ML20197D573

Forwards Copy of Two Vol ORNL Rept,Dtd 950630,documenting Staff Review of State of Tn Final Part 20 Equivalent Rule. Rule

ML20197D573
Person / Time
Issue date:	12/18/1997
From:	Lohaus P NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP)
To:	Mobley M TENNESSEE, STATE OF
Shared Package
ML20197D577	List: ML20197D573
References
NUDOCS 9712290086
Download: ML20197D573 (7)

Text

.. . -. .. . _ _ - - - .- . _ -

t ,

M:q

,' u g- k9 - UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O I msnmotow, o.c. sowooot x,,,,,j- December 18, 1997 Mr. Michael H. Mobley, Director Division of Radiological Health Department of Environment and Conservation L&C Annex, Third Floor 401 Church Street Nashville, TN 37243-1532 >

c

Dear Mr. Mobley :

Given the significance of the revised 10 CFR Part 20 rule to both NRC and Agreement State programs, NRC undertook a revies o' all Agreement State final Part 20 equivalent rules for

, . compatibility with 10 CFR Part 20. The review was cond -ted as a two step process. The first step involved a review by Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), under contract with NRC, to identify ar.y differences or inconsistencies between 10 CFR Part 20 and each Agreement State equivalent rule. A copy of the two volume ORNL report, dated June 30,1995, documenting its staff review of the State of Tennessee's 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 thet required immediate attention, if the a were none, NRC staff then conducted, as resources permitted, a detailed review of the differences and inconsistencies identified by ORNL for compatibility and adequacy

!* sues that should be brought to your atten+ ion fo, 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 (Enciosure 2 describes the new compatibility categories). Enclosure 3 provides our comment on the State's regulations and shows the current compatibility category (i.e., A, B, C, D, NRC, or H&S). There is one section of your rule, as noted in Enclosure 3, that is not consistent with the 10 CFR Part 20 compatibuity category designations under the new procedures.

In addition to the comment noted in Enclosure 3, we have identified one minor comment for the State's consideration. The State regulations governing the control and use of radiation are in

p. two parts,1200-2-4 and 1200-2-5. The Division of Radiological Health may wish to consider ph consolidating definitions and requirements in to a single regulation using the Regulation Review

($ Reports as a guide.

C3 bo .Within you plan45 days, to tcke we request to address thatinyou our comment respond Enclosure in writing

3. As you are aware,with Agreement information States describing H have flexibility to adopt rules required for compatibility or health and safety in the form of lega;iy iW binding requirements other than regulations. This methodology may be appropriate to resolve He some of the compatibility issues with Tennessee's regulations.

OJ W The compatibility concern identified by this letter is specific to Tennessee's equivalent of 10 )

p CFR Part 20. We would like to stress that this compatibility concem is not necessarily an j i i indicction that the State's overall program is incompatible with NRC's program. Rather, this I -

gy regulation review identified an area that needs to be addressed by the State which, if not ' -

g addressed, could potent; ally lead to an incompatible program. The overall compatibility C'C Q (*

9 h. l, h, . f. ,ll , l .

PDa erra 9712290086. m c.71218 PDR , f SVw

i' ,

' Mr. Michael H. Mobley DEC 18 E7 d termination of the Tennessee Agreement program will be made as part of the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program.

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 comaents, the e.ompatibility criteria, the NRC

, regulations used in the review, or the Oak Ridge repart, please contact me at (301) 415-2326 or Jim Myers of my staff at (301) 415-2328, or INTERNET: JHM@NRC. GOV.

Sincerely, .

0 if klit (

Paul H. Lohaus, Deputy Directo;r A' L ' ti t f

/

Office of State Programs

/

Eaclosures:

As stated

e

-, s Compatibildv Category and H&S ldentrfication  :

for NRC Regulations

. r Key to categories: A= Basic radiation protection stendard or related definitions, signs, labels or terms necessary for a i 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 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.

4 D= Not required for purposes of compatibility.

4 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.

I H&S = Program elements identified as H&S are not required for purposes of compatibility; however, ,

they do have particular haalth and safety significance. The State should adopt the essential objectives of such program elements in order to maintain an adequate prograc.).

=

i ENCLOSURE 2 i

l

. Mr. Michael H. Mobley- 2 DEC 181997 i

determination of the Tennessee Agreement program will be made as part of the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program.

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 Jira Myers of my staff at (301) 415-2328, or INTERNET: JHM@NRC. GOV.

