Information Notice 1997-04, Implementation of a New Constraint on Radioactive Air Effluents
i
UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY AND SAFEGUARDS
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 February 24, 1997 NRC INFORMATION NOTICE 97-04: IMPLEMENTATION OF A NEW CONSTRAINT
ON RADIOACTIVE AIR EFFLUENTS
Addressees
All materials, fuel cycle, and non-power reactor licensees.
purpose
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing this information notice to alert
addressees to a recent change in the regulations contained in NRC's 10 CFR Part 20,
"Standards for Protection Against Radiation." This change affects all NRC licensees other than
nuclear power reactor licensees. It is expected that recipients will review the information for
applicability to their facilities and consider actions, as appropriate, to ensure compliance.
However, suggestions contained in this information notice are not NRC requirements; therefore, no specific action nor written response is required.
Description of Circumstances
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated, in 1989, a regulation that placed a
limit on the amount of radioactive material that may be released to the air in unrestricted areas
by NRC licensees, including Agreement State licensees. This regulation, which was contained
in EPA's 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart I, required licensees to limit their emissions of radioactive
materials to the air so that no member of the public would receive an effective dose equivalent
over 0.1 mSv (10 mrem) in a year. It also required licensees to submit an annual report to EPA
if the dose exceeded 0.01 mSv (1 mremlyr). The Subpart I limit was in addition to the already
existing limit on effluents in NRC's 10 CFR Part 20, which restricted the dose to any member of
the public to I mSv (100 mrem) in a year. It should be noted that EPA's limit applied only to air
emissions, whereas NRC's limit applies to all exposure pathways, both internal and.external.
To avoid regulation of the same activity, namely air emissions of radioactive materials, by both
NRC and EPA, an agreement was reached bptween the two agencies whereby NRC would
incorporate EPA's limit as a constraint on air emissions in its regulations and EPA would
rescind Subpart I. NRC published its proposed constraint rule in the Federal
egaiter on December 13, 1995 (60 FR 63984), and the final notice was published on
December 10, 1996 (61 FR 65120) (copy attached). The rule became effective January 9,
1997. EPA rescinded 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart I, on December 30, 1996 (61 FR 68971).
Summary Information on Subpart I, as well as the Federal Ragister rescission. notice, may be
accessed via the Internet at http:/Ivww.epa.gov/radiation/eshaps.
I q 'q?-oo(
foR 97o0z 9 u,)
K>
IN 97-04 February 24, 1997 Page 2 of
Discussion
Effective January 9, 1997, the constraint rule was incorporated into 10 CFR 20.1101, "Radiation
Protection Programs," Section 20.1101(d):
To implement the ALARA requirements of § 20.1101(b), and notwithstanding the
requirements in § 20.1301 of this part, a constraint on air emissions of radioactive
material to the environment, excluding Radon-222 and Ks daughters, shall be
established by licensees other than those subject to § 50.34a, such that the individual
member of the public likely to receive the highest dose will not be expected to receive a
total dose equivalent in excess of 10 mrem (0.1 mSv) per year from these emissions. If
a licensee subject to this requirement exceeds this dose constraint, the licensee shall
report the excess as provided in § 20.2203 and promptly take appropriate action to
ensure against recurrence.
NRC licensees must still limit doses to members of the public to I mSv (100 mrem) in a year
from all sources of exposure, such as external radiation exposures as well as internal
exposures resulting from water and air effluents (10 CFR 20.1301). With implementation of the
constraint rule, the exposures resulting from air effluents are further constrained to a level not to
exceed 0.1 mSv (10 mrem) in a year. The difference between a constraint and a limit is that
exceeding a constraint level does not necessarily result in enforcement action, whereas
exceeding a limit always results in such action.
The constraint rule does not impose any reporting requirements on licensees, except in cases
where the constraint has been exceeded. In such cases, the licensee is required to notify NRC
that the constraint was exceeded, describe the corrective actions to be taken, and the schedule
for completion of such actions to ensure that the constraint will not again be exceeded.
Enforcement action may be taken if such reports are not filed as required by 10 CFR 20.2203, or if appropriate corrective action is not taken to prevent recurrence. Because Subpart I has
been rescinded, licensees are no longer required to file a report with EPA if the constraint is
exceeded, or if the dose from air emissions exceeds 0.01 mSv (1 mrem) in a year, as was
required before rescission.
Acceptable methods to estimate the dose from air emissions, and thereby show compliance, are described in Regulatory Guide 4.20, "Constraint on Releases of Airborne Radioactive
Materials to the Environment for Ucensees Other than Power Reactors," which was issued in
December 19961. These methods include those that have been in use to show compliance with
the effluent limits in 10 CFR 20.1301, as well as several screening methods that
Single copies of regulatory guides may be obtained free of charge by writing the Office of
Administration, Attention: Distribution and Services Section, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; or by fax at (301)415-2260.
K>
IN 97-04 February 24, 1997 have been approved by EPA to show compliance with 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart I. Licensees
may also propose their own site-specific methods for showing compliance, subject to NRC
approval before use.
This information notice requires no specific action or written response. If you have any
questions about the information in this notice, please contact one of the technical contacts listed
below or the appropriate regional office.
Donald A. Cool, Director
Division of Industrial and
Medical Nuclear Safety
Office of Nuclear Material Safety
and Safeguards
Technical contacts: Cynthia Jones, NMSS John Kinneman, RI
(301) 415-7853 (610)337-5252 E-mail: cgj@nrc.gov E-mail: jkd@nrc.gov
John Potter, RII Brenda Holt, RIII
(404) 331-5571 (630) 829-9836 E-mail: jpp@nrc.gov E-mail: bjh@nrc.gov
Linda Howell, RIV
(817) 860-8213 E-mail: llh~nrc.gov
Attachments:
1. Federal Register Notice on the Constraint Rule
2. List of Recently Issued NMSS Information Notices
3. List of Recently Issued NRC Information Notices
rP;L4 act,
K>
Attachment 1 IN 97-04 February 24, 1997 (Federal Register: December 10, 1996 (Volume 61, Number 238)]
(Rules and Regulations] [Page 65119-65127]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
Part III
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Clean Air Act: Radioactive Materials Airborne Effluents Dual Regulation
Resolution; Final Rule and Radiation Protection Programs Enforcement
Actions Policy and Procedure; Notice
[(Page 6512011
NUCLEAR REGCLATORY COWISB 0IN
10 CPR Part 20
RIN 3150-AP31 Resolution of Dual Regulation of Airborne Effluents of
Radioactive Materials; Clean Air Act
AGECWY: Nuclear Regulatory Co ission.
ACTION: Final rule.
SU4MMRY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission 18 amending its regulations
to establish a constraint of 10 mrem (0.1 mSv) per year total effective
dose equivalent (TIDE) for dose to members of the public from air
emissions of radionuclides from NRC licensed facilities other than
power reactors. This action is necessary to: Provide assurance to the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that future emissions from NRC
licensees will not exceed dose levels that EPA has determined will
provide an ample margin of safety; and to provide EPA a basis upon
which to rescind its Clean Air Act (CAA) regulations as defined in 40
CPR Part 61 for NRC licensed facilities (other than power reactors) and
Agreement State licensees, thereby relieving these licensees from
unnecessary dual regulations.
