ML20134F995
| ML20134F995 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/24/1996 |
| From: | Salomon S NRC |
| To: | Jacobi J COLORADO, STATE OF |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20134F957 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9611080226 | |
| Download: ML20134F995 (1) | |
Text
. .- - -. - -. --- .. . _- -- . ..
r From: Stephen Salomon - !
To: INTERNET: Jake.jacobi@ state.co.us i Date: 10/24/96 3:32pm l
Subject:
Note for Chuck Mattson re draft Part 19
- Jake,' !
Hil ,
Please pass on to Chuck Mattson. I am sending again with another point that I omitted on the i first round.
Chuck, Steve McGuire, the author of Part 36, who just returned, responded to your question re 10 -
CFR 36.23(c) The last sentence which reads: "The monitor may be located in the entrance (normally referred to as the maze) but not in the direct radiation beam."
McGuire's response: If the monitor is 'n the direct beam, it will soon bum out end give a false indication that there is no radiation. T here is no need for the monitor to be in the direct beam because there is plenty of scattered radiation in the maze that is easily detected.
Hope this answers your question.
In 10 CFR 36.2 Definitions, For seismic areas, why is "in 250 years" used?
Response: There is a little more discussion of seismic areas on the bottom of page 17 and the top of page 18 of Reg Guide DG-0003. 250 years is one of the time periods for which the USGS gives probabilities of acceleration. The selection of 250 ysars was a judgment. Since !
the lifetime of an irradiator is considerably less than 250 years, the value is unlikely to be )
exceeded during the life of the irradiator and even if exceeded it is unlikely to be exceeded by . .i much. i Hope this is helpful.
Please acknowlege receipt.
Thanks.
I Steve l l
l l
l l
l l
l 9611080226 961101 1 PDR STPRG ESGCO i
( PDR j
__