ML20203J884

Forwards Two Vol ORNL Rept,Dtd 950110,which Documents Staff Review of Arkansas Final 10CFR20 Equivalent Rule,For Info & Use

ML20203J884
Person / Time
Issue date:	02/11/1998
From:	Lohaus P NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP)
To:	Snellings D ARKANSAS, STATE OF
Shared Package
ML20203J888	List: ML20203J884
References
NUDOCS 9803040329
Download: ML20203J884 (9)

Text

- . .. - - - .. - .- - -

4 .

pc Me p '4 UNITED STATES j

'2 j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.c, snama anni

, , , g ,o February 11, 1998 Mr. David Snellings, Director i l'ivision of Radiation Control and Emergency Management Department of Health 4815 West Markham Street, Slot 30 Little Rock, AR 72205-3867

Dear Mr. Snellings:

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 procers. 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 equivalent rule. A copy of the two volume ORNL repert, dated January 10,1995, documenting its staff review of the Arkansas 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 immediate 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. In addition, selective portions of the State's revised 10 CFR Part 20 equivalent dated January 1,1997 were also reviewed.

The NRC review focused on those previsions of the rWes that should be adopted in accordance with the new adequacy and compatioility policy statement epproved by the Commission by Staff Reyirements Memorandum dated June 30,1997 (Enclosure 2 describes the new compatibility categories). Enclosure 3 provides our comments on the State's regulations ".d shows the cunant compatibility categories (i.e., A, B, C, D, NRC, and H&S). There are nine (9) 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 actionc you plan to take to address our comments. As you are aware, Agreement States have flexibility to adopt rules required for compatibility 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 Arkansas' regulations.

The compatibility concems identified by this letter are specific to Arkansas' equivalent of 10 CFR Part 20. We would like to stress that these compaGbility 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 g addressed, could potentially lead to an incompatible program. The overall compatibility determination of the Arkansas Agreement program will be made as part of the Integrated \

Materials Perfo mance Evaluation Program.

MOO % N ll gMS 7Pmrvm.

a m a m e7mP l~I. l. l.ll.ll. l.l, H.

yyg g-f 1 9903040329 980211 PDR STPRG ESGAR E

C .

Mr. David Snellings FEB 11 193.9 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 Dennis Sollenberger of my staff at (301) 415-2819, or INTERNET: DMS4@NRC . GOV.

S' cerely, I s s G Paul . Lohaue, De ty D rector Office of State Programs

Enclosures:

As stated I

l

Mr. D vid Sn:;llings FEB 11 1993 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 Dennis Sollenberger of my staff at (301) 415-2819, or INTERNET: DMS4@NRC. GOV.

Sincerely, Origt,1alSigned By:

PAUL H. LOHAUS Paul H. Lohaus, Deputy Director

, Office of State Programs

Enclosures:

As stated 4

1 1

Distribution:

DIR RF (7S228) DCD (SP08)-Copies of Enclosure 1 to be SDroggitis filed in Central Files and PDR only JHornor, RIV PDR (YES)

KSchneider SSalomon

@ Med BUsilton LBolling, ASPO Part 20 File (w/o Enclosure 1)

DOCUMENT NAME: G:%R_PT20.LTR 'See Previous Concurrence.

T 6 receive a copy of th6e document. Indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without attachtnentienclosure "E" = Copy with attachment / enclosure "N" = Ng copy OFFICE OSP -l OSP l OSP:DD l l OGC l OSP:Q' -l NAME DSollenberger:nb CHMau _

PHLohaus FXCameron RLBangg'p _

0/ 8 014T/98 02/0998*

OSP FILE CODE:(,m MS 3(SP-P-1

I Mr. D:vid SnIllings Finally, implementation procedures fer the new policy st ement provide guidance that indicates Agreement State rules th. ', are not currently consistent ith the new compatibility category designations should conft .n with the new policy not lat r than 3 years after the policy's effective date.

