ML23153A027
| ML23153A027 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/29/1986 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC/SECY |
| To: | |
| References | |
| PR-019, PR-020, PR-030, PR-031, PR-032, PR-034, PR-040, PR-050, PR-061, PR-070, 51FR30870 | |
| Download: ML23153A027 (1) | |
Text
DOCUMENT DATE:
TITLE:
CASE
REFERENCE:
KEYWORD:
ADAMS Template: SECY-067 08/29/1986 PR-019,020,030,031,32,34,40,50,61,70 - 51 FR30870 -
STANDARDS FOR PROTECTION AGAINST RADIATION:AVAILABILITY OF SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION (BACKFIT ANALYSIS REVISION TO PR-20)
PR-019,020,030,031,32,34,40,50,61,70 51FR30870 RULEMAKING COMMENTS Document Sensitivity: Non-sensitive - SUNSI Review Complete
STATUS OF RULEMAXING PROPOSED RULE:
PR-019,020 1 030,031,32,34,40,50,61,70 OPEN ITEM (Y/N) N ROLE NAME:
STANDARDS FOR PROTECTION AGAINST RADIATION: AVAILA BILITY OF SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION (BACKFIT ANALYS IS REVISION TO PR-20)
PROPOSED RULE FED REG CITE:
51FR30870 PROPOSED RULE PUBLICATION DATE:
08/29/86 ORIGINAL DATE FOR COMMENTS: 10/31/86 NUMBER OF COMMENTS:
EXTENSION DATE:
I I
31 FINAL RULE FED. REG. CITE: 56FR23360 FINAL RULE PUBLICATION DATE:
/
/
NOTES ON RELATED TO PR-19, 20 ETC. (50 FR 51992). DATE RANGE (9/15/86 -
12/
TATUS 4/89). FILE LOCATED ON Pl.
F ROLE TO FIND THE STAFF CONTACT OR VIEW THE RULEMAKING HISTORY PRESS PAGE DOWN KEY HISTORY OF THE RULE PART AFFECTED: PR-019,020,030,031,32,34,40,50,61,70 RULE TITLE:
PROPOSED RULE STANDARDS FOR PROTECTION AGAINST RADIATION: AVAILA BILITY OF SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION (BACKFIT ANALYS IS REVISION TO PR-20)
PROPOSED RULE DATE PROPOSED RULE SECY PAPER: 86-048A SRM DATE:
07/18/86 SIGNED BY SECRETARY:
08/26/86 FINAL RULE FINAL RULE DATE FINAL RULE SECY PAPER: 90-387 SRM DATE:
11/26/90 SIGNED BY SECRETARY:
04/02/91 STAFF CONTACTS ON THE RULE CONTACTl: ROBERT E. ALEXANDER CONTACT2:
MAIL STOP: 1130-SS PHONE: 443-7976 MAIL STOP:
PHONE:
DOCKET NO. PR-019,020,030,031,32,34,40,50,61,70 (51FR30870)
DATE DOCKETED 08/27 /86 09/19/86 09/22/86 10/02/86 In the Matter of STANDARDS FOR PROTECTION AGAINST RADIATION: AVAILA BILITY OF SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION (BACKFIT ANALYS IS REVISION TO PR-20)
DATE OF TITLE OR DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT 08/26/86 09/15/86 09/19/86 09/26/86 10/07/86 10/07/86 10/07/86 10/07/86 10/07/86 10/10/86 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE - PROPOSED RULE; AVAILABILITY OF SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION (BACKFIT ANALYSIS REVISION TO PR-20) PUBLISHED ON 8/29/86.
COMMENT OF BENDIX FIELD ENGINEERING CORPORATION (A.N. TSCHAECHE) (
- 1)
COMMENT OF DUKE POWER COMPANY (HAL B. TUCKER) (
COMMENT OF NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY (E.L. WATZL) (
- 3)
COMMENT OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY (FRAN STIFAN) (
- 4)
COMMENT OF SALLY HILLMAN (
- 8)
COMMENT OF CAPITOL GRAPHICS (
COMMENT OF PATRICIK GUELUTTER (
COMMENT OF GARY WELLS (
- 5)
- 7)
- 6)
COMMENT OF MICHAEL HOFFERBERT (
- 12) 10/10/86 COMMENT OF L.F. LATVALA (
- 14) 10/11/86 COMMENT OF K. SEILER (
- 15) 10/07/86 COMMENT OF AARON RAY (
- 9) 10/08/86 COMMENT OF CARY TOLAND (
- 10)
COMMENT OF BETH & CHRIS JOHNSON (
- 13)
COMMENT OF EILMA A. EISEMAN (
- 11)
- 2) 10/10/86 10/10/86 10/10/86 10/10/86 10/10/86 10/15/86 10/15/86 10/15/86 10/15/86 10/15/86 10/15/86 10/15/86 10/21/86 10/11/86 10/09/86 10/17/86 COMMENT OF GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION (GORDON M. LODDE) (
- 16)
DOCKET NO. PR-019,020,030,031,32,34,40,50,61,70 (51FR30870)
DATE DATE OF TITLE OR DOCKETED DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT 10/17/88 10/11/84 COMMENT OF ADVANCED NUCLEAR FUELS COPORATION 10/17/88 10/18/88 (R. W. MCCULLUGH, V. P. ENGINEERING) (
- 17) 10/12/88 COMMENT OF GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (BERTRAM WOLFE) (
- 18) 10/14/88 COMMENT OF NUCLEAR INFORMATION AND RESOURCE SERVICE (DIANE D'ARRIGO) (
- 19) 10/21/88 10/19/88 COMMENT OF COMBUSTION ENGINEERING (PAULL. MCGILL, V.P. NUCLEAR FUEL) (
- 20) 10/24/88 10/20/88 COMMENT OF NUCLEAR MANAGEMENT AND RESOURCES COUNCIL (JOE F. COLVIN) (
- 21) 10/26/88 10/18/88 COMMENT OF WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION (THEODORE STERN) (
- 22) 12/08/88 11/28/88 COMMENT OF RICHARD BURKLIN (
- 23) 01/04/89 12/28/88 COMMENT OF KENNETH SKRABLE (
- 24) 01/05/89 12/27/88 COMMENT OF BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION (T. E. KOBRICK, MANAGER) (
- 25) 02/17/89 02/08/89 COMMENT OF GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 02/17/89 02/13/89 (CHARLES VAUGHAN, MANAGER) (
- 26)
COMMENT OF ADVANCED NUCLEAR FUELS CORPORATION (R. W. MCCULLUGH, VICE PRESIDENT) (
- 27) 02/21/89 02/17/89 STEVE SCHULIN REQUESTS A NEW COMMENT PERIOD 05/15/89 05/11/89 COMMENT OF JOHN KNEBEL, PRESIDENT (
- 28) 08/31/89 08/25/89 COMMENT OF ROBERT ALEXANDER (
- 29) 11/15/89 11/14/89 COMMENT OF AMERICAN MINING CONGRESS (JAMES GILCHRIST, VICE PRESIDENT) (
- 30) 12/04/89 11/28/89 COMMENT OF ADVANCED NUCLEAR FUELS CORPORATION (R. W. MCCULLUGH, VICE PRESIDENT) (
- 31)
DOCKET NUMBER PR \\ (\\.
pnoPOSED RULE -
cfe-,\\;}--~----
ADVANCEDNUCLEAR FUELS CORPORATION (~I { R 3 ° 87o }0t.L~f.l~u 210i HORN RAPIDS ROAD, PO SOX 130, RICHLAND, WA 99352-0130 (509) 375-8100 TELEX: 15-2878 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn:
Mr. Kenneth M. Carr, Chaiman
- -Washington, D.C. 20555
Dear Mr. Carr:
'89 OEC -4 P 2 :29 November 28, i'.9e.9
~ -.
CWM:89:127 Advanced Nuclear Fuels Corporation's (ANF) comments on proposed changes to the Standards for Protection Against Radiation (10CFR20) were transmitted to the Commission by letters from R. W. McCullugh, Vice President, ANF, dated October 11, 1988 and February 13, 1989 (copies enclosed).
In furtherance of those comments, ANF and other fuel fabricators met with NRC staff on February 22, 1989 and proposed a combined committed dose -
annual dose system for assessment of worker internal dose from persistent radionuclides such as uranium.
A detailed illustration of the proposed system, as requested by NRC staff, was forwarded from the fuel fabricators by NUMARC in May 1989.
The results of the illustration showed that the combined annual-committed dose system is reliable and effective.
The NRC staff analysis of the industry proposal was completed and documented within one week after the NUMARC package was transmitted.
The purpose of this memo is to ensure that the fuel fabricators' position
_-eceives consideration as the 10CFR20 debate approaches conclusion.
This
,._,.ssue can be a significant factor in shifting the ability of U.S. fuel fabricators to compete in the world market.
It will affect the cost of nuclear generated electricity and perhaps the viability of nuclear power in the U.S.
If there were any significant increases in safety to the worker or the public, certain additional costs could be justified, however, there is no i dent i fi ed positive cost/benefit.
The NRC staff analysis mentioned above states* *** the dose allowed in each year is numerically equivalent to the dose allowed in the committed dose approach.*
In summary, the industry's position is to control the work place on a committed dose basis, but to determine internal doses on an annual effective dose equivalent basis.
The annual dose can be determined directly by measuring the radionuclide actually deposited in the worker's lungs.
In most cases, the committed dose must be calculated from data secondary to the uptake utilizing significantly over-predictive ICRP models.
In the first case, both the licensees and the NRC know the internal exposure status of each worker rather quickly.
In the latter case, much time and effort can be spent without satisfactorily determining exposure within reasonable accuracy.
A Siemens Company
~ NU(Lf,ld). RCf:"1 I ~y WMM ~~
oocKn *r., c, via c, O::F',.{
A
, ~O'-UAI.¥ cY
< WdSS Oh.I
'os:ro~k O *
- 0;;1c$ R 7
Mr. K. M. Carr November 28, 1989 Page 2 We appreciate your time and attention to these comments.
kk Enclosures cc:
James Curtiss Thomas M. Roberts Kenneth C. Rogers Sincerely, c~~4 Manager, Regulatory Compliance
_j
,:lc;VANC!:'D NUCLEAR ;.:vELS CORPORATION 2101 HORN RAPIDS ROAD. PO BOX 130, RICHLAND, WA 99352-0130
/509) 375-8100 TELEX: 15-2878 October 11, 1988 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory t:ommission Attention:
Mr. L. W. Zech, Jr., Chairman Washington, DC 20555
Dear Mr. Zech:
Eng,neer,ng & PrOdUclion R. W. McCULLUGH Vice President Advanced Nuclear Fuels Corporation (ANF) wishes to comment on proposed changes to the Standards for Protection Against Radiation (10CFR20) which it understands will be presented to the Commission for action shortly.
During the development of the proposed rule, the NRC staff interacted on numerous occasion with a large number of groups and individuals, including some with whom ANF has membership.
The net result was that, when published for public comment in January 1986, the proposed rule had already received vigorous scrutiny by interested parties and did represent a consensus within the framework of International Congress on Radiation Protection (ICRP) guidance and recommendations.
Of particular importance to ANF and others in the uranium fabrication industry was paragraph 20.205 of the January 1986 draft rule which allowed measurement of radionucl ides with long radioactive and biological half-1 ives on an annual dose basis rather than on a SO-year committed dose basis.
This paragraph (p 20.205) recognized that measurement of these nuclides in a practical manner so as to permit projections of committed effective dose equivalent with sufficient accuracy to demonstrate compliance with the proposed limits would be extremely difficult and might not be possible.
The latest recommendation of the NRC staff is to remove the annual dose flexibility.provided by paragraph 20.205.
ANF is concerned that such action ignores the thought and effort given to provide a solution to this measurement problem by NRC staff, licensees, and cognizant national and professional bodies.
Of particular concern is that the removal of paragraph 20.205 is directly contrary to positions on the subject taken by knowledgeable regulatory and scientific bodies to whom the NRC should look for guidance.
Statements supporting this view have been excerpted from published material and are presented below.
The National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP}
states in Section 7 of NCRP Report No. 84, "A committed effective dose equivalent system should specifically not be used as a measure of an individual worker's exposure status.
Recognition of this restriction is essential if the system is not to be abused."
Mr. L. W. Zech October 11, 1988 Page 2 The Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency prepared a memorandum titled "Federal Radiation Protection Guidance for Occupational Exposure" which was approved by the President, was published in the Federal Register, Vol. 52, No. 17 and which contained the following statement, "Provisions should be made to assess annual dose equivalents due to radionuclides retained in the body from such intake for as long as they are significant for ensuring conformance with the limiting values specified in Recommendation 3."
In 1988 in a letter from Chairman W. Kerr to the Honorable Lando W. Zech, Jr. the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards offered the following specific comment, "We agree that application of the committed effective dose equivalent is the proper
- approach to follow in planning for radiation protection and in controlling exposures from nuclear activities. However, the committed effective dose equivalent does not constitute a sufficient basis in itself for evaluating the potential health effects of radiation exposures in individuals.
Such evaluation should be based on estimates of the actual absorbed dose for the period of exposure appropriate to the individual case.
For this reason, in the case of radionuclides having long effective half-lives, it is recommended that licensees be provided the option of using the annual effective dose equivalent in the determination of compliance with 10 CFR 20."
A Health Physics Society position paper in 1984 endorsed committed dose for control of the work place and annual dose for assessing worker dose from persistent radionuclides.
One other government agency also establishes radiation protection regulations for the nuclear work place and worker, the Department of Energy (DOE).
The DOE in its latest (April 5, 1988) draft of Order DOE 5480.11 on the subject of Radiation Protection for Occupat i ona 1 Workers states, "The annual effective dose equivalent to an individual shall be determined by summing the annual effective dose equivalent from internally deposited radionuclides and... "
It is difficult to understand how two government agencies -receiving guidance from identical sources can arrive at such different regulations.
The fact that DOE must practically apply these regulations to its own facilities and the NRC does not, might account for the difference.
The provisions of the proposed rule requiring internal doses to be determined on a committed dose basis has been estimated by the NRC staff to cost the U.S. fuel fabrication industry $75 million.
This estimate is comparable to industry estimates.
Accounting for internal dose on an annual basis would cost a sma 11 fraction of that amount with no lass in worker protection.
Mr. L. W. Zech October 11, 1988 Page 3 The ANF position on the proposed regulation is consistent with those positions mentioned above.
The 50 year committed effective dose equivalent should be used to control internal exposure in the work place but c111nual effective dose equivalent should be used to record actual internal foses which, in turn, should be compared against annual dose limits.
The NRC staff position does not reflect the position of those to whom it is supposed to look for guidance, it is in opposition to other government agency regulations on the same subject, it i~ extremely costly with no measurable benefit and is fraught with problems with respect to practical application.
For these reasons, ANF requests that the Commission direct the staff to incorporate the
- annual dose provision, as originally stated in paragraph 20.205, into the final rule.
We appreciate your time and attention to these comments and hope that they have been helpful.
RWM:jrs cc:
Kenneth M. Carr Thomas M. Roberts Kenneth Rogers Sincerely,
/( )vo/11<. <!J~~
R. W. McCullugh, Vice President Engineering and Production
"101 HOFIN RAPIDS ROAD, PO BOX 730. RICHLAND. WA 99352-0130
-;cg, 375-8100 TELEX. 15-2878 February 13, 1989 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention:
Mr. L. W. Zech, Jr., Chairman Washington, DC 20555
Dear Mr. Zech:
Enq,neermg & Production R. W. McCULLUGH
'ice Pres,oent Advanced Nuclear Fuels Corporation (ANF) comments on proposed changes to the Standards for Protection Against Radiation (10 CFR 20) were transmitted to you by my letter of October 11, 1988 (copy enclosed).
Certain events have transpired since that time which cause me to add to those earlier comments.
We have become aware that the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW) has reviewed the annual dose versus committed dose question with NRC staff personnel and has issued a recommendation which concurs with deletion of Section 20.205 from the proposed regulation.
ANF remains opposed to that position.
We are concerned that the proposed regulation which was issued for comment containing paragraph 20.205 following years of work by NRC staff and
- others, including thousands of man-hours of consultation with affected organizations and licensees, is now placed in jeopardy by a three-man committee following a very short review time.
It is recognized that this subject is not without controversy and that it is possible to find committees of knowledgeable people, particularly small committees, wherein two or three individuals may cause some position to be taken.
More to the point, those committees or organizations which are large enough and contain sufficient expertise to reflect a consensus of the scientific community and furthermore whose charter includes the broad responsibility of recommending the course for the nation have already spoken in favor of annual limits for certain nuclides as stated in my letter to you of October 11, 1988.
ANF believes that the broader based view should prevai l.
I would also point out that since my earlier letter the Department of Energy (DOE) has adopted their draft position of using annual exposure as their final position.
Thank you for considering our views.
vb Enclosure cc:
Kenneth M. Carr, Commissioner James Curtiss, Commissioner Thomas M. Roberts, Commissioner Kenneth C. Rogers, Commissioner A S,emens Company Very truly yours, IZ Jt'":h*~r!_uP~
R. W. McCullugh
A~
AMERICAN MINING CONGRESS g~~K6lfou~sc: PR 1° (s-1 FR 30810 November 14, f'CXJNDED 1897 Suite300 1920 N Street N.W.
Washington. nc. 20036 202/861-2800 TWX 710/ 822-0126 Easylink:62756020 Fax:202/861-753S Officers Chairman:
Milton H. Ward Vice Chairman and Chairman.
Finance Committee:
Allen Born e Chairmen:
ry M. Conger*
bert H. Quenon Richard de J. Osborne Gordon R. Parker M. Thomas Moore Gerard K. Drummond B. B. Turner President:
John A. Knebel Vice President & Secretary:
Barbara Spillinger Treasurer:
Clarence L. Smith Directors Robert H. Quenon, St. Louis Calvin A. Campbell, Jr., Chicago Harry M. Conger, San Francisco Richard G. Miller, Chicago Kenneth J. Barr, Englewood CO Gino P. Giusti, Stamford William G. Kegel, Indiana PA as J. Bourne. Houston H. Ward, New Orleans d D. Thompson, Cleveland G. Frank Joklik, Salt Lake City Allen Born, New 'lbrk B. R. Brown, Pittsburgh R. Gene Dewey, Los Angeles Gerard K. Drummond, Portland Richard M. Holsten, Englewood CO Robert A. Lothrop, Boise Richard de J. Osborne, New Yori<
Gordon R. Pari<er, Denver Reuben Richards, New York W. R. Stamler, Millersburg KY Richard W. Ince, Knoxville Terry A. Kiri<ley, Houston M. Thomas Moore, Cleveland Robert T. Spitz, Charlotte NC Arthur Brown, Coeur d'Alene James T. Curry, San Francisco H. L. Bilhartz, Denver John D. Janak, Dallas Wm. G. Mulligan, Woodcliff Lake NJ Billie B. Turner, Northbrook IL Marc R. von Wyss, Dundee Ml Lawrence Williams, Peoria Dana S. Getman, Bangor Ml Anthony J. Petrina, Vancouver BC Stuart H. Theis, Cleveland J. Burgess Winter, San Manuel AZ.
Leonard R. Judd, Phoenix Peter B. Lilly, Oklahoma City Ian L. White-Thomson, Los Angeles Sir Ian MacGregor, New York t N. T. Camicia, Greenwich t Charles F. Barber, New York t Ralph E. Bailey, Stamford t
- tmmechate Past Chairman t Honorary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissi on Washington, DC 20555 Gentlemen:
"89 NOV 15 P 2 :34
,_.FF 00~1 RE:
Proposed Final Rules for Protection lgainst Radiation i n 10 CFR Parts 19 et seq.
On May 11, 1989, John A. Knebel, President of the American Mining Congress (AMC}, wrote to the Commission regarding proposed revisions to 10 CFR Part 20.
In particluar, Mr. Knebel's letter addressed the proposed revised radon l imit in Table 2 of Appendi x Bin 10 CFR Part 20.
The revised l imit woul d reduce the value for radon-222 allowable in unrestricted areas f r om 3 pCi/1 to 0.1 pCi/1 above background at t h e fence line of t h e restricted area.
On July 3, 1989, Mr. Eric S. Beckjord, Director, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research replied to Mr. Knebel's letter.
Mr. Beckjord's letter indicated that the Nuclear Regulatory Com-mission (NRC) had identified problems with demon-strating compliance with the lower radon-222 con-centration limits identified in Mr. Knebel's let-ter.
The letter went on to state that the staff woul d be considering a proposal to provide increased flexibility "by allowing licensees to submit site-specific air concentration limits for NRC staff approval."
Further, the letter indicated that this flexibility would be in addition to pro-visions permitting evaluation of doses to actual indivi duals where located and allowing licensees to request a temporary higher dose limi t as an alter-nate means of compliance.
AMC's concerns about the reduction of t h e radon limit to 0.1 pCi/1 have been further heigh tened by materials provided by Roger Jones, Envi r onmental Coordi nator, Umetco Mineral s Corpora-tion.
Mr. Jones received a letter dated August 13, 1989, from Dr. Naomi Harley of New York University Medical Center, Inst i tute of Envi ronmenta l Medicine.
Dr. Harley is widely recognized and acknowledged to be one of the leadi ng authorities i n t h e Uni ted States and, i ndeed t h e world, on the general subject of radon and t h e pote ntial heal t h effects result ing from exposure thereto.
Dr. Harley's letter indicates that it would be "imJ?ossible on a practical bas i s" to detect 0.1 pCi/1 above background.
Her letter includes a copy of seven years of measured outdoor radon dat a by car **. ~., Y.19 1989
Nuclear Regqlatory Commission November 14, 1989
~
Page Two taken at a sampling station in Chester, New* Jersey.
Measurements were made hourly for most of the seven years and the range of the hourly measurements is from 0.01 to 2.5 pCi/1 with the average yearly radon ranges from 0.19 to 0.25 pCi/1.
Dr. Harley makes the point that that data would indicate that at least five years of intensive continuous monitoring would be necessary pri6r't6 any'inilling to establish baseline values against which a,milling operation's releases could be measured.
Dr. Harley goes on to say that the terrain and meteorology in the west, where uranium milling is carried on, results in much larger diurnal variability than in New Jersey.
The New Jersey data represent a "best case situation for outdoor radon stability" and even in the New Jersey measuring program, it would have been "difficult to evaluate the presence of a 0.01 pCi/1 source above background."
Finally, Dr. Harley also indicates that the proposed NRC 10 CFR 20 radon limit is unrealistic in light of the present estimates for health effects from radon.
AMC hopes that this additional information will be use~
ful to the Commission in determining what is an appropriate final radon concentration limit.
AMC believes that this data demon-.
strates conclusively that the Commission's proposed limit is not "practicable."
Additionally, regulating by "variance" is a prac-tice not generally preferred under existing tenets of. administra-tive law and from long experience licensees have developed a healthy skepticism about "flexibility" that is supposed to miti-gate an unreasonable rule.
Therefore, AMC respectfully requests that the Commission reconsider any proposed reduction of the radon limit to O.1 pCi/1.
With all best wishes.
Enclosure Sincerely,
~-et:?~
James E. Gilchrist Vice President cc:
Kenneth M. Carr, Chairman, NRC James R. Curtiss, Commissioner, NRC Forrest Remick, Commissioner~ NRC Thomas M. Roberts, Commissioner, NRC William C. Parler, General Counsel, NRC Samuel J. Chilk,. Secretary, NRC James M. Taylor, Acting Executive Director for Operations, NRC Eric s. Beckjord, Director, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, NRC
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER A private universitv in the public service Institute of Environmental Medicine 550 FIRST AVENUE, NEW YORK, N.Y. 10016 AREA 212 340-ANTHONY J. LANZA RESEARCH LABORATORIES AT UNIVERSITY VALLEY LONG MEADOW ROAD, STERLING FOREST, TUXEDO, N.Y.
MAIL AND TELEPHONE ADDRESS: 550 FIRST AVENUE, NEW YORK, N.Y. 10016 Mr. Roger K. Jones Environmental Coordinator UMETCO Minerals Corpor~tio~
P.O. Box 1029 Grand Junction, CO 81502 August 13, 1989 RE: Proposed U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regulations
Dear Mr. Jones:
I am responding to your letter of August 2, 1989 asking for technical information regarding the proposed USNRC regulations requiring uranium milling facilities to comply with a restricted area boundary standard for 222 Rn of 0.1 pCi/L above background.
There are two serious problems with the proposed radon standard.
The first is that the ability to detect 0.1 pCi/L above background is im~ossible on a practical basis.
I am enclosing a copy of 7 years of measured outdoor radon data from the USDOE Environmental Measurements Laboratory (EML) taken at their sampling station in Chester, NJ.
Measurements were made hourly for most of the 7 years.
As you can see, the range of hourly measurements is from 0.01 to 2.5 pCi/L and the average yearly radon ranges from 0.19 to 0.25 pCi/L.
The EML data indicates that at least 5 years of intensive continuous monitoring would be necessary prior to any milling in order to establish baseline values against which the milling operation could be evaluated.
Uranium milling is generally carried out in western mountainous terrain.
Mountain/valley meteorology is such that much larger diurnal variability occurs and radon concentrations are generally higher than in the east with an average of about 1.0 pCi/L.
The New Jersey data thus represent a best case situation for outdoor radon stability and even here it would be difficult to evaluate the presence of a 0.1 pCi/L source above background.
The second. and more serious problem, is that.the selection of 0.1 pCi/L indicates disregard for the present estimates of health effects from radon.
