ML19249A629
| ML19249A629 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/05/1979 |
| From: | Gossick L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19249A621 | List: |
| References | |
| RULE-PRM-34-1 NUDOCS 7908240072 | |
| Download: ML19249A629 (6) | |
Text
.
[780-01]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[ Docket No. P 1]
TECH /0PS Denial of Petition for Rulemaking with Regard to the Surface Radiation Level Limit for Radiographic Exposure Devices Notice is hereby given that a petition for rulemaH ng, submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission by letter dated April 15, 1977, by Tech / Ops, Radi3-tion Products Division, 40 South Avenue, Burlington, Massachusetts, has been denied.
The petition requested the NRC to amend its regulations in 10 CFR Part 34, " Licenses for Radiography and Radiation Safety Requirements for Radio-graphic Operations." This petition is being denied by the Executive Director for Operations in accordance with 10 CFR 1.40(o).
The petitione~r requested the NRC to revise 10 CFR 34.21, " Limits on levels of radiation for radiographic exposure devices and storage containers," to read as follows:
Withthesealedsourceintheshieldbor"off" position, radiographic exposure devices and storage containers for sealed sources shall have no radiation level in excess of 100 milliroentgens per hour at five centimeters from any exterior surface of the device and 10 milliroentgens per hour at one meter from any exterior surface of the device.
Compliance with the exposure limits shall be determined by measuremen t averaged over a cross sectional area of ten square centimeters with no linear dimension greater than five centimeters.
A notice of filing of petition, Docket No. PRM-34-1,, was published in the FEDERAL REGISTER on May 19, 1977 (42 FR 25787).
The comment period expired July 18, 1977.
No public comments were received on this petition although 6 comments were received on a similar petition (PRM-20-9) to amend Part 20.
~, $
- l. I d 82 4 00-]p 1
Erclosure "B"
asure radiation exposure The petitioner said that it is not possible to mesure device using a de Sk'.,
levels exactly on the surface of a radiographic expo posure level i
= _.
It is also not possible to measure the radiat on ex of finite size.
h a finite size detector because the at each and every point on the surface wit exposure over the volume of i
detector must necessarily average the radiat on 5 centimeters from The petitioner stated that a measurement at tional area of 10 centimeters is the detector.
l the surface and averaged over a cross-sec ents.
possible to make with commonly availab.e instrum lation results in inconsis-The petitioner has stated that the present regu At times ifferent size detectors.
tent measurements between people using d eements over whether a radio-i these inconsistencies have resulted in d sagr t of $34.21.
graphic exposure device met the requiremen s i
(PRM-20-9) for a The petitioner also filed a petition for rulemak ngith allowab l
similar change in S20.205(c)(2), which dea s w 13, 1979 This petition was denied on April for packages to be transported.
i (44 Federal Register 22232).
disadvantages in changing the
-t The staff has considered the advantages andfrom 200 m l
radiation exposure level limit in S34.21 t a distance of 5 centimeters from the surface to 100 milliroentgens per hour aIt has been concluded that such the surface of radiographic exposure devices.the following consid a change would not be advisable based on t making the Making the suggested change in Part 34 while no that radiographic exposure devices (1) corresponding change in Part 20 would mean t two different requirements for_7 _,
shipped without an overpack would have to mee tf
~ '
1
}
Enclosure "B" 2
~
[7M '-01]
limits on radiation levels.
Changing only Part 34 would not solve the peti-tioner's problem because the devices would still sometimes be covered by Part 20 while being transported.
In addition, added complexity and confusion would result from having two different sets of requirements.
(2) The proposed change would require licensees to use specific types of radiation detection instrumenta with small diameters and limited sensitive volumes; e.g., it would eliminate the use of ionization-chamber instruments for surface radiation level measurements.
Many licensees would have to purchase replacements for their present monitoring instruments.
In addition, it would require monitoring personnel to keep the center of the sensitive volume of the detector at 5 centimeters from the surface.
The current practice is to place an instrument detector touching the surface of the device and pass the detec-tor over the device' surfaces to assure the level on each surface is within the limit.
This present method is simple, easily understood, and allows the use of any type radiation detector.
