ML20154L028

Submits Review of Revised Part E, Radiation Safety Requirements for Industrial Radiographic Operations, in Response to 980812 Request.Several Sections Appear to Be Less Restrictive than Comparable Requirements in 10CFR34

ML20154L028
Person / Time
Issue date:	08/27/1998
From:	Cool D NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
To:	Lohaus P NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP)
Shared Package
ML20154L018	List: ML20154L015 ML20154L028 ML20154L056
References
NUDOCS 9810190120
Download: ML20154L028 (3)

Text

...

,,, e p iti y

UNITED STATES r

.s j

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 2056H001 August 27, 1998

.....j m

MEMORANDUM TO: Paul H. Lohaus, Deputy Director s

Office of State Programs 5

FROM:

Donald A. Cool, Director s

Division of Industrial and 2

7 Medical Nuclear Safety, NMSS

.]

cn

SUBJECT:

PART E - RADIATION SAFETY REQUIREMENTS FOR N

INDUSTRIAL RADIOGRAPHIC OPERATIONS i

As requ.tsted by your August 12,1998, transmittal, we have reviewed revised Part E and nuted sever 91 sections which appear to be less restrictive than the comparable requirements in 10 CFR Part 34. The compatibility criteria assigned for Part 34 was primarily Division 1 and Divie'on 2 (Old System) and some minor issues at Division 3, as a result, while the Agreement States regulations may be more restrictive, they may not be less restrictive. We concur with the package subject to incorporation to the following comments:

1.

.Section E.5.g. does not require license applicants to identify potential designees as specified in 10 CFR 34.13(g).

i 2.

Section E.17.c.ii. allows individuals to qualify, in part, as radiographer's assistants by completing a written or oral examination; however,10 CFR 34.43(c)(3) only allows for completion of a written examination.

3.

Section E.19 establishes the activities where radiographer's assistants must be under the personnel supervision of a radiographer. NRC's comparable regulation, 10 CFR 34.46, includes provisions requiring supervisica whenever an assistant ums radiographic exposure devices or associated equipment, which are not in Section E.19.

l

~4.

Section E.29.a.ii. should require both the radiographers identity _alEl signature as specified in 10 CFR 34.71(a)(2), despite the justification provided in the Rationale section. This change to NRC's regulations was precipitated by a Commission Staff j

Requirements Memorandum in response to an enforcement action and the intent was to ensure that the radiographer was aware and acknowledged his/her responsibility for the device. It seems reasonable to expect that utilization logs should be created and available at the location where the device is stored. We also note that the regulation l-does not specify when the radiographer's signature is required to be placed on the log.

F

Contact:

J. Bruce Carrico, NMSS/IMNS (301) 415-7826 1

l I

9810190120 981006

"*2 i

PDR ORQ tESC l

PDR 1

' hib k QlpD

st X

Paul H. Lohaus,

l We also note that there are a number of instances where Part E provides for more restrictive criteria than are the requirements established in Part 34. For example, Section E.6.b.iii. prohibits any modification of exposure devices, etc., "... unless approved by the agency...;" however, comparable 10 CFR 34.20(b)(3) includes the less restrictive provision,

".. unless the design of any replacement component, including source holder, source assembly, controls or guide tubes would not compromise the d9 sign safety features of the system." As another example, Section E.14.e. provides that licensees must label vehicles transporting radioactive materials with its name and city or town. There is no similar requirement in Part 34. In view of its more restrictive criteria, we believe it would be appropriate to continue to include a " disclaimer" notice at the beginning of Part E, similar to what is currently done, which notes that the Agreement States need only include Part 34 requirements in order to be deemed comparable. It may also be a good idea to include some information which notes that licensees could face reciprocity issues should a state adopt the more restrictive criteria.

h%

• C CAudph

%Q%

i Nb d hh kb bevh-D WJ wm A pn p%\\ews n y%*

67%

m

-N

\\

,ML &q%R - e %$

(@A%%Qu%

p % %'SR % A h

.s i

i i

i s

4 i

ROUTING AND TRANSMITTAL SLIP f

DATE: AUGUST 12,1998 CONCURRENCE REOUESTED INITIALS DATE D. COOL, NMSS/lMNS -

8/ /98

' F. CAMERON, OGC 8/

8 1

i l

LETTER TO:

BRUCE HIRSCHLER TECHNICAL ASSISTANT, SSRCR'S i

CONFERENCE OF RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM DIRECTORS FROM:

PAUL H. LOHAUS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS

SUBJECT:

PART E - RADIATION SAFETY REQUIREMENTS FOR INDUSTRIAL

- RADIOGRAPHIC OPERATIONS YOUR COMMENTS / CONCURRENCE ARE REQUESTED BY AUGUST 18.1998.

4 OSP CONTACT: JAMES MYERS (415-2328) j

-1 PLEASE CALL KATHALEEN KERR (415-3340) FOR PICK UP.

OGC 003623 9

I s

k I

to - [/O O

fifL p,

EXECUTIVE TASK MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 7g

-~~~.. -~ ---..-~~~~

I/ l; J

<<< PRINT SCREEN UPDATE FORM >>>

ll V

l l TASK # - 8S190

,5-DATE- 06/23/98,,

MAIL CTRL. - 1998 TASK STARTED - 06/23/98 TASK DUE - 08/18/98 TASK COMPLETED -

/

/

. -~~~~~

.-~~~..-~~..

. TASK DESCRIPTION - CRCPD SSR - PART 3 - RADIATION SAFETY REQUIREMENTS FOR

~~~~~~~~~

INDUSTRIAL RADIOGRAPHIC OPERATIONS REQUESTING OFF. - CRCPD REQUESTER - HIRSCHLER WITS -

0 FYP - N

-~~~~~~~.

-~~~

~~.

~~~

PROG.-

PERSON -

STAFF LEAD -

PROG. AREA -

--~~~.

~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~.

PROJECT STATUS -

CRCPD DUE DATE: 08/18/98

---..... -~~~~

1 PLANNED ACC.

-N LEVEL CODE -

1 A JYo rk -

m/ 6 y~ Ku n t

d 4 -f lia vy M dW, 4 f - 4

.J a an c, pcrak re Q2_

i