K> .K-j
Attachment 1 IN 97-04 EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule will become effective January 9, 1997. February 24. 1997 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT
- Alan K. Roecklein, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20S55-0001, telephone (301) 415-6223.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The EPA promulgated National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NBSHAPs) for radionuclides on October 31, 1989. Under 40
CFR Part 61, Subpart I, emissions of radionuclides must be limited so
that no member of the public would receive an effective dose equivalent
greater than 10 mrem (0.1 mSv) per year.cSUP>l Subpart I of 40 CFR Part
61 was promulgated to implement the CAA and limit doses to members of
the public from air emissions of radionuclides (other than Radon-222)
from all NRC licensees other than licensees possessing only sealed
sources, high-level waste repositories, and uranium mill tailings piles
that have been disposed of in accordance with 40 CFR Part 192. Radon-
222 emissions from tailings were covered by 40 CFR Part 61, Subparts T
(addressing non-operational uranium mill tailings piles) and N
(addressing operating mill tailings piles). EPA rescinded Subpart T for
NRC licensees after Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40 was amended by the
Com-ission to conform to changes EPA issued to 40 CPR Part 192. Subpart
Wstill applies to NRC licensees. Because Radon-222 is adequately
addressed in 10 CFR Part 40, Appeadix A, and other provisions of 10 CFR
Part 20, it is not covered in this final rulemaking.
____-______________________________________________
\1\ 1 Subpart I expresses dose in effective dose equivalent
(EDE). NRC expresses dose in total effective dose equivalent (TEDE).
These terms are essentially equivalent.
___________________________________________________
In 1990, Congress enacted amendments to the CAA. Section 112(d)(9)
of these amendments to the CAA (the Simpson amendment) states:
No standard for radionuclide emissions from any category or
subcategory of facilities licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory
Comission (or an Agreement State) is required to be promulgated
under this section if the Administratot determines, by rule, and
after consultation with the Nuclear Regulatory Comnission, that the
regulatory program established by the Nuclear Regulatory Comission
pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act for such category or subcategory
provides an ample margin of safety to protect public health.
Upon issuance, the effectiveness of Subpart I for all NRC licensees
was imediately stayed by EPA pending further evaluation. During the
stay period, EPA conducted two studies of the air emissions from NRC
and Agreement State materials licensees. The first was a survey of 367 randomly selected nuclear materials licensees. EPA determined that the
highest estimated dose to a member of the public from air emissions
from these facilities was 8 mrem (0.08 mSv) per year, based on very
conservative modeling. In addition, 98 percent of the facilities
surveyed were found to have doses to members of the public resulting
from air emissions less than 1 mrem (0.01 mSv) per year. The second
study evaluated doses from air emissions at 4S additional facilities
that were selected because of their potential for air emissions
resulting in significant public exposures. EPA found that 7S percent of
these licensees had air emissions resulting in an estimated maximum
public dose less than 1 mrem (0.01 mSv) per year. For the licensees
evaluated, none exceeded 10 mrem (0.1 mSv) per year.
In its initial proposal to rescind Subpart I for NRC licensees
other than power reactors, EPA stated that:
Based on the results of the survey undertaken by EPA and the
commitments made by NRC in the MOU, EPA has made an initial
determination that the NRC prograw under the Atomic Energy Act
'. J KIJ
Attachment 1 IN 97-04 provides an ample margin of safety to protect public health (57 FR February 24. 1997
56880; December 1, 1992). adequacy of
However, EPA continued to express concern regarding the will
the measures to assure that future emissions from NRC licensees
will provide an ample margin of safety. The stay
not exceed levels that
on Subpart I expired on November 15, 1992, and Subpart I
became
the EPA
effective on November 16, 1992. Subsequently, in July of 1993, that time
determined that th-re was insufficient basis at
Administrator licensed
to rescind Subpart I. Consequently, NRC and Agreement State of
facilities were subject to dual regulation of airborne effluents
radionuclides under both the AMM and the CAA, including regulatory
State).
oversight by EPA (or authorized State) and NRC (or Agreement to NRC
NRC licensees subject to EPA's Subpart I are also subject
dose limits for members of the public contained in 10 CFR Part 20, of
Subpart D, entitled "Radiation Dose Limits for Individual Members that
the Public"' (Subpart D). Under Subpart D, licensees shall ensure per
doses to members of the public are less than 100 mrem (1.0 mSv)
sources
year from all pathways (including airborne effluents) and all Subpart B,
associated with the licensee's operation. In addition, under
ensure that
entitled "Radiation Protection Programs, licensees must
doses to members of the public be kept as low as is reasonably
licensee
achievable (ALARA). Based on the studies conducted by EPA and to
reporting of doses to members of the public from airborne effluents
0.1 mSv) per year to the
EPA, it is evident that less than 10 mrem(
maximally exposed member of the public from airborne radioactive
effluents to the environment is reasonably achievable. keep
NRC power reactor licensees subject to 10 CFR 50.34a must with
doses to members of the public from airborne effluents consistent
the numerical guidelines in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50. These
from
licensees have reported estimated doses to members of the public Based on
air emissions well below the Subpart I value for many years.
air
the combination of a continuing regulatory basis for reduced NRC program
emissions and documented proof of the effectiveness of the
for these licensees, EPA rescinded Subpart I for power reactors
licensed by NRC (60 FR 37196; September S, 1995).
Amendments
and
The amendments proposed on December 13, 1995 (60 FR 63984),
[(Page 651211]
mSv) per
finalized in this rule establish a constraint of 10 mrem (0.1 effluents
year TEDS to members of the public from airborne radioactive power
to the environment from NRC-licensed facilities, other than These
reactors, as a part of its program to maintain doses ALARA. ALAUM
amendments codify numerical values for NRC's application of other than
guidelines for radioactive air emissions from its licensees, already been
power reactors. For power reactors, ALARA guidelines have licensing
established within 10 CPR Part So and existing facility
are
conditions. These final amendments ensure that air emissions the
maintained at very low levels and, taking into consideration
licensees. This
elimination of dual regulation, at some reduced cost to and the NRC's
action brings consistency between the EPA's dose standard
and is expected to be the final step in providing
ALARA application, NRC-licensed
EPA with the basis to rescind Subpart I as it applies to
facilities other than power reactors. NRC has been working in 40
cooperatively with EPA to achieve rescission of EPA's standards CAA. EPA
CFR Part 61, Subpart I, under Section 112(d)(9) of the
I, on
published a proposed rescission of 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart published a
December 1, 1992 (57 FR 56877). On September 28, 1995. EPA
on
notice in the Federal Register reopening the comment period this effort is
rescission of Subpart I (60 FR 50161). The objective of
that provide no incremental
to eliminate duplicative regulations
benefit in terms of public and environmental protection. basis for
The regulatory framework that NRC is providing as a in 10 CFR
rescission of EPA's Subpart I consists of the requirement mrem (1.0 MSv)
Part 20 to limit doses to members of the public to 100
K>
Attachment 1 IN 97-04 I
to members of the February 24. 1997 per year, and the requirement to constrain doses materials to the public from airborne effluents of radioactive to 10 mrem '0.1 mSv) per
envir~.ment from a single licensed operation
year. to make or
Currently, under Sec. 20.1501 licensees are torequired comply with the
cause to be made surveys that may be necessary be made available to
regulations in 10 CFR Part 20. This data would
or measures a dose
inspectors upon request. If the licensee estimates than 10 mrem (0.1 to the nearest resident from air erissions greater to report the dose to NRC
mSv) per year, the licensee would be required the circumstances that
in writing within 30 days, which would include
per year dose, a description
led to the greater than 10 mrem (0.1 mSv) taken or proposed to take to
of the corrective steps the licensee had
ensure that the constraint is not again the exceeded, a timetable for
implementing the corrective steps, and expected results. Records of
the results of measurements and calculations needed to evaluate the
to the environment will still be
release of radioactive effluents
required pursuant to 10 CPR 20.2103(b)(4). result in a Notice of Violation
Exceeding this constraint will not needed for adequate protection of
(NOV) as would be the case if a limit
exceeded. In the case of the constraint
public health and safety were when (1) a licensee fails to
rule, an NOV will be issued only if and
dose from airborne effluent releases from
report an actual or estimated value; or (2) if a licensee
a facility that has exceeded the constraintmeasures intended to prevent
fails to institute agreed upon corrective
would result in
further airborne effluents in excess of those which
doses exceeding the constraint level.
