ML20127A900
| ML20127A900 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/29/1983 |
| From: | Deyoung R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20127A006 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-85-3 NUDOCS 8309150469 | |
| Download: ML20127A900 (2) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _
. jf.* *
- Ute'c UNITED STATES f(Y, s. .g* j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E
.g \;- ,/ , WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555
. -> v j
\'E% %,..
y June 29,1983 l
I' MEMORANDUM FOR: William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations FROM: Richard C. DeYoung, Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement SUBJE:T: INSPECTION / ENFORCEMENT OF DIFFERING l NRC/00T TRANSPORT REGULAfIONS As you may be aware, on March 10,19E3, the U.S. Department of Transporation (00T) published a major revision to its reculations in 49 CFR Parts 171-178 pertaining to radicactive materials transportation (Docket No. HM-169). These amendments seccme effective July 1, 1983. The counterpart revisions to NRC regulations in 10 CFR Part 71 (originally intended to have been published concurrently with the i DOT ar.endments) have not yet been published.
~
We have information, however, from L
RES that they could be published by approximately July 15, or possibly earlier, I to.become effective 30 days later. The Rulemaking Issue Paper (SECY-83-232) is
( scheduled for Commission Affirmation on June 30, 1983.
- We have information which strongly suggests that DOT reportedly does not intend L to delay the effective date of its HM-169 Amendment beyond July 1, 1983. The net result of this situation is the real likelihood that two differing sets of trans-port egulations, to which NRC licensees are subject, will exist for an interim I period of 30-45 days. Many licensees have been inquiring as to which regulations l will apply during this period and more specifically, will they be allowed to l- ccmply with the new 49 CFR Parts 171-178 requirements, which cbviously would in-scme irrstances be in conflict with tr.e current 10 CFR Part 71, but not with the
- f. scon-to-be published amendments to that regulation.
(
The~ purpose of this memo is to request your concurrence'with the approach that during this inevitable interim period of inconsistent DOT /NRC transport regulations, our inspection / enforcement policy sh:uld be flexible. In practical terms, in-those situations where compliance with a new DOT requirement would be in conflict with a current 10 CFR 71 requirement, we should accept compliance by the licensee
. tith the new DOT requirement. Such sn example would be the Type A quantity limit of Co-50 as a transport group III material, which under existing 10 CFR 71 limits is 3 :i. Under the new DOT (and fut_re 10 CFR 71) rules, the Type A (A Value) iimit fcr Co-60 is raised to 7 Ci. We would reserve judgment, however, )so ta.e enforcement ac;. ion in an appropriate case.
\,
) /
is '-
t -
- William J. Dircks- There1should. not be many instances where compliance with both sets of regulations
- is not possible, except in the case cf Type A quantity limits, as illustrated in the above example.' We do not feel that it would be prudent to insist or an inflexible approach during this interim period.
Richard C. Oeyoung, Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement
/' 1/
- / . -L. .
~,'%
' . W. @ Di rcks -
- t. Concur j /
7 / i 1 E.3 Date Non Concur W. J. Dircks
'cc': V. Stello, ED0' J. Davis, !! MSS R. Mincque, RES
-G. Cunningham, ELD 0
i e O
a