ML20149K210

Forwards for Processing Regulatory Documents Considered to Be of Central Relevance to Final Rulemaking Entitled, Minor Corrections,Clarifying Changes & Minor Policy Change (10CFR20,32,35,36 & 39).Index of Documents Also Encl

ML20149K210
Person / Time
Issue date:	07/11/1997
From:	Mccausland J NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES)
To:	Lanham D NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
Shared Package
ML20149C780	List: ML20149E517 ML20149E738 ML20149E813 ML20149F728 ML20149F764 ML20149K210 ML20149K254 ML20149K713 ML20149K731 ML20149K739 ML20149K745 ML20149K753 ML20149K763 ML20149K772 ML20149K781 ML20149K786 ML20149K790 ML20149K793 ML20149K797 ML20149K801 ML20149L465 ML20149L471 ML20149L587 ML20149L609 ML20149L695
References
FRN-61FR52388, RULE-PR-20, RULE-PR-32, RULE-PR-35, RULE-PR-36, RULE-PR-39 AF46-1-001, AF46-1-1, NUDOCS 9707300062
Download: ML20149K210 (19)

Text

. . _. .. - . . . - __. - _ _ - _ . - . ~ _ . ._ .

~

& retoq p- & UNITED STATES g j t

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [g WASHINGTON, D.C. 2055Mm1

\...../ AF46-1 '

July 11,1997 MEMORANDUM TO: Don Lanham, DCD l

FROM: Jayne M. McCausland, RPIIEB, DRA, REShWU

SUBJECT:

REGULATORY HISTORY FOR MINOR CORRECTIONS, CLARIFYING CHANGES, AND A MINOR POLICY CHANGE (10 CFR PARTS 20,32,35,36, AND 39) l (61FR52388,10/07/96); PROPOSED RULE -- RIN 3150-AF46 Attached for your processing are regulatory documents considered to be of central

)

i relevance to the final rulemaking entitled " Minor Corrections, Clarifying Changes, and a j Minor Policy Change" (10 CFR Parts 20, 22. 35, 36, and 39). Also attached is an index of I l

these documents. The designator assigned by the Rules Review and Directives Branch is AF46-1 and is noted in the upper right hand corner of the cover page for each document.

Attachments:

1. Index

2. Documents cc w/att 1: Betty Golden, RRDP/ADM i

1)

/

< s)(l,033 _,Ic ntj

, up \ (L,,1 v

~

9707300062 970711 r a. - niinguiswti

1. ~

i ll)73 GCOLD

p .

AF46-1 REGULATORY HISTORY !NDEX FOR PROPOSED RULE MINOR CORRECTIONS, CLARIFYING CHANGES, AND A MINOR POLICY CHANGE (10 CFR PARTS 20,32,35,36, AND 39)

RIN 3150-AF46 i PDR ^~

l t

1. 01/93 Candidate issues for Substantive Revision to New 10 CFR Part 20

2. 01/13/93 Letter to Donald A. Cool from Leonard R. Smith, DuPont, re two regulatory issues adversely affecting raoprotection for NRC licensees and ... users of j byproduct materials; namely, the omission of **P from tha list of exempt i

quantities in 10 CFR 30.71, Schedule B, and the second concerns the omission of appropriate values for tritium gas in 10 CFR 20.1001 to 20.2401, App. B, Tables 1 & 2

3. 05/07/93 1 Memo for LCunningham, NRR, from SWeiss, NRR re Request for 1 Revisions to the New Part 20 from TRTR

4. 08/11/93 EMail from JDBuchanan to JXD1 and AKR (A.Roecklein) re additional Part 20 fix needed

5. 07/27/94 Memo for AThadani from FJCongel re Request for Rulemaking - 10 CFR Part 20 Notifications

6. 08/04/94 Memo for Stuart Treby, OGC, from Carl Paperiello, NMSS, re Conflict Between Posting Requirements in 10 CFR Parts 20 and 36 i

7 08/30/94 i Memo to Bill Monis from Jose Calvo re Request for Rulemaking - 10 CFR Part 20 Notifications {

8. 09/21/94 Memo to Carl Paperiello from Stuart Treby re inconsistency Between Part 36 and Part 20 Posting Requirements

9. 09/26/94 Memo to Stuart A. Treby from Carl Paperiello re Patient Room Posting Requirements in 10 CFR Parts 20 and 35

10. 10/14/94 Memo to Carl Paperiello from Stuart A. Treby re Patient Posting Requirements,10 CFR Parts 20 and 35

11. 12/28/94 Report prepared by AST on Consistency of Other NRC Regulations With Revised 10 CFR Part 20

12. 01/03/95 EMail from BJones (OGC) to JMMcCausland (RES) commenting on proposed rulemaking on Part 20 Further Clarifications (copy of rulemaking

I

. AF46-1 attached) '

13. 01/04/95 '

EMail from BJones (OGC) to JMMcCausland (RES) - Additional comment on rulemaking

14. 01/11/95 Memo to JMMcCausland from MLesar fonvarding review of final rule i

4 entitled " Standards for Protection Against Radiation; Further Clarification j 15. 02/12/96 Memo to multiple addressees from DLMorrison re Office Review and Concurrence: Proposed Amendments to 10 CFR Parts 20,32,35,36, and 39, " Minor Corrections and Clarifying Changes" j 16.