The rule applies to airborne effluents daughters, of radioactive materials to
from all NRC
the environment, other than Radon-222 and reactors are exempt from this
licensees except power reactors. Power
are already required, under 10 CFR 50.34a, to
rule because they to be employed for keeping
identify design objectives and the means
doses to members of the public from airCPR effluents ALARA in their
license application. Appendix I to 10 Part So contains the
numerical guidelines to meet this requirement.
Response to Comments
Fifty-seven individuals and organizations provided written comments
and Draft Regulatory Guide DG-8016. Among the 57 on the proposed rule were professional organizations, coamienters, 24 were licensees, seven the public, and five were
five were States, 16 were members of
environmental organizations. Because included many letters commenting on the
Guide DG-0016 also comments on the rule, Draft Regulatory in developing the final rule.
these comments were also considered
Issue 1--Proposed Rule Approach
and organizations
CoAments: A total of thirty-one individuals
on the basis for the rule. Five commentere agreed with the
commented commented that the rule
approach and need for the constraint. Four I should remain in
should not be finalized and that EPA's Subpart
coamenters stated that existing NRC programs
effect. Twenty-two that the constraint was not
provided an ample margin of safety and
of these, seven agreed that the constraint was
needed. However, alone.
preferable to dual regulation or Subpart I are adequate to protect
Those coammenting that existing NRC program
on doses from air emissions. Two- the public cited the two EPA studies forward with the
to going
thirds of these commenters were opposed not needed and that licensee
constraint because they believed it was
not be justified given the expectation that
and regulator costs could commenters
would not be reduced. These
risk to public health and safety to provide sufficient basis
encouraged NRC to continue working with EPA of an equally
the imposition
for rescission of Subpart I without stated that the risk was
unnecessary regulation. A few commenters
because excessively conservative
considerably less than estimated commenters compared the
were used by EPA. A few
calculational methods variability in background or
10 mrem (0.1 mSv) per year constraint to
that the dose and the
doses from commercial air traffic as evidence
Attachment 1 IN 97-04 February 24. 1997 burden reduction and single- risk is trivial. Seven commenters cited that the constraint was reasons for agreeing
agency oversight as the Subpart I alone.
pre:zrable to dual regulation or EPA's as a less protective standard, Coamenters opposed to the constraint
upon a voluntary program (ALARA)
stated that the constraint was based the public. one commenter
and, as such, was not adequate to protect
measurements and
stated that NRC does not perform confirmatory adequate.
therefore, NRC jurisdiction was not
to develop a basis upon
Response: NRC and EPA have been working EPA has stated that there
which dual regulation could be eliminated.
finding that NRC's program is
are two necessary components to any safety of the public. The first is
sufficient to protect the health and
are below 10 mrem (0.1 mSv) per
evidence that doses from air emissions has been demonstrated through the
year to a member of the public. This
of actual air emissions.
two studies by EPA and by licensee reporting ensure that doses remain at this
The second component is a program to
requiring licensees to maintain
level. In the absence of rulemaking (0.1 msv) per year, EPA would
doses to levels of no more than 10 mrem
would continue.
not rescind Subpart I and dual regulationwas formed in 1959, to provide
The Federal Radiation Council (FRC)
Federal policy regarding radiation
recommendations to the President for1960, FRC set forth basic principles
matters that affect health. In May
for
((Page 6512211 The council was abolished in
protection of both workers and the public.to the EPA Administrator. In
1970 when its functions were transferred for new Federal guidance
1981, EPA published proposed recommendations Reagan approved
for occupational exposure. In 1987, President for new "Radiation Protection
recommendations by the EPA Administrator Exposure.'" EPA has not
Guidance to Federal agencies for Occupational for the public. A working group
yet issued recommendations on limits
Federal agencies and experts
comprised of representatives from affected been developing these
on radiological health matters has
expects to provide them during
reco1mendations for several years and
the next year. Radiological Protection
In 1977, the International Council on of the International
(ICRP) issued its Report No. 26 "Recommendations
in 1977. These recommendations
Council on Radiological Protection" members of the public should not
concluded that the average doses to
a limit of 500 mrem (5.0 mSv)
exceed 100 mrem (1.0 mSv) per year with
per year to any individual. Radiation Protection and Measurements
The National Council on limits for exposure to
(NCRP) is required by Congress to recommend issued its Report No. 91, ionizing radiation. In June 1987, NCRP
to Ionizing Radiation." This
"Recolmendations on Limits for Exposure limits for both
report contains recommendations on exposure individual members of the
and
occupationally exposed individuals doses to individual members of the
public. The report recommended that
per year averaged over a
public be limited to 100 mrem (1.0 mSv)mSv) in 1 year.
lifetime, not to exceed SOO mrem (5.0 20 Standards for Protection
In 1991, NRC revised 10 CPR Part new limits for individual
Against Radiation." This revision included the ICRP and the NCRP recommended
members of the public. Though both
year, the NRC established a
limits of 500 mrem (5.0 mSv) in any one "-cause it was impractical to
limit of 100 wrem (1.0 mSV) per year
without keeping track of
control dose in terms of lifetime average 10 CFR Part 20 requires that
individual exposures. In addition, controls to maintain doses
licensees use procedures and engineering
are designed to achieve
Both the NRC and EPA regulatory programs margin of safety. The approaches
protection of the public with an ample
TEDE, requires that doses are
of the two agencies differ. NRC limits inspection program. EPA
an active
maintained ALARA, and maintains of exposure and individual
limits dose from individual pathways
to onsure that the total dose does not exceed recommended
radionuclides levels of protection.
levels. Both programs achieve similar constraint in Sec. 20.1101(d) is
NRC agrees that adoption of I'm
Attachment 1 IN 97-04 reduction in burden on February 24. 1997 preferable to dual regulation due to theagencies. Under the provisions licensees as well as State and Federal
to members of the public
of 40 CFR Part St, licensees with doses year but less than 10 mrem (0.1 mSv)
greater than 1 mrem (0.1 mSv) per
per year must submit reports. However, under 10 CFR 20.1101(d), these
licensees will not have to file reports for doses below the constraint
doses can be evaluated during routine inspections. Under
level because calculating doses should be reduced for
the final rule, the burden of
for demnsllmtrating
most licensees because the proposed guidance significantly more flexibility
compliance with 10 CFR 20.1101(d) allows
doses than the model currently used
and simpler methods for calculating These new methods for
to demonstrate compliance result with 40 CFR Part 61. and corrective
calculating doses should in fewer reporting
actions, as under EPA's Subpart Ir of
Licensees are required undercompliance Sec. 20.2103 to maintain recordslimit.
