ML20197D017
| ML20197D017 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/16/1997 |
| From: | Lohaus P NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| To: | Volpe J KENTUCKY, COMMONWEALTH OF |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20197D020 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9712240321 | |
| Download: ML20197D017 (9) | |
Text
-
--4 W
__..__A.;..
l' p3titgk UNITED STATE 8 y'
s
]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION F
PASHINGToN O.C. 30eeHe01 December 16, 1997 John A. Vulpe, Ph.D., Manager Radiation and Toxic Agents Control Section Cabinet for Human Resources 275 East Main Street Frankfort, KY 40621-0001
Dear Dr,
Volpe:
. 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 hvolved a review by Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), under contract with NRC, to identify any differences or inconsistencies betnen 10 CFR Part 20 and each Agreement State equivalent rule. A copy of the two volume ORM. report, dated February 15,1995, documenting its staff review of the Kentucky final Part 20 equivalent rule is enclosed for your 5 formation and use (Enclosure 1). NRC stari F, rot 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 diffecences and inconsistencies identified by ORNL for compatibility and adequacy issues 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 three (3) 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 Comments notod in Enclosure 3, we identified one minor comment.
1.
The Kentucky definition of " unrestricted area' in 902 KAR100:010(1)(252) adds the phrase "and areas used for residential quarter" at the end of its definition.
This phrase could be read to require that an unrestricted area be an area used for resioential quarters. We suggest deleting the phrase.
4 5
- > a.
Within 45 days, we request that you respond in writing with information describing the actions 3
you plan to take to address our comments in Enclosure 3. As you are aware, Agreement g
States have flexibility to adopt rules requitad for compatibility or hea'th and safety in the form of legally binding requiremants other than regulations. This methodology may be appropriate to 3
a:
resolve some of the compatibility issues with Kentucky's regulations.
j b
The compatibility concems identified by this letter are specific to Kentucky's equivalent of 10
(
to l
-CFR Part 20. We would like to stress that these compatibility concems are not necessarily an g
indication that the State's overall program is incompatible with NRC's program. Rather, this e o.
regulation review identified areas that need to be addressed by the State wl.ich, if not B C H M u & W 1 IIBlfil g.g Lgj % rIllll1 &&
240120
l John A. Volpe, Ph.D. DEC 101397 addressed, could potentially lead to an incompatible program. The overall compatibility determination of the Kentucky Agreement program will be made as part of the Integrated Materials Performance Eva'uation 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 review, or the Oak Ridge report, please contact me et (301) 415-2326 or Dennis Sollenberger of my staff at (301) 415-2819 or INTERNET: DMS4@NRC. GOV.
Sincerely, lC 11 i (
to t rhl I
Paul H. Lohaus, Deputy Director A
Office of State Programs
Enclosures:
As stated 1
l
c l
i John A. Volpe, Ph.D. DEC 161FN addressed, could potentially lead to an incompatible program. The overall compatibility determination of the Kentucky 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 compatibihty 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 Dennis Sollenberger of my staff at (301) 415-2819 or INTERNET: DMS4@NRC. GOV.
Sincerely, Odgirst Signed By
. RCHARD L BANGART
.y} Office of State Programs Paul H. Lohsus Deputy Director
Enclosures:
As stated 4
Distribution:
DIR RF (7S239)-
1DCD_'(SP06)-Copies of Enclosure 1 to be SDroggitis filed in Central Files and PDR only RWoodruff, RSAO
.,PDR (YES)?
KSchneider LRakovan, ASPO Kentucky File Part 20 File (w/o Enclosure 1)
DOCUMENT NAME: G;\\KY_PT20.LTR
- See previous concurrence is receive a copy of then document. truhcate in the box: "C" = Copy without attachment'ercosure "E" = Copy wth attachment / enclosure "N" = Notopy OFFICE OSP l
OSP l
OSP:DD l OGC OSP:D/[ / Je l
NAME DSollenberger:nb CHMat. pin PHLohaus FXCameron RLBangdrt N DATE 12/04/97*
12/05/97*
12/09/97*
12/15/97*
12//(,/97 g
OSP FILE CODE: SP AG-11, SP-P-1 4
John A. Volpe, Ph.D. Finally, implementation procedures for the new policy statement provid9 guidance that indicates Agreement State rules that are not currently consistent with the new cotnpatibility 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 compatib'. ity criteria, the NRC regulations used in the review, or the Oak Ridge repoit, please coritact me at (301) 415-2326 or Dennis Sollenberger of rr y staff at 001)415-2819 or INTERNET: DMS4@NRC. GOV.
