ML20217C930
| ML20217C930 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/06/1991 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| FRN-55FR26945, RULE-PRM-20-20 NUDOCS 9107190010 | |
| Download: ML20217C930 (5) | |
Text
,. . - - - - . - -. - . _
- DCCKET NUMBER .
PETITTA4 RULE PRM-2 0-10 , ,
C 5 6 P R 2 4 7'f 5_) /h.\ * -4 ' ~ fi' . f, g l Q* / 00CKETED ';' g .
=[
9 :
[7590-010j ,j y N : 3 iS91. K .l U- oocenmu s ri i NUCLEAR' REGULATORY COMMISSION V: . SERVICE stcY-NRC BRANCl s@- % i
% ,1 ^ ' o\ \
10 CFR Parts 20 and 35 i r
l
[DocketNo.PRM-20-20] l l
Carol S. Marcus; Filing of Petition for Rulemaking {
i I
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Comission, j i
ACTION: Notice of receipt of petition for rulemaking. l
SUMMARY
- The Comission is publishing for public coment a notice of !
receipt of a petition for rulemaking dated December 26, 1990, which was' filed l with the Comission by Dr. Carol S. Marcus. The petition was assigned Docket. .
j No. PRM-20-20 on February 6,1991. The petitioner requests that the Commission-f revise its standards for protection against radiation to' raise the annual _ ;
radiation dose absorbed by individual members of.the-public:from 1 mSv to 5 tSv (500 mrems), j DATE: Submit coments (60 days af ter publication in the Federal-Register). j Comments received after this date will be considered.if it is practical to j do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given except as to commente received on or before this date.
ADDRESS: Submit comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, l Kashington, DC 20555.: Attention: Docketing =and Service Branch. For a i copy of the petition, write: Rules Review Section, Regulatory Publications .b
- Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and Publication Services, ^ffice .j of Adninistration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, DC 20555. . j b
p[)k71[j$109?O606 6bf61g \
55FR26945 pop 7 1 g6- ,
t
, _ _ . . . _ _ , - . , . _ . . . . . _ _ _ _ . _ - . . . - . . . _ . . _ _ . . . . - _ . _ _ _ , -.,_ , - .. -. _ . d
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael T. Lesar, Chief, Rules Review Section, Regulatory Publications Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and Publications Services, Office of Administratior), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555 Telephone: 301-492-7758 or Toll Free:
800-368-5642.
l I SUPPLE!!EliTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Cn December 28, 1990, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received a petition for rulemakino submitted by Dr. Carol S. Marcus. The petitioner re. quested amendments to the revised 10 CFR Part 20 and 10 CFR Part 35.
Because the final rule for 10 CFR Part 20 and conforming amendments had not been published in the Federal Register, Dr. Marcus agreed that the NRC delay docketing and providing public notice of the petition until the revised 10 CFR Part 20 had been published as a final rule.
The NRC published on May 21, 1991 (56 FR 23360) the final rule that amenced the standards for protection against radiation in 10 CFR Part 20 and maoe conforming amendments to 10 CFR Chapter 1. I In the amendment to 5 20.1301, the NRC states that each licensee shall conduct operations so that the total effective dose equivalent to individual members of tne public from the licensed operation does not exceed 0.1 reta (1 mSv) in a year, exclusive of the dose contribution from the licensee's disposal of radioactive material into sanitary sewerage in accordance with 5 20.2003. The se: tion further states that a licensee or license applicant may apply for prior NRC authorization to operate up to an annual dose limit for an individual member of the public of 0.5 rem (5 mSv).
1 l- The new standards for protection against radiation were redesignated-prior to publication. The references to 10 CFR Pari. 20 that were presented in the petition for rulemaking have been modified to reflect the section designations that appear in the final rule.
2 1
l . .
f
!T l i
Petitioner's Request l i
The petitioner requests the NRC to revise 10 CFR Parts 20 and 35 to - - !
