VR-COMSECY-00-0009, Rulemaking on Discrete Radioactive Particle Dose Constraint
| ML18102A104 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/16/2000 |
| From: | Diaz N, Dicus G, Mcgaffigan E, Meserve R NRC/OCM |
| To: | |
| References | |
| Download: ML18102A104 (8) | |
Text
UNITED STATES HEUUEST REPLlf BY. i<hJI CD,_
NUCLEAR REGULATOR'/ COMMISSION COMSECY-00-0009 WASH I NGTON , D .C . 20555--0001
\!
Ja nu ary 31 , 2000 0
(.1 0
MEMORANDUM TO: Chairman Meserve Commissioner Dicus Commissioner Diaz Commissioner McGaffigan FROM :
Commissioner Merrifield William D. Travers ~~
Executive Director for Operations
,-==- 2/K/00
SUBJECT:
RULEMAKING ON DISCRETE RADIOACTI VE PARTICLE DOSE CONSTRAINT In a memorandum on this subject to the Commission dated October 27 , 1999, (Attachment) , the staff informed the Commission of a change in direction on this rulemaking necessitated by the receipt of new technical information. The staff also committed to provide the Commission with a revised schedule for completing the technical work and developing the rulemaking . The purpose of this memorandum is to discuss the staff's plans and schedules fo r completing the technical wo rk and rulemaking .
Since the Commission's approval in December 1998 to develop the Discrete Radioactive Particle (DRP) dose constraint rule, it has become aJ:iparent that there.. ;s a more desirable course of action that would provide relief from the financial and dose burden associated with
. frequent monitoring of workers during work shifts. This monitoring is claimed by the nuclear industry to result in as much as 5 person-rem of additional external dose in the industry per plant outage (at $20K per person-rem, this is a burden of approximately $5 million per year). The course of action proposed in the staff's rulemaking plan (SECY-98-245) and approved by the Commission was to develop a rule to implement the draft National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) recommended dose limit for DRPs . This approach which has already been reviewed by the States and other stakeholders, could result in a proposed rule to the Commission within about six months. The problem with this approach is that it establishes a new dose limit for a very special case of irradiation of the skin .
The staff's alternative approach, informally advocated by the NCRP, is to establish a single, unified skin dose limit that would apply to any shallow dose equivalent to the skin regardless of the source or geometry of the irradiation. This unified limit would serve as a limit to dose from DRPs on or off the skin, small areas (less than 1 square centimeter) of skin contamination , large area skin contaminations, and shallow dose equivalent that might result from any other external source.
CONTACT:
Alan Roecklein, NRR/DRIP/RGEB (301) 41 5-3883
CHAIRMAN MESERVE'S COMMENTS ON COMSECY-00-0009 I approve the staff's proposal to request NCRP to prepare an addendum to Report No. 130 to provide the technical basis for a revision of 10 CFR Part 20 to achieve a unified skin dose limit.
The staff should explore whether this work should be conducted as a contract to NCRP, rather than a grant. Based on the information provided by the staff, the anticipated time and effort should be significantly less than described in COMSECY-00-0009. Therefore, the addendum should be requested 6 months from the date of issuance of the contract.
Furthermore, I agree with the staff's proposal to amend Part 20 to reflect the anticipated NCRP recommendations . I do not believe that a rulemaking plan is necessary. The staff should proceed to develop a proposed rule in parallel with the preparation of the addendum to Report No. 130 by NCRP. Because the States would have to adopt an identical regulation revision , the draft proposed rule should be coordinated with the Agreement States before being provided to the Commission .
f'J/1!:nu~lf@'W
(:J ' i
- 1YCii>> W UNITED STATifs * *
- c2 f!9_j-mcp~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION COMSECY-00-0009 WASHINGTON , D.C . 20555-0001 2{ID JAN 32 AM 8: 58 January 31, 2000 Approve , su bj ect to th e att ached comments.
MEMORANDUM TO: Chairman Meserve Commissioner Dicus Commissioner Diaz Commis_siof'!~rMcGaffigan :
~ cJgi P RELEt~SED TOTH! PDR
- e
- e ~ l\~ 'i ,:. ,o~.
Commissioner Merrifield G 0 FROM : William D. Travers ~Jl '*"illl!'s-lA._..,tA.... :.:i-.-.. ---~3
..ei..a::
- /~
datQ"""'l-'b.... (){)~ -=;:;;aJ
~!n~~~-~.__.,. _
Executive Director for Operations ~0 0 0 @
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ::;:. 0 0 ,~, c *1'* ~}
SUBJECT:
RULEMAKING ON DISCRETE RADIOACTIVE PARTICLE DOSE CONSTRAINT In a memorandum on this subject to the Commission dated October 27, 1999, (Attachment) , the staff informed the Commission of a change in direction on this rulemaking necessitated by the receipt of new technical information. The staff also committed to provide the Commission with a revised schedule for complet_i ng the technical work and developing the rulemaking . The purpose of this memorandum is to discuss the staffs plans and schedules for completing the technical work and rulemaking.
