ML20008D668

Licensee'S Reply Brief to Ecology Action of Oswego'S 790409 Opening Brief.Nrc Should Dismiss Action'S Petition for Review as Having Been Improvidently Granted.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20008D668
Person / Time
Site:	Sterling
Issue date:	04/24/1979
From:	Larson L, Mcbride M, Voigt H LEBOEUF, LAMB, LEIBY & MACRAE
To:
References
FOIA-81-77 NUDOCS 7905150074
Download: ML20008D668 (14)

Text

- . - . .. _ _- .- .. . . - . _ _ . _ _ _ = . .- --

e

~

l ** W .

.~ ,,,,,,,-

.~L

, .\

• • - Atomis Industrial Forum,Inc.

7101 Wisconsni Avenue .

! I Washington. o.C. 20014 -

Telephone:(301)654 9260

' Cable:Atomforum Washingtonde

- e i

Howard J. Larson Vice Pressdent April 24, 1979 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk i Secretary ,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Co mission Matomic Building , l 1717 H Street, N.W. .

Washington, D.C. 20555 .

Dear Mr. Chilk:

The Forum's Subcommittee on Occupational Radiation Protection has reviewed the Commission's proposed rule to amend 10 CFR Parts 19 and 20 which appeared in the Federal Racister of February 20, 1979.

This proposed rule would eliminate the accumulated dose averaging

formula, 5(N-lS), the Form NRC-4 exposure history, impose a 5 rem

^

annual dose limitation and retain the 3 rem per quarter limit. '

The Subcommittee's comments are directed 'primarily to the issue of eliminating the dose averaging formula which is an area of

( particular concern.

I The p"oposed eliminatien of the dose averaging formula raises signi:icant questiods that appear to need further public input. and l discussion prior to final NRC action. In this respect, the Subcom-mittee had tne following observations on the proposed action:

1. The Federal Recister notice contains no rationale for elimination of the dose averaging formula other than; l (a) the ICRP has made such a recommendation (b) deletion j of the formula could have reduced the radiation dose of l some 320 individuals who received more than 5 rems in-

! 1977 and (c) the action could cause some licensees to take further action to reduce occupational doses.

2. The proposed rule change is apparently still being assessed by the NRC staff according to the wording in

.the Federal Recister notice. This would indicate that l the staff evaluation is preliminary and not yet completed.

l l

3. The impacts of reducing flexibility for performing critical jobs and the possible increase in cumulative dose resulting.from the proposed chango need to be evaluated.

J-l h .

~

eij e9W W ~l $"

%-. . - , , , - _ . . . . . . ~ , . . , - . - - - , , - . - , , . - . . . - - - - . . . - _ _ . - - - - - . , , . - _ . _ -

e 1 -

n. . i p,

5 Mr. Samuel'J. Chilk April 24, 1979 j t

s -

l -

i

4. The proposed rule change does not appear to take into

• full consideration extensive and continuing efforts by the. nuclear power industry and the NRC to further reduce occupational exposures.

5. The Federal Recister notice contains no scientific or biological data which would support the need to change the current limits. The available large body o'f sci-antific evidence still strongly supports the conclusion that the current radiatien standards adequately protect human health. Controversial studies that hava disagreed with this view have been extensively critiqued by quali-fled scientists, including those used by NRC, and found-1 to be inconclusive with inherent faults in the method-ology used. We have not yet seen a scientific evaluation supportive of these controversial studies.

There is a significant inconsistency in the proposed HRC rule. '

Although ICRP has recommended the delation of the 5(M-18) for-mula, that group also recettmandad a companien provisien in lieu of the formula to permit exposures above 5 rem per year in

• special circumstances. Thus, the NRC has chosen to a opt one t part of the ICRP recommendation and not the other without sup-porting ju=tification.

The Subcommittee fully siipports the objective to reduce cecupa- >

tional radiation exposurus to the lowest level reasonably achievable. The NRC indicates that the 320 individuals receiving 7

in exesss of 5 roms in 1977 reprecent less than 0 5 parcent of .

the individuals participating in NRC-licensed activities. This is certainly a low percentage of the total number of workers

, exposed which is also ind.cative that the dose averaging formula t

has det been abused or a <tsed. The majority of this group of

. workers in the nuclear 3 3.wr industry usually exceed 5 rems yar year on rare occasions unen particular experience or special .

skills are needed. The question of performing certain ,ritical tasks without tha availability of some type of flexibility needs to be fully evaluated.

There has boen, and continues to be, a significant effort by t the nuclear power industry to reduce occupational exposures through improved precedures and =cdifications at nuclear plants, 4 ,

( review of plant designs, research studies to minimize sources u - .

