ML20196E424
| ML20196E424 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/24/1988 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20150E008 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-88-514 NUDOCS 8812090339 | |
| Download: ML20196E424 (495) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:F o . NUCLEAR REGULATORY C09941SSICN l 10 CFR PART 20 and 10 CFR Parts 2, 19, 30, 31, 32, 34, 39, 40, 50, 61, and 70 Standards for Protection Against Radiation . AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Final rule. ! SUP94ARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).is revising its standards for protection against ionizing radiation. This l I t revision conforms the Commission's regulations to the Presiden- , tial Radiation Protection Guidance to Federal Agencies for occu-pational Exposure and to recommendations of national and international radiation protection organizations. A proposed rev'ision was published in 1986. This final rule incorporates changes suggested in the public comments, as appropriate. Amendeents to other parts of 10 CFR Chapter I are also being issued that amend Part 19 and update citations to 10 CFR Part
- 20. , [
EFFECTIVE DATE: These regulations become effective January 1, ) 1991. ADDRESSES: Copies of documents relating to tne January 9, 1986, , proposed rule (51 FR 1092) or this document may be examined and copied for a fee in the Commission's Public Document Room at j 1717 H Street NW., Washington, DC. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Harold T. Peterson, Jr., l Division of Regulatory Applications, Office of Nuclear l Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Consission, ! Washington, DC 20555. Telephone (301) 492-3640. ! I [ t 8812090339 001202 PDR FOIA , FELTON89-514 PDR I
- m. .; . . ~ : (..
*'.: s . , ._ .
. .y .
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction A. Purpose of the revision. . The purpose of this revision of 10 CFR Part 20 is to improve the NRC's radiation protection standards by reflecting developments in the principles and scientific knowledge that underlie radiation protection that have occurred since the Part 20 was originally issued more than 30 years ago. These developments not only includ.e updated scientific information on radionuclide uptake and metabolism, but also reflect changes in
. the basic philosophy of radiation protection. .
t It is also the purpose of this revision to implement recent Presidential Guidance on occupational radiation exposure (See I Section II.E.) The AEC and the NRC have followed past Federal Radiation Protection Guidance and conformance with the guidance : is viewed by the Commission as being necessary to ensure that all NRC licensed activities are using comparable levels of protection to those used by Federal agencies. , The AEC and the NRC have generally followed the basic radiation protection recommendations of the International Commission on Radislogical Protection (ICRP) and its U.S. l count'erpart, the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), in formulating basic radiation protection standards. In 1977, ICRP issued revised recosmiendations for a system of radiation dose limitation. This system, which was described in ICRP Publication 261 , introduced a number of I 1 Recomendations of the International Comission on Radiological Protection, January 13, 1977, ICRP Publicaticn h'o.26, Annals of tne ICRP, 1(3) (1977). FGN PART2051ATEME.iT 2 05/23/88 l l
'. , ','""${.[. ; ,J.f';. f ,.
- l, s ,. , L . v 'w - -
significant modifications to existing concepts and recossenda-
. tions of the ICRP and the NCRP that are now being incorporated in the NRC regulations. In particular, this revision of Part 20 puts into practice recommendations froe ICRP Publication 26 and
. subsequent ICRP pubitcations. The revised Federal Radiation Pro-tection Guidance signed by the President on January 20, 1987, is also based upon the ICRP 1977 recommendations of the ICRP.
B. Fundamental Radiation Protection Principles. The radiation protection standards in this part are based upon the assumptions that-- (a) Within the range of exposure conditions usually i encountered in radiation work, there is a linear relatienship, , I without threshold, between dose and probability of stochastic ' health effects (such as latent cancer and genetic effects); (b) The severity of each type of stochastic he,alth effect is' independent of dose; and
]
(c) Non-stochastic (non-random) occurrences of radiation-( induced health effects can be prevented by limiting exposures so that doses are below the thresholds for their inductun. The first assumption, the linear non-threshold dose effect rela-tionship, implies that the potential health risk is proportional . j to the dose received and that there is an incremental health risk associated with even vary small doses, even radiation doses much smaller than received from naturally occurring radiation sources. These health, risks, such as cancer, are termed ! stochastic because, for a given level of dose, not every person exposed would exhibit the effect. The second assumption means ] that when a stochastic effect is induced, the severity of the effect is not related to the radiation dose received . The third sumption implies that there are effects, termed nonstochastic effects, for which there is an apparent threshold, i.e., a ' dose level below which the effect is unlikely to occur. An exaraple PGN PART20 STATEMENT 3 05/23/88
. . . _ .. .. . = . . . . . . . . , . . . . , _ . . . . - . . . _. . s.. . .
c
- J
,5 . - I -l .
, , .: . - .. [.'..
of a nonstechastic of feet is the formation of radiation-induced cataracts of the eyes. The above assumptions are necessary because it is generally
. . . impossible to determine whether or not there are any increases in the incidence of ill health at very low doses and low dose
' rates, particularly in the range of doses to members of the general public resulting from NRC licensed activities..It is firmly established, both from animal studies and human epiden-iological studies (such as the radium dial painters, radiolo-gists, and the atomic bomb survivors) that there are increased incidences of certain cancers associated with radiation exposure
. at high doses and high dose rates. However, whether these ,
effects occur at very low doses and ,if they occur, whether their occurrence is linearly proportional to dose is not firmly
- established. In the absence of convincing evidence that there is a dose threshold, or that the linear assumption is unrealistic for extrapolating the observed risks at high doses to lower dose levels, the Commission believes that these assumptions remain prudent for formulating radiation protection standards and planning radiation protection programs.
C. Background. , Standards for radiation protection were originally issued by the former Atomic Energy Cosmission (AEC) in the late 1950's (22 FR 548; January 29,1957.) These standards have been modi-fled since that time by a series of amendments relating to
. specific issues; however, no complete revision of Part 20 has been made since the original standards were issued.
In 1980, the NRC issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) in the Federal Register of March 20,1980(45 FR 18023). This ANPR requested comments on possible topics that should be revised in a proposed revision of Part 20. The PGN PART20 STATEMENT 4 05/23/88
. _ - . . - . . . ~ - . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . - . . .
..[
, 3, ,
responses received to this announcement were considered .') tN formulation of the proposed revision. During the development of this rule, early comments from ' licensees, labor unions, pubite interest groups, other Federal agencies and scientific
- organizations were solicited, discussed and considered in formulating the proposed rule. In addition, the NRC staff has benefitad froe its participation in several public seatings held by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in connection with the guidance for occupational radiation exposure. The revised Part 20 and the Federal guidance on occupational exposure were developed in parallel and are both based primarily on the ICRP recommendations. The comments made ih these EPA-spansored meetings and those received by EPA on the draft guidance published by EPA in the January 23, 1981 Federal .
Register (45 FR 7836) were reviewed by the NRC staff and considered in preparing the draft revision of Part 20. The NRC published a proposed revision of the 10 CFR Part 20 rule in the January 9,1986 Federal Register (51 FR 10925). More than 800 public consents were received on the proposed revision. The public comments on the proposed revision were categorized, analyzed, and taken into account in developing the final rule. i I II. Developments since the proposed revision was issued t A. Backfit Analysis The comments of the NRC Commissioners in Section XXXVIII of the proposed rule indicated that the proposed rule was being l I published for public cossent prior to a Coanission decision on whether or not a backfit analysis should be prepared. ! Subsequently, at the direction of the Commission, the NRC staff prepared a draft backfit analysis for the Part 20 revision. l PGN PART20 STATEMENT 5 05/23/88 ! l l
___ .._ :. - ..._ _ . .-.. .. .. ....~...... ....,..s... __ ........ . . . . . . . .
** h ;; .
n. This draft backfit analysis was published for public comment in the August 29, 1986 Federal Register (51 FR 30870). The public comment period on this analysis ran concurrently with the - extended cossent period on the proposed rule, both ending on October 31, 1986. ,
. The Backfit Analysis was prepared to satisfy the require-i ments of 55,0.109of10CFRPart50(coanonlycalled"TheBackfit Rule") that: (1) a systematic and documented analysis be prepared for any new requirements placed upon existing nuclear power reactors licensees; (2) this analysis show that the new i .
requirement provides a substantial increase in the overall
.$ protection of public health and safety or in the common defense and security; and (3) that the direct and indirect costs of .
implementationarejustifiedinteresoftheincreased , l protection, i , The Draft Backfit Analysis for the Part 20 rule concluded thit: (1) the proposed Part 20 rule would provide improvements
- in health protection; (2) it could not be shown unequivocally 1 that the direct and indirect costs of implementation.would be justified in view of this increased protection; and (3) the conti.wation of the Part 20 rulemaking night be justified on the l basis of qualitative as well as quantitative factors. The Draft Backfit Analysis also contained a request for public comment on these tentative conclusions, particularly on whether qualitative
) , factors could be considered in evaluating costs and benefits. t There were 17 coaments that responded specifically to the questions asked in the draft Backfit Analysis. Three of the 13 !
- industry comments found the draft Backfit Analysis to be
! adequate, but only two cosamenters believed that it fully satisfied the backfit requirements in 5 50.109. Seven cossenters i (all electric utilities) thought that the draft Backfit Analysis was inadequate. Some felt that a cost-benefit analysis should ; have been done for each of the major changes (Note: The PGN PART20 STATEMENT 6 05/23/88 !
G. .;. '. .-
~L ;
, Regulatory Analysis contains estimates of the costs and benefits
- of each major change but does not perform a numerical 4
balancing.) . One utility stated that the draft Backfit Analysis complies l with 5 50.109 when non quantitative factors such as "contempor-ary scientific and philosophic approaches" are considered. Other comments states that non quantitative factors should not be con-
~
! trolling, but could be considered in the analysis. There was no support from these comments for suspending the application of j the provisions of 5 50.109 to the Part 20 rulemaking. Two com- l senters stated that the pertinent wording of I 50.109(c) would l
- i provide for Commission approval based on qualitative considera- l l tions. One of these commenters stated that
- "... qualitative fac- !
l tors are of sufficient importance to establish compliance of the , j i Part 20 backfit with (l) 50.109." i 1 i The Commission concludes that there are qualitative factors ! j that must be considered in addition to a purely numerical cost- f ) benefit comparison and that these factors are of paramount l ! importance in deciding whether this revised rule should be l promulgated as a final rule. Four pertinent qualitative factors l l supporting this determination are: ; i l
- 1. The 1987 revised Federal radiation protection cuidance_ !
l ,
! on occupational protection. As provided for in 5ection 274(h) of .
the Atomic Energy Act, on January 20, 1987 the President has j l approved revised guidance to Federal agencies on the fomulation j I of standards for occupational radiation protection. Members of the NRC staff participated in an interagency working group that j! developed the recommendations to the President. The AEC and the NRC have considered such guidance as binding and have f i i consistently implemented prior guidance in their regulations. } j Not following the guidance would lead to inconsistent { ! regulations among Federal agencies, particularly in areas where l. l other Federal agencies are licensed by the NRC. ! l ! I T o f:2.!iTATEMENT 7 05/23/88 : i 4 4
.? b[
N'{f.T,le'.* , . $.. -
- 1. b ?. ' .* = ' , ;;
l 7_
,I- ,
" 2. The need for updating the principles and technical basis underlyina the regulation. The system of protection presently ,
used in 10 CFR Part 20.is based on the philosophy and technicaf data in use over a quarter of a century ago. There have been broad revisions in the concepts and approaches for protection against radiation and numerous updates to the technical para-
- ' meters used for estimating radionuclide metabolism and dose. In order to be a current as possible, it is necessary to revise the previous standards to ensure that the NRC regulations reflect the current state of radiation protection science.
- 3. Maintainina consistency with international radiation pro L tection standards. The European Economic Community, the Inter-national Atomic Agency, the International Labour Organization, ,
. the World Health Organization, and the OECD/ Nuclear Energy ,
Agency base their radiation protection codes on ICRP recommen-dations. If the U.S. did not implement the new standards, we t would not be compatible with international organizations and a large segment of the nations with advanced nuclear technology. Such conformance is fundamental to standards governing the , I transportation of radioactive materials. '
- 4. Consistency of radiation protection requirements with current risk assessment methodoleaies. There is widespread and growing usage of the dose and risk-related assessment philosophy '
arising from the concepts in ICRP Publication No.26 and the metabolic and dose parameters in ICRP-30 and its companion reports. This more up to-date information necessitates changes to the intake and concentration limits in Appendix 8. l
- 8. ICRP 1985 Paris Meeting In March 1985, the International Commission on Radiological !
Protection (ICRP) held a meeting in Paris, France to review the l work of the various ICRP task groups and committees. One of the PGN PART20 STATEMENT 8 05/23/88 f l
2
- outcomes of this meeting was an ICRP statement that the ICRP intended the principal dose limit for members of the general public to be 1 mil 11 sievert (100 milliress) in a ) ear, rather *
. than 5 millisieverts (500 milliress). This clarification has
. . been taken into account for the limits adopted for members of the public in the final rule and is discussed more fully in the discussion on Section 20.301. .
A second recosnendation of the ICRP made at this time concerned the appropriate quality factor for converting the absorbed dose from neutrons (in rads or grays) to a dose equivalent (in rems or sieverts). The ICRP Statement recommended increasing the quality factor for high-energy neutrons by a factor of 2. The quality factor for fast , neutrons, for example, would be increased from 10 to 20. This , change has the effect of doubling the apparent biological risk of high-energy neutrons. For reasons explained in the discussion of quality factors (discussion on i 20.4), the NRC
~
nas not adopted this recommendation in this revision of Part 20. C. ICRP 1997 Washington Meeting The primary focuF of the statement issued by the ICRP following the 1987 meeting in Washington3 was ICRP Publication No. 484 . That publication discussed higher transfer factors for transport of certain transurante elements across the intestinal walls. These higher fractional absorption factors have been 2 Internatione .;ommission on Radio.,gical Protection, "Statement from t'e 1985 Paris Muting of the (ICRP), Writish Journal of Radiof ony, vol.58, page 910, 1985; also Health Physics 48(6): 828-829 (June 1985). 3 International Commission on RaciologTeal Protection, "ICRP Statement from 1987 Washington Meeting," Health Physics 53(3): 335-342 (1987). 4 International Commission on Raciological PTotection, "The Metabolism of Plutonium and Related Elements, ICRP Publication No. 48, ~Aenals of the ICRP 16 6 (2/3) (1986). PGN PART20 STATEMENT 9 05/23/88
~
.n ..? 0 :: h 0,!. '
.i %.* - -
;.' .$$'y.Cl:?'!fj.;,l 4;;,q; . " , y,N ,' .;f W
- tsf 'p
- .f. ,
's.;
. , z.
.,- *e
. r; - 3 i incorporated in revisions to the ALis and DACs in Appendix B of the final rule. The changes resulting from the use of these revised factors would not change either the ingestion or
, , inhalation ALIs for plutonium in the oxide or nitrate forms, but
.. would lowsr the AL!s for other compounds or mixtures by a factor ;
l ,
"of ten. The transfer factor for gut transfer of neptunium was
, .found to be an order of magnitude lower than the value used in
'ICRP 30 and, consequently, the ingestion ALI can be increased by almost an order or sagnitude. The transfer factor for americium, l
.' curium, and californium was found to be a factor of two higher than the ICRP 30 value so the ingestion ALI are reduced by a factor of two. Parameters applicable to inhalation AL!s and DACs
' are less affected as the transfer from the gastrointestinal (GI) tract to the blood is less significant than transfer from -
; the lung to the blood. '
' O. ICRP 1987 Como Meeting Following its 1987 meeting in Como, Italy, the ICRP issued a statement5 which reviewed the existing estimates of the bio- i i logical risks of ionizing radiation and, in particulir, the pre-
' lininary data from the reanalysis of the Hiroshima-Nagasaki , atomic bomb followup studies. Reanalysis of these data indi-cates that risks from gamma radiation are approximately a factor i - of two higher than previous estimates for the general population ( l and are also higher, but by a smaller factor, for workers. The ! ICRP concluded that this information alone is "not considered t sufficient to warrant a change in the dose limits for occupa- l tional exposure and, for the general population, the increase in ( j risk indicated by the new data is not considered to require a change in the recommended dose limits, following the reduction i [by the ICRP) (in 1985) in the principal limit from 5 to 1 sSv l f 5 International Commission on Radiological Protection "Statement from the ' i 1987ComoMeetingofthe(ICRP),"HealthPhysics54f1): 125-132 (1988). l PGN PART20 STATEMENT 10 05/23/88 l l ! 1
- 'i
.- .,t;.G <3,.
. s,. <a.. .
~
j".. ~ in a year (from sources other than medical and natural back- l ground radiation)." The ICRP also noted that the potential I higher riska indicated by the reanalysis of the atomic bomb data should not be a major consideration as the dose limits should
. not be of primary importance in controlling doses if the
. principle of keeping radiation exposures "as low as is reasonably achievable" is being practiced.
F. Federal Radiation Protection Guidance on occupational Exposure On January 20, 1987, President Reagan approved revised guidance to Federal agencies for occupational radiation protection. This guidance, which was published in the Federal , Register (52 FR 2822; January 27,1987), generally adopts the philosophy and methodology of ICRP Publications 26 and 30. The Part 20 revision was developed in parallel with the development of'the guidance. Because of this parallel development, the proposed Part 20 rule conformed with'the draft Federal guidance available at the time the proposed Part 20 rule was written. However, because of changes made to both the draft guidance and the draft Part 20 revision, there were a few differences between the guidance in its final published form and the proposed Part 20 revision. As discussed in the respective sections below, changes to the proposed rule have been made in order to implement the final version of the Federal guidance. I 1 i h PGN PART20 STATEMENT 11 05/23/88 l I
, .. g 1
- y :..f'-
'.... . ':; L ,
. ,. r. ,:
G. NCRP Report No. 91 On June 1,1987, the National Counct) on Radiation Protec-0 tion and Measurements (NCRP) issued a report containing updated NCRP recossendations for radiation protection limits. These recommendations replace recommendations published in 1971. The sajority of these recommendations are in accord with the 1977 recommendations of the ICRP and, consequently, were already re-flected in the proposed Part 20 rule.. There are, however, I several NCRP recossendations that had not been made in the ICRP-26 recommendations. These NCRP recommendations are:
- 1. A general "guideline" that the cumulative effective dose equivalent to a worker should not exceed 1 times the worker's age in years; i.e., 1 x N instead of the former 5(N - 18) .
formula;
- 2. Use of consitted effective dose equivalent for planning purposes and the use of annual doses for post-(internal) expos-ure control; ,
- 3. A monthly dose limit as well as a limit on total gestation dose to the embryo / fetus; ,
- 4. Adoption of a 0.1-res (1 mSv) effective dose equivalent
> limit for exposure of the general public with the condition that the "site operator" assess the total exposure to the most exposed individual if estimated or measured exposures exceed 25 percent of this limit (25 millires or 0.25 asv per year);
- 5. The use of "reference levels" set up by the radiation user below the regulatory limits.
4 6 National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP),
"Recommendations on Limits for Exposure to Ionizing Radiation," NRCP Report No. 91 (June 1, 1987).
1
! PGN PART20$TATEMENT 12 05/23/88 1
I L
[N'hSN *' I ' -: . M/; . e.7,-3 3 e.n., . _ s. ,. ' 15
., ,- b,.:,;h.
s . ,7 ,
~
7' ,,- :.. 5
- 6. A Negligible Individual Risk Level of 1 millires ,
(0.01 mSv) per year. This level is the "... average annual excess risk of fatal health effects attributable to irradiation, below* which further effort to reduce radiation exposure to the individual is unwarranted." (NCRP No.91, p.43)
" These NCRP recommendations were issued after publication of the proposed rule and, consequently, there has not been an opportunity for public comment on thee. For this reason, these NCRP recommendations are not being incorporated in the revised Part 20 rule at this time.
III. Summary of Public Comm nts and Changes from Proposed Rule , The purpose of this section is to respond to comments raised on the proposed rule and to explain and highlight the changes made to the proposed rule. This section presents, for . each paragraph or section of the rule, the principal public com-l , l ments on the proposed rule, a NRC staff response to the comments (where appropriate), and a summary of the primary changes that were made to the proposed rule, This section has been arranged 1 so that it corresponds to the structure of the rule. Although it i follows the format of the final rule, the following text is not
- intended to convey any additional requirement not already in the regulatory text. The text of tM revised Part 20 appears near the end of this nctice.
J 1 SUSPART A -- GENERAL PROVISIONS l - 3 3
$ 20.1 Purpose.
1 Final Rule. A new sentence was added to convey the intent l
' of the former 5 20.9 in the proposed rule (which has been 13 05/23/88 j PGN PART20 STATEMENT i
i
L.' i
+ -
',pi,.h,C'..i. . . '
C'. -
, w3 .
' removed) that the regulations in Part 20 should not hinder a . ,
licensee's actions to protect health and safety in the event of i an emergency. The implication that the requirements of Part 20 l are not appitcable in an emergency has been olisinated. It is the Commission's intent that the regulations be observed to the
- extent practicable during emergencies, but that conformance with ,
- the regulations should not hinder any action, such as lifesav- ;
' - ing, protection of property or maintaining confinement of radio- l
. active saterials which have overriding priorities. I i
In this regard, the Commission notes that the Federal guidance on occupational radiation protection states that these dose standards only apply to normal operating conditions. The ! Commission believes that the dose limits for normal operation [
. should remain the primary guidelines in emergencies. However, . j the Coenission.also recognizes that, in a severe emergency, ,
operations that do not conform to the regulations may have to be carried out to achieve the high priority tasks of worker, public ! and facility protection. The purpose of the addition to this section is to assure licensees that their first priority should be to carry out those actions which are necessary to protect I workers and the public from radiation exposure, prevent or limit f the spread of radioactive contamination or release of ,
. radicactive saterials to the environment, to perfors lifesaving activities, and any necessary operations to preserve an adequate margin of safety. The Commission will consider, on a case-by-case basis, the existence of extenuating circumstances, when evaluating any ensuing violations and their severity.
5 20.2 Scope.
. Final Rule. The statement of scope remains essentially the same as in the proposed rule.
PGN PART205TATEMENT 14 05/23/88
^
, ;*} .. ; ,' .
5 0. 3 ' Definitions. General. Because of the large number of cossents that dealt primarily with wording changes or that questioned the need for I or the use of a particul,ar definition, the individual comments will not be discussed separately. However, these consents did result in substantial revisions to many of the definitions that appeared in the proposed rule. Those definitions that were 4 added, modified or deleted as a nsult of the public comments are listed below. . Distinction between i fferent kinds of dose equivalents. The } potential for confusion between dose equivalents was noted. Comments noted that effective dose equivalents, committed ] effective dose equivalents, and doses to the lens of eye, skin *
. or extremities were all expressed in units of rees or sieverts and may be difficult to distinguish from one another.
1 1 i Response: In the final rule the NRC staff has applied unique names for these previously undesignated quantities l including: eye dose equivalent, shallow dose equivalent (skin), j shallow dose equivalent (extremities) and total effective dose i equivalent. The ICRP did not give these quantities specific, ! names. The us; of characteristic names is intended to reduce i confusion in using these units. In this regard it should be j noted that the licensee is requi nd to designate, in a clear and i unambiguous manner, the quantities that are being ncorded (See 5 20.1101(b)). $ Final Rule. All of the important definitions in the revised rule have been collected into one section, 9 20.3 Definitions. Unlike the proposed rule, which employed groups of i related tems ("Area Tems," "Dese Tems," "Monitoring Tems," i etc.), all of the definitions in the final rule an listed in I strict alphabetical order. This urganization also avoids the i l PGN PART20 STATEMENT 15 05/23/88
' presence of "local definitions" which appear only in a specific section of the regulation. ,
- 1. New Terns. The following definitions have been added ,
since the publication of the proposed rule. Thess definitions have been added to clarify the meaning of the torno, a."Activity" b."Derived air concentration-hours" ("DAC-hours") c."Dosinetry processor" t d."Entrance or access point" e."Generally applicable environmental standard" f."Individual monitoring device" g."Quality factor" ; h."Sanitary sewerage" l 1."Total effective dose equivalent (TEDE)" l j."Weighting factor."
- 2. Revised Definitions. The following definitiens have been revised or modified from the definition used in the proposed ;
rule: l l
- a. "Absorbed dose" [
- b. "Annual limit on intake"
- c. "Class" j
- d. "Committed dose equivalent" ;
- e. "Connitted effective dose equivalent ;
- f. "Derived air concentration"
- g. ' Dose equivalent"
- h. "Effective dose equivalent"
- 1. "Embryo / fetus" j."Eyedoseequivalent"
- k. "Member of the public"
- 1. "Natural background" j
- m. "Non-stochastic" ,
PGN PART20 STATEMENT 16 05/23/88 f 1 l I
F k , ; ' l-Cl?: N' E' '
- n. "Person"
- o. "Planned special exposure"
- p. "Qu m er" '
- q. "Survey"
- r. "Weighting factor"
- s. "Working level"
- t. "Year."
- 3. Definitions and terms deleted. Two definitions were
, deleted because the terms no longer appear in the rule:
- a. "Collective effective dose equivalent" and
- b. "Roentgen." ,
l 20.4 Units of radiation dose. , Choice of the syst.ee of units. Several commenters expressed a preference for retaining the older "special" units (the curie, rad and ree) rather than allowing the use of the newer SI units. Rea' sons cited for retaining the older systes included: precent widespread use and licensee familarity, potential for misunder-standings with the newer units, the need for worker retraining - (particularly while learning the new ICRP systen af dose lini-tation), and the costs associated with changin' 'et ikaeping systems. A smaller number of coanwnts favorew stav ) over to the SI units: becquerels, grays and sieverts. 4
- Response
- The revised Part 20 will permit the adoption of
- either the "special units" or th( SI units at the licensee's choice providing that the two systens are not used together or mixed (e.g., using curies and sieverts together). Other organ-izations, such as the International Civil Aviation Organization and the International Air Transport Associatior, already require the use of the $1 units and Itcensees needing to meet the requirements of these other organizations should adopt the $1 i units for all activities.
I l I PGN PART20 STATEMENT 17 05/23/88 i
a . -; :... . . p. l i . :. .
. ... age:.::r. w:
.:T :.,. -
... ;g. .
Final Rule. The final Part 20 rule includes the International System of Units (SI units) for distance, area,
- volume, activity (becquerel), absorbed dose (gray), and dose equivalent (sievert) as well as the older "special units" for activity (curie), absorbed dose (rad), and dose equivalent (rea). ,
Quality Factors for neutrons. The quality factor Is the conver-sion fLctor between the absorbed dose (in units of rads or grays) and the dose equivalent (in units of reas or s! everts). 2 Several publications ,3,4,7,8 have recommended changes in neutron quality factors th45 are a factor of two higher than those in the proposed Part 20 rule. These changes would raise the quality factor for fast neutrons from 10 to 20. Response: Increases in the quality factor for neutrons are suggested by some anisal experimental data on the relative bio-logical effectiveness (R8E) of neutrons. However, there appears to be considerable uncertainty as to whether the data actually demonstrate an increase in the hazard of neutrons. Because the R8E is defined as a ratio of doses to produce equivalent bio-logical effects, it is not clear whether the apparent increase in the neutron RBE is due to the increased effectiveness of , neutrons or whether it actually results from the decreased effectiveness of ganna radiation at low doses. Final Rule. The NRC has decided not to revise the neutron quality f actor at this time but to defer any change until there 7 International Commission on Radiological Units and Measurements, "The Quality Factor in Radiation Protection," Report of a Joint Task Group of ICRP and ICR0 to ICRP and ICRU, ICRU Report No.40 (1986). 8 International Coenission on Radiological Protection "Data for Use in Protection Against External Radiation," ICRP Publication No.51, Annais oftheICRP,(InPress). 18 05/23/88 PGN PART20 STATEMENT
'~,
t ,7 .
'.', , y . y. .
r , is a scientific consensus on the most appropriate <alue. This is consistent with recommendations of the Committee on Interagency, RadiationResearchandPolicyCoordination(CIRRPC)ofthe Office of Science and Technology Policy that there should not be a revision in the value of the neutron quality factor at this time without more study. This position is also reflected in papers from the UK Nation #1 Radiological Protection Board (UKNRPB)I and a statement on the neutron quality factor from the . British Committee on Radiat.fon Units and Measurements 10, A major consideration underlying this decision is that , neutron exposures at most NRC 1(censed facilities are currently , small and the potential increase of a factor of 2 would not have' i amajorhealthorregulatoryimpact. For the few licensees that i may have situations that could result in neutron sxposures (such ' as entries made into nuclear reactor containments during reactor [ operation), it is recommended that the possibility of at least a [ factor of 2 reduction in the sargin of safety commonly associ-ate d '.'.h the dose limits be considered for planning work assignments and stay times and in evaluating the need for additional dose reduction sensures. l i Table of neutron cuality factors. Several commenters questioned l the accuracy and timeliness of the table of neutron quality i factors and fluence rates (to give dose equivalents of 1 ree) that appeared in the proposed rule. Some commenters suggested l that there were more appropriate tables published by the NCRP or ! ICRP. I 9 J. A. Dennis, "The Relative Biological Effectiveness of Neutron Radiation l and its loplications for Quality Factor and Dose LiFitation," Nuclear l 4 Energy LO(2): 133 149 (1987). l 10 TrTtish committee on Radiation Units and Measurements (BCRV), "Memorendum 1 from the 8CRU: effective quality factor for neutrons," Physics in Hedicine l and Biology B (7):797-799 (1986). PGN PART20 STATEMENT 19 05/23/88 f f l
\
o . . ..,:. , ,, .
,.- * [. _ , ,t, , . ' , ], , .
,, )[y.,'f tj - - -
Respese: The tables in the proposed. rule were taken from NCRP Report No. 3411 and are appropriate for the neutron dose equivalent at a soft tissue depth of I centimeter (which is the depth specified for the detereination of the deep dose equi-valent). There are newer tables from the ICRP, but these tables incorporate the factor of two increase in the neutron quality i A - factor. (See the preceding discussion of the value of the f
. neutron quality factor). !
l 1 . . Table of $1 prefixes. Most commenters felt that this table was } neither necessary nor desirable in a regulatory document. . t 1 Response. The table has been removed from the final rule. l
$USPART B -- RADIATION PROTECTION PROGRAMS 9 20.101. Radiationprotectionprograms("AsLowAsIs Readily Achievable" (ALARA)) ($ 20.102 of the .
j Proposed Rule. . f f i The concept of ALARA is a philosophical principle of radiation l protection end, as such, it should not be made into a regulatory reautrement. A primary objection to changing the status of l ALARA from the hortatory suggestion in the current Part 20 { ] ' ("licensees should") to a mandatory requirement ("licensees shall") is that there are no guidelines (ezcept for light water l reactor ef fluents) as to what constitutes ALARA. Because of the subjective nature of an "ALARA level," there are problems in the I retrospective evaluation of ifcensee performance by inspectors i and, at least in one case, interpretations by the coarts 11 National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements "Protection Against Neutron Radiation," NRCP Report No. 38 (January 1971). 20 05/23/88 PGN PART20 STATEMENT i I
.r... , s. .
...y,. > ~; . ., , .
; . y 5 / ;y - y \ ' ~ ~.', . . ~ 3. p. ,.
- o. ,. v,-
; : :, t n., .
concerning whether the levels a:hieved were truly "as low as is t-<st mbly achievable." onse: There were a n'mber of coments t5st expressed >
< 5
> .oncerns regarding the proposed implementation of
- The emphasis on "ALARA" actions has been revised from ou,miled r requirements to document all ALARA actions to a l
requirement to have a Radiation Protection' Program which includes measures to keep doses and intakes "as low as i; recsonably achievable." This shift is to emphasize that tne "ALARA" concept is intended to be an operating principle rather thananabsoluteeinfaliationofexposures. Any requirement for ALARA should include a lower bounds. Many licensees felt that there should be a "floor" for ALARA efforts, , dose levels below which further reductions are not necessary.- Response: The Consiission agrees that there would be ady'antages to establishing such a "floor," below '<hich efforts
- to further reduce doses would not be necessary. This concept is curreitly being considered by the NRC staff. (See discussion on
' 5 20.304.) o Compliance with "ALARA-based" standards should cor.stitute beino ALARA; Several commenters supported the statement in the propo-
;od Part 20 ($ 20.102(b)) that compliance with EPA's 40 CFR Part 190 and with Appendix ! to 10 CFR Part 50 should r,. nstitute i
de facto c.ompliance with the requirement to keep LWR effluents ALARA. EPA connents did not suppor' this view. Response: Appendix ! to 10 CFR Part 50 defines ALARA levels of radioactiva materials in light-water-cooled reactor (LWRs) effluents. If the design objectives of Appendix I are met, it constitutes a demonstration that the effluents are A'URA an'd no i additional effort is required to reduce the effluent levels. 1 PGN PART20 STAT 39ENT 21 05/23/88
{' ',
. .. : . .c r.
9 0. q:,[- . :<. ~.3: ,
'Although the Environmental Protection Agency interprets 40 CFR Part 190 as an "ALARA-based" standard, it also believes that 40 CFR Part 190 constitutes an upper bound, not a lower bound, to ALARA effort,s.12 Consequently, compliance with 40 CFR Part 190 is not in itself sufficient to demonstrate that releases and
' doses are ALARA.
- <Ts .
As Appendix I to Part 50 defines ALARA design objer:tives which consistitute ALARA effluent levels, meeting these leveis is sufficient to demonstrate ALARA effluent releases. In order for LWRs to demonstrate that doses from both effluents d direct rediation are ALARA, it is necessary to demonstrate that
' effluents meet the design objectives of Appendix 1 to 10 CFR Part 50, that direct radiation from onsite sources (gama radiation froc external radwaste tanks and turbines ("turbina shine")) is also ALARA, and that the total dose to any member of the public is within the numerical standards in 43 CFR Part 190. ,
Meeting these conditions will consitute sufficien+ evidence that offsite doses from LWRs are ALARA and in complianc. with both Appendix I and 40 CFR Part 190.
~
. t The NRC should establish "reference levels" in its rules. One comenter thought that the NRC should have "reference levels" for licensee action in Part 20.
aesponse: The Comission recognizes that licensees general ~ ly establish their own lower "reference levels" in order to keep i from reaching and exceeding the Comission's formal dose limits. 12 Letter of January 7, 1986 from Sheldon Meyers, Director, Office of Radia- - tion Programs, Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, to Robert B. Minogue, Director, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cossaission (This letter is reproduced as Enclosure 8 to the coments of the Environmental Protection Agency on the 10 CFR Part 20 revision.(Docket PR-19, 20, 70 et al. 50 FR 51992; Coment i
# 769)).
PGN PART20STATENENT 22 05/23/88
* * ^
..y_,... i . . .. .c '. .
'~'('!qny.,.f.-.
. .fl.Y...
. '. "f}.h;l% '. , U i:: .L . Q- .
l
', -'[ " *e Based upon the public comments on the "reference level" for
. exposure of members of the pubile that was in sectinn 20.303, this approach would not be favored by a majority of licensees. "
That "reference level" was viewed as being applied exactly as if it were a limit. Consequently, if the NRC were to specify generic "reference level's" for licensee action, the impact might
, >;be similar to lo n ing the magnitude of the dose limits. The
~
Commission believes that the use of the ALARA philosophy is a preferable means to keep exposures low. Final Rule. The final rule establishes a requirement for all licensees to have a Radiation Protection Program which
- - includes provisions for keeping radiation doses ALARA. It is expressly intended that the level of this program and efforts to document it are commensurate with the size of the licensed .
facility and the potential hazards from radiation exposure and the intake of radioactive materials. The requirement for a radiation protection program is not nev; it was discussed in the proposed rule (under ALARA) and is consistent with requirements in Part 33 (55 33.13, 33.14 and 33.15), Part 34 ($ 34.11), Part 35 (56 35.20 - 35.31), Part 40 6 40.32) of the NRC regulations and in the information , requcstad in Chapter 12 of Regulatory Guide 1.70, "Standard l Form t and Content of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power l Plants," and conditions in most licenses issued by the Comis-sion. The extent of this program and requirements for written I records and procedures for operating this program are intended to be come;tsurate with the scope and potential hazards associ-ated with w e licensee's activities. The Comission recognizes
- the need to provide tore detailed guidance on the scopes of pro-grams for various classes of licensees h Comission continues to emphus12e the importance of the MRA concept to an adequate radiation protection program. In
- ordw to trengthen this concept, the Comission has adopted a PGP PART20STCli,M.NT 23 05/23/88 i
[ A.
-l.
requirement that all licensees include provisions for keeping radiation doses and intakes of radioactive materials as low as is reasonably achievable as part of their radiation protection ' programs. Compliancewiththisrequirementwillbejudgedon whether the licensee has incorporated measures to track and, if necessary,.to reduce exposures and not whether exposures and doses represent an absolute minimum or whether the licensee has used all possible methods to reduce exposures. This shift in emphasis should reduce potential problems o,f retrospective evaluation of licensee performance under admittedly subjective criteria. However, the licensee should be able to desonstrate that periodic reviews of performance have been made and that efforts have been made to achieve "ALARA." As noted above, the level of effort expended on the Radiation Protection Programs should reflect the magnitude of the potential exposures, both . l l the magnitude of average and maximum individual doses and, ir. facilities with large numbers of employees or potential for producing significant environmental impact, the collective (population) dose. A nuclear power reactor would be expected to have a considerably larger program than a licensee with only small sealed sources. - As noted in the proposed rule (51 FR 1103), the Comiss,fon has not adopted a requirement for a numerical cost-benefit analysis (optimization analysis) to be used to demonstrate ALARA. The Nuclear Regulatory Comission encourages licensees to employ' quantified analyses to define ALARA, but their use is not required. One reason for this is that many ALARA procedures simply reflect sound onerating practice and do not lend them-selves to a quantified analysis. Another reason is that cost-benefit analyses could have a cost associated with obtaining the necessary information and carrying out the analysis that may be more than the monetary value of the dose reduction. The quanti-tative approach is useful for those situations where both costs and benefits (dose reduction) can be quantitated, such as in shie'1 ding design or analysis of decontamination methods. PGN PART20 STATEMENT 24 05/23/88
.~
' SUBPART C -- OCCUPATIONAL DOSE LIMITS
$ 20.201 Occupational dose limits for adults. .
Elimination of the 5(N - 18) uge-prorateo cumulative dose limit and the adoptu.n of the 5-rem annual effective dose limit. Most commenters favored this change noting that most licensees have succeeded in keeping doses below 5 rems per year for the past few years and are already meeting the riew limit. Lifetime dose limits. A few comenters believe that there should ' be a limit on the cumulative total dose that can be received by any individual in their lifetime. Response: The Commission considered the use of a lifetime doselimit,butrejectedit. The Environmental Protection Agency had proposed such a limit (100 ress) in its propssed Federal Guidance on Occupational Radiation Exposure ,(46 FR 7836; January 23,1981) but withdrew it. If the magnitude of the annual dose is limited, there is a de facto limitation of the lifetime dose that can be received. l The Comission believes that such a de facto lifetime limit is l preferable to an actual cumulative lifetime dose limit t'ecause the cumulative limit could act to limit employability. This, in
- turn, raises questions concerning the right of an individual to pursue employment in a chosen profession. If an individual were l to deplete the "dose bank" provided by a lifetime dose limit, it xmight be difficult to obtain future employment in a radiation-related field.
l Quarterly dose limit. A number of comenters noted that the ICRP l system of dose Ifnitation does not have quarterly or other l l PGN PART20STATEHFNT 25 05/23/88
I (
'/ :. .-
5.'.;.. ,- limits covering periods less than a year.' The public commente j also noted the possiblity of giving rise to two violations for, the same event (i.e., the possibility of exceeding both the quarterly and annual dose limits in one event) thereby incurring
~
. ; two citations.
Response: The quarterly limit (only for deep dose equiva-lent) had been retained in the proposed rule as a result of sug-gestions received from several groups during the development of the rule. The primary protection function of retaining a quarterly limit was to reduce the potential for receiving several high doses within a relatively short period of time. Final Rule. The 3-rem quarterly dose limit has not been retained; there are only anneal dose limits specified in the final rule. l Eye dose limit. Some commenters questioned the 15-rem (0.15-sievert) eye limit used in the proposed rule noting that ICRP Publication No. 26 contains a recommended value of 0.3 sieverts , (30 rems). ' Response: The ICRP recommended a reduction in the limit for the eye to 0.15 sieverts (15 rems) at their Brighton, England meeting in 1980 13 This was done because the ICRP concluded that, for a lifetime of occupational exposure at the 0.3-sievert I (30-ree) limit, some opacities in the lens of the eye might be produced that could develop to the point of causing deteri-f oration of vision (even without further radiation exposure). In l ' most situations, the limits for the deep dose equivalent and the shallow dose equivalent to the skin should ensure that the eye i dose limit is also met. Consequently, the reduction from l l 13 International Cosnission on Radiological Protection, "Statement and 4cc:.- mandations of the 1980 Brighton Meeting," Annuals of the ICRP 4 (3/4) - Oxford, England: Pergamon Press (1980). 26 05/23/88 PGN PART20 STATEMENT I , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - - _ _ _ _
$.' .. '(; %. ' .;; ;;.i '., ^: . . ::
o b?.?.}h' W~: tY. 5; . Sk$$ y g g .f:a . _ 4 5 '.4'D E,q..:.- .',
. Y_., , . \ ,.,. '
- t -
, b _. * , -
> 30 rees to 15 rems is not expected to have a significant impact
.on either health protect ion or control cost.
Parameters definina the shallow-dose equivalent ("skin dose").
- 7. The proposed rule would have established an dose limit for the
';N
,',[skinof50remsaveragedover10squarecentimeters(10ce2).
~ ! "C;'There were several comments concerning the scientific basis for
~ ~~
'this area. Some commenters suggested other surface areas, such c' as 15 cm2, as being better suited to measurement conditions.
Proponents of the larger areas generally favored these areas because of their compatability with either contamination survey practices or with the physical size of survey instrument
' detector probes One set of comments prepared by the developer of the NRC's .
VARSKIN computer program for skin dose calculation (comment letter No. 262 in the NRC Public Docuser.t Room) contains a well-j documented discussion of the selection of an appropriate area over which to average the skin dose. These comments conclude that one square centimeter is a more appropriate area than either 10 cm2 or 100 cm2, Response: ICRP Publication 26 contains two recommendations for such areas: a 100-cm2 area and a 1-cm2 area, the larger area being associated with routine monitoring for skin contamination, i and the smaller area being associa ed with accident dose evalu- l ation. After reviewing these comments and various recom- , l mendations regarding skin dose measurements, the Commission has i l decided to use the smaller area of 1 square centimeter (1 cat) for skin dose evaluations. The 1-cm2 area is consistent with > the prior recosmiendations in N85 Handbook No. 5914, NCRP Report l l 14 National Committee on Radiation Protection and Measuremer'. (gresently the ' National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements), Permissible , i f Dose from External Sources of Ionizing Radi~ation," NBS Handbook No. 59 (1954) page 28. 27 05/23/88 , PGN PART20 STATEMENT I l
[.
. U [,
l (.,$ . , ., ,, , , ,
'l '
t; - 4, a. , - : ..
^
16 15 No. 39 and ICRP Publication No. 9 as well as the smaller a area recommended in ICRP Publication No. 26. A'e Within the past several years therr htvf. been instances
. . ~,. where very small (5-250 p) particles s? fuel or activated
- 'E ~ corrosion products have been discovered in reactor facilities, on workers or their clothing, and, in a few isolated cases, in worker's vehicles or homes. These particles are generally too large to pose a significant risk from inhalation, but are capable of producing intense beta-radiation doses over very small areas of the skin. The principal hazard appears to be skin ulceration if the particles remain localized on the skin surface. The primary uncertainty associated with evaluating the hazard of these small particles is determining the skin area or ,
tissue volume to which the dose is to be computed (or even i whether "dose" is the most appropriate indicator of the hazard). The NRC has requested the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) to look into the hot particle issue and make recommendations on how to evaluate the hazards associated with these particles. .- 2 Final Rule. This revision of Part 20 specifies an area of l'cm for skin dose evaluations. The "hot particle" issue is being addressed independently of the Part 20 rule making. Effective dose equivalent for external exposure. The most preva-lent comment concerning the effective dose equivalent is the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, "Basic
~
15 Radiation Protection Criteria," NCRP Report No. 39 (January 15,1971), page 79, paragraph 207. 16 International Cosmission on Radiological Protection, "Recommendations of I the International Commissiert on Radiological Protection (adopted September , l 17, 1965),"ICRP Publication No. 9 (1966), page 6, paragraph 28. 1 28 05/23/88 PGN PART20 STATEMENT
l
'.,:.y :. ../ - . . .
" ' ' ' ' ~'*
M
. . 1 restriction in the proposed rule of the risk-weighted organ dose !
"effective dose" concept to internal doses without permitting a similar method to be employed for external doses. There were several comments that noted the desirability of using organ
,. weighting factors for external doses.
Response: There are practical problems in the determination of the type and energies of the radiation involved and of the orientation of the individual'with respect to the source of the radiation that have to be considered iin making such calculations. Furthermore, none of the principal standard-setting organizations have included specific recommendations for such external dose weighting factors. At , some time in the future when gamma spectral measurements become routine, the use of weighting factors for external doses might be practical. i Final Rule. External doses'to the the head, trunk (inclu-ding male gonads), arms above the elbow, or legs above the knee are to be treated as whole-body doses. For the purp,ose of weighting the external dose (for adding it to the internal dose) l a single weighting factor, wT = 1.0, has been specified. 1 i A:lowance for exposure after limits are exceeded. Commenters noted that allowance of an additional 1-rem per quarter dose limit for a worker who had already exceeded the 5-rem annual limit might be counterproductive. Workers who remain under the annual limit, and whose dose was X reas, would be constrained to receive (5 - X) reas, whereas workers who received more than 5 rems in the first quarter could be allowed an additional 4 rems (1 rem in each of the four quarters). One cosmient suggested that this could provide an incentive for individuals who are approaching the dose limit to deliberately exceed the l 11m'i and thereby protect their employability by taking advan-
. tage of the extra dose allowance permitted available to tho'se who have exceeded the limits. Another commenter believed that PGN PART20 STATEMENT 29 05/23/88
ss . ~ ~ , . .. , . , '.. ,
- . , j yl -: ..
. p..:s , ... <g.'; O
~
. . . - .. :- _s.
e.9 .-
.- .p....-.
. , , w.,. . , .U- . .
such a blanket authorization to exceed the linits was inappra - priate and g, referred prior NRC review of the use of t. hest extra doses on a case-by-case basis. s
~ Response: The purpose of the dose allowance was to protect
, ,,-[theworker'semployabilityafterhavingreceivedadoseabove
'e the dose limits. Although intentionally getting additional exposure might be in the worker's interest for employability reasons, such an action would not be in the worker's interest with respect to health protection.
Also, the incremental dose authorization in 20.201(c) is available only after control has failed and the dose limit has already been exceeded. In that situation, the licensee would be subject to a citation for non-compliance and to associated NRC enforcement penalties for exceeding the dose limits. . Final Rule: The allowance of 1 rem per quarter has been - retained. I 20.202 Compliance with requirements for summation 'of internal and external doses. I Implementation burden. Many commenters felt that the burden of adding external and internal doses was substantial, particularly as most licensees would be faced with either external exposure situations or internal dose situations, but not both. Response: The NRC staff disaSrees that there will be a substantial recordkeeping burden because this summation will be required only if both the internal dose and the external dose are each likely to exceed 10% of the dose limit. Thus in most ! situations, as noted in the comments, or}1y one component will be required to be measured and, consequently, suseation of internal and external doses will not be required. PGN PART20 STATEMENT 30 05/23/88 i
l 1
. q .- \
~, s . , .
~
' I
- p. l
- b** ?d .- '
); ', * .
J. . Final Rule. The requirement remains that the coattted effective dose equivalent and the deep-dose equivalent should be summed to give the total effective dose equivalent. However, i
- this summation need only be performed if both components are ,
f required to be monitored (i.e., exceed 10% of an applicable dose limit). If the summation of doses is not required, then the i . limit applies to the component (internal or external) which is J seasured.
~
Ine NPC is planning additienal guidance, in the form of a ' l Regulatory Guide, to be issued before the effectiva date of thic rule on procedures to be used in estimating committed effective dose equivalents and deep-dose equivalents and guidance on when. internal and external doses have to h summed. . Use of individual metabolic or dosimetric data. Several commen-ters thought that the proposed rule required the use of specific
- metabolic and dosimetric parameters for the exposed individual.
One cossenter also thought that the use of such paran.eters would "invalidate the stochastic approach of the regulation, which
~
presume that the effects of radiation exposure at these levels ; ' are statistical in nature." ' Response: It was not intended that licensees would be required to collect and use specific metabolic or dosimetric information on exposed individuals for use in dose assessments. The intent was to permit the use of personal data for dose assessment when such data were available. The use of parameters that are more appropriate for a particular exposed individual than those assumed for "The Reference Man" should improve the accuracy of the dose estimate for that individual. This is unrelated to the concept of stochastic health effects. , The statistical nature of the potential stochastic effects of low-doses of ionizing radiation does not require that the associated dose estimates be based on Reference Man doses. 31 05/23/88 PGN PART20 STATEMENT i 1
~
. o. . .
.w . ..
~. * :- : : .Q ;,. .y . _ . -
However, it is necessary to resort to population-averaged dose-to-risk conversion factors as there are no health risk'coef-ficients available for specific individuals. [honitoring thresholds and thresholds for summation of internal i and external dose -- See discussion under i 20.502)
$ 20.203 Determination of external dose from airborne radio-active material.
This could be read to require that the air concentration be measured at two locations. This section appears to require that the air concentration be measured at the location of the indivi-dual and at the point of maximum concentration in the cloud. . The regulation should emphasize the reliance on personnel dosi-meters or other monitoring devices. Response and Final Rule. Section 20.203 has been shortened censiderably. The revised section emphasizes the use of survey instruments and personnel monitoring devices to evahlate the external dose.
$ 20.204 Determination of internal exposure.
Interim Dose Calculation Factors and Parameters. Bscause the existing Part 20 is based on ICRP-2 dosimetry and metabolic ( models and the revised Part 20 employs the ICRP-30 dose para-l I meters, there was concern regarding whether the more recept ICRP-30 parameters should be used, particularly when the value is to be compared with the concentrations limits in the existing Part 20. Until the effective date of the revision, licensees must continue to demonstrate compliance with the limits of the present rule. However, licensees should use the newer, updated PGN PART20 STATEMENT 32 05/23/88 l
'; . . [ Cs,. ;. .p g .; , : i . .
y
,- .u ;L' m '; < ;.,- ,
.' y .-
parameters in ICRP-30 and its supplements to calculate these doses. Similarly, because the concer.tration limits, ALI's and
')AC's in Appendix B of the revised Part 20 are based upon the
- affective dose equivalent, they should not be used until after the effective date of the rule. Appropriate parameters for cal-culating organ doses from radionuclide. intakes that do not incorporate the wT weighting factors can be four in ICRP-30 and its supplements. The effective dose equiv'alent can be used for purposes other than demonstrating compliance, such as environmental reports.
5 20.205 (deleted) Further provisions internal exposure involving radionuclides with very long effective half-lives. Exemption for lono-lived radionuclides and the use of the committed dose equivalent concept. The use of the concept of a "cosmitted dose equivalent" drew numerous comments. This , approach entails assigning to the year of intake, the future
- internal dose (the "committed dose equivalent" over 50 years) from radionuclides taken into the body during that year. The proposed rule (in $ 20,205) allowed an exemption from the use of committed dose equivalents for several long-lived radionuclides.
Many of the commenters objected to having to assign the future 50 year dose to a single year. Others suggested that variable integration periods be allowed instead of one fixed 50 year value. One argument offered in support of either of these positions is that many adult workers would not normally be expected to live long enough to accrue the full 50 year l committed dose equivalent. Comments pointed out that, while pre-exposure controls (such as the Annual Limits on Intake and the Oerived Air Con-centrations) should be based upon the coenitted dose equivalent concept for planning and control, the use of controls based upon PGN PART20 STATEMENT 33 05/23/88 I
l , l
- :- . c. 3 I limiting the annual effective dose equivalent rate (rather than using the committed dose equivalent) might be preferable for post-exposure management following actual radionuclide intakes.'
It was also noted that there were several additional nuclides that had similar half-life and retention characterfs-tics, but were not included in the this of exceptions (among these were cobalt, strontium, and americium). The approach in the proposed rule was characterized as appearing to place almost complete emphasis on the control of the work environment rather than on the assessment and control of the individual worker. Response: The concept of dose commitment is not new; this concept has been used as the basis for controlling internal doses since 1959 when ICRP Publication No. 2 and the present 10 . CFR Part 20 ware published. However, the term "committed dose equivalent" applied to future doses from internal esitters initially appeared in 1977 in ICRP Publication No. 26. The concentration limits tor i air and water in Appendix B of the present Part 20 were based upon concentrations which, if continually inhaled (for air) or ingested (for water) over a 50 year period, would produce a dose rate in the "critical organ" in the 50-th year that was numerically equal to the annual organ dose limit. For certain radionuclides which slowly approached a constant body burden, primarily those radionuclides which have both long radiological half-lives and long biological clearance half-times, the limiting organ dose rate is not reached by the 50th year. For shorter lived radionuclides and those that are rapidly removed from the body, equilibrium may be attained more rapidly and the limiting annual organ dose rate could persist for over many years. . The limiting dose rate in the 50 th year from a constant intake of a radionuclide each year over a 50 year period is numerically equal to the total dose integrated over the 50 year 34 05/23/88 PGN PART20 STATEMENT j
} ;-l,j
[.. . period from a single year's intake. Controlling the integrated future ("committed") dose for each year's radionuclide intake l als controls the annual dose rate in the 50-th year to be
. within the dose limit.
It was noted that use of limits to annual doses in some cases would not ensure that doses 1,n future years would be within limits. The example of the ingrowth of americium-241 into plutonium-241 was cited which, even if the initial annual dose , from plutonium-241 was within the limit, the ingrowth of the radiologically more significant americium-241 would lead to doses higher than the limits in subsequent years.
'There are only a few radionuclides which wy Id not attain an equilibrium level (and an constant annual organ dose rate) within time periods less than fifty years. The use o'f the com-sitted dose equivalent, rather than controlling internal dose on the basis of annual dose, substantially overestimates annual doses only for those radionuclides that do not rea:,5 an equili-brium level in the body early in the working lifetisp. These radionuclides are primarily the long-lived radionuclides for which the exemptions of 5 20.205 in the proposed rule were intended. Radionuclides (such as cobalt-60, strontiur. 90, and l americium-241) that were easily measured at airborne concentra-tions or body burdens below the OAC and ALI values, were not l included in the list of exempted radionuclides because an exemption was not believed to be necessary for them.
The Annual Limits on Intake and Derived Air Concentrations ; are used mainly for pre-exposure control rather than post-exposure dose assessment so that fine-tuning these values l to specific ages or adjusting'them for factors such as the ! length of th6 period over which the committed dose is evaluated i or to differences in individual organ sizes (as were suggested) l are not warranted for occupatienti dose assessment. 1 I t PGN PART20 STATEMENT 35 05/23/88 i .
