlikely that any indivu,1 la the staternent or negative declaration and petitiom population would receive s.ases greater environmental impact anpraisal need
- 1. Under present requirements, an than to percent of the occupational not be prepared in com.ection with area may require restriction due to the dose-limiting standards recommended issuance of this statement.
presence of radiation, but that area may by the International Commission on For further details with respect to this not necessarily be required to be posted Radiological Protection (ICRP), the action, see (1) the application for with a warning. Any area which is National Council on Radiation
, amendment dated June 5.1978 restricted because of the presence of an Protection and Measurements (NCRP).
(Proposed Change No.164 (2) increased hazard level should be posted and the Federal Radiation Council Amendment No. 59 to License No. DPR-with a sign that will warn or mstruct (FRC).The FRC function is tow part of
- 3. and (3) the Commissien's related a.1y individu.,1 entering the area of the
- he responsibility of the Environmental Safety Evaluation. All of these items are hazard involved. This should be Protection Agency.
evailable for public inspection at the consistent with OSilA 29 CFR The NRC's regulations in 10 CFR Part Commission's Public Document Room.
1910.145(a). (b). and (c).
20 provide for the control of personnel 1717 H Street. N W.. Washington. D.C.
- 2. This proposition better illustrates exposures to radiation and radioactive and at the C eenfield Commumty the close interrelationship between a material through the establishment of College.1 Collece Drive. Greenfield.
. restricted area and a radiation area. It five different types of areas with varying simplifi s understandmg of this degrees of prescribed protection.
Massachusetts 01301. A copy of items e
(2) and (3) may be obtained upon interrelationship by removing There are two basic types of areas, request addressed to the U.S. Nuclear unnecessary cornplicating ottferences unrestricted and rcstricted; within degulatory Commission. Washmgton, between the two defmitions.
restricted areas there may be radiation D.C. 20555. Attention: Director. Division
- 3. The proposed chance would areas. high radiation areas, and airbo ne of Operating Reactors.
provide, as a byproduct more complete radioactivity areas.
pesting and. thus. be consistent with the An unrestricted area is one that is not Dated at Ileihesda. Mar %and, this 14:h dal spirit of to CFR 19.12.
controlled by the licensee for purposes of September.19r9.
A notice of filing of petition. Docket of radiation protection,llowever.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
No. PPM-2N12. was puolished in tre permissible levels of radiation in Thomas V. Wambach.
Federal Register on November 30.1978 unrestricted areas are specified Acting Chief. 0;+mtme Recctors Bmnch No.
(43 FR 50106) t The comment period
() 20.105, and 'isted above), as are
- 2. Dmsion of 0yemtieg Reectors.
expired Ianuary 29.1979. Eight persons concentrations of radioa-tive material in ox. u-:w ri,a s-23,, e 4s.mi submitted comments; five opposed the that may be teleased in efiluents to enuno coca rsso+-u petitioned change and three favored the unrer*Ved areas if one or more of the change. Those commenting favorably on limitsis I;kely to oc exceeded, the the petition stated that the differences affected area must be classified as a IDocket No. PRM-20-12]
between the definition of radiation area restncted area.
Louis Ray Urciuofc; Denial of Petition and the dose rate permitted in A restricted area is any area access to unrestricted areas has confused some which is controlled by the licensee for for Hulemaking To Change the Definition of " Radiation Area" persons.The NRC staff has concluded purposes of radiation protection. Within that these problems result from failure a restricted area a graduated scale of Please take notice that a petition for to understand the relationship between protective measures is imposed rulemaking to the Nuc' ear Resolatory control requirements of 10 CFR Parts 19 according to the degree of huard Commission (NRC) has been denieu.
and 20. Detailed oiscussion of these present. Included in these protective The petition was submitted by a letter relationships follows. The arcuments measures are requirements for raution dated October 17.1978. from Louis Ray presented by commenters opposing the signs for the types of areas mentioned Urciuolo who requested the NRC to petitioned c'han:e basically were similar above.
amend its regulations in 10 CFR Part 20-to those of the NRC staff and are set A radiation arel is one in which the
" Standards for Protection Against forth below.
dose to personnel could exceed 5 Radiation." This petition has been Historically. 120.105. " Permissible millirems in I hour or 100 milbrems in denied by the Executive Director for levels of radiation in unrestricted any 5 consecutive days, and must be Operations in accordance with 10 CFR areas". was dahberately worded posted with a sign or signs bearing the i 1.40(o).
differently from the defmition of radiation symbol and the words i
Mr. Urciuolo indicated that { 20.105, radiation area set forth in i 20.202(b)(2).