The National Council on Radiation
?rotection and Measurements Report 78, for example, predicts an additional 0.2 lung cancer deaths per 1000 persons exposed to 0.1 pCi/L radon for full lifetime.
Given the necessarily limited population size near mills, not one lung cancer death can be calculated for an exposure of this magnitude.
Normal outdoor background over the U.S. has a range of about a factor of 10 and any new limits should be responsive to the projected health detriment in realistic environments.
I was very pleased to learn of the environmental surveys being conducted in Uravan and would appreciate receiving any reports that are generated from this work.
Sincerely, Naomi H.
Research
. '.lnvii-onmenfal me,duremerdJ el:atoralor'J..
. 1985-:-86
- BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE EML REG'!ONAL-BASELINE..'
_. STA}l~~ AT'CHESTER,* NJ~-:<
.. *... ~<->. -6~~~~*~/:-1988... _**. '.
RADON-222 MEASUREMENTS AT CHESTER, NJ THROUGH JULY 1986 Isabel M. Fisenne The Environmental Measurements Laboratory (EML) has complete~ 9 y of 222 continuous hourly*
Ra measurements at the Chester, NJ Regional Basel lne Station.
The annual data.for first 7 y have been reported previously (Harley, 1978, 1979; Flsenne, 1980-1985).
OPERATION The Instrumentation Division designed, operates, and maintains the continuous radon measurement system.
For the mld-1984 to mld-1985 period, the unit operated 82% of the time.
From mld-1985 to mld-1986 the unit was opera-tlonal 43% of the time.
The Principle of operation (Thomas and Leclare, 1970),
the PhYslcal description, the data acquisition system, and the formula for the calculation of the radon concentration have been described. for the Chester unit (Negro, 1979).
The detection parameters for the unit have remained unchanged for 9 Y:
Background - 12 to 24 counts h-1 Progeny product recovery - 75%
Efficiency - 2.5 total counts pCl-1 m-3 Lower limit of detection -
N 10 pCI m-3 at 95% confidence level RESULTS The 1984-1985 four-week average radon concentrations for 13 time peflods are surrrnarlzed In Table 1, while those for 1985-1986 are shown In Table 2.
The 9 y
- mean diurnal and seasonal variations In radon concentrations are listed In Tables 3 and 4 and are plotted In Figure 1.
The detailed dally 3-h averages are listed In Tables 5 and 6.
The range of values for the lndlvldua1 hourly measurements, for the 3-h Periods, for the.means of the 3-h data for the 4-week periods are shown below for the 7 y of measurements.
These data show the smoothing effect resulting from averaging data over different time periods.
- 142 -
Range (pCI 222Rn m-3)
Hourly 3-h 4-week Time Period Measurements Averages Averages 1977 -
1978 30 -
1900 30 -
1400 70 -
560 1978 -
1979 30 -
1400 30 -
1000 80 -
500 1979 -
1980 20 - 1200 30 - 1200 70 -
430 1980 -
1981 10 -
2100 40 -
1700 90 -
500 1981 -
1982 10 - 1500 30 -
1300 70 -
470 1982 -
1983 10 -
2280 30 -
1500 70 -
530 1983 -
1984 10 -
2200 10 -
1700 60 -
490 1984 -
1985 10 -
1700 10 - 1300 90 -
420 1985 -
1986 20 -
2450 20 -
1000 70 -
550 The arithmetic mean and median radon concentrations for the 9 y of operation are tabulated below.
pCI 222R
-3 n m Time Period Arithmetic Mean Median 1977 -
1978 230 170 1978 -
1979 230 180 1979 -
1980 190 170 1980 -
1981 240 190 1981 -
1982 220 160 1982 -.1983 220 160 1983 -
1984 250 200*
1984 -
1985 200 170 1985 - 1986 200 150
- 143 -
t j
~*
~I
{.
~
iI
DISTRIBUTION OF RESULTS For the 7-y measurement period, both the hourly data and the 3-h averages of the radon concentration were log-normally distributed.
_ DISCUSSION Although meteorological parameters are measured at the Chester site, no_
attempt was made to correlate the measured radon concentrations with these data.
In the period 1977-1981, no significant correlations were found between the 3-h radon concentrations and wind speed, wind direction, air temperature, barometric pressure or relative humidity.
The seasonal pattern of radon concentrations of a sunrner maximum recurred In the 1984-1986 period, but the unit was Inoperable during most of the fal I of 1985 In which the concentrations decl lned.
With the addition of an 8th and 9th ye~r of data, the radon concentration measurements Indicate a diurnal maximum at essentially 0300 EST, occurring within the midnight to 0600 EST time period.
A definite minimum occurs during the noon to 1500 EST period.
The seasonal minimum In February Is a factor of 3 lower than the August maximum.
Over this 9-y period the average diurnal maximum Is a facto~ of 2 greater than the average minimum.
The 9 y of continuous radon concentration measurements at Chester, NJ are to our knowledge the largest database of outdoor radon measurements for a single sl.te.
Besides affording the opportunity to study long-term trends In atmospheric radon concentrations, these measurements are of value to other research programs at Chester, as wel I as concurrent programs based In the New York City area.
In addition, the continuous radon monitor has been us.eful as an experimental system for testing new techniques for maintaining and acquiring data from remote field sites.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The data tabulation and graphics presented In this report were prepared by Cami I le Marlnettl of the Appl led Mathematics Branch.
- 144 -
REFERENCES FI senne, I. M.
"Radon-222 Measurements at Chester*
USDOE Report EML-383, pp.73-107 (1980)
FI Senne, I. M.
IBID USDOE Report EML-399, pp. 213-245 (1981)
Flsenne, I. M.
IBID USDOE Report EML-411, pp. 192-227 (1982)
FI senne, I. M.
IBID USDOE Report EML-422, pp. 115-149 (1984)
FI senne, I. M.
IBID USDOE Report EML-450, pp, 104-139 (1985)
Harley, J. H.
"Radon-222 Measurements*
USDOE Report EML-347, pp, 30-65 (1978)
Harley, J. H.
IBID USDOE Report EML-367, pp, 39-73 (1979)
Negro, V.
"Environmental Radon Monitor*
USDOE Report ~ML-367, pp, 244-247 (1979)
Thomas, J. W. and P. C. Leclare "A Study of the Two-Fl lter Method for Radon-222*
Health Physics, la, 113-122 (1970) 145 -
Period Date 1
Jul 8-Aug 2
Aug 6-Sep. 1
~
°'
3 Sep 2-Sep 29 Sep 30-0ct 27 6
Oct 28-Nov 2 6
Nov 26-Dec 22 7
Dec 23-Jan 19 8
Jan 20-Feb 16 9
Feb 17-Mar 16 10 Mar 17-Apr 13 11 Apr 14-May 11 12 May 12-Jun 8
13 Jun 9-Jul 6
Mean TABLE 1 FOUR WEEK AVERAGE RADON CONCENTRATIONS AT CHESTER, NJ July 8, 1984 - July 6, 1986
-3 (pCi m )
Time Estimated 0000 0300 0600 0900 1200 1600 0100 0400 0700 1000 1300 1600 0200 0600 0800 1100 100 1700 260 300 210 130 120 130 220 270 140 100 100 130 360 360 260 160 160 230 390 370 340 200 180 280 210 220 210 140 130 160 280 260 250 190 170 190 190 190 180 160 130 140 160 170 170 140 130 130 1 0 120 120 100 90 90 160 170 130 90 90 100 230 260 180 120 110 120 300 290 170 120 110 130 330 300 180 130 120 160 260 260 200 140 130 160 1800 2100 1900 2200 2000 2300 Mean 260 260 210 270 230 180 380 320 270 420 370 320 200 220 190 230 250 230 160 180 170 150 170 160 100 120 110 130 130 120 180 200 170 280 300 210 290 36" 230 230 240 200
TABLE 2 FOUR WEEK AVERAGE RADON CONCENTRATIONS AT CHESTER, NJ July 7, 1986 -
July 6, 1986
-3 (pCi m
)
Time Estimated
- 0000 0300 0600 0900 1200 1500 1800 2100 0100 0400 0700 1000 1300 1600 1900 2200 Period Date 0200 0500 0800 1100 1400 1700 2000 2300 Mean 1
Jul 7-Aug 3
310 350 210 160 150 170 360 300 250 2
Aug 4-Aug 31 650 490 380 310 330 340 630 490
- 430 3
Sep 1-Sep 28 4
Sep 29-0ct 26
~
6 Oct 27-Nov 23 6
Nov 24-Dec 21 230 230 220 160 150 170 230 220 200 7
Dec 22-Jan 18 220 210 230 180 160 170 210 250 200 8
Jan 19-Feb 16 140 210 170 110 100 100 120 120 130 9
Feb 16-Mar-15 120 110 100 80 70 80 100 120 100 10 Mar-16-Apr 12 170 190 160 100 100 120 160 i50 140 11 Apr-13-May 10 12 May 11-Jun
- 7.
230 290 170 120 110 140 210 240 190 13 Jun 8-Jul 6
270 250 180 140 120 140 210 260 200 Mean 250 260 200 160 140 160 240 240 200
= no data
~
00 1977 to Period Date 1978 370 1
Jul-Aug 2
Aug-Sep 360 3
Sep-Oct 260 Oct-Nov 230 6
Nov-Nov 190 6
Nov-Dec 20 7
Dec-Jan 170 8
Jan-Feb 10" 9
Feb-Mar 100 10 Mar-Apr 140 11 Apr-May 160 12 May-Jun 210 13 Jun-Jul 270 Annual Mean 210 TABLE 3 RADON CONCENTRATIONS AVERAGED OVER
-WEEK PERIODS July 1977 - July 1986
-3 (pC i m )
1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 to to to to to to 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 330 290 360 280 300 340 30 240 340 330 280 360 290 220 340 310 360 340 330 2"0 310 280 290 290 300 230 300 220 270 270 260 190 290 210 220 160 190 230 190 170 100 120 140 120 160 120 90 130 110 120 130 110 140 130 130 180 160 160 2i0 130 1 0 210 2"0 190 210 18" 160 260 260 230 270 120 230 190 240 220 220 260
- See Figure 1 for the starting dates over the 9-y interval
- = no data 1984 1986 to to 1986 1986 Mean 210 260 300 180 430 320 270 300 320 280 190 260 230 230 170 200 190 160 130 130 110 100 110 120 140 130 170 160 210 190 200 230 200 230 200 200 220
Years 1977-1978 1978-1979 1979-1980 1980-1981 1981-1982
~
IO 1982-1983 1983-198 1984-1986 1985-1988 MEAN TABLE RADON CONCENTRATIONS AVERAGED OVER EACH OF THE EIGHT 3-h INTERVALS OF THE DAY
-3 July 1977 - July 1988 (pCi m )
03""
0600 09"0 1200 1500 1800 2100 to to to to to to to to 03""
0600 09"0 1200 1500 1800 2100 200 280 280 210 150 140 160 230 270 290 300 230 160 150 180 260 280 20 250 180 130 120 150 220 230 290 310 250 170 150 190 280 290 280 270 210 1 0 130 170 260 280 280 290 220 140 140 180 260
-270 360 340 240 150 1 0 190 300 300 260 260 200 140 130 150 230 20 260 260 200 150 140 160 240 240 280 280 220 150 1 0 170 250 270 Mean 210 230 190 240 220 220 250 200 2"0 220
TABLE 5 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF THE 3-h AVERAGE RADON CONCENTRATIONS July 8, 1984 - July 6, 1985
-3 (pCi m )
Concentration Cumulative Range Distribution Distribution 1-25 3
0.04
- 3.
0.04 26-50 133 1.85 136
- 1. 89.
51-75 557 7.74 693 9.63 76-100 917 12.74 1610 22.37 101-125 783 10.88 2393 33.25 126-150 784 10.89 3177 44.15 151-175 784 10.89 3961 55.04 176-200 577 8.02 4538 63.06 201-225 543 7.55 5081 70.61 226-250 400 5.56 5481 76". l 7 251-275 322 4.47 5803 80.64 276-300 254 3.53 6057 84.17 301-325 210 2.92 6267 87.09 326-350 141 1.96 6408 89.05 351-375 96 1.33
.6504 90.38 376-400 131 1.82 6635 92.20 401-425 68 0.94 6703 93.15 426-450 86 1.20 6789 94.34 451-475 44 0.61 6833 94.96 476-500 54 0.75 6887
- 95. 71 501-525 49 0.68 6936 96.39 526-550 27 0.36 6963
- 96.76 551-575 34 0.47 6997 97.23 576-600 11 0.15 7008 97.39 601-625 30 0.42 7038 97.80 626-650 34 0.47 7072 98.28 651-67,5 17 0.24 7089 98.51 676-700 18 0.25 7107 98.76 701-725 14 0.19 7121 98.96 726-750 6
0.08 7127 99.04 751-775 12 0.17 7139 99.21 776-800 18 0.25 7157 99.46 801-825 3
0.04 7160 99.50 826-850 6
0.08 7166 99.58 851-875 9
0.13 7175
- 99. 71 901-925 3
0.04 7178 99.75 926-950 3
0.04 7181 99.79 976-1000 3
0.04 7184 99.83 1001-1025 3
0.04 7187 99.87 1101-1125 3
0.04 7190 99.92 1276-1300 3
0.04 7193 99.96 1301-1325 3
0.04 7196 100.00
- 150 -
TABLE 6 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF THE 3-h AVERAGE RADON CONCENTRATIONS July 9, 1985 - July 5, 1986
-3 (pCi m )
Concentration Cumulative Range Distribution Distribution 26-50 80 2.14 80 2.14 51-75 266 7.13 346 9.27 76-100 516 13.82 862 23.09 101-125 578 15.48 1440 38.57 126-150 420 11.25 1860 49.83 151-175 321 8.60 2181 58.42 176-200 253 6.78 2434 65.20 201-225 237 6.35 2671 71.55 226-250 166 4.45 2337 76.00 251-275 153 4.10 2990 80.10 276-300 130 3.48 3120 BJ.* 58
- 301-325 125 3.35 3245 86.93 326-350 73 1.96 3318 88.88 351-375 75 2.01 3393 90.-89 376-400 64 1.71 3457 92.61 401-425 41 1.10 3498 93.70 426-450 44 1.18 3542 94.88 451-475 24 0.64 3566 95.53 476-500 21 0.56 3587 96.09 501-525 20 o.54 3607 96.62 526-550 6
0.16 3613 96.79 551-575 8
0.21 3621 97.00 576-600 9
0.24
~630 97.24 601-625 7
0.19 3637 97.43 626-650 9
0.24 3646 97.67 651-675 9
0.24 3655 97.91 676-700 9
0.24 3664 98.15 701-725 3
o.08 3667 98.23 726-750 6
0.16 3673 98.39 751-775 3
0.08 3676 98.47 776-800 3
o.08 3679 98.55 801-825 6
0.16 3685
- 98. 71 826-850 12 0.32 3697 99.04 851-875.
6 0.16 3703 99.20 876-900 9
0.24 3712 99.44 901-925 6
0.16 3718 99.60 1026-1050 3
o.oa 3721 99.68 1051-1075 3
0.08 3724 99.76 1101-1125 3
o.oa 3727 99.84 1526-1550 3
o.oa 3730 99.92 1976-2000 3
o.oa 3733 100.00
- 151 -
400 0:: w I-w
- E:
300 u -
en
- J u
0::
w 200 0..
Cf) lJJ -
a::
- J u
0 100 u -
0..
0 2 3 4. 5 6 7 8 Diurnal Variations I I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1.1 1 2 1 3 Seasonal Variations Figure 1.
Nine year (1977 to 1986) average variation* In radon concentrations at Chester, NJ.
The diurnal variations show the means for the 8, 3-h time periods.
The seasonal variations show the means for the 13, 4-wk periods.
Diurnal Periods CESD seasonal Per lods
- 1 0000 to 0300 1* Jul 07-17 7
Jan 19-20 2
0300 to 0600 2
Aug 04-14 8
Feb 16-26 3
0600 to 0900 3
Sep 01-11 11 Mar 16-26 4
0900 to 1200 4 Sep 29-0ct 09 12 Apr 13-23 5
1200 to 1500 5
Oct 27-Nov 06 13 May 11-21 6
1500 to 1800 6
Nov 24-Dec 04 14 Jun 08-18 7
1800 to 2100 8
2100 to 2400
- Denotes the starting dates of the periods over the 9 y Interval.
- 152 -
DOCKET NUMBER PR JO PROPOSED RULE THE C51 F~ 30810)
ALEXANDER
--lr,c.
' ~,
.89 AUG 31
.. I l CORfDRATION R. E. ALEXANDER President August 25, 1989 Chairman Kenneth M. Carr Commissioner Thomas M. Roberts Commissioner Kenneth C. Rogers Commissioner James R. Curtis
- u. s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, o. c.
20553 Gentlemen:
l:
p4 :05 The Commission will soon consider the staff's final version of the major revision of 10 CFR Part 20, "Standards for Protection Against Radiation°.
Recently I spent five days with about 50 health physicists from eight nuclear power plants, going line by line over the version of the new rules as presented to the Commission late in 1988.
Three very important points emerged that should be called to your attention, and these are mentioned below:
- 1.
The industry people found the wording of the new rule generally to be clear, although most of them are not yet conversant with new technical concepts of the ICRP on which the revision is based.
- 2.
Of the many changes that they must write into their procedures by way of implementation (an enormous task), they now recognize that a number of the most important ones must be based on regulatory guides that will not be issued for some time.
They estimate that 18 months will be needed, after the issuance of the guides, to complete the procedures-modification task.
This means that the transition period allowed for getting ready to comply with the new rule should begin when the guides are issued rather than when the final rule is published in the Federal Register.
(Considerable concern was expressed for plants that will go through a major outage during the transition period.
Since the entire health physics staff participates in these outages, as many as 24 months may be needed to complete procedure modifications.)
13131 Maltese Lane* Fairfax. Virginia 22033 Telephone (703) 631-8878 Telefax (703) 63 I -8642
CHf,n Copi s*.,
Add' I C:o;
~
Special o*.:,,h II
August 25, 1989 Page Two
- 3.
One aspect of the NRC inspection program appears to them to be counterproductive with respect to conducting an effective radiation protection program.
This major modification effort would obviously be an ideal time to upgrade the procedures.
Most of the radiation protection measures used at a nuclear power plant are not specifically mentioned in regulations, license conditions, technical specifications, or even in regulatory guides.
There are just too many.
At the plants they would like to write more of these into their procedures in an effort to improve performance.
However, any addition becomes, in effect, a plant-specific NRC regulation.
Therefore, they must, in every such case, balance the safety advantages of the addition against the disadvantage of risking an NRC citation should the procedure subsequently be violated. Technical specifications require compliance with plant procedures, and most health physics citations are for plant procedure violations.
With regard to the first problem mentioned above, after the new Part 20 is published in final form, and the possibility of last-minute changes is gone, I believe licensees will conduct the training they need through their own resources.
Solutions to the other two problems would require Commission action.
Sincerely, ff/ ~~~/4~/
Robert E. Alexander REA/ddb
r~
A~
AMERICAN MINING CONGRESS FOUNDED 1897 Suite300 1920 N Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 202/861-2800 TWX 710/822--0126 Easylink:62756020 Fax: 202/861-7535 Ottlcers Chairman:
Milton H. Ward Vice Chairman and Chairman, Finance Committee:
Allen Born Vice Chairmen:
Harry M. Conger*
l rtH.Quenon ard de J. Osborne on R. Parker Robert Durham M. Thomas Moore Gerard K. Drummond B. B. Turner President:
John A. Knebel Secretary:
Barbara Spill,nger Treasurer:
Clarence L Smith Directors Robert H. Quenon, St. Louis Frank A. McPherson, Oklahoma City Calvin A. Campbell, Jr., Chicago Harry M. Conger, San Francisco Richard G. Miller, Chicago Lord Clitheroe, London Kenneth J. Barr, Englewood CO Gino P. Giusti, Stamlord I
m G. Kegel, Indiana PA las J. Bourne. Houston n H. Ward, New Orleans Id Q Thompson, Cleveland G. Frank Joklik, Salt Lake City Allen Born, New 'rork B. R. Brown. Pittsburgh R. Gene Dewey, Los Angeles Gerard K. Drummond, Portland Richard M. Holsten, Englewood CO Robert A. Lothrop, Boise Richard de J. Osborne, New York Gordon R. Parker, Denver Reuben Richards, New York W. R. Stamler, Millersburg KY G. Robert Durham, Phoenix Richard W. Ince, Knoxville Terry A. Kirkley. Houston M. Thomas Moore, Cleveland Robert T Spitz, Charlotte NC Arthur Brown, Coeur d'Alene James T Curry, San Francisco H. L. Bilhartz, Denver John Q Janak. Dallas Wm. G. Mulligan, Woodcliff Lake NJ Billie B. Turner, Northbrook IL Marc R. von Wyss. Dundee Ml Roy Wennerholm, Pittsburgh Lawrence Williams, Peoria Dana S. Getman, Bangor Ml Anthony J. Petrina, Vancouver BC Stuart H. Theis, Cleveland J. Burgess Winter, San Manuel AZ.
Sir Ian MacGregor, New York t N. T Camicia, Greenwich t Charles F. Barber, New York t Ralph E. Bailey, Stamford t
- lmmechate Past Chairman t Honorary May 11, Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20555 Gentlemen:
RE:
Proposed Final Rules Against Radiation in Parts 19 et seq.
MAY 15 1989
~~G&
SEcr-=CH The American Mining Congress (AMC) filed comments (on behalf of its uranium producing mem-bers) on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC or the Commission) proposed revisions to 10 CFR Part 20 in 1986.
AMC has recently become aware of a potentially serious problem for its uranium pro-ducing licensee members as a result of the proposed final revised radon limit in Table 2 of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 20.
The value for Radon-222 (with daughters) allowable to unrestricted areas will be lowered from 3 picocuries per liter (pCi/1) to 0.1 pCi/1 above bacl<:ground at the fenceline of the restricted area.
The plain facts are that none of the mill, or even in situ, licensees will be able to meet the 0.1 pCi/1 radon standard consistently.
Addition-ally, the 0.1 pCi/1 limit above background cannot be measured accurately since it is miniscule rela-tive to the daily variations in background radon, which range from 0.1 to 6.0 pCi/1.
Thus, while the proposed final limit may represent sound mathe-matics based bn regulatory "theory," it represents bad. regu~atory practice due to the ubiquitous nature of radon at* levels that dwarf the standard.
AMC is aware that some on the NRC staff recognize that the new limit poses an acute problem for uranium licensees because AMC has upon request submitted considerable data regarding radon concen-trations at various licensed facilities.
AMC is, however, unaware whether the results of those sub-missions will be considered by the Commission in making its final decision on the 10 CFR 20 limits.
It is for this reason that AMC is bringing the mat-ter directly to the Commission's attention with the hope that it will receive serious consideration at the Commission level.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission May 11, 1989 Page Two The Commission has traditionally set radiation protec-tion limits at levels it deems protective of public health and which include an ample margin of safety.
The Commission has then relied upon the ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable) policy to further lower exposures to populations and individuals below the regulatory limits.
This approach to regulation, as noted in the recent testimony of Dr. Paperiello of the NRC to the Radiation Advisory Committee of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
Science Advisory Board, allows for regulatory flexibility for both the regulator and the regulated.
As a result, it would be unwise, unfortunate and inconsistent to set the radon concentra-tion limit in 10 CFR 20 at the unrealistic 0.1 pCi/1 level.
This level, even if it were measurable, is at the lower end of the variation of natural background and would essentially remove all regulatory flexibility to the point of requiring "regulation-by-exception."
Regulation-by-exception is not a favored regulatory posture.
Although the proposal apparently provides some oppor-tunity for licensees to invoke exceptions, it is apparent that there are genuine technical problems regarding compliance that have not been envisioned by the staff.
They relate to the equi-librium factor associated with radon daughter concentrations at a facility fenceline.
Under any circumstances, this subject needs to be addressed in some detail in order to assure an appropriate final rule.
EPA currently has an action level of 4 pCi/1 for radon indoors where its decay products pose the most serious potential health hazard.
It is incongruous that NRC would, at the very time it is critical of EPA's proposed Clean Air Act regulations for NRC licensees (includins ura~ium licensees), promulgate a regulatory limit for outdoor radon concentrations that is 40 times lower than ~PA's.indoqr action level.
Additionally, since NRC and EPA have on numerous occasions acknowledged on the public record that radon emissions from uranium milling facilities dis-appear into background within 0.5 to 1 kilometer of the fenceline of a pile, setting a limit of 0.1 pCi/1 appears overly conserva-tive, to say the least.
This has been confirmed by the National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council's 1986 Mill Tail-ings Study, which indicates that the excess risk to anyone beyond a few kilometers from a uranium mill tailings facility is by any measure "trivial."
In consideration of the above, AMC respectfully requests that the Commission itself specifically address this issue by requesting staff briefings and, if deemed necessary and appro-
I I
Nuclear Regulatory Commission May 11, 1989 Page Three priate, a presentation by AMC member companies.
Careful con-sideration at this late date in the regulatory process may be inconvenient, but it is necessary to alleviate the serious and unnecessary problems that will be created by the proposed final 0.1 pCi/1 limit.
cc:
Sincerely, kn 2.- ~:;1)
JPresident Lando W. Zech, Jr., Chairman, Nuclear Regulatory Commission Kenneth M. Carr, Commissioner, Nuclear Regulatory Commission James R. Curtiss, Commissioner, Nuclear Regulatory Commission Thomas M. Roberts, Commissioner, Nuclear Regulatory Commission William C. Parler, General Counsel, Nuclear Regulatory Commission Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary, Nuclear Regulatory Commission Victor Stello, Jr., Executive Director for Operations, Nuclear Regulatory Commission
~tr~UMBtlrf\\\\*n.._,....