. , . l. ,
..,s , ,
The use of age-dependent comitted dose factors as suggested by some connenters would add needless complexity to the assessment of internal doses which cannot be justified on the basis of the availability of information on either age- ~ dependent metabolic parameters or age-dependent radiobiological risk information.
' It is neither reasonable nor practical to expect future employers to take special measures to control radiation dose to workers because a previous employer, working under annual organ dose limits, permitted intakes that would result in future dose rates that are appreciable fractions of the allowable dose limits. Such a practice would not be fair to the worker whose
- future employability may be limitad because of the additional restrictions a new employer would have to put on their exposure. .
Final Rule. The Commission has decided to eliminate
$20.205 and the exemptions for certain long-lived radionuclides from the final rule. The use of the coamitted dose equivalent will be applied uniformly to all radionuclides, regardless of half-life. The Comission notes that the remeval of this exemp-tion, combined with the lowering of the airborne concentration limits for several radionuclides (notably thorium and uranium),
might require extensive modifications to current and future facilities that use these materials. Licensees that are affected by these changes may request an extension of the implementation time in order to make the necessary modifications to comply with the revised limits. In addition, consideration should be given during the implementation period to the perception of what constitutes ALARA operating levels. i PGN PART20 STATEMENT 36 05/23/88 i
l . g <.
$ 20.206 Planned special exposures.
The use of planned special exposures could result in lifetime cumulative doses creater than formerly permitted under the 5(N - 18 ) formula. One , comment noted that the new regulatory scheme, including plarned special exposures, allowed a higher total lifetime dose than was permitted using the 5(N - 18) formula. The calculation presumes a working lifetime of 47 years (starting at age 18 and ending at age 65). Under the revised Part 20, the lifetime limiting dose would be 260 rems (5 rems per year)(47 years) + 5(5 ress) (planned special exposures)
= 235 + 25 = 260 ress). Under the 5(N - 18) formula, at age 65 (N = 65), the cumulative dose would be 5(47) = 235 rems. The comment further noted that the NCRP recommended [in NCRP Report No. 91] a cumulative dose limit of I rem x Age; the Department of Energy ~has proposed a 10')-rem lifetime dose limit; and the ICRP at its 1984 Stockholm meeting inferred a goal of 1 rem per year. Other comments noted that, because of the potential life-
- time dose including the planned special exposure, the claim on page 1121 (Table 5) of the notice of proposed rulemaking that "Individuals receiving highest exposure will be reduced" is unjustifiedandincorrect.
Response: The analysis of maximum doses discussed above is overly simplified because it assumes that there are individuals who will be exposed at the allowable dose limit every year of their working lifetime. Under the old 5(N - 18) formula, the unused portion of the dose limit (the difference between the actual dose received and 5 rems) became part of a "dose bank" which could be drawn on in later years (at a rate up to 3 rems per quarter or 12 rees per year). This "dose bank," which is inherent in the age prorated formula of 5(N - 18), does not exist with the straight annual dose limit. If the worker's exposure is under the 5-res annual dose Ifnit, there is no way to recapture the difference for use in future years. PGN PART20 STATEMENT 37 05/23/88
1 l
* ; r' * :. .
~
., [" . .
Consequently, the average annual dose (for the more highly exposed workers) associated with new Part 20 is expected to be less than under the former rule. As noted above (See Response under 5 20.201 Occupational Dose Limits), the Commission considered the use of a lifetime doselimit,butrejectedit. Planned special exposures'should not be limited to inxternal exposures but should also be permitted for internal exposures. Several commenters noted that it was inconsistent to treat internal and external doses as equisalent by summing them and then restricting planned special exposures to only external
- doses. Comments also pointed out that the total effective dose .
equivalent (TEDE) could be minimized in some cases if some external doses were reduced at the expense of incurring some internal dose. Response: The Connission agrees that restricting the use of planned special exposures to only external doses would be incon-sistent with the ALARA principle ar.d the presumed equivalence of internal and external doses inherent in the revised Part 20., Consequently, the requirements have been modified so that internal doses may be included in planned special exposures in order that the total dose (TEDE) can be controlled in keeping with ALARA. The annual dose allowed in a planned special exposure does not agree with the reconnendations of the ICRP. A few commenters thought that the allowable annual dose from planned special exposures should be 10 rems as stated in the ICRP reconnendations. Other cossenters agreed with the NRC's PGN PART20 STATEMENT 38 05/23/88
. _. w - - ~ ~ _ -- -
.. e
~,. .. . ,
modification to reduce the annual dose for planned special exposures to 5 ress. , Response: The NRC has intentionally reduced the dose , allowed in any year from a planned special exposure from the 10-res value proposed by' the ICRP to 5 rems. The lifetime total limit from planned special exposures of 25 rems remains the same as the ICRP recommendation. The Commission' believes that it would be better to distribute ,the dose over the lifetime more evenly then to permit a large portion of the cumulative dose to be received within a small period of time. In this sense it should be recalled that the planned special exposure is in addition to the normal dose limits. Under the Part 20 condition it would be theoretically possible t.o get a 10-rem dose in one year, 5 rees from a planned special exposure and 5 rems from . routine operation, this is roughly equivalent to the 12 rems (3 ress/ quarter) that could be obtained under the previous Part 20 limitations using the 5(N - 18) formula. The initial ICRP i proposal would have permitted a 15-rem dose in one year,10 rems (
- from planned special exposures and 5 rems from routine operation.
i l Subtraction of emeraency doses. Some commenters suggested that doses received under emergency conditions up to a lifetime total of 25 rem not be subtracted from the lifetime allowance for planned special exposures. It was also suggested that the employability of the individual might be jeopardized if the dose "bank" were depleted. Response: The NRC has not officially sanctioned the 25-rem "forgivable" emergency dose that has been rscossended by some organizations for a once in-a-lifetime dose that would not be counted against an individual's lifetime dose. Consequently, l all doses received as a result of eccupational exposure must be recorded in an individual worker's record. 39 05/23/88 PGN PART20$7ATEMENT
~ . . . _. - - -- -- . e e t The Commission believes that planned special exposures will be used infrequently so that the lack of a "dose bank" for some individuals would not be a major drawback to their employability.
The time period for notifyina exposed individuals of their dose is too short. A number of commenters thought that the 15-day period for notifying exposed individuals of their exposure from a planned special exposure was too short. Some comments noted 4 that most NRC reporting requirements provide a 30-day, not a 15-day period. Other comments suggested that the 15-day period could give the impression [to the worker) that an 1' ordinate risk was involved. Response: The 15 day period for notification was intended to be unique and to further emphasize that "planned special exposures" were indeed "special." However, the Commission has extended the time period for notification of exposed individual of their doses from 15 days to 30 days to allow ifcensees suf-
- ficient time to estimate internal exposures which are now permitted in the revised rule to be part of a planned special exposure. The requirement to notify NRC witnin 15 days that a planned special exposure has taken place (See 5 20.1204) has been retained.
Doses received during a planned special exposure that do not exceed the dose limits for norsal operation should not have to be recorded as planned special exposures or be subtracted from the lifetime planned special exposure limit. A few commenters expressed concern that exposures during planned special exposures that did not result in doses to an individual in excess of the occupational annual dose limits would nevertheless i have to be reported separately and subtracted from the individual's lifetime allotment for planned special exposures. j 40 05/23/88 PGN PART20 STATEMENT
- - . . - - . - . - . . ~ . . . - . _ . . . - . . . . . . . .
Response: The intent of the planned special exposure was that it would be used infrequently in circumstances where the ' elimination of the 5(N - 18) lifetime cumulative limit might i create a severe handicap to the ifcensee's operations. Being able to switch doses between planned special exposures and
- routine dose limits wouid tend to encourage the use of planned special exposures as the licensee would have nothing to lose by using the planned special exposure. This is contrary to the Commission's intent that the planned special exposures be re-stricted to "special" situations. Once a licensee decides to conduct a planned special exposure, all of the unique limitations, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements are to apply, even if the doses actually received fall within the dose ;
limits for routine operations. l Final Rule. The provisions of Planned Special Exposure have been extended to include internal exposures, and the reporting times to the individuals involved has been changes to 30 days to allow sufficient time for analysis of internal dose. 5 20.207 Occupational dose Itaits for minors. I Exposure of Minors._ One commenter stated that minors st.ould not ( be exposed to radiation because they do not meet the criteria for occupational radiation exposure. The commenter argued that minors are not trained regarding radiation protection, do not l derive a benefit from employment and would require the j preparation of a Form 4 if they were workers. f , ( Response: Allowing minors to be occupationally exposed to l radiation was permitted in the present Part 20 ($ 20.104). All individuals, including minors, who enter a restricted area are required ($ 19.12 of 10 CFR Part 19) to be instructed as to the l I PGN PART20 STATEMENT 41 05/23/88 1 - __ - _ _ _ _ .-- .- - _ _ _ . _ . . - _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ . _ __ .-_--
4 risks involved. Minors who are employed receive salaries and other associated benefits of employment so that there does not appear to be a major difference in this respect from other workers. Furthermore, licensees are required under the existing and revised Part 20 rules to maintain the same exposure records for sinors as for adults. An alternative to this procedure would be to exclude minors completely from radiation-related wcrk. This does not appear to be desirable as the monetary,' experience and educational benefits that may accrue to the minor appear to outweigh the small incremental risk involved (particularly considering the reduced dose limits app 1ted to cinors.) Final Rule. No change has been made from the proposed rule. 5 20.208 Dose to an Embryo-Fetus. Bioloaical basis for lower dose limits for preanant women. There were comments that cited older studies and recommendations for dose limits for the embryo / fetus which are considerably higher than 0.5 rem. These comments questioned the biological basis for the 0.5-rem dose limit for the embryo / fetus. Response: The biological effects of ionizing radiation upon 17 the embryo / fetus are summarized in Regulatory Guide 8.13 . More 17 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "Instructions Concerning Prenatal Radiation Exposure," Regulatory Guide 8.13, Rev. 2, December 1987. 42 05/23/88 PGN PART20 STATEMENT
detailed information caa be found in publications of the NCRP IO , II 20 21 ICRP , UNSCEAR , and the OECD/NFA , The limit in the proposed and final rules 0.5-rem during the entire gestatioi period, is based upon a reconsiendation by the NCRP in 1977 (see reference cited above). The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP 26) recommended 0.3 times the annual dose limit or 15 mSv (1.5 ress) over the full gestation period and 5 millisieverts (500 milliress) in the first two months of pregnancy. Final Rule. The limit for the embryo / fetus of a declared pregnant woman is 0.5 rem over the ent' ire gestation period. There is also an admonition that the licensee avoid sustantial variation above the average smnthly exposure rate that would comply with the 0.5-ren limit. These conditions are consistent with the Federal guidance on occupational radiation exposure and ! with the recommendations of the NRCP in NRCP Report No.91, t Licensee's Responsibilities to Protect the Embryo / Fetus of an _ Undeclared Preanant Woman. Several commenters raised'the question of whether the licensee had any responsibility for protecting the embryo / fetus of en obviously pregnant female employee who had not formally declared her pregnancy to the employer. 18 National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurennts, "Review of Radiation Dose Limit for Embryo and Fetus in Occupationally Exposed ' Women," NCRP Report No.53 (1971). 19 International Coenission on Radiological Protection, "Developmental i Effects of Irradiation on the Brain of the Embryo and Fetus, Annals ~ of . ICRP 16 20 UnTEe,dl n a(4) (1986).tions Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), Genetic and Somatic Effects of Ionizina Radiation, United Nations, NY 1986, particularly Chapter III "Biological Effects of Prenatal i Irradiation." i 21 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development / Nuclear Energy i Agency "The Biological Basis for the Control of Prenatal Irradiation," t OECD, Paris,(1988). ! I PGN PART20 STATEMENT 43 05/23/88
Response: It is the fundamental responsibility of the preg-nant worker to decide when or whether she will formally declare her condition to her employer. This position is derived from
, court rulings concerning a pregnant woman's rights regarding termination of the pregnancy. Having a woman fomally declaring her pregnancy to her employer derives from legal, not health protection considerations. If she chooses not to declare her pregnancy, the licensee will not be required under the Comis-sion's regulations to limit her dose to the 0.5-res limit.
Undeclared prpgnant women are protected under the HRC regulations for all workers. The normal occupational dose , limits would still be in effect, would have to be complied with, and the dose would also have to be kept "as low as is reasonably achievable." In addition, as part of her initial employment, ' the woman should have received instructions in radiation protection (519.12 of 10 CFR Part 19), and she should have been provided with a copy of Regulatory Guide 8.13. - It might be prudent for a licensee to remind a pregnant, but undeclared, female worker of the special limit for protection of the embryo / fetus of a declared pregnant woman and to provide another copy of Regulatory Guide 8.13 to her. s
. However, if the licensee has previously provided this information to the employee, it is not a Comission requirement that it be done again. 'If the requirements referred to in the (
previous paragraph have been fulfilled, the licensee will not be ! cited for a violation of the Comission's regulations if the estimated dose to the embryo / fetus of an undeclared pregnant l woman exceeds this limit, even if the worker's pregnant state seems obvious. I l PGN PART20 STATEMENT 44 05/23/88
s Requirements on the worker to declare pregnancy or provide information on child-bearina capacity. Some comments called for. a requirement that the employee declare the pregnancy to the employer as soon as it is known to the pregnant woman. Another
. commenter suggested that two classes of women, "fertile" and "non-fertile," be established with separate dose limits for each class ,
Response: There is no legal authority for the NRC to require such a information be provided by workers, the NRC's regulatory authority pertains only to its licensees. Moreover, such a requirement would be considered to be discriminatory and an invasion of personal privacy. Lastly, such a requitement would be unenforceable because only the woman and her physician would know when she knew of the pregnancy and patient-doctor communications are priviledged. S'imilar drawbacks also apply to requiring the female worker to supply information concerning her "fertility" or "infertility."
- Estimation of Dose to the Embryo / fetus. The assignment to the embryo / fetus of a dose equal to the dose to the declared pregnant woman was questioned. For example, would it be reasonable to assign to the embryo / fetus a dose based upon the dose received by the woman's shoulder or head?
Commenters also indicated that licensees should be permit-tad to employ factors other than a factor of two and take into account shielding of the embryo / fetus by maternal organs and the placenta in evaluating the external dose component of the embryo / fetus. Response: The factor of 2 used in the proposed rule to multiply the dose to the mother in order to estimate the embryo / fetal dose has been dropped. One reason for this decision was that the uncertainties in its applicability, and the sagnitude of the f actor, were large. Furthermore, the cautionary text i PGN PART20$TATEMENT 45 05/23/88 ;
_ . . . ~ . ~ . . . , - . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. i regarding the dose to the embryo / fetus from insoluble long-lived ( (Class Y) radionoclides inhaled by the mother.has been removed from the final rule. It will be part of a forthcoming Regulatory [ Guide on the calculation of the dose to the embryo / fetus. , j Permitting calculations of the embryo / fetal dose'using , reduction factors for attenuation within the body of the mother would entail knowledge of the energy spectra of the incident , radiation. As noted previously (Response for 8 20.201), spectral asasurements, although technically feasible, are not currently
- required by the Commissir and are considered to be beyond the
- scope of routine radiatic,. protection survey measurements. The i small amount of reduction in the calculated dose arforded by such attenuation corrections would be secondary in importance l compared to uncertainties due to body orientation, partial-body .
) exposure from collinated beans, and the radiobiological sensi-l tivity of the embryo / fetus, i In situations where the use of a single dose seasurement would be inappropriate for both the woman and the embryo /fotus, l a solution would be to m'onitor the two doses separat41y. i l I Additional Dose Increment Allowed to Prennant Women Beyond the r Dose Limits. The rationale for permitting an extra 0.05 ree (0.5 l mil 11 sievert) beyond the 0.5-res (5 millisieverts) dose limit to ! an embryo / fetus was requested by a few cossenters, i Response: The small additional dose is intended to apply in ! situations where the embryo / fetus has accumulated a substantial ! fraction of the dose limit or has already exceeded the limit I before the woman formally declares herself to be a " hclared I pregnant woman." If the incremental 0.05-rom dose were not i available, a woman having already received a dose in excess of l the 0.5 res limit might not be able to be further employed in a radiationrelatedjob. The licensee could be in "instant i PGN PART20 STATEMENT 46 05/23/88
l 1 noncompliance" as the embryo / fetus dose limit would have been exceeded before the licensee was aware that it was applicable , (i.e., before the woman declared her pregnancy). Thus, the small incremental 0.05-rem dose pro W.es a means of ensuring continued employment for the woman and a m removes the threat of inadvertent noncompliance on the part of de licensee. The
' additional risk posed by this incremental dose to the embryo /
fetus is small compared to that from the overall 0.5-rem dose limit. It might appear that the allowed incremental dose for cases where this lirit has been excerded is similar to that in 4 5 20.201(b) which also authorizes an incremental dose in order 1 to maintain employability. However, there are dif ferences in the two situations that result in difforent appoaches. If a dose limit in $ 20.201(a) is exceeded, the incremental dose is permitted, but the licensee would be cited for a violation of the dose limits. In protecting the embryo / fetus, if the dose prior to the declaration of pregnancy exceeded 0.5 res, there would be no citation of the licensee for a violation because the dose limit to the embryo / fetus was not in effect prior to the declaration of pregnancy. Final Rule. The final rule corrects an anomaly in the pro-i posed rule regarding the application of the additional 0.05-rem incremental dose. 'In the proposed rule, the additional 0.05-rem i dose was available if the embryo / fetal dose liaf t had been i exceeded prior to the woman's declaration of pregnancy (even if the dose was 0.501 rem). However, the additional 0.05-rem dose increment would not have been available if the embryo / fetal dose l > were less than the 0.5-rem limit (even if the dose was a such as 0.499 rea). There is no significant difference in risk between O.551(0.501+0.05) res and 0.549 (0.499 + 0.05) rem. Therefore, the lack of this provision would have resulted in l unnecessary penalties to both'the licensee and the declared l pregnant woman. In the final rule, the 0.05-res dose increment l i 47 05/23/88 i PGN PART20$TATEMENT
is available as an additional dose if the embryo / fetal dose at the time of declaration is greater than 0.45 rem (0.5 - 0.05). SUBPART D -- RADIATION DOSE LIMITS FOR INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC i 20.301 Dose limits for individual members of the public. NRC should defer chanaes to limits for the general public tintil ; EPA issues revised Federal cuidance. EPA suggested that NRC not modify its radiation limits for protection of the general public until EPA prepares revised Federal guidance on dose limits applicable to the general public (the recently-issued Federal
- guidance applied only to occupational radiation protection).
Response: Although it believes that it would be desirable to uce Federal guidance as a basis for the revision of the lim!ts for the public, the Commission believes that Part 20 needs to be based on a consistent set of principles and concepts rather than having its standards for workers using one dose limitation system and its standards for the general public using an entirely different (and outmoded) system. The fact that the latest Federal guidance does not address radiation exposure of the general public, and the Commission's intent to address such t limits were noted the statement of considerations that accompanied the proposed rule (51 FR 1118, Section XXVIII.) l l Facilities that are subject to other lower standards should not ! have to demonstrate compliance with the 0.1 rem limit ["reference ! level"]. Several commenters expressed concern that additional efforts would be required J demonstrate compliance with the l proposed 0.1-rem "reference level." for licensees that were PGN PART20STATEMEP 48 05/23/80
l
. elreadysubjecttothe0.025-res(2 bet 111res)ilmitsofEPA's !
.0 CFR Part 190,' thh appeared to bc n unnecessary burden, i l Response: The concept that 0.1-ree represents a "Reference l Level" has beer eliminated and the 0.1-ree value represents the primary dose limit for protection of the poblic in she revised l Part 20. Thia change from the proposed aule reflects the clari- l fications by the ICRP (see Section 118.) regarding the usage of.
l , [ the 0.1-ren and 0.5-res recommended dose levels. This change does not represent a major change from the proposed rule; many l cussenters nad indicated a belief that, because of the reporting . and control requirements associated with the 0.1-rem "reference I level," it already represented a de facto limit, f Demonstration of compliance with the limits in 40 CFR Part , . 190 or with the design objectives of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part v 50 will be deemed to demonstrate compliance with the 0.1-res . [ dose limit for most facilities. (Power reactor facilities that j camply with Appendix I may have to also demonstrate that they ! are also within the 0.025 ren limit in 40 CFR Part 190.) l Demonstration of compliance with the limits et 40 CFR Pstt 190 ; will be considered to demonstrate compliance with the 0.1-res ! ! limit. For uranium mills, it will be necessary to show that the l ) dose from radon and its daughters, when added to the dose l l calculated for 40 CFR Part 190 compliance, does not exceed 0.1 ! l res, f } Inclusion of doses from other licensed or unlicensed radiation j j source 1. M:ny commenters expressed an opf aian that the dose should not be all inclusive and should not include fallout from f nuclaar weapons tests, transportation of radioactive material, ! or other source of radiation not under the control of the licensee, i I 49 05/23/88 PGN PART20 STATEMENT f i
l Response: The new lower dose limit for members of the general public (which was described as a "reference level" in the proposed rule) applies only to doses from radiation and l
. radioactive materials under the licensee's control. The EPA generally-applicable environmental radiation limit for nuclear l power operations (40 CFR Part 190) does apply to the total dose from all sources within the uranium fuel cycle; however, in its ;
practical implementation, the sources would have to be located within a few miles of each other for the combined dose contri- ' butions to be significently different than the dose from either facility alone. t l I Differentiation of limits for long-term operatfon and for shorter- ; _ term transient operation. A number of commenters noted that . 2CRP-26 described the 0.1 rem (1 mSv) per year value as intended j as an average goal for long-ters operation but that 0.5 rem ($ l mSv) was intended as the primary annual dose limit for members of'the public. Some commenters suggested that a lifetime dose limit be established for members of the public. i Response: As noted above in Section IIB., the ICRP hat ! modified its interpretation in the ICRP r,tatement issued t following their 1985 Paris meeting2 , so that the primary ! standard is 1 mSv (0.1 rea) per year. This clarification of l ICRP philosophy is reflected in Part 20 by the change of the 0.1-res per year value from a "reference level" in the proposed j rule to a primary limit in the final rule. l Final Rule. It should be emphasized that the 0,1-rem per year limit in Part 20 is not inte'.ded to be applied as a l long-term average goal; it is an annual limit. As of matter of . I practicality, long-ters (or lifetime) dose limits for members of I the public cannot be implemented unless each year's dose is kept within the long-term goal. This is because indiviiuals in'the general public are not usually monitored individually (locations "GN PART20 STATEMENT 50 05/23/88 ;
. t i
. . ~ ~ - - - - - - . , - - . - - - - . - . _ .
.a . A.A- -_ m.-.--..-.-.....-s.- . . . . . .
m , b- ratter than indit' duals in the offsite environment are monitored). As individuals may change residency and there is no reporting or tracking system, lifetime doses to specific -
. individuait cannot be determined. ' The 0.5 ree per year limit is available or,1y upon specific g
application to and approval by the Commission (See $ 20.301(c)). A 0.5-res value has been retainec in order to apply to transient situations and to alleviate any requirement to redesign or reshield existing facilities that etre designed to meet the former 0.5-rem limit. 5 70.303 (Reserved) , The former 0.1-ree "Reference Level" and the EPA Standard for Nuclear hwer Operations that were in this section in the proposed rule are included as primary limits for members of the public in l 20.301 of the final rule. . 5 20.304 D,e Minimis Level and Collective Dose Evaluations , Adoption of a threshold for calculatino es11ective (pooulation) doses. The proposed I 20.304 would have allowed licensees to disregard doses to individuds that were less than 1 millires per year when evaluating collective (population or "san ren") doses. A major criticism of this section was the narrowness of its scope. The section pertaiaed only to a change in the calculational methodology for estinating collective doses and would not have po mitted unrestricted release of any materials or equipment. Most comments from people and organizations within the nuclear power and radiation applications industry favored this PGN PART20STATiMENT 51 C5/23/88
... . . . . . . _ . . . ~ . . _ . - - . _ .
measure as an initial step toward developing more general "below regulatory concern" levels. Several comenters thought that NRC acknowledgement of the concept of a "8RC" level was more impor-tant than tne specific proposal to truncate collective dose cal-culations (The Comission has previously considered application of the cont.ept of "below regulatory concern" with regard to waste 61sposa122). Many commenters thought that a generic "BRC" level would limit unnecessary expenditure of resources that would otherwise have to be spent to control inconsequential risks. Many of the comenters who supported a generic "BRC" concept did not agree with the numerical value (1 millfrem per year) proposed for the cutoff, believing it to be too low. An explanation for this opinion was that if 1 millires represented , an insignificant level of risk, then all larger doses might be ' perceived as representing '"significant" levels of risk. A level of 10 millitems was noted by several commenters as being a more suitable value and still representing an inconsequ m tial risk. There were also a number of comments that wsre 1not in' favor of either the proposed collective dose catoff or the more general application of the concept of 'telow regulatory concern." A few comenters expressed opinions that it did not appaar feasible to arrive at a universal de minimis level, because the level that would appear to be truly insignificant to most people would be too low to result in any appreciable savings to the industry. There also were comments that noted that the proposed collective dose cutoff could cause large numbers of potential adverse health effects to be overlooked if they resulted from small radiation doses delievered to very large numbers of people Many commenters, both pro and con 22 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, "Radioactive Waste Below Regulatory Concern," Federal Register of August 29, 1986 (51 FR 30839). PGN PART20 STATEMENT 52 05/23/86
regarding the adoption of a "BRC" level, thought that a threshold value for collective dose should also be developed. A few coamenters noted that the focus of the more generic "BRC"
- concept tended to be for single licensees and that it night be necessary to consider the impacts from multiple licensees releasinC "BRC" materials or wastes. The belief that there is
'no safe level" of radiation was mentioned as a reason for oppo-i sing any unregulated release of radioactive materials.
i Response: The Commission has initiated efforts to develop general policy guidelines on "below regulatory concern." This effort is a response to the need for such levels and will provide more specific information on criteria for "BRC" levels for various applications including the release of materials having very low levels of radioactive contamination. However, , because of the time required to develop and support a technical basis for such levels and to evaluate potential environmental impacts associated with these levels, such levels have not been , incorporated into this revision of 10 CFR Part 20. In order to ensure that any coep'utational changes reflect j the policy that evolves from the effort to develop generic BRC policy, the Commission is removing the threshold for truncating
'. collective doses ($ 20.304) from Part 20. This deletion is also consistent with comments that noted that this section described f a meihod for calculating a quantity (collective dose) that was [
not required to be calculated by Part 20 and those that thought [ that such details of calculations would be better in a l Regulatory Guide rather than a regulation. [ i f Final Rule. Section 20.304 has been deleted. I I k PGN PART20 STATEMENT 53 05/23/88
- - -- , _._.___...~ .. , _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
SUSPART F -- SURVEYS AND MONITORING
$ 20.501 Surveys.
Accreditation of Personnel Monitorino Proc 9ssors. There were a number of comments concerning the desirability of requiring accreditation of personnel dosimetry processors. It was also noted that the National Volur,tary Laboratory Accredition Program (NVLAP) does not provide accreditation for doses delivered to the lens of the eye, a dep;h equivalent to approximately 0.3 cm (an areal density of 300 milligrass per square centimeter). The only tissue depth equivalents that are accredited at this time are 1.0 cm (the deep-dose equivalent) and 0.007 cm (the shallow or "skin" dose equivalent). . Resconse: The issuance of a dostmetry accreditation requirement or "NVLAP Rule" overlapped the Part 20 rulemaking. Becausethisissuewasthesubjt:tofarecentseparsteHRC rul ..ng, issues concerning the desirability of such a program wera onsidered'and addressed in the rulemaking on - accreditation. No restsion from the dosimeter processor accreditation rule has been made and the final Part. 20 rule incorporates the final form of the accreditation rule. As noted in the discussion of the "eye dc4e equivalent" in Section XI, "Standards for Occuoational Exposure of Individuals," the Commit sion believes that compliance with the eye dose limit will be generally asttred b;f compliance witt) the deep-dose limit. Consequently, the lack of 3ccredition for this depth should not have a major en the degree of protectinn of the eye. 54 05/2.1/88 PGN PART20 STATEMENT
..o.....-...~.._....--....-.........-
The accreditation requirement requires the use of a commercial dosimetry service. Response: This is an incorrect interpretation of the desi-metry accreditation rule. That rule, which is inco'rporated into I the revised Part 20, states that the dosimetry processor must be accredited. It is possible for licensees that provide their own dosimetry services to be accredited. Lack of specificity in annitoring reautrements. Commenters noted that the monitoring requirements, both in the present Part 20 and in the proposed rule, were general and imprecise. Response: A major factor why many portions of Part 20 are not very specific and detailed is that Part 20 is the NRC's general radiation protection requirements and applies to all classes of licensees including large power reactors, universi-ties and medical institutions as well as small radionuclide and , sealed source users. Because of this breath of application, the { requirements in Part 20 cannot be very detailed for any one type of facility. However, the requirements in Part 20 a,re designed 1 to provide the framework for all licensees, and to establish bouncaries which the NRC considers to be fundamental to basic radiation protection. l { ! $ 20.502 Conditions requiring individual monitoring of external and internal occupational dose. Monitorina Thresholds. A number of commenters questioned the rationale for the lack of agreement of the thresholds in the i Preposed Rule for monitoring external doses (101. : f the annual ! I limits) and for requiring monitoring of internal toses (30 % of l the annual limit). It was frequently mentioned that starting to require monitoring at 30% of the dose limit could result in doses of 1.5 rems (30% of 5 rems) being overlooked. The 1.5-rem ! value would have been above the limits for minors and for the PGN PART20 STATEMENT 55 05/23/88 i
.... .... _ .... ~ .,. . . .. . .- . .. . . . . .
embryo / fetus (0.5 ree) and was characterized as being a rather , substantial fraction of the deep-dose equivalent limit. In this : connection, it was also noted that the possitiility existed, who'n l
. large exterr.a1 doses were expected, of exceeding a total effective dose equivalent limit of 5 rems because the licensee was not aware of the internal dose contribution.
Some commenters thought that the monitorir.g thresholds would be understood more easily if they were expressed as doses i instead of percentages. ! Response: The unequal thresholds for requiring monitoring of internal doses (30% of the dose limit) and external doses (10% of the dose limit) were originally set because of the dif-ficulties in performing low-level bioassay analyses of ,
~
alpha-emitting radionuclides at fuel fabrication and other facilities where actinides may be prevalent. (Bioassays for the radionuclides most commonly found at nuclear power reactors were vie'wed as generally being able to meet the 10% threshold set for external doses.) In situations such as bioassay for alpha-emit-
! ting radionuclides, it may be difficult to detect 10% of the All
! or 10% of the dose limit by bioassay measurements on excreta. I . The monitoring threshold is a predetermined level of anticipated dose for carrying out bioassay procedures. If by a
- reat sie analysis of the working environment, it appears that a worker is likely to inhale radioactive materials at con-
) centrations that could produce an annual comitted effective dose
! equivalent of 0,5 rem (10% of the 5-rem limit) or more, then
! that worker's intake should be monitored using measurements of j exposure (e.g., estimates of DAC-hours based upon measured air I concentrations) or intake (such as by whole-body counting or j other bioassay technique) or by measurements of both exposure and intake. Whether the actual doses received were in excess of ) 10% of the limits could only be determined from these subse'quent
~
l measurements. 1 PGN PART20 STATEMENT 56 05/23/88 i 1
The monitoring thresholds are specified as percentages of the dose limits rather than as doses because the thresholds apply to several different dose limits -- the total effective ' dose equivalent, the eye dose equivalent and the shallow dose
. equivalent.
Final Rule. The threshold for monitoring internal doses has been dropped from 30% of the dose limit to 10% of the limit. This provides consistency in the internal and external monitoring requirements. The Commission acknowledges that, in some cases, particularly bioassay measurements of transuranic elements, it may not be feasible to actually confirm such levels by bioassay. However, the monitoring threshold is not a requirement on the capability of the measurement. Average airborne radionuclide concentrations and the expected time of , - exposure can be used to estimate radionuclide intakes and the need for bionssay or other monitoring methods. The Commission intends to issue additional guidance on procedures to be used in estimating conunitted effective dose ! equivalents and deep-dose equivalents and guidance on when they have to be summed. Evaluation of radinnuclide intakes for respirator wearerg Several commenters mentioned that a requiresant to conduct internal dose monitoring, such as bioassays, should not be a result of wearing respiratory protection devices. The rational
- given by the commentors was that the requirement provides a negative incentive for using respirators and is, therefore, counter to ALARA operating practices.
Response: The requirement (in i 20.502(b)(3)) for bioassays for anyone using respiratory protection'has been dropped. The j Commission agrees that such a requirement might be a disincen-tive for using respirators as part of an ALARA effort. There I l 57 05/23/88 PGW PART20$TATEMENT l
~
Ic . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . -- - - -- -- - is, however, a requirement (in i 20.703) for bicassays to be conducted, as appropriate, as part of a respiratory protection , program. Whether bioassays are necessary for a particular individual will depend upon whether that individual could have exceeded 10% of the Annual Limit on Intake (ALI) or was exposed ' to airborne radionuclide concentrations in excess of the monitoring threshold. An evaluation of internal dose would be required if there were a potential for exceeding 10% of an Annual Limit on Intake (0.1 ALI), whether or not a respirator is worn. , (Note: As the requirement for performing bioassays for a particular individual has been separated from the wearing of a respirator, the concentrations to be used for evaluating monitoring thresholds are those of the J ient atmosphere before credit is taken for respiratory, protective factors. One of the purposes of such bicassays is to confirm the effective-ness of the respiratory protection being provided. If bioassay were made dependent upon the cort.cted d e concentration (after dividing by the protection factor), it woulo be equivalent to assuming that the intended protection factor was correct without furtnerverification.] l SUBPART G -- CONTROL OF EXPOSURE FROM EXTERNAL SOURCES IN RESTRICTED AREAS li 20.601, 20.602, and 20.603 Control of Access to High and Very-High Radiation Areas Inapplicability of requirements to nuclear power reactors. Many commenters indicated that the proposed requirements for control l of entry into very high radiation areas could not be applied tv l l nuclear power reactors because of tne number and size of potential "very-high radiation areas" and the physical inability to restrict access to these areas. Similarly, interlocks that 58 05/23/88 PGN PART20 STATEMENT l
can result in the withdrawal or cessation'of the radiation source may be unworkable in nuclear power reactors. Several" , commenters proposed incorporating requirements for power reactors similar to reactor license conditions in reactor
. technical specifications.
Response: The section on very-high radiation areas has been rewritten to reflect these concerns. The Commission has adopted a detailed set of requirements (similar to the previous Part 20) for irradiators that use large sealed radionuclide sources and a separate general requirement for controlling access to other very-high radiation areas. This latter requirement applies to all Itcensees, including nuclear power reactors. For power reactors, this general requirement was adopted instead of incorporating into Part 20 the more detailed requirements of the e reactor technical specifications '.thich still remain as power reactor license conditions. Choice of Dese Rate Defining a "Very-hiah Radiation Area. Several commenters believed that the 500-tad per hout dose rate j that defines a "very-high radiation area" was too high, noting i the proximity of this value to the median lethal dose (LD50) I'" acute radiation exposures. Alternative values, such as 1 res
- per hour at 30 centimeters, were proposed.
Response: The seriousness of this dose rate was a factor in its adoption. The 500-rad per hour value appears in the pre-vious 10 CFR 5 20.203(e)(6) as a criterion for additional access controls for irradiators (similar in scope to the requirements of 5 20.603 in the final rule). However, the previous Part 20 did not use a unique designation such as the "very-high radiation area" designation used in the proposed and revised rules. 1 l I PGN PART20 STATEMENT $9 05/23/88 _ , _ . _ -__..,,-_c.-__,_,____,-.,_.m,,._m_.,. - - ~ _ - . - - - - _ - - - - - - - . _.r _ __ .._..____ ___._ __
Meanina of "direct surveillance". Several commenters thought that the term "direct surveillance" used in the proposed
- 5 20.601 could be interpreted to require stationing an observer' at the entrance to the "high" or "very-high" radiation areas.
4 . Response: The final rule permits "... continuous direct or electronic surveillance over a high radiation area that is
- capable of preventing unauthorized entry..'" This removes the .
burden of having to station a person in or near a "radiation area," but requires interlocks or electronic locks so that the remotely located observer may prevent entry into the area when necessary. . t Final rule. The section on very-high radiation areas has. - been sub-divided into two parts. Section 20.602 provides a , general requirement for restricting access to such areas. This genval requirement applies to all very-high radiation areas, regardless of the type of licensed operation, including those at , nuclear power reactors. A second, more detailed set of require-
- ments, applies only to large gamma irradiators. This section, 5 20.603, restates requirements for irradiators that.were in 5 20.203(c)(6) of the present 10 CFR Part 20.
)
i SUgPART H -- RESPIRATORY PROTECTION TO RESTRICT INTERNAL EXPOSURE IN RESTRICTED AREAS 1 i 5 20,701 Use of process or other engineering controls and 5 20.702 Use of other controls.
"Use of other controls". Commenters suggested that, if workers
- could be exposed to concentrations of radioactive materials l greater than 1 Derived Air Concentration, ALARA should be applied to the total of internal and external doses (to the l
l PGN PART20 STATEMENT 60 05/23/88 i
t total effective dose equivalent). It was noted that this j condition was included in the Federal Guidance on occupational Radiation Protection.
- j Response: Modifications have been made in the Final Rule to :
i permit ALARA considerations to apply to the total effective dose l equivalent rather than just the internal dose portion. j The Licensee should be able to use respirators even if the ' Drotection factor is insufficient to set below 1 DAC. $oes com-menters indicated that-the use of respirators should be l permitted, even if threir use would not be able to reduce airborne concentrations below 1 DAC. They noted that this would ; i be consistent with the ALARA philosophy. .
. I Response: Section 20.702 has been rewritten to clarify the )
intent that the concentration of 1 DAC is not a cutoff on the ,
~
voluntary use of respirators but is intended to be the point where some corrective action (including, but not l'imited to, the f use of respirators) by the licensee would be required when the ; f use of ventilation and process controls cannot further reduce the airborne concentrations of radioactive materials. [
\
$ 20.703 Use of individual respiratory protec'.fon equipment. t I
The proposed rule permits low estimates. but not hiah estimates. [ of intake to be corrected. Commenters noted that the treatment in the proposed rule (l 20.703(a)(1)) was not balanced as correction of intake estimates based upon dividing DAC-hours by ( the respirator protection factor was only permitted if the initial estimate was latur shown (by bioassay results) to have been low. f l t l r PGN PART20 STATEMENT 61 05/23/88 t
( Response: The rule has been modified so that corrected estimates of actual intake can be used in records in place of , t earlier estimated intakes, regardless of whether the resultant
. change would result in an increase or in a decrease in the intake estimate. ,
NRC should provide reconnended minimum acceptable standard for determinina en individual's physical fitness for respirator use. Part 20 requires that a physician determine that an individual worker is physically able to wear a respirator. NRC should, therefore, provide guidance to the physician on minimum
- standards for wearing respirators.
Response: The NRC policy is that the decision is as to medical fitness has been, and continues to be, left to the , physician -- i.e., the medical doctor should decide what consti-tutes minimum health standards for respirator wearers. Further-more, the requirements may vary, depending on the respirator used and physical situations, such as the type of work to be performed, which are outside of the scope of Part 20: Licensees desiring more guidance should obtain AN57 standard Z88.6(1984),
"For Respiratory Protection -- Respirator Use -- Physical Qualifications For Personnel," which 9as developed as an industry consensus standard that proiides definitive guidance to "identify the responsibilities of the physician, the employee, and management in determining the es;1oyee's ability to use a respirator."
NRC should permit a he61th'orofessional to certify physical capability to use a respirator rather than recuiring a physician to perfom each reavired certification. The proposed rule requires that a physician annually certify a worker's physical suitability for using a respirator. This should be broadened to permit any qualified health professional, acting under a M PART205iATEMENT 62 05/23/88
physician's orders to perform the actual certification rather than requiring a doctor to do this. Response: As noted in the previous response, the decision on the physical ability of an individual to wear a respirator is 4 asubjectivejudgementthat,intheCommission'sopinion, requires the decision maker to have a medical degree. The Commission notes that this annual certification could easily be included in an annual physical checkup. The selection of respirator protective factors based upon ,
"average concentrations" and not "peak airborne concentrations l
'is an improvement. The proposed rule, unlike the previous l Part 20, permitted protection factors to be applied to the ,
time-averaged air concentration rather than the peak air concentratian. Response: Despite some favorable comments on this change, the Commission has determined that the use of the average airborne concentration may not provide an adequate margin for health protection and, in the Final Rule, has reverted to the use of the anticipated peak concentration. 9 Final Rule. The proposed rule has been modified to require
, a respiratory protection program when respiratory protection devices are being used to limit intakes, whether or not credit [
is taken for respiratory protection factors, i 1 PGN PART20 STATEMENT 63 05/23/68 I
..m .-- . , _ . - _ _ _ _ , - _ - .
-m. .._. ,. _. ._ , ,-- - -
5 20.704 Further restrictions on the use of respiratory protective equipment. Section 20.704 should be deleted. This section, which states that the Commission may impose additional conditions on respirator use, is not necessary because I 20.1302 permits the NRC to place additional requirements on a licensee. Response: Althoulh the comments are correct that 5 20.1302 allows the Commission general authority to impose additional requirements on ifcenstes, the Commission believes that the restatement of this policy in a section pertaining specifically to respiratory protection is desirable. As noted by the com-ments, this section does not create any additional requirement not otherwise contained in the regulations. Final Rule. The requirements contained in the proposed
. rule are retained. In addition, there is a requirement for licenseessubjecttotherequirementsoftheOccupationalSafety and Health Administration (OSHA) to comply with the OSHA require-ments for respiratory protection. This addition does not add any
! burdenonalicenseealreadysubjecttoOSHArequirements. i SU8PART I -- STORAGE AND CONTROL OF LICENSED MATERIAL
$5 20.801 and 20.802 Security of stored saterial and Control of material not in storage.
Definition of "Secure". Several cosseenters requested a definition of the term "secure" which they felt,was vague and did not provide an indication of the required licensee action. PGN PART205TATEMENT 64 05/23/88
Response: The phrase has been rearranged and now reads "secure from unauthorized removal or access" similar to the wording in the previous Part 20. This should provide sufficient clarification of what was intended by "secure." Unnecessary restrictions on research. One commenter thought that the requirement to secure small quantities of radioactive materi-als when they are not in use would interfere with university research. Response: The Commission believes that locking radiotracer laboratories when they are not being used is a small nuisance compared to the consequences of unauthorized access to or theft
. of the radioactive materials which could result in contamination .
of unrestricted areas or exposure of individuals, as well as having to report a loss of licensed material to the NRC. SUBPART J -- PRECAUTIONAP.Y PROCEDURES l 20.901 Caution signs. Black should be permitted as an acceptable color for the radt-ation warning symbol. Several comenters requested that the color black should also be allowed to be used on signs and for - stenciling packages. The fading of sagenta inks in sunlight and the use of black for marking international shipments were cited as supporting this position. Reponse: The Coenission believes that the "sagneta-on yel-low" color scheme has provided a visible and unique warning of possible radiation hazards. The fading of the sagenta color can be remedied by replacing the sign at a relatively low cost. However, an exception to the color requiresent has been sade for certain high-temperature applications. Final Rule. This section is the same as ir, the proposed rule. PGN PART20 STATEMENT 65 05/23/88
$ 20.902 Posting requirements.
The teres "Caution" and "Dancer" are not used consistently. Commenters noted that "Caution" or "Danger" could be used on sigr.: for "Radiation Areas," "High Radiation Areas " and "Very-High Radiation Areas" despite the considerable variation in the hazards that might exist in these different areas. Response & Final Rule: The Consission agrees that the terms "Caution" and "Danger" should be used in a more consistent manner. The final rule permits only the term "Caution" to be used in "Radiation Areas " "Caution" or "Danger" may be used in "High Radiation Areas," and only "Danger" may be used in "Very-High Radiation Areas." This should provide more emphasis < to the use of "Danger," the importance of which might have been
- diminished by its prior applicability to the lower hazard "Radiation Areas." Caution is inappropriate for use in "very-high radiation areas" because of the potential hazard.
There should be a requirement to post all "restricted areas" whether or not it is a radiation or an airborne radibattivity area. Response: The objective of posting is to warn personnel of a potential hazard. A "restricted area" per se does not warrant such a warning. There is nothing to prevent a licensee from posting a notice designating a "restricted area," but such action is not required. The definition of "airborm radioactivity area" would recuire trackina of employee "stay times" (tise spent in the area). The second option to the definition of "airborne radioactivity area" would require performing surveys of airborne activity d tracking the time spent by workers in the area. The present rule would have only necessitated the survey. PGN PART20 STATEMENT 66 05/23/88 1
Response: There are two alternative definitions of an "air-borne radioactivity area," only the second one would require
' consideration of stay times. This second option does not requite posting in areas that have low occupancy times and airborne radioactivity concentrations between 0.3 and 1.0 times the applicable DACs.
Areas containina only noble cases should not require postina as "airborne radioactivity areas." The hazard associated with such areas is primarily from external radiation. Response: The OACs in Appendix 8 that apply to noble gases (and define an "airborne radioactivity area") are based upon submersion doses, therefore, the relationship remains valid. It , should be noted that because sog shert-ged noble gases have particulate daughters (such as Rb and Cs),thewarning denoted by posting as an "airborne radioactivity area" may still be required. There is no evident need to post all rooms centainint 10 times the Appendix C levels. The requirement to post a caution sign in rooms that store 10 times the Appendix C concentrations is unwarranted. There was some concern noted that such posting could deter firefighters or other emergency workers free enter-ing an otherwise safe area, and leading to increased damages. Response: Complete dispersion of ten times the Appendix C activities could produce air concentrations for some radio-nuclides in excess of the occupational Derived Air Concentrations (DACs). For example, if ten times the Appendix C quantities were dispersed in 1,000 cubic feet (10 f t. x 10 f t. x 10 ft.) roos, the resulting concentrations would be 35 times the OAC for organic carbon-14, 58 times the OAC for cesium-137, about 18 times the OAC's for iodine 131 and tritium (water vapor) and approximately 6 times the OAC for technetium-992. 67 05/23/85 PGN PART20 STATEMENT
Theseappeartobesufficientlylargetojustifyaposting requirement, particularly to caution firefighters in case of a , fire. The postina recuirement should not be ecolied to sealed sources such as cauces. Posting the entrances to areas having radioiso-1 topic gauges could require multiple postings in large buildings. Response: Posting is only required at entrances to the room containing the source and only when the dose rate would exceed 5-allitress (0.005 rem or 0.05 m$v) per hour ($ 20.903(c)) unless dose rates outside of these areas warrant posting as "radiation areas." 5 20.903 Exceptions to posting requirements. The proposed rule omits the past exemption for not havino to post rooms containina only packaces prepared for transportation. Response and Final Rule: The Commission believes that posting of such areas should be reinstated because there is no restriction on the length of time that such packages may remain in a room. If the packages contain only small quantitles of radioactive materials, then posting would still be exempted under the remaining exemptions. "Prepared for transportation" does include packages that could be carried only in a "sole use" vehicle and which have higher allowable dose rates than other DOT (or NRC)' limits. The reovirement for a person in attendance would be unworkable in a hospital. The requirement (in lieu of posting the room containing a radictherapy patient) for a person in attendance in 68 05/23/88 PGN PART20 STATEMENT
. _ . . . . ~ . . . . . - . , . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
order to prevent entry was interpreted as requiring a 24 hour escort for each radiotherapy patient. , Response: The intent was to generally require posting cf therapy patients' rooms. (As noted in one of the coseents, the dose rate from patients even with diagnostic nuclear medicine treatments might exceed dose rates of 2 millires per hour.) The intent of "in attendance" would be satisified by a duty nurse'at a nursing station, providing that the station was in sight of the entrance to the patient's room. Final Rule. The exception for posting areas containing packages prepared for transportation has not been reinstated. 4 . 5 20.904 Labeling containers. There is no way to meet the reoutrement to label containers in some nuclear power plants or in hot cells. It is difficult to mark the detailed information or, a container in some areas of a . plant or in het cells. i Response: Section 20.905 contains exceptions to the l labeling requirements which take care of the problem noted by the commentor. ' Note: For the purpose of this section, "Mixed Fission Products" and "Fission and Activation Products" may be regarded as radionuclides, provided that the total activity is also spec-ified. Designations as to the collection location or type of sample (e.g., primary coolant") may also be helpful as an addi-tional designation of the potential hazard. i 69 05/23/SS PGN PART20 STATEMENT
I 20.905 Exemptions to labeling requirements. The proposed rule deletes sore prior exceptions to labelina. The proposed rule omits existing exemptions for packages containing only exempt quantities and those containing less than 10 eCi or less of tritium,1-125, C-14 and S 35. Response: While these sources pose little external hazard from ganaa radiation, the quantities could be a potential internal hazard if the package were ruptured and the contents were released. Consequently, some warning remains appropriate. The proposed rule omitted the existing exemption from labeling for packages labelled for shiprent in accord with 00T requirements. Final Rule. This exemption has been restored because the Commission agrees that the 00T labeling is sufficient to denote the presence of radioactive materials and that quantities not requiring DOT labels would probably not warrant an NRC labelling requiretant.
$ 20.30C Fn.cedures for Handling Packages.
The reo;, rement to monitor all packenes is unnecessary. The requ % ment to monitor all incoming packages containing radio-act we materials in unnecessary and in large installations c'estes a substantial monitoring burden. Response: This requirement has been reevaluated and sadified in order to reduce the burden. Final Rule. Section 20.906 in the final rule requires in-coming packages to be sonitored when: (1) they are labelled as containing radio:ctive materials according to 00T regulations or (2) when a package is damaged or leaking. The first provision would reinstate the exemption from monitoring for shipments of 70 05/23/88 PGN PART20$TATEMENT
small quantities of radioactive materials.that would not require DOT labelling. The requirement to survey external surfaces of packages is un necessary. Several commenters with extensive experience moni-toring packages noted that external contamination was rarely if ever present and that wipe tests are time consuming both to make the smears and to count them. Response: ixperience in the shipment of multiple thousands of packages each year has been very good. However, the pcten-tial problems involved with leaking packages warrants continued monitoring upon receipt . the event that contamination is i found. Appropriate actio) can then be taken to Ifmit the consequences and avoid recurrence. , The requit ement to moniter package within three hours is ; unwarrar.ced. This repairement would be difficult to meet for several types of licensees, some of which do not have a full time health physics staff person. ; Response: Licensees receiving Type A "large" quantities of ] ' radioactive materials to which this requirement applies are ; expected to have available persons well qualified to perform , such monitoring. However, the person monitoring the package need not be a board-certified health physicist. Final Rule. The three-hour period has been retained. t Y PGN PART20 STATEMENT 71 05/23/83 ) i
F.F ,; V. - WASTE DISPOSAL
$ 20.1001 General kequirements.
Decay in Storage as a Disposal Option. Many commenters noted favorably.the addition of "decay in storage" as an allowed waste disposal option. Several commenters, however, did not believe that the option, as expressed in the proposed rule, was particu-larly helpful. Response: Technically, the "decay in storage" option has always been available to a licensee as the license permitted possesion of the radioactive materials and these materials naturally underwent radioactive decay. The option was formally included in the proposed and final rules because the list of e disposal options is exclusive and there have been questions as to whether this was allowed under the prior regulations. It should be noted that this option does not allow material that has "decayed in storage" to be released to unrestricted areas unless it meets the requirements of one of the other allowed forms of waste disposal in Part 20 or specific requirements given in NRC or Agreement State license conditions. The NRC staff considered adding a separate "Disposal by Decay in Storage" option with specific criteria for unrestricted release of material after decay. Such criteria are commonly
. included in source and byproduct material 1(censes. However, t$ese criteria pertain to relatively short lived radionuclides and would not have been applicable to other classes of licensees such as power reactors. Also, when evaluated for a specific licensed activity, it is possible to consider exSting pathways of exposure and to establish specific criteria for decay.
General criteria in a rule would need to be suffi:lently conservative to take into account all reasonably csnceivable pathways, thereby reducing the appliable level frcs e at would be permitted in a case-by-case evaluation. PGN PART20STATEMINT 72 05/11/88 f
i . 5 20.1003 Disposal by Release into sanitary sewerage. Removal of Allowance for Disposal of "Dispersible" Wastes. A ' number of commenters felt that the restriction of wastes released to sanitary sewers to soluble wastes would have an adverse impact on certain licensees that, under the previous rule, had disposed of "dispersible" but insoluble radioactive materials. In particular, the practice was mentioned of grinding up animal carcasses with subsequent sewer disposal of the ground residue. This practice is permitted by the p'revious Part 20, but ould not have been permitted under the proposed rule. Response: The Commission has relaxed the conditions in the proposed rule for disposal of radioactive wastes into sanitary . sewer systems so that "dispersible biological materials" say continue to be disposed of by release to sanitary sewers. This means of disposal is advantageous compared with other alternatives for disposal of this type of biological material. The rational for the reduction in the limits for sewer disposal is not explained. The concentration limits for radionuclides released to sanitary sewer systems in the proposed rule have beer, reduced by : fsetor of 10 from the former rule. Inis reduction did not appear to take into account the dilution afforded from multiple users of the sewer system. Commenters indicated that they thought that this reduction would increase the amount of saterial that would have to be disposed of via a low-level radioactive waste burial site and could result in increased radiation doses to workers having to package this material. Response: The NRC has underway a study of the dose pathways associated with disposal of radioactive saterials vis sanitary 73 05/23/68 PGN PART20 STATEMENT
.&....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . s..-. . .. ..
e s r r Y sewerage. This study will help clarify the potential for human j exposure. , l
. The assumption noted by many commenters that discharges ;
i
- into sanitary sewer systems are not consumed is not necessarily true because water in large lake or river systems may be f recycled. The dilution afforded by having multiple users of a }
l sewer system can be offset in part because there can also be several users that discharge radioactive wastes into the same sewer system. The revised Part 20 rule allows a factor of 10 t higher concentration limit for discharges into sanitary sewerage l than for other liquid effluent releases of radioactive j f enterials, I r j ' The exemption on disposal of humar, excreta should be recoved, j Hospitals should have to comply with the same regulations as l I other licensees. Response: Disposal into a sanitary sewer system (which was l designed specifically to handle this type of waste) is the [ preferred method of disposal because of the other health l considerations in handling human excreta in addition to f
. radiation protection, r
$ 20.1004 Treatment or disposal by incineration.
