ML20199D824
| ML20199D824 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/06/1997 |
| From: | Lohaus P NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| To: | Flater D IOWA, STATE OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9711210009 | |
| Download: ML20199D824 (6) | |
Text
. .
Mr. Donald Fl:t~r, Chtf Burzu of Radiological H:alth NOV 0 6 E97 lowa Deparcment of Public Health Lucas State Office Building Des Moines, IA 50319-0075
Dear Mr. Flater:
We appreciate the responsiveness of your letter of September 18,1997 addressing our letter !
dated July 30,1997. We agree with a number of your comments. The following additional information is offered as background to our July 30 comment regarding the definition of
" Occupational dose." ,
We agree that we should have considered the new definition of " Occupational dose" adopted i
in your rules effective on October 9,1996, when developing the comment provided with our
- July 30,1997 letter. However, a search of our files did not dit: lose that a copy of the Iowa rules effective on October 9,1996 were received by NRC. Agreement States were requested in the All Agreement States Letter SP-96-027,"Recuest to Hichtight Chances to Aareement State .
Regulations Submitted to NRC for Comoatibility Review" (March 1,1996) to provide a copy of . .
each rule adopted when the rule becomes effective and is published.
We did find a copy of your " Radiation Machines and Radioactive Materials Rules," dated January 1,1994. We noted, on page 38 - 3 (dated 10/13/93), that the definition of
" Occupational dose" contained and omitted the same phrases as noted in the Oak Ridge National Laboratory report.
As you noted, the 1996 Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) review team report stated that the lowa regulations were compatible with those of NRC. The team did not, however, conduct a detailed review of the Iowa regulations. Under the IMPEP process, the review team usually depends on the previous reviews by NRC staff of State regulations adopted during the review period as a basis to establish that the State rules meet the 9, appropriate compatibility criteria for the category designation. Also, the effective date,
% October 9,1996 of your current " Occupational dose" definition was outside the IMPEP review c1 period (December 1993 through March 1996).
C3 M We believe that our revised procedure D.7 for the review of State regulations (a copy of which k4 was sent to you for comment), combined with a computer tracking system currently under hj development, will help to eliminate these types of issues from occurring in the future. If you
[;j have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at (301) 415-2326 or Mr. Richard 73 Blanton of my staff at (301) 415-2322 or INTERNET: RLB@NRC. GOV.
7> Sincerely, C 9711210009 971106 JDR O bM STPRG ESGIA PAULH.LOHAUS f,ls1 PDR Paul H. Lohaus, Deputy Director i hj Office of State Programs Dilidbution l DIR RF (7S262) . , c. , - 3 DCD (SP07)
SDroggitis e PDR (YESJ._ NO )
lowa File DOCUMENT NAME: G:\RLB\FLATER4.WPD *See Previous Concurrence. 4 m.c.ev. . com orini. accum.nunece in in. i>oc c cm mout amenmanancas. r cm w,tn enenmene.ncio.ww r No copy OFFICE OSP OSP:DD l OGC l OSP:DH J/ l NAME RLBlanton:nb/gd PHLohaus FXCameron RLBangartlWQ DATE 10/20/97
- 10/24/97* 11/05 /97* 11/M/97 l
. Mr. Donald Flater, Chtf Bureau of Radiological Health lowa Department of Public Hedth Lucas State Office Building Des Moines, IA 50319-0075
Dear Mr. Flater:
We appreciate the responsiveness of your letter of September 18,1997 addressin our letter dated July 30,1997. We agree with a number of your comments. The following ddiilonal information is offered as background to our July 30 comment regarding tne defi ion of
- Occupational dose."
We agree that we abould have considered the new definition of "tupational dose
- adopted in your rules effective on October 9,1996, when developing the coinmcqt frovided with our
. July 30,1997 letter. However, a search of our files did not disclose that copy of the Iowa rules effective on October 9,1996 were received by NRC. Agreement tates were requested in the All Agreement States Letter SP 96-027,'Reauest to Hiahlicht Chanoes to Aareement State Regulations Submitted to NRC for Comoatibility Review" (March 1,1996) to provide a copy of each rule adopted when the rule becomes effective and is publis d.