(f?'j~R~~*8')0
--J'\\~
~
J e., S C.,~cJ It 1
/\\.
- 59 F£B 21 P 6 :38 1S00'l G-c,(al R,*~ ~~8.
1
,Cf
~lf v-klod.
M fJ
- 2. 0~ ;
V*
us NR. c.... - CvMM,\\Sb'v.r\\
u)o-s~~ be 2orrs-
'3/4t ~
I 1, 118 4
111. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIQJI DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Po9fmar Date l--,tt'f
WCK.surJl /\\6--'r ~l OwhLpo.fc,1o(.,_, 1/2 --{l,s.z__,
uJ L s.,_
e,v\\ ?\\o':1¢:> I ( A\\ 1 cwJ- --t,,-Zh,r-c__ ~' ~
'/ 1 'J V:.Of\\o/lM.<... uJJJ-1:..e.,~ 1 1'\\
\\.)J'dlrllM.~ ~ '-f'l-..-
f(1)f'JJ..
~l 1.., '-hr '1(U Caof M(Y\\_.
iii~g:J:Jcnl]-R~-**!:
' ~a.1
( S-lFR3 () g IJO ADVANCED NUCLEAR FUELS CORPORATION Jou,r it.:*
th~ f.C Engineering & Production 2101 HORN RAPIDS ROAD, PO BOX 130, RICHLAND, WA 99352-0130 (509) 375-8100 TELEX: 15-2878
- 59 FEB 17 P j~~~LLUGH February 13, 1989 un:
DOCK I~
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention:
Mr. L. W. Zech, Jr., Chairman Washington, DC 20555
Dear Mr. Zech:
- ,k f t L Advanced Nuclear Fuels Corporation (ANF) comments on proposed changes to the Standards for Protection Against Radiation (10 CFR 20) were transmitted to you by my letter of October 11, 1988 (copy enclosed).
Certain events have transpired since that time which cause me to add to those earlier comments.
We have become aware that the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW) has reviewed the annual dose versus committed dose question with NRC staff personnel and has issued a recommendation which concurs with deletion of Section 20.205 from the proposed regulation.
ANF remains opposed to that position.
We are concerned that the proposed regulation which was issued for comment containing paragra~20.205 following years of work by NRC staff and
- others, including thousan of man-hours of consultation with affected organizations and licensees, is now placed in jeopardy by a three-man committee following a very short review time.
It is recognized that this subject is not without controversy and that it is possible to find committees of knowledgeable people, particularly small committees, wherein two or three individuals may cause some position to be taken.
More to the point, those committees or organizations which are large enough and contain sufficient expertise to reflect a consensus of the scientific community and furthermore whose charter includes the broad responsibility of recommending the course for the nation have already spoken in favor of annual limits for certain nuclides as stated in my 1 etter to you of October 11, 1988.
ANF believes that the broader based view should prevail.
I would also point out that since my earlier letter the Department of Energy (DOE) has adopted their draft position of using annual exposure as their final position.
Thank you for considering our views.
vb Enclosure cc: Kenneth M. Carr, Commissioner James Curtiss, Commissioner Thomas M. Roberts, Commissioner Kenneth C. Rogers, Commissioner A Siemens Company Very truly yours,
/2 )v~~e_~
R. W. McCullugh
Docwnenl
- fstics Postmark Date Copies Received
~dd' I Copies Re-pr_o_du-c~ed--.... ~-----
lpecial Distribution P )J R R / 1) S
~ e. te c s:o c
- ADVANCED NUCLEAR FUELS CORPORATION 2101 HORN RAPIDS ROAD. PO BOX 130, RICHLAND, WA 99352-0130 (509) 375-8100 TELEX: 15-2878 October 11, 1988 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention:
Mr. L. W. Zech, Jr., Chairman Washington, DC 20555
Dear Mr. Zech:
Engineering & Production R. W. McCULLUGH Vice President Advanced Nuclear Fuels* Corporation (ANF) wishes to comment on proposed changes to the Standards for Protection Against Radiation (10CFR20) which it understands will be presented to the Commission for action shortly.
During the development of the proposed rule, the NRC staff interacted on numerous occasion with a large number of groups and individuals, including some with whom ANF has membership.
The net result was that, when published for public comment in January 1986, the proposed rule had already received vigorous scrutiny by interested parties and did represent a consensus within the framework of International Congress on Radiation Protection (ICRP) guidance and recommendations.
Of particular importance to ANF and others in the uranium fabrication industry was paragraph 20.205 of the January 1986 draft rule which allowed measurement of radionuclides with long radioactive and biological half-lives on an annual dose basis rather than on a 50-year committed dose basis.
This paragraph (p 20.205) recognized that measurement of these nuclides in a pract i ca 1 manner so as to permit projections of committed effective dose equivalent with sufficient accuracy to demonstrate compliance with the proposed limits would be extremely difficult and might not be possible.
The latest recommendation of the NRC staff is to remove the annual dose fl exi bil ity provided by paragraph 20. 205.
ANF is concerned that such action ignores the thought and effort given to provide a solution to this measurement problem by NRC staff, licensees, and cognizant national and profess ion al bodies.
Of particular concern is that the removal of paragraph 20.205 is directly contrary to positions on the subject taken by knowledgeable regulatory and scientific bodies to whom the NRC should look for guidance.
Statements supporting this view have been excerpted from published material and are presented below.
The National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) states in Section 7 of NCRP Report No. 84, "A committed effective dose equivalent system should specifically not be used as a measure of an individual worker's exposure status.
Recognition of this restriction is essential if the system is not to be abused."
Mr. L. W. Zech October 11, 1988 Page 2 The Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency prepared a memorandum titled "Federal Radiation Protection Guidance for Occupational Exposure" which was approved by the President, was published in the Federal Register, Vol. 52, No. 17 and which contained the following statement, "Provisions should be made to assess annual dose equivalents due to radionuclides retained in the body from such intake for as long as they are significant for ensuring conformance with the limiting values specified in Recommendation 3."
In 1988 in a letter from Chairman W. Kerr to the Honorable Lando W. Zech, Jr. the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards offered the following specific comment, "We agree that application of the committed effective dose equivalent is the proper* approach to follow in planning for radiation protection and in controlling exposures from nuclear activities. However, the committed effective dose equivalent does not constitute a sufficient basis in itself for evaluating the potential health effects of radiation exposures in individuals.
Such evaluation should be based on estimates of the actual absorbed dose for the period of exposure appropriate to the individual case.
For this reason, in the case of radionuclides having long effective half-lives, it is recommended that licensees be provided the option of using the annua 1 effective dose equ i va 1 ent in the determination of comp 1 i ance with 10 CFR 20."
A Health Physics Society position paper in 1984 endorsed committed dose for control of the work place and annual dose for assessing worker dose from persistent radionuclides.
One other government agency also establishes radiation protection regulations for the nuclear work place and worker, the Department of Energy (DOE).
The DOE in its latest (April 5, 1988) draft of Order DOE 5480.11 on the subject of Radiation Protection for Occupational Workers states, "The annual effective dose equivalent to an individual shall be determined by summing the annual effective dose equivalent from internally deposited radionucl ides and... "
It is difficult to understand how two government agencies receiving guidance from identical sources can arrive at such different regulations.
The fact that DOE must practically apply these regulations to its own faci l ities and the NRC does not, might account for the difference.
The provisions of the proposed rule requiring internal doses to be determined on a committed dose basis has been estimated by the NRC staff to cost the U.S.
fuel fabrication industry $75 million.
This estimate is comparable to industry estimates.
Accounting for internal dose on an annual basis would cost a small fraction of that amount with no loss in worker protection.
-1
Mr. L. W. Zech October 11, 1988 Page 3 The ANF position on the proposed regulation is consistent with those positions mentioned above.
The 50 year committed effective dose equivalent should be used to control internal exposure in the work place but annual effective dose equivalent should be used to record actual internal doses which, in turn, should be compared against annual dose limits.
The NRC staff position does not reflect the position of those to whom it is supposed to look for guidance, it is in opposition to other government agency regulations on the same subject, it i~ extremely costly with no measurable benefit and is fraught with problems with respect to practical application.
For these reasons, ANF requests that the Commission direct the staff to incorporate the* annual dose provision, as originally stated in paragraph 20.205, into the final rule.
We appreciate your time and attention to these comments and hope that they have been helpful.
RWM:jrs cc:
Kenneth M. Carr Thomas M. Roberts Kenneth Rogers Sincerely,
/( }tro/1/l ~
R. W. McCullugh, Vice President Engineering and Production
General Electric Company Castle Hayne Road, Wilmington. NC 28402 February 8, 1989
- a9 FEB 13 P 4 :2a Honorable Lando W. Zech, Jr.
Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
Subject:
Comments on the Proposed Deletion of Section 20.205 From the Proposed Revision of 10 CFR Part 20, "Standards for Protection Against Radiation" (SECY-88-315)
Dear Chairman Zech:
We were surprised to read the ACNW letter of December 30, 1988 on the referenced subject.
The position taken seems to be a direct reversal of the ACRS recommendations of June 1, 1988, and no reason for the reversal is given.
Our perplexity is increased when we note that the ACRS subcommittee and the ACNW have the same chairman and a common consultant.
The December 21 ACNW meeting was announced December 14 in the Federal Register.
GE contacted the ACNW chairman and volunteered on short notice to assist the committee by providing a summary of industry input on this far-reaching and complex subject.
We were told our input was not needed.
Given the short time the committee had to prepare and the complexity of the issue, we did not understand why the ACNW was not eager to receive the assistance offered.
In the final analysis, it appears the December 30 ACNW recommendation was hurried and was not based on balanced input and a consideration of all facets of the subject.
Indeed, we find the ACNW recommendation regarding Section 20.205 to be seriously flawed.
Annual dose and committed dose, which are at the heart of the issue, are different internal dose concepts.
The main recommendation of the ACNW was "... that annual doses arising from the intake of long-lived radionuclides be limited to a dose commitment no higher than the annual dose limit of proposed Section 20.201."
(Emphasis added.)
The Presidential Guidance of January 1987, and NCRP Reports 84 and 91, when read and analyzed as a whole, provide clear guidance contrary to the committee's recommendation.
Their guidance is as follows:
Committed dose based limits should be used for design and control of the workplace and annual dose should be used as the measure of exposure of workers.
This is not to say that specific passages from these lengthy documents, read narrowly, cannot be taken out
~ 1989
~ know7erl o hv,.,
I.~- NlJCU~R RFGIJI A WP.V COMM.15S!Oa I DOCKETING & S ~VKE c;Kl ION
)
OFFICE OF me ~*r,H 'RY OF THE CO,'J.,V!SSION Di;,cumenl Statl:.lics Copies Rcco*v~
Add' I C i *es,,,..
Honorable Lando W. Zech, Jr.
February 8, 1989 Page 2 of context to argue a strict committed dose system.
Such selective reading, however, would be seriously in error.
The Department of Energy has implemented the Presidential Guidance for its operations; effective January 1, 1989, DOE issued a revision to its basic radiation protection standards (Order 5480.11) requiring the combined use of committed and annual dose.
The DOE rules will affect the major U.S. nuclear work force (33,000 workers) potentially exposed to internal emitters.
For the NRC to adopt a set of rules for the 5,000 potentially exposed commercial fuel fabrication workers which is not consistent with the Presidential Guidance and DOE's implementation thereof is contrary to the mandated, and desirable, comparability between NRC and DOE worker protection programs.
Inconsistency in the use of annual and committed dose will limit the transportability of employment between DOE and NRC-licensed facilities.
Further, dual standards might also allow workers who have an exposure problem in one system to shift to a different program, thereby compromising the protection of those workers.
Cases of large intakes are and should be infrequent; however, in those cases, it is in the best interest of the employee's health and safety to be restricted as regards further exposure.
As one with direct responsibility for numerous programs to assure worker safety, I am puzzled by the recent actions of the ACNW and why the NRC staff favors an internal dose control system which is inconsistent with national standards, which avoids parallelism with the DOE's implementation, and which de-emphasizes the use of direct measurement technologies for optimum protection of workers.
Because we believe that the ACNW recommendation is so seriously flawed, we ask that the NRC not act upon it until the Commission has heard the views of GE Nuclear Energy and others whose activities would be affected by the elimination of Section 20.205 from the pending Part 20 revision.
We would welcome the opportunity to meet with you and the other members of the Commission to provide direct information on this important issue which fundamentally affects the assurance of worker protection.
Sincerely, GE NUCLEAR ENERGY d
~
&~~~~
Charles M. Vaughan, Manager Regulatory Compliance cc:
Dr. Dade W. Moeller ACNW Chairman
DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE
{SI Fil. 308?0 Bethlehem Steel Corporation BETHLEHEM, PA 18016
- 59 JAN -5 A 9 :44 sETHf HElil ST El 0r ~,.
i, December 27, 1988 OOCKE,, i
, 1r;f Mr. Lando W. Zech, Jr.
Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
Dear Commissioner Zech:
5r<A.Nt;1-<
Bethlehem Steel Corporation has learned of a recent meeting at which the Commissioners were briefed by NRC staff members and others on the proposal to implement a final rule revising 10 CFR Part 20.
Bethlehem Steel Corporation submitted comments on the proposed revision on April 25, 1986 in our capacity as an end user of process control gauging devices containing sealed sources.
We note that much of the reported discussion at the Commissioner's briefing centered on nuclear facilities and those facilities handling loose radioactive material.
We agree that the proposed revision to Part 20 could have a major impact on such licensees.
However, we wish to stress that the impact to gauge users will also be significant; in excess by orders of magnitude above the $14 a year estimated by the NRC staff.
The time it took our health physicist to review the reported meeting cost more than $14.
The fear that the Commissioners may not be aware of the size of the staff's underestimate has prompted this letter.
Our estimate is that the annual increased costs to a large gauge user such as Bethlehem Steel could be in excess of $100,000 due to the following items:
Construction of additional shielding Revisions to written policies and manuals Added training New reporting requirements Additional posting of warning signs Additional personnel being monitored We agree with the statement reportedly made by Victor Stetlo that" *** the public is being adequately protected" under current Part 20 rules and that it is impossible to justify the revisions using a cost-benefit analysis.
J
u.S. l"Ul'1 ~bR ofGIJl t,,i;ORV coMMISSloB i DOCKETING & 5'~Yl~'.'. '.'.ECilOl't
/
oHl(t Or iH'c :T 'T' RY OF iHc COP *.. i --1-~
Postmark Date Cop1-?s R<?c:eive-J Add' I Copi-s t;,
Special Dis r
}'~ tl'r.iOi\\.
/
2 -
Attached is a copy of our April 25, 1986 submittal in this matter which describes our general philosophy and provides comments to specific sections of the proposed regulations.
We hope you will give these comments serious consideration before a final revised rule is promulgated AL:jsc Attachment Very truly yours, BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION T. E. Kobrick Manager, Human Resources Health and Safety Services
Bethlehem Steel Corporation R. J, BRANDT, M.0., M.P.H.
MI.NAGeoOI' 0Ca.PAOONM. HEALTH AND SAF!rY BETHLEHEM, PA 18016 April 25, 1986 ref:
CHMN.AL22.B205 Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Gentlemen:
This is in response to the proposed revision to 10 CFR Part 20, Standards for Protection Against Radiation, published in the January 9, 1986, Federal Register, Vol. 51, No. 6, pages 1092 through 1216.
Bethlehem Steel comments.
The attached the referenced proposed Attachment cc: T _- E. Kabrick R. ;r. McCarthy be: EHT/AL AL T. J. Civic R.H. Hinterman C. M. Schneider MTS/AL - Day File Corporation welcomes this opportunity to offer document presents the corporation's comments on revision to 10 CFR Part 20.
Sincerely yours, R.z.~::.,
Manager of Occupational Health and Safety
ref:
CHMN.AL22.B204 Concerning the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Proposed Revision to 10 CFR Part 20, STANDARDS FOR RADIATION PROTECTION, as Published in the Federal Register on Thrusday, Jan~ary 9, 1986, Pages 1092 through 1216 While we agree with the Commission that there is a need for revision to Part 20 as it presently exists, the continual revision of all parts of 10
- CFR, have affected not only changes in the specific requirements, but the regulatory philosophy of 10 CFR, which the Commission states is a goal of the proposed rulemaking.
We therefore, see no reason why similar changes cannot be made as. they have in the past.
Our general criticism of the proposed revision is that it will substantially increase costs to many licensees without a benefit of decreased dose.
This is an indefensible position that the NRC has chosen to place itself in.
The Commission has traditionally, over the past twenty year.s, concerned itself primarily with fuel-cycle licens.ees to the point that, as an agency, management is essentially unfamiliar with the burdens placed on non-fuel cycle licensee.
In many *. cases non-fuel licensees have numerous employees -
in the case of a large employer, 10,000 to 100,00 employees or more but the scope of the radiation control program requires a minimal staff to adequately protect workers or the general public. A situation much different than found in a nuclear reactor.
A major regulatory change, which would cause minimal impact to a
- reactor, could cause a major financial burden to a non-fuel cycle licensee.
The supplementary infonnation to the proposed revision states that, potential gain in radiation protection practices, significantly outweighs the incremental increased costs It_ is Bethlehem's contention that the Commission has failed to demonstrate any potential gain in "radiation protection practices", or a real need to improve radiation protection as presently practiced.
We further contend that the proposed regulations will only cause an unnecessary burden on licensees having low exposure potential.who have current satisfactory programs with realistic health physics staff levels to address the radiation protection needs.
- They will require staff increases and increased training - not to correct program deficiencies -
but to satisfy regulations which will not reduce personnel exposure.
If one were to perform an ALARA calculation for the proposed revision, it becomes readily evident that it is not justified. As such, it is Bethlehem Steel Corporation's contention that they should discontinue this proposed rulemaking and return to the past method of upgrading an already satisfactory codification of radiation protection regulations found in 10 CFR Part 20.
r We also wish to state that the proposed revision is more confusing to understand for small licensees. If adopted as presented, the revision could easily result in a large increase in a number of violations due to misinterpretations.
This is another reason to urge that the proposed revision be withdrawn in favor of amending the existing Part 20.
With respect to specific sections of the proposed regulations, we offer the following comments referenced to either existing (E) or proposed (P) Part 20 sections.
20.101 (E):
We support the Commission's plan to delete. the S(N-18) dose averaging formula and replace it with a single annual limit of 5 rem, and a quarterly cap of 3 rem.
This will simplify and reduce the cost of recordkeeping, and may possibly reduce exposures to some workers.
Bethlehem also supports the proposal t~ eliminate the for determining the prior occupational history conjunction with the application of S(N-18) in 20.101.
will reduce administrative costs with no increase personnel exposure.
n~ed in This m
Appendix B (P):
Current genetic dose/effect data.from Japan does not appear to support a lower dose limit for the gonads than for the breast as proposed using the weighting factors.* It is suggested that the gonadal weighting factors be the same as for breast (.15) or for red bone marrow (.12).
20.208 (P):
20.1102 (P):
20.303 (P):
We support the Commission's attempt at addressing a serious exposure potential for a difficult segment of the general public.
There is ample epidemiological evidence supporting a
statistically significant increase in detriment to children exposed in-utero to doses in the 1 to 2 rem range.
We contend that the requirement of a formal ALARA program for all licensees is not cost justified for many non-fuel cycle licensees.
This is especially true considering that the current average dose to monitored personnel is less than 300 millirem per year.
A small gauge user would have to spend several thousand dollars to have such a program developed with no benefit incurred.
It is suggested that this section be changed to require a
formal ALARA program when average calculated or measured doses within a facility exceed 100 mrem per year.
We contend that the reference level licedsee is obligated to assure that an is too low.
A individual not
20.301 (P):
20.502 (P): receive in excess of.5 rem per year from sources under the licensee's control.
The licensee has no control over what the person might receive from sources beyond the control of the licensee. Additionally, individuals must also assume some responsibility for maintaining their own doses at a reasonable level.
There is no epidemiological evidence to justify the increased recordkeeping which will become necessary should 20.203 become a regulatory requirement.
There is no epidemiologically demonstrated increase in risk at the
.1 to.5 rem dose levels.
As such, increased recordkeeping and reporting costs will oc~ur with no decrease in dose.
It is felt that this is a good example of where licensees will become victims of administrattve
. violations for allowing personnel to exceed.1 rem but not.5 rem per year and not notifying the NRC.
Of course, the other approach for a licensee is to provide minimal additional training to employees who might exceed
.1
- rem, designate them as "radiation workers" and permit them to receive much more dose than they presently receive.
We contend that the Commission has no jurisdiction*
over doses received from sources not addressed in the Atomic Energy Act.
As
- such, the Commission cannot include dose received from "unlicensed" sources, even though this may be a commendable thing to do.
Bethlehem contends that the proposed reduction in the dose levels at which personnel monitoring is required is not justified by risk estimates or past experience.
Dat~
submitted by the licensees to the NRC over the past 20 years have shown average doses to monitored personnel of around 300 millirem per year.
This is less than 10 percent of the occupational limit.
The fact that employers choose, for program evaluation reasons to "over-monitor" is no justification for the Commission to require monitoring at such low levels, especially when the Cotmnission already knows that doses are being kept well below the maximum limit.
If Bethlehem Steel Corporation were required to monitor all employees who might receive greater then 500 millirem per year, it would mean increasing the potential number of employees by about ten fold to assure that we were not "caught short" at the end of the year.
This would mean an increased outlay of from
20.1203 (P):
- 20.1205 (P) 20.902 (P)
- 20. 903 (P):
$5000 to additional additional
- And, the dose.
4 -
$50,000 in just monitoring costs and an 2 man-years in administrative time at an
$80,000 to $130,000 - for only one company.
expenditures would not result in a decrease in We support the Commission's proposal to require reporting of doses to the general public in excess of
.5 rem per year.
However, the effect of 20.1205 makes this meaningless since doses in excess of.i rem are required to be reported.
As previously indicated, we do not support the proposed 20.1205 which will only increase cost and do nothing to affect radiation protection.
If.5 rem is consider~d acceptable and safe ~s a
~ose
- limit, then
.1 rem carries an additional safety factor.
The Commission cannot. justify requiring the added administrative burden _and cost which would accompany the reporting of safe doses.
Bethlehem strongly urges that the exemption to rooms and buildings in 20.204(a) in the regulations be retained.
posting existing The proposed regulation speaks of potential hazard to housekeeping and firefighting personnel.
There is no actual hazard to housekeeping, firefighting or other personnel that would be negated or reduced by posting.
If the exposure rate at 12 inches from the source housing exceeds 5 mR/hr when the source is on or off, the area will already be pbsted. If the rate is not high enough to require this posting, then it is not a practical hazard to personnel.
If we assume that in the case of a fire the shielding melts, then the heat of the fire will deface the signs and eliminate their warning capability.
If the shielding doesn't melt, then, unless a need exists for the room to already be posted, no hazard would be present to now require posting.
We are also concerned that posting at such low exposure rates will increase apprehension on the part of employees and firefighting personnel to the point where thousands to millions of dollars in damage may be done by a fire because personnel were afraid to enter a building posted with "Caution - Radioactive Materials" warning signs.
We also believe there will be a large increase in training required, not to make employees work safer,
... r 5 -
but to* convince*them that:
(1) the safety of the area has not changed, (2) it was safe to work in the area in the past, and (3) the signs are only being placed because of an administrative change in NRC regulations.
It will be a difficult task convincing employees that they were not in the past, and continue to be -
"not at risk".
The logical question will be, "if it was safe before, why are signs now. being posted?"
There is a substantial risk of loss of credibility for both the employer and the NRC for something that will have a negligible effect on dose reduction.
The NRC has to realize that there is a large body of licensees (both NRC and agreement state) who are not fuel-cycle licensees and who have no reason to expend significant funds training most employees beyond what radiation warning signs look like, and to keep out of the area.
To change the game rules at this point will cause needless fear.
Gauges are designed to be used on equipment with low nearby personnel occupancy, but many times are located in buildings which may have high traffic areas distant from the source location.
The proposed change would require posting large buildings, some in excess of 300,000 square feet with numerous doors (50-100).
Just the cost of signs to Bethlehem would be in excess of
$15,000 initially, and $5,000 per year in replacement costs.
The cost of the training is estimated to be in excess of $50,000 for professional staff and $2 million dollars in lost worker time -
and this is only one company.
In the introductory comments to the proposed regulations is a statement. " *** prudent to assume that the risk to health is proportional to dose *** ", and also that for the purposes of developing the regulations a linear dose/response model was used.
It is felt that it may not be prudent to use such assumptions when a large body of data exists showing that for the past 30 years there is no increase in morbidity and mortality when personnel are limited to 500 and 5000 millirem per year.
Bethlehem urges the NRC to use real world morbidity and mortality data when it exists, as opposed to mathematical models in the development of their regulations, so that* massive funds are not needlessly spent.
With respect to implementation time, there are many more licensees, with more personnel affected than fuel-cycle licensees, who will be required to affect major changes in their programs if the proposed regulations are adopted.
These changes will be in program philosophy, manuals,
- training, etc.
Most industrial companies do not have large health physics staffs.