Interoffice comments on final rule:

3 02/22/96 Memo to MLesar from BJoShelton forwarding IRMB comments

' 02/23/96 Memo DMeyer to DMorrison forwarding ADM comments 02/27/96 Note to DMorrison from GFCranford forwarding IRM comments 03/05/96 Memo RLBangart to DLMorrison forwarding OSP comments 03/07/96 Memo ELJordan to DLMorrison forwarding AEOD comments / concurrence 7 03/22/96 NRR comments 03/25/96 Memo WTRussell to DLMorrison forwarding NRR concurrence 06/27/96 EMail OGC (KWinsberg) to RES (JMcCausland) - No legal objection Undated NMSS comments

11. 05/07/96 Memo from JGlenn to BShelton forwarding FRN and Supporting Statement for OMB Approval i 12. 09/05/96 Proposed rule signed by JMTaylor '

13. 09/10/96 Memo to DLMeyer from CATrottier -Implementation of EDO Action

14. 09/25/96 FRN for OMB review of information collection signed by GCranford

15. 09/25/96 Paperwork Reduction Act Submission i

16. 10/03/96 Congressional Letters to Hon. Dan Schaefer and Hon. Lauch Faircloth 1

! 17. 10/07/96

. Federal Register Notice - 61 FR 52388; Publication of proposed rule 1

6

l #*

f qs T D R.

. . CANDIDATE ISSUES FOR SUBSTANTIVE I

< REVISION TO NEW 10 CFR PART 20 i

The issues are classified into three categories as follows:

i

• Changes should be made because current rule is technically l insupportable, inconsistent with new radiation protection

concepts, leads to logical inconsistency or unnecessarily

( confusing. Licensees could implement the current rule, but with

, significant costs.

t 3

• Changes, if made, would provide greater clarity or simplicity, or j i improve technical consistency. Licensees could implement the i current rule with some 2

. effort.

*,. Changes are simple, clarifying or corrective, but have some

benefit. Licensees could implement the current rule with j little or no extra cost. l ff. Section 20.2106(a)(2) and (3) require recording of "... intake or body ^

I burden...". " Body Burden" is not defined in the new Part 20 and it is not clear that its use in the context of recordkeeping requirements is useful or appropriate. [TTC)

.' - Region II submitted the following on this issue: ,

We suggest that the term " body burden" (and " organ burden") be defined. i The concept is useful where the time or class of intake is unknown, and j extrapolation from subsequent bioassays to an estimate of original i intake is difficult, or uncertain. ,

Significant retained " burdens" not recorded as " intake" estimates, or detected during pre-employment, could result in a transient worker exceeding an annual limit on summed (internal + external) exposure,

,. unknown to a subsequent employer.

The probability and consequtinces of the above scenario is likely very I low, particularly at power stations; however, until older workers retire, the possibility nevertheless exists. We suggest deferral on

][ !

\ j deletion of recordkeeping on " body burdens."  %

Die 99ry_1: Inconsistent with new concepts. Suggest. deleting refer 9nce:e l

o " body burdens." -'

/ -

Ff." Section 20.1301(a)(1) and (2) establish dose limits at 0.1 rem (1 mSV) in a year, and dose rate less than 0.002 rem (0.02 mSv) in any I hour in any unrestricted area. Section 20.1003 defines Radiation area as any I

1.

I

/- accessible area in which radiation levels could result in exposure n greater than 0.005 rem (0.05 mSv) in I hour at 30 centimeters from any 4 i source. Section 20. 1902 requires posting of Radiation areas. It is '

i not clear in the rule what controls are required in the dose region #

between 0.002 rem (0.02 mSv) in any I hour and 0.005 rem (0.05 mSv). In#g - l l

1 addition, the definition of Controlled areas as an area outside of a l

! restricted area (radiolo limited "for any reason,gical )

, hasrestrictions, caused someaccess to which confusion. can be Area designations i

. and posting requirements should be reviewed to determine the need for '

revisions. The training requirements in Part 19 may also need to be l changed to account for controlled areas. [RPHEB)  !

n  ;

, Section 20.1003: Consider eliminating " Controlled Area" or shange.dtsam i tdefinition so.that a ljcensee canlinjt access for any' reason other than' ' '  !

radioloaical . [0GC]

Cateaory 1: Logical inconsistency and unnecessarily confusing. Suggest Y l I

deleting concept of " Controlled Area" and conforming other provisions i

, accordingly.

