ML20011B191
| ML20011B191 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/14/1977 |
| From: | Minogue R NRC OFFICE OF STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20011B132 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-81-303, TASK-CC, TASK-SE SECY-77-538, NUDOCS 8112040400 | |
| Download: ML20011B191 (53) | |
Text
,
t
.s 99 M #
h 6MHCHAL USE ONLY umso swas October 14, 1977 SECY-77-538 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM For:
The Comissioners From:
Robert B. Minogue, Director, Office of Standards Development Thru:
Executive Director for Operations
Subject:
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO 10 CFR PARTS 19 AND 20 TO CONTROL RADIATIOP EXPOSURE TO TRANSIENT WORKERS
Purpose:
To obtain Comission approval to' publish the amendments for public coment.
Catecory:
This paper covers a minor policy question.
How to prevent possible radiation doses above the limits in 10 CFF Part 20 to short-tem (transient) workers who may work in the restricted areas of more than one licensee within a single calendz quarter, and individuals who may work for more than one licensee at a time (moonlighters).
Decision Criteria:
1.
Is protection of individual workers assured?
2.
Is availability of workers and the scheduling of work involv-ing radiation exposure seriously affected?
Alternatives:
1.
Impose a short-term (daily or weekly) dose limit on transient workers.
2.
Require licensees to control the total occupational radiatior dose of individuals.
Implementing changes would require licensees (a) to obtain, from more highly exposed individuals, infomation en dose during a current calendar quarter from sources outside of the licensee's control; (b) to furnish prompt estimates of dose, at the request of the individual, upon temination of work; and (c) to keep additional records.1 3.
Require licensees to control the total occupational radiatier dose of individuals, without the implementing changes proposed in alternative 2.
I The proposed amendments are set forth in Enclosure "A".
Contact:
Walter S. Cool 9 *, P
~
~
Ext: 443-o920 t ;,_
BA"#8?P "2
- a nema,un nme nuiU ZS COTTING81-303 PDR
A The Comissioners 2
4.
Require licensees to control the total occupational radia-tion dose of individuals by obtaining complete occupational radiation dose histories on Fom NRC-4, or equivalent, for all individuals entering a restricted area, rather than for only those individuals who are to be allowed to receive up to 3 rems per quarter within the 5(N-18) dose averaging fomula as provided in existing i 20.101(b) and i 20.102.
5.
Require licensees to control the total occupational radia-tion dose of individuals by obtaining infomation on each indi-vidual's dose history from the NRC's radiation dose records repos-itory before allowing the individual to enter a restricted area.
6.
Require licensees to control the tdtal occupational radiation dose of individuals by having all individuals use a dose credit card that would be maintained through union affiliation.
7.
Impose additional controls on doses to transient and moon-lighting workers by technical specifications and conditions placed in the licenses of those activities experiencing use of such workers.
Discussion:
The dose limiting sections in 10 CFR part 20 of the Comission's regulations do not require a licensee to control the total occupational. radiation dose of a worker.
Section 20. TUT 7equires that no licensee shall possess, use, or transfer licensed material in such a manner as to cause any individual in a restricted area to receive in any period of one calendar quarter, from radio-active material and other sources of radiation in the possession of the licensee, a dose in excess of the limits in Part 20.
In many cases the occupational dose history of the individual worker is detemined on Fom NRC-4, or equivalent, so that the licensee may pemit the worker to receive up to 3 rems per quarter within the dose-averaging formula 5(N-18), pursuant to i 20.101(b) and i 20.102.
In most of these cases, the licensees are controlling the total occupational doses of the workers.
However, in many other cases, licensens operating pursuant to I 20.101(a), pemit workers to receive up to 1.25 rems per quarter, the basic whole body dose limit, without obtaining infomation on prior occupational, dose.
It would be possible for more than one licensee to aploy an individual in a calendar quarter. The individual could receive doses within the basic quarterly limit during each employment, and exceed the quarterly limit in total during multiple enployments. The staff considers it necessary to close this loophole and to establish a control system before the population of workers involved makes institution of controls more difficult.
e' 1
4 i
3 The Comissioners Termination data submitted to the NRC radiation dose records repository since 1969, by the four categories of licensees subject to i 20.408, indicate that there are large numbers of individuals who terminate employment with licensees each year.
In 1975, there were 38,360 terminations reported involving 26,585 individuals. The actual number of individuals with multiple employments in a single calendar quarter is small (714 in 1975), but the number is increasing rapidly.2 More than 30 percent of the termination reports were for individuals whose period of employment was less than 90 days, indicating the possibility for several thousand individuals to be employed by two or more licensees during one quarter. More than 50 percent of the termination reports are for individuals working at nuclear power facilities.
Further, the staff has learned of organized recruiting of radia-tion workers for weekend and vacation work at licensed facilities other than those of their primary employer (moonlighting). Under the present regulations, the primary' employer is not required to account for the dose received by an employee while moon-lighting, or to include that dose in the employee's dose record.
Thu:, the employee could receive the quarterly dose limit at two or more places of employment without violating the Commission's regulations.
The termination data filed by the four categories of licensees subject to i 20.408 indicate that licensees are taking effective The precautions to avoid overexposure of workers at present.
staff considers that there would be little impact on licensees or workers at this time by amendment of the regulations to close the loophole and require licensees to control the total occupational dose of all workers, including transient workers and moonlighters. However, the number of workers potentially involved is large and increasing rapidly, and future demands for limited pools of skilled manpower could change this situation.
Alternatives:
1.
Impose a short-term (daily or weekly) dose limit on transient workers.
Pro: (a) Essentially precludes the possibility of overexposure of transient workers.
2See Enclosure "C", Value/ Impact Assessment, for a table "Sumary of Tennination Data", infonnation on active recruitment of moonlighting, and further discussion of the need for the proposed action.
t 4
The Commissioners i
(b) Impact would be limited to those licensees employing transient workers.
Con: (a) The NRC staff has been unable to devise a practical way to identify transient or moonlighting workers in advance, in a manner enforceable under the regulations, without making the short-term limits apply to all new-hires during the early part of their employment (e.g.,
the first quarter).
(b) Weekly limits may not be justified in view of poten-tially larger costs. Licensees might have to apply backfitting design and engineering changes or use additional workers in order to accomplish essential work. The latter could result in a net increase in total man-rems of dose.
(c) Would reduce the magnitude of the dose that a transient worker could receive, thus imposing a serious restric-tion with no known biological necessity.
(d) Would aggravate the existing critical shortage of available workers in certain key occupations, e.g.,
~
welders.
(e) Would not limit dose of individuals (moonlighters) employed in two or more jobs involving radiation dose.
(f) Would not assure that occupational doses are maintained as low as is reasonably achievable.
2.
Require licensees to control the total occupational radia-tion dose of individuals, with specified implementing changes to the regulations.
Pro: (a) Would control the total occupational dose of transients.
(b) Would control the total occupational dose of moon-lighters and to employees of licensees who may incur dose during work in behalf of the licensee in the restricted area of another licensee.
(c) Would continue to permit efficient use of workers within established dose limits and would not cause the increase in man-rems that might be associated with a I
short-term dose limit (Alternative 1).
f
6 The Comissioners 5
Would not affect a large percentage of licensees who do (d) not use transient or moonlighting workers or experience doses in excess of 25 percent of the basic quarterly limits, or impose a significant burden on affected licensees.
Would impose on all NRC specific licensees (and Agree-Con: (a) ment State licensees, by virtue of decision regarding the proposed amendments being matters of basic com-patibility between NRC and Agreement State regulations) requirements designed to limit employment practices most frequently associated with nuclear power plants, waste disposal facilities, and industrial radiographers.
(b) Might involve provision and use of some additional monitoring devices to permit prompt assessment of doses upon termination of the worker.
(c) Would necessitate licensee-employee agreements or conditions of employment regarding employee involvement in radiation work outside of the licensee's control.
Such agreements or conditions of employment would have to be enforced by the licensee in order to be effective.
Enforcement would raise questions in employee-management relations.
Require 1 censees to control the total occupational dose of i
3.individuals, but without the implementing changes proposed in Alternative 2.
Pro: (a), (b), and (c) as in Alternative 2.
(d) Would avoid imposition of additional record keeping and reporting requirements.
Cen: (a), (b), and (c) as in Alternative 2.
