ML20197C946
| ML20197C946 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/15/1997 |
| From: | Lohaus P NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| To: | Batavia M SOUTH CAROLINA, STATE OF |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20197C952 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9712240306 | |
| Download: ML20197C946 (11) | |
Text
E pa asog\\
UNITED STATES 3oj j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION a
waswiwarow, o.c. sones-cooi g
December 15, 1997 c
Max K. Batavia, PE, Chief i
Bureau of Radiological Health Department of Health and Environmental Control
=
2600 Bull Street g
Columbia, LC 29201
Dear Mr. Batavia:
E Given the significance of the revised 10 CFR Part 20 rule to both NRC and Agreement State programs, NRC undertook a review of all Agreement State final Part 20 equivalent rules for compatibility with 10 CFR Part 20. The review was conducted as a two-step process. The first step involved a review by Oak Rides National Laboratory (ORNL), under contract with NRC, to identify any differences or inconsistencies between 10 CFR Part 20 and each Agreement State equivalent rule. A copy of i.ie two volume ORNL report, dated January 25,1995. documenting 5
its staff review of the South Carolina final Part 20 equivalent rule is enclosed for your information and use (Enclosure 1) NRC staff first evaluated the ORNL report to determine if any potentially significant health and safety issues were identified that required immediate attention. If there were none, NRC staff then conducted, as resources permitted, a detailed review of the differences and inconsistencies identified by ORNL for compatibility and adequacy
=
5 sues that should be brought to your attention for routine action The NRC review focused on those provisions of the rules that should be adopted in accordance with the new adequacy and compatibility policy statement approved by the Commission by Staff Requirements Memorandum dated June 30,1997 (Enclosure 2 describes the new compatibility categories). Enclosure 3 provides our comments on the State's regulations and shows the current compatibility categories (i.e., A, B, C, D, NRC, and H&S). There are 9 sections of your rule, as noted in Enclosure 3, that are not consistent with the 10 CFR Part 20 compatibility category designations under the new procedures.
in addition to the co.,iments noted in Enclosure 3. we identified three minor c.omments.
1.
The South Carolina definition of " Survey" in RHA 1.2.34 rubstitutes " radiation hazards" for " radiological conditions and potential hazards;" omits the term
" transfer;" and adds the phrase "under a specific set of conditions," Because this definition is category A, the State definition should N essentially identical to that in 10 CFR Part 20.1003. Therefore, " radiological conditions and poiantial hazards should be substituted for " radiation hazards," the term " transfer should ae inserted between "use' and " release;' and the phrase "under a specific set of conditions
- should be deleted.
['
2.
The definition of " Source material
- in RHA 1.2.30 substitutes incorrectly " Areas which" for " ores that." The substitution is not accurate and appears to be a typographical error. Because this definition is category A, the State definition should be essentially identical to that in 10 CFR Part 20.1003. Therefore, ' ores ht sh be substituted for " Areas which
- W a s0PY g0 = g* ' g g OP
- x 9712240306 971215 PDR STPRQ ESGSC
,, :wcu
.. +
Max K.' Batavia,' PE, Chief -
-2 DEC 15 E7 The sec! ion ' Units of radioactivity," in RHA 1.4 omits the introductory paragraph-3.
?
- that explains the expressions of activity in the regulations, the paragraph that
- contains the definition of becquerel, and its conversion factor to curie, The becquerel is used ir the States regulations, e g., RHA 3.31.1.1,3.31.1.2, and
- 3.56.1.7. Because this section and definition of becquerel are category A, the
- State's section should be essentially identical to 10 CFR Part 20.1005 and should include the explanation on the expression of activity, the definition of the becquerel and its conversion factor to the curie.
- 4s
- The definition " limits (dose limits)" was omitted. Because this definition is category A, the definition should be essentially identical to 10 CFR 20.1003. To
- be cort patible, this definition should be added.
~ Within 45 days, we request that you respond in writing with information describing the actions
- you plan to take to address our comments in Enclosure 3. As you are aware, Agreemeat States have fle
- :ibility to adopt rules required for compatibility or health and safety in the form of -
. legally binding requirements other than regulations. This methodology may be appropriate to resolve some of the compatibility issues with South Carolina's regulations.