I

~

( 3. Section 20.1502 requires licensees to monitor exposures to radiation and e radioactive material for any individuals likely to receive in 1 year @)#p 'l 1

exposure in excess of 10 percent of the limits in Section 20.1201(a)or

• intake in excess of 10 percent of the ALI(s) in Appendix B. RES is considering changes which would make it clear that the Itcensee need only estimate exposures from the licensee's sources in determining the need for monitoring. Prior or subsequent exposures from other licensees , j need not be considered in determining the need for monitoring. [RPHEB]-

Section 20.1502: Co'nditions requiring monitoring, and RG 8.34, l monitoring criteria, should be reconsidered. If known dose received  ;

during the year is not to be considered in the decision to monitor or not, then 20.1502 should be revised to make that clear. Alternatively, l known doses from another licensee should be taken into consideration.

[0GC) .

~

[itegory 1: Technically unsu) portable. Suggest. revising i 20.1502 to a make clear that doses from otier 1tcensees need not be considered in .e deci sion,to, monitor.

04 ? Definition of.

• occupational dose"; Change th'e definition of

" Occupational Dose" to make it clear that one does not have to be exposed to radiation from knih "11 censed" and " unlicensed" radioactive material and to hgih " radiation" hnd " radioactive material" in order to incur an " occupational dose." It is also suggested that the definition be revised (1) to' delete the ~ statement that it "means the dose received by an individual in a restricted area" and (2) to clarify the meaning of the second part of the definition, which begins "or in the course of employment... ." A possible new definition is as follows:

$_ j?-_~__" _--. ? A M-~Y *WT **'1 ~%" * " ' ~Y ~ **

i *r . . .

j '.

1 Ii *./- ' Occupational dose means the dose received by an individual. engaged in activities licensed by the Commission and controlled by the licensee i that involve exposure to radiation or to radioactive material fron l

licensed or unlicensed sources of radiation whether in the possession of

] the licensee or other person. Occupational dose does not include dose

received from background radiation, as a patient from medical practices, ,

, from voluntary participation in medical research programs, or as a l i member of the general public." [NRR] .

J

! Cateoory 1: Logical inconsistency and confusing.

IT5. Dose at.30 cm is used as the basis for posting radiation and high i radiation areas, and I a is used for Very High Radiation Areas. Other

apparent inconsistencies exist regarding the distance at which doses are j measured. These differences should be explained or made consistent.

! [TTC)

Cateoory 1: Logical inconsistencies and may lead to confusion.

l i

i 6. Section 20.1202(a): Summation of external and internal doses should be 4 . required if either of these exceeds 90% of the 5 Rem limit and there is / L/

a measurable value for the other. It is possible to have a " legal" # r'-<

l overexposure: e.g., if the external dose was 92% of the limit and I

internal was 9% of the limit the individuals dose would exceed limits Yg

, but, without summing, this would not be recorded as a regulatory

overexposure. [TTC)

! Category 1: Technically unsupportable.

I~

4 l

j 7. Section 20.'1204(g): Provide additional clarification regarding when

licensees may disregard certain radionuclides in a mixture. [D. Cool) may disregard certain radionuclides in a mixture, is included in new Section 20.1204(g)

This subsection, which stipulates when a licensee j

Part 20, but not old Part 20. Note 5 to Appendix B in old Part 20, which stipulates when a radionuclide may be considered as not pr'esent in j a mixture, is not included in new Part 20. 10CFR20.1204(g)has j limited applicability: (1) for use in determining internal dose, and i, (2) for gross activity measurements. (See Question 121 and answer, in the third set of Qs and As for new Part 20 . We suggest that the staff reconsider the need for a more generally ap)plicable statement as to when-

! n a licensee may disregard certain radionuclides (consider them to be not I

'll

present) in a mixture. [NRR] J/v%

! Dtegory_1: Unnecessarily confusing and improved statement would ease j implementation. .

j 3

=

3._

i~

i.., r1. Section 20.2101(a): Revise to permit use of SI units, except in i .- situations invoiving event reporting and emergency response // '

b communications between licensees, the NRC, and State and local authorities. [D. Cool] A) g i Is it desirable to metrify Part 20 now that NRC has a policy? If so, would revision of the Reg Guides be needed? [NMSS) l Cateoory 1: Rule is inconsistent with NRC policy on metrication.

9. Section 20.1301(a)(2): Requires that each licensee conduct operations j so that- -

! t i "The dose in an unrestricted area from external sources does not exceed l 0.002 rem (0.002mSv) in any I hour."

The " dose" means deep dose equivalent or the eye dose equivalent or the i shallow dose equivalent. (See Question 125 in the third set of j

questionsandanswersonnewPart20.) The word " dose" rather than

" deep dose equivalent" was used so that the 2 mrem in an hour limit l would apply to the skin and provide a non-stochastic limit on exposure i of the skin of members of the public. Without this limit on the shallow 4

dose equivalent, it would be possible for a member of the public to 1 l receive a dose to the skin that would result in ulceration (e.g., from a l hot particle on the skin) without exceeding the 100 mrem in a year limit ,

on the total effective dose equivalent (TEDE). However, the 2 arem in >

{ an hour limit is unreasonably low as a limit on the shallow dose >

equivalent rate. Assuming a threshold dose for ulceration of 500 rem

! averaged over 1cm' at a depth of 7 mg/ce' for a hot particle in contact with the skin, it would take (500 rem /0.002 rem /h - 250,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br />, or

,- more than 28 years, to deliver a threshold dose. Assuming a dose

conversion factor of 5 rem per microcurie for the dose equivalent i averaged over Icm' at a depth of 7 mg/ca' for a hot particle in contact

! with the skin, a dose rate of 0.002 rem in an hour would be delivered by

!. a particle with only (0.002 rem /h)/(5 rem /pci-h) - 0.0004 pCi in contact j '. ,

. with the skin. -

Ai a solution to this problem, we suggest the following revisions in .

l, Part 20: '

l (1) Have the 2 mrem in an hour limit ' apply to the " deep dose equivalent" rather than " dose.'

i.

