ML20128H683
| ML20128H683 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/15/1985 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8505300609 | |
| Download: ML20128H683 (123) | |
Text
f O' RIG WAL 4
UMIED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NO:
COMMISSION MEETING
(
LOCATION:
WASHINGTON, D.C.
PAGES:
1_93 DATE:
WEDNESDAY, MAY 15, 1985 i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Official Frxrters 8505300609 850515 444.N' orth Capitol Street PDR 10CFR Washington, D.C. 20001 PT9.7 PDR (202)347-3700
W p
J,I 1
11Q:
Q.
1 UNITED STATES OP. AMERICA
{
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION r-2 3
BRIEFING ON SECY-85-147 - PROPOSED REVISION OF PART 20
,g,
5
.Public Meeting 6-7 -
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N.W.
.8
-Room 1130 Washington, D. C.
9 1
Wednesday, May 15, 1985 to The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 2:05 p.m.
PRESENT:
NUNZIO J.'PALLADINO, Chairman of the Commission LANDO W. 2ECH, JR., Commissioner FREDERICK M. BERNTHAL, Commissioner JAMES X. ASSELSTINE, Commissioner ALSO PRESENT:
K. GOLLER R. MINOQUE W. DIRCKS R. CUNNINGHAM 21 24 a Aia q.uore... Ine.
s
'o 25 L_.
e t
i
- l Ih DISCLAIMER i
21 This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting 3
of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on 4
5-15-85 in the Commission's of fices at 1717 H Street, N. W.,
5 Washington, D.
C.
The meeting was open to public attendance 6
and observation.
This transcript has not been reviewed, 7l corrected or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.
8' The transcript is intended solely for general 9I informational purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is
'O not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the matters discussed.
Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determinations or beliefs.
No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in any proceeding as the reruit of or addres-sed to any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize.
- t m.
24 o s e r,e 9.oorr.,..inc.
25 Il 1
0
o i
2 1
PgqqEEglEQE 2
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Ladies and gentlemen, I 3
suggest we get started.
4 Commissioner Bernthal has been delayed, but he 5
will be in in a couple of minutes.
Commissioner Roberts is 6
ill today, and he won't be able to join us.
7 With us today are members of the NRC Staff to 8
discuss SECY 85-447, Proposed Revision of 10 CFR, Part 20, 9;
Standards for Protection Against Radiation.
10 l The Staff indicates in SECY-85-147, that the intent
'I !
of the revision is to establish a scientifically sound and 12 '
explicit health protection basis for Part 20 standards for l
13 other NRC regulatory actions that are implementing these i
id !
basic standards.
15 h It goes on to say that such improvements and 16 f standards are possible and warranted because of the events 17 in radiobiology and health physics that have occurred since 19 the promulgation of 10 CFR, Part 20, nearly 30 years ago, and N]s the acceptance of health risk assessment as a foundation for i
20 / radiation protection.
21 This has been a tremendous undertaking, and the i
22 Staff should be complimented for bringing it to this point 21 of fuitition.
24 I also recognize that this reflects a significant wrw.,a c.oorms, inc.
25 amount of work by our Staf f and other Federal agencies, as well I
9 3
r l
1 as other domestic and international organizations.
2 The paper covers many complex and interrelated 3
issues, a number of which the paper identifies as highly 4
controversial.
5 Specifically mentioned in the paper are three 6
areas in which debate is expected by the Staff.
The one 7
and a half hours allotted for today's meeting will not be 8
sufficient for discussion of these and other controversial 9
issues that may arise in the discussion.
10 I believe the main purpose of today's meeting
'1 l should be for us to obtain an overview of this extensive 12 l.subject, and I also believe it is important for us today to 13 determine the extent to which the Commission wishes to get
'd l into specific issues in this review of the paper, and how it a
r 15 wishes to do so.
16 I can envision the need for one or more follow-d 17 up meetings to discuss specific issues.
18 Toward the end of today's meeting, I intend to ask 19 for Commissioners thoughts on this matter.
I i
20 I suggest that today we allow the Staff to make 21 their presentation with only Commissioner questions to 22 facilitate understanding and leave further discussion on issues 23 until the completion of the presentation.
24 Do any of my fellow commissioners have any mien ro neaereers. ene.
25
. additional opening remarks to make at this time.
u
O 4
s 1
COMMISSIONER ZECH:
No.
2 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
I would just add I 3
agree with you that it has been a massive undertaking, and I 4
think some of the issues the Staff has highlighted in the 5
paper are some of the ones that are going to be very interest-6 ing, and I think worth pursuing.
7 I would agree that this ought to be viewed as 8
sort of an introductory meeting, and I think af ter this we will 9
have to pick out those items we want to delve into more 10 ;
deeply.
'l f MR. DIRCKS:
I just want te emphasize that this 1.?
Part 20 is the basic health protection rule of the Commission, 13 1 so it is extremely important this work we have before us.
14 And as mentioned, it hasn't been essentially J
15 ! revised in 30 years, and we have learned a good deal of science 16 since then.
17 As you emphasized, this is the, I think, the first 18 in a number of meetings you may wish to hold on this subject.
19 Today's meeting will take you over the fundamentals of the 1
20 l issue, and we will get into specific issues as the Commission 21 so specifies.
22 I should emphasize it is not without debate and 23 controversy, both from outside the Agency, as you will be 24 finding out, but also from within the Agency.
We do have some a Feder0 Ceoorters, Inc.
25 Staff members who have filed dif fering professional opinions l
5 I
and I am sure you want to hear from them in some format.
2 We don't wish -- hope we don't get into those 3
8pecifics today.
We would like to get through the overview, 4
and then allow you to pinpoint the areas you want to get into 5
and we will highlight the areas where there is a controversy.
l 6
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Could you in particular 7
highlight those where there are differences of views within g
the Staff.
g I gather we got some stuff late this morning, and 10 1 I haven't had a chance to look at it.
11 l CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Bob?
12 !
MR. MINOQUE:
Let me introduce the other two 13 people at the table in terms of why they are here and what 14 their role is, i
1 15 8 Karl Goller on my left is the Director of the 16 Division that has done the Staff work in developing this Rule.
17 Dick Cunningham is here in several capacities.
Is First, many of the issues and problems we try to deal with reinte 19 to materials licensees and fuel cycle licensees much more so
'l 20 than they do reactor licensees.
I r
21 By and large, the resolution of many of these i
22 issues is by engineering fixes.
l 23 And further, Dick is the Chairman of an NEA L
24 Committee which deals with radiation protection.
It is a major n. p.m. m n re.,inc.
I 25 committee at the same level as the CSNI, and is also a member
-....a
o 6
n.
~
1 of ICRP Committee 4, and in both of those capacities is very 2
familiar with the international activities thinking in this 3
area, and I have asked him to join in this discussion to add 4
that perspective to this pitch.
5 I would like to look at the first viewgraph now.
6 The first viewgraph, pleaso?
No, no.
The first one with 7
substance on it.
8 (Viewgraph.)
9 Let me first make some general comments about 10 the reasons for proposing a revision at this timo, and I think
'I !
Dick will have some points to add to this.
U, First, it is a simplo matter of updating a 13 l regulation that was developed in the early '50s, and promul-Id la gated in 1957.
15 At the timo that Part 20 or its prodocessor 16 l documents woro developed, there was in fact a relatively 17 ll limited data baso regarding the radiobiological offects of 19 a large number of isotopos, and recognizing particularly when 19 one talks about internal exposuros, that is a critical 20 l question, because it is not something that lands itself to 21 single numbers.
It rolion on the understanding of the phonom-22 anology associated with behavior of dif forent radioactivo 21 materials, their behavior in the body, their offect on the 24 body.
u vasores nemeters. In<.
25 So, in offact, this regulation initially was based AIL
9 7
o 1
on a limited science base, and in some casos no science base.
2 Just a good faith estimato.
3 Because of that, it is not a coherent health 4
risk base standard.
There are fundamental inconsistencies 5
in the way radiological hazards are treated together.
It 6
tends to treat things individually.
7 In fact, because of this it has of ten boon 8
perceived by the public as being a standard that defines 9l a level of zero risk.
That no harm is dono if the standard 10 is met, and that is not a correct perception.
'l j The next major problem related to just the stale-12 ness of the standard is that it is not really compatibio with 13 ! the current regulatory frame work, and this is becoming more l'
14 true as you move in the direction of systematic assessment of 3
Y 15 radiological risks.
16 As you do PPAs or as you assess safety issues in 17 that context, it is critically important that the regulatory 19 framework defines the regulation of radiological protection, 19 relate back to this samo concept of relativo risk, relativo 20 biological offectivonons.
21 So, thoso all relato to the question of updating.
22 The next bullet really talks about the question 21l of the ostent to which our regulations are based on inter-24lnationallyacceptedpercoptionsofthescienco.
Traditionally, a ras.,e neoorms, inc.,
25 l in the AEC the guidanco of ICRP and NCRP and the Fodoral
a
. o l
1
. Radiation Council was followed.
i 2
In fact, the ICRP adopted a health risk base 3
standard back in 1977, and this revision to Part 20 would bring 4
us in-line with diat standard as it now exists.
S There have been a number of issues that had to be 4
addressed since 1977, so I am not implying it is exactly the 7
same frame work that they put out in 1977.
8 What we are doing when we do that, is basically 9
incorporating the results of very, very large amount of 10 research.
Mr. Dircks mentioned that briefly.
More than you
'l may realize.
Because, of course, essentially none of this 12 research is funded by this Agency.
There has been an enormous 13 amount of research done over the last thirty years looking at Id l(a wide range of radioactive materials in different forms and
- 1 15 ! looking at the biological effects and the radiological impacts 16 that research has largely been done by the Department of I
17 l Energy, but there are a number of other entities in this country 18 and in foreign countries that have also done research, and all 19 j
of that data base has converged through a process -- through 20 l the ICRP and other comparable reviews, including careful 21 assessment by the regulatory staff itself as to the validity 22 of the underlying research to give us a much better handle l
21 today on the -- on a correct characterization of radiological I
24 risk.
e ameno n=etwes, inw.
25 The next bullet really speaks to the question of L-- -- -
9 3
I the EPA.
2 The EPA inherited in some reorganization, and I 3
forgot in which one and which year, the Federal Radiation 4
Council function of promulgating broad general guideance for I
5 radiological protection questions, and they have, in fact, 6
been working very carefully with input from a number of agencies 7
over the last several years on radiation protection guidelines 8
which could be used to deal with occupational exposure issues.
9 Those guidelines are about to be issued for public 1
10 !
comment.
We worked very cloaoly with them in developing those,
'l ;
and cicarly as we work in parallel on our regulation, we should 11 try to conform to those guidelines and implement them, and that 13 l is another reason we revised Part 20.
Id ll CIIAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Could I interrupt you just 15 for a second.
Which set of slidos are we following?
M !,
MR. MINOQUE:
I am sorry.
It is the fatter l
17 y group that is labeled Office of Nucioar Regulatory Research.
18 l You have a thinner group that are back-up slidos 19 that Mr. Cunningham prepared if you wanted to got into a 20 more detailed perspectivo on some of the points.
The points i
21 on Cunningham's viewgraphs largoley track what is on mine, but 22 it is moro detailed.
I 21 (
To summarizo then these reasons, it basically is 2d!
to establish a scientifically sound explicit health offects a r.,,e c.oormi, inc.
25 oriented basis for our radiological protection standards.
l l
l
F 10 I
At this poin, I would like to ask Dick Cunningham 2
to add a few comments on this subject from his broader 3l perspective.
4 MR; CUNMINGHAM:
Well, perhaps at the risk of 5
repeating some of the things you said, Bob, I think it is 6
important for us all to bear in mind something we tend to lose sight of, and that is th t this Agency is fundamentally in the 7
9 8
business of protecting Feople against radiation.
9 It doesn't inatter whether you are talking about 10 probabilities of core molt, waste confidence, source terms;
'l I the objective isto protect people against radiation.
I 12 ;
I 'think it is necessary to do that.
Have a sound i
13 scientific and technical basis reflected in your basic 14 safety standards on radiation protection.
15 We once had that, but times have changed.
Programs i
16 h huvo changed, and we no longer have a basic radiation protection i
17 p standard that reflects modern thinking and modern scientific 16 '
and technical information.
Federal Radiation Council guidance 19 signed by the President, dating way back -- Dwight Eisenhower 20 signed the first ena, said that in developing regulations you 21 shot.1d follow -- or the Federal agency should follow ICRP, that 22 in International Commission on Radiological Protection, and the 23 NCRP guidanen to the oxt.ent practical.
24 bFafet.] Reporters, Inc.
The regulation we now have does follow ICRP guidance 25 as of 30 years ago.
It does not follow, and it structually is
11 l
1 different than the present ICRP guidance.
2 Now, present ICRP guidance is based on a lot of 3
research in the past two decades.
Over two billion dollars 4
is spent on radiobiological research.
Other countries are 5
taking advantage of it.
Certainly ICRP recognized it, and 6
incorporated it into their recommendations.
Other countries 7
are adopting these recommendations, and I certainly think that 8,
we in the United States should take advantage of all the 9'
research that we payed for.
10 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Dick, which other
'l j countries have adopted the ICRP recommenations approach?
12 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
Well, to start with, ICRP i
13 recommendations have been adopted by the international k
14i organizations; IAEA, NEA, World Health Organization, and the a
15 :
International Labor Organization.
16 l They all got together and developed a common ll 17 ll basic safety standard.
Radiation safety standard.
It is the 19 same standard adopted by all.
19 The Common Market countries, the European community 20 ;
issued a directive that the Common Market countries should i
21 adopt ICRP recommendations, their basic radiation standards by 22 June 1984.
There have been varying degrees of success.
23 ;
Some have adopted it.
The Scandanavian countries 24 l pretty much so.
Others are -- everybody is working on it, w.r.de,a neoort... inc. '
25 Some have not reached full adoption.
Some have problems that
9 3
12 1
others don't have.
2 For example, a number of countries have their 3
regulations placed on them by legislation so that in order to 4
change they have to go back through their parliament, which 5
makes it a little bit more difficult, but they are all working 6
on them and at various stages of adoption.
7 I understand that the Japanese Regulatory Council 8,
has adopted these recommendations, but they still have to get 9
it passed by their Parliament, I think, before they can -- and 10 of course, the Canadians have published a proposed Rule which
'I !
adopts ICRP recommendations.
12 So, there is broad movement in this direction, 13 and certainly not consistent -- I mean it is adopting these 4
modern ways of thinking.
15 Now, the problem -- one of the problems we have 16. with the present Part 20 is that information is changed.
The i!
17 l' quality factors, for example, of alpha particles which relates i
18 to their biological effectivess.
I9 Part 20 has a quality factor of 10.
Everybody 20 agreed.
There is no dieagreement in the scientific community 21 that the quality factor should be 20.
It makes a big difference 22 when you calculate dose.
23 We do this ad hoc.
We calculate quality factor of 24 20, but are licensees sided with regulations who say the dose WFeder3 Reporters, Inc.
25 is half as much as they are really getting.
13 i
1 Lung models have changed.
Derived limits have 2
changed.
All these changes.
3 It isn't something, for reasons Bob will get 4
into, and I may chime in on that, that he can fix by patching 5
a little piece here and a little piece there.
I 6
It goes to the basic structure of Part 20.
You 7
may be surprised to learn if you haven't read Part 20 recently, 8
that there really isn't any dose limit for members of the public 9
in Part 20.
10 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
It is inferred from
'l j what is there.
12 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
It is an inferred dose limit, 13 and not a very good inferred dose limit.
It implies also Il 14p that members of the public are exposed to only one source 15 '
of radiation.
16 MR. MINOQUE:
Thank you very much, Dick.
Let's d
17 go to the next viewgraph.
IB (Viewgraph.)
19 I will go through this one quite briefly, because 20 many of these points have been touched.
21 (Commissioner Bernthal entered the room at 22 2:14 p.m.)
23 We talked about why improve Part 20.
24 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Excuse me.
Before we go a-Feder:J Reoorters, Inc.
25 l on, are you going to talk about at some point the fundamental l
14 I
principles, if any, that have changed and have formed the basis.
l 2
for-this changed frame work, international and presumably --
3 MR. MINOQUE:
That will come out I. think in the i
4 course of the discussion.
