ML20028H409
| ML20028H409 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/27/1990 |
| From: | Curtiss NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9101020370 | |
| Download: ML20028H409 (8) | |
Text
AFF1RMATION VOTE RESPONSE SHEET l RELD1 SED TO THE PDR SAMUEL J. CHILK, SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSIOtI'*
init
- e TO:
FROM:
COMMISS10NER CURTISS
SUBJECT:
SECY-88-315LREVISION OF 10 CFR PART 20, " STANDARDS FOR PROTECTION AGAINST RADIATION" APPROVED
"* "
- DISAPPROVED ABSTAIN NOT PARTICIPATING _
REQUEST DISCUSSION COMMENTS:
See attached comments.
AW b
- fologggogoggay
{
SIGNATURE CORRESPONDENCE PDR May 23, 1990 DATE YES
\\
ENTERED ON "AS"
/X /
/
/
NRC-SECY FORM MAY, 1987 310181
Commissioner Curtiss' Comments on SECY-88-315:
I approve the revisions to 10 CFR Part 20 and related changes to other regulations as outlined in SECY-88-315 and SECY-89-267, subject to the modifications discussed below.
Backfit:
I have exam [ned the proposed Part 20 amendments from the standpoint of whether and, if so, how the backfit rule should apply to this particular rulemaking.
The nature and effects of the proposed changes to-Part 20 lead me~torthe conclusion that-the proposed amendments, in essence, would redefine'what-is necessary for adequate protection of the public health and safety in the radiation protection area.
Thus, while I believe that we should apply the backfit rule to this Part 20 rulemaking effort, I also believe that this rulemaking constitutes a redefinition of adequate protection as described in 10 CFR 550.109 (a) (4) (iii) and that the usual backfit analysis and cost-benefit balancing are therefore not required..in-this instance.
On the question of whether such an approach would require this rule to be renoticed for further public comment, I have concluded that there was ample indication in the notice of proposed rulemaking that the Commission is rethinking its radiation protection standards across-the-board in this Part 20 rulemaking.
Moreover, this initiative was explained in a manner that could logically be construed to encompass L5e npproach to backfitting described above.
Of particular importance, the notice of proposed rulemaking itself seems to indicate that the Commission is contemplating an action that would redefine what is necessary for adequate protection in the radiation protection area.
For example, the notice states that:
[T)he Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing a major revision of its regulations in 10 CFR Part 20 which provide the requirements for the protection of individuals who are exposed to ionizing radiation from routine activities which are licensed by the NRC
. The intent of the revision is to improve NRC radiation protection standards by reflecting developments in the principles that underlic radiation protection and advances in related sciences that have occurred since the promulgation of 10 CFR Part 20 nearly thirty years ago
. The expected result of promulgating and implementing the proposed revised rule is an improved rule that provides better assurance of protection; establishes a clear health protection basis for limits and other regulatory actions taken to protect public health; applies to all licensees in a consistent manner; and reflects current information on health risk, dosimetry, and radiation protection practices and experiences.
51 Fed. Reg 1 1092 (January 9, 1986).
w
. With regard to existing Part 20 standards, the Commission noted that:
(ijn promulgating these standards, the AEC emphasized "that the standards are subject to change with the development of new knowledge, with significant increase in the average exposure of the whole population to radiation and with further experience in the administration of the Commission's regulatory program."
Consistent with this emphasis, the proposed revision reflects new knowledge, increased uses of radiation and generation of radiation sources, and experience gained during the past twenty years.
(Earlier) revisions (to the existing Part 20) have not kept the regulations in accord with more recent recommendations of scientific organizations...._.. to. improve overall protection and establish a clear health risk rationale
[T]he central thrust of the revision (is) to ensure that radiation protection is adequate and defendable when judged by good protection practices and contemporary standards.
51 Fed. Rec. 1093, 1094 (citations omitted).
In discussing the benefits of the proposed rulemaking, the Commission indicated that:
(t]he proposed revision to Part 20 includes numerous changes required to bring the radiation protection standards into accord with current defendable (sic) scientific knowledge, and to reflect contemporary scientific and philosophical approaches to protection against radiation.
The Commission anticipates that promulgating and implementing the proposed rule will result in a regulation that provides better
[
assurance of protection, establishes a clear health protection basis for limits, applies to all licensees, including small entities, in a consistent manner, and reflects current information on health risk, dosimetry, and radiation protection practices and experiences.