! (2) Establish a new non-stochastic limit for members of the public of 1.5 rem in a year for the lens of th'e eye, and 50 rem in a year for the skin and the extremities, as recommended in ICRP

! Publication 60, or 5.0 rem in a year for the lens of the eye, the '

I skin, and the extremities as. recommended in the 6/1/92 NCRP Draft i

Report, " Limitation of Exposure to Ionizing Radiation." [NRR]

~

b Lategory 1: Fixes technical problem and makes rule consistent with new j recommendations.

4 i , 4 -

l l

1 l

u .- ._ .-. -. . - - - . . - -

s. , .

x-

.l . EEU~ Section 20.1302(b)(2)(11): The word " external" in Section hf 20.1302(b)(2)(from an individual outside the body.ii) refers to Since sources airborne radioactive materials And contained sources, the dose from include any radiation both source whic airborne radioactive materials could be double-counted -- as a concentration pursuant to i 1302(b)(2)(1) and as direct radiation pursuant to 50 i 1302(b)(2)(ii)from

. In a situation direct wherefrom radiation the licensee was contained approaching mres/y limit sources, the additional direct radiation component from airborne

• releases may cause this limit to be exceeded. Clearly, this situation could be addressed through use of i 1302(b)(1); however, the intent of the revised Part 20 appears to be to provide viable alternatives to complying with the regulations whenever feasible. We recommend adding a footnote to help ensure that this alternative is sufficiently viable.

, New footroTe to i 20.1302(b)(2)(11):

Euernal sources ordinarily include all radiation sources outside of the body, such as direct radieU on from contained sources and direct radiation from airborne radioactive materials. To the extent that doses from airborne radioactive materials (e.g., noble gases) are accounted for as concentration values pursuant to i 20.1302(b)(2)(i),theyneed not be separately accounted for here. [NRR) falegoryJ: t Would avoid potential double counting of dose and remove technical inconsistency.

3.

6 Section 20.1902(e), Posting of Area or Rooms in which Radioactive ,

Material is Used or Stored: Change "used or stored" to "present"aso  !

that this posting requirement wil apply to areas or rooms in which radioactive material is present only as radioactive contamination, but f//fC permit alternative wording of the sign (e.g., " radioactive contamination" instead of " radioactive material (s)") when the radioactive material is present only as radioactive contamination. (Nee gd provisions. ar.eAade oth.erwise for . posting of contaminated r.ooms or -

., areas. (NRR)

[at_eggryJ: Would resolve apparent oversight and improve worker

., protection.

i

! Wit 10 CFR 19.12 " Instructions to Workers:" Revise to uply to 11b i . individuals who receive an occupational dosg rat,her tian just those i individuals " working in or frequenting any portion of a restricted i area." As a conforming change, add t'te definition of occupational dose

to Part 19. However, continue to require instruction, as appropriate, j to members of the public (e.g., visitors) who enter a restricted area.

l [NRR)

J i

1 5

i I

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

~. .

9 J. 10 CFR Part 19 should be changed to require training for all individuals s who are occupationally exposed, commensurate with the risks from exposure. [NMSS)

Cateaory 1: Would be consistent with other proposed changes (2,4).

L13. . Allowance for occupational exposure after limits are exceeded: The proposed rule [(proposed il 20.201(c)] included an allowance of an jj^'

additional I rem per quarter for a worker who had exceeded the 5-ren annual limit. This was deleted in the final rule (see discussion in the /

preamble to the final ' rule in the comment' and response, 56 FR 23369, starting at the bottom of the first column.) We propose that some such allowance be restored, possibly as an additional 0.5 rem for the ',

remainder of the year. [NRR)

Cateaory 1: Protects right to work and is technically justifiable. 1

[14. Appendix B state "The relationship between the DAC and the ALI is given ,

by:

l DAC=ALI+2.4h."

Some examples from Appendix 8 are:

~

^

Listed ALI + l g .Radionuclide (S1ALI DAC 2.4E09 $_4 Cs -137(D) 200 6E-08 8.3E-08 38%

Cs -60(W) 200 7E-08 8.3E-08 19% .

' Cs -56(Y) 200 8E-08 8.3E-08 4%

Cs-32(D) 200 1E-07 8.3E-08 17%

The Appendix Brstatement 'is"not'true. The listed DAC is calculated from the unrounded ICRP 30 ALI and is then itself rounded to only one significant figure. Ihe statement "DAC - ALI + 2.4E09" should be dalelt.d. [M. Lantz, Palo Verde]

Cateaory 1: If 15 not done, then this corrects technical inaccuracy.

