ML20198A497

Forwards Copy of Two Volume ORNL Rept,Dtd 950228,documenting Staff Review of Kansas Final Part 20 Equivalent Rule for Info & Use.Response Requested in Writing Describing Actions State of Ks Plans to Take to Address Comments in Encl 3

ML20198A497
Person / Time
Issue date:	12/30/1997
From:	Lohaus P NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP)
To:	Cooper V KANSAS, STATE OF
Shared Package
ML20198A500	List: ML20198A497
References
NUDOCS 9801050386
Download: ML20198A497 (10)

Text

q-- - -- -n p w

.. l -

p f*% Y UNITED STATES l

,. g- ] NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. RoseH001

\...../ December 30, 1997 Mr. Vick L. Cooper, Chief Rachation Control Program Kansas Department of Health & Environment Bureau of Air & Radiation Forbes Fbid, Building 283 Topeka,KS 66620

Dear Mr. C :

per.

Given the significance of the revised 10 CFR Part 20 rule to botn NRC and Agreement State programs, NRC undertook a review of all Agreement State final Part 20 equivalent rules for cornpatibility with 10 CFR Part 20. The review was conducted as a two-step process. The first -

step involved a review by Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), under contract with NRC, to

' identify any differencoc or inconsistencies between 10 CFR Part 20 and each Agreement State equivailent rule. A copy of the two volume ORNL report, dated February 28,1995, documenting its staff review of the Kansas final Part 20 equivalent rule is enclosed for your information and use (Enclosure 1). NRC staff first evaluated the ORNL report to detemtine 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 issues that should be brought to ynur 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 competibility policy statement approved by the Commicsion by Staff Requirements Memorandum dated June 30,1997 (Enclosure 2 describes the nsw compatibility categones). 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 nine 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 commants noted in Enclosure 3, we identified one minor comment.

The Kansas definition of "Special nuclear material in quantities not sufficient to fonn a critical mass' in 28-35-135 (ccc)(1)(D) omits the dividing lines under U-235, U 233 and

- Pu. This is apparently a typographical c,rror. Because this definition is category A, the typographical error should be corrected for clarity.

Within 45 days, we request that you respond in writing with information describing the actions you plan to take to eddress our comments in Enclosure 3. As you are aware, Agreement States hava flexibility to adopt rules required for compatibility or health and safety in the fonn of legally binding requirements other than regulations. This methodology may be appropriate

' to resolve some of the compatibility issues with Kansas' regulations. j The compatibility concems identified by this letter are specific to Kansas' equivalent of 10 CFR Part 20. We would like to stress that these compatibility concems are not necessarily an t indication that the State's overall program is incompatible with NRC's program. Rather, this regulation review identified areas that need to be addressed by the State which, if not )

050041 ~u2 gg y E7c eng }'ggggg31QiglLl[

.==**** 69' F'l 9901050386 971230 PDR STPRC ESOKS PDR

1 l

• Vick L. Cooper 2 DECS0'd57 addressed, could potentially lead to an incompatible program. The overall compatibility determination of the Kansas 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 ,

inJicates Agreement State rules that are not currently consistent with the new compatibility category designations should conform with the new policy not later thai; 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@NP.C. GOV.

Sincerely, Opi o n m ed Paul H. Lohaus Deputy Director Office of State Programs

Enclosures:

As stated

a q i

y Vmk L. Cooper 2- DEC 8 e 1l97-addressed, could potentially lead to an incompatible program. - The overall compatibility- ')

1 determination of the Kanses Agreement program will be made as part of the Integrated -

Matenals Performance Evaluation Program.

i Finally, implementation procedures for the new policy statement provide guidance tint indicates Agrooment 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 -t effective date.- t

If you have any questions regarding these comments, the compatibility criteria, the NRC L

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: SNSONRC. GOV.

Sincerely, gg g

j. . PAUL H. LOHAUS Paul H. Lohaus, Deputy Director-Office of State Programs l

Enclosures:

As stated i-r i

S i

r

^

Distribution-

. DIR RF (7S268) DCD (SP08)-Copies of Enclosure 1 to be -

SDroggitis - filed in Central Files and PDR only CHackney,' RIV - PDR (YES)

. KSchneider-SSalomon BUsilton -

LBolling, ASPO Kansas File Part 20 File (w/o Enclosure 1):

DOCUMENT NAME: : G:\SNS\KSPART20.SNS *See previous concurrence.

Ya seestus e sepy of site closusnent, inesses in sie agen: "Cae Copy assiout anochmonvencsoews T e Copy weh esechmenwenceaewe '9r

• No copyA OFFICE OSP- lE OSP- l OSP:DD l OGC l -- OSP:D(/ L l NAME SNSalomon:gd:kk:gd CHMaupin PHLohaus FCameron RLBangart u DATE- 12/16/97* 12/17/97* 12/18/97* 12/22/97* - 12/R47-OSP FILE CODE: SP-AG-25,q-1f

.-...___._.2. . _ _ _ , . - . _ . . _ .. u -,_. _

V' Vick L Cooper 2 f

3. A Kansas section 28-35 212d uses the phrase ' prior to' instead of the phrase - ,

fupon prior." The aquetment should be done after approval, not before, as .  !

