ML20199D464
| ML20199D464 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/23/1998 |
| From: | Bangart R NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| To: | Mobley M TENNESSEE, STATE OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9901200109 | |
| Download: ML20199D464 (10) | |
Text
-.- - - - - - - - - - - ~ -
l' .I l' f **to j *, UNITED STATES l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f WASHINGTON, D.C. 30006 4 001
\, +/ December 23, 1998 Mr. Michael H. Mobley, Director l l DMsion of Radiological Health l Department of Environment and Conservation l L&C Annex, Third Floor ,
l 401 Church Street !
Nashville, TN 37243-1532
Dear Mr. Mobley,
On December 18,1997, NRC provided the State of Tennessee the results of our review of the ;
State's equivalent to NRC's 10 CFR Part 20. In our letter we noted that the State's use of the l values in Column 2 of Table 2 in lieu of the values in Table 3 of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 20 was inconsistent with the compatibility category designations under the new adequacy and l
compatibility policy statement approved by the Commission in the Staff Requirements _ i Memorandum of June 30,1997. The State's standard is more stringent than NRC's Part 20 l requirement. The State of Tennessee responded to our finding on February 6,1998. The State's response has been carefully evaluated as reflected in this letter.
The compatibility concem identified in our December 18,1997, letter is very specific to sewer l l disposal concentrations in Tennessee's State Regulations for Protection Against Radiation ,
(SRPAR) 1200-2-5-122(b) and Schedule RHS 8-30. No other significant compatibility or health 1 and safety issues were identified. As indicated previously, the identification of this i inconsistency is not necessarily an indication that the State's overall program is incompatible ,
with NRC's program. Our review identified this issue in the belief that if it were not addressed it
. l could potentially lead to additional incompatible provisions and raise substantial questions 1 about the overall compatibility of the program. We also indicated that an assessment of the overall compatibility of the Tennessee program would be made as a part of the next. integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (lMPEP) review.
! The NRC has determined that its current regulations allowing disposal by release into the l' sanitary sewer (10 CFR $20.2003), which include the requirement that the released material is readily soluble (or readily dispersible biological material) in water, successfully preclude reconcentration and thus adequately protect public health, safety, and the environment. A poll of the Agreement States conducted by NRC in 1994 indicates that reconcentration of radioactive material in sanitary sewerage treatment systems has not occurred under NRC's current rule. Nevertheless, NRC, through the Interagency Steering Committee on Radiation Standards, is working with EPA to nationally survey sewage treatment plants to assess the extent of radioactive contamination in sludge and ash. A pilot survey of nine facilities is complete, the full survey received OMB clearance in June 1998, and questionnaires will be sent
- ' to sewage treatment plant operators in early 1999. The results of the NRC/ EPA sewage survey i are currently scheduled to be completed in 2000.
\
- After careful consideration of the information presented in your letter justifying the State's j 4 position, we maintain that the use of Column 2, Table 2 values in lieu of Table 3 values in d4" i
- o n n n .t fi -
9901200109 991223 ;
PDR STPRO ESOTN-Poa g
{ gu, L -
i l
l Michael H. Mobley 2 DEC 2 31998 Appendix B of 10 CFR Part 20 is inconsistent with the current compatibility policy statement. j Guidance for the new adequacy and compatibility policy statement indicates Agreement State rules that are not currently consistent with the new compatibility category designations should 1 conform with the new policy not later than three years after the policy's effective date, i.e., by September 3,2000. We recommend that the State address the inconsistency because it could ;
possibly affect programmatic compatibility at some time in the future.
1 Finally, we have considered your recommendation that 10 CFR 20.2003 be designated as !
compatibility category "C." However, since the Appendix B, Table 3 values, in effect, establish !
a dose limit applicable to effluent discharges via the sewerage pathway, the compatibility category "A" designation appears appropriate.
4 If you have any questions regarding these comments or the compatibility policy, please contact i me at (301) 415-2326 or Jim Myers of my staff at (301) 415-2328 or INTERNET: ihm@nrc.aov.
Sincerely, 4 y f4 t_ 1 Richard L. Bangart, Director Office of State Programs
l e
.I Michael H. Mobley 3 DEC 2 31998 Appendix B of 10 CFR Part 20 is inconsistent with the current compatibility policy statement.
