ML20149K731
| ML20149K731 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/21/1994 |
| From: | Treby S NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Paperiello C NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20149C780 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-61FR52388, RULE-PR-20, RULE-PR-32, RULE-PR-35, RULE-PR-36, RULE-PR-39 AF46-1-011, AF46-1-11, NUDOCS 9707300113 | |
| Download: ML20149K731 (3) | |
Text
~
h' *3 p
msuh UNITED STATES
[p o
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS N
p g
8 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20655-0001 o
I gW
@b
\\ ***** /
I h
September 21, 1994 OFFICE OF THE
//
GENERAL COUNSEL r
/
MEMORANDUM TO:
Carl Paperiello, Director Division of Industrial and Medical Nuclear Materials Safety
-Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards FROM:
Stuart A. Treby
,/j/,fM Assistant General Counsel for V Rulemaking and Fuel Cycle Office of the General Counsel
SUBJECT:
INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN PART 36 AND PART 20 POSTING REQUIREMENTS This is in response to your August 4, 1994 Memorandum which requests an OGC interpretation of how to apply provisions of Parts 20 and 36 that appear to contain inconsistent posting requirements.
Upon review of the issue presented, it appears that compliance with both requirements would be possible for large irradiators which post as provided in Part 20.
Part 20 requires an area where radiation levels could result in an individual receiving a dose equivalent in excess of 0.005 rem in 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> at 30 centimeters to be posted with a sign reading
" Caution, Radiation Area".
When the radiation sources in a large irradiator are in the lowered or stored position, Part 36 requires that each entrance into a radiation area and the entrance to the area within the personnel access barrier be posted with a sign that reads " Caution (or danger) radioactive materials."
Assuming the irradiator follows the new Part 20 requirements, the only significant difference in the two signs would be the use of the word " area" under Part 20 instead of the word " materials" as is used in Part 36.
A review of the Questions and Answers for implementation of the new Part 20 reveals that use of the term " caution" for radiation areas was a deliberate choice made to limit the use of the term
" danger" to areas of high or very high radiation.
Accordingly, there is a substantive basis for requiring the term " caution" be used for radiation areas instead of " danger".
If Part 36 licensees follow the requirements of Part 20, they will be using the correct choice of terms between " caution" and " danger" for both Part 20 and Part 36.
CONTACT:
Bradley W.
Jones 504-1628 9707300113 970711 PDR PR 20 61FR52388 PDR GN//3
. -... - - -. - - ~. _
,~
-fh O' 2
The only other difference in posting radiation areas is that Part 20 uses the term " radiation area" and-Part 36 uses the term
" radioactive materials".
There is no indication'in either the Statement of Considerations for the Part 20 rulemaking or in the Questions and Answers for implementation of.Part 20 that the use of the term " radiation area" as opposed to the Part 36
" radioactive materials" in posting a radiation area was a distinction made for a particular substantive purpose.
Under these circumstances OGC would find it difficult to argue that a sign reading " Caution Radiation Area" did not meet the intent of
)
the requirements of both Part 20 and Part 36.
The reverse, l
however, might not be true.
Part 36 allows the licensee the option of using the term " danger", instead of " caution", in posting specific radiation areas.
The use of the term " danger" would run afoul of the specific intent of Part 20 in limiting that term to high or very high radiation areas.
Therefore, while posting under Part 20 would meet Part 36 requirements, posting under Part 36 might not be consistent with Part 20 requirements.
With respect to the Part 36 requirement for posting a "high radiation area", to the extent the area in question meets the requirements for a high radiation area under the new Part 20, the same comments apply as discussed above for a radiation area except that Part 20 would allow use of either the term " caution" or " danger" for high radiation areas.
However, your memorandum indicates that, when not in the shielded position, these areas will routinely meet the requirements for a "Very high radiation area".
When an area meets the definition of a "very high radiation area", the sign required by Part 20 is " GRAVE DANGER, VERY HIGH RADIATION AREA".
In the situation where an irradiator posts a "very high radiation area" with the sign required by Part 20, the sign would contain the language required by Part 36 since the sign does include the words "High Radiation Area".
The only question is whether the adding of the words " GRAVE DANGER, VERY..." before those words would create a " conflict" with Part 36.
We do not believe that such a conflict is created.
Other than the intent to restrict the use of the term " danger" to high and very high radiation areas, we have identified nothing
-that would prohibit minor additions to the NRC required language as long as the efficacy of the sign is not compromised.
If licensees were deviating from the NRC mandated language, it might be necessary to determine if the intent of the regulations was still being met by the posting.
However, in this situation we do not have to determine whether licensees can, on their own volition, deviate from the exact language in the regulations.
The additional or different language involved in this scenario.is being added only to meet other applicable NRC requirements and is, therefore, consistent with the intent of NRC's p'osting requirements.
e
-s e-n m
i 3
Our conclusion is that, rather than being in conflict, the i
requirements in Part 20 and Part 36 for' posting radiation areas and very high radiation areas are merely inconsistent.
- However, i
j by complying with the more restrictive Part 20 requirements, we have concluded that licensees will also be in compliance with Part 36 posting requirements.
Since Part.36 licensees kma_t; j
comply with the more restrictive provisions of Part 20, NRC's guidance to Part 36 licensees should be consistent with those i
. requirements. _ While we concur in the efforts to make Part 36
)
provisions consistent for the purpose of clarity, we recommend j
the language you provided from the proposed draft regulatory guide be modified slightly to read:
There has been an oversight in not adopting in 10 CFR i
j Part 36, the new "very high radiation area" concept i
that is contained in 10 CFR Part 20.
The NRC plans to j
change 10 CFR 36.23 (g) to require posting as a "very j
high radiation area." In the meantime, the preferred j
pc= ting i: "cary high radistic: cre " :=d irradictors posted in thi= :::::: uill =ct he =chject te d
i enforeement actic
= der 10 CPR 30.23'g).3irisdisEsis
)
1(icenssisindstINosipiffjithith!p6s Eisg#sMisementsTih i
Party 20h $ThetNRCshasiconcludsdsthat#complianbe %ith~'
I theimoreirestsistiive7ssquirementiss'ofsPsrti420?sil1~ "
{
sub's tantiivelyimee tithsi'pos tisg frenihassnEsidfkPaiG34R l
Under s this Tin tierpreitia tionifcom611asasisitXW6th7pbs tiing" kequiksmentsEwillshelp6s'sibleitwithdutTthleiAeed@f6e"~ ~
4
~
s epara tse [ p"o s Eings s to l asstithsns@~ikemEn ts$"IsfiPastsH2 O andji367 '
^~^~~"
~ ~ ~
" ~ ' ~ '
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '
1 i
cc:
J.
Lieberman, OE t
i d
i i
4 i
1 I
i a
4
\\t i
4 N
N
.s-.
7 c-y