CAUTION-RADIATION AREA. If the
" Permissible levels of radiation m The underlying philosophy was that, dose could exceed 100 mdlirems in 1 unrestricted areas." implies that because licensees cannot control the hour, the area must be classihed as a restrictions may be necessary in any activities of individuals in (unrectricted) high radiation area. must be posted with area where radiation levels could arr outside of the licensees control, a sw or siens bearing the radiation exceed either 2 millirems in an hour.100 the wgulatmns should be expressed in symbol and the weids Caution-1hgh mulirems in 7 consecutis e days. or ts terms of hmitatmns on the levels of Radiation Area, and additional controls likely to exceed 500 milbrems in a year.
radiation and the concentrations of imposed.
lie petitioned the NRC to amend the radioact ve materialin effluents that An airborne radioactivity area is one i
definition of " rad:ation area" set forth in licensees iray permit to be reicasad to in which the concentration of airborne i 20.2021b)(2), to specify dose rates unrestrict< d areas. These radiation radioactive material exceed specified comparable to 120.105 rather than the 5 limits.These areas must be posted with j
milbrems in an hour and 100 milbrems in
'Then omwed.. P.+i Ameraari Wodd a sign or signs bearing the radiation any 5 consecutive days currently Airur tac.
symbol and the words Caution-7 300R OR M.
ms as F
5544G Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. m / Wednesday. September 20, 1979 / Notices Airborne Radioactivity Area. In reduced or automatically reduce the staff has concluded that the petition addition, any area in which radiaorctis e dose rates present.
should be denied. principally because materials ex'ceedmg specdied hmits are if the petitioned changes were made there does not appar to be any used or stored must be posted with a ta the definition of radution area.
reduction in risk asuiated with the sign or signs beartng the radiation licensees would be required to post at petitioned change. Indeed, there is a symbol and the words Caution-lower instantaneous dose rates than at potential for unnt cessary exposum of Radioactne Matenals.
present. that is, at 2 mdhrams rather wouers as a result of hw postisw under In their simplest form, these area than 5 milbrems per hour. Postug would the petitioned change. Further, there is a designations envision a restricted area.
also be required at lower steady-state potential for increase in cost to the defmed for example by a fence for dose rates because the petitioned industry associated with backfitting access control, and a bmld:n2 and change would specify 100 mdhrems in facilities, changmg present posi.ing, and rooms within posted as radiation areas, any 7 rather than 5 consecutive days.
instructmg workers as to the high radiatien areas, etc. If operations that is at 0.6 rather than 0.8 miliarems significance of the petitioned posting. -
planned by licensee could result in per hour, even though a majority of There is also the recognized cost to the dose ra'es outside of the fence that may workers are on the job 5 tiays a week. Il NRC and other regulatory agencies to exceed one or more of the 4mits would appear that these changes would change their regulations and implement established for unrestricted treas result in only very small improvement in thc changes.
(i 20.105), the licensee must either radiation protection practices and very In view of the foregoing. the petition modify the operatiens or the facilities in little or no reduction in radiatien doses for rulemaking filed by Mr. Urciuolo on which they are to be conducted to to workers. Indeed, the petitioned October 17.1978, is hereby denied.
teduce the dose rates. or take steps to change would be counterproductise for Copies of the petition for rulemaking.-
restrict the additional area in which the it would have the disauvanta;;e of the comments thereon. and the NRC's dose rates may exist. The regelations in ehminating the requirement for positing letter of denial are available for public 10 CFR Part 20 recognize the practicality of any waming signs inside of the inspection in the NRC's Public of establishmg a restricted area and mstncted area untd dose rates reached Document Room at 1717 II Street. N.W.,
controlling access of purposes of 100 mulirems per hour. T he NRC sta ff i Washington D.C.
radiation protection at som 1 physical concerned that this could result in barrier that may be remote froni the unnecessary exposure of workers.