The compatibiHty concems identified by this letter are specific to South Carolina's equivalent of 10 CFR Part 20. We would like to : tress that these compatibility concems are not necessarily an indication that the State's overall program is inccmpatible with NRC's program. Rather, this regulation review identified areas that need to be addressed by the State which, if not addressed, could potantially lead to an incompatible program. The overall compatibility determination of tne South Carolina Agreement program will be made as part of the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program.
Finally, implementation procedures for the new policy statement provide guidance that indicates Agreement State rules that are not currently consistent with the new compatibility category designations should conform with the new policy not later than 3 years after the policy's effective date.-
if you have any questions regarding these comments, the compatibility criteria, the NRC -
regulations used in the revi.w, or the Oak Ridge report, please contact me at (301) 415-2326 or Dr. Stephen N. Salomon of my staff at (301) 415-2368, or INTERNET: SNS@NRC. GOV.
Sincefely,
[ta(avl
/ gu/A t
Paul H, Lohaus. Deputy Director Office of State Programs y
Enclosures:
As stated cc: Virgil Autry, Director Division of Radioactive Waste Management Bureau of Solid and Hazardous Waste
_m, m-m
.m,4-m
.m,.
m
-U_.-.,
.-+-.,--..m-..v
,---+r.+.--
Max K. Batavb, PE, Chief 2*
DEC 1513R 1
l 3.
The section ' Units of radioactivity,"in RHA 1.4 omits the introductory paragraph that explains the expressions of activity in the regulations, the paragraph that contains the definition of becquerel, and its conversion factor to c:'rie. The becquerel is used in the States regulations, e.g., RHA 3.3*,1.1,3.31.1.2, and 3.56.1.7. Because this section and definition of becquerel are category A, the State's section should be essentially identical to 10 CFR Part 20.1005 and should include the explanation on the expression of activity, the definition of the becquerel and its conversion factor to the curie.
4.
The definition " limits (dose limits)" was omitted. Because this definition is category A, the definition should be essentially identical to 10 CFR 20.1003. To be compatible, this definitici;; should be added.
Within 45 days, we request that you respond in writing with information describing the actions you plan to take to address our comments. As you are aware, Agreement States have flexibility to adopt rules required for compatibility or health and safety in the form of legally binding requirements other than regulations. This methodology may be appropriate to resolve some of the compatibility issues with South Carolina's regulations.
The compatibility concerns identified by this letter are specific to South Carolina's equivalent of 10 CFR Part 20. We would like to stress that these compatibility concems are not necessarily an indication that the State's overall program is incompatible with NRC's program. Rather, this regulation review identifies an area that needs to be addressed by the State which, if not addressed, could potentially lead to an incompatible program. The overall compatibility determination of the South Carolina Agreement program will be made as part of the integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program.
F:nally, implementation procedures for the new policy statement provide guidance that indicates Agreement State rules that are not currently consistent with the new compatibility category designations should conform with the new policy not later than 3 years after the policy's effective date.
If you have any questions regarding these comments, the compatibility criteria, the NRC regulations used in the review, or the Oa'K Ridge report, please contact me at (301) 415-2326 or Dr. Stephen N. Salomon of my staff at (301) 415-2368, or INTERNET: SNS@NRC. GOV.
Sincerely,,
,21 Signed By 3
1 80 L BANGART d,
Paul H. Lohaus, Deputy Director U Office of State Programs Encbsures:
As stated cc: Virgil Autry, Director Division of Radioactive Waste Management Bureau of Solid and Hazardous Waste Distribution:
DCD (SP06)iCopios of Enclosure 1 to be DIR RF (7S268) filed in Central Files and PDR only
.PDR (YES)
- SDroggitis KSchneider BUsilton RWoodruff, Ril SSalomon LRakovan, ASPO Part 20 File (w/o Encl.1)
South Carolina File DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\SNS\\SCPART20.SNS
- See Previous Concurrence.
n r.c.w.. con or mm nocum.ni, mec.i. m m.ta: c em weout nao.m.nvenemur. r con.e u.cnmene.ncmur. v nebu OFFICE OSP lE OSP l
OSP:DD l OGC OSP:Q(4 l
NAME SNSalomon:nte/gd CHMaupin PHLohaus FCameron RLBang&t*
DATE 10/17/97* 12/2/97 10/20/97
- 10/22/97
- 11/05/97
- - ~ - -.
.
- Max K. Batavia, PE, Chief 3.