If you have any questions rega ding these comments, he compatibility criteria, the NRC regulations used in the review, or the Oak Ridge repo , please contact me at (301) 415-2326 or Dennis Sollenberger of my staff at (301) 415-2819, or INTERNET: DMS4@NRC. GOV.

incerely, Paul H. Lohaus. Deputy Director Office of State Programs 4

Enclosures:

As stated i

t I

f

Dittribution' DlR RF (7S228) DCD (SP08)-Copies of Enclosure 1 to be SDror~ is filed in Central Files and PDR only JHor RIV PDR (YES)

KScerJer SSalomon Arkansas File BUsilton 4-Part 20 File (w/o Enclosure 1) LBolling, ASPO

(" (JLDb co~ 6 > -

DOCUMENT NAME: G:\AR_PT20.LTR *See P[evious Concurrence.

T3 receNo a copy of this document. Indicate in the box: "C" = Copy unthout attachment / enclosure "E" = Copy with attachment / enclosure "N" a No copy

, OFFICE OSP l OSP /l OSP:DD l A1 OGC l O 'P:D l l NAME DSollenberger nb CHMaupin PHLohaus FXCarneron RLBangart DATE 12/08/97* 12/08/97* 12/19/97* WLJ Lt DATE 01/ /98 01/ 198 01/ /98 02/Mi98 01/ /98

/ OSP FILE CODE: SP-AG-3, SP-P-1

~'

I _J

-~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

.j

.-. - Mr. David Snellings -2:

I 1 Finally, implementation procedures for the new policy statem provide guidance that indicates Agreement State rules that are not currently consistent with t new compatibility category

designatiens should conform with the new policy not later th 3 years after the policy's

effective date. <

t If you have any questions regarding these comments, the ' patibility criteria, the NRC

]-. regulations used in the review, or the Oak Ridge report, se contact me at (301) 415-2326 or

- Dennis Sollenberger of my staff at (301) 415 2819, or INT RNET: DMS4@NRC. GOV.. .

Sin ly, t

Pa i H. Lohaus, Deputy Director ce of State Programs r

Enclosures:

As stated-

• 1-i l

l l -/

/

L Distnbution-

[ DlR RF (7S228) DCD (SP08)-Copies of Enclosure 1 to be

' SDroggitis '- / filed in Central Files and PDR only

! . JHornor, RIV- P R (YES) t KSchneider Salomon -

Arkansas File . Usilton Part 20 File (w/o Enclosure 1) / Bolling, ASPO

/

DOCUMENT NAME: G:\AR.,,PT20.LTR /

T3 receive e copy of this document, Indicate in Pe hos: 'C" e ettschmem/encjdsure T a Copy vnth attachment / enclosure "9f' a No copy OFFICE OSPidO fQMA f O!Fpp/ l -OGC l OSP:D l l

, NAME DSollenbeber:nb CttAsVpin/ PHL#h(di FXCameron RLBangart DATE 12/0997 '12/04 /97 12/*) /97 12/ /97 12/ /97 OSP FILE CODE: SP-AG-3, SP-P-1 i

l t

Comnatibility Category 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 should be essentially identical to that of NRC.

B= Program element 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 should be adopted by the State to avoid conflicis, duplications or gaps. The manner in which the essential objectives are addressed need not be the s.ime as NRC provided the essential objectives tre met.

D= Not required for purposes of compatibility.

NRC = Not required for purposes of compatibility. These are NRC program e!ement areas of regulation that cannot be relinquished to Agresment States pursuant to the AEA or provisions of Title 10 of the Cods 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.

j I

i l

ENCLOSURE 2 l

i

_~ > - _ . _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ __.

L i

NRC Comments on the Arkansas Rules and Regulations for Control of Sources of Radiation, Required for Compatibility or Health and Safety State NRC Category Regulation Regulation Sublact and Comments General Comment on References. Throughout the regulation, it was noted that referenced sections did not correspond to the appropriate material. We will not highlight all these occurrences, however,

. the State should review its regulation to ensure the cross-references are correct. The NRC staff has discussed this with your staff and the ORNL report L identifies additional instances where the incorrect references occur.

l A RH 1303b 20.1902(a) AR adds the .*or Danger Radiation Area" as '

possible wording for the' posting of radiation areas.

The option of using the word " danger" instead of

" caution"is not applicable to the posting of radiation areas. By including it in this subsection

, the distinction between a radiation area and high radiation area may be less apparent to workers.

Because this Section is a Category A, the State -

i Section should be essen+ially Contical to that in 10 CFR 20.1902. Therefore, this wording should be -

deleted from the AR regulations.

