ML20198S273
| ML20198S273 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/06/1997 |
| From: | Lohaus P NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| To: | Ratliff R TEXAS, STATE OF |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20198S275 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9711140017 | |
| Download: ML20198S273 (4) | |
Text
..
i Richrrd A. Ratliff, P.E., Chcf g V 0 6 1997 Bureau of Radiation Control Texas Department of Health j
1100 West 49th Street Austin, TX 7875S-3189
Dear Mr. Ratliff:
Given the significance of the revised 10 CFR Part 20 rule to ooth NRC and Agreement State programs, NRC undertook a review of all Agreensent State final Part 20 equivalent rules for compatibliity with 10 CFR Part 20. The review was anducted as a two step process. The first
]
step involved a review by Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), under contract with NRC, to i
identify any differences or inconsistencies between 10 CFR Part 20 and each Agreement State I
equivalent rule. A copy of the two volume ORNL report, dated December 20,1994, I
documenting its staf" eview of the Texas final 10 CFR Part 20 equivalent rule, is enclosed for your information ano use (Enclosure 1). NRC staff first evaluated the ORNL report to determine if any potentially significant health and safety issues were identified that required immedicte 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 your attention for routine action.
The NRC review focused on those provisions of the i exas rule that are required for compatibility or for health and safety under the new E.dequacy and compatibility policy statement approved by the Commission by Staff Requirements Memorandum dated June 30 i
1997 (Enclosure 2 describes the new compatibility categories). The NRC review concluded that j
the Texas 10 CFR Part 20 equivalent rule meets the compatibility and health and safety f
categories of the new policy If you have any questions regarding the compatibility criteria, the NRC regulations used in the review, of the Oak Ridge report, please contact me at (301) 415-2326 or James Myers of my
+
staff at (301) 415-2328. or INTERNET: JHM@NRC. GOV,.
Sincerely, 7**
g Signec By.
(%
glMA.H.LOHAUS h"$(
Paul H. Lohaus, Deputy Director i
Office of State Programs l
f t.1
Enclosures:
. l 3
As stated i
E
'4 Distribution:
L { DlR RF (7S232)
DCD (SP08)-Copies of Enclosure 1 to be f
fileo in Central Files and PDk only
's s SDroggibs 5
k "' ;Hornor, RIV/WCFO PDR (YES)
O CHackney, RIV f,(* KSchneider l
fhf/}//I (ffffjffjfff[f
@ Texas File I
l 3
Part 20 File (w/o Enclosure 1) g DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\ CHM \\PART20\\ TEXAS.JHM
- See presioc concurrence.
c com wee e./Med.ncau, r - cecy we enern ne.ncmom v so copy n,.c.=. cor, et ma oocurn.nt, wwet. in m. im:
4 lIOFHCE OSP OQP@t f)MD OGC l
OSfSDt1 -
l
]
-l NAME JHMyers:go 3TA CHMabbin PHLoriaus FXCameron RLBarO9f
.DATE 10/t '/97 10/M97 10$/97 11/04/97*
11/16/97
%yhp OSP FILE CODE: SP-AG-27 and SP-P-1 P D".
), -
b l_
e, Richard A. Ratliff, P.E., Chief Bureau of Radiation Control Texas Department of Health 1100 West 49th Street l
Austin, TX 78756-3189-
Dear Mr. Ratliff:
Given the significance of the revised 10 CFR Part 20 rule to both NRC any Agreement State programs, NRC undertook a review of all Agreement State final Part 20 equivalmt rutcs 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 Labors'ory (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 the two volume ORNL report dated December 20,1994, documenting its staff review of the Texas final 10 CFR Part 20 equivalent rule, is enclosed fer your information and uso (Enclosure 1). NRC staff first evaluated the ORNL report to determine if an,rpotenti&lly significant health and safety issuesfere identified that required immediate atter, tion. If there were none, NRC staff then conducted, as resources permitted, a detailed review of the differences and inconsistencies identi(dd by ORNL for compatibility and o
adequacy issues that should be brought to your attention for routine action.