(d) Fails to recognize the effort to be made by licensees to satisfy the proposed regulations, or to provide guidance on acceptable methods of controlling doses to transients and moonlighters.
(e) Fails to assure an inspectable record of licensees' operations permitting enforcement of the regulations.
j i
(
(
w
t The Comissioners 6
4.
Require licensees to control the total occupational dose of individuals by obtaining complete occupational radiation dose history on Fonn NRC-4 or equivalent, for all who enter a restricted area rather than for only those who are to be allowed to receive up to 3 rems per quarter within the 5(N-18) fonnula as provided in existing 5 20.101(b) and 5 20.102.
Pro: (a), (b), and (c) as in Alternative 2.
Con: (a), (b), and (c) as in Alternative 2.
(d) Involves much greater cost to licensee (e) Could limit the timely availability of a worker, impact on the employability of the worker with prior occupational dose history, and encourage withholding or falsification of dose history by individuals needing income.
l 5.
Require licensees tr control the total occupational dose of individuals by obtaining infonnation on each individual from the i
NRC's radiation dose records repository before allowing the individual to enter a restricted area.
pro: (a), (b), and (c) of Alternative 2.
(d) Would reduce to one the contacts that a licensee would have to make to verify a worker's dose history, t
(e) Would minimize the possibility that a worker might withhold or falsify dose history.
Con: (a), (b), and (c) as in Alternative 2.
(d) A large fraction of occupational doses are not reported to the repository (most NRC licensees, Agreement State licensees, and operations subject to the Department of Labor or other Federal Agencies such as DOE).-
(e) Could limit the timely availability of workers.
(f) Repository services would have h be increased signifi-cantly.
(g) The propriety of a Federal Regulatory Agency providing such a " service" to it's licensees is questionable.
r
o 6
l The Comissioners 7
6.
Require licensees to control the total occupational dose of individuals by having all individuals use a dose credit card that would be maintained through union affiliation.
The NRC staff does not believe that this alternative is viable at this time.
In order to be effective, such a control system would have to involve a very high percentage of the total work force.
While many parts of the labor force are covered by union affilia-tions, many are not. The NRC staff does not consider it appro-priate or desirable to take any regulatory action that would appear to require membership of all workers in labor unions.
- Further, the cost of such a control system, while unquantified, would be very high.
7.
Impose additional controls on dose to transient and moon-lighting workers by technical specifications and conditions placed in the licenses of those activities experiencing use of such workers.
Pro: (a) Would effectively control dose to transients and moon-lighters in programs under licenses with added provisions (b) Would continue to permit efficient use of workers within established dose limits and would not cause the increase in man-rems that might be associated with a short-term dose limit (Alternative 1).
(c) Would limit the impact of added provisions to those licensees known to use transient and moonlighting workers..
Con: (a) and (b) of Alternative 2.
(c) The use of transient and moonlighting workers is not precisely known and arbitrary application of the provisions and associated burden would result.
(d) This alternative would not close the loophole in the dose-limiting regulations.
Recomendation:
The Comission:
(a) Approve Alternative 2 to publish a notice of proposed amendments to 10 CFR Parts 19 and 20 as given in Enclosure "A".
(b) Note
t t.
The Commissioners 8
1.
The proposed amendments to 10 CFR Parts 19 and 20 will be published in the Federal Register, allowing' 60 days for public comment; 2.
If after expiration of the comment period no signifi-cant adverse canments or significant questions have been received and no substantial changes in the text of the rule are indicated, the Executive Director for Operations will arrange for publication of the amendments in final form.
If significant adverse comments or significant questions have been received or if substantial changes in the text of the rule are indicated, the revised amendments will be submitted to the Commission for approval; 3.
The Subconnittee on Nuclear Regulation, Committee on Environment and Public Works. United States Senate, and the Subconnittee on Energy and the Environment, Con-mittee on Interior and Insular Affairs, United States House of Representatives, will be informed of th1s action; 4.
An appropriate public announcement, such as Enclo-sure "B" will be issued upon filing of the notice of proposed rule making with the Office of the Federal Register; 5.
GAO review of the record keeping and reporting require-ments will be obtained prior to making the rule effective; 6.
Pursuant to 5 51.5(d)(3) of Part 51 of the Cannission's regulations, neither an environmental impact statement nor a negative declaration need be prepared in conjunc-tion with the proposed amendments since the, amendments are insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact.
Coordination:
The Offices of Administration, Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Nuclear Regulatory Research, and Inspection and Enforcenent concur in the rec-onnendation of this paper. The Office of the Executive Legal Director has no legal objection. The Office of Public Affairs prepared the draft public announcement, Enclosure "B".
s t
The Commissioners 9
A working copy of the notice of proposed rule making was circulatec to members of the Atomic Energy Labcr Management Advisory Com-mittee (AELMAC) on March 31, 1975. Written replies were received from four AELMAC members and the minor coments submitted have been accommodated in Enclosure "A".
During discussion of the proposed amendments with AELMAC on May 28, 1975, a labor member stated that the proposed amendments were probably the best action that could be taken at this time. He indicated that alternative measures of control might raise the issue of hazard pay for radiation work, an issue that he wished to avoid. There was no connent from AELMAC opposing the proposed amendments.
The substance of the NRC staff-recommended alternative was dis-cussed with the Environmental Steering Group of the Atomic Industrial Forum on April 29, 1976. Subsequently the Atomic Industrial Forum established an Ad Hoc Working Group on Occupa-tional Radiation Exposure. The Working Group studied the matter, solicited cost / benefit information from a number of nuclear utilities, and submitted their evaluation and cannents to NRC by letters dated January 21, 1977, and March 24, 1977. The comments were considered in developing the proposed snendments and the cost /'enefit data are reflected in the Value/ Impact Assessment, Enclosure "C".
By letter of May 16, 1977, copies of a notice of proposed rule making (an earlier draft of Enclosure "A" to this paper) were sent to the Agreement States requesting their review and comment.
They were not sent the Value/ Impact Assessment, Enclosure "C" to this paper. Comnents were received from the States of Washington and Texas.
(See Enclosure "F" to this paper.) They recognize the " apparent loop-hole in the regulations," consider "the incor-poration of a regulation into 10 CFR 20 which assigns to each licensee the responsibility for employees' total occupational dose assessment is long overdue," but oppose the proposed imple-menting amendments on the basis that the " benefits derived are far outweighed by the costs."
OGC has no comments.
OPE comments on an earlier draft are presented and responded to in Enclosure "D".
The Paperwork Reduction Sub-Group had no significant adverse comments on the Report Justification Analysis contained in the Value/ Impact Assessment.
i 5
The Comissioners 10 If a Comission session is necessary, it is recomended Sunshine Act 0GC that this paper be considered in an open meeting.
Recomendation:
and OPE concur.
b,
)
Robert. Minogue, Director Office of Standards Development
Enclosures:
"A" - Notice of Proposed Rule Making "B" - Oraft Public Announcement "C" - Value/ Impact Assessment Containing Report Justification Analysis "0" - Response to OPE Coments "E" - Draft Letter to Congressional Committees "F" - Agreement State Coments Scheduling:
For affirmation at an open meeting, anticipated the week of November 7, 1977.
Comissioners' coments or consent should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary by close of business Fridav. Oct'ober 28, 1977 Comission staff office coments, if any, should be submitted to the Comissioners NLT October 25, 1977, with an information copy to the Office of the Secretary.
If the paper is of such a nature that it requires additional time for analytical review and coment, the Comissioners and the Secretariat should be apprised of when comments may be expected.
DISTRIBUTION:
comissioners Commission Staff Offices Exec. Dir. for Operations Secy I
r
a I
1 NUCl. EAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
[10 CFR Parts 19 and 20]
NOTICES, INSTRUCTIONS AND REPORTS TO WORKERS, INSPECTION STANDARDS FOR PROTECTION AGAINST RADIATION AGENCY:
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission ACTION:
Proposed rule
SUMMARY
- The Nuclear Regulatory Comission is considering amend-ments to its standards for protection against radiation. The amend-ments would require itcensees to control the total occupational radiation dose of individuals.
Implementing. changes..would require licensees:
(a) to obtain from more highly exposed individuals, information on dose during a current calendar quarter from sources outside of the ifcensee's control; (b) to furnish prompt estimates of dose, at the request of the individual, upon termination of work; and (c) to keep appropriate records.