Relaxation of $pecific NRC Authorization for I Mineration. A , number of comments questioned the need for the existing require-i ment that incineration of radioactive materials requires specific prior hMC approval (except for small quantities of tritium a 4 carbon-14 which are specifically exempted). These comments noted that the source of the released saterial (from an incinerator stack or from a fume hood vent) should not be the I l PGN PART20 STATEMENT 74 05/23/89
o* d basis of requiring specific prior NRC approval of incineration while permitting general effluent releases. ' Response: Relaxation of the prior approval requirement for incineration was considered in connection with the revision of - Part 20. The requirement for prior NRC approval of incineration l remains in the revised Part 20 rule because of: (1) uncertain- ! ties regarding the suitablility of many incinerators, which were ! not specifically designed to safely dispose of hazardous materi- f t als, to provide adequate control over effluent activity levels-(2) because the nature of the material to be burned can vary considerably in isotopic composition and activity; and (3) be- ; i ! cause many of these incinerators can be located in urban areas, special calculational methods may be required to ensure that I doses to people located near these facilities are adequately as- . ~ sessed. j i l I 20.1005 Disposal of specific wastes. I . There should be a definitier. of ALARA for solid wastis. Many l commenters suggested the need for ALARA or exempt quantities of radioactive material in solid wastes so that very low-level j solid wastes could be disposed of without regard to their ( radioactivity. 1 Response: The Commission agrees that such levels would be useful and has instituted a program to develop these levels, f
]
6 20.1007 Coop 11ance with environmental and health protection regulations, t c final rule. This section contains an advisory note which is l also in the present Part 20 and the proposed rule ($ 20.1005), 7T 05/23/56 ! PGN PART20STATEMINT ,
that meeting Par'. 20 requirements does not remove tM responsi-bility of licensees, when disposing of licensed radioactive materials, of meeting the requirements of applicable Federal,
- State, and local environe. ental protection regulations.
The wording in the final rule has been expanded to cover all methods of waste dispnsal and is not intended to imply that NRC will take enforcement action for violations of regulations issued under statutes other than the Atomic Energy Act. SUBPART L -- RECORDS Standardization of record retention requirements. Final Rule. Records directly pertaining to doses received by individuals or effluents released to the general environment are to be kept until the "Commission terminates each pertinent license requiring the record." Other record retention require-rents in this subpart generally have been modified to be for "five years after the record is made or until the corpistion of the next NRC inspection of the radiation protection aspects of the licensee's program, whichever is longer." This change is in conformance with the pub'ilshed proposed rule (October 28, 1987; 52 FR 41442) on record retention requirements for other Parts of the NRC regulations and provides for consistent record retention requirements. 5 20.1101 General requireftents. The units used in records should be limited to those cercenly in use: the rad, the rem and the curie. Some c w enters thought that the use of SI units (gray, sievert and becquerel) should not be allowed. PGN PART20 STATEMENT 76 05/23/88
Resp v.se: There is no apparent reason to eliminate the use of the SI Mits for these records when the rest of the world is adopting and using the SI units. Final Rele. Section 20.1101 permits the use of either the - special units (rad, rem, and curie) of the newer SI units (gray, sievert, and becquerel) in the records required by Part 20. However, the licensee must be consisterit in this usage and not switch between the two systems, except that the choice of system may be changed at the beginning of a calendar year. Secause of the different types of doses arising from the use of the ICRP-26
- system, the licensee is also required to indicate clearly which type of dose is mehnt (total effective dose equivalent, eye dose -
equivalent, shallow dose equivalent, committed dose equivalent, or committed eft :tive dose equivalent). . S 20.1102 Records of radiation protection programs. Added implementation burden associated with recuirements for formal radiation programs. A number of comonters thought that the requirement to have a formal ALARA program would result in substantial increased costs due to additional recordkeep'.i.g. additional procedural requirements and added quGity assurance requirements. Response: As discussed in S 20.101, these provisions have been modified to clearly place ALARA as one part of a licensee's radiation protection program. The adoption of requirements for licensees to have a formal radiation protection program was not intended to have large implementation costs. Much.of the cost associated with this section in the proposed rule was a result of the ALARA documentation requirements. These recordkeeping requirements have been reduced in the final rule. PGN PARTtOSTI,TEMENT 77 05/23/88
b The recordkeepina burden for small licensees requires a committ-ment of resources that is not commensurate with the risk. (In Section XXXVI of the proposed rule (51 FR 1121-1122), NRC spect-fically requested comments on the magnitude of the impact of the proposed rule on small licensees and requested suggestions on how these impacts could be reduced.) Quite a few commenters ex-pressed their belief that the proposed rule will require more extensive monitoring and recordkeeping efforts than were requir-ed by the existing Part 20. Several commenters suggested that the NRC explore possible exemptions or exclusions for academic licensees and other users of small quantities of licensed mater-tal. Other commenters expressed the view that'ths protection of public health for both the worker and the general public should be the same regardless of the size or economic resources i the licensee. Response: Because of the changes and reduced recordkeeping burden discussed in response to the preceeding comment and because the basic requirement in i 20.101 calls %r effort "... comensurate with the scope and extent of licensed activities
... ," the Commission has not made further exemptions.or exclu-sions for certain types of licensees.
$ 20.1104 Determination of prior occupational dose Medical and academic licensees would have difficulty in comply-ino with the rtautrement to determine prior _ exposures. The transit :y nature of personnel in these facilities would make meeting these requirements very costly. Ooses to employees are small fractions of the limits so the such costs would be diffi-cult to justify.
1 Response: The requirement to determine dose received in the ' current year implements the annual dose limits. The requirement to attempt to obtain records of lifetime vaulative doses 79 05/23/88 PGN PART20STATEHENT 11
follows one of the provisions of the guidance to Federal agencies on occupational radiation protection. Determination of prior doses received during planned special exposures or doses in excess of the annual limits are required only for workers who will be used in planned special exposures. Otherwise efforts to obtain prior exposure histories are only required for workers who are required to be monitored under i 20.502. The recording of "fictious" radiation doses should be avoided. The present and proposed rules state that, when information is not available regarding the dose received 'or a specific period, the licensee should assume that the dose received was at the dose limit. Several co'menters thought that this was inappropriate. Some commenters mentioned that this practice might be non-conservative as it would tend to overestimate the ' dose used in any epidemiological studies of radiation effects, thereby resulting in an underestimate of the risk associated with a unit radiation dosa. Response and Final Rule: The final rule has been modified so that it does not require any assumed dose value to be record-ed in case of incomnlete prior dose histories. Only the lack of data must be recorded for periods where there is no information. However, for the current year, where there are missing data, an assumption is to be made, for establishing administrative con-trols, that the portion of the dose limit remaining for the cur-rent year is reduced by 1.25 rems for each calendar quarter for which information is missing. The licensee must note the ! absence of this information on the employee's record, but should i not enter the assumed dose value as part of the employee's permanent dose record! There should be a quarterly dose limit to cover workers whose records have not been received from a former employer. A 0.5-rem dose might be appropriate for this purpose. PGN PART20 STATEMENT 79 05/23/88
Response: As discussed above, the remaining allowable annual dose would be 5 rems less 1.25 rems times the number of quarters for which there are no prior data. The values for othe'r limits, such as shallow dose equivalent or eye dose equivalent, should be simila'rly provided. If data were missing for all four quarters (employment com-menced late in the fourth calendar quarter), then a 0.5-rem dose limit would be applicable for the total effective dose equiva-lent limit (This value is S 20.502 monitoring threshold).
$ 20.1105 Records of planned special exposures.
The licensee should not have to file a separate raport to , NRC for Planned Special Exposures. Several commenters objected to having to file these separate reports each time a Planned Special Exposure is carrieri out. This was viewed as representing a reporting requirement for operating within the NRC regulations. It was suggested that this information be included in the employee's records without reporting to NRC. Response: Because of the newness of the concept, the NRC wishes to monitor carefully the use of the Planned Special Expo-l . sures. Further, while the Planned Special Exposures are provided in the final rule, its use does represent a situation in which the licensee is operating outside of the normal dose limits, and which the Commission should be aware of. f
$ 20.1106 Records of individual monitoring results.
NRC should not require reporting or recording of cumulative dose. A number of commenters noted that the ICRP system of dose limitation is based [as one of the principles) on controlling 80 05/23/88 PGN PATsT20 STATEMENT l
annual doses. Consequently, they questioned the need for recording cumula*,ive doses. . Response: Although the commenters are correct that there is no longer a cumulative dose restriction in Part 20 (such as the former 5(N - IS) formula), the Federal Guidance on Occupational Exposure (See Section IID.) contains a recommendation that cumulative dose records be maintained and provided to the worker. The recordkdepina requirement in the proposed S 20.1106(d)(2) would require that all reco-ds begin at the beginning of d calendar year.
- This would create an ur.aecessary hardship oi. dosimeter L processors as they .:ould not stagger the dosimeter changeover schedules to provide a more uniform workload distribution. .
Response and Final Rule: The term "year" replaces the term "calendar year" in S 20.3 and permits the licensee to define the year to begin anytime on ' January. A licensee may change the starting date, provided that the change is made at the beginning of the year and provided that no day is omitted and no day is included twice in consecutive years. The requirement in S 20.1106(e) for each licenseo to keep a copy of the dosimeter processor's accreditation certificate cre ates an undue burden on commercial processors. Comerical dost-meter processors would have to print and distribute thousands of their certificates so that each user had a copy. Response: The proposed rule contained a requirement for the licensee to maintain a copy of the dosimetry processing accredi-tation certificate issued to the processor providing dosimetry services to the licensee. This requirement, which was in the proposed dosimetry accreditation rule, w'as considered unneces-sary and was dropped as a requirement in the final version of that rule. Consequently, it has been deleted from the revised
~
81 05/23 88 PGN D.RT20 STATEMENT l l
Part 20 rule. Licensees who provide their own dosimeter pro-cessing services do have to maintain a copy of their NVLAP accreditation certificate for inspection. The NRC should con. sider a "travelino dose history" that can move with the worker. 'ihis was suggested, particularly for transient workers and for workers employed concurrently by two employers. The master record will reside with the current employer and would have to be transmitted by the worker to a new employer. Response: Because the NRC can only regulate its licensees and has no authority over individual workers, the recordkeeping and transmittal requirements for dose histories are placed on the licensee and not on the worker. The concept of a "passport" ' incorporating security and dosimetry data has been used success-fully in Japan and elsewhere. The requirements for determination i of. prior exposures that are in S 20.1104 provide a similar record to a "moving history," but this would have to be updated by each new employer. Concurrent employment with two (or more) employers requires special attention so that the combined doses from both employers would not exceed the dose limits. When two employers are aware I of such concurrent employment, the simpliest expedient to achi-I eve this goal is for them to agree that the "reference level" they will use for this employee in their individual radiation control programs is less than one-half of the NRC dose limits (the fraction of the dose limit allocated to each employer might also be determined on the basis of the relative amount of time workedateachlocation). The problem of dual employment is more of a problem when the employee has not confided in the employer. The licensee is required to ascertain the employment and dose record for the l ! current year for new employees ($ 20.1104). If the employee l l PGN PART20 STATEMENT 82 05/23/88 l l
delibrately falsifies this information, the licensee would not know of concurrent employment and, the licensee would not be penalized for combined doses from both employers that exceeded' the dose limits. If a current employee takes on additional out-side radiation work without informing the employer, again, the employer should not be penalized. It should be noted that, under the new reporting requirements in S 20.1206, individual dose records will be required to be submitted to the NRC for all workers for those categories of licensees formerly subject to f 20.407, including nuclear power reactors. These records may provide a means of detecting some "moonlighting" employees. Final Rule. Section 20.1106 has been modified in order to split out separately the requirement for keeping a record from
. the format cf the record. A clarification has been added that ,
the dose information on an embryo / fetus be kept with the mother's dose record and coded by the mother's Social Security Account Number.
$ 20.1107 Records of Dose to Individual Members of the Public.
Reportina Requiremer.ts For Exceedino "Reference Levels". The proposed rule contained requirements for reporting expesures in excess of the "Reference Levels" for doses to members of the general public. Many commenters thought that this was excessive because this was not an actual regulatory limit. Response: The 100-millirem per year "Reference level" for doses to members of the general public has become the actual limit so that the associated recording and reporting recuire-ments now pertain to a bona fide regulatory dose limit. Final Rule. Section 20.1107 has been broadened in scope from "effluente" to pertain to records of all estimates of doses received by individual rnembers of the public. This shif t in 83 05/23/88 PGN PART20 STATEMENT
emphasis does not imply any lessening of requirements for keep-ing adequate records of effluents released to unrestricted , areas.
$ 20.1108 Recoi .. of waste disposal.
Final Rule. Section 20.1108 is unchanged from the proposed rule.
$ 20.1109 Records of testing entry control devices for very-high radiation areas.
Final Rule. Section 20.7109 contains an addition to the
- proposed rule for keeping records of tests of entry control devices for very-high radiation areas. This addition is based upon a requirement in S 20.203(c)(6) of the former Part 20.
I 20.1110 Form of records. . NRC should allow computerized recordkeeping systems to handle records. A few licensees suggestet that NRC allow "electronic" recordkeeping systems and provide guidance for their use. Response: The Commission agrees that there is great value in the use of "electronic media." There are a growing number of licensees that are using computer information networks for . retaining and transmitting radiation dose histories and other worker-related information among different facilities. Final Rule. The final Part 20 expands the definition of "record" to include "electronic media." The use of "electronic media" requires authentication and the prevention of alteration or loss of the records. As with exist'ng requirements for paper 84 05/23/88 PGN PART20 STATEMENT
. ~ ..
records, the "electronic media" must be capable of producing a legible copy of the record. . e SUBPART H -- REPORTS i 20.1201 Reports of theft or loss of licensed material. The term "substantial exposure" in $20.1201(a) should be defined. The requirement to report the loss of radiation sources capable of producing "substantial exposure" needs to be more precise. Response: The term "substantial exposure" has been used in . the present Part 20 for many years. The term is not defined and remainsinthejudgmentofthelicensee. However, reporting is required of specified smaller quantities within 30 <iays as dis-cussed below. The cuan.ityt for reportina the loss of a source is tBo low (too I hich). The reportable quantity of 10 times the Appendix C activ-ity values appeared to some comenters to be overly restrictive; others thought that all lost or missing radiation sources should be reported. Response: The specified 30-day reporting level is a compro-mise between having higher reporting levels,and having a require ment that all lost or missing sources be reported. Further, the report permits review of the circumstances involved including any lack of security of materials or weakness in the licensee's control program which may be unreported to the sources stolen or lost, but may be very pertinent in avoiding recurrent theft or loss. PGN PART20 STATEMENT 85 05/23/88
Final Rule. The activity levels in Appendix C for some long-lived radionuclides have been increased from those specified in the proposed rule. This increase means that the loss of milligram quantities of natural uranium will no longer have to be reported. A 30-day telephone recort'should not be required concomitant with a written report. Sections 20.1201(a)(1)(ii) and 20.1201(b) both call for a 30-day report; the first requires a telephone report and the latter section requires a written report. Response and Final Rule. The rule has been revised to clarify that the written reports required by 5 20.1201(b) are to . be submitted within 30 days of the telephone notification required by 5 20.1201(a) rather than both being within 30 days of learning of the thef t or loss. The rule should provide for a "crace period" before having to report a lost source to NRC. Comments noted that, in many in-stances, a source "lost" in transit eventually turns up. Some specified period, such as 7 days, should be permitted before a "lost" source would have to be reported to the NRC. Response: The rule contains two notification requirements: the one for imediate notification only pertains to those sour- < I ces that could produc,e substantial exposures. The second notification requirement pertains to sources that exceed 10 times the activity levels in Appendix C and that are still missino at that time. This provides a "grace period" of 30 days for most sources. PGN PART20$TATEMENT 86 05/23/88
$ 20.1202 Notification o. Incidents The requirements for immediate notification c NRC are too low.
Some commenters thought that the doses associated with the , requirements for immediate reporting to NRC (five times the respective annual limits) would not produce any discernible harmful effects to the individual to warrant immediate i reporting. Response: Doses of the order of 25 rems (5 times the 5-rem , annual dose limit) can produce discernible biological effects in the form of chromosome aberrations and changes in the white L blood cell populations. Althoughthemajorityoftheseeffects j are temporary, they could te discerned. However, irrespective of the potential for discernable effects, doses at these levels
- l repres9nt a major breakdown on the licensee's control over the ;
l radicactive material, and the Commission believes that it is impertant that NRC be promptly notified so that it can take actions, if necessary, to limit further consequences. l Final Rule. The final rule perpttuates the previous report-ing requiremont, M v Immediate r,a M rting thculd be required if there is any potential l for dose roduction. The Environmental Protection Agency sugges-ted that incident.s always be reported if there is the potential l for significantly reducing public doses through protective actions. It is believed by EPA that this would occur at doses signficantly less than the proposed reporting criteria. Response: The incident reporting levets and response times i have been se'icted to limit attention to the more potentially
~
serious events without the entire NRC emergency response network being activated unduly for events involving only small quantities of radioactive materials. For most cases, it is 87 05/23/83 PGN PART20 STATEMENT
.+ . . .
'l i; H expected that the licensee would have initiated any remedial measures necessary.
Immediate and 24-hour Notification requirements should be sus pended in the case of a declared emeraency at a nuclear power plant. Commenters felt that any emergency at a nuclear power plant will involve onsite NRC staff and that stopping emergency activities to cake the Part 20 incident reports could be a bur-E den on the licensee. Response and Final Rule. These reports are particularly easy to make for nuclear power reactors (the reactor operator , merely has to pick up the dedicated NRC telephone line to get the NRC Operations Center) and there are certain functions of , the NRC (such as actisating the NRC Incident Response Plan) that require such notification. t L 5 20.1203 Reports of exposures, radiation levels, and concentrations. - There is no requirement for reportino doses in excess of the limit for the embryo-fetus. There is no requirement for repert-ing doses that excetd the limit for protection of the embryo / fetus in S 20.208. I Response: A requirenient has been addev ', the final rule (See 5 20.1203(a)(iii)). The fdentifiers required in $ 20.1203(b)(2) for the embryo-fetus should be those of the mother. As the fetus has no date-of-birtn and no social security account number, those of the mother i should be used.
. . t l
PGN SART20 STATEMENT 88 05/23/88 r [ t
~ ._
Reponse and Final Rule: A footnote to this effect has been added to S 20.1203. Reports of exceeding the 0.1-rem "reference level" should not be require 1. A number of commenters noteu that the 0.1-rem "reference level" was not a limit and, therefore, exceeding it should not necessitate a raport to the NRC. , Response: As a result of changes in the 1CRP interpretation of the 0.1-rem level and the former 0.5-rem dose limit, the 0.1-rem level is now the recommended limit for exposure of the general public (individuals in unrestricted areas). Conse-quently 0.1-rem is the primary limit applicable to members of
- thegeneralpublicandreportsarejustifiedwhenitis .
exceeded. Smaller licensees, such as nuclear medicine facilities,should be exemoted from the reportina requirements of 6 20.1203. Licensees are required to report concentrations in unrestricted areas that exceed 10 times any applicable limit in the license. Because some nuclear medicine units use the room air volume for dilution, calculated concentrations exceeding 10 times the l Appendix B limits might frequently occur. This would require either more frequent reporting to NRC or use of more sophistictted atmospheric dispersion models. . Response: The reporting requirements are very similar to those in the previous Part 20. Part 35 of the Commission's regulations, which deals with medical applications, covers the medical use of noble gases. Experience has not indicated large numbers of reports of this nature. PGN PART20 STATEMENT 89 05/23/83
$ 20.1206 Reports of individual monitoring Could the requirement for reporting of individual exposures g construed as an invasion of privacy? Some commenters believed that requiring the reporting of individual doses rather then a statistical summary might constitute an invasion of personal privacy.
Response: The Commission does not believe that se' omission, of individual dose data constitutes an invasion of rpivacy.- 3 Such data has been reported to the NRC routinely in the termination reports for some time. Such information will be restricted, as it hss in the past, to use by NRC officials, NRC cont"actors, or by qualified scientific investigators. If tie radiation exposure data is collet.ted into a central reptgery would the NRC be the proper place for it? One comenter felt that the radiation exposure data might be better maintained by an agency whose charter encompasses the analysis of the data for estimates of risk. - Response: Argumerts might be made for other agencies having the lead role in the storage and analysis of this data, however, it is the NRC that has the statutory authority to require that this data be collected. Although the Part 20 recordkeeping requirements art, intended primarily to fulfill NRC's information needs for 'egulation, the NRC has continuing contacts with agen-cies that have expertise in conducting epidemiological studies (such as the National Cancer Insitiute of the National Insti-tutes of Health and the Office of Health and Environmental Research of the Department of Energy) to ensure that the Part 20 reporting and recordkeeping requirements do not lose information that would tse vital to carrying out such studies. PGN PART20$TATEMENT 90 05/23/88
The total collective (man-rem) dose should be reporte h It was felt by one commenter that NRC should require the total collec-tive dose to be reported so that the numbers used in NUREG-0473-(NRC's annual summary of occupational radiation doses) will be the same as those calculated by the licensee. Response: The reason for a possible discrepancy between a licensee's estimate of the collective dose to workers and the estimate published by the NRC is that the licensee may sum the actual individual doses and the NRC estim' ate is based upon the statistical summary rather than the actual individual readings. Such differences should be reduced in the future. The final rule requires licensees that used to submit the dose sumaries to now report the individual dose data to NRC. Both collective dose calculations should then be using the same database. , i The termination report required in S 20.1207 should (or should not) be replaced with an annual report for all personnel monitored. Some commenters felt that an annual report just to the NRC should replace the present requirement for a termination report. Other commenters felt that annual reports to the NRC of ' doses to individuals constituted a considerably larger burden than did a statistical summary. Some commenters, who disagree [ with filing an annual report to the NRC, were in favor of giving i such an annual dose summary to the worker. Other comenters l suggtsted that all licensees be required to submit an annual report to NRC on each monitored individual.
- e l
Response: The' reporting of individual monitoring data will j l help track doses to individuals who are exposed at several facilities during any given year and whose total dose would be underreported by statistical reports prepared at each work site. Such information is only shown at the present time by analysis of the termination reports. 91 05/23/88 PGN PART20 STATEMENT
Licensees that were required to file both annual statistical summaries and termination reports with the NRC will, in. ad, submit annual dose reports to NRC for all workers for whom monitoring was required under 6 20.502. A copy of the annual report to NRC could also be given to the individual worker in order to satisfy the revised reporting requirement in i 19.13 of 10 CFR Part 19. Although this may entail some additional burden to licensees, the use of "electronic media" for recordkeeping m.ight in fact reduce overall costs. It is intended that large emplejers (such as nuclear power retetor licensees) would submit a electronic copy of their dose reports in a prescribed format to the NRC in lieu of paper copies of individual records.
$ 20.1204 Reports of planned special exposures.
Reports of planned special exposures. It may require weeks or months to conduct planned special exposures or they may take place twice a week. It seems to be an unnecessary burden to in-form the Commission every time a planned special expbsure is made. Response: Because planned special exposures are new to the regulatory scheme, the Commission wishes to know the frequency of their use. The report required is very simple, and the very small reporting burden is considered warranted. I Peried for reportino planned special exposures. Several commen-ters noted that the 15-day period for reporting planned special exposures is shorter than the 30-day period usually allowed for similar reports. l Response: The reporting period of a planned special exposure is a shorter than the longer, more routine reporting l l l l PGN PART20 STATEMENT 52 05/23/68 l I
period, such as a 30-day notification. But it is less restrictive than a requirement for pre-approval by the Commission of the use of planned special exposures. Having su:h preapproval was suggested in some comments, including the EPA. The Commission has decided not to require pre-approval of planned special exposure. This is, in the Commission's view, consistent with the Federal guidance as detailed requirements are prescribed in Part 20 for the use of planned special exposures. I 20.1301 Applications for Exceptions. NRC should rake tie issuance of such exemptions a matter of public record. Seseral commenters felt that the issuance of any . exemptions under this section should require public notice and comment. The EPA stated that such exemptions could adversely effect its ability to control radionuclides under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Response: The NRC has issued very few exemptions under this long-standing provision and never has exempted anyono.from the dose limits for a worker or for a member of the public. Appendix A
- The Protection Factor for Air-Purifying Resotrators with Particulate Elements is too low. The listed protection factor for air purifying respirators with particulate filters is 50, whereas both ANSI Z88.2 and the OSHA regulations in 29 CFR 134 use 100. .
Response: The NRC never endorsed ANSI 288.2-1980, whereas the OSHA regulations generally follow ANSI standards. The PGN PART20$TATEMENT 93 05/23/88
current NRC-allowed protection factors (PF) are based upon research conducted by the Los Alamos National Laboratcry (LANL). These recommendations included a PF of 50 for full face respi-rators, based on experimental data on actual testing of person-nel using respirators under carefully controlled conditions. In
, actual use, there is essentially no difference between a PF of l 50 versus a PF of 100 so that there should be little or no real impact on field use of respirators or on operations at nuclear facilities that would result from using the higher protection factor.
Several respiratory equipment specifications in Appendix A should be aoplicable only for areas that are "imediately dangerous to life and health." Footnotes "h" and "i" contain specifications . for air flow rates and flow calibration and a requirement for standby rescuers to be available when using supplied-air suits. These were felt to be unneeded considering that if the air flow failed, the person could withstand a small exposure to the air-borne radionuclides while exiting the area after re:noving the protective hood. Response: The supposition that conditions "immediately dangerous to life and health" do not exist is not always correct. Failure of an airline in supplied-air suits may be considered as "immediately dangerous to life and health" because l there is an acute danger of suffocation if the air supply is interupted and the hood cannot be removed by the wearer. Rapid l recovery of and assistance to the iriividual in the supplied air . suit necessitates the presence of a pre-equipped rescuer. I i l PGN PART20STATEMEtii 94 05/23/88
Appendix B G :neral Coments. Most of the comments frem radiation protec-
~
tion professionals favored the adoption of the ICRP 26/ICRP 30 Annual Limits on Intake and the Derived Air Concentrations. Comments from private citizens were against adoption of the ICRP values because the majority of these values would increase (As stated in Section XXIX of the proposed rule, 51 FR 1120). Response: From an occupational protection standpoint, the
' changes that result from adoption of the ICRP risk-based approach lead to higher limiting intake values than in the previous Part 20. These increases result from the increase in the allowable ceiling for organ doses. The values that served as the basis for calculating the concentration limits used in the ,
former Part 20 were organ dose limits of 5 , 15- and 30-re=. The new concentration limits are based upon the effective (weighted) organ dose or upon the non-stochastic limit that forms an organ dose ceiling when the stochastic risk is not limiting. These changes increase the limiting annual orgcn doses (when only one organ is irradiated) from 5 rems to 20 rems j ! for the gonads, from 15 rems to 32 rems per year for tne breast, and from 15 rems to 42 rems for the lung for those doses that are limited by the stochastic (effective dose) limit. Limiting doses to other organs increase from the former 15- and 30-rem values to the 50-rem non-stochastic limit. The former ICRP-2 "critical organ" concept based the limiting intake upon controlling the dose rate to the organ receiving the highest dose rate (the "critical organ"). The doses to organs other than the critical organ did not have to be evaluated, even if these doses were close to the estimated dose to the critical organ. The new ICRP-26/30 system evaluates the doses to all major organs and the six remaining organs that receive the next highest doses. These doses are then multiplied by the appropriate weighting factors (w )i and are summed to give a risk-weighted "effective dese." The concentration limits that are based upon this newer ICRP approach reflect the doses to all 95 05/23/88 PGN PART20 STATEMENT
principal organs that are irradiated, not just the one organ that receives the highest dose as was done in the former Part 20. Many of the comments from private citizens do not appear to reflect the proposed rule, because many of the comments objected to raising the limits for radionuclide concentrations applicable to the general public. As noted in the discussion of Appendix B in the notice of proposed rulemaking (Section XXIX, 51 FR 1119-1120), the concentration limits for members of the public were based upon a "Reference Level" dose (now the dose limit for L members of the general public) of 0.1 rem per year and incorporated an additional factor of 2 reduction (Proposed , Appendix B; 51 FR 1145) for age-dependency and cokbined air and water intakes. Thus the concentration limits for the public
- reflect a reduction in their basis from a whole body annual dose of 500-millirem in the former Part 20 to 50 millirem in the pro-posed and final rules. .
i i The concentration limits for individual radionuclides may be higher or lowtr for members of the general public'in unre-stricted areas in the final Appendix B than in the former tables due to changes that occurred in the intervening 25 years in the metabolic and other parameters used to calculate internal doses. These changes are reflected in ICRD Publication 30 and its supplements and amendments. However, these changes are a result of changes in the scientific techniques and parameters used in calculating doses and do not reflect an increase in the allowable dose limits, which, in reality, have been decreased in the revised Part 20. NRC should consider deleting Table 2 from Appendix B. The concentration limits in Appendix B do not provide adequate pro-tection of children and infants because they do not take into account age dependency in a proper manner. Ceepliance should be j PGN PART20 STATEMENT 96 05/23/86 ,
with the dose limits rather than with these concentration
~
limits. . Response: The use of the effective dose equivalent concept reduces the importance of age-dependent intake-to-dose factors. Age-dependency is of primary importance in calculating organ doses. Those organs for which age-dependency is important, such ; I as the thyroid gland, arc of lesser importance because of lower wT values (for the thyroid, for example, wT = 0.03) used to calculate effective dose. A factor of 2 is included in the calculation of concentrations for release to tir and water , which, in part, accounts for age-dependency. In addition, the Commission believes that there is a lack of detailed metabolic data for all but the most c6mmon radionuclides which will
- inhibit such attempts to increase the precision of the estimated .
dose. Many smaller licensees routinely use concentrations and the Appendix B tables in order to demonstrate compliance. The use of concentration limits for determining compliance is a well-e:,tablished practice that is economical for many of the smaller licensees. Despite the growing availability of simplified dose assessment codels, the Commission is continuing to accept the use of concentrations to demonstrate compliance with the dese limits. l l The Appendix B tables fail to account for the chemical toxicity l j of natural and low-enriched uranium. This fails to take into j account the possible kidney (renal) damage associated with the I chemical toxicity. . Response: There is a separate limit for uranium intake that is based upon the chemical toxicity. This limit was expressed as footnote 3 to Appendix B, page 1199 of the January 9, 1986 Federal Register Notice and as $ 20.204(i) on page 1131. In the ' revised rule, it still appears as footnote 3 in Appendix B. but PGN PART20 STATEMENT 97 05/23/6S >
the limit has been rooved up in the text to the section on dose limits and new appears as 5 20.201(e). The limits for occupational and nonoccupational exposure to radon-222 and its particulate daughters do not appear to be consistent with the nirborne concentration limits for other radionuclides in terms of risk. Response: The occupational concentration limits for raden-222 are based on the existing Federal guidance which is 4 WLM (4 Working-Level Months) per year. The annual limit on intake is stated as 100 pCi or 4 working-level months. The derived air concentration (DAC) in Part 20 for occupational exposure to radon-222 of 3 x 10 s is equivalent to 0.33 working-levels G his equivalence is also given in the Appendix B table.) The conceo-tration limit for members of the general public is a factor of 300 lower and, like the other airborne concentration limits, represents an effective dose of 50 millirems per year. Concentration limits for tritium omit che'nical forms' other than for tritiated water vapor.
- Response: As there is expected to be no occupational intake via oral ingestion, and most of the organic forms are not volatile, different intake limits would apply to hyorogen gas (HT or T2 ) and HTO. The HT or T2 gas is rapidly converted to HTO by exchange and oxidation so that specifying a submersion
- dose limit for HT would understate the actual radiological impact. Comparison with other derived limits fcr othat chemical fores shows' that the use of the concer.tration limits for HTO I provides an adequate level of protection for most of the other chemical forms.
98 05/23/88 ! PGN PART20$iATEMENT i
l No concentration limits are listed for natural thoriu s There l are limits for natural uranium, but corresponding concentration , limits for natural thorium are not given. The isotopic composi ' tion of thorium can vary somewhat with different ores and with different times after chemical separations. Response: Use the thorium-232 value, or if a more precise value is desired .use the procedure for mixtures in Appendix B applied to the actual isotopic concentrations present. l The derived air concentrations for the ceneral public are not I always 0.1 times the occupational values. , Response: The limits for the general pubife are calculated . solely from the stochastic risks. This differs from ICRP which j would use a "capping" organ dose limit of 5 rems ( 0.1 x the 1 non-stochastic limit of 50-rem) in deriving the organ dose limit : 1 for organ that are limited by the non-stochastic risk. The threshold for non-stochastic effsets for the worker at 50 rems would also apply to a member of the public. Rather than apply-7 ing a factor of ten reduction, the limiting stochastic (effec-r l tive) dose was used to calculate the concentration limits for L j the general public. Values are not based on the non-stochastic ' risk for members of the public, even if they were the basis for ! the calculation of the OACs and ALIs for the worker. i
- I Appendix C The reduction from 100 pCi to 0.001 pCi for thoriu's values will l
require posting of areas where thoriated nickel machine parts i are used._ l I Response: On the basis of specific activity considerations, l l the existin2 100 pCi limit has been retained for long-lived d PGN PART2057ATEMENT 99 05/23/88 i i
,e s - , - , - - - - . _ . . _ - , , , - _ . ,--.-___---------.- ,--- ,-.. _ , - - _ - - . _ - - . - - , . - - _ -
is,
,i l radionuclides (half-lives longer than 109years), such as thorium-232, which would require a considerable mass of r,aterial to produce the stated activity level.
Appendix E [ Reserved] Final Rule. The calculational guidelines and equations that appeared in Appendix E will be incorporated into a Regulatory Guide. This will make it easier to revise and clarify the calculational methods without having to resort to formal l rulemaking. (Note: NRC routinely issues Regulatory Guides for public comment before making them final.) Appendix F Note: Appendix F is. derived directly from requirements inserted by the Part 61 rulemaking on low-level radioactive waste disposal sites. Because these requirements are relatively j recent, they were not substantially modified in the Part 20 I revision. Appendix G No contents on Appendix G were received. I. IV. Environmental Assessment: Negative Declaration The Commissioned has determined, under the provisions of the National Environmental Policy A:t of 1969, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR part 51, that the premal-gation of this final rule will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Therefore, an 100 05/23/88 PGN PART20$7ATEMENT
e environmental impact statement is not required. An envirencental assesstrent has been prepared and forms the basis for the finding that there will be no significant environmental impact. A copy of this environmental assessient is available for public inspection and copying at the NRC Public Document Room. V. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this rule has been submitted to the Office of Budget and Management (OMB) for clearance of the information collection recuirements. The information collection require-monts in the proposed Part 20 re,Sion were approved by CH3 under approval number 3150-0014. , VI. Revised Regulatcry Analysis The Commission has prepared a final regulatory analysis for this regulation. This revised analysis was based on the draft regulatory analysis (as modified to account for changes from the proposed rule and public comments) and the revised rule. Copics of both the draft and final Regulatory Analysis are available for review and copying in the Commission's Public Document Room. (See Addresses ) . VII. Regulatory Flexibility Certification In accordance with Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Comission has prepared a regulatory flexi-bility analysis which indicated that the revised rule will apply to all NRC licensees. The NRC has approximately 7,500 licensees, approximately one quarter of which are classified as small entities. (Note: Agreement States, which implement comparable regulations under section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 101 05/23/83 PGN PART20$7ATEMENT
< s .
as amended, have about 11,000 licensees.) The types of small entities that would be affected by this rule include physicians, small hospitals, small laboratories, industrial applications in small industries, radiographers, and well loggers. I l l l I 4 1 1 1 FGN PART20 STATEMENT 102 05/23/88 I
- , , , . , , , , - , , , .,,._.n.e , -. , , . . . _ w
D . a E
~
XXXVII. LIST OF SUBJECTS IN 10 CFR PART 20 Byproduct material, Licensed mate.ial, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Occupational safety and health, Packaging and
. containers, Penalty, Radiation protection, Reporting requirements, Special nuclear material, Source material, Waste treatment and disposal.
For the reasons set out in the preamble and pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as . amended, and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the NRC is adopting the following
< revision of 10 CFR Part 20 and the following amendments to 10 CFR Parts 2, 19, 30, 31, 32, 34, 39, 40, 50, 61, and 70.
PART 20 - STANDARDS FOR PROTECTION AGAINST RADIATION SUBPART A - GENERAL PROVISIONS Section , 20.1 Purpose. 20.2 Scope. 20.3 Definitions. , , 20.4 Units of radiation dose. 20.5 ' Units of radioactivity. 20.6 Interpretations. , 20.7 Communications, i
- 20.8 Reporting, recording, and application requirements: OMB l approval. !
I I t SUBPART B - RADIATION PROTECTION PROGRAMS 20.101 Radiation protection programs, d l DRAFT 05/19/88 1 10 CFR 20 l
', ' ,.C .
+J i
SUBPART C - OCCUPATIONAL DOSE LIMITS 20.201 Occupational dose limits for adults. 20.202 Compliance with requirements for sunmation of external and internal doses. 20.203 Determination of external dose from airborne radioactive material. 20.204 Determination of internal exposur'e. 20.205 (Reserved]' 20,206 rianned special exposures. 20.207 Occupational dose limits for minors. 20.208 Dose to an embryo / fetus. SUBPART D - RADIATION DOSE LIMITS FOR INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC 20.301 Dose limits for individual sembers of the public. , 20.302 Compliance with dose limits for individual members of the public. SUBPART E - (RESERVED] SUBPART F - SURVEYS AND MONITORING 20.501 General. 20.502 Conditions requiring individual monitoring of external and internal occupational dose. , i i SUBPART G - CONTROL OF EXPOSURE FROM EXTERNAL SOURCES IN l RESTRICTED AREAS , l 20.601 Control of access to high radiation areas. t 20.602 Control of access to very high radiation areas. l 20.603 Control of access to very high radiation areas - irradiators. t i DRAFT 05/19/88 2 10 CFR 20 , i
- v SUBPART H - RESPIRATORY PROTECTION AND CONTROLS TO RESTRICT INTERNAL EXPOSURE IN RESTRICTED AREAS .
20.701 Use of process or other engineering centrols. - 20.702 Use of other controls. 20.703 Use of individual respiratory protective equipment.
, 20.704 Further 'estrictions on the use of respiratory protective equipaent.
SUBPART I - STCRAGE AND CONTROL OF LICENSED MATERIAL 20.801 Security of stored material. 20.802 Centrol of material not in storage. SUBPART J - PRECAUTIONARY PROCEDURES 20.a01 Cautior- Igns. 20.902 Posting ,uirements. 10.903 Exception: to posting requirements. 20.904 Labeling containers. , i 20.905 Exemptions to labeling requirements. 20.906 Proce h as for receiving and opening packages. SUBPART X - WASTE DISPOSAL 20.1001 General requirements. 20.1002 Method for obtaining approval of proposed disposal procedures.
. 20.1003 Disposal by release into sanitary sewerage.
20.1004 Treatment or disposal by incineration. 20.1005 Disposal of specific wastes. 20.1006 Transfer for disposal and manifests. 23.1007 Compliance with envirormental and health protection regulations. 1 ORAFT 05/19/88 3 10 CFR 20
' ' *:.-lfc ' :,
,. , ' ',) , . ' : ,
SUBPART L - RECORDS 20.1101 General provisions. 20.1102 Records a ' radiation erottetion programs. 20.1103 Records of surveys. 20.1104 Determination cf prior occupational dose. 20.1105 Records of, planned special exposures. 20.1106 Records gf individual monitoring results. 20.1107 Records of dose to individual members of the public. 20.1108 Records of waste disposal. 20.1109 Records of testing entry control devices for very high radiation areas. 20.1110 Form of records. SUBPART H - REPORTS 1 20.1201 Reports of theft or loss of licensed material. 20.1202 Notification of incidents. 20.1203 Peports J1 exposeres, .'adiation levels, and concent, rations ; of radioactive raterial exceeding the limits. l 20.1204 Report.s of planned special exposures.
- 20.1205 [ Reserved]
20.1205 Report 4 of individual monitoring. SUBPART N - EXEMPTIONS AND ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS 20.1301 Applications for exemptions. 20.1302 Additional requirements. l SUBPART 0 - ENFORCEMENT 20.1401 Violations. DRAFT 05/19/88 4 10 CFR 20
.., . b ,* .
- f, .
, '.h . 'll:'
,.c. .; ;. p . .. ,
APPENDICES Appendix A - Protection factors for respiraters Appendix B ; Annual limits of intake (ALIs) and derived air
,, .,; concentrations (DACs) of radionuclides for occupational exposure; concentratic 1 in air and water effluents, concentrations for release to sewerage t
Appendix C - Quantities of Itcensed material requiring labeling l Appendix 0 - United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regional ' Offices I
. Appendix E ,- (Reserved]
Appendix F , - Requirements for low level waste transfer for disposal at land disposal facilities and manifests AUTHORITY: Secs 53, 63, 65, 81, 103, 104, 161, 182, 186, 68 Stat. 930, 933, 935, 936, 937, 948, 953, 955, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2073, 2093,' 2095, 2111, 2133, 2134, 2201, 2232, 2236); secs. 201, as amended 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1146 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5546). For the purposes of sec. 223, 68 Stat. 958, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2273); li 20.102, 20.201 - 20.204, 20.206, 20.207, 20 208, 20.301,
- 20.302, 20.501, 20.502, 20.601(a) and ,*d), 20.602, 20.603, 20,701 -
20.704,20.801,20.802,20.901(a),20.902,20.904,20.906,20.1001, 20.1002, 20.1003, 20.1004, 20.1005(b) - (d), 20.1006, 20.1101 - 20.1110, 20.1201 - 20.1206, and 20.1301 are issue. $ der sec. 161b., 68 Stat. 948 (42 U.S.C. 2201(b)); and il 20.102(a)(2) and (4), 20.204(c), 20,206(g) and (h), 20.904(c)(4), 20.905(c) and (d), 20.1005(c), 20.1006(b) - (d), 20.1101 - 20.1103, 20.1104(b) - (d), 20.1105 - 20.1108, and 20.1201 - 20.1207 are issu+d unde- sec. 161o, 68 Stat. 950, as amended (42 U.S.C. . 2201(o)). DRAFT 05/19/88 5 10 CFR 20
;q.__a a 3, w s.. ,.
3 SUBPART A - GENERAL PROVISIONS
$ 20.1 Purpose.
(a) The regulations in this part establish standards for protection against ionizing radiation resulting from activities conducted under licenses issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. These regulations are issued under the Atomic Energy Act ,of 1954, as amended, and the EnergyReorganizationActof1974,asamended. (b) It is the purpose of the regulations in this part to control the receipt, possession, use, transfer, and disposal of licensed material by any licensee in such a manner that the total dose to an individual (including doses resulting from licensed and unlicensed radioactive material'and to other radiation sources) does not exceed the standards *
' for protection against radiation prescribed in the regulations in this part. However, nothing in this part shall be construed as limiting actions that may be necessary to protect health and safety.
$ 20.2 Scope.
The regulations in this part apply to perscns ifcensed by the Commission to rective, possess, use, or transfer byproduct, source, or special nuclear material or to operate a production or utilization facility under Parts 30 through 35, 39, 40, 50, 60, 61, 70, 72, or 150 of this chapter. The limits in this part do not apply to doses due to natural background, to intentional exposure of patients to radiation for the purpose of medical diagnosis or therapy, or to voluntary participation in medical research programs.
$ 20.3 Definitions.
As used in this part:
"Absorbed dose" means the energy imparted by ionizing radiation per unit i mass of irradiated material. The units of absorbed dose are the rad and f the gray (Gy).
I "Act" means the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.), as amended, DRAFT 05/19/88 6 10 CFR 20 i 1 l
).
.j[.f 5 h* h q' }.%g .. .{. # ] ;.k.[-) 77. d;- -
' ' '3*
sr . .
' f ^ ," , . , ', ,
e , -
"Activity" is the rate of disintegration (transformation), or decay of radioactive saterial. The units of activity are the curie (Ci) and ,
the becquerel (Bq).
"Adult" means an individual 18 or more years of age.
"Afrborne radioactive saterial" means radioactive material dispersed in, the air in the form of dusts, fumes, particulates, afsts, vapors, or gases.
"Airborne radioactivity area" means a room, enclosure, or area in which airborne radioactive materials, composed wholly or partly of licensed material, exist in concentrations--
(1) In excess of the derived air concentrations (DACs) specified in Appendix B, or (2) To such a degree that an individual present in the area without respiratory protective equipment could exceed, during the hours an indi-l vidual is p. resent in a week, an intake of 0.6 percent of the anr il limit on intake (ALI) or 12 DAC-hours. i "Annual limit on intake" (ALI) means the derived limit for ttie amount of l radioactive material taken into the body of an adult worker by inhalation or ingestion in a year. ALI is the smaller value of intake of a given radionuclide in a year by the reference man which would result in a coensitted effective dose equivalent of 5 rees (0.05 Sv) or a committed dose equivalent of 50 rees (0.5 Sv) to any individual organ or tissue. (ALI values for intake by ingestion and by inhalation of selected l radionuclides are given in Table 1, Columns 1 and 2 of Appendix B.)
"ALARA" (acronym for "As low as is reasonably achievable") means making every reasonable effort to maintain exposures to radiation as far below i the dose limits in this part as is practical consistent with the purpose ! for which the licensed activity is undertaken, taking into account the state of technology, the economics of improvements in relation to ;
benefits to the public health and safety, and other societal and socio- , I DRAFT 05/19/88 7 10 CFR 20 l l _ _ _ _
, .I.J'(
. g.y. q,Ek. : f 3
- x. i.
.,':NM['g.g.;'$..g(.J
.pc. . .
.c
.. .::v:. M Q .
economic considerations, and in relation to utilization of nuclear energy and licensed saterials in the public interest. .
"Bioassay" (radiobioassay) means the determination of kinds, quantities -
or concentrations, and, in some cases, the locations of radioactive material in the human body, whether by direct sensurement (in vivo counting) or by analysis and evaluatipn of materials excreted or removed from the human, body.
"Byproduct material" means --
(1) Any radioactive material (except special nuclear saterial) yielded in, or made radioactive by, exposure to the radiation incident to the process of producing or utilizing special nuclear natorial; and (2) The tailings or wastes produced by the extraction or concentra-tion of uranium or thorium from ore processed primarily for its source material content, including discrete surface wastes resulting from uranium solution extraction processes. Underground ore bodies depleted by these solution extraction operations do not constitute "byproduct saterial" within this definition.
"Class" (or "lung class" or "inhalation class") means a classification scheme for inhaled material according to its rate of clearance from the pulmonary region of the lung. Materials are classified as D. W, or Y which applies to a range of clearance half-times for D(Days) of less than 10 days, for W(Weeks) from 10 to 100 days, and for Y(Years) of greater than 100 days.
"Collective dose is the sum of the individual doses received in a given period of time by a specified population from exposure to a specified source of radiation.
"Connission" means the Nuclear R'egulatory Commission (NRC) or its duly authorized representatives.
"Cosaitted dose equivalent" (HT,50) means the dose equivalent to organs or tissues of reference (T) that will be received from an intale of D Rf '
- 05/19/88 8 10 CiR 20
m__ .
, . .n . _2 . . . m. s.m . . _ , . . ..z._ z _.-= _ , .. .m.. . . _ . __ _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _
h ,'i C (!hhd ) *." hb u.y
,' ;,,n.;...:n
.; ; . : -q. , , ,
.s - ..
radioactive material by an individual during the 50-year period following the intake.
"Committed effective dose equivalent" (HE ,50) is the sum of the products .
of the weighting factors applicable to each of the body organs or tissues which'are irradia?.ed and the committed dose equivalent J to these organs or tissues (HE,50"Y"TT,50). N l
"Controlled area" means an area, outside of a restricted i:rea but inside the site boundary, access to which can be limited by the licensee for any reason.
"Declared pregnant woman" means a, woman who has voluntarily informed her employer, in writing, of her pregnancy and the estimated date of ,
f conception. , l I
"Deep dose equivalent" (Hd ), which applies to external whole-body ex- i
'posure, is the dose equivalent .s! a tissue depth of I cm (1000 mg/cm2). I i
"Department"meanstheDepartmentofEnergyesthblishedbytheDepartment of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95-91, 91 Stat. 565, 42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.) to the extent that the Departmen*,, or its duly authorized , ,
representatives, exercises functions formerly vested in the U.S. Atomic i Energy Commission, its Chairman, members, officers, and components and transferred to the U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration and to the Administrator thereof pursuant to sections 104 (b), (c), and (d) of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-438, 88 Stat. 1233 at 1237, 42 U.S.C. 58'.4) and retransferred to the Secretary of Energy pursuant to section 301(a) of the Department of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95-91, 91 Stat. 565 at 577-578, 42 U.S.C. 7151).
"Derived air concentration" (DAC) means the concentration of a given radionuclide in air which, if breathed by the reference san for a working year of 2,000 hours under conditions of light work (inhalation rate 1.2 i DRAFT 05/19/88 9 10 CFR 20
- .)
. 'q j
. c, . .
cubic meters of air per hour), results in an intake .of one ALI DAC values are given in Table 1, Column 3 of Appendix B. ,
"Derived air concentration-hour" (DAC-hour) is the product of the .
concentration of radioactive material in air (expressed as a fraction or multiple of the derived air concentration for each radionuclide) and the time of exposure to that radionuclide, in hours. A licensee may take 2,000 DAC-hours to represent one ALI, equivalent to a coenitted effective dose equivaleht of 5 rems (0.05 Sv).
"Dose" or "radiation dose" is a generic tern which means absorbed dose, dose equivalent, effective dose equivalent, committed dose equivalent, committed effective dose equivalent, or total effective dose equivalent, as defined in other parag*aphs of this section.
"Dose equivalent" means the product of the absorbed dose in tissue, ,
quality factor, and all otLer necessary modifying factors at the location of interest.. The unite of dose equivalent are the tem and sievert ($v).
"Dosimetry processor" means an individual or an organization that processes and evaluates individual monitoring equipment in order to determine the radiation dose delivered to the equipment.
"Effective dose equivalent" (HE ) is the sue of the products of the dose equivalent to the organ or tissue (HT ) and the weighting factors (wT )
applicable to each of the body organs or tissues which are irradiated H (HE*Y"TT)*
"Embryo / fetus" means the developing human organism from conception until the time of birth.
"Entrance or access point" means any location through which an individual could gain access to radiation areas or to radioactive saterials. This includes entry or exit portals of sufficient size to permit human entry irrespective of their intended use. .
DRAFT 05/19/88 10 10 CFR 20
* :' ,l., *s ..
.. n:
w ; ,,;.;. . - .- n p ,
"Exposure" means being exposed to ionizing radiation or to radioactive material. .
"External dose" means that portion of the dose equivalent received from ,
radiation sources outside of the body. !
"Extremities" means hand, elbow, arm below the elbow, foot, knee, and leg below the knet'.
"Eye dose equivalent" applies to the external exposure of the lens of the eye and is taken as the dose equivalent at a tissue depth of 0.3 cm (300
( mg/cm2), i "Generally applicable environmental radiation standards" & ans standards issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the authority
- of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, that impose limits on radiation exposures or levels, or concentrations or quantities of radioactive material, in the general environment outside the boundaries of locations under the control of persons possessing or using radioactive material. These standards are set out in 40 CFR Parts 190, 191, and 192.
t "Government agency" means any executive department, commission, indepen-dent establishment, corporation wholly or partly owned by the United ' i States of America which is an instrumentality of the United States, or ! any board, bureau, division, service, office, officer, authority, administration, or other establishment in the executive branch of the I Government. ! "Gray" (See i 20.4]
"High radiation area" means an area, accessible to individuals, in which
! radiation levels could result in an individual receiving a dose equivalent in excess of 0.1 rem (1 mSv) in I hour at 30 cm from the i radiation source or from any surface which the radiation penetrates.
"Individual" means any human being.
ORAFT 05/19/88 11 10 CFR 20 i
i n . .. u i .e
. d.,l *'; . e i'
.i...
"Individual monitoring" seans:
(1) The assessment of dose equivalent by the use of devices design 9d to be worn by an individual; (2) The assessment of committed effective dose equivalent by i bioassay (see Bioassay) or by determination of the time-weighted air concentrations to which an individual has been exposed, i.e., DAC-hours; or , (3) The a'ssessment of dose equivalent by the use of survey data. , 4 "Individual Monitoring Devices" ("individual sonitoring equipment") means devices designed to be worn by a single individual for the assessment of
.Ase equivalent such as: film badges, thersoluminescent dosimeters :
(TLDs), pocket ionization chambers, and personal ("lapel") air sampling i devices.
- I "Internal dose" means that portion of the dose equivalent received from i
; radioactive material taken into the body.
"License" means a license issued under the regulations in Parts 30 through 35, 39. 40, 50, 60, 61, 70, or 72 of this chapter. ,
i I
"Licensee" means the holder of a license.
"Licensed saterial" means source material, special nuclear material, or byproduct material received, possessed, used, or transferred under a
! general or specific license issued by the Coswiission. ,
t "Limits" (Dose limits) means the permissible upper bounds of radiation doses.
"Lost or missing licensed saterial" means any licensed material whose l location is unknown. It includes saterial which has been shipped but has l not reached its destination and whose location cannot be readily traced l in the transportation system, j r
I DRAFT 05/19/83 12 10 CFR 20 l l l [ !
~- _ _ . _ - _ . , . s... . . :.w,. . _ . ~ . . _ - - - . - + . . .
- . _ - . _ ~.
? ?. :, '
.q,;7'n
' M g,,:;;..j,p.. Mc, ., y.N.c ,
; , !p,
- "Member of the public" means any individual in a controlled or unrestricted area. However, an individual is not a member of the public during any period in which the individual receives occupational dose.
"Minor" means an individual less than 18 years of age.
"Monitoring" (radiation monitoring, radiation protection monitoring) means the sensurement of radiation levels, concentrations, surface area l concentrations or quantities of radioactive sattrial and the use of the results of these measurements to evaluate potential expesures and doses.
"Natural background" means naturally occurring cosmic and terrestrial i
radiation and radioactive material, but not including source, byproduct, and special nuclear material.
"Non-stochastic effect" means health effects, the severity of which i varies with the dose, and for which a threshold is believed to exist.
Radiation-induced cataract formation is an example of a non-stochastic ! effect. l
- "0ccupational dose" means the dose received by an individual'in a l restricted area or in the course of employment in which the individual's assigned duties involve exposure to radiation and to radioactive mate' rial l
! free licensed and unlicensed sources of radiation, whether in the posses-sion of the licensee or other person. Occupational dose does not include l dose received from natural background, as a patient froa medical prac-l tices, from voluntary participation in medical research programs, or as a l l seaber of the general public. l "Person" means: (1) Any individual, corporation, partnership, firm, association,
. trust, estate, public or private institution, group, Government agency i
other than the Commission or the Department of Energy (except that the Department shall be considered a person within the meaning of the regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I to the extent that its facilities and activitiesaresubjecttothelicensingandrelatedregulatoryauthority DRAFT 05/19/88 13 10 CFR 20
. v. _ _ .a :
.wuw= -
r.- - 2a - -- - -..
, ,,}; 'f . ~ 7 f ' . < .j. , ' - ?' i ' ' ,,
of the Commission under Section 202 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 1244) and the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1979, (92 Stat. 3021)), any State or any political subdivision of or any political entity within a State, any foreign government or nation or any political subdivision of any such government or nation, or other entity; and (2) Any, legal successor, representative, agent, or agency of the foregoing., ,
"Planned special exposure" means an infrequent exposure, separate from and in addition to the annual dose limits.
"Public dose" means the dose received by a member of the public from exposure to radiation and to radioactive material released by a licensee, '
or to another source of radiation either within a licensee's controlled area or in unrestricted areas. It does not include occupational dose, or dose received from natural background, as a patient from medical practic-es, or from voluntary participation in medical research programs. , l "Quality Factor" (Q) means the modifying factor (listed in Tables 1 and 2 of i 20.4) that is used to derive dose equivalent from absorbed dose. ' "Quarter" means a period of time equal to one-fourth of the year observed I by the licensee (approximately 13 consecutive weeks). j "Rad" (See $ 20.4].