I think the main thing that is 5
changed is the science base.
6 The regulation as it exists developed this in a 7
very-limited science base.
The international community, 8
largely US funding, as Dick Cunningham said, but a lot of 9
money into studying radiological hazards.
10 There have been some very prestigeous groups,
'I of which ICRP is just one, and have really looked at this 12 very, very carefully.
The BIER Committee, which is a' committee 13 established by EPA, and from all that has grown a better
'd understanding of the underlying science by which you character-y 15 '
ize the radiobiological hazard of exposure, and that is really 16 the main driving force in the change.
17 l It is the establishment of a health risk base 18 standard, that is based on a scientific appraisal of the actual N
~ biological risks associated with various forms of exposure 20 rather than some basic philosophy.
21 There are some philosophical points, and I will 22 touch on them as we go through, but the main thing is the 23 scientific question.
COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Yeah.
I assumed -- I he-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 would hope - that that was the case, but without getting terribly
15 1
techical, whether now is the time -- at some point I would 2
like to know, just very broadly, what the scientific -- the 3
fundamental science is, that in fact has changed, or have 4
we become smarter about it over the last thirty years.
5 MR. MINOQUE:
Well, exposures -- and I am 6
particularly concentrating here on internal exposures, because 7
Dick has talked about external exposures in the RTE question, 8
the quality factor question.
9 Exposures largely consist in dealing with tables 10 of isotopes, because you are fundamentally looking at the i
'l l behavior -- the presence of various radioactive materials, 12 whether they are fission products or activation products, the 13 chemical form that they are in, the way they behave in the i
14 !
body.
15 If they are excreted, at what rate.
If they are 16 lnotexcreted,dotheydistributethroughthebodygenerally?
17 Do they concentrate in certain organs?
Do they concentrate 19 in the bones?
19 In each of those areas, what effect does this i
20 radiation have?
Does it cause a certain type of cancer?
l 21 Does it cause problems with maintaining the red corpuscle 22 level and set anemia, or things of that type.
23 So, in each case you really are looking at a 24 scientific assessment of the radiobiological effect of the Federaf Rooorters, Inc.
25 ingestion or inhalation, or the absorption through cuts or
l 16 4
1 other wounds, of radioactive materials.
2 Now, that means that if you look at the scientific 3
program I am talking about, it is not one big program that 4
integrated everything.
It is literally thousands of small 5
scale experiments that look with various laboratory animals 4
6 or assessed in epidemiological studies, human experience.
7 It looked at the biological effect of various 8
types of exposures.
9 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
But the emphasis sounds
{likeitisonbiochemistry.
10 '
'l MR. MINOQUE:
That is right.
The health risks 12 associated with exposure is the thing that is being studied.
I3 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Rather than on any Id statistical data or group of studies?
i!
15{'
MR. MINOQUE:
There is a lot of statistical work 16, in the form of epidemiological studies, but the data base there d
17 ] is relatively limited, at least for humans, or particularly for 18 humans, except for the victims of the Hiroshima /Nagasaka 19 I bomb test, and that is really the major source of epidemiological l
20 data, and that is a major source in assessing the relevant 21 significance in many points of external exposure.
22 But the interim exposure, I think, largely comes 23 about through these laboratory animal tests.
Dick may want to 24 add to that.
It is more in his field.
Am Feder:) 7.eoorters, Inc.
25 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
Yeah.
There are new concepts of
Ie'.
17 I
how you approach dose control.
By virtue of the fact you 2
have new computational capability linked to the radiobiological 3
data, and I could give an example of that.
4 I did have a -handout here that supplemented Bob,
.l' i
5 and I think you have a small one. 'If you turn to page two of j
6 this handout --
7 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Is this the one labeled, 8
Overview?
9 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
Raised the question about 10 concepts.
The present Part 20 treats internal and the external 21 exposure separately.
In other words, you have a dose limit 12 :
for external radiation --
13 MR. MINOQUE:
No, it is the next one.
14 MR. CUNNINGHAM:- You have another limit -- it is 15 '
not really a limit, it is exposure to concentrations.
16 Your actual limits are really a combination of 17 what is -- you see externally and internally, but internal 18 is a concentration, it is not a limit as such.
Your actual 19 dose may be anywhere from 5 rems to 15 rems.
i I
20 '
Now, the reason we did that, or that was done, in 21 the early Part 20, is we did not know the distribution of 22 radioisotopes in the body.
We knew the principal organ was
-23 that it went to, but not how it was distributed throughout the 24
' body.
W-/ederet Rooorters, Inc.
25 We also did not have computational capability to
18 I
take a certain percentage of a lung, and calculate that so 2
that it comes out to a unit dose.
3 It was even recognized at the time in the NCRP 4
recommendations on critical organs that we would rather do 5
it another way, and it would come in time.
We had neither the 6
radiobiological information, nor the computational capability 7
to do this.
8 Now we do.
9 So, what this has ' ad ' o, to go to the second t
10 !
bullet, where we have internal exposure control in Part 20 i
'l j based on organ concept.
We have a new concept now for the 12 new Part 20, and what that concept is is effective whole body 13 ;1dose equivalent, and basically what this does is a weighting 14 l4 l
of the risk to specific organs from internally deposited radio-J 15 t nuclides against the standard reference, which is whole body 16 l external radiation.
17l So, your internal radiation is put in terms of 19 what dose you would receive if you received a comparable amount 19 of external radiation.
It is called whole body effective dose 20 l equivalent.
So many milli-rad or milli-rem and so forth.
l 21 '
That allows you to add internal and external 22 exposure.
You can't do it under the present Part 20.
I can't 23 add an external exposure of 5 rem and an internal exposure to 24 l
my lung of 3 rems and get any sense out of it.
You just can't WFederal Reporters, Inc.
25 add the two.
I
T 19 I
So, we are talking about new concepts that have 2
been enabled by scientific research, a computational capability 3
and new models that have been developed.
4 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Dick, can you really have an 5
equivalent whole body dose for something that is in a particular 6
organ?
I guess I don't capture the concept.
Whole body dose 7
has an overall effect, and particular dose in a particular 8
organ has an amount specific.
9 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
It isn't a particular dose to a 10 particular organ.
That was the critical organ concept.
We
'1 l only thought about one organ.
12 Actually, when you take radioisotopes in the body, 13 you may concentrate on one organ, but it is going to be li 14 C distributed in the other organs.
1 15 ]
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Yes.
il 16 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
Dose is a surrogate for risk,
- l 17 ll really, you see.
So, the dose -- the rather gross conversion i
18 factor is that your risk of a latent cancer fatality is 10 to 19 the minus 4th per rem of radiation.
20 ;
The internal dose over the various organs are 1
21 l
calculated in terms of what that total risk is, and it goes 22 I back to, say, it is a whole body or external radiation dose i
23 equivalent.
24 MR. MINOQUE:
Remember, there are a lot of Ace.Federd.7.eporters, Inc.
25 different health detriments.
20 1
CHAIRMAN PALLADIN'O:
I still have a problem, 2
because it doesn't give you the full impact on the organ.
3 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
It gives the full impact -- it 4
is --- the degree that we have good information, it is 5
intended to show the risk to the individual from that amount i
6
.of radiation.
Internal deposition.
7 Just like external dose, you can convert that to 8
risk to individuals, and it is all lumped into effective whole 9
body dose equivalent.
Equivalent risk.
10 MR. MINOQUE:
There are difference in isotopes.
'l l There are difference in the detriments immediately produced.
I 12 Different types of cancers.
Different recovery rates.-
13 Different treatment potentials.
l 14b CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
If I put the words, ' equivalent 15 ll i
' -riski ---
l 16 l COMMISSIONER ZECH:
Then you have to define, 17 l
' equivalent risk.'
Don't certain parts of the body accept 18 radiation a little bit differently than other parts of the 19 ;
body?
20 l MR. MINOQUE:
That is taken into account in the i
21 '
calculation.
22 Go back to the second viewgraph in my set.
This 23 first item, it talked about uniform risk based standard.
We 24 are really talking about a coherent standard.
One where you W-FederJ Ceoorters. Inc.
25 take a number of biological effects and attempt to lay them
21 i
1 out.
2 Now, the next one.
An attempt to lay them out 3
in a form that you can cross compare and add and take into j
4 account exposures from multiple sources.
5 Because that is reality to the individual in I
6 terms of an overall risk of adverse health effects.
l 7
That risk takes many forms:
Different types of 8
exposure, different types of cancer.
9 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
Sure.
But you are just talking 10 here -- when you are talking, ' equivalent,' I believe you are 11 talking a grandiose way of looking at it.
12 MR. MINOQUE:
It is really an attempt to cross 13 compare these different kinds of things.
14 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
You will have to get into the 15 various other aspects of it later, I presume, to find out 16 what real damage has been done.
17 MR. MINOQUE:
The original Part 20 treated them 18 piecemeal.
You looked at each one discreetly, and never 19 really tried to lump them all together.
20 This ICRP approach lumps them together.
21 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
But you still have to take 22 them apart somewhere down the line, it would seem to me, if 23 you want to find out what is really going to go on.
24 MR. MINOQUE:
But those equivalents are assigned Ace-Federd Reporters, Inc.
25 to particular exposures, and you can now add these because
22 i
I they are apples and apples and apples.
2 The are comparable numbers in terms of risk and 3
adverse health effects.
4 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
Unfortunately, we have got to go i
I 5
further.
What we are talking about here is dose levels where 6
the risk is random.
l 7
I mean you have a random probability of obtaining 8
a health effect.
It is not any level of dose called the non-9 stochastic level where you reach a threshold, where the damage 10 is proportional to the dose.
11 But below that level, where the risk of obtaining 12 cancer is only a probably, and you either get it or you don't, 13 and that risk is usually defined as 10 to the minus 4 per rem.
14 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
That doesn't sound right 15 to me.
It is always random, is it not?
It is a question of 16 the functional.n sture of the dependence on those, and I under-17 stand it is linear, I guess, that higher doses are something, 18 but it is always random, is it not?
19 MR. MINOQUE:
There are some types of exposures 20 that are non stochastic; where there are well-defined thresh-21 olds.
I think cataract formation is one such.
22 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
When you get up above in the range 23 of 50 rad, you start seeing non-random effect.
I can pick 24 off __
Am-Federd Reporters, Inc.
25 MR. MINOQUE:
In regulatory space, they are all
23 l
r.
I stochastic.
That may answer your question.
l 2
Just to mention a few, suppression of white blood i
3 cells.
l 4
COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I didn't realize you were l
5 talking about very large doses.
6 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Say that again, please?
7 MR. MINOQUE:
Suppression of while blood cells at 8
high doses, or relatively high doses.
That is non-stochastic 9
effects.
10 Erythema
--- that means in the skin --
11 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
We are talking of threshold 12 where everybody shows symptoms.
13 MR. MINOQUE:
In regulatory space you are always 14 working in a stochastic.
15 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
But we are talking about a level 16 of so called stochastic --
17 MR. MINOQUE:
You would have to have a very large 18 overexposure.
19 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
But we have had some 20 of those, like in the material today.
21 MR. MINOQUE:
Some of the radiography exposures and 22 so on, you would have seen some of these effects that are 23 non-stochastic.
24 Let me, if I may again, we can take this as a Federd Reporters, Inc.
25 separate topic in another meeting.
24 1
COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
One last question,
-2 because I haven't been able to figure it out in context here.
[
I 3
Is what you are doing here consistent or inconsistent with 4
what you just proposed as threshold criteria for ENO.
5 I remember the funny business in there about 6
organ dose calculations being part of the requirement.
l 7
MR. MINOQUE:
I actually can't answer that question.
1 8
I should be able to, but I am not.
9 From the time we drafted that, when it finally 10 got acted on, it has been a couple of years.
My memory is just 11 not that good anymore.
12 MR. GOLLER:
The point you bring up, Commissioner, 13 is a v<ery_ complicated one.
It is acknowledged in the paper.
14 This action would not correct that.
That is identified as one 15 that would have to be corrected in the future.
16 MR. MINOQUE:
So, it is treated in the paper.
17 Thank you, Karl.
I wasn't aware of that.
18 Let me go ahead with this list.
I will try to 19 be brief on it.
These are the areas that need improvement.
20 We talked about updating the intake limit.
The 21 next area would be to eliminate a provision that is in the 22 present rule that fundamentally originally was aimed at dealing 23
'with situations where some critically essential maintenance 24 operation or inspection operation -- typically these are Ace-Federd Reporters, Inc.
25 associated with safety questions, would require higher or
7 25 1
major maintenance -- would require a higher exposure than i
i 2
would be permitted by the limits without running the risk-of i
.3
' exposing a large number of individual small levels.
-4 MR. DIRCKS:
Which slide are you working on 5
now?
6 MR. MINOQUE:
Number 3 in the first package.
The -l 7
'first item on it is:
Uniform Risk Based Standard for Dose and -j 8
Other Limits.
'9 And I am on the third bullet.
I will come back 10 to that bullet later.
'II-Dick has talked about the integration of limits 12 for internal and external-doses.
In fact, the only one of 13 these items we haven't-already discussed is the last one.
This i
'Id improvement would provide a cutoff-on collective dose, or i
115
-person -- man-rem calculations, where you are dealing with 16 situations where you integrate very low levels over a long 17 time a large area, and it would basically set a floor on that, 18 a di minimus floor.
39 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
That figure was not U
20 in the ICRP recommendation.
s 21 MR.-MINOQUE:
That is right, but later on I will 22 treat -- there have been some real developments in the area, 23 internationally, in dealing with di minimus issues, and I am 24 going to discuss that later.
That is one of the major areas Aeree.cn neponen. Inc.
25
- ILwill come back to.
26 i
i l
1 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
Before you leave this, I would 4
2 perhaps, just emphasize the importance of some of these 3
things.
4 This one -- we don't explicit dose limits to the 5
Public that went beyond that.
6 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Although I take it is I
7 similiar to the dose limits one would infer --
i 8
MR. CUNNINGHAM:
Let me give you a very specific 9
example where we had a problem.
There was a case a few 10 years ago, and fortunately it was in a grievance state, a 11 manufacturer who used tritium in the making of illuminous --
12 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Watch dials.
I remember.
13 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
Tritium -- this was in Tucson --
14 tritium started to show up in food used in the community 15 school lunch program.
16 Tracing this back, we found tritium in the ware-17 house where this food was kept.
In further checking, found 18 that people living in the vicinity of that facility, a number 19 of people had fairly high tritium concentrations in their 20 yard.
21 Now, went to the licensee, and what he was doing 22 was evaporating released tritium off the roof, with the 23 knowledge of the State and apparently in compliance with the 24 State of Arizona rules, which were comparable to our rules.
W-FederJ Ceporters, Inc.
25 He was complying with the regulations.
27 I
i l
1 Somehow, that tritium was finding its pathway
[
2 into the food.
3 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Into what?
l 4
MR. CUNNINGHAM:
Into food.
And into houses.
l 5
Now, one obvious pathway, and I don't know how it got into the j
t 6
food -- haven't been able to figure that out -- he evaporated l
B 7
off the roof in that hot, dry climate.
People in houses had 8
air conditioners that condensed the tritiated water.
If you 9
drink a glass of ice tea with ice in it, they condensate on the 10 glass, so you would have tritium contaminated condensate that 11 goes right through the skin.
12 There as no dose limits.
13 MR. DIRCKS :
You forgot the swimming pool.
14 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
Oh, yeah, there was a contaminated 15 swimming pool, too, where the tritium in the air is exchanged 16 in the swimming pool.
But concentration limits, the preferred 17 safety factor, doesn't get you to dose limits of people, so 18 they were complying with the State's basic safety 19 standards, and complying with our safety standards.
Safety 20 standards should deal with those problems.
21 MR. MINOQUE:
Let me
-- I think we are taking 22 too long on this sub-point.
Lets go to the next viewgraph.
23 (Viewgraph.)
24 I want to give you a rundown on the history of ACE-Federd Reporters, Inc.
25 this thing, and the first bullet identifies the publication
28 1
in 1977 of ICRP 26.
2 Earlier, Commissioner Asselstine asked about that I
3 interface and the application of it.
l 4
It is a fact that when that report was first t
l 5
issued, there were a lot of problems at various regulatory
{
6 agencies around the world had and I myself was involved with, 7
a number of meetings with these people.