In many cases, licensees operating within the basic radiation dose limits, permit workers to receive up to 1.25 rems per calendar quarter without obtaining information of prior occupational dose.
It would be possible for more than one licensee to employ an individual in a calendar quarter.
The individual could receive doses within the basic quarterly limit during each employment, and exceed the quarterly limit in total Enclosure "A" l
I i
i
{.
s
(
~
during multiple employments. The proposed amendments are designed to minimize the possibility of overexposure of short-tenn workers, sometimes called " transient workers", and other individuals who may be employed by, or work in the restricted areas of more than one licensee within a single calendar quarter, and individuals who may work for more than one licensee at a time (moonlighters).
DATES:
Comment period expires 197.
ADDRESSES:
(1) Written comments should be submitted to the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
20555, Attention: DocReting and Service Branch.
(2) FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:.Mr. Walter S. Cool, Office of Standards Development, U.S. Muclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555 (phone 301-443.-6920).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The regulations in 10 CFR Part 20 require that no licensee shall possess, use, or transfer licensed material in such a manner as to cause any individual in a restricted area to receive in any period of one calendar quarter, from radioactive material and other sources of radiation in the possession of the licensee, a dose in excess of the basic 1.25 rems per quarter whole i
2 Enclosure "A" i
q 1
\\
f body limit specified in 5 20.101(a), or 10 percent of that dose as specified in 5 20.104(a) if the individual is less than 18 years of age.
Provision is made in 5 20.101(b) that a licensee may permit an individual to receive up to 3 rems per quarter provided that the licensee determines the individual's occupational radiation dose history, and provided that the individual's accumulated occupational radiation. dose to the whole body does not exceed the formula 5(N-18), where "N" equals the individual's age at his last birthday.
However, it would be possible for more than one licensee operating pursuant to s 20.101(a) to employ an individual in a calendar quarter. The individual could receive doses up to 1.25 rems during each employment without consideration of the dose l
received during prior employment, and exceed the basic 1.25 rems per quarter limit during the multiple employments.
i 4
Information obtained from Comission inspections and investiga-tions, and from reports on personnel monitoring filed on termination of employment or work assignment in licensed facilities by four categories of licensees pursuant to 5 20.408, 10 CFRPart20.Il, indicate an increase in frequency of doses to transient workers at 1
different licensed plants. The Comission is also aware of organized recruitment of personnel to work in licensed activities other than i
E e four categories of licensees are specified in 5 20.407(a), and
)
Th are the categories considered to have the greatest potential for significant occupational radiation dose.
3 Enclosure "A" I
2
~_
4 i
~
those of their primary employer (moonlighting), particularly during their vacations. Therefore, the Commission is considering amend-ments to its regulations that would require each licensee to control the total occupational dose to workers, including transient workers and moonlighters.
The proposed amendments to 10 CFR Part 20 that follow would amend 5 20.l(b), the statement of purpose of Part 20, and 5 20.101 to specifically require licensees to control the possession, use and transfer of licensed material in such a manner that the total occupa-tional dose of an individual does not exceed the appropriate limits.
This would include contributions to the total from all sources of occupational dose, licensed and unlicensed, whether the sources are in the possession of the licensee or any other person.
i The proposed amendments to 5 20.102(a) would have the effect of requiring licensees to obtain information on prior occupational dose of workers during the calendar quarter in which they are first hired or brought in to work in a restricted area. The proposed amendment would require licensees to obtain from any individual who enters the licensee's restricted area under such circumstances that the individual receives or is likely to receive a dose in excess of 25 percent of the applicable dose limits in 55,20.101(a) and 20.104, information on the nature and amount of occupational dose that the individual already may have received during the current calendar quarter from radioactive material and sources of radiation possessed or controlled 4
Enclosure "A"
t i
i 1
by other persons. Licensees would be required to maintain records of such information.
Unless doses are estimated and the information promptly provided.
the individual worker would be unable to supply dose estimates to a subsequent employer, as would be required by the proposed 5 20.102(a).
Therefore, the proposed addition of 519.13(e),10 CFR Part 19, would require licensees to provide written dose estimates at the request of individuals terminating employment with the licensee.in work involving radiation dose. These reports would be given to individuals, employed by other persons, who are terminating work assignments in the licensee's restricted areas, also upon request. The reports would cover the specifically identified final quarter or fraction thereof, and would either (1) stata that the radiation dose was reasonably estimated to be less than 25 percent of appleable limits in 55 20.101(a) and 20.104(a), or (2) provide an estimate of the dose.
The estimate would be provided to the worker at the time of temination, so that the worker would have the infomation prior to entry into the restricted area of another licensee. The' finally-determined dose would continue to be made available to the worker in accordance with existing regulations (519.13).
A worker may choose to provide a prospective employer-licensee with copies of written statements of estimated dose that would be provided by a previous employer-licensee pursuant to proposed 519.13(e),
as one method of satisfying the requirement of proposed 5 20.102(a).
However, the hiring licensee would not be required to obtain copies of such written estimates of dose, or to verify the occupational dose 5
Enclosure "A" i
t
(
information provided by a worker by contacting previous employers or licensees in whose restricted areas the individual worked.
- Further, enforcement action will not be taken against a ifcensee solely because an individual worker withholds or falsifies information.
The effectiveness of the proposed system to ifmit the total occupational dose of transient and moonlighting workers is, therefore, dependent on l
the responsiveness of the workers as well as the ifcensees.
The licensee would not he required by the proposed amendments to determine the dose received by the individual prio'r to the calendar quarter during which the individual is hired or brought into a restricted area to work. However, determination of such accumulated dose on Form NRC-4, " Occupational External Radiation Exposure History,"
pursuant to i 20.102(b), would continue to be required before per-mitting an individual to receive an occupational radiation dose in excess of the limits in i 20.101(a), pursuant to i 20.101(b).
The proposed amendments would have the effect of requiring licensees to have the capability of prompt estimation of dose to ter-minating workers, particularly short-term workers. This could be done in several ways, i.e., by providing personnel monitoring devices, such as pocket dosimeters, capable of prompt read-out of dose over the anticipated range, or by estimating the dose from survey data and associated occupancy times.
The proposed amendments also would have the effect of requiring continued knowledge of occupational doses received by an individual worker from sources outside of the licensee's control. This could S
Enclosure "A" I
4 be accomplished by a variety of licensee-employee agreements or conditions of employment, such as agreement by an individual worker J
to report promptly to the licensee any occupational dose received 1
outside of the licensee's control.
In proposing these amendments, the Commission notes that a large percentage of licensees would not be affected by the proposed requirement to obtain information on prior or concurrent occupational doses because they do not experience doses in excess of 25 percent of the limits in 520.101(a)/ Many of the licensees who do, and who utilize transient workers to perform tasks involving relatively high radiation doses, already obtain the occupational dose history of j
each individual pursuant to 55 20.101(b) and 20.102(b). A large majority of these licensees already use self-reading pocket dosimeters and other devices that permit prompt assessment of doses, in addition d
to film badges or thermoluminescence dosimeters, in conjunction with work permits and other administrative measures, to assess and 3
j control doses in a timely manner.
It has also come to the Commission's attention that the wording of 5 20.101(b) may be interpreted to permit an individual, whose i
accumulated dose to the whole body has been determined (Form NRC-4),
to receive an additional occupational dose up to 3 rems during any calendar quarter from sources in the licensee's possession or control, if such a dose remains within the provisions of the 5(N-18) formula, regardless of any occupational dose received during the calendar quarter from sources which are not in the possession or control of the licensee.
In order to assure that no worker receives more than Enclosure "A" 7
1
\\
3 rems per quarter, amendments to f 20.101(b) are being proposed to specify that the total occupational dose to the whole body may exceed 1.25 rems during a calendar quarter provided that the total occupa-
)
tional dose to the whole body does not exceed 3 rems during the calendar The existing provisions that the accumulated occupational quarter.
dose sh6 1 not exceed the 5(N-18) formula, and that the licensee 1
has determined the individual's accumulated occupational dose on Form NRC-4, remain unchanged. Note the basic specification in 5 20.l(c), that licensees should, in addition to complying with the requirements set forth in 10 CFR Part 20, "make every reasonable effort to maintain radiation exposures,... as low as is reasonably achievable."
The proposed amendments are not intended to affect the employ-ability of a worker in calendar quarters following the one in which the individual received an (accidental or inadvertent) overexposure.