. f l - - ~~~~.

1

, -n.--,,--, , - - - .e,,.,-----,v_ ._,,,,.w-w,m...__,,,m ..-,,,.,-,_.,,_,,,,,.n.,n.,~,-, ,.--.w ,.,,w -

, , , , a, 4 n,. ,, .-. : nns -, , - - . -

~.. .

April 24, 1979 4: Mr. Samuol J. Chilk

. *s .

\ i j;

4 of exposure and studies to identify sources In and to evaluate better techniques for exposure reduction. the latter category, for example, the Atomic Industrial Forum, and others, have con-ducted a significant number of technical generic radiation exporure reduction studies. The AIF studies completed or under-way are indicated on the attached sheet.

1 It is the judgment of the Subec=mittas that there is a continuing need for providing flexibility in the 5 rems per year dose limit under special circumstances. Accordingly, there are a number of questions concerning this issue which warrant further in-depth study,by the Cc= mission before any final action is taken.

- Sincerely, ,5 HJL:hjm -

"nclosure 1

~

l l

l i , .

i e

I O

l

?

i b

t r i

1 i . f'

- - - . , . , - . , - - - - ~ , --,,,,,--,,,,,,,n-v - -

-,=,-e, --n,-,,, ,.,--,veng, . , , , - - - , , ew-.,-,---w--.., ,am,.,-,n._,

. ..awc

.r-

./

AIF TECHNICAL CENERIC EXPCSURS REDUCTION STUDIES

1. Compilation and Analysis of Data on Occucational Radittien

' E::cosura Excerlenced at Oceratine Nuclear Power Plants, AIF/NESP-005, September, 1974. ,

2. Potential Benefits of Reducing Occucational Radiation Ex=osure, AIF/NESP-010, May, 1978.

3. A Preliminarv Assessment of the Potential Imeacts on Operat:.nc Nuclear Power Plants of a 500 mrem /vear occupational Excesure Limit. Report by AIF Subcommittee, April, 1978.

4. Operatinc/Mancewer Cons derations Related to Reduced Excesure Limits, NESP contract study in progress. Comple:1on estima,ted

~

early sumer, 1979.

5. Engineerinc Technicues for Reducinc Radiation Excesure at oneratine Nuclear Power Plants. Study underway by AIF Sub-committee. Complation es:1 mated June, 1979.

dompendium of ALARA Practices at LWR Plants. NESP study in 6.

] progress. 'Comple' tion estimated in su=mer of 1979.

J e

• e e

4 9

G 6

5 i

l . .

l l .[ )

l '

s w/ . -=

1 .

l . .,

t l

l l

. l<EYD .36 Oct 7'h A.T4 A 'F9-46

-g-p 19 University of Cincinnati Medical Center p 0 Eugene L Saenger Radioisotope Laboratory .

Cectanes Generas Hoeoitas 234 Goooman Street Clocmnete. CN 45297 TELEPHCNE (513) 872 42s2 .

October 16, 1979 Luis F. Carcia Criteria and Standards Division (ANR-460)

Office of Radiation Programs U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D.C. 20460 -

Dear Mr. Carcia.

This letter is a brief response to the notice in the Federal Register of Monday, September 17, 1979 concerning the advance notice of proposed recommendations and futura public hearings of the En-vironmental Protection Agency in regard to guideline = for limiting

. exposure of workers to ionizing radiation.

I have been working in this field actively for many years

'particularly with the National Council on Radiation Protection and. Measurements (NCRP). More recently I have been directing two task forces for the Interna.tional Commission on Radiological Proa e

taction (ICRP) with special concern for protection of patients in I diagnostic radiology and nuclear medicine. In addition, I have s/ served as Chairman of the Radiation Safety Committee of the University of Cincinnati for the last 29 years, administerin; a large program in. occupational radiation protection. <

The questions raised in your notice are substantive. There is a large mass of data available concerning radiation protection measurements in workers and many aspects of use of radiation in

, industry, medicine and other categories. Many of these indicate that the median radiation doses are substantially lower than had previously been anticipated by the use of average values.

It is hoped that there will be sufficient latitude in holding hearings so that this subject may be properly addressed and that adequate time and sufficient nociwe be provided for comment.

I shall be ouc of the country for approximately 4 weeks but will correspond further with you about this subject on my return.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely, I y - .

Eugene L. Saenger, M.D.

Professor of Radiology

• / N Vice-Chairman, Department of Radiology ELS/swh o

. r

n ( .

