ML20198P987
| ML20198P987 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/18/1997 |
| From: | Lohaus P NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| To: | Erickson J WASHINGTON, STATE OF |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20198P992 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9801220308 | |
| Download: ML20198P987 (11) | |
Text
'
.g L.
3 g
}
' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D C. MeeHoot
\\ym/'
December 18, 1997 s.
Mr. John L. Erickson, Director Division of Radiation Protection Department of Health Airdustrial Center Bulkt ; #5 P.O. Box 47827 Olympia, WA 98504-7827
Dear Mr. Erickson:
'. 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 Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), under contract with NRC, to identify any differences or inconsistencies between 10 CFR Part 20 and each Agreement State o
equivalent rule. A copy of the two volume ORNL report, dated May 19,1995, documenting its sta" review of the Washington final Part 20 equivalent rule is enclosed for your information and use (Enclosure 1). NRC staff first evSluated the ORNL report to determine if any potentially significant health and safety issues were identified that required immediats attention. If there
- were none, NRC staff then conducted, as resources permitted, a detailed review of the differences and inconsistencies id;,ntified by ORNL for compatibility and adequacy issues that should be brought to your attention for routine action.
The NRC review focused on those previsions of the rules that should oe adopted in accordance with the new adequacy and compatibility policy statement tapproved by the Commission by Staff Requirements Memorandum dated June 30,1997 (Enclosure 2 describes the new compatibility categories). Enclosure 3 provides our comment on the State's regulations and shows the current compatibility category (i.e., A, B, C, D, NRC, or H&S). There is one section of your rule,
. as noted in Enclosure 3, that is not consistent with the 10 CFR Part 20 compatibility category designations under the new procedures.-
. Within 45 days, we request that you respond in writing with information describing the act'ons you plan to take to address our comment. As you are aware, Agreement States have flexibility to adopt rules required for compatibility or health and safety in the form of legatiy binding requirements other than regulations. This methodology may be appropriate to resolve the compatibility issue with Washington's regulations.
The compatibility conwm identified by this letter is specific to Washington's equivalent of 10 L
CFR Part 20. We would l*e to stress that this compatibility concem is not necessarily an
(
(
indication that the State's overall program is incompatible with NRC's program. Rather, this (k
regulation reisew idsntified an area that needs to be addressed by the State which, if not addressed, could potentially lead to an incompatbe program.. The overall compatibility 1
Cf 0 4 "E 220119 6FK#i e T *l?i 25l Q
- I R N.N.
(
l A sp p4 s
e
Mr. John L. Erickson DEC 181997 determination of the Washington Agreement program will be made as part of the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program.
Finally, implementation procedurcs 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 Ms. Cardelia Maupin of my staff at (301) 415-2312, or INTERNET: CHM @NRC. GOV.
Since ly, iC Id At 01hjtil Paul H. Lohaus, Deputy Directoh Office of State Programs
Enclosures:
As stated l
o d
Y
.i a M,1 I
1 4
Mr. John L Erickson S24 DEC 1815h
~
- determinatiori of the Washington Agreement program will be made as part of the Integrated -
~
i Materials Performance Evaluation Program.-
~
5 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 a
4 designations should conform with the new policy not later than 3 years after the policy's:
g effective date.
-1 o
~;
- 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 Ms. Cardelia Maupin of my staff at (301) 415-2312, or INTERNET: CHM @NRC. GOV.
~
Sincerely,.
t L
RT l
Paul H. Lohaus, Deputy Director v
Office of State Programs
~
Enclosures:
As stated i
i a
Distnbution-DIR RF (7S242).
E DCD (SP08)-Copies of EM _1 to be.
t gfiled.in Central Files and PDR only i SDroggitis ; _
PDR (YES)
TJHomor, RIV.
KSchneider :
Washington File
- LPart 20 File (w/o Enclosure 1):
~ DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\ CHM \\PART20\\WASHINGT.LTR-
- See Previous Concurrence, v.
. se ermm e i me me.n : c cm.mauim.mm.nv.noo r em.m - -
- v No may l
OSP$/#-
l NAME CHMaupin '
PHLohaus.