Traditionally staffing levels are commensurate with the real risk involved
6 -
and the time needed to conduct a safe program.
They are guided by the market place and cannot over-staff like a utility and simply raise the rates.
When we consider that the changes will be extremely costly and carry no benefit in dose reduction, we would like to see the cost spread over as long a period as possible.
Five years is a reasonable time frame to make the substantial program changes required.
We again urge the Commission to consider the fact that they will be requiring a substantial financial outlay in time and money to implement a regulation that will not reduce dose - this is not in keeping with the ALARA principal which they require licensees to follow.
We recommend that the proposed regulations be tabled in favor of a more logical revisi~n of those sections actually requiring amendment.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20555 OCKET NUMBER p OP S D RUL (SJ FR 308?0 December 28, 1988
Dear Commissioners:
This letter relates to your actions re revisions to Title 10, Code of Federal Re "Standards for Protection Against Radiation.
pleased to have had an opportunity to comme of Part 20 and to see that they, in fac University of Lowell 01854 consideration by your staff in other revision
, I was happy to see that Section 20.205 in the ~P~ ~~~~
1986 draft, which provided exceptions for radionuclide......,-u;:~=--
y long effective half-lives from the committed dose limits in section 20.201, was subsequently deleted in the December 9, 1987 draft of Part 20.
Your staff is to be congratulated on their efforts to make this a
practical regulation that provides a
level of protection consistent with that recommended by the international radiation protection community.
Although I am very pleased with the recent progress of this important regulation, I am still somewhat concerned about certain aspects regarding the evaluation and recording of internal radiation exposures, especially in terms of their practicality.
I think that you will agree that the purpose of Part 20 is to assure adequate protection of workers and the public from radiation that may arise from the operation of nuclear facilities.
Exposures from any year of operation should be maintained to an acceptable level of committed risk, accounting for external doses received during the year and committed doses arising from the intake of radionuclides during that year.
From a practical standpoint for internal exposures of workers, this is best accomplished in the 10 CFR 20 regulation by the specification of acceptable working environments using either derived air concentrations (DACs) or annual limits on intake (ALis) derived for Reference Man.
Revisions to the current Part 20 would have been greatly simplified if the ALis had been used to simply replace the current quarterly intake limits, with the additional requirement that the sum of combined external and internal exposures relative to their respective limits must be maintained less than unity.
This is a practical option given in section 20.202 of the December 9, 1987 draft of the 10 CFR 20 regulation.
To require licensees to do more than this, e.g., to make and record annual dose estimates in addition to committed doses taking into account the worker's individual characteristics for use in possible future litigation or in epidemiological
- studies, may not be justified nor within the purpose of 10 CFR 20, which is the establishment of "standards for pro ection against radiation."
If the 10 CFR 20 regulation achieves its purpose, then epidemiological studies are not likely to have the statistica power to come to any definitive conclusion regarding the health impact from radiation arising from nuclear facilities.
AcJmowJ dged by FEB 2 1 1989
11111.
NUCLEAR REGUl:ATORY COMMISSIOJI OOCKEHNG & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Of THE COMMISSION Doc1JM St f ics Postmer~ Dal
/J-J~J>8'"
,.op, s I.cc 1v cl Add'I
- ti Oi
Although I
agree:
(1) that the best estimate of any internal or external dose should be recorded and (2) that individual annual dose estimates to individual orqans may be required for epidemiological studies and possible litigation, I
do not believe that it is possible nor desirable to try to regulate the "actual" annual or committed doses received by individual workers.
The occupational dose limits for adults given in section 20.201 of the December 9, 1987 draft Part 20 are expressed in terms of the doses received by individual workers.
For the exposure of two different workers to the same airborne concentrations of radionuclides, their actual intakes and internal radiation doses will depend on (1) their breathing
- patterns, which will influence their intakes and depositions in their respiratory tracts and (2) their metabolism, which will influence their internal dose distribution within their bodies over time.
When workers are exposed to working environments controlled below the
- DACs, it is possible that one or more workers could receive a dose above the limits of section 20.201.
The opposite of course also is possible.
It is not practical for the regulatory standard to, in essence, regulate the breathing pattern and metabolism of individual workers.
Section 20.204 of the December 9,
1987 draft Part 20 provides guidance on the "determination of internal exposure,"
including allowance of the use of information on the physical and biochemical characteristics of inhaled aerosols and their behavior in the exposed individual to estimate the individual's committed effective dose equivalent or to derive site specific ALI and DAC values.
If a sufficient data base is available, then the use of site specific ALI and DAC values may be justified.
Although some account should be allowed for the inhalation of aerosols having a particle size distribution different from the standard 1 micron AMAD that is assumed in the calculation of the ALI and DAC values for Reference Man, I don't believe it is very practical nor realistic to use limited bioassay data from exposed individuals to obtain their metabolic parameter values for the purpose of estimating their committed effective dose equivalent over the 50 year period used to calculate committed doses.
Such flexibility is not provided for external exposures, and it is difficult to justify this flexibility for internal exposures.
For external exposures, the deep dose equivalent is taken as the effective dose equivalent or the dose equivalent to individual organs and
- tissues, no allowance being given to account for differences in the sizes and weights of individuals in the estimation of their "actual" doses.
I hope that the above comments are helpful to you and the NRC staff in the promulgation of the final rule on this important radiation protection standard.
Sincerely,~"""""
/~
~
w'. ~
Kenneth w. Skrable cc. Dr. Dade Moeller and Dr. Robert Alexander 2
DOCKET NUMBER PR J-__O p J OSED ULE 1 )
Admiral Lando W. Zech, Jr.
Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
Dear Admiral Zech:
(_~lfiZ 3{)y?0/
124 Holly Ridge Lane West Columbia, SC 29169 November 28, 1988
'88 OEC -8 1\\11 :43
( i l, J Arguments about annual vs committed dose abound.
Merit exists on both sides.
The purpose of this letter is point out that both systems can exist concurrently as long as records from one can be converted to the other when necessary, for example when an employee transfers from a site using one system to the other, or terminates.
Specifically, it is sugessted a site may be permitted to use annual dose system if the following constraints are met:
a)
The annual whole body equivalent dose for each calendar year must be less than 5 rem.
b)
The total dose, that is the sum of the annual doses plus the current estimated residual SO-year committed dose must be less than 5 x N rem, where N = the number of calendar years an employee has worked for the licensee.
c)
When an employee at a site utilizing annual dose, terminates or transfers to (or performs work in) a site using the dose commitment system, he will be provided with a record of his annual whole body equivalent doses, his estimated SO-year residual dose, and his current year's whole body equivalent SO-year dose commitment.
If the above concepts were incorporated in the proposed 10CFR20, it should be philosophically acceptable to all parties and would provide a compatible unified dose record system.
Sincerely, Richard K. Burklin FEB 2 1 1989
tJ~lt,..r 1\\
t
~
Westinghouse Electric Corporation October 18, 1988
- EUS-88-379 Energy and Utility Systems Group Theodore Stern Executive Vice President Admiral Lando W. Zech, Jr.
Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
Subject:
Proposed Revision to 10CFR20, "Standards for Protection Against Radiation"
Dear Admiral Zech:
The Westinghouse Electric Corporation endorses the procedure employed by the Commission in developing the proposed changes to 10CFR20 regulations.
The NRC Staff is to be commended for seeking, during the development stage, scientific and technical input from licensees directly affected by the rule change. Westinghouse supports the Commission's efforts to incorporate revisions to Part 20 reflecting developments and advancements that have occurred since 10CFR20 was issued some thirty years ago. It is important, however, that specific changes to the regulations be thoroughly evaluated with regard to worker benefits, and to assess the licensee benefits versus costs required to implement these proposed changes.
Westinghouse has been informed that the NRC 10CFR20 Steering Committee is considering removal of Paragraph 20.205 of the proposal published in the January 9, I 986 issue of the Federal Register. This paragraph addresses the manner in which internal doses from radionuclides with very long effective half-Jives are accounted for in determining worker dosi: histories and iicen:;ee compliance: with dose limits.
Westinghouse comments to the Commission in a May 12, 1986 letter presented a strong statement that Paragraph 20.205 is important to the uranium fuel industry, and should be retained within the revised 10CFR20 regulations. Also included in that letter was a request to delete Subparagraph 20.205(b)(2) in order to maintain the original concept of Paragraph 20.205.
The provisions of Paragraph 20.205 would permit licensees flexibility to use direct bioassay measurements in determining worker internal radiation doses on an annual basis in conjunction with tracking the 50 year dose commitment. Westinghouse experience indicates that it will be impracticable to use direct bioassay data to determine the committed effective dose and this would, therefore, dictate very costly facility modifications in order to use airborne radioactivity concentration data.
- 0. !. NUCLEAR REGULATORY <:O)
DOCKETING & SffiVICE ECTION OFFICE O!=' THE SECRET Y
Of THE COA'MISS IOt-'
Posrmar D *.
/<) -;i. )"'-_ti Copic~ Re
-t
/ --
Adrf' I C
- 2) __
Spe ' I C ~
ll.I'.b !)
"f> t> IL I fl L<=-7(' 19-AJ.l, ~
~
Admiral Lando W. Zech Page 2 October I 8, 1988 The action by the NRC Staff to remove Paragraph 20.205 is contrary to the documented technical guidance and/or opinions of several national, governmental and professional bodies. The following actual or paraphrased quotes from some of these bodies of scientists and technical experts substantiate that Paragraph 20.205 should be retained in the proposed rule:
o National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement 0
"A committed effective dose equivalent system should specifically not be used as a measure of an individual worker's exposure status." NCRP-84-General Concepts for the Dosimetry of Intcrnaily Deposited Radionuclides, 1985, p.38.
Radiation Protection Guidance to Federal Agencies for Occupational Exposure The limiting values for control of the workplace should be based on committed dose. The limiting values for assessed dose to individual workers should be based on annual dose. Recommendations approved by President Reagan, January 27, 1987, Federal Register 52, #17, p. 2822-2834.
o Health Physics Society 0
A 1984 Health Physics Society position paper approved by the Board of Directors endorsed committed dose for control of the workplace and annual dose for assessing worker dose from persistent radionuclides.
A 1985 Health Physics Society full membership referendum supported the 1984 Health Physics Board of Directors action.
Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards In a letter to Chairman Zech dated June 7, 1988, ACRS stated:
"We agree that application of the committed effective dose equivalent is the proper approach to follow in pianuing for radiation protection anu in controlling exposures from nuclear activities. However, the committed effective dose equivalent does not constitute a sufficient basis in itself for evaluating the potential health effects of radiation exposures in individuals. Such evaluation should be based on estimates of the actual absorbed dose for the period of exposure appropriate to the individual case.
For this reason, in the case of radionuclides having long effective half-lives, it is recommended that licensees be provided the option of using the annual effective dose equivalent in the determination of compliance with I0CFR20."
Admiral Lando W. Zech Page 3 October 18, 1988 0
0 Department of Energy In a letter to the Secretary of the Commission dated June 8, 1986, DOE stated:
"The DOE continues to believe the retrospective dose limitation system should be based on a consistent application of the annual dose equivalent rather than on committed dose equivalent."
DOE Draft Order 5480.11. 4/5/88 Subparagraph 9.d(l) states:
"The annual effective dose equivalent to an individual shall be determined by summing the annual effective dose equivalents from internally deposited radionuclides and from external exposure to radioactive material and/or radiation generating devices."
Subparagraph 9.e(3)(a) states:
"Data obtained from air monitoring shall be used for assessing the control of airborne radioactivity in the workplace and not normally used to evaluate the dose equivalent to radiation workers."
Annual dose should be an integral part of the overall radiation worker dose management program. Annual dose control accounts for all doses from the current and previous years' intake and adds future doses as they occur, whereas, committed dose accounts for the current year's dose and the theoretical dose to be received over the next 50 years. The concern with theoretical models is that there is wide variation from one individual to another. This leads to the use of models that are overly conservative. In many situations, individuals are exposed to a variety of compounds of the same radionuclide. The annual dose concept, however, relies much less upon the composition of body burdens. Therefore, for radionuclides with very long effective half-lives. use of the annual effective dose provides improved accuracy for lifetime records since tht: ac.tual dose would be relied upon to a greater extent.
Westinghouse recognizes that the dose commitment system may serve some segments of industry. There is no reason, however, to impose one system on all of industry, as long as the two systems can be reconciled when a person terminates or transfers from one system to the other. Furthermore, annual dose can be adequately determined for workers in the uranium fuel fabrication industry, and can be accomplished with today's proven technology using lung counters and other bioassay techniques.
In conclusion, Westinghouse believes that an annual dose provision, in conjunction with committed dose workplace controls, will protect workers exposed to radio-nuclides with long effective half lives. Westinghouse, therefore, respectfully
Admiral Lando W. Zech Page 4 October 18, 1988 requests that the NRC 10CFR20 Steering Committee retain the provisions of 1 0CFR20.205 in the proposed rule.
Westinghouse appreciates your attention to this matter and would welcome the opportunity to discuss this with you or other members of the Staff directly.
Sn~
Theodore Stern Executive Vice President Energy & Utility Systems
Joe F. Colvin Execu1ive Vice President &
Chief Operoling Officer NUCLEAR MANAGEMENT AND RESOURCES COUNCIL 1776 Eye Street. N.W.
- Suite 300
- Washington. OC 20006-2496 (202) 872-1280 Mr. Victor Stello, Jr.
Executive Director of Operations U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
- as OCT 24 P\\2 :1 1
SUBJECT:
Revision of 10 CFR 20, "Standards for Protection Against Radiation";
51 FR 1092 (January 9, 1986} - Proposed Rule
Dear Mr. Stello:
NUMARC wishes to express its overall support for the currently proposed changes to 10 CFR 20, "Standards for Protection Against Radiation." It is our understanding that the final proposed rule will be before the Commission in the near future.
Based on the NRC Staff's briefings to the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS} regarding the proposed final regulations, we want to bring to your attention changes suggested by the Staff to Section 20.205 which are of concern to the industry.
In our April 26, 1988 letter to Mr. Robert Alexander of the NRC Staff, we expressed our concern regarding the deletion of the proposed Section 20.205.
The January 1986 draft of the proposed rule details Section 20.205, in which internal doses from persistent (long-lived} radionuclides are accounted for in determining worker dose histories in compliance with dose limits.
In a briefing on May 31, 1988 to the ACRS Subcommittee on Occupational and Environmental Protection Systems, the NRC Staff stated that their latest recommendation is to remove the annual dose option. This section is of particular importance to the commercial uranium fuel fabrication workers and industry, allowing its licensees the option of making direct measurements to determine internal radiation doses to workers on an annual rather than on the 50-year committed dose basis.
In the presentation before the ACRS, the NRC Staff estimated that the provisions of the proposed rule controlling internal doses on a 50-year committed dose basis would cost the U.S. fuel fabrication industry $75 million.
Industry estimates generally confi rm this figure as being representative of the one-time cost to implement the proposed rule, but it does not reflect the additional annual cost whi ch could be considerable. Accounting for internal doses on an annual basis would provide overall equivalent protection at a small fraction of the cost.
We are concerned that the Staff recommendation does not adequately incorporate the guidance from cognizant international, national, and professional bodies.
The issue of how to account for the radiation dose from radionucl ides persisting in the body is decidedly complex and not wi thout some controversy. Nevertheless, the National Council on Radiation Protection
,..,....,. 2 7 WY,
- S. NU LEAR REGULA TORY COMMISSION DOCKET! 'G &
VICE SECTION or* 1'
~F THE SECRETARY Or T"!l:. '"OMMISSION D,. " *,t c;,i-thtic, Postrntt tJ:.:
_/_!)_ -..:21-.rt:
Co, s l
- I C,
..3 i
,o A~..s 7
~
--3,..,,,1'.~r 4 U?~'/:J.f:;;" -
and Measurements and the ACRS at its June 1988 meeting, recommended that the annual dose accounting be an integral part of the overall radiation worker dose management program.
The Staff's latest recommendations not only represents excessive costs to the industry but lacks the support of these scientific bodies.
Included with this letter are two attachments which expand on key elements of this subject. These attachments were developed by the uranium fuel fabricators and were concurred in during a meeting in Atlanta, Georgia in October 1988.
Attachment A outlines key benefits of the annual dose concept over and above the cost savings previously identified. Attachment Bis an overview and rebuttal to the arguments made by the NRC Staff when addressing the ACRS June 1988 recommendations.
Given the major improvements in radiation protection under the ALARA philosophy, the extensive expenditures incurred by the industry to accomplish these, as well as additional unnecessary expenses that place U.S. industries at a serious competitive disadvantage in the global marketplace, we strongly encourage the NRC to retain the previously proposed Section 20.205 in the final revisions to 10CFR20.
The deletion of the previously proposed Section 20.205 represents a major change from the proposed rule and in the implementation of the proposed rule.
Because of the impact of deleting the previously proposed Section 20.205 on the uranium fuel manufacturing facilities, it is our opinion that if this provision is deleted from the final rule, this portion of the rule should be reissued for public comment.
Additional comments on the previously proposed Section 20.205 were made in the October 1986 and June 1987 letters to the NRC from the former Atomic Industrial Forum (AIF) and in NUMARC's May 1988 letter.
We further recommend that the proposed five-year implementation date be from the date of publication of the final rule, not from the date of publication of the proposed rule (January 9, 1986) as was stated by the Staff in a presentation before the ACRS on May 31, 1988.
The changes to be implemented by the revised 10CFR20 are extensive and three years have essentially elapsed since the proposed rule was published.
Industry views on the need for a five-year implementation period are reflected in the October 1987 AIF letter and the May 1988 NUMARC letter.
We would be pleased to meet with the Staff or Commission to discuss these comments.
JFC:fbm Attachments cc: Mr. Eric S. Beckjord SECY Sincerely,
\\
1 ur 1: kl..___ __
Jo~' F. Colvin I
ATTACHMENT A ITEMS FAVORING THE USE OF ANNUAL DOSE ACCOUNTING 10/7/88 Air sampling would be used under either an annual or committed dose control approach for day-to-day control of the workplace, and in either case the action levels would be based on 50 year committed dose calculations.
Allowing the option of annual dose accounting would encourage licensees to use technology, such as state-of-the-art lung counters, to measure actual lung content as a method of demonstrating compliance.
Adoption of a strict committed dose control would significantly diminish the usefulness of lung counting and other invivo assay techniques which measure radionuclides retained in the body.
An annual dose control provides equivalent overall protection of the worker when compared to committed dose.
Annual dose control merely approaches the accounting of future doses in a different manner.
Committed dose discounts or ignores the dose from all intakes prior to the current year and accounts for all of the future dose from a year of intake by adding it into the employee's record that year.
Its forward projections must be made using conservative models.
Annual dose control accounts for all doses from current and previous years' intake but adds future doses as they occur.
Annual dose determination is based on actual measurements on a worker such as lung counting and automatically accounts for variations among individuals, particle size and solubility, and inaccuracies inherent in air sampling.
Annual dose control would promote real gains in reduced worker exposure as a result of future ALARA efforts since the proof of ALARA efforts would be based on direct measurements on individuals.
Demonstration of ALARA under committed dose control would encourage licensees to attack and reduce the conservatism in the committed dose determination as the most fruitful method of reducing the measure of worker doses.
Thus, ALARA under annual dose control would lead to lower amounts of internally deposited radioactivity whereas ALARA under committed dose would tend to promote better air sampling and dose analysis.
Annual dose can be determined adequately for workers in the fuel fabrication industry and can be accomplished with today's technology.
Most fuel fabricators have a lung count program in place and results show that compliance with the proposed
, 20.205 would not be a hardship.
ATTACHMENT B DISCUSSION OF NRC STAFF OBJECTIONS TO ACRS RECOMMENDATION ON ANNUAL DOSE FLEXIBILITY 10/7/88 It is our understanding that the NRC staff objections were that the proposed Section 20.205:
- 1.
Was criticized by the U.S. Department of Energy.
- 2.
Would have been a significant departure from the established NRC policy of controlling the workplace not the worker.
- 3.
Would mortgage worker's future employability due to internal doses from a large intake allowable under an annual dose scheme.
Discussion of Item 1 It is true the U.S. DOE criticized Section 20.205, indeed they criticized the NRC's entire dose limitation system.
The DOE position, under the Presidential Guidance, is that committed dose should only be used for design and planning.
Any accounting of worker doses actually received should be based only on annual dose.
DOE is in the process of updating their guidance to reflect this program.
It appears the NRC staff misunderstood the sense of the DOE comments.
Discussion of Item 2 Proposed Section 20.205 would have required licensees to design new facilities to meet committed dose controls and would have required licensees to operate all facilities in such a manner "that any individual is unlikely to have an intake in excess of the ALI value [a committed dose control]" thus clearly providing for control of the workplace on the basis of committed dose.
Such controls for day-to-day operations would have to based on air sampling. After establishing workplace controls licensees would have the option of using an additional, separate control system to control the annual dose from present and previous years intakes of insoluble compounds.
Discussion of Item 3 As given in Section 20.205 an annual dose system would be effective and practical for the vast majority of the workforce exposed to persistent radionuclides.
Item 3 is a criticism based o~ hypothetical, improbable, or extremely infrequent cases.
Most workers in the commercial uranium fuel fabrication industry today are given lung counts routinely.
Results show that the great majority of workers have measured lung contents less than 50%
of the proposed 3 rem annual internal dose limit. Only a small fraction of workers in other nuclear industries receive external doses in excess of a few rems.
Therefore, it is highly unlikely that workers changing jobs from fuel fabrication to another nuclear industry would receive a combined dose exceeding 5 rems.
ATTACHMENT B - Continued 10/7/88 Rather than debate on the basis of hypothetical examples, the NRC staff originally drafting Section 20.205 suggested limiting the annual internal dose component to 3 rems, 60%. of the.5 rem annual total dose limit. It is believed that this small conservatism would limit the combined doses of workers changing jobs between industries for all cases of practical interest. Further, strict adoption of committed dose controls by the NRC does not make the probl em go away.
Workers with internal doses, whom DOE intends to manage on an annua1 dose basis, will, from time to time, change jobs to work for NRC licensees.
\\
COMBUSTION~ ENGINEERING Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission
- aa OCT 21 P 3 ~34 DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE;lll ~
0 ~
.J U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 e-/<..30~
Subject:
Proposed Revisions of 10CFR20 "Standards for Protection
~ainst Radiation"
Dear Sir:
In addition to its other activities, Combustion Engineering is a fabricator of low enrichment nuclear fuel.
We have participated in many of the nuclear industry reviews of the proposed revisions to Chapter 10 Code of Federal Regulations Part 20, "Standards for Protection Against Radiation".
Although we commend the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and its staff for its efforts to make the regulations compatible with the recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection and the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, as well as with the standards of other Federal agencies, we have reservations as to the proposed rule regarding the method of measurement of worker exposure.
Our most significant concern lies in the fact that the proposed regulations require adoption of strict committed dose control methods and do not allow the option of annual dose accounting,.
We believe the committed dose approach to be overly conservative and would unnecessarily require significant expenditures to modify fuel facilities and processes without providing a corresponding reduction in risk.
Allowing the option of annual dose accounting would encourage licensees to use technology, such as state-of-the-art lung
- counters, to measure actual lung content as a method of demonstrating compliance.
National scientific, professional, and governmental organizations have provided evidence that accounting for internal doses on an annual basis would provide equivalent overall protection of the worker when compared to committed dose.
Annual dose control would also promote advancement of "As Low As Reasonably Achievable" (ALARA) effectiveness by measuring the proof of ALARA doses by the direct measurement on individuals. Additionally, annual dose can be determined for workers ut il i zing existing technology.
0 CT 2 7 JWJ Power Systems Combustion Engineering, Inc.
1000 Prospect Hill Road Post Office Box 500 Windsor, Connecticut 06095-0500 (203) 688-191 1 Telex: 99297
LJ.5. NUCLEAR RF.GULA.TORY COMMISSION Dorr.n11>.JG & S[RVICE SECTION C ***:;f OF THE S(CR TARY OF THF. COMMISSION Document Statistics mark D; t~
,.~ Rc:,*i ~ (;d
-- -- --~~------------------------
Mr. Sameul J. Chilk Page 2 October 19, 1988 We understand the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has estimated that the provisions of the proposed rule controlling internal doses on a committed dose basis will cost the United States fuel fabrication industry approximately seventy-five (75) million dollars.
We believe that estimate is low, but even at that level, does not provide a corresponding health and safety benefit.
The additional expenses for facility and admi ni strati ve changes put an additional burden on the United States nuclear industry and will place United States fuel fabricators at a serious competitive disadvantage.
For these reasons, Combustion Engineering suggests that the annual dose provision, as originally recommended by the NRC in its proposed paragraph 20.205 of 10CFR20, be incorporated into the final rule and rcgul~tory guidance.
If we can provide the staff with any additional information on our position, please feel free to call on me or our Director of Nuclear Licensing, Mr. A. E. Scherer, at (203) 285-5200.
cc:
Lando W. Zech, Jr., Chairman Thomas M. Roberts, Commissioner Kenneth M. Carr, Commissioner Kenneth C. Rogers, Commissioner Very truly yours, COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC.