"Radiation" (ionizing radiation) means alpha particles, beta particles, gasna rays, x-rays, neutrons, high-speed electruns, high-speed protons, and other particles capable of producing ions. Radiation, as used in this part, does not include non-ionizing radiation, such as sound, radio, or microwaves, or visible, infrared, or ultraviolet light.
"Radiation area" means an area, accessible to individuals, in which radiation levels could result in an individual receiving a dose DPAFT 05/19/88 14 10 CFR 20
6 _ . -
;. ) j ~
. ': l ,
,,'7.t 3,'[e s* ,
equivalent in excess of 0.005 rem (0.05 mSv) in 1 hour at 30 ce from the j radiation source or from any surface which the radiation penetrates. , 4 L
"Reference man" means a hypothetical aggreg3 tion of human physical and t
physiological characteristics arrived at by international conssnsus, t These characteristics may be used by researchers and public health ! j workers to standardize results of experiments and to relate biological l insult to a common base. [ I "Rem"(See$20.4]. J l "Respiratory protective device" means an apparatus, such as a respirator, : I l used to reduce the individual's intake of airborne radioactive materials.
"Restricted area" means an area, access to which is limited by the ;
licensee for the purpose of protecting individuals against undue risks j from exposure to radiation and radioactive materials. Restricted area j j , does not include areas used as residential quarters, but separate rocms l } in a residential building may be set apart as a restricted area. f' 1 . 1 ! "Sanitary sewerage" means a system of public sewers for carrying off f j waste water and refuse, but excluding sewage treatment far.ilities, septic ! tanks, and leach fields owned or operated by the licensee. 1, t l
"Shallow dose equivalent" (H,), which applies to the external exposure of l j the skin or an extremity, is taken as the dose equivalent at a tissue ;
! depth of 0.007 cm (7 og/co8) averaged over an area of I cat . ! J I
"Sievert" (See 5 20.4]. '
i "Site boundary" means that line beyond which the land or property is not , 1 owned, leased, or otherwise controlled by the licensee. (
"Source material" means--
(1) Uranium or thorium, or any combination of uranius and thorium in [ l ! any physical or chemical form; or l 9 j f DRAFT 05/19/88 15 10 CFR 20 f [ ) -
m w. a . . . . _ x . i v. .x.. .w . .. .
. _ .. w . _, _ _ ,
s . E,-
..: 7.
(2) Ores which'contain, by weight, one-twentieth of one percent (0.05 percent), or more, of uranium, thorius, or any combination of ' uranium and thorium. Source material does not include special nuclear saterial. -
"Special nuclear saterial" means--
(1) Plutonium, uranium-233, uranium enriched in the isotope 233 or in the isotope 235, and any other material which the Commission, pursuant
! to the provisions of section 51 of the Act, determines to be special nuclear material, but does not include source saterial; or (2) Any material artificially enriched by any of the foregoing but doesnotinchfa.sourcematerial.
"Stochastic effects" means health effects which occur randomly and for ,
which the probability of the effect occurring, rather than its severity, i is assumed to be a linear function of dose without threshold. Hereditary effects and cancer incidence are examples of stochastic effects.
"Survey" means an evaluation of the radiological conditions and potential hazards incident to the production, use, transfer, release, (isposal, or presence of radioactive material or other sources of radiation. When appropriate, such an evaluation includes a physical survey of the ,
location of radioactive material and measurements or calculations of levels of radiation, concentrations, or quantities of radioactive saterial present. l l
"Total Effective Dose Equivalent" means the sum of the deep dose equivalent (for external exposures) and the committed effective dose l
equivalent (for internal exposures).
"Unrestricted area" means an area, a;; cess to which is neither limited nor
! controlled by the licensee.
"Uranium fuel cycle" means the operations of silling of uranium ore, chemical conversion of uranium, isotopic enrichment of uranium, fabrica-l tion of uranium fuel, generation of electricity by a light-water-cooled l
DRAFT 05/19/88 16 10 CFR 20 i r
- - - - - . ~ . ~ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ , - - - - _ _ _ - . . ,
? 4 -
.{.
nuclear power plant using uranium fuel, and reprocessing of spent uranium fuel, to the extent that these :.ctivities directly support the productipn of electrical power for public 1se. Uranium fuel cycle does not include mining operations, operations i4 waste disposal sites, transportation of , radioactive material in suppe u of these operations, and the reuse of recovered non-uranium special nuclear and byproduct atterials from the cycle. .
"Very high radiation area" means an area, accessible to individuals, in which radiation levels could result in an individual receiving an absorbed dose in excess of 500 rads (5 grays) in 1 hour at 1 meter from a radiation source or from any surface which the radiation penetrates.
(Note: At very high doses received at high dose rates, units of absorbed dose are appropriate, rather than units of dose equivalent.)
"Week" means 7 consecutive days starting on Sunday.
l "Weighting factor", wi, for an organ or tissue (T) is the proportion of the risk of stochastic effects resulting from irradiation of that organ or tisste to the total risk of stochastic effects when the whole body is irradiated uniformly. For calculating the effective dose equivalent, the l values of wT Organ or Tissue wy Jonads 0.25 Breast 0.15 Red bone marrow 0.12 1.ung 0.12 Thyroid 0.03 Bone surfaces 0.03 a Remainder 0.30 DRAFT 05/19/88 17 10 CFR 20 l
,__ ,;, . . _ ._..m_ _, . _.- __. ,_ ,_ _
'll.';,.
..~
**[,*-
. ,0 .4 ,
Whole Body '.0b 1 (a) 0.30 results from 0.06 for each of 5 "remainder organs" (excluding the
. skin and.the lens of the eye) that '
receive the highest doses. (b)This is the only wy value applicable
,- .to external exposures. !
"Whole body" means, for purposes of external exposure, head, trunk (including male gonads), arms above the elbow, or legs above the knee.
. "Working level" is any combination of short-lived radon daughters (for
, radca-222: polonium-218, lead-214, bismuth-214, and polonium-214; and for l l radon-220: polonium-216, lead-212, bismuth-212, and polonium-212) in 1 liter of air that will result in the ultimate emission of 1.3 x 105 MeV l 1 of potential alpha particle energy. k j "Working level month" (WLM) means an exposure of 1 working level for 170 hours (2,000 working hours per year /12 months per year = approximately 170 hours per sonth). ! "Year" means the period of time, beginning in January, used to determine l compliance with the provitions of this part. The licensee say change the I starting date of the year uted to determine compliance by the licensee provided that the change is ade at the beginning of the year and that no day is omitted or duplicated in consecutive years, i l 20.4 Units of radiation dose. (a) As used in this parv, the units of radiation dose are: l l
"Gray" (Gy) is a unit of absorbed dose. One gray is equal to an absorbed doseof1 joule / kilogram (100 rads).
"Rad" is a unit of absorbed dose. One rad is equal to an absorbed dose of100 ergs /gramor0.01 joule / kilogram (0.01 gray).
DRAFT 05/19/88 18 10 CFR 20
L: ';' . .l,
..a,-
",Res" is a unit of dose equivalent. The dose equivalent in rems is equal to the absorbed dose in rads multiplied by the quality factor (1 rem = ,
0.01sieverts).
"$fevert" is a unit of dose equivalent. The dose equivalent in sieverts is equal to the absorbed dose in grays multiplied by the quality factor (1 Sv = 100 rees).
(b) As used in this part, the quality factors for converting absorbed dose to dose equivalent are f.hown in Table 1. TABLE 1 QUALITY FACTORS AND ABSORBED DOSE EQUIVALENCIES l . Quality Factor Absorbed Dose Equal to* TYPE OF RADIATION (Q) a Unit Dose Equivalent . X , gamma, or beta radiation 1 1 Alpha particles, multiple-charged - particles, fission fragments and heavy particles of unknown charge 20 0.05 ) Neutrons of unknown energy 10 01 High-energy Protons 10 0.1 a Absorbed dose in rad equal to 1 ren or the absorbed dose in gray equal to 1 sievert. l l l (c) If it is more convenient to sensure the neutron fluence rate than to determine the neutron dose equivalent rate in reas per hour or sieverts per hour, as provided in paragraph (b) of this section,1 rea (0.01 Sv) of neutron radiation of unknown energies say, for purposes of the l regulations in this part, be assumed to result free a total fluence of 25 i million neutrons per square centimeter incident upon the body. If sufficient information exists to estimate the approximate energy distribution of the neutrons, the licensee may use the fluence rate per l DRAFT 05/19/88 19 10 CFR 20
- m. . . _1 _m _u.._ . __..m .-=,._.m . _ . _ . -_-
'0L '.
,,~...
. 7p
. . .. :'N" ,,I.L*f.7l
- 3) .ff f k 3 f. ~ ' ': ,k. '
=' . .
-,r. ..
unit dose equivalent or the appropriate Q value from Table 2 to convert a measured tissue dose'in rads to dose equivalent in reas. . TA8LE 2 MEAN QUALITY FACTORS, Q, AND FLUENCE PER UNIT DOSE G.:; EQUIVALENT FOR MON 0 ENERGETIC NEUTRONS Neutron Quality Fluence per Unig
. Energy Factor Dose Equivalent (MeV) Q (neutrons en 2 rem 1)
(thersal) 2.5 x 10.s 2 980 x 108
. 1 x 10 7 2 980 x 108 1 x 10.s 2 810 x 10s
. 1 x 10 8 2 810 x los 1 x 10 8 2 840 x 108 1 x 10 8 2 980 x 108 1 x 10 2 2.5 1010 x 108 1 x 10 1 7.5 170 x los, .
5 x 10 1 11 39 x 108 - 1 11 27 x 10s 2.5 9 29 x 108 5 8 23 x los 7 7 24 x 108 10 6.5 24 x 108 14 7.5 17 x 108 20 8 16 x los
- 40 7 14 x 10s
, 60 5.5 16 x 108 l 1 x 102 4 20 x 108 ' 2 x 102 3.5 19 x 108 3 x 102 3.5 16 x 108 4 x 102 3.5 14 x 108 a Value of quality factor (Q) at the point where the dose equivalent is maximus in a 30-cm diam- ! eter cylinder tissue-equivalent phantos. D Monoenergetic neutrons incident normally on a 30-ce diameter cylinder tissue-equivalent phantom. I . t I
$ 20.5 Units of radioactivity.
For the purposer of this part, activity is expressed in units of curies (C1), or bec',uerels (Bq), or their multiples, or disintegrations (transformations) per ur.it of time. { 20 10 CFR 20 I DRAFT 05/19/88 l
_ _ - . . _ - __ _ . . _s _ , __ _, [
', ' .e . **
[<.y
' 'j - .:-l,[n . . ',
k.E,$fL- $$$ r7y ',
.< . l.}!,'4.
.;;. ,dl ,
..', 3 u ,
. (a) One becquerel = 1 disintegration per second (s 1).
(b) One curie = 3.7 x 1010 disintegrations per second = 3.7 x 1019 becquerels = 2.22 x 1018 disintegretions per minute. I l
. . i 5 20.6 Interoretations.
,'Except as specifically authorized by the Commission in writing, no interpretation of the meaning of the regulations in this part by an efficer or employee of the Commission other than a writteh interpretation by the General Counsel will be recognized to be binding upon the Commission. $
i 5 20.7 Communications. 1 i l Unless otherwise spe,cified, communications or reports concerning the regulations in this part should be addressed to the Executive Director ! 'l ' for Operations, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cosmission, Washington, DC 20555. ; A communication, report, or application may be delivered in person to the Commission's offices at 1717 H Street, Washington, DC or 11555 Rockville ; Pike, Rocky,ille, Maryland. i ! l 8 20.8 Reportina. recordina, and application reavirements: OMB approval. l
! (a) The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has submitted the' information i collection requirements contained in this part to the Office of Manage- ;
l ment and Budget for approval as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act l of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The OMB control number is . l l (b) The approved information collection r'equirements contained in ; l i this part appear in il 20.102, 20.202, 20.204, 20,206, 20.301, 20.501, ;
- 20,601, 20.603, 20.703, 20.901, 20.902, 20.904, 20.906, 20.1001, 20.1002, !
20.1006, 20.1102, 20.1103, 20.1104, 20.1105, 20.1106, 20.1107, 20.1108, f 20.1109, 20.1110, 20.1201, 20.1202, 20.1203, 20.1204, and 20.1206. l SUSPART B - RADIATION PROTECTION PROGRAMS l I
- i
) $ 20.101 Radiation protection programs. j l (a) Each licensee shall develop, document, and implement a radiation ! protection program commensurate with the scope and extent.of licensed i ! activities and sufficient to ensure compliance with the provisions of I t i t 1 DRAFT 05/19/88 21 10 CFR 20 l
. . _ _ - . _ _ . . . . . _ . . . . . ~ . _ . . _ .
this part. (See i 20.1102 for recordkeeping requirene t relating to these programs). . (b) The licensee shall use, to the extent practicable, procedures and engineering controls based upon sound radiation protection principles to ensure that occupational doses and doses to members of the public are as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA). (c) The Itcensee shall periodically (at least annually) review the radiation protection program content'and implementation. SUBPART C - OCCUPATIONAL DOSE LIMITS I 20,201 Occupational dose limits for adults. , (a) The licensee sha'1 1 control the occupational dose to individual adults, except for planned special exposures under 5 20.206, to the following dose limits. (1) An annual limit, which is the more limiting of-- (i) The total effective dose equivalent being equal to 5 rems (0.05 Sv); or (ii) The sum of the deep dose equivalent and the committ,ed dose equivalent to any individual organ or tissue other than the lens of the l eye being equal to 50 rems (0.5 Sv). l (2) The annual lia '.s to the lens of the eye, to the skin, and to the extremities which are: (i)' An eye dose equivalent of 15 rems (0.15 Sv); and (ii) A she.11ow dose equivalent of 50 rees (0.50 Sv) to the skin or l to each of the extremities. , l (b) If an individual receives a dose exceeding the annual limits l specified in this section, (unless permitted as a planned special exposure by 5 20.206), the following conditions must be satisfied. (1) The licensee shall not assign the individual to tasks likely to , result in the individual receiving an additional oedupational dose exceeding one-fifth of the limits in i 20.201(a).during any quarter , remaining in the year, including the remainir.s portion of the quarter in I which the limits were exceeded. l DRAFT 05/19/88 22 10 CFR 20 1 l i
1 ! . . . .. _ .... . ~ .
~
'a
',, . ~. . T ; , _
t , 1 (2) Doses received in excess of the annual limits, including doset i received during accidents, emergencies, planned special exposures, or ,
- under the provisions in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, sust be
] subtracted from the limits for planned special exposures that the , a individual say receive during the current year (see $20,206(e)(1)) and during the individual's lifetime (see i 20.206(e)(2)). (c) The assigned deep dose equivalent and shallow dose equivalent ! oust be for the part of the body receiving the highest exposure. The deep dose equivalent, eye dose equivalent and shallow dose equivslent ) may be assessed from surveys or other radiation esasurements for the purpose of demonstrating compliance with the occupational dose limits, if the individual monitoring device was not in the reg on of highest potential exposure, or is not available. (d) Derived air concentration (OAC) and annual limit on intake ' (ALI) values are presented in Table 1 of Appendix B and say be used to determine the individual's dose (See $ 20.1106) and to demonstrate compliance with the occupational dose limits. (e) In addition to the annual dose limits, the licensee shall limit the soluble uranium intake by an individual to 10 milligrams in a week in consideration of chemical toxicity (see footnote 3 of Appendix 8). (f) The licensee shall reduce the dose that an individual may be allowed to receive in the current year by the amount of occupational dose received while employed by any other person (See i 20.1104(e)). I 20.202 Compliance with reouirements for summation of external and internal doses. (a) If the licensee is required to monitor under both $$ 20.502(a) and (b), the licensee shall demonstrate compliance with the dose limits by summing external and internal doses. If the licensee is required to monitor only under 5 20.502(a) or only under 6 20.502(b), then suusation is not required to demonstrate compliance with the dose limits. The licensee may deoonstrate compliance with the requirements for summation of external and internal doses by one of the following techniques. (NOTE: The dose equivalents for the lens of the eye, the skin, and the 23 10 CFR 20 DRAFT 05/19/88
; '; e p, .' -
,c .
extremities are not included in the summation, but are subject to separatelimits.) . (b) Intake by inhalation. If the only intake of radionuclides is by inhalation, the total effective dose equivalent limit is not exceeded . i if the sum of the deep dose equivalent divided by the total effective dose equivalent limit, and one of the following, does not exceed unity: 4 (1) The sum of the fractions of the inhalation ALI for each radio-i nuclide; or ' (2) The total number of derived air concentration-hours (DAC-hours) i for all radionuclides divided by 2,000; or
- (3) The sum of the calculated committed effective dose equivalents j to all significantly irradiated 1 organs or tissucs (T) calculated from
- bioassay data using appropriate biological models and expressed as a l fraction of the annual limit.
(c) Intake by oral incestion. If the occupationally exposed individual also receives an intake of radionuclides by oral ingestion greater than 10 percent of the applicable ALI, the licensee shall account ! for this intake and include it in demonstrating compliance with the l limits. ! (d) Intake throuch wounds or absorption throuch skin. The licensee shall evaluate and, to the extent practical, account for intakes through
, wounds or skin absorption. (NOTE: The intake through intact skin has l been included in the calculation of DAC for hydrogen-3 and does not need to be further evaluated).
i d 5 20.203 Detensination of external dose from airborne radioactive i material. Licensees shall, when determining the dose from airborne radioactive ] saterial, include the contribution to the deep dose equivalent, eye dose I equivalent, and shsilow dose equivalent from external exposure to the radioactive cloud (See Appendix B, footnotes 1 and 2). (NOTE: Airborne ) 1 An organ or tissue is deemed to be significantly irradiated if, for that organ or tissue, the product of the weighting factors, wy , cnd the i committed dose equivalent H , per unit intake is greater than 10 percentofthemaximumweIghNdvalueofH intake for any organ or tissue 50 (I* "T H50'T) P'" ""It DRAFT 05/19/88 24 10 CFR 20
[d .W
~
1, - e.i.n s') W y, ... . - [- .. ......c . -
. . x .-.
radioactivity measurements and DAC values should not be used as the primary means to assess the deep dose equivalent when the airborne . radioactive material includes radionuclides other than noble gases or if the cloud of airborne radioactive material is not relatively uniform. . The determination of the deep dose equivalent to an individual should be based upon measurements using instruments or individual sonitoring , O' deyices). . ,
! 20.204 Determination of internal exposure. I (a) For purposes of assessing dose used to determine compliance with occupational dose equivalent limits. '.ne licensee shall, when required under $20.502, take suitable and tima ty measurements of:
(1) Concentrations of radioact've materiai. *a air in work areas; or * (2) Quantities of radionuclides in the body; or (3) Quantities of radionuclides excreted from the body; or (4) Combinations of these measurements. (b) Unless respiratory protective equipment is ::cd, c: provided in > 520.703, or the assessment of intake is based on bioassays, the limsee shall assume that an individual inhales radioactive material,at the airborne concentration in which the individual is present. (c) When specific information on the physical and biochemical properties of the radionuclides taken into the body or the behavior of the material in an individual is known, the licensee may: ! (1) Use that information to calculate the committed effective dose ! equivalent, and, if used, the licensee shall document that information in the individual's record; and
. (2) Upon prior approval of the Commission, adjust the OAC or ALI l values to reflect the actual physical and chemical characteristics of airborne radioactive material (e.g., aerosol size distribution or ;
density); and
. (3) Separately assess the contribution of ftactional intakes of '
Class D. W, or Y compounds of a given radionucifc2 (see Appendix B) to the committed effective dose equivalent. (d) If the licensee chooses to assess intakes of Class Y material : using the measurements given in i 20.204(a)(2) or (3), the licensee say l DRAFT 05/19/88 25 10 CFR 20 ! (
i l
.. .- i
, y , t ,. ,. . . .v a -
j c . . . . ;. ~ . a j delay the recording and reporting of the assessments for periods up to 7
- conths, unless otherwise required by ll 20.'.'202 or 20.1203, in order to, ,
pemit the licensee to make additional measurements basic to the l ! assessments. ! l (e) If the identity and concentration cf each radionuclide in a ! afxture are known, the fraction of the DAC epplicable to the sixture for l i use in calculating DAC-hours must be either: l I (1) The sum of the ratios o~f the enneentration and the appropriate l I j DAC value (e.g., D. W. Y) fron* Appendix B for each'radionuclide in the aixture; or f ] (2) The ratio of the total concentration for all radionu-' ides in ) the mixture divided by the east restrictive DAC value for any ( ! radionuclide in the mixture. t I (f) If the identity of each radioneclide in a mixture is known, but
- the concentration of one or more of the radionuclides in the mixture is not known, the DAC for the sixture must be the most restrictive DAC of l j any radionuclide in the mixture. !
! (g) When a mixture of radionuclides in air exists, itcensees may ; f disregard certain radionuclides in the alxture if: ? ! (1) The Itcensee uses the total activity of the mixture in f l demonstratingcompliancewiththedoselimitsini20.201andin l l complying with the monitoring requirements in i 20.502(b); and ! (2) The concentration of any radionuclide disregarded is less than l l l 10 percent of its DAC; ane j (3) The num of these percentages for all of the radionuclides j disregarded in the mixture does not exceed 30 percent. J l (h) In order to calculate the casoitted effective dose equivalent, j the licensee say assume that the inhalatten of one ALI, or sn exposure of 2,000 DAC-hours results in a comitted effective dose equivalent et 5 l i rees(0.05Sv)forradionuclideswhichhaveineirAL!sorDACsbasedon f the ccanitted effective dose equivalent. ! (2) When the ALI (and the associated DAC) is determined by the nonstor.hastic organ dose limit of 50 rems (0.5 Sv), the intake of radio-nuclide that would result in a cosoitted effective dose equivalent of 5 reas (0.05 Sv) (the stochastic ALI) is listed in parentheses in Table 1 { of Appendix B. In this case, the licensee say, as a simplifying DRAFT 05/19/88 26 10 CFR 20 l l l
- . . . . =
L - 4
- 7. .,1 - , : ., .
assumption, use the stochastic AL!s to determine committed effective dose equivalent. However, if the ' licensee uses the stochastic ALIs, the . licensee must also demonstrate that the committed dose equivalent to any organ or tissue does not exceed 50 reas (0.5 Sv) in a year. . 5 20.205 [ Reserved) -
$ 20.206 Planned special exposures.
A licensee say authorize an adult worker to receive doses in excess of the limits specified in i 20.201 provided that each of the following j conditions is satisfied: (a) The licensee authorizes a planned special exposure only in an exceptional situation, when alternatives which might avoid the higher ' exposure are unavailable or impractical. - (b) Thelicensee(andemployer,iftheemployerisnotthe licensee) specifically authorizes the planned special exposure, in writing, before the exposure occurs.
., (c) Before a planned special exposure, the licensee ensures that the individuals involved are--
(1) Informed of the purpose of the planned operation; ' (2) I'nformed of the estimated doses and special radiation or other I conditions that night be involved in performing the task; and (3) Instructed in the measures to be taken to keep the dose and i other ' 'sks ALARA. (d) Prior to permitting an individual to participate in a planned l special exposure, the Itcensee ascertains the internal and external doses f from all previous planned special exposures (as recorded in compliance with 5 20.1104(b)) and all doses in excess of the annual limits l (incluJing doses received during accidents and emergencies) received ) during the lifetime of the individual for each individual involved. (e) Subjecttol20.201(b)(2),thelicenseedoesnotauthorizea [ planned special exposure which would cause an individual to receive a ; dose from all planned special exposures and all doses in excess of the i limits to exceed-- (1) The numerical values of any of the dose limits in 5 20.201(a) in any year; and DRAFT 05/19/88 27 10 CFR 20 ( [ f
i j (2) Fivetibestheannualdoselimitsini20.201(a)duringthe i individuals lifetime. , (f) The licensee maintains records of the conduct of a planned special exposure in accordance with 5 20.1105, and submits a written , [ report in accordance with 6 20.1204. (g) The licensee records the best estimate of the dose resulting i from the planned special exposure in the individual's record and informs l the individual, in writing, of the dose within 30 days from the date of ! the planned special exposure.' The dose from planned special exposures is i not to be considered in controlling future occupational dese of the f individual under 5 20.201(a) but is to be included in evaluations required by 5 20.206(d). ; 5 20.207 Occupational dose limits for sinars. !
- I
' The annual occupational dose limits for minors are 10 percent of the i annual dose limits specified for adult workers in i 20.201. i 20.208 Dose to an embryo / fetus. l (a) The licensee shall ensure that the dose to an embryo / fetus ! during the entire pregnancy, due to occupational exposure of,a declared pregnant woman, does not exceed 0.5 res (5 mSv). (Forrecordkeeping ) requirements, see i 20.1106) l l (b) The licensee shall make efforts to avoid substantial variation l l above a unifore monthly exposure rate to a daclared pregnant woman which ! would satisfy the limit in paragraph (a) of this section. l l (c) The dose to an embryo / fetus shall be taken as the sum of~ j i i (1) The deep dose equivalent to the occiated pregnant woman; and ! (2) The committed effective dose equivalent assessed to the ; i pregnant woman due to the intake of radionuclides, modified to take into { account any established parameters that cause the dose to the ; f embryo / fetu to be different from that of the declared pregnant woman. l l (d) If the dose to the embryo / fetus is found to have exceeded 0.5 ! { rem (5 mSv), or is within 0.05 res (0.5 sSv) of this dose, by the time f ! the woman declares the pregnancy to the licensee, the licensee shall be l deemed to be in compliance with paragraph (a) of this section if the ! i CRAFT 05/1)/88 28 10 CFR 20
4 - I* T S
.. ~.I h .. i f ~ ; , } . ', ., ' . .. # . -
M '
.+ . . . . ,..
.' additional dose 'to the embryo / fetus does not exceed 0.05'rea (0.5 aSv) during the remainder of the pregnancy. ,
1
~
SUSPART D - RADIATION 00SE LIMITS FOR
; INDIVIDUAL MEMBEk '/. THE PU6LIC 4
l'20.30i Dose Itaits for individual members of the public. - I (a) Licensees shall conduct operations so that -
; (1) The total effective dose equivalent to individual members of 1 the public from those operations does pet exceed 0.1 ree (1 a$v) in a j year, exclusive of the dose contribution free the licensee's dispost.1 of radioactive material into sanitary sewerage in accordance with 6 20.1003; i and .
I (2) The dose in any unrestricted area does not exceed 0.002 res q (0.02 aSv) in any one hour. (b) If the licensse' permits members of the pubite to have access to I ~ controlled areas, the limits for members of the pubite continue to apply l to those individuals. I (c) A licensee or license applicant may apply for prior NRC ! authorization for operating up to an annual dose to individual members of J the pubite of 0.5 res (5 aSv). The licensee or license applicant sh.il ) include the following information in this application: l (1) Demonstration of the need for and the expected duration of j operations in excess of the limit in paragraph (a) of this section, 1 (2) The licensee's piogram to assess and control dose within the j 0.5 roe (5 mSv) annua' limit; and I (3) The procedures to be followed to eatntain doses as low as is l reasonably achievable. I (d) In addition to the regi:trements of this part, a licensee ! subjecttotheprovisionsofEPAgenerallyapplicableenvironmental
! radiation standards shall comply with those standards, (e) The Commission say impose additional restrictions on radiation f'
levels in unrestricted areas and on the total quantity of radionuclides that a licensee say release in effluents in order to restrict the l collective dose. l DRAFT 05/19/88 29 10 CFR 20
--_.~._.-_._.-._.m.._..___. .. . -.... ..... _ _ ... . . . . _ . .
.;, y. , ',' . .
l 20.302 Compliance ithdoselimitsforindividualmembersofthepubl,j,c. (a) The licensee shall nake or cause to be made, as appropriate,, surveys of radiation levels in unrestricted and controlled areas and radioactive materials in effluents released to unrestricted and controlled areas to demonstrate compliance with the annual dose limit for individual members of the public in $ 20.301. (b) A licensee shall show compliance with the annual dose Ilmit in i 20.301 by --
. (1) Demonstrating by measurement or calculation that the total.
effective dose equivalent to the individual likely to receive the highest dose from sources under the licensee's control does not exceed the annual dose limit; or (2) Demonstrating that - (1) The annual average concentrations of radioactive saterial i released in gaseous and liquid effluents at the boundary of the j unrestricted area do not exceed the values spccified in Table 2 of Appendix B; and (ii) If an individual were continually present in an unrestricted area, the Ocse fra external sources would ..ot exceed 0.002 rem (0.02 sSv) in any hour and 0.05 rem (0.5 a5v) in a year. , Sut3ARTE-[ RESERVED) 1 SulPART F - SURVEYS AND HONITORING i i 20.501 General. (a) Each licensee shall make or m use to be made, surveys that - I (1) May be necessary for the licensee to comply with the ) regulations in this part; and (2) Are reasonable under the circumstances to evaluate: (1) The extent of radiation Icvels; and (ii) Concentrations or nuantities of radioactive saterial; and (iii) The potential rai u igical hazards that could be present. DRAFT 05/19/88 30 10 CFR 20 l
- f " .
f .'. , . .': ;.
;*'g:.S;.yjl{y t
o
, _y '
(b) The licensee shall ensure that instruments and equipment used for quantitative radiation measurements (e.g., dose rate and effluent , scnitoring) are calibrated periodically for the radiation measured. (c) All personnel dosimeters (except for direct and indirect , reLding pocket ionization chambers and those dosimeters used to measure the dose to the extremities) that require processing to determine the radiation dose and that are utilized by licensees to comply with 9 20.201, with other applicable provisions of this chapter, or with
. conditio'ns specified in a license, must be pro, ssed and evaluated by a dosimetry processor--
(1) Holding current personnsi dosimetry accreditation from the Nat,onal Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVIAP) of the National Bureau of Standards; and (2) Approved in this accreditation process for the type of radiation or radiations included in the NVLAP program that wost closely approximate the type of radiation or radiations for which the individual wearing the dosimeter is monitored.
$ 20.502 Conditions requirino individual monitorino of external and internal occupational dose Each licensee shall monitor exposures to radiation and rad .tive staterial at levels sufficient to denionstrate compliance with ti..
occupational dose limits of this part. As a minimum, i , (a) Each licensee shall monitor occupaticaal exposure to radiation and shall supply and require the use of individual monitnM ng devices by-- (1) Adults likely to receive, in one year from sources external to the body, a dose in excess of 10 pere.ent of the 14iits in d20.2Ea); and (2) Minors and declared pregnant women likely to receive, in one year from sources external to the body, a dose in excess of 10 percent of any of the applicable limits in $$ 20.207 or 20.208; and (3) Individuals entering a high or very high radiation area. (b) Ear.h licensee shall monitor (see $20.204) the occupttional
+
intake of radioactive material by and assess the cosnitted effective dose equi'.alent to-- 4 DRAFT 05/19/88 31 10 CFR 20
- .n.,
.e , e' . ,,- ..
.g T.C ', '.^
- w. -{ ,.5.' y . [. 1 - -
/' ,
(1) Adults likely to receive, in one year, an intake in excess of 10 percent of the applicable ALI(s) in Table 1, Columns 1 and 2, of , Appendix B; and (2) Minors and declared pregnant women likely to receive, in one year, a committed effcctive dnse equivalent in excess of 0.05 rem (0.5
.mSv).
SUBPART G - CONTROL OF EXPOSURE FROM EXTERNAL SOURCES
. IN RESTRICTED AREAS.
$ 20.601 Control of access to hiah radiation areas.
(a) The licensee shall ensure that each entrance or access point to a high radiation area has one or more of the following festures: (1) A control device which, upon entry into the area, causes the level of radiation to be reduced below that level at which an individual might receive a dose of 0.1 rem (1 mSv) in 1 hour at 30 cm from the radiation source or from any surface which the radiation penetrates; (2) A control device which energizes a conspicuous visible or audible slarm signal so that the individual entaring the high radiation area and the supervisor of the activity are made aware of the entry; , and/or (3) Entryways that are locked, except during periods when access to the areas is required, with positive control over each individual entry. (b) The licensee may substitute continuous direct or electronic surveillance over a high radiation area that is capable of preventing unauthorized entry in place of the controls required by paragraph (a) of this section. l (c) A licensee may apply to the Commission for approval of ' alternative methods for. controlling access to high radiation areas. (d) The licensee shall establish the controls required by j paragraphs (a', and (c) of this section in a way that does not prevent individual!. from leaving a high radiation area. (e) Untrol is not required for each entrance or acceu poin*, tu a room o'r other area which is a high radiation area solely bectua of the presence of radioactive materials prepared for transport and packaged anc DRAFT 05/19/88 32 10 CFR 20
.%. . ,*. /, : '
.. .-=; ; ..- .. , . c ~ '
'5 9.l.'~ ~ ' ' ' '. 0i ' . ' :.f . , *
&f'.l*N; '.8.. . ..k.b; . .' *
- - ~
- u. q@:W ' ? l,
~
- , . _. , , n : .
labeled in accordance with the regulations of the Department of Transportation provided that: - (1) The packages do not remain in the area longer than 3 days; and
~
(2) The dose rate at 1 meter from the external surface of any package does not exceed 0.01 rem (0.1 mSv) per hour.
. (f) Control of entrance or access to rooms or other areas in hospitals is not required solely because of the presence of patients containing radioactive material, provided that there are personnel in
- attenda'nce who will take the necessary precautions to prevent the exposure of individuals to radiation or radioactive material in excess of the limits established in this part and to operate within the ALARA provisions of the licensee's radiation protection program.
$ 20.602 Control of access to very high radiation areas.
In sddition to the requirements in i 20.601, the licensee shall institute additional measures to ensure that an individual is not able to gain unauthorized or inadvertent access to areas in which radiation levels could bt encountered at 500 rads '5 grays) or more in 1 hour at 1 meter from a radiation source or any t,ce through which the radiation penetrates. e S 20.603 Control of access to very hiah radiation areas - irradiators. (a) Each area in which there may exist radiation levels in excess of 500 rads (5 grays) in 1 hour at 1 meter from a sealed radioactive source 2 that is used to irradiate .naterials must meet the following requirements. (1) Each entrance or access point must be equipped with entry control devices which-- (i) Function automatically to prevent any individual from l inadvertently entering the area when very high radiation levels exist; and (ii) Permit deliberate entry into the area only after a control device is actuated that must cause the radiation level within the area, from the sealed source, to be reduced below that at which it would be possible for an individual to receive a dose in excess of 0.1 rem (1 mSv) ,
- in one hour; and i
l DRAFT 05/19/88 33 10 CFR 20
.) ,
(iii) Prevent operation of the source if the source would produce radiation levels in the area that could result in a dose to an individual in excess of 0.1 rem (1 mSv) in I hour. (D Additional control devices must be provided so that, upon failure of the entry control devices to function as required by paragraph (a)(1) of this section: (i) The radiation level within the area, from the sealed source, is reduced talow that at which it would be possible for an individual to receive a dose in excess of 0.1 rem (1 mSv) in one hour; and (ii) Conspicuous visible and audible alana signals are generated to make an individual attesipting to enter the area aware of the hazard and at least one other authorized individual, who is physically present, familiar with the activity, and prepared to render or summon assistance, aware of the failure of the entry control devices. ' (3) The licensee shall provide control devices so that, upon failure or removal of physical radiation barriers other than the source's shielded storage container-- (i) The radiation level from the source is reduced below that at which it wuld be possible for an individual to receive a dose in excess of 0.1 rea (1 mSv) in one hour; and ' (ii) Conspicuous visible and audible alarm signals are generated to l make potentially affected individuals aware of the hazard and the licensee or at least one other individual, who is familiar with the - activity and prepared to render or summon assistance, aware of the failure or removal of the physical barrier. i 3 This section does not apply to radioactive sources that are used in teletherapy, in radiography, or in completely self-shielded irradiators in which the source is both stored and operated within the same shielding radiation barrier and, in the designed configuration of the irradiator, is always physically inaccessible to any individual and cannot create high levels of radiation in an area that is accessible to any individual. This section also does not apply to sources from which the radiation is incidental to some other use nor to nuclear reactor generated radiation other than radiation from byproduct, source, or special nuclear materials that are used in sealed sources in non-self shielded irradiators. 05/19/88 34 10 CFR 20 DRAFT 1 1 l
' .L..; ~-., v. ' -
. ...g ,
s.
'y. .
\
0 1
(4) When the shield for the stored source is a liquid, the licensee shall provide means to monitor the integrity of the shield and to signal, automatically, loss of adequate shielding. (5) Physical radiation barriers that comprise permanent structural components, such as walls, that have no credible probability of failure , or removal in ordinary circumstances, need not meet the requirener.ts of paragraphs (a)(3) and (4) of this section. (6) Each area must be equipped with devices that will automatically
. generate conspicuous visible and audible alars signals to alert personnel in the area before t.he source can be ,put into operation and in sufficient time for any individual in t5e area to operate a clearly identified control devico, which must be installed in the area and which can prevent the source from being put into operation.
(7) Each area must be controlled by use of such administrative procedures and such devices as are necessary to assure that the area is cleared of personnel prior to each use of the source. (8) Each area must be checked by a radiation measurement to assure that prior .to the first individual's entry into the area after any use of the source, the radiation level from the source in the area is below that at which it would be possible for an individual to receive a dose in excess of 0.1 rem (1 mSv) in one hour. (9) The entry control devices required in paragraph (a)(1) of this sec' :n must have been tested for proper functioning (see i 20.1109 for recordkeeping requirements). (1) Testing must be conducted prior to initial operation with the source of radiation on any day (unless operations were continued uninterrupted from the previous day); and (ii) Testing must be conducted prior to resumption of operation of the source of radiation after any unintended interruption; and (iii) Thelicenseeshallsubmitandadheretoascheduleformore complete periodic tests of the entry control and warning systems. (10) The licensee shall not conduct operations, other than those necessary to place the source in safe condition or to effect repairs on controls, unless control devices are functioning properly. (11) Entry end exit portals that are used in transporting materials to and from the irradiation area, and that are not intended for use by DRAFT 05/19/88 35 10 CFR 20 l' 1 --
, h ...N[ .
individuals, must be controlled by such devices and administrative procedures as are necessary to physically protect and warn against , inadvertent entry by any individual through these portals. Exit portals for processed saterials must be equipped to detect and signal the , presence of any loose radiation sources that are carried toward such an exit and to automatically prevent loose radiation sources from being carried eit of the area. (b) Persons holding licenses or applicants for licenses for
, radiation sources th'at are within the purview of paragraph (a) of this _
section and that will be used in a variety of positions or in locations, such as open fields or forests, that make it impracticable to comply with certain requirements of paragraph (a) of this section, such as those for the automatic control of radiation levels, may apply to the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
' Cosnission, Washington, D.C. 20555, for approval of the use of '
alternative safety measures. Any alternative safety measures must provide a degree of personnel protection at least equivalent to those specified in paragraph (a) of this section. At least one of the altern-ative measures must include an entry preventing interlock control based on a measurement of the radiation that assures the absence of high radiation levels before an individual can gain access to the' area where such radiation sources are used. (c) The entry control devices required by paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section must be established in such a way that no individual will be prevented from leaving the area. SUBPART H - RESPIRATORY PROTECTION AND CONTROLS TO RESTRICT INTERNAL EXPOSURE IN RESTRICTED AREAS S 20.701 Use of process or other engineerina controls. The licensee shall use, to the extent practicable, process or other engineering controls (e.g. , containment or ventilation) to control the ccncentrations of radioactive material in air. DRAFT 05/19/88 36 10 CFR 20
. , , ~ .. * * * ' * , s l,., g c **, ' ,
- F
? sy-5 20.702 Use of other controls.
When it is not practicable to apply process or other engineering , controls to control the concentrations of radioactive material in air to values below those which define an airborne radioactivity area, the licensee shall, consistent with maintaining the total effective dose equivalent ALARA, increase monitoring, and limit intakes by one or more of the following means: (a) Control of eccess;
. ' (b) Limitation of exposure times; (c) Use of respiratory protective equipment; or (d) Other controls.
$ 20.703 Use of individual respiratory protective equipment.
(a) If the licensee uses respiratory protective equipment to limit l intakes pursuant to 520.702-- ' (1) The licensee shall use only respiratory protective equipment that is tested and certified or had certification extended by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health /Mine Safety and HealthAdministration(NIOSH/MSHA). (2) If the licensee wishes to use equipment that has not been tested or certified by HIOSH/MSHA, has not had certification' extended by
- NIOSH/MSHA, or for which there is no schedule for testing or certification, the licensee shall submit an application for authorized ure of that equipment, including a demonstration by testing, or a demonstration on the basis of reliable test information, that the material and performance characteristics of the equipment are capable of providing the proposed degree of protection under anticipated conditions of use.
(3) The licensee shall implement and maintain a respiratory protection program that includes-- (1) Air sampling sufficient to identify the potential hazard, permit proper equipment selection, and estimate exposures; (ii) Surveys and bioassays, as appropriate, to evaluate actual intakes; l (iii) Testing of respirators for operability immediately prior to l each use; 1 l DRAFT 05/19/88 37 10 CFR 20 l l
?!. $ ..l'
. ' i__ .
e: .. ,. 3 . (iv) Wrkttenproceduresregardingselection, fitting, issuance, maintenance, and testing of respirators, including testing for , operability immediately prict to each use; supervision and training of personnel; monitoring, including air sampling and bioassays; and recordkeeping; and (v) Determination by a physician prior to initial fitting of respirators, and at least every 12 months thereafter, that the individual user is physically able to use the respiratory protective equipment. ' (4) The licensee shall issue a written policy statement.on respirator usage covering-- (1) The use of process or other engineering controls, instead of respirators; (ii) The routine, nonroutine, and emergency use of respirators; and (iii) The periods of respirator use and relief from respirator use. , (5) The licensee shall advise each respirator user that the user may leave the area at any time for relief from respirator use in the event of equipment malfunction, physical or psychological distress, procedural or communication failure, significant deterioration of operating conditions, or any other conditions that might require such relief. , (6) The licensee shall use equipment within limitations for type and mode of use and shall provide proper visual, communication, and other sp+cial capabilities (such as adequate skin protection) when needed. ' (b) In astimating exposure of individuals to airborne radioactive materials, the licensee may make allowance for respiratory protective equipment used to limit intakes pursuant to $20.702, provided that the following conditions, in addition to those in $20.703(a), are satisfied: (1) The licensee selects respiratory protective equipment that provides a protection factor (see Appendix A) greater than the multiple by which peak concentrations of airborne radioactive materials in the working area are expected to exceed the values specified in Appendix B, Table I, Column 3. The concentration of radioactive material in the air that is inhaled when respirators are worn may be initially estimated by dividing the ambient concentration in air, during each period of uninterrupted use, by the protection factor. If the exposure is latei-fcund to be greater than estimated, the corrected value must be used; if DRAFT 05/19/88 38 10 CFR 20
.q, a.,
af_> ' ' -
,a the exposure is later found to be less than estimated, the corrected
. value may be used. ,
(2) The licensee shall obtain authorization from the Commission before assigning respiratory protection factors in excess of those specified in Appendix A. The Commission may authorize a licensee to use higher protection factors on receipt of an application that-- (i) Describes the situation for which a need exists for higher protection factors; and
. (ii) Demonstrates that the respiratory protective equipment provides these higher protection factors under the proposed conditions of use.
(c) The licensee shall use as emergency devices only respiratory protective equipment that has been specifically certified or had certification extended for emergency use by NIOSH/MSHA. (d) The licensee shall notify, in writing, the Director of the appropriate NRC Regional Office listed in Appendix 0 at least 30 days before the date that respiratory protective equipment is first used under , the provisions of either $$ 20.703(a) or (b).
$ 20.704 Further restrictions on the use of respiratory protective equip-ment.
(a) In addition to the requirements of this part, a licensee subject to the provisions of the Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration standards for respiratory protection in 29 CFR 1910.134 shall comply with those standards. (b) mission may impose further restrictions, in addition to those in b 02, 20.703, and Appendix A to-- (1) Ensure that the respiratory protection program of the licensee is adequate to limit exposures of individuals to airborne radiohetive materials, and (2) Limit the extent to which a licensee may use respiratory protective equipment instead of process or other engineering controls. DRAFT 05/19/88 39 10 CFR 20 l
. -._=.. - _ - -
,- .- . ;. . , . . .s
. a SUBPART I - STORAGE AND CONTROL OF LICENSED MATERIAL I 20.801 Security of stored material.
The licensee shall secure from unauthorized removal or access , licensed materials that are stored in controlled or unrestricted areas.
$ 20.802 Control of material not in storace.
The licensee shall control and maintain constant surveillance of
. licensed material which is in a controlled or unrestricted area and which is not in storage.
SUBPART J - PRECAUTIONARY PROCEDURES
$ 20.901 Caution sians. '
(a) Standard radiation symbol. Unless otherwise atthorized by the , Commission, the symbol prescribed by this part shall usr. the colors magenta or purple on yellow background. The symbol prescribed by this part is the three-bladed design: RADIATION SYMBOL (1) Cross-hatched area is to be magenta or purple; and (2) Background is to be yellow. 1 i l P I e DRAFT 05/19/88 40 10 CFR 20
'~ m, ~.
.- a- .9: . . . . .
,' .. ~ :: ' ,i_
Q4;'a. '
, i ,' , , , ,[. - .
(b) Exception to color requirements for standard radiation symbol. , Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section, , licensees are authorized to label sources, source holders, or device components containing sources of licensed materials that are subjected to high temperatures, with conspicuously etched or sta g ed radiation caution symbols and without a color requirement. (c) Additional information on signs and labels. In addition to the contents of signs and labels prescribed in this part, the licensee may
. p.cyide, on or near the required sig.1s and labels, additional information, as appropriate, to make individuals aware of potential radiation exposures and to minimize the exposures. .
5 20.902 Postina requirements. (a) Postina of radiation areas. The licensee shall post each radiation area with a conspicuous sign or signs bearing the radiation symbol and the words "CAUTION, RADIATION AREA." (b) Postino of high radiation areas. The licensee shall post each high radiation area with a conspicuous sign or signs bearing the radiation symbol and the words "CAUTION, HIGH RADIATION AREA" or "DANGER, HIGH RADIATION AREA." (c) Posting of very hiah radiation areas. The licensee shall post each very high radiation area with a conspicuous sign or signs bearing the radiation symbol and words "GRAVE DANGER, VERY HIGH RADIATION AREA." (d) Postina of airborne radioactivity areas. The licensee shall post each airborne radioactivity area with a conspicuous sign or signs bearing the radiation symbol and the words "CAUTION, AIRBORNE RADI0 ACTIVITY AREA" or "DANGER, AIRBO'NE RADIOACTIVITY AREA." (e) Postino of areas or rooms in which licensed material is used or stored. The licensee shall post each area or room in which there is used or stored an amount of licensed material exceeding 10 times the quantity of such saterial specified in Appendix C with a conspicuous sign or signs bearing the radiation symbol and the words "CAUTION, RADIO-ACTIVE MATERIAL (S)", or "0 ANGER, RADI0 ACTIVE MATERIAL (5)." l l i DRAFT 05/19/88 41 10 CFR 20 t
- -- . . ........__._. . . . . - ._...t o.. . . . .
J '-
'7 .. .. p . - 9l- w 4-
.. . - . . s. . ..
4 1 20.903 Exceptions to postina requirements. (a) A licensee is not required to post caution signs in areas or . rooms containing radioactive materials for periods of less than 8 hours, if each of the following conditions is met: (1) The saterials are constantly attended during these periods by an individual who takes the precautions neces.ary to prevent the exposuro of individuals to radiation or radioactive saterials in excess of the limits established in this part; r,nd
. (2) Theareaorroomissubjecttothelicensee'scontrol.
(b) Rooms or other areas in hospitals that are occupied by patients are not required to be posted with caution signs pursuant to S 20.902 provided that: (1) The patient has been treated with sealed or unsealed radioactive material in quantities less than 30 millicuries, or the ' measured dose rate at 1 meter from the patient is less than 0.005 rem (0.05 sSv) per hour; and (2) There are personnel in attandance who will take the necessary precautions to prevent the exposur's of individuals to radiation or radioactive material'in excess of the limits established in this part and to operate within the ALARA provisions of the licensee's radi,ation protection program. (c) A room or area is not required to be posted with a caution sign because of the presence of a sealed source provided the radiation level 30 cm from the surface of the source container or housing does not exceed 0.005 rem (0.05 mSv) per hour. S 20.904 Labelina containers. (a) The licensee shall ensure that each container of licensed material bears a durable, clearly visible label bearing the radiation symbol and the words "CAUTION, RADI0 ACTIVE MATERIAL" or "DANGER, RADI0 ACTIVE MATERIAL." The label must also provide sufficient information (such as the radionuclide(s) present, an estimate of the quantity of radioactivity, the date for which the activity is estimated, radiation levels, kinds of saterials, and mass enrichment) to permit individuals handling or using the containers, or working in the vicinity of the containers, to take precautions to avoid or minimize exposures. DRAFT 05/19/88 42 10 CFR 20 l l
m
.. . . s , .; , . . :. ..- . ,% . :.? yg6 Q.;y,( : f.".
i .~;'
,'! t ; ,
[. ? : , .;.[' :7 .- 0 v 7.{Qf f., -p ;, : .~ (b) Each licensee shall, prior to removal or disposal of empty .
- . uncontaminated containers to unrestricted areas, remove or deface the radioactive material label or otherwise clearly ir,dicate that the container no longer contains radioactive materials. '
-;- - : .. - 3, ,, , _ ,
~~
$ 20.905 Exemptions to labelina requirements.
. A licensee is not required to label--
(a) Containers holding licensed material in quantities less than the - ' quantities listed in Appendix C; or (b) Containers holding licensed saterial in cor.centrations less
+han those specified in Table 3 of Appendix 8; or (c) Containers attended by an individual who takes the precautions necessary to prevent the exposure of individuals in excess of the limits ,
established by this part; or ' (d) Containers when they are in transport and packaged and labeled in recordance with the regulations of the Department of Transportation; or (e) Containers which are accessible only'to individuals authorized to handle or use them, or to work in the vicinity of the containers, if the contents are identified to these individuals by a readily available written record (examples of containers of this type are containers in locations such as water-filled canals, storage vaults, or hot cells).. The record must be retained as long as the containers are in use for the purpose indicated on the record; or (f) Installed manufacturing or process equipment, such as reactor components, piping, and tanks. I 20.906 Procedures for receivino and openina packaaes. (a) Each licensee who expects to receive a packrge containing quantities of radioactive material in excess of a Tyre A quantity, as defined in S 71.4 and Appendix A of Part 71 of this chapter, shall make arrangements to receive-- (1) The package when the carrier offers it /or delivery; or (2) Notification of the arrival of the package at the carrier's terminal and to take possession of the package expeditiously. 43 10 CFR 20 DRAFT 05/19/88
G -l 2.* x.i.' s~~. r . .% ~ ?:*~ ,- . ,, ,~ y;,.p.;y.- . *, .
,. c g .9;.
=
. (b) Each licensee shall monitor th'e external surfaces of a package known to contain radioactive material for radioactive contamination and, radiation levels if the package--
(1) Is labeled 8 as containing radioactive material; or (2) Has evidence of potential contamination, such as packages that are crushed, wet, or damaged. (c) The licensee shall perform the monitoring required by paragraph (b) of this section as soon as practicable after receipt of the package, but not later than 3 hours after the package is received at the licensee's facility if it is received during the licensee's normal working hours, or not later than 3 hours from the beginning of the next working day if it is received after working hours. (d) The licensee shall immediately notify the final delivery carrier and, by telephone and telegram, mailgram, or fact,imile, the A:iministrator of the appropriate NRC Regional Office listed in Appendix D when-- (1) Removable radioactive surface contamination exceeds the limits of 5 71.87(i) of this chapter; or (2) External radiation levels exceed the limits of 6 71.47 of this chapter. ' (e) Er.ch licensee shall-' (1) Establish, maintain and retain written procedures for safely opening packages in which radioactive material is received; and l (2) Ensure that the procedures are followed and that due i consideration is given to special instructions for the type of package being opened. l Labelling of packages containing radioactive materials is required by 3 the Department of Transportation (DOT) if the amount and type of radioactive material exceeds the limits for an excepted quantity or article as defined and limited by DOT regulations 49 CFR $$ 173.403(m) and (w), 173.421, 173.422, 173.423, and 173.435. I 1 DRAFT 05/19/88 44 10 CFR 20 l
- -- m- . . . _ . - . . _ - _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . . . _ . . . . . _ . .
. ' } :,: .
; 1C. , l. .
. L H i} : . .
SUBPART X - WASTE DISPOSAL I 20.1001 General requirements.
-(a) A licensee shall dispose of licensed material only--
(1) By transfer to an authorized recipient as provided in 5 20.1005
'or in the regulations in Parts 30, 40, 60, 61, 70, or 72 of this chapter; or .
(2) By decay in storage; or (3) By release in effluents within the limits in i 20.301; or (4) As authorized under $5 20.1002, 20.1003,,20.1004, or 20.1005. (b) A person must be specifically licensed to receive waste containing licensed material frca other persons for: (1) Treatment prior to disposal; or (2) Treatment or disposal by hcineration; or (3) Decay in storage; or (4) Disposal at a land disposal 'ecility licensed under Part 61 of this chapter; or (5) D.isposal at a geologic repository under Part 60 of this chapter. 3 20.1002 Method for obtainina approval of proposed disposaf procedures. A licensee or ar,plicant for a license may apply to the Comission for approval of proposed procedures, not otherwise authorized in the regulations in this chapter, to dispose of licensed material generated in the licensee's' activities. Each application shall include: ( (a) A description of the waste containing licensed material to be l disposed of, including the physical and chemical properties important to risk evaluation, and the proposed manner and conditions of waste disposal; and (b) An analysis and evaluation of pertinent information on the nature of the environment; and (c) The nature and location of other potientially affected licensed and unlicensed facilities; and (d) Procedures to ensure that doses are maintained ALARA and within the dose limits in this part. l l DRAFT 05/19/88 45 10 CFR 20 l l I
_ - --.- .= _ - - . . _ .. _ ... - . . _ .. . .
- m. . . . 8 ..
.- fi[.Q; .? .*:,j.Q';L &ij,'j.ffu g g .. Q-L:] hry .
$ 3
' /; : . , ; ';; , . ,c. , , .+:;. u.m.; .-, m. -
<;p. . ~.
9_ .6, , 3. , , . . ;n
~
$ 20.1003 Disposal birelease into sanitary sewerage.
(a) A licensee may discharge licensed material into sanitary - sewerage if each of the following conditions is satisfied:
. (1) The material is readily solub'e (or is readily dispersible biological material) in water; and .