Dated at Bethesda. Md. this 12th day of radioactive material and any associated Further, as noted by persons September.1979.
radiation dose rates. Inside of the c mmmmg n the petition, those p
restncted area there may exist dose installations constructed to meet 5 rates above 2 rniilirems per hour without mil,arems per hour recuirements may Eaccutive Dimctorfor operstmas.
further required posting until dose rates require structural medihcations m order tra ux#ms m2va av.w t meet a 2 millirema per hour swuo coot mo*w reach 5 mdlirems per hour at which time the area must be posted as a radiation aq ments.
area. Inside of the rad:ation area dose The petitioned amendment to the (NUREG-06101 rates may exist above 5 millirems per
'"*"l"I' "* '".10 CFR Part 20 would hour without additienal postm;; until aquh e asnment and posting of the Draft Emergency Action Level dose rates reach 100 millirems per hour mstncted ama boundary at the point Guidehnes for Nuclear Power Plants; at which time the area must be posted whm the de rate mais that an a high radiation area and other permitted in unrestricted areas. The Availaoitity controls imposed.
staff does not consider such action In connection with the Nuclear Posting of areas is only one of the desirable because it wouM not recogn.ze Regulatory Commission's ongoing effort controls licensees are rcquired to the practicality of establish;ng the to resiew emergency preparedness establish at and within tiie restricted restncted area at some p. fsical barrier capabihties around operating nuclear that may be remoa from ;ne areas in power plants, the Office of Nuclear areas. The individuals entering the w hich radiation dose rates exist. or Reactor Regulation has developed draf?
licensee's restricted area are to be necessary in view of the other controls Emergency Action Lesel Guidelines.
suNect to the licensee's control. must be licensees are requred to impose at the These guidelines are for interim use ins.ructed commensurate with the risk boundary of the restricted area.
during the initial phases of the Nuclear (119.12.10 CFR part 19), must be The petitioner referred to OSIINs Regulatory Ccmmission's effr rt to monitored according to 120.202. and the regulatwns in i 1910145,29 CFR 1910 promptly, improve emergency indniduals' dor es mainatined as low as that call for the provision of warning preparedness at operating nuclear is reasonably achiesable as well as signs to " define specific hazards of a power plants, below the dose. limiting standards nature such that failute to designate Four classes of Emergency Action specified in il 20.1011.nd 20.1m.10 CFR them may lead to accidentalinjury to Levels are estabbshed in the guidelines Part 20. These controls ensure that workers or the public." However, to replace the dasses in Regulatory individuals are aware of their entry into OSilNs specific regulations dealing Guide 1.101. These classes are a restncted area.The NRC staff believes with ionizmg radiation in i 1910.96,29 Notification of Unusual Event. Alert.
that the additwnal measure of posting CFR 1910. contain definiti.ns of Site Emergency, and General signs at the restricted area boundary is radiation area. unrestricted and Emergency. The guidelines provide unnecessary. As an individual restricted areas and posting and associated examples of initiating progressive inside of a licensee's labeling requirements that are the same conditions for each of the classes, restncted area, the regulations provide as those in 10 CFR Part 20. Therefore, in Public comments are being solicited for progressive lesels of posting for this area, the NRC's regulations are on these draft guwbnes. Comments radiation areas and high radiation areas considered to be consistent with shouhi be :.ent to C.e Secretary of the and for varpng degrees of control by OSHNs regulations.
Commisson. U. S. Nuclear Regulatory alarms and interlocked devices that After careful consideration of the Commission. Washington. D.C. 20535.
prevent entry untd the dode rates are petition and the public comments. the Attentiom Docketing and Service
?00R ORGM
i.