/;k~
Paul L. McG111 Vice President Nuclear Fuel
- aa OCT 18 AS '57 Nuclear Information and Resourr~e service 1424 16th Street, N.W., Suite 601, Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 328-000ZHJCKt -
A~t;r " r
- Samuel Chilk Secretary us Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
Dear Secretary Chilk:
October 14, 1988 JL,' i:.i I IJ11,..,
\\
OPOSED RULE I understand that the NRC staff will be presenting the commissioners with a proposed final rul e on Radiation Protection Standards (10 CFR Parts 19, 20 et al) on November 10, 1988 at 10 A.M. in the Commissioners' conference room in Bethesda. our organization has been carefully monitoring the radiation standards issue and would like to make a presentation to the Commissioners at that time. We have commented on the proposed rule and are quite certain we will have comments on the finalized version. We have requested a copy in advance to guarantee the pertinence of our statements to the Commission.
Please inform me if the date, time or location change. We appreciate the opportunity present our position on the radiation standards to the Commission.
Sincerely, Diane D'Arrigo Regulatory oversight Coordinator 7
dedicated to a sound non-nuclear energy policy.
u rr,:u, 10 Y COMMISSION
- l
~ ~! P.VICE SECTION f h E "£CRETARY
- (r1MM1s;10N 1-1.D
_J
GE Nuclear Energy 1----------------------- -----------~
l Erl-.
Bertram Wolfe Vice President and General Manager Mr. Lando W. Zech, Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
Dear Chairman Zech:
General Electric Company 175 Curtner Avenue, San Jose, CA 95125 408 925-6900 October 12, 1988 l' :Ni- (
'88 OCT 17
~OCKET }!UMBER DD
- J-D ""..
~F~3d[M~ -
With one significant exception, GE Nuclear Energy wishes to express its overall support for the currently proposed changes to the 10CFR20 Standards for Protection Against Radiation which we understand will be acted upon shortly by the Commission.
The revision appropriately incorporates the current international scientific guidance and more clearly establishes the risk basis of radiation protection limits.
GE would also like to commend the NRC for their openness in the development of the proposed changes.
Clearly this interaction with multiple groups has resulted in a much improved proposed rule over that published for comment January, 1986.
The net result will be an improvement in the radiation protection programs which benefit workers, the public, and US industries.
The one exception referred to above is the manner in which internal doses from persistent radionuclides are accounted for in determining worker dose histories and compliance with dose limits. The January, 1986, draft rule included a paragraph {20.205) that would allow licensees the option of making direct measurements to determine internal radiation doses to workers on an annual dose basis rather than on the 50 year committed dose basis.
The latest recommendation of the NRC staff is to remove the annual dose flexibility.
GE is concerned that such an action is an expensive, unnecessary, and over-conservative simplification and that the staff's recommendation does not adequately incorporate all of the guidance from cognizant international, national, and professional bodies.
The NRC Staff has estimated that the provisions of the proposed rule controlling internal doses on a committed dose basis will cost the US fuel fabrication industry $75M.
Industry estimates generally confirm this figure. Accounting for internal doses on an annual basis would provide overall equivalent protection at a small fraction of the committed dose control costs.
~Cknowledged by C
p N*J! l'AR ~CGUt.A'TORY COMMISSION rv* ***'G '!, ~ERVICE SECTION
,- c
- 1'~ SECRET ARY
_*J MMISSION
/ o~ 1.;i.- r-f'.___-
. -L.----
A
..,~,
,r '.-eel __..3 _ _ _ _
I,,
f<:;.[:;D_.S.,...---
p O {<_ I -_f}_r__~
7 G-The removal of the annual dose provisions by the NRC staff is incongruous with the current recommendations of scientific and professional bodies and the latest Presidential guidance.
See.
It is also inconsistent with the annual dose approach adopted by the Department of Energy in its occupational radiation protection standards (DOE 5480.11) scheduled to be implemented January 1, 1989.
Our discussions with NUMARC indicate that the staff's arguments to justify a strictly committed dose system are inaccurate or weak at best.
The NRC's ACRS at its June, 1988, meeting recognized the problem and recommended that the option of using annual dose for demonstration of compliance be restored.
Given the major improvements made in radiation exposure under the ALARA philosophy and the extensive expenditures made by industry to accomplish these, any unnecessary additional expenses could place U.S.
industry at a competitive disadvantage in the global marketplace, and unnecessarily raise costs to the electrical consumer.
GE Nuclear Energy respectfully requests that the Commission direct that the annual dose provision as originally recommended by NRC (20.205) and again recommended by ACRS in June, 1988, be incorporated into the final rule and regulatory guidance.
Sincerely,
~~
eg
ATTACHMENT 1 GUIDANCE ON THE USE OF ANNUAL AND COMMITTED DOSE National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement "A committed effective dose equivalent system should specifically not be used as a measure of an individual worker's exposure status." [Emphasis quoted from original.]
NCRP 84 - General Concepts for the Dosimetry of Internally Deposited Radionuclides, 1985, p. 38.
Radiation Protection Guidance to Federal Aqencies for Occupational Ex o~ure "The limiting values for control of the workplace" should be based on committed dose.
"The limiting values for assessed dose to individual workers" should be based on annual dose.
Recommendations approved by President Ronald Reagan, January 27, 1987, Federal Register 52, #17, p. 2822-2834.
Health Physics Society A 1984 HP Society position paper approved by the Board of Directors, endorsed committed dose for control of the workplace and annual dose for assessing worker dose from persistent radionuclides.
A 1985 HP Society full membership referendum supported the 1984 HP Board action.
Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards In June, 1988, recommended tr.at licensees be given the option to use annual effective dose equivalent in determining compliance to 10CFR2O.
ADVANCED NUCLEAR FUELS CORPORATION 2101 HORN RAPIDS ROAD, PO BOX 130, RICHLAND, WA 99352-0130 (509) 375-8100 TELEX. 15-2878
- as OCT 17 P 6 : 19 Engmeering & Production R. W. McCULLUGH Vice President October 11, 1988 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention:
Mr. L. W. Zech, Jr., Chairman Washington, DC 20555
Dear Mr. Zech:
Off :**::.,
OOC-Kti1 r,*i ** _..
t",IU NL'*
DOC1<Er NUMB~R PROPOSED RULE Advanced Nuclear Fuels Corporation (ANF) wishes to comment on proposed changes to the Standards for Protection Against Radiation (10CFR20) which it understands will be presented to the Commission for action shortly.
During the development of the proposed rule, the NRC staff interacted on numerous occasion with a large number of groups and individuals, including some with whom ANF has membership.
The net result was that, when published for public comment in January 1986, the proposed rule had already received vigorous scrutiny by interested parties and did represent a consensus within the framework of International Congress on Radiation Protection (ICRP) guidance and recommendations.
Of particular importance to ANF and others in the uranium fabrication industry was paragraph 20.205 of the January 1986 draft rule which allowed measurement of radionucl ides with long radioactive and biological half-1 ives on an annual dose basis rather than on a SO-year committed dose basis.
This paragraph (p 20.205) recognized that measurement of these nuclides in a pr act i cal manner so as to permit projections of committed effective dose equivalent with sufficient accuracy to demonstrate compliance with the proposed limits would be extremely difficult and might not be possible.
The latest recommendation of the NRC staff is to remove the annual dose fl exi bi l ity provided by paragraph 20. 205.
ANF is concerned that such action ignores the thought and effort given to provide a solution to this measurement problem by NRC staff, licensees, and cognizant national and professional bodies.
Of particular concern is that the removal of paragraph 20.205 is directly contrary to positions on the subject taken by knowledgeable regulatory and scientific bodies to whom the NRC should look for guidance.
Statements supporting this view have been excerpted from publ ished materia1 and are presented below.
The National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) states in Section 7 of NCRP Report No. 84, "A committed effective dose equivalent system should specifically not be used as a measure of an individual worker's exposure status.
Recognition of this restriction is essential if the system is not to be abused."
\\
U. ~ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIQt,,
DOCKETING & SERVl(r: ' E".. !0N OFFICE OF THE ! r OF THE co~*.... '
,Ostm rk Date
/ 0 - /,;;:i..- 8"'{
~np' s Rer
(
- "* c~*
3
/J..X-.::,.5,.
~DA.
Ar-~ X.,JN~ =-~,__
Mr. L. W. Zech October 11, 1988 Page 2 The Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency prepared a memorandum titled "Federal Radiation Protection Guidance for Occupational Exposure" which was approved by the President, was published in the Federal Register, Vol. 52, No. 17 and which contained the following statement, "Provisions should be made to assess annual dose equivalents due to radionuclides retained in the body from such intake for as long as they are significant for ensuring conformance with the limiting values specified in Recommendation 3."
In 1988 in a letter from Chairman W. Kerr to the Honorable Lando W. Zech,
Jr. the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards offered the following specific comment, "We agree that application of the committed effective dose equivalent is the proper approach to follow in planning for radiation protection and in controlling exposures from nuclear activities. However, the committed effective dose equivalent does not constitute a sufficient basis in itself for evaluating the potential health effects of radiation exposures in individuals.
Such evaluation should be based on estimates of the actual absorbed dose for the period of exposure appropriate to the individual case.
For this reason, in the case of radionuclides having long effective half-1 i ves, it is recommended that licensees be provided the option of using the annual effective dose equivalent in the determination of compliance with 10 CFR 20."
A Health Physics Society position paper in 1984 endorsed committed dose for control of the work place and annual dose for assessing worker dose from persistent radionuclides.
One other government agency also establishes radiation protection regulations for the nuclear work place and worker, the Department of Energy (DOE).
The DOE in its latest (April 5, 1988) draft of Order DOE 5480.11 on the subject of Radiation Protection for Occupational Workers states, "The annual effective dose equivalent to an individual shall be determined by summing the annual effectivE dose equivalent from internally deposited radionucl ides and... "
It is difficult to understand how two government agencies receiving guidance from identical sources can arrive at such different regulations.
The fact that DOE must practically apply these regulations to its own facilities and the NRC does not, might account for the difference.
The provisions of the proposed rule requiring internal doses to be determined on a committed dose basis has been estimated by the NRC staff to cost the U.S.
fuel fabrication industry $75 million.
This estimate is comparable to industry estimates.
Accounting for internal dose on an annual basis would cost a small fraction of that amount with no loss in worker protection.
~--------------- -- -
Mr. L. W. Zech October 11, 1988 Page 3 The ANF position on the proposed regulation is consistent with those positions mentioned above.
The 50 year committed effective dose equivalent should be used to control internal exposure in the work place but annual effective dose equivalent should be used to record actual internal doses which, in turn, should be compared against annual dose l imits.
The NRC staff position does not reflect the position of those to whom it is supposed to look for guidance, it is in opposition to other government agency regulations on the same subject, it is extremely costly with no measurable benefit and is fraught with problems with respect to pr act i cal application.
For these reasons, ANF requests that the Commission direct the staff to incorporate the annual dose provision, as originally stated in paragraph 20.205, into the final rule.
We appreciate your time and attention to these comments and hope that they have been helpful.
RWM: jrs cc:
Kenneth M. Carr Thomas M. Roberts Sincerely,
/(}v-'1ftl~
R. W. McCullugh, Vice President Engineering and Production Kenneth Rogers L_ __
_J
- ,
- ::PR-1q,&4,c8~efal (5/J F£ '51tJ'12) ~
EE]Nuclear
- LJCl'.ir ~
~P.oato lUli PR -ci_
{5!F£
~ 20 1907 GPU NucfiQQ<c~ratlon Post Offlc~480 Route 441 South
(
Mu;ta!et~Q., Penns1J.vania 17057-0191 71~CM4-IJ52121 1-'4 :S?
TELEX 84-2386 Secretary of the Conmission
,u-,.s., Nuclear Reti-Ulatory Conmission Attn:
Docketing and Service Branch Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Sir:
Writer's Direct Dial Number:
(117) 948-8438 October 17, 1986 Attached you will find conments on proposed rule 10 CFR Parts 19, 20, 30, 31, 32, 34, 40, 50, 61, and 70 which appeared in 51FR 1092 and supplemental information contained in 51FR 30870.
GML/pat attachment Sincere 1 y, 411cL~~
Gordon M. Lodde Consulting Radiological Engineer GPU Nuclear Corporation GPU Nuclear Corporation is a subsidiary of the General Public Utilities Corporation
COMMENTS ON PROPOSED RULE 10 CFR PARTS 19. 20, 30. 31, 32. 34. 40. 50, 61 ANO 70 STANDARDS FOR PROTECTION AGAINST RADIATION: REPUBLICATION.
AND AVAILABLITY OF SUPPLE~ENfAL INFORMATION- (SlFR 1092 and 51FR 30870)
GENERAL COMMENT
S t
I consider that the Nuclear Regulatory Eonmission (NRC) radiation protection
- regulations should reflect the *1atest reconmendations/findings of the scientific conmunity.
Because of the long time period since ih~ present regulations were de~eloped and published, considerable data has been made available by the scientific conmunity that has been reviewed by the* NRC in prep~ring this proposed revision.. However, the proposed changes in this rule.
will not significantly alter most ot the ba~ic ~adi~tion prot~ctfon principles and.limits th*t have been u~ilized fo~ mariy ye~rs.
The proposed fevi~ion of 10 CFR 20 -will do littl~ to impr~ve radi~tio~ protettion standards ~nd reduce individual or collective doses to workers in the nuclear industry. :This is
- .due to the fact that the majority of changes in the proposed revision deals w1th internal dose (i.e.,* changes in derived air concentration values, methods for calculating target organ doses, organ dose limits, sunmation of internal and external doses; etc~) which constitutes a very smali, if not insignificant, fraction of total dose for the nuc1ear utility worke~.
- Although I consider that scienti.fically up-to-date regulations are desirable, the proposed rule does not appear to be cost~beneficial at the present time.
The level of protection to the worker will not c.hange drasticalJY~- I consider*
- 0.,..
0521L
that there are possible-ways in which implementation of scientific updates could be accomplished in a less costly manner while still maintaining the principles inherent in the ICRP, ICRU and NCRP reconrnendations.
I recommend that the NRC staff can accomplish its goal - to ensure that radiation protection is adequate and expendable when-judged by good protection practices and contemporary-standards - by reviewing the existing regulations for consistency with the ICRP and NCRP recommendations and publish this r~view as the revised basis for the regulations.* When necessary to incorporate specific scientific updates, individual rulemaking procedures are more desirable.
Each limited scope rulemaking limited to few changes can more effectively focus on the issues needing improvement.
The proposed rule provides many new changes which will be extremely costly, and no data has been made available that demonstrates that these costs would result in reduction of radiation exposure to either the public or to radiati~n workers.
AIF/NESP-030, "Dosimetry and Recordkeeping Implications of the Proposed Revi~ions to 10 CFR 20," is a technical study of the cost aspects of the occupational dosimetry and recordkeeping aspects of the proposed revision to Part 20 published by the Alf's National Environmental Studies Project.
The total implementation costs estimated in this study exceed those estimated by the NRC staff.
All NRC licensees will incur many unnecessary costs to implement these proposed changes.
Examples of costs which will be incurred include rewriting, publishing and implementing operations, training, radwaste, radiological
- l -
0521L
control, chemistry, dosimetry and administrative procedures.
In addition to.
extensive procedure changes, there will be major training and qualification costs and software changes to dosimetry records management systems.
The one area which I consider would improve radiation protection for workers would be to establish a lifetime dose-equivalent limit. It is well recognized
-that exposure to individuals at the occupational limit, either the existing or proposed, may result in lifetime risks which approach those in less safe industries.
The annual dose-equivalent limit of five (5} rem/year (5~
mSv/year} is adequate for purposes of controlling radiation protection programs; however, a lifetime dose-equivalent limit should be considered to assure that the overall radiation risk at occupational levels is comparable to other safe occupations.
I reco11111e-nd that the NRC consider a regulation which would limit an individual's accumulated dose equivalent to a level not to exceed his/her age times one (l} rem (10 mSv}.
Because of the proposed rule's complexity and the need for a uniform interpretation of its content, I recommend that the NRC hold regional public hearings that would provide the opportunity to review some of the more complex provisions in greater detail. Such a hearirig would also be desirable because of the rule's broad app.lication to the medical, industrial, and academic field, and regulatory programs of the NRC agreement states. Such hearings would provide this broad group with the opportunity to air some of the issues which will be facing them. 0521L
I COMMENTS ON SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION SECTION OF PROPOSED RULE
- 1.
Su11111ary - Page i092 The NRC.su11111ary statement acknowledges that the.reductions in the doses received by workers as a result of the-prop*osed rule do not justify a Part 20 revision. It also states that a favorable ratio between estimated cost of implementing the revised rule and expected collective dose savings exists. Support for this statemen~ relative to a favorable ratio is n6t provided in the proposed rule. Further, information developed by the AIF through a NESP study (AIF/NESP-030) indicates relatively high
-implementation and operational costs for the proposed revision with little or no apparent dose reduction.
The principal justification for revising the present Part 20 regulations is to* incorporate the latest scientific
- data available on the effects of low-level radiation. This point is also stated in the proposed rule.
I consider that the latest scientific d~ta could.be rev.iewed for consisiency with the existing 10 CFR. 20~ This data review could.be
- .. published as a separate document and those sections of 10 CFR 20 specifically requiring revision*to incorporate latest scientific updated data ~ould be addressed in specific, limited rulemaking actions. Such actions would focus attention on specific issues and not dilute the scientific community with acti.ons that are unnecessary.
- 2.
IX - Radiation Protection Programs - Page 1103
- The NRC should be extremely selective in the ~ay that the requirements for
. ridiation protection programs are approached in the proposed rule so that - 0521 L.
- -----~---------------------------
there remains some latitude for the application bf profes~ional health physics and industry standard judgment._ Some of the requirements in the propbsed r~le (20.102) are not entirely consistent with the preliminary statement since the rule specifies what the programs should include, including reporting requ1rements.
Under the revision, a radiation protection plan would require, rather than merely exhort, all ltcensees to incorporate ALARA and that the. ALARA effort be subject to periodi_c management review.
The potential switch from reco111T1endation to requirement, therefore, places stronger demands on management *to examine and verify the program features, records, and investigative levels. Licensees would be required to review ciicumstances which caused doses iri excess of investigative levels in which records must be maintained of ALARA actions.
In short, there would.
be a significant increase in manpower/cost in the administration of ALARA without any *obvious improvement in the quality of an e~isting ALARA
. program.
I reco111T1end the NRC generate adciitional regulatory guides to address implementation of ALARA_or revise the existing regulatory guides to be more specific which are commensurate with the various licensee's program.
I also consider it necessary that the~e regulatory guides, in lieu of
- regulation changes, be issued for review and comment prior to any hearings held on Part 20, and finalized prior to implementation of a final rule.
- 3.
X - Units ~nd Conversion Factor~ - Page 1104 I agree that a duai system of radi~tion units is an appropr\\ate compromise between t_he many licensees who prefer the conventional units, and the scientific and academic community which are comfortable with the SI
..: 4 -
052ll
uni~s.
Because of the extremely large number of workers in the nuclear power industry and the continuing controversial nature of radiation i~ the public arena~ continued use of con~entional uriits such as rems and curies is needed, whereas even a near-term conversion to the SI system is subject to considerable misunderstanding, and perhaps even mistrust.
This section also includes a discussion of neutron quality factors which are detailed in Table 2 of the proposed rule.
I understand that ICRP and ICRU have recorrmended new neutron quality factors~ whereas NRC i~ using older.values. Also, there *is ongoing discussion within the NCRP relative to this question. Although the NRC staff is undoubtedly cognizant of this discussion, it should be noted that Table 2 would lik~ly change in the foreseeable future.
- 4.
XI - Standards for Occupational Exposure of Individuals - Page 1104
- Dose Limits The rationale for maintaining the ext_ernal quarterly dose limit of three*
(3) re~ (30 mSv} appears specious. The.incremental risk of five (5) rem (50 mSv}in a quarter rather than three is not significant to a worker's health~ It does add, however, another inconsistency with "current scientific data".
In addition, it complicates recordkeep~ng requirements.. The noti6n that transient workers will receive less protection by having quarterly limits is incorrect.
The NRC should be consistent with the ICRP recommendations in this area and with the NRC 1s 052ll
recommendation for internal doses in 20.204.
Since reporting is not required if this level is_ exceeded, the NRC must agree it is a superfluou~
limit.
By leaving the 3 rem/quarter (30 mS~/quarter) limit in the proposed regulation, the NRC implies a.risk greater than that which exists.
Combined Exterrial arid Interrial Doses One of the requirements of most concern appearirig in the proposed rule relates to the summation of externaJ and internal dose. While I consider it necessary to know an individual's total dose equivalent, our experience has been that the internal dose to.workers is minimal i~ our nuclear plants.
I consider this potentially costly provision does not add to the protection of workers.*
- 5.
XIII - Planned Special Exposures - Page 1111 I support NRC's.use of the planned special exposure provision if the existing dose averaging provision is eliminated. However, again the NRC diverges from the recommendations of ICRP in this area. It would seem more appropriate to follow ICRP's recommendation.
The. overall incremental detrime~t to a worker receiving the dose should be justified bi the need for the planned special exposure, and the use of ICRP limit of 10 rem (100 mSv) for a single event and 25 rem (250 mSv) in a lifetime are.reasonable limits.
- 6.
- XIV - Overe~posures - Page 1111 I consider the terminology "overexposures" to be misleading, as it implies, absent medical advice to the contrary, health detrtment that normally is not warranted.. I reconvnend that the term "Exposures in Excess of Regulatory Limits" be substituted for ~overexposures"..
0521L I
. I I
- 7.
XVII - Standards for Individuals in the General Public - Page 1112 The dose-equivalent limit should be 0.5 rem/year (5 mSv/year) as stated.
. However, those licensees subject to the provi~ions of 40 CFR Part 19d, "Environmental Radiation Prote2tio~ Standards for Nucle~r Power 0perations,*i should need only comply w-it those standards, or 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I, standards.
The need to demonstrate compliance with the reference level, 0.100 rem/year (l mSv/year), should be evidenced by compliance with.the above regulations.
- 8.
XVIII - De Minimis Level and Collective Dose Evaluation - Page 1113 I believe that a de minimis or "below regulatory concern" concept is required in the field of radiation protection to avoid the unnecessary expenditure of resources for reducing trivial or insignificant risks; The NRC is to be convnended for.developing this concept in the proposed revision. The use of al mrem/year (0.01 mSv/year) cutoff level for collective dose ~alculations provides a technically sound procedure fof avoidin~ the computation of meaningless collective ~oses over long-time periods.
tn addition, h6wever, there is still a real need for indi~idual
- dose limits, "below regulatory concern," thaf can be applied to individuals that may be in locations in the pro~imity of small radiation sou~ces to which exposures could result in t~ivial risks.
A limit such as 10 mrem/year (0.1 mSv/year) applied on a site-specific and case-specific basis in a realist~c situation would appear to off*r a mbre a~propriate approach to this problem.
EPA is currently developing a dose level for low-lev*l radioactive wastes "below regulatory concern". This would seem to be a suitable time to determine if EPA's.efforts in this area could be utilized to determine a similar individual dose limit for
- 7 052ll
Part 20.
Specific needs related to this problem also include surface contamination limits and volumetric concentration limits. 10 CFR Part 30 Schedule A and B_have had provisions for exemptions in these areas.
Pursuit of appropriate generic de minimis or "below regulatory concern 11 provisions with s~itable administrative procedures would eliminate much of the present unnecessary regulatory effort and still maintain the public health and safety. This issue is an example of an issue that should be handled with a separate rulemaking procedure and subject to hearings to review all sides of the issue. *
- 9.
XXVIII - Implementation - Page 1118 If the NRCdecides to go forward with these sweeping changes, I consider that a five~year implementation period would be needed because of the c6mplexity of the rule. However, it may be useful to consider phasing in selected segments of the*rule at varying times preceded by appropriate regional workshops dis~ussing the implementation.. There would be
.advantages from both a licensee and a regulatory standpoint that certain
- parts b~ implemented at the same time.
Gradual phasing at the licensee's discretion will lead to confusion.
If this phased approach is considered favorably by the NRC, I wi 11 review the rule and suggest parts of the rule.that I believe are appropriate for this procedure.
In this connection, I re-emphasize the importance of the need for regulatory guides to understand the staff's inte~pr~tation of their pl~nned implementa.tio,n of the final rule.
8 -
0521L
- 10.
XXXV - Regulatory Analysis.- Page 1120 Table 5 on Page 1121 indicates that the benefits of the revision include reduction of doses to workers and the public.. I consider that there should be. an eval_uation and substantiation of these benefits since my experience and knowledge does not support the same dose reduction benefits.
For example, a concernexpressed in the t'able is that several hundred workers each year receive doses of 5 rem (50 mSv) or morE!.
In 1984 and 1985 there.were no workers in nuclear power plants that received greater than 5 rem/year (50 mSv/year).
Table 5 also expresses concern that there is a substantial risk from 50 years of external exposure at 5 rem/year (50 mSv/year).
However, this proposed rulemaking does not address a lifetime dose limit, a significant.regulatory action which could reduce this risk. Here is another example of an issue which should be the subject of a separate rulemaking and subject to hearings to review all sides -of this issue.
- 11.
XXXVIII Page 1122 As stated in 51 *FR 30870 the backfit rule does a~ply to the prtiposed rule for nuclear power plant applications because of the broad changes which would be made, particularly in the recordkeeping aspects.
As shown in Table 6, Page 1121, even by the staff's analysis, there are significant cost implications to implementing this rule. If one ~pplies the NRC's Appendix I ad hoc value of $1,000 per person-rem* ($100,000 per _
_ person-Sv), there would need to be a savings of 33,000 person-rem (330 person-Sv) initially and a ~ontinuing saving of 7,800 person-rem/year (78 person-Sv/year) to justify these sweeping changes. 0521 L.