8 They rose largely from two difficulties; first, 9
the ICRP had not really focused on some of the problems of 10 implementation of this new approach.
They:are significant, 11 and we are going to be discussing that later.
12 And second, it was not -- there had really not 13 been a regulatory participation in this development, and it f
14 wasn't that clear what the full scientific basis was for some 15 of these numbers.
16 These are both areas many -- many of us had a 17 number of discussions with key people in ICRP and they.
18 basically straightened all that out.
19 So, we are really in a mode now where all of the 20 various countries involved in various degrees, as Dick 21 Cunningham covered earlier, are beginning to move to 22 implementation of ICRP 26 as it has been clarified in 23 subsequent discussions, that it would be evaluated by the 24 IAEA in development of the basic safety standards, and then As-Feded Reporters, Inc.
25 there is an NUSS safety standard produced by IAEA that
I 29 l
I appliesit to reactors, so there has been a lot of work done 2
on dealing with some of these problems.
3 People are now beginning to move to apply it.
4 That is not what initiated the NRC activity.
The NRC 5
activity was really touched off -- and this is my second I
6 bullet -- by a memo -- Mr. Dircks was at that time Director 7
of the NMSS, wrote to me as the Office of Standards Develop-8 ment back in 1979, that laid out pretty explicitly some of 9
the problems that Dick has talked about here, and that 10 really was the initiating event as far as this agency was 11 concerned.
12 So, we didn't begin this because we wanted to 13 comply with ICRP 26.
We began it because we foresaw problems 14 in the NMSS area particularly.
15 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
When you say you ' began' 16 this --
17 MR. MINOQUE:
This thing you are looking at now 18 is a culmination of an effort that began promptly after the 19 memo of July 10, 1979.
A working group was established which 20 Mr. Cunningham chaired as I recollect it.
21 They scoped out the issues and advance notice was 22 published.
We got a lot of public comment back.
It became 23 very clear as we looked at these comments that implementation 24 was going to be a big problem.
It is still a problem.
Ace-Federc3 Reporters, Inc.
25 So, an awful lot of effort has gone into the
30
-1 development-of this guide so far in preliminary discussions i
2
. broadly, with the number of interested parties who might be l
3 affected by unions, public interest groups, various material 4
licensees, states, architect. engineers, fuel manufacturers, 5
reactor-manufacturers, utilities.
6 A number of people have had their views 7
. solicited as to some of the implementation problems, and
[
similarly in parallel, there has been a continuing effort
-8 9
twith the EPA in their draft guidance on occupational exposures 10 where other? agencies have been involved.
'Il
-the Department of Commerce -- that is the Bureau of Standards ---
12 NASA,. Justice, NCRP and so on.-
13 So, a lot of organizations have focused on this 14 effort in terms of trying to quantify the costs and difficulties' 15 in implementation.
Not all those issues are fully resolved at 16 this point, and I aun confident that we will get a lot of feed--
17 backLthat we should listen to attentively in terms of'the 18 implementation and the cost of that implementation.
~
19 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Bob, at some point -- and 20 you' don't have to-do it'now -- but can you relate a little bit 21 how-much work EPA has done in the occupational exposure area?
22 What more they-are likely to do, and how that fits in with this.
23 whole precess?
24 W1. MINOQUE:
I can touch that now.
I think it wresse: nepo,ters, Inc.
25 is very appropriate-now.
l P
31 I
1 They have just sent us for a last stage agency i
2 review a -- I will call it a final draft which they intend 3
to publish for public comment, a series of guidelines that i
4 deal with occupational exposure.
They were produced by the 5
interagency working group that I just described.
6 Depending on the feedback from that, I would 7
expect them next to propose this to the President for issuance 8
as Federal Radiation Guidance with FRC authority, and if that 9
is the case, traditionally, if not as a matter of law, the 10 NRC would comply with those guidelines.
II That has always been the position of the Commission 12 without acknowledging jurisdiction.
They do comply with these 13 guidelines.
Id COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Is that the end point 15 then?
I0 MR. MINOQUE:
I am sorry.
I have been corrected.
I7 It is final to the President after they get the agency feedback.
18 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
And that would be it.
19 There is not a further step beyond publishing those guide-20 lines?
21 MR. MINOQUE:
Well, there is the step of implemen-22 tation, recognizing these guidelines are pretty general.
They 23 are really broad policy direction.
They don't tell us exactly 24 in lock step what to do or not to do; they lay out some problems Ace Federas Reportets, Inc.
25 and issues that have to be dealt with.
32 1
The implementing agencies really have to do the l
i
-2 implementation.
3 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Okay.
So there would l
4 be a follow-on then an EPA occupational exposure rule going 5
beyond these guidelines?
1 6
MR. MINOQUE:
I wouldn't expect so.
They have 7
chosen this route.
They have a number of hats and authority I
t 8
is derived from a number of sources.
i 9
They generally do not use the FRC guidance route, l
10 which is an unusual thing, and I would suggest that.would mean 11 they intend to let the implementing agencies -- not just the 12 regulatory agencies, the Federal Government conducts a lot 13 of activities that expose people to radiation.
14 I would expect the implementing agencies will deal 15 with the problem.
16 This is not a simple subject.
When you talk 17 about doing it out in the real world, it is not easy.
18 Le t me go on.
The next viewgraph deals with 19 ICRP 26.
20 (Viewgraph.)
21 I just want to touch very briefly on what we 22 didn't pick up from ICRP 26.
ICRP 26 calls for a rather formal 23 process of justification of exposures and optimization.
That 24 is, a cost benefit assessment that you would relate to every AeFaserel Reporters. Inc.
25 activity that you did that involved exposures.
I 4
.,~'"!3' 6
33 1
We don't. regard that as practical in the context 2
of. licensee implementation (NE NRC regulation, so this whole l
3 question basically is not explicit in the rule as a require-
'4 ment.
5 It is really embedded in the rulemaking process 6
itself, which implies justification in the development and 7
formulation of ALARA programs, which may or may not involve 8
quantitative optimization, but it didn' t make sense.
I think 9
this - is the consensus of the other-countries as well.
It 10 is optimization'in a quantitative sense, this is a rigorous
~ 11 procedure' applied to individual activity.. It is not really 12 very practical.-
i 13 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
And I'think ICRP has backed off i
14 lof that optimization concept as a quantitative analysis.
15 MR. MINOQUE:
I have had a number of discussions.
16 with Mr. Bennison'who will soon be -- I. guess he has been
- 17 Vice Chairman, and this summer will take over as Chairman.
18 And 'I know that he feels, as Dick has just said, that the 19 full scale quantitative optimization in each case is not really 20 what they intended.-
21 I think this is a characteristic of the first cuts 22 of ICRP 26.
By and'large, they didn't look at the implemen-23 tation problems very carefully.
It is a scientific body without 24 a lot of regulatory membership, hFederal Kaporters, Inc.
- 25 In fact, some of die feedback that they got from i
i
34 I
1 people, that is one of the reasons that Mr. Cunningham is now f
2 a major member of ICRP Committee 4.
It is a recognition that 3
you need that kind of practical experience in implementation 4
has to be considered.
5 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Has any country gone
(
5 with this concept of a more quantified approach to this j
7 authorization?
I, 8
MR. MINOQUE:
Not to my knowledge, but surprisingly i
9
.enough, there was an appendix to the basic safety standards of 10 IAEA that Dick mentioned that certainly could be construed to rmve 11 implied that the IAEA says you should do a quantitative 12 optimization.
I hope we can change that.
I 13 It is in an appendix.
It is not formally part of i
14 the guidance.
I don' t know of any country that has done that.
15 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
Your optimization, quantitative 16 optimization is only as good as the data you have, and the 17 problem is the data.
18 There are countries that try to do it more than 19 others.
In fact, ICRP Commi'*ee 4 is now working on alterna-20 tives 21 MR. MINOQUE:
You see, part of the problem is 22 some of the guys that dreamed this concept up were health 23 physicist scientists.
I know a speech I made several years
-24 ago about what is in the ALARA program?
w.F.e.i c cort.e.. Inc.
25 What do you do in a radiological protection program t
I
35 I
for a power plant?
i 2
It says improve such things as plant design and i
3 layout to facilitate maintenance, requirements on fuel cladding, 4
Water treatment purification systems to inhibit corrosion, or 5
reduce deposition, controls on access to radiation area, worker I 6
training, radiation surveys, use of remote and semi-remote 7
maintenance equipment, local decontamination services, special 8
ventilation systems, protective clothing, et cetera, et cetera.
9 It is pretty hard to optimi m that in a quantita-10 tive way.
I think that is what these people basically over-11 look.
12 They thought it was simple health physics practice 13 that you would apply to safety, specific medical procedure 14 or something like that, but you can do this kird of thing 15 very reasonably.
16 But as a requirement in a regulation as compared 17 to an element that would be considered by somebody developing 18 an ALARA program but not in a regulatory frame work, I think I9 it is pretty evident that it should not be a requirement, and 20 that is the position -- it is one of the potential controversial 21 items in this rule.
Does not include optimization as a 22 requirement.
23 I am going to go through very, very quickly.
Lets 24 go to the next viewgraph, the one that is entitled:
External Amfeder] 7.eportef t, Inc.
25 Occupational Dose Limits, Whole Body.
36 1
(Viewgraph)
I 2
I am going to go through very, very quickly what i
3 the detailed elements are.
4 I want to spend most of the time talking about j
i 5
some of these more basic issues.
So, I will go through these 6
viewgraphs on the elements very, very quickly.
7 The first one relates to the external limits.
8 Basically, they would stay with 5 rem per year, but would 9
eliminate the dose averaging that is now used to deal with 10 special maintenance situations and replace them with the 11 concept of plant special exposures to be found in the ICRP 12 guidance.
13 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
What would be the risk 14 reduction benefit of eliminating the plant special exposures 15 altogether, saying 5 rems is it?
16 MR. MINOQUE:
I think it is a detriment.
And 17 the reason is if you use it properly -- recognize you are 18 talking here about a very complex operation that involves 19 exposure during entry, exposure during departure.
It involves 20 positioning the equipment, positioning yourself.
The time 21 of this operation could be very, very short.
22 Now, if you impose a very low limit, what you end 23 up -- I don't like to use this term, but you start burning out 24 people.
You say I am going to send in five guys, and they will Aa-Federal Ceporters, Inc.
l 25 do that job, one, two, three, four, five.
None of them will go
37 1
over the limit.
i i
2 The total person rem exposure is much higher than 3
-if you sent one guy in, giving him a higher exposure, in a l
4 fully informed way.
These are highly paid technicians.
The 5
total exposure would be less because of the efficiency of 6
carrying out the operation.
7 The basic intent of this concept of plant special i
8 exposure is to deal with that situation and recognize that 9
there are a few situations that are relatively rare.
They 10 clearly need to be justified, where it is better off to have 11 one person on an informed basis take a higher exposure, than 12 have a number of people take a lower exposure with a higher 13 man. rem, so I think the answer to your question is the sign 14
.is negative, not positive.
15 I think eliminating this would increase the 16 radiological risk to the work force if it is correctly applied.
17 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
But not to the individual.
18 MR. MINOQUE:
The individual,-as a person, he will 19 accept the higher risk common in the work place.
People that 20
- work for a living, accept the higher risk in exchange for 21 money.
It is a common characteristic of modern heavy industry.
22 We are not inventing the wheel here.
This is not a new 23 concept.
24 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
At some point I would b-Federj Coporters, Inc.
25 like to go into that in some greater detail.
You remember some i
y 38 1
stories about people that in fact take bonuses to take high 2
L doses in the plant.
Particularly, some of these migrants.
1 x3 MR. MINOQUE:
Over the last five or six years, a 4
lot of prompting from NRR, there has been a move on the part i
5 of the power.. industry to really improve the picture in term 6
of some of these special maintenance, special inspection 7
operations, by more-careful planning.
By attention to lay-8 out.
By spec'ial shielding, so actually the pattern is that i
9 the need is being eliminated.
2 10-I think -- and I was-told the other day -- in the a
'II last year that no utility, <nr their own employees, had gone -
12 over five rem.
13 And the number o#f ' cases of. contract workers 'doing Id this is decreasing all the time.
I think these scare stories 15 you hear about people being burned out. in large quantities, 16 you know, just warm' bodies,being walked through,-is not true
'I7 any more.
It may have been true once, but it is'not true 18
~any more.
I9 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
But don't you put some limit
'20 on today, even on this --
~
2I MR. MINOQUE:
Yes, Enere-is a limit on it.
It
'22 r
is lower than the ICRP would have recommended.
We comprimised.
l 23 The staff came up with this five additional rem per year.
I l
24 think the ICRP. recommendation was ten.
wesect neponen, Inc.
25 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I want to clarify a term i
jg,,
w,-.
m--,
ms,
.,__,,,,__y..m...
..-w..-y-
39 I
that Jim used, because I fear it could be misunderstood, and l
2 that is migrant-type worker.
This is not migrant worker.
The l l
3 term is usually used -- trained, skilled, smoke jumper-types, 4
if you will, --
5 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
The guys who travel-from I
6 plant to plant to plant, and do much of this specialized work, 7
particularly ones involved in high doses, like steam generator !
8 tube repairs.
I 9
MR. MINOQUE:
There is an element of transient a
10 workers properly so called, who are employees of companies that 11 work on contract to a number of utilities.
12 There have been some cases in the past, though, 13 of warm bodies being brought in without special skills.
i 14 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
I am more concerned 15
.about the specialists who travel from plant to plant to plant, 16 and I am also very interested in how we make sure that, in fact, 17 those people just get the doses that they are supposed to get, 18 and how we keep accurate records.
19 MR. MINOQUE:
I think the Commission has dealt with 20 that in previous rulemaking.
There is a very tight control 21 on the recordkeeping on transient workers.
22 The economics of this solves this problem regardless 23 of the industry's motivation.
It is their financial benefit 24 to cut these exposures.
The steps they have taken to cut Ace-Federd Reporters, Inc.
25 exposures in this kind of activity also turned out to reduce 4
40 i
I their costs overall.
I am not sure it needs a lot of heavy l
2 regulation.
l 3
Let me go to the next viewgraph.
'4 (Viewgraph.)
5 Viewgraph No. 8.
The next viewgraph reflects the 6
incorporation of some of these improved understandings of the 7
radiobiological effects of different forms of exposure.
8 Some of these levels are up.and some are down from 9
previous numbers.
Fundamentally, it just reflects the current 10 science.
We discussed this earlier.
11 Lets go to Number 9.
12 (Viewgraph.)
13 The lefthand column is by quarter, and the right-i 14 hand column is by year.
The numbers are not directly 15 comparable.
16 MR. GOLLER:
But that is because the way the 17 regualtion would actually state'it.
So four times the left 18 number would be larger than the right.
19 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I am glad you called that to 20 our attention.
21 MR. MINOQUE:
The first one is up, and the other 22 two are down.
23 The next one reflects a very important change in 24 the point of view of -- this is Number 9 -- a very important Ace-Federd Reporters, Inc.
25 change in the point of view of easing the burden, because it i
m --
- r 41
.=
l1 basically establishes the. limits on the basis of annual 2
limits and quarterly limits.
f I
3 I'can' speak from personal experience that that l
-4 really facilitates the problem of the guy that is trying to 5
manage _the _ operation on the receiving' end, and I think that
.6 should help a lot-to. reduce some of the burdens of this 7
_ rule change.
8
.Let me go on to number 10.
19 (Viewgraph) 10 This speaks of the question of internal exposures.
11 This-is an area that primarily effect the NMSS licensee,
-12 because by and large at nuclear power plants the exposure-l
.13 from airborne contamination is quiteismall.
i 14 Further, most ~ of the activities taken in ALARA
-15
. programs in the' power plant licensees are not affected by the 16
'way these. numbers change.
17 Here, the intake limits for some nuclides will be 18
-lower, and this is particularly critical for some of ' the alpha.
19
. emitters.
This affects the fuel cycle industry, it would L20 affect DOE activities if they comply'with these guidelines, 21 and also would affect some smoke. detectors, for example, --
22 the manufacturers of the detectors could be affected, but 23 not.the distribution to the public.
It is not a significant
~
l 24 factorLthere.
And so on.
has-Federd Reporters, Inc.