(2) The quantity of licensed or other radioactive material that the licensee releases into the sewer in one month divided by the average monthly volume of water released into the sewer by the licensee does not exceed the concentration listed in Table 3 of Appendix 8; tnd (3) If more than one radionuclide is released, the following condi-tions must also be satisfied: (i) The licensee shall determine the fraction obtained by dividing the actual monthly average concentration of each radionuclide released by the licensee into the sewer by the concentration of the radionuclide listed in Table 3 of Appendix B; and (ii) The sua of the fractions for each radionuclide required by ' paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section does not exceed unity; and (4) The total quantity of licensed and other radioactive material that the licensee releases into the sanitary sewerage system in a year does not exceed 5 curies (185.GBq) of hydrogen-3, and 1 curig,(37 GBq) of carbon-14, and 1 curie (37 GBq) of all other radioactive materials combined. (b) Excreta from individuals undergoing medical diagnosis or i therapy with radioactive material are exempt from any limitations contained in paragraph (a) of this section. l
$ 20.1004 Treatment or disposal by incineration.
l A licensee may treat or dispose of licensed material by incineration only in the amounts and forms specified in $ 20.1005, or as specifically l approvei by the Costnission pursuant to $ 20.1002.
* {
$ 20.1005 Disposal of specific wastes.
(a) A licensee may dispose of the following licensed material as if it were not radioactive: (1) 0.05 microcurie (1.85 kBq), or less, cf hydrogen-3 or carbon-14 per gram of medium used for liquid scintillation counting. l I j DRAFT 05/19/88 46 10 CFR 20 1
- .~u . -. - .a w . ~ - - .. - -a-- . - - _ .-- - . . .. . .
,o. .. . .. ..
-?p.
l [- l:s ... . ; 3. ,,-}. -
. :sf ';f. ... .
.g '
., .\ = .
(2) 0.05 microcurie (1.85 kBo), v. ' * " " ".drogen-3 or carbor 14 per gram of animal tissue, averaged over the weight of de entire animal. (b) A licensee may not dispose of tissue under paragraph (a)(2) of this section in a sanner that would permit its use either as food for , , humans or as animal feed. (c) The licensee shall saintain records in ac;ordance with $ 20.1108.
$ 20.1006 Transfer for disposal and manifests.
(a) The requirements of this section and Appendix F are designed to control transfers of low-level radioactive waste intended for disposal at a land disposal facility (as defined in Part 61 of this chapter), establish a sanifest tracking system, and supplement existing requirements concerning transf9rs and recordkeeping for those wastes. (b) Each shipment of radioactive waste intended for disposal at a ' licensed land disposal facility must be accompanied by a shipment mani-fest as specified in Section I of Appendix F.
- (c) Each shipment manifest must include a certification by the waste generator as specified in Section II of Appendix F.
(d) Each person involved in the transfer for disposal and disposal l of waste, including the waste generator, waste collector, waste processor, and disposal facility operator, shall comply with the requirements specified in Section III of Appendix F. , l l $ 20.1007 Compliance with environmental and health protection regula-tions. l Nothing in this Subpart relieves the licensee from complying with other applicable Federal, State, and local regulations governing any other toxic or hazardous properties of materials which may be disposed of l under this Subpart. I ( DRAFT 05/19/88 47 10 CFR 20 l i l
..: _ ~ - a + - . -
-* : .'; , .: i 3- .. . . ; :~,'; y 3
- g. <. ;py ,m . ,.g,,/
; h , j ,'. , ,. . , ,i., .y, . , ,4 f. ,. -;.7 y' ,,'; w
, / .
~,qv. :3,,3 (- .<~..
y,y u . SUBPART L - RECORDS I 20.1101 General provisions. (a) Each licensee shall use one system of units, either the special . units (curie, rad, ree) or SI units (becquerel, gray, sievert), including multiples and subdivisions, and shall clearly indicate the units of all quantities on records required by this part. The licensee say change the ~ system of units used, provided that the change is made at the beginning of a year. (b) The licensee shall sake a clear distinction among the quantities entered on the records required by this part (e.g., total effective dose equivalent, shallow dose equivalent, eye dose equivalent, deep dose equivalent, committed effective dose equivalent, etc.)
' $20.1102 Records of radiation protection p'oarams.
(a) Each licensee shall maintain records of the radiation protection program, including: (1) The provisions of the program; and (2) R'eviews of program content and implementation. (b) The licensee shall retain the records required by paragraph (a)(1) of this section until the Coenission terminates each p'ertinent license requiring the record. The licensee shall retain the records required by paragraph (a)(2) of this section for five years or until' completion of the next NRC inspection of the licensee's radiation protection program, whichever is longer. 520.1103 Records of surveys. (a) Each licensee shall saintain records showing the results of surveys and calibrations required by $$20.501 and 20.906(b). The licensee shall retain these records for five years after t M record is made or until completion of the next NRC inspection of the radiation protection aspects of the licensee's program, whichever is longer. (b) The licensee shall retain each of the following records until the Commission terminates each pertinent Ifeense requiring the record: (1) Records of the results of surveys to determine the dose from er.ternal sources and used, in the absence of individual monitoring data, in the assessment cf individual dose equivalents; and 05/19/88 48 10 CFR 20 DRAFT
.
- W t.- f Q : . . !, . . : ' x. :. .', .
.. ~..
~-
'Q'.Aj.$c/6J :b./KV....::lyh.7F';nEj O.Ni'
, ' * ~ Tf
~ ' i'
,.,q .. .. . ..
,:,y y.c _* '.,.
- (3
'.> ' , _ g . J .j*~
\ -
(2) Records of the results of measurements and. calculations used to determine individual intakes of radioactive material and usej in the , assessment of internal dose; and (3) Records showing the' results of air sampling, surveys, and bioassays required pursuant to S 20.703(a)(3)(i) and (ii); and _ (4) Records of the results of measurements and calculations used to evaluate the release of radioactive effluents to the environment. I 20.1104 Determination of prior occupational dose. (a) For each individual who say enter the licensee's restricted or controlled area so that the individual is likely to receive, in a year, an occupational dose requiring monitoring pursuant to S 20.502, the licensee shall-- (1) Determine the occupational radiation Jose received during the current year; and ' (2) Attempt to obtain the records of lifetime cumulative radiation dose. (b) P.rior to permitting an individual to participate in a planned special exposure, the licensee shall determine-- (1) The internal and external doses from all previous planned special exposures; and l (2) All doses in excess of the annual limits (including doses received during accidents and emergencies) received during the lifetime of the individual, (c) In complying with the requirements of paragraph (a) of this ! section, a licensee may-- (1) Accept, as a record of the occupational dose that the individual received during the current year, a written signed statement from the individual or from the individual's most recent previous i employer tht discloses the nature and the amount of any occupational ! dose that the individual may have received during the current year; (2) Accept, as the record of lifetino cumulative radiation dose, an j up-to-date NRC Fors 4, or equivalent, signed by the individual and l countersigited by an appropriate official of the most recent employer for I work involving radiation exposure, or the individual's current employer, if the individual is not employed by the licensee; DRAFT 05/19/88 49 10 CFR 20 i _ _ .
^
.....r.... .. . . .
~
},L .b~...,pv f* Q:'s & y % .-
- i. 43
&, n'..* .. .
;s : ,
\ ., ,
i . . (3) Obtain reports of the individual's dose equivalent (s) by telephone, telegram, electronic media, or letter. The licensee shall - request a follow-up written verification of dose data received via
. telephone, telegram, or electronic media.
,(d) The licensee shall record the exposure history, as required by paragraph (a) of this section, on MC Form 4, or other clair and legible
~
record, of all the information required on that form.4 The form or record must show each period in which the individual received occusational exposure to radiation or radioactive matarial and must be signed by the
~
individual who received the exposure. For each period for which the licensee obtains reports, the licensee shall use the dose shown in the report in preparing NRC Form 4. For any period in which the licensee does not obtain a report, the licensee shall place a notation on NRC Form 4 indicating the periods of time for which data are not available. , (e) If the licensee is unable to obtain a complete record of an individual's current and previously accumulated occupational dose, the licensee shall assume-- (1) In establishing administrative controls under 5 20.201(f) for the current year, that the individual has received 1.25 nos (12.5 mSv) in each quarter for which records were unavailable and th individual was engaged in activities that could have resulted in occupational radiation exposure; and (2) That the individual is not available for planned special exposures. (f) The licensee shall retain the records on NRC Form 4 or equiva-lent until the Commission terminates each pertinent license requiring this record. The licensee shall retain records used in preparing NRC Form 4 for five years after the record is made or ur.til completion of the next NRC inspection of the radiation protection aspects of the licensee's program, whichever is longer.
- Licensees are not required to reevaluate the separate external dose equivalents and internal coenitted dose equivalents or intakes of radionuclides assessed under the regulations in this Part in effect before January 1, 1991. Further, occupational exposure histories obtained and recorded on NRC Form 4 before January 1, 1991 would not have included effective dose equivalent, but may be used in the absence of specific information on the intake of radionuclides by the individual.
05/19/88 50 10 CFR 20 DRAFT
~ - - - -
o ;; . . -
. . . : . .e :, . . s. -' -
~
. s
- 6. i. ' W .'c -
'u T 1, ' ,. / ' - -
7, .:.':. '. .w : a y. y-p.l y.,0 :* t
. ?. -
. ?-
$ 20.1105 Records of planned special exposures.
(a) The licensee shall maintain records which describe, for each . use of the provisions of $ 20.206 for planned special exposures-- (1) Evaluations made pursuant to $ 20.206(a) before the planned , special exposure; and (2) The name of the management official who authorized the planned special exposure and a copy of the signed authorization; and (3) What actibns were necessary; and (4) Why the actions were necessary; and (5) How doses were maintained ALARA; and (6) What individual and collective doses were expected to result, and the doses actually received in the planned special exposure.
, (b) The licensee shall retain the records until the Commission terminates each pertinent ifcense requiring these records.
$ 20.1106 Records of individual monitorina results. .
(a) Recordkeepino requirement. Each licensee shall maintain records of doses received by all individuals for whom monitoring was required pursuant to S 20.502, and records of doses received during planned special exposures, accidents and emergency conditions,. These records 5 must include, when applicable: (1) The deep dose equivalent to the whole body, eye dose equivalent, shallow dose equivalent to the skin, and shallow dose equivalent to the extremities; and (2) ~ The estimated intake of the radionuclides (See li 20.202); arid (3) The committed effective dose equivalent assigned to the intake of radionuclides; and (4) The specific information used to calculate the coesnitted effective dose equivalent pursuant to $ 20.204(c); and (5) The total effective dose equivalent when required by $ 20.202. (b) Recordkeepino frequency. The licensee shall make entries of the records specified in paragraph (a) of this section at least annually. I
- Assessments of dose equivalent (rem or sievert) and records made using units in effect before January 1,1991 need not be changed.
DRAFT 05/19/88 51 10 CFR 20 _--- - ,-r -- - -
* - - - -a ww-* ' - - * - --m- - '-
la n s . . v. ; . .
. .c. , ::1 . g
.y;
) n +;.l.%,
a
~ 9;ly . s ;;. .. ,g;c:?.y;:y i.. . . ~.y
. e:. . n%, .
. .. 3.- :- -
n . . : c. g . . y , .
. ~ G , (c .' ,
(c) Recordkeepina format. The licensee shall maintain the records specified in paragraph (a) of this section on NRC Form 5, in accordance. with the instruction for NRC Form 5, or in clear and legible records
. containing all of the information required by NRC Forn 5.
(d) The licensee shall maintain the records of dose to an
- embryo / fetus with the records of dose to the declared pregnant woman.
(e) The licensee shall retain each required form or record until theCommissionterminateseachpertiNhtlicenserequiringtherecord. I 20.1107 Records of dose to individual members of the public. (a) Each licensee shall maintain records sufficient to demonstrate compliance with the dose limit for individual members of the public (See
$ 20.301).
(b) The licensee shall retain the records required by paragraph (a) of this section until the Commission terminates each pertinent license requiring the record.
$ 20.1108 Records of waste disposal.
(a) Each licensee shall maintain records of the disposal of licensed materials made under $$ 20.1002, 20.1003, 20.1004, 2,0.1005, Part 61 and disposal by burial in soil as authorized before January 28, 1981.s (b) The licensee shall retain the records requiret, ;y paragraph (a) l of this section until the Commission terminates each pertinent license requiring the record.
$ 20.1109 Records of testina entry control devices for very high radiation areas.
l (a) Each licensee shall saintain records of tests made under
$ 20.603(a)(9) on entry control devices for very high radiation areas.
These records must include the date, time, and results of each such test of function. 8 A previous 5 20.304 permitted burial of tsall quantities of licensed materials in soil before January 28, 1981, without specific Commission authorization. DRAFT 05/19/88 52 10 CFR 20
- u:.s ~ u m - me. - ~-- ~ _ - - - ~ - - . - - _ _
?%,. ;,3. . .. *.
f,.s4 - G
' :~ ,
- q :;>, '
2 - (b) The licensee shall retain the records required by paragraph (a) of this section for five years or until completion of the next NRC - inspection of the licensee's radiation protection program, whichever is longer. .
. I 20.1110 Form of records. ,
. Each record required by this part must be legible throughout the specified retentio'n period. The record may be the original or a reproduced copy or a microform provided that the copy or microform is authenticated by authorized personnel and that the microform is capable of producing a clear copy throughout the required retention period. The record may also be stored in electronic media with the capability for
. producing legible true records during the required retention period.
Records such as letters, drawings, specifications, must include all
- pertinent information such as stamps, initials, and signatures. The licensee shall maintain adequate safeguards against tampering and loss of records.
SUBPART H - REPORTS 9 20.1201 Reports of theft or loss of licensed material. (a) Telephone reports. (1) Each licensee shall report by telc9 hone as fol.sws: (i) Immediately after its occurrence becomes known to the licensee, any lost, stolen, or missing licensed material in such quantities and under such circumstances that it appears to the licensee that a substan-tial exposure could result to persons in unrestricted areas; or (ii) Within 30 days after the occurrence of any lost, stolen or missing licensed material becomes known to the licensee, all licensed material in a quantity greater than 10 times the quantity specified in Appendix C which is still missing at this time. (2) Reports must be made as follows: (i) Licensees having an installed Emergency Notification System shall make the reports to the NRC Operations Center in accordance with
$ 50.72 of this chapter, and DRAFT 05/19/88 53 10 CFR 20
,' - ~ a- .. . k$ ,-
. G.
.t
'fr q i. s,+- - -
.,,n. L -
,. 7 D , :. ,,
., : 7. o '
y,. _ .- 5 ;, . ',. . ; .~ . (ii) All other ifcensees shall sake reports to the NRC Operations Center.7 * (b) Written reports. .
~
(1) Each licensee required to make a report under paragraph (a) of this section shall, within 30 days after making the telephone report, , make a written report setting forth the following infomation: (1) A description of the licensed material involved, including kind, quantity, and chemical and physical form; and (ii) A description of the circumstances under which the loss or theft occurred; and (iii) A statement of disposition, or probable disposition, of the licensed material involved; and , (iv) Exposures of individuals to radiation, circumstances under
' which the exposures occurred, and the possible effective dose equivalent i
to persons in unrestricted areas; and (v) Actions which have been taken, or will be taken, to recover the material; and (vi) Procedures or measures which have beer, or will be, adopted to ensure against a recurrence of the lots or theft of licensed material. , (2) Reports must be made as follows: (1) For holders of an operating license for a nuclear power plant, the events includ d in paragraph (b) of this section must be reported in accordance with the procedures describad in S 50.73(b)..(c), (d), (e), l and (g) of this chapter and must include the information required in I paragraph (b)(1) of this section; and (ii) All other licensees shall make reports to the Administrator of l tha appropriate NRC Regional Office listed in Appendix 0. (c) A duplicate report is not required if the licensee is also required to submit a report pursuant to $$ 30.55(c), 40.64(c), 50.72, l 50.73,70.52,73.27(b),73.67(e)(3)(vi),73.67(g)(3)(iii),73.71,or 150.19(c) of this chapter. Nomercial telephone number of the NRC Operations Center is I (301)951-0550 DRAFT 05/19/88 54 10 CFR 20 l r . - - . .
~
$;f e;c:-[*' \ . .Y ' ., ' '
.:,3,:
..' , . , ,_ J.
Y.,n ..- (d) Subsequent to filing the written report, the ifcensee shall also report any additional, substantive information on the loss or theft within 30 days after the licensee learns of such information.
, (e) The licensee shall prepare any report filed with the Commission pursuant to this section so that names of individuals who say have received exposure to radiation are stated in a separate and detachable part of the report.
I 20.1202 Notification of incidents. (a) Immediate notification. Notwithstanding any other requirements for notification, each licensee shall immediately repc?t any event involving byproduct, source, or special nuclear material possessed by the licensee which may have caused or threatens to cause any of the following conditions-- t (1) An individual to receive-- (i) A total effective dose equivalent of 25 rems (0.25 Sv) or more; or (ii) An eye dose equivalent of 75 rems (0.75 Sv) or more; or (iii) A shallow dose equivalent to the skin or extremities of 250 rads (2.5 Gy) or more; or (2) The release of radioactive material, inside or outs'ide of a restricted area, so that, had an individual bean present for 24 hours, the individual could h. J received an intake five times t,1e occupational annual limit on intake; (The provisions of this paragraph do not apply to locations w1ere personnel are not normally stationed during routine operations, such as hot-cells or process enclosures.); or (3) A loss of one working week or more of the operation of any facilities affceted; or (4) Damage to property in excess of $200,000. j I (D) Twenty-four hour notification. Each licensee shall, within 24 hours of discovery of the event, report any event involving loss of control of licen',ed material possessed by the licensee which may have f caused, or threatens to cause, any of the following inditions: l 55 10 CFR 20 ORifT 05/19/88
? hh f ,' ' - 5 '
' h*b,h_k Y'6 .cf ' 2 '. f. k g d; h_ b . . i. Q 3,,i[.
. u,1 : x,f' ,'
J : r .- r .-
.n c y'! -. . . ,v e . 3 .
.g v.* - ' q - ".
- g. .
. (1) An individual to receive, in a period of 24 hours--
(i) A total effective dose equivalent exceeding 5 rems (0.05 Sv);. or (ii) An eye dose equivalent exceeding 15 rees (0.15 SV); or (iii) A shallow dose equivalent to the skin or extremities exceeding
~
50 reas (0.5 Sv); or *' (2) The release of radioactive material, inside'or outside of a restricted area, so that, had an Individual been present for 24 hours, the individual could have received an intake in excess of one occupational annual limit of~ intake; (The provisions of this subparagraph do not apply to locations where personnel are not normally stationed during routine operations, such as hot-cells or process enclosures.); or (3) A loss of one day or more of the operation of any facilities affected; or (4) Damage to property in excess of $2,000. (c) "The licensee shall prepare any report filed with the Commission pursuant to this section so that names of individuals who have received j exposure to radiation or radioactive material are stated in a separate and detachable part of the report. (d) Reports made by licensees in response to the requirements of this section must be made as follows: (1) Licensees having an installed Emergem y Notification System shall make the reports required by paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section to thee NRC Operations Center in accordance with 5 50.72; and (2) All other licensees shall make the reports required by paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section by telephone to the NRC Operations Center? and by telegram, sailgram, or facsimile to the Administrator of the appropriate NRC Regional Office listed in A.ppendix D. (e) The provisions of this section do not include doses which result from planned special exposures, that are within the limits for planned special exposures, and are reported under $ 20.1204. I 20.1203, Reports of exposures, radiation levels, and concentrations of radioactive material exceedina the limits. (a) Reportable events. In addition to the notification required by 5 20.1202, each licensee shall submit a written report within 30 days after learning of any of the following occurrences: DRAFT 05/19/88 56 10 CFR 20
h.'., l . . , .
.,..N'.'?;}?
. . ; 7, : < ,:
l , (1) Any incident for which notification is required by 5 20.1202; or ' (2) Doses in excess of any of the following: (i) The occupctional dose limits for adults in 5 20.201; or, . (ii) The occupational dose limits for a minor in f 20.207; or (iii) The . limits for an embryo / fetus of a declared pregnant woman in l 20.208; or (iv) The l'imits for an individual member of the public in i 20.301; or (v) Any applicable li,ait in the license; or (3) Levels of radiation or concentrations of radicactive material in-- (i) A restricted area in excess of any applicable Ifmit in the license; or ' (ii) An unrestricted area (whether or not involving excessive exposure of any individual) in excess of 10 times any applicable limit set forth in tnis part or in the license; or (4) For licensees subject to the provisions of EPA's generally applicable environmental radiation standards, levels of radiation or releases of radioactive material in excess of those standards, or of, license conditions related to those standards. (b) Cortents of reports. (1) Each report required by paragraph (a) of this section mest descr'ibe the extent of exposure of individuals to radiation and radioactive material, including, as appropriate: (i) Estimates of each individual's dose; and (ii) The levels of radiation and concentrations of radioactive material involved; and (iii) The cause of the exposure, levels, or concentrations; and (iv) Corrective steps taken or planned to ensure against a 1 . recurrence, including the schedule for achieving conformance with applicable limits, generally applicable environmental standards, and associated license conditions. i DRAFT 05/19/88 57 10 CFR 20
h aM N$,. '[ jy .
. W $k$.[N (2) Each report filed pursuant to paragraph (a) of thf3 section must include for each individuals exposed: the name, social da arity -
account number, and date of birth. The report must be prepared so that
. this information is stated in a separate and detachable part of the report. . .,
(c) For holders of an operating license for a nuclear power plant, the occurrences included in paracraph (a) of this section must be report-ed in acco dance with the procedures described in $$ 50.73(b), (c), (d), (e), and (g) of this chapter and must also include the information required by paragraph (b) of this section. Occurrences reported in accordance with $ 50.73 of this chapter need not be reported by a dupli-cate report under paragraph (a) of this sectiGn. (d) All licenseas, other than those holdiag an operating license for a nuclear power plant, who maka reports under paragraph (a) of this , section shall submit the report in writing to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Document Control Desk, Washington, DC 20555, with a copy to the appropriate NRC Regional Office listed in Appendix D.
$ 20.1204 Reports of planned special exposures, j
ThelicensesshallsubmitawrittenreporttotheAdmin{stratorof ! the appropriate NRC Regional Office listed in Appendix 0, within 15 days following any planned special exposure conducted in accordance with i 5 20.206, informing the Commission that a planned special exposure was conducted, and indicating the date the planned special exposure occurred. l S 20.1205 [ Reserved).
$ 20.1206 Reports of individual monitorina.
! (a) This section applies to each person licensed by the Commission I to-- (1) Operate a nuclear reactor designed to produce electrical or heat energy pursuant to 5 50.21(b) or $ 50.22 of this chapter or a testing facility as defined in 5 50.2 of this chapter; or
- With respect to the limit for the embryo / fetus ($ 20.206), the identifiars should be those of the declared pregnant woman.
DRAFT 05/19/88 58 10 CFR 20
- - ~ - .
G?~
% .i*: ,.;<) Q . .] *. /
~ 2-:"-f.l...[*ll
; i, g , ,
/ .
-(2) Possess or use byproo'uct material for purposes of radiography pursuant to Parts 30 and 34 of this c.hapter; or ,
(3) Possess or use at any one time, for purposes of fuel processing, fabricating, or reprocessing, spei.:ial nuclear material in a , quantity exceeding 5,000 grams of contained uranium-235, uranita-233, or plutsnium or any combination thereof pursuant to Part 70 of this chapter; or , . (4) Possess high-level radioactive waste at a geologic repository operations area pursuant to Part 60 of this chapter; or I (5) Possess spent fuel in an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) pursuant to Part 72 of this chapter; or (6) Receive radtective waste from other persons for disposal under Part C1 of this chapter; or (7) Possess or use at any time, for processing or manufacturing for distribution pursuant to Parts 30, 32, or 33 of this chapter, byproduct material in quantities exceeding any one of the following quantities: Radionuclides
- Quantity in curies Cesium-137 1-Cobalt-60 1 Gold-198 100 Iodine-131 1 '
Iridium-192 10 Krypton-35 1,000 Pronathium-147 10 Technetium-99m 1,000 t
- The Commission may require as a license condition, or by rule, regu-lation or order pursuant to 5 20.1302 reperts froe licensees who are licensed to use radionuclines not on this lis,t, in quantities sufficient to cause comparable radiation levels.
(b) Each Itcensee in a category listed in paragraph (a) of this section shall submit an annual report of the results of individual soni-t toring for each individual for whom monitoring was required by 5 20.502. The licensee 6.ay include additional data for individuais for whom DRAFT 05/19/88 59 10 CFR 20
s .. . . ',, ,. ' . , ,
,s
* : ~,Qt' . ' ' , , '
.;j:tr.i.v-
{pq.-: __7 :. ;c. .z;
< .~- - . .. . .y : ' . , ,
monitoring was provided, but not required. The licensee shall use Form NRC 5, or other report containing all of the information required in that form. (c) The licensee shall file the report required by 5 20.1206(b), . covering *he preceding year, on or before August 1 of each year. The licensee shall submit the report to the Director, Office of Nuclear Regu-latory Research, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. SU8PART N - EXEMPTIONS AND ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS I 20.1301 Applications for exemptions. The Commission say, upon application by a licensee or upon its own initiative, grant an exemption from the requirements of the regulations in this part if it determines the exemption is authorized by Itw and would not result in undue hszard to life or property.
$ 20.1302 Additional reoufrements.
The Comeission say, by rule, regulation, or order, impose require-ments on a licensee, in addit'on to thr$e established in the regulations in this part, as appropriate or necessary to protect health or to minimize danger to life or property. SUBPART 0 - ENFORCEMENT
$ 20.1401 Violations.
(a) TheCommissionmayobtainaninjunctionorothercourtorderto prevent a violation of the provisions of-- (1) The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; (2) Title II of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1976, as amended; or (3) A regulation or order issued under the requirements of those Acts. (b) The Commission say obtain a court order for the payment of a civil penalty imposed under Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act: DRAFT 05/19/88 60 10 CFR 20
'{';'b l . . . , ] ,)lk? U"lg".' ,:,'W.n ' '.
"**b' I-lt
* ~
(1) For violations of-- (i) Sections 53, 57, 62, 63, 81, 82, 101, 103, 104, 107, or 109 of. the Atomic Energy Act specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section; (ii) Section 206 of the Energy Reorganization Act. (iii) Any rule, regitlation, or order issued under the requir'ements of the sections specified in paragraph (b)(1)(1) nf this section; (iv) Of any ters, condition, or limitation of any license issued under the sections specified in paragraph (b)(1)(1) of this section. (2) Any violation for which a license may be revoked under section 186 of the of 1954, as amended. (c) Any person who willfully violates a provision of the Atomic Energy Act or regulation or order issued under the requirements of that Act may be guilty of a crime and, upon convictica, be punished by fine or imprisonment or both, as provided by law. 4 e v e I i . I i DRAFT 05/19/B8 61 10 CFR 20
o . [7590-01] APPENDIX A a PROTECTION FACTORS FOR RESPIRATORS , d Tested & Certified Equipment Protection Factors Particu- National Institute for Particu- lates, and ases, Occupational Safety / and Health /Mine Safety lates Descriptionb % des C only vapors' Health Administration tests for pamissibility I I. AIR-PURIFYING RESPIRATORS Facepiece, half-mask 9 NP 10 30 CFR Part 11, Facepiece, full NP 50 Subpart K. Facepiece, half-mask PP 1000
. full, or hood II. ATHOSPHERE-SUPPLYING ."
RESPIRATORS
- 1. Air-line respirator Facepiece, half-sask CF 1000
, Facepiece, half-mask 0 5 Facepiece, full CF 2000 Facepiece, full 0 5 30 CFR Psrt 11 t Facepiece, full PD 2000 Subpart4.
l Hood CF h Suit CF i j l
- 2. Self-contained breathing apparatus l (SCBA) .
i Facepiece, full 0 50 g Facepiece, full PD 10,000 30 CFR Part 11, Facepiece, full RD 50 Subpart H. Facepiece, full RP 5,000) III. COMBINATION RESPIRATORS
- Any combination of air- Protection factor 30 CFR Part 11, purifying and atmosphere- for type and mode i of operation as $11.63(b).
supplying respirators listed above 1 Enclosure 1
~
(7590-01) FOOTNOTES
- a. For use in the selection of respiratory protective devices to be used only where the contaminants have been identified and the con-centrations (or possible concentrations) are known.
- b. Only for shaven faces and where nothing interferes with the seal of tight-fitting facepieces against the skin. (Hoods and suits are excepted.)
- c. The mode symbols are defined as follows: ,
CF = continuous flow D = demand HP = negative pressure (i.e. , negative phase during inhalation) PD = pressure demand (i.e., always positive pressure) PP
=positivepressureRD= demand, recirculating (closedekrcuit)RP=
pressure demand, recirculating (closed circuit)
- d. 1. The protection factor is a seasure of the degree of protection l .
afforded by a respirator, defined as the ratio of the concen-tration of airborne radioactive saterial outside the respiratory protective equipment to that inside the equipment l (usually inside the facepiece) under conditions of use, h is applied to the ambient airborne concentration to estimate the concentrations inhaled by the wearir according to the following formula: 1 2 Enclosure 1
[7590-01) Concentration inhaled = Ambient airborne concentration Protection factor
- 2. The protection factors apply:
(a) Only for individuals trained in using respirators and wearing properly fitted respirators that are used and maintained under supervision in a well-planned respiratory protective program. (b) For air-purifying respirators only when high efficiency particulate filters (above 99.97% removal efficiency by
; i thermally generated 0.3 pm dioctyl phthalate (DOP) test or equivalent) are used in atmospheres not deficient in oxygen and not containing radioactive gas or vapor i
respiratory hazards. (c) No adjustment is to be made for the use of sorbents 2 against radioactive material in the form of gases or vapors. - (d) For atmosphere-supplying respirators only when supplied with adequate respirable air. Respirable air shall be provided of the quality and quentity required in accordance with NIOSH/MSHA certification (described in 30 CFRPart11). Oxygen and air shall not be used in the same apparatus. 1 I 3 Enclosure 1 i
[7590-01]
- e. Excluding radioactive contaminants that present an absorption or submersion hazard. For tritium oxide, approximately one-third of the intake occurs by absorption through the skin so that an overall protection factor of less than 2 is appropriate when atmosphere-supplying respirators are used to protect against tritium oxide. If the protection factor for a device is 5 the effective protection factor for tritium is about 1.4; for devices with protection factors of 10 the effective factor for tritium oxide is about 1.7; and for devicer with protection factors of 100 or more the effective factor for tritium oxide is about 1.9. Air purifying respirators are not suitable for protection against tritium oxide. See also footnote i ,
concerning supplied-air suits.
- f. Canisters and cartridges shall not be used beyond service-life limitations.
- g. Under-chin type only. This type of respirator is not satisfactory l
for use where it might be possible (e.g., if an accident or emer-1 gency were to occur) for the ambient airborne concentrations to rsach instantaneous values greater than 10 times the pertinent 1 values in Table 1, Column 3 of Appendix 8 of this part. This type t of respinstor is not suitable for protection against plutonius or other high-toxicity a.aterials. The mask is to be tested for fit prior to use, each time it is donned,
- h. Equipment shall be operated in a manner that ensures that proper air fice rates are maintained. A protection factor of no more than 1000 4 Enclosure 1
- * (7590-08) may be utilized for tested and-certified supplied-air hoods when a minimum air flow of 6 cubic feet (0.17 cubic meters) per minute is, maintained and calibrated airline pressure gauges or flow measuring devices are used. A protection factor of up to 2000 may be used for tested and certified hoods only when the air flow is maintained at the manufacturer's recommended maximum rate for the equipment, this rate is greater than 6 cubic feet (0.17 cubic meters) per minute, and calibrated airline pressure gauges or flow measuring devices are used.
The design of the supplied-air hood or helmet (with a minimum flow , of 6 cfm (0.17 m8 per minute) of air) may determine its overall efficiency and the protectinn it provides. For example, some hoods aspirate contaminated air into the breathing zone when the wearer works with hands-over-head. This aspiration may be overcome if a short cape-like extension to the hood is worn under a co'at or over-alls. Other limitations specified by the approval agency shall be considered before using a hood in certain types of atmospheres (see footnote 1).
- i. Appropriate protection tactors shall be determined, taking into account the design of the suit and its po m ability to the contami-nant under conditions of use. There shall Lt a standby rescue personequippedwitharespiratororotherap:'aratusapproprfstefor the potential hazards and commui.icat?ons equipeent whenever supplied-air suits are used.
5 Enclosure 1
. . (7590-01) l 1
- j. No approval schedules are currently available for this equipment.
Equipment is to be evaluated by testing or on the basis of reliable test information.
- k. This type of respirator may provide greater protection and be used l as an emergency device in unknown concentrations for protection against inhalation hazards. External radiation hazards and other limitations to permitted exposure, such as skin absorption, must be taken into account in such circumstances.
- 1. Quantitative fit testing shall be performed on each individual and ,
no more than 0.02% leakage is allowed with this type ef apparatus. Perceptible outward leakage of gas from this or any positive pressure self-contained breathing apparatus is unacceptable because service life will be reduced substantially. Special training in the ut,e of this type of apparatus shall be provided to the d arer. Note 1: Protection factors fc ' respirators as may be approved by the j U.S. Bureau of Mines / National Institute for Occupational Safety and [ Health (NIOSH), according to aoplicable approvals for respirators for type and mode of use to protect against airborne radionuclides, may be used to the extent t!.at they do not exceed the protection factors listed [ in this table. The protection factors listed in this table may not be l appropriate to circuestances where chemical or other respiratory hazards exist in addition to radioactive hazards. The selection and use of respirators for such circumstances should take into account applicable f approvals of the U.S. Bureau of Minet/NIOSH. f l - 6 Enclosure 1
d [7590-01) , i Note 2: .74dioactive contaminants for which the concentration values in ! Table 1, Column 1 of Appendix B of this part are based on internal dose, due to inhalation ma/, in addition, present externi,1 exposure ha:4rds at higher concentrations. Under these circumstances, limitations on occe-pancy say have to be gJverned by external dose limits. i l
- i 1
1 t i I j 1 7 Enclosure 1 I 1
i NOTE Except for the actinide elements, almost all of the values in < Appendix B remain the seme as the enclosed table from the pro-posed rule. A few additional radionuclides are also being i added to the table. , The actinide element values are b'eing modified to incorporate revised gasterointestinal tract uptake parameters from ICRP-48. Some elements have increased Derived Air Concentrations and Annual Limits on Intake, some have smaller values as a result of these refinements. Generally the impact of these revisions
- appears to be relatively small. The NRC staff will discuss these c1anges in the briefing as the calculations are expec,ted to be i completed in two weeks. ,
4 s e i j
(7590-01] APPENDIX B ANNUAL LIMITS OF INTAKE (ALIs) AND DERIVED AIR CONCENTRATIONS (DACs) 0F RADIONUCLIDES FOR OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE; EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS; CONCENTRATIONS FOR RELEASE TO SEWERAGE Introduction For each radionuclide a table listing is given indicating the chemical form which is to be used for selecting the appropriate ALI or DAC value. The ALIs and DACs for inhalation are given for an aerosol , with an activity median aerodynamic diameter of 1 pm and for three classes (0,W,Y) of radioactive material, which refer to their retention (approximately days, weeks or years) in the pulmonary region of the lung. This classification applies to a range of clearance half-times for D of lessthan10 days,forWfrom10-100 days,andforYgreaththan 100 days. I Table 1 l ) Note that the columns in Table 1 of this appendix captioned "Oral I Ingestion ALI," "Inhalation ALI," and "0AC," are applicable to occupa-tional exposure to radioactive material. The ALIs in this appendix are the annual intakes of given radis-nuclides by "Reference Man" which would result in either (1) a committed l effective dose equivalent of 5 rems (stechastic ALI), and (2) a committed dose' equivalent of 50 rems to an +rgan or tissue (non-stochastic ALI). 8 Enclosure 1 L
. . (7590-01)
The stochastic ALIs were derived to result in a risk, due to irradiation of organs and tissues, comparable to the risk associated with deep dose equivalent to the whole body of 5 rems. The derivation includes multiplying the committed dose equivalent to an organ or tissue by a weighting factor, wT . This weighting factor is the proportion of the risk of stochastic effects resulting from irradiation of the organ or tissue, T, to the total risk of stochastic effects when the whole body is irradiated uniformly. The values of'wT are listed under the definition of weighting factor in i 20.3. The non-stochastic ALIs were derived to avoid non-stochastic effects, such as prompt damage to tissue or reduction in organ function. , When an ALI is determined by the stochastic limit, this value, i alone, is given. When an ALI is determined by the non-stochastic limit, the organ o.r tissue to which the limit applies is shown, and the stochastic limit is shown in parentheses. (Abbreviated organ or tissue designations used are: I St. wall = LLI wall = lower large intestine wall; stomach wall; Blad wall = bladder wall; and Bone surf. = bone surface.) Use of the ALI listed first, the more limiting of the stochastic and non-stochastic AL!s, will ensure that non-stochastic effects are avoided and that stochastic effects are limitad to an acceptably low level. If, I in a particular situation involving a radionuclide for which the non- , stochastic ALI is limiting, use of that non-stochastic ALI is considered unduly conservative, the licensee may use the stochastic ALI to determine committed effective dose equivalent. However, the licensee shall also ensure that the 50-rem cosnitted dose equivalent limit for any organ or tissue is not exceeded. This is demonstrated if the sum of the fractions of the non-stechastic ALIs of all of the radionuclides that contribute to L 9 Enclosure 1 1
. . [7590-01) the committed dose equivalent to that organ or tissue does not exceed unity.
Note that the dose equivalents for extremities (hands and forearms, feet and lower legs), skin, and lens of the eye are not considered in computing the committed effective dose equivalent, but are subject to limits that must be met separately. A value of wT = 0.06 is applicable to each of the five organs or tissues in the'"remainder" category receiving the highest dose equiv-alents, and the dose equivalents of all other remaining tissues may be disregarded. The following parts of the GI tract - stomach, small intes-
, tine, upper large intestine, and lower large intestine - are to be ,
treated as four separate organs. The DAC values are derived limits intended to control chronic expo-sures. The relationship between DAC and ALI is given by: DAC = ALI in pC1/(2000 hours per year x 60 min per hour '< 2 x 104 mi perminute)
= [ALI/2.4 x 10') pCi per el where 2 x 104 al is the volume of air breathed at work 'ys"Reference Man" per minute under working conditions of "light work."
l l The OAC values relate to one of two modes of exposure; either the external submersion dose or the internal cosnitted dose equivalents
- resulting from inhalation of radioactive materials. Derived air concentrations based upon submersion are for immersion in a semi-infinite cloud of uniform concentration and apply to each radionuclide separately.
The dose contributions from any decay product (daughter) radionuclides 1 10 Enclosure 1
(7590-01) must be separately determined and added to the contribution from the listed parent radionuclide. ALI and DAC values relate to exposure to the single radionuclide , named and include an appropriate allowance for any daughter radionuclides ,[ produced in the body during the decay of the parent nuclide. However, intakes that include both parent and daughter radionuclides should be treated by the general method appropriate to mixtures.
- The values of "ALI and DAC do not apply directly when the individual both ingests and inhales a radionuclida, when the individual *s exposed i
to a mixture of radionuclides, or when the individual is exposed to both internal and external irradiation (see $ 20.202). When an individual is , exposed to several translocation classifications, D W, or Y, of the same l I radionuclide, the exposure may be treated as exposure to a, mixture of ' radionuclides. i l .
- Table 2 ,
l The columns in Table 2 of this appendix captioned "Effluents", "Air" and "Water," are applicable to the assessment and control of dose to the public, particularly in the implementation of the provisions in i 20.302. The t.ir concentration values listed in Table 2. Column 1, were derived by one of two methods. For those radionuclides for which intake (committed effective dose equivalent) is limiting, the occupational stochastic inhalation ALI was divided by 2.4 x 10' (al/ year) x 300. The , I factor or 2.4 x 10', relating the inhalation ALI to the DAC, is explained above. The f neter of 300 includes the following components: a factor of 50 - to relate the 5-rem annual occupational dose limit to the 0,1-rem l 1 i 11 Enclosure 1
. . [7590-01) limit for members of the public; a fact?r of 3 - to adjust for the difference in exposure ties and inhalation rate between workers and members of the public; and a factor of 2 - to adjust the occupational values, which were derived for adults, so that they are applicable to other age groups.
For those radionuclides for which submersion (external dose) is limiting, the occupational DAC in Table 1, Column 3, was divided by 219. The factor of 219 is composed of a factor of 50, described above, and a factor of 4.38 relating occupational exposure for 2,000 hours per year to full-time exposure for 8,760 hours per year. Note that an additional l factor of 2 for age considerations is not warranted in the submersion , case. The water concentrations were derived by taking the most restrictive occupational stochastic oral ingestion ALI and dividing by 7.3 x 107(ml). The factor of 7.3 x 107(ml) includes the following components: i 7.3 x 105(ml) - the annual water intake of "Reference Man"; a'nd factors of 50 and 2 described above. Consideration of non-stochastic effects has not been included in the effluent concentration values because these effects are not assumed to occur at the levels established for individual ' members of the public. i Note 2 of this appendix provides groupings of radionuclides which are applicable to unknown mixtures of radionuclides. These groupings (including occupational inhalation ALI's and DAC's, effluent air concentrations, and effluent water concentrations and sewerage) take into account the differen:;es in biological models and assumptions for intake I ! by inhalation rad oral ingestion. I 12 Enclosure 1 i I l
[7590-01) Table 3 The monthly average concentrations for release to sewerage are applicable to the provisions in $ 20.1003. The concentration values were derived by taking the most restrictive occupational stochastic oral ingestion ALI and dividing by 7.3 x 108(ml). The factor of 7.3 x 108(ml) is composed of a factor of 7.3 x 10s(al), the annual water intake by
" Reference Man," and a factor of 10, such that the concentrations, if the ,
sewage released by the licensee were the only source of water ingested by. a reference man during a year, would result in a committed effective dose equivalent of 0.5 rem. , P I l l l . I l I 13 Enclosure 1
,r--_% .--_--y- , _.__
y ___-._. -r _- , - --. ,.-_-y._____ __- . - - --.
l (75M-ol) e.s ms C L157 0F ELDetNTS Game AtoslC 86mmtet Name Atomic leumber
; Actlaim 99 feelybdore 42 i
Alemlaen 13 heedyelm 60 AmortClem 95 meetaale 93 Ants.emy 51 niesel 2e Argon Arsente 18 33 4teefue Oselm 41 76
'hy Astettae 95 Pelledles 46 L Sortem 16 Phospheres 15 l Settellem DF Platlaum 78 i
Serylllem 4 Pietaalem 94 .
. Elemuth 33 Polentem 34 -
3reelne 35 Petessfue 19 I Ceentum 49 Preseespete 59 %
- Celtim 20 Promethium 61 <
1 Cellformlen 98 Protacitat e 91 f Cartem 6 Seefem se . . Certem 58 Recon 86 *- Cos te 55 theate 75 Chloriae Ctwumle 17 24 sheeten Raetete as 37 [ Cabelt 27 Rothealue e4
- Cooper '
29 Samertem 62 . Car 1m Dyspreste 96 66 Scandtem Selenten 21 M M flestelefem 99 Sillcea l', treten 6e Sil.or 47 . foreste 63 Sedlem 11 w Fetete fluertae les Streattum M L 9 Seller 16 g Freactum 0F Teatelem F3 Sesellatus 64 Technetten 43 N Gellfue 31 Tellertem 52 4 Gereenten 32 fertiene 65 e Gold sietale 71 Thellt e el '. 72 flteale 22 . R lealetem 67 Thefte 90 5 anydrogen 1 Thot tua. 69 - ladte 49 fle 50 y lastae 53 featsten Fe d fristus FF Wrealue -92
].
tron 26 eenestem 23 Eryptem M 8 ease 54 1 Leathenem 17 Yttertle FS teed 82 *e Yttrie 39 N tutettus 71 Zlac 30 .b negnestem 12 Zt eceaf em 40 = lemagenese 25 rneasete.see 1st perce y 80 149 factesure 1 - 4
*e e
hastel neshin / Vol M. No. 3 / Wisday, Jammary 8,2004 / Proposed Rules 1147 isie I satie i Imie 3 GCCIPell0st4 VALU($ ElitICI LEYTL M LLAlt 10 CautteritAf f eeis MW aa4;f a Cel. 1* Col. 2- Col. 3* Cal 1* Cel. la ftptfily tral lehel4Llos AIP blef Averate lege6Lbut hl OAC All Atests * (41/el) (Al/el) (41/el) (mCl/el) ne had 6amsc i tee Class (d6) (dt) 1 twe egen 3 unter. BAC incleers sale eine 4 tale, ante.g ) mas.g tale.3 tale.g absorpt6en 4 seryllium-7 W, all sempeeds encept 4 4 Salt.g 6all.g 4 10 3 4a10, fate 9ste these lleen f or Y Y saldes, helldes sad q este.g Sal 8.g *
- eItretes
- 2sta I
tale I tale I 6 ale *I 2:10*II tal0*I 1:10 ' 4 hryllim-10 W. See ts I Y, see I6e &a10*I fal4 *II * *
- 1a10 0 *I
- I
- 1:10 6:10*4 2aM *
{6 Cantee II fleansies Sloalee 6 10 0 Sale *d tal0*I *
- I % 6:10
*I 7s10*I Fall *#
6egeels henc 5 10 talt I * *
- 0
- 4:10 f al0**
- 2 10 0 Pale * ' #sig *6 . .
6 Carw 14 finnea6ee Slestee
- 2:10 9:10*I hit *I * * .
tal0 I tale 4 ggg*9 3,gg al kle"
- I er, ants file
- 2:19 I 1:10*I * *
- 0
~
R I idle I laele 2 , ieeie 3 scCarAllosiAt vAtU(1 Of fItiMCt LtYtt
- tf Li Mdac All 10 Contin 1aattons Col. 1 Col. #- Col. )* Cel. 1* Col. 2-tral issulatlea 8tathis Air Water everage lagent9ee Asl SAC ALI eteelt idl) lyCl) ( Al/el) (Al/el) (41/el) (sC6/el) no. Eastoa. Ilse Class
$ fluornne It 3 8 f.luo.rless.of,R.
. . ..C, , Li, . 10, ,a>04 mg m; 6a>0 4
6.ie.3 f W. floorless of te,etc. Ca, Sr. 64, 84. Al, Go , la,11 Aa,54,ti,fe, So. Os, Co. et, P4, Pt. Co, AG. Ae. In, Ca. feg, SC , T , l l , f r . e , et ,
- Sale, 4:10. , Islo. g e
- la, fin, Is, se ble *I *
- Y, leathea,e fleettee
- 8:10' la10*I es;;I 6a10 I
hte
*I til0*II 6:10 6 est0*I 3 11 3.ai 72 0, all sampownes *
*I d inlG 6 bale
- 0, all compowes 4s10 3
bale tale Fale 11 Sesiw-le
.g 12 rywt he 18 0, all tempewad6 encept tfese gleem for w fall g
is10 3 hit, ; Pilt .g Salt.4 tale W. (sleet, W aleet, .g sartleen, kalleet, one 3
.y * *
- late Late 2 ele entrates alumi . 26 9. all compows escest g .g M D.gg 6:10
*6 13 4:30 2
6 ale late 6:10 6 ts se gl,ee for w W, e n t ers , byers a l ee t , { sartleet, nelleet ead
- late g
4:10
.g tall 10 *
- estrates i
1 l l ' I I l - - - - - _ _ . _ _
l 1144 ' Federal Register / Vol St. No. e / 'thursifey, lanuary e. tees / Proposed Rules i seie 4 Teie # imie 2
. 0COMilomat v&Lutl efflM utt Livit M tte$( f0 taEtef tall 95 $4 W La;f ,,
Cel. 1 Col. 2 Cal. 3- Col. la Cel, la trol i m letlea mathly facettion Att 04C air heter e.orage Atomic MI as. See 6eauclies Class M I) (41) ( 4 4/el) (yCl/el) . M I/st) (dt/ ell 14 $14 6cea* 31 S. all cemenses essent g og Leste gloom for W ene T 9a10 3 3 ale tall ,4 ale,g late.. tale.3 W. enleet. hrer*aleet. g talt.g tale.g *
- cert 6ms, one altretes
- 3 ale Y. el einestlicate glets
- 3:16" ! alt al 4:10*8 *
- 8, 6eeIIll 4 18 3
2nte t g,gg af 3a10 14 . , , li t ic e=* H 14 ( katI ) * * .
- ta nt'I 4:10
L&B uell II I , , W. ese ll
- Sel0 5 16*8 2:14*10 E . v . ese li si . wis e , sic ' ,'ai. tr. * .
il fese4*erwt
- 32 8.411Eempowdseecept I '
j papeemetes glose for W &alB kit,
- este,,. ..laitog . Salt 6 tslo*n I
! W powephete6 of lete,
- j. te le 3 1
'lanta's t,
+ 4:10 I fal6*.I...na10*I8 : * .
- n Peewn .*n - e, see " , uu 8 mu S I
satr' wr' sair5 earr* I W. 6ee P E
- 3a19 'lal4*0 4:10* * *
- r I i 1
1 ti w vele I Teie #
- isle a f ECW ell e nt 94LW 1 Mf tetutt Livlt Ntgatt to emEtsitA110m% $4 wt at?(
Cel. l* Cel, f* Col. 3* Col. la Cel, la Grel labelettee monthly i **
* &assellen kl GAC Air Water e.erate
.meelt EI .
- m. Geenaenslies (lese ledt) M ll M l/ ell M l/ ell M I/ ell M i/ ell 36 teller
- 36 See , ,
- late' taw 9 I 44 * *
{ t 8. telflese e d tel* 1 f 4 Lee essept lasse g t l gtsen fee w este 3 Sete Pa N,, ,3:54,, * ' ' gen'ng3 . * . - ' ' late d til0
*I a 448 ee)l l W. el emstel selfer,Es.
4 eenfle te, ft,s es Of 96,61, le, to. Co. f I
- 45. As.
sm. Is, 64. n.ifete ef t. .L,. W ' i y to, 64, as, le, 96 - ta W, ta n,, Selt,, *
- t 17 Chlertaea)$ S. enleelee Of S. Li, g g law,4 asle ,9 Is le* g
,g es, E, m. (s, f r isle falt lilo V e6lw ides of Senthea i I
1 sh to te,ae.al.1.Ca.6e,le.II. , Pt. As, St. Bl.
- Ee,la f e, b. to. Co. h. Ir.
l Am. [ 81, PW.*Pt. Ca.t.40.II, e Ca Jr. Ed.M . ag. 9, S. k,I4. Cr. t a
- m. W, sm Is, to Psit I lait,, . Sal'4.gg .**
{ *. , 1
Federal Res(eter / Vol. 51, No e / Thursday. January s, teto / Proposed Rules 334g veie a veie a vare 3 4CCup4flossat valutl h(fit (utt Liv (t titte l 10 Casectef uflom5 MWset (4 . 1* 1 Col. 2- Col. 3- Col, l' Cel. le
'traaletten monthly Seat t hee 6 LIM All DAC AIP titter Aser ete Manis All
( All (Al/el)(Al/el) (dl/el) (gl/el) me. SedleMllee ' Class 845) F 2s10*3 6 10*' 2s16**' fal0*3 17 Caterine+ M 3 t, see 'Cl 3 3:10 4:10' W , see I'Cl * . Sale' #s10*I '6:10'0
- Il Chiet6*e 3t I . 6, e** I'Cl.
- fale'
- 6:10' 2:14*I 7s10 *8 *
- 13:10 )
4 * *
- 4:10** 4:10*I (L. = ell
' *8
- w, 6ee I'Cl
- 6'10' #s10*I 4:10
- tienersteaI
* ' 14 Arpeelt *
- 2:10*
- San 0*I .
' I 6 Argeer41 liener6lon *
- 3:10 Isl0*0 -
- g la t 2 0, all tempowest blo 4:10 f al0*I 6 10 10 4:10*0 e s,10* I
- 19 Petanni w 44 .
0, all sempewnes 5:10 3 lano l f ale
- 0 Fale'8 6 10*I 6:10
- 19 Petssal e 42 l
19 Petettleel B, all smeevnes 6:10 I 9a103 ' 4s10*' tal4* 8 ' 9:10*I 9 10** 19 totettiw44 I B, all tempownes 2:10' 7:10' le l0*I 9 10*' " * * . Oste') * *
- 4:10*8 '
4:10*3
- St. =all '
d Petaisle ti I- bale
- 6 fate *
- 8, all seapewWs 3:10" ! ale' 19 Isit** *I
.f . (ball') * *
- lil0
- St. well
<l l w i nie a reie z + isle 3 BCCveellonsst vatW1 efflMatt tivtt tittast le Cesstlefuflan$ , Muth i
Cel, la Col. 2 . Col. 3- Col. la Col. P-desately Dren I m latlea everage ! leyestion El DAC Alt Water MI Assels . Clost (gl) (41) (41/el) ( Al/el) (dt/el) (gl/el) me. Sadleewslice W, all sospeanet h18 3 4:19 3
# sit
- 6s te* 3 4:14*3 4all
pg Consteren I 4:10 2 4,gg af 3,3,*t g,ge d fel0** Cals te4 n w, all sempe= ass is10 to I I este
*I tale d Isle *f 1:10**
w; all seapeunes es10 ta10 70 Cond e 41 *
- 7s19 3
2:10' . tale '. note *8 1:10
- ls10*I 31 komene t) 1, all tempe= met 6:10 I
tale I kW N h14d fant Iste d
#1 konsle ten 'f, ett seassumes
' 6 1e**
4:14 3 1s'15' 6s)e*' 704*0 te le* *
#1 $sese6e 44 T 'all sense ns
.1, all sempowies Salt I $siCI . Isle *I Sall* N Isle ** la,10*
- I18 kandise 44
- ua*
l t in um i O. . ,, .ii seso rai i hdi ~ lai=5 ' esa ' ha*
.ais' iniO 2
, &si.*! esi. '. 14i.*5 inil
- n k ie ,, .ii s e. . .,
telld
'll kasiele tt I 1, all semoeune6 Pale' 6:10' bl0*I . asl4*
- h tt* 3
' 22 . lite leet - 8. all caseewnes esseet g g 6534,,
og hp ,,g 4 dele.g taeos glwe ter w one y ble Isle ., 6at ,
.w, esless, trerealeen, -
1s n't, , Sale qg seetters, helless, one g **
- ettene6
- 3:18 1, Erlbes *
. 6s'10' ' n it* ' '6 sit *II 2
1130 Federal Registee / Yo!. 51. No. t / Wursday, Jansary a, taas / Proposes Males
- 4. e . ...e, ...e, attuPAllomat VAtuti etttHuct tirf t M ttast 70 Continf4Allon5 Std tet Cet le Ce4. 2- Col. 3- Cel. la Cel 2- -
he t tansiellea Nathly facestlea Ali DAC Air taster A erew Atende . Atl . he tedieaucitee Cl466 (yCl) (4 4 ) (yct/el) (Al/el) (adl/el) (,C4/el) 22 Iltaalm 45 0, m ** f t h tt 3 k l0' isid 44W' tale" 4s10'3 W, m "It
- 4:13' Isle *I 6s#8 *
- f su D e -
JsW 8 1:10*I 4sWI *
- I 23 t e*=ee t a 4 ? 8. ell compounds estept these steen for W 3:10, 0 10, 3:10,g lato,, 4:10,, 4:10,3 W. estees, byeroete s, t er$ Hhs t , eM halleel
- late g
4:10,g talt , , F3 tea.dtw 48 0, see 'I t 6sle I inM 3 6:10*I is u"' tal0** tsW6 { W. 6ee "It
- 6s10 I
)sl0*I kWU *
- n .. win 41 e . .e e ", inn e
31v ina I .s iO 4 ings as#2 W. 6ee Yt' 2sle' $s l3*I 1sWO +
- 24 Ches= he 48 6. all cowownes escent the66 given for u one f es10 3
1 10' init i tal0*I tal0'I 8W' W, hellees sad altrates
- Fald 3 ll'I is W8 * *
- 3 f ealees sad hyotes tees
- 7:10 3:10*4 1:10*8 * *
<< Carvaka 41 I 6. See '8Cr 3:4 8
tsJ 0 8 4:10*I 1:10*# 4s10** 4:10*3 W, see Cr la10 I esl0*I tal0'I *
- f, see '8Ce
- 9: 11,9 esWI tal0*I *
- O si to maa Im.e , Iaele 3 OCDsA!!0ssAt valutl Mftetect Livtt
- M LIAft to comttuttaflons * $4:4840t te l. 1* C41..f* Col. 3- Cel. la Col. 2*
Seel lamelatica monthly Jeestitee Atl 942 Att tieter A*erege Ateelt All he. Destemmcllee Cl446 (ati) 441 (48/el) (di/el) (At/ ell tyCt/el) 24 Chrussem ll 4, 6ee "O es.M* As D* 2W3 Ss3 3 is W ' 9:41 W. 6es *8Ce *
!all' 1:10 4 ble ~*
- V, see 'ECe
- 1:10 4
Seit en M 1 *
- 24 maatsasse ll 8. all sanoewiss esteet San 64 gone forW hM, as u, inu,g Isle,, hit,, hit.3
- w. estema. ev o os6ees, j
bittee6 asus altretts
- h30, 1sle,g kht , ,
Pl honeese te-52e 8, see N As bO' hM' esit*I &a.WI 4:10 eaae'I k W, eseI3an + As u l 4 sit *I lett'I *
- in Ww n! 8, see 5( p,g t 3,33 3 g,gg*7 2:16 ! sit *I 3 e ll
W, see Ih
- 9:10 I esle'I latt i *
- II 26 essoamese ll 9,see st 6:10' late' bell'I
- 7:14 ' iste*I
- a. (1:10')
- h tt*8 *
- teme 6.ht.