'.- stated in the State de6nition. Because this definition is category A, the State program element should be essentially identical to that of NRC. To be -  ;

. compatible, the words "upon prior" should be substituled for ' prior to.'

4. A Kansas section 28-35-219e(g)(3)(B) substitutes the reference' appendix B,- i

, table 1, column 2,* for " Table til of Appendix B.* Because this section is l category A and the references are not equivalent, the State program element  :'

l- should be essentially ide dical to that of the NRC. To be compatible, this section I should be modified to include the Lerect reference, Table ill of Appendix B. .

l 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, Agreement

, States have flexibility to adopt rules required for compatibil:ty or health and safety in the form of -

l legally binding requirements other than regulations. This methodology may be appropriate to resolve some of the compatibility issues with Kansas' regulations.

The compatibility concems identified by this letter are specific to Kansas' equivalent of 10 CFR Part 20. We would like to stress that these compatibility concoms are not necessarily an indication that the State's overall program is incompatible with NRC's program. Rather, this regulation review identified areas that need to be addressed by the State which, if not addressed, could potentially lead to an incompatible program. The overall compatibility determination of the Kansas Agreement program will be made as part of the integrated L 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 competitsility category designations should conform wth the new policy not later than 3 years after the policy's effective date.

,~

if you have any questions regarding these comments, the compatibility cnteria, 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.

l Sincerely, L

- Paul H. Lohaus, Deputy Director l Office of State Programs

Enclosures:

As stated Distnbuhon-DIR RF (7S268) DCD (SP08)-Copies of Enclosure 1 to be SDroggitis flied in Central Files and PDR only 1- CHackney, RIV PDR (YES)

KSchneider.

SSalomon BUsilton LBolling, ASPO Kansas File Part 20 File (w/o Enclosure 1)

DOCL/M i .T NAME: G:\SNS\KSPART20.SNS .

• See previous concurrence.

4 v. .. u we.c - r.c. - w.

OFFICE OSP lE OSP l OSP;DD l- g OGC [ OSP:D l l NAME SNSalomon:gd:kk CHMaupin PHLohaus TCameron RLBangart DATE 12/16/97* 12/17/97* 12/18/97* 12/'J4/97 12/ /97 OSP1:lLli CODE:- SP-AG-25, SP-P-1 gb %hf)

. l

/

Vick L. Cooper 2 legally binding requirements other than regulations. This methodo gy ma:t be appropriate to resolve some of the compatibility issues with Kansas' regulations.

The compatibility concems identified by this letter are specific to ansas' equivalent of 10 CFR Part 20. We would like to stress that these compatibility conce s are not necessarily an indication that the State's overall program is incompatible with RC's program. Rather, this regulation review identified areas that need to be addressed b the Stats which, if not addressed, could potentially lead to an incompatible program. The overall compatibility determination of the Kansas Agreement prograr.1 will be mad as part of the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program.

Finally, implementation procedures for the new policy stat ent provide guidance that indicates Agreement State rules that are not currently consistent wi the new compatibility categt,ry designations should conform with the new policy not late than 3 years after the policy's effective date.

If you hase any questions regarding these comments, e compatibility criteria, the NRC regulations used in the review, or the Oak Ridge repo , please contact me at (301) 415-2306 or Dr. Step'1en N. Salomon of my staff at (301) 415-23 , or INTERNET: SNS@NRC. GOV.

incerely, Paul H. Lohaus, Deputy Director Office of State Programs

Enclosures:

As stated Distribution:

DIR RF (7S268) DCD (SP08)-Copie; of Enclosure 1 to be SDroggitis filed in Central Files and PDR only CHackney, RIV PDR (YES)

KSchneider SSalomon BUsilton LBolling, ASPO Kansas File Part 20 File (w/o Enclosure 1)

DOCUMENT NAME: G:\SNS\KSPART20.S S *See previous concurrence.

n r.e.w. . em or w ooe n.ni, mec.t. m m. nom: c = weout ers w44. r cm.e nenmenuenexw. rc = we cm OFFICE OSP lE AQ[mT/ l O$$$ l OGC l OSP:D l l NAME SNSalomon:gd:kk Cit @ddpif PHLbHabs) FCameron RLBangart DATE 12/16/97* 12/ ((/97 ,

1,2/ -)(/97 1 21 /97 12/ /97 OSP FILE CODE: SP-AG-25, SP-P-1 1

1

- i

!+

_Vick L. Cooper i.

- Finally, implementation procedures for the new policy statement provide guid that indicates

_ Agreement State rules that are not cu.Tently consistent with the new compati lity category

-i:' YEW 5,6 should conform with the new policy not later than 3 years after policy's -

effective date.