25 There was a real problem on this, and this is
A 42 s.
'I again 'one of the controversial parts of this rule, because the 1
2 limits with this approach would be so tight, there could be a 3
'real problem in the implementation of the limit if you didn't 4
allow some flexibility to enable people to deal with these 5
. things on a longer term basis along the lines that DOE has 6
'used in their practice, and fundamentally what you see in the 7
regulation is an effort to deal with the problem of implemen-
)
8 tation in a way if there was exposure that was excessive you I
9
- would know about it in time to take some action regarding future' 10 assignment of the person, but you couldn't guarantee he wouldn't 11 get an overexposure in terms of an annual --
12 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Bob, what are you really i
13 talking about here, as a matter of experience in statistics 2
Id when you talk about risk?
And I don't mean the very large 15 exposures.
Are there certain types of cancers -- obviously, 16 thyroid, but beyond that, leukemia.
What are the other 17 principal maladies you are talking about here?
18 I would suspect they are a pretty small group of
'I9 cancers.
20 MR. MINOQUE:
In these ranges, it is a group 21 of cancers -- I don' t have them at my finger tips at this 22 point;-- but there are -- incidence rates are -- I have forgotten 23 the jargon, but there is a probability of causation that you 24
.can assign to various types of cancer at various levels of nee-Federd Reporters, Inc.
25 exposure.
t i
s' 43 i
i 1
The list of cancers is quite long.
We have this 2
material, but I just don't have it at my finger tips.
I 3
will be glad to --
4 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I was just wondering if 5
they were dominant in particular --
6 MR. MINOQUE:
No, there is no one cancer.
7 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Are they associated with 8
any particular level of radiation?
9 MR. MINOQUE:
No, no.
10 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
How far you go --
Il
^
MR. MINOQUE:
The problem is, when you get into 12 very, very low levels, you are beginning to extrapolate from 13 the data base that is taken at high levels.
There is certainly 14 no evidence of a threshold.
15 General prudent public health assumptions, there 16 is no threshold.
17 If this question on the effects of low level is 18 not a controversy, and is not an issue in this rulemaking, 19 and I think that matter has been largely resolved by the BIER-3 20 Committee and by other actions in terms of defining a range.
21 There is not agreement within that range.
The 22 range is narrow compared to what we would regulate.
I don't 23 think there is any issue that you can label what is the 24 relevant significance of low levels of radiation exposure.
WFederd Reporters. Inc.
25 That is not a factor that raises any concern in this i
i
44 l
1 rulemaking.
2 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Radiation itself is not 3
turned around to say particular cancer is not radiation dose j
4 selective, and therefore, the risk more depends on the radio-5 chemistry, such as iodine in the thyroid.
6 MR. MINOQUE:
I am sorry.
I was answering the 7
question more in the context of external exposure.
l l
8 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Either way.
It doesn't 9
matter.
10 MR. MINOQUE:
My answer was for external exposure.
II Now you are talking about specific chemical compounds.
12 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Were it not for the 13 chemistry --
14 MR. MINOQUE:
All of these are cancers that are 15 widely caused by other effects.
The incidence from this cause 16 is so small that the ratio is not favorable, so most of the 17 data base is either laboratory animals or it is epidemiological 18 studies based on people that were exposed to very, very high 19 levels.
20 These are all issues that are not really within 21 the province of NRC anyway.
I think they have been successfully 22 dealt with by EPA and the BIER committees, and I think as far 23 as this Agency is concerned we can turn to BIER-3, and of course 24 it would follow that reasonable authority worked in this ha-FederJ Reporters, Inc.
25 frame work.
45 1
COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
You have answered my l
l 2
question.
3 MR. MINOQUE:
I should have said this at the very 4
beginning of the discussion.
You really need to recognize 5
the effectiveness of the ALARA concept, because if ALARA 6
works, because it works, all the exposures are well below the l
7 limit, and gives you a lot of room if the biological ef fective-8 ness fluctuates slightly.
9 If we adopted ALARA in an aggressive way, exposures 10 would be well below the limit.
11 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Bob, that raises another 12 question in my mind.
And I guess -- it is not clear to me to 13 what extent this new risk base approach affects in any way the 14 kind of liability questions that I think we are going to be 15 seeing over the next decade or couple of decades.
16 The questions that I think we are going to be seeing 17 over the next decade or couple of decades, the f act is what, 18 three hundred thousand radiation workers worked at some time 19 in the various aspects of the industry -- not just the power 20 plants -- out of that three hundred thousand, you figure a 21 hundred thousand of that three hundred thousand is going to get 22 cancer at some point over the next ten, twenty, thirty, forty 23 years or so.
24 Are there any implications in this rule, particularly W-Federd Reporters, Inc.
25 give the risk base approach, for the kind of difficulties we
46 I
l 1
I think are already seeing, and I think in compensation cases, l
l 2
and I think we are likely to see in much larger numbers for j
i I
3 deciding which of those cancers may be radiation related and 4
which of them may not, and that is the kind of decisions that 5
society is going to make on compensating those people over the 6
next several decades.
7 MR. MINOQUE:
There are significant indications.
l l
8 They fall into -- two relate to this rule, and another rule 4
9 the Commission has been promulgating over the last several 10 years.
11 First, if the standard is based on a solid science 12 base, it is based on health risk, I think there is a clearing 13 of the air in terms of the position of a licensee applying to 14 that standard.
It relates back to good science, rather than 15 some arbitrary assumption.
16 So, turning to a risk base standard should improve 17 protection.
Second, I think even more important, one of the 18 central issues is the question of the record keeping.
Standard 19 record keeping and the ability to identify exposures of 20 individuals, and to the extent -- I know when I was on the 21 Labossa Committee a few years ago, one of the major issues 22 in dealing with the bomb test exposures was the very poor 23 records and the very poor dosimetry related to the exposure 24 or possible exposure of many of the people that were involved.
Am Feder] Reporters, Inc.
25 That clearly complicates the matter.
l
47 i
t 1
To the extent that the record keeping is improved, i
2 I think you have improved the ability to properly quantify 3
the indemnification issue.
4 The last item, which is not in this package, 5
because it is another rulemaking, is the issue of the dosimetry.
6 In fact, there has been some problem with the quality control l
7 of dosimetry.
[
8 The Commission has promulgated regulations related 9
to this and tried to, by a certification program, to improve 10 the quality and reliability of the personnel dosimetry.
11 If you put all those together, although that is 12 certainly not our primary objective, it is a secondary 13 objective, it should clear the air regarding the indemnification 14 issues and make sure the Commission does exacerbate the problem 15 of dealing with this very important national issue.
It is 16 much broader than the radiation exposure we regulate.
We 17 are a very small part of it.
18 At least we won't contribute to the problem.
19 Within the activities that we regulate -- that you regulate --
20 that we will be able to say the situation there is very much 21 under control in terms of the quantification of exposure and 22 identification of individuals.
23 That certainly was the conclusion of the Labossa 24 group.
You know, this is even as of five years ago that the W-Feder:1 Reporters, Inc.
25 level of knowledge regarding the exposure levels and the
48 i
1 identification of persons was really significantly better i
2 than it was in other activities.
3 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Why has it been so hard 4
to gather data, statistical data, for exposure other than very 5
high levels of exposure, and I am particularly thinking of 6
commercial airline industry where it is acknowledged in the 7
business, where as far as we know we have always had very 8
strict laws and requirements and what not where -- it would 9
take some work, but why have we not developed substantial 10 guidance?
11 MR. MINOQUE:
I think you have to re cognize that 12 competing factors are very, very significant.
All these 13 cancers are caused by a very large number of other factors.
14 The problem of getting statistically adequate sample to 15 evaluate -- now, this agency several years ago, together with 16 EPA, undertook Congressionally mandated study, the feasibility, 17 of doing epidemiological studies for various populations.
18 I believe that included aircraft personnel.
They l9 do, in fact, get exposures that are in that occupational 20 exposure range.
21 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Especially since the 22 advent of 707s.
23 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Major shipyard workers.
24 MR. MINOQUE:
Yeah.
I don't remember the details ka Feder) Heporters, Inc. I 25 I
any more, but certainly we can send you a copy of that study.
N
49 1
The conclusion of' the study was among the population i
2 exposed to these levels,'it was not feasible.
Primarily, 3
because of a large incident rate of these cancers from other 4
sources, it was not meaningful--- it was not feasible to do
~
5 a statistical meaningful epidemiological study.
.6 There have, of course, been a lot of such studies 7
made of DOE contractors and so on, but most of them resulted
.8
-in disputes and controversy.
j t
9 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
That in itself is a i
-10 statement then, because certainly since-the 1950s, and surely Il since the 60s, jet aircraft routinely fly 30,000 feet or'more.
12 A lot of pilots and personnel on the aircraft receive pretty 13 substantial doses over their careers.
i I4 MR. MINOQUE:
It runs about 100 milli-rem per year.;
15 A few years ago we did a study where a large number of flight 16 attendants carried dosimeters, and when you measure it over I7 a-period of time, they ran about 100 MR per year, and that 18 puts you at the bottom -- you know, that is background.
You I9 are just barely getting into the fringes of being occupationally 20 exposed.
21 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
You have to have a large group 22 of people, airline stewardesses.
23 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
You also have to have a large 24 control group.
ase-Fasero neporters, inc.
25 MR. MINOQUE:
The cost of doing epidemiological
50 I
studies is not small.
We have been funding out of our 2
program -- it goes back a long time -- the study of some 3
thoreum workers exposed some time ago, and it is hard to 4
continue to maintain this program year after year as you track 5
these people on into time.
6 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Let me press once more.
7 I was just under a misimpression with the exposures relied I
i 8
on.
There are for sure certain areas where more than ten i
9 times -- were ten times more than the average.
Why is that?
10 MR. MONIQUE:
Well, there have been a number of 11 assessments. I can' t speak to the detail, because I don' t think 12 this was included in our study.
There have been a number of
. 13 assessments made over the years, the possibility of doing l
14 epidemiological studies in such regions.
15 I don't know that any of them got anywhere.
One 16 reason is that if you just do -- let's say Denver, Colorado, 17 as an example, if you take a quick look at Denver, the radiation 18 level there I guess is about double what it would be for where 19 we are sitting right now.
20 And in fact, if you look at the health indications, 21 just superficially there is no -- people are healthier there.
22 Brazil, there is one in Ceylon.
There are a 23 number of such areas -- sometimes the levels are very, very 24 high.
Ase Federd Reporters, Inc.
25 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I am not talking about I
m
51 1
doubles.
You are talking about ten --
2 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Not only sometimes, but-i f
3 practically all the time.
And I think there have been some 4
studies, because I remember reading something.
5 MR. MINOQUE:
I am not aware of any studies that 6
threw any particular light on higher incidence, but I will be 7
glad -- I know that such studies have been proposed.
i 8
The study that we did was a feasibility assessment 9
for U. S. worker population.
10 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
Part of this problem, if you
'II take an area, you have got to compare those against a controlled I
12 one,. where they aren't exposed to this radiation, and in other 13 ways are very similar.
It is very difficult.
There is a 14 waiting period of 20, 30, or 40 years.
Compare that with 15 a population controlled group in the United States --
I6 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Actually, in this country 17 the best groups have been the bomb test victims.
In that area 18 where you had largely pristine environments, and you had 19
.small areas --
20 MR. MINOQUE:
Terrible dosimetry.
The DOE has 21 had a number of programs looking at workers in various labs, 22 shipyard workers and so on, and there you got a combination 23 of good dosimetry and reasonably large population.
24 MR. DIRCKS:
Except you are dealing with a population ham-Federd Reporters, Inc.
25 that is selected.
l
- s >-
52 4-1 People who get health exams _every year, maybe, and
- 2 you get probably a healthier group, of people than the normal-3 population, and probably resistance to-disease is better in 4
-these: individuals.
5 MR. DIRCKS:
But over long periods of time keeping 6
one group in a controlled situation, and~another group in 7
another situation, it is very difficult.
I guess the Hanford 8
Study;showed that Hanford workers lived longer and healthier 9
.livesfthan the general population out there, but again what i
i 10 does it mean, because the Hanford workers are probably a 11 healthier group of people to begin with.
12 MR. MINOQUE:
Example I have' heard of is even i
f 13
' worse.
Petronium workers are an extraordinary healthy bunch 14 of people, but that doesn't mean that petronium is good for
~15 you.
16 I should go on, I think..
17 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
The data, in keeping 18 track of what exposures are, what prompts my question is, when
~
19 I attended a meeting of.some of the agreement states in the
'20 radiography area, Texas said one of the things they were going
- 21 to do is make sure they had accurate and reliable records of 22
-exposure.
They are. going to issue every one of their licensees 23 a badge, and on that badge is going to be in essence TLD, 24 and then the badge has to be turned in every year and they in-peens neponws, inc.
25 will process it, and they they will have an absolute record
53 i
I of exposures for every one of their radiation workers.on an i
2 annualized basis, assuming that everybody wears the badge when 3
they are supposed to wear it.
4 Is something like that feasible, and would that 5
give us, in essence, a national registry of radiation workers 6
including accurate levels of exposure levels for everything 7
that they got, so that at least they wouldn't get questioned 8
about what exposures --
9 MR. MINOQUE:
First of all, I think the making 10 of the measurement, that is handled by requiring licensees to II do it as we already do.
If you want to require something, 12 require them to process the dosimeters through a quality 13 control process, and we are also doing that.
14 The maintenance of records at a level that will 15 provide a basis for a national worker registry, which requires 16 worker by worker identification, is not in this package.
I7 It is one of the matters that was discussed a lot 18 when this was put together, and it is one of the issues I am 19 going to deal with later.
20 This rule is based on maintenance of information 21 at a level that will enable you to determine appropriate 22 regulatory action that lets you do trend analysis on exposure 23 patterns and stuff like that.
You can make an argument it is 24 in the national interest to expand that.
Ace Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
When I look down the
54 l
l 1
road, particularly at the liability question, --
l t
2 MR. MINOQUE:
I raised this liability question l
3 with the Commission, and I am not sure any of you were on it i
4
.at the time when it first began to surface some years ago, 5
and I got a pretty strong signal you didn't want us out in 6
front on this question, so we did not give that major weight 7
in putting this package together.
We gave it some weight.
j l
8 If you want us out in front on that question, just 9
say so.
10 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Myself, I think it is 11 pretty interesting and significant.
12 MR. MINOQUE:
It is a question that is being 13 addressed at the national level very, very carefully.
The 14 Office of Science Technology Policy has established a new 15 Committee, which Mr. Davis and I are members of, and one of 16 the main issues they are trying to deal with is indemnification 17 question.
There is a lot of congressional interest.
There 18 is probability of causation tables being prepared and so on, 19 and there is a lot of work going on on this question.
20 I am not sure we should be out front on it.
Other 21 people are working on it.
22 It ain't cheap.
Lets go to the next viewgraph.
23 I really would like to get to some of the issues.
24 (Viewgraph.)
hee-Federd Reporters, Inc.
25 This rule mandates ALARA.
I will say no more.
l
55 1
It also contains a concept called Investigation Levels.
I 2
That is in the EPA guidance and it is in ICRP 3
thinking as well.
4 The idea of investigation level is to establish 5
sub-tier levels that are not regulatory limits, but that could 6
be used as a control mechanism to make sure that individual j
7 exposures don't unnecessarily get out of hand.
8 If you like, it is like a pseudo-limit at a lower 9
level, without the implication of firm regulation.
10 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
What are the teeth II behind that?
Forces.some kind of action.
Whether it is 12 regulatory or not, that at least triggers some kind of action 13 that will help assure results --
14 MR. MINOQUE:
Karl could correct me if I am wrong, 4
15 but I think what this package calls for is the inspectors from 16 the regional offices, as they go through the plant, will ensure 17 these levels exist and that they are in some way implemented, 18 but not as a basis for regulatory violation of license condition-I9 type action.
20 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
What is their purpose?
21 MR. MINOQUE:
This is a very, very complicated 22 question in this sense.
There is a simple minded way of looking 23 at this whole issue that says these risks in terms of worker 24 risk are not acceptable, because they are comparable to those Ase Federj Coporters, Inc.
25 in heavy industry.
+
56 I
We want to reduce the risk, and the way to do it i
i 2
-is to lower the limit.
i 3
There;are a lot of people that say that.