JB<.sf v b th h ff > f-V4 4

LzvA. HAwzs,SvxtxoTow, Maurzx & Opezwuzzuzn

...e....crieur ..... ... v.....c.a.... g]@

mm. ... ., u. u.: . .

a &.s 6.v.

v. L *.. . . (8 8) a . * , .. . *.CT u C(a.8) go g g, g, gy ,,,,yg

. .. . .t.C . W WCv. .v-ea..,0 2:G.".*a.m.;.?. '.*."...

M...M**.'s*".*"..'

. . . . ....u . .. m.m... ,

em . . . . a.. w .

.m,c -

. m a.

6 ..

. ......u........

a,c..

.-...... .-u. .. .c. . .. .. . ..o.m a

gyr, ;,=J, ;;< Octoder 23, 1979 "c,"*f,j;*;^,,",',, ,,, ,,,,

...... ,..a.....

... . W.60 SU ,**,"E :::

Mr. Luis F. Garcia Criteria and Standards Division (ANP-460)

Office of Radiation Programs U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D.C. 20460 m

Re: Docket No. IRL 1319-1 Federal Radiation Protection Gaidance for Occupational Exposures; Advanced Notice of Proposed Recommendations and Future Public Hearings

( 44 Fed. Reg. 53~ 85 ej. sec. , September 17, 1979) l l

Dear Mr. Garcia:

The following comments are submitted on behalf of Commonwealth Edison Company of Chicago, Illinois, a major investor-owned utility with extensive experience in the operation of nuclear power generating facilities, and a strong commitment to protection of its employees, frocedural Issues Before presenting Commonwealth Edison's comments on EPA's proposed list of issues, there are several important procedura) issues concerning EPA's proposed be ring which should be considered.

The issues included within the scope of EPA's proposed hearing are complex and, in some instances, highly controver-sial. Further, any guidance revisions which the Agency might adopt after the hearings have been completed could have pro-found impacts upon industry, and upcn overall worker health.

U . -,

, V I

l

=

.s i , .

1 Mr. Luis F. Garcia october 23, 1979 Page 2 Under these circumstances, it is essential for EPA to conduct

. its hearina in a manner which ensures that all effected persons have a full and meaningful opportunity to comment upon all issues considered in the hearing. The procedural suggestions offered below are essential in order to achieve this acal, and to ensure that the hearing produces a complete and accurate record for further agency action.

9

1. Early notice of the hearine date. In view of: (1) the number and complexity of the issues to be considered at the hearing; (ii) the volume of information concerning the effects

' of radiation and work practices of particular industries which must be reviewed in preparation for the hearing and (iii) the intention of many interested parties to present expert testi-meny and other factual data, it is essential that EPA provide i at least 90 days advance notice of the date of the. hearing.

2. Early availability of the public record for_this proceeding. At the earliest possible date, but in any event by no later than 45 days before une hearing is commenced, EPA should establish a complete public docket for this proceeding.

This docket should include copies of: (i) all data, reports, analyzes, and other f actual material or other information or advice which EPA or any of the other participating agencies intends to rely upon as part of the record in this proceeding; (ii) any recommendations , position papers , suggestions , or other analysis prepared by EPA or any of the other acencies concernina any issues included within the scope of the hea.P g and (iii) any other non-confidential or non-privileged staff I

memoranda or analysis pertaining to the issues to be raised in this hearing.

3. Advanced publication of optiens for cuidance revision currently beino considered by the Agencv. For the hearing to be productive, it is essential that, prior to the hearing, EPA provide further details concerning any revisions in the current radiation protection guidance which the Agency intends to consider in this proceeding. Since the Agency apparently does not intend to solicit comments on substantive issues prior to the hearing, until the hearings have been completed, it would be premature for the Agency to limit itself to a sinole proposed revision concerning any one issue.

Instead, we recommend that the Agency adopt a procedure analo-gous to an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking, in which, at the time it announces the date of the hearing, the Agency

- 1

, f W

k

- - - - , . , , , - - , . . . - - . . - - - - . - - , , , . _ .---.,..,.-------,.-,.-_,-,,--r------ .,,n-,,-an- ,-n- ,_-..--n, <----n-,.,-, - , - . - - -

_. - . - _m - _ . . . . _ _ _

.. n Mr. Luis F. Garcia October 23, 1979 Page 3 identifies several alternative pos!tions which might be con-sidered concerning each issue to be covered at the hearing, and further identifies any issues concerning which testimony might be particularly useful in choosing among these options. After the hearing has been completed, the Agency should publish proposed guidance revisions (assumine any revisions are found to be ..ecessary), and provide an opportunity for further written comments on these proposals before any final revisions are adopted.

