ML20199E276
| ML20199E276 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/18/1997 |
| From: | Lance Rakovan NRC |
| To: | Salomon S NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20199E212 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9802020119 | |
| Download: ML20199E276 (6) | |
Text
,
hj-4 Froms Lance Rakovan Tot ans Date 12/10/97 3:04pm subjects Utah Part 61 steve--
I have completed my review of_the Utah Part 61 regulations amendments and have found no incompatibilities with the proposed amendments.
I did, however,-notice a few other problems. The sections in the attached listing may be located in a different section of the Utah regulations, but I could not find them in R313-25.
Let me know if you have any questions.
-Lance 9902020119 990126 PDR STPRO ESOUTPOR,.
r_
f[&[Cjf Please refer o the followin Utah rule itiations:
R313-18 10 (3) for 61.9(b) l's e
CW O Mt M g
f R313-19 35(5) for 61.24 (k) (1) w C f y
'j R313-15 1004 1) for 61.55 \\/ jar,ie c let ssi f cad /oh IbV b
I R313-15-10
- 12) for 61.56 14 C h Ayo -
b[
R313-15-10 8 (3) for 61.57 dhc( 7 ays
.t Y )dl/t "
l g g
The reference for " Waste" in R313-25-2 is the Utah Radiation Control Act, our enabeling statute. We have an incorrect reference in the rule because it directs the reader to the Utah Administrative Code (R313) rather than to the Act found in the Utah Code Annotated.
It appears that you need to check the definition of waste, so I hope information this helps.
If OSP needs another copy of the Act, please let me know, obviously, we have a correction to make and I thank you for the comment, i
Thanks for considering this information.
I hope to receive the final response before the 15th of Jan.
- Thanks, Craig u
i CC:
GATED ntcomtp("DFINERPRadeq. state.ut.us","BSINCLAI...
l f'
l
.b
Frome Craig Jones ccjonessdeq. state.ut.us>
To:
WND1.WNP9(SNS)
Date 1/7/98 12:36pm subject:
Re: Preliminary results of OSP review of UT rego Hi Steve, Thanks for the e-mail on the preliminary results of the OSP review on our rulemaking action.
I'm providing an answer to each comment. My answers are in the same sequence as your comments.
I believe that some of my answers will negate the need for certain comments. Here we go:
Medical Rules R313-32 1.
This connent will be fine if it appears in the final statement from OSP.
I believe that "a" reads better than "another."
So, we will propose that the correction be handled in our process by what is called a "nonsubstantive change."
2.
This comment is also OK.
We made at typo.
I will also propose that it be fixed as a nonsubstantive change.
3.
I hope you will consider removing this comment.
I will argue that our rule should stay as it is written. As I recall, the numerical equivalent of 0.001 uCi is 2200 dpm, so this is part of the reason we want to keep 2200. We also based the use of this number upon the data found in Table 2 of Reg Guide 8.23.
We have provided this guide and similar information to our licensees. We also feel that as a Category D, H&S item, our rule meets the essential health and safety objectives.
General Provisions R313-12 1.
I wonder if this isn't essentially equivalent as it exists. We did not change the word "an" to "any" because there is a rulemaking style manual published by the State agency in charge of Utah rulemaking actions. The style manual discourages the use of "any" because it may cause ambiguity. The agency recommends that rulewriters use the singular articles "a,"
"an," and "the" anstead of "any" or "each."
The use of "any" is to be limited to cases where the rule is granting a right, privilege, or power. This issue has been discussed with others in OSP.
I recall providing a copy of our style manual to Kathy or Dennis (Nov 1993 edition, page 39).
Would I be correct in believing the followitig arguments because this word style issue was looked at in the past and similar rules were allowed to stay unchanged, this rule is essentially equivalent?
Let me know if this is a significant deviation from a Category A regulation.
2.
The use of " technology" will be spelled correctly.
LLW Land Disposal R313-25 t.
I believe that each regulation you listed has an equivalent Utah rule.