Lower 4
.the limit, that will solve your problems.
3 I think the impression of the people that dealt 6
ith this firsthand is that that doesn't solve the problems.
w i
7 If you lower the limits, you may increase the total man rem 8
exposure, so you need a system that recognizes that occasionally 9
you will need exposures that come up towards the limits.
Those 10 are the exception.
The norm is a much lower level of exposure.
So, 12
.how do you establish a norm at.a lower level that still allows 13 some flexibility to come up to this, and that is what this Id
~ concept was really aimed at.
15 It is a norm that is at a lower level, but without 16
.the implications of a regulatory limit.
I7 The implication is that people -- the working 18 fcrce consistently exceeding that norm, they will take some action to get that back down below it.
20 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
You have to be operating, as a 21 point of fact, somewhere between ten percent and fifteen 22 percent of the limit.
I don't care where you place that 23 j
limit.
l 24 It is what you reasonably expect the exposure L
of the person to be, that is the norm.
Standard procedures,
'l' i
i
v 57 I
day in andiday out.
2 HIf he starts to exceed that limit, it is a signal
'3 to look into why that individual exeeds that norm, and that
't 4
is. called the investigation level.
5
. Find out why he is getting more exposure than his 6
co-workers.
7 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Similar to the trends used 8
in quality control.
You have three single bar charts, and 9
you say, oh, wait a minute, we are getting up towards --
10 MR. MINOQUE:
That is right.
Let me make a point II on all this.
I think you have got to -- you shouldn't get 12 in a regulatory space.
13 We can't put an inspector behind every person in Id every hospital, or in any material licensee.
You really need 15 to find a way to generate the process where the people deal l
16 with the problem themselves, where there is a regulatory 17 oversight in the ability to intervene when things are out of i
18 control without requiring a full blown regulation for every f
19 act.
20 We have a bottom line measurement we shouldn't i
21 forget.
We are having, in dose measurements, we can look at f.
(
22 the pattern of exposure and see what we are doing works or not, i
23 and the record shows it works well.
You don't have to regulate 24 everything.
Ase-Federal Caportets, Inc.
25 Let me go on to the next viewgraph.
t
58 1
With reference to lawyers about defining di minimus,.
2 to me di minimus means there is a level of exposure sufficiently 3
small in its inpact that it does not warrant regulatory 4
consideration, and can legitimately be treated as trivial.
5 It does not say there is no risk associated with 6
that level.
7 An issue we wrestled with a lot when we put this 8
' Package together was the extent to which di minimus should be 9
folded into the concept.
What you see before you in a very 10 real sense is a compromise.
It deals only in one area, and i
11 that is the issue of determination of collective dose over i
i 12 long term in large areas in very, very low level.
13 In effect, we even set a floor on that.
Saying l
14 you go so far, and then you-don't go any further.
We don't i
15 take it further.
16 I have discussed this matter, and I am sure Dick i
17 has as well, with a number of people in other countries that I
18 are in the same area, that by and large in the past people have '
i 19 been reluctant to take on the di minimus question.
It is a 20 complex question.
It gets you into debates about whether this 21 is a pseudo-threshold or not.
It is not.
It does get into 22 that kind of debate.
23 There seems to me to be a groundswell now moving i
i 24 toward di minimus in other countries.
Dick talked about this A=-rw m nesmnen, ine.
l 25 earlier.
t::
1
-59
^
,'O a
-: 1 l.
In particular, the Commission should be aware that
'2 the1UK -- the National Radiological Protection of the UK is 3
a very prestigeous national group, and they have just recently J.
EN~
4 Lissued, and we just got it, a new policy on di minimus deter-5 minations.together with supporting technical report.
6 We will review it and report to the commission on
'7 it'..
8 It goes quite far at.the national. level in a 9
. broad implementation of di minimus.
I think if we had this
-10 six months ago --
3
'r
,11 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
You don't know how it compares i
~
l2 with what you are proposing here?
[
- 13 MR. MINOQUE:
It is much broader in scope.
I
~
14 think the level' you set for di minimus is not that important.
L
~
.15 You,can debate that in a separate context.
It is the concept,. l.
?16
'the setting of the concept, I think, is the big issue in this T17
'first stage.-
. o
- 18 The level we can debate.
The level in ours is
'i V
119 pretty tight.
Their's is higher.
Their's is also broader;
'20
- they applied it in a much broader sense.
'21 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Bob, what is the 4
~'{
.22 practical effect in terms of what licensee is going to do under
'23
.di minimus limit - -
l t,
.24 MR. MINOQUF:
Well, if you don't talk di minimus A.Jeswe nepermesinne.
^25 you are talking ALARA.
60 1
ALARA involves some kind of cost effective assess-f 2
ment or balance in benefit to the risk, so there is a process ;
i 3
that you have got to go through.
1 I think the UK position does require some kind
(
5 of cost effectiveness assessment.
I haven' t read the report 6
in any detail.
7 MR. GOLLER:
I need to correct the concept that 8
theirs is just higher.
We, as Bob has explained, are proposing 9
assessed di minimus value only for the purpose of these i
10 calculations.
The UK Board did that.
But they went much' II further to equate -- they are also proposing on setting a 12 di minimus level of individual dose level, which is the I3 more usual' context of di minimus, which we are not proposing Id to do, and they set a value for that, as indicated in the 15 viewgraph, of five millirem per year for individual members 16 of the public.
I7 MR. MIr1CwE:
Considerations of this package 18 focuses this issue and calls for public comment.
The attempt is to start a dialogue.
20 MR. GOLLER:
That five millirem per year that I 21 just pointed out is not the same thing as the one millirem, 22 so we are not talking about a value that is higher.
Two 23 different concepts.
24 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
p.Fede,d Reporters, Inc.
This has implications, not just 25 in this room, for collective dose assessment, but in how we t
i
61
'l treat certain types of waste.
l 2
It may be worthwhile in a separate meeting on
- 3 the subject --
4 MR. MINOQUE:
I think it is important that several. !
- 5 years'ago.-- I don't know what it was called then -- but the i
6
' equivalent.of the Federal Radiation Policy Council approved
-7 an action that was proposed by Committee that Dick Cunningham.
I 8
either chaired or worked on that, and I forgot which, that 9
. basically took two particular waste streams, laboratory 10 animals and some kind of simulation encounters, and I have
- 'l f forgotten, but looked at them and made what could be considered 12 a determination that these waste streams represented a hazard I
that was' sufficiently small that no regulatory attention was 13 I
14 i required.
l 15 That act, for two waste streams alone, reduced 16 a volume of stuff that had to be treated as low level waste L
17 very, very significantly.
I have forgotten the figures, but y
[
18
.it was significant, just. focusing on two specific waste 19 l streams.
i 20 j The fact that that concept was approved, unanimously 21 as I recollect it, by the Federation Policy Council, I think is 22 very significant.
There is a broad spectrum of potential 23 agreement here.
EPA at that time chaired that Committee, so I 24 think there is a lot of support for that concept.
wms coa,sen soc.
25 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Are you saying as I look l
L
62 I
I 1
through this di minimus slide -- I should rephrase that, I 2
guess -- but it looks like the UK has no di minimus regulation 3
for collective dose, whereas you are proposing that we do, and 4
that we have no di minimus -- you are proposing no di minimus 5
regulation.
6 MR. MINOQUE:
We got the UK report last Friday, 7
and we just haven't had a chance to review it in any detail.
8 Our di minimus proposal is limited to just one item, and that 9
is collective dose calculation, but di minimus is a broadly 10 applicable concept.
'l could apply to waste streams, to radiation exposures 12 in the work place and so on.
13 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
I think the difference is we said 0
14 J that we will apply I think one milli -- I forget what it is, 15 !
for collective dose assessment, and that is the only instance 16 it can be used.
4 17 ll The UK is saying we will apply a cutoff of five 18 l millirem or something.
That would mean if you want to make i
19fluminousdialwatches--
20 MR. MINOQUE:
I think we will have to give you 21 a promisory note.
We will send you a report on it.
I bring 22 it up just to indice.te that somebody else has gone further than 23 we have gone.
24 We really haven't had a chance to review it yet.
war-Feder] Reporters. Inc.
25 I just got it Friday.
63 y
I 1
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Doesn't the' risk of the 2
di minimus exposure though really vary according to how many
.3
. people are exposed?- How far collective dose goes?
4 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
That is the raging issue.
5 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
You could have a very 6
' low level that applied-to very large numbers of people, that 7
would result in very real health effeets.
8 MR. MINOQUE:
Release Krypton 85 from a fuel 9
storage facility that mechanically-processes-the. fuel in some 10 way, is the world population sample you expose.
t
'I COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
And you know it is going I
12 !
to result in health effects.
13 MR. MINOQUE:
Exactly.
The idea of di minimus would Id l: say you know it is going to result in health effects, but the i
15 risk -- the individual risk, or however you want to determine 16. it -- is sufficiently low it does not-warrant regulatory I7 l attention.
18 That is not the same as saying it doesn't involve.
19-health risk.
I
!?
20 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
You know if it is going
[.
21 to cause effects.
You assume that based on the knowledge --
i 22 MR. MINOQUE:
That is correct.
You assume it 23 based on extreme extrapolation.
That is well taken.
r L
2d CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
But this di minimus level ham Pederd Reporters, Inc.
[
'25 you say is one millirem per collective dose calculations.
You
64 I
mean if I take a large group of people, some must be under 2
one millirem --
3 MR. MINOQUE:
Now in evaluating, I use the 4
example of Krypton 85 release, you say what population is 5
affected, and at what level.
6 And in doing that, you would in the current 7
practice, you would integrate over the world's population 8
at the level, and you determine a man-rem or a person-rem.
9 Collective dose is person-rem.
10 Similarly in looking at a waste issue, you would
'l look over long times, and integrate over long times.
12 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Is this man-rem, or is this 13 milli-rem?
14 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
Let me try to explain it.
The 15 !
number you have in the rule is a millirem, one millirem.
16 What that says is that if you have a source here -- say it 17 y is a stack discharging Krypton.
You will do a collective 18 dose assessment for those people in the population that get i
19 one millirem or above of the discharge from that stack.
20 l But as you go out in distance, you are going to 21 have a larger population that had some exposure, but it is 22 less than a millirem per person.
You cut off that collective 23 dose assessment at the milli-rem, and that makes a big difference 24 on how you do your cost benefit analysis, if you assign a wFederd Reporters, Inc.
25 thousand dollars per man-rem on a collective dose.
65 i
1 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
This is milli-rem per person?
2 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
Yes.
3 MR. MINOQUE:
So it will result in discharges 4
that otherwise would not be permitted.
5 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
This doesn' t say per person.
6 MR. MINOQUE:
Well, in the viewgraph it doesn't.
7 Let me go on to the next one.
I will try to be brief on this, 8
because --
let me touch on the next one, and then I can get 9
into some of these controversial issues.
10 (Viewgraph.)
'l j The next one basically would establish a limit 12 for the public, and -- an explicit limit.
This is something 13 Dick touched on earlier.
I d l' It also would reduce the burden by defining a 15 lower level.
It would be a reference level.
16 l!
One problem you have when you establish limits for 17 l' the public, they are always from all sources, so the question 18 is to what extent does an individual licensee have to evaluate
,i l9 ;
other potential sources of exposure?
20 The intent of the reference level is establish a 21 level which, if he meets it, it is presumed that he has met 22 the requirement.
Not necessarily trying to identify everybody 23 within thirty miles that might also be releasing activity.
24 Let me go on and discuss --
Ace FederJ Reporters, Inc.
25 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
So what are you doing now?
c
- p
~
4 66,
V+
t 1
~1 "MR. MINOQUE:
The rule that provided. reference 2
leve{_of100' milli-remperyear,whichifalicensee'metthat b
3 would not' require'him to evaluate all other sources.
He could
.4 say:
Okay, I met a hundred.
So that is my limit.
'J 5
Or if'he wants ~ to. go to' five_ rem, then you would l
6 have to identify:a'11 of the sources.
7 So this. limit is traditionally always external i
e limits, general public limits, traditionally has been applied l
9 for all sources of the exposure other than medical exposure.
10 Let me go on to the next viewgraph.
11 (Viewgraph.)
12 There are two major issues I want to discuss.-
~
l
'13 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
What impact would that limit 14 have if we looked back in history.to see what -- how many 15 ! _ milli-rem our plants have had?
How would that -- would that 16 hundred milli-rem be reasonable?
t 17' MR. MINOQUE:
Dick may want to correct me on this, 18 but my impression is it would be easy to meet.
The vast i
[
19 '
majority of licensees,1but not all.
20 COW!ISSIONER 7ECH:
I would think so.
21 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
For a 100 milli-rem, I don't know 22 of' any licensee that.is causing exposure of 100 milli-rem.
23 COMMISSIONER-ZECH:
It sounds like a very 24 conservative reference to me, is that right?
Wresses reoo,wei, Inc.
25 MR. MINOQUE:
The main intent of it is to get out
67 1
of this exercise trying to identify all the sources.
2 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
Sounds conservative.
3 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
But we have laid on top of that, 4
never forget, the ALARA.
ALARA is laid on that.
5 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
So this really would l
6 not be controlling.
7 MR. MINOQUE:
I would not expect it to be 8
controlling except that it would not be required to go through 9
this exercise of identifying other sources, which is pretty 10 significant I think.
The reference level would eliminate
'1 l that need.
1 i
12 '
I think generally there are things in this rule 13 that will ease the burden.
It isn't all on the negative side.
14 The two issues I wanted to try to focus on, first 15 '
is the question of protection of the embyro fetus is a very, 16 very complex issue.
It is given up front that an unborn child
- I 17 [ is more radiation sensitive than --
18 MR. GOLLER:
Next viewgraph.
19 (Viewgraph.)
20,
MR. MINOQUE:
I am sorry.
Number 15.
That 21 is a given.
That is not the question.
The problem here is 22 a balance.
All of the prostigious organizations, including EPA, 23 recommend a lower limit.to the embyro fetus in pregnant women.
24 The EPA draft guidance goes on to say that this u-Federd Reporters. Inc.
25 should be achieved without economic penalty or loss of job
68 1
opportunity in securing the workers, and that really reflects 2
a dilemma.
3 In both cases, the word, 'should' is used, so it 4
is a recommendation. And the dilemma is that you are balancing i
5 the protection of the fetus against the job rights of the j
6 woman, and it is a very real balance and a very difficult 7
balance.
8 I take the EPA guidance, as written, to suggest that that balance has to be sought and found by the implementing 9
10 agency, because they end up -- the last words in the recommen-11 dation are conformance to the limiting value for the unborn 12 '
should be achieved without economic penalty or loss of job 13 opportunity and security to workers.
i 14 !.
How you find that balance is one of the real 15 f controversies that are embedded in the discussion that went 16 into putting this rule together.
17 The revision contains a proposal in the revision 18 that would continue the past Commission policy.
Prior 19 ' Commissions have really focused on this issue of informed 20 '
consent.
It puts the emphasis on making sure that the pregnant 21 woman is fully informed of the risk, and that she basically 22 decides.
23 So, there is no set special limit for potentially 24 pregnant women.
WFederj [ecorters, Inc.
25 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Only the pregnant woman makes
69 I
that --
2 MR. MINOQUE:
It is furtile women.
It is women 3
in childbearing age is more -- in the past we called this 4
the, ' fertile woman question.'
i 5
Now we talk about it as protection of embyro 6
fetus.
7 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
But you do protect the 8
embyro fetus at the same time; in other words, you have 9
a different presumption and argument for fertile women than 10 you do for women that have already conceived?
'l How do you justify that.
12 MR. GOLLER:
Fertile women, the intent is that i
13 l she is potentially pregnant.
4 14 1 MR. MINOQUE:
Pregnant, or potentially pregnant.
d 15 MR. GOLLER:
It is still the embyro fetus that i
16 l you are trying to protect, but the problem is even the 17 l pregnant woman may not know this, in theory.
18 l Particularly critical time.
This does not mean i
I9 that the genetic effect of protecting the fertile woman --
20 '
COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
That is precisely the 21 point I am trying to make, though.
I don't remember all of 22 my biology so well, I guess, but my understanding is that 23 every woman -- I guess ' born with' isn't the right words, but 24 certainly develops a r:4'on of potential human beings of egg m-Federff Ceporters, Inc.