FXCameron-RLBangbklD l
DATE 12/08/97
- 12/08/97'-
12/17/97*
- 12//%/97 -
OSP FILE CODE: 1 AAG-29, SP-P-1 w.~
=.
Mr. John L. Enckson determination of the Washington Agreement program will be made s part of the Integrated Materials Pcrformance Evaluation Program.
Finally, implementation procedures for the new policy statemen provide guidance that indicates Agreement State rules that are not currently consistent with th new compatibility category designations should conform with the new racy not later tha 3 years after the policy's effective date.
If you have any questions regarding these comments, the mpatibility crkeria, the NRC regulations used in the review, or the Oak Ridge report, pi ase contact me at (301) 415-2326 or Ms. Cardelia Maupin of my staff at (301) 415-2312, or IN ERNET: CHM @NRC. GOV.
Sin erely, aul H. Lohaus, Deputy Dimetor Office of State Programs
Enclosures:
As stated Distribution:
DIR RF (7S242)
DCD (SP08)-Copies of Enclosure 1 to be SDroggitis filed in Central Files and PDR only JHomor, RIV PDR (YES)
KSchneider Washington File Part 20 File (w/o Enclosure DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\ CHM \\PART OMASHINGT.L
- See Previous Concurrence.
to m.ev.. eor orw. nocum.aunow. m m w c. cc > ; w e v.
i re coey m.nsmenvenemur. r soem OFFICE OSP OSP:DD
{
OGC\\
lL OSP:D NAME CHMaupin PHLhhaus FXCameron RLBangart DATE 12/08/97
- f2/08/97
- 12/T 197 12/ /97
\\
OSP FILE CODE: SP-AG-29, SP-P-1
i Mr. John L. Erickson /
the Washington Agreement program will be made as part of the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program.
Finally, implementation procedures for the new policy statement provide guidance tn indicates Agreement State rules that are not currently consistent with the new compatibility egory designations should conform with the new policy not later than 3 years after the licy's effective date, if you have any questions regarding these comments, the compatibility ' ria, the NRC regulatioris used in the review. or the Oak Ridge report, please contactme at (301) 415-2326 or Ms. Cardelia Maupin of my staff at (301) 415-2312, or INTERNET: CIM@NRC. GOV.
Sincerely, Pauf H. Lohaus Deputy Director pice of State Programs
Enclosures:
As stated f
/
,/
7
/
/
/
/'
/
DistributiOD:
DlR,RF (7S242)
DCD (SP08)-Copies of Enclosure 1 to be SDroggitis filed in Central Files and PDR only JFfomor, RIV POR (YES) c KSchneider
/ Washington File Part 20 File (w/o Enclosure 1)
DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\ CHM \\PART20\\washingt.LTR To receive a com r of th4e document, Indicate in the bolp M Cony without at'achment/ enclosure "E's Copy with attachment / enclosure "N" = No copy OFFICE Ohl OSM1 OGC l
OSP:D NAME CHMhbkiW PHLoha$ T FXCameron RLBangart DATE 1273 /97 12/8197 12/ /97 12/ /97 OSP FILE CODE: SP-AG-29, SP-P-1
Comontibility Category and H&S Identification for NRC Regulations Key to catsgories:
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 sh:ald 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 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.
H&S =
Program olements 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.
ENCLOSURE 2
- f NRC Comments on the Washington Title 246 Departmer;t of Health Rules and Regulations for Radiation -
Protection Chapters 246-221,248 221, and 246-249, Required for Compatibility or Health and Safety; a
State
- NRC Category Regulation Regulation Subpect and Comments A
- 246-221 060
- 20.1301(c) -
Dose limits for individual members of the Public.
Section (c) provides a provision for licensee's authorization to work up to 500_mrom. The State'-
rule is more stringent than that of the NRC. The-Washington rule restricts permission to exceed 100 mrom and operate at the 500 mrom level for only.
where pre-existing facilities construction and e
r approval were done prior to the effective date of i i
these regulations (January 1,1994), in addition,-
_ i the ruta provides that any increase in operating conditions or any change in previously approved
?
facility shielding will automatically require the licensee to meet the 100 mrom limit. This section is desiprs 1 as a Category A and should be essentia;y ",entical to 10 OFR 20.1301(c).