'~
/
. The NRC review focused on those provisions of the Texas rule that are required for compatibility or for health and safety under the new ade'quacy and compatibility policy statement approved by the Commission by Staff Regdirements Memorandum dated June 30, L
1997 (Enclosure 2 describes the new compatibility categories). The NRC review concluded that l
the Texas 10 CFR Part 20 equivalent rule meets thb compatibility ond health and safety categories of the new policy.
If you have any questions regarding the com tibility criteria, the NRC regulations used in the review, or the Oak Ridge report, please con, et me at (301) 415-2326 or James Myers of my staff at (301) 415-2328, or INTERNET: JHM@NRC. GOV..
Sincerely, i
/
Paul H. Lohaus, Deputy Director Office of State Programs l
Enclosurcs:
As stated j
Qigtribution:
L DlR RF (7S232)
/
DCD (SP08) Copies of Enclosure 1 to be SDroggitis j/
filed in Central Files and PDR only JHornor, RIV/WCFO PDR (YES)
CHackney, RIV j^
KSchneider l
Texas File Part 20 Fi!6(wl,dEncloture 1)
DOCUMENT N ME: G CHM \\PART20iTEXAS.JHM v
+..nau.a
+,a n.
ec n m.4 ~ r.c %.. -.
w.m
-OSP l
. OULht f(FAD OOC OSP:D
(
OFFICE l
NAME JHMyers:gdVth CHMa$n PHLotiaus FXCam,eron RLBangart DATE
_ /10/e/97' 10/M97 10U/97 10/ /97 10/ /97 48 k FILF. CODE: SP AG-27 ar:d SP-P-1
~
-. ~. - - -... -. -. - - -. -
i t
3 UNITED STATES
.=
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I
- V waswineron, o.c. asess enei
. November 6,-1997J j
4
- 1 g
- Richard A. Ratliff, P.E., Chief.
Bureau of Radiation Contror
- Texas Department of Health
- 1100 West 49th Street Austin, TX 78756-3189 l
L Dear Mr. Ratliff;-
.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 j--
4 compatibility with 10 CFR Part 20. The review was conducted as a two step process. -The fut ;
- step involved a review by Oak Ridge National Laboratory (OrtNL), under contract with NRC, to.
identify any differences or inconsistencies between 10 CFR Part 20 and each Agreement State i
equivalent rule. A copy of the two volume ORNL report,' dated December 20; 1994,.
~ documenting its staff review of the Texas final 10 CFR 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 3
detailed review of the differences and inconsistencies identified by ORNL for compatibility and adequacy issues that should be 'orought to your attention for routine action.
The NRC review focused on those provisions of the Texas rule that are required for compatibility or for health and safety under the new adequacy and compatibility policy statement approved by the Commission by Staff Requirements Memorandum dated June 30, l 1997 (Enclosure 2 describes the new compatibility categories). The NRC review concluded that the Texas 10 CFR Part 20 equivalent ruie meets the compatibility and health and safety categories of the new policy.
.lf you have any questions regarding the compatibility criteria, the NRC regulations used in the review, or the Oak Ridge report, please contact me at (301) 415-2326 or James Myers of my staff at (301) 415-2328, or INTERNET: JHM@NRC. GOV..
Sincerely, IL f
i k'. \\
l I
Paul H. Lohaus, Deputy Director Office of State Programs l-
Enclosures:
[
. As stated R
!=
-4 J
Comontibility Cateoorv and H&S Identification 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 program element thould be essentially identical to that of NRC.
B=
Program element with significant direct transboundary implications. The State program clement should be essentially identical to that of NRC.
C=
Program element, the essential objectives of which should be ac' opted 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 Reguiations 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 l
maintain an adequate program.
l t
ENCLOSURE 2 l^
1 l1 J