W. Se 8%
- ns W' &ast i 4s64 4 *. -
Fl neagenese 54 0, see N tale I 4 sit I tem Y taTIN SsWI 1:10** [ w, see %
- este t kW I Leati *
- l 75 Amassasse 66 0, see N kM I 3:44 8
&ste i 4:10 JsWI saW8
! ,v, see I3tes *
#s10' 9:14*6 kl6* 8 -
- l **
i l
Fedetel Regleter / Vol. St. No. e / Thursday,1eMary 3.1986 / Proposed Rules 1151 isie i veie a veie a GCCUPallenAt vatuti affleast (tell sitt 454 10 Stu e,act tuttuttAf tesr5 , Col. 1 Cal P Cal. 3- Col. le Col. P erst Ismelatloa 8tsathly la All GAC Air tieter everece A4asit &&gentlea a es. todis**d i t es (1466 M l) M il M l/el) M l/el) (pCl/el) M I/el) M frw*H 0,' ell esmemes escept tm*6e steen for W tale! - Sale 3
, lane *6
- 4:10'l talt 5 tale *4
- v. estees, hyvessiees' ene 6elleet
- h103 1 10'6 Jale '
- a 3
M f row
- h 6, 6** Nie 9:10 i:19 3 6 10*I 3 10*' tale *4 tal6*I U I in te* 0 6 14*'
W. 6ee fe
- 4a14 * *
.$ ,f ron st 8. SeeNie 6 ale t 3,g/ lal0*I Sal 4*' t ale *
- 4:10**
W 6ee Nie
- ba&0 I
# sit *I htt*II *
- IM I, oo e, .ee I've san i sa a' in a*' .s a n . ,1,* > ,, a*.
W. SeeNie *
#siO I Sa l0* ' hit
- U *
- JI Wit *in V, all tempeeen estept I thete gloen for I leth Sal 0 4:10*' 4:10* I !all'I 2:10**
T, salers, byerealees a 1 helsee6 ans e6trete6 '
- 3 10 1e10* 6 4:10* t *
- fl- Cawlt *M W, teeUCe 4:10I 3:l/ 1:10* # en tt* N 6a10* 6 $ sit *I f,see U(a =
fald $a10* 8 3a10
*H *
- v See NCe *0
{fl 3 Ceevit*67 4:19 bl0 8 1:10 tale *I &al0*I 6 10** 1, seeUCe
- 7:10 1 ale *I 9:10*I' * *
<l e.
Tate a Tale z Isle a j GCCUPallonAt eALLas atriatert Litti *silla54 10 tatte144110ms trw 4Act Col. 1 Col. la C41. P Col, la Cal. t' Deel !ameletten neataly lagentlea El GAC Air tester everage A4mit Att es. Reeleauttlee Clett M l) Ml) M l/el) M l/Jel) M l/ti) M l/el) 1 j !) Camellanes w, see **Ce 6 14' tate' 4:14* * ! ale" tate asle' 3 f, seeNCe 8 *
- 6a10 Sal 4*I tele *8
- 27 Camelt le w, seeII Cs 1 19 3
lant I be l0* ' tale *' tal6*I fale*' T, see big , , y,g,2 3,gg*F g,3,*9 . . i I J7 Cament eem I W, seeIICe Inte' 4e10 0 isl0*I ba H tale *I tele *I 1, see CeII
- hie' 1:10*I 4:14*6 . .
,, mi t* 6. W 6.e u. t , sis ,alv ,si. ' ,si. a hie
- 3.i. $
T, see N I *0 *
-l Ce
- 3 ale 1 10 ba t0* U
- 28 C.eelt*61 I w 6ee N Ce fall' hil' hl0*I 9:10*8 hit ** 3a n6* I 1, seeNCe
- 8
- 6:10 tal0*I ta le* 8 *
- 27 Casell'He I W 6ee 66g , ,,gg 4 tal0 I fal4*I f al4*I * *
- 4
- FaA4** 7:30*I tSt.hle',)l me i 1, 6 g big , . g,gg t 6 ale d tale *I *
- M e6stel le 8, all t.owee,*ds.eatept y
.a i.. y ,si..g , sit.4
.e . .e. , isic 3 , sit uit.,
z V, es t ee s , hyerealee t , g Sale.) Isle.g
- ens caretess
- late
- il e.
-aasa end e.1 assisest / wt a No, a / 7tusseder, lea 46ery a, mass / 70mpened anans l
~
1.ie 4 ..i., 1.ie 2 GCOAPailmAL vatWS . Ef 6 matt Livil attiall 10 taertsfullons WW uct l Col. 1* Col f. Col. 3 Cel le Col. 2 tra1 SamelatIen heathli , Ingentlee hLJ 04C Alt testee A*ereve r anaels El . no. Aadlamur!!as Class WA) W ij Wl/el) ledLbli 4sdMel) (ad4/eJi se Orleaed li 0,see as,, " ,,3,3 la&O 3 tam' isle" isle f all" i W. see I'al
- Sa10 3
lam 4 g,g at . . M aletel ll 8. see " el Isle" 4:10 3 2410*0 6a304 k l0*
- 3a10*I M
W. see hl
- hl0 3 Sal 4*0 lat0*O + +
M hittel 61 !al0 I 3
- 8. ese I'st 0414 Ps 2*I tal4** 1 10** 1a10*I W. toe 0'ai
- kM I tal4*I tal0*I *
- i M ' einei*n s = "mi sau I raa' t.irl salvi ta n* * ~ lat(I I W. too b l
- h M' tal4*I 4all** *
- M alstel H I
- 8. m 'a 6 ea10 I
2:10 3 Fal4*I 2:109 - * (Sal 0I l * *
- 7:10 6 y,gg l ul well
- W. tes I'a6
- 6:10 I h M* I- ta M ate . ,
l 79 Cappe-64 9. 418 tempeuses esteet
- De6e Odeon fee W and f kne, 9a10 4
4:10 og tal0*y 4:10', talt,3 W. 6 1hese , h416ere , g and altrates
- 1 10 ble,g taa0*y *
- Y, enJa;es ans 40rdroelses I
{ Lal0 4:10*I tale *I *
- 00 l
j20 Career el 8. See Ce N Ce 1:10' hie' tale *I 4:10*8 2:10*' f a i0* I 3 W. **e
- 4:10' tal4*I h10*I' * *
- 60 Y. see Ce
- 4all' tal4 *I kl0*I *
- raie imie i Imie 3 SCCMPallosiAL entut* atFIttact Ltdt 8ttlA58 le testistutions SIW agt tel, la Gel #* Cel. 3* Cel l= Cel, 2*
trol lasialet ten 8teathis lagsstlea AL' 04C Air 4sette Seerete atents Ms ms. Aadda w ltee Claae W l) WI) W Uel) W l/el) W Vol) W Uell i 79 Casper-64 0, see Ce 3:10' 3a10' tal4** 4a M' ' tale *' f alf"
- w. ose "Ce * #all' tale *I h10*I *
- l Y, see '8C
- hit" 9:14 4 hie'0 *
- j st 0, se. **Ce g,3g 4 Can ,er 67 kl0 3 a410 I
3.as 4 tale 0 g,3g** i W. 6+e **Ce a ba WI 2eW 4 Date
*I * *
- f. 6ee **Ce
- 6:193 2:14 4 emit *I * *
! M llac*47 T. 411 'emuseuwe hM I ta M 3 1:10 6 tal0*I tale *I f a tti lM l 26ac 418 T. all sampowies fall" 7:10' 3 10*6 g,3* 7 g,gg*4 la t e* I ! M liar 4% T. bil sempewies 4:10 I h10 I tal4*I 4 W* I' Sall 6 6 10 4 M ltw 6tm T. eli saepowies I h10 I 4:19 h10 4 lane *I hl0*I 6:10** l h liac*4l I f. ell campounsa h te' hi4 I 4 le i 2:10*I ,b l4** Gal 0*I N 26ac Flo T. all campowmas 4:19 3 f a n' 7eM i #alf8 sal (I 6:1(* M 26ac 72 v. eli tempouns I I Sal (I 1:19 la10 2:14*' &all'I late ** I 31 &allien 6S I 0, all assaisones asempt g { tee 6e givea for W W. asless.*yerea W t. Sale 2:10 I Jake,I 2:14* P 6a10*
- 6 a10' 3 )
l carotees. helless ead oltrates istsg $410 og- kit,, *
- e+
Federal Reglater / Vol St. No. 8 / mroday. ]snuary 9,1984 / Proposed Rales 1153 vale i isie a Taie 3 GCCWAll0 set 14tW($ Offle[sitt L(Vit alL[A$( 10 ta Etsiuticut notagt Cel. 1- Col. F- Col. 3- Cel. 1* Col. 2- . Deal Inhalstlen staathly lageslien El BM Air tieter kerage Atenla El Ibe. $4dienstllee Class (yCl) (f t) (WCl/el)(yCl/el) (yCl/el) (yCl/el)
&slile 64 0, see '36e ha10 3
4:19 3 1:10** Sale *3 lam *
- 1:10**
31 3 *0 4:10*I *
- W, we &l&a
- 3a10 tale 31 &allte47 9. *** OI&s 7:19 I lane' 6a14*0 2a10* 8 1:1t*8 1sH*I
- W, see 654 , , g,gg t 4,g 6 g,g 8 . .
Il &alli e 64 I OI
- 8. see Ga f all,' 4:19' tal0*I & ale *8 an 30*
- tall'I W, see6664
- Sale' tall'I 7:10'0 * *
- 31 Galli e 7C I 8 sw A&a 6a10' tale I f al0*I 2a10*I * *
* *
- 1a10* 3 1:10 *I l (8:10')l 6t. wel W, seeU64 * #a10 I 6a nt'I 3:10*I *
- 0, en U64 3 4:10 I 1:10*0 la10*I fal0*I 2:10**
31 Galli e 71 1:10 W, see666a e 1:19 I 1:14*0 4:10* ' =
- I
- 31 &s116 e 71 0,see UGa 6:10 2:10' 6aM*0 2:10*8 Pal 0*I 7:10**
v, sw UGa a
- 2:10' 6 1t* 0 2:14*8 *
- 32 Gereentw 64 0, all cems+ ads estett 8 these sleen for w 2:10 3a M" tale *I esit* 8 Bale ** 1:10*I I
.. es i . 6, -i .s . es te., 3a le.,
nat tallees e tale. *
- iasta a inte z , satie 3 GCCWAf ton 414WI Off f tf uCI t!Vit BEttalt 10 touttWTulton)
- SO4 ext
! Cel. la Cel. #* Ce s. 3 Cel, la Cel . ' t-lesenetlea sneataly er?l h erege layetten All DAC Air Water 4 Maalt ALI . 4 no. Seitensc l 6. Class lyCl) (All (yCl/el) (Al/el) (Al/el) (yCl/el)
, 32 Seeeente6F# 9,6ee **Ge an.10' tate' este** .nel4*# * *
(tale") * *
- 7:10** f al0*I St. esil j
w, we U6e
- 120 I
4:10*I lall'I *
- M e .. .. .ee au San i ..iO 2 ,sa
- law ' 6. I 6ait a W, see 64g , , g,gg 2 410*8 lant*I' *
- i 66 tal6 0
2:10' 6 10'0. Isle *8 fale** 2:10*I 32 Geenea 6e 69 8. see &e I
- W, see O'Ge
- Sal 0 3a10*0 1:14*8 *
- 0, on "Ge 6 alt I
es10 I fal0** 6 ale *I Tale *I 7:10 2 M Ger=** 6 e 71 i W, see "Ge
- 4:10" !al6*I 6 10*8 -
- M Greumatwin I 9, on "Go 4:19 8
es10' tal0*I tal6*I = *
* *
- Lal4*I 4:10
*I (ta10")l St. emi i
W, seeNGe
- Sa w" d al0*I tall'I =
- 64 I 4:10'0 1s W'8 1aM**
*I M Geenami e t? g, su &e 9:14 1:10' lil0 I fale *0 tall'I W, we M&e
- 6a10 M Enisaa 6s ts i 8, see '0Ge fal0" !a10" tait 6 3,gg*8 3,gg*4 'la10 *I W, see64ce
- 2:10' 9:10 6 3a10* 8 *
[ l
11H Federst Registae / Vol 81, No. e / Thursday, January e tees / Proposed Rules raie i inie i raie a GCa#Ai!0adt vetutt effiatatt ttvit Huast Je tantIef4Afleal Stwt144( ~ Cat. 1 Cel. 2* Cel. 3* Cel. la Cel. f* eral I W lattoa mental, lagentlee All MC Ate laster Aserege Atmolt Att me. Saete=cliee Class (wCI) (wCl) (dt/el)(di/ ell (dt/el) (wCt/ ell 33' Ar**e l e *6 0' W all tempeones 3a10' lale' Sant i 2W' * * (l'a l6') * *
- 7 10** f a ll'I
$t. sell 33 Arseats*70 I
W, all tempowws I:10' 5:10' talt*I Pale *8 ta ll la n6* I 33 Ar6 east *71 W, all tempeunes esiO I 6 18 3 late *I 6 ale'I bale'I lan0** 33 Ar6*a 6 t
- H W, all tempeones tale t 1:10 I 6a10*I fai4*I lall'I 1:10**
33 Ar6eett*73 W, all tesomes tal0 I 2a19 I Fal0*I 2all'I 1:10*
- Is10*I I33 Arsea6t*74 W, all campounds 1:10 3
sal 0 I 3:10*I tale *I f a l0*I # 10 33 Aetemic 76 W, all tempounds 1:10 I 1:10 I 6:10*I fal4*I t al0*I 1:10** 33 erseatt*77 W, all tempe= ads 4:19 3 6:10 3 fale'I Fale*I 6 ale ** 6 10** Arsemit*Pt I 3
- 33 W, all tempeands 4:19 la10' 9:10 6 3,3,* 8 1:10** lat0*I ,
M Selente*70 I 9, all tempounes estept LAese gtece fee W late, Gall, falt,g Sall,g tale,, tale,3 W, ealees, byerealees, smises one g elemental 5e 4:10' fale *I 6:10' *
- 5eleei m 73e t g, ,, tog 3,.0" %
6al0*I fall'I {M W, seeN h
- 2 10 3:10 6:10*I 2:16*I 4:10*
- 4:10*I 3
inte i isie , inie i BCrupAfloannt v4&l4 1 AtilatuCI ttytt St ua54 10 C M istaattool wwt onet Col. la Cel 2 Cel. 3* Cel. 1 Col. i. Seal Iselanton 8hathly laeostlen All D4 Air sister 4*erage stante . all an. Amst ensclies. Claes (dt) (wCl) (wCt/ ell ( A l/ ell (wCt/el) (Al/el) M .lelenius-73 5, see "&e bl4 ' 3 late' tele i 2:19 1 4:10 4 4:10 " W, seeN&e
- 2 14' Fall'I 2:10*8 *
- 0, seeMle #
lett y,gg l M leleute M Sal 4 Pal 0 I 3 ale *I 7:10 6 W,see N &e
- 6 sit I kl4*I 6a14*10 , .
M belee6e 79 0,' eme' N6e 6sl8 I tal0 I h tt'I lant'I 4:16 6 .g,gg al
- I W, toe le * &a10 fale*I 844,*10 ,
M Se lee d e-eleI 0, seeMae f al4 0 7 a N' 3aly'I lant'I 3a10 ne l0* I W, seeN6e
- Fall' lal0'I talt'I * *
- M leleeim f1I 9, seeN5e 6:14' fale I Sale *I 3a 10'I * *
(6 alt'l * * *
! ale *I lall'I St. mell W, 6eeUbe fall I
late h tt'I *
- M Sele =te-il 8, eseM5e ble' 1:10 I
Sale *I la te* I 4:14** 4 10'I W, seeM5e
- 1 14 I lall'I taWI *
- i I.
Federal Regieter / Vol. St. No. 6 / 'liiuredey, January 9,1984 / Proposed Rdet 1188 N' Isle 3 Tale I Te le 3 SCCWallenAt VAtWil EllEEl LIVik tit! All 14 ta tirT u t14m3 MW tot (41, la Cel. 2- Cel. 3* Cel. 1* Cel. 2' ~ 6tel lahelellu Ithathly latestion M1 tes Air latter Aur60e Ateels Att me. Bettwilee Class (41) (yCl) (Al/el) (di/el) (sdi/ ell (41/ ell 3 trenine 74e 0, 6*emiert of s. Li, 36 as, 8, et, ts, f r talt, 414, isle,g Saltog *
- 8 + . + htt*' as tt* I (2:18 St. eel )l e W t' rustees of leathe.
eldes,to 84,te,AI,Ing,Co,leae, in, II, te, Se, 70, As, se, ei, Se, tu, De, Co, St Ir. A,
' Si,Pd,PL,Ca.A4,1 y ,
la, Ca, le, ef. pie, sc,lo,, *, V, m, I it, te
- este, Isle.g 6:10.g *
- M . tree 6ar 74 I 0, see I'*Br fale' Pall' Sall'I late *I *
- i (talt") * *
- e sit *
- 4all'I i St. eell W, see I'*te * &sll' ' 4:18'I Lale*I .*
- trees,e M I t, sw I'*er tall'I fale
8 16 1:18 6all' esit** e sit
- I i
W 6ee I'*It
- Salt !al4*I 7:14*8 * * +
16 trentav 74 8, su I'*Br 4a19 I . 6a19 3 2:14*8 7:14*I tale *I kle** I W, see I'*te + 4:14 3 2:10 4 h t t* ' + + tr - ..,, 0. .n s r ,a,0 4 ,a,4 4 ,a,4 > , alt . ,a,0 . ,.,0 1 1M b, see I'*le
- 7:10' 6 14*0 htt** *
- vele 1 Tele I
- imie 3 l Sccwallonat VAtutt Ef f etect tivtt , Sittatt le l
Castlefufloat stwq eet I Cs) . le Cel. 2 Cel, la Col. la Cel #* ' 6,el lau letten staatAly leeestlea Att WC tir beter 4.ecote
- Ataels Atl as. Red 6eauclies Class (41) (41) (d t/el) ( Al/et) (Al/el) (Al/el)
M Steelee 40s 0, see *te fall' 3:34' Fall 8:10 3s lt 3 30'3 W, see I**be
- 1 10' hl4*0 2:1t*8 *
- l M trealse ec I 0, see I**t e tall' tall I
tal4*I ble*I * * , (tate's + + + 1:10*3 lal4 *I I St. mall W, see I'*tr * #si4 I tele *I Salt *I + .
- 3 3 36 truelae el 0, see I'*t e bl8 4:19 3:10'0 6s t4*I eale*I c a ll*
- W, see be
- 4a10 I inte 4 g,gg* t , ,
g l
'M tresine-el 4,see I'*te 6:10' hit' nell'I hit
- 8 *
- I
' 8 * *
- 1:10*3 lall'I 16414 St. mel )l 6all' *I 9:14*8 + +
W. 6ee b r * & ale tresiae 04 I ! M 0, 6ee I'*It fall' 6:19 8 init*I tal4 *8 . + ( h tt') * *
- tell*' 4all'I ,
St. mall , l W, see I'*tr
- tant' Sall'I 9:14 *8 +
- trysten 74 I - htt*0 tale *8 . .
{M 5.ame rslea . t 8. ,_ ,4 _ r. l.s . . D.,0.. .a,0 0 . . pM R e,-t - , , -,,les . . 4:10 4 hit 6 . . I 6 i L
t 1154 Federal Regleter / Vol. 81, No. 4 / Throday, January e. tese / Proposed Rulet 1sie a voie r sw.a
- KCW6Ilh4 VMWI EllEEI LML N tlat( le cauttateAtt el u w tat,1
~
Cel. la Cel. !* Cel la Cel. l' Cel. #* tral laswtettee am.stal, lagostlen El 94C ele heter esereve Ateels Mi es. Sadleauciles* C1ess (44) (ytil (Al/el) (44/el) (Al/elP (46/ ell N tryptam F9 tenersten 8 . . 3:14 *3 7:14*' * . M trygter8) Summerslen I .
- 7s14** hl4*0 * +
M .trypton-43m lesersten I e . Isle *I bele*I e . i trypterMe nemersion I * # sit *I tel4*I . . M
- N Erypton t% lese rtion I e e i s,l t*
- Fale*I *
- nenersten I hit *I .f e lt*I *' -
N trwtwet *
- lemorsion I ble d
- lM trypt wM
.
- tele *I
- 37 h idi e ft B, all seasswds tant' 4 14 hit *I 7s it*I *
- th it")
16, sell
* *
- P s it*
- 7s44*3
! 37 446 eiw Sta t g , , g , ,,,,,,, , y,gg t 3,jgt g, g g* 4 g, g 4* I *
- fielt I I* * ..
- 4:49 *3 ests #
- lt. mall fate d Psit*I I
31 444esim 01 0, all sampased6 esit' tall' Sa lt*
- Sa l6* I I falt*I lait 8
g37 te l e 6 r t.*e ' t, ell tempowes lett' init* # sit ' #s l6* I tale t 37 Retf eet) 0, all sampowds 1:19 3 4:14*I lant*' tall
- Se tt 'I 5 sit I I
j e 37 bef aie M 0, all sempoeds 448t aste*I lant*' isle
- 0 Fel4**
w / i.ie s sai. a ;
- 1. ie .
3CfWpellaan Ve&WS MiletuCl Lidt M tlatl it MettAflW1 WW 4A*J ; Col. la Cel #* Cel. 3 Cel. la Cel 7' i
' tral lasetetten anagni, r j ' stles El D4C Sie tie ter everste htsmit M to. Radienstllae Clas s'. -( ll (dll (Al/ ell (d t/ ell (Al/el) (Allell 6:18 #
Sale r 3,gg 7 g,gg i y,gg s y,ggi + 37 telel e 86 i* 0, all tempemee l 37 edidiet! 9 eli sanomads init I # sit I 6414*I #ste d innt*I lua*' i 1 , 37 kidtatt I 9, 611 sospemmes fall' h t t' h tt*I ktt*0 * *
+ + + 4414** e s it'J jhtt")l et. mel 37 644eeet1I 8, all emusemes 419 8
1ste l hit *I #ste*I + + 8 t (6410 ) * *
- Tall'8 Patt*3 St. esil l
i M stromu e =I .ii esi .ie s.m- kit.4 falt., h it,, 6sle,1 rtunes esset lef 643 4:10 3 Isle 0 ! V, all lonaldte ste- ,g powda ese Set:63
- Lall, balb Jett,g * *
^
! M kreet tier tl I 8. ese "La falt' hit' ><ll'I gate *I aste** Se tt*I T, see # 5e ' telt' Salt *I tale *I =
- l Y 6tssatle 83 0, 6ee # 5e '8s14 I 7:13 3
htt*0 La nt*' kle d h t t*
- i 4:19 I 1stl*I inle d .. *
. ,V,see # 6e ,
tM st u me t 's, .ee a, l isnt' esit, I uit" Seit* I <> sit i uit ' l 4
,.,0 4
,. e.e M,, . ,,0 ..,0 . .
y
Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 8 / Thursday. January 9.1966 / Proposed Rules 1157
~ ~
- 1aie i Table z i nie a DCCUPAllosat VAlut$ tift #EleCl Ltytt tittA5C 10 CustIwtution5 Mwt UCI Cel. 1- Col. 2- Col. 1* Cel. 1* Cel. 2*
Inhalatlen hathly Oral Ongestion ALI DAC Air tester Average Atemic Att me. 8edienuclide Cless (pCl) (pCI) (pCl/el) (pCl/el) (41/o1) (pCl/el) 0, see " 5r 3:10 3 3:10 3 1:10
- 4:10*3 4:10** 4a10**
M 5treetlw85 3 *I
- Y, see'80$r .- 2:10 6a10 2:10 ' *
- I *3 0, see #5 r 4:10 4
1st3 ha10*5 2:10*I 6a 10*
- 6:10 34 Sire.it iw S ?e 90 5 *I
- Y, see 5r - 2:10 6 10 2 10*I -
M ntreat6 w ey 8. see #5 r 3,10 2 g,3g 2 4,33 g,gg* 9 6aT' 6:10 5 2 T. see $r 80 - 1:10 6:10 ' tale
- N -
- I I dam
- 3s Straa.i w 90 8. see80$r 7.a10 2aM 0
Sa10*3 3a M*II '4a M*I 80
- 4:10 2:10*' Sa M*II * -
j Y, see 5r 2:10 ' ta t0*I 3 3 2:10
- 34 St. -I 6evs 0, see "$r 2 10 6:10 2:10*I I 1 10
7, see805r a 4:10 6a10 '
- I 1:10 I
*I 0,see 8br 3 10 410 6 g,gg 4 ea10 4 :10*
- is N e.
- e. W 7 10 I 3aM*' sa M*I * . .
- f. see N r
- 3d TLle roo.# w, all centwe. esseyt falu, 6:10, ,g tale
,g , 3 ale
,4 la!0,3 those given fef T 2 10 Y, en tdes one by.s.ea 6*6
- Salu d
fal0 *I es 10* 0 * *
* *I 2 10
- site swoo W, see ***V in10 3
3:10 I 1:10 ' 5:10*3 2:10 [ 11 3 10 I T see 8*** . 1:10 ' 410 ' * * {
)
isole 3 leale 2 iacie 3 8(fltllect LEvit H tt A51 10 LCCUPA110*dt VALVil ComClwTu110M5 , J WtEl Cel. 1* Col. 2* Cel. 3* Col. la Col. 2* leonthly Crel l ealatten .'-et r age ingentlen Atl CSC Air Water Atomic AtI ( Al/el) (,scitel) (wCl/st) (pCI/el) Class (wCl) (pCl) me. Sed 6 wclide 3
* *8 3a10** 3a10" W, see sea t 2s10 3
Ja10 1.a10
- 5:10 39 ftte8< 47
- Ygsee O'*v
- 3'a10 3
tal0 ' 4:10*3 = tal0 *I w, see 8'*f 1:10 3 3:10 2 da10* N lal0 *I tal0
- 39 u ,:l e te T see b + 2:10 I
In!0*I Sal 0* N -
- W, se e 8'*f I
1a10' 5 10 ' 2:10*8 1:10* * !a10*I 39 fttri s ton Sal 0
- f, set 8'*f a 1:10' 5a10 ' 2a 10*.8
# I *I tal0*I 6 10*' 6:10 5 it 7ttrlw90 w, see 8'** 4a10 7 10
.'3a10
*I 9:10*30 * *
- 3* 7, m 8'*v
- 6:10 3a10 2:10*I. - 2:10*I 3 't:10 ' la10*I tttrielle I I
W, see 8'*v 1:10 2:10 M I 0
- Y, see %
- 2:10 '7:10*I 2:10 *
' ^
# #I' 6:10*I W, see 86a, ha!0 I
2a10 i10*8 2:10 6 ale
- 6
- fttri e ll
'29 3,3g *4 .. , . ,
. Y, m 8
'*f
- 1sto f ,2:10*10 3 3 e:10*' "la10 6 g,g,*l 4 10**
'M f ttriet2 W, see 8'*f 3a10 9:10 Sal 0 I tale 6 1 10*' 7',,,
- Y, see 8'*f
- W, see 8 '*f' 1410 3
3 10 3
' la10* ' 4:10 d !a10*I 2:10**
H titrie r. I * *
. . .Y,sei 8'*f
- J2 10 1a10 6 3a10*I , ,
-- .--.--7-, - - - --. -. -.-
. s 1158 Federal Resister / Vol. 51, No. e / Thursday, January 9.1986 / Proposed Rules
- Teie a raie : 1eie 2 OCCUPAllonAt VAtut5 ALFIMmCf itvit tittA51 TO CosecluftA110ms SM t4l _
Cel. 1* Col. 2- Col. 3- Cel. la Cel. 2 Oral Inhalatten etunthly Ingestion ALI DAC Air tseter Average Jtesic . . All (yCl/el) (yCl/ ell' (41/el) (yCl/ ell me. Bed 68.nacilee Class (yCl) (yCl) 39 fttri e 94' W, see "*f 2:10' 4:10' latt i t ale * '
- 4 (3:10 ) * *
- 4:1D
- 4:30*I St. well Y, see 8'*f a 8 10 8
3:10 5 g, g g* 7 , , 29 1t t e t w + t. it, see 8'*Y 4:10' 2 10 I 6:10*I 2 10*I *
- 4 2:10 '
(5:10 ) * *
- 7s10 St. mall 6:10*I 2 10 *I Y, see 8'*f
- Isl0 I *
- 3 40 firssL,l e 64 0, all campounds escept
- these given for W and Y la10 3
esto 3 2s10 6 ba10 9 2s10- , falu 4 W, en Ide s*,* hy'aro a l'oe s , 3 hellee6 and nitrates
- 3:10 lato*6 d a t e *
- Y, certies 2:10 I l a M*' 3e10*I * *
. 40 ,m .... 0. see ,, ..e ,siO 2 ,a>0 0 3aie a ,aw , ,alo 4 a
W, see 8'2r
- Sal 0 I
late *I Falfe* N * * ' Y, see 8'ir - 3al0 I Is10*I 4:10* N *
- 40 2ercen6 e tt 0, seeUlr 2:10 3 4:10 3 1:10*' la10*I 2 10*, g,3g 4 I W, see 8'2 r
- 2:10 I 1:10*' 3:10** *
- Y.,see 8'2 r
- 2 10 I 1:10*6 3:10 *8 *
- iacie 3 reis 2
- ietie 2 SCtuPAtto w VAtuti htfulmCf LIVt.L KttAst 10 Cont (sitAtloss $N EA*4 l Cel. la Cal. 2* Cel. 3* Cel. 1* Cel. 2*
r oral leselatten Issathly l legestion All BAC Air Water Avere9e l Atesic At! ne, seatenuelles Class (yCl) (yCl) (yC1/el) (>Cl/el) (Al/el) (yCl/el) l de lirte.elue 93 'O, see "ir la10 8 kl0 0 ' 3:10" * * * ('3a10 3 2 gg,ggi )
- 2 10*II 4:10*I 4:10**
l 6ene surf. Sene svef. l W, see 8'Ir
- 2 10 I 1410
*8 * * *
- I
($s10 )
- Sal 0*II *
- S o o svef.
t V, see 8'2 r
- 6:10 I 2 10*8 - *
- l
- 1 1,la 10 (3410 ) * *
- some serf .
40 lirten harti ~0, see 86g , g,3,3 g,gg i 6:10**
- isl0*I 2:10**
(le10I ) - 4:10*I8 * *
&Jne surf.
W, see 8'Ir
- 4:10# 2:10*I na ta* N' -
- 7, see 8'It
- 3:10 2 g,y,*7 g,y*H , ,
40 Itetw[e97 0, see 8'Ir 4:10 2 fa10 3 as10 4 hid*I $s10*I ~9a10*I W, see esg , , g,gg i 6:10*I talei *
- 80 Y, see ft
- 1a19 3
6 10*I laud * * {41 alsbl e te! W all cameewws exept 4 % these Steen for Y ' Sale 2:10 '9 10 al 3aF0*2 * * (tsle") * * *- ta l0* I lat0*I St. wel
" 7 estees'e.v, byersalees I 2a10 9:10*I as'10*I *
- a Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. e / Thuteday, January 9,1986 / Proposed Rulet 11H iei, a rese TET7 7 GCCUPAllossAt VAtut$ MitMesCI ttYtt MLIA51 10 CassCtettAficers SMsact Cel. la Col. 2* Col. 3* Cel la Cel. 2*
espataly Crel Ineseletlea lasettlen - All SAC Air taster everese All Atemic Class (pCl) (wCl) (pCl/el) (pCf /el) (adf/el) (wCi/st) 04dlanutilee S me. W, see " un 1 10' 4:10' 2:10* * &a)0'8 1:10** 1:10*3 el a6eti e tt 3 8 * *
, Y, see 88 2
- 4:10 2s10*I 6:10*8 (66 ein)
- 88 6 10 3
2:10' Osit*8 3:10*8 ' Is l0*I 2s10
- 41 micel e tt
- W, see 2 4 6 *8 *
- Y, see "8 8e
- 2s10 6s10 2s10 (122 ela) 3 d la10
*I late d
41 a6e6 tw to W, see N 1:10 3 3:10 1:10*0 4ste
- 3
- f, see88 2
- 2:10 1:1'0*8 3a10 ' *
'41 edtwlle W, see88m 9:10 3
2:10 3 4:10*I 3 10 '
- 8 *
- 1a10*4 1:10*3 (1 10 ) *
$ LLI mall I , ,
Y,see Sa m
- 2 10 7:10*8 2 10 10 I 2 g,3,* 0 3a10*10 la10*I 1:10*4 el bletilate W, see80m 9:10 2:10 2:10I '
f, see N
- 6:10 ' 2:10*3I *
- 3
*4 V, see882 2 10 3
3:10 Is10*I 4: 10* ' 3:10*I 3:10 41 al.sb6 w 95e 3 *I d *
- f, see88 m
- 2s10 1:10 3:10 I 3 ba10*I 2:10*' as10*I 3:10
- 41 a6e64 w 95 W, see N 2 10 1:10 Y, see 08:e - 1:10 3
Sale *I 2:10*'
- g ,,3g al W, s,4 N 1:10 3
3 10 3 1s10 6 tal0*I 2:10**
** el a6eo6e 96
- V, see m 88
- 2:19 3
1:10 6 3an0 '
- idle z - Imie 3 raie a MllA5( 10 OCCWAllossAt VAtut! M f!8INCE LITll -
Concisisail0ers $(Wi ti, Cel. le Col. 2- Cel. 3- Col. 1* Cel. 2* Isoathly Crel InAeletisa Average DAC Air Water la9estloa All All Ateelt Class (wCl) (pCl) (wCl/el) (wCl/el) M l/el) (wCl/el) De. ledleauclide *3 l 1:10* # 3:10** 3:10 W, seeasse 2:10' 4:10' 3:10* * ! 41 alvel.e 91 3
- Y, see N
- 7:10" 3:10* $ ls10*I -
*8 * *3 Is10'I 7s10 2:10
- 2:10 u ta6 te M I W, see ho 88 Isle' 5:10' 41 *8
- f,see 88ae
- 1:10' 2:10*I 7:10
- 42 lblyweaw t0 0, all compewaes esteet 2:10 3
7:30 3 3 10 6 1s10
+0 late al 3 slo *4 these gleen for Y I f, onlees, hydeeslees, 3 Isle.6 este+9 *
- and mi g
- Sale 8 *8 este d 6:10
- 0,see N 4:10 3
2 10 7:10*4 2:10 3 42 b ly w e w sle i 6 g,3g* 0 , , 1, see N * !alo 4s10
* *I N 3
$sl0 I
2:10
*I 7s10 ' bal0 5:10**
0, see P4 4:19 ! 42 AsolAse w t1 I *8 3 ale *IO * *
- f, see N
- 2:10 8s10 3 I 6 4:10* ' is10
*I t a l 0* '
42 Nipw.wll 0, see N 1:10 3:19 I 1:10
*I f, see N
- 1s19 6:10 2 10*' * *
*6 *4 6:10*3 I isl0*I 6al0 laelpweawl0l I i
- 0. See N ennu IslJ 6s10 42 I 6:10
*I isl0*I - *
= T, see N
- ls10 A
0, all campounes escest d
' 43 lechetia tle I Debe given for w 7:10 4
2 10 I 6:10 0 Is l0* I la iv' 3 tale 0 W, e s tee s , kyeres lJe t , *
** hellees, one oltrates
- 3s10 I
3:10
- del 0*I
- l
1240 Federal Resister / Vol. 81 No. 6 / Thursday, January 9.19ee / Proposed Rules . Isle a Taele i Isle a GCCUPATionAt WAtWS affitinC( Ltytt ettgAsg ;0 CONC (NTRAfl@el $ffa4*[ . Col, le Cel. 2* Cel. 3* Col la Cel. 2* Crel lanelatlea lb thly Ateelc' Incestion All SAC Air heter Average Atl me. 8edi m itee Class (yCI) (yCl) (pCl/el) (pCl/el) (di/el) (pCi/el) 43 funnetf e ll S see H*1c 3:10' 7s10' 3:10** 1:10* ' 4:10** 4:10*3 I W. See '3*1c
- la10 da10*I 3:10*I *
- 43 TuhnelleMa# 8, see '3*Tc 2s10' 4:10' 2:10 5 4:10*' 3:10*
- 3:10*3 W, see '3*Ic g 10 8 2:10*5 4:10*I * *
- 4) Iwaset te H 8, see II*Ic 9:10 3 2:10 8
8:10*' 3 10*' 1:10** 1:10*3 W, s+e '3*It
- 2:10' la10*I 3:10 ' *
- 43 1Mlmell e 96e I 0, ne 83*Ic 2:10I 3:10 I 1 10** 4:10*I 2:10*3 2s10 *#
5 W. See '3*lc *
- 2:10 1s10** 3:10*I *
- 43 IWt== t le M 0, see II*It 2:10 3 3:10 3
1:6I 4:10*' 3al0*I 3a10*8 W, see II*ic
- 2:10 3 9:10*I 3:10*' * *
- 4) IM 6=,e t le 9 ?e 0, see '3*ic I I Sal 0 1s10 310*6
- 6:10 *I 6:10* *
- I (8a19 1
- 1:10*' * *
- St. mall W. See3*Ic
- 1:10 3
bal0*I 2 10*' *
- 43 Tu hnetl e ll 9, 6ee bc 4s10' Sal 0' 2 10*I 2:10*8 S a l0*
- 5:10*3 y W. See '3*fs
- 6:10 3 2:10*6 4:10*' * *
~ 43 Techne tiete e, see '3*1c 1:10 3
2 10 3 7:10*I 2a10*' 3,3,*4 1:10 b W. 6ee II*Ic
- 3:10 I 1:10 4:10*10 . .
T ele I laele z
- Tale 3 OCCWAllomAt VAtW5 MitatuCL L!vtI attla$( 10 CONcf aieallosig * $(w a Ar.f Col. 1* Col. 2* Col. 3 Cel la Cel. 2 Orel lanoletten monthly lacestlee All DAC Air Wa ter Average Ateelt Atl be. Aedienuclide fless (41) (wCl) (yCl/el) (pCl/el) (di/el) (41/= O
- 4) ixhas tle t$e 3, we H*1c 4 10' 2:10' 6:10*
- 2:10*' 1 10*3 1s10*#
W, see 83*Ic
- 2 10 I 1:10** 3:10*I *
- 43 1Mhne tiett 0, see 83*Ic 4:10 3 S:19 3
2:10 4 anle d 6:10 4 6:10
- W, see '3*It
- 7:10 2 3,3 g* 7 9:10*10 , ,
43 lubs*Ll e 10lI 0, see '3*ic 9:10' 3:10 I 1:10*
- Sal 0*I *
- I * *
- 2:10*3 S10*2 (Isl0)l St. wi W, see Ic
- 4:10 % ! ale *' Sal 0*I *
- 43 I nt.,4 6e 104I' D, see 'I'lc 2:10' 7:40' 3sl0*I Isl0*I * *
(tal0*) * *
- 4:10
- dal0 *I St. emell W, see
- 1c
- 9:10 8
esl0*I 1:10*I *
- 44 Sutheale H I 9, all cessmnes oncept the6e thea for v end T 2:10 4
4:10 4 2:10*g este,g kalt,4 2:10 3 W, hellees 8 6:10 Sal 0*I 9:10*' * *
, ,, eeless and byeresteet
- 6:10' 2:10*I 8410*' * *
{* 44 Sothemi w 97 ' 8, seeHav 6:10 I 2:10' este*6 3a 10*' 3:10** 1al0*I W. 644 N av
- 8 ba10*'
1a10 2s10**
- t , . .e. ~ . ,.,0 ,0 . 2.,0 .. * .
Federal Basister / Vol.11. No. e / Thursday, lemory e 19e6 / rroposed thdes tin
..e. ...>e, ...e, SCtWAllostAt VAtu(1 affitteitt Livlt a(LtAtt TO CasiC2a,fAAfOuS Md REf Cel. 1* Cel. 2* Col. 3- Cal. la Col. 2 Deal tes t atin meathly legest6ee All SAC Air heter everage Atemic All see. Sed
- wellee Class M 1) M e) Ml/st) MI/el) M l/el) M l/el) 44 anneel w 101 0, see De 2:10 3
2:10 3 7:10 " 2:10*3 3a10' 3410** W, seeNov
- ls10 I 4:10*I 1:10 '
Y, seeNau 2 ,
- 6:10 3 10*I 9:14 10 ..
44 avueel w l0% 0, seeMae 6 10 3 2:10' 6:1/0 2nd0 7 10 4 fad' W, seeHav
- 1:10' 6:10*0 2:14*0 *
- Y, see "8e
- 1:10' 5:10*0 2nd' * *
< 44 Aste=ei e l06 0,sel N8v 2:10 2
es10 I 4:#0 1sle
*10 3,3,6
- 3,g t
- W, see "de
- Ss10 I file d 7:10*II *
- Y, see " se
- Is10 I
- Sal 0 ' 2:10*II *
- 45 As wdiwtiin 0, all cess,eunds esceot these gten for W and Y 2:10, 6e10 4 2:10.g esta.3 2:10,, JaJ e.3 W, 6416ees
- 6:10 4
1:10
*I ladI *
- Y, esides and'brerosides
- 7:10" 3:10*I tid 8 *
- 45 thwdis et 8, see D n 2 10 I 3 10 I 1 10*' tale *' 3adI Jad" s W, see % - 2a10 3
9:10*I 3:10* ' ' *
- Y, see N em
- 2:10 I Sal 0*I 3410*I *
- 0, see Dn Y 3 2:10*' Pale d 2adI 2:10**
$46 A W e 100 Za10 6:10 W, see h an - 4:10 3
2:10*' 5:10** *
- l' Y, see N am
- 4:10 3
2:10*0 6:10*' *
- 1.ie 1 v.le . Ie66e J l GCCuPAll0 hat VALU($ Hfte(NC1 ttvit tit 1 AM 10 1 ConctwitAf10m9 Md REf Col. la Cel. 2- Cel. 3 Col. 1* Col. 2*
Gral labeletten 8ketAly lege646ee All DAL Air Wter Average Atanic All ele. Eas,emellee Ctess GCl) Ml) MI/al) Ml/el) M I/el) M I/el). i l 45 Ikedi e lets 0, see % 4.a10 3 1a10' Sale" 24141 Sala As10" W, see %n
- Sa10 3 4:10 6 g,g t , ,
Y, see ha
- 8410 3
3 10 ' tal0*I *
- 0, see N an 2<10 I
Se10 I 2:10*I Fadle 3,gt 3,.. 46 ammaH e l01 W, se e N an
- Ss10 2
3al6*I 1s10*I *
- Y, see %m
- 2al0 I 6410 8 g, g g*10 , ,
l i 45 a w e la2. O, ne *n isi0 3 isie! ,,gr ,, f al ,,gs , o,* 4
, j W, on
- ta - 4410 I
2ndI Sal 0*I' *
- Y, see
- Re
- 1:10 I
as 2*8 g,gg le , , 45 88+so w l02 0, on *an 4 10 2 ,,3g 1 4,g t 3,gle Osle es10*I W,64, % n - 2:10 2 7:10*I 2a10*IO *
- 6:10 I
- Y, see %
- 2:10*8 Aa29' AI *
- tl ' shoe s wl01e 2 0, see "sn 4e10 I
1:10' 1:10** h 10*6 6a10*I 6 10*2 W, see %
- 1:10' Se 10*
- 2410*0 a'
- Y, see
- ft
- 1:10 0
6:10*4 2 altd *
- 4 45 theel w 10$ 0, see %n 4 10 3
1a10 Sale
- 0 h tt*I bel 0*I Sel0**
W, see % s
- 6s10 3 3ag6 3,3,*9 , ,
Y, see b
- 6:10 I 2:10*' Asiti *
- 1182 Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 6 / Thursday. January 9.1986 / Proposed Rules Teie 2 Teie z Teie a SC4WPAllonAt VAtutl atf(atuCE ttV!L AftIA5( 10 ConCIW14Aflon5 5(4 8 A01 Cel, la Cel. 2* Cel. 3- Cel. 1* Col. 2-Oral Inhalatlea monthly lagestlea All GAC Al* HeLor Average Ateelc ALI se. 4.idf eaw:llee Class (yCl) (wCI) (pCf/el) (yCf /el) (yCl/el) (yC1/st) 46 thed6 e lMe 8, see % 4a10 3
3:10' 1:10** 4a19 1 1a10** 1 10*3 W, see N
- 4:10 8
2:10*I 6:10*8 *
- T,see' % n
- 4sle' tal0*I la10*8 *
- 2 46 Amedt e 107 8. see % 7a10 8
2 10 5 g,gg 4 3,gg 7 1:10*3 1:10 2 W, see D n
- 3s10 5
I:10** 4:10*I * * -
- f. see % +
3:10 I 1a10** 4 10*I *
- 4 Pelladi e 100 8. ell coopeunes eacept these eiven for w end T late 3 late 3 6a!0,, fate,, ,g 2:10 ,
late
$ W, altrates
- 1s10 3
Sal 0*I 2:10*I *
- 3 7 esides and byereslees,
- 1:10 6a10*E 2:10*I * *
# Palladi e 101 0, see #Pd 8 1:10 ' 3:10' tal0*I 410*I 2a10** 2:10*3 W, see #Pd
- 1a10 8
1 10*I 6a10 0 , , V, sq #Pd
- 3 40 8
1:10*I 410*I *
- 6 10 I 46 Pallwi e 103 0,see 108 3 Pd 6:10 3s10*I 9:10*I *
- 3 (0:10 ) * *
- 1:10** 1:10*3 til well
= W, see #Pd
- 4:10 3 2:10 6 6a10*I -
- I'8 f- T. see PW
- 4:10 3 1at0*I Sal 0*I *
- 4 Tete Tele z Idle 3 OCCuPAllonAt tAtutl Mrtatact L(vit' M LIAst 10 Cose'tuTutlows st < AAM Cel. 1 Cel. 2- Col. 3- Cel. 1 Cal. 2-Gral inhalatlea apathly Incestion All DAC Air Wate r Aver 6p Ateelt All ae. Sadle w lfde Class (pCl) (41) (yCl/el) (wCl/el) (yCl/el) (vCl/el)
M Palledl e te? O,see 3"Pd 3:10' 2:10' 1:10** 1a10*
- 4:10** 4s10'3 W, see 20074
- 7 10 I 3a10*I ' tal0*I *
- 300
- 7. see Pd'
- 4:10 2 g,gg*F &a10 10 , ,
# Palledl e 109 B, see #Pd 2:10 3 6410 3
3:10*I Sal 0*I 3:10*I 3s10*8 W, see #74 I 6:10 2:10*I ta10*I *
- 7, see #Pd
- 6:10 3
2:10 6 Gal 0*I *
- I 47 lilver.107 8. all r e escest 4 tAsse elvea for W and Y Lal0 2 10 % tale n 3 3C'7 6410'4 6:10 3 ,
W sitrates and so)* flees - 2:10 9a10*I 3:10*I -
- 7 ealees and hydrealdes * . fale I es10*I Sal 0*I *
- 47 lileer 10lI 8. see I"I AS 4:19 8
1:10 I 4:10*I la10* I Sal 0
- Sa10*3 e W see #At
- lal0 I int 0*I f al0* I *
- 38A 5 Y, see A0
- 1:10 ba10'I 2:10*I
- 47 llinr-194e 2 g, ,,, WAS Sale' 9s10' 4:10*I la10* I 4a10
- 4s10*3 W, see N AS
- 1:10 I
lalt*I fale*I * * { Y, see #At - 1 10 I
$ste*I 2:10 0 *
- litw r 104 I 3, o e #At 8 8
{47 3 W, see M 2s 19 1:10 I 3s10*I la10* I 1a10** 3:10*3 AS 1a10 6a10*I 2:10* # * *
*= I f see #At
- 1al0 & ale *I fal0*I * -
1843 Federal Regirlef / Vol. St. Ilo. 6 / *Ihurs.iey,*lenvary 9.1988 f Proposed Rules
=
- m. - vaie 2
~ imei .imei AffleteCl livlt tit!A5E 10 GCO#4110 set V ALU($ $t d aat.,(
Coset (Nie Allons __ ~ tel. 2- Cel. 3- Cel. le Cel. 2-Cal. I- Anthly Oral lehlation Air unter Average 0AC Laoestion Att El (pCl/ ell (a4 8/el) M i/ ell M irell Ates6, Class M l) (stil
- me. 9
- 3 3 4:10 1:10* ' 4:10
- 4:10* *
- 8. See # g A as10 1s10 47 th 3 Fal0
*I 2:10* ' *
- W,see I'#Ag
- 2:10 7, su # Ag - 2s10 3
Fal0*# 2:10 '
- 8. see 1024 , ,,g, t 7 10
# 3:10*I 1:10*' , 1:10
- 1:10
- 47 Silveral06e # 4s10
*I 1:10 '
- W, see #As
- 9:10 2 4:10
*I lal(' *
- V, sov # Ag
- 9:10 4:10' 2:10
$ 8:10 0 3:10*I 4:10*' 4:10*3 Silver 106
# 0,see'302Ag *I *I *
- 47 I 9:10 3r10 W, see #Ag
- 2:10 g 2:10 0
4:10 5 gg,J. , ,
- 7. See #Ag
- 1:10 0 I
2:10 8:10*8 is10* N Sal 0 ' 47 ill ee-loon 0, see' # Ag 6's10
# 10 , ,
W, sei # Ag
- 3:10 lal0*I 4:10 1:10
- lsl0 *II
- 3
- y, see' #Ag * '2:10
*8
- 4 2 I ks10 2:10 20 6 10 ' 6:10 .
0, see # Ag 4 10 1:10 ' 47 Silver !!0s 2 ,,gg s 3s10
*N *
- W, see IO#A0
- 2:10 9:10 I 4:10** 1:10 10 , ,
Y, see # Ag
- 5 5
6
~
, im,i ime, imea
- 8(IttinCE tivt(, 8(tf A5( 10 l OCCUPAlloedt VALW5 5tW t e.t cosettu1utlens tel. 2 Cel. 3* Cel. 1 Col. 2 Cel. I Heathly Oral inhalatlea Water Average legentlea All DAC Air 4teelt A41 M1) (pCll M l/ ell M I/el) (Al/ ell (pCUni) me. 84eio 41(de Class'
- j W Ag 9:103' 2:10 3
6:10*# 2:10 " l 47 lilver Ill 9,see *
- 1a10*I 1:10**
(Isl0I)
- l Ltl sell *
- l
, ggg t 4:10*I 1410*I W, su 1023 ,
,,gg t g7 la10*I *
- T see 1024 , ,
tal0 *I 4:10
- O, see # Ag 3:10 I
tal0 I 3:14*6 1:10 ' 47 Silver ll! *I 1 30*8 *
- W, ses WA
- 1a10" 4:10 ta'0 I 7, su # Ag g
- 4:10* ' 1:10* *
*3 4:10*I 1s10*I 4:10* ' 4:10 t 0, see # Ag 3:10" 9:10' of SilverallS 4:10 6 1:10* # *
- W,su # As
- 9:10' T,su # Ag - am10' 3:10*I t e!0* I t
I S, all compounds estest g 3:10 og telt.3 3:10 4 3 ale. g . s' 44 , C a lie 104 unsee given for W end t 'Jale 7s10, W, wlflees, Nilees, g og 2:10,, * *
- Isle late sad altrates *I * *
- la10 I
Sal 0 2:10*I Y, onlNs *M treres tee s 8 2:10*I 7a10'I 3a10** 3:10*3 0, see #C4 2:10" 6:10 44 Caeslum-107 , , W, see #C4
- est0" !s10*I 6s10 6
$
- Sa10' 2:10*I fale*I - -
Y, see
- C4 e
m _ , , - - .
1164 Federal Register / Vol. St. No e / Thursday, january 9.1986 / Proposed Rules raie a voie vaie 3 OCCWAll0 mat WALW5 NF(0(utt t(vit f(t[AM 10 Couttu14Af f ons ug TAM Cel. I- Cel. 2 Cel. 3- Cel 1 Cel 2 6tal ' lahalatten floathly Ataalt Ingestion .All SAC Air Olater Averace ALI leo. Godlw,uclide Class (yCl) (yCI) (Al/el) (/thl) (pCl/el) (pCi/st) 40 Cael w 109 8. see #C4 3a10 3
'4a103 1:10*' 6a10
*33 4:10*' 4:10 4 W, see #Cd .