- 12.
The Supplementary Information section of this proposed rulemaking should follow through the total rulemaking process to the publication of the final rule. The basis used for establishing the final rule should be continually available to licensees as well as the NRC staff to ensure proper interpretation of the rule.
COMMENTS ON MAIN BODY OF PROPOSED RULE
- 1. 20.3 -
11 Dose Terms 11
- (4)(i) - Deep Dose Eguival~nt - Page 1125 The definitions section should define very specifically whole body dose vs. extremity dose from the standpoint of where extremi~y dose ends and whole body starts. It is reconvnended that the ICRP*method be used.
In practice, this delineation usually takes place ~t the elbow and the knee. It may also be advisable to state density thickness which eliminates the need to consider density of the tissue.
(7) -
110ccupation Dose 11 Page 1125 The phrase, 11or other person 11, should be defined.
- 2.
Dose Control Terms C.
20.3(1) - ALARA - Page 1126 Eliminate the word 11every 11 in the third line and substitute "a 11 to*
make this concept clearly consistent with the stated objective of not requiring optimization. 052ll
- 3.
20.4(b)(4) and 20.4(c) - Units of Radiation Dose - Page 1127 The ICRP 1985 recommendation that Q for fast neutrons be increased from 10 to 20 should be included in this section.
In Table 2, Q should be identified as Q to designate that the quality factor is a mean or average value.
- 4. 20.6 - Interpretations - Page 1129 It is difficult, if not impossible, to obtain interpretation on NRC regulatory decisions when issued.
The regulations should include a provision whereby significant interpretations of rules should be published or otherwise readily obtained by licensees from the NRC.
- 5. 20.102 - As Low as is Reasonably Achievable Levels of Exposure - Page 1130
- 6.
In order for the ALARA provisions to be non-prescriptive, it:is recommended that 20.102 (a)(l), 20.102(a)(2), 20.102(a)(3) and 20.102(a)(4) be deleted. These kinds of requirements could more suitably be included in general guidance such as regulatory guides.
My re*asoning is given in comment #2 of my Supplementary Information comments.
20.201 - Occupational Dose Limits for Adults - Page 1130 See my General Comment on adding a lifetime dose limit and my comment #3 deleting 3 rem/quarter (30 mSv/quarter) requirement.*
This is an area where a Regulatory Guide is needed in order to understand fully the intent of the regulations.
One of the complicating factors involves the exposure of workers to partial 0521L
body doses,* such as head or upper body, but not other parts of t.he body.
I consider that flexibility is needed so that the health physicist can select.the best method of combining these non-uniform doses that is not overly conservative. This section of th~ rule also is not clear whether the~e is an implied quarterly limit on.
extremities *. Fpr example, it should be rioted that external deep dose equivalent can be the ID.!:fil!!. (mSv) dose to the organ or tissue under consideration. This may be useful in cases of partial body exposure.
I recommend that Sections 20.201 (a)(2) and 20.201 (b) be deleted.
As.
stated in my comments on the Supplementary Information, since there is no reporting or further constraint of dose below the annual limit, there ap~ears to be no rationale for retaining these sections.
- In 20.201(~)(3)(ii). t.he NRC proposes to use 10 cm 2 for
- calculating skin doses rather than the 100 cm 2 recommended by ICRP.
It is recommended that the ICRP value of 100 cm 2 be used for recordable skin doses for routine monitoring.
However, during accidents or suspected accidents, the dose estimate should be made of the average dose equivalent over l cm 2 in the region of th~
highest dose equivalent.
- 7.
20.202 - Compliance with Requirements for Summation of External and Internal Doses - Page 1130 This is an area where I agree with the principle of summing internal and external doses, but I believe that this requirement is unnecessarily burdensome.
Nuclear power plant operations as well as some other.
0521 L.
radiation facilities have a documented experience of extremely low internal doses.
In purely scientific terms, the proposal for sunming external and internal dose has merit.
In practical terms, however, this change is almost imperceptible when it is realized that the average nuclear utility radiation worker received an annual external dose of about 600 mrem (6 mSv) with less than 10 mrem (0.1 mSv) internal whole body dose.
Administrative exposure limits (2 MPC-hrs/day; 10 MPC-hrs/week), bioassay program (wh-ole body count action levels for*
nuclides) and tracking of assigned MPC-hours provides sufficient-control of internal uptake.
The extensive effort needed to sum internal and external dose is difficult to justify for the marginal improvement in assessing radiation dose for nuclear utility workers.
The proposed revision will unquestionably have a major impact on nuclear fuel fabricating licensees. I rec.onmend that this section be revised.
- 8.
20203 - Further Provisions - External Exposure - Page 1131
. 20204 - Further Provisions - Internal Exposure - Page 1131 These sections would benefit if they were combined for clarity.
Inclusion of these in the Statement of Considerations or in the Supplementary Information sec ti on might be appropriate.
Insertion of the word "or" between (1) and (2) and (2) and (3) of 20.204(a) would help clarify this statement.
Rewording 20.204(d) to read, "DAC and/or ALI fractions", would clarify this statement. 0521L
- 9.
20.206 - Planned Special Exposures - Page 1132 I support inclusion of this concept. This section should clearly indicate whether it applies to extremities, skin of whole body, etc., consistent with the categories in 20.20l(a).
In addition, the planned special exposure should be consistent with the ICRP recommendations; i.e., 10 rem (100 Sv) for a single event and 25 rem (250 mSv) in a lifetime..Section 20.206(8) should be changed to reflect th~t planned special exposures need be documented only if they exceed the appropriate annual effective dose-equivale~t limit.
- 10.
20.208 - Dose to An Embryo/Fetus - Page 1132 Licensees can control the work assignments of the declared pregnant*
woman.
By recognizing that dosimetry is performed on the woman, the regulation~ have both addressed th~ scientific need to control dose to the embryo/fetus, as well as recognized the practical problem of doing so; i.e., controlling exposure to the declared pregnant*
woman.
I reconvnend that this section be retitled, "Dose to a Declared Preg~ant Wo~an".
Change the first sentence of Section 20.208(a) to read:
"Except as noted in paragraph (c) of this secti-0n, a licensee
- shall ensure that the effective dose equivalent to an embryo/fetus is controlled by ensuring that the occupational exposure of a declared pregnant woman does not exceed 0.5 rem (5 mSv) during her entire pregnancy.
The effective dose equivalent for a declared pregnant woman shall not exceed the.sum of: 0521L
(1)
The deep dose equivalent; and (2). In the absence of age~specific transport parameters for the radionuclides involved, t~o times *ttie convnitted effective dose equivalent that would otherwise be assessed due to intake of radionuclides.
- Delete 20.208{b).
The last senteric~ in (b)(2) should be ~dded to footnote (2).
In 20.208{c), change "embryo/fetus" to "declared pregnant woman" each time it appears.
- 11. 20.301 - Dose Limits for Individual Members of the Public - Page 1133
- 20.301(a) - The NRC specifically excludes several sources of exposure_.
to the public in the proposed rule. With all the recent concerns on transportation of radioactive materials through urban areas, it would be prudent for the NRt to also ex~lude exposure t~ the public from radioactive maierials in trarisit. All of these materials are packaged and labeled in accordance with 10 CFR 71 and 49 CFR.
If exposure from these materials in transit were.not excluded, the calculation of their exposure contribution to the public would be difficult. This contribution would be expected to be small.
A nuclear power plant licensee could also demonstrate compliance with this section by being ii compliance with 10 CFR 50 Appendix I-or 40 CFR 190. A new paragraph should be added to this section with wording similar to 20.102(b).
- 15.:..
052ll
20.30l(c) should be deleted~ This requirement is redundant with the requirements of 20.1302.
Section 20.1302 provides the necessary protection against ratcheting individual licen~ees.
- 12. 20.303 - Reference Levels - Page 1133 Section 20.303(e) ~hould be changed to reflect wcirding similar to that in Section 20.102(b); i.e., meeting Aµpendix I should demonstrate compliance with 20.303, not be in addition to-the requirements of 20.303.
- 13.
20.304 - Collective Dos~ Evaluations - Page 1133 I recommend that an individual dose limit "below regulatory concern" of 10 mrem/year (0.1 mSv/year) 'should be adopted in this section. See my comment #8 in the Supplementary Information section of these comments.*
- 14.
20.102 - Use of Other Controls - Page 1134
~
lnclude a provision that if workers could be exposed*to greater than 1 DAC, then total ALARA could be used as a coritrol. This type of provision has been included in EPA 1s proposed oc~upational radiation protection guidance.
The dose referred to in this section* should be the committe~ dose equivalent and the deep dose equivalent.
The following wording is suggested to be included at the end of the last sentence:
"to make the committed effective dose ALARAn..
0521 L
- 15. 20.703 - Use of Individual Respiratory Pro.tective Equipment - Page 1135 Section 20.703(a)(l) should be changed to read:
"The licensee shall select ~espirator~ protection equipment that provides a total dose (~ffective tlose equivalent from external.
radiation plus committed effective dose equivalent from inhaled material) which is ALARA.. Where it. is consistent with the minimization of total dose, selection of respiratory protection equipment.should provide a ~rotection factor (see Appendix A of this part) greater than the factor by which average concentrations of ractioactive materials are expected to exceed the values specified in.
Table 1, Column 3, of Appendix B of this part.
(In an incident or emergenc.Y situation, the licensee should select the best' respiratory*
- equipment available at the facilit~ which will minimize the ~otal dose of the response individuals-involved, even tho~gh the protection facto~ of. the equip~ent select~d may not r~duce the activity to levels below 1 DAC.)
The concentrati_on of radioactive material i~ the air that is inhaled when respirators are worn may be initially estimated by dividing the ambient co_ncentration by the protection factor.
If the exposure is later found to be greater or.
less than.estimated, th_e corrected value shall be used."
20.703(a)C2)iii - should be ~ewritten.
- * "Fiel_d checking of respirators for operability.immediately prior to each use;" 0521 l
- 16.
20.704 - Further Restrictions - Page 1135 This section should be deleted.
The requirement is redundant with the requirements of Section 20.1302.
Section 20.1302 provides the necessary protection against ratcheting individual licensees.
- 17.
20.802 ~ Control of Material Not in Storage - Page 1135 The requirements of this section are vague and open to extensive interpretatiori. Constant surveillance may not be necessary.
Material may be secure but not in storage. This section ne_eds revision to clarify what is meant.
This section should include an exemption if the material is packaged and labeled according to the Department of Transportation regulations.
- 18. 20.902(a) and (b) - Posting Requirements - Page 1135 The word "DANGER" should be r~stricted to the case of a situation hazardous to life; i.e., 20.902(c).
Restricting such language to those areas for which there is special peril wi*11 more likely call attention to the area.
- 19.
20.903 - Exceptions to Posting Requirements - Page 1136 The existing 20.204(d) contains an exemption for posting areas as a high radiation area if the radiation field is caused by packages that are labeled and marked in accordance with DOT re~ulations.
The proposed 20.903 does not contain that exemption, and it should.
' 0521L
- 20.
- 20.904 - Labeling Containers - Page 1136
- 21.
This section should indicate that licensed material and packaging*
within posted areas do not necessarily need to be labeled individually...
Specification of radionuclid*e identity may not always be practical.
The present 10 CFR 20 covers this situation adequately.*
20.905 - Procedures for Picking Up, Receiving, and Opening Packages -
Page 1136 I recominend that the provision in the current 10 CFR 20, which as worked satisfactorily, be used in this section. For example, the.
inclusion of the."three-hourpackage receipt surveys" from the beginning of the next working day *is unduly restrictive when radioactive material may be. received after normal working hours, as is true in the hospital environment.
- 22.
20.1005 - Disposal of Specific Wastes - Page 1137 This is a place in the regulations where inclusion of a "below regulatory concern" provision for the disposal of potentially contaminated materials would be extremely beneficial. - 0521 (*
- 23.
20.1104 - Determination of Prior Occupation Dose - Page 1137 As discussed in prior comments, I consider that it is prudent to.
establish a lifetime dose limit for workers.
If such a limit is e~tablished, this section shriuld be modified to reflect that requirement.
Some of the information in 20.1104(a) is procedural and the NRC may wish to consider this type of. information in guidance.
It is suggest~d that 20.1104(d) be changed to say that the license~
"may" obtain reports.
For periods duiing which monitoring is not required, the occupational dose may be zero. This should be reflected in 20.1104(d).
20.1104(d) requires a licensee to obtain written follow-up verification rif dose d~ta re~eived via telephone, telegram, or electronic media.
This should only be required for data received via telephone. Telegrams and telecQpies are a* 11hard copy 11 record, and as such, do not require additional verificatiori.
- The verification requirement for electronic media would severely reduce the effectiveness of the Nuclear Employee Data System (NEDS). 0521 L.
J
Accepting a Form-4 that is countersigned by an official of an employing company should reli~ve the licensee of the responsibility of obtaining occupational dose data from previous employers on the assumption that a company official would only sign a Form-4 if the records were in that company's possession.
- 24.
20.1109 - Form of Records - Page 1139 The nuclear industry has, from*time to time, indicated to the NRC staff that the legal aspects of electronic data storage and-transmission be clearly established by regulation.
I recommend that appropriate sections of this revision address this issue.
In addition, other types of record storage should be addressed.
- 25.
20.1201 - Reports of Theft or Loss of Licensed Material - Page 1139 The way in which "lost packages" are defined in the proposed rule may inundate NRC with "lost package" reports.
Some appropriate grace period is needed to account for packages that are misplaced rather than actually lost. Existing informal agreements with NRC regional offices have proven to be effective.
- 26.
20.1202 - Notification of Incidents - Page 1139 The NRC should provide an exclusion to both the immediate and 24-hour notification requirements for declared emergencies at nuclear power plants.
Any emergency in which condition~ exist such that the events in 20.1202 are a realistic possibility will include 0521L
~
real-time involvement onsite by NRC staff. Stopping emergency activities to make the Part 20 reports during an emergency is contrary to the philosophy behind emergency preparedness.
- 27.
20.1204 - Reports of Planned Special Exposures - Page 1140 I recormiend that the report be submitted within 30 days to be consistent with other similar reporting requirements.
- 28.
20.1205 - Reports of Exceeding Reference Level - Page 1140 I do not believe that a special report should be required for exceeding the reference level of 0.1 rem/year (1 mSv/year) since it can be reviewed by regional inspection personnel and, in the case of power reactors, by the resident inspector.
- 29.
20.1207 - Reports of Personnel Monitoring on Termination of Employment or Work - Page 1141 The benefit of this requirement shoUld be reviewed.
Does it benefit workers, licensees or the NRC?
This is a subject that should be aired at hearings on these regulations.* 0521L
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Secretary Washington D.C. 20555 Attention: Docketing Section Part 20 Rulemaking Change In Allowable Radiation Dose
.86 iJO(;K rL:
USNRC OCT 15 P3 :44 We strongly oppose the proposed raising of the allowable radiation dose.
Radiation has been determined to have a no threshold effect.
In other words no dose is completely safe.
The allowable dose rate was based on the state of knowledge regarding radiation at the time it was put in effect. Since that time our knowledge of radiation effects has grown showing even that level is not totally safe. Relaxing these limits is definitely not warrented.
Use of Englands permissable radiation limits, solely for reasons of consistancy, therefore is also unsupportable.
Several other countries have much stricter levels. Why not use them as a yardstick instead. Please do not relax the permissable radiation limit.
Sincerely,
D.S.
UC DOC 0
Postmark Copiei Add'! C S.,.cial D
nucleaJL ~eg.u.la;tolllJ, Cofl1.lll,,,t,d,a~on G?f.,lce o,t the Seueta.JLJ;,
/JJa.4/un.~on, D. C., 20555 RUen.-tlon: Docle~ Se~on P~ 20 RulemaUn.g.
~en.Uem.en:
303 W. 9th S-Vlee.t.
DOCKETED IJ:;NRC l'oJvt. f.l.n.q,eu.-a, 'JJ(l,6h.
Gctobell 10, 1986
.86 OCT 15 P3 :42
!Jou a/Le coru,emp,laM..n.g.,ln, lle.lea.4"'-IUJ mo/le oj.. -aome.ty,pe;-4 o,t llad,ia.Uon ~o the a,tm,04p/ie1Le, tJJMch !JOU cla,,,i..m,. w-lLl n.o.t ha.Jun. the pop,u..)..at,i.on.
H.ow do IJ,OU tn.ow.tha.t? Me IJ,OU a,-040,lu,,tell.J 4Ulle?
H.ow do IJ,OU luiow who.A:. 1.11,i.,l.l hap.pen manlJ, tJ,ealv.> "'down..l:h.tt /f..oad"?
m(Ujhe, a.t ~
po~, U doe.4 n.o.t con.celln. iou.
Rllen.'.t..t.1 ei a,ll ex-p.elvi.m.en.-t.4??
gou, who Uve and wo/f..k /,alt Q).J}a.tJ,,tllom -the p,lace,a iou p,lan..to exp.o-ae.t.o mu.ch. h.A..qhell Jt.ad~on u.ve.l.4, a/f..en.'.t a,(Aa.U.
Wau.Ld. iou lle4-ld.e n.eaJL 4uch an. a/lea all wo.Jtk. ~
-lUch a p,lace?
gou wouLd p1tobabl..JJ, afl.4Well tµ.4, k.n.ow-lruj tu.J...l weU iou a/Le -aate whelle !JOU a.Ile.
1-an.',t thelle en.aw;h -l~k.n.e,a,a and ~elUJ, wh,lch a eel.Lil na,t.~,
malJ,be, becau,ae ot aLl,the cheuc.a.ld added.to the /ood,aup.p.lif and aLl -the p.oUuA:.a.n..t,a now 1t..e,lea4ed -ln.ta -the a.-tm.o,aphe.11.e., w-U.h.ou.,t e.x:-
p.o4~<J, -the p.op~on. ~o molle??
1 beUeve U u velllJ, que.4Uon.-
ab.le a.t. ~
.t-i.m.e.
WhlJ,,ahou.l..d. iou.tale.the wo/f..d at a (Jltaup a
,ac-len.t.u.t.4 head-qUalL:te..ud ~ the Un.,U,ed X-i,n-<:;,dom?
Do -t.helf ILe c.a,lle who.A:. hap.peM.t.o U4?
11.U nuc.leaA.,f.a.e,,l,ll,t,i...e4 4hou.ld be abandoned llC~--the,aoon.ell
-the beUell, be/,olt.e a,l,l man.k.A..rui u w.lp.ed Pt,om the /ace o.f. -the eall.t.h.
Wha.t. M.be~ un.cavelled a.t. H.an,to1t.d -l4 veJUJ, 4c.a)t.LJ,! !
The Dep.all-tm.enA:. ot UlelL<J-IJ, wan..t.4.to bUILlf M.q.h.leve.l nuc..leaJL wa-a.te-6 the/le a,l,ao.
1 4<1.IJ, no, nc a,J;~ nc! ! !
lJJha.t.J..eq.a.ci alLe we.lea.v-lttq, OUIL c:.h,,,llcl.,i-3,n?
fl wollld 40 paUu.tea w-U.h. llad~a~VUlf -t.ha,;t thetJ-won'.t be ahle.,;j..unct,,l,rJn Oil even.t.o Uve.
On the otheJl hand, matµie,the.Ile won' t. be an.If hU/1?,(J;Jl/.J, ~
Oil veg.et,a.t.wn. po p.u,la,U,n.g, ~
ea.M:h., when. the plle4e.n-t 9-en.ella;t.lon.
g.e;t,a -t.hlLow;h w-U.h. the~ poUu;t,i..n.q.
lJJhaA:. M coM-ld.elled a rr 4a,.fe do,,e 1' /,oJl 1tad~on expo4UJZ.e blJ, mank.A..n.d?
Doe,an.' ;t each and evelllf one of. U4 Jle.ta-ln d-l/-tellen-t amoun..t.4?
1Yoe4 U no;t depend on we.u;h-,t, he,lg.ht. oil. wlu!.thell. on.e -£4 ma,le OJl /em.au. p,ll.l4 man.ff a-th.ell /acto.u?
1-lotJJ abou.A:. ha-b.l.e.-:l and.am.a.-ll c.h.,U,cJ./i,en.?
lJJou-ldn'.t the~ expo,aU/f..e be m.u..ch moJle damaq.)..n.i ;to them?
7u,at. how can lfOU be a.&,::,o,luA:. l.tJ- -al.Lile?
fl.Jten.'.t. lfOU "(J,llophll} a;t 4Uaw4"?
&f. MfO.EAR REClJl.A fORY OMMf~SI l)OCKETING 8
. TION OFF Y
0 r
2 1,on.',t U. 11..aA:Ae1t. -Ut..oruc, 1 ef-t.UJt hea.JUf. a n.ew-,o 1t.epou o 11e1t. ffUJ
.loc.a,,l ll.~d~o,ota,t,i.on, :th.a-t an.e ot OIJ./l.. m...ULo ha4 heen.,f.,,i.n.ed to11..
poU,u,,t,i.n,g -the en.vaonm.en.t?
The nuclea1t.
egu.,la,to1t.
Com,m,,,l.,.,4~on an..d the DepallA:,m,en-t o/, £n.elLCJ,lJ,, 1 l,e.e.l, a/le a..l/.Jo po~ -the a-Ut, hu.,t thetf do n.ot ge-t a /,,,i.n,e le.v<<d a9-a,t./l/.J,t them.
lufl!J.??
The d-lt/.ell.en.c one ~ pll,,lvate -lndt.UJ-tll..'J-, -the o-theM r ede11..a,l A.<:Jen.ue,o.
liJ!uu -iA -the d-lt/.e1t.ence -ln. p,oJ.l..u:U.on.?
J'oUut-lon. -i4 p.oUu.t.lon. no ma.,U.,e1t. IA.no lle-
.lecwe-o U..
Le-t t.UJ STOl' a.LL o/. -th1/4 n.uc.leall ht.UJ,ln,e,,,o fl{)liJ ! !
II. con.ce1t.n.ed c.,l,t.ls,e.n.,
.W
.86 OCT 15 P4 :14 I
- I
- r'
~
/2,a --------- <.c..~~~ __e,,,-'7! LO.
l
,,,cr A.,, a-,.,, a a-~~
"u,/._,e_)
C w?J _t_~ /X.-0 r 1~..J
- 7 r-a;,M e,; 7 0.d,:,, rr 1
/~...
j 1JJ. CJ.
er 1
'86 OCT 15 p 3 :47 NAME (11, c hL\\ e__ /
HJ f (u bI..1. f-'
ADDREss 11 a+ h 1
CITY / STATE / 21 P-~~~--f-1a.L.l....-,..~~:-__--
l,PPV tdo)
WjO
NAME/jJ/1nov 'ff., C.*
ADD RESS /6-/ q ~
J,-/:2fl10..,JI\\
CITY / STATE / ZIP ~
- Ji ::fl 3o 0-v'
- a.
q),1 0 I
Postm,,r'
'l Cop*
Add'I c:ial C
~ ([i)
~/7(1}
OOl ETL, USNf*C
'86 OCT 15 P3 :59 NAME ~40,'( 1r(,,i\\NQ ADDRESS
~23::: f}eJlNlo,,v}- Af *,C..
c,rv, sTATE / ZIP 7-etttt1.e,, uJA qzwy--
p
AS *. Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Monday, October 6, 1986 NRC proposes boost in radiation-exposure limits BylolYelgTomk
- P-1 Aeporter The Nuclear Regulatory Com-mimion is quietly proposing that the.allowable amount.a of human ex~ to aome types of radi-
. atlon be incrMMMl tenfold. Critiai contend the new limit.a will be unaafe.
The oommiaaion is not required to llokl public hMrinp on auch l"'Jle changes and baa not ached-uled any. The public comment period for written lltatementa closes Oct. 31.
NRC officiala maintain the changes will not raiae the doae of radiation to which workeni and the public would be expoaed, but they concede the method of calcu-lating the amount of radiation that constitutes a safe doae has changed.
The effect of the change is to expoae humana to more radiation, c:ritiai say.
"That's what we in Waahing-ton call a half-troth," NRC aenior health physicist Hal Peteraon re-sponded.
"It does not allow a
- higher doae limit but it does allow a hiP.'er concentration limit," he
&ald.
Workeni are
- now held to a limit of S rems of whole body radiation expoeure a year. A nm is unit of measure of radiation expo-sure.
Under the new rules, the S-rem limit would remain in effect, ex-cept in inatanoai where workeni had to enter a plant where an accident had happened that could not be contained except by human intervention, Petenion said.
The expoeure limit now is determined by calculating the ef-fect of the radiation on the most vulnerable organ.
In the cue of radioiodine, the thyroid is m08t auaoeptible to damage, for example. In the case of plutonium, the lungs are the most vulnerable organ, The effect of expoBUnlll on the other part.a of the body.-entially is ignored, Petenon said in a teleph<me inter-view.
Under the new method of calculating the safe doae, the exposure of -ry organ ia taken into account, as is the riak of fatal cancer for each organ, Peteraon said. As a fflllllt, the allowable limit of exposure incraaa for aome typee of radiation.
Peteraon said public hMrinp on the change have not i-t acheduled becaUBe "we're not sure what we would get" from the public that would help the com-miMionera eet the new.tandard.
Petenon said the change was recommended by the International Commiaion on Radiological Pro-tection, a group of acientiata i-.f.
quartered in the United Kingdcm.
"We're tl)'ing to adapt to the new international aystem for can-aiatency," Petenon said.