, U%) F AD CONTFOL 10:801-533-4097 1 At4 08'90 17:00 No O,0,6 P.02 a
R31319 34. Terms und Conditions of Lleenses.
(1)
Licenses issued pursuant to R31319 shall be subject to provisions of the Act, now or hereafter in effect, and to all rules, and orders of the Executive Secretary.
(2)
Licenses issued or granted under R313-21 and R313 22 and rights to possess or utilize radioactive material granted by a license issued pursuant to R313 21 and R313 22 shall not be transferred, assigned, or in any manner disposed of, either voluntarily or uvoluntatily, directly or indirectly, through transfer of control of a license to a person unicas the Executive Secittary shall, after securing fu!!
information find that the transfer is in accordance with the provisions of the Act now or hereafter in efftet, and to all rules, and orders of the !!xecutive Secretary, and shall give bis consent in writing.
(3)
Persons licensed by the Executive Secretary puisuant to R313 21 and R313 22 shall confine use and possession of the material licensed to the locations and purposes authorized in the license.
(4)
Licensees shall notify the Executive Secretary in writing and request tenninntion of the license when the licensee decides to terminate activities involving rnaterials authorized under the license.
'(5)
Licensees shall notify the lhecutive Secretary in writing immediately following the niing o a voluntary or involuntary petition for bankruptcy under any Chapter r
of Title 11, Dankruptcy, of the United States Code by or against:
(a) the licensee; h
(b) an entity, as that term is defined in 11 U.S.C.101(14), controlling the licensee or listhig the license or licensee as property of the estate; or (c) an affiliate, as that term is defined in i1 U.S.C.101(2), of the licensee.
(6)
The notincation specified in R313-19-34(5) shall indicate:
(a) the bankruptcy court in which the petition for bankruptcy was filed; and (b) the date of the filing of the petition.
(7)
Licensees required to submit emergency plans pursuant to R313 22-32(8) shall follow the emergency plan approved by the Executive Secretary. The licensee may change the approved plan without the Executive Secretary's approval only if the changes do not decrease the elfcctiveness of the plan. The licensee shall furnish the change to the Executive Secretary and to affected off-site response organizations within six months after the change is made. Proposed changes that decrease, or potentially decrease, the effectiveness of the approved emergency plan Rev. 6/95 19 13 J
-.il,irgh[i Clulii f RT ~ ~' ~ ~~ ((T: (o jl e is j og~j ~~~
'~jfh ~g[. gg 3g,.r9 No.006. P.01
~
1 i
FAX DNIE:
llME:
PAGES:
I-6i7
.{-
TO: 5,1.gku b.-utwm_.._ _. OM:L <w FR i
t one.t IJRc-Osp
/*p} St te of Utah
$f @/k Departrnant of EnvironrnentalOu 6,K ' Divit,lon of flediation Control f,.A A h-h ).)
f,,
I.
100 North 19$0 West u......,u u.,, so u... civ.v e e m.
(hAhnu H. Melto.n, f I t o,ew e (n.ene, (601).*>33 4097 f 4X j
WlH'bm.1, b (001,'>30 4414 f t)t) 1 k 3 \\ 3 -
} C) ' 3 Q (ls)
COMMrNTS
..NMN ^
1 6
6
-**<"a**
- - - = *
- e'"
I w.
be.u'=
l
\\
g, N6 h
-,-.-x- - - - - -.
a UTAk PART 61 REGULATIONS These sections appear to be missing from the Utah Part 61 regulations:
NRQ Ijilt Compatibility Cateoorv Df 61.9(b)
Deliberate Misconduct C*
' 61.24(k)(1)
Conditions of Licenses D H&S*
b hk N c7[)
61.55 Waste Classification B
\\' ' )
4 1
l J
61.56 Waste Characteristics D H&S
/h.57
(
Labeling D H&S /
[] \\{4 petibihty category
/
'3 Also, the definition of *acive maintenance" an incorrect reference. The performance objectives are listed in R313-25 20 and 21, not R313-25-19 and 20.
$*