[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
GL 95-06
Greetings,
Dr. Parker asked me to post this since I am probably the millionth
person to contact him about 95-06.
5-Dec-95 19:17:57-GMT,9099;000000000001
Received: from arl-img-5.compuserve.com (arl-img-5.compuserve.com [198.4.7.5]) by erebus.rutgers.edu (8.6.12+bestmx+oldruq+newsunq/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA11860 for <ischneid@rci.rutgers.edu>; Tue, 5 Dec 1995 14:17:55 -0500
Received: by arl-img-5.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515)
id OAA01243; Tue, 5 Dec 1995 14:17:23 -0500
Date: 05 Dec 95 14:15:16 EST
From: "Roy A. Parker" <70472.711@compuserve.com>
To: Ira Schneider <ischneid@rci.rutgers.edu>
Subject: NRC GL 95-09
Message-ID: <951205191516_70472.711_JHD83-1@CompuServe.COM>
Ira,
FYI. Also please e-mail the radsafe list server address to make sure that I
have it correct.
Roy
--- Forwarded Message ---
2-Dec-95 18:12:00
Sb: NRC GL 95-09 Comments
Mr. Fred Combs
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
E-Mail: fcc@nrc.gov
Dear Mr. Combs:
Pursuant to our telephone conversation on Friday afternoon, December 1,
1995 concerning NRC Generic Letter 95-09 Monitoring and Training of
Shippers and Carriers of Radioactive Materials I offer the following
additional comments and observations for your consideration (lead
paragraphs are quoted directly from GL 95-09):
NRC has reviewed this situation and has concluded that, in an effort to
avoid duplicative regulation, carrier employees frequenting a licensee's
restricted area for the sole purpose of picking up or delivering
packages containing radioactive materials would be adequately protected
by the appropriate sections of the DOT regulations to which the carrier
is subject.
This is a very appropriate conclusion, one to which we all can
agree, and which should be the premise throughout GL 95-09.
Programs such as those specified in DOT-E 8308 provide a level of
training and protection of the worker equivalent to that provided by the
relevant sections of 10 CFR Parts 19 and 20, and therefore provide
reasonable assurance for the safety of carrier personnel.
This is confusing and misleading. All carriers operate under DOT
49 CFR 172 Subpart H training requirements and OSHA 29 CFR 1910.96
radiation protection, training and monitoring requirements. These
requirements are equivalent to NRC requirements pertaining to
radiation protection, training and monitoring.
However, because different carriers may operate under different
exemptions or different parts of the DOT regulations, ...
Not true. All carriers are subject to DOT 49 CFR 172 Subpart H
training requirements which were deemed satisfactory in NRC's
conclusions above. DOT 49 CFR 172 Subpart H provides for general,
specific and safety training. There are only three DOT exemptions
which address radiation worker protection, training and monitoring
and they are equivalent in this regard and apply where more than
50 TI is transported in a conveyance.
...it is the responsibility of NRC licensees to ensure that carrier
personnel entering their restricted areas are subject to a radiation
protection program that provides a level of protection, monitoring, and
training equivalent to that required by the applicable NRC regulations.
The NRC has correctly concluded above that "...carrier employees
frequenting a licensee's restricted area for the sole purpose of
picking up or delivering packages containing radioactive materials
would be adequately protected by the appropriate sections of the
DOT regulations to which the carrier is subject." Therefore any
action by individual licensees would be contradictory and
redundant.
Also it should not be the purview of individual licensees to
determine if another entity is in compliance with DOT regulatory
requirements, particularly since they are not subject to those
requirements.
There is great confusion among licensees as to what constitutes
proper radiation monitoring for carrier personnel. For example, I
regularly receive inquires and threats of reports from licensees
who state that a courier delivering any single radioactive material
package must have personnel monitoring.
Restricted areas should not be the criteria for determining
protection, monitoring and training requirements. Restricted areas
are defined in part meaning ".. an area, access to which is limited
by the licensee for the purpose of protecting individuals against
undue risks from exposure to radiation and radioactive materials."
Licensees have a tendency to define restricted areas for
geographical convenience and not at a boundary immediately
bordering a location which requires explicit radiation protection
measures. At many locations the entire premises is defined as a
restricted area.
A carrier is already subject to regulatory requirements which are
equivalent to NRC regulations for protection, training and
monitoring, therefore any action by independent licensees are
unnecessary and redundant. The licensees responsibility should be
limited to site specific situations which is already adequately
stated in GL 95-09:
Training by NRC licensees of carrier personnel adequately
covered by the carrier's program would only be required
in cases where the NRC licensee had determined that
certain features of its restricted area posed site-
specific or unusual hazards to which carrier personnel
needed to be alerted. The extent of such training would
be commensurate with the degree of hazard, and would vary
from a read-and-sign program, to classroom or field
instruction, as previously provided by licensees.
NRC licensees may choose any method that they consider capable of
providing assurance that carrier personnel have received the proper
training and are being properly monitored for radiation exposure.
Unnecessary since carriers are already subject to equivalent NRC
regulatory requirements. Making numerous licensees responsible for
enforcing such requirements is inappropriate and conflicting.
In the case of carriers whose programs are established in compliance
with DOT requirements..
It has already been established that carriers are subject to
equivalent NRC regulations concerning protection, training and
monitoring. Also, in GL 95-09 appropriately "NRC has reviewed this
situation and has concluded that, in an effort to avoid duplicative
regulation, carrier employees frequenting a licensee's restricted
area for the sole purpose of picking up or delivering packages
containing radioactive materials would be adequately protected by
the appropriate sections of the DOT regulations to which the
carrier is subject." These should be more than adequate.
...a letter from the carrier certifying that their personnel are trained
and monitored under the provisions of such a program would be sufficient
to show compliance with the applicable sections of 10 CFR Parts 19 and
20.
Again this is redundant and totally unnecessary, since it has been
established that carriers are subject to equivalent NRC regulations
concerning protection, training and monitoring and the NRC has
concluded that carrier personnel are adequately protected by these
regulations among others. Issuing a letter to a potentially
voluminous number of licensees is a very costly, burdensome and
unnecessary requirement.
Another method, applicable in cases where the carrier's program is not
established in compliance with DOT requirements, would be to obtain and
review copies of the carrier's programs to ensure their adequacy. The
licensees should ensure, however, that any reviews of the carrier's
radiation safety program are of adequate quality, and were conducted by
qualified personnel.
This is contradictory. A carrier is subject to regulatory
requirements which are equivalent to NRC regulations pertaining to
the protection, training and monitoring of carrier personnel.
Therefore, if a carrier is not operating in compliance with these
regulations then the carrier is in violation of that governmental
agency's regulations and it should not be the responsibility to
review that carrier's program in order to satisfy NRC requirements.
It appears that clarification of GL 95-09 would be appropriate and
should specify that the licensees responsibility is limited to the site
specific situations as outlined in the last paragraph on Page 3.
Please contact me if clarification of any of the above is required or if
further discussion would be useful.
Roy A. Parker, Ph.D.
Radiation Physics Consultant
INTERNET: 70472.711@compuserve.com
504-924-1473