4. Procedures governing the conduct of the hearing. To fully probe the key issues raised in this proceeding, as part of the hearing, any party who presents testimony should be allowed to question the Agency's staff concerning all issues within the scope of the hearing.

5. Opportunity for post-heerina cross-comments. After the hearings have been completed, the record should be held open for another 30 days, to permit interested persons to present cross-comments on other testimony, and to present

, additional materials on any other issues raised at the hearing.

) EPA should refrain from issuino proposed guidance revisions until after it has had an adequate opportunity to review these comments, and then should allow further written comments on its proposed revisions.

f 6. The hearing should be limited to one location.

Finally, in order to ensure the highest quality record, and avoid unnecessary time expenditures on repetition of matters discussed at prior hearings and discussion of peripheral issues, we urge EPA to hold the entire hearing at one location.

Our experience has been'that multiple hearings at several different locations do not enhance, and often detract from, the quality and completeness of the record. We see no reason why all relevant testimeny cannot be presented in Washington, D.C.,

or another, single location.

EPA's Issues ' List l

In generbl, EPA should be commended for its initial l

issues list, which represents a good first effort at identify-ing issues for further inquiry in an area which tends to become quite complex. As currently formulated, however, EPA's list is objectionable in several significant respects.

I f

-i

. f

- == .: . -- -_. - . . .

l I a A

i Mr. Luis F. Garcia l October 23, 1979 l Page 4 i

Generie Issues First, a number of issues of generic significance either have been excladed from EPA's list, or have not received adecuate attention. Most of the issue-clusters in column 2 ot EPA's actice (44 Fed. Reg. i.c 53785, col. 2), apparently were included on EPA's list to aJsist the Agency in evaluating l

certain very specific changes in the guidance. (For example,

issue #1 pertains to whether the limitation on allowable dose should be lowered, issue #2 pertains to whether different standards should be adopted for dif ferent types of workers, and other questions relate to the time period for which dose limitations should be established, the extent to which excep-tions will be allowed, and other similar issues.) For every one or these issues, however, there are several essential questions which must be asked, which either have been excluded entirely frcm the column 2 list, or are raised only with respect to a single issue, even though their applicability is much broader. The most important of these questions, which should be asked with respect to each of the issues raised in the. notice, are as followr

1. Has any responsible scientific evidence been

( developed since the current guidance was issued to indicate that the current standard should be changed?

2. Do the findings of responsible scientific organiza-

• tions, such as the ICRP, the NCRP and the BEIR Committee ,

suggest that the current guidance should be revised?

(a) If so, what justification do these

• orcanizations offer for concluding that a revision in the standard is necessary? Is the specific revision being considered by EPA consistent with the recommendations of these (rqanizations? If not, why?

(b) If these organizations do not recommend a revision in the current guidance, what is the justification for EPA considering a change?

3. Would a revised standt-d result in en increase or decrease in collective dose?

, f o

-,re.--v -*w,yg e, -w----y =e--e ,eew-m---+er--2.ww+--,-e-w-e.-,e- y .- e,ev---w ==,3--=+=.-e,,=--vm- m-e v-- - + - - - - *--

• 4

. Mr. Luis F. Garcia  !

October 23, 1979 Page 5

4. What would be the impact of a revised standard in terms of economic costs, safety and/or foregone activities?

5. Are there other strategies, such as a broad r application of ALARA, which offer a more effective means of protecting worker health? What alternative strategies should be considered? What approach minimizes collective dose? What approach has the least adverse impact, in terms of economie costs, safety and/or other foregone activities? Are there any circumstances in which revision of the standard might impede other, potentially more effective means of protecting worker health, such as broader application of ALARA?

6. Would the impact of a guidance revision be the same for all industries? Are there some industries or job catego-ries for which a guidance revision might have a greater adverse effect on collective dose, economic costs, safety and/or other foregong activities? If so, should this factor be taken into account in determining whether the standard should be revised?

Soecific Issues T ,In addition to these generic concerns, Commonwealth

) Edison also objects to EPA's omission of a number of more specific issues, pertainino to the 10 issue-clusters contained in columns 2 and 3 of the notice.

1. Quest. 1, column 2 (Allowable Dose Levels).

Each of the generic issues listed above should be

-epeated with respect to the issues raised under this hearing. '

In addition, EPA's initial list of questions should be

! modified in several other respects:

(a) The first cuestion listed under item #1 should be amended by adding the phrase "under appropriate risk benefit criteria" to the end of the sentence.

(b) The following questions should be added:

(i) How does the adequacy of the current scientific data concerning risks from exposure to radiation compare to the adequacy of data concerning other occupational risks?

