ML20045C249
| ML20045C249 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/03/1987 |
| From: | Nussbaumer D NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| To: | GENERAL |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20045C188 | List: |
| References | |
| HPPOS-305, NUDOCS 9306220260 | |
| Download: ML20045C249 (1) | |
Text
[
'*g UNITED STATES NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION
. ~,1 )
i L & l{
e -
w AsHINGTO N. D. C. 20555 q~G1y S PA 0 3199 ALL AGREEMENT STATES REQUIREMENTS FOR INSTALLATION OF GAUGES We were recently asked if NRC has issued interpretations that gauges may be uncrated and' installed (or " mounted" or " hung") by unlicensed persons.
If the gauge is to be specifically licensed, the recipient must be specifically lice m d to receive and possess it, otherwise the transfer is in violation of regulatory requirements.
If the gauge is a generally licensed device, a construction company (or other party) can take possession of a gauge at a construction site as a general licensee and transfer it to another general licensee (the ultimate user) provided the device remains in its shippino container at its intended location of use [(10 CFR 31.5(c)(9)(ii), emphasis added.
See also Statement of Consideration 39 FR 43531, enclosure 1)]. With one exception, NRC regulations clearly do not authorize a general licensee to install a device. The exception is provided in 10 CFR 31.5(c)(3)(1) where certain gauges may be installed by a general licensee provided the instructions in the labels are followed (see 30 FR 6118, enclosure 2, for background).
Presumebly, for this limited class of GL devices only, a pemissible scenario could be constructed whereby a construction company takes possession of such devices as a general licensee, installs then following the 1 eel instructions, and transfers them to the user under the authorization of 10 CFR 31.5(c)(9)(1). Note that 10 CFR 32.15(c) specifies that if a manufacturer wishes for a general licensee to install er rer.ove a device, his written instructions (or label) for perfoming these activities must be included in his license application.
The above interpretatiens have been developed with the concurrence of our O'fice of the General Counsel and HMSS. We would expect the Agreement State interpretations of these requirements would be the sane.
If not, there can be cause for concern because of the potential for danger that could result from unauthorized persons performing work on devices containing radioactive sources. A matter of compatibility would also be raised by the non-unifortn application of regulations to persons operating in multiple jurisdictions.
L o. 2,L~
Donald A. Nussbaumer Assistant Director for State Agreements Progran Office of State Prograrts
Enclosure:
As stated cc: w/ enc 1.
P. Eastvold, IL C. Toppan, ME m
14 9306220260 j