with the public dose
surveys required to demonstrate with the
Review of licensee records used to demonstrate compliance Confirmatory
part of the NRC inspection program.
public dose limit isgenerally not be useful since most licensees in this
measurements would releases.
category do not have routine ongoing effluent that believe NRC's
Finally, concerning those commenters
safe than Subpart I, Congress enacted legislation
requirements are less
comprehensively amending the Clean Air Act (CAA), which included a and
section addressing the issue of regulatory duplication between EPA
permit the EPA Administrator to
NRC in 1990. The 1990 CAA amendments at sites
rescind the CAA standards as they apply to radionuclides, if he or she finds that the
licensed by NRC, and the Agreement States, an ample margin of safety to protect
NRC regulatory program provides
public health.
focused on two general
EPA's analysis of the NRC r gulutoryofprogram the NRC regulatory program
issues: (1) whether the implementation
to protect the health and safety of
results in sufficiently low dosesof safety; and (2) whether the NRC
the public with an ample margin and thorough, and administered EPA in
program is sufficiently comprehensive protect public health in the future.
a manner that will continue to
undertook studies to determine the level of protection provided by the
that doses were sufficiently low
existing regulatory program nd found with an ample margin of
to protect the health and safety of the public will ensure that doses to
safety. The implementation of this rule
of the public from air effluents will continue to remain below
members the current
10 mrem (0.1 mSv) per year and provide evidence to EPA that
level of protection will continue.
to reduce doses, because it
The purpose of this rulemaking is not are sufficiently low. The
has already been demonstrated that doses at the low level
purpose is to ensure that doses are maintained eliminate unnecessary dual
currently achieved by NRC licensees, with the current level doses of
regulation, and reduce costs associated upon which EPA can find that
protection, by providing a basis
Subpart I.
will not increase as a result of rescission of
Issue 2--Promulgation of the Constraint as MA
who objected to the
Comments: There were a number of commenters rule. Some coementers objected
ALARA basis for the proposed constraint of operating philosophy, good
on the ground that ALmRA is a matter licensee judgment, and cannot be
radiation protection practice and dose number. Other comenters objected
translated into an enforceable cannot be
on the basis that ALARA is inherently site specific and cannot be
defined generically or thatbecause the proposed dose constraint
the constraint contemplatesfoilowed some
ALRA but must be a limit if the licensee has
enforcement actions for exceadance even
Some commenters argued that
all good radiation protection practices. benefit.
the rule cannot be ALLRA because it adds costs with no safetywith a
stated that the constraint is inconsistent
Other commenters 20 (56 FR 23360) on the use of
prior NRC decision in 10 CFR Part
-'reference levels."
Response: The Colsaion has retained an ALt A basis for the rule
term in this rule may have led to
but recognizes that its use of the concept in
some confusion. The c a ission acknowledges that the ALMA
K> K) Attachment 1 IN 97-04 February 24. 1997 which requires good radiation 10 CFR 20.1003 is an operating philosophy licensee judgement. The
of expert
protection practice and the exercise some of the factors to be
ALARA con-ept is site specific in that the court so found in York
case, as
considered may vary from case to v. NRC, 527 F. 2d 812 Committee for a Safe Environment
((Page 6512311 without deciding, that
(D.C. Cir. 1975). The Cormidesin has presumed, enforced in a particular case
the ALARA concept in Sec. 20.1003 can be
practice, but it is
so as to require a specific radiation protectionnot translate readily into a
clear that the existing regulation does will lead to enforcement
generic dose number, which, if exceeded, action. be a somewhat broader
The NRC intended the constraint rule to Atomic Energy Act of 1954, the
concept found in the governing statute, by both the ComuSiadon (e.g.,
as amended (Act). The Act, as construed Concerned Scientists v. NRC,
10 CFR 50.109) and the courts (Union of two distinct approaches to
924 F.2d 108 (D.C. Cir. 1987)), contemplates of "adequate protection must
radiological regulation. First, a level
economic cost. Second, risk
be defined and enforced without regard to with "adequate
may be reduced to a level below that associated
or property" with economic
protection' to "minimize danger to life considerations. See
cost and other factors as permissible balancing
Reactors, (53 FR 20603;
"Revision of Backfitting Process for Power Section 161b of the Act
June 6, 1988). It is important to note that
generic requirements
authorizes the Comission to adopt and enforce regulations (e.g., 10 CFR 50.63)
using either approach. Many recent NRC
under the second
have been directed at incremental risk reduction
or backfit analysis which
approach based on a generic regulatory
costs and safety backfits.
considered and balanced economic and other "limits"' because they
These "minimize danger regulations provide
enforceable against licensees.
establish generic requirements directly ALARA regulations because cost, However, in a broad sense they are also identified in 10 CFR 20.1003 feasibility, and other relevant factors
are evaluated. the use of ALARA in 10 CFR
Viewed in its larger statutory context, approach to radiological
20.1003 is one means to implement the second can also be part of
regulation. However, other similar requirementsin 10 CFR 20.1003 may not
this second approach. While the ALARA concept dose requirement, other
be consistent with a generic enforceable are appropriate.
concepts of ALARA premised on generic considerations dose requirement based o..
This concept of ALKRA as a broadly applicable
of health and safety, feasibility, and
a generic weighing and balancing limits on nuclear power
other factors is the basis for the longstandingI, and is the basis for
reactor emissions in 10 CPR Part so, Appendixa limit in the sense that
the constraint rule. The ALARA rule imposes but it is not a limit in the
exceedance will lead to corrective action, a violation of any
sense that exceedance per se would constitute only when a licensee fails
regulatory requirement. A violation occurs
appropriate corrective
to report an exceedance or fails to take if compliance were needed to
actions. A limit would be appropriate
and safety. In this case, ensure adequate protection of public health that currently afforded levels
the constraint is needed only to ensure
provide the basis for
of protection are not reduced. This will EPA.
rescission of 40 CPR Part 61, Subpart I by cannot be based on ALARA
Thus, to say that the constraint rule
a narrow concept of
because it is in effect a limit.'" interchanges If a broad definition is
AULARM" with a broad concept of -limit.' as both ALARA and a
used, the constraint rule withstands scrutiny Energy Act and general
Atomic
limit. In the statutory context of the constraint rule is a limit based
principles of administrative law, the rule is not a limit
on generic ALMA considerations. The constraint rule is something
protection and the constraint
needed for adequate particular ALMA concept
more than a narrow translation of the
20.1003. The term 'constraint'" was used for the
contained in 10 CFR of ALARA and the limit
concepts
rule to avoid confusion with the narrow
employed in radiation protection discussion.
Three matters must be addressed:
Attachment 1 IN 97-04 t- February 24. 1997 on ALARA because it (1) The comment that the rule cannot be based benefit;
willresult in increased cost with no safety
the dose constraint
(2) The problem of the licensee who cannot meet and
despite using all good radiation protection practices;
inconsistent Comission discussion of reference
(3) The allegedly
levels in a recent revision to 10 CFR Part 20.
the first comment.