The licensee would be subject to appropriate citation and enforcement action. However, dismissal or removal of the worker from all activities involving potential exposure in subsequent calendar quarters is not required by Comission regulations. The dose limits recommended by standards-setting groups such as the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, International Comission on Radio-logical Protection, and the Federal Radiation Council (now the Environmental Protection Agency), and implemented in the NRC regula-tions, are not intended to mark clearly a difference between conditions 8
Enclosure "A"
l i
that are " safe" or " unsafe". Consideration of the linear dose /
effect concept indicates that the risks associated with additional dose at low dose rates would be no greater than those associated with comparable dose received before an occupational overexposure.
The possible loss of employment by an individual is not considered to be warranted by the small risk involved in additional dose within the ' limits in 5 20.101. The regulations do require that in deter-mining the accumulated dose of any individual under 5 20.101(b),
previous over-exposures must be included.
Further, the proposed amendments are not intended to change in any respect the Commission's regulations regarding levels of radia-tion in unrestricted areas, releases of radioactive materials in effluents to unrestricted areas, or to alter the Commission's emphasis on the concept of maintaining exposures to radiation, and releases of radioactive materials in effluents to unrestricted areas, as low as is reasonably achievable.
Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and section 553 of title 5 of the United States Code, notice is hereby given that adoption of the following amendments to 10 CFR Parts 19 and 20 is contemplated. All interested persons who desire to submit written 9
Enclosure "A"
~..
i comments or suggestions for consideration in connection with the proposed amendments should send them to the Secretary of the Com-mission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555,
/.
Attention:
Docketing and Service Branch by Copies of the comments on the proposed amendments may be examined at the Commission's Public Document Room at 1717 H Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C.
1.
A new paragraph (e) is added to 5 19.13, 10 CFR Part 19, to read as follows:**
5 19.13 Notifications and reports to individuals.
(e) At the request of a worker who is terminating emoloyment with the licensee in work involving radiation dose, or of a worker who, while employed by another person, is terminatino assianment to work involving radiation dose in the licensee's facility, each licensee shall provide to each such worker, or to the worker's desionee, a written report regarding that worker's radiation dose durina the specifically identified terminating calendar auarter or fraction thereof, either (1) stating that the dose was reasonably estimated to be less than 25 percent of the apolicable limits in sg 20.101(a) and 20.104(a), or (2) providing an estimate of that dose at termination.
~
- l date will be inserted allowing 60 days for public comment.
A II/ omparative text. Added material is underlined; deleted material Cis lined through.
10 Enclosure "A"
2.
Paragraph 20.1(b) of 10 CFR Part 20 is amended to read as follows:
~
5 20.1 Purpose.
(b) The use of radioactive material or other sources of radia-tion not licensed by the Commission is not subject to the regulations in this part. However, it is the purpose of the regulations in this part to control the possession, use, and transfer of licensed material by any licensee in such a manner that the total occupational exposure of an individual, te-such-material-and-te-radiatien-frem-sweh-materialf-when-added-te (including occupational _ exposures to licensed and unlicensedradioactivematerialandtootherunlicensedIourcesof radiation, whether in the possession of the licensee or any other_
person)_and-to-padiatien-therefrem, does not exceed the standards of radiation protection prescribed in the regulations in this part.
3.
In 5 20.3(a),10 CFR Part 20, a new paragraph (19) is added to read as follows:
5 20.3 Definitions.
(a) As used in this part.
Enclosure "A" 11
(19) " Termination" means the end of emoloyment with the licensee or_
~
the end of a work assignment in the licensee's restricted areas, without expectation or specific scheduling of reentry into the ifcensee's restricted areas during the remainder of the terminating calendar _
quarter.
4.
The section heading, prefatory language of paragraph (a), prefatory language of paragraph (b), and paragraph (b)(1) in 5 20.101 are amended to read as follows:
5 20.101 Radiation dose limits for hpesure-ef individuals te rad 4atien in restricted areas.
(a) In accordance with the provisions of f 20.102(a), and except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no licensee shall possess, use, or transfer ifcensed material in such a manner as to cause any individual in a restricted area to receive in any period of one calendar quarter from radioactive material and other sources of radia-tion in-the-14eenseets-pessession a total occupational dose in excess of the limits specified in the following table:
(b) A licensee may permit an individual in a restricted area to receive a total occupational dose to the whole body greater than that permitted under paragraph (a) of this section, provided:
12 Enclosure "A"
i 1
(1) During ani calendar quarter the total occupational dose to the whole body from-rad 4eastive-material-and-ether-seurees-of wad 4atien-4n-the-14eenseels-pessessien shall not exceed 3 rems; and 5.
Section 20.102, 10 CFR Part 20, is amended to delete existing paragraph (a), to add a new paragraph (a), and to amend paragraph (b),
to read as follows:
5 20.102 Determination of aeeumulated prior occupational dose.
(a)--This-seetien-eentains-requirements-wh4eh-must-be-satisfied-by lic en s ee s-whe-prepose y-p e r s ua n t-te-pa rag ra ph-(b)-o f-4 -29,1915 -to-pe rmit f
individuals-in-a-restr4eted-area-to-reee4ve-exposure-te-radiatien-4n exeess-of-the-14mits-speeff4ed-in-paragraph-fa)-ef-6-29,191, i
(a) Each licensee shall require any ' individual prior to first entry into a restricted area under such circumstances that the individual will receive or is likely to receive a dose in excess of' 25 percent of 4
the applicable limits specified in 5 20.101(a) and i 20.104(a), to disclose in a written, signed statement, as appropriate, (1) that the individual had no prior occupational dose during the current calendar quarter, (2) that the individual was reasonably estimated to have received occupational doses less than 25 percent of the applicable limits specified in 120.101(a) and 5 20.104(a) during the current i
calendar quarter from radioactive material and sources of radiation possessed or controlled by other persons, or (3) the nature and amount of any occupational dose which the individual may have received 13 Enclosure "A"
s during the current calendar quarter from such sources.
Each licensee shall maintain records of such statements until the Commission authorizes their disposition.
(b) Before permitting, pursuant to s 20.101(b), any individual in a restricted area to receive exposure-te a, radiation dose in excess of the limits specified in paragraph-fa)-ef 520.101]a)2,eachlicensee shall:
(Sec.161, Pub. Law 83-703, 68 Stat. 948; (42 U.S.C. 2201);
Sec. 201, Pub. Law 93-438, 88 Stat. 1242 (42 U.S.C. 5841))
Dated at this day of 1977.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Secretary of the Commission Enclosure "A" 14
a
\\
NRC PROPOSES REGULATIONS TO LIMIT RADIATION 00SES TO TRANSIENT WORKERS The Nuclear Regulatory Commission said today that it is considering amending its regulations to reduce the possibility that short-term " transient" workers, particularly those employed by more than one NRC licensee in a calendar quarter, may receive radiation doses exceeding the pennissible doses.
Inspections, investigations and reports showing more frequent radia-tion doses to transient workers prompted the NRC to propose the rule changes.
Under current regulations, a licensee is required to centrol the use of licensed material so that radiation doses to workers in its facilities do not exceed the limits. However, an employee could work fo'r more than one licensee in a quarter, and receive a dose within the limit at each location, although the combined dose might exceed the limit. The proposed regulations are designed to prevent this from happening.
As proposed, the regulations would require licensees to control the Licensees would have total occupational radiation doses of their workers.
to obtain information from a prospective employee on doses already received during the calendar quarter in which the individual is hired, if there is a chance that the employee may exceed 25 percent of the limits. This infonnation would be used to prevent workers from receiving more than the occupational radiation dose limit, regardless of the number of licensed facilities in which they work.
NRC licensees also would be required to have continued knowledge of occupational doses to their workers from sources not under the licensee's l
Enclosure "B"
c control. Licensee-employee agreements or conditions of employment could be used to meet this requirement.
Other amendments would require licensees to obtain estimates from certain workers of recent radiation doses when the workers are hired or first enter the licensee's restricted areas. Also, if requested by terminating workers, licensees would be required to provide workers with estimates of radiation doses received during the calendar quarter in which employment is terminated. This estimate could be provided to a subsequent employer.
Comments on the proposed amendments to Parts 19 and 20 of the NRC to the Secretary of the regulations should be sent by Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555, Attention: Docketing and Service Branch.
1 1
2 Enclosure "B" l
I
i ENCLOSURE "C" l
VALUE/ IMPACT ASSESSMENT Containing Report Justification Analysis I.