25 cells, and that is it.
70 1
They are not continuously manufactured, I don't 2
believe throughout their lifetime, so how do you differentiate 3
between the potentiality, which is always there --
t 4
MR. CUNNINGHAM:
Radio sensitivity is during the t
5 first few weeks of pregnancy, organogenesis.
That is the 6
most critical time.
The fetus generally is more radio 7
sensitive.
As I recall, from three to fifteen weeks.
8 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
First trimester, 9
basically.
10 MR. MINOQUE:
Yeah, that is right.
11 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Okay.
Maybe the argument i
12 is that if the egg cell, if it gets any dose at all, is i
13 essentially made non-viable.
That might be it.
14 MR. MINOQUE:
Radio sensitivity is a function of 15 maturity in the womb, that is right.
Also, in a regulatory 16 sense, it is women of child bearing age.
It is fertile 17 l women.
18 The Commission in the past, after a lot of 19.
wrestling, dealt with this with the doctrine of informed I
20 consent.
The idea was to make women aware of the risk, and 21 they have to decide whether they will accept certain exposure 22 levels or not.
23 That is one end of the spectrum.
As you can see, 24 it is complying with the EPA guidance.
That is, it is a way u Feder:: Reporters, Inc.
25 of finding a balance between job rights and fetal protection.
~
71 1
There is another alternative.
We have actually 2
scoped out wording of a rule.
It doesn't go quite that far, 3
but instead would adopt an approach where you are talking about 4
a limit for women who declare themselves to be pregnant.
The 5
woman'still has a decision-making element.
But there is a 6
special limit.
i l-7 These are basically two different approaches.
l 8
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
What do yca mean?
You are l
1 9
going to use a different approach if she declares herself 10 pregnant?
II MR..MINOQUE:
No.
12 CHAIRMAN PALLADION:
I don' t follow that.
/RT l
13
.MR. MINOQUE:
We are trying to find a balance
(; ;
i Id between fetal protection and job rights.
There are two 15
- approaches' laid out.on this package.
i 16 One approach would say informed consent; the
'17 other would establish a special limit applicable to fetuses 18 for' women who declare themselves to be pregnant.
19 So, if a woman was nine months gone and chose 20 to not say she,was pregnant, there would be no special limit 21 applied.
She has a decision role.
.I I
6
[tIO-22 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
So she says she is pregnant, 2 ':
23
'then you go to the more stringent.
l
- .]
v 24
.MR. MINOQUE:
The more stringent limit would Ace-Feder'$ Reporters. Inc.
l
' 25'
. apply,
(
l-
~-
9[
il 72.
+
- / S:: g
.y l
- 1'
. CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
But sometimes they come much
+
n.:
2
- too late,.because-it may be three months before the woman 3 I Lknows s'he is' pregnant.
f
-4
'MR. MINOQUE:
Declared pregnancy means the woman-
- 5 decides she is going to ask for the lower limit.
If she says 6
- she'is.not pregnant, it'doesn't matter whether she is or 7
isn't.-
i l8
. COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
But Joe's point, I think,,
f 9
-is' that.When you rely upon that it is the triggering mechanism ;
10 that -- as a; practical matter, the greatest vulnerability l
.)I
,is' during the first trimester, you may not know.
' 12 MR. MINOQUE:- A woman can be in the fertile child l
-l' i.ha
- 13 bearing' age and.not pregnant at all, and:say I chose to declare l
'14' myself pregnant.
r
- 15
. CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
You are trying to cater to
+
16 'the person who was trying to adjust living habits with reality 17 lof the situation, they would like to say, oh, yeah, I know l18 I:am pregnant, or no, I am not, but what happens when a
'19 iwoman declares herself pregnant?
4 20 MR. MINOQUE:
Then a lower limit woul'd apply lto 0:
~21
- her work place exposure', and that lower limit would be based
.eg n22>
I n
~on2 fetal. protection.
.x y
23 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
She couldn't work in a higher
_:y
-s i4 2
iarea.
,7 ma nesen=, inc.
~
s-25 9y.
- MR. MINOQUE:
She would not be able to -- depending g
(;s
.?
?k ;# ' ',
__-,..b.-.
i 73 i
'I on her job environment.
It might have no effect at all.
2 If her job environment were such that it required a ;
3 higher exposure level than the lower level, then something 4
would have to be done.
5 MR. GOLLER:
A suggested factor of ten lower.
6 l
I think there is some -- here -
I want to be clear here.
I 7
think there is some misunderstanding creeping in.
The rule, i
8 as proposed, goes with the consent concept.
In the supplemental 9
consideration of the proposed Federal Registry Notice says 10 that discussion and the alternate wording which sets forth H
this other concept that Bob has been discussing, and asks for 12 specific comment thereon.
s
'(,
13 MR. MINOQUE:
There are two sets of rule wording i
Id in this package.
One in the body, and one in considerations, 15 and the attempt is to define two approaches at different 16 degrees, there is a different balance between job protection b
17 and fetal protection, both of which I personally believe are 18
. consistent with the EPA guidance.
I have to point out that a lot of people on the 20 Staff would not agree with that.
2I COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
How do both approaches 22 differ from the approach that the Commission issued as a g
23 proposed rule back in the mid '70s,
'75.
MR. MINOQUE:
I should remember the details of Am-FWw) Reporters, le.
25 that but don't.
t
74 1
The approach that is in the rule is consistent 2
with the final Commission determination of that matter.
I 3
don't remember that as a proposed rule, but there was a final 4
Commission determination that rested on informed consent, and 5
we kept that in the proposed rule wording.
6 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
But that doesn't really 7
protect the fetus.
That is what bothers me.
8 MR. MINOQUE:
That is right.
9 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I remember the first woman 10 i
student I had, we had an area that was mildly radioactive,
'I !
and I wouldn't let her go in.
And I said I have to make a l
12 presumption you are pregnant.
i 13 l!
MR. MINOQUE:
This is not a trivial question.
I4 (Laughter. )
ii 15 [
MR. MINOQUE:
It has very significant impact on 16 employment opportunity.
17 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Are there any parallel 18 in other areas?
I9 l MR. MINOQUE:
Oh, yeah.
I 20 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
And how do others deal 21 with this very difficult question?
22 MR. MI NOQUE :
Not very well.
In fact, it is 23 interesting you should raise that.
24 If you look at work place hazards that may Ace-Federd Reporters, Inc.
25 adversely affect the fetus, this is nothing.
The risk of
75 i
I radiation ar chicken feed compared to the risk of lead in the 2
environment, complex organic solvents and stuff like that.
3 They are widely used in industry, and have potentially very 4
severe adverse effects on the fetus.
5 My daughter-in-law used to work in an EPA 6
laboratory, and I was scared to death because she was working 7
routinely with three agents that I knew had very serious 8
potential effects.
9 In terms of how does this work place risk relate 10 l to other work place risks might affect the unborn, my own
'I f opinion is it is pretty trivial.
12 '
This is a very tough, very complex issue that 13 I don't think anybody has faced up to squarely.
Il Id I have taken myself the view that this issue is 15 best dealt with in a broad context by an agency like EPA, and that is one reason --
II U COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
But they ducked it and 18 said well, then the implementing agency --
l MR. MINOQUE:
You could argue they have taken it 20 i head on.
They have written guidance I think is inherently 21 contradictory, because it says do A and do B, and if they are 22 not mutually inconsistent, do them both.
23 Now, we have two wordings here that attempt to do 24 that.
They may modify that wording before they are through, eFeded Reporters, Inc.
25 and if they changed it to say something more explicit, we develop
76:
i 1
wording accordingly, and propose it.
2 CHAIRMAN BERNTHAL:
Except that the draft guidance 3
when it says, 'should be achieved without economic penalty 4
loss of job opportunity, or secure of workers,' that is a t
5 p licy decision that comes external of the EPA's explicit 6
environmental protection charge.
What that means, I don't 7
know, but that is an umbrella policy.
8 MR. MINOQUE:
This is FRC guidance.
It is 9
issued over the President's signature.
10 CHAIRMAN BERNTHAL:
That is exactly what I am it !
saying, but that clearly is not something that came under 12 EPA's specific charter.
That is an umbrella Federal mandate i
13 that is superimposed on EPA's charter, 14 k That is why it is contradictory.
I
?15 !!
COMMISSIONER ZECH:
What limits are we talking i
16 l about for radiation limits that are of serious concern for I
h 17 o protection of the embyro fetus, il 18 MR. MINOQUE:
The level would be 110.
The 19 ;
recommended level would be 110.
500 milli-rem a year.
l i
20 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
How many women are we talking i
21 about?
22 MR. MINOQUE:
500 milli-rem a year, you have 23 eliminated a lot of jobs.
24 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
That is what I mean.
How many bFeder1J hoocrters, Inc.
25 are we talking about?
77 1
MR. MINOQUE:
Women in the work force that involve 2
radiation exposure, the nmd>er is quite large.
They are mostly 3
in material licensees, medical practice, nurses.
4 MR.
CUNNINGHAM:
Hundreds of thousands.
l i
5 MR. MINOQUE:
It is a lot.
I 6
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
And even at the power 7
plants where there are comparatively 'few, they are often in 8
. health physics departments which bring them into contact with 9
it.
10 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Let me make sure I have 11 got one fact straight here.
It is true, is it not, that the l
12 !
maximum risk period though is when you have rapidly 13 differentiating sets.
14,
MR. MINOQUE:
Right.
From the first trimester.
lI 15 That is my understanding.
The rate of growth, -- when the 16 rate of growth is very rapid is when the damage is most 17 ll severe.
18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
And a particular cell could 19 be an important component.
20 MR. MINOQUE:
Damage to one cell can have a major 21 impact, because that is a component --
22 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Precisely because it is 23 rapidly differentiating.
24 MR. MINOQUE:
Exactly, yes.
.Fwwa nworwn. W.
-25 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
I think we are talking about
78 i
1 aus area -- our area of responsibility, a lot more women in 2
hospitals, as you point out, or that type of' radiation-type 3
environment, than in nuclear power plants where there are 4
really relatively few in the areas that would be exposed to 5
any' radiation level up to 500 millirem.
l 1
6 MR. MINOQUE:
Almost all the issues we are 7
talking about here are largely issues that effect material 8
licensees and fuel cycle licensees.
That is why Dick 9
Cunningham is setting up here with me.
10 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
I appreciate that.
I think
'l it is a point worth emphasizing again.
I 12 :
MR. MINOQUE:
If only the power plants were 13 involved, and nothing else, I am not sure I would even be l
Id sitting here.
n 15 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
I appreciate that.
16 MR. DIRCKS:
I think there are few now, but 17 h increasing.
We are getting more and more employment of women 18 in --
19 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
I have visited a number of 20 '
plants as you know, and I see women in all places in the plant 21 in increasing numbers.
22 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Including the guard force.
23 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
Yes, guard force as well as 24 reactor operators and things like that.
Still in relatively ham-Federzt Reporters, Inc.
25 small numbers, but still in increasing numbers.
But my point
.z 79 I
here is I think what we are really talking about is not the 2
power plant'so much as it is other areas of our responsibility.
3 RMR. DIRCKS:
But it is a job category that has 4
opportunites,_ and you -have to be careful about denying women i
5 into.it.
6 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Let me make a housekeeping 7
comment.
It is agreeable to go to four o' clock.
I think it 8
says ten of four.
But I would like to conclude at four 9
o' clock, because I have another meeting.
10 MR. MINOQUE:
Let me go on to the next one.
The
'l !
next issue is reporting requirements.
Commissioner Asselstine I
12 !
raised this issue later.
13 You can develop reporting requirements that 14 l9l basically say I need a basis for regulatory analysis of the 15 l effectiveness of programs or areas that really need regulatory 16 l attention, and if you do that you have pretty much the present 17 system in terms of reportint to NRC.
18 Fundamentally, that is what the rule package 19 proposes.
It is a level of reporting that is primarily 20 l oriented toward the regulatory requirements, but does not fully 21 deal with some of the issues that would be involved in a 22 national worker registry.
That is an area of controversy.
23 I think there are a people in the staff who would 24 not agree that that make sense.
WFederd Reporters, tric.
25 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
But one thing that is important
80 e
I to the individual is the record of his own radiation level.
2 MR. MINOQUE:
They get records on termination, 3
as I understand it.
They don't get annual.
4 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I just think of myself.
If 5
I do go some place and they say did you have any radiation, 6
and I try to think, well, yeah, I remember the last one was 7
here.when it was zero, but if you ask me over my lifetime how 8
much I got, I don't have a good record.
9 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
I keep all those little 10 pieces of paper.
Il CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Sometimes it is better if i
12 you don't know.
13 I -- there is some means of making a handy record II 14 1 for the individual.
15ll MR. MINOQUE:
All these workers are given reports i
16 j on termination, so they do get a record of their exposure, but 17 an issue of annual reporting and more attention to maintenance 18 of records by individuals is really what -- the consesus of I9 Staff was we shouldn't get into that.
20 !
MR. DIRCKS:
Again, how the Commission comes out 21 on there.
22 ll MR. MINOQUE:
This is a major issue, and a large i
23 lF discussion in its own right.
Let me go ahead and talk about 24 f the cost question briefly.
wFederal Reporters, Inc.
25 We got a contractor survey of cost.
It is reported
81 1
in the paper, tabulated on Slide 17.
2 (Viewgraph.)
3 I don't think these are realistic costs.
That 4
is what came out of the survey.
So often, penple look at the 5
elements in something that involved incremental costs and 6
thinss that are remotely related, and add them in, and leave 7
out some that may reduce the cost.
8 I think it is fair to say this is an upper limit 9
on what the cost would be.
10 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Unrealistically high.
Ul MR. MINOQUE:
I think it is unrealistically high i
I2 '
in net.
13 A lot of these costs are going to be associated II Id 1 with more sophisticated handling of some of these issues; 15 E better sampling techniques, better dosimetry, better record 16 keeping of individual programs, the final ALARA program, and Uf things like that.
18 It isn't reporting that costs the money, it is the 9l; records that are required to be developed as you use a health 20 l risk base standard, and there is a substantial upgrade in 21 that kind of stuff involving this rule.
22 MR. DIRCKS:
I think, as you point out, Jim, many 23 of these firms are getting legal advice that they had better 24 maintain more than adequate records because of the potential WFajerd Reporters. Inc.
25 for lawsuits.
That record keeping is expensive and would be a
82 I
good-practice of the firm itself.
2 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
It is not only the 3
potential for lawsuits but the actual recoveries that have been 4
grantedina'coupleofcasesforfairlylowlevelsofexposure.f 5
MR. MINOQUE:
That is exactly right.
Basically, 6
.a lot of people are in on this kind of stuff already, because 7
they recognize that you have to improve the quality.
8 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
The word is spreading 9
pretty fast.
10 MR. MINOQUE:
I really feel in the interest of
'l saving some tim) for some general questions, we really covered i
12 :
- the next viewgraph, which is Number 19,. deals with some 13 of the benefits of this action, but I think we really covered 14 all these in the course of this discussion, and I don't feel 15 !
it is necessary to go through this again.
16 I would make one comment which Karl reminded me i
II l~of,letmemakeacomment.
I want to reiterate a point I made 18 at the beginning.
I9 If we rely on PRA extensively on safety goals and 20 i
stuff like that, if you 'look at realistic treatment of various 21 accidents, you are - talking about realistic assessment of 22 consequence, it is really important that the regulation that 23 implements your radiological protection program also relates 24 to health risks in some defined way.
W-Federd Reporters. Inc.
25 That way you have a coherent regulatory frame work
..---a
c 83 e
i 1
and you can convert the insights; the PRA, the consequence 2
assessment, into regulatory programs in a way that makes some 3
sense.
4 So, there is a real need I think to make this a I
health risk standard in order to bridge that gap in PRAs.
6 Let me go on to 20.
7 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
You do introduce metric 8
radiation units.
9 MR. MINOQUE:
In terms of dual dimensioning, and 10 God, I wish it were small.
It is pretentious as hell, but
'l l I am not sure the Commission needs to be involved in it.
It i
12 :
does it by dual dimensioning, which is really kind of 13
_ consistent with national policies on gradual move toward i
14 '
metric, it in fact is a big problem.