The Commismion disagrees with the premise of that all of
with the Commission's conclusion
There was no disagreement a level of control
the licensees affected by the rule are achieving year level and so
10 mrem (0.1 mSv) per
such that doses are below the of radiation
there is no factual dispute over whether this level
EPA'S rescission
protection is readily achievable. The final rule and requirements will
of its Clean Air Act emission limits and related
cost savings to licensees. The NRC
result in a significant net are likely to be
acknowledges that the positive direct health effects given the current
small and possibly nonexistent in the near future, of controls. However, the rule can be said to offer a small, but
level it will prevent a
positive, net health and safety benefit in that public if Subpart I
decrease in the level of protection afforded the constraint. Under the the
were rescinded in the absence of a rule like on a small
ALARA concept, it is appropriate to base a requirement are also likely.
positive health and safety benefit when cost savings
subject to the rule will
The NRC does not expect that any licensee of the public from
be unable to demonstrate that doses to members
environment are less
releases of airborne radioactive materials to the case that this dose is
than 10 mrem (0.1 mSv) per year. In the unlikely
some temporary
exceeded or is projected to be exceeded, due to the licensee to
circumstances or lapse in controls, the NRC expects
are necessary (if any) to protect
take whatever corrective actions further
public health and safety, to report the dose, to recommend
and take those corrective actions
corrective actions if necessary, approve corrective
agreed upon with NRC. NRC staff will review and to reduce airborne
actions to ensure that they are appropriate
sufficiently to comply with the constraint in the future. In
emissions adequate corrective
the unlikely case that a licensee is unable to take constraints, these
actions, because of limits in technology or cost
basis.
issues can be addressed in the future on a case-by-case this rule is not the
used in
The application of the ALARA principle was rejected by the
same as the concept of reference level which
recently revised. Commenters on the
Comission when 10 CFR Part 20 was reference levels
CYR Part 20 objected to the use of
1991 revision to 10 as adequate protection
because they were implemented exactly tle same
adopt reference levels
limits. For that reason, the Comisia on did not is different
in the 1991 revision. Implementation of the constraint
a limit because exceeding the constraint is not a violation, than such dose and take corrective
and only requires the licensee to report the
actions to reduce future doses.
Issue 3--Whether the Constraint Is Actually a Limit
the constraint is
Comments: Nine comments were received on whetherthe constraint was
or should be a limit. Two commenters believed that
with the term
no different than a limit. one commenter agreed
coaaenters expressed concern that the constraint was
constraint. Three
an inappropriate relaxation of requirements.
[(Page 6512411 de facto limit
Those commenting that the constraint was a
requirements to indicate that a second exceedance of
interpreted the and therefore the
the constraint would result in enforcement action
is a limit. Three commenters indicated that the rule should
constraint constraint was less
be a strict limit. They expressed concern that the
protective than EPA requirements.
is needed to protect
Response: If a licensee exceeds a limit that action. If a
the NRC may take immediate enforcement
health and safety, be required to notify
licensee exceeds a constraint, the licensee will
that may necessary to protect public health
NRC, take any actions NRC staff
fun.. er corrective actions that
and safety, and implement any
Attachment 1 IN 97-04 February 24. 1997 excess of the agrees are adequate to prevent further doses toinreport a measured or
constraint. However, if the licensee failed
to KRC or failed to
calculated dose in excess of the constraint agreed upon, enforcement
implement appropriate corrective actions as
an adequate
action would be expected. This is because, unlike to provide adequate
protection limit, the constraint is not needed
protection of public health and safety.
The NRC does not agree that the constraintI and is less protective than
the NRC constraint
current EPA requirements. Both EPA's Subpart doses to members of
require licensees to take actions to ensure that
not exceed 10 mrem (0.1 msv) per year from ambient air
the public do facilities to ensure that
emissions. NRC routinely inspects licensed
of the public that
air effluents do not result in doses to members The inspection and
exceed the requirements in 10 CFR Part 20.
enforcement program will be amended as a result of this final rule to
to demonstrate compliance with the
review licensee records used
constraint.
Issue 4--Citizen Suits
the constraint
Comments: Three commenters opposed finalization of licensee who
citizen rights to sue a
on the basis that it forfeits
exceeds the constraint. 2.206 provide the
Response: The Commissiones regulations in 10 CFR enforcement action
public with the right to petition the NRC to take
for a violation of the ComisiLon's regulations.
against a licensee
This would include the final constraint rule.
Issue 5--Agreement State Compatibility
Comments: Four commenters addressed the proposal that the
2, constraint be a Division 2 matter of compatibility. Under Division
States could adopt similar or more stringent be requirements. Three
commenters agreed that this rule should not codified as a Division 2 as a Division 1 matter of compatibility. Under
requirement, but rather regulations that were
Division 1, the States would be required to adopt
These commenters believed that if stricter
essentially identical. licensees would be
standards were permitted, reactor and non-reactor
requirements and certain practices, such as nuclear
under different
noted that because this
medicine, could be jeopardized. one commenter 20.1301 and would be a
is really a limit, it should be under 10 CPR
Division 1 matter of crmpatibility. Another for coamenter stated that NRC
should have provided a greater opportunity State involvement in
as a division 2 rule, Agreement States would
this rulemaking, and that rule.
have to spend scarce resources to develop a compatible
116 of the Clean Air Act specifies that nothing
Response: Section that are more
precludes States from imposing air emission requirements
developed by EPA. Section 116(d)(9), which
stringent than those of safety determination
contains the provisions related to EPA's marginthat: 'Nothing in this
for NRC or Agreement State licenses, specifies of any State or political
subsection shall preclude or deny the right
or limitation
subdivision thereof to adopt or enforce any standard is more stringent than the
respecting emissions of radionuclides which
7411 of this title or
standard or limitation in effect under Section that this provision clarifies
this section. - The Coamission believes
that EPA's determination regarding NRC and Agreement State licensees
has no effect on the existing authority of States to impose air
emission standards that are more stringent than those of EPA.
comment concerning involvement of the Agreement
With regard to the routinely reported its
states in the development of this rule, NRC has
adequate basis upon which EPA could rescind
progress on providing an States (OAS) and the
Subpart I to both the Organization of Agreement
Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors (CRCPD) at each of
were consulted extensively
their annual meetings. The Agreement States There were extensive
on this issue over the last several years.
and with the
discussions of the concept with the individual States
Executive Board of the OAS.
Reports
Issue 6--Demographic Information Contained in Required
Attachment i
IN 97-04 February 24. 1997
.... wents: Seven commenters addressed the application of Lhe requirement contained in 10 CFR 20.2203(b)(2) to the constraint. This
section requires reports to contain demographic information on the
exposed individual. These commenters expressed concern that a member of
the public would be under no obligation to provide demographic
information to licensees and that licensees would not always be able to
comply with the requirement.
Response: NRC agrees that members of the public may choose to
withhold the demographic information from. licensees. Such information
is only needed for occupationally exposed individuals to ensure that
lifetime exposure records are accurate. Section 20.2203 has been
changed to only require such information on occupationally exposed
individuals.
Issue 7--Effective Date
Comment: One commenter requested that an effective date be added to
the final rule to coincide with EPA's rescission of Subpart I.
Response: The NRC and EPA will, to the extent possible, publish both
final rules so that they become effective concurrently.