51 Fed. Reg. 1120, 1122.
Consistent with all of these statements on the nature of the proposed changes to Part 20, a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking that requested comments on a proposed backfit analysis 1
indicated-that:
l (T]his is the first complete revision of these l
regulations'in over 25 years.
This revision will bring the Commission's radiation protection standards into l
l
3-accord with current recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP)
~
The proposed revision to 10 CFR Part 20 (is) intended to:
a.
Update the quarter-century-old 10 CFR Part 20 to incorporate advances in science and new concepts of radiation protection methodology and philosophy; b.
Implement pending Federal Radiation i
Guidance on occupational radiation protection; c.
Implement the principle current dose-limiting recommendations of the ICRP; d.
Incorporate the ICRP " effective dose equivalent" concept; Update the limits on airborne e.
radionuclide intakes, effluent releases and doses from inhaled or ingested radionuclides using up-to-date metabolic models and dose factors; and f.
Require that licensees have programs for keeping radiation exposures "as low as is reasonably achievable" (ALARA).
51 Fed. Rec. 30870,-30871 (August 29, 1986).
Overall, these various characterizations of the purpose, intent, and nature of the proposed changes to Part 20 lead to the conclusion that the Commission is, in fact, rethinking its radiation protection standards.
For these reasons, I believe that the notice adequately describes the nature and substance of the proposed rule changes and that renoticing to further reflect a Commission judgrent'that-the proposed changes-consti-tute a redefinition of adequate protection is not necessary.
I
- ~
i
^
.4-
-Timing:
-I agree with staff, Chairman Carr, and Commissioners Remick and Rogers on changing ~the-effective date to January 1,
-1992.
-I:also agree with the Chairman and Commissioner Remick that the guidance documents need to be-available for public input by January 1, 1991, if at all possible.
Guidance I concur that the additional flexibility highlighted in SECY-89-267 must be factored-into the guidance.
In particular, guidance should include information to assist both staff and applicants in addressing -- (1) the site-specific decisions called for with regard to= factors such as particle size _
i or percent _ equilibrium of radon with daughters; and (2)'the fact that the public dose limits apply to the nearest resident or member of the public, not necessarily at the site boundary.
With respect to this datter: point,-the Enforcement Policyyohanges, included for-10 CFR Part 2 in Enclosure 5 to SECY-88-315_should be reviewed _to clearly reflect the flexibility.
For instance, examples 5-and 6 under Severity Level III (page 136) might be combined in a way that clarifies that -irely exceeding two times the table values does not' automatically mean that the_100 millirem-limit has'been exceeded.
-Proposed changes to the Statements of Consideration and rule:
While I think a number of positive suggestions have been mada-by the Chairman in his proposed changes to the statements of consideration and the text of--the rule, I do not agree that all of the. proposed changes.are simply " clarifying."
In fact, a number.of the changes concern me.-
For~ example, a particularly signifi' cant policy change is suggested by the deletion of the.two sentencesEin the SECY 89-267. addition to page 50-of Enclosure 3 that read:
"In addition,_the licensee can demonstrate compliance
~
by; calculating the dose to the nearest resident _rather.than-meeting-the air concentration limit at the site. boundary.
This should provide an' additional factor of 2'or.3." gThese statements are consistent 'with the _ language in 20. 301(a) (1) and; 20.302(b) (1) and; reflect an-approach similar to EPA's in 40 CFP Pert 190.
This clarification is important for all_11 cense 33 and it li an essential element of the flexibility needed to address radon levels in;a realistic manner while providing an equivalent level L
of protection. Lon.the_ subject of BRC, the Chairman has sug'gested changes that reflect developing but unresolved policy _ As a L
- final example, changes to the purpose, scope, and definition of naturally occurring radiation in the rule further confuse matters i
such as how occupational exposures to hospital workers exposed to x-rays and?also exposed to licensed materials.are to be handled.
In_ view of these and other similar concerns,.and since we have not had-the bene. fit.of.the.. staff's thoughts.onithe_ impact.of,all _..
of--these various changes, I would propose that these changes first be evaluated-by the Part 20 Task Force, Working in close
. consultation with the commissioners' assistants.
Following that, the Commission can then make a judgment about the appropriate course of action on the individual changes that have been proposed.