"If it rmulta in pater apo-sure, I don't care if it ia more acientifically juatifiable," aaid Diane D'Arrigo of the Nucleer lnfonnation and Raource Service, a non-profit organization in Wash-ington, D.C, She said no level of radioactive expoaureisufe.
D' Arrigo said no other country baa adopted the new ByBtem but the international community is waiting for the United Stat.a to lead the way.
People who wish to COIDlllmt on the propoaal lhould write to Nuclear Regulatory Commiaion, Office of the Secretary, Washing-ton, D.C. Z06SS, Attention Dodt-eting Section, Part 20 Rulemak-ing.
I
.86 OCT 15 P 3 :5 9
O.t. flUClE~tl ltE~Ul~
l)OCKE"Tft'lc:; & SE off\\CE Of n QC T f '"0' 1
j
'j e
e
Al *, Seattle Posl-lntetligencer, Monday, October 6, 1986 NRC proposes boost in radiation-exposure limits Bylot"6gTontk
- P-1 Reporter The Nuclear RecuJatory Com-rniai011 ia quietly propoaing that the,allowable amounta of human e:1~ to IIOIDe typeB of radi-
. atlon be incnla..t tenfold. Critica contend the new limita will be urwafe.
The commiaion ia not required to llold public i-rinp on euch rule chanpa and hu not ached-uled any. The public comment period for written at.atementa cl<<- Oct. 31.
NRC officiala maintain the changes will not raiae the doee of radiation to which workers and the public would be ezpoaed, but they concede the method of calcu-lating the amount of radiation that constitutes
- aafe doee hu changed.
The effect of the change ia to upme humana to more radiation, critiCII My.
"That'll what we in Washing*
ton call a half-truth," NRC Nllior health phywiciat Hal Peteraon re-aponded.
"It doee not allow a
- higher doee limit but it doee allow a hi!P:'<< concentration limit," he
&aid.
Worken are
- now held to a limit of 5 reme of whole body radiation f!KJ)08UNI a year. A rem ia unit of ~
of radiation ~
aure.
Under the new rul*, the 5-rem limit would remain in effect, ex-cept in inatancea where worken had to enter a plant where an accident had happened that could not be contained eu:ept by human intervention, Petfnon uid.
i The GpollUre limit now is determined by calculating the *
- feet of the radiation on the most vulnerable orpn.
ln the cue of radioiodine, the thyroid ia most awiceptible to damage, for es.ample. In the cue of plutonium. the lunp 111'11 the most vulnerable organ. The effect of tlXJ>OIIUreB on the other part.a of the body -tially ia ignored, Pet.eraon aid in a telephcme mi.-
view.
Under the new method of calculating the..Ce doee, the exposure of f!!VW'J orpn ia takm into account, u ia the riak of fatal cancer for each orpn, Petcnon aid. All a,-i!t, the allowable linut of Gpciaure ~
for aome type of radiation.
Petenon aid public 1-rinp on the change have not t..l echeduled becauae.. _,re not eure what we would pt" from the public that would help the om1-miaioneni -
the -
ltandud.
PeteraJn.aid the chanp WU recommended by the Int.national Commiaion on RadiolCJCical Pro-tection, a ~p of acientiata i-d-quartered m the United Kin,dom.
"We're ~
to adapt to the new international ayatan far oan-ut.eocy t Pet.anon aid.
"If it ~ta in grat.- apo-llW'e, I don't care if it ia axm, lcientifically juatifiable," Mid Diane D'Ani.go of the Nuclear Information and Raource S-Vioe, a non-profit orpnization in Wuh-ington, D.C.
She uid no 1-vel of radioactive expmureiaaafe.
D' Ani.go aid no other COW1try hu adopted the MW l)'ataD but the intemational community ia waiting for the United Stat.a to lead the-y.
People who wiah to COIDIDSlt on the proi-a] ahould write to Nuclear Regulatory Commiaiioa, Office of the Secretary, Wuhina-ioo, D.C. 20655, Attaition Doclt-ating Section, Part 20 Rulemak*
ing.
I
OC.K[ T ~
~SNRC
~ OCT 10 P 3 :4 7 I
~ (
l NAME~(J (~ l l ~~
ADDRESS b ( 4
~ C3 ~ ;>:
c,rv, sTATE 121P ~
CJJ, 9.. 8Lo:l i
t Ac
- 1.
dE1'~ i{Gtll ooc1<rr G & s Off\\C.E Or i' Ot 1'
Al *, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Monday, October 6, 1986 NRC proposes boost in radiation-exposure limits By 8olwelg Torvlk
- P*I fllepor1er The Nuclear Regulatory Com-milllion ia quietly propomng that the.allowable amount& of human ex~ to aome typa of radi-ation be inc:reu.i tenfold, Critics contend the n-limit& will be unafe.
The commi.Mion ia not required to kokl public t-rinp on IUCh rule changes and bu not eched-uled any. The public comment period for written atatementa cl<Jlle8 Oct. 31.
NRC officials maintain the changes will not raise the d~ of radiation to which workers and the public would be exix-ed, but they concede the method of calcu-lating the amount of radiation that conatitute& a aafe d~ ha&
changed.
The effect of the change ia to upoae hwnana to more radiation, critics aay.
"111.at'a what we in Waahing-ton call a half-truth," NRC aenior health phymciat Hal Peteraon re-sponded.
"It d~ not allow a' higher d~ limit but it d<>5 allow a hiP.ter concentration limit," he UJd.
Workera are now held to a limit of 5 rems of whole body radiation exposure a year. A rem is unit of IDMSUl'e of radiation expo.
aw-e.
Under the new rule&, the S-rern limit would remain in effect, ex-cept in inlltanoes where workers had to enter a plant where an accident had happened that could not be contained except by human intervention, Peterson llllid.
The exposure limit now is determined by calculating the ef-fect of the radiation on the most vulnerable organ.
In the cue of radioiodine, the thyroid ia most aueceptible to damage, for example. In the cue of plutonium, the lunp are the most vulnerable organ. The effect of l!XJ)OBUN!8 on the other parts of the body ementially ia iplOl'l!d, Petel'IIOD said in a telep'- inter-view.
Under the new method of calculating the safe d~, the exposure of fNerY orpn ia taken into account, u is the risk of fatal cancer for each organ, Petenion said. As a rsult, the allowable limit of exposure in~ for aome typs of radiation.
Peteraon said public b.rings on the change have not ~
acheduled becauae "we're not 11Ure what we would get" &om the public that would help the com-milllionen aet the n-lltandud.
Petenion said the chanp wu
....,...,mendowi by the International Commiaaion on Radiological Pro-tection, a group of ICientiata had-quartered in the United Kingdom.
"We're trying to adapt to the new international syat.em for oon-siatency," Peteraon a.aid.
"If it ~ta in greater ~
IIW'e, I don't care if it ia more acientifically juatifiable," Mid Diane D'Anigo of the Nuclear Information and Raouroe s-vioe, a non-profit organization in Wuh-ington, D.C.
She said no level of radioactive expoaureiau.fe.
D'Anigo a.aid no other country bu adopted the -
ayatem but the international community ia waiting for the United Stats to lead the way.
People who wiah to comment on the propoeal lhould write to Nuclear Regulatory Cc:<<nrniaino, Office of the Secretary, Waahinll-ton, D.C. 20655, Attention Dodi.-
eting Section, Part 20 Rultmak-ing.
I
.86 OCT 10 PJ :47 NAM-~~~~~~~~~~~
ADDRESS_\\.........--.~
~.......-..~~....w..:~-~;::__,.1----
It CLEAR REGUL DOCKETING &
OFFICE C' OF 1 ostmer f)
Copies i\\dc:!' I (
ial D r D
\\
A& *, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Monday, October 6, 1986 NRC proposes boost in radiation-exposure limits BySolwelgTomk
- P*I Pleporter The Nuclear Regulatory Com-millllion ia quietly propoaing that the.allowable amount.a of human ex~ to aome typee of radi-
. atlon be increaMd tenfold. Critiai contend the n-limit.a will be unufe.
The OIJUUDiaion ia not required to llold public hNrinp on aich rule changm and bu not ec:hed-uled any. The public comment period far written statement.a clOBeS Oct. 31.
NRC officials maintain the changes will not raiae the dOlle of radiation to which workers and the public would be upoaed, but they concede the method of calcu-lating the amount of radiation that constitutes a aafe dc.e bu changed.
The effect of the change ia to upoae humana to more radiation, critiai say.
"That's what we in Wuhing-ton call a half-truth," NRC Nnior health phymciat Hal Pet.anion re-sponded.
"It dom not allow a' higher dc.e limit but it d05 allow a higher concentration limit," he aaid.
Workers are
- now held to a limit of 5 -
of whole body radiation apoaure a year. A rem ia unit of measure of radiation expo.
aure.
Under the new rules, the 6-rem limit would remain in effect, ex-cept in inatanoes where workera had to enter a plant where an accident had happened that could not be contained except by human intervention, Peteraon aaid.
The apoaure limit now is determined by calculating the ef.
feet of the radiation on the mo&t vulnerable organ.
ln the cue of radioiodine, the thyroid ia mo&t auaoeptible to damage, for aample. In the cue of plutonium, the lunp are th*
IIIOl!t vulnerable organ. The effect of OJl(Blre8 on the other parts of the body -tially ia ignored, Peteraon aaid in a telep'- inter-view.
Under the new method of calculating the aafe dme, the expowre of every organ ia takm into account, aa ia the rialr. of fatal cancer for each organ, Petenon aaid. As a ftllUlt, the allowable limit of apoaure in~ for eome types of radiation.
Peteraon Mid public hMrinp on the change have not t--1 echeduled becauae "we're not IUJ'I!
what we would get" from the public that would help the com-millllionen aet the new atandard.
Petenon Mid the change was recommmded by the International Commi811ion on Radiological Pro-tection, a group of acientiata had-quartered in the United Kingdom.
"We're~ to adapt to the new international aystem for con-lliBtency," Peteraon Mid.
"If it nailta in grater apo-lUJ'I!, I don't can, if it ia more acientifically juatifiable," aid Diane D'Arrigo of the Nuclear Information and Raource Service, a non-profit orpnization in Wuh-ington, D.C.
She aaid no level of radioactive expoaureiaaafe.
D' Arrigo Mid no other country baa adopted the new ayatem but the international community ia waiting for the United Staie. to lead the way.
People who wiah to 0111111Dmt on the propoeal llhould write to Nuclear Regulatory Comrni-ioo, Office of the Secretary, Wubina-ton, D.C. 20655, Attention I>ocs-eting Section, Part 20 Rulemak-ing.
.86 OCT 1 0 P 3 :4 7 I '(
t '/H-:f.
ADDRESS __ -'-"'~~'--~~-..~-~---~.---
CITY/ STATE/ ZI P ___.......,__,,___k1_Q_,_'(_f$}_7_-~~--
~ AR EGUlAlO Y ~OMMISSI IX)CKETING & SERVICE SECTIO CFFICf OF T'
'-ECRET,t., V 0
T v
\\\\SSION n (
- r. r 1;/7 atkO es Rr
,I
~d'I Cr
.. d '8 isl D
- I:,
A.8 *,Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Monday, October 6, 1986 NRC proposes boost in radiation-exposure limits By Solvelg Torvlk
- P-1 Reporter The Nuclear Regulatory Com-miaaion ia quietly propoaing that the.allowable amounts of human ex~ to aome typai of radi-
. auon be inCl'Mlll!d tenfold. Critics contend the new limits will be unaafe.
The commiMion ia not required to llold public hearinp on auch rule changee and baa not ached-uled any. The public comment peflod for written lltatements cl08el! Oct. 31.
NRC officials maintain the changes will not raise the doae of radiation to which workers and the public would be expoaed, but they concede the method of calcu-lating the amount of radiation that constitutes a aafe doae baa changed.
The effect of the change is to expc.e humana to more radiation, critics aay.
"That's what we in Waahing-ton call a half-truth," NRC aenior health phyaiciat Hal Pet.eraon re-sponded.
"It does not allow a' higher doae limit but it does allow a hiP.ter concentration limit," he 881d.
Workers are* now held to a limit of 5 rems of whole body radiation exposure a year. A rem ia unit of measure of radiation expo-sure.
Under the new rules, the 5-rem limit would remain in effect, ex-cept in inatanoea where workers had to enter a plant where an accident had happened that could not be contained except by human int.ervention, Peteraon aaid.
The eltp08Ure limit now is determined by calculating the ef.
feet of the radiation on the most vulnerable organ.
In the cue of radioiodine, the thyroid ia moat IIWICeptible to damage, for example. In the case of plutonium, the lunp are the most vulnerable organ. The effect of expoauree on the other parts of the body -tially ia ilD(Jnd, Petel"IIOD aaid in a telephone inter-view.
Under the new method of calculating the safe doae, the exposure of ~
organ ia taken into account, as ia the riak of fatal cancer for each organ, Peteraon said. As a reeult, the allowable limit of exposure increaa. for some typs of radiation.
Peterson aaid public hearinp on the change have not 1-1
&cheduled becauae "we're not sure what we would get" from the public that would help the com-miaaionera set the new lltandard.
Peterson aaid the chanp wu recommended by the lntanational Commiaaion on Radiological Pro-tection, a group of ICientiata had-quartered in the United JGnadom.
"We're~ to adapt to the new international aystem for oon-siatency," Peteraon aaid.
"If it 1-llts in sr-ter apo-aure, l don't care if it ia more scientifically juatifiable," aaid Diane D'Arrigo of the Nuclear lnfonnation and Raource Scvice, a non-profit organisation in Waah-ington, D.C.
She aaid no level of radioactive exposure ia aafe.
D'Arrigo aaid no other country baa adopted the new Byatem but the international community ia waiting for the United Stata to lead the way.
People who wish to 0111111118lt on the proix-1 ahould write to Nuclear Regulatory Commiaioo, Office of the Secretary, Waahin&-
ton, D.C. 20655, AttAntion Docs-eting Section, Part 20 Rulemak-ing.
I
OOtKEl[('
J5Nf<:C
.86 OCT 1 0 P 3 :4 7
ll. NUCLEA Y COM DOCKE E SE'cTI OFF llETAR 0
SION I
Postmark
/ cl/IC!_ -
Copies
- /
'dd'I C t,g -
ial D
Al *, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Monday, October 6, 1986 NRC proposes boost in radiation-exposure limits BylofflllgTomk
- P-1 Reporter The Nuclear Regulatory Com-miaioo ia quietly propolling that the.allowable amounta of hwnan ex~ to aome typai of radi-
. abon be inc:reumi tenfold. Critics contend the n-limit.I will be unaafe.
The oommiaaion ia not required to llold public hNrinp on 11Uch rule changes and baa not ached-uled any. The public comment period for written statement.I cl0Be8 Oct. 31.
NRC official.e maintain the changes will not raise the doae of radiation to which workeni and the public would be expoaed, but they concede the method of calcu-lating the amount of radiation that conatitutes a safe doae ha&
changed.
The effect of the change is to exp,.e humana to more radiation, critics aay.
"That's what we in Washing-ton call a half-truth," NRC aenior health phyaiciat Hal Pet.eraon re-sponded.
"It does not allow a' higher doae limit but it does allow a hiF.ter concentration limit," he Bald.
Workers are* now held to a limit of 6 ftDIII of whole body radiation exposure a year. A rem is unit of measure of radiation expo-sure.
Under the new rules, the 5-rem limit would remain in effect, ex-cept in inatanom where worker&
had to enter a plant where an accident had happened that could not be contained except by hwnan intervention, Peteraon aaid.
The expoeure limit now is determined by calculating the ef-fect of the radiation on the most vulnerable organ.
ln the cue of radioiodine, the thyroid is moat -...oeptible to damage, for example. In the cue of plutonium, the lunp are UM most vulnerable orpn. The effect of t!Xp<alN!8 on the other parts of the body eMentially ia ipored, Petenion aaid in a telephone inter-view.
Under the new method of calculating the ufe doae, the expo8Ure of f!!Very organ ia taken into account, as is the riak of fatal cancer for each organ, Peteraon aaid. AB a reeult, the allowable limit of expoeure incraaa. for eome types of radiation.
Petenion aaid public hNrinp on the change have not ~
scheduled becauae "we're not aure what we would get" from the public that would help the com-miasionen aet the new lltandard.
Petenion aaid the chanp was recommended by the lnt.-national Commiallion on Radiological Pro-tection, a group of aciantiata had-quartered in the United Kingdcmi.
"We're trying to adapt to the new international aystem for oon-lliatency," Petenon aaid.
" If it ~ti in p..ter apo-llUre, I don't care if it ia more ecientifically juatifiable," aaid Diane D'Arrigo of the Nuclear Information and Raouroe Service, a non-profit organization in Wuh-ington, O.C.
She aaid no level of radioactive HpoBUre ia aafe.
D' Arrigo aaid no other country has adopted the MW system but the international community is waiting for the United Stat. to lead the way.
People who wiah to 001111Dmt on the propmal lhould write to Nuclear Regulatory Commiaioo, Office of the Secretary, Wuhinl-ton, O.C. 20666, Attmtion Docs-eting Section. Part 20 Rulmiak-ing.
I
Nuclear Regulatory Co1m1issfon Office of the Secretary Washington D.C. 20555 Attention: Docketing Section Part 20 Rulemaking DO( £iEr USN C
'86 OCT 10 PJ :40 f FICE C s~
~t A, OCK TING c\\ Sf" !Cf B ANCH Change In Allowable Radiation Dose We strongly oppose the proposed raising of the allowable radiation dose.
Radiation has been determined to have a no threshold effect. In other words no dose is completely safe. The allowable dose rate was based on the state of knowledge regarding radiation at the time it was put in effect. Since that time our knowledge of radiation effects has grown showing even that level is not totally safe. Relaxing these limits is definitely not warrented.
Use of Englands permissable radiation limits, solely for reasons of consistancy, therefore is also unsupportable.
Several other countries have much stricter levels, Why not use them as a yardstick instead. Please do not relax the permissable radiation limit.
Sincerely,
~I~~
?~~
State of Washington DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY LU-11, Olympia, WA 98504-6811 OCT "'4 Acknowledged by card **************.-
- 0. S. NUCLEAR DoCKET OFF 0
September 26,1986 Secretary of the Commission Docketing and Service Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Commissioner,
IJfl Northern States Power Company UO~ r.E i l Prairie Island Nucleal'Generating Plant 1717 Wakonade Dr. East Welch, Minnesota 55089 "86 OCT -2 P 4 :39 We would like to make one comment about the proposed changes to the new 10 CFR 20.
Section 20.201.a.3.ii requires that skin dose should be averaged over 10 square centimeters, which conflicts with ICRP Publication 26.
The ICRP specifically states that for routine monitoring for skin contamination dose should be averaged over 100 square cm.
It states that for highly localized contamination that it is appropriate to assess the dose over a 1 cm square area and this should be used to predict local skin reactions.
It further states that it is inappropriate to relate such localized absorbed dose to the absorbed dose corresponding to the dose equivalent limit.
I therefore suggest that the new regulation be revised to average the the dose from highly localized skin contamination over a 100 square cm area as recommended by ICRP Publication 26.
r
.c. Jonson
£) Rad~
by
- I
' D.A. Sc ue e
Supt Rad Prot Acknowledged by card...** ~~.!,, -~ ~
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFF!"
N w* SECRET ARY OF Tl-I er t-. ~~IC:.S!ON
HAL B. TUCKER VIC E PRl!l:SmEMT l'JUC LEAR PRODU OTIOlf September 19, 1986 Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 ATTENTION:
Docketing and Service Branch
SUBJECT:
Duke Power Company Conments 10CFR Part 20 Standards for Protection Against Radiation; Proposed Revision, and Standards for Protection Against Radiation; Availability of Supplemental Information
References:
- 1. Federal Register Notice, Vol. 51, No. 6, Thursday, January 9, 1986, p. 1092
- 2. Federal Register Notice, Vol. 51, No. 168, Friday, August 29, 1986; p. 30870
Dear Sirs:
The following are our comments on the proposed revision to 10CFR20.
TELEPHONE (704) 373-4lml "86 SEP 22 P 3 :16 First of all, Duke Power Company, subscribes to and adopts as its own those comments, on the above subject, formally submitted recently by the Atomic Industrial Forum (AIF) and by the Edison Electric Institute {EEI).
We also believe that these new regulations will result in no dose benefits to Duke 1 Power Company personnel or to those persons who perform radiation work at our facilities for the following reasons:
- 1.
Duke Power Company adopted the 5 Rem annual whole body dose limit many years ago prior to the initial operation of our first nuclear unit, and all doses are maintained ALARA within this limit.
(The nuclear industry, in general, has also adopted this limit within the last several years.)
- 2.
Internal doses are also maintained ALARA.
As a result, very few persons receive significant internal exposure and the resulting doses are within 5 Rem per year for the sum of external and internal doses.
Therefore, the total dose received by these persons will not change as a result of the adoption of these proposed regulations.
We estimate our costs in previously adopting the 5 Rem limit as minimal.
On the other hand, our initial costs to implement the proposed regulations at our three nuclear stations, has been calculated to be about $800,000 with annual costs of $200,000 to maintain the program.
Our data on this point has been presented previously to the NRC Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards as part of the testimony on the subject presented
... - ~* ~ * *
- * * *., \\
- l
- Secretary of the Commission (U.S. NRC) 10CFR Part 20 {Proposed Revision)
September 19, 1986 Page 2 by the AIF and by the Edison Electric Institute (EEI).
Accordingly, our cost benefit ratio is extremely unfavorable and does not support the adoption of the proposed regulations in their present form.
We, therefore, ask that the NRC/CRGR review this aspect carefully for the purposes of the backfit analysis.
Further in this regard and.in response to the Commission's specific question, concerning the threshold standard, Duke Power Company believes that it should not be suspended for all of the various reasons given in this letter.
On the other hand, we are aware of the intangible benefits of using the "latest available technology" as the basis for radiation protection regulations.
For this reason, and also because the proposed regulations are very complex and difficult to implement, we ask the Commission to consider issuing this regulation in the very simplified manner described in the comments submitted by the EEI.
In addition to adopting the comments of the EEI and the AIF, and the other comments mentioned above, Duke Power Company also has the following comments:
- 1. Guidance on allowable emergency dose should also be included since it appears to us that NRC regulations preclude anyone receiving more than 3 Rem per quarter under any circumstances. Yet, we are asked to put doses considerably higher than this into our emergency plans.
- 2.
An addition should be made to Section 20.903, "Exceptions to Posting Requirements," which states that locations.containing only noble gases are exempted from posting as an "airborne radioactivity area" where the exposure is treated as a submersion dose and controlled as an external hazard.
This technicality is a problem in the existing regulations.
- 3.
De Minimus or Doses Below Regulatory Concern should be included for individual as well as for collective dose equivalents.
In addition, these values should be for a reasonable amount of dose and the method by which the dose is calculated should be reasonable, and not ultra conservative if there is to be any real usefulness to these figures.
In other words, we ask for a properly drafted complete de minimus standard that will avoid extended regulatory and licensee actions beyond what is needed to provide adequate protection of the public health and safety.
Because of the complexity and cost of the proposed regulations to all NRC licensees and ultimately to agreement state licensees, not just to the nuclear industry, we ask that:
- 1. A public hearing be conducted by the NRC on the proposed regulations before they are written in final form; and
Secretary of the Commission (U.S. NRC) 10CFR Part 20 (Proposed Revision)
Septemberl9, 1986 Page 3
- 2.
that regional workshops be held after the regulations are finalized to explain in detail to all classes of licensees as to how significant portions of the regulations, such as the dosimetry and recordkeeping aspects, are to be performed; or
- 3. that detailed Regulatory Guides be prepared to accomplish the same purpose; and that,
- 4.
the final regulations be phased in, various sections at a time, over a 5-year period.
We appreciate the opportunity afforded to us by the NRC, over the past several years through the AIF Radiation Protection Sub-Committee, to informally comment on successive versions of these proposed regulations.
We also appreciate the present opportunity to comment formally.
Duke Power Company believes that updated regulations that all licensees can readily accept and that will provide increased protection to the health and safety of radiation workers and the public, will result from full consideration and use by the NRC of the comments made in, and referred to, in this submittal.
Sincerely yours,
(____
~ _L;J /
~/.i~-.
H. B. Tucker LL/sdg
AILLIED Bendix
~
Aerospace Bendix Field Engineering Corporation P. 0. Box 1569 September 15, 1986 Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attn:
Docketing & Service Branch Grand Jup_,~i. 1502-1569 Telephon~
"',... -8621 Telex: 454-t"<\\,
- 86 SEP 19 PS :59
Subject:
Request for Comments (SlFR 30870) on the Backfit Analysis for Proposed Revision of 10 CFR 20
Dear Sir:
The Bendix Field Engineering Corporation Health and Safety Office has reviewed the backfit anal ysis prepared by the Commission pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50 for proposed revision of 10 CFR Part 20 that was published in the Federal Register (51 FR 30870), and offers the following comments for the Commission's consideration.
- 1)
The Draft Backfit Analysis 11, "Statement of Specific Objectives to be Achieved," sets forth what the proposed revision of 10 CFR Part 20 is intended to do.
However in that statement, nothing is mentioned about any improvement in safety.
Accordingly, and because the Commission in 10 CFR 50.109 (a)(3) states that the Commission shall require backfitting only when it determines that there is a substantial increase in the overall protection of the public health and safety to be derived from the backfit, we believe the Commission would be inconsistent with its regulations were it, as the record now stands, to pursue the proposed amendment of 10 CFR 20 to implementation.