Guidance for the new adequacy and compatibility policy statement indicates Agreement State rules that are not currently consistent with the new compatibility category designations should l conform with the new policy not later than three years after the policy's effectlve date, i.e., by l September 3,2000. We recommend that the State address the inconsistency because it could possibly affect programmatic compatibility at some time in the future.
I Finally, we have considered your recommendation that 10 CFR 20.2003 be designated as l compatibility category "C." However, since the Appendix B, Table 3 values, in effect, establish a dose limit applicable to effluent discharges via the sewerage pathway, the compatibility category "A" designation appears appropriate.
If you have any questions regarding these comments or the compatibility policy, please contact me at (301) 415-2326 or Jim Myers of my staff at (301) 415-2328 or INTERNET: ihm@nrc.aov.
Sincerely, 1 OrighalSigned By I RICHARD L BANGART Richard L. Bangart, Director Office of State Programs Distribution: ~
i DIR RF (8S-44) DCD (SP06) l SDroggitis PDR (YES f__ NO )
l CGJones, NMSS/IMNS SMoore, NMSS/IMNS HNewsome, OGC l
Tennessee File l
DOCUMENT NAME: G3HM\SEWERTN.WPD *See previous concurrence.
T' receive a copt of thle document, Indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without attachrnent/ enclosure "E' = Copy with attachment / enclosure "N* = No copy 3 OFFICE OSP l OSP:DD OGC NMSS/IMNS OSP:DY/ 7-NAME JMyers:kk PHLohaus FCameron DCool RLBangar1' k b DATE 12/8/98* 12/9/98* 12/23/98* 12/16/98* 12/13/98 OSP FILE CODE: SP-AG-26 l
l
. '. - .~
l l
l Michael H. Mobley 3 Appendix B of 10 CFR Part 20 is inconsistent with the current compatibility policy statement.
Guidance for the new adequacy and compatibility policy statement indicates Agreement State l rules that are not currently consistent with the new compatibility category designations should .
l conform with the new policy not later than three years after the policy's effective date, i.e., i September 3,2000. We recommend that the State address the inconsistency because it could i possibly affect programmatic compatibility at some time in the future. l l
Finally, we have considered your recommendation that 10 CFR 20.2003 be designated as compatibility category "C." However, since the Appendix B, Table 3 values, in effect, establish a dose limit applicable to effluent discharges via the sewerage pathway, the compatibility category "A" designation appears appropriate, if you have any questions regarding these comments or the compatibility policy, please contact me at (301) 415-2326 or Jim Myers of my staff at (301) 415-2328 or INTERNET: ihm @nrc.oov.
Sincerely, Richard L. Bangart, Director Office of State Programs l Distribution:
SDroggitis PDR (YESj_ NO )
CGJones, NMSS/lMNS SMoore, NMSS/lMNS Tennessee File DOCUMENT NAME: G:\JHM\SEWERTN.WPD *See previous concurrence.
Ta receive a cop r of thle document, Indicate in the box: 'C' = Copy without attachment / enclosure 'E' = Copy with attachment / enclosure *N" = No copy
- OFFICE OSP l OSP
- DD l CGC, _ NMSS/IMNS l OSP:D NAME JMyers:kk PHLohaus FCameronhWW DCool RLBangart
! DATE 12/8/98* 12/9/98* / 12/Ul98 12/ /98 12/ /98 j p c),g OSP FILE CODE: SP AG-26 ueu
~
O p;* t UNITED STATES .
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o & WASHINGTON, D.C. 20066-0001 e
Aa e p
. . . . . ,o y
Y
/ 'Q .I%
M Mr. Michael H. Mobley, Director Division of Radiological Health fb h / Q+ 6' r Department of Environment and Conservation ,
'pfe g L&C Annex, Third Floor 401 Church Street g1 I - h/ iV. f, Nashville, TN 37243-1532
- Af q f/ "
g
Dear Mr. Mobley,
& I 4
f al fA N k' I, On December 18,1997,I RC provided th Stat f ess e t e results of our reviewof-thV g State's equivalent to NRC's 10 CFR Part 20. In our letter we noted that the State's use of the values in Column 2 of Ta le 2 in lieu of the values in Tabie 3 of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 20 was inconsistent with the ompatibility category designations under the new adequacy and
- f. compatibility policy state nt approved by the Commission in the Staff Requirements Memorandum of June 30, , 997, The State of Tennessee responded to our finding on ac been carefully evaluated as reflected in this letter.