Therefore, this section should be adopted by the -
t State.
f 4
=
W ENCLOSURE 3 4
y
.,-,.y,e-w
.-,n.-.-.
w-
--~r
f.
' EXECUTIVE TASK MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
-~~~
.......--. -~~~
<<< PRINT SCREEN UPDATE FORM >>>
TASK # - 7S242 DATE- 09/08/97 MAIL CTRL. - 1997 y
TASK. STARTED - 09/08/97 TASK DUE - 12/30/97 TASK COMPLETED -
/
/
~ ~
TASK DESCRIPTION - PART 20 EQUIVALENT REVIEW - STATE OF WASHINGTON REggES((gg,,g((.
-OSP REgUESTER - PHL WITS -
0 FYP - N PROG.- PML PERSON -
STAFF LEAD - PML PROG. AREA -
PROJECT STATUS -
12/30/97 PLANNED ACC.
-N LEVEL CODE -
1 1
\\
i L-
,,. ~ ~ " * '
e, t
Froms k "Frazee',' Terry" <tef0303Shub.doh.wa. gov >
To:
WND1.WNP9 (CHM)
Date 11/21/97 2:23pm Subjects Compatibility Questions 1 On November 17 you brought to my attention that certain provisions in our regulations relating to the major "Part 20" revision that was implemented in January 1994, were recently identified by you and/or your consultant as being non-compatible with 10 CFR Part 20.
These are 1) WAC
- 246-221-060 (3) ic different frcm 10 CFR 20.1301 (c) ; 2) and 3) WAC 246-221-060 does not have an equivalent to 10 CFR 20.1301 (d) and (e);
and 4) WAC 246-221-250 (1) (a) (iii) uses the term " rem" rather than " rad" as specified in 10 CFR 20.2202 (a) (1) (iii),
- 1) WAC 246-221-060 (c) is our "grandfathering provision" for facilities lat do not meet the *new" 100 mrem annual dose limit for members of the public. We believe our rule is more stringent than NRC's and therefore acceptable.
Both rules provide a mechanism whe.by a licensee can operate up to the old annual limit of 500 mrem.
1C CFR 20.1*01 (c) requires the NRC licensee to specifically spply for prior permission but does not limit the rationale for exceeding 100 mrem (they just have to demonstrate "need"). Our rule restricts permission to exceed 100 mrem ONLY where due to pre-existing facility construction and provides that any increase in operating conditions or any change in facility shielding will automatically require the licensee to meet the 100 mrem limit.
- 2) 10 CFR 20.1301 (d) requires a licensee " subject to the provisions of EPA's generally applicable environmental radiation standards in 40 CFR 190" to comply with those standards.
From our review of the rulemaking file, it appears that a previous requirement that " licensees engaged in uranium fuel cycle operations" had to comply with 40 CFR 190 (the requirement was present in our rege from 1980 to 1993) was inadvertently deleted during the massive revision to meet the "new Part 20" deadline.
A, cursory review of the Uranium Mill regulations shows that WAC
$dkhisi[040'requirezipdoseassessment to assure compliance with 40 CFR l
190 as part of the required annual report. However, according to documents supplied by NRC, 20.2301 (d) is classified as category D for compatibility. purposes.
Therefore, we are not required to have this provision in WAC 246-221-060.
- 3) 10 CFR 20.1301 (e) notifies the NRC licensee that it "may impose additional restrictions on radiation levels in unrestricted areas and on the total quantity of radionuclides that a licensee may release in effluents in order to restrict the collective dose".
This precise wording does not appear in WAC 246-221-060: however, WAC 246-220-100 states that the department "may, by rule, regulation, or order, impose uptn any licensee or registrant such requirements in addition to those established in these regulations as it deems appropriate or necessary to minimize danger to public health and safety or property." We think that
. covers itt
- 4) WAC 246-221-250 (1) (a) (iii) uses the term " rem" rather than " rad" as specified in 10 CFR 20.2202 (a) (1) (iii). Our.rulemaking file shows that our advisory work group considered this wording and based on the NRC i
y MU
i e
,, y
- . +. ;.- -
-1anguage~in.the: rule denoting'this asia ~adose equivalent *' limit,felected-j
~
to use the proper; unit for " dose equivalent" rather than the 1mmit for.