- ..3

, f

- - - . _ . - , . - - . . . . - - . _ , _ _ . _ , , , . . - - - . . . - . , . . , , , . ..-.-y., ,,.,_....,y.,.m.,,.,y. . . . _ _ , _ . m. my y,,.y.,y.-

i l

1. Mr. Luis F. Garcia October 23, 1979 Page 6 .

(ii) If current dose standards are lowered, what will be the impact on collective dose?

(iii) At current low allowable dose levels, is there any justification for cuidance revisions which might result in increased collective dose?

(iv) To what. extent is more effective implementation of ALARA preferable to a lowering of numerical standards as a means of ensuring minimization of exposures?

2. Quest. 2, column 2. (Differentiation between different joo catecortes or by sex or ace).

See generic issues.

In addition, add:

(a) Da some job categories or tasks require special skills, or require relatively high exposures for each task which is performed?

(b) If so, in such cases, what would be the impact of a revised standard on collective dese, economic costs, safety and/or foregone activities?

(c) Is the ALARA requirement being applied uniformly by different industries?

(d) To what extent can individual and collective dose be reduced further by broader application of the ALARA concept in those industries in which the application of ALARA is poor?

(e) What is the impact of current anti-discrimination requirements on occupational exposures for pregnant workers; (f) In view of these'antidiscrimination requirements, is it necessary for any changed standard concerning pregnant women to take the form of a binding regulation?

, t'

.. .i

( Mr. Luis F. Garcia y October 23, 1979 Page 7

3. Quest. 3, column 2 (Time basis for~ standards) .

See generic issues.

In addition, add:

(a) At current low allowable dose levels, is there any health justification for quarterly standards?

(b) Could quar erly standards result in an increase in collective dose?

(c) What are the practical impacts of quarterly standards, in terms of economic costs, safety and/or foregone activities?

4. Quest. 4, column 2 (Exceptions for specific circumstances).

Add:

! . (a) What are the potential impacts if excep-tions are not allowed for emergency exposures?

(b) What increase in total exposure is likely to occur if exceptions are allowed for such exposures?

Quest. 5, column 2 (Partial body standards).

See ceneric issues. ,

l

6. Quest. 6, column 2.

See generic issues.

Add:

(a) To what extent can total exposures be reduced further by broader application of ALARA?

(b) Assuming these reductions can be achieved, based upon current scientific evidence, and in view of the low risks associated with current allowable p-

.. n Mr. Luis F. Garcia October 23, 1979 Page 8 dose levels, would a further reduction in the dose levels still be justified under appropriate risk-benefit criteria?

(c) Are there circumstances in which a reduction in allowable dose levels might impede the implementation of ALARA?

(d) What are the potential impacts of " lowest feasible dose" on collective dose, economic costs, safety and/or foregone activities.

7. Quest. 7, column 2 (comoarison of the guidane_e for radiation to other occupational risks).

See generic issues.

Add:

(a) In view of current risk levels, is there any justification for attempting to further reduce I the risks associated with radiation protection below

(

() risk levels for other occupational hazards?

8. Quest. 1, column 3 (Data on frequenev and iustification of exposures).

l See generic issues.

j Add:

(a) Do the answers to these questions vary for different job categories?

(b) If so, should the ALARA concept be applied more broadly?

9. Quest. 2, column 3 (Multiple categories).

See generic issues.

I c

, r'

. - - . .- --, .... ~ . ...

• 4 Mr. Luis F. Garcia '

October 23, 1979 Page 9 Add:

(a) What are the potential impacts of multiple cat.egories on collective dose, economic costs, safety and/or foregone activities?

10. Quest. 3, column 3 (Dose records).

(a) What purposes should dose records attempt to achieve?

I (b) Are there any records currently maintained I by the NRC or any other Agency which might be used for these purposes?

Conclusion Commonwealth Edison appreciates this opportunity to

( submit comments, and would be pleased to answer any further questions you may have. .

Roget"Strelow A us/ , BJ A 1 --

Andrew D. Weissman Counsel for Commonwealth Edison Company

-3 y*

. _ - _ _ . _ , _ _ _ _ _ . - _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . ~ _ . _ . _ _ . . . . _ _ _ . _ . . . _ _ _ _ . . - - _ . . _

Ree'ofiQer"19.M% a GbMIA

,f(i?{f.,., DEFENSE COMMUNICATIONS AGENCY A.,hbyf, O M wasmaaron. o.c. asses 143l s

e L T / 230 12 October 1979 TO: Environmental Protection Agency 401 M Street, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20460

SUBJECT:

Guidance for Occupational Exposure to Ionizing Radiation

Reference:

(a) 0ASD (MRA&L) Memo, subject as above,1 Oct 79 In response to reference (a), the Defense Communications Agency has

, no comments concerning the location for the hearing, the scope of the hearing, or other issues. .