Because most of the 15 technicians who implement a lot of this stuff are not used 16 to the SI unit.
17 '.
And it is a potential source for worker error 18 that is disturbing, and that is why we have both systems, it 19 is dual.
20 l There are people who argue we should go to SI 21 completely, but I think that is risky because people will 22 misinterpret, and unfortunately some of the units look similar, 23 but there are factors of ten difference.
24 So you can get real serious misreading.
b-Feder;2 Reporters. Inc.
25 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Yeah.
At the very least I
84 I
dual, and I would wonder whether this is one area we should be 2
rather conservative.
Normally, I am in favor of charging ahead 3
in things like that, but in this case, I don't know.
4 MR. MINOQUE:
Something I thought -- several years 5
ago I met with the ICRP in some of the earlier stages of this 6
and what really struck me, when they talk among themselves they 7
do not use SI units.
I thought that was really significant.
8 But anyway, it wouldn't break my heart if the 9:
Commission said look lets not pioneer here and stick with l
10 l conventional.
I wouldn't be upset with that at all.
'l l There is a national policy to move toward metric.
i 12 MR. GOLLER:
Not just policy, there is la Tislation.
13 MR. MINOQUE:
We tried to comply with that with 14 dual dimensioning.
ISI' COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Do we have all of our 16 regulations -- you know what I am going to say -- because it il 17 also involves safety related and important to safety -- do 3
IB we have all of our regulations anywhere on a computer so that 19{wecansearchthroughthematwillandcatchthingslikethis 20 automatically?
Or do we have to hire people to go through i
21 l painstakingly and find every place.
22 MR. MINOQUE:
People that work with these 23 regulations day in and day out by and large know where stuff 24 l is.
The rules I have been working with, I can find what I am eFederd Reporters, Inc.
25 looking for without any real trouble.
85 S
.e 1
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
It is only one little 2
book.
3 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
We do use the unit that says 4
pounds per square inch.
5 MR. MINOQUE:
Let me take thirty seconds to i
6 cover the recommendations which is on Slide 20.
7 First, the offices have concurred.
There is a 8
certain amount of staff dissent.
You will be hearing more 9
about that, I am sure.
10 There was a lot of concern about the implementation
'1 l and the need to reduce cost by a very orderly, deliberate l
12 approach to implementation.
There is no clear and present 13 ll need here.
There is not some big safety problem because of i
14 !
inadequate control of radiation.
That is something we all 15 agree on.
16 The implementation is very long, and that is the il 17 y intent of that, is to enable a great orderly transition.
18 What we would propose that the Commission do is 19 :i put this rule out for comment, expecting to get a lot of 1
20 comment, not withstanding all the out reach that we exercise j
21 in developing, and we haven't begun to hear from everybody.
22 I think it is very important to get people that are affected 23 from all perspectives a chance to react to this.
24 Further, we think that these controversial issues Acs-Feder'j Reporters, Inc.
25 which we have dealt with here need to be, and they are, in the
r - - -
86 ',
\\
1 draft considerations so we can get them out on the table and 2
get peoples feedback.
3 We also propose in this package a 120 day comment f
4 period.
l 5
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
This is a proposed rule 6
for comment.
7 MR. MINOQUE:
For comment, and I would expect it 8
would be a long time before it comes out.
This is something 9
you do not want to do hastely.
It should be done very, 10 very deliberately.
'l There is no big problem out there that requires I2 l fixing.
13 ALARA works, the present radiation control systems e
I4 work.
So, we are not dealing with a big safety problem that 15 f needs to be fixed.
I 16 l These problems are more related to some of the sub-17l issues that we have discussed.
18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Let me focus Commission l9 discussion for just a moment.
20 We have a numoer of different options, and I am 21 not even going to cover them all.
One is to say:
Well, this 22 is a pretty good document, why don't we send it out for 23 comment?
24 i
Another is that we understand there are significant p Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 dissent in certain areas among the Staff.
We could say, well, l'
i 87 I
let's listen to the technical aspects of those areas of dissent.
2 3
We also have at least three major areas; di minimus, 4
the embyro, and record keeping.
What I would like to know 5
is how deeply the Commisssion would like to go.
6 It seems to me we have to schedule at least one 7
more meeting to quickly find out how other people feel.
8 I say that because I would like to hear a little 9
more about where there are differences of opinion on the 10 Staff.
'l COMMISSIONER ZECH:
I agree.
I think we should 12 have at least one more, and maybe two more meetings.
We 13 ! should at least hear from those who have differing opinions.
I Id,
It is a very important subject.
I 15 y I don't think we should rush into it.
I think you il 16 ] pointed out Bob it is something that is working now, but it il 17 l is something that obviously you feel, the Staff feels, is an 18 '
improvement,and it is a step in the right direction, but I 19 1 do think we should hear from the others who have different 1
20 '
views and perhaps discuss some of these other issues.
21 At least one more meeting, and maybe two.
22 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Can I ask a question.
Are 23 there differing opinions in these three major areas?
24 MR. GOLLER:
Most of them I am aware of are in the WFate,3 Reporters. Inc.
25 same area of controversy.
Reporting requirement, handling of
s..
88
-=
I
' fertile women _ issue.
2 MR. MINOQUE:
I think the declared different
-3
~ technical opinions are more in the area of whether there should 4
be a rule change as extensive as this or not.
The question of 5
the cost benefit ~ involved.
Is this necessary, and are the l
t 6
indicated high costs justified.
There are differences of opinion 7
on all three specific controversial subjects that you enumerated, 8
but we don't have different technical opinions registered on 9
those at present, nor any indication _ that anyone feels that 10 strongly about those.
'I CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Would it be a practical I
12
- approach'to have sort of a panel on pros and cons, that a 13 presentation be made on behalf of those that feel differently N
than the majority of the Staff.
15 MR. MINOQUE:
I think the issues are well de' fined.
16
'You wouldn't get a babble of' voices.
I think you would i
II l find a consistent pattern.
You could react to it.
18 MR. DIRCKS:
I am not aware of -- you know, you-have a manual chapter on differing professional opinions.
I 20 don' t know whether all of them have gone through.the process 21 as outlined in that' manual chapter.
I-am quite certain that 22 Harold Denton mentioned to me that he hadn't even gotten 23 involved'in one issue.
2 I know the Commission doesn't like to get in the 25 middle of a half ripe differing professional opinion.
We have
89
/.
i 1
already heard from you on that score.
2 You may want to see how these DPOs are handled 3
within the Staff according to the manual chapter, and then 4
deal with it on that basis.
l 5
If you get into the middle of it, you are going l
6 to have -- you might just as well count out the office 7
directors, and deal with the issue yourselves.
8 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I think you are answering
'9 a different question.
I wasn' t trying to decide whethe.
10 it was a valid different professional opinion.
Whether a
'I person should be awarded something -- I would just like to 12 ;
know the range of what the areas in controversy are on this 13 technical matter, just as one goes to professional society Id meetings either to participate or watch a panel ~in action 15 l in which there are strong opinions.
16 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
I was going to say, I i
I7{lthinkthatisnotunlikewhatwedidwithPart35thefirst I8 time around, where there were people who had strongly hel'1 l
views about a few key issues, and whether the Commission heard 20 l from those people, and heard from the Staff on what the 21 reactions to those concerns were.
22 CIIAIRMAN PALLADINO:
We know there are three 23 areas in which the Staff itself expected debate.
Why don't 24 we set the next meeting to go into those three areas and then 25 le t ' s work with the DPO to see how we represent the different I
i 90 r
I points of. view.
i 2
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE : Di minimus, embyro fetus,
-3 and record keeping.
i 4
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
If they think that is too I
5 much to chew in one meeting --
i 6
COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I have one plea about 7
scheduling here.
One of the things that troubles me is when 8
we touch on something like this, and then three months later 9
we try to come back to it, and I don't know about the rest of 10,
you, but my brain is not capable of recalling every element
'l j!
of this discussion three months from now.
12 I would like to have these discussions just as
-13 quickly and closely spaced as possible so we have the advantage 14 l of remembering what we just talked about.
j.
15 !
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I am all for that.
We have 16 agenda planning.
My problem is we find different priorities 17 come into play, --
-18 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Well, lets just do it.
19 We will have to find a way, because otherwise we operate at
- 20 '
ten percent efficiency on these things.
21 We forget ninety percent of what we learned.
22 MR. PLAINE:
I hate to confuse the situation 23 further, but some of these issues raised significant legal 24 problems, too, and could be that the General Counsel would p F dern ri.oorters. inc.
25 have something to say about them.
I don't know how we are going
.~.
91 I
to factor that into the technical problems.
l 2
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Should we try all three at 3
one time, or should we take one and go in depth, and --
4 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Maybe what we could 5
do is get a paper from OGC that identifies and talks about 6
some of the legal questions that may be involved, and one 7
obvious one that comes to mind is what kind of environmental 8
impacts are there from this kind of a rule.
9 Set the meeting up on the three issues, but get 10 that as a follow on item to deal with after that.
'l l CHAIRMAN PALLADIONO:
Should we try all three i
12 ;
issues at the one meeting?
13 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
See how far.we get.
I 14 '
MR. MINOQUE: There are a lot of legal issues,and 15 l we have worked very closely with DLD.
There are significant 16 l legal issues.
17 h COMMISSIONER ZECH:
Do we want the OGC paper
't 18 before we schedule --
19 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
No.
I think we can 20 l go ahead.
21 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I do feel that the Staff has 22 done a tremendous job in getting to this point.
It is almost 23 overwhelming, but nevertheless I think one we have to deal 24 with, and we ought to proceed to take action on the paper Am-Feder.3 Reporters, Inc.
25 promptly.
e 92 1
COMMISSIONER ZECH:
Mr. Chairman,-if I may make 2
one short comment.
I think the briefing papers you have
.3
--given.us - trying to show the impact, -both sets of papers are i
4
~
very well done, and very helpful when you put them in the way 5
you haveidone,: side-by2 side, and also to point out as Dick
_ ~
i
. 6 did in his paper, the present and proposed, it is,a good 7
way to present the subject I think.
~
8 I commend you for that.
9 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I thought the paper was 10 fairly well done, too, and some of the tables where you do 11l the comparisons of what the impacts are and what the changes i
~12 are from the existing rule, you did a nice job despite our i
13 f best efforts you got through the overview, too, in one session.
^
-l Id '
MR. MINOQUE:
I would like to take a second
~15 f.to acknowledge the efforts of Doctor ~ Billy Mills, who lef t 16 us recently.
He came to us from EPA, and he was the' major i
17 ll force in pulling this package together.
1 I
18 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
His fine hand is i
W apparent.
20 '
COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Very good presentation, Bob, 21 p
and I think a nice job.
- 22 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Okay.
Well, we thank you 23 very much and we will schedule another meeting on the subject 24 of the three areas.
Federci Reporters, Inc.
25 We'will stand adjourned.
7;
,-r p_
s-
- e t'
93 p,:,. - * -
l i
1 (Wh'ereupon,_the meeting is adjourned at 4:10 p.m.,
~2 Lthis same-' day.)
-3 I
". d 5
l 6
i 7
8
.9
-10,
-11 i
6
- 12 ;
- ;f 13
.14 15 !
16 17 4 l} -
.i.
18 19
~
20 ;
21
-22 23 24 t,
'eressed Ceoorters, Inc.
25
'l Certificate:
'2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
This is to certify that the attached proceedings 4
before the NRC Commission in the matter of:
5 Briefing on SECY-85-147, Comments on proposed revision of Part 20.
I 6
Date of Proceeding:
May 15, 1985 Place',of Proceeding:
Washington, D. C.
8
.were held as herein appears and that that is the original-transcript thereof for the file of the Commission.
10 l
11 1 1
12 ;
GARRETT J. WALSH, JR.
13 li Official Reporter (Typed)
- - 14 '
Official Rg@orter (Signatugpf i
171 i
18 l
19 1 i
20 21 22 x
23 24 7 6 Fedeer) Reporters, Inc.
25 I'
~
a COMMISSION. BRIEFING ON PROPOSLDREVISIONTO10CFRPART20
" STANDARDS FOR PROTECTION AGAINST RADIATION" MAY 15, 1985 0VERVIEW (5/1'1/85)
WHY REVISE 10 CFR PART 20 e
THE FUNDAMENTAL REASON THAT NRC EXISTS IS TO PROVIDE PROTECTION AGAINST RADIATION DURING BENEFICIAL USE OF NUCLEAR MATERIALS.
e PRESENT 10 CFR PART 20 IS ANTIQUATED.
DOES NOT INCORPORATE UP-TO-DATE SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION.
10ES NOT FOLLOW MODERN AND INTERNATIONALLY ACCEPTED P ^DI ATION PROTECTION THEORY AND PRACTICE.
i I
i e
WITHOUT UP-TO-DATE 10 CFR PART 20, RADIATION PROTECTION HAS BECOME i
}
a 8
e t
B e
WHY IS 10 CFR PART 20 Our-0F-DATE AND COMPLETE REVISION NECESSARY PRESENT PROPOSED' 4
e TREATS INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL-EXPOSURE e
COMBINES INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL EXPOSURE l
SEPARATELY.
IOTAL DOSE CAN' EXCEED UNDER~A SINGLE LIMIT.
INTERNATIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS AND i
PERCEIVED NRC LIMITS.
e INTERNAL EXPOSURE CONTROL BASED ON e
INTERNAL EXPOSURE CONTROL BASED ON CRITICAL ORGAN CONCEPT.
EFFECTIVE WHOLE BODY DOSE EQUIVALENT CONCEPT.
e EXCEPT FOR CERTAIN SPECIFIC CONDITIONS e
ESTABLISHES EXPLICIT DOSE LIMIT FOR I
DOES NOT PROVIDE DOSE LIMITS FOR MEMBERS OF PUBLIC.
MEMBERS OF PUBLIC.
l e
DOES NOT REFLECT UP-TO-DATE e
INCORPORATES UP-TO-DATE RADI0 BIOLOGICAL INFORMATION.
RADI0 BIOLOGICAL INFORMATION.
l 4
e RECORDED DOSE TO WORKERS EXPOSED TO e
RECORDED DOSE'IN TERMS OF EFFECTIVE l
INTERNAL RADIATION DOES NOT-REFLECT WHOLE BODY DOSE EQUIVALENT REFLECTS i
RADI0 BIOLOGICAL RISK.
RADI0 BIOLOGICAL RISK.
i 2
4
WHAT WILL THE REVISED 10 CFR PART 20 PROVIDE.
1 l-e A SOUND BASIC RADIATION PROTECTION DOCUMENT.WHICH'CAN~BE-DEFENDED BOTH FROM A SCIENTIFIC AND REGULATORY STANDPOINT.
}
e' A RULE WHICH IS LARGELY CONSISTENT WITH INTERNATIONAL l
. CONSENSUS ON RADIATION PROTECTION.
t l
e AN IMPROVED SYSTEMATIC METHOD FOR. ASSURING WORKER AND PUBLIC PROTECTION AND A CLEAR SPECIFICATION OF DOSE LIMITS.
l 0
IMPROVED METHOD OF RECORDING WORKER EXPOSURE.
j l
e CONFORM TO ANTICIPATED EPA FEDERAL RADIATION PROTECTION l
GUIDANCE FOR OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE.
t l
e A SOLID FOUNDATION FOR TREATING NEW RADIATION PROTECTION ISSUES-OR NEW SPECIFIC RULES INVOLVING RADIATION PROTECTION.
i 3
i
, y.
ARGUMENTS AGAINST REVISION OF 10.CFR PART 20 e
REVISION NOT EXPECTED TO RESULT IN SIGNIFICANT OVERALL DOSE REDUCTION.
e VARIOUS RULES, COUPLED WITH LICENSING REQUIREMENTS, PRESENTLY PROVIDE ADEQUATE PROTECTION.
e COSTS OF IMPLEMENTATION NOT COMPENSATED BY DOSE REDUCTION.
e STAFF AND LICENSEES FAMILIAR WITH PRESENT 10 CFR PART 20--PERCEPTION OF COMPLEXITY OF REVISION LEADS TO "AIN'T BROKE, DON'T FIX IT" SYNDROME.
4
COST OF lMPLEMENTING REVISED 10 CFR PART 20
~
e NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN PROCESSES AND OPERATIONS IS ANTICIPATED.