THE PROPOSED ACTION
, A.
Description
'\\
The Nuclear Regulatory Comission staff is considering amendments to 10 CFR Part 19 and 20 of the Comission's regulations. The proposed a
amendments are designed to minimize the possibility of overexposure of short-term workers, sometimes called " transient workers", and other individuals who may be employed by, or work in the restricted areas of, more than one Commission licensee at a time (moonlighters) or within a single calendar s
quarter.
The approach chosen by the NRC staff to meet the needs set forth below, involve amendtrents to 55 20.l(b) and 20.101 that would require licensees to control each individual's total occupational radiation dose.
Implementing
^
amendments to 5 20.102(a) would require li.59nsees to obtain certain informa-tion on prior occupational radiatios de : te the worker is likely to exceed 25 percent (0.31 rem) of the but. is cers per quarter whole body dose s
limit in 5 20.101(a), or 25 percent of the dose limit in 5 20.104(a) if the individual'is less than 18 years of age. An amendment to 5 19.13(e) would require licensees to provide upon request of a terminating worker, a prompt estimate of radiation dose during the terminating quarter. An amendment to
, s 20.3(a)(19) would define the word " Termination".
These proposed requirements for controlling the total occupational radiation dose to workers, with implementation at 25 percent of the basic Enclosure "C" s
9
\\
s,
1
.l
- 1 1
s >
whole body dose limits, would reduce the probability of a transient worker or moonlighter receiving doses exceeding the basic quarterly whole body I
dose limits because an individual would have to (1) work for more than four licensees during a single calendar quarter, (2) withhold or falsify informa-tion on dose during prior employments or work assignments, or (3) be over-exposed by a licensee to do so.
B.
Need For The Proposed Action The nuclear, power industry faces a serious and rapidly emerging problem with occupational radiation doses.
Although individual doses at nuclear power plants have remained relatively constant (see Figure 1), the yearly average man-rems per plant has increased (see Figure 2). High individual doses and accidental dosas contribute only a small percentage of the cumulative dose (see Figure 3).
The large cumulative doses being experienced are due principally to large numbers of people being exposed within regulatory limits during main-l tenance operations which require physical contact with radioactive components.
More maintenance has been reqoired than had been expected, and the radiation dose rates are unexpectedly high (e.g., as much as 25 R per hour during steam generator tube plugging). It has become increasingly comon practice to use extra people to absorb the dose involved in gettin;; necessary work done without exceeding regulatory dose limits.
In 1969, about 24 percent of personnel dose at nuclear power plants was received by contractor personnel rather than by utility personnel.
In 1973, contractor personnel received about 52 percent of the total dose.
From the viewpoint of health protection, 2
Enclosure "C"
i.
)
it is important to recognize the, premise that there is some level of risk associated with all levels of dose, including levels less than regulatory limits; the exposure of one worker to 5 rems carries about the same overall risk as the exposure of 5 workers to one rem each. Under this premise, the use of extra workers does not reduce the overall risk.
Rather, if inexperienced workers actually cause higher man-rem doses, the risk may be increased. Efforts are being made to encourage industry to abandon the practice of using extra workers and to rely, instead, on design and engineering efforts to reduce occupational doses.
Industry is responding to these efforts, not only because they recognize the need to maintain occupational doses as low as is reasonably achievable, but also because they recognize that factors which reduce the need for maintenance involving much of the dose, also reduce the time during which the plant is out of service. This constitutes a significant economic incentive.
In many cases the occupational exposure history of the individual worker is determined on Form NRC-4, or equivalent, so that the licensee may permit the worker to receive up to 3 rems per quarter and an accumulated dose of 5(N-18), pursuant to 55 20.101(b) and 20.102.
In most of these cases the licensees are controlling the total occupational doses of the workers.1/ However, in many other cases, licensees operating pursuant to 1/ e staff was informed during discussion with Westinghouse employees that some Thlicensees interpret the wording in 5 20.101(b) to pennit an individual whose accumulated occupational dose to the whole body has been determined (Form NRC--
to receive an occupational dose up to 3 rems during a calendar quarter, if suc a dose remains within the provisions of the 5(N-18) formula, regardless of any occupational dose received during the calendar quarter from sources which are not in the possession or control of the licensee. The staff is not aware of any case where this interpretation has been used, but proposes to amend i 20.101(b) to preclude it.
3 Enclosure "C"
O I
p e
1 k
iIGnl l I
IWWI-Bilt5 ACCtstaLA110 Of CAILGORl[5 0F C0vikt0 LIClaitt5 t
I Avera9e faposure Avera9e faposure Cate9eries Ihaber of Istal 20.
16 0. ladividuals (tems)Per (Aces)Per
=
f Covered I
l of NAC Calender Licensees indislJuels Idith Measurable Total leo.
Individual (BassJ Individual (Based on tIcensees fear Per Category N attered._
Esposure m a-reas on All far.osures) hasurable (sposures 1
}
(ammercial 1976 54 54.763 28.034 21.210 0.39 0.76 Pom:r teactors 1974 53 62.044 21.904 14.083 0.23 0.64 1973 41 44.795 16.558 14.337 0.32 0.47 Industrial 1975 291 9.178 4.693 2.7%
0.30 0.60 84Jiu9taphy 1974 319 8.792 4.943 2.938 0.33 0.59 1973 341 8.206 5. 328 3.354 C 41 0.63 fuel Processint 1975 23 11.405 5.495 3.125 0.21 0u and fabrication 1974 25 10.921 4.617 2.739 0.25 0.59 1973 27 10.610 5.0%
2.400 0.23 0.47 Prucessin9 and 1975 19
- 3. M 7 1.859 1.188 0.35 0.63 Distrit.ution of 1974 24
- 3. 34 0 1.827 1.050 0.31 0.57 8 proJuct h terlat 1973 34 4.251 1.925 1.177 0.28 0.61 7
Totals sad 1975 387 78.713 40.08l 28.379
- 0. M 0,18 Overall 1974 421 85.097 33.291 20.810 0.24 0.63 Ascra9es 1973 443 67.862 28.M7 21.264 0.31 0.74 T
a.
o E
3
.4 ASAPitG (80PI mukfG 0119 l
e
e I
9 f
fIGUHf 2 I
l I
MAN-RLM 512 MARY i
i RdIt firViYfTRTAfiTRs eRfssuRI7IoWAIIRTEACl0RS Att TIGHT val'tR R(Kf10Rs i
I AVfRAGE Vf AR V GRAND AVfRAGI Vf Apt r GRAA0 AVfRAM VfAktV GRAND h
NUMBfR RATIO AVfRAGE AVERAGE Ntmet R RAIID AVERAGE AVtRAGE NUMBf R RAllD AVtRAGE AVfRAGE of CAPAClif MAN-RIM / MAN-RtM/
Of CAPAClif MAN-RIM /
MAN-RIM /
Of
,CAPACRII MAN RfM/ MAN RtM/
PtANIS (MWe)
UNIT /VIAR UNII VIAR(l]
PLANIS (HWe)
UNil/ YEAR IMll/VfAR(1)
PLAN 15 (lWe) UNIT /IIAR UNII/VfAR 1%9 3
116 195 4
381 165 7
267 178 1970 5
322 130 154 5
403 599 406 10 362 365 288 1971 7
35l 255 200 6
459 340 380 13 401 294 291 1972 10 450 286 235 8
500 463 409 IB 472 36 4 318 1973 14 521 330 269 12 575 772 533 26 546 534 400 1974 14 521 507 332 18 625 364 476 32 581 427 404 ll.e 9 rand averaye MAN-IttM/uMII/ff AR ls defined as the total esposure of all plants frar the current year aiul previous years (for esample, the grand evera9e MAN-RtM/UNil/VfAR after 1969 divided by the total reactor operating years for that total period.
for PWR's for 1970 would be the numeer of units (4) times the yearly average esposure (165) for 1%9 plus the nunder of talts (5) tlants the yearly avera9a esposure (599) for 1370 divided by the total nuneer of PWR units for 1969 and 1970 (9).
T 0.
l ADAPIID fROM NuRIG 75/0)2
'I
(
i
~
~
o o
o -
a o
o -
.l -
~
o
- l 2
-l :
al
- l
- l el 4!
"12 Il s
=
-l 3
.l
=
a 1~
O 4l 5
I l3 22 8
O*
5 Tl 3
3 Ol 2
.a
=.