Since the Commission's approval in December 1998 to develop the Discrete Radioactive Particle (DRP) dose constraint rule, it has become apparent that there is a more desirable course of action that would provide relief from the financial and dose burden associated with frequent monitoring of workers during work shifts. This monitoring is claimed by the nuclear industry to result in as much as 5 person-rem of additional external dose in the industry per plant .
outage (at $20K per person-rem , this is a burden of approximately $5 million per year) . The course of action proposed in the staffs rulemaking plan (SECY-98-245) and approved by the Commission was to develop a rule to implement the draft National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) recommended dose lim it for DRPs. This approach which has already been reviewed by the States and other stakeholders, could result in a proposed rule to the Commission within about six months. The problem with this approach is that it establishes a new dose limit for a very special case of irrad iation of the skin.
The staffs alternative approach , informally advocated by the NCRP, is to establish a single, unified skin dose limit that would apply to any shallow dose equivalent to the skin regardless of the source or geometry of the irradiation. This unified limit would serve as a limit to dose from DRPs on or off the skin, small areas (less than 1 square centimeter) of skin contamination , large area skin contaminations, and shallow dose equivalent that might result from any other external source.
CONTACT:
Alan Roecklein , NRR/DRIP/RGEB (301) 415-3883
Commissioner Dicus comments on COMSECY-00-0009:
I agree with the staffs alternative approach, informally approved by NCRP, that would establish a single, unified skin dose limit that would apply to any shallow dose equivalent to the skin regardless of the source or geometry of the irradiation. According to the staff's presentation to the Commission's Technical Assistants on February 15, 2000, I note that in contrast to the FTE and time schedules presented in COMSECY-00-0009 dated January 31 , 2000, staff has indicated that it would only take approximately two months of NCRP staff effort and approximately $50-65K for an NCRP contract. As a result of this additional information, I have two recommendations: (1) because of past experience with deliverables, I recommend that any proposed work be accomplished through a contract rather than a grant to the NCRP, so.that the NRC can place specific milestones and obligations in a contract in order to ensure that it will be complete in a timely manner; and (2) since the staff has indicated that NCRP informally advocates the staff's alternative approach, request in this contract that the proposed NCRP work be completed within six months.
In order to reduce the amount of time needed for this rule, I would also recommend that the staff not prepare a formal rulemaking plan since the Commission has already received three papers in the past two years on this issue and has provided Commission direction. To further reduce the amount of time needed for completion of this rule , it is recommended that the NCRP contract and the NRC staff work on the proposed rule be done in parallel to further reduce another 9-15 months off the proposed 33-month schedule.
As a final comment, although the staff states in the paper on page 2 that, ".. .changing this fundamental definition of shallow d<;>se equivalent could not be done without formal, authoritative recommendations from NCRP," the staff stated in its briefing to the Commission Technical Assistants on February 15, 2000, as well as in a separate briefing to me on that same day, that NRC does not actually need the NCRP's formal recommendations on this issue, but rather that it is advisable to obtain an NCRP recommendation in this case. While I agree that it is highly advisable, I would recommend that before release of COMSECY-00-0009 to the public document room, that the statement on page 2 be clarified to state what the staff intended to say, which is: *
"The staff believes that changing this fundamental definition of shallow dose equivalent would be strengthened with formal, authoritative recommendations from the NCRP."
NRC has made many changes to its regulations without formal, authoritative approval from NCRP, and we should not set a precedent in requiring that for this proposed rulemaking.
1
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON , D.C. 20555-0001 March 1, 2000
!/ffll:J' COMMISSIONER MEMORANDUM TO : Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary FROM: NilsJ. Diaz~
SUBJECT:
COMSECY-00-0009 - RULEMAKING ON DISCRETE RADIOACTIVE PARTICLE DOSE CONSTRAINT I approve the staff's recommendation to initiate rulemaking that would establish a single, unified skin dose limit that would apply to any shallow dose equivalent to the skin regardless of the source or geometry of the irradiation. However, instead of issuing a grant to NCRP as noted in the paper, the staff should issue a contract to NCRP to perform the desired work. With respect to the schedule provided in COMSECY-00-0009, I believe there is no reason for the staff to develop and provide a formal rulemaking plan to the Commission . In addition , since the staff noted during the February 15, 2000, briefing of the Commission 's Technical Assistants that NCRP has informally endorsed the staff's proposal, the staff should develop the proposed rule in parallel with the work that will be performed by NCRP. The staff should provide the proposed rule to the Agreement States for comment and provide the proposed rule to the Commission with in 12 months.
I f}L.VV :>~ *; fI~J[?
UNITED STATES
. . ._._.;_~11_
_' ~tJf?.- ~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION COMSECY-00-0009 WASHINGTON, D.C . 20555--0001 January 31, 2000 MEMORANDUM TO: Chairman Meserve Commissioner Dicus Commissioner Diaz Commissioner McGaffigan Commissioner Merrifield FROM : William D. Travers \.i.)) *.:s 1....:---
Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
RULEMAKING ON DISCRETE RADIOACTIVE PARTICLE DOSE CONSTRAINT In a memorandum on this subject to the Commission dated October 27 , 1999, (Attachment), the staff informed the Commission of a change in direction on this rulemaking necessitated by the receipt of new technical information. The staff also committed to provide the Commission with a revised schedule for completing the technical work and developing the rulemaking . The purpose of this memorandum is to discuss the staff's plans and schedules for completing the technical work and rulemaking.