Issue 8--Enforcement
Comments: Five commenters stated that NRC should establish a limit
rather than a constraint. They believed that if the limit has been
exceeded, a notice of violation aid civil penalties should always
result. One commenter expressed concern that "self-reporting and
confession" is not adequate. Another stated that because ALARA is only
guidance, it is not enforceable.
Response: ALARA is not guidance. As stated previously, the 1991 revision to 10 CFR Part 20 codified ALARA as a required part of the
licensee's radiation protection program. A limit often implies that
doses must be controlled below that level in order to provide adequate
protection of health and safety of the public and workers. To meet
ALARA requirements licensees are currently controlling effluents to
levels below that which would be required under the constraint. If a
licensee exceeds the constraint, the rule requires that this be
reported and that corrective actions be promptly taken. If a licensee
does not comply with the obligation to report and take corrective
actions, enforcement action will result. In NRC's judgment, as a matter
of enforcement policy, it is not necessary to issue a notice of
violation or civil penalties upon exceedence of the constraint level;
it is sufficient that this be reported and that prompt corrective
action is taken.
H[Page 6512S]5 Issue 9--Exemptions
Comments: Five commenters stated that the rule should only apply to
members of the public ofosite. They cited the EPA's Subpart I
requirement to calculate dose to the nearest resident or offeite
individual likely to receive the highest dose. Under Subpart I,
licensees would not calculate doses from air emissions to visitors in
hospitals, workers that are not radiation workers within the facility, or other members of the public within the facility.
Response: The language in the rule has been changed to reflect that
it is intended to apply to radioactive airborne effluents to the
environment. The Draft Regulatory Guide DG-B016 will be revised to
indicate that the dose limit is to be calculated or measured at the
nearest resident or individual offaite likely to receive the highest
dose. The final regulatory guide will be available when the rule
becomes effective.
Comments: Two commenters stated that air emissions from adjacent
nearby exempt uranium wills should not be included in the calculation
of dose. One commenter stated that materials from unlicensed portions
of the facility such as ore stockpiles should not be considered in the
calculation of dose.
K> Attachment 1 IN 97-04 IFebruary 24, 1997 Response: Subpart Idoes not apply to disposal at facilities regulated under 40 CFR Part 191, Subpart B, or to any uranium mill
46CFR Part 192. The
tailings pile after it has been disposed of under licensed materials to
constraint applies to airborne effluents of onlywill be changed to
the environment. Draft Regulatory Guide DG-S016 licensed facilities or
clarify that windblown particulates from other in the calculation of
unlicensed materials do not need to be considered the constraint.
doses used to demonstrate compliance with
from patients
Comments: Four commenters stated that air emissions
should be exempted from this rule.
for a recent
Response: The regulatory impact analysis (NUREG-1492) to patients who
potential doses from exposure
NRCrulemaking analyzed This
were released after administration of radiopharmaceuticals.
analysis concluded that internal doses frompatient inhalation of radioactive
are trivial. For
materials in the exhaled air of a released compliance with
licensees using an inventory approach to demonstrating
code, there is no need to account
the rule, such as the COMPLY computer released to the air
specifically for the materials that might be
by patients. The Regulatory Guide
through respiration or transpiration from patients do not
will make it clear that dose from air emissions
of dose used to
need to be specifically addressed in the calculation
demonstrate compliance with the constraint.
addition to Rn-222, all
Comments: Four commenters stated that in be excluded.
daughters produced after release should also and any daughters
Response: EPA's Subpart I exempts both Rn-222 types of releases are
produced after release of Rn-222 because these
to licensed activities. The proposed rule was
normally not attributable The rule language has
I.
not intended to be more stringent than Subpart
been changed to reflect this exemption.
addition to Rn-222, Comments: Two comaienters recommended that in One commenter stated
Rn-220 and its daughters should also be exempted.
to this erroneous omission from
that it was an EPA oversight that led
the final Subpart I.
to licensed activities.
Response: Rn-220 is normally attributablefrom consideration in the
EPA does not exempt Rn-220 or its daughters
with Subpart
dose calculations in support of demonstrating compliance led to the erroneous
I. The commenter's suggestion that an oversight
incorrect, and Rn-220
omission of this exemption from Subpart I is that are used to
should not be excluded from the calculations
demonstrate compliance with the constraint. addition to sealed
Comments: Six commenters requested that in from the rule.
sources, sealed containers should also be excluded
Paragraph 2(a) of Appendix D to 40 CFR Part 61 states:
Response: remain unopened, and have
Radioactive materials in sealed packages that not be included in the
not leaked during the assessment period should
because any package
calculations. " Subpart I exempts sealed packages, effluents. When
to airborne
that has remained sealed cannot contribute during the year is
a total inventory of licensed materials possessed
is unnecessary to include materials
used to model potential doses, it The Regulatory
that could not have contributed to airborne effluents.
issue.
Guide will provide further guidance on this
Issue 10--Measurability of 10 urem (0.1 mSv) Per Year
Comments: Three commenters stated that 10 urem (0.1 mSv) per year
that although 10 mrem (0.1 was not measurable. one commenter stated not easily measurable.
BSv)per year might be easily achievable, it is
to 1 microR (0.01 Another stated that the exposure rate corresponds accurately.
micro-Sv) per hour and cannot be measured
provides several methods
Response: Draft Regulatory Guide DG-8016 and only one of the
for demonstrating compliance with the constraint, measurement at the receptor
methods described would require direct to the emission
is not practical due
location. If this method there are other options
characteristics of the radionuclide releases, do not require a direct
cited in Draft Regulatory Guide DQ-8016 that the constraint.
measurement to demonstrate compliance with
Issue 11--Scope of the Rule
K-.) Attachment 1 IN 97-04 February 1997 Comments: One commenter stated that if there must be a constraint, Page 12 of24. 15 it should apply to all licensees, including power reactor licensees. 9 Rz:ponse: Although this rule only applies to licensees other than
power reactor licensees, the Commission's existing regulations in 10
CFR Part 50, Appendix I, already establish a similar regulatory
framework for power reactors. Appendix I includes separate requirements
to develop design objectives and operational levels sufficient to
demonstrate compliance with EPA's Subpart I. In addition, reactor
licensees must annually report quantities of radioactive materials
released into the environment, as well as the resulting doses.
Issue 12--ocation of Constraint in NRC Regulations
The Com iasion requested specific comment on the question of
whether the 10 mrem (0.1 mSv) per year constraint should be established
in 10 CFR Part 20 as proposed or whether it should be established
separately in each appropriate part of Title 10 instead.
Comments: Two comments were received in response to this issue. One
commenter stated that the constraint should be in 10 CFR Part 20. The
other commenter stated that the constraint should be in each
appropriate part. Two other comnenters stated that it should be in
Sec. 20.1301 with the dose limits.
Response: While the constraint could just as easily be included
under other parts of the regulations, including it in 10 CFR Part 20
provides uniformity. Because 10 CFR Part 20 is the designated area for
radiation protection standards and related requirements, it is the
appropriate location for the constraint. The rule will be codified
under Sec. 20.1101 to make it clear that although the constraint is not
the same as a limit, licensees are expected to develop radiation
programs to ensure that doses from air emissions are below 10 mrem (0.1 msx) per year.