DOC;EE-N'Li.;3"R ~
I
^
~
~
PETiTIC,..;ULE_ ?2M -. ~:s h
Pan Am.rican World Airways, inc.
A.cospace S.rvic.s Olvision occupatic a. Medicine and Environm.ntel cr e tes r sc.e 17 Oc t ob e r 19 7 8 3
- p.r.rio,iaea2sss 10-17-28 (9-3.4) q$
(
qis$
j-QC3S g \\Sl-Secretary of the Commission U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
' 9-e Washington, D.
C.
20555
~
Y'd **sN 7
Attn:
Do cke tin g and Service B ran ch g
SUBJECT:
10 CFR, PART 20.202 (b) (2)'
A
^
The following is a petition for consideration of rulemaking to
' amend 10 CFR, Part 2 0. 2 02 (b) (2).
s I submit that the present definition and requirements for label-ing of a radiation area may not be appropriate in view of'-
10 CFR 20.105, " Permissible Levels of Radiation in Unrestricted iA re as. "
In 10 CFR 20.105, it is implied that restrictions may be necessary in any area where radiation levels could exceed either 2 mrem in an hour, 100 mrem in 7 consecutive days or is likely to exceed 500 mrem in a year.
In 10 CFR 2 0. "_0 2 (b ) ( 2), a radiation area is de fined as "any area ac ces sib le.... th at a maj or portion of the body could receive in any one hour a dose in excess of 5 mrem, or in any 5 con =ecutive days a dose in excess of _100 mrem." Also, a radiation area it re q ui re d to be app rop riately p os te d with a warning (10 CFR 20.203b).
I contend that 10.CFR 20. 202 (b) (2) should be amended to read similar to the f ollowin g :
" Radiation Area means any area, a c c e s s ib le to pe rs onnel 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 2 mrem, or in any 7 consecutive days a dose in excess of 100 mrem, or is likely to receive a dose in excess of 500 mRen in any calendar year."
The following justification is offered:
~~.
.~
1.
Under present requirements, an area may require restriction due to the presence of radiation, but that area may not
~1ecessarily be re. quired to be posted with a warning.
v jc2 p ez 77Uh3t}GY li15 187
s n
3 10 ^CFR,' P ART 20. z02 (b) (2) 17 Oc tob e r 19 7 8 Page 2 Any area which is restricted because of the presence of an increased hazard level should be posted with a sign that will warn or instruct any individual entering the area of the hazard involved.
This should be consistent with OSHA 29 CFR 1910.145(a), (b), (c).
- 2. ' This prop osition be tter illustrates' the close in t e r re l.s ti on-ship between a restricted area and a radiation area.
It simplifies understanding of this interrelationship by renovin g unne ces s ary complicating dif ferences between the two de finitions.
as a byproduct, more 3.
The proposed change would provide,
complete pos ting and, thus, be consistent with the spirit of 10 CFR 19.12.
u.A Louis Ray Urciuolo Senior lle alth Physicis t LRU/dlh 5
Oh e
e e
1115 188
oe..'.',
[.:ysQh
-W 3,
\\:%222:1)
W/
II xD; Npi%
I Ccb,
ifk D
f;.,.
STATC OF NtVADA c
,.i
..M:.
crean.tzur er w_:.x. r. c acts f-s 3
DIVISION c'5: HEALTH 4
,a b E-5 BuntAu or CONsuwcn HEA:.TM PROTECT!on. %.itvects 1
y N
TELEPHON E CAPITOL COMPLEX (702) 885 4750 4p g
CARSON CITY. NEVADA
- 69710
%f cas i
DOCKET NUMBER '
PRM (1$l3FR5GI08 PETIT'ON RULE t
b December 27, 1978 U.S, Nuclear Regulatory Co= mission h*
y[ Qlj f
Division of Ruhs and Records VII L
Of fice of Ad=inistration Washington, D.C. 20555 Sirs:
This is in response to the Filing of' Petition for Rule Ma k
14, 1978.
