[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: 29 CFR 1910.96

On Thurs 23 dec Pat Beyer wrote:

All this is well and good for NRC regulated items... But what about X-ray 
generating equipment and Accelerator produced radiaoctive materials. 
Because wisconsin isn't an agreement state we are still obligated to meet 
the OSHA regulations.... Our giest on compliance with 29 CFR 1910 is that 
because the x-ray producing equipment is not always energized and a 
person must have specific knowledge to cause the machine to operate, it 
is very unlikley that anyone will over a 5 mREM dose in an hour or the 
100 mREM per 5 day period. This means that areas where x-ray producing 
equipment are not "Radiation Areas" and so we are only required to 
conform to 1910.96 (d) and the State of Wisconsin Adminstrative 
code section HSS 157 (Radiation Protection)  which mirrors the 29 CFR 1910.
It would make sense to me for part 1910.3(iii) should be changed so that 
if you conform to the state (not necessarily and agreement state) codes, 
you are in compliance with part 1910.... But i guess that would make 

> This OSHA regulation contains several exemptions for NRC and NRC agreement
> state licensees:
> 29 CFR 1910.96(p) 
> 	NRC licensees and contractors operating NRC facilities are deemed
> 	rto be in compliance by virtue of their license [29 CFR 1910.96(p)
> 	or contract [29 CFR 1910.96(p)(2)
> 29 CFR 1910.96(p)(3)(i)
> 	Deems agreement state licensees to be in compliance for Atomic Energy
> 	Act sources.   NOTE:  This paragraph lists the states in which
> 	"... such agreements currently are in effect ...."  The word 
> 	"currently" apparently refers to some time in the distant past, for
> 	it excludes Illinois which has been an agreement state since, I
> 	believe, 1987.  The "current" list of agreement states given in
> 	this paragraph are: "... Alabama, Arkansas, California, Kansas,
> 	Kentucky, Florida, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New York, North
> 	Carolina, Texas, Tennessee, Oregon, Idaho, Arizzona, Colorado,
> 	Louisiana, Nebraska, Washington, Maryland, North Dakota, South
> 	Carolina, and Georgia."
> 	I have contacted the Ill. Dept. of Nuclear Safety about the 
> 	omission of Ill.,  and they, in turn, have tried to contact
> 	OSHA.  
> 29 CFR 1910.96(p)(3)(ii)
> 	This paragraph deems compliance for other sources of radiation
> 	which are registered with or licensed by NRC agreement states.
> 	This seems a little strange, for presumably, the NRC would only
> 	have juridiction over Atomic Energy Act sources, so the states
> 	shouldn't need to have an agreement with the NRC to regulate 
> 	sources which are outside the domain of the NRC.
> According to my 7/1/93 edition of 29 CFR,  This part was most recently 
> amendeamended on 6/30/93 at 58 FR 35309.  I checked this reference, looking
> for the addition of Illinois as an agreement state.  But the 6/30/93
> amendement was simply to change the words "Atomic Energy Commission"
> to "Nuclear Regulatory Commission".  OSHA is a little slow.