- The section " Units of radioactivity," in RHA 1.4 omits the introductory paragraph that explains the expressions of activity in the regulations, the paragraph that
- corttains the definition of becquerel, and its conversion factor to cyrie. The becquerel is used in the States regulations, e.g., RHA 3.31.1.1,
.'31.1.2, and 3.56.1.7. Because this section and definition of becquerelis ac)ategory A, th
' State's section should be essentially identical to 10 CFR Part'20.1005 and should include the explanation on the expression of activil/, the definition of the becquerel end its conversion factor to the curie.
/
/
Within 45 days, we request that you respond in writing with information describing the actions you plan to take to address our comments. As you are aware, Agreement States have flexibility to adopt rules required for compatibility or health and t,afety in,tfie form of legally binding requirements other than regulations. This methodology may be appropriate to resolve some of the compatibility issues with South Carolina's regulation his cornpatibility concems identified by this letter are specific to South Carolina's equivalent of 10 CFR Part 20. We would like to stress that thesep6mpatibility concems are not necessarily an indication that the State's overall program is incompatible with NRC's program. Rather, this regulation review identifies an area that needs tom addressed by the State which, if not -
addressed, could potentially leart to an incompadble program. The overall compatibility determination of the South Carolina Agreement program will be made as part of the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program Finally, implementation procedures for th, e new policy statement provide guidance that indicates Agreement State rules that are not curJently consistent with the new compatibility category designations should conform with the hew policy not later than 3 years after the policy's
- effective date.
If you have any questions regar ng these comments, the compatibility c:iteria, the NRC regulations used in the reviewy r the Oak Ridge report, please contact me at (301) 415-2326 or o
Dr. Stephen N. Salomon of my staff at (301) 415-2368, or INTERNET: SNS@NRC. GOV.
/
Sincerely, Paul H. Lohaus, Deputy Director Office of State Programs
Enclosures:
As stated Distribution:
DIR RF (7p268)
DCD (SP06)-Copies of Enclosure 1 to be SDroggitis filed in Central Files and PDR only R
ff, Ril PDR (YES)
KS ider BUsilton So Carolina File SSalomon Pa 20 File (wlo Enclosure 1)
LRakovan, ASPO DOCUMENTNAME: G:\\SF 4 CPART20.SNS -
- See Previous Concurrence.
T4 receive a copy of this document. ind.o. 4 the 50s: 'C's Copy without attachment /endosure "E* a Copy with attachment /endoeure
OSP:DD l OGC l
OSP:D l
l NAME SNSalomon:nb CHMaypin PHLohaus FCameron RLBangart DATE 10/17/97 *
]
10/22/97
- 11/05/97
- 12/ /97 12/02/97
. OSP FILE CODE: SP-AG-25, SP-P-1
' Mzx K. B:tevia, PE, Chief -
3.
The definition of " Units of radioactivity,* in RHA 1.4 omits in the introductory paragraph the explanation of the SI unit of becquerel and its definition in terms of the curie. The definition is inconsistent with the definition
- Activity
- that uses the unit " becquerel
- and is a category A. The becquerelis used elsepere in the States regulations, e.g., RHA 3.31.1.1,3.31.1.2, and 3.56.1.7. pecause the definition, Units of radioactivity is category A, we recommend that the State definition should be essentially identical to the definition in 10'CFR Part 20.1005 and include the definition of the becquerel and the con"ersion facto to the curie.
/
Within 45 days, we request that you respond in writing with informatiori describing the actions you plan to take to address our comments. As you are aware, Agreement States have flexibility to adopt rules required for compatibility or health and safety in the form of legally binding requirements other than regulations. This methodology may be appropriate to resolve some of the compatibility issues with South Carolina's regulations.
,/
The compatibility concerns identified by this letter are specific to South Carolina's equivalent of 10 CFR Part 20. We would like to stress that these compatibility concerris are not necessarily 4
~
an indication that the State's overall program is incompatible with NRC't program. Rather, this regulation review identifies an area that needs to be addressed by the State which, if not addressed, could potentially le ad to an incompatible program. The overall compatibility determination of the South Carolina Agreement program will be made as part of the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program.
Finally, implementation procedures for the new policy s;atement provide guidance that indicates Agreement State rules that are not currently consistent with the new compatibility category designations should conform with the new policy not later than 3 years after the policy's effective date.
if you have any questions regarding these comments, the compatibility criteria, the NRC regalations used in the review, or the Oak Ridge report, please contact me at (301) 415-2326 or Dr. Stephen N. Salomon of my staff at (301) 415-2368, or INTERNET: SNS@NRC. GOV.