February 6,1998. The State's r sgs The compatibility concern identified in our December 18,1997, letter is very specific to sewer disposal concentrations in Tennessee's State Regulations for Protection Against Radiation (SRPAR) 1200-2-5122(b) ind Schedule RHS 8-30. No other significant compatibility or health and safety issues were ide tified. As indicated previously, the identification of this inconsistency is not noce ' rily an indication that the State's overall progra s incompatible with NRC's program. Ou review identified this issue in the belief that if it, ot addressed g4 -
could potentially lead tcp Avmpauuie pivwmm. We also indicated tha overall compatibility 7, of the Tennessee prog %m would be made as a part of the next integrat d Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) review. g g4fe## 18 The NRC has determined that its current regulations allowing disposal by release i o the sanitary sewer (10 CFR 620.2003), which include the requirement that the released material is readily solubic (or readily dispersible biological maierial) in water, successfully preclude reconcentration and thus adequately protect public health, safety, and the environment. A poll of the Agreement States conducted by NRC in 1994 indicates that reconcentration of radioactive material in sanitary sewerage treatment systems has not occurred under NRC's current rule. Nevertheless, NRC, through the interagency Steering Committee on Radiation Standards, is working with EPA to nationally survemewage treatment plants to assess the extent of radioactive contamination in sludge and ash. A pilot survey of nine facilities is complete, the full survey received OMB clearance in June 1998, and questionnaires will be sent jo sewage treatment plant operators in early 1999. The NRC will consider rulemaking for the disposal of radioactive material by licensees into the sewer system after completing its analysis of the results of the NRC/ EPA sewage survey, which is currently scheduled to be completed in 2000 After careful considerate of the information presented in your letter justifying the State's position, we maintain that the use of Column 2, Table 2 values in lieu of Table 3 values in pf V(; \ ~~$C ,SWNUQ ^
an ww , m s- m w uwg vdyy+.
.-. = ~. . . . - . - - . . - . . . . -.
Michael H. Mobley 2 Appendix B of 10 CFR Part 20 is inconsistent with the current compatibility policy statement.
Guidance for the new adequacy and compatibility policy statement indicates Agreement State i rules that are not currently consistent with the new compatibility category designations s i conform with the new policy not later than three years after the policy's effective date, i. ,
September 3,2000. We recommend that the State address the inconsistency because possibly affect programmatic compatibility at some time in the future.
Finally, we have considered your recommendation that 10 CFR 20.2003 be designated as compatibility category "C." However, since the Appendix B, Table 3 values, in effect, establish :
a dose limit applicable to effluent discharges via the sewerage pathway, the compatibility l category "A" designation appears appropriate.
l I
If you have any questions regarding these comments or the compatibility policy, please contact me at (301) 415-2326 or Jim Myers of my staff at (301) 415-2328 or INTERNET: ihm@nrc.aov.
i Sincerely,
)
Richard L. Bangart, Director Office of State Programs g g' g p wanoAW' ,
p$cu Pwc20a f ~
1 l
i i
i 1
y -
~
1 .
Michael H. Mobley 3 Appendix B of 10 CFR Part 20 is inconsistent with the current co patibility policy statement.
Guidance for the new adequacy and compatibZty policy stateme t indicates Agreement State rules that are not currently consistent with the new compatibility ategory designations should conform with the new policy not later than three years after the olicy's effective date, i.e.,
September 3,2000. Wa recommend that the State address t ej inconsistency because it could possibly affect programmatic compatibility at some time in the uture.
Finally, we have considered your recommendation that 10 C R 20.2003 be designated as compatibility category "C." However, since the Appendix B, able 3 values, in effect, establish a dose limit applicable to effluent discharges via the sewer ge pathway, the compatibility category "A" designation appears appropriate.
If you have any questions regarding these comments or e compatibility policy, please contact i me at (301) 415-2326 or Jim Myers of my staff at (3G s) 15-2328 or INTERNET: ihm@nrc.aov.