FOR THE DIRECTOR: .

O feUaf 6eu.

EDWARD F. BELL, JR.

Lieutenent Colonel, USA Acting Assistant to the Director for Administration l Copy To:

2 OASD (MRA&L) i Rocsivo?. In 3.distien Office N.71Ma.:ent.21 Frotaction Agency Date_ 0CI.2 L1311--

OCAJ 8.09' ~ 7 fi 3

. s y*w tw-- -- M *-v-wg vw ** - y v v---=-----+-a-W --v-m--e y<-w ww- w w * --m-*--*--wv ,w-----e *v----*- - - - - - -

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

. . .I

• ' ret'a 3i ort'91.&

A-19 4 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

.g-n em -

- 8 pD OFFICE OF Ti!E ASSISTANT SECRETARY waeninarow.o.c. osse 23 October 1979 -

Mr. Lais F. Garcia criteria and Se=Meds Division (ANR-460)

Office of Radiation pr % &

US Envirmmantal Protection Agency Washington, DC 20460 Dear.Mr. Garcias t

"Ais is in response to your advance Notice of Preposed Pecomendaticris

. and Future Public Hearings en Federr.1 Radiatica Protection Guidance for occupatienal Exposure published in'the Federal Register en Septem-

bar 17, 1979. The following coments are provided by the Department l of the Army and are keyed to the specific issues published in the l

Federal Register -

\ 1. A review of occupational radiation expos.tre data for the Department of the Army in 1978 indicates that caly about 0.1 percent of the radiation workers exceeded 1.0 rem per year and acxte exceeded 5 rems per year. When an employee accepts a positicn, having been in-formed of the risks associated therewith he/she has car.cluded that those risks are acceptable. At a ecnscicus level, the employee eval-uates and balances the risks associated with the job against the benefits to be received. 'Ihere is no biological evidence to indicate a need to reduce the annual limit below 5 rem per year.

2. Radiation exposure standards should apply equally to all career fields. If different standards are hsed en the " degree of risk" then

. this will caly serve to ecnfuse an edsting radiatica centrol program or system. If reasonable efforts are made by management to maintain radiation exposure as low as reasonably achievable, there is no reascr.

to have new or different standards for women known to be pregnant er women of childbearing capacity. However, there should be guidance to i

the effect that female radiatica workers, and male workers whose actions /decisicms may affect the radiatien exposure of female employees, be adequately apprised of the potential risk to the embryo / fetus to permit an informed decision by the female employee as to whether radia-tien exposure with current standards should be accepted.

l

.. .. . . . . . . . . . _ _ . =

r

4 .

t A 4

Mr. Inis F. Garcia

3. It would be best to establish only as annual radiatim expo-

• sure standard and permit management to establie administrative controls to maintain radiation exposure as low as reasonably ac?ievable. If annual radiatica exposure stanaards are established, then there is no requirement to establish a lifetime dose limit. Unless other rules and regulations are changed (29 CFR 570.57), the lower age limit has already been established and there is no requirement for an upper age limit

'because of either voluntary or involuntary . etirement.

4.. Radiation exposure standards should not be established for patients having medical or dental diagnostic procedures. However, through proper training of the diagnosticians and surveys of equipment, exposure will be reduced. There is existing guidance en radiation expo-sure for accidental / emergency situaticas by both the Natimal Ccuncil m Radiation Protection and Measurement (NCRP) and the Internaticnal Council on Radiation Protectica and Measurement (ICRP), as well as standards by the 2nsclear Regulatory C.:nnmissica (NRC); therefore, it is not necessary to establish limits for accidental / emergency exposures.

, 5. The existing guidance is adequate to protect the radiatica N worker from other than whole body exposure.

6. The NRC, NCRP, and ICRP have published documents concerned with

maine 24n4ng occupaticnal exposures as low as reasonably achievable, therefore, additional guidance is not required. It is the responsibil-ity of management to establish administrative controls to insure that

{ occupational exposures are maintained as low as reasonably achievable.

7. It is invalid to argue that the highest individual risk in ene

~

, industry is unacceptable because it exceeds average risks in other industries. In every occupaticaal risk situation, sexne individuals are or may be exposed to higher risks than the average individual.

In summary, it is our positicIn that current radiatica protection guidance is adequate and that proper emphasis by management will maintain occupa-tional radiation exposures as low as reasonably achievable.