Sincerely, Paul H. Lohaus, Deputy Director Office of State Programs
Enclosures:
As stated Distributior3:
DlR RF (7S268)
DCD (SP06)-Copies of Enclosure 1 to be SDroggitis filed in Central Hles and PDR only Richard Woodruff, Ril PDR (YES)
KSchneider South Carolina File Part 20 File (w/o Enclosure 1)
DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\SNS\\SCPART20.SNS
- See Previous Concurrence.
To recchre a copy of this document. Indicate in the boit: "C" e Copy without at:achmentienc60sure "E" = Copy with attachment / enclosure "N" = No copy OFFICE OSP lE OSP l
OSP:DD OGC l
OSP:D l
l NAME SNSalomon:nb CHMaupin PHLohaus FCameron RLBangart 10/22/97
- 11/05/97
- 12/ /97 DATE 10/17/97
- D '
1 iM:x K. Batavia, PE, Chief
- l Finally, implementation procedures for the new policy statement provide guidance that indicates -
Agreement State rules that are not currently consistent with the new compatibility category.
designations should conform with the new policy not later than 3 years after the policy's effective date.
If you have any questions regarding these comments, the compatibility criteria, the NRC regulations used in the review, or the Oak Ridge report, please contact me at (301) 415-2326 or Dr. Stephen N. Salomon of my staff at (301) 415-2368, or INTERNET: SNS@NRC. GOV, Sincerely, Paul H. Lohaus, Deputy Director Office of State Programs
Enclosures:
As stated Distribution:
DIR RF (7S268)
DCD (SP06)-Copies of Enclosure 1 to be SDroggitis filed in Central Files and PDR only Richard Woodruff, Ril PDR (YES)
KSchneider South Carolina File -
Part 20 File (w/o Enclosure 1)
DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\SNS\\SCPART20.SNS n,ww.. copy or ini. socum.nt, m.i. m in. i om: c em umout = 4t/ai ur. v. em.m.nenm.nu.nao.ur. Y e No em OFFICE OSPGM E MSPJ l k 03@$l OGC l
OSP:D l
l NAME SNSalom6n:nb CWNbp_W PHCoHdd FCameron RLBangart DATE 10/yy97 10$d/97 10f2/97 10/ /97 10/ /97 OSP FILE CODE: SP-AG-25, SP-P-1
T..
/.
. Max K. Batavia, PE, Chief.-
Finally, implementation procedures for the new policy statement provide guidance that indicates Agreement State rules that are not currently consistent with the new compatibility category designations should conform with the new policy not later than 3 years after the policy's effective date.
If you have any questions regarding these comments, the compatibility criteria, the NRC regulations used in the review, or the Oak Ridge report, please contact me at (301) 415-2326 or Dr. Stephen N. Salomori of my staff at (301) 415 2368, or INTERNET: SNS@NRC. GOV.
Sincerely, Paul H. Lohaus, Deputy Director Office of State Programs Enclom ;
As stated
(
DistributiQD:
l DlR RF (7S268)
DCD (SP06)-Copies of Enclosure 1 to be l
SDroggitis filed in Central Files and PDR only Phhard Woodruff, Ril PDR (YES)
KSchneider South Carolina File Part 20 F,le (w/o Enclosure 1)
DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\SNS\\SCPART20.SNS n -
.n-
-i c. cm-.4vA r. co.
cn-e-v. ~
OSP d E d Q S P,, A l k OFFWl OGC
-l OSP;D l
l OFFICE t
NAME SNSalom$n:nb CW) Abp_W PHCodads FCameron RLBangart l-DATE 10/Fy97 10 @ /97 10RZ/97 M/96/97 10/ /97
- OSP FILE CODE: SP-AG-25, SP-P-1
c Comoatibility Category and H&S Identification for NRC Regulations i
Key to categories:'
A=
Basic radiation protection standard or related definitions, signs, labels or terms necessary for a common understanding of
~
radiation protection principles. The State program element should be essentially identical to that of NRC.
B=
Program element with significant direct transboundary -
implications. The State program element should be essentially identical to that of NRC.
C=
Program element, the essential objectives of which should be -
adopted by the State to avoid conflicts, duplications or gaps. The manner in which the essential objectives are addressed may be different than that used by NRC.
