ML20202J488
| ML20202J488 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/03/1997 |
| From: | Lohaus P NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| To: | Toppan W MAINE, STATE OF |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20202J493 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9712110170 | |
| Download: ML20202J488 (6) | |
Text
l g
f.. 0gk UNITED STATES 3"
i 0
}
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION p
WASHINGTON, D.C. 3066M001
,, [*... /
December 3, 1997 W. Clough Toppan, PE, Director Division of Health Engineering 10 State House Station Augusta, ME 04333
Dear Mr. Toppan:
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 equiva'ent rule. A copy of the two volume ORNL report, dated March 24,1995, documenting its staff review of the Maine final 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 immeilate attention, if there were none, NRC staff then conducted, as resources permitted, a detailed review of the differences and inconsistencies Wntified 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 rules that should be adopted in accordance with the new adequacy and compatibility policy statement approved by the Commission by Staff Requirements Memorandum dated June 30,1997 (Enclosure 2 describes the new compatibility categories). 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 two 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.
Within 45 days, we request that you respond in writing with information describing the actions you plan to take to address our comments. As you are aware, Agreement States have flexibility to adopt rules required for compatibikty or health and safety in the form of legally binding requirements other than regulations, This methodology may be appropriate to resolve some of the compatibility issues with Maine's regulations.
The compatibility concerns identified by this letter are specific to Maine's equivalent of 10 CFR Part 20. We would like to stress that these compatibility concems 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 Maine Agreement program will be made as part of the Integrated Materials y
Performance Evaluation Program.
C33 1 1 (j ta,d p 3
gents E C 52 Z 3 09PY N.6@Il,
<se e /
9712110170 971203 PDR STPRO ES a
t W. Clough Toppen 2
DEC 3 G7 Finally, implementation procedures for the new policy stateinent 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 Thomas J. O'Brien of my staff at (301) 415 2308, or INTERNET: TJO@NRC. GOV.
l Sincerely,
./
0 f
W fph D
m- >
Pau H. Lohaus Deputy Director Office of State Programs
Enclosures:
As stated
W. Clough Toppan 2,
DEC 31397i I
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 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 Thomas J. O'Brien of my staff at (301) 415 2308, or INTERNET: TJO@NRC. GOV.
Sincerely, OrtstralSened Dr.
MULH.LOHAUS Paul H. Lohaus, Deputy Director Office of State Programs
Enclosures:
As stated
'i i
~
g I
~
i c
~
+..
4 Distribution:
DIR RF (7S231)
DCD (SPOS)-Copies of Enclosure 1 to be SDroggitis filed in Central Files and PDR only
- DWhite, RI
- PDR (YES)
KSchneider Maine File Part 20 File (w/o Enclosure 1) caswS
= DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\TJO\\MAINEREV.LTR J
- See Previous Concurrence, to e.e.ive a eopy or this ooewr *. inmeme in the box: c = copy weavi en Mpowe r = copy we enachmenvenebswo T
- Nbpy OFFICE OSP
_.I fQ)M j l C$FKQl OGC l
OSP:E/ (p i
NAME TJO'Briehit9 Cl4Mhlpin PH0bhpus' FXCameron RLBangart'
DATE 11/(i/97 11/ S /97 11/(1 97 11/15/97*
1)/t3/97
/
OSP FILE CODE: SP AG 13. SP-P-1
l W. Clough Toppan 2-y Finally, implementation procedures for the new policy statement provide g dance that indicates Agreement State rules that are not currently consistent with the new com atibility category designations should conform with the new policy not later than 3 years a.or the policy's effective date.
If you have any questions regarding these comments, the compa;ibi ' y criteria, the NRC regulations used in the review, or the Oak Ridge report, please co act me at (301) 415 2326 or Thomas J. O'Brien of my staff at (301) 415 2308, or INTERNET: J0@NRC. GOV.
Sincerely, Paul. Lohaus, Deputy Director Offi of State Programs
Enclosures:
As stated Distribution:
DIR RF (7S231)
DCD (SP05)-Copies of Enclosure 1 to be SDroggitis filed in Central Files and PDR only DWhite, RI PDR (YES)
KSchneider Maine File Part 20 File (wlo Encio re 1)
DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\TJO\\M INEREV.LTR J
(
boc v = c= wan en bd/bwe r = c=
- n n.cnmenvenew. v = wo em n e.cw.. em et m secu n.nuneem. %
OFFICE OSP
_,1
/ /Q) Ul CSFKQl
\\OGC 'l OSP:D L
I NAME TJO' Brie 6)@ / CRMbyin PH0bhe'us' FXCameron RLBangart DATE 11/(i197
/
11/ @ /97 11/ b /97 11/ / V97 11/ /97 OSP FILE CODE: SP-AG-13, SP P-1
~
Comp **1bility Cateaorv and H&S Identificatjna for NRC Reaulations Key to categories:
A=
Basic radiation protection standard or related definitions, signs, labels or terms necessary for a common understanding of I
radiation protection principles. The State program element should be essentially identical to that of NRC.
B=
Program siement with significant direct transboundary implications. The State program element should be essentially identical to that of NRC.
C=
Program element, the essential objectives of which abuld 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 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 maintain an adequate program.
ENCLOSURE 2
G NRC Comments on the State of Maine Rules CMR 200, Parts A and D, for Co/npatibility or Health and
&afety State NRC Cateoory Regulation Regulation Subject and Comments A
A.2(92) 20.1004 Maine states that a 1 rem dose is equal to 1.4 E7 neutrons / square centimeter incident upon the body. This differs from the 2.5 E7 neutrons / square centimeter value in 10 CFR 20.1004(c), and also conflicts with Maine section A.13.A(5),
l The CFR value should be used in the i
Maine definition for rem to assure compatibility.
l A
A.2(81) 20.1003 The Maine definition for ' radiation' area" i
does not indicate the distance et which the dose could be received by an individual.
The CFR equivalent definition specifies a distance of 30 centimeters. This distance specification should be added to the Maine definition to assure compatibikty.
Maine also adds a restriction that the dose cannot exceed 100 m!!lirems in any 5 consecutive days. As there is no CFR equivalent, this restriction should be deleted to assure compatibility.
ENCLOSURE 3 2
____