If you have any questions regan: ling these comments, the compatibility ria, the NRC -

i regulations used in the review, or the Oak Ridge report, please contact at (301) 415-2326 or Dr. S;ephen N. Salomon of my staff at (301) 415 2368, or INTERNET: SONRC. GOV. ,

Sincerely, f t

i Paul H. L us, Deputy Directcr-Office of S e Programs ,

Enclosures:

As stMed l

i 11 Distribution DlR RF (7S268) DCD (SP08)-Copies of Enclosure 1 to be SDroggitis filed in Central Files and PDR only CHackney, RIV PDR (YES)

KSchneider -

SSalomon BUsilton LBolling, ASPO Kansas File Part 30 File (w/o Enclosure 1)

DOCUMENT NAME: G:GNSESPART2 NS 73 sessive o espy of ede doeunient,ladleets in sie bes: 'C" Copy nahod esechmenWonolosune T e Copy weh esechmenWenolosure v = leo copy OFFICE OSPSWlE = OSP / - l OSP:DD l OGC l OSP:D l l NAME- SNSalomon:gd - CHMaupih PHLohaus FCameron RLBangart 4 DATE- 12//6/97- -12/ / /97 12/- /97 12/ /97 12/ /97

- OSP FILE CODE: SP-AG-25, SP-P-1

- - - . _ - - - - ~ - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - , a e, -, -- ~ , n w.s, . ,--r ~ , - . m .,...-g--m

..~ .

i Compatibdity Category and H&S Identification for NRC Regulations +

Key to categones: 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 essentisily 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 uf compatibility.

NRC = Not required for purposes of coinpatibility. These are NRC program element areas of regulation that J 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.

H&S = Program elements ide itified as H&S are not required for purpos64 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.

v 1

1

ENCLOSURE 2 i

d

- , _ 1 NRC Comments on the Kansas Radiation Protection Regulations (Agency 28, Article 35. Parts I and IV) Required form-Compatibility or Health and Safety

State- NRC ,

Galagogy Regulation Regulation Subject and Comments i

-- A _ 28 35-135 (h) 10 CFR 20.1003 _ Airbome radioactive material ,

The definition omits the word "particulates" and consequently, excludes airbome radioactivs particulates.

Because this definition is category A, the State program element should be essentially identical to that of NRC. To be compatible, the definition should include the word "particulates."

1A: Omitted 10 CFR 20.1003 Extremity t

The definition is omitted. ,

Because this definition is category A, the State program element should ba essentially identical to that of NRC. To be compatible, the definition of

" Extremity" should be included.

A Omitted 10 CFR 20.1003 Quarter Because this definition is category A, the State program element should be essentially identical to that of NRC. To be compatible, the definition of

, " Quarter" should be included A 28-35-135(j)(4) 10 CFR 20.1003 Radiation area The definition omits the phrase *in 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br />."

Consequently, the time period in which the dose equivalent is to be measured is not provided.

Because this definition is category A, the State definition should be essentially identical to that of NRC. To be compatible, the State definition should add "in 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br />" after the phrase "at such levels that.'

ENCLOSURE 3

, , t- .:

• A 28-35-212a . 10 CFR 20.1201 - Occupational dose limits for adults l

The definition omits the phran, 'or the results of individual monitoring are unavailable.' The rule does not provide a method for demonstrating compliance with occupational dose limits when results of individual monitoring are unavailable.

Because this definition is category A, the State program element should be essentially identical to that of NRC. To be compatible, the phrase should -

be added to the definition.

Determination ofintemal exposure A 28-35-212d 10 CFR 20.1204 The provision uses the phrase ' prior to' instead of the phrase "upon prior

• The adjustment should be done after approval, not before, as stated in the State definition.

Because this definition is category' A, the State program element should be essentially identical to that of NRC. To be compatible, the words "upon prior" should be substituted for 'orior to."

D,H&S 28-35-217a(c) 10 CFR 20.1502 Conditions requiring individual monitoring of extemal and intemal occupational dose l The following subsection was added to the Kansas I. regulations and there is no equivalent NRC l provision. 'The requirements of this regulation

' shall not apply to personnel dosimeters used to measure the dose to hand and forearms or feet and ankles." We recommend that the Stata provide its reasons for inclusion of this subsection.

At present, the subsection appears to be inappropriately placed in this particular section. i i A- 28-35-219a(g)(3)(8) 10 CFR 20.1905(b) The section substitutes the reference " appendix B, f table 1, column 2,* for

• Table ill of Appendix B.*

i .

l Because this section is category A and the references aie not equivalent, the State program element should be essentially identical to that of the NRC. To be compatible, this section should be

{

modified to include the correct reference, Table 111 of Appendix B.

2 ENCLOSURE 3 l

l^

L l

1...

l, t ,

B- Chnitted 10 CFR 20.2006 Transfer for disposal and manifests ,

This section was omitted.

Because this section is category B, the State.-

program element shoulo be essentially identical to that of NRC. To tw compatible, this section should be aoopted by the State.

d 3 ENCLOSURE 3

-