Sealed Source Definition - what benefit?

[George Cicotte <GCICOTTE@GW.ODH.STATE.OH.US>]

Mr. Lee, in referring to the ANSI N43.6 definition of sealed sources, said:

* . . . Thus the question: what positive, regulatory benefit redounds to the
NRC by defining a "sealed source" to include nuclear reactor fuel rods,
radioisotope thermoelectric generators, fission chambers, etc.? . . .  the
NRC sealed source definition fails in the sense that it does not clearly
delineate the regulatory universe of sealed sources sufficient to avoid
individual interpretation or local questions.*

As Mr. Lee also said, when ANSI refers to *bonded,* they refer to the
cover, e.g., a cover which is bonded [glued] instead of welded.  NRC's
definition is even *broader,* in that it doesn't refer to the conditions of
use or the *strength* of the seal in the definition.  That is for a specific
reason.  The critical issue is whether the sealed source can meet the
regulatory requirements on manufacture, e.g., QA/QC durability tests as
delineated in 10 CFR 32.   For example, 10 CFR 32.14(b)(4) says * . . to
demonstrate that the material will not become detached . . . and . . . will
not be released to the environment under the most severe conditions
likely to be encountered in normal use . . . *  Remember that the purpose
of the definition in the regulations is not to include everything, but to
provide the basis upon which to build a working regulation without
having to redefine it at each juncture in which one has to refer to that
item.

Additionally, the reasoning behind the definition has nothing to do with
WHETHER you can wipe test the source.  Leak test requirements are
contained in the regulations for specific uses, such as 10 CFR 34.25,
35.59(b), 36.59(a), etc., and don't necessarily require wipe tests as a
method of testing for leakage, as in 36.59(b), 50.36, and 70.56.

One of the problems in writing regulations is that one has to balance
various issues.  First, a regulation or rule has to be consistent with the
statute from which it was derived.  Second, it has to be sufficiently
narrow that one doesn't end up regulating something that did not meet
the intent of the statute, and sufficiently broad as not to exclude
something which should have been included.  That's the same reasoning
behind broad descriptions in patents, etc.  If you write the sealed source
definition without stating what's in it, you've just defined non-radioactive
materials as sealed sources.  If you write it too narrowly, you exclude
manufacture of sources which should be defined, and you lose the
ability to regulate the activity.  I happen to think NRC's staff does an
admirable job, especially when you compare their regulations to those of
OSHA and EPA.  Try reading 40 CFR some time, when you're trying to
come up with a new and better method of testing for contaminants.

Sorry for the long discourse, I'll climb down off my soapbox now.

V/R
George R. Cicotte
Health Physicist III
Ohio Department of Health
Bureau of Radiation Protection
gcicotte@gw.odh.state.oh.us

DISCLAIMER:  The Governor and I don't necessarily agree on official
statements - this is mine, and as such unofficial . . .