Re: 20.1002

["Wesley M. Dunn" <WDUNN@brc1.tdh.state.tx.us>]

I was paraphrasing 10CFR20.1002 to save doing this, but:

"The regulations in this part apply to persons licensed by the
Commission to receive, possess, use, transfer, or dispose of
byproduct, source, or special nuclear material or to operate a
production facility under parts 30 through 36, 39, 40, 50, 60, 61, 70
or 72 of this chapter".

Since these sources are Cs-137 (byproduct material), they would
necessarily be licensed under Part 30.  However, 30.18 specifically
exempts them from the licensing requirements of Part 30.  As such,
they are not licensed "under part 30", as required by part 20.  Hence,
part 20 clearly does not regulate these sources.

If you disagree, then are you stating that NRC can regulate NARM
used by NRC licensees?  And if not, what's the difference?

Of course, my "clear understanding" of this mess in no way means that
any regulator outside of Texas (and maybe not all of the ones inside)
will see it that way.  As such, while any Texas licensee can get this
"in writing" (for our equivalent regs) as long as I have any small say
on the issue, it doesn't help the rest of you.

[DISCLAIMER: TRCR 11.13; which states that only written statements
from the Office and General Counsel are binding upon the Agency, so
there always is the chance that I can be overruled; Hence Les'
comment about the written opinion from NRC's lawyers.  While that
does not make my statements any less official, the Agency can always
"change its interpretation" until OGC steps in]

However, I've also learned that not every regulator has really
looked at the licensing sections of the regs, either.  This is
especially true with exempt and GLed sources.  After considerable
effort and "discussions" on this topic, I think we've finally figured
out the easy parts.  Just remember, you can always contest the
inspector's findings when you think they are wrong.

One of my wishful goals is to somehow persuade everybody (especially
the regulators) that the rules (in this case) actually mean what they
say.

Wes


> Date:          Thu, 25 Jan 96 08:43:18 -0600
> Reply-to:      radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> From:          "Les Slaback, Health Physics" <SLABACK@micf.nist.gov>
> To:            Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> Subject:       20.1002

> 10CFR20.1002 does not use the term 'licensed material'.  It applies to all
> by-product, source, and SN Material, except for a few noted exception.
>
> 10CFR30.14 and 30.18 provide exemptions from the requirements of parts 30-34,
> 36, and 39 but in my reading ***do not*** exempt the possessor/user from
> Part 20.
>
> Regarding a holder of a license with a line item covering the radionuclide
> acquired via an exempt distribution process, I think the reg's are unclear.
> While 10CFR exempts you from the Part 30... provisions, your license tends
> to apply to all of that nuclide in your possession.  I have been told that
> the 'exempt' sources are not covered but have not seen it in writing, nor
> do I think this is discernable from 10CFR without a NRC lawyer's stamp of
> approval.  It is between you and your inspector.
>
> If someone has a specific wriiten reference on this it would be appreciated.
>
> SLABACK@MICF.NIST.GOV  [NBSR Health Physics Group]
>     ...a little risk, like a bit of spice, adds flavor to life
>

*********************************************************************
Wesley M. Dunn, C.H.P.                     512-834-6688
Deputy Director, Licensing                 512-834-6690 (fax)
(Texas) Bureau of Radiation Control        wdunn@brc1.tdh.state.tx.us
*********************************************************************