-i O
$1 3 5
gg g
41 2
l' %
=
"O
~
g e -
IC 2
~a R
M
- g g
m 8
3 al w
e 5
j O
31 $
k 5
- p gI l0
~
a w
,o.!
E BE E
g 4
K O
_5 o=
o
~
gg
~3
. ~
2 a
- e,
==
oo
~
$$f 5
3 E
SI $.
3 l
co
?S z
I s
y
]
- s n'
5-s n
a 3
u 5
~
3r t
3 3 2
s 3
3 3
3
~
3 2
,a
-i s il
- 2 % 0; a
,I 3'
53 O F ^ _,d J
2
- sgj g:
3 na a sa :,ma _3a 3::
2 2.
6 Enclosure *C*
F.
9 G
l.
5 5 20.101(a), permit individuals to receive up to 1.25 rems per calendar quarter without obtaining information on the prior occupational dose of the individual.
It would be possible for more than one licensee to employ an individual during a calendar quarter, the individual could receive doses up to 1.25 rems during each employment, and could exceed the basic 1.25 rems per quarter limit during multiple employments.
The Office of Inspection and Enforcement staff has noted instances at a number of nuclear power plants in which transient workers have worked in the facilities of more than one licensee in a single calendar quarter. Reactor vendors such as General Electric and Westinghouse have refueling teams that go from one facility to another performing functions that involve some of the highest potential for radiation dose of all plant operations.
Further, the NRC staff has learned of organized recruiting of radiation workers for week-end and vacation work in nuclear power plants (moonlighting).
Such recruitment is being conducted by Nuclear Plant Services, Fremont, California. Radiation Services, Inc., conducts such recruitment from offices in Silver Spring, Maryland, and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Reports of personnel monitoring on temination of employment or work assignment filed pursuant to 5 20.408 byfourcategoriesoflicenseesE, indicate an increase in the frequency of use of transient workers. The actual number with multiple teminations in a calendar quarter is small.
However, the potential for overexposure during multiple employments is U ecified in 5 20.407(a). Power reactors and testing facilities; industrial Spradiographers; fuel processors, fabricators, or reprocessors; and certain large byproduct material processors or manufacturers.
7 Enclosure "C" l
l l
l 1
i significant and increasing rapidly as more nuclear power plants are built and operated.
(See table " Summary of Termination Data".)
C.
Value/ Impact of the Proposed Action The NRC staff has estimated the cost of the proposed action to be I
1 about $73,000 per year. The derivation of the cost estimates follows.
(
This cost does not include the potential impact of licensee-employee l
\\
agreements regarding moonlighting involving radiation dose. The cost of
(
such agreements, and the benefits associated with the proposed action l
i resist quantification.
1.
NRC Operations Cost to NRC relates to the effort expended inspecting the records of licensees. The NRC staff has estimated that approximately one-third of a man-year is expended inspecting existing Form NRC-4 and NRC-5, and that' the records required by proposed 5 19.13(e) and 5 20.102(a) could add 10 percent to that effort. If an annual salary of $25,000 is assumed for inspectors, a cost of about ($25,000 x.033) $800 could be assigned.
Benefit to the NRC stems from elimination of a loop-hole from the regulations with increased assurance that the total occupational dose of (cooperative) individuals, including transient workers and moonlighters, l
1 will be controlled. The proposed amendments would provide an inspectable record of the activities of licensees who use transient workers or moonlighters.
2.
Other Goverrinent Agencies The Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administra-tion, has regulations that apply to uses of radioactive material and 8
Enclosure "C"
sources of radiation other than those regulated by NRC and Agreement States.
Section 29.1910.96 of their regulations sets out provisions for safe use of radiation, comparable to 10 CFR Part 20 of the NRC's regulations. Com-patibility of the 00L and NRC regulations is highly desirable.
I I
There would be impact on other Federal Agencies to the extent that the Agencies are licensees, as TVA.
The NRC staff considers that the proposed amendments, if adopted, would be matters of basic compatibility between NRC and Agreement State regulations. There are about as many Agreement State licensees as there are l
NRC licensees, and Agreement State costs of inspection would be expected to approach the cost to NRC, about $800 per year.
3.
Industry The cost or burden of the proposed amendments to the nuclear industry could approach $71,500, and will be directly proportional to the number of new-hires and terminations experienced by licensees.
Personnel monitoring data permitting approximation of the number of individuals
?
involved are available from two sources:
1 (a) Data filed by about 425 licensees in the four categories of licensees subject to 5 20.407 indicate that about 10 percent of the i
80,000 individuals (78,713 extrapolated to 100 percent of the licensees in the four categories) monitored in 1975 were estimated to have received doses of 1.25 rems or more. These same licensees reported, pursuant to 5 20.408, a total of 38,360 terminations for 1975.
It follows that about 3,800 individuals would have been required to provide the proposed statement 9
Enclosure "C"
SUMMARY
OF TERMINATION DATA II 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 2 Terminations / Quarter 8
27 11 64 144 316 646 944 3 Terminations / Quarter 0
2 0
4 11 36 68 113 4 Terminations / Quarter 0
0 0
1 2
2 6
9 5 Terminations / Quarter 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 Total With Multiple Terminations / Quarter 8
29 11 69 157 354 714 1055 Average Annual Exposure (Rems)
Of Workers With Multiple Terminations / Quarter 0.67 0.50 0.25 0.89 0.86 0.50 0.71 0.71 Workers With Multiple Terminations / Quarter Exceeding 3 Rems / Quarter 0
0 0
0 6
1 0
1 Total Terminations 4254 7529 9499 12292 18141 27474 38360 46604 Total Individuals Involved 10218 15470 21200 26585 32377 I/ e 1976 data were not available at the time the costs of the proposed amendments were calculated. The Th 1976 data have been added to this table and may be substituted in the Value/ Impact Assessment to update op the cost estimates.
EL 8
4
O I
of prior occupational dose by those licensees.
However, the NRC staff is aware that licensees will tend to obtain the statements from workers whose activities involve lesser potential for radiation dose in order to assure that the requirements are met. Therefore, the NRC staff is basing it's approximation of the cost of this proposed requirement on the 7,700 teminating individuals who were estimated to have received 0.4 rem or more per year (0.1 rem per quarter).
(b) Data submitted by "other" licensees pursuant to.an August 25, 1976 request for one-time, voluntary submission of data for 1975, indicate that about 6,450 licensees were required to monitor some individuals during 1975. Approximately one percent of the 245,000 indi-viduals monitored by those licensees were estimated to have received doses of 1.25 rems or more, and about 6 percent received 0.4 rem or more.
In the absence of specific termination data on these licerfsees, the NRC staff has assumed a 10 percent turnover in the work force.
It follows that
(. 06 x.1 x 245,000) about 1,500 individuals could be requested by these licensees tn provide prior estimates of dose pursuant to the proposed 5 20.102(a).
Thus, the total number of involved individuals could approach (7,700 + 1,500) 9,200 per year. The Atomic Industrial Forum Ad Hoc Working Group on Occupational Radiation Exposure) estimated the cost 3
of obtaining the estimate to be $4.23 per worker, and the cost for main-taining records of these estimates to be $1.75. Thus the annual cost of E ee Section VI of this assessment.
S 11 Enclosure "C"
(
proposed 5 20.102(a) to approximately 6,900 NRC licensees could approach or about 5,500 man-hours of effort.M (9,200 x ($4.23 + $1.75)) $55,000, Proposed i 19.13(e),10 CFR Part 19, would require licensees to provide, at the request of a worker _, certain information regarding the worker's radiation dose during the terminating quarter. The estimate would be provided at termination of the worker into the restricted area of another licensee.
The Atomic Industrial Forum estimated the cost of providing an "immediate" estimate to be $4.08 for additional monitoring, $4.68 for The preparing the written report, and $2.02 for maintaining the records.
NRC staff assumes that only the 714 individuals who terminated two or more times in a calendar quarter (see table " Summary of Termination Data") pri-marily from about 55 power reactor licensees, would request the imediate estimate. The finally-determined dose would continue to be made available to workers at later times in accordance with existing 519.13. Thus the annual cost of proposed i 19.13(e) could approach (700 x ($4.08 + $4.68 +
$2.02))$7,500, or about 750 man-hours of effort.