Since the Commission's approval in December 1998 to develop the Discrete Radioactive Particle (DRP) dose constraint rule, it has become apparent that there is a more desirable course of action that would provide relief from the financial and dose burden associated with frequent monitoring of workers during work shifts. This monitoring is claimed by the nuclear industry to result jn as much as 5 person-rem of additional external dose in the industry per plant outage (at $20K per person-rem, this is a burden of approximately $5 million per year) . The course of action proposed in the staff's rulemaking plan (SECY-98-245) and approved by the Commission was to develop a rule to implement the draft National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) recommended dose limit for DRPs . This approach which has already been reviewed by the States and other stakeholders, could result in a proposed rule to the Commission within about six months. The problem with this approach is that it establishes a new dose limit for a very special case of irradiation of the skin .
The staff's alternative approach, informally advocated by the NCRP, is to establish a single, unified skin dose limit that would apply to any shallow dose equivalent to the skin regardless of the source or geometry of the irradiation . This unified limit would serve as a limit to dose from DRPs on or off the skin, small areas (less than 1 square centimeter) of skin contamination , large area skin contaminations, and shallow dose equivalent that might result from any other external source.
CONTACT:
Alan Roecklein, NRR/DRIP/RGEB (301) 415-3883
Commissioner McGaffigan's Comments on COMSECY-00-0009 I approve the staff recommendation to modify 10 CFR Part 20 to establ ish a single, unified skin dose limit that would apply to any shallow dose equivalent to the skin regardless of the source or geometry of the irradiation . I agree with Chairman Meserve and Commissioner Dicus that: 1) a contract, rather than a grant, should probably be used with the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP); 2) the contract should specify milestones and a time line to ensure that this work is accomplished in a timely manner (e.g. , within six months); and 3) the staff be directed to immediately proceed with developing a proposed rule in parallel with the NCRP effort so as not to further delay NRC's rulemaking on this issue. I also agree with Chairman Meserve that the Agreement States need to be engaged early in this rulemaking since they will not have had the benefit of reviewing a rulemaking plan. The staff should consider discussing its rulemaking plans with State representatives at the May 2000 meeting of the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors.
UNITED STATJJEUUEsr BEPlW aw~-- -s:J,.!L9ic;n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION COMSECY-00-0009 WASHINGTON, D.C . 20555--0001 January 31, 2000 I approve the recommended staff actions as modified by Commissioner Dicus' vote of MEMORANDUM TO: Chairman Meserve 2/~4/00.
Commissioner Dicus ~
Commissioner Diaz Commissioner McGaffigan Je~ ~/1/00 Commissioner Merrifield c-...,;. '"" :*., , . **, , , o ,_; o u *.) '-" -u ::> 0
- s: I"""
- J ,
FROM: William D. Travers ~.)) ... ~- AleLEASE!nu THI!: PDF! :
Executive Director for Operations ~
-=--1/J....~/
d .
a; ~
r
SUBJECT:
RULEMAKING ON DISCRETE RADIOACTIVE PARf fe!L E DOSE . iniriais CONSTRAINT . . . , - , " . , - ._,
In a memorandum on this subject to the Commission dated October 27 , 1999, (Attachment), the staff informed the Commission of a change in direction on this rulemaking necessitated by the receipt of new technical information. The staff also committed to provide the Commission with a revised schedule for completing the technical work and developing the rulemaking . The purpose of this memorandum is to discuss the Sid11s plans and schedules for completing the technical work and rulemaking .
Since the Commission's approval in December 1998 to develop the Discrete Radioactive Particle (DRP} dose constraint rule , it has become apparent that there ;- a more desirable course of action that would provide relief from the financial and dose burden associated with frequent monitoring of workers during work shifts. This monitoring is claimed by the nuclear industry to result in as much as 5 person-rem of additional external dose in the industry per plant outage (at.. $20K per person-rem , this is a burden of approximately $5 million per year) . The course of action proposed in the staffs rulemaking plan (SECY-98-245) and approved by the Commission was to develop a rule to implement the draft National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) recommended dose limit for DRPs. This approach which has already been reviewed by the States and other stakeholders, could result in a proposed ru le to the Commission within about six months. The problem with this approach is that it a
establishes new dose limit for a very special case of irradiation of the skin.
The staffs alternative approach , informally advocated by the NCRP, is to establish a single, unified skin dose limit that would apply to any shallow dose equivalent to the skin regardless of the source or geometry of the irradiation. This unified limit would serve as a limit to dose from DRPs on or off the skin, small areas (less than 1 square centimeter) of skin contamination , large area skin-contaminations, and shallow dose equivalent that might result from any other external source.
CONTACT:
Alan Roecklein, NRR/DRIP/RGEB (301) 415-3883