Sincerely, l John T. Nash

( Acting Deputy for Enviren=ent, Safety and j Occupaticnal Health i

l CASA (IIMM)

O Copy furnished:

l T

\ Mr. Marienthal (DASD-EES) ,

,j 2 .

. f

-. --r.,

. , . -- - - . . . . . . . - ~ . ~ - . . , - - - . . . , - . . . -..- -. --- --- . . . . - _ - , . -.. . - - - - . . . - - , . , .- -

.- xsa'o u w os. M 4 '

~

Ae -nu e EIcylor College of Medcine f .. .) r- a a CEPARTMENT CF RACICLOGY + 713 790-4417 iSi D'

i i October 29, 1979

• Dr. Lewis F. Garcia Criteria and Standards Divi.sion

.(ANR-460)

Office of Radiation Programs U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D.C. 20480

Dear Doctor Garcit.:

This is in reply to the call for comment published in the Federal Register, dated September 17, 1979, and regarding the proposed recommendations of radiation protection guidance for limiting exposure of radiation workers.

[ The proposal to alter the current level of radi,ation' protection y/ guides apparently results from no factual information but rather from a continuing program of codifying ALARA. I suggest that such changes in our radiation protection guides are premature since an unacceptable hazard has not been demonstrated.

Changes at this time will only serve to increase the cost of our radiation protection activities, not only because of the altered requirements themselves, but also because of the appar-ent requirement for increased recording and records keeping.

The benefit to workers will not be measureable except for perhaps requiring higher levels of employment. Let me comment on the issues raised in your notice in the order in which they were presented:

l. The present guides are adequate. I am unaware of any information to suggest that any worker is placed at a meas-ureable or unacceptable risk by the current standards. In the area of medical radiation protection, the added cost of designing facilities to accommodate lower dose limitations ,

cannot be justified.

• 2 If a change in the present dose limiting recoc:mendations I should occur, such changes should take into account exposure l levels currently experienced in medical rc.diology. Surely

-a TEXAS MECiCALCENTER

• HCUSTCN TEXAS 77030

, . , ~ , . , ,, , -- ,,~ - . . .,e..., --- ..,,..,.,.,---e..

e

. ~

Dr. Lewis F. Garcia

• October 29, 1979 Page two -

95% of all personnel exposures are lesa than 500 mrem /yr.

A reduction of the current dose limitations would not affect personnel exposures but would affect the con-struction cost of each radiation facility. -

3 I can think of no basis on which to alter this present temporal specifications for guides unless it would be to discontinue the requirement of quarterly reporting.

Records of annual exposure levels should be sufficient.

No one has yet demonstrated a meaningful application of such records regardless of the reporting frequency except to identify individual conditions of e,quipment malfunction or ' work habits.

4 Our radiation protection guides should continue to reflect only occupational exposure levels. Medical, accidental and emergency exposures should not be made a part of the regulations.

5 There are so many difficulties and inconsistencies inherent in monitoring and reporting a total body ex-posure that attempting to regulate a partial body ex-posure beyond current. standards does not make sense. There is no reasonable way to do this and certainly no measureable benefit to the worker.

6 The concept of ALARA is good and should be emphasized in present regulations. However, such a concept should not wideberange incorporated of interpretation. into flexible regulations having a

, 7 Comparative risks are not very meaningful. If such were s

applied rigorously to the. radiation area then we could rthose rely presently establishrecommended. dose limitations that are much higher than In addition to the above, let me respond to the three questions at the conclusion of your notice:

l l

l D

e *

'.I'

, 3 . eg me meew e *e;

• 9---,.e,v--,,-ggg --ce.,g-=v---.w,-rw-g,.w,w.m- w w w,-w n, y , ww w .7.w . ~ -vwwe.,,.w-m.w,,,,._,.,-,.---,.w.

a e.,,-._,.+.y,,,,,%...,- - . - . , - . . , ,-,w-. . - - . . - . - , , ,-,r- -v. +-4-.-.- -

E- ,

.- . .. L $~

f

\ .

i l

Dr. Lewis F. Garcia October 29, 1979 Page three V

1. This statement does not apply to medical radiological applications. Rarely does a medical radiation worker approach the maaimum permissible dose.

~

As I, indicated '

earlier, it has been my experience that fewer than 5% exceed .

one tenth of the maximum permissible dose. j i

2. Catagories of permissible exposure should not be adopted. '

The administrative procedures, monitoring programs, records keeping responsibilities and reporting requirements l would in no way add measurably to the health of radiation workers or reduce their risk of injury.