The proposed amendments to 55 20.l(b) and 20.101 to control the total occupational radiation dose would also require licensees to have knowledge of, and to take account of, concurrent occupational dose received by an individual worker from sources outside of the licensee's control (moonlighting). This could be accomplished by a variety of licensee-employee agreements or conditions of employment, such as agreements by an individual to report promptly to the licensee any occupational dose received U The AIF Ad Hoc Working Group used a conversion factor of $10 per hour in their estimations.
12 Enclosure "C"
5 outside of the licensee's control. The NRC staff has been unable to assess the potential cost of such agreements or conditions of employment.
There are about as many Agreement State licensees as there are NRC licensees.
State licensees would be expected to experience occupational dose distributions similar to those of "other" NRC licensees.
Thus, if Agreement States adopt the implementing amendments, there could be 1,500 individuals requested by about 6,900 State licensees to provide prior estimates of occupational radiation dose under State regulations comparable to those proposed in 5 20.102(a).
The cost could approach (1,500 x ($4.23 + $1.75)) $9,000, or about 900 man-hours of effort. State licensees would not be expected to experience a significant use of transient workers and no cost is assigned to State licensee's burden under proposed 5 19.13(e) equivalent.
The staff does not consider that these amendments would be unduly burdensome.
It is believed that a large percentage of licensees would not be affected by the added provisions in that they do not experience exposures in excess of 25% of the limits, utilize transient workers, or experience significant moonlighting involving radiation doses. Most of the licensees who do already obtain the occupational dose history of the individual workers on Form NRC-4, or equivalent, pursuant to 55 20.101(b) and 20.102. A large majority of those licensees already use self-reading pocket dosimeters and other devices that permit prompt estimation of doses, in addition to film badges or thermoluminescence dosimeters, in connection with work permit,s and other administrative measures to assess and control doses in a timely manner. The NRC staff does not anticipate 13 Enclosure "C"
l
(
significant added cost to licensees for new or additional monitoring equipment.
The cost or burden of the proposed amendments will be directly proportional to the number of new-hires, including transients and moonlighters, experienced by a licensee. Also, the cost would be directly proportional to the benefit a licensee derives from the use of such workers.
~
Benefits of the proposed amendments to the licensee take the form of immediate availability and efficient use of workers within established radiation dose limits, without the potential increase in total man-rems associated with a short-term (daily or weekly) dose limit. The proposed amendments provide the licensee with guidance as to acceptable means of establishing the radiation dose status of the worker during the calendar quarter in which the worker enters the licensee's restricted Further, it appears to require a minimum of action on the part of area.
the licensee consistent with establishing a record for inspection and enforcement purposes.
Enforcement action will not be taken against a licensee solely because an individual worker withholds or falsifies radiation dose information.
4.
Individual Worker and Public The potential of the proposed amendnents for impact on the employability of individual workers is considered to be small because the worker's statement of dose during the current calendar quarter would be accepted without verification. This constitutes only a minor addition to the precautions already being taken by licensees to avoid overexposure of workers.
14 Enclosure "C"
Benefit to the individual worker is associated with (1)
~
assurance that account is taken of the worker's total occupational radia-tion dose, thus providing greater protection, (2) employability in jobs involving additional radiation dose when the worker has prior exposure history, and (3) availability of a prompt estimate of dose upon termina-tion of employment or work assignment so that the information may be provided to a subsequent employer.
Little or no actual reduction in man-rems of occupational dose is anticipated. The data available to the NRC staff indicate that licensees are taking effective precautions to avoid overexposure of workers at present. However, the amendments would greatly reduce the possibility of overexposure during multiple employments.
Cost to the public stems from the fact that all govern-mental costs are ultimately reflected in taxes paid by the public; Certain costs of licensees, particularly those of nuclear power plants, are reflected in rates charged to the public for the products of those licensees.
Benefits to the public are those associated with the individual worker to the extent that individuals employed by licensees or on work assignments in licensee's restricted areas are members of the general public.
15 Enclosure "C"
1 6
0
(
}
D.
Decision on the Proposed Action The NRC staff recommends that the action be taken to control the total occupational radiation dose of all workers, including. transient workers and moonlighters, now, when the associated impact is low, rather than waiting until an undesirable practice becomes entrenched and the associated impact of correction is increased.
r I
16 Enclosure "C"
,k II. TECHNICAL ALTERNATIVES The NRC staff considered several alternative methods for assuring
~
adequate control of the radiation doses of transient and moonlighting workers that would involve amendments to the Commission's regulations.
A.
Require Control of Total Occupational Radiation Dose - But Without Further Implementation I
This alternative would have imposed amendments to 55 20.l(b) and 20.101 to control the total occupational radiation dose to individuals as outlined in the proposed action, but without the implementing amendments to 5 5 19.13(e), 20.3(a)(19), and 20.102(a). This alternative was rejected because it would fail to recognize the effort that licensees would make to implement the requirements, and fail to provide indication of acceptable methods of satisfying the requirements.
Further, there would be no assurance of inspectability of licensees' operations and enforcement of the regulations considered essential to a regulatory program.
B.
Impose Short-Term Dose Limit This alternative would impose a short-tenn (daily or weekly) dose limit on transient workers. As envisioned, the limit would have allowed only that fraction of the quarterly dose limit in 5 20'.101(a) equivalent to the time period (day or week) chosen.
Such a limit would essentially preclude the possibility of overexposure of transient workers due to multiple employments and would impact on only those licensees employing short-tenn workers. However, this alternative would not assure that moonlighting workers do not receive doses in excess of the basic 17 Enclosure "C" i
I l
O O
quarterly limits. This alternative could result in the use of larger numbers of workers to accomplish essential work, and could result in higher man-rem total dose. Workers receive doses while entering and exiting the radiation area, and while orienting to the work to be done, as well as during actual perfonnance of the work. This " unproductive" dose is directly proportional to the number of workers involved. The use of more workers increases the cost to the licensee, and may increase expenditures for design and engineering changes to control occupational doses. This alternative would aggravate the existing critical shortage of available workers in certain key occupations, e.g., welders.
i l
C.
Require Form NRC-4 History For All Workers j
1 This alternative would extend the current requirement in l
5 20.101(b) for occupational exposure histories, Form NRC-4 or equivalent, to all radiation workers, rather than only those who are to be allowed to receive up to 3 rems per quarter within the dose-averaging formula 5(N-18).
This requirement for the licensee to obtain the occupational dose history I
of the worker, and accounting for prior doses would control the total dose to the worker. However, it would involve greater cost.
It was assumed that there may be about (40,000 + 50,000) 90,000 new-hires per year. The AIF Ad Hoc Working Group on Occupational Radiation Exposure estimated a cost of
$11.43 for obtaining the " Occupational External Radiation Exposure History" on Form NRC-4 or equivalent, and a cost of $2.82 for maintaining the record.
Thus, the cost to licensees could approach (90,000 x ($11.34 + $2.82))
18 Enclosure "C"
l, l
)
1 1
$1,275,000.
Further, the verification would take time and would limit the availability of the worker to the licensee.
This alternative could impact on the employability of any individual with prior exposure, and could encourage withholding or falsification of dose history by an individual needing income.
D.
Require Use of NRC Radiation Records Repository l
This alternative would have required licensees to obtain informa-tion from the NRC's. radiation dose records repository before allowing an individual to enter a restricted area. This would have reduced to one the contacts that a licensee would have to make to verify the occupational dose history of a worker, and would have reduced the possibility that a worker might withhold or falsify dose history. However, the alternative has been rejected because (1) a large fraction of :ccupational doses are not reported J
to the repository (most NRC licensees, licensees of Agreement States, and i
operations of persons subject to the Department of Labor or other Federal Agencies), (2) there would be considerable delay in the submission of data i
to the repository resulting in limitation of the availability of the data for controlling the short-term worker's dose, and (3) the personnel and computer services available to the repository would have to be increased significantly to provide such a service to licensees.
(The propriety of a ilderal Regulatory 4: questionable.)
Agency providing such a service to it's licensees E.
Require Union Dose-Credit Card This alternative would require workers to use a credit card or The punch card system that would be maintained through union affiliation.
19 Enclosure "C" 6
1
i
(
NRC staff does not consider such a system to be feasible at this time.