rt "Gbsorbed: dose".. It'did not occur-to us that;the error was in NRC's use
~
=of ashallow-dose' equivalent lto theLakin or. extremities?.rather than' thel intended (but undefined) " shallow-absorbed dose to the skin ~ ore t
-extremities'l-The distinction between these;twoLunits is.only' apparent-for neutron exposures (alphas not penetrating - the skin externa 11y' or targeting-other org7nsfinternally)-and the net result would be a more
-stringent notification requirement lfor the few neutron users we have in" y
Ethis state, 1Barring-some changelin:NRC's designation of the compatibility of the-i
'On the other'handi it might be reasonable for NRC to re-evaluate the use aforementioned.NRC rules,.I see'no necessity for us to change our rules'
~
off ashallow-dose equivalent" and the' corresponding dose units in 20.2202.
(a) (1) (iii)- and consider. changing its rule t..
7This message from:
- Terry Frazee Quick ways to reach me Voice = 360-753-3461
~ FAX = 360-753-1496-
-Also,Jvisit our Home'Page at
---> https,//www.doh.wa. gov /ehp/rp s
-i s
J i
)
+
5 Y
=1 1
v
-'-.ei-
+w-m
- +
amm w -
- 'e--
DOQ Bod Page http://oww.mrse.org/cgi-bin /folioc.. 27 } ' doc / ( t 19285 } /pageitsms= { body ) ?
6 4
=9 WAC 246-252-040 Continuing dose assessment.
Each uranium or thorium milling operation shall submit in writing to the department by May I and November 1 of each year, reports specifying the quantities of each of the pnneiple radionuclides released to unrestricted areas m liquid and in gaseous effluent during the previous six months of o grations. This data shall be reported in a manner that will permit the department to confirm the potential annual radiation doses to the publip. All data from the radiological and nonradiological environmental monitoring program will also be submitted for the same time period and frequency as speci6ed above.
The data shall be reported'in a manner which will allow the department to connrm the potential annual
_, radiation doses to the public. In addition, the r_cpoyAr endiltay_13allinshtde_a dose assetsmentlu e
ass _ure compliance with 40 CFR 190 Environmental Radiation Protection standards foTEclearfower d.an1EFual land use survey t,o include but not be limited to water supply mformalitiir,
-Operat%___d nuiTIFer of occupants 3tme sliciit at each location by occupants, amount and location an grown t.tored feed and amount of pasture consumed by local livestock.
[ Statutory Authonty: RCW 43.70.040. 91-02-049 (Order 121), recodined as { 246-252-040, Sled 12/27/90, effecti"e 1/31/91. Statutory Authority: Chapter 70.121 RCW. 81-16-031 (Order 1683),
402-52-200, filea 7/28/81.]
WAC 246-252-050 Appendix A.
llazardous Constituents Acetonitrile (Ethanenitrile)
Acetophenone (Ethanone,1-phenyl) 3-(alpha-Acetonylbenzyl)-4-hydroxycoumarin and salts (Warfarin) 2-Acetylaminonuorene (Acetamide, N-(911-Duoren-2-yl)-)
I Acetyl chloride (Ethanoyl chloride)
/
l-Acetyl 2-thiourea (Acetamide, N-(aminothioxomethyl)-)
Acrolein (2-Propenal)
Acrylamide (2-Propenamide)
Acrylonitrile (2-Propenenitrile)
Anatoxins Aldrin (1,2,3,4,10,10-Hexachloro-1,4,4a,5,8,8e,8b-hexahydro-endo, exo-1,4:5,8-Dimethanonaphthalene) 1 Allyl alcohol (2-Propen-1-ol)
Aluminum phosphide 4-Aminobiphenyl ([1,l'-Biphenyl]-4-emine) 6-Amino 1,1a,2,8,8a,8b-hexahydro-8-(hydroxymethyl)-8a-methoxy-5-methyl-carbamate (1,2-a)(mdole-4,7-dione,6-amino-8-[((amino-cabonyl) oxy)methylj-1,Ia,2,8,Sa,8b he iof29 12/01/97 16:02:26 w-
- -