1:10 I la10*8 2:16 10 , , T. See #Cd
- 1:10 ba10*8 fale lo , ,
40 Cedm6w113e 9, se, #Cd bl0 I 2 10 0 1:10*'
- II 3:10*I 3an0 3 10 '
W, see #Cd
- Sa10 0
410*'
- s10 *II *
- V', see #Cd
- h10 I 5:10*I ~2a10 *II -
- 44 Ce e l e ll! 4. see #Cd I 0 2s10 2:10 9:10*IO 4al0*II 3st0*I h30 6 g V, see #Cd
- Sal 0 0
3a10*I as10*II *
- y, see #Cd -
tale l 6a10*' '2:10*II *
- 44 Ceinai w llis 3 see #Cd 3:10 2 qyg t g,gg 0 Sal 0*II 4:10* E 4:10*I W, ese #Cd *- 6,4 I La L0* 8 2s10 10 , ,
7, see #Cd
- 1 10 2
6a10* 8 1a10 10 , , g,gg i 44 Cedmiellt 9. See #Cd $ste t 6:10*I 2 io talo 5 3,;g e , W, see #Cd - 3:10 I Sal 0*I 2a 10*' *
- Y, see #Cd a 1:10 I
6:10*I b10*I *
- g 44 feJaie ll7e 8, see #Cd 6410' 1:10' Sal 0*' 2:10 '
sal 0
*I sal 0** ,
1* W, see #Cd
- 2a10' 2a10 6 g,gg*4 , ,
i; t, seg #Cd *
.tato' 6 10*' 2:10*8 -
- o w
lacie a Idle z - Idle 3 OCCWAlloedt TAtW5 fir (atMt L(vtl. ML[AM 10 CoastIktIA110a5 M W taCl l Cef. 1* Col. 2 Cel. 3- Cel. 1* Cel. 2* Oral Intialetten 8teathly l ingestion All Alasic CAC Afr Water Average All me. Gedicaia:lide Class (di) (AI) (Al/mit(yCl/al) (Al/el) (yCl/el) i ed Coelell? O, see '#C i la10 3 '1 10' 5:10** (2:10*' 6a10** 6:10** ! W, see #Cd a bl0' ** 7a10 6 2a10*8 *
- 7. He #Cd *
.1a10 0
6:10 6 2:10*I - *
' ., le,w m 0. 11 . s s..e.,
tasse Olsen for W ble, dale, lato., dele., Salo., 3 10. , W, ealms, nrdru i e , nellees and altrates * &alo, 3ala., t a le. , *
- 49 Indiw1102 g, ,,, min ble' 4:10 8 2:11 6 6:10*8 2:10** *I l M l *la) y, o , 1011a *
'a
'6'100 2a10 f al0*I 4: 4 0* * *
- 41 lads e lle 9, see # le I 2:10'
(" A "I 1a10 Fale 6 2a /
- 7:10*I Fal0**
, W, see # la
- 7:10 0 Sall 6 3:10*0 *
- IH la 6 10 I 41 jadewill 8, see 4:10 3 Sal 0* Sal 0*' &a10*I 6a10**
W, see # 1a
- 6:10 3 (
3:10 *"' , 9:10*I *
- 41 ladiell2I p,ne # n i 2:10 I & ale l
Sal 0*
- ta10*I '2a10 2 210*#
4, see # le.
- Fal0 I 3: 10,' ' ta ll,** *
- 09 ladi,se !!3mi 3, see # 1r 6:10' isie l 6ai4* I fale*I 7:10** Fa10*3 W,we # 1a -
2:10 I Sal 0* I 3:10*I *
- J 4, i.e,wilo ,, s.e ~01 ,.10 2 6alei 3 10 0 ,10 n 4 10 ,
. W, see # 1a #
4806
- Lat0 4a10*3 1:10 10 , ,
I l
Federal Rr6sler / Vol. St. No. 6 / nursday, January 9.1968 / Proposed Rulet 11C o Iat,ie a tele z lamie 3 OCCUPAfl0 MAL VAtuts M ffethCI Ltytt efttA5( TO CDeutIaTU1tems $(waet Col. 1* Col. 2- Col. la Col. 1- Cel. 2 . - . ~ Oral Inhalatlea flerthly Ingestlea All GAC Alt laster Anr60e Atealt' ALI ar. DeJieawcifee Class (yCl) (pCl) (pCl/el)(pCl/ ell (Al/el) (pCl/el) 49 ledle 115e 0, see 3"la 1:10' 4:10' 2:10*' 4 10
- Sa10** 2:10*3 8 *8
- W, see # 1a
- Sa10 2:10*I 7s10 *
*N 4:10 I 0 Sa10*'
49 ladle 11- 0, see # in 1:10 6410 10 2:10 Sal 0*I 8 si, see # la 2s10*' feu 12
-
- 5:10 49 ledi m ll6e I 0, see M ia 2:10" es10 8
3:10*I la10*I 3:10** 3al(I 5 5 *I
- W, see # la
- 1:10 S.10 2sl0 ./-
- 49 lattim l!Pe t 9. See Ila lato" 3aM' tal(I '5:1(8 f a M*
- 2aH*I W, see # la a 4:10' 2:10*I 6a10*8 *
- M *I 0, see E la 8 I 5 es10*I 49 leWe,= Il7 I 6:10 2:10 7s10 2:10 0 10**
9:10 5 3:10 *I W. see # in
- 2:10' -
- 49 1 46= 189.2 0, see # in tale" 3:10
$s10*I 2:10*I * *
($sID'l * * '* 7:10** 7:10*I 5t. wall
- I W. See # !n
- 1:10 6:10 5 2s10*# *
- S0 f6a Il0 0, all ceneeends escept 4 these gleen tw W esto 1
l's'104 Sal 0 6 2a10 0 5:10 l late W, selflees, estees, 3 bydreslees, felides. j mitrates, and stennic pt46paate - astu 4 5:10 6 2:10 0 -
- 5 1.oie a satie z Isole J OCCuPAflosiAt valut$ Offtetutt Livit
- K LIAst 70 Consttuf utions
- 5 tweet Cel. 1 Col. 2 Col. 3- Col. I- Cel. 2 840atAly
- oral lahelatlea lagentten All BAC Air W4Let Aurage Ateele All (yCl/el) (pCl/el) (yCl/el) (yCf/el) die.
- Seelenuclide
- Class (pCl) (pCI) 3 4 3:10*' 1:10*3 1:10*3 50 lla lll 3 0, see 3"Sa 2s10' 2:10 9:10 l
l W, see IU 5a *- 3:10 I 1:10
- A s10*I *
- fal0 I I 2sl0*I So fin ll) 0, su IN 5a 1:10 .1:10*I 2:10*8 2s10**
W, see'IN5a ' a 5:10 2:10'I Sa10* U *
- II0 la I 1:10 I lat0*I
- 2:10*I 2:10
- to fia ilie 8. see 2:10 3
* (2:10 )
- 3:10*' * -
Gene eerf W, see IN 5a - 1:10 3 6:10*I 2 10*' * - g I 3,gg* 9 0, su IN ia I . ,
' $4 finallta 3:10 2:10 1 10*6 (is10 l I * *
- 7et0*I is ti" (Ll esti 1:10 I talifI iste*I * -
W, we ,IU sa , 50 lin 121e! ,, ,,, l Hg, 3,gg i 9:10 2 ta10*I & ale d 4al0*I onli' I 2:10*I tal0* H +
- W, see 110 5a = lil0 to P . 123 0,see IU la 6sl0 I 2:10' 6:10*' 2:10'0 est0*I ,
0:10** W, see II'h
- 1:10' talg6 g,3g 0 , ,
,s a >
Iw i a ul. 8. See iM,a ,sie ta a, s inie i taic , sic e W. s.e m ,a . 1 10 ,al0 , 2.,0 2 . . N
~
1146 Federal Registar / Vol. St No. 6 / Thursday, january 9,19et, / Proposed Rules Taie i Iaie i Iaie a OCCWAfloaAL VAtut! MftetmCI ttvil N LI A51 10 _ COICIW188130m5 StwteAct Ce l. 1- Cal. 2- Col. 3- Col. la Col. 2- ~ emel inhetstion monthly Ateele lesestion Ael WC Air Wter Average me. El AmeJeawcifee Class (yCI) (e,C1) (Ai/el) (yCl/e?) (wC f /e1.) (pCl/st) W Ita 123 f, see #$4 6mW 6a103 3:10*# ted
- 3 14 ' 1:10*
- W, see M 5a -
th10 I 7:10*8 3a10*I8 -
- i le 11a 125 9. see D 5a 4:10 I 9 10 2 4:10*I la10 ' *
- I *
($alc )* = = . Fal0 ' Pilo 5 til mell k, see N 5a ta10 2 30 1:10*I ha10 . . W Tin 126 9, see D 5a 2 I 3 10 es10 2:10*8 Sal 0 *II 4:10 6 , ,,gg S W, see N 54
- I 2a10 3:10*8 ts10* II - -
'A tin 127 0, see U sa tal0 *I I *8 h10 2 10' s 10*I 3a's 3:10**
W 6ee M an
- 2a10' 8a10* 6 kl0 *8 - -
50 16a-12t I 9, su M sa 9:10 3 8 *8 3:10 1 10 5 4:10 1:10** 1:10*3 W, see D ie 8 4:10' la10*I Sa10 - *
$1 ent w y*ll5 2 0, all ces <wds encept these Oleen for W 4:10' 2:10 I 1:10* ' 3:10*I 1:10*3 1:10*#
W, sa tees, hyme6ees, hellees, swif 6ees,
. sulfates, one attrates -
3:10 I Isle
- en te* I -
- St Ansleeny-ll6e I 0,see 115 2 4 D2 2:10' 7.10 kle*I In20*I 3a10** 3:10*3 W, see
- 1:10 I 6a10*I 2 10*# *
- Iebie 1 Iaele J Isaie 3 GCCUPAflomat VALUt3 MffilNCE tfWe Nt(15( I4 Conct uf 8 A tlems . $(et sAuf l
l Cat, le Col. la fel. 3* Lel, la Col. 2-i Gral lauhalatloa Meathly Ingestion . At i DAC Air Wter Average Ateelt A&l he. Seeleauclies Class (yCl) (AI) (yCl/el) (pC l/el) (yCl/el) (wCi/ ell
$1 Anttooey-lle 8, see M ae asle' 1410' Lalf' tale" !a10* # la W#
W 6ee D &4
- h10 I 1:10** ,$aWI * -
ll Aatlesey lif 8, see W2 7 10' tal0 I M &4 fal0*I 3s10*I 9:10** , 9:10*I - W, see - h10 I 1:10** 4 ale *I *
- St Antleeay llas 8,see M 54 I *I *I Sa10 2:10' sal 0 3a.68 Fal0 7 10**
W, see U $4 4 2:10' 9 10*6 3,3,4 . . ll Antleeay*119 0,see 115 2 h10' la10 8 tal0*I 6:10*8 2:10** 2:10*3 ! $ W, su M $a - 3 10' lal0*I 4:10*8 *
- W it l bl Aattenay 120 I 8, su I I ne10 4:10 2:10*8 es10*I * -
(16 sia) (3:105 ) . . . tal0'I 2:10*I at mall W, see M 14
- S Sal 0 2:10** Pal 0*I * * '
51 Antionay*120' 9,see U se tal0 I 2:10 3 9:10*I kWI la t0*I II'I' 8I 1 10** W, see D 1:10 I 54
- la10* I rnWI =
- I in Ao46anay 122 9 see W k kle t le10 I tale *I hl4*I te10*I A )* 6 D ie W, see -
hl0 I 4:10*I h tt
*I - .
4 4 1
1M7 ! Federal Resister / Vol 51. No. 6 / Thursday, lenuary 9,1986 / Proposed Rules l I laWe a Imie z Imle 3 atFtHist! ttytt att1A51 10 l BCCUPAflonAt VAtut$ SMuol COnCin1Utfons Ce l . 1* , Cel. 2 Cel. 3* Cel. la Cel. 2- , lahelatten stentAly , Scal Average Ingestlea All DAC Air Water att Ataalt Se46pwellee Cless - -(pCI) (pCil (pCI/el) (yCl/el) (pCl/el) (yCi/el) me. *
- O, see 3A3 2 2:10' 8:10' 4:10
- 1:10 * *
- 51 Antl W 124e' I
- dal0* I 4:10 2 (h10) *
- St. well I *
- W, see 115 2 - 6a10 2:10*
- 6:10*I I 7W' *I St Artiesay 124 0, see 115 56 5:10 2
1:10 4:10*I talt Fal0
# 30 1:10*I 3:10 , ,
W, see III 56
- 2:10 2, se'e 115 54 2:10 3
2:10 3 lal0*I 3 ale *I 3:10 5 3:10
- St Antiemay-125 ,
5 10 # W, see III a
- 3 10*I 7:10 10 ,
*3 l ,g, ,,, 1153 , g,gg e g,ggs 8:10** 3:10*I ?a10*
- 7:10 58 Ant 6ecay*126e *5 5 3:10*I *
- W, see 115 56
- 2:10 4:10 6
klieway*126 0, see 'II56 5:10 I 1:10 I Sal 0 N Zal(I 1s10 7,,g*5
$8 115 2:10
*I 7:10*II - -
W, see 54 Sal 0f d *8 115 2 I 2:10 I la 10*I 3 ale Isl0*I 1:10 As umecy* 12 7 0, see fa10 St #
- W, see III 2
- 9:10 4s10*I 1:10*I -
- Ant 6eo..y* 128
# B, see 115 54 4:10' i,a10 I 2:10* ' la10*I * *
*I St la10 (10.4 ela) I * * * !s M* I (1:10 )
St. well III 4:10
% y,gg* 4 6:10*I *
- W. see M
. Iet,le 3 raole Iaele i atitetutt Ltytt alttAtt 10 CCCuPAttonAt vatVtl stwtext Comttutsat10ms .
Cat. 1* Col. 2 Cel. 3 Cel. la Col. 2* floathly Oral lahefallen , Average ingentlee All DAC Air Water Atf (wCl/el) (wCl/ ell (wCl/el) (pCl/el) Ateelt ,(yCI) (a46) Seele welice Class me. 333 56 1:10 3 4:19 3 2:196 6:10
- 2a10 *
!alf" 51 Antlanny*12e 0, see I *
(9.01 hl y, ,, Illk
- 3:10 lal0*I d al0*I
- I *8 4:10*I 4:10*3 115 54 3:10 9:19 3 4:10*I 1410 St Ant 6eonyalli 0, see I W, see III k
- 9:10 e st(I tal0*I -
- 6 *3 3:10*I 9:10 1sl0** 3:10 f 6, sw III 2 2:10' 6:10' 51 Antiee y 1)o 8 *
- III - 8:10 3s10*I tal0* I W. see h * *I is10*I
- 2s10
- 2:10 0, see III M leib" 2:10' St Antoerey*13t I *
* /3:10'l - 4:10*8 3 Ibyreie 8 *
- III 2 - 2:10 1:10 *
- W, see (5:10 )
8
- est(I *
- ferro64
*4 *3 52 te llur 6.ar il6 9, all compounds escopt 1 4 9a10'6 3 10*8 1:10 1s10 these given for W 4:10 2:30 W, ealees, Dyecouldet. - 3:10, Isl0 5 4s10+4 *
- eat a4trates t is10 I sal 0*I * * *
.letivriwel26m 0, see.IIIIe Salo I
tal0 *
%2 (6:10 )
2 (la10 )
- 4:10* II tal0*I eaae sve t. teae sur f.
] W, se, IIII , a 4:13 I 2:10*I 6 10 *II *
- 2 e*
l l
e 2388 podevel Register / y,L 54.No.e / reday, January 9, Ne6 / Prosponed Emles vele i Tele 2 Pole 3 GCCWPATI0 set VALUES AfflateG Liv (t titgA.sg to Coset!NTRAllons 5twtaAct Cel. 1* Cal la Ce l . 3* C41, 1- Cal. 2a Gral hhalatlea neathly. lhee stlea all SAC Air 16 ster Average Mee ft All lee. Se44nuslide Cl4s 6 M I) M i) GCI/a1) MS/el) GCLJm6) MVe1) 52 Tellurl e 121 0,see#he 3 10 3 4:10 # 2s10** GmW3 4a34*3 4m30" W, see D ie *6 *
- kl0 3 1a10 4:10 ' -
- M Tellerl e 121e 0,see II'io 6a10 I
2:10 2 g,3g 4 . , , 3 I (1 10 ) (5:10 .)
- 4a10*10 g, g g*l 1:10*4 Gene surf. Sene surf.
W, see 216 Te - Salo t 2s10*I h10*I8 -
- 12 1eller M 123 0, see ll6 Te Sm!0 I
2:10 2 Sa10*8 * - * (1:10 ) 3 (tal0I) - tagle 1:10*I 1:10*4 l % surf. Seae surf. W, ser M ie - 4ml0 I 2a10*I - -
- fla103 )
tone surf. 2:#' -
- M Telluri e lthe 0, ese II'Te bl0 3 4a10 I
2 10*I - tal0 *I 1 10*8 (1:103 ) - h10 ' *
- tone surf.
W, see II'To
- h10 I 3:10*I lad' * - '
M Telleriwl2h 0, see W ie s.10 2 3,3n t ,,gs int 0*I
- Sade I
(5:10 ) I - 4 10 10 , , tone surf. E le W, .see
- 3:102 la10 *I 4 ale *I8 -
- Im ie a T ale 2 Imie 3 OCCUPAfloedt VALU(5 187'.
- E t Ltvit' 8(l8A$f TO Couttn.uflows . StWsEt Cel 1* Cel. 2* Cel. 3* C41. la Col. 2+
trar lamelatlea locathly inpes tion 41 SAC Air Water Average Ateelt att to. Radiemuc lide Class (yCl) M l) (pCl/el) MI/el) M I/el) M I/ul) 12 lollerw127 0, see " Te h!0 3 2:10' 9:10** 1aW 8 Lal0" lal4 *3 W, see D e
- 2:10" 7:10*' 2:10*8 *
- E2 lelfwri w !!$e 0, see M ie Saf0 2
0:10 2 3,3g 7 g,gle 7,g 6 bl0 *I W, see M ie - 2 10 # 1 10*I 2a10*I8 -
- 62 Telfort w 12SI 0, su M ie Salo" 4:10' 3a10*I 9.W8 4:10** tr 0
*3 W, we D ie 7:10' 3a10*I 1s10*3 -
- 12 le l lwr haallie 8, see II'io 3s19 2
h10 2 2 10*I - *
- 5 f5:10#) (Isl0 31 -
2:10*' 7 10*' 7:10 0 Th rele thyro 6e W, see II'le - 4:10 # 2:10*I * * * (8sl0I )
- 1:10 d *
- Ihy re t e 12 lollec h ill 2 g, ,,,ll61e late) $sl0 3 2:10 '
(1:10 ) 3 (Islu ) i 2:10 4 la10*I 7s10** 16yrste l hy* u e W, see I3'fe
- 1:10 3
2 10*' * -
- 4 2
fla10 )
- 2:10*8 *
- 16rrois
Federal Reh / Vol. 51, No. 8 / hrsday, January s.1906 / Proposed Rules ties raie a Imie a Is le a RCIPAfl0h4 VALut$ N Flu MCI LIVfL CL1AM !0 w!mTRAfice6 M w tACI Cel. 1- Cel. 2 Cal. 3 Col. 1* Cel. 2 . monthly Oral lahalatten letter Average tapestion ALI SAC Air ALI A6eelt me, tedioamclide Class (A1) (yCl) (vCl/el) (Al/st) (esti/el) (Al/el) 3 - *
- 3 9:10*8 0, see 3 "Te 2:10 2:10 W Tellvrie lu I I
- 3:10 '
tal0*I Fall'I (Sal 0 ) (ta10 ) Thyreld it.yreld I *8 * *
- Y, see II'Te - 2:10 9 10 4,10 *10
* ($a10 )
1hyrein 3 *
- 116 1e 3 2a10
- I 0,see 3 10 Se10 W Tellwel m 113e I
- 2 10
*8 7:10 6 7 10 * * (Sal 0 ) (1:10')
thyn te thyre t s 3 * *
- W, see III Ie
- 6s10 2:10*0 E *
* (1a10')
- 2:10
- Ityreld
,g, ,,,116te 1:10' 210' 9:10 '
- 52 Telleri e l13 2
- 4a10
*8 4:10*
- 4:10
*I (3:10') (5:50') ,
thyn t e Skyvete
- W, see III Ie
- 2:10' h10 ' * * *
*8 * *
* ($a10')
- 4 10 Ihyreia en 1
Isle J , lele 3 I d le 1 Mtt A5( 10 4CDPAlloh4 VAtuts efftetutt Livtt ComClwitAtlemt W WitAct Cel. 1- Cel. 2- Col. 3* Col. 1 Col. 2 Meath)y Oral Isselation Water Average legentlea All 4AC Ale All (Af/el)(4(/st) (pCl/el) (pCl/el) Ateels (41) (41) to. RedlemcIlee Class 3 0, see Dhe 2:10' 2 10' isle i
- 2:10** 2:10*3 62 Tellwel e 144 *
* (Sa10')
- Sa10'0
- Thyeeld W, see III Ie
- 2:10' 1:10*I (ba10')
- Sa10*8 T>rrets 2 1:10" 2 10" 9:10 6 33, t 1:10** lal0*I il lowlw 120e 0, all compowds 3 *
- 3 4:10* '
- 2 0, all compowds 4:19 9:10 Si le46w*120 1:10*I (tal0I) (1 10')
- 2 10*8 tal0*0 3 threel8 1670e18 6 , , ,
3, all compewds 1:10' 2 sit' 8a10 63 ledin 121
- Sa10'0 4:10* ' 4s 0*I
'(la10") (1:10')
l>yrels 1>yrvia 3a10 I 4:10 3 3 ale 6 . , , 53 ledine*123 A, all compemes 8
- 3:14*8 1:10* ' 1a10* 3 (1:10") (2:10 )
l>yrote Ibyn te I tal0 I 0, all campe m es ha10 3:10 0 , ll IWlae lit I I
- 4:34*IO tale
- 0 2:19'I (2:10 ) (3:10 )
I~ Ipyrene thyret s le 1
1170 Federsi Register / Vol. St. No. 6 / Thursday. January 9.1966 / Propoted Rulee Tale i Tale 2 Iaie a OCCUPAll0 mat VAtW$ affleihCl tivit eft (All 10 Couttriestless 5tweast - Col. 1- Col. 2- Cel. 3- Cel. la Cel. 2-Ora) Inulatlea neathlv Ateele
' lagestloa All 4C Air lieter Average as, Ati Radioawllde Class (pCl) (rCI) (pCl/el) (pC1/el) (wCl/el) (rCl/el)
$3 losine 125 8. all campounds 4a103 .6a10 3 3a10*' * - *
(1:10I ) (2:10I )
- 3a10 *le 2:10 5 2:10*I Inyroid Inyre!J
$3 "ledine 126 8. all cespe mes tal0I 4:10 I 1:10*0 * *
- it:10I)
I (tal0 )
- 2:10 10 1:10 6 la10*I l>yreld layreld il ledine 110 I S. all compeeds 0 4:10 la10 I tal0*I 2:10*I &a10* * &a10*I 13 lodine 123 0, all campounds la10 0 0 k eml0 dale * * *
(2:10I ) (3a10 ) I
- enl0*II 3:10*I 3 10*'
thyroid Thyreld 13 lediae D0 9. all campamo est0 # 7:30 2 3 10*I * * * (fal0 I) 3 (Isl0 )
- 3a10*' talo *I 1:10**
l>yreld Inyreed 3 10 I 13 leswill D ell compowads 3
- Sa10 2:10*8 * *
- 2 I (1n10 ) ( ha10)
- 2al0*IO 1:10 6 g,gg*;
leyreld layreld 13 lodine 112aI S. all campovads es10 I 4:10 I e4a10*' * *
- 8
$ (1 10') (2:10 ) -
-3:10*8 1:10** 'al0*3 Inyreld Thyreld ^
5 . raie i iaio 2 ; iaie a ( OCCWAfloont VALW1 affitinCI tivtt titLAi! 10 ConCfwTRAflows ildeMt Cel . 1* Cel. 2- Cel. 3* Cel. I- Cel. 2 Oral lahalation meathly Ataalt in0estloa All SAC Air nieter Average All me. Aadioawllde Class (41) (41) (MCl/el) (pCl/el) (Al/el) (Al/el)
&3 ledlae*112 8. all a e ds 4e10 3
Sa10 3 3a10 4 * *
- 3 8 *8 (0 19 ) (2:10 )
- 2a10 lat0** 1:10*3
,T>yreld thyreld L3 ledine 133 0, all campounds 2 I 1a10 3a10 1 10*I * *
- 2 I (la10 ) fea10 )
- 1:10*' 7:10*' Fal0*I ibyrele Thyreld 51 ledine lHI 8. all campownes 2:10' 5a10' 2 10*I &a10* 8 * *
(3:10') * *
- 4a10** 4:10*I f luyreld
- 13 led 6ar II) 9. e'l campeones 410 2 g,gg 3 p,3,* 7 . , ,
(2:10 ) I 3 Thyreld (1a10)
- 4410*8 3a10*I 3 10**
Inyreld 54 tenea*120 5deersteal -
- lan0*I 4:10*8 * *
$4 Seawellt $dmersteaI
- tal0* !a10*8 *
- 64 sene.e122 $dmerslee I *
- Fale*I 3:10*I *
- 64 Beawlli 5dmer,len I * *
&a10*0 3:10*8 * * ,b b4 see a- $deersleaI p - .121 ,2, - ,, , !
Fale*I 7:10*8
,a,0 . ,0 .
1171 Fedep! Register / Vol. 5t No. 6 / Thursday, January 9.1986 / Proposed Rules y tale Isle z Iale 3 OCCWAll0 mat VALU($ h(ftttNC1 ttVit 8titAit TO ConcluttAffons $(wt Act ,, Cel. 1- Cal. 2- Col. 3* Col. 1- Col. 2 Oral lahalallen Isoethly lagestika All CAC Air Water Average steels All . N. Redtenwc ilee Clans . (pCl) (pCl) (pCl/el) (pCl/el) (pCl/el) (pCl/ ell H semm 129s $.mmerslea l -
- 2:10 9:10*' * -
I
- 4sro " 2a10 ' * -
H seava 131s $steerslen *
$dmersten I -
- 1:10*
- 6a10
*I - -
H senea ids I *
- 1:10** ls10*I * -
H reaen 133 Sidmersten I *8 H Beven 13Se 5edeersten *
- 9:10*' 4:10 * *
- H Kenea 135 Sedsersten I * - 1:10 5 7 10*8 * -
Sidheersion I *
- 4:10 6 g,gg 0 , ,
g $4 se.wev* l M , 6al0 *I lb Cent e l2$ I 0, all compevads '5:10' 1:10 2:10 2 (b:10 3 8 * * - tali 3 1:10 St. wall 4
* *3 ft Cethe 12/ 0, all tempovad. 6:10' 9:10 8
4:10
- lal0*I t a l0*
- 9:10 ,
8 8 *I *I in Cesie llt 9, all cespeeds 2:10 3:10 1:10 5:10*8 ,3:10** 3:10
*I
- 8 Sb C'e siw DOI 0, all camiewad6 6s10 2s10 I
8:10*I 3 slo - * (1:10 ) I - *
- 3:10*3 la10*I 5t. =all y
4:10 *3 I $b Ce66 w l38 0, all campowed 2:10' 3sl0* !al0 *I 4:l* 8 3:10**
$6 Cei6 e l32 0., a ll compo.n=J. 3:19 I
4:10 3 2:10 ' 6:10*I e sle*I 4:10
- inie a i nie z
- iale a I
OCCWA110*dt vAlut . af f[atmC( if vit eft (A5( 10 ! CONCluftal10mi ilwitet Cel". 1* Cal. 2- Col. 3a Cel. I- Cal!2* matMy Oral lahalatlea Average f ace stion MI DAC Air Water At! Atuo M (pCO (pCs) (pCl/el) (>Cl/ ell (pCl/el) (pct /el) me. Da46eaucl 60e Class
*3 2:10*#
ll Cellw Dee 0, all campeeds 1:10* lil0* 6s10* * ' tale" 2:10 I lal'0I 4:10*8 1s10 10 ,,g,7 9:10*' Ca 61m- D4 0, all tempowJ6 fa10 ll *# I lalD I falc k 0:10 5 3 10*I 1:10*3 1:10 55 Ceslie*135e 0, all tempowd6
- I 1:10 I
la10*I 2:10 ' le10*I 1:10** 0, all campownes Pal 0 ll Ceilw ih *I es10 I 7:10 I 3s10*I 9:10*I0 6:10 6 6:10 Sl Ce 6 6el36 0, all campendt I fal0 I 6:10*8 2:10 10 1:10
*0 Isl0 *I il Cell w l37 0, all tempowds la10 4
- 0 8 2:10*I 0:10
- 315 Casiw uS I 0, all campowd6 2a10 4
6a10
- a 4:10
- 4:10*3 (3:10 )
/ St. wall
- I 6:10 I 2a10' & ale 6
2:10*8 8a M*I 8 10
- 66 Sar6 w l!6 0, all tempeesd6 I
!s10 I 7:10*I 2:10*I 7:10 6
7:10*I b6 Satt e l20 8. al'l compouna6 la10 I 4:10
% g,gg 6 6:10
- 2:10*' *
$6 &ari e l31e 0, all e e N e I *
- 7 10*3 7:10'#
(tal0 )
- St. wall 3:10 I a:10 3 3a14 6 g,3,0 t al0*I 4:10* *
$4rl w l31 0, all campowd6
( Se I I 410 6 1:10*8 * *
' 56 GarielDe 9, all tempowds 2:19 Gal 0 f I * *
- 4:10*I 4:10**
d (3:10 Ltl wal )l ( t I i
i l 1172 Federal Register / Vol. St. No. 6 / Thursday, January 9.1986 / Proposed Rales
- Tale 1 Idle 3 - Imie 3 OCCUPAllcetAt VALW1 StftMsCE Ltytt tittAst 10 C0stturuticas ggg oct .
Cal. 1- Cal 2- Col. 3- Col. 1* Cal. 2 Oral lahalatlen
'Ingestlea All honuly Ateele SAC Air Water Average me. taJieeuclim Att Class (pCI) (pCl)
M (Al/el) (Al/el) (pCf/el) (pCihl) tart e l33 0, all campounes 2:10 3 # 7:10 3:10" lat0*' 2:10** b!0" M Seriellse 8, all campewaes 3s10 3 1s10' 5a10*6 2:10*0 4:10*I 4:10
- M 8eriel19 I 0, all campounds 1s10' 3:10' 1s10*I 4 10 *8 . 2:10*
- 2:10*3 M Seriel40 0, all compevads 2 3 5:10 1s10 6:10*I 2s10*I is l0* ' 7:10*I M 84r6 e l41I 8, all compouass 2:10' 7:10' 3:10*I 1:10*I 3 10** 3:10*3 M tari e le2 2 0, all coupe,mds 5 10' 1:10 I
6:10*I 2:10*I 7:10** 7:10*3 lSi t eat hane l31 I 0, all tempounds escept g tasse steen for w 5:10, lato 6:10,g 2:10,y 6 10,, 6:10,3 W, oslees one byersalees
- 5 2s10 is10*I ls10*I *
- 57 l eathaae l32 ' 0,see III ts 3:10 3
1:10' I33 4:10*' 1 10*8 - 4al0*I 4 10** W. S+e ta
- l's10' 5:10 6 2 10*8 *
- 61 tenth ..e Ils 8, see 33I ta 4:10 8
1:10 I ' III 4:10*I la10*I S:10*' Sa10*3 W. See ts a 9:10" 4:10*I
- 1:10* # *
- 17 teatt e l37 0, see III ta 1s10' 3 6:10 kl0*8
- 2s M*
- N 0*3 y -
(as10 ) I * !a lf,*I4 *
- I III Liver W, see ta h ,
3 10 # 1:10*I 4:10 10 , , Iaie 1 Isole z - "* Teie 3 l XCWAllcet VAtWS affittntt (tvil 0(Lf AM l's CDutfutuflan6 M W'Aci Cal. 1- Col. 2- Cel. P C41. != Cel. 2* Oral leealatlea lacestlea Att neataly A teetc Att GAC Air uster everage he. ReJiesms:llee Class (pCl) (yCl) 67 .r - (Al/el)(Af/sl) (pCl/el) (Al/el) Leathea e l34 0, s++ 333ta 9410 3 0 4s10 'L:101 6s10*3# 1:10*
- W, see III I 1s10 "
ts
- 1s10 6s10*I fal0*II *
- 4:10 I
$7 teathea e l40 0, see III ts is10 3 l III 6sl0*I 2:10*8 9:10*' esl0*I W. See ta
- 1s10 3
' Es10*I 2:10*I *
- SF' lana w l41 0, 6*e 333 64 3 9 10 3 III 410' 4:10*' 1s10*8 Sal 0*I .5 10**
,, W. See ta
- 1:10' Sale *0 2:10*8 * *
$7 taa m i42 2 0,see int . .sla ,siv 3
^
W, see III .a>0 + uio 0 isie 4 isio 3 ts
- 3a10' lat0*I Sa10*8 * * .
57 LeapaaeltlI 0, see III ts 4:10' isl0 I '4al0*I tal0*I 5 10*4 1:10*I W,see la
- 1410' '4:10*I is10*I .*
- S4 Carle D4 W. all cessewads escept LAese gleen fee T &ald Fal0 I *
( T, salers hydresides 3:10*I 1:10*' 7:10*' iste d and fluerless
- 7sid '3:10*I 9:30*IO + *
$4 Cer'6 e lli W, see IN C4 2:10 3 3 4:10 2:10'0 Sal 0*' tale b 7, see IN C4 2:10**
g
- 4:10 3 La n0*0 Sale *I *
- Cerim 131e W, see U*Ca fal0 I 3 4 10
{,14 ,, sa . .alg 2:10*0 &s te* 3
,s,0 . ,.10 ,
3sle*I h 10*
- Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 6 / hroday. January 9,1986 / Proposed Rules U73 1aue a vaie z ini. 2 OCCUPA110nAt VAtut5 atituteCf itvit Mtt AM 10
_ CasCthf ufl0u5 SIWt s Ct , Cel. 1* Col. 2 Col. 3* Cel la Col. 2* Oral lahalatten ItentAly lapstion All DAC Air tester Averste Ateelt . All no. sedioavelise Clan
- (yC O GC1) (yCl/el)(ptl/ ell (pct /el) - (pCl/el) 64 Ceri e lli W,see # Ce la10' 1:10* 6:10 4 2:10" Fat 0*' Ta10*3 V, see IN Ce '* 1:10
% 5:10*$ g,gg 7 . .
W, see IN Ce I I 3:10*I 1:10*' 1:10*5 7 10** 54 Ceri w ill 6410 8a10 V, see II"Ce
- 7a10 I
3:10*I 9 10*' *
- St Cer6El41 W, see IN Ce fal0 I 7:10 2 3a10*I 1:10*' 2:10*I 2 a 10*
- V, see IN Ce 2
* - 6a10 2:10*I Sal 0*IO *
- IMg , , Isl0 I
- 3 *I St Ceri e l43 W, see 2:10 Sal 0*I 3:10*' 2:10 2 a 10*
- IN Ce . *. .fa10 3
' Fa10*I 2 10 *
- j t, see I I 54 Cere w l44 W see IN Ce 2:10 Jul0 .1 10' 4:10*II 3 10*6 3:10*6 I
- Y, see IN Ce &a.0 ' . 2:10*II *
? Isl0
- Presevdyeiw1MIW all respewnds escept
$9 tsien glesa for T b:10, 2:10 f 1a 10,, 3:10,, - *
(Sal 0 ) * * *. la10* I tal0*I
$t. mall ,
Y, estees, hydroalses, g carelees and flwerlees a falo tale g 3:10,, *
- Pr46e.Jpiel37 2 y, ,,, 136p ,, 4,gg 4 I 6 10*5 2 10*' 5 10** 5:10 *I
[59 2:10 5 { Y, see II'Pr
- 1:10 6:10 5 2a10* # *
- 1 Iaie Iaie z a raole a
. OCCl#All0 hat WAtut$ atitetact (twit t! LEA $t to touttatuitosis SM tMI Cel. la Col. 2 Col. 3* Cel. l* Col. 2-Oral I W lation Monthly latestien All DAC Air Water Averste -
Atanic .ALI su. Sadleaucliae Class (648) (All (wCl/el) (pCl/st ) (wCl/el) (di/el) 69 Preseedysl e 4 3 I3es W, see 3 36 Pr Isl0 4 Salo 2:10ab 8a10* C 1 10*4 1 10 f, se II'tr - * .4a10' 2 10*5 6 10**
- 8 %
St Pr e seedresellt W, see INPr' 4:19 1:10 $s10*I 2:10*# 6 10** 6s10*I
. Y, see II'Pr
- 1:10 lal0*I 2a10*# * *-
nt Pra6eed pl w 142m I W, see II'Pr Sale' 2:10' Fal0*I 2:10*# lal0*I 1:10*2 Y, see IN Pr I g
- 1:10 6a10*I 2a10*I *.
- St Pee 6 wdpiel42 W, see II'Pr le10 I fal0 I tal0*I 3 10*' talo b g,gg 4 f, see II'Pr
- 2:19 I 8a10* # 3a10 '
St e tel43 W, see II'P r 9:10 # es10 I 3al0*I 1:10*' *
- Pa eseedr 3
(1 10 1 * *
- lato*I 1a10**
. All mall . ..
Y, ses IN Pr I
- Falu 3s10*# 9:10*10 , ,
11 Prese edye eus-144 I W, see IN Pr '3 10' 1:10 I 5:10*I 2:10*#' * *
*
- 1:10*
- Pale d
(Sale")
- y ""
it. =all V, see III Pr
- 1:10 la10*I 2:10*.I * -
59 e t e l4) W, see IIO Pr , . 3 10 I I 4:10*6 1s10** 4:10 *I 4:10*' Prenewdr 9a10 T, see IN Pr
- 8:10 I 3:10 6 1:10
- 1174 Federal Resister / Vol St. No. 8 / hrsday January 9.1986 / Proposed Rules .
vaie a vaie a vai 2 EQ#Afl0 mat VALU($ E ffaimC( t!W(t R(L(A5( 10 g__ C81sttWTRATlons 544agt Cel. 1 Cel. 2* Col. 3- ' Col. la Cel. 2* Oral Inneletion sconthly
, lacestion ALI DAC Air tila ter Average Ateele ALI No. Sedleneclide Class (yCl) (yCl) (yCl/el) (ssfl/el) (yCl/el) (yCl/el) 59 Preseedyel e l47 # W. see *Pr &a10' 2s10 5
Sa10** asW# *
- 4 *3 (4:10 ) * *
- 1 10 la10*I St. well Y see U Pr a 2:10 I
8 10*I 3a10*I *
- 60 heseyelel36 I W. all campossads escept LA*Se given for V La10 4 aalt,4 2 10 5 0a10*0 at 2:10 2s10*3 Y. esides. 8sydr* sides, certtees and flwrises
- Sa10 4
2:10 g fale ,g *
- g 60 meedyst e l34 3. ses . Wad 210 3 6:10 3
3:10*0 9 104 1s)0*I 3:10*4 i Y, see W M
- 6s10 3
2:10*' 7 10*' =
- 60 heedra l e l35e W, see W ad Sa10 3
2:10 8 7:10*0 2s10*E Pal 0*I 7:10** Y, see IN M
- 1:10" 4:10*0 2:10 *8 *
- 60 hevdyei w l39 2 y, ,,, m ,, g, gg 4 3:10 I 1:10*8 Sal 0*I 1:10*3 lat0 *I
- Y, see II'W
- 3ald 1 10*' 4:10*I -
60 heed si e lt! W. see W ad 2:10 0 7 10 5 3:10** 'IsiO*' i 2:10*3 2:10 2 Y sev
- nd
- 6:10 I
Ja10'4 Sa10*I *
- I 60 W al e l47 I 2 6 *4 W. see
- md 1 10 ta10 4:10*I tale *' tale 1 10
; Y, su N W =
9 io I 4:10*I lat0*I *
- MTe~1 vaie a . vaie a GCCWAflaut (Atut$ tif ttinct Livit sittAst TO ComttmMA110ml SlW eau Cal. 1 Cal. i- Col. 3- Cal.1* Col. 2*
Crel lanetation stenthly Incestfee All ' OAC Air Water Avere9e Ateelt att he. Ameienuc lide Class (yCI) (yCI) (yCl/el) (yCl/el) (yCl/el) (Al/el) 60 Iseedyel e fel 3 W. see
- md 1410' 3:10' Lal0*3 4a10** 1alo" 1:10*3 M ad ~
Y, sie ~ 2a10' la10*I 3:10*8 -
- W see N Nd Sa10*I 1s10 *I 60 I meedred e lll 7:10" 2 10 9:10*8 ta10*3 I
Y. see
- nd - 2a10 Sa10*I Sale *I *
- I 61 Presw thiel41 W. all compounes encept g tAsse given for Y late 4 2:10 Salo,g 3 10,, Fale,, falo,3 i
T. esides, byeresleet, g i certlers and flwriees
- 2:10 7:10,, 2:10,, *
- l al frome tniw l41 I'I 3 I W. see Ps 6 10 6:10 f al0*I as10*I' 7:10*I ' 7:10" Y see I"I Ps
- 7:10 I
3:10*I 1:10*' *
- I'I 3 61 Pr,methi e l44 W. su Ps 1:10 1 10 I
1a20* 8 2:10 10 2 10*I 2s10
- I'I Y see Ps
- 1a10 I
5s10*8 fa10*IO *
- fal0 I I43 4 61 Prometat e lt) W. see Pe 1 10 7:10'0 2410*10 1:10** 1:10*3 I'I f see Ps
- ls10 I 4a10* 8 3:14 10 . .
I8I Ps 6:10 I 61 Presethi e l46 W. see 2:10 3 2:10*8 Pal 6*II his*I iste d V, see I43 Pe I i 4s10 2:10*8 &a10*II *
- A 1 -
l l 1
Federal Register / Vol 81. No'. t / Thursday, January 9,1966 / Proposed Rtdes 1175 1.i. i e i 1anie z 1 i. 3 OCCUPAT!0siAt VAtull M fftott tf it H ilAst to CattultAi10 set S M ea;( l Cel. 1* . Col. 2- Cel. 3- Cel. l* Col. 2-
. Oral Inhalation Monthly I" All DAC AIP tla ter Average ata.fc , Atf'stien me. Radioauclide Class. (yCl) (yCi) (yCi/el) (di/el) (yCI/el) (yci/el)
W, see 3'3 fs 6:10 4 3 di Promethie-147 4:10 3 1:10 ', a 10 '
- 6a10
- 2 (2:10 )
- 3:10 10 , ,
tone surf. Y, see I'I 2 *8
, Ps
- 1:10 6:10 2:10*IO *
- W, see IIIrm 2 61 Prw=taf e l44s 2a19 3:10 I
is10*I 4:10*10 la10 *I 1:10*
- 7, see I'IPs
- 3:10 2 g,gg 7 4 10 10 , ,
tal0 I I'I 2
, 64 Promethi e l44 W, see Ps 6:10 2:10*I 8:10 10 6:10 ' 6 10
*I 10 f see III Ps
- 6 10 2 2:10*I 7:10 , ,
6t* Primeu.i e l49 W, see I'I Ps . Isl0 I 2:10 I Sal 4*I 3:10*I 2 10*I talo
- I'I 7, see Ps
- 2:10 3 4:10*I 3:10*I * -
61 Pr.aru inerl50 W, see III Ps 'Ss10I 2:10" S a l 0* ' 3:10 *0 Pal 0*I 1:10* ' l'I V, see Ps - 2a10' 7:10*' 2:10*8 *
- l'I 3 61 Pram u,6el$1 W,*see N. 2a10 4:10 3 L:10*' Sa10*I 2 40** 10**
- V, see III Ps
- 3a10 3
1:10 ' 4:10*I *
- 62 5 mar t e l41s t W, all campownds late' tal0 S 4:10*I la10*I 4:10** 4:10*I 6:10 *I I I I62 $mari e l41 W all campounds Salf 2:10 sa10*I 3:10*I 6a10 '
k62 W ri e l42 I W, all campowds 8:10 3 3:10' is10*I 4:10*8 1:10** Lal0* I
)
~ ~ ~
t 1anie i vet,le i Iaoie 3 l GCCUPAfiranAt VALU($ R(f tttK( Lly(I tit ( A$( 70 l Conct mitAf10ssi St.4 att l Cel. I- Cel. 2- Cel. 3* Cal. la Col. 2* Oral lanalatloa hmthly logestion All DAC Air Water Astrage Atee6c . All I he. Rediwsuclide Class (yCl) (yCl) (yCl/el) (yCl/el) (yCl/el) (yCt/st) 2:10 9 3 3 62 Someriw145 W, all compeeds 4a10 S:10 7a10*3' 4:10*
- 8:10
- 62 Smar6us-146 W, all campounds 1:10 I as10*I le10*II - * *
(fal0I ) (la10 23 , g,gg 14 3:10*I 3:10*' to..e swrf. S w surf. 62 Sear 6 w iti W, sti cespee d. 2:10 I 4s10 2 2 10*II * -
- 3 *#
(1a10 ) (6:14*2)
- lat0*II 4:10 4:10*0
.tene swrf. 6ene svet.
g 62 Sm.et w itt W, all cespevads 1:10 0 Isl0 I 4 a 10* *
- 2 10** 2a10*I 2 3,gg 10 (2:10 3 , , ,
6.ae surf. 3 I
- 62 &mard w lb) W,- ell cespew es 2:10 3:19 le10*I 4:10*I tal0*I 2s10
- 0 62 Smers e tSS I W, all coopewWs 6 10' 2:10 9 10*I 3al0* I * -
8 (0:10 ) * *
- 1:10*3 Is l0*I lt. onll 62 Someri e lS6 W, all casa.ne ds Sal 0 I lal0 I 4s10*0 1:10*0 7:10*I 7:10**
,, 61 . (wrwiel46 W', all tempowds 2 10 3 2s10 3
e s10* I 1 10 9 2:10*I 2:10** 3
- 3 (erielue 146 W, all eas,ewws .1 10 1:10 Sel0* I fa10*I tal0*I 1:10
- f63
.. ,i_.l.,- W...,,c. _ .s 3 10 1 ,.10, , ale > ,s10 0 ..,0
. 1, .
361
1178 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 8 / hredey, January S.1986 / Propoaed Rules . Taie a raie z iate a eCCUPAllosut VALut! MftaueCf (Irrt attrast 10 CossCtWTLAftons 5(d eAct - Cel.1* Col. 2* Col. 3- Cel. 1* Cel. 2* Oral Inhalatten nenthly Ates te Ingestien All SAC Air Inster A,ecage ass. All Dedlerseclide Class (yCl) (yCI) Ml/el) MI/el) MI/el) MI/el) 63 forsof w 144 W, all w as 3 4:102 1:10 1:10 4 Sele *" 1a10' h30" 63 furopi e let W, all campounde 4 3
- 1:10 3a10 1:10 ' 4:10*I 2:10** 2:10*3 63 Inrool e llo W all campounds 3:10 3 Sa10 3
4:10 *$ 1 10*8 ' (12.62n) ^ 4:10*I 4:10** 63 femel e l50 04.2y) W, all campewads tale t 2 10 I 4 10 4 3a10*II 3:10*I 1:10** 63 foreel e ll?u W, all tempeones 3a10 3 6a10 3 3:10*' 9:10*I da10*I 4:10** I63 terspi e ll! W, all couro**ds 8s10 2:10 I 1:10*8 3:10*II 1:10*I 1:10** 63 f c ecie l54 W, all ceassowads 5:10 2 2:10 I 8:10*' 3sWII 2:10*' 7:10*5 4:10 I 63 9:10 I ferepl e ill W, all campounds 4:10*8
- Sale *I 1s10**
- 2 (1 10 3 ,
3an0*10 , , Bene sarf.
- 63 (w oolel56 W, all compewruh 6s10 2
5:10 2 2:10*I 6a10*I' 8:10 6 as10*I 63 (wreple ll? W, all cess 4= ads 3 3 2s10 1:10 2:10 6 Fal0*I 3a10 5 3a10* 4 63 forepi e l54 I W all compowds 2:10' 4 6:10 2:10*5 Sa10*8 as1C** 2a10*3
- 64 Codellal a l45 0, all compounds encept SAese Steen for w 5:10" 2:10 5 6:10*5 2a10*I 6:10** 6s10*3
" W, en tdes hydrusides, g og andfluerI4es 2:10 falt 2a10,, *
- 1aele a Teale
- 1a61e 3 SCCUPAilosut VA&U(5 MfittNCl livit stitAi! 10 C0=ctataillons 5tgaxt Col.1* Col. 2* Col. 3* Col. 1* Col. 2*
Oral Inhalet t en Meathly Ateelt tagesttee All DAC Air Water everage No. All l Sedt enuc ilde Class (>Cl) (wCl) (yCf/el) (Al/el) (wCi/el) (esti/el) 64 E.edelialus*146 9,see 3"Gd 1:10 3 1:10 3 1 2:10*3' 1a10 2 10 " 2:10 " W, see I'I Gd a I 3:10 la10*I 4:10*I8 *
- 64 Cosellat e l47 0, see NIGd 4:10 I 3:10 *I 3
2:10 2s10*' Gal 0*I 3:10
- W, see US Gd
- 4:10 I 1:10 6 Sal 0*I *
- 1:10 I 64 Gedeltal w 140 0, see 145 Gd 4 10*3 3:10*II - *
- 3 (2:10 ) (2s10*I) -
2 10* H 3:10*I 3:10*' tone seef. Sene surf W, see DIGd a 3 3sl0*I la10 *II * * *
. 2 (5:10 3 .
.ai0 H . .
8+ae surf. 64 Cadellat e lti 0, see H5Gd 3a10 3 2 10 I tale *I 0 2410 4:10** 4:10** W, see UI Gd
- 2:10 3 d 1s10*' 3 ale *
- l 64 Ceen t e nium- 151 0, see UIGd 6s10 3
4:10 2 2:10* $ + sal 0*I t 10**
- I (5:10 )
- Sal 0*IO *
- Sene swrf.
W, see H5g , . g,gg 3 g,gg 7 2:10*I *
- a 64 Ceeellns e li 3, s e, H 5G4 2:10 I lal0*I tal0*II *
- 3 (3:10 ) (2s10*#) *
' 3s lL
- U es10*I 4:10 6 Sene surf. Sene surf.