$ RH 1303f1

_A 20.1902(d) AR adds this subsection which defines an 'airbome radioactivity area" differently than in RH 1100g.

i Because this definition is a Category A, the State definition should be essentially identical to that in

- 20.1003 which is in agreement with the definition in RH-1100g Therefore, the definition of 'airbome radioactivity area" in RH-1303f1 should be deleted.

A RH 1303g 20.1902(e) AR adds an exemption for uranium and thorium with the limits for these materials set at a higher

, level which is less restrictive than the NRC requirement. The reference to the appendix is

, incorrect also. It should be Appendix H. Because this Section is a Category A, the State Lection should be tssentially identical to that in 20.1902(e).

, Therefore, the exemption and the subsequent

, paragraph should be deleted and the reference to the Appendix corrected.

l I*

RH-1304d AR retained this subsection from the old 10 CFR Part 20 rule and thus provides an

, exception to posting requirements that is not present in 10 CFR. Because reta?ning this section l.

creates a potential health and safety concern, AR ENCLOSURE 3 '

i

e 4

State- ~NRC-Category ' BaguWiSD. Regulatio i Subject and Comments should delete this section. The correct posting j _ requirements are in 10 CFR 20.1903. By deleting -

RH 1304d, the AR regulation would be consistent

with the NRC posting requirements.

- A -- _ RH-1303h.3 20.1905 Paragrsphs B and C are not consistent with a and b

- B and C . 20.1905 (a) and (b).- Because this Section is a Category A, the State Section should be essentially identical to 20.1905. Therefore, paragraph C should be revised to reference Table 3 of RH 27g2, Appendix G; and paragraph B should be deleted.

-C ' RH-1D2b - 20.2202(b) -AR 'does not include the words, "of discovery of the

t. event"_ between " hours" and notify." This omission '

leaves the initiation of the timing of the reporting - t

requirement uncertain. Because this Section is a -

l - Category C, the State should adopt the essential objectives of 20.2202. Therefore, the State should i- - add the above wording so that the initiating action

for the reporting would be the same in both rules.

[~

-B Apoendix J Appendix F- The references to other subparts (in particular RH-1400 et seq.) are not correct. Because this '

Appendix is a Category B, the State Appendix should be essentially identical to that in Appendix F L in 10 CFR Part 20. Therefore, this Aopendix -

should be reviewed and the proper references incorporated in the text.

E A Appendix H, Appendix C The value for C-14 is incorrectly listed as ?1,000 l 2793- uCl." The correct value is "100 uCI." This should z

. be changed. This Appendix should be essentially.

c identical to Appendix C, of 10 CFR Part 20. The State should review all the values in Appendix H to ensure they are consistent with Appendix C.-

A- RH-1210 20.1301 This section was deleted from the revised Part 20 i'

20.1302 - and is no longer needed. The references used in i

RH 1210 refer to the old limits and are incorrect under the revised standards. In addition, Subparts o RH 1206 and 1209 now cover the same regulatory e

requirements. Because the requirey.ents (public dose and effluent releases) are Category A, the State regulations should be essentially identical to 2

20.1301 and 1302. Therefore, since RH-1210 is redundant and also contains obschte limits and 4 incorrect references, this section should be deleted i from the AR regulations, i

i y .- g --,e.. - < - + - - - , - ,,.-r ...r . - , . , ~,.w.... -.r , .,, . ~ , #

EEb 3 33 3D$b E D9b5EU3 $153bU * *

<<< PRINT SCREEN UPDATE FORM >>>

l TASK

~~~~..

1. - 7S228 DATE- 09/05/97 MAIL CTRL.~- 1997 1

........-~.

j TASK.

. . . . .STARTED

. . - 09/05/97 TASK DUE --10/30/97' TASK COMPLETED -

. -~~~ .. ....

/ /

TASK DESCRIPTION

- PART 20 EQUIVALENT REVIEW ' STATE OF ARKANSAS Ryggggg{gg,,gg{,. - OSP , RggggggR - PHL WITS - 0 FYP - N t PROG.-

DMS PERSON - STAFF..LEAD - DMS PROG. AREA -

... ~~. .-~~~~

PROJECT

........ .-~

STATUS - OSP DUE DATE: 10/30/97 PLANNED-ACC. -

N LEVEL CODE - 1 k

)

i s

4 l -