D=
Not required for purposes of compatibility.
NRC =
Not required for purposes of compatibility. These are NRC program element areas of regulation that cannot be relinquished to Agreement States pursuant to the AEA or provisions of Title 10 l.
of the Code of Federal Regulations. The State should not adopt these program elements.
H&S =
Program elements identified as H&S are not required for purposes of compatibility; however, they do have particular health and safety significance. The State should adopt the essential objectives of such program elements in order to maintain an adequate program, r
'I t
ENCLOSURE 2 L
i-
9 5.
NRC Comments on the South Carolina (Radioactive Materials Regulation 61-63, Title A, Parts I and 111);
Required for Compatibility or Health and Safety
- State NRC Category Regulation Regulation Subject and Comments
- 'A :
RHA 1.2.4 :
10 CFR 20,1003 Airbome radioactive material The definition omits the word "particulates" and consequently, excludes airbome radioactive particulates.
Because this definition is category A, the State program element should be -
3 essentially identical to that of NRC. To be compatible, the definition should include the word "particulates."
A, RHA 1.2.5 10 CFR 20.1003 Airbome radioactivity area i
For the two conditions in paragraphs (1) and (2), refere 1ce is made to effluent -
concentrations in air, Appendix B Table 2, 4
Column I, instead of the Derived Air Concentrations (DACs) set out in Appendix -
B, Table 1, Column 3. They are not equivalent because the NRC regulations refer to occupational exposure whereas the South Carolina regulations refer to public i
exposure.- Also, the "25 percent'should be deleted and "O.6 percent o"12 DAC-hours,"
should be ine 'ied. Howe, er, we note that.
the definition was correctly oefined in RHA -
3.2.4.
1 Because this definition is category A, the definition should be essentially identical to
- that of NRC. To be compatible, the
+
- definition should follow the wording in 10 CFR 20.1003, or attematively, we.
recommend that the definition in RHA 1.2.5 -
- be deleted because it is already defined '
corrertly in RHA 3.2.4.
. A RHA 1.2.11 10 CFR 20.1003 High radiation area The distance of 30 cm is omitted from the source of radiation at which the level of radiation exposure is to be measured.
r t
?
ENCLOSURE 3 1
a m-9' i
y t
s e
a 4
w H
T
-M?m 9-t 9-a-*
- =Fy
'8-
'T-
^
"' ^ - - " ' - - - - " - ' ' - -
-. -. - -.-.... ~. _. ~...
Q_-
"g ' :~
n Because this definition is category A, the
-. definition should be essentially identical to.
2
- that of NRC. To be compatibie, the definition should include the "30 centimeters from the radiation source."
?B-
~
Omhted 10 CFR 20.1003 Lost or missing licensed material (sources.
of radiation).
This' definition was omitted.
Because this definition is category B, the definition should be essentially identical to -
2 the wording in 10 CFR 20.1003. To be:
compatible, this definition should be added.
-Al Omitted 10 CFR 20.1003 Member of the public This definition was omitted.
Because this definition is category A, the definition should be essentially identical to that of NRC. To be compatible this definition should be added.
A RHA1.2.18 10 CFR 20.1003 Occupational dose The dose received by being a member of the public and allowance for background radiation are omitted Because this definition is category A, the.
State definition should be essentially identical to that of NRC. To be compatible, the following phrases should be added to.
the definition, "does not include background radiation," and "or as a member of the public." Additionally, South Carolina also omits the phrase "whether in the l
possession of the licensee or other person;"
this phrase should also be included in the State's definitions.
l 2
ENCLOSURE 3 o
L l
i i
..~
A RHA 1.2.24 '
10 CFR 20.1003 Radiation area The distance of 30 cm from the source of radiation "or from any surface that the radiation penetrates" was omitted. Also, the dose limit of 100 mrem for 5 consecutive days is more restrictive than NRC's regulation.
Bectuse this definition is category A, the State definition should be essentially identical to that of NRC. To be compatible, the State definition should add "at 30 centimeters from the radiation source or from any surface that the radiation penetrates *; and delete the phrase, "or in -
any 5 consecutive days a dose in excess of 100 millirem."
A Omitted 10 CFR 20.1003 Year This definition was omitted.
Because this definition is category A, the definition should be essentially identical to that of NRC. To be compatible this definition should be added.
3 ENCLOSURE 3
-