Si erely,
{ichard L. Bangart, Director vifice of State Programs Distribution:
SDroggitis PDR (YES_f._ NO )
CGJones, NMSS/IMNS SMoore, NMSS/IMNS Tennessee File i
/
2 l DOCUMENT NAME: G:\JHM\SEWERTN.WPD *See previous concurrence.
T 7 receive a copr of thle document, indicate in the bar: "C" = Copt wtthout attachment / enclosure 'E' = Copy with attachment / enclosure "N" = No copy OFFICE OSP L OSP:DD l OGC l NMSS$ VINS OSP;D l TJAME JMyers:kk PHLohads FCameron DDo@f/R RLBangart I
, g 12/8/98* 12/9/98* 12/ /98 #1).//L/98 12/ /98
1
l .
Mth
[; \ UNITED STATES l g p
j 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 30666-0001
. . . . . ,o l Mr. Michael H. Mobley, Director
! DMslon of Radiological Health Department of Environment and Conservation l L&C Annex, Third Floor 401 Church Street Nashville, TN 37243-1532
Dear Mr. Mobley,
On December 18,1997, NRC provided the State of Tennessee the results of our review of the State's equivalent to NRC's 10 CFR Part 20. In our le:ter we noted that the State's use of the l values in Column 2 of Table 2 in lieu of the values in Table 3 of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 20 was inconsistent with the compatibility category designations under the new adequacy and compatibility policy statement approved by the Commission in the Staff Requirements l Memorandum of June 30,1997. The State of Tennessee responded to our finding on February 6,1998. The State's response has been carefully evaluated as reflected in this letter.
l l The compatibility concern identified in our December 18,1997, letter is very specific to sewer l disposal concentrations in Tennessee's State Regulations for Protection Againti Radiation j (SRPAR) 1200-2-5-122(b) and Schedule RHS 8-30. No other significant compatibility or health l and safety issues were identified. As indicated previously, the identification of this inconsistenc" is not necessarily an indication ti.at the State's overall program is incompatible with NRC's program. Our review identified this issue in the belief that if it was not addressed it could potentially lead to an incompatible program. We also indicated that overall compatibility of the Tennessee program would be made as a part of the next Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) review.
The NRC has determined that its current regulations allowing disposal by release into the sanitary sewer (10 CFR 620.2003), which include the requirement that the released material is readily soluble (or readily dispersible biological material) in water, successfully preclude reconcentration and thus adequately protect public health, safety, and the environment. A poll
[ of the Agreement States conducted by NRC in 1994 Indicates that reconcentration of l radioactive materialin sanitary sewerage treatment systems has not occurred under NRC's l
current rule. Nevertheless, NRC, through the Interagency Steering Committee on Radiation
, Standards, is working with EPA to nationally survey sewage treatment plants to assess the L
extent of radioactive contamination in sludge and ash. A pilot survey of nine facilities is complete, the full survey received OMB clearance in June 1998, and questionnaires will be sent -
, Jo sewage treatment plant operators in early 1999. The NnO will cer,eMer rderriaMag for the 4.- -
t M7ent nf rnetinne tiva mMednt hy fir anenne intn the cerer ey tem ;8t; ;; np ethg ite anotyeie
-of4he results of the NRC/ EPA sewage surveyM is currently scheduled to be completed in 2000.
After careful consideration of the information presented in your letter justifying the State's
- position, we maintain that the use of Column 2, Table 2 values in lieu of Tabic 3 values in 4
~ ~ ~
l Michael H. Mobley 3 Appendix B of 10 CFR Part 20 are inconsistent with the curr nt compatibility policy statement.
Guidance for the new adequacy and compatibility policy sta ment indicates Agreement State rules that are not currently consistent with the new compati ility category designations should conform with the new policy not later than three years after the policy's effective date, i.e.,
September 3,2000. We recommend that the State addre s the inconsistency because it could possibly affect programmatic compatibility at some time i the future.
Finally, we have cor.sidered your recommendation that 1 CFR 20.2003 be designated as compatibility category "C." However, since the Appendi B, Table 3 values, in effect, establish a dose limit applicable to effluent discharges via the se rage pathway, the compatibility category "A" designation appears appropriate.
l If you have any questions regarding these comments r the compatibility ;9licy, please contact me at (301) 415-2326 or Jim Myers of my staff at (301 415-2328 or INT ANET: ihm @nrc.aov.
