ML20034D220
| ML20034D220 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/13/1991 |
| From: | Bernero R NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Heltemes C NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20034D215 | List:
|
| References | |
| FRN-57FR56287, RULE-PR-31, RULE-PR-32 AD82-1-006, AD82-1-6, NUDOCS 9112300092 | |
| Download: ML20034D220 (2) | |
Text
_
i Ap g,2.- t 0
Q -
%U POR y ~ f' th ' '
Oi-UNITED STATES 5.I D k $
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION igly J
~
WASHINGTON, D.C. 205ss NOV 131991 M^
CeK M MEMORANDUM FOR:
C. J. Heltemes, Jr., Deputy Director for Generic Issues and Rulemaking, RES y
b FROM:
Robert M. Bernero, Director g/g 7/
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
SUBJECT:
OCTOBER 23, 1991, PROPOSED RULEMAKING CONCERNING THE ACCESSIBLE AIR GAP FOR GENERALLY-LICENSED DEVICES The following comments are made concerning this rulemaking.
For mere sgaific comments and notes, please see the marked-up package enclosed.
1.
The tone of the rulemaking as written gives the reader the impression that the intent of the rule is to require general licensees to obtain a specific license for the subject devices.
In fact, the intent of the rulemaking is to give the general licensee an option of either obtaining a specific license or installing a physical barrier.
This point is financially significant in that in many cases the cost of a specific license is much greater than installing a physical barrier.
This tone is reflected in the summary section of the cover memo to the Commissioners which as written states: "[L]icensees who have such devices at present would be required to obtain a specific license for the device and thus establish a radiation safety program which among other things could include lock-out procedures.
The general licensee would have the option of having the device physically modified to eliminate the accessible air gap and hence not be required to obtain a-specific license " The option would be clearer if the sentence was j'l rewritten as follows: " Licensees who have such devices at present j
C[.f..
would be required to either obtain a specific license for the device
$j or physically modify the device to eliminate the accessible air gap."
. i g.
...s 2.
Page 3 of the cover memo to the Commissioners discusses the definition of an " accessible air gap" and the conditions required to bring a device under the requirement of the proposed regulation.
As written, there is room for ambiguity and, therefore, potential enforcement problems.
Consequently, to eliminate any vagueness a definition should not be added to S 32.2 and 9 31.5 (b)(2)(ii) should be
^#
i rewritten to read: "[T]here is an air gap between the radiation source and detector of a device of 18 inches or greater which would allow insertion of a 12 inch diameter sphere into the radiation beam of the device without the removal of a barrier." This approach would eliminate any discussion as to if a person could gain access to the radiation beam because of the location of the device which might be difficult to reach.
=.
g-
os A
W w
i 3.
On page 2, paragraph 3 of the " Regulatory Analysis" the first sentence should read: "[M]anufacturers and distributcrs of certain ck measuring, gauging or controlling devices intended for distribution to general licensees..." Not all devices intended for distribution to general licensees must comply with the requirements of 10 CFR 32.51.
4 Paragraph 2, on page 3 of the " Regulatory Analysis" does not address d~
the alternati"e solution of a physical barrier offered by the proposed regulation.
1 5.
The third and fourth sentences of the enclosed letter to the Honorable Peter H. Kostasyer are misleading end rseed to be rewritten along the lines of the draft public announcement.
~
,/) c L
'w Robert M. Bernero, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
Enclosure:
As stated