I have no objections to Commissioner Remick's and' Commissioner Rogers' editorial suggestions.
Pen and ink changes:' -The discussion in the statements'of' consideration on page 13 of Enclosure 3 to SECY-88-315 indicates that licensees can make pen and ink amendments to their licenses to incorporate the changes to Part 20.
I am concerned that merely addressing this matter in the statements of consideration will not have the same legal effect as addressing this issue in the rule itself.
While I agree with the objective of minimizing the impact on staff and licensees by generically amending licenses to incorporate new Part 20 requirements, I believe thGt on a matter as important en changing a license, if such an approach is to have the clear offect of law, it should be contained in the rule itself.
Accordingly, I would recommend that OGC examine this issue.
One option might be to follow the precedent established by 10 CFR 50.73(g) (48 FR 33850) and insert a provision in Part 20 along the following lines:
The requirements contained in this part supercede and replace existing license conditions and requirements on radiation protection that 1) conflict with the requirements in this part or 2) contain explicit citations to prior versions of this part.
Generic incorporation of EPA general environmental standards:
I disagree with the staff's proposal to incorporate generically all existing and future EPA general environmental standards.
Even though the added definition of general environmental standards appears consistent with the 1973 Ash Memorandum clarifying the two agencies' roles under the Atomic Energy Act, past experience does not inspire confidence that EPA's view and ours on what constitutes a general environmenta] standard wlll be the same.
For example, the Commission express]y deleted provisions in 40 CFR Part 192 for mill tailings that we considered to fall outside this definition.
We have had similar jurisdictional problems in both the high-level and low-level waste areas.
Certainly until we have reached an understanding with EPA through-the planned upper management interactions, I favor preserving the option of considering these issues on a case-by-case basis and, if necessary, for the Commission to reject provisions that we consider an overstepping by EPA of its authority.
I would support a more limited approach along the lines originally recommended by the staff in-the' proposed rule; which would~
continue the existing explicit incorporation of the existing 40
. CFR Part 190 standard for fuel cycle facilities.
With respect to 40 CFR 191 (high-level waste), 10 CFR 60,112 already incorporates this standard and no further action here_is necessary.
With respect to 40 CPR 192 (uranium mill tailings) Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 40 is now complete and already conforms to 40 CFR Part 192.
Accordingly, no further action is required here either.
Incorporation of OSHA regulations for respirators:
The final rule contains a new provision, the effect of which would be to impose OSHA's respirator regulations, as codified at 29 CFR 1910.134.
There is no accompanying discussion, however, of the health and safety rationale for such an approach.
If there is such a health and safety rationale, it should be explicitly discussed in the statements of consideration.
[In order to ensure that the rationale remains valid, the reference should include a codification date.
If there are any conflicts between the Part 20 provisions and the incorporated text, this should also be explained.)
If a health and safety rationale does not exist for this provision, it should be deleted.
Updates needed:
The discussion in the preamble in Enclosure 3 to SECY-88-315 should be updated to reflect the national and international radiation protection developments that have occurred since the text was prepared.
For example, discussion similar to that provided in staff memoranda on BEIR V and UNSCEAR should be added and the publication of NCRP's report on hot particles should be noted.
Acceptable doses for generally licensed products:
It is not clear from the paper whether staff considered the impact of the change in dose limits for members of the public from 500 to 100 millirem / year when conforming the general license design standards in Parts 32 and 40-(see conforming amendments in to SECY-88-315 on pages 144 and 147).
Under the existing Part 20, expressing the design as 10 percent of occupational limits led to a result that was essentially equivalent to the public limits.
Doses up to 500 millirem / year to members of the public can still be approved but only on a case-by-case basis under the final rule.
Staff should ensure that the conforming revisions are consistent with current intent.
Level of detail in statements of consideration:
It is not clear that all the changes between the proposed and final rule have been fully aired.
For example, the additions to 20.1001 specifying who needs a license to receive waste included decay-in-storage (which was discussed) and treatment and incineration (which was not discussed).
In particular, the lack of discussion leaves unclear whether the requirements for a license for receipt
d..*
O of wastes for incineration would include the BRC biomedical wastes in 20.1005.
Staff should do a final quality control check, including use of Enclosure 6 of SECY-88-315, to be sure that issues raised in the statements of consideration are answered and that all significant changes between the proposed and final rules are discussed.
i 1