We did find a copy of your ' Radiation Machines and Radioact)ve Materials Rules," dated January 1,1994. We noted, on page 38 - 3 (dated 10/13/9
- Occupational docs' contained and omittedesthe same as noted phrOak in the s%, that Pidge the definition o National Laboratory report.
As you noted, the 1996 Integrated Materials Performan/ce Evaluation Program (IMPEP) review team report stated that the Iowa regulations were c,o'mpatible with those of NRC. The team did not, however, conduct a detailed review of the lows regulations. Under the IMPEP process, the review team usually depends on the previou,s' reviews by NRC staff of State regulations adopted during the review period as a basis to establish that the State rules meet the appropriate compatibility criteria for the category designation. Also, the effective date, October 9,1996 of your current "Occupatiohal dose
- definition was outside the IMPEP review period (December 1993 through March 1996).
/
We believe that our revised procedure'D.7 for the review of State regulations (a copy of which was sent to you for comment), com,bl'ned tvith a computer tracking system currently under development, will help to eliminate these types of issues from occurring in the future. If you have any questions regarding thiiletter, please contact me at (301) 415-2326 or Mr. Richard Blanton of my staff at (301) 415 2322 or INTERNET: RLB@NRC. GOV.
Sincerely, Paul H. Lohaus, Deputy Director Office of State Programs Distribution:
DIR RF (7S262) DCD (SP07)
SDroggitis J PDR (YES.f_ NO )
lowa File ) .,
DOCUMENT NAME: G: LB\FLATER4.WPD - *S Pr as C ncurrence.
n , ... .,e m i.ee i m.i,o c c c w . e m. vee cc , w .-- v wg OFFICE OSP OSP:DD \\ OGC OSP:D l NAME RLBlanton:nb/gd PHLohaus FXdameron RLBangart DATE /10/20/97
- 10/24/97* JD! 07- 10/ /97
/
. .. ,/
Mr. Donald Flater, Chief / 1 Bure:u of Radiologic:1 He:lth /
lowa Department of Public Health j/
Lucas State Office Building /
3 Des Moines, IA 50319-0075 /
Dear Mr. Flater:
We appreciate the responsiveness of your letter of September 18,1997 addressing ' r letter
/
dated July 30,1997. We agree with a number of your comments. Thf followirig anonal arding the definition of information
' Occupational dose." is offered as background to our July 30th comment reg /
/
We agree that we should have considered the new definition of ' Occupational dose" adopted
~ in your rules effective on October 9,1996, when developing the' comment orovided with our July 30,1997 letter. However, a search of our files did not dis 6 lose that a copy of the towa rules effective on October 9,1996 were received by NRC. Agreement States were requested in the All Agreement States Letter SP-96-027, *Reauest to Hiablicht Chanaes to Aareement State Reculations Submitted to NRC for Comoatibility Review" (March 1,1996) to provide a copy of .
each rule adopted when the rule becomes effectivc and is' published.
/
We did find a copy of your ' Radiation Machines and Ra'dioactive Materials Rules," dated January 1 1994. We noted, on page 38 - 3 (dated 19/13/93), that the definition of
- Occupational dose
- contained and omitted the same phrases as noted in the Oak Ridge National Laboraotry report.
/
/
As you noted, the 1996 (Integrated materilas Pepormance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) review team report stated that the Iowa regulations weJe compatible with those of NRC. The team did not, however, conduct a detailed review of the the review team usually depends on thebyprev)'o/owa us reviews NRC staff of Stateregulations. regulations Under the adopted during the review period as a basisj to establish that thia Stato rules meet the appropriate compatibility criteria for the category designation. Also, the effective date, October 9,1996 of your current ' Occupational dose' definition was outside the IMPEP review period (December 1993 through March 996).
We believe that our revised procedureD.7 for the review of State regulations (a copy of which was sent to you for comment), combjried with a computer tracking system currently under development, will help to eliminate tpese types of issues from occurring in the future if you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at (301) 415-2326 or Mr. Richard Blanton of my staff at (301) 415-2322 or INTERNET: RLB@NRC. GOV.