NRC " Notices", dated Thursday, December The discrepancy between the definitions of " Permissible Levels of Radiation in Unrestricted Areas" and " Radiation Area" have always In view the aleost presented a problem to many of our licensees. daily increasing r
"Permis-tion of " Radiation Area" consistant with the definition of sible Levels", etc., would be welcomed.
for exampic. a-a teletherapy The only reservation I have might be,The teletherapy room may have been ex level to.2 mR in installation.
By lowering rtie the 5 mR/hr require =ents.
I any one hour may require additional structional coc_rications to meet
~
have sent out a later date.
and will pass on any relevant co=ments at Sincerely,
~
^
Larrh k
Radiation Control Specialist D.T/jk i
.n..-."
,l
.,... c.n -ety w d.. ~
~ "'
)Sf v
})'N 1115 189
Dunn Powrn COMPKr~
Powrn Buttorxo 4c2 Socru Cnuncu Srazzr. CrantorTE. N. C. as242 wiw a o.**=sca.sa.
January 16, 1979 TELEPesomC; As ta 7Q.
WCr PattiQtse?
't -(,, g,N.j,3 g g.}
272.n as sec - p.cowevio=
t r=. ' <.aut5 m-20-/.tf43FATG/oh Division of Rules and Records
~'
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Attention: Office of Administration ~
f OJ M
- ,[
Reference:
" Standards for Protection Against Radiation" Pan American World Airways, Inc. Petition to Amend 05 7 \\3i f E,O ' '
Definition of " Radiation Area"
,h Filing of Petition For Rulemaking (Federal Register e
Docket 78-33491)
'i.
s ~.
Ws. ;T 1: ear Sir:
With regard to the above matter, Duke Power Conpany wishes to express the following concerns. Duke Power Company opposes the proposed rule-making because it would disrupt the present regulations and regulatory scheme since:
1.
In the present regulations a " Radiation Area" is a sub-part of a " Restricted Area" and is not intended to be equivalent to the " Restricted Area."
2.
A " Restricted Area" can and does presently include areas having radiation levels from. background to <5 mR/hr, as well as Radiation Areas and High Radiation Areas.
3.
The background to <5 mR/hr areas thus serve as a " buffer-zone" within the Restricted Area before one encounters Radiation Areas and High Radiation Areas.
4.
Present regulations, permit 0 - <2 mR/hr (within time and dose limitations).in an Un_ restricted Area.
5.
Facilities designed under present regulations may require considerable and c~ostly backfitting if the proposed regulations are adopted.
icxno+e::ee ey cara.. E.........._
N Tj up
~
Division of Rules and Records U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission January 16, 1979 Page Two Therefore, it is the position of Duke Power Company that the subject petition be denied.
Ver truly yoursy
/
s
~
G.
2
,. 3 ~ William O. Parker, Q.
^
J RFJ:ses 4
er e
1115 191
.x r;g s
Q
.. nor.s
/*
PETIT...
- _ _ -T> -/.h4 3FR.fG / 0
[g-ty c.n.,. omces; :na w..: wcnes n A..nu...s.cw.on uicnis.n.cooi. 4,.. coo. sir 7es.oeso Il cocano g
WG January 22, 1979 P00RORGNAL
! e c5 b
Y Secretary cf the Cc:n11ssion 4
Att Docketing and Sertice Section
, a e
US Daclear Regulatory Cv_4ssion Washin6 ton, DC 20555 The folloving connents en the petitica for rulena%ing (FR'4-20-121) by Pan American World Airsays, Inc to enend the definition of " Radiation Area" in 10 CFR 20.202 (b) (2) are presented for censideration:
The petition of Pan American Airesys, Inc essentially asks the :iuclear Regalatcry Cc " ssica to redefine a Radiation Area so that radiation dose rates pe: 2itted therein are essentiCly what are presently peraitted in Restricted Areas. The petition further asks the CH ssica to promulgate rules requiring the posting of the new Radiation Area to varn people of the pctential hacards
'Tnile the present rules pernit licensees considerable flexibility to therein.
cove radicactive nnterial within restricted areas, each time a situation is created where radiation dcse rates exceed 5 =ren/hr, a Radiatien Area is defined and attendant posting is required. Under the proposed new rules, hcuever, no additional area definition or posting is required until one reaches 1C0 nren/hr -
the present High Radiation Area definition. The loss of the present three-step graded approach of area definition and the subsequent two-step approach could potentially cause significant hacards to be present without reasonable posting.
