ML20197B625

Forwards Comments on Proposed Regulation Revisions in Iowa Code Chapter 136C,Public Health Regulations Section 641 & Includes Chapters 38,39,40,41,42 & 45 as Requested in Ltr

ML20197B625
Person / Time
Issue date:	02/27/1998
From:	Lohaus P NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP)
To:	Flater D IOWA, STATE OF
Shared Package
ML20197B630	List: ML20197B625
References
NUDOCS 9803110235
Download: ML20197B625 (6)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___

i Mr. Don:Id A. Flat:r fEB 2 71398

- Chief. Bureau of Radiological Health lowa Department of Public Health Lucas State Office Building Des Moines,IA 50319

Dear Mr. Flater:

As requested, we have reviewed the proposed regulation revisions sent to us in a letter dated November 19,1997. The proposed revisions in Iowa Code Chapter 136C, Public Health Regulations Section 641 included Chapters 38,39,40,41,42 and 45. The regulations were reviewed by comparison to the equivalent NRC regulations in 10 CFR Part 19,20,30. 34,35 and 39. We als discussed our review of the regulations with you and Dan McGhee on i January 28 and debruary 4,1998.

I As a result of our review, we have five comments that are identified in the enclosure. Three of the comments (2,4 and 5) regard compatibility concems identified during our review. In particular, comment 2 refers to your proposed changes to the exempt items provisions of your regulations. This modification does not meet the " essentially identical" criterion for a '

Compatibility Category B rule. Under our current procedure, a finding that a State reg 11ation meets the compatibility criteria of the equivalent NRC regulation may only be made baced on a review of the final State regulation. However, we have determined that if your proposeo regulations were adopted incorporating comments 2, 4 and 5, and without other significant change, they would meet the compatibility criteria as indicated in OSP Internal Procedure B.7.

1 i We request that when the proposed regulations are adopted and published as final regulations, a copy of the "as published" regulations be provided to us for review. As requested in All Agreement States Letter SP-96-027,"Recuest to Hiahliaht Chances to Aoreement State Reaulations Submitted to NRC for Comoatibility Review" (March 1,1996), please highlight the final changes and send one copy in a computer readable format, if possible.

If you have any questions regarding the comments or any of the NRC regulations used in the review, please contact me at (301) 415-2326 or Jim Lynch at (630) 829-9661 or by INTERNET:JLL2@NRC. GOV.

Originalsignc<f By 9003110235 900227 PDR STPRGESQIhDR Paul H. Lohaus, Deputy Director Office of State Programs

Enclosure:

As stated ;l pistribution:

DIR RF RBlanton SSalomon DCD (SP07)

SDroggitis LBolling BUsilton PDR(YESf_ NO )

lowa File DOCUMENT NAME: G:\3945.JLL

• SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE

.m.iv a cop r or thi accum nt, inee i. in in. t,om: c . cveout attaenmenvenews. r = coer we ttachmenv.newv. y a No copy OFFICE OSP lE OSP.DD l OGC OSP:D;b l l NAME JLynch:nb PHLohaus FXCameron RLBangart/F DATE 02/02/98 via telephone 02/13/98

• 02/19198 *

(nb) 02/f} /98

-n , OSP FILE CODE: SP-AG-9 rg 3)$. _ , 7 im u m .a Gtty ggg)

Mr. Donald A. Flat:r Chief, Bureau of Radiological Health lowa Department of Public Health Lucas State Office Building Des Moines,IA 50319

Dear Mr. Flater:

As requested, we have reviewed the proposed regulation revisions sent to us in a letter dated November 19,1997. The proposed revisions in Iowa Code Chapter 136C, Public Health Regulations Section 641 included Chapters 38,39,40,41,42 and 45. The regulations were reviewed by comparison to the equivalent NRC regulations in 10 CFR Part 19,20,30,34,35 and 39. We also aiscussed our review of the regulations with you and Dan McGhee on January 28 and February 4,1998.

As a result of our review, we have five comments that are identified in the enclosure. Three of the comments (2,4 and 5) regard needea corrections identified during our review. In particular, comment 2 refers to your proposed changes to the exempt items provisions of your regulations.