Accordingly, we suggest that the proposed revision of 10 CFR 20 published for comment on January 9, 1986 be withdrawn until and unless the Commission demonstrates on the basis of acceptable human data that licensee operations under the current 10 CFR 20 requirements are unsafe.
- 2)
The Draft Backfit Analysis 14, "Potential Impact on Radiological Exposure of Facility Employees," provides no evidence that:
- a.
12 rems per year for radiation workers is not safe provided that the average dose does not exceed 5 rems per year,
- b.
75 rems per year for the extremities is not safe and that 50 rems per year is safe,
- c. current practice with respect to limiting exposures to the embryo/fetus is creating harm to any embryo/fetus,
- d.
currently allowable intakes of radionuclides are not safe and are producing measurable harm,
- e. current practice of separate limits for internal and external exposure is producing measurable harm, and
- g. current practice with respect to ALARA is producing unsatisfactory results and is not safe.
(The commission's own data demonstrate Acknowle~ by card..** 9./J.(f fJ_
r J
9/15/86 page 2 that the average dose to a nuclear power plant worker decreased in 1985) *
. In sum, the Commission offers no evidence that operations under the current
- 10 CFR Part 20 are not safe.
Until such evidence is available, we suggest that the proposed revision of 10CFR Part 20 be withdrawn.
- 3)
The Draft Backfit Analysis 16, "Potential Safety Impact if Changes in Plant or Operational Complexity, Including Relationships to Proposed and Existing and Regulatory Requirements," states that any safety impacts would be negligible and that some of the proposed changes required by 10 CFR 20 could increase operational complexity. It is our experience that increase in operational complexity very often lead to less safe conditions than when operations are simple.
Accordingly, we believe that the proposed changes to 10 CFR 20 that could increase operational complexity should not be promulgated even if the whole proposed change to 10 CFR 20 is promulgated.
- 4)
The conclusion of the Draft Backfit Analysis states that the Commission's analysis does not show unequivocally that the direct and indirect costs of implementation of the proposed change to 10 CFR 20 are justified in view of the increased protection. The Commission goes on to say that.it believes that there are additional relevant and material factors not amenable to quantitative cost comparisons and having significant bearing on this issue. Those include:
(1) Incorporation of updated Presidential guidance on radiation protec-tion. However the President has not yet signed that guidance.
Until he does, it is difficult to understand how the guidance has any bearing on this particular matter (the proposed revision of 10 CFR 20).
(2)
Consistency with international standards, particularly with regard to international commerce. It is difficult for us to understand what possible effect the proposed changes to 10 CFR 20 would have in inter-national commerce.
Those proposed changes apply primarily to the exposure of radiation workers in the United States and do not appear to us to have any bearing on international commerce at all.
(3)
Updating the technical basis for the Part 20 limits. This appears to us to be change for change's sake:
with no improvement in safety.
(4)
Consistency of the methods and technical approaches for radiation protection regulations and those for current risk assessment methodo-logies. This also appears to be change for change's sake:
with no im-provement in safety;
9/15/86 page 3
_From our point of view, the Commission's conclusion concerning relevant and material factors fs merely a rationalization to support doing something simply for the sake.of doing ft and riot beCause therew111*
be: any measurable increase in.safety.
Accordingly, we suggest. that the proposed revision of 10 CFR Part 20 be withdrawn.
,1.
- 5) The Commission's request for public comments includes a. number of specific topics.* Those ~re:
- Cl) The Draft Backfit Analysis for the proposed revision *of Part 20.
Our comments above address this topic *.
(2) Whether the Commission has adequately implemented,150~109 as it applies to the proposed Part 20 revision. The Commi"ssion *1n,its Draft Back fit Analys_is appears to have complied with the requi re!)'lents of 50.109. The results demonstrate that _the proposed revision of 10 CFR Part 20 should not be implemented.
(3) Whether the revision of 10 C~R 2o*would provtde* a substantial increase in the overall protection o_f public _health and safety that would justify the direct and i_ndirec*t costs-of implementing this rule.
We. know of absolutely no evidence that demonstrates any measurable or observable increase in public h~alth and safety as a result of imple-menting the proposed changes.
Accord-ingly, we do not believe that thf:l proposed revisions of 10 CFR 20 **would provide any increase in the overall protection of publ 1c health and safety that wo_ul d justify the direct and indirect cost of implementing this rule.
We do not believe that the Commission should consider bypothetical -health effects which may be calculated based on extrapolation -of health effects of high doses to those which may or may-not be* actually observed at. low doses.
Until the Commission has demonstrated actual human evidence that oper-ations under the current 10 CFR 20 requirements p-roduce human injuries, we do not believe that the Com~ission should change the current require-ments in any way.
(4)
Whether, because of other factors which support the proposed Part
'20 revision, the.application of 1150.109 (a)*(3) should be suspended for
-this rulemaking if it is found that th_e proposed amendments do not meet the criteria in that section._ The other factors which the commission proposes to support the proposed Part 20.revision do not as
, we have said above appear to us tq be gerinaine.
They certainly are not persuasive. Moreover we do. not believe that,150.109(a) (3) should be suspended in any particular for this rulemaking.
The proposed.
amendments to 10 CFR 20 should meet the criteria in that section *
. Moreover, any other proposed changes to the*.commission's. rules ~bould
I' 9/15/86-page 4 be tested against the requirements*of that section as appropriate *
. The whole purpose of the b~ckfi~ rule was to.make*s~re that piopos~d changes were tested to m~k~ sure that they would, in fact, Jncrease pub*l ic health arid safety and be wo_r.th *the cost. The Commission. should be consistent in its application-of this *principle *.
- 6. With respect t_o Commissioner B~rnthal 1s issues, i't *would probably be worthwhile*for the Commission to develop criteria for determining the
~eaning of "substantial increase". Anj ~uc~ criteria should clearly be made subject to *rulemaking.
- But _that criteria should be based.on health and safety considerations only and not on other issues such as those given*
by the commission that it believes.are relevan_t and material in the.case of the proposed 10 CFR 20 revisions.
As stated above, we believe that thang~
for change 1s sake is not*appropriate.
Also as stated above, we believe that the backfit rule even given its apparent defects and limitations _in such cases as the 10 CFR 20 revisions should clearly* continue to be applied to*
all Commission rulemakings where.it ~akes sense to do so.
Finally, we do not -beli'eve the Commission should amend the_ Ba~k-fi_t Rule to
- indicate explicitly.that non-monetary benefits may be weighedby.the Commission *in the coit-benefit balance. It is highly unlikely that the Commission could find any non-monetary benefits to be *in the public' interest when one considers the cost.attendant to any*possible such benefits.
We trust the comments above are properly responsive to your request and will be happy,to discuss these matters further if, necessary.
Very_ truly~~o~:~
/v:;
A. N. Tschaeche Manager, Health and Safety ANT:te
[7590-01]
"86 AUG 27 P 3 :34 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION PARTS 19, 20, 30, 31, 32, 34, 40, 50, 61, AND 7W°o~
1~((i:*~:~ i,....,_,
STANDARDS FOR PROTECTION AGAINST RADIATION; AVAILABILITY OF SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION AGENCY:
Nuclear Regulatory Corrrnission.
ACTION:
Proposed rule; availability of supplemental information.
SUMMARY
On January 9, 1986, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission published for public comment a proposed revision of its radiation protection standards, 10 CFR Part 20.
If implemented, that rule would require changes in the radiation protection procedures at nuclear power reactors and other NRC-licensed activities. Section 50.109 of the Commission's regulations requires that a backfit analysis be prepared for proposed NRC regulations that require changes to operating procedures for nuclear_)
power reactor facilities licensed by the Commission under 10 CFR Part 50.
This notice provides such an analysis for the proposed revision of 10 CFR Part 20 and solicits public comment on it.
DATES:
Comrn.ents on this backfit analysis must be submitted in writing on or before October 31, 1986.
Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given except as to comments filed on or before this date.
The comment period for the proposed Part 20 revision is being extended to this same date, thereby providing more than 60 days of concurrent comment period.
ADDRESSES:
Submit written comments or any other information concerning this matte~ to the Secretary of the Corrrnission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 1
[7590-01]
Commission, Washington, DC 20555_, Attention:
Docketing and Service Branch.
Copies of the proposed revision of 10 CFR Part 20 and the accompanying Regulatory Analysis that supports this Backfit Analysis may be examined, and copied for a fee, at the Commission 1 s Public Document Room at 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC.
Single copies of these documents may be obtained from the person indicated under the 11 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 11 heading.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert E. Alexander, Division of Regulatory Applications, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555, Telephone (301) 443-7976.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I.
BACKGROUND A.
Part 20 Revision The Commission 1 s primary standards governing radiation protection requirements for its licensees are given in 10 CFR Part 20.
The orjJJinal Part 20 was issued on January 29, 1957 (22 FR 548).
Although about 100 amendments to 10 CFR Part 20 have been made since that time, this is the first complete revision of these regulations in over 25 years.
This revision will bring the Commission 1s radiation protection standards into accord with current recommendations of the International Commission on Radiologica1 Protection (ICRP).
The revision is also consistent with 11 Radiation Protection Guidance to Federal Agencies for Occupational
- Exposure, 11 which has been prepared for the signature of the President under the leadership of the Environmental Protection Agency.
On March 30, 1980, the Commission published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (45 FR 18023) announcing its initiation of a rulemaking proceeding for the purpose of updating its radiation protection standards.
The notice described in detail the elements being considered for incorporation into the proposed rule and solicited public comment 2
[7590-01]
thereon.
About 70 r~sponses were received in response to this notice.
In addition, numerous meetings were.held between the cognizant NRC staff members preparing the revision and groups associated with States, unions, the nuclear industry, licensees, public interest groups, radiation protection organizations, and other Federal agencies.
On December 20, 1985, the Commission published a proposed revision of Part 20 in the Federal Register (50 FR 51992).
A corrected version was published in the Federal Register on January 9, 1986 (51 FR 1092).
There is an ongoing public comment period on the proposed rule.
B.
The Backfit Rule On September 20, 1985, the Commission published a final rule (50 FR 38097), commonly called the 11 backfit rule" (10 CFR 50.109), which sets forth requirements on imposing new or amended requirements on nuclear power reactor facilities licensed by the Commission under 10 CFR Part 50.
This regulation sets forth the following requirements, among others:
- 1.
(§50.109(a)(2)) "The Commission shall require a systematic and documented analysis pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section for backfits which it seeks to impose.
11
- 2.
(§50.109(a)(3)) "The Commission shall require the backfitting of a facility only when it determines, based upon the analysis described in paragraph (c) of this section, that there is a substantial increase in the overall protection of the public health and safety or the-common defense and security to be derived from the backfit and that the direct and indirect costs of implementation for that facility are justified in view of the increased protection."
In order to reach this determination, §50.109(c) sets forth certain factors that are to be considered in the backfit analysis. These factors and the accompanying analyses are presented in Section II of this notice.
3
[7590-01]..
II.
DRAFT BACKFIT ANALYSIS The proposed revision to 10 CFR Part 20 is* not anticipated to require physical modification to nuclear power rea~tors (or other li~ensed facilities).
However, the definition of a 11 backfiC in §50.109(a)(l) includes the modification of or addition to the procedures or organi-zation required to design, construct or operate a nuclear power reactor facility.
Even though the Part 20 rule is applicable to all NRC licensees and therefore is broader in scope than the 11 Backfit Rule, 11 it would result in the need for revisions in the operating procedures dealing with radiation protection at nuclear power reactor facilities licensed under 10 CFR Part 50 and, consequently, a backfit analysis is to be performed for power reactor facilities.
Paragraph 50.109(c) requires consideration of the priority and scheduling of the action under consideration in light of other regulatory activities.
Implementation of the proposed revision of 10 CFR Part 20 should not significantly affect any other backfits or safety-related activities.
In order to minimize the impact of the retraining and revisions of procedures, the proposed implementation period of the Part 20 revision extends over a five-year period.
Therefore the changes_J required to implement the Part 20 revision would not conflict with and do not need to be further prioritized with respect to other activities at nuclear power plants.
Paragraph 50.109(c) of the backfit rule also sets forth certain factors which are to be considered in the backfit analysis. These factors and how the proposed Part 20 revision relates to each are summarized below.
These summary statements are based on the Regulatory Analysis which describes the anticipated benefits and anticipated costs that would be associated with the implementation of the proposed revision, were it to be adopted.
This Regulatory Analysis is the primary source of the estimates of the benefits and the impacts described in this draft backfit analysis and is incorporated as part of this draft backfit analysis.
Copies of the Regulatory Analysis are available for inspection in the 4
[7590-01]
Public Document room (see 11ADDRESSES 11
) and single copies are available from the NRC staff contact.
Statement of Specific Objectives-to be Achieved The proposed revision of 10 CFR Part 20 is intended to:
- a.
Update the quarter-century-old 10 CFR Part 20 to incorporate advances in science and new concepts of radiation protection
- b.
- c.
- d.
- e.
- f.
~
methodology and philosophy; Implement pending Federal Radiation Guidance on occupational radiation protection; Implement the principal current dose-limiting recommendations of the ICRP; Incorporate the ICRP 11effective dose equivalent 11 concept; Update the limits on airborne radionuclide intakes, effluent releases and doses from inhaled or ingested radionuclides 1sing up-to-date metabolic models and dose factors; and Require that licensees have programs for keeping radiation exposures 11as low as is reasonably achievable" (ALARA).
- 2.
Genera} Description of the Actions to be Required of the Licensee or Applicant The principal new or additional actions that would be required of licensees by the proposed 10 CFR Part 20 revisions are to:
- a.
Sum, under some circumstances, the estimated dose from radionuclides external to the body and from radionuclides deposited in the body; 5
A
- 3.
- 4.
[7590-01]
- b.
If not previously done~ ~rovide documentation of programs for keeping exposures "as low as is reasonably achievable";
- c.
Provide increased protection for the embryo/fetus when female workers declare themselves pregnant;
- d.
Employ the latest ICRP limits on airborne radionuclide intakes, effluent releases and doses from inhaled or ingested radionuclides; and d
- e.
Modify training guides, operating procedures, and manuals to incorporate the new concepts and requirements and provide retraining of employees on these concepts and their implementation.
Change in the Risk*to the Public from Accidental Off-Site Release of Radioactive Material 10 CFR Part 20 generally applies only to normal off-site releases of radioactive material, so there would be no direct impact on risks associated with accidental releases of radioactive materials.,J Potential Impact on Radiological Exposure of Facility Employees The principal impact of the revision would be to assure significantly better and more up-to-date worker protection.
The added protection results from the following:
- a.
The limit for annual worker doses would be 5 rems (effective whole-body dose) per year.
Workers are permitted to receive 12 rems per year (3 rems per quarter) under the current Part 20 providing that the worker's average dose does not exceed 5 rems per year.
Between 200 and 400 workers recei~e more than 5 rems per year under the existing rule.
The Part 20 revision would provide for Planned Special Exposures which would allow worker 6
_J
- 5.
doses to exceed 5 rems per year, but only under very stringently controlled conditions.
[7590-01]
- b.
The worker dose limit for extremities would be reduced from 75 to 50 rems per year.
- c.
A limit would be placed on the dose to the embryo/fetus.
There is currently no specific limit in the NRC regulations to protect the embryo/fetus.
- d.
Allowable intakes of radionuclides would be based upon the latest radiobiological, metabolic, and dosimetric data.
For a number of radionuclides the intake limits would be lowered.
- e.
Doses would be limited by considering both internal and external radiation doses added together rather than evaluating them separately as allowed by the present rule.
- f.
Dose limits would be expressed as the sum of organ doses weighted by the comparative biological risk of the organ.
- g.
These limits would therefore be based on a better
.J characterization of the predicted biological effect on the body organs.
More effort would be required of some licensees to formulate and implement programs to keep worker exposures "as low as is reasonably achievable 11 (ALARA).
Installation and Continuing Costs, Including the Cost of Facility Downtime or the Cost of Construction Delays There should be little or no costs associated with facility downtime or construction delays.
The Part 20 changes apply primarily to operational procedures and should cause only minor revisions, if any, in facility design or in shielding.
The initial and annual costs associated with various provisions in the revision are 7
- 6.
- 7.
[7590-01]
discussed and analyzed in the Regulatory Analysis and are summarized in the notice of proposed rulemaking (51 FR 1121).
The* total
'estimated costs for all affected licensees are $33 million for initial implementation and $7.8 million additional costs per year thereafter.
Of these amounts, a $13.1 million initial cost and $2.5 million annual cost are estimated to apply to nuclear power reactors.
These costs may be reduced as a result of the five-year implementation period mentioned in the proposed revision.
Potenti~l Safety Impact of Changes in Plant or Operational Complexity, Including Relationships to Proposed and Existing Regulatory Requirements Any safety impacts and changes in plant complexity would be negligible, since the proposed rule should not entail changes in plant design.
Some of the proposed changes could increase operational complexity.
However, once the new procedures are fully implemented they are expected to become routine.
The impact of modifying operating procedures, manuals, and records would be minimized by a five-year implementation period during which licensees may develop the necessary new procedures, manuals, a'2Y records and convert to the new system at any time most convenient to the licensee.
The Estimated Resource Burden on the NRC and the Availability of These Resources Costs to the NRC would primarily be associated with the preparation of new regulatory guides for implementing the new procedures and revising existing regulatory guides, branch technical positions, and inspection procedures to reflect the Part 20 revisions.
It has been estimated that this effort would consist of 5 to 7 new regulatory guides requiring 0.2 staff-years per guide or 1 to 1.4 staff-years total and approximately $350K of technical support effort. At least seven existing regulatory guides would require revision, resulting in an additional staff-year of effort. It is estimated that 8
- 8.
[7590-01]
approximately one staff-year would be required in both the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) and the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) to modify license conditions and technical specifications to comply with the proposed revision.
The largest impact in NRC would be in the Office of Inspection and Enforcement and the NRC Regional Offices to revise inspection procedures and to train inspectors on the new regulations and procedures. It is estimated that this would require about 5 ff staff-years total.
Once the new procedures are,n place, there should not be any significant resource expenditures above current levels.
These impacts would be spread over the 5-year implementation period.
For this reason and the fact that the impact would be distributed over several NRC offices, the Part 20 implementation should not have a major impact on NRC programs.
Potential Impact of Differences in Facility Type, Design, or Age on the Relevancy and Practicality of the Proposed Action
_)
Since the proposed revisions principally.affect operating procedures rather than facility physical design, there would be no significant impact from differences in facility type, design or age.
- 9.
Are the Proposed Revisions Interim or Final and if Interim, What is the Justiftcation for Imposing Them on an Interim Basis The proposed rule, with modifications, is intended to be issued as a final rule.
Other Factors The Environmental Protection Agency, in cooperation with NRC and other Federal Agencies, has prepared revised Federal guidance on radiation protection for workers.
This guidance, if approved by the President, 9
. [7590-01]
- would greatly influence the formulation of o~cupational radiation protection standards.
The proposed Part 20 modifications would implement the new guidance.
If the Part 20 revision is not adopted, NRC regu~
lations would not be consistent with the new Federal guidance and the regulations of other Federal agencies.
Conclusion The proposed revisions will provide improved public health protection by
~
virtue of:
0 0
0 0
0 0
Limiting routine annual occupational doses to 5 rems and deleting the present S(N-18) formula option which allows doses up to 12 rems per year; Imposing a limit on radiation doses to the embryo-fetus.
(No specific limit exists in the present Part 20 for the embryo-fetus);
Updating the radionuclide intake limits based upon current scientific data, including substantially lower limits for several radionuclides such as uranium.
(Part 20 now relies upon more tb)n 25-year-old methodology and information};
Providing limits for the combined doses from both internal and external radiation sources.
(The current Part 20 permits the evaluations to be done separately);
Incorporating the "effective dose 11 concept whereby organ doses are weighted by their relative health risk and summed to give a risk-equivalent dose.
(The current Part 20 uses the 11 critical organ 11 concept and does not consider doses to organs other than the critical organ in setting allowable limits on radionuclide intake};
and Requiring licensees to develop and implement a program and procedures for keeping radiation exposures "as low as is reasonably 10
I.
I
[7590-01]
achievable 11 or IIALARA.
11 (Except for L~R effluent releases subject
- to Appendix I.of 10 CFR Part 50, the present regulations exhort the licensee to keep radiation exposures 11ALARA 11
, but do not make this a requirement.)
In spite of these expected improvements, the Commission's analysis does not show unequivocally that the direct and indirect costs of imple-mentation are justified in view of the increased protection~
- However, the Commission believes that there are additional relevant and material ff factors not amenable to quantitative cost comparisons and having signifi-cant bearing on this issue, including:
0 Incorporation of updated Presidential guidance on radiation protection;
° Consistency with international standards, particularly with regard to international commerce.
0 Updating the technical basis for the Part 20 limits; and
° Consistency of the methods and technical approaches for radiatioj) protection regulations and those for current risk assessment methodologies.
Because of the public health improvements and the additional qualitative factors bearing on the issue described above, the Commission believes that the rule should be promulgated even though it may not provide a substantial increase in the overal protection of the public health and safety for the common defense and security.
In addition, the Commission has tentatively concluded, pending consideration of public comments, that when all factors, qualitative as well as quantitative, are taken into consideration, the benefits to be derived from the proposed revision of Part 20 justify the direct and indirect costs of its implementation.
However, this decision and the Commission's decision regarding the 11
[7590-0L]
cost~benefit balancing:and conformance of the proposed Part 20 revision to the Backfit Ruie are tentative pending receipt of public comments on these issues.
III.
REQUEST FOR COMMENTS The Commission solicits public comment on:
(1)
The draft Backfit Analysis for the proposed revision of Part 20; (2)
Whether the Commission has adequately implemented §50.109 as it applies to the proposed Part 20 revision; (3)
Whether the proposed revision of 10 CFR Part 20 would provide a substantial increase in the overall protection of public health and safety that will justify the direct and indirect costs of implementing this rule; and (4)
Whether, because of other factors which support the proposed Part 20 revision, the application of Section 50.109(a)(3) should be suspended for this rulemaking if it is found that the proposed_)
amendments do not meet the criteria in that section.
In addition to the above questions, Commissioner Bernthal also would like comments on the following two issues:
- 1.
In regard to the Backfit Analysis, comment is solicited on whether criteria for Commission suspension of the "substantial increase" threshold should be developed and made subject to rulemaking.
- 2.
Comment is also solicited on whether the Backfit Rule, given its evident defects and limitations in such cases, should continue to be applied at all to Commission rulemaking per se.
12
[7590-01]
IV.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OF THE NRC COMMISSIONERS Commissioner Roberts' Views Commissioner Roberts disapproved the proposed revision to Part 20 because the backfit analysis could not demonstrate that the changes would provide a
11substantial 11 reduction in the radiation dose received by workers and members of the public.
~
Commissionei Asselstine 1 s Views I approve the publication of this Backfit Analysis for the purpose of obtaining public comment on the adequacy of the Commission's compliance with its Backfit Rule.
The NRC staff has written that it 11 *** does not believe that the Part 20 revision will provide a 'substantial' change in the radiation doses received by workers and members of the public.
11 (See SECY-86-48A, page 2, 11 Backfit Analysis for Proposed Revision of 10 CFR Part 20 11 dated May 19, 1986.)
The Commission's Backfit Rule (lo CFR 50.109) requires a two prong test to be met before the Commission can promulgate a new or revised regulation such as the Part 20 proposed revisions.
One of the required tests contained in 10 CFR 50.109 (a)j3) is that any revision to the Commission's regulations affecting Part 50 licensees must provide 11... a substantial increase in the overall protection of the public health and safety...
11 Given the above conclusion of the staff that this threshold is not met in the proposed revision to Part 20, the Commission is here asking the public whether the application-of the threshold standard in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(3) should be suspended for the Part 20 revisions.
I would particularly appreciate receiving comments from those that believe the threshold standard should be suspended as to why the Part 20 rulemaking deserves special treatment under the Backfit Rule.
In addition, I would appreciate comments on whether the Commission should develop criteria governing when the Commission will or will not apply the threshold standards* of 10 CFR 50.109(a)(3) and whether such criteria should be subjected to rulemaking.
13
[7590-01]
Commissioner Bernthal 's Views The public should be aware of the fact that the Commission has for nearly a year attempted to adapt the Backfit Rule to all rulemaking, even rulemaking_that has nothing to do with powerplant hardware and the original intent of the Backfit Rule.
This rulemaking and the accompanying analysis illustrates the difficulty.
When applied to human-factors and certain other rulemaking, the Backfit Rule continues to exact NRC resources wholly disproportionate to any conceivable benefit to
~
the public.
The record already shows cases where the Commission has been forced to sidestep a strict reading of the cost-benefit requirements of the Backfit Rule, when it nevertheless finds broad agreement that a rulemaking is in the public interest (e.g. in the case of conversion of non-power reactors from HEU [Highly Enriched Uranium] to LEU [Low Enriched Uranium]).
I therefore believe the public may wish to comment directly on the question of whether the Commission should continue its attempts to apply the Backfit Rule to all rulemaking, or whether the Rule should be revoked as it applies to rulemaking activity~ se.
.J Alternatively, the public may wish to consider whether the Commission should amend the Backfit Rule to indicate explicitly that non-monetary benefits may be weighed by the Commission in the cost-benefit balance, when such considerations are found by the Commission to be in the public interest.
tiC Dated at Washington, DC this }-b ~ day of ~~;--, 1986.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Secretary of the Commission.
14