Sincerely, Paul H. Lohaes,, eputy Director Oirice of State rograms
Enclosures:
- As stated
/
4
/
1
/
//
//
l Distribution:
/
DCD (SP06)-Copies of Enclosure 1 to be DIR RF (7S239)
SDroggitis
[
filed in Central Files and PDR only -
RWoodruff, RSAO
/
PDR (YES)
KSchneider
/
LRakovan, ASPO
[
Kentucky File -
Part 20 File (w/o Enclosure 1,)
i DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\KY_PT20.LTR te r.co.. c,, of w. e.com.nt. imac n in. noxi e cm.coui awdow. T cm we.nacnmentex g woce OFFICE OSP M l' OAW O sf8AQ [
OGC l-OSP:D l
l NAME DSollenberger:nb CHMWin PHL ohl(ds)
FXCameron RLBangart t
DATE 12/H/97 112/D/97 12/4 /97 12/15/97 12/ /97
""" OSP FILE CODE: SP-AG-11, SP-P-1
4 John A. Volpe, Ph.D.
-2 Finally, implementhtion procedures for the new pclicy stateme provide guidance that indicates Agreement State rules that are not currently consisterit with th new compatibility category designations should conform with the new policy not later tha 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, p ase contact me at (301) 415-2326 or Dennis Sollenberger of my staff at 601)415-2819 or INT NET: DMS4@NRC. GOV.
Sincerely, Paul H Lohaus, Deputy Director a
]
Offi of State Programs
Enclosures:
As stated Distribution:
DIR RF (7S239)
/
DCD (SP06)-Copias of Enclosure 1 to be SDroggitis
/
filed in Central Files and PDR only RWoodruff, RSAO PDR (YES)
KSchneider LRakovan, ASPO Kentucky File Part 20 File (wlo Enclosure 1) 7
/
DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\KY PT20.LTR
^
is e.cm.. eon or me. nacum.nt, mee."t. m 4 not c. com.mout auew*.4w. r c m =cnm.nt.nciow. v No con OFFICE OSP, 'I
/ 04%
O ##Q [
TGC Tl OSP.D l
NAME DSollenberger.nb CMM%Iin PHLohi!(Js)
FXCamgfon RLBangart DATE 12/P/97 12/ D/97 12/4 /97 12/4 /97 12/ /97
' OSP FILE CODE: SP-AG-11, SP-P-1
NRC Comments on the Kentucky, Administrative Regulations 902 KAR 100:010,015,019, and 021, Required for Compatibility or Health and Safety State NRC Category Regulation Eggulaiton Subiect and Comments A
- 010(1)(28) 20.1003 The definition of byproduct material leaves out the words "or thorium" in the later part of the definition.
This omission leaves out a class of material from.
^
the Kentucky definition which is used in the regulations. Because this c'efinition is a Category A, the State definition should be essentially identical to that in 10 CFR 20.1003. Therefore, the wording 'or thorium
- should be added to the definition.
(/.\\
A
- 010(1)f252)) 20.1003 The definition of unrestricted area, as written,
/
requires the unrestricted area to be an area used (T
for residential quarters. The definition must be 6
revised to clarify that residential quarters shall be
[)4 ' f (d h' /
f,f 4
requirement for unrestricted areas to be residential treated as unrestricted areas, but that it is not a s
i
- h. g' g.(b i
p
't areas.
A
- 010(1)(167) 20.1004(c)
This paragraph dealing with neutron fluence rate has been left out of the KY regulations. Because this S ction is a Category A, the State Section should be essentially identical to that in 20.1004(c).