For exc=ple, the area within the present security fence of our operating nuclear 4
facilities is nov considered a Restricted Area. Additienel postings are nade in every Radiation and Righ Radiation Area within the restricted area. By el " ating each Radiation Area posting, caly High Radiation Area postings vill be required within the present Restricted Area. This vould result in the possibility that significant dose rates - up to 1C0 = rem /hr - could be present anyh.ere within the present restricted area without additional va.+g.
We believe this runs counter to the concept of A1 ARA and protection of the varier.
An unrestricted area is not the antithesis of a radiation area as interpreted by the petitioner.
If individual licensees have specific problems with the definition of particular areas it veuld seen reasonable for the Ccnnission en a.nse-by-case : asis to approve technical speci'ications and procedures that respond to the individual licensees conce:: ed.
- c. this case if Raiis. tion Area Festings arc desired E. '.cVer dose rates than presently per:itted in the regulacions, the details of the more censervative apprcach should be _ade a license or procedural condition. A1:c, the licensee can procedurally use a nore censertative definition of the areas than found in the regulations.
lila 192-p For these revens we cppose the definition change and the new post'-- requirenent.
o ay, C '
u.
=.
.2k...... x n a p p a e
2 Please consider these co=ents in your future deliberations cn this ratter.
Terence J Sullivan Executive En61neer s
By
$- 4 Dennis M Eudzik Senior Engineer CC EWoods FStetson CJMQnard/RXJells/SHHowell RWSLvde man 3
1115 l'13
..a...-.
r GENER AL h ELECTRIC
" "^" """"
ENGINEERING GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, P.O. BOX 460, PLE dh 7NIA 9456C DIVISION 4
p h )s$ b January 23, 1979 W
og 45 d'6 d4 Division of Rules and Records
'o m
Office of Administration U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Agency Washington, D. C., 20555
}
Reference:
Petition for Rulemaking, Pan Ameri~can World Airways 3 Inc.,
Docket pRM-20-12, 43FR56108,11/30/78 The General Electric Company, Vallecitos Nuclear Center (VNC), believes that the referenced proposed rulemaking should not be adopted.
10CFR20.105 as written provides for a useful interim step between those area where no control is required and those where a significant fraction of occupational dose lidits could be received.
The actu 1 limits quoted in 10CFR20.105 are actually vec conservative in that they are based on continuous occupancy.
The regulation, in effect, requires a licensee to control radiation levels so that unsuspecting members of the putlis are not subject to significant radiation, e.g., personnel working in an office next to a facility where radioactive materials are handled or radiation machine; operated.
We believe that the proposed rulemaking to change the definition of a
" radiation area" te that of a " restricted area" is unnecessarily restrictive.
The levels of radiation in a restricted area are not significant from an occupational exposure pcint of view, and licensees are subject to numerous NRC and/or State inspections to assure that the restricted area levels are properly maintained.
Also, any licensee has the option to use more conser-vative limits for.. establishing radiation areas than those of 10CFR20.202 if he so chooses.
Sincerely,
(([
Ackn w y
'd... -:d. E I > " "
w w-G. E. C.unningham
[',j Sr. Licensing Engineer f2N@
vCC 29$
1115 194
a h
Texas Deaartment of Hea t, Raymond T. Moore, M.D.
1100 West 49th Street memurs or ihe soard Austin, Texas 78756 Commissioner Robert D. Moreton, Chair 458-7111
[
4 William 1. Foran, Vice Ct.;
Philip W. Mallory, M.D.