' Sincerely, Paul H. Lohaus, Deputy Director Office of State Programs Distribution:
DIR RF (7S262) DCD (SP07)
SDroggitis PDR (YES_f_, NO._)
Iowa File ,
DOCUMENT NAME: G:\RLB\FLATER . 3 D *See Previous Concurrence.
72 receive a copo of thls document. Indicate in the tion: * .= W ethout attachment / enclosure "E" = Copv vnth attachment / enclosure, 'N" = No copy OFFICE OSP / QSFi@ l OGC OSP:D NAME RLBlanton:nb/gd / PHLbhaus ' FXCameron RLBangart l DATE 10/20/97 * / 10fM/97 10/ /97 10/ /97 i
Mr. Don:Id FI;t:r, Chtf Bureau of Radiological Health lowa Department of Public Health Lucas State Office Buik"ng Des Moines, IA 50319-0075 -
Dear Mr. Flater:
Thank you for your letter of September 18,1997 responding to our letter date July 30,1997.
We agree with a numbe: of your comments.
However, with respect to the matter in Enclosure 3 to our letter, some djscussion is in order.
First, we had previously received a copy of your " Radiation Machinesjrhd Radioactive Materials Rules," dated January 1,1994. We note, on page 38 - 3 (dated 10/ 3/93), that the definition of
" Occupational dose" contains and omits the same phrases noted in)the ORNL repo this definition was not consistent with the 10 CFR 20.1003 defin' on of " Occupational dose' in effect on January 1,1994, the date by which the Agreements ates were expected to implement the new Part 20 rules-As you noted, the 1996 IMPEP review team report stated that the Iowa regulations were compatible with those of NRC. The team did not, how[er, conduct a deta;!ed review of the Iowa regulations. Under the IMPEP process, the reytew teams useally depend on the previous reviews by NRC staff of State regulations adopted,during the review period as a basis to stablish that the State rules meet the appropride compatibility criteria for the category designation. Furthermore, the effective date, ' ctober 9,1996, of your current " Occupational dose
- definnion was outside the IMPEP revi period (December 1993 through March 1996).
We believe that the new definition shout have been considered when developing the comment provided with our July 30,1997, letter. owever, a search of our files fails to disclose that the lowa rules effective on October 9,1 6, were received and reviewed by NRC. Agreement States were requested in the All Aj;rteement States Letter SP-96-027,"Recuest to Hiahliabt Changes to Aareement State Redulations Submit *ed to NRC for Comoatibility Review" (March 1,1996) to provide a cp6y of each rule adopted when the rule becomes effective and is published.
If you have any further qi. stions regarding this letter, the compatibility criteria, the NRC regulations, or the Oak idge report, please contact me at (301) 415-2326 or Mr. Richard Blanton of my staff at 301) 415-2322 or INTERNET: RLB@NRC. GOV.
Sincerely, Paul H. Lohaus, Deputy Director
. Office of State Programs Distrib Jon:
DIR RN (7S262) DCD (SP07)
SQroggitis PDR (YESf_ NO )
lowa File DOCUMI IT NAME: G:\RLB\FLATER3.WPD n r.c . . cop 4 or ini accum.ni. indic.i. in in, con: c . copy -inout .tt.cnmonie.nce ur. e . c<my tn .et.cnm.ne.nciosur. u . no cony OFFICE OSD , C OSP:DD l OGC' OSP:D l NAME RLBlanton:rQT) PHLohaus FXCameron RLBangart DATE 10h()/9%W 10/ /97 10/ /97 10/ /97~
. .=.
p* *%q l
I
=
g , .k' UNITE 3 STATES y
NUCLEAR RET.ULATORY CIMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 30AAH001 l- November 6, 1997 Mr. Donald Fla%r, Chief Bureau of Radiological Health l lowa Department of Public Health .
l Lucas State Office Euilding l Des Moines, IA 50319-0075 ,
l
Dear Mr. Flater:
We appreciate the responsiveness of your letter of September 18,1997 addressing our letter dated July 30,1997. We agree with a number of your comments. The following additional information is offered as background to our July 30 comment i 9arding the definition of
" Occupational dose."