((Page 6512611
Agreement State Compatibility
The Coriasson believes that the Division 2 compatibility
designation for the rule is consistent with state authority in this
area as described in the Clean Air Act. The Division 2 designation
means that Agreement States must address these rules in their
regulations but may adopt requirements more restrictive than those of
IRC. Accordingly, the authority of the Agreement States to impose air
emissions standards under their Atomic energy Act authority after the
effective date of this rule will be consistent with their existing
authority. Under Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act the Cami-- don
reviews Agreement State programs to ensure that adequacy and
compatibility of the State Program is maintained. The Comission hasnot
also approved procedures to suspend or terminate programs that are
adequate or compatible.
Summary of Changes in the Final Rule
Based on the responses to comments, a few changes were made in the
final rule. Otherwise, the provisions of the final rule are the same as
those presented in the proposed amendments. Specific changes to the
final rule are summarized as follows:
(1) Section 20.2203(b)(2) has been changed to require the name, social security number, and date of birth only for occupationally
overexposed individuals and not for members of the public who have
received doses in excess of the public limits, including the
constraint.
(2) The language of the rule has been changed to indicate that Rn-
222 and all daughters produced after the release of the radon are
categorically excluded from this rule.
(3) The language of the rule has been changed to indicate that the to
constraint applies only to release of airborne radioactive effluents
the environment and, thus, dose to the nearest resident, offaite
business or school, is to be constrained.
In addition, the following cl-nqes will be made to Draft Regulatory
i - tAttachment 1 IN 97-04 February 24. 1997 Guide DG-8016: a potential
(1) An inventory of radioactive materials used to model mcterials
radioactive
dost. to a member of the public need not include throughout the
in sealed containers that have remained sealed
compliance period. from patients does
(2) Airborne emissions of radioactive materials already been included
not need to be considered if the materials have
in the site inventory. comment
TLe Regulatory Guide was issued in draft for public guide will be
concurrent with the proposed rule. The final regulatory
available by the effective date of this rule.
Conforming Amendments To NRC's Enforcement Policy
By separate notice in the Federal Register, Procedures the Commission is
"General Statement of Policy and for NRC
modifying its the new
Enforcement Actions" (Enforcement Policy), to address
Iv violation of
regulation, and to provide an example Severity Level when the Enforcement
the constraint. This change will also be reflected
in the next revision of NUREG-1600.
Policy is reprinted in its entirety
Act
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Enforcement
In accordance with the Small Business Regulatory this action is not a
Fairness Act of 1996, the NRC has determined that
Office of
major rule' and has verified this determination with the Budget.
of Management and
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office
Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact
Environmental
The Comission has determined under the National regulations in Subpart A
Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the NRC's
if adopted, would not be a major
of 10 CPR Part 51, that this rule, of the human
Federal action significantly affecting the quality
statement is not
environment and therefore, an environmental impact any significant
required. This action is not expected to have provide equivalent
environmental impact because the programs will materials to the
protection. Also, airborne effluents of radioactive The changes to the final rule
environment are not expected to increase.
compliance as well as
are to the procedural methods for demonstrating assessment and
licensing and inspection procedures. The environmental
which this determination is based
finding of no significant impact on for a fee at the NRC
are available for inspection and photocopying (Lower Level), Washington, DC.
Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW.
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
requirements that are
This final rule amends information collection U.S.C. 3501 et.
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 were approved by the Office of Management and
seq.). These requirements
Budget, approval number 3150-0014. of information is
Theipublic reporting burden for this collection the time for
including
estimated to average 80 hours9.259259e-4 days <br />0.0222 hours <br />1.322751e-4 weeks <br />3.044e-5 months <br /> per response, sources, gathering and
reviewing instructions, searching existing data
and reviewing the
maintaining the data needed, and completing aspect of this
collection of information. Send comments on any
suggestions for further reducing
collection of information, including Branch (T-6 Information and Records Management
this burden, to the DC 20555-0001, or
P33), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conission, Washington, to the Desk Officer, by Internet electronic mail to bsjllnrc.gov; and NEOB-10202, (3150-0014),
office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, DC 20503.
Office of Management and Budget, Washington, Public Protection Notification
is not required to
The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person a currently
unless it displays
respond to, a collection of information
valid OMB control number.
KAttachwent
X- 1 IN 97-04 February 24. 1997 Regulatory Analysis final rule. The
The NRC ha- prepared a regulatory analysis for this considered
analysis examines the costs and benefits of the alternatives
the NRC concluded that only
by the NRC. In the response to comments, were necessary, some minor changes to the draft regulatory analysis
corresponding to some minor procedural changes inin the final rule. The
available for inspection the NRC Public
regulatory analysis is Washington, DC 20555- Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW. (Lower level),
of the analysis may be obtained from Alan K.
0001. Single copies U.S. Nuclear
Roecklein, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research,
(301) 415- Regulatory Ciiassion, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone
6223.
Regulatory Flexibility Certification
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the Cominision certifies that this rule will not have a
number of small entities.
significant economic impact on a substantialwith emissions of
This final rule only impacts NRC licensees
material who would be required to
significant quantities of radioactive licensees from the
report the exceedance to the NRC. It will relieve
The level of air emissions from
unnecessary burden of dual regulation. below the NRC dose
NRC-licensed facilities has historically been well
the EPA standard.
limit and except for a few unusual cases, readily met
([Page 6512711
Backfit Analysis
The NRC has determined that the backfit rule, 10 CFR SO.109, does
does not apply to power reactor
not apply to this final rule because it is not required for this
licensees, and therefore, a backfit analysis
not involve any provisions which
final rule because these amendments do
would impose backfits as defined in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1).
List of Subjects In 10 CFR Part 20
Byproduct material, Criminal and penalties, Licensed material, Nuclear
materials, Nuclear power plants reactors, Occupational safety and
health, Packaging and containers, Radiation protection, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Source material, Special nuclear material, Waste treatment and disposal.
For the reasons set out in the preamble and Energy under the authority of
Act of 1954, as amended, the Reorganization
the Atomic Energy the
Act of 1974, as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 553, the NRC is adopting
following amendments to 10 CFR Part 20.
PART 20--STAIDARDS FOR PROTECTION AGAINST RADIATION
read as follows:
1. The authority citation for Part 20 continues to
Authority: Secs. 53, 63, 65, 81, 103, 104, as161, 182, 186, 68
949, 9S3, 955, amended, sec. 1701, stat. 930, 933, 935, 936, 937, 2073, 2093, 2095, 2111, 2133,
106 Stat. 2951, 2952, 2953 (42 U.S.C.
202, 206, 98
2134, 2201, 2232, 2236, 2297f) secs. 201, as amended, 5841, 5842, 5846).
stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C.
added to read
2. In Sec. 20.1003, the definition of Constraint is
as follows:
Sec. 20.1003 Definitions.
specified
Constraint (dose constraint) means a value above which
licensee actions are required.
Attachment 1 IN 97-04 February 24. 1991 to read as follows: 3. In Sec. 20.1101, paragraph (d) is added
Sec. 20.1101 Radiation Protection Programs.