S ncerely, fichard L. Bangart, Director ffice of State Programs I
Distribution:
DIR RF (8S DCD (SP06)
, SDroggitis PDR (YESJ._ NO )
l CGJones, NMSS/IMNS l SMoore, NMSS/IMNS i Tennessee File DOCUMENT NAME: G:UHM\SEWERTN.WPD y 71 recchse a cop / of this document, Indicate in the box: "C" = Copy qu Qd attachment / enclosure "E" = Copy with attachment / enclosure "N" = No copy OFFICE OSP ,e l OSP:@ l OGC NMSS/IMNS l OSP:D l NAME JMyers:kk W PHLohauk I ' V: I FCameron DCool RLBangart DATE 12/3/98 12/4/98l 12/ /98 12/ /98 12/ /98 l OSP FILE CODE: SP-AG-26 l
. . ,)7 91 l h 1 1
___ i 1
EXECUTIVE
~~ .
TASK MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
-- .-- 1
<<< PRINT SCREEN UPDATE FORM >>>
TASK p - 8S-44 5555 ; ; ;;;; . ; DATE- 0 8/13 /9 8 ; ;-55; - --- ,- 5-- MAIL CTRL. - 1998 TASK STARTED - 02/19/98 TASK .
DUE - / / TASK COMPLETED
- / /
TASK DESCRIPTION - LTR ON COMPATIBLITY OF PART 20 EQUIVALENT RULES FOR THE
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
STATE OF TENNESSEE REQUESTING
. -- -~ --
OFF. - TN REQUESTER
--~~ --
- MOBLEY WITS
- 0 FYP - N PROG.- JHM PERSON
- STAFF LEAD - JHM PROG. AREA -
PROJECT STATUS - OSP DUE DATE:
~~~~~~~~
SEE E-MAIL FROM CAMERON TO RLB2.
PLANNED ACC. -N
- LEVEL CODE - 1 l
I I
i i.
~
i l
i 4
4
~ . 1
~
- pc yod I. .
EA ru. '
$l.0 l l m v. Chi l' PM. t SP\
STATE OF TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION J.' dM DIVISION OF RADIOLOGICAL HEALTH L & C Annex,3rd Floor 401 Church Street l g
Nashville, Tennessee 372431532 ca 1 (615) 532-0364 y I o
February 6.1998 C ? !
T Mr. Paul H. Lohaus, Deputy, Director S Office of State Programs United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
Washington, DC 20555-0001 Re: Lener dated December 18,1997 Compatibility of Pan 20 equivalent rules
Dear Mr aus:
The subject correspondence conveyed to us the two volume repon dated June 30,1995, prepared by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory under contract to the NRC, in which is contained an extensive commentary detailing ORNL's review of the Tennessee regulations equivale-t to 10 CFR Pan 20. While we have not yet had a chance to review it in depth, we hope that th malysis and comment contained in this document will prove to be useful to us as we undenake toture rule revisions as necessa.y and appropriate. We appreciate receiving this repon.
We appreciate also the effort put fonh by NRC staffin reviewing these documents, initially for potentially significant health and safety issues requiring immediate attention, and subsequently for consistency with the NRC's new adequacy and compatibility policy statement. We are pleased that no significant health and safety issues were identified.
As a result ofits review, NRC staff has noted that there is an inconsistency, as per the new compatibility category designations, between Tennessee " State Regulations for Protection Against Radiation" (SRPAR) and NRC's Pan 20, regarding one rule (sewer disposal concentrations). This inconsistency is identified and commented upon in Enclosure 3 ofyour letter. You requested that we respond to your comment.
Some recounting of history is prooably in order. As you may recall,in early 1984 we became aware of significant cobalt and cesium contamination in the sewer lines and the sewage treatment plant in an East Tennessee city. This contamination was traced back o one panicular licensee, gp. p(, - M tre r m^4 3 g, g p ., p , ,
3 I
Mr. Paul H. Lobaus February 6,1998 Page 2 of several in the area who were releasing radioactive material to the city's sewage treatment system. Our investigation indicated that sewerage disposals made by this licensee were in compliance with the requirements of the regulations at that time.