3. Lifetime dose v.ecords within current limits are meaning-less. I know of no single useful application of any lifetime exposure record. Certainly, for most radiation

/'~ )/ workers, their living environment and medical radiation exposure history as a patient are far more significant than their lifetime occupational radiation exposure. -

1 Current radiation protection guides are adequate for medical radiation workers. Medical, occupational radiation exposures are l Icw and essentially risk free when viewed in comparison with

other occupational groups. If any changes were to be recommended i

they should include a icosening of the requirements for facility design. Medical radiation workers receive nearly all of their occupational exposure while in the radiation room attending the patient. This is true for both x-ray and radioisotope workers.

Current design recommendations do not affect such occupational exposures meas reably. ,

r We must begin to recognize that all of our daily activities involve some risk. Our current risk from occupational radiation exposure is immeasureable and, indeed, insignificant. A lowering of the present recommendation is unnecessary.

Sincerely, (A/[ -

Stewart C. Bushong, .D.

Professor of Radiologic Science SCB:dlm

=

I

age % 5'Nov. '?'" Af'?

1. ~ ~

DAVID S. M E!SCHAKER e.

mom.sv 4, uw EO 'i .

37ss avs sTRzET N.W.

WASHINGTON. D. C. 20006 surrs ,os November 6, 1979 Mr. Luis F. Garcia Criteria and Standarde Division (ANR-460)

Office of Radiation Programs U.S. Environmental Protection Agancy -

Washington, D.C. 20460 ,

Dear Mr. Garcia:

The purpose of this letter is to comment on the En-vironmental Protection Agency's (" EPA") Federal Register notice relative to future public hearings on occupational exposure standards for radiation. 44 Fed. Reg. 53785 (September 17, 1979).

1 j More than four years ago the Natural Resources Defense Council ("NRDC") petitioned EPA and the Nuclear Regulatory ,

Commission for a downward revision of the occupational exposure standards. The Notice states that issues raised in i those petitions are to be addressed in the forthcoming hearing. However, many of the issues noticed for hearing -

while related to those raised -in the NROC petition - are of a secondary or bookkeeping nature. (See specifically, p.

53785, Column 2, Nos. 3 (except for H),.4, and 5; Column 3, .

Nos. 1 and 2). We request that the hearings be structured so that the principal issues raised in the NROC petition are segregated from these minor issues. This is to assure that the important issues are not submerged in a voluminous and unorganized record.

The Notice does not discuss the type of hearing that is contemplated. We believe that on issues as important as these, with potentially wide impact on the health and safety of the public, it is incumbent upon the agency to assure the

-l

'a f'

~

- ... . . . . , . s. . ,

. . - ..,.--..~ym- ,._s,_ ..,.,_..,._-_,.,_._.,,_._,,..y.,,,___,..,_,,.,,._,,m.m.- . _ _ ... . _ _ _ , . - . - _ , _ . , , . , _ . . . . - _ . ,

Mr. Luis F. Garcia November 6, 1979 Page Two (m )

fullest possible exploration of the issues. The best mechanism for airing these controversies and making a record for decision is a public hearing where the clash of opposing viewpoints can be assurcd or assumptions and factual assertions can be tested by probing questions. Hearing procedures .

should provide for pre-hearing document discovary and some form of witness questioning by the parties. The Staff and other participants should be required to disclose underlying reports, analyses, etc. upon which they rely, and of course, the EPA staff should fully present any dissenting views.

This matter has been pending before EPA for over four years now. The problem of occupational exposure to radia-tion remains ene of the serious unresolved problems of the nuclear industry. Standards set decades ago are no longer meaningful and continue to be used as " safe" maximums. Data from several sources indicate that these limits are not safe, either for the workers or their children and that under existing standards work in the nuclear industry can be and is for some, ultra hazardous.

It is time to address th'e issues raised in the NRDC

• petition.

Very truly yours, .

f.12s 'i C.luvY .

. ;z5.;> vw David S.~Fleischaker, Esq.

( COUNSEL TO NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL

' DSF: 3b l

l l

l

. f:

2 navnn c) pm, . (~, , or

./

m E

~ ,,

~

) ,f t

{  %

'** re cw, ,,,,

com n RMARKSe ,,,, '" C*'Netio For Ye n Nw*and # ur tw wrnra,m eg Nc n M ve Jus ti

%"* o ,,,,,,,,,

s= u Re M si ,,u.,,

E d ,

%n.nQ % .

O.

N

% 84:(Ne g ~* . mb e-*^ .--

,, % ,ysimffer=i,0 A

te O C *CU=

=.

[ Moent a n ,__4,,g

""-8-8 ~

g,

~ , _.. _ 41-esefs ,,i Phon e No, FC

" %.. 14 42 ot-as.aos (Rw, 7.

N * ,, ..

~...

O .

-3

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