In order to be effective, such a control system would have to involve a very high percentage of the total work force. While many parts of the labor force are covered by union affiliations, many are not. The NRC staff does not consider it appropriate or desirable to take any regulatory action that would appear to require membership of all workers l
in a labor union. Further, the cost of such a control system, while unquantified, would be very high.
i j
t 1
1 1
20 Enclosure "C"
- e 9
i
{
III. PROCEDURAL ALTERNATIVES The NRC staff considered several alternative procedures for achieving adequate control of the radiation doses of transient and moonlighting workers that would not have involved amendments to the regulations.
A.
Imposition of Technical Specifications or License Conditions This alternative would have imposed controls on the occupational radiation doses of transient and moonlighting workers by means of technical specifications or conditions in the licenses of those activities experiencing the use of such workers. This alternative would have the advantage of limiting the impact of the added limitations to those licensees actually using short-term or moonlighting workers.. However, the NRC staff has rejected this alternative because the extent of use of short-term or moon-lighting workers is not precisely known, and this alternative would result in arbitrary, non-uniform application of the added controls and the burden associated with them.
B.
Preparation of a Regulatory Guide, ANSI Standard, or NUREG Report The NRC staff has rejected these alternatives. The.y would not eliminate the weakness recognized in the current dose limits and would not provide any mechanism for inspection of licensees' operations involving transient and moonlighting workers and appropriate enforcement action, considered essential to a regulatory program.
21 Enclosure "C" l
lo L
IV.
STATUTORY CONSIDERATIONS A.
NRC Authority The NRC is autharized to issue notices of proposed rule making, as in the proposed action, pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, and section 553 of title 5 of the United States Code.
(Sec.161, Pub. Law 83-703, 68 Stat. 948; (42 U.S.C. 2201); Sec. 201, Pub.
Law 93-438, 88 Stat.1242 (42 U.S.C. 5841))
B.
Need for NEPA Assessment Pursuant to 5 Sl.5(d)(3),10 CFR Part 51, neither an environmental impact statement nor a negative declaration need be prepared in conjunction with the proposed action 'since the amendments involved are insignifican't from the standpoint of environmental impact.
22 Enclosure "C"
l
(.
E V.
RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER EXISTING OR PROPOSED REGULATIONS OR POLICIES A.
Agreement States The proposed action involv'es amendments to the basic dose-limiting section of 10 CFR Part 20. The NRC staff considers that the proposed amend-ments if adopted, would be matters of basic compatibility between NRC and Agreement State regulations. The proposed action and alternatives have been discussed with State representatives during annual meetings, and provision will be made for State review of the proposed snendments.
If after publication of the proposed amendments, consideration of the comments that may be submitted, and other factors involved, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission publishes the proposed amendments in effective form, the changes would be incorporated into the " Suggested State Regulations for
' Control of Radiation," and Agreement States would make comparable changes in their regulations in a timely manner.
B.
Department of Labor The Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administra-tion, has incorporated into their regulations 5 29.1910.96, " Ionizing Radiation, provisions comparable to those in the NRC's 10 CFR Part 20. The OSHA regula-tions apply to all uses of radioactive material and source of radiation other than those regulated by the NRC and Agreement States. The Department of Labor, OHSA, is participating with the NRC, Bureau of Radiological Health, FDA, and the Environmental Protection Agency in the development of the
" Suggested State Regulations for Control of Radiation," would be given ample opportunity to comment on the proposed rule, and would be expected to make i
comparable changes to their regulations in a timely manner.
23 Enclosure "C"
-)
VI. CONSULTATIONS OUTSIDE THE NRC There have been several expressions of concern about transient worker exposure by inoustry and union representatives (General Electric, Westinghouse, Atomic Industrial Forum, and during the May 28, 1975 meeting of the Atomic Energy Labor Management Advisory Consnittee). A meeting was held on this sub-ject in San Francisco on October 7, 1975, hosted by the Pacific Gas and Attendees were informed that the NRC staff was studying Electric Company.
The transient worker question was one of tre topics discussed the matter.
during the power reactor health physicists' meeting in Sacramento, California, on September 9-11, 1975. Consideration is being given to computer links between reactor licensees to make monitoring infonnation imediately avail-able between licensees. The cost of this proposal is not known to the N,RC staff, but useage would probably be limited to power reactors and other large It would be necessary to solicit the same infonnation regarding licensees.
prior exposure during work with non-participating licensees or in unlicensed activities that would be required by the amendments proposed by the NRC staff.
The substance of the NRC staff-recommended alternative was discussed with the Environmental Steering Group of the Atomic Industrial Forum on April 29, 1976. Subsequently the Atomic Industrial Forum established an Ad Hoc Working Group on Occupational Radiation Exposure. The Working Group studied the matter, solicited cost / benefit infonnation from a number of nuclear utilities, and submitted their evaluation and coments to NRC by letters dated January 21, 1977 and March 24, 1977.
24 Enclosure "C"
e
..i VII.
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSIONS The impact of the proposed action has been fairly well quantified in I.C., with the exception of the potential impact of if censee-employee agree-ments regarding moonlighting involving additional radiation dose.
The benefits from the proposed action resist quantification.
The data available to the NRC staff indicate that licensees are taking effective precautions to avoid overexposure of workers at present, and there may be little or no actual reduction in radiation doses. The potential for dose reduction is weakened in that the proposed amendments depend on cooperation by the individual worker. The potential for the worker to falsify or with-hold dose information is recognized.
However, the NRC staff considers it essential to close the loophole in the regulations.
Further, it is considered essential that records be generated and maintained in order to achieve an enforceable regulation.
Implementation by provision of a prompt estimate of dose upon termination (proposed 519.13(e)) is necessary if the individual worker is to be able to provide an estimate of dose to a subsequent employer (proposed 5 20.102(a)).
The definition of " Termination" ($ 20.3(a)(19) is needed to avoid known differences in interpretation.
The NRC staff recommends that the proposed action be taken to control the total occupational radiation dose to all workers, in'cluding transient workers and moonlighters, now, when the associated impact is low rather than wait until an undesirable practice becomes entrenched and the associated cost of correction is increased.
25 Enclosure "C" l
l l
l
s ENCLOSURE "D" RESPONSE TO OPE COMMENTS By memorandum of January 22, 1976 (copy enclosed) OPE commented on an earlier draft staff paper on this matter. OPE commented that there was not a favorable value/ impact assessment for the recordkeeping and reporting requirements that were, and are proposed to implement the basic change, i.e., the requirement that licensees control the total _ occupational radiation dose to workers.
The OPE comments were discussed with Mr. A. P. Kenneke, OPE, on January 30, 1976. Mr. Kenneke's memorandum of that meeting is also enclosed. OPE agreed with the objectives sought, but questioned the value/ impact assess-ment of the particular implementation proposed and suggested that additional alternatives be examined.
Since that time additional efforts have been made to assess the potential cost of the proposed amendtrients and to indicate the less tangible benefits.
The Atomic Industrial Forum Ad Hoc Working Group on Occupational Radiation Exposure made a significant contribution to the value/ impact assessment after surveying a number of nuclear utilities. As a result of the Working Groups comments the proposed prompt estimate of radiation dose during the terminating quarter would be provided only upon request of the worker.
This change greatly reduces the cost associated with the proposed requirement.
1 Enclosure "D"
i
,i The previous draft staff paper discussed only two alternatives. Other alternatives had been considered by the staff and rejected. Those alternatives are discussed in some detail in the present staff paper and the value/ impact assessment.
Data available to the staff on the use of trUsie and moonlighting workers come from less than 450 licensees who are subjecito the require-ment to file tennination reports (s 20.408). While the staff believes that the greatest use of transient and moonlighting labor occurs in nuclear power plants, there are more than 8,000 materials licensees for whom we have no data on use of transient and moonlighting labor. This lacs of data, and the liiability to identify those licensees who use transients and expepience moonlighting, discourages incorporation of provisions in technical specifica-tions or license conditions. The staff believes that the circumstances.-
justify amendments to the regulations as the procedural alternative. The staff notes that a large percentage of elicensees will not be affected by the proposed amendments in that they do not experience radiation doses
~
in excess of 25 percent of the basic 1.25. rems per quarter.
A definite trend is shown in the tennination datia that are available.
~
Action should be taken now, before the radiation doses of workers in excess of the limits become a significant problera and before the population
~
of workers involved makes institution of controls more difficult. That is, action should be taken now when the-1'mpact is low rather than n iting until an undesirable practice becomes entrenched and the impact of correction is high, 2
Enclosure "0"
.