I15. An alternative to the previous recommendation is to fix the Alis and i DACs. An intake of 1 ALI can be well over 5000, mrem of CEDE. i Radionuclide (s)ALI ha,,i arem/uti) steg .

f0

. . Co-58(Y) 700 2.94E-09' 9.03E-11 7614 6682 A

O

/j Co -51(Y) 20000 I

Co-60(W) 200 8.94E-09 6615 6

O

y __ ,

( .

.I -

Most ALI's result in well over 5000 mrea. Also a DAC-hr is seldon 2.5 ares. '

5A Radionuclide D&G DAC-hr aren From 2.5 3E-07 360 ali 3.92. 575 Co-58())

Ru-103( 3E-07 360 alt 3.24 305 Fe -59(D IE-07 . 120 n11 1.78 29%

1.133(D) IE-07 120 n11 0.71 725 These discrepancies result from the 10% rule, rounding to 1 significant figure, and the nonstochastic ALI.

It is proposed to recalculate the ALI's and DAC's as follows: l

)

1.

Use organ h,, doses (i.e., to not apply the 10% rule), then round thefrom E ALI's to two(2) significant figures. (14.4,gCi become 14 pCi instead of 10. 15.Ipci becomes 15,vCi f nstead of 20).

2. Calculate the DAC by dividing the rounded ALI by 2.4 E09m1 and  !

round to two figures. , .,,

then all ALIs would be close to 5000 mrem and all DAC-hrs would be  !

very close to 2.5 mrom. -

l Category _1: Appendix B is technically flawed by significant rounding j errors.

(16. Footnote e. to Appendix A should be revised. Given that one-third of the intake of ttritium oxide occurs through the skin, then the effective protection factor cannot exceed 3, not 2.

S - intake through skin -

i Lo - lung intake without protection

.. Lw = lung intake with protection applied protection factor = "/w

. Effective Protection Factor - S + Lo and tw "/ ,

. 3 + Lw s If PF = 5, then Effective Protection Factor - 2 If PF = 10, then Effective Protection Factor = 5)

If PF = 100, then Effective Protection Factor .94 .

'F -

• Cateaory 1_: CyrrinTVD16'Ts technica11yincorrecti

- t'.

7

"[ . .

E7? Section 20.1003: 6dd to.the4efinition of DAC language to include thost.

DACs based on dose from ; submission in a cloud of radioactive material.

In Appendix B, the class designation " Submersion" means that values i given are for submersion in a hemispherical semi-infinite cloud of '

airborne material. [NRR)

Cateaory 2: Provides greater clarity. 4 h' pkMC .

Appendix B: &lprtf.tentiem is needed regarding the basis for noble gas o

. )[@

DACFs;5 Rem /gror50 Rem /yr? Is submersion dose calculated at a depth of 1000 mg/cm or 7 mg/cm ? [TTC) ,

Cateoory 2: Clarifying and will assist implementation.

(19. Section 20.100?: definitions of radiation and high radiation areasb /

j g g should specify that these are based on " deep dose equivalent." [TTC) /

.#, 7 Section 20.1003: Change definitions of "High Radiation Area," and "Very l High Radiation Area", by edding the following underlined words:  !

... radiation levelsifrom external sources could result... ." [NRR)

Cateaory 2: Clarifying and may help avoid incorrect posting. l 1

R0. Codify in the regulations the provision in RG 8.7 (Draft Guide 8007) that if CEDE is less than I rem (400 DAC-hours), then the TODE need not be calculated or recorded. [TTC) g

<[' l Catego_rJ_Z: Would codify a Reg Guide provision. l 1

1 r21~. Section 20.2102: Revise to include the record retention periods for the respiratory protection program and policy statement on respirator usage.

No retention period is included in the r.evised 10 CFR Part 20 for the '

program and procedures required at i 20.1703(a)(3), nor for the policy /fy statement at i 20.1703(a)(4). [IRM] / l o

Category _Z: Change would be consistent with other record retention requirements.

( ("2 C Section 20.1003: Revise-the definition of individual monitoring .

devices, to clarify the purpose of " personal air sampling devices" and i to correct the terminology for TL6s (from "thermoluminescent" to

" thermoluminescence)," to read: p l

" Individual Honitoring Devices <(individual monitoring equipment) means devices designed to be worn by a single individual for the assessment of /

dose equivalent, such as film badg s, thermoluminescence dosimeters s t c

e P eerr h-oD

p. w s o 9

, ~

g,

"[ . ,e

! .' ' - (TLDs), and pocket ionization chambers; or devices designed to be worn I

[' by a single individual for the assessment of committed effective dose equivalent, such as personal (" lapel") air sampling devices.  ;

l j' Category 2

Would provide clarification.

i g 3 D ! action 20.1206(a): It is not clear to what the phrase " higher

, expo:ure" in the fourth line refers. Higher than what? Higher than the l dose defined by an individual's dose limit minus his/her current i cumulative dose? Higher than the routinely applicable dose limit? Are i

l PSEs to be authorized only when a dose limit would otherwise be exceeded. It is proposed that the f@wj,ng Ag;sub41t.utedts g

["20.1206(a): The licensee authorizes a planned special exposure only in .

j an exceptional situation when alternatives are unavailable or )

j ,

(impractical. [NRR) s

/

i . I l Cateaory 2: Improvedcclarity would avoid possible misinterpretation of j a PSE criterion.