To abate the problem, after an initial moratorium on any sewerage releases, we subsequently amended this license to restrict the allowable release concentrations to one-tenth of the SRPAR, and NRC Part 20, Appendix B, limits. We initiated a comprehensive surveillance program to better assess the cause of this incident and to track the recovery of the sewerage system. We conducted a tracer study, in cooperation with the city, to better understand the phenomenon. We worked out agreements between all parties (city, state, and licensees) for equitability purposes. ,
and placed similar disposal restrictions on other licensees. We looked for similar problems in '
other sewerage systems, and found one in another East Tennessee city in which is situated a licensed facility handling uranium. It has taken many years and much effon to mitigate the effects of these situations. We have learned a great deal in the process.
Much has happened in the NRC's realm since then, notably including new Pan 20 (with several preliminary iterations), the implementation of the IMPEP concept (with its emphasis on performance rather than prescriptiveness), and the new policy statement on adequacy and compatibility (with its emphasis on flexibility). Meanwhile,in a 1990 revision of Chapter 5 of SRPAR (our equivalent of 10 CFR Pan 20), we revised our sewer disposal limits downward by a factor of ten in an effon to preclude other similar occurrences. We subsequently incorporated new Part 20 into SRPAR. but followed our previously adopted practice of restricting releases to sewerage systems to the same concentration simits as for unrestricted release, i.e., NRC's Appendix B. Table 2.
Our adoption of a more restrictive requirement should be no surprise to the NRC. We have kept the NRC apprised of our activities and informed of our findings all through this process. We have made presentations and panicipated in discussions in a variety of settings, includir.g All-Agreements States' meetings as early as 1986. We have submitted proposed revisions of SRPAR to NRC for comment.
We believe that our sewer disposal regulations are neither inconsistent nor incompatible with the generally applicable basic radiation protection standards of Part 20. The concentration limits of Appodix B, Tables 1 and 2 can be related in a fairly straightforward manner to permissible doses to persons, either in an occupational context or as members of the general public. In assigning compatibility category designations for these, we do not disagree with a compatibility designation of"A",i.e., as basic radiation protection standards. We believe, however, that Appendix B, Table 3 should be considered separately from Tables 1 and 2 for purposes of compatibility category designation.
Appendix B, Table 3, by NRC's own description, is based on a single exposure pathway (ineestion), which in many cases is not the only, or even the dominant, exposure pathway. It has
- j. * .
l J l Mr. Paul H. Lohaus I February 6,1998 l Page 3 l I
been demonstrated that some radionuclides are concentrated by the sewage treatment process, and it must be acknowledged that exposure pathways other than the one assumed by Table 3 are possible. Some of these exposure pr.thways lead to the potential for doses to the public which are not consistent with current radiation protection guidance.
It seems likely that problems, similar to those which required the State of Tennessee to take j action, have or will occur in otherjurisdictions. We believe that NRC should reconsider the l compliance category designation for Table 3, in accordance with the guidance provided by the 1 l
Commission in Item 3.b. on page 2 of the Staff Requirements Memorandum dated June 30,1997, provided to the Agreement States with State Programs letter SP-97-057. It is difficult to realistically contemplate a situation involving "significant and direct transboundary implications" as defined by a category B designation. Possibly a Category C would be most appropriate. That
! would allow affected jurisdictions the opportunity to establish standards which best address local conditions. and provide a means whereby dese, and not release concentration, when the two are l not directly linked, can take its proper place as the pre-eminent radiation protection standard.
- Ifit were to become necessary that we adopt the sewerage release limits of Appendix B, Table 3.
l the State would condition individual licenses in a manner similar to what it did prior to promulgation of the cunent regulation. That procedure, though cumbersome, could provide for
" legally binding requirements," in accordance with the concepts enunciated in the final " Policy l Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs," thus allowing the l l State to maintain an adequate program for protecting the public heahh and safety. We would
- hope however, that such would not be necessary.
I We are confident that the approach we have taken to address these problems is the right one for the State of Tennessee. We believe that we have achieved an equitable resolution which allowed i for input from, and protection of the interests of, all parties concerned. Licensees are able to operate efficiently, in a business sense, in a regulatory climate which is in every way protective ;
! of the public health and the environment.
We appreciate your consideration in this matter, and are prepared to further discuss with you, should you wish, our position on this issue.
I Sincerely i Michael H. Mobley Director l Division ofRadiological Health i
_ , _ ___