Restricted, controlled, & unrestricted area thread

[Mack Richard <MRICHARD@WPO.IUPUI.EDU>]

I was on vacation a week or so ago and just had a chance to catch up on
the radsafe info over the past week.  The discussion about restricted
and unrestricted areas was of particular interest because the NRC
recently cited us for security problems in our research labs (we are a
large, medical research center).

One of the NRC inspectors visited between 40 and 50 of our labs during
the inspection.  During those visits he was particularly interested in
labs that were unlocked and unoccupied (he found 2).  He was also
interested in how long he could wander around the lab before someone in
the lab asked him why he was there.  This emphasis was obviously a
result of the recent incidents at NIH and MIT.  

At the conclusion of the inspection, the NRC inspectors thought the
security issues might be considered "areas of concern" and not citable
violations.  A few weeks after the inspection, the lead inspector called
me and told me that the security problems would be cited as a severity
level IV violation.  The inspector alluded to the fact that this
decision came from above - obviously, the NRC wants to make a point
about security.

When we received the violation notice, the violation was cited in a
peculiar way.  We were cited for failure to secure licensed material in
an "unrestricted" area (10 CFR 20.1801).  We thought we made it clear
during the inspection that we consider all of our research labs
"restricted" areas.  10 CFR 20 defines a restricted area as "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."

Given this, the question was why had the NRC cited us in the
aforementioned fashion.  The answer was answered based upon discussions
with the inspector.  It turns out that the term "limiting access" is
somewhat subjective (i.e. posting an area is a method of limiting access
just like a speed limit sign limits speed).  Oddly enough, there was
nothing in our NRC license application committing us to lock up
laboratories when they are unattended (that will probably change at our
next license renewal!).  The bottom line is that the NRC really had no
concrete way to cite this security issue as a violation aside from using
the unrestricted area idea.

Now for the quandry.  Do we challenge a severity level IV violation or
simply shut up and say "OK, we'll tell everyone to lock their labs when
they aren't there?"  Those few of you who know me very well probably can
guess the answer to that question.  We "gently" challenged the wording
of the violation.  We basically said we know what you want us to do, but
the violation is cited incorrectly.

In their response, the NRC acknowledged our disagreement with the cited
violation.  They stated that "the act of posting an area does not in
itself limit or control access to that area."  My question is if an
unauthorized person gets a key to a laboratory, we have again failed to
adequately limit access.  I guess the next step is to post armed guards
outside each research laboratory!!

The point of this extensive dissertation is that locks are designed to
keep out "honest" people.  If someone wants to deliberately gain access
to one of these areas, they will find a way.  It seems to me that the
NRC is exhibiting a knee-jerk response to a couple of incidents that may
have been "inside" jobs (based upon what I have read about them).   In
those cases, locking of the labs does not seem to be the central issue.

 In addition to our response to the notice of violation (we committed to
reminding everyone to lock their doors when they aren't there and
"cracking the whip" when we find unlocked, unattended areas) I sent a
separate document to be forwarded to the appropriate NRC office
explaining the "reality" of the research environment in a major
university.  It's too long to include with this already "too long"
message, but if you're interested, call or e-mail me and I'll fax you a
copy of what I said.  Maybe if they hear enough similar opinions, it
will make a difference (oops, I got hopeful there for a minute - sorry).
 Sorry for the length of this message, but I thought this info might be
of interest to you research/university types.

Mack Richard
mrichard@wpo.iupui.edu
(317) 274-0330