ML19261A643
| ML19261A643 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/30/1978 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | Gossick L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19261A640 | List: |
| References | |
| SECY-78-415, NUDOCS 7902050270 | |
| Download: ML19261A643 (2) | |
Text
g 'Wq ILIT r n I.T ATE J
4 I
):L'WI ilEGUI ATORY CO'.%11SSIOi
[ ;.," * " i v.
,w s,
- o c. m.3 b,
. 4,&
y 4
8 aee N'l O 0.'
- r OF 1HW
... r s Ma'.CRAi!DUM FOR:
Lee V. Gzsick, Executive C' actnr f ar " 'ntions a2. nl J. Chi i k, ;,ec re t ary d ' U "#
fli3L
/
SUJJECi-
C':-78-415 - UCCUPAY10 1AL EXPOSURE Si&DMDS (CC'; :.T CALE a'? ITT4)
Based on its review of SECY-73-415 and related documents and its dis-cussions with the steff, and in the light of other developments with respect to the inatter of occupational exposure standards, the Comission concludes that a number of actions should be undertaken:
A.
With respect to individual dose limitations:
1.
The staff should undertake expediticusly to prepare for ar" initiate a public hearing on issues concerning the adecuacy of present radiation protection occupational standards for exposure of individuals.
This effort should take into account, w. ore pertinent, considerations developed in other relevant contexts, including recent House ar.d Senate hearings and the current HDl-led interagency study.
(SECY suspense: March 15, 1979) 2.
The staff shoulJ undertake to hold the hearing jointly with EPA.
lhe staff shculd provid2 their views as to whether particip: tion by other relevant Federal agencies is desirable.
(SECY Suspense: De mmber 15, 1978) 3.
The steff should develop for Commission revicu and approval a revised f;otice of Pearing, the scope of tihich should include as a minimum the issues an' preposals identified in the I: ROC retition as t;all as the staff's response end alternative proposals.
la particular, d _ m.yu should in:luda the issue of ace-J p:c 5 '.
dose limitati'm.
The report of the imS-BEIR coamittee--ex ccted
'"', its eveilabili W 11' i.
- n.,.
E, a u 'y.
en : l y._' a i._. 9
. pl-
.3 e, a: h.:ri ng (SECY Supense January 19, 1979) 4.
The Staff shcald rrevie-the Ce: 7.ission an analysis of the cdvantNes : " diadvco.cqes of th'. al terna tive for.s for tb hearino, ir.cludino the : ad to provide adjudicatory ris; hts, such as discovarj.
(SECY Suspense: January 19,1979)
CC:;IN T-9&c c.
(5 T ' ')
4-1410 Y O 2 b S o D ~\\ O
1
( 5.
The staff should dy/21op for Co.uission review and s peaval a revision of the r.atice of proposed er endments reletrl to eliminating the use of the 5(M-18) forcula.
The revised notice should stata the reasor a for going forward.!i 3 this change prior to the planned hearing, but should clccriy reca rt th!t cc:.r:9nts t.ddress the desirability of includinq this p ra n c
")
's
- e J1in C
".0,
- of 5 ? pl. u +d l 3
( 5 J h,p M ; -
N,:r b e r :., 197J) 13.
Mi th resp +ct to ALAM cun'.rols un collect,ive 6Le:
The Ccmission balieves that the inttar of ALAPA progra.r.s for control of occupational exposure can and should be dealt with as entirely separate rule.aaking matter.
The Corr. mission supports the f ull implementation of the ALARA concept in the control of occupa tional exposure.
!!c'..,ever, before approving the publication of the staff's proposed amend.ients to the regulations to make ALARA more readily enforceable, the Conniission requests further information to demonstrate that the guidance and criteria the staff would use is likely to tw the most effective way to implcment the proposed regulations.
In particular, the Commission requests a staff analysis of possible contrasting approaches using more explicit or quantitative criteria in deciding whe.1 a licensee's program is ALARA.
Among the approaches the staff is to analyze are extension of the use of the dollar-per-man-rem value used for reactor ef fluent exposure evaluations, the use of specific man-rem limits and/or design objectives for appropriate categories of exposure, and com.binations of these alternatives in conjunction with the general qualitative approach that relios on staf f judgment.
The staff should identify what additional resources would be neaded and hou lor.] it vould take to develop specific guidance and criteria for implementing ALARA.
The staff should discuss both the availability of manpower and the tiaing of guidance a vai labil i ty.
The response to this request should be provided at the same time as the response to Chairman Hendrie's request made in my memorandum to you of August 23, 1978.
(SECY Suspense: January 19,1979) cc:
Chairman Hendrie Co.missioner Gilinsky C: ais.iu er an-Q
' Ccr.iss ianer i3rcdi xd Co;.wiss ionor Ahearne Acting General Counsel Director, Policy Evalua ticn Director, Congressional Affairs Director, public Af fairs Director, Standards Develope nt
.