CURRENT ALARA EFFORTS AND LICENSING ACTIONS UTILIZING UP-TO-DATE RADI0 BIOLOGICAL INFORMATION HAVE RESULTED IN EXPOSURE LEVELS WHICH WOULD MEET PROVISIONS OF REVISED 10 CFR PART 20.
8 IMPLEMENTATION COSTS ARE PRIMARILY ADMINISTRA11VE AND PROCEDURAL.
ASSESSMENT OF INTERNAL DOSES RECORDING AND RECORDKEEPING TRAINING AND RETRAINING 5
y s.
4 C0iEISSION BRIEFING ON 4
PROPOSED REVISION OF 10 CFR PART 20
" STANDARDS FOR PROTECTION AGAINST RADIATION" 1
MAY 15, 1985 i
0FFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH
.i i
4
]
(REVISED 5/13/85)
REASONS FOR REVISING PART 20 o
UPDATE PRESENT PART 20 PROMULGATED IN 1957 o
IMPLEMENT APPROPRIATE CURRENT RECOMMENDATIONS OF I.CRP o
IMPLEMENT EPA PROPOSED FEDERAL RADIATION PROTECTION GUIDANCE FOR OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES o
IN GENERAL --
TO ESTABLISH A SCIENTIFICALLY SOUND AND EXPLICIT HEALTH PROTECTION BASIS FOR PART 20 STANDARDS AND OTHER NRC REGULATORY ACTIONS 2
s.
~
NEEDED IMPROVEMENTS IN THE PRESENT PART 20-i UNIFORM. RISK BASED STANDARD FOR-DOSE & 0THER LIMITS o
o UPDATE.NUCLIDE INTAKE LIMITS-(MPC'S)
[
o DELETE 5(N-18) RULE PERMITTING 12 REMS /YR o
INTEGRATED LIMITS FOR INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL DOSES l
ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT FOR NMSS LICENSEES i
1 o
PROVIDE EXPLICIT DOSE LIMITS FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC i
o PROVIDE A CUT 0FF ON COLLECTIVE DOSE (PERSON-REM) CALCULATIONS RATHER THAN i
{
INTEGRATE OVER INFINITE TIME AND SPACE l
i 3-
?
L,
. /i BRIEF HISTORY OF RUIFMAKING e
o 1977 PUBLICATION OF ICRP-26 o
1979 NMSS MEM0 TO RES SUGGESTED REVISION OF PART 20 o
INTEROFFICE WORKING GROUP, SCOPED EFFORT, IDENTIFIED ISSUES o
MARCl-1 1980 ANPR o
ESTABLISHUENT OF DRAFTING GROUP o
EPA DRAFT GUIDANCE ON OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES -- SECY-81-232 & COMMISSI0ii RESPONSE o
MEETINGS WITH INTERESTED PARTIES o
NCRP/ACRS RECOMMEND WAITING FOR NCRP RECOMMENDATIONS, NEG. EDO RESPONSE o
INTERNAL NRC REVIEW, COMMENT, CONCURRENCE 4
.w I
ICRP-26 SYSTEM 0F DOSE LIMITATION.
o JUSTIFICATION OF ANY RADIATION EXPOSURE-i o
OPTIMIZATION OF RADIATION-PROTECTION LIMITATION OF DOSES o
l
" EFFECTIVE DOSE EQUIVALENT" CONCEPT COMBINES INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL DOSES INCLUDES ALL ORGANS, WEIGHTING FACTORS t
RMED ON RISK i
i i
i i
4 I
q
W'
.4 e
B p
.O.
.N.
u.J CC C3 LLJ M
O CL O
CE Z
ee N
LLJ CZ
<C Z(J Cd O
7b
EXTERNAL OCCUPATIONAL DOSE LIMITS, WHOLE BODY-1.25 REMS /QTR
- 3. REMS /QTR AND
'5 REMS /YR OR AND-CHANGE TO 3
REMS /QTR AND
" PLANNED SPECIAL EXPOSURES" 5
REMS /YR AVERAGE 5
ADDITIONAL REMS /YR 5(N - 18)
FORMULA 25 REMS LIFETIME LIMIT FOR SUCH EXPOSURES ANNUAL LIMIT INCLUDES INTERNAL DOSE 0
SLIGHTLY MODIFIED ICRP-26 CONCEPT j
u 7
N 'f.
0 tiler EXTERNAL OCCUPATIONAL DOSE LIMITS-EXTREMITIES:
18-3/4 REMS /0TR?
CHANGE-T0' 50 REMS /YR SKIN:
7-1/2 RENS/0TR CHANGE TO 50 REMS /YR.
LENS:
'1.25 REMS /0TR, OR CHANGE TO 15 REMS /YR 3
REMS /0TR AND 5
REMS /YR AVERAGE O
CHANGES FULLY CONSISTENT 11ITH ICRP-26 5
TREATED AS PART OF WHOLE BODY R
(
i
.e INTERNAL OCCUPATIONAL DOSE LIMITS QUARTERLY INTAKE LIMITS FOR EACH NUCLIDE CHANGE TO ANNUAL INTAKE LIMITS FOR' EACH NUCLIDE (COMPLIANCE PREVENTS MOST IIIGHLY EXPOSED (COMPLIANCE PREVENTS RISK ORGAN FROM EXCEEDING ITS OLD ICRP DOSE LIMIT)
TO ALL AFFECTED ORGANS FROM EXCEEDIl1G THAT FR0ii 5 REMS /YR T0 till0LE BODY)
LIMITS MUST INCLUDE EXTERNAL DOSE 0
CHANGES FULLY CONSISTENT UITH ICRP-26 9
' ~'
INTERNAL OCCUPATIONAL DOSE CONTROL O
CHANGES WOULD PRIMARILY AFFECT NMSS LICENSEES 0
RISK FROM AIRBORNE HUCLIDES AT NPP'S IS SMALL -(98% ORGAN BURDENS-(2% OF PERMISSIBLE) 0 INTAKE LIMITS FOR SOME NUCLIDES WOULD BE LOWERED, PRIMARILY ALPHA EMITTERS ENC 0UNTERED IN NMSS-LICENSED FACILITIES, E.G.
URANIUM -
FACTOR OF-6,
' THORIUM -
FACTOR OF-60, AMERICIUM FACTOR OF 50 0
INTAKE LIMITS FOR SONE NUCLIDES WOULD BE INCREASED, PRIMARILY BETA EMITTERS O
SPECIAL PROVISIONS IN REVISED PART 20 FOR ALPHA EMITTERS DIFFICULT TO MEASURE AT HEW LIMITS (ANNUAL DOSE CONTROL RATHER THAN 50-YEAR INTEGRATED DOSE)
O ALL CHANGES CONSISTENT WIT!! ICRP-26 10
.%[,
OCCUPATIONAL ALARA CONCEPT g20.1 (c)
SAYS EXPOSURES CHANGE TO REQUIREMENT TO DEVELOP, SHOULD BE MAINTAINED ALARA DOCUMENT AND. IMPLEMENT A RADIATION PROGRAM THAT IllCLUDES ALARA INVESTIGATION LEVELS CONCEPT NOT USED IN PRESENT CHANGE TO INVESTIGATION LEVELS BELOW PART 20 REGULATORY LIMITS REQUIRED SET BY LICENSEE s
11
DE MINIMIS EXPOSURE LEVELS c
PRESENT PART 20 SETS LEVELS PROPOSED PART 20 WOULD SET A BELOW WHICH CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS CUT OFF LEVEL 0F 1 MREM FOR DO NOT APPLY: THESE LEVELS RETAIN SIMILAR COLLECTIVE DOSE CALCULATIONS ESTABLISH CONTROL POINTS, NOT LEVELS BUT ADD:
TRIVIALITY NO DE MINIMIS LEVEL IS-PROPOSED FOR INDIVIDUAL WORKER EXPOSURES UK NATIONAL RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION BOARD IH JANUARY 1985 ADVISED USE OF Tile FOLLOWING DE MINIMIS LEVELS:
5 MREM /YR INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC (1% OF ANNUAL DOSE LIMIT FOR PUBLIC) 0.5 MREM /YR WHERE THE INDIVIDUAL MAY BE EXPOSED TO SEVERAL "DE MINIMIS" SOURCES 12
PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC RADIATION LEVELS IN UNRESTRICTED AREAS RADIATION LEVELS AND RADI0 ACTIVITY CONCENTRATIONS IN UNRESTRICTED' AREAS PRESENT PART 20 (To AN INDIVIDUAL):
2 MREMS IN ANY HOUR 100 MREMS IN ANY 7 DAYS 500 MREMS/YR, EXPLICIT, EFFECTIVE.
500 MREMS IN A CALENDAR YR (IMPLIED)
' DOSE FROM ALL EXTERNAL / INTERNAL SOURCES 100 MREM /YR REFERENCE' LEVEL CHANGE TO RADI0 ACTIVITY IN EFFLUENTS PRESENT PART 20 (ANY TYPE FACILITY):
PRESCRIBED CONCENTRATION VALUES, AVERAGED OVER-1 YR PRESCRIBED CONCENTRATION VALUES ADDITIONAL LIMITATIONS IF FOOD PATHWAY INCREASES DAILY INTAKE COMPLIANCE WITli 40 CFR PART 190 REQUIRED OF FUEL CYCLE / LWR LICENSEES 13
CONTROVERSIAL NON-CHANGES IN 10'CFR PART 20 REVISION o
PROTECTION OF EMBRY0/ FETU.S o
REPORTING 0F' WORKER DOSES O
b I
i l
lu
a PROTECTION OF EMBRY0/ FETUS o
ICRP, NCRP, EPA, AND 1981 COMMISSION COMMENTS TO EPA, ALL RECOMMEND LOWER LIMITS FOR EMBRY0/ FETUS OR PREGNANT WOMAN o
EPA DRAFT GUIDANCE ALSO STATES, "... SHOULD BE ACHIEVED WITHOUT ECONOMIC PENALTY OR LOSS OF JOB OPPORTUNITY AND SECURITY TO WORKERS" o
BASIC ISSUE IS BALANCE BETWEEN PROTECTING EMBRY0/ FETUS AND JOB RIGHTS o
PROPOSED REVISION WOULD CONTINUE POLICY OF " INFORMED CONSENT" BY MOTHER AS IMPLEMENTED BY 10 CFR 519.12 AND REG GUIDE 8.13 o
ALTERNATIVE APPROACH / RULE WORDING PRESENTED IN FRN STATEMENT OF CONSIDERATIONS o
DRAFT FRN DISCUSSES ISSUE AND SPECIFICALLY INVITES COMMENTS 15
. x, _
REPORTING 0F WORKER DOSES o
WOULD CONTINUE LICENSEE REPORTING TO THE NRC 0F:
ANNUAL STATISTICAL SUMMARIES OF DOSES BY SELECTED LICENSEES.
DOSES FOR TERMINATED WORKERS WOULD CONTINUE REQUIREMENT (10 CFR PART 19) THAT LICENSEES PROVIDE ANNUAL DOSE o
INFORMATION TO WORKERS ON RFOUEST o
UNIONS AND EPA RECOMMEND REQUIRING REPORTING TO EACH WORKER ANNUAL DOSE LIFETIME CUMULATIVE DOSE o
SOME LICENSEES AGREE, OTHERS OPPOSE CHANGE NRC STAFF BELIEVES THAT PRESENT REPORTING REQUIREMENTS ARE ADEQUATE FOR.NRC'S o
REGULATORY NEEDS DRAFT FRN DISCUSSES ISSUE AND SPECIFICALLY INVITES COMMENTS o
16
.1, '
ESTIi4ATED COST TO LICENSFFS* OF IfiPIFMENTING 10 CFR PART 20'REVISICN
$33,000,000 INITIAL COST
$ 7,800,000 ANNUAL COST BASED ON NRC/ EPA C0-SPONSORED CONTRACT THAT SURVEYED LICENSEES
- INCLUDES AGREEMENT STATE LICENSEES 17
PERSPECTIVE ON ESTIMATED COSTS o
MUCH OF ECONOMIC IMPACT THAT IS ASSIGNED TO PROPOSED REVISION OF PART 20 HAS BEEN, IS BEING, OR WILL BE COMMITTED WHETHER OR NOT REVISION IS PROMULGATED.
o MANY LICENSEES VOLUNTARILY IMPLEMENTING RECOMMENDATIONS OF ICRP 26 AND 30, BECAUSE RECOGNIZED AS "G0OD PRACTICE" AND LIKELY TO BE HELPFUL IN MITIGATING LIABILITY CLAIMS o
COST OF SPECIAL EQUIPMENT, SUCH AS LUNG COUNTERS, PROCESS CHANGES, ROBOTICS, AllD OTHER MAJOR MODERNIZATION ACTIVITIES, HAVE AND WILL BE " CHARGED" TO THE PART 20 REVISI0il, ALTHOUGH THEY ARE NOT REQUIRED AND WOULD BE INCURRED AllYWAY FOR OTHER REASONS o
ESTIl1ATED COSTS TAKE NO CREDIT FOR SAVINGS FROM CHANGES IN TECH SPECS, LIC.
CONDITIONS, ETC. THAT COULD RESULT FROM PROMULGATION OF PROPOSED REVISION 1R
BENEFITS OF PROPOSED REVISION v
o REGULATION WILL REFLECT ICRP C0HERENT RISK-BASED SYSTEM AND USE WIDELY-ACCEPTED CONTEMPORARY SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE o
ANNUAL AND LIFETIME DOSES TO WORKERS RECEIVING HIGHEST EXPOSURES & WORKERS IN URAN. MILLS & FUEL FABR. WILL BE REDUCED o
WILLPROVIDEMETHODFORSUMMINGEXTERNALANDINTERNALEXPOSURES--
ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT FOR SOME NMSS LICENSED ACTIVITIES o
PUBLIC DOSE LIMITS ARE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED o
UORKERS AND PUBLIC SHOULD BETTER UNDERSTAND HEALTH RISK BASE AND PROTECTION PROVIDED o
CUT 0FFONCOLLECTIVEDOSEEVALUATIONSWOULDELIMINATECONSIDERATIONOF INSIGNIFICANT HEALTH RISKS o
IMPROVES REQUIREMENTS ON RADIATION SAFETY; E.G., TO PREVENT ACCESS TO VERY HIGH RADIATION AREAS, POSTING OF AREAS USED FOR MEDICAL RADIATION TREATMENTS, REQUIRED APPLICATION OF ALARA o
WOULD INTRODUCE SI (METRIC) RADIATION UNITS INTO NRC REGS 19
a STAFF RECON 1ENDATIONS o
CONCURRED'IN BY ALL OFFICES ItN0LVED o
PROPOSE EXTENDED IMPLEMENTATION PERIOD OF 5 YEARS EROM PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE o
PUBLISH PROPOSED REVISION OF PART 20 FOR PUBLIC COMMENT o
SPECIFICALLY REQUEST COMMENTS ON CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES o
ALLOW EXTENDED PERIOD (120 DAYS) FOR COMMENT 20
fGththththphh(h(hphthph{hphthGhphhghqhghghphghghghghphp h
h i
12/82
/
TRANSMrITAL 'IO:
/,Y /
ny,wnt Cbntrol Desk, 016 Phillips 3
ADVANCED COPY 'IO: /
/
'Ihe Public nv'wnt RocIn l::p l
DATE:
M 2e /f [
e f
cc: OPS File
[
j OM N C&R (Natalie)
Attached are copies of a Ormission meeting transcript (s) and related meeting 3'
doctanent(s). They are being forwarded for entry on the Daily Accession List j'
and placanent in the Public Drument Rocm. No other distribution is requested cr required. Existing DCS identification numbers are listed cn the individual i.
documents wherever known.
[
Meeting
Title:
bzMm,
hM. [tsh N
D hwf N O
3 Moeting Date:
J 7/r,//J" Open Y Closed i
DCS Copies 3
(1 of each checked) 3 Item
Description:
Copies Advanced Original May Duplicate j
'Ib PDR Document be Dup
- Copy
- i 1.
TRANSCRIPr 1
1 3
When checked, DCS should send a g
copy of this transcript to the g
G m for:
l bJ / A b ai m m A A f
2.
f A-
/9'7 J
/
l f
3 3.
5 3
j 4.
3 g
r a
b hll bh k$$
b I
I