- * * * *
of Sec. 20.1101 (b), and
(d) To implement the ALARA requirements 20.1301 of this part, a
notwithstanding the requirements in Sec. material to the environment, constraint on air emissions of radioactive
shall be established by
excluding Radon-222 and its daughters, to Sec. 50.34a, such that the
licensees other than those subject to receive the highest dose will
individual member of the public likely dose equivalent in excess
not be expected to receive a total effective
emissions. If a licensee
of 10 mrem (0.1 mSv) per year from these dose constraint, the licensee
subject to this requirement exceeds this
in Sec. 20.2203 and promptly
shall report the exceedance as provided ensure against recurrence.
take appropriate corrective action to
20.2203 the section heading is revised, a new paragraph
4. In Sec. and (b)(2) are revised
(a)(2)(vi) is added, and paragraphs (b)(1)(iv)
to read as follows:
levels, and
Sec. 20.2203 Reports of exposures, radiation exceeding the constraints or
concentrations of radioactive material
limits.
(a) * * *
(2) * * * established under
(vi) The ALARA constraints for air emissions
Sec. 20.1101(d); or
(b) * * *
(1) * * * to ensure against a
{iv) Corrective steps taken or planned conformance with
for achieving
recurrence, including the schedule generally applicable
applicable limits, ALARA constraints, license conditions.
environmental standards, and associated paragraph (a) of this section
(2) Each report filed pursuant to
overexposed \7\ individual: the
must include for each occupationally and date of birth. The report
name, Social Security account number, is stated in a separate and
must be prepared so that this information
detachable part of the report. __________________________________________________________________________
embryo-fetus
\7\ With respect to the limit for the those of the declared
should be
(Sec. 20.1208), the identifiers
pregnant woman.
day of December, 1996.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd
For the Nuclear Regulatory Comission.
John C. Boyle, Secretary of the Oondisidon. am]
(FR Doc. 96-31221 Filed 12-9-965 8:45 BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
- y
i- Attachment 2 IN 97-04 February 24, 1997 LIST OF RECENTLY ISSUED
NMSS INFORMATION NOTICES
I
nformation Date of
Notice No. Subject Issuance Issued to
97-03 Defacing of Labels to Comply 02/20197 All material licensees
with 10 CFR 20.1904(b) involved with disposal of
medical waste
96-72 Undetected Failures that May 12/24/96 All teletherapy licensees
Occur During Patient Treat- ments with Teletherapy
Devices
96-70 Year 2000 Effect on Computer 12/24196 All U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
System Software Commission licensees, certi- ficate holders, and regis- trants
96-66 Recent Misadministrations 12/13/96 All U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Caused by Incorrect Cali- Commission Medical Use
brations of Strontium-90 Licensees authorized to use
Eye Applicators strontium-90 eye applicators
96-63 Potential Safety Issue 12/05/96 All U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Regarding the Shipment Commission licensees
of Fissile Material authorized to possess special
nuclear material in unsealed
quantities greater than a
critical mass
96-57 Incident-Reporting Require- 10/30/96 All U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
ments Involving Intakes, Commission licensees
During a 24-Hour Period
that May Cause a Total
Effective Dose Equivalent
in Excess of 0.05 Sv (5 rem)
96-54 Vulnerability of Stainless 10117/96 All material licensees
Steel to Corrosion When
Sensitized
K>-y
Attachment 3 IN 97-04 February 24, 1997 LIST OF RECENTLY ISSUED
NRC INFORMATION NOTICES
Information Date of
Notice No. Subject Issuance Issued to
97-03 Defacing of Labels to 02/20/97 All material licensees
Comply with 10 CFR involved with disposal
20.1904(b) of medical waste
97-02 Cracks Found in Jet Pump 02/06/97 All holders of OLs
Riser Assembly Elbows at or CPs for boiling
Boiling Water Reactors water nuclear power
reactors models 3,
4, 5 and 6, except
those licenses that
have been amended to
possession-only
status
97-01 Improper Electrical Ground- 01/08/97 All holders of OLs
ing Results in Simultaneous or CPs for nuclear
Fires in the Control Room power reactors
and the Safe-Shutdown Equip- ment Room
96-72 Undetected Failure that 12/24/96 All teletherapy
May Occur During Patient licensees
Treatments with Teletherapy
Devices
Licensee Response to Indi- 12/27/96 All holders of OLs
96-71 cations of Tampering, Van- or CPs for nuclear
dalism, or Malicious Mis- power reactors
chief
OL = Operating License
CP = Construction Permit
IN 97-04 February 24, 1997 have been approved by EPA to show compliance with 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart I. Licensees
may also propose their own site-specific methods for showing compliance, subject to NRC
approval before use.
This information notice requires no specific action or written response. If you have any
questions about the information in this notice, please contact one of the technical contacts listed
below or the appropriate regional office.
Donald A. Cool, Director
Division of Industrial and
Medical Nuclear Safety
Office of Nuclear Material Safety
and Safeguards
Technical contacts: Cynthia Jones, NMSS John Kinneman, RI
(301) 415-7853 (610)337-5252 E-mail: cgj@nrc.gov E-mail: jkd@nrc.gov
John Potter, Ril Brenda Holt, R1iI
(404) 331-5571 (630) 829-9836 E-mail: jpp@nrc.gov E-mail: bjh@nrc.gov
Linda Howell, RIV
(817) 860-8213 E-mail: llhenrc.gov
Attachments:
1. Federal Register Notice on the Constraint Rule
2. List of Recently Issued NMSS Information Notices
3. List of Recently Issued NRC Information Notices
Coordinated with: C. Jones
P. SobeVB. Nelson,DWM
Id
nnfel IM11AIT1 rK1MF- fZ.0-nAQ.0S
OFC I IMOB IMOB I IMOB NRR l OGC I IMNS I
NAME SSherbini/ll CHaney JPiccone SWeiss FCameron DCool
DATE 1/22/97 1122/97 1/23/97 7 2/6/97 2/11/97 l
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
IN 97-XX
January XX, 1997 Coordinated with: C. Jones
P. Sobel/B. Nelson,DWM
I IMNS OFC
I /97 j
DOCUMENT NAME: G:IN.SS 6n
OFC IMOB I x- I lMO Io E -z lI I
NAME SSherbini/ll CHaney IPiccone SWeiss FCameron ,__
_ _ool
DATE \ /z -197 It /rL/97 / T3/97 / /97 WJ Zi97 tL/l1 /97
)FFICIAL RECORD COPY
IN 97-XX
January XX, 1997 have been approved by EPA to show pliance with 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart I. Licensees
may also propose their own site- ific methods for showing compliance, subject to NRC
approval before use.
Donald A. Cool, Director
Division of Industrial and
Medical Nuclear Safety
Office of Nuclear Material Safety
and Safeguards
Technical Contacts:
Headquarters: Cynthia Jones
(301) 415-7853, cgjeJnrc.gov
Region I: John Kinneman
(610) 337-5252, jkdinrc.gov
Region II: John Potter
(404) 331-5571, jpp~nrc.gov
Region III: Brenda Holt
(630) 829-9836, bjhenrc.gov
Region IV: Linda Howell
(817) 860-8213, llhenrc.gov
Attachment:
Federal Register Notice on the Constraint Rule
Coordinated with: C. Jones
P. Sobel/B. Nelson,DWM
lIMN /0FC
O
DOCUMENT NAME: G:IN.SS
l OFC IMOB IMOB IMi OGC IMNS
NAME Shierini/ll CHaney piccone 6 914W FCameron DCool
DATE l lZ/97 d~F~IRRCORD COPY{
l l 7 /97 / 23/97 -It6 /97 7 /97 I /97
____ ____