We agree that we should have considered the new definition of ' Occupational dvse" adopted in your rules effective on October 9,1996, when developing the comment provided with our July 30,1997 letter, However, a search of our files did not disclose that a copy of the !owa rules effective on October 9,1996 were received by NRC. Agreement States were requested in the All Agraement States Letter SP-96-027,'rteauest to Hiahlicht Chances to Aareement State Reoulations submitted to NRC for Comoatibility Reyjaw" (March 1,1996) to provide a copy of each rule adopted when the rule becomes effective and is published.
We did find a copy ol your " Radiation Machines and Radioactive Materials Rules,' dated January 1,1994. We noted, on page 38 - 3 (dated 10/13/93), that the definition of
' Occupational dose" contal%d and omitted the same phrases as noted in the Oak Ridge National Laboratory report.
As you noted, the 1996 Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) review team report stated that the lowa regulations were compatible with those of NRC. The team did hot, however, conduct a detailed review of the lowa regulations. Under the IMPEP process, the review team usually depends on the previous reviews by NRC staff of State regulations adopted during the review period as a basis to establish that the State rules meet the appropriate compatibility criteria for the category desir, nation. Also, the effective date, October 9,1996 of your current ' Occupational dose" definition was outside the IMPEP review period (December 1993 through March 1996).
We believe that our revised procedure D.7 for the review of State regulations (a copy of which
'was sent to you for comment), combined with a computer tracking system currently under development, will help to eliminate these types of issues from occurring in the future, if you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at (301) 415-2326 or Mr. Richard Blanton of my staff at (301) 415-2322 or INTERNET: RLB@NRC. GOV.
haul H. Lohaus, Deputy Director Office of State Programs
. . gav a ML c c/P1 j__A b(h I Sf * ,
EXECUTIVE TASK MANAGEMENT SYSTEM-
......... .... .......... ~~~~~~
<<< PRINT SCREEN UPDATE FORM >:>- l
- s TASK..
- - 7S262 --- ;-- ;- - DATE - 10 / 0 3 / 9 7 """"""""" - -
~~~ .
CTRL.
- 1997
?^SE 8?ARTEg - 10/03/97' {AS{,gUE - 10/16/97 TASK COMPLETED -
//
TASK DESCRIPTION ...
- LTR TO PLOHAUS FROM D. FLATER RE PART 20 REVIEW OF REGULATIONS REQUESTING OFF.. -
IA REQUESTER - FLATER W TS - O lrP - N
. . . ~~~ . . . ~~~ ~~.
PROG.- .
-~~
PROG, AREA -
PROJECT STATUS -
OSP DUE DATE: 10/16/97 PLANNED ACC. -N LEVEL CODE - 1 c
% .fj '
r f i n f ".. g ry sJ
. g, .
!W y,.hg ,
i; H'
- (3. c c e y f,n[ c4s'-
it-
, 4,..
gn ,
$ g( in , a4 pf ? 0 d
1 (l#
(,;c, ,6 y 3 N
JCM W 04) 8LB&
,* 1 ##L
^ ^4 6CD
- r,T ATE Or -
I ; A CHl) n TERRY E. BRANSTAD GOVERNOH DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH CHRISTOPHER G. ATCHISO% DiarcTom September 18,1997 /
(a-ALF 5 Paul H. Lohaus, Deputy Director 5 I
Office of State Programs rv T' '
gp US Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike,3"' Floor
[c p /, (
f' F s c-Rocksille,MD 20852 re- OS7 k [ baM
Dear Mr. Lohaus:
jvsf[{
pr /* jh My staff and I have completed the labor intensive task of reviewing your letter dated July 30, 1997, and its enclosures, " Final Regulatory Review Report for Iowa Code Chapter 136C, Public [D Health Regulations Section 641, Chapters 38 and 40 for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of State Programs." Enclosures 1 and 2 of your letter were the comparison of the 1994
/fy lowa Department of Public Health (IDPH) " Radioactive Machines and Radioactive Materials Rules" with the Conference of Radiation Control Program Director's (CRCPD)" Suggested State Regulations for Control of Radiation" and 10 CFR Part 20. I would commend the authors for what obviously was a laborious task. The report identified four typographical errors, one editorial errors and one issue that requires clarification. However, many of the so-called inconsistencies have disappeared as a result of subsequent revisions to our rules, the SSR and Part 20. Additionally, many other items are simply not matters of compatibility.
