ML20202J681
| ML20202J681 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/24/1997 |
| From: | Lohaus P NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| To: | Passetti W FLORIDA, STATE OF |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20202J686 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9712110216 | |
| Download: ML20202J681 (7) | |
Text
'
4 e nso
% UNITED STATES g j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
}
$ WASHINGTON, D.C. Sue 66-4001
(
% # November 24, 1997 g j q l C
k kq Mr. William A. Passetti, Chief Bureau of Radiation Control Florida Depai.;nent of Health l 1317 Wnwood Boulevard
, di Tallahassee, FL 323g94700 '
4
[
J
- i
Dear Mr. Passetti:
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 ccmpatibility with 10 CFR Part 20. The review was conducted as a two step process. The first step involved a review by Oak 'lidge National Laboratory (ORNL), under contnnet 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 September 19,1994, documenting its staff review of the Florida final Part 20 equivalent rule is enclosed for your 1 information and use (Enclosure 1). NRC staff first evaluated the ORNL report to determine if r il any potentially significant health and safety issues were identified that required immediate
~
l l
attention. If there were none, NRC staff then conducted, as resources permitted, a detailed , I review of the differences and inconsistencies identified by ORNL fo, compatibility and adequacy issues that should be brought to your attention for routine action. ]g 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 h l 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 I your rule, as noted in Enclosure 3, that are not consistent with the 10 CFR Part 20 compatibility J category designations under the neN procedures.
] J Within 45 days, we request that you respond in writing with information describing the actions you plan to take to adcress our comments. As you are aware, Agreement States have flexibility { i to adopt rules required for compatibility or health and safety in the form of legally binding $
requirements other than regulaticns. This methodology may be appropriate to resolve some of the compatibility issues with Florida's regulations.
3 The compatibility concerns identified by this letter are specific to Florida's equivalent of i 10 CFR Part 20. We would like to stress that these compctibility concerns are not necessarily an indication that the State's overall program is incompatible with NRC's program. Rather, this i i regulation review identifies an area that needs to be addressed by the State which, if not addressed, could potentially lead to an incompatible program. The overall compatibility g
\
]
q determination of the Florida Agreement program will be made as part of the Integrated I l Materials Pe ormance Evaluation Program. I i1UE !
,__ . Z g %,h . ! .ff/ffjfj 9712110216 971124 '
}(
4 4
Mr. Williani A. Passetti 50V 2 41997 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 !ater than 3 years after the policy's effective date.
If you have any questions regarding these comments, the compatibility criteria, the NRC regulations used !n the review, or the Oak Ridge report, please contact me at (301) 415-2326 or Lance Rakovan of my staff at (301)415-2589 or INTERNET: LJR2@NRC. GOV.
S' rely, f
9%
ulON 'y H. Lohaus,& vAM2]
Ddputy Director Office of State Programs
Enclosures:
As s'ated
Mr. William A. Passetti .NOV .2 4 1997 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 Lance Rakovan of my staff at (301)415 2389 or INTERNET: LJR2@NRC. GOV.
Sincerely,$ned OdginalS By:
PAULH.LOHAUS Paul H. Lohaus. Deputy Director Office of State Programs
Enclosures:
As stated l
l l
Distribution:
l DIR RF (7S235) DCD (SP06)-Copies of Enclosure 1 to be SDroggitis _ filed in Central Files and PDR only RWoodruff, Ril PDR (YES)
~
l KSchneider Florida File Part 20 File (w/o Enclosure 1)
DOCUMENT NAME: G:\LJR\20FL.LTR *See previous concurrence.
To r.c.ev. . con or inis docum.nt. indic.t. in in. ac x: c con -mout att[ 4deio.ur. r Cow wm attr.nmente C$f jf t)p l OFFICE OSP flE M3)lf l OGC l OSP % l l l NAMF. LJRakovafr15 _ CbSVugin PHLdtLds FXCameron RLB;rBcJaff
[
DATE 10/8 /97 10/c7l/97 10E/.197 11/03/9P 11P/97 ~
l OSP FILE CODE: SP-AG-6 ,'SP-P-1 l
l
Mr. Jerrctt Lyle . Finally, implementation procedures for the new policy statement provide guid nce that indicates Agreement State rules that are not currently consistent with the new compa 'lity category
- designations should conform with the new policy not later than 3 years aft the policy's e#ective date.
i
- If you have any questions regarding these comments, the compatibility riteria, the NRC
,- f regulations used in the review, or the Oak Ridge report, please conta . me at (301) 415 2326 or .