(3) The suggested change to NRC's regolations would make NRC regula-tions inconsistent with Department of Transportation regulations.
This would cause a hardship on NRC licensees with little resulting oenefit.
(4) A change in the regulations would require people 'o learn and use a new measurement technique which is not as simple as the existing tech-nique and offers no real improvement in health or safety.
However, the staff recognizes the potential difficulty certain licensees may have in interpreting the regulation in 10 CFR 34.21 as to whether a precise determination of surface radiation level is required.
- 3. '; n d
~,g 3
Enclosure "B"
L t.
t r
5, 1977, the staff stated, t.
In a letter to the petitioner dated Decemberust be.given as exact, p i
y "As with any regulation, the (safety) lim ts m these limits are usually w :.: :
The methods of demonstrating compliance with nstra-Any method which provides a reasonable demo values.
lef t to the regulated person.
In most cases exact measured values are
]
't tion of compliance will be accepted.
not required."
xactly on the surface of The staff indicated that precise measurements eMeasurements i ed under 10 CFR 34.21.
the packages are not necessary nor requ r ptable if it can be shown fro at some distance from the surface are accel on the surface is likely to measured value that the radiation leve regulatory limit.
levels be determined by i
The petitioner also suggested that the radiat onl area of 10 i
measurements averaged over a cross-sect ona The staff believes that the timeters.
no linear dimension greater than 5 cen s sectional area of a probe of reason-averaging of radiation levels over the cros -compliance,with the requ i
i j
able size is acceptable for demonstrat ngA probe of r h (1) the sen-fied in 10 CFR 34.21.
d to the volume of the package to sitive volume of the probe is small compareof the sensitive volume of i
s mens on be measured and (2) the largest linearsmallest dimension of the the probe is no greater than tN will not completely solve The staff recognizes that this interim guidanceT l and the petitioner's problem.
design criteria for radiographic in a more appropriate manner and time whenAn advance no exposure devices are considered.
'ip
}7]
Enclosure "B" 4
[7590-01]
design criteria was published for public comment on March 27, 1978 (43 Federal Register 12718).
Publication of the final design criteria for comment is planned for 1980.
The design criteria will include how measurements should be made to assure compliance with Parts 20 and 34 of NRC regulations.
In view of the foregoing, the NRC hereoy denies the petition for rulemaking filed by Tech / Ops on April 15, 1977.
Copies of the petition for rulemaking and the NRC's letter of denial are available for public inspection in the NP.C's Public Document Room at 1717 H Street NW., Washington, D.C.
Dated at Bethesda. Md.
this 9th day of _ <1ol v
, 1979.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
- /
U Lee V. Gossick ecutive Director for Operations
' 8, 0
5 Enclosure "B"
~
I
~
s Draft Congressional Letter Dear Senator Enclosed for the information of the Subcemmittee is a copy of a Notice of Denial of Petition for Rulemaking to be published in the Federal Register.
By letter 3
dated May 11, 1977, the Subcommitter was provided with copies of PRM-34-1 filed by Tech / Ops, Radiation Products Division, to am.and the Commission's regulation, 10 CFR Part 34, " Licenses for Radiography and Radiation Safety Requirements for Radiographic Operations."
The petitioner requested the NRC to change the way of measuring surface radia-tion levels from industrial radiographic exposure devices because of the prac-tical difficulty of measuring radiation exposure levels at the surface as speci-fied in current regulations.
After careful. consid'eration of the petition the NRC staff has concluded that the adoption of the petition would lead to difficulties for licensees without For this reason, a corresponding benefit of improved public health and safety.
explained more fully in the Federal Register Notice, the NRC has denied the petition for rulemaking.
A related petition (PRM-20-9) to amend Part 20 of NRC's regulations was previously denied nn April 13, 1979 (44 Federal Register 22232).
Enclosed also is a copy of a letter notifying the petitioner of the denial of his petition for rulemaking.
Sincerely, Robert B. Minogue, Director Office of Standards Development
Enclosures:
1.
. Federal Register Notice g Q '1 2.
Letter to Tech / Ops R
v Enclosure "C"