Sincerely, MMOf RfCHARD L BANGART 9@) Office of State Programs Paul H. Lohaus, Deputy Director

Enclosures:

As stated Distribution:

DlR RF (7S241) DCD (SP06)-Copies of Enclosure 1 to be SDroggitis filed in Central Files and PDR only RWoodruff, Ril PDR (YES)

KSchneider SSalomon Tennessee File BUsiiton Part 20 File (w/o Enclosure 1) PLarkins DOCUMENT NAME: G:tJHMtTN20.JHM *See previous concurrence te e.ew. . em oe mmum.nunmc.w in m. box: c cocv wm aucrC&olum v copy mm sucnmenvencio.um v A copy OFFICE OSP WC' OSP I Mofppkl OGC l OSP/WW T NAME JHMyers:nb/gd - CHMaupin Pi 1 sus j FXCameron RLBandjart ' '

DATE 12/10/97* 12/10/97* l1ll /97 12/17/97* 12//k /97 OSP FILE CODE: SP-AG-26, SP-P-1

Mr. Michael H. Mobley 2-determination of theTennessee Agreen:ent program will be made as art of the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program.

Finally, implementation procedures for the new policy statement pr vide guidance that indicates .

Agreement State rules that are not currently consistent with the w compatibility category designations should cot, form with the new policy not later than 3 ears after the policy's effective date.

If you have any questions regarding these comments, the co patibility criteria, the NRC .

regulatione used in the review, or the Oak Ridge report, pie e contact me at (301) 415 2326 or Jim Myers of my staff at (301) 415-2328, or INTERNET: J M@NRC.GJV.

Sin oly, Paul H. Lohaus, Deputy Director ffice of State Programs

Enclosures:

As stated i

Distribution:

DIR RF (7S241) DCD (SP06)-Copies of Enclosure 1 to be SDroggitis filed in Central Files and PDR only

- RWoodruff, Rll PDR (YES)

KSchneider SSalomon l Tennessee File BUsilton l Part 20 File (wlo netosure 1) PLarkins i

DOCUMENT NAME: G:tJ MtTN20.JHM *See previous concurrence

l. T =*. .em or e,= nocum.ni.inee m e,. ws: c con mout n.Mur. r .e n.s p .s. noon. v soe m OFFICE OSP DC OSP l Od P'pp, l ' OGC l OSP:D l l NAME JHMyers:nb/gd CHMaupin PHLehous / FXCameron " RLBangart DATE 12/10/97* 12/10/97* 12/l l /97 12/fy97 12/ /97 OSP FILE CODE: SP-AG-26, SP-P-1

NRC Comments on the Tennessee Regulations for the Protection Against Radiation, Required for Compatibility or Health and Safety State NRC CA102my Regulation Regulation Subiect and Comments A 1200-2 5.122(b) 20.2003(a)(2) Disposal by Release ir.to Sanitary and Schedule and (a)(3) and Sewerage RHS 8-30 Appendix B in the Tennessee equivalent to 10 CFR Part 20.2003 (a)(2) and (a)(3) (i.e., Tennessee Section 1200-2 5 122), the values in Column 2 of Table 2 are substituted for the values in Table 3 of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 20. In addition, schedule RHS 8-30 is not consistent with 10 CFR Part 20 because the Table 3, " Sewer Disposal" and related text have been omitted from the Tennessee equivalent of Appendix 0 to 10 CFR Part 20 and the values in Column 2 of Table 2 are referenced. It appears that Tenncssee has reduced the allowable concentrations of radioactivity that can be released into sewers by a factor of 10 compared to those allowed in 10 CFR Part 20.2003(a) and the concentrations are more restnctive.

Because 10 CFR 20.2003 (a)(2) and (a)(3), and Appendix B are a Category A, the State equivalent regulations should be essentially identical to these provisions.

Therefore, the State should adopt Appendix B. Table 3 and 20.2003(a)(2) and (a)(3)in an essentially identical manner.

ENCLOSURE 3

^

EXECUTIVE TASK MANAGEMENT -~~~~~~ ~~~ --

SYSTEM . .

<<< PRINT SCREEN UPDATE FORM >>>

1 TASK # - 7S241'

.- DATE- 09/08/97 - -

MAIL CTRL. - 1997 1 TASK DUE - 12/30/97 TASK COMPLETED - l TASK STARTED - 09/08/97

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

/ /

TASK DESCRIPTION - PART 20 EQUIVALENT REVIEW - STATE OF TENNESSEE

~~~. . ... .....

WITS - FYP - N I REQUESTING

. . .-~~ ....

OFF. - OSP REQUESTER

- PHL .

0 PROG.-

JHM PERSON - STAFF LEAD - JHM PROG.

AREA -

PROJECT STATUS -

. -~~~~

OSP DUE DATE: 12/30/97 PLANNED ACC. -N LEVEL CODE - 1 l