- Lance Rakovan of my stan at (301)415-258g or INTERNET
- LJR2@ RC. GOV. ,
t
- Sincerely, I
Paul H. Lo aus, Deputy Director j- Office of ' tate Programs t
Enclosures:
- As stated ;
t n
4 1
l i
i i
4
{1 i
i b
i
- Distnbution-i: DIR RF (7S235) ' CD (SP06)-Copies of Enclosure 1 to be F SDroggitis filed in Central Files and PDR only
] RWoodruff, Ril PDR (YES) 1 KSchneider i Florida File Part 20 File (w/o Enclo ure 1) i DOCUMENT NAME: G:\LJR\2 FL.LTR j te . w e mi. e . inme.= menou c c m .coui.r,O. f A+-. : -
N/
.es . cam.nv o== w wo ce
[ OFFICE OSP-f lE/ M l MD l 093 1 f OSP:D l l 4 NAME LJRakovafr15 / Ctdiffiusn PHL @ s FXCameron - RLBangart j DATE 10/ze /97 / 10/2 /97 10fi/97 10/ /97 10/ /97
., _ . , , _ . . -~_
l 2
Comoatibility Cateoorv and H&S Identific.ation for NRC Raoulations i
Ksy to categories: A= Basic radiation protection standard or related definitions, signs. labels or terms necessary for a common
. understanding of radiation protection principles. - The i
State program element should be essentially ldentical to I
that of NRC.
B= Program element with significant direct transboundary implications. The State program element should be essentially ider.tical to that of NRC.
C= Program elemont, the essential objectives of which should be ado'>ted by the State to avoid conflicts, duplications o gaps. The manner in which the essential >
objectives are addressed need not be the same as NRC l provided the assential objectives are mot.
- D= Not required for purposes of compatibility.
i
-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.
l 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.
J e
2 i
j l ENCLOSURE 2
n NRC Comments on the Florida Regulations for Control of Radiation Hazards, Required for Compatibility or Health and Safety State NRC Cateaorv Regulation Regulation Subiect and Comments A 10D-91.102(66) 20.1003 Definition of Occupational dose.
The Florida regulation contains the phrase "while engaged in activitiet licensed or registered by the department." This phrase is not consistent with 10 CFR Part 20.10 CFR Part 20 provides, " exposure to radiation and/or radioactive material from
'icensed and unlicensed sources of radiation." The Florida language narrows the scope of this definition and excludes doses received from unlicensed materials as we!! t.s by individuals engaged in activities not licensed by the state, A 10.D91.435(2) 20.1201 Occupational Dose Limits for Adults.
Since Florida defines the term " planned special exposure," a " planned special exposure" and a
" planned exposure" are not equivalent, yet Florida regulations use the terms equivalently. Also, the SSR uses the limits for planned special exposures that an individual *may receive" while Florida uses the limits for planned special exposures that an individual actually " receives." This could be a potential problem from a health physics standpoint.
To be compatible, the section shvald follow he wording in 10 CFR 20.1201.
ENCLOSURE 3 3MY
I l
l I
EKEC'.!?IVE
-- . -- TASK
~~~~ MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
-~~ . --~~~~ . .
<<< PRINT SCREEN UPDATE FORM >>>
I TASK # - 7S235
, DATE- 09/08/97 M yki MAIL CTRL. - 1997 TASK
~~ -~~~~~ .
STARTED - 09/08/97 TASK
~~~~~ .
DUE - 11/30/97 TASK OMPLETED - / /
-~~~ . ..
TASK DESCRIPTION
-~ . - PART 20 EQUIVALENT REVIEW - STATE OF FLORIDA REQUESTING
. -~~ --
OFF. - OSP REQUESTER - PHL WITS - 0 FYP - N
.. -~ .. . --
I, PROG.-
-~.
LJR PERSON -
-~~~~
STAFF LEAD - LJR PROG. AREA -
.-~ -- ~~~~--. .
PROJECT STATUS - OSP DUE DATE: 11/30/97 PLANNED ACC. -N LEVEL CODE - 1 1