Roderic M. Bell, secretary Deputy Commissioner S
johnnie M. Denson g
8.-
H. Eugene Brown Il Ng
$,j," coi, January 25, 1979 4o7 4 3
Francis A. Con 4ey QW
=
D*.;CIET MU!/:EER
'gl 9,g d
sen v ourr d2 William J. Edwards A
v
?iTITl0.4 RULE EM ' @-/ 43e&fG/3 e
G Raymond c. carret o
'h Bob D. Glaze eianchard T. Hottins
~
Division of Rules and Records c.
D "','(,^4 ", i,"
Of fice of Administration
'W s
i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission rn;tip te-is Ray Sanss Washington, D.C.
20555 Royce E. Wisenbaker
Dear Sir:
We would like to endorse the petition for rule making filed by Pan American World Airways, Inc. regarding the definition of a " radiation arca" (43 FR 56108).
The dif f erence in radiation icvcis associated with a "' radiation area" and with the posting requirc=ents that exist in the USNRC regulations {10 CFR 20.202(b)(2) and 1G CFR 20.105, respectiv yl and similar provisions of Agreement States' regulations has caused considerable confusion and misunder-standing between licensees and their regulatory agencies.
The proposed regula-tion changes should certainly reduce this confusion and these misunderstandings.
We agree that the proposed changes would also be more in line with the desirable philosophy of better inf orming the worker" and public of an existing hazard.
If you have any quest; ions regarding these comments, please let me know.
Thank you very much for allowing us this opportunity to ccoment on this petition for rule making.
Yours truly, V
David K. Lacker, Director Division of Occupational Health
_,~
and Radiation Control cc:
G. Wayne Kerr, USNRC, Office of State Programs m aereaa.4.,.
_ % y r
V 79c3(N j j)S )g
Edwani M. Burtsavcce, Sr.
317 Pinewood Drive Shiremenstown P1 17011 27 Janur_ry,1979 P00R Dg {U;g 9l n
tfiL e.g. \\ "
4 7
gi$E h.. c..q3. I gF q M
Division of Rules and Reconis Lj e
6.Md.b.
- 5-Office of Administration U. S. Nuc1' nr Reb.tlatory Cc= mission
-f Washington EC 20555 ux Gentlemen:
Docket No. PEM - 20 Id43FASGIO8 Inre: Jg Pan American Vorld A12vays, Inc.
I concur with the petition and respectfullu rec,uest that cordideration be utde ftether to emending the affected rule as petitioned.
al an egreement Over an approricate 15-years experience, I cannot rec between two or more minds ~as to a proper interpretation of the defined radi-ation and unrestricted creas among representatives of the licensco and Commission compliance personnel.
Amending the rule es petitioned would sensib'ly make an t.rea of prevail-
~
ing radiation level a restricted arca and would not detract froa the intent of 10.105 Permissible levels of radiation in unresticted arees otherwise.
Yours very truly,
$ -lH W M.tC-S.
E. M. Burtsavego, Sr.
Wh e
g wa w ne.s # 6 & b g
~
v 29kf>sf47 b 1115 196
3...
~
,s.e
,. s4 h
ocacvo:SC & LlOERMAN 5,0 0 S Cv C N T C C N T H STRCCT.N.W.
wa S Hs NGTON. D. C.,003 e saast e e u t ass aae,,
- s. seeceast seseammt. at "sostese e. woo ms F o t o t eeC e taange stomane W.9469te stocaat t as ne coma 60 e. se* t e s soegen e asserts. se mespo6as e matmo60s tesoesas os s t a t aos e t wuses J. seap ot es. se.
Doesa6e a. Dame nt e 409. %
sov.e A samostom moeteta L. osattaoav mesa ersomeopus a ssamose 6. sta tee TELtppoet pw4s a umeemase seatcotes so. pneurs.se.
tagal s et-seco
' n qr.T ' 2,{
'.. " 7.; e<ULg PRM.PO-/d43FRA10 8 January 29,.1979, dIW sj ap
,' e s
u K.ic.c Mr. Joseph Felton s//
4 Division of Rules and Regords f'
7 $$ Y Office of Administration k-h VE.3 b p
'~'
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- m. 4 ^*-#
a c# #
Washington, D.C.