(1) Raise the annual radiation dose limit that can be absorbed by members of f the public from patients receiving radiopharmaceuticals for diagnosis or thertpy fron 1 n6v to b mSv (500 miems); ;
r (2) Delete the requirement that licensees have to comply with provisions j l of EPA's applicable environmental standards in addition to complying with the l requiren'ents of Part 20. i (3) Amend 535.75(a)(2)toretainthe30 mci (1110MBq)limitfor1-131, but vary the maximum activity of other radionuclides consistent with the f calculaticns methodology employed in NCRP Report No. 37, " Precautions in the Management of Patients Who liave Received Therapeutic Amounts of Radionuclides }
(NCRP,1970)." [
t t
Reasons for Petition :
Raise Public Abscrbed Dose Limits [
l The petitioner states that reducing the level of absorbed dose to 1 mSv- l per year would be extremely expensive for members of the public and hospitalized j patients. The petitioner states that in order that iaembers of the public who are l cicsest to the patient not receive more than 1 mSv per year, patients l
who are hospitalized would require hospitalization for losiger times than they f L 6re now and many outpatients would have to be made inpatients. The petitioner .
questions the benefit to the public in Feducing the dose to 1 mSv because no one ;
has demonstrated any risk from chronic ' doses of 5 mSv per year. The petitioner i points out that residents of portions of Colorado, who receive 2.5 mSv per year, and those in higher background areas, have never shown any adverse effects from those low levels of. radiation. The petitioner states-that because the new Part' f 20 continues to permit the ' embryo / fetus of a declared pregnant woman to accrue a dose of 5 mSv per 9 months; it would be scientifically consistent to permit _
j certain members 01 the general public to do the same.
I Oual Requirements The petitioner recommends the deletion of $ 20.1301(d) which requires that, l in adoition to the requirements of Part 20, a licensee subject to the provisions :
of EPA's generally applicable environmental radiation standards in 40 CFR Part 190 l i
3 i
- - _ , _ _ . . , z -.,__,..-_- _ _ _ c .y . - - - ,
- e comply with those standards. According to the petitioner, EPA's radionuclide National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHPS) 2,43) become a national standard." According to the petitioner, the more restrictive nature of EPA's standard would rullify the revised Part 20. The petitioner states that NRC required adherence to EPA standards could cost $100,000,000 per year.
1110 MEq Limit The petitioner states that the new i 20.1903 is scientifically inconsistent with the Part 20 absorbed dose change in that it appears to have retained the concept of the 30 mci (1110 MBq) limit expressed in 6 35.75(a)(2). The petitioner further states that i 35.75(a)(2) is not scientifically sound because it refers to all radionuclides, instead of just 1-131, for which the 30 mci (1110 MBq) activity limit was originally intended. The petitioner requests that 30 mci (1110 MLq) limit for 1-131 be retained, but vary the maximum activity of other radioruclides consistent with the calculation methodology employed in hCRP No. 37.
Petitioner's Proposal The petitioner proposes to retain the 30 mci (1110 MBq) limit for 1-131, vary the maximum activity of other radionuclides consistent with the calculation methodology employed in NCRP No. 37, and continue to permit members of the public to receive up to 5 mSv from patients. The petitioner also proposes to l
l delete i 20.1301(d) because EPA's radionuclide NESHAPS will become a national
~
standard, and its more restrictive nature would take the place of the airborne effluent limit in the amended Part 20.
l 2
The Commission notes that these are not the same standards as 40 CFR l Part 190.
3 Implementation has been deferred by EPA.
l I
4
-. - - - .= -. .. . _ - . _- ._
C
- 1 Conclusion The petitioner states if this petition is granted, there will be zero-additional cost. The petitioner has included detailed economic impact calculations to support the technical basis for the petition.
Dated at P.ockville, Maryland this L
/1 Y day of June, 1991.
[
b O(
Samuel J. Chil ,
1 R A Secretary of the Comission.
l l
5
- - - .- - .- - -