! i p24.- Section 20.1603: Subsection 20.1603(a) uses " rad" (dose) whereas 20.1603(a)(1)(ii) and (iii) and (a)(2)(1 .l Also, it is not obvious that the 500-rad) criterion is " deep dose."use A " rem" (do  :

footnote providing the reason for the use of " rads" as opposed to " rems" l and a revision to 20.1603(a) to refer to " deep dose" with respect to the 500 rad criterion seems appropriate. '[NRR) -

Regulation should make clear at what dose or dose rate it is appropriate

- to use the term rads. The rule should also clarify the range for which the use of , quality factors is appropriate. [TTC) ]

Cateaory 2: Would resolve frequently asked question and ease )

implementation. l 62C Section 20.1904(b)

It appears that the reference to " unrestricted areas" should be to " unrestricted or controlled areas,*. or the '. <

subsection should be reworded to refer to "the removal from restricted.  !

. areas for disposal." [NRR) -

l Category 2: Improves technical consistency providing useful 7 l

. clarification. .  !

I I Rgr receive, an11 year ..." when referring to declared pregnant women.10 CFR j

since no worker would be a " declared pregnant woman" for a full year, .

change the phrase to "...likely to receive, dur'.ing_ilenentire l pregnancye  !

... " and separate the reference to minors from the reference to declared l pregnant women. [NRR) 9

____~ _ ___._ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . _ . - __ _

j .,. - -

t *. .

t- Cateaory 2

Would be more precise and technically correct.

i W7. The shallow-dose equivalent limit in 10 CFR 20.1201(a)(2)(ii) of 50 rems .

i "to the skin or to any extremity" is unnecessarily confusing. It allows '

50 rems shallow dose equivalent to the skin of the whole body And 50 l rems shallow dose equivalent to 3Eh of the extremities. Skin doses on l

the whole body are added from month to month, but shallow-dose . l i need not be  !

j equivalents to the skinskin added to the whole-body of dose.

the hands Clarify and feet (extremities)by separatin the regulation

the limit for the skin and the limit for 'each extremity.' [NMSS)

? l I Cateaory 2: Would be technically consistent and aid implementation.

• I R.G. 8.7 provides a clarification. 1 1

1. Hiah radiation area is defined as ar, area accessible to Individuals in I

,h i

which radiation levels could result in a dose equivalent in excess of I 0.1 rem in I hour at 30 centimeters from the radiation source or from

! any surface that the radiation penetrates. Patients receiving therapy i doses of radiopharmaceuticals or sealed source implants may have i radiation levels meeting this definition. 10 CFR 20.1601(f) exempts i hospital rooms from access controls provided personnel in attendance /15 5 4 will take necessary precautions to prevent exposure of individuals.

I However,10 CFR 20.1502(a)(3) requires individual WQj.totingJ!erices for 2

external dose for individu=1s entering a high radiation area. Clarify

! whether falnily. members entering pat _ient roomsiexempted by 10 CFR 20.1601(f) are required to be individually monitored. (Such an j 9xemption'appearsappropriate.) [NMSS) i Laiegoryl: Would provide useful guidance but could be in reg guide or l Q & A.

i

!- #29.- Section 20.1003: /evise Part 2 of the definition of " Airborne j

., Radioactivity Area" to Sclude dose from submersion in a cloud. [NRR) j -

Category 3: Provides more complete definition. v

! Section 20.1003, " Exposure" and 20.2103(a): The rule should shdfy j , h g 1857 a that it is acceptable to _useithe.aunit-of-exposure.a:Roentgers" when j conducting surveys. [TTC) J

Category 3

Clarifying, useful gfidance.

ESC The NCRP recommendation of a lifetime occupational dose . limit!of (1 x _

Age) cSv should be added to Part 20. [TTC) , .

/ /M LahagryJ: Would be consistent with NCRP and potentially benefit y workers.

p 10 I.sd '# ' i 1

j

, __ u

. l O f Section 20.1302(b)(2)(ii):

sources." [D. Cool)

Elarify what is meant by " dose from external e p. ~-

Cateaorv 3: Clarifying but could be Q & A. 1

.N ' gK. Section d): #

20.1003 and imater to "airbornenadioactivt 20.1902(f ab area."Gange "airborneWdiercT3'ulG4e

" Radioactivity" is a property

p. -

) M of matter, which cannot be " airborne." [NRR) /

W Cateaorv 3: Change would make language more precise. Limited benefit.