Enclosure 1 "the summary"-addressed three " major points," which are conurents of general applicability in comparing our rules to the SSR and Part 20. I will comment on each one, but focus on Point 3 first since it is the most important.
- Point 3, in general, concemed inconsistencies in Iowa's adopting the SSR footnotes. The overall tone of this point, and the report as a whole, is that the SSR is a regulatory document and contains requirements which must be either met or adopted by a state. As the name implies, die SSR is a succested set of state regulations. A state may choose to adopt some, all or none of what the CRCPD suggests. Inconsistency with the SSR does not imply a dericiency in a state's regulatory requirements. Unless there is an obvious, derived benefit, or there is an item of required compatibility, we are taking no action on those items that are " inconsistent with the SSR."
sP ,% - /5 1
LUCAS STATE OFFICE DUILDING / DES MOINES. IOWA 5031 C _075 / 515-281-5787 4P-9-/
FAX # (515) 2814958 / TOD DEAF SERVICES #(515) 242-6156 i9 O h ~2.,Dk ,
e Point 1 is an example of the problem with the report; i.e., it is an intercomparison of documents all of which have been revised since 1994. The report states that IDPH rules omit the definition of " controlled area." Although this omission made the 1994 rules inconsistent with the SSR and Part 20, only Part 20 currently has that definition. Additionally, this definition is now classified as category D and is not an item of compatibility.
Furthermore, when compatibility is not involved, states have the capacity to consciously deviate from Part 20 and the SSR to adopt wording that meets the state's needs.
. Point 2 discusse. " registered" sources of radioactive material. IDPH rules do not include such language because radioactive materials in this state are either specifically or genenlly licensed. In Iowa, mdioactive sources are not registered.
They are licensed.
Of greatest concem, however, is the determination in Enclosure 3 of your letter that there is an item of required compstibility in the definition of" occupational dose." Considering that the comparison between Part 20 and our rules was completed almost three years ago, it seems strange that this item was mentiened without any attempt to determine its current relevance. The IMPEP Review Team determined in 1224 that Iowa's program was adequate and compatible.
As a matter of fact, both lowa rhs and Part 20 contained identical definitions until November, 1996, when we changed the definition of" occupational dose" to reflect the definition now in Part
- 20. The effective date for the CFR revision was May 29,1997. These two sets of requirements are once again identical.
Table I is a list ofitems we intend to address in our next rule changing process.
TABLEI M i.
20.1003 l Sec. A.2 641-38.3 Activity-IDPH uses "bg" and "ci" 1DPHwillchx:ge the abbreviationfor becquereland curie to Bq andCl, respectively l 20.1801 Sec, D.861 641-40.55 Security ofStoredmaterial-l lDPHrules will be changed to reflect SSRCR language.
20.1802 l Sec. D.802 641-40.56 j Sr city ofStored material-l l , sin zirules will be changed to l 2 l
. . . - . _ . . . . . -- . =- - _ - -. ... - - - _ _ - _ - - - . - . .
-' l reflect SSRCR language l l l l TABLE I (cont'd) i Appendix B to Appendix B to Appendix B to Note 2. /DPlidoes repeat a 20.2001 - Part D Chapter 40 paragraph. H'e wl.'ldelete the 20.2402 repetition.
Note 4. H'e will add the units "m!"
Sec. A.2 641-38.2 and 40.3 Item 46. Theformula in IDPil Definitions rules willbe corrected.
I'mally, I must indicate to you that this letter is the result of approximately forty staff hours.
Although the document you sent us helped us to identify five items that we will change. The time expenditure in reviewing a three year old document, and discarding the non-applicable comments, far outweighed the benefit from identifying the minor errors.
If you have any questions concerning this materi al, please contact me or Daniel K. McGhee at (515) 281-7007, or George F. Johns, Jr. at (515) 2 .6280.
Sincerely, b d Donald A.Flater, Chief Bureau of Radiological Health (515)281-3438
, 3
-