This modification does not meet the " essentially identical' requirement for a Compatibil;ty Category B rule. Under our current procedure, a finding that a State regulation meets the competibility criteria of the equivalent NRC regulation may only be made based on a review of the final State regulation. However, we have determined that if your proposed regulations were adopted incorporating comments 2,4 and 5, and without other significant change, they would meet the compatibility criteria as indicated in OSP Internal Procedure B.7.

We request that when the proposed temlations are adopted and published as final regulations, a copy of the "as published

• regulations La provided to us for review. As requested in All Agreement States Letter SP-96-027, 'Egauest to Hiahlicht Chanoes to Aareement State Reaulations Submitted to NRC for Comoatibility Review" (March 1,1996), please highlight the final changes and send one copy in a computer readable format, if possible, if you have any questions regarding the comments or any of the NRC regulations used in the review, please contact me at (301) 415-2326 or Jim Lynch at (630) 829 9661 or by

( INTERNET:JLL2@NRC. GOV.

i Sincerely, Paul H. Lohaus, Deput*' Director Office of State Programs

Enclosure:

As statew Distnbution:

DlR RF RBlanton SSalomon DCD (SP07)

SDroggNs LBolkng BUsilton PDR(YES,f_ NO )

lowa Fi DOCUMENT NAME: G:\39-45.JLL f T we w. e eer or we soeument. macess m m. bon: c = connhe . r = cer, we an cm.nv.nciosur. r No copy OFFICE NAME JLynch:nb OSP lE OSPJI M l ) QW OSP:D l l PHLohad W\ FXUameron RLBangart DATE 02/02/98 via telephone 02/If/98 /98 02/ /98 (nb) 02/$ ~

t^ W C$/ f OSP FILE CODE: SP AG-9 05d .

Mr. Don:Id A. Flat:r

. Chief, Bur u of Radiological He:lth lowa Department of Public Health Lucas State Office Building Des Moines,IA 50319

Dear Mr. Flater:

As requested, we have reviewed the proposed regulation revisions sen us in a letter dated November 19,1997. The proposed revisions in Iowa Code Chapter) 6C, Public Health Regulations Section 641 included Chapters 38,39,40,41,42 and,45. The regulations were reviewed by comparison to the equivalent NRC regulations in 1pCFR Part 19,20,30,34,35 and 39. We also discussed our review of the regulations wittyyou and Dan McGhee on *

' January 28 and February 4,1998. /

As a result of our review, we have five comments re identified in that.a/

the enclosure. Three of the comments (2,4 and 5) regard needed correctionis identified during our review. In particular, comment 2 refers to your proposed changes to tfWIexempt items provisions of your regulations.

j This modification does not meet the " essential y' identical" requirement for a Compatibility Category B rule. Under our current procedure, a finding that a State regulation meets the compatibility criteria of the equivalent NRQ' regulation may only be made based on a review of the final State regulation. However, wefiave determined that if your proposed regulations were adopted incorporating comments 2, pand 5, and without other significant change, they would meet the compatibility criteria as irldicated in OSP Internal Procedure B.7.

We request that when the propds/ed regulations are adopted and published as final regulations, l

a copy of the "as published",(egulations be provided to us for ieview. As requested in All Agreernent States Letter,S#-96-027, "Reauest to Hiahlicht Changes to Aareement State Regulations Submitted to NRC for Comoatibility Review" (March 1,1996), please highlight the final changes and send one copy in a computer readable format, if pcssible.

/

If you have anypuestions regarding the comments or any of the NRC regulations used in the review, please contact me at (301) 415-2326 or Jim Lynch at (630) 829-9661 or by INTERNET:JLL2@NRC. GOV.

I Sincerely, Paul H. Lohaus, Deputy Director

/

Office of State Programs

Enclosure:

As stated Distribution:

DIR RF RBlanton SSalomon DCD (SP07)

SDroggitis LBolling BUsilton PDR (YESf _ NO )

lowa File DOCUMENT NAME: G:\3945.JLL IS FOCelve 8 CDPP OIthlt document, indicate in the bor: 'C"a Coc f

MJ attachrnent'encknure "E" = Cor t eth attr->vnent/ enclosure "N" = No copy OFFICE NAME OSP lE OSP: Wl OGC OSP:D JLynch:nb PHLohap:L W\ FXCameron RLBangart DATE 02/02/98 via telephone 02/ /98 02/I f /98 02/ /98 (nb)