Therefore, this paragraph should be added to the KY regulations.
A
- 010(1)(167)b 20.1004(b).2 The table omits the quality factors and fluences for the neutron energies at 20 and 40 MeV, Because this table is a Category A, the State should adopt this information essentially identical to that in 10 CFR 20.1004(b).2. Therefore, this information should be added to KY's regulations.
A
- 019(10) 20.1301 The words " licensee or registrant applicant" appear to be typos; however, as written it would limit the applicability of this section to applicants for licenses or registrations and would not allow existing licensees or registrants to request the use of the high dose limit. Because this section is a Category A, the State should adopt essentially identical language to that in 10 CFR 20.1301(c). Therefore, the wording should be changed to " licensee, registrant, or applicant." This revised wording would allow existing licensees and registrants use this section of the rule.
ENCLOSURE 3
~--&
i 1
I C
C4%AN 3-
-W m
CLLww/ d$, Vlchl J a{,p's, c 2y
-'i g 3 j
/il, 464Mduja~
.__._.._..______.._.....___._..m l
~ Comnatibility Cateaory and H&S Identifiention.
for NRC Regulations 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 prog sm 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, i
i C=
Program element, the essential objectives of which should bv adopted by the State to avoid conflicts, duplications or gaps. The manner in which the essential objectives are addressed need not be the same as NRC provided the essential objectives are met.
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 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The State should not adopt these program elements.
i 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.
4 4
ENCLOSURE 2 d
.,,,.n-..,.
l i
i I
i NRC Comments on the Kentucky, Administrative Regulations 902 KAR 100:010,015,019, and 021, Required for Compatibility or Health and Safety State NRC Cateaorv Reaulation.
Reculation Eubject and Comments A
- 010(1)(167) 20.1004(c)
This paragraph dealing with neutron fluence rate has been left out of the KY regulations. Because this Section is a Category A, the State Section should he essentially identical to that in 20.1004(c).
Therefore, thic paragraph should be added to the V,Y regulations.
A
- 010(1)(167)b 20.1004(b).2 The table omits the quality factors and fluences for the neutron energies at 20 and 40 MeV. Because this table is a Category A the State should adopt this information essentially identical to that in 10 CFR 20.1004(b).2. Therefore, this information should be added to KY's regulations.
A
- 019(10) 20.1301 The words
- licensee or registrant applicant" appear to be typos; however, as written it would limit the applicability of this section to applicants for licenses or registrations and would not allow existing licensees or registrants to request the use of the high dose limit. Decause :Ns section is a Category A, the State should adopt essentially identical language to that in 10 CFR 20.1301(c). Therefore, the wording should be changed to
- licensee, registrant, or applicant." This revised wording would allow existing licensees and registrants use this section of the rule.
ENCLOSURE 3
s.
EXECUTIVE TASK ~ MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
~~ --~~~~ ~~~. ---~~~~~--.....
<<< PRINT SCREEN UPDATE FORM >>>
DATE- 09/08/97 MAIL CTRL..- 1997 TASK # - 7S239
~~.---
....--~~--
TASK STARTED - 09/08/97 TASK DUE - 12/30/97 TASK COMPLETED -
/
/
~~ ---~~~~~~
---~~-~~
~~~~~~~~-~~~~~
TASK DESCRIPTION - PART 20 EQUIVALENT REVIEW - STATE OF KENTUCKY
~~-~~~~~~~~~~~~~
REQUESTING OFF. - OSP REQUESTER - PHL WITS -
0 FYP - N
-~~-------~~ --
~~~-------
~~~~
~~~
PROG.- DMS PERSON -
STAFF LEAD - DMS PROG. AREA -
-~~~
-~~---
~~~
~ ~ - - - -. - -
PROJECT STATUS -
OSP DUE DATE:
12/30/97
~~-----
l PLANNED ACC.
N l
LEVEL CODE -
1
_ =r l
l t
1 I
i l
[
t l
l l
l r
l l