20555 (g,\\gg b
'o$TffJ Re:
Petition for Rulemaking to Amend 10 CFR Part 43 Fed. Reg. 56108, November 30, 1978
Dear Mr. Felton:
By the captioned notice, the NRC has invited comments on a petition for rulemaking seeking an amendment to enlarge the concept of a " radiation area" defined in (10 CFR $20.202 (b)(2)], and hence to expand requirements for posting
" radiation area" warning signs (10 CFR S20,203(b)].
On behalf of Washington Public Power 5 apply System, Texas Utilities Services, Inc., and Duke Power Company, all of which are Commission licensees, we respectfully submit the following comments.
In submitting the proposal for rulemaking, petitioner contends that 10 CFR 520.105 implies "that restrictions may be necessary in any area where radiation levels could exceed either 2 mrem in an hour, 100 mrem in 7 consecutive days or is likely to exceed.500 mrem in a year." 1/
Peti-tiener proposes, th.erefore, that the existing definition of radiation area 2/ should be modified to coincide with the 1115 197 _~
,,_,m 4
,l/ 43 Fed. Reg. 56108, Nove D' PLICATE DOCUMENT
,2/ 10 CFR S20.202(b)(2) def Entire document previously entered where an individual coul into syster under:
excess of 5 mrem in one e
M9 y
e/
any five consecutive day ANO
/_
W/
P -
e ar r
- r No. of pages:
. j,,,k, One First Nat.onal P!sta. CNc3Co. lumois Commonwealth Edison m;
d Accress Fe ly to: Pos: Oftce Eox 767
+ fMIf N
\\ y%./ "k Chicago. linnois 60690
/f Q
March 16, 1979 g
Q$
7 5
30 W DOCKIT NUMcER
.PETmoN RULE PRM 'A0 j t/3fg SGIOtr)
- l%g {
6-S Division of Rules and Records
.g Office of Administration N
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 r
Dear Sir:
Commonwealth Edison Company is resubmitting the following comments with respect to Pan American World Airways, Inc. Petition for Rulemaking.
The resubmittal is due to two errors in original sub-mittal dated March 12, 1979.
The errors have been. corrected.
Please disregard the original submittal.
The intent of this petition is to define " restricted area" and " radiation area" with the same dose limits.
The ultimate result of such a change would be negative as far as power facilities are concerned.
At this time, a " radiation area" is an area wherein an individual could receive 5 mrem /hr or 100 mrem /5 days.
These limits can be extended to 5000 mrem /yr.
" Radiation areas" require posting and often recuire personnel monitoring.
A " radiation area" is within a restricted area.
A " restricted area" is defined by areas in which radiation levels exceed 2 mrem an hour, 100 mrem /7 days.or 500 mrem / year.
It is obvious that a " restricted area" is much more restrictive than a " radiation area."
The results:.of redefining the " restricted area" and
" radiation area" are:,
.~
1.
Since radiation areas recuire posting and monitoring by lowering the limits of a radiation area to be the same as a restricted area, increased posting and personnel monitoring would be required.
In fact, a " radiation area" wculd be 500 mrem /yr, which is approximately 5 times natural background.
This extra crecauticc MA-d"--T**
{/
is unnecessary.
Asnw 79 %.2 g
.! 6 S 1l15 198
- ~ -
r Commonwealth Edison
~..
' 2.
The meaning of radiation area would become too vague to be meaningful.
Under the proposed change, an area posted " radiation area" could range from.057 mrem /hr (500 mnem/ year) to 99.9 mrem /hr.
Essentially, the posting would be useless.
It would cause an increased hazard because dose rates.could vary so. greatly.
Because of these foreseeable results, we view this proposal as undesirable.
Commonwealth Edison Company apologizes for the late comment submittal.
If we can be of further assistance in connection with this matter, please let us know.
Respectfully Submitted, 9"e a
o Cordell Reed Assistant Vice-President e
- m*
e 1115 199
.