D C , Section 20.1003: Ehan~ge defin d tion of " Eye Dose Equivalent" (EDE) to,

.- This will avoid confusion with " Effective g

Dose Equivalent" (EDE)." Lens Dose Equivalent" (LDE)R]

. [NR v[ j Cateaory 3: Would provide some clarification. Doubtful benefit. Fe* Y Y S'

855. - Section 20.1501(a)(2)(1): Change to read:

k radiation levels; and." [NRR)

"ThelnagMtiiile and extent of E~----. [

Cateaory 3: Improved clarity but little benefit.

36. Section 20.1501(a)(2)(iii): The words " potential" and "could" / [7 J constitute a redundancy. Change to read: "The current and potential A ' l radiological hazards." [NRP.) j Qissaty_l: Would improve language but little benefit.

t375 Section 20,1206(e): - A criterion for pcrmitting a planned special exposure is to determine "...all doses in excess of the limits... ."

this is clarified in RG 8.35.. Is a clarification needed in the ruleV b~

' * [NMSS) g '

Qteaory 3: Codifies . clarification of limits in effect at that time,.

but limited benefit. R.G. 8.7 also offers additional guidance.

I I

i I

11 9

NRR Succestions for Additional Chances to 10 CFR Parts 19 and 20 Note: The numbering of the following suggested changes is a continuation of the sequential numbering of the suggested changes in the list of changes that was considered by the Part 20 Steering Committee on 4/8/93. The last numbered item on that list, before the additional changes suggested by NRR, was #37.

1

38. Appendix B. naracraoh headed " Introduction": The last sentence in this paragraph (which was added to the paragraph in the minor corrective and conforming amendments published in the Federal Register, pages 57877-57879, December 8, 1992) should be revised to read as follows: "The class (D, W, or Y) and the chemical forms (compounds) given in the column headed " Class" apply only to the inhalation ALIs and DACs given in Table 1, columns 2 and 3."

This sentence as originally published on 12/8/92 did not include the words "and the chemical forms (compounds)". A health physicist has recently written to a RES staff member saying that "the oral ingestion ALIs are sometimes associated with the wrong chemical forms."

39. 10 CFR 19.13(c): Revise 10 CFR 19.13(c), first sentence, to ,

read as follows: "At the request of a worker formerly engaged in licensed activities controlled by the licensee, each licensee shall furnish to the worker a report of the workers's dose as shown in l

J qV records maintained by the licensee pursuant to part 20 S20.2106 for H each year the worker was required to be monitored under part 20 h S20.1502"  ! .

I Without this change, the licensee is not required to provide the workermakingtherequestunder10CFR19.13(c)withthedosestheif) worker received under any planned special exposures.

also makes the wording of 10 CFR 19.13(c) consistent Thischangey[0,-

with the -

wording of 10 CFR 19.13(b). f-l

40. 10 CFR 20.1101: In 10 CFR 20.1101(b) , change " practicable" to

" practical". " Practicable" should also be changed to " practical" in 10 CFR 20.1701; 20.1702; 20.1906(c); 'and Appendix F,"I.

Manifest, third sentence.

This change makes this sentence consistent with the definition of 4

ALARA, which uses the word " practical" rather than " practicable."

The change also removes the basis for an incorrect perception, among some licensees, that by using the word " practicable" in 10 CFR 20.1101(b), the NRC is requiring licensees to use dose reduction techniques that are unproven and impractical.

1 l

1

- 2

41. 10 CFR 20.1003. definition of " occupational dose": In the last sentence, delete the word " general" before the word "public".

l l

This change results in the use of a defined term, " member of the public," rather than an undefined term, " member of the general  :

public," in the definition of " occupational dose."

l 1

l Note: The following suggested changes have been added to this list I since the Part 20 Steering Committee meeting on 4/8/93.

42. 10 CFR 20.2003: Revise 10 CFR 20.2003 to pernit non-zero releases of material (other than "readily dispersible biological I material") that is not "readily soluble in water." '

The current requirement is impractical. It is practically impossible to determine whether all of the materials that may be present in a given volume of water are "readily soluble" or even if these materials have already been dissolved, i.e., are already in solution. Technically, a solution is a liquid system of two or more species that are intimately dispersed within each other at a molecular level. Since a solution is homogeneous, the solute (the material that has been dissolved to form the solution) cannot be removed by filtration, nor will it ever settle out upon standing. >

However, even with water that has been passed through the finest filter available, it is practically impossible to ensure that the .

filtered water does not contain some invisible submicroscopic particles of material that are larger than molecular size.

Note: TRTR has suggested adding the following definition of soluble material: " ...having no significant visible turbidity or significant visible suspended solids so as not to change the characteristics as a solution, e.g., so as not to have the characteristics of a sludge."

, 43. 10 CFR 20.1208: In 10 CFR 20.1208, change " dose to an embryo / fetus" to " embryo / fetus dose equivalent."

" Embryo / fetus dose equivalent" is the correct term and is used in Regulatory Guide 8.36. Dr. Schlomo Yaniv, the NRC's expert on this topic has agreed with this suggested change.

