ML20211B448
| ML20211B448 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/22/1997 |
| From: | Lohaus P NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| To: | Godwin A ARIZONA, STATE OF |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20211B454 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9709250236 | |
| Download: ML20211B448 (4) | |
Text
. _.
Mr. Aubr:y V. Godwin, Director Arizona Radiation R:gulators Agency 4814 South 40th Street
.SEP 2 21997 Phoenix, AZ 85040
Dear Mr. Godwin:
- 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 finai 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 equivalent rule. A copy of the two volume ORNL report, dated May 3,1995, documenting its staff review of the Arizona final 10 CFR Part 20 equivalent rule, is enclosed for your information and use (Enclosure 1). The second part of the review was conducted by NRC staff and consisted of a review of the differences and inconsistencies identified by ORNL for compatibility and adequacy significance.
The NRC review focused on those provisions of the Arizona rule thet are required for compatibility or for health and safety under 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). The NRC review concluded that the Arizona 10 CFR Part 20 equivalent rule meets the compatibility and health and safety categories of the new policy.
~
If you have any questions regarding the compatibility criteria, the NRC regulations used in the review, or the Oak Ridge report, please contact me at (301) 415 2326 or Dr. Stephen N. Salomon of my staff at (301) 415-2368 or INTERNET: SNS@NRC. GOV.
Sincerely, ipa
$5 L
RT U
Paul H. Lohaus, Deputy Director d
Office of State Programs W1 k$
Enclosures:
NA As stated CD W Qktribution:
d DIR RF DCD (SP081-Copies of Enclosure 1 to be Lka SDroggitis put in Central Files and PDR only C.D KSchneider PDR (YES)
Arizona File
,Part 20 File (w/o Enclosure 1) i DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\ CHM \\PART20\\AZ.SNS
- See previous concurrence, n r.c.iv. e copy of this document, Indicate In the boa: 'C" = Copy without attachmft/*nclosure I%
'E' = Copy with ettschment/enchosure
'N' = No copy OSKDM l
OFFICE OSP$D 6 Og OqP:$l f
OGC NAME SNSalomon:nb CHMa@lb' PHLdhays FCameron RLBangsrF DATE 09/"3/97 09dy /97 09/ M/97 09/16/97*
09/gy/97 OSP FILE CODE: SP-AG-2, SP-P-1 9709250236 970922 ll ll ll ll l lll l 1 l ll PDR STPRG ESGAZ ll ll ll ll l l l l l ll
~
- o
Mr. Aubr:y V. Godwin, Director Ariz:na R:diation R:gulat:ry Agincy 4814 South 40th Street Phoenix, AZ 85040
Dear Mr. Godwin:
Given the significance of the revised 10 CFR Part 20 rule to both NRC and Agreement rules for compatibility with 10 CFR Part 20. The review was}$te final Part 20 equ State programs, NRC undertook a review of all Agreement S conducted as a two step process, lhe first step involved a review by Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), under contract with NRC, to identify any differences or inconsist4ncies between 10 CFR Part 20 and each Agreemer.* State equivalent rule. A copy of thy'two volume ORNL report, dated May 3,1995, documenting its staff review of the Arizorja final 10 CFR Part 20 equivalent rule, is enclosed for your information and use (Enclosure' 1). The second part of the review was conducted by NRC staff and consisted of a revied of the differences and inconsistencies identified by ORNL for compatibility a 'd adequacy significance.
The NRC review focused on those provisions of the Arizona rule that are required for compatibility or for health and safety under the neyv adequacy and compatibility policy statement approved by the Commission by Staff Requirements Memorandum dated June 30,'1997 (Enclosure 2 describes the new c/mpatibility categories). The NRC review concluded that the Arizona 10 CFR Part 20 equivalent rule meets the compatibility and health and safety categories of the new policy.
If you have any questions rept.rding the compatibility criteria, the NRC regulations used in the review, or the Oak Ridge report, please contact me at (301) 415 2326 or Dr. Stephen N. Salomon of my staff at (301I 415 2368 or INTERNET: SNS@NRC. GOV.
Sincerely, Paul H. Lohaus, Deputy Director Office of State Programs
Enclosures:
/
As stated Distribution:
DIR RF DCD (SP081-Copies of Enclosure 1 to be SDroggitis
/
put in Central Files and PDR only JLynch, Rill
/
PDR (YES)
KSchneider
/
Part 20 File (w/o Enclosur/
Arizona File e 1)
DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\ CHM \\P T20\\AZ.SNS l
- C' = Copy without Mta[hmht/enclosurei *1N' C[f '
T),eceive e copy of this document, Indicate in the box:
E y with attachment / enclosure
- N' = No copy
/
1\\ \\>
+1 OFFICE OSP$h') (j 04 %
OyP:p%l OGC OSP:D l
NAME SNSalomon:nb CHMa@W PHLdnuys.
FCameron RLBangart DATE 09/'3/97 09th /97 09/ M/97 09//(, /97 09/
/97 OSP FILE CODE: SP-AG-2, SP-P-1
p3 ttog y
i UNITED STATES g
}
NUCLEAR RE' ULATORY COMMISClON d
2 WAsHINoToN, D.C. 20655 0001
%...../
September 22, 1997 Mr. Aubrey V. Godwin, Director Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency 4814 South 40th Street Phoenix, AZ 85040
Dear Mr. Godwin:
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 equivalent rule. A copy of the two volume ORNL report, dated May 3,1995, documenting its staff review of the Arizona final 10 CFR Part 20 equivalent rule, is enclosed for your information and use (Enclosure 1). The second part of the review was conducted by NRC staff and consisted of a review of the differences and inconsistencies identified by ORNL for compatibility and adequacy significance.
The NRC review focused on those provisions of the Arizona rule that are required for compatibility or for health and safety under 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). The NRC review concluded that the Arizona 10 CFR Part 20 equivalent rula meets the compatibility and health and safety categories of the new policy.
If you have any questions regarding the compatibility criteria, the NRC regulations used in the review, or the Oak Ridge report, please contact me at (301) 415-2326 or Dr. Stephen N. Salomon of my staff at (301) 415-2368 or INTERNET: SNS@NRC. GOV.
Sincerely,
[ /CL,
1 th Paul H. Lohaus, Deputy Direc r Office of State Programs
Enclosures:
As stated
=...
J Comoatibility Cateoorv and H&S Identification i
for NRC Reaulations 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 j
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 conflicts, duplications or gaps. The manner in 4
which the essential objectives are addressed may be different than that used by NRC.
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 I
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.
f
~
i '
ENCLOSURE 2 i
-,,