OSP FILE CODE: SP-AG-9

O ang$

g t UNITED STATES

= NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l I WASHINGTON, D.C. accsH001

,,,,, February 27, 1998 4

Mr. Donald A. Flater Chief, Buruu of Radiological Health

lows Department of Public Health

Lucas State Office Building Des Moines,lA 503i9

Dear Mr. Flater:

As requested, we have reviewed the proposed regulation revisions sent to us in a letter dated November 19,1997. The proposed revisions in Iowa Code Chapter 136C, Public Health Regulations Section 641 included Chapters 38,39,40,41,42 and 45. The regulations were i reviewed by comparison to the equivalent NRC regulations in 10 CFR Part 19,20,30,34,35

. and 39. We also discussed our review of the regulations with you and Dan McGhes on January 28 and February 4,1998.

l

. As a result of our review, we have five comments that are identified in the enclosure. Three of the comments (2,4 and 5) regard compatibility concems identified during our review. In particular, comment 2 refers to your proposed changes to the exempt items provisions of your regulations. This modification does not meet the " essentially identical" criterion for a Compatibility Category B rule. Under our current procedure, a finding that a State regulation meets the compatibility criteria of the equivalent NRC regulation may only be made based on a review of the final State regulation. However, we have determined that if your proposed

, regulations were adopted incorporating comments 2,4 and 5, and without other significant

! change, they would meet the compatibility criteria as !ndicated in OSP Intemal Procedure B.7.

We request that when the proposed regulations are adopted and published as final regulations, i a copy of the 'as published" regulations be provided to us for review. As requested in All i Agreement States Letter SP 96-027. "Recuest to HIQhlicht Chances to Aareement State j Raoulations Submitted to NRC for Comoatibility Review" (March 1,1996), please highlight the i final changes and send one copy in a computer readable format, if possible.

l if you have any questions regarding the comments or any of the NRC regulations used in the l review, please contact me at (301) 415-2326 or Jim Lynch at (630) 829-9661 or by

! - INTERNET:JLL2@NRC. GOV.

Since ely,

( yli ! k . R,v u [ '

. Paul H. Lohaus, Deputy Director Office of State Programs ;

Enclosure:

As stated i

COMMENTS ON PROPOSED lOWA REGULATIONS AGAINST COMPATIBILITY AND HEALTH AND SAFETY CATEGORIES

, State NRC NRC, Approved Cateaorv Reaulation Reaulation SSR fif_aDy) Subloct and Comments x

I 1. D 38.8(2) 170.32 Radioactive material licensing, inspection ,

and registration fees Section b(1) refers to 10 CFR 170.32

• Schedule of Fees for Health and Safety and Safeguards inspections for Materials Licenses" Most NRC ir.spection fees have been I incorporated into annual fees charged to licensees. Certain inspection fees n.nain in tne 10 CFR 170.31 schedule of b

fees. Reference shculd be modified.

L 2. B 39.4 30.15 Exempt items Addition of the term "or detection devices" and elimination of the term "for purposes of intemal calibration or standardization" appears to increase the scope of this exemption to include devices other than " ionizing radiation measuring instruments containing, for purposes of intemal calibration or standardization . " "Datection devices,"

although not defined in Iowa regulations, presumably may include gauging devices or analyticalinstruments which are different than " ionizing radiation measuring instruments." The regulation

- should be essentially identical to the NRC rule. As stated in our November 20,1997 letter to you, we are reviewing the use of multiple exempt sources in " detection devices" end will inform you of the results of that review and planned actions as soon as it is completed.

=

ENCLOSURE

--is i '

2

3. H&S 41.2(14) 35.32 Quality ManageMnt Program (QMP)

The modificat 5p Arninates the C.MP but retains essenttaj components of the rule

. such as written directives and patient identify confirmations. NRC is continuing to defer compatibility findings regarding the QMP until a reviseo Part 35 rule with compatibility designations is issued and an effective date for Agreement State implementation has been set.

4. C 45.6(15) 39.61 Wireline servius operations training.

1 45.6(15)a(1) refers to " Appendix D" of the chapter. It should reference l Appendix E.

l

5. C Chap.45 39.15 Information for an abandoned well i

App.F plaque.

The description of plaque information S missing one measurement, insert "and

- 1/8-inch thick'in the plaque size requirements.

ENCLOSURE

.