44. Appendix B: Change the entry for " Hydrogen-3, Gas (HT or T2 ) Submersion" as follows: Delete "Use above values as HT and T 2 oxidize in air and in the body to HTO". Insert an occupational DAC of 0.5 pCi/ml in Table 1 and an effluent air concentration of 0.002 pCi/ml in Table 2.

l .

_3-Reasons for adding entries for hydrogen gas are given in a letter from Leonard R. Smith, CHP, E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. (Inc.),

to Donald A. Cool, RES, 1/13/93. The suggested occupational DAC value is taken from Federal Guidance Report No. 11. The suggested effluent air concentration was obtained by dividing the occupational value by 219 and rounding.

45. 10 CFR 20.1003, definition of " occupational dose": Add the b word " intrinsically" or the word " inherently" before the word F

" involve".

The addition of either one of these words would clarify the intended meaning of the definition.

Note: This change could be accomplished as part of the change in the definition of " occupational dose" in the priority, fast-track rule package.

46. Footnotes to Anoendix A: Revise the typography for these* L footnotes to eliminate the confusion caused by the current version. QU Sources of confusion: "d.1" is indented. The format changes from one wide column in small type to a two-column format in larger type. "d.2" is printed as "2". "d. 2. (a) " appears as " (a) ", etc..

"h.2" appears Ls "2" [The typesetting for Appendix A of old Part 20 is somewhat less confusing.)

The typography for these footnotes makes them very hard to read and understand.

47. 10 CFR 20.1003, Definitions: Add a definition of

" submersion".

f The addition of a definition of " submersion" would be consistent h with the proposed revisions of " airborne radioactivity area" and

" derived air concentration" to include submersion (suggested changes #29 and #17, respectively). A definition (of sorts) of

" submersion" is given in Footnote 1 of 10 CFR 20 Appendix B.

(Note: This suggested change is a modified version of a TRTR-suggested change.)

l

48. 10 CFR 20.1902(d) Postina of airborne radioactivity areas:

Revise the posting requirements for an " airborne radioactivity p.

area" to be consistent, in terms of dose equivalent rate, to the l posting requirements for a " radiation area". (Note: This '

suggested change is a modified version of a TRTR-suggested change.)

The dose equivalent rate for a " radiation area" is 5 mrem / hour. )

The dose equivalent rate for an " airborne radioactivity area" is l 1/2,000 x 5,000 = 2.5 mrem / hour for one DAC (corresponding to the first part of the definition of an " airborne radioactivity area" or 12/2,000 x 5,000 = 30 mrem in a week, or 0.75 mrem / hour for a 40-

-4_

hour week (corresponding to the second part of the definition of an

" airborne radioactivity area").

33. 10 CFR 20.1003 and 20.1902 (d) : Change " airborne radioactivity J ' area" to " airborne radioactive materials area". Radioactivity is a property of matter that cannot be " airborne".

1 An obvious objection to this change is the cost to licensees andn i sign vendors of replacing existing stocks of signs. This burden '

1 could be eliminated by allowing existing stocks of signs to be i exhausted.

This proposed change was considered by the Steering Committee and >

rejected on the basis of the burden on licensees. However, the ,

4 Steering Committee. was not aware of, and therefore did not 3 consider, the suggestion above to eliminate the burden by allowing licensees and vendors to existing stocks of signs to be expatfsted i before changing to the new wording. f

/

I Document Name: PART20.FIX

/

j May 19, 1993

>i J. Buchanan N

f ,

- j W)39 D o$.

, 9 t/ -

I I

h \9 )

/ flf y l

6s c i

i I

1 1

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

=== ==;_.__ ~.

$5 - khX&ldr SNff A P AMENDMENTS NEEDED IN THE NEW PART 20 g

'f ,

}

p 1. The word " dose" is used four times in S20.1208 in reference tcf

[

.f he embryo / fetus. Now that the Regulatory Guide has been publishec.

i b[( it is clear what this word means, and the rule should be amendec accordingly. The assessment involves the energy absorbed by the entire organism as though it were composed of only one organ. It l is the " embryo / fetus dose equivalent." None of the existing dose quantities can be used; they do not even come close. *

'l 7

2.

(L [J assigned duties, s19.12 needs to require training for everyone performin including those working outside the restricte k i p r. area. p g;4 eG . In the definition of occupational dose, add the word

> intrinsically"jefore the word " involve."

N 4. In 520.1204, used the quantity TEDE rather than the word " dose. " )

p 5. Make it clear in 520.1101(3) who can perform the reviews. )th '

'2

6. Establish a non-zero limit for the release of insoluble f/materialstosanitarysewersystems.

7. For instrument calibration, require the source strength to be /)g known, at the locations of the detector to be~ calibrated, to within plus or minus 10 percent.

l 4 8. Define "not present." p_ -

, f 9. For sources located off-site, specify the distance at which the

//

I}Yt%j2mremsdoselimitistobemeasured.

v qNi" . yl, /

p

)ly A7 %

.sk k w RP &

qh f~i u ? -

i p;

i l '

L, J__ . - - . . . .

- - . -