- W, see I4IGd 4:10*I fal0*II * * *
(0:10*I)
- ls10* U *
- 8+ae swef.
l l l
Federal Resloter / Vol. 51. No. 6 / *Itursday. lanuary 9.1966 / Propond Rules 1177 inie i ,mie , isoie a oCCuPAtlosiAt VAtuti Aff tstaCl if vit aft [A$[ 10 CasCEWTRATloses 5fwtasc( , Col. 1- Cel. 2- Cal. 3- Col. 1* Cel. 2-Oral Inealation stonthly Ingestien All DAC Air water Average Atesic All lie, fediesmaclide Class (pCl) (pCl) (pCl/el) (pCl/el) (pCl/el) (pC i/al l 0, see N 64 Geocliniw in) GJ 5 10 3 1:10 3 6:10 *
- 6:10
- 6s10
- 2 , ,
* (2:10 ) - Js10 10 tone surf.
w, see 145Gd - 6s10 2 g,gg 7 8:10 10 , , GeJullaliar llt 0, see I'I Gd 3:10 I 8:10 3 3:10
*I 1:10*8 es10 b
4:10
- 64 w, see I4I Gd a 6:10 3 2:10 6 8:10*' -
- 2 3 4 *I *8 *
*3 65 leett e l47 W, all campownds 9 10 3:10 tal0 4:10 1:10
- 1:10 fal0 *I 3 # *I g 66 f eitene let W, abl campounds 6:10 7:10 3:10 1:10 ' 7:10**
3 4 66 ferti e llo W, all compounds 6:10 2:10 9:10*' 3:10*8 7:10*I 7:10*' w, all compevads 4:10 3 9 10 I 4:10*' 1:10
*8 1:10*I 6:10
*4 65 leiblie Ill
*I 65 lertel w ll) w, all capounds tal0 I 7:19 3
3:10 6 1:10*8 7:10 /s10**
* *I 65 lentiva lle w, all compownds 2 10 3
4s10 3 2:10 ' 6:10** ls10 f a li"
- esl0 *I 65 feet 6ue lin W, all compownes 6:10 3
8:10 3 3:10 ' 1:10*0 8:10 * . 0 0 4:10*8
- 2 10
- Jalf3 65 taitt e l56e W, all compownJs 2:10' 3s10 1:10
, (b.0 e) 45 Iwitiie lhe w, all compounds 7:10 I 8:10 3 3:10*' 1:10*8 1:10
- 1atiI I (24.4 h) 6s 10* I fate d
,, 65 leitlwe- Al4 W, all campevnJs 1:10 3
1:10 3 Islu'I 1s10
- sm e t . .e . . .ea eCCUPATIOMt VAtu(5 tift (nct (tytt sittalt to Cces(Enf tAtlemi . 5 M esct Cel. I- Cel. 2- Cel. 3- Cel. 1* Col. 2*
Oral lahalatten floathly lagestion All DAC Air water Average Ateelc All me. SadienucilJe Class (pCl) (41) (pCl/el) (pCl/el) (pCl/el) (pCl/el)
*3 65 ter$6 e ll? w, all compounds "sle' 3s10 3
1:10* # = 6 10** 6:10 I ,
- (6:10 ) - 3:10 10 ,
l eene tuf f. j w, all compounds I I 4410*' is10*II 2:10
*I 2s10**
l 6% lertet e lle 1:10 2s10 ' 2 2 45 ferti a l60 W, all compownds 4:10 2 10 ts10* 8 1s10*I8 1:10*I 1:10** 66 lertl w ll! W, all compounds isl0 I 2:10 3 Ps10*I fale d 2:10 6 g,gg 4 3 *I
,, 66 Dyspres tw lll W, all gespewnds 9s10 3s10' 1:10*l 4:10*8 1:10*4 1:10 E M 4 - Dyspretl e ll? w all compownde 2:10' 6s10 3:10*I 9:10*8 1:10** 3:10*I 4 3 1stp6 3,gg t *4 M Dysere66 e llt w, all compeands tal0 2:10 2:10 2:10*I 4
M Dyspies6 s l65 W, all compeones 1:10 1s10' 2:10*I 6:10'0 2s10
- 2s10*I M Dyspie6 6e ln w, all cespeunds 6sl0 I Fal0 I 3:10*I tale *' * *
(6 10 ) * * - 1:10*I 1:10** Ltl well
*I 67 etelet e lll I W, all compounds tale" !alb I 6:10*I f al0*I 6s10*4 6:10 I 6 2 f67 esele6 e ll? 2 w, all compounds 1s10 1s10' 6s10*' 2 10 4.10*I es10
~ ,.. .,,,2 v. a,1 c pe 6 ,s,0 5 1s,0 6 4.,0 4 ,s,0 6 ..,0 3 3.,0 2 j 6,.6, 1410, 4s,0 % ,s10 4 10 > ,s,0 > 1 10 2
- ,., w il, W. .,1 c _ .s l
l l
. 1178 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9,1966 / Proposed Rules -
1eone a inte i taas a OCCutA110anAt V4tuls 8(f(ttssc! Ltvit A(L[as[ 10 ComuC(m184f 10 sis $fM eAAf - Col. I- Col. 2- Cel. 3- Cel. I- C41, 2-Oral int.ala t ie i Isoothly Ateelc Ingestion All DAC Air tseter Average All lae. teJim. welter Class (pCl) (pCi) (pCl/el) (pCi/el) (pCi/el) (pct /al) 67 Alei.= 162m i W, all cespownds bs10' 3:10' 3:10** 410 *# 7:10 " 7:30*3 67 # 6eele .e 167 W, all tempounds 5:10 I 2:10' *3 1:1D 3a10*' - * (6 10% ) * *
- Is10*I 1:10*3 St. mall 61 641asse 164e# W, all campownds is10 I 3:10 1:10** 4:10*# 1:10*3 Is10*I 67 Nimim 164I W, 48 6 compownds tal0 I *I 6: 10 3s30 " 9 10 3:10*3 1stu'I 67 etoimie 166e W, all ceasewals # 0 4:10 Ps10 3:10*
- 1:10*II 9 10 6 g,3g b E of lawlelse 106 W, all compound. 2 3
- 9 10 2:10 /s10*I fal0 ' 3 10 6 1:10**
61 A lanias 167 t*. all compownd. 8 2 10' 6 10 2:10 b g,jg*8 1:10** 2:10*3 64 trtiie 161 W, all ces54w.dn 2 10 4 6:10 8 3al0*k 9 10** 2:10
- 2a10*3 Sa)0 b 3:10 *I 64 ,lrbta. 16b W, all ciaspewadi 8 I 6:10 2a10 9:10** 9:10 *3 8 66 litiim Ill W, all tons +wnd. 8 I 3:10 3:10 1:10*' 4:10** 4:10*I 4 10**
6a (rttie 17] W, all comwwnfi 4:10 I 1:10 8 4:10*' 1:10** 6:10*% lal0"
,, 64 (ettiee171 W, all tempowads 1:10 3 3 1 10 6:10*I 2:10*' 2 10*I 2a10*'
69 fl.la.e l&t I b, all compowns. 1s10' 3 10 5 1:10
- 4:10*I
- f 8
o (8:10 ) - *
- 1:10*3 lito
*I St. .ali 1441e 3 Teele 2 1eble 3 OCCUPA110 hat VAtVtb Sif( AthC( L(v(t Rit(Ait 10 CossCf af aAf10=5 SIwtt40(
Cel. I- Col. 2 Col. 3* Col. I- Col. 2+ Oral Inhalatlea 8sonthly Alcalc ineestien All CAC Air Water Ae eye 8ee. All Red e w.wc lide Class (pCl) (pCI) (pC f /el) (pCi/el) (pct /al) (pCi/el) 69 Inuli e 166 W, all compownes 4:10 3 1:10' 6:10
- 2a10** 6:10 " 6:10 "
49 le ?im 167 W, all coco + wads 2:10 3 Fal0 3 8:10*I 3:10*' 3 s10*I 3 10** 69 II.w'i.e 17v W, all compovads 8:10 I 2 10 # 9:10*8 3:10*I' * * (tal03 ) * - - 1:10*I 110*
- Ltl =411 69 IN tive 171 W, all ciepteds 1:10 8
3s10 I le10*I 4a10 10 1:10** 1 10*I 69 1hulim 172 W, all convowrds 7:10 2 y,3g) bal0*I 2:10*' ls10 b g,3g 4 69 1Nii.e 173 W all compo.nds 4 10 3 110' 5:10*I 2:10*
- 6:10 b 6:10" 68 I N il m l?l I W, all ceasev'Ws la10' 3s10 1:10* ' 4:10*I - -
(4a10 ) 8 1:10
*I 1:10*I St. mall
- 48 titettim 162 I W, all campowds estr>L
&#ese given for T 7s10" 3s10 I
1:10** 4:10*I lal0* I lal0
- T, saises, hydreslees, g
ead fluorises
- 3:10 la10,, 4:10,7 * -
i 70 nientie m W, see icir . i.iO 2 2.iO 2
..iG 7 isie ' ,sio 4
.io $
$ f. See I'I ft
- 2s10 3
8410*I 3a10*I *
- 00 ,,,e ,m.16 g W. s m ., 3.,0, ..,0, 3 10 - 1106 4.,0 > .0, T. see III rs
- Pal 0 I 3:10** 1:10 6 , ,
i
Federal Regleter / Vol. St. No. e /11iursday, January 9,1946 / Proposed Rules 11 _79 iai i inie a rai. 2 GCrupAll0edt VALU($ A(7tetuCI Livit alLIAll 10 Cosett uf uflows Mwiect Col. 1* Cel. 2 Col. 3* Co l. 1* Cel. 2* Oral inh 41stive Meathly ingeetion All SAC Air tlater Averove Ateelt All cao. 844te M ilee Class (yCl) (yCl) (uCl/el) (pCi/el) (asCl/el) (yCt/al) W, see 3'3 70 3 3 70 ftter$l e !69 2:10 8:10 4:10*3 1:10*' tale ** 2:10 *
*I 7:10 2 I'I Y, see rt
- kl0 1:10*' *
- r0 fatesti e l?S W, see I'# ft 3 10 3
4:10 3 1:10 6 Sal 0*' enl0*I 4.r10
- III Y, see fb
- 3:10 3 1:10*' 5:10 ' *
- 70 ftteeti e lPT I W, see III ra 2:10" Ss10 8
2al0*I 7a10 *8 2 10** 2:10 *3 162 *8 Y, see 7b
- 6:10' is10*I 6:10 -
- 2:10 *I 6:10 *0 2:10 *I I W,see 30#r6 8 20 ftterti e lF4 1:10 4:10" 2 10**
30I fe
$ f, see
- 4:10" 2sl0*I 5:10*8 *
- F1 lutetl e !69 W, all coopeuruss escept j 4 ,9 .g these g6een for T 3:10 esto 3
2:10 6:19 3:10 3:13,, Y, estees, hyv.ssides, 6 9 and fluerlee*
- 4:10 3 2s10 6:10 *
- 71 latete e l?0 W, see 170,, g,gg 3 g,gg 3 g,39 7 3s10 ' falu *I 2nd' 2:10 I V, see I#e L
- esl0*I 3a10 ' *
- 71 totett e lF1 W, ses IIO Lu 2 10 I 2 19 3
- 8:10*I 3:10 '
- 3 slo b 3s10**
170 3 *I
, T. r se tw
- 2:10 as10 3:10*' *
- 3 *I 4 letets e lF2 W, see 170g , g,gg i g,gg Sal 0 2s10*' 3:10 6 g,gg T, les I 'Lv I *
- f. Il 1:10 Sal 0* 2s10 ' *
- inte a Imie 2 i eie J CC4upA110 mat VAtu(5 atifatact t(vit
- tiLI AH 10 ComC[ntasticais
- tretect Col. la Cal. 2 Cel. 3* Col. 1* Cel. 2*
Crel twelatsen neataly t hgis tlene All 04 Air Water Average AlesiC All me te46vemaclide Class (yCl) (pCl) (yCl/el) (wC1/el) (wCi/el) (Wl/el) fa10 9 3
~71 Latett e l?3 W, see 3"tw 5:10 3
3:19 1:10*3
- Fale '
(is10 23 . g,gg*10 , , Seae surf. Y, see IIO Lv tal0*I 4:10*IO
= I *
- 3:10 71 Leten f elFae W, see II0tv 2:10 3
2:10 I isl0*I * *
- I # 4,gg*b g,gg 4 (Isl0 ) (3:10 )
- 410 10 LLI well Ser4 o ve s .
- 1. see II0 tw
# *8
- 2:10 9410 3:10*I0 .*
- II0 ss *
$ fl !=lett e lF4 W, see 6:10 3 isl0 I 6:10*0
- Fal0*I 7:10 *
(2:10 1
- 3:10*IO
- 8.no s.i t .
T, see I#0 tv 2s10 4s10*8 2s10'I8 *
- 11 !=t t6,ar=116e W, see I#8 tw 8 10 3 3:10' le10*I 4:10*8 1:10
- la d '
, V, see IN tv
- 210" 9:10 6
1s10*0 *
- ll latell e lF6 W, see 170 tv fal0 I 6:19 0
Isl0*'
- lal0 *b 3,gg 4
- I *
!alw'II e *
(Isl0 l 6m s o. f . 0
$ f,see IN Lv -
4:10 3s10 ' tal0*II - *
*8
- W, see II0 tv g,3,*
2 g,gg 2 10 g,,,t 25 totet te l//a 7a10 ba!0 2:10 170
- Sal 0 I 3: 10* ' 1:10 *10 , ,
T. see 4w
1180 Federal Resister / Vok 51, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9,1986 / Proposed Rules sane a nate , we> OCCVPAlloedt VALU($ tiff tlisCI tf vit tittA5L.TO ConCtetuvi0=s sfvtser . Cel.1 Cei. 2 Cei. 3- Cei. 1- Cel. 2-Oral Inhalatlee Monthly inge6tlen All DAC Air Water Average Ateelt All me. Re4teaucli6e Class (yCl) (pCl) (yCl/el) (yCl/el) (yCl/el) (yCl/el) 73 tutett e lf? W, see 3#0 tw 2s10 3 2:10 3 9:30 3:10*' 3:10*
- 3:10**
I 3
- T. see tw
- 2s10 9:10*I 3:10 ' *
- 71 Letell e l?te I ' W, see 170 tv Sal 0" 2s10 5
Sal 0*I 3:10*I 7e 0*
- 7:10 *3 Y, see !?0tv
- 2s10 I
Fal0
*I 2s10* I *
- 7! Letettel?6 I W, see tu 4:10' 1:10 I
$s10 lal0* I *
- 8 (6:10 ) * *
- 7:10*
- 7s30*3 St. mall 170
, Y, see tv
- 1:10 late l is10*I *
- 72 twLett e lF9 W, see 170 tw 6:10 3 2:10' as10*I 3:10*8 9:10*I 9:10**
IN tv
- 7. see
- 2:10' 6:10*I 2:10*8 * -
72 N fM w 170 0, all coopewnes escept these glese for W 1 9 3s30 6:101 2:10 6 Sale 4:10* $ 410 4 . W, esloes, hrdreslees, helleet, carbides, and ' altrates
- 5:*0 3 2:10*6 6:10 9 *
- 72 86stal e t?2 0, see I Mf 1:10 3
9:10 0 4,3g*9 *
!al0*I 2s10
- I '
y (2:10 )
- 3:10*II *
- tone surf.
T W, see INMf
- I *8 4:10 2s10 * * -
f ($s10 ) 3 8+ae surf. 8's10* II -
- l %,a we , wei i CCCWAfl083L VAtut$
aff tagnCt tevtt Attlast 10 cossCthitAf!0a5 5(s<ssCf Cel.1 Cel. 2* Cel. 3- Col. la Col. 2-Oral Innaletten 4 thly ingestion All DAC Air Water Average A teelt All no. 24dleensc lide Class (yCI) (yCl) (yCl/el) (yCi/el) (yCi/el) (yCi/el) 1 0, see 3#0 72 nefat w i73 Mt 5:10 3 1s10' 5:10*6 2:10*
- 7s10*3 7s10
- W,su 170 Mf
- 1:10' S:10*6 g,gg 0 , ,
0, see IDMt l 72 Nf aiw 175 3:10 3 6:10 # 4:10*I t al0*' 4:10 $ e s it/' W, see IDMf 3 1:10 is10* I late *' *
- 72 NfaiwlF7e I 0, He IDMf 2:10' 6:10' 2:10*I 4:10 *8 3 30** 1 19
*3 W, see IDMf * . 9:10' tale *I ls10*I *
- 72 Nf aie l?6e 0,see IDMI 3:10 2 g,39 0 Se10 10 ,
3,39 6
- 1. a u' S l
(2:10 1 0
- 3:10*32 * -
- tw e swrf.
W, see IIUnf a
$ sib 0
2s10 4 * -
- (1,a lb")
- 3:10*33 * -
Swas surf. s 72 Nfaie lhe 0,see INMt is10 3 3:30 2 Isl0*I - Islu
- 1 10
- I (6:19 1
- 4:10*38 * -
6wne svef-l, W, see I mi - 6:10 I asl0*I tal0*I8 * {2 N f a 6
- 194 0, see IM ar 3 tal0*I l
Palv 2:19' 3 10
- Jesu
- 1 10 *3 l W, see 170,, , 3,39 4 la10*I 4:39
- l l
l
Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 6 / Thursday. January 9.1966 / Proposed Rulee list i ie a vai. z 1aie a SCCWAflosaL VAtull Affitinct LivfL tittAst 10 CosettwitAtton$ 5(wtenct - Col. 1 Col. 2- Col. 3- Col. 1- Cel. 2-Oral Inhalattu 8seathly lagentlea All DAC Air Water Average Atomic All l Seeisauclide Class (pCI) (yCI) (ycl/el) (pCl/el) M I/el) (yCl/el) ass. E Isafal e l81 0, see 3"M f 1:10 3 2:10 3 7:10**
- 2:10 4 2:10**
I 4:30 10 , , i (3:10 ) = Sono surf,
- W, see 170,g - es10 I
2:10
*I 6:10 10 , ,
metal e lefa I 4,3,4 4 g,gg 7 22 0, see 170,, g,gg 4 zg l Ss10** ls M* I W, su 170 nf
- is10 I
E10*I 2:10*I -
- 12 Mafal e l82 0, see 170 Mf 2s10 I 8s10*I 1:10 10 , , ,
(3:10 ) 2 (2 10 ) 0
- 3:10* U 4:10*6 4,3g l l Bene surf. tone surf.
. W, su II8Mf - 3:10 0 3,gg 4 , , ,
(8:10 3 0 , g,gg ell , , teae surf. 72 Matn6 - 143 I 0, ne 170,g g,gg a g,3g 4 2:10*I 6:10*8 3:1o
- 3:10*I ,
W, see INnt - 6:10' 2:10*I 8:10*8 *
- 72 Maf=6 e lla 0,see IIOMr 2:10 3
8:10 I 3:10*' 1:10*8' 3:10*I 3:10** W, see II8Mf
- 6:10 I
- 3s10*I tal:
- a fantelie-l/2 I W, all compownds estept g g og ,y 2:10,y tale.4
{73 these gloen for T 4:10 1s10 $s10 5:10 2 Y, elemental f a {" 6,eesie,h.ile.ntdes,e, carDides Altrates, andnitrloes
- 1:10' 4:10 5 t alo* 7 - -
+
raio 1 late z laie 3 OCCWAllonal VAtutl t(f tstmCt Ltytt ettgast to Cos< t ut ett ion s $tet s s;t fel.1* Col. 2 Col. 3- Col. 1* Col. 2* Oral in.alation Moataly in9estion All DAL Air Water Average Atomic All me. Sadleimclies Class (pCl) (wCl) (yCl/el) (wCl/el) (vCl/el) (wCl/el) , W, see 3M la 3 73 lantalum 173 7 10 2:10' 8:10** 3:10** 9:10*3 1:10** III 7:10*' 2:10*8 T. su ta - 2 10' *
- 73 tental e l?4 I Ul fe 3:10' 1:10 I
4:10*I 1:10*I 4:10** 4:10*3 We see III 8 V, see Is
- 9:10 e s10*I 1:10*I *
- 73 isatel w ift l#Ils 6:10 I 2:10' 7:10*' 2:10*0 4:10*I 8:10*'
We see V, see II# ta - Is10' 6:10*' 2s10*8 *
- 73 la. ital e lF6 W, see II# fs 4:10 I 1:10' ' 5:10*6 2s10*8 isl0*I ls10**
III 3 T, su Ie
- is10' 6:10 6 2s10*8 - -
13 lautel w lll W, 6ee I#I ls 1 10 8 2:10' 6:10*I 3s10*8 2s10** 2:10*3 f, su 172 14 - 2 10' 7s10 6 Isle
- 8 *
- 73 fa,,tel a l?$ W,su III Ie 2:10' 9:10' es10*I 1:10*I 2s10** !s 10* I 8
Y, see III Ie
- 7:10 3:10*I' is10*I *
- 23 featel w l?t W, su III Ie 2:10 8
5:10 I 2s10*0 7:10* ' 3:10** 3 10*3 f, see III Ia
- 9:10 2 4,3,* 7 1:10*I *
- 73 fe.tal e taan W, su III Ie 2:10' 7:19' 3:10*I 9:10*8 3:10*
- 3:10*3 5 f, su III Ie
- 6:10' tal0*I 6410*8 - -
1 h
1182 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. e / Thursday, January s,1986 / Proposed Rules unie a Tale a voie a OCCuPAT10 hat yAtut$ etFIetatI Livtt Mt(AM 10 emmesminAtless $4(agg ,,, Cel. 1* Cel. 2- Cel. 3* Col. la Cel. 2-6eal lahalatten ammately Ingestlem El DAC Air terter Average Atwic All av. Sadienwelsse Class (41) (All (pCl/el) (Allel) (Al/el) (yC1/el) 3'I 3 3 9 73 Teatalm 100 W, see ta tale 4a10 2:19 6 ale *3' 2:10*
- 2:10*'
Y, see !?23e
- 2:10 I 1a10*8 3al0*II *
- 7J Iaatalm-182e 2 y, ,,, 17214 2a10 I
6:10 I 2 ale *' Fale*I 2:10*I f al0*I III Y, see ta
- 4:10I 2:10** &a10*I *
- 73 laatalm-182 W. 6ee II
- f. tale! h10 I tale *I 4:10*10 1:10*I 1:10*'
Y, see 172g , , 1 10 2 6a10*0 2:10 10 , , W, see III la 9:102 3 73 lental m 103 1:10 bele*I fal0*I *
- I l (tal0 ) * *
- isl0*I 1 10**
tti mall III 3 Y, see Ie a 1:10 4:10*I 1:10*' *
- 3 73 fantalm 104 W, see III Is 2:10 6:10 3 2:10*' 7 10*' 3s10*I 3s10**
III 3 Y, see Ie
- 6a10 -
ta10*I 7:10*' =
- lentalm 18S I 73 W, see II# fa 3:10" 7:10' 3:10*I la10*I 4:10** 4:10*3 III Y, see ta
- 6:10" 3 ale *6 9 10*8 *
- 73 laatalm tu t y, ,,, 172fa . 6:10 8
2:10 I 1sle d 3a10*I *
- tale *I
- 8 * *
- 1:10*I I. (4:10)l St. wel
.Y, lif 5 see fs 2:10 h10*5 3a10*I *
- Table 1 , Iable 2 # . Ieble 3 SCCUPA!!0 mat VAtWS afflainct Lfyit tittAit 10 Comtt ut tat tom $ MW AEl Cel. 1 Cel. 2- Cel. 3 Col. 1 Col. 2*
Oral te latten nsataly lagestlee MI 4AC Air Water Averate Atesic All ao. Sea 6eauclise Class (41) (Al) (41/el) (Al/el) (gl/el) (yCl/ ell N fungstee 176 0, all campounds late' Sale' 2:10*3 7 19 1 1s10** 1:10*3 M liegitwl77 0, all compeva46 2a10' 9:10' 4:10*6 g,gg a? 3:10*
- 3:10*I N 0, all compe=adt 3 2:10' Sa10*6 3:10*8 Fale
*I 7 10**
I n stea 170 6a10 74 togstwl?t I 0, all compownes 6:10 I 2:10 6 7:10** 2106 y,gg al y,gg*2
, 74 Teatitea*101 0, all compounds falt" 3:10' tal0*I Sale 2s10** 2s10*I 74 Iw. git w leb 9, all tempeur=h 2s10 I Fal0 I 3:10 6 ,,gg at , ,
il" (1:10) 3 * *
- 4:10* b 4,gg a4 Ltl well
- 74 lungste**le? 0, gli sempeweds 2s10 3
ts10 I es10*I 1s10'8 3:10*I 3a10
- 1:10 I I
74 Imavsten 144 0, all compounds 4:10 Sal 0*I 2s10*' = (1 10I l
- *
- Fale*6 Fal0*I tti vall .
I 76 amealue 177 S, all compowet esteet g LAene Steen for W 9:10 4 3a10 late,, 4:10,y talt.3 1:10.g W, estees, beslees, g .* eM eltrates
- 4:10 tale,, 8:10,, *
- I I
l
- e
- l I
Federal Regleter / Vol. 51. No. e / Nriday, January 9, toes / Proposed Rules 1183 vaie a imie z raie 3 SCCWPAtlenAt VALU($ Ef f ADCI LIVf L RELI ASE f 0.. CSIICtJrf 4Af10Br5 Stwt W,f Col. la Cel la Col la Cel. la Cel. 2* Grel lahelatlea ItoatAly lagestfee ALI 4AC Air easter Average Ateelt ALI an. Sadleaucilee Class- (AI) (gt) (Al/el) (dt/el) (stl/el) (Al/el) 5 PS 8healue-110 8, see 3"Re 7:10' 3a10 1:10** 4 10*' *
- I * *
- Lale*I 1:10*2 s (1:10 St. wel )l '
W, see III 8e
- 3:10 I
bl0*
- 4:10*I *
- III 3 3 79 theel e 101 0, see se .Sa10 9:10 4:10* ' 1:10*8 7:10*I 7610**
W, see III Ie - 9:10 3 4:10* ' 1:10*0 *
- III 3
* '4 eneni s 182 0, see se 7:10 1s10' la10'0 2:10*8 9s10 5 9a10**
III I *) III w, see se
- 2:10' 6a10*' 2:10*0 *
- 9, see III 3 I
- ta10 ' 3:10*' 2:10*I 2:10*'
** M aswele182 se 1:10 2s10 (64.0 m) y, ,,, 177,, , g,gg i ls10*I 3:10*' *
- III 3 3 *I M teeni e llee 9, see se 2:10 3:10 1:10*' 4:10* ' 3a10 3:10*'
III I W, see ae
*
- es10 is10*I 6s10 10 , , ,
75 h al e 164 0, see III se 2:10 3 4:10 3 1:10 6 S:10*' 3siO
*I 3:10**
- III 3 w, see 8e - 1:10 6410*I 2:10* ' *
- M theale lf4e 0,see III 4e 1:10 I 2 10 I 7:10*I * *
- I (2:10 )
3 3 10*' 2 10*I 2:10*8 { (2:10g1
$t. ws St. well III I w, s se se *
!a10 $s10* 0 2 10 10 , ,
1 ale 1 vale
- Iaie 3 OCCL#Allos6AL VAtut1 eff tethCE ttvli tit (A$[ 10 ComCIwiu110m$ Stg a s.*(
Cel. 1* Col. f* Col. 3* Cel la Col. la Oral lanelatloa lisataly Ineestlea Att SAC Air water Average Ateels all me. tedleauclide Class (Al) (Al) (di/el)(Al/el) (dt/el) (Al/el) 71 hotelM 0, see 3"se 2:10 3 3:10 3 1:10*
- 4 ale' 3s10** 3:10**
III 3 w, see se * #s19 7:10*I 2:10*' *
- M amenl e 107 0, see III 8e 6:10 I
as1L I 4:10** 1a10*4 8s10*3 Sa10
*I III W, see 8e - 1:10' 4:10 5 1s10*I *
- M aneste taae t g, ,,, 1778e es10' 1:10 I
6:10*I is10*I 1:10*I 1:10*I W, see III Ie
- 1s10 I
6:10*I 2:10*I -
- 3 3 M Aheele lu 0, see III te 2:19 3:10 1s10 6 4 s10*I 2:10*I 2 10*'
b w. See III se
- 3:10 3 1:10* ' 4:10*l *
- M theal e tt1 0, see III te 3:10 I 5:19 3 fa10*6 Pale * ' 4:10*I 4 a 10* "
III 3 w, See 8e
- 4:10 2104 6:10* ' *
- M isatelM 0, all ceneoimes estest g g pese gleen for w one Y late 4:10 2:10,, la t e,, Islo,3 1:10,1 W, bellees 6ad altrates
- 1:10 I 2 a 10*
- Ps10*I *
- l
?, salees sad byerestees
- Sate 1:10** *a l0* I *
- M ese6 e 10l I 0, see Wos 1:10' 4a10 4
2:10*I 6 10*8 1:10** 2:10*I w, see Wes
- bale' 2:18*6 6a10*8 * *
[
,. s.e Os . es,0 4 , s ,0* , ..,0 0 . .
g I
11M Feders! Regleter / Vol. St. No. 6 / Thursday, January 9.19e' -
*m Aules -
i 1 mea usie a ini, 2 eCCUPAflatAt VAtuti aff tNutt LIvit etttAlt la .. Contf WTDAfl0ml 5(eg egl Col. 1* Cel. 2* Cel. 3* Col. 1* Cel. 2* erat lahalatlow HoetAly Ingestion All SAC Air Water Average Ateetc All me. Seelow',1w Class (45) MI) (41/el) (pCl/el) (ptl/el) M I/ ell ! M eselwit2' 0,ses
- 0s talo a 6:10 3 2:10*
- Sale' 3sid 3:10**
W. 6ee # $s
- 4:10 I 2 10 6 6:10*' * *
- 7. see #;.
- 4:10 3 2s10*0 6:10*' *
- 76 Seel e 101 0,see II*06 2a10 3
S:10 2 g,3 g* 7 7,gg*le Sa l0* b 3 10*8 W 6ee lacg , 3,3,* 7 lale d
, g,gg t *
- Y, see # 0s
- 4:10 I
3:10*I 1:10*8 * * *
?6 06el.e-late 8, see #t . 3:10 8
2:10 I 1:10*
- 3:10*I 1:10*I 1:10*I 0
11 W. 6ee #06 - 2:10 Ost0*I 3 10*I *
- T. 6ee # 0s
- 2:10 5
7:10*I 2:10 *I *
- 7( 300
- 0=*i e ltle 0, 6n 0s la10' 3:10' la10*I 4:10*8 2:10** 2 ale '
W, see # 0s
- 2:10' tal0 ' 3:10*8 =
- f see # 0s
- 2a10' 7:10*0 2:10 *8 * * ;
le 0** w lt i 0, see # 0s 2:10 3 2:10 3 es10*I 3 10 *8 3 10*I 3 10*' W. See # 0s
- 2:10 3 Fale* I 2:10** * *
, f, see #9.
- 3:19 3
se l0* I f a le* * * * { 76 0,el w ill 9, su #0, 2:1o 3 Sa10 3 2a 10* ' 6e10
- ls W'I 2 10 4
W. See #06
- 3:10 6 , ,3,, $
- 3:10,I t-w
.. see =0 6 . ,.10 ..le*6 la,0 *C . .
Isaio 1 Isole a Iaele 3 OCCWA110anAt VA19tl H ila(nct titti Ottialt 10 CossC(stullons I M aA L Col. la Col. 2 Cel. 3- Cel. la Cel. 2-Cral tenel4Lisa noethly lagentlea All CAC Air Water A*erate Atsett Atl me. toelwa4168, Class M1) M l) MI/el) MI/el) M l/el) M l/el) 76 Ose t elm 0, en *06 410 3 4:10 3 2a n0* a 4 alt 3 Gr'.0** 6s10 4 W, see # 0s
- Sa10 I 2:10*5 Asle' "I *
- T, see #f) -
4a10 0 3 10*' lett*II *
- 77 leiel e int 8, all causewees esues g og these gives f ee W ene T dele, la10 8 '- A., .
Sale,, 6:10 W, hel'iees altfites. g 7 eneesteillslede6wn
- 2:10 6 44 , s * *
) 7. oiless ead 6rerselon
- ls10 balb 2.se * *
$ 18 l e id e w l64 0, sof IN ie 4 10 2a10' is10*I 3all'8 1:10*
- 1r 40* I W 6es IN ie a 3alG" 3:10*b ,,gg 4 g .
1, 6** INie a lane' 140*I 4:10*2 -
- Fi Ireewin 0, see I"#1r 1, 44 3 1s19' Ss10
*4 2:10*a ,, g g* S 1:10*'
- W 6*e IN lr
- 1 10' 6:10 6 g,gg*A , ,
Y, 6n IU lr
- 1e19 8
dele *' 1s10*8 *
- 83 le eatelse 0,see IN !r 2 10 3 D:19 I 1all 1:10*8 3a 10*I ",410* '
W, see IN ie
- Sal 0 I 1:10* L 6:10*' *
- 1, see IN ie I
{ *
$siD 2:10* * &a l6* ' *
- I il lese 6 e ll? O, see 18I le telt' 3410' lang b ,,3,*0 g,g,*4 3,gg*3 1Ge *I III d W. See Ie
- M o' eale"I * *
" I"I t, su Ie
- 3:10' is10* $ 4:16'8 *
- Federal Resitter / Vol. 51, No. 6 / Thur0 day, January 9.1966 / Proposed Rule 0 M85
~
isie a veie a tele 3 KCWAllWL VALU($ W it(IsC( LIVIL IILIA$I IO Constrate.alf ont 5(M es;t Cel. 1 Col. 2 Col. 3- Col. la Cel. 2* Oral inhalatten 8taat 417 Ingentloa ill BAC Air tester Avere9e Atenit All me. SeJkwadttee Clets (yCl) (yCil (yCl/el) (yCl/el) (adi/el) (yCl/el) 4
- 77 It'st e 104 0, see N ie 2:10' 6:10 3 2:10 fatt *i ns10 3 10
- W, see IN ar
- 4 ale I 1:10*0 6:10 ' *
- I *I
, see 18I lr * *
- 3:10 1:10*6 Sal 0 t, sw E l'r 5:10 I Sal 0 I
2:10 7:10 ' 7sl0 *I 7:10* *
- 77 lel46 e lPt d 182
- 4:10 3 i Sale *
- W, see 3 falt 6
f, on III lr 410 3 1n10 6:10 ', * *
*2 0,see I8I lr 0
27 3 ridle19Can I 2:10 I 2:10 tal0*I 3:10*I 2:10*I 2:19 W, see *IU lr
*
- 2s10 0
9:10*6 kl0*I *
- a f, see 142y , ,
isl0 I es10*I h10*I * .* d a10*I tal0 *I I tal0 I
*I 77 leidi e lto 0,see 38I lr 1:10 is10 3:10
- 3 W, see 102 3r
- 1 10 4:10*I I:10*' *
- f, su IN ir I
- Sal 0 4:10*I 1:10*' *
- I *I
- 77 Iridi e nsis I,, su III sr 3:10 9:10 I 410*8 1:10*10 est0 4:10**
W,see IN Ir a isl0 I 9s10'0 3s10 10 , , Itt
- 2:10 I 4:10*' 2a10*II *
- T . e *e ir
= 77 IrlatelM 0,see IN ar 9:10 2
la10 I tal0*I 4:10 10 tal0*I 1:10 " I b W, in IN ir
- esl0 I
f a lfe* I is10 10 , , f,see IU lr
- 2:10 I
9:10 6 3:10 *10 , ,
- ~~ Tele a vaoie z . %ie 3 GCCWAtlosiAt Vatu(5 0CittinCI L!vtt etttA5( 10 comictatsatiesrs . $(geet t
Col. 1 Col. 2- Cel. 3- (41. la Col. 2* - l Oral Inhelette 8toatals l ' laeostloa ALI SAC Air beter ourFle Asamic Att sh. . O dlead ttee Clan. (yCI) (yCl) (yCl/el) (yC 1/el) ( 4?/el) (yCitel) 9:10 9 3 3 1 Sa10'8
" Irldl e llee B, see 3 'le 6:10 9 19 4:10
- a10* 38 W, su I8I le I
- 2:10 7:10*8 f a10* I8 - *
), su IN ir
- Isle t 4:10 *8 la10*I' *
- 3 3 *I H trl46 e lS4 0, su III Ie 1:10 hl3 1:10 6 4:10* ' 1:10 1:10*
- W, su IN tr 3
- 2:19 tale *I 3:10* ' *
- IN ir 3
- T. su
- 2:10 Sal 0*I 3:10*'
- 0, su IN ir
~
I 2:10' la n'l'I 3:10*8 1 10 ' 1:10*-
, 77 Ir6di e ltte 4410 W, see IN ir 'h ;44 l ::
- lat0*I 4:10*8 *
- f, su IU lr 9:10*' *
*
- 2s10' 3a10*8 -
f ,,10 s f a ,0- ,,,0 > n ,,,o .,,, 0, -e tu,e ,,,0 4 es,0 4
.s10 .
W,we III - 5:10' tal0*I' 7:10*8 *
- f, see I#
- 4:19 3 2:10*I 6e10*8 * *
' 8 10 Plat 6 e let 8, all cor. 1 10 2:10*.I la10* 8 2:10 " 2:10*3 i 76 Platin a ted 0, ;ll to t0 3 fal0*I 210* ' tal0 *I 2:10 "
tal/I es i. 0 Platin e let c. 210' 1 10** 1:10*3
, 10 8, all ts O, all se +oie .a10 I 4:10 6 1:10*0 Sa10*I 5:10 "
$. 79 Plattse It! 6
?0 Platime ntle 0, all compo f. 6 10 3 Sall*0 8:10 0 as10*I 3:14**
j
l 11M Federal Resister / Vct. St. No. 6 / Thursday, luunty 9. Moo / Propoud Rules
~~- -
h ie ; inie i imie a OCCU6110 mat 14.45 Mffetutt Liv (t ef ttalt 10 C'mCratut loa 5 Sfvts c Cel, 1* Col. 2* Cel, 3* Col la Cel. 2* Oral latala t it e. Inoethly lagentten All MC Air Water Average Atsa t s All no. Red umuc l ide Cle66 (yCl) (yCI) (41/el) (41/el) (44/el) (yCl/el) 74 Plateam-Il3 9. ell tempeurds 4 al'0I talt 1a10'3 Sale * *
* -
- 7:10*
- 7 30'3
-(610')l Ill vei 2:10 I 3
74 Pla t iw itte a, all compeones 4:19 2all. I 6:10' ' 3a10 b 3:10** 70 Platiwil7e t g, ,gg ,,,,,,,,, 33,4 ,,gg 4 2:10 4 6 ale'I tale ' 2:10*I I 3 74 PleL6wilf 9, all tempewaen 3a10 9:10 4:10' ' 1:10*8 tale
- b e:10**
8 3 74 Plat 6a.e Itt i 0, all campovaan 5:10 Is10' 6 10 b fan 0*I 7:10*
- 7:10 b 78 Plate w t00 0, all campownes 1:10 3
3:10 ~ I 1:10 4 6:10 f al0'I 2a10*
- h 0414 191 0, all campesede eacept og the6e steen for W and V 9:10 3 3:10, & a10,, tale late,, tale,3 W, helises one nitrate 6
- 2:10' 9 10*I 1 10 N *
- Y, salees and hierealdes *
'f:10' 4:10*6 3,3g*8 , ,
79 Cele tv4 0, m INA . 3 10 3 3:10 3 3:10*0 1:10*8 da10*I 4:10** W, see INA .
- 5:10 3
2:10'0 4 10*' *
- Y, see IN Av
- 5:10 3
2:10 6 7:10 *
- yh Gele Its 0, see INAe 5:10 I late' 6:10 6 g,gg*0 fal0 *I 7 10
W,see IN A
~ 3 1:10 6:10*I 2:10 =
- T, see IN A
- da10 I f al0*I 6sle'I' *
- en imie a inie a inie a
' OCCuPAllonAt VAtutl htitetuCI tivlt Mttalt 10 CSEIu1pil3m1 5IWI LCl Col, 1* Cel. 2 Cel 3* Cel, la Cal. 2*
Crel Inh 41stlea 8eoathly lay.stlea All pC Air Water everage Ataalt At t me. Geeleauclise Class (yCl) (yCl) (yCl/el) (yCl/el) (yCl/el) (yCl/el) 79 Gele-Ilee 8, see 3H Ae 1:10 3 Sal 0 3 1a10 4:10 1 10'3 Late" W, see INA .
- 1:19 I Sal 0*I 2:10*I *
- V, see IH A 3
- 1:10 Sa10*I 2 10 *
- 79 Gelelle e, 6*e I'I 4 1 19 3
410 I #s10 6
- 2:10 4 2 10 "
3
* (2:10 1 *
- 2:10'I -
8164. eell W, see IN Aw
- 2 10 3
Sal 0*I 3 10 * - f, m IN Aw 3
#s10 Isl0*I is10 *
- 0, su IN A I 3 4:10
I 79 G le-IV9 3:10 9 10 4:10** 1:10*8 e n t ti'* W, m IN h
- 4:10 3 2a10 6 g,g3 9 , ,
t, 6n IH Av 2:10 6:10 I *
- 4:10
- 79 G=le aAa 0,see INA . 1:10 3
4:10 3 1:10 S:10 2 10 2 10** W, m IH Av
- 3a10 3
1:10*' 4:10 T, sw IH Av - 2:10 3 1:10'0 1:10 d -
- 79 Genetuo I 0, m IN Av 3:10' (a10' 3410'I 9:104 4410'8 titu'I W, m IUA . - 4:10 8
1:10 0 tal0*I -
- I t, see IN A
- 7:10" 3a10'I tal0*I * -
c 90
Federal Resister / Vel 31. No. 4 / breday. Janu?fy 9.19P4 / Proposed Rules 1187 Taie a vaie a imie i SCCWAtloseAt v& Lull Ef tMdl L!vis MLI AM 10 Cesuttuf 4Atl0ml MdLEt Ce l. 1* Cel. 2 Col. 3* Col. 1* Cel. la 6tel lanaletten montaly lapstion All SAC Alr taster Averop Atomic ALI me. Dediendilee Class (41) (d!) (Al/el) (wCl/el) (4./st) (41/el) 79 Gele 201 3
- 8. 6ee 3"Am 7:10' 2s10' 9a10 4 asle" 4:10 " 3 10*'
W, m UI Ae
- 2:10 I
tal4*
- Sal 0* I *
- UI Av
- 2:10 I
lat0*I 3:10*I *
- Y. 6ee 3
- 40 me n wry
- 191a vapor
- 8:19 410*0 1:10*8 *
- 6 3rpealt 4410 3
1:10' la10 2:10*8 6sl0*I 6:10** 9 10 I
*8
- 9. 6eitates 3:19 3
4:10 6 la10 es10*I . 4a10** W. oslee's,layersaleet, e hellees, altratet. See I
= selfleet
- 4:10 3:10*0 1:10*8 * .
5 8 *8 to k rsvry*1H vapor
- ul0 la10*I 410 *
- Setaalt 2:10' 6:10' 3:10*I 9:10*8 2s10** 2slII S. See UI"he tale' 4:10' is10*I 4:10 6 2:10** 2:10*I W. 6*e UI"he
- 4:10' 2:10*I 6:10*8 *
- I 1:10*8 410*II
- to menwry IV4 Veter
- 3:10 3:10 I 1:10*8 4:10* U !s10* I 2s10*8 6rtenic telt .
2
- 8. see IU"He 4:10 g,gg t 2s10*8 6:10* II tal0*I 1:10**
- 1:10 I ls10 *8 2:10 30 , ,
W. 6ee U3'50 3 *8 *8 to skrtwry* 101s Veper
- 4:10 2:10 6:10 *
- Dessait 3:10 3
6:10 I 3:10*6 A10*' esle*I 4:10** fal0 I 5:10 I 2 10'0 7:10
- 3 10*I 3:10**
,. 8. See IUte W. See IU"He
- 4s10 3
2:10 6 g,3,t* inie a imie a
- i mie i 3CCwAllonAt valutt NinatEl ttvil M itait 10 Cesittuastlons , lideet Cal la Cel. 2 Col. 3* Cel. 1* Col. 2 Oral lealetten monthly l l
laeostlea All SAC Alt bater overer i Atanic Att r me, feeleaucliee Class (yCI) (41) (Al/el) ( Al/el) (wCl/el) (w.6/el) 30 mo rtery* lti v ver
- 3:10' 1:10*
- 4:10'8 *
- 2:10 8
Sal 0* 2:10
*I 6:10
*8 2:10** 2:10
*3 Orgeait 0, m IU"he kale' 4:19' la10*I 1:10*8 2:10** 2:10*I W. m U3">0
- 3:10' is10*I 1610*8 * *
*8 *8 30 mersvry*10Fe Veper
- isl0 I 2:10 7:10 *
- i I *8 *I talf" l ergeait 419 3 9:10 4:10*8 1:10 Sal 0 S. 6ee IU"He 3:40 I isl0" Ja10 6 1:10*8 e s t \*I en tf 4
- I 2s10
*8 2:30*8 * *
= -
W. m IU*>e lsl0 4:19 I 4:10
*4 1:10*8 *
- to b e ry ll? Vapor *
*I 210 I Greenit 1s10' 6:10 " 2s10*8 9:10 0:10
- 3 6 *8 til0*I 4:10
- 0, 6ee UI*N 4:19 4:16' 4:10 2a10 W. m U3">g
- 0:10 3
4:10 6 1:10 *8 *
- perwy IV9m I 3:10*I 1:10*I
- 00 Veper
- 4:10' *
* *I Cepealt 6 10' tal0 I Fal0*I 2:10 *I 6:10 ' 9:10 0,see Uk 6:10' 1 10 I
6:10*I 2:10 8: 10*
- 0:10
- I W. m UI"y
- 2a10 I
7:10*I 2:10*I *
- 80 men s 201 taper
- 4s10 4:10* # 1:10*8 * *
,..it saiO 2
.s w 2 uicI isie ' isie * /aic$
l 3, 6ee UI">g 2 19 I 1:10 3 5:10*I 2 : 10* ' 3sl0
*I 3:10** .'
W. see III"hg . 1:19 3 Sa l0*I 2:l(' *
- I l i l
l
taas Federal Registee / Vol. 81, No. e / Thursday, lasivery 8.1986 / Proposed Rules l 1eble 1 Tenie z rate 3 GCCWAllosAt VALU(5 NFIGEnC2 LtVit Af ttC4 iG CeuttN1 TAT 10p$ if w tact Col. 1- Col. 2- Cel. 3- Cel. 1* Cel. l' Gral lahalation mentaly lagettle All 64C Air nieter Anrege A4eelt A&l , me. Sadleensclide Class (yCl) (yCl) (Al/el) (wCl/el) '(41/el) (yCl/el) el theill e 194e' 9, all sempeeds bale' 2:10 3 6 ale'3 2:10 * * (4:10') * *
- ls10*I la10*I St. well di Ihalli e 194I 8, all sempeeds 3a10 I
&a10 I 2:198 aste*I h10*3 h10*l 81 Thellte IM I S all eenseeds 6:10 I 1a10 6 10'I is10*I 9:10** Sale
- 3 el thalli e 197 0, all campemea fale' la10 I bate'I fal(I La10*I la10*I Di Thellle Itte I 9, all tempeeds kle' '
6:10' 2:10*I tal(I 4:10 4:10 0 Esi u,em im e, an spee.s 2:10' hie t laie 5 4s:(* 3s:(* ui(3 el Thalli e 199 8, all ca g s 6a10' Aalo' e nl0*I lat0*I liif' 9a10'3 el lhallie-200 8, all osapemes 8:10 3 lall' tal0*I f a10'I 1:10** 1:50*3 41 Thallie N! 8,all cespeeds 2:10' fale' 9:10 6 kl0*I 2:10** 2a10*3 at lawllim 202 9 all compwds 4:10 3 5 10 3 2:10 6 7:10*I is10*I 5:10*
- 81 16ellie 204 3, all cespwds 2:10 3
2:10 I tal(I 3:10*I 2:10*I 2a10** M teelMe I 8, all cespo e ss 6:10' 2:10 I 4:10*I 3:10*I 4:10 " 4:10*3 f M Lese-ld 9, all cespeeds 3:10' 6:10" 3alfI 9:10 4 4alf' 4:10'3 Lese It9 I
- 38. 0, all cesp w ds 2:10' 7:10' h10'I la10*I h10 3:10'3 e-vale a venie z voie 3
- GCOPAfloniAt DAtWS REFlatuttLtytl atttAM 10 canciatuftens s:wuct Cal. I- Col. 2- Col. 2- Cel. 3- Col. 2*
Oral Inhaletlea Iteathly Ateelt latestlea All SAC Air kneter Agre@e All as. Seeleaucliee Class (wCl) (wCl) (yCl/el)(wCi/el) (yCl/el) .(wCl/el) N Leee 200 9 all tenweeds 3:10 3 6:10 3 3:10** 9:10 ' 4:10 4:10 0, all campwds I 42 Leed M1 Pal 0 2s10' 4:10*I 3:10'I 1:10 1:10'3 N Leee "ife 8, all sempeeds 9:10 3 Sale" la10*I 4:10*8 Ist(8 ! ale'I N Lese 202 0, all tempemes 1:10 I Sa10 I fall'I Fal(II isl0*I la10*I N Lese N3 8, all tempeces lat0 I 9:19 3 4:10*I 3:10*8 Pale *I 7:10** N Lemi 2VS 0, ell cespeunes 4:10 3 1 s"J I 6:10*I 2:19 9 San 0
*I tal(*
IN Lese 209 0, all sempeeds 2:10' 6 10" 2:10*I 4 10 4 3:10** 3a10'I N Lese-210 0, all tempe e ds 6 10*I 0 taliI 1:10 10 , , , ! (1:10 ) (1:10'I) - 410*II 3:10*8 Isif# 6ee svef. Seae surf. N Leed fil 8, all gespewnes la10 8 6 10 I 3410*I 9:10*I' 2:10 2:10*3 N ,eeJ-212 0, all tempeeen as10 I as10 I 3:10*
- Sel(II *
- 2 (1:19 ) * * -
2:10*6 2:10*I 6ene ierf. { [N Leee 414 8, all campoess 9:10 3 SalD I 3:10*I talu'I 1:10*
- 1:10*3 I
Assouth 200 9, oltrates 3 10' Sate' 4:10*I Lal0*I 4:10** 4:10'3 fe 43 tr, all other semp w ds
- 3:10 I esie'I tal0*I - -
i
Federal Register / V01. Et, No. 6 / nursday, January 8,1986 / Iw;os4?, Rules itse voie a raie a vaie 2 SCCUPAll0sel VAtuts MFINICt Ltvit MLlast 70 CasttNTLAt tens givt set Col, la Cel. la Cel. la Cel. la Col. 2* s ~ Oral Inhaletten Itenthly t w stlen All BAC Air titter Astro 6' Atomic All . me. BeJte 41tJe Class (41) (41) (Al/el)(WCl/el) (WCl/el) (yCl/el) 43 Olea. 'M1 3 8. see #88 1:10' 3a10' 1:10*' 4:10* ' an30*' 2:10*3 I'0 86 fal0 *I W, see
- 4:10' ba10
- 83 Div t02 9, see I'O st 1:10 8
4:10' 2:10*I 6:10*
- 2:10** 2 10*I
- W, su I'0 08
- Sa10 8
h10*I tal0*I *
- 01 Sint e203 0, see #01 2:10 I 2s10 3
3:10 6 9:10 ' h10*I 3:10** W, see lec ti
- 6a10 I h10*I tal0* ' *
- e 43 Ol6mdh !ct 8, see #01 1:10 3
la10 I 1:10'I 4:10*I 2:10*I 2:10*
- j Y, see I00 08 - 1:503 ba10*I 2:10*I * * .
Si m tte 206 9, see #81 6:10 I 1:10 3 6:10*I 2 10*' 9:10
*I 9:10*6 83 w, see M al
- 4:10 I 4:10*I 1:10 d *
- D. m I'0 8l 3 3 83 tism th 297 1:10 2:10 f a)C*I 'fa10*' 1:10*I 1:10
- W, m #86
- 4:10 I tal0*I 6:10 10 , ,
0, see N0 81 4:10 I 0 63 tien.th flos 5:10 2:10*' 6:10*12 6:10*I 6:10*' , w, see #86
- l'a 10* I 3:10*10 ) 10 *II *
- 43 666autn 240 0, see #48 Sa10 I
2:10 I 3:10*I * !al0*I 3:10** f * ,(3:10I ) Eleneys
- 4:10 10 , ,
w, see #81
- 3:10 3
1:10** 4:10*II *-
- 1eie a inie a raie a GCCUPallandt 14tutl NFletitt Ltvit
- MitA11 TO Casciatuttans
- 5twi ect Cel. 1*
- 1. 2* Cal. 3* Cel. la Cel. 2*
Oral **ieletten Itsathly Ingestien .i SAC Alf Weter Average Ataalt All Ite. 864leauc l ose Class (All 11) (wCl/el)(41/el) (yCl/el) (pCl/el) 0, see N 3 3 43 S inant h* 212 tl ba10 2s10 1:10* # 3a10*3' 7:10* ' 7:10 ' W, see 80 81
- 3a10 I isl0*I 4:10 10 , ,
al Sina ta fil 9, see IC0 81 7a10 3 la10 I 1:10*I 4a10*IO 1:10** 1:10*I W, su I'0 88
- 4:10 2
1:10*I la10*10 , , 83 06 tn 214 0, see i'0 8t 2:10 8 Sa10 I h10'I 1 10 2:10** 2:10*3 W, see #01
- I Sal 0 ' 4:10*I 3:10*8 * .
2 M El hsr201 0, all caepounes easept tasse gieen for W 3:10' 8 3:10*I tal0** Sal 0**,
*I g &a10 1:10
- W, talees, byertalees g ene altrates
- Sale (s10,g Late,9 *
- Poloshe MS I t, see NI Ps i 8 44 1:10 4:10' la10*I 6a10** 1a10*
- 3:10*3 8
w, see 203 Pe - 7:10 Sale *I La10'I *
- M
- Polenl e 207 0, see 203 Pe Sa10 I 3' 10' la10'I 4:10** 1:10** 1:10
*I W, m I'I Pe
- 3:10' 1:!0*I 4:10*I *
- b Polwahar 210 8 see I'3 Pe 3:10' 4:10*I 3a10*10 g,gg*13 4a10*
- 4:10*I W, see I'I Ps
- 4 10*I 3a10* N 9:10*II *
- Anteline M 7 0, belless &a10 I 3:10 I h10 6 4a10*I ta10*I Sa10**
{ 06 *
- I tal0*I Sale
g w . 3a10 *
- M90 Federal Restster / Vol. si, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9. toes / Proposed Rides
. ,sie a isie z renie a SCCUPA110 mat WAtutl Effl4feCl L2VIL tittatt 10 Cast (st4ATIoet $td t et Cal. la Cel. 2* Cel. 3- Ce'. la Col. 2-
'eral lehelation monthly Imeestion Al DAC Air heter Average steelt All me. See6enuclies Class (yCl) (yCl) (yCl/ ell (41/el) (yCl/el) M l/el)
M Astettne fll 8, hellees 1410' 8a10 3 h10 h10'3' 2:10 7:10** W
- kl0 I 2:14*8 2 alt'U * -
M taeon Itti with esaghters rene,es a 2:10' 7:10 6 2:10*8 *
- With eeuchters present
- 2:10 I 9:10*' Sal 0'U * *
(er14morttag .(er 1.2 leevi esaths) norting level N Aaeon 222 WitA eseghters reseved + 1 ale' 4:10' 1:10*8 *
- With eeughtere present 2 g gg*8 1:10 1a10*I' *
- 3 (or 4 worting (or 8.11 level osaths) meeting level) 47 fra#wl e 222 0, all compounds fatal h10 2 2a10*I 6:10 10 h10*I 3:10*8
! 87 f reacie 221 D, all compavads 6:10 2 tal0 I 3:10*I 1:10*8 4a10 6 Sal 0*I 0
- to AadleH1 W. all campounds 1:10 f a10* I 3:10'I' 9:10' U
- 0 '
' (8:10 ) * * *
!a10'I 1:10
hone surf.
,, M Radi e 224 W, all cespeunes 0 0 y,gg -le 2:10 12 Sa10 1:10 , ,
6 (2:10 ) I * *
- 2:10*I 2:30 6 jeM W, all compounds 8eae surf.
0 0 4s e 225 4:10 y, g g* l kl0*10 tal0*II *
- 3 (2:10 ) * *
- 2 10*I 2 10
Seas swrf. 1.us s ,atie , - ,aue a OCCWAf teneAt VAtutl Efta(El itett etttatt 10 i C0ectattat t eet $ldtA t ! Col. 1* Col. 2- Ce). 3 Col,la Cel. 2- ! Gral lahalation meathly I thgentlee Atl SAC Air Water Aver 69e Ataalt Att he. Sadle w lles Class (yCl) (yCl) (yCl/el) Ml/el) (yCl/el) M I/el) as easte226 W, all campemes fa10' 6:16'3 h10'3' 9:10'33 * *
*8 7:10*I (5a10') * *
- 7:10 "
tone surf. 2 00 Aedi e 22F W, all campowds 2:10" ! ale' 6 ale *0
- 2:10 " t:10'I 4
(2:10 6
- h10*8 *
- Gene surf.
90 Radl e 228 W, all **=ea d s 2:10' tale' b l0*I' 2 alp *II *
- 0 4,gg 4 I (h10 3 , , , ,
a 10 U
=
te#w surf. 80 Actlat e 224 B. all compounds etcest taece gleen for W ens T 2:10 3 3 ale g tale,, 4:10'n 3:14,g 3alJ,, I W. bliens med altrates
- Sal 0 2:10*8 7a nt'U * *
- v. esters ese Dyerealees
- kl0 I 2:10*8 6all'U *
- M k tlet e 22% 0, see II'Ac na10 I 3a10*I 1a1010 - 7:10*I 7:10 6 (5:10*Il * &al0* U *
- teae surf.
W, .. U84c * &al0*I h10*I' htt'U - a
- f. ese 224,g ,
en20* I kle'IO $st4* U * * [ {M Actlele226 8. see % h302 kl0 8 Lal0*' kl0*II 2:10 2:10 6 3 W, ese 8 Ac
- Sale' 2 10*' 7:10'U *
- 224
- v. see Ac
- kl0 0 2:10*' &a10 12 , ,
Federal Register / Vol. 31. No. 6 / Thurday, January s.1486 / Proposed Rules 1191 Iaie Imie a lesie 3 BCCWPAllonAt v4U(1 tif ttlet! Livf t tillast to, CenttbitAffoni Stwtetet Col, la' Cel. 2 Cel. 3* C41. 1* Col. 2* test Inhalation w thIr i ligestlee All a $4C Alt h%er everage Atomit All. (yCl/el) (yCl/el) tyCI) (yCl) (atl/el) s (yCl/el) he tedleauclide Class , et Actlel e 227 0, see 33'Ac 2:14* A 4:10 " 2:10*33 (h10*I) ( 4:10* * )
- Lale*II 4:10*' 4:10*8 teae svet. tone surf.
w, see II8 Ac f at0*II * * *
- 2:10*3 4H'II
* * (h M*I)
- 6eae surf.
*II
- Y,' see 224 At
- 4:10*3 f e M* II Sal 0 g,gg) 0 g,gat , ,, g al 3,9* 4 St Actioi w 228 8,see 2243 , 9:10
# I 2:10*I3 * *
** * (2:10 )
- I sete surf. '
I w, see U8 Ac * *
- 4a10 2:10*8
- 0 103)
- Sal 0*II *
- 6eae surf.,
T. see 2244 , , ,,gg t 2 10*8 6al0*II *
- N lhee lrrH6 v. all tempewaen eacept 3 I LAese gives for T la10 !a10 6:10*0 2a'0 10 Pa10*I 7:10*
- V, salens and hydrantees
- 1:10 I 6:10*8 2:10 10 , ,
W W, su M ih 1:10 I 1:10*I 1:10* U bal0*II 2:10*0 2:10*I 1her 6eH7 Y, see M
- la10* I la10* U d a10* II -
- I. Th i.
i Tale Imie a leie 3 OCCUPallonAL v4Wtl effletect (fvite attiatt 10 CentIat taf10m$ 5(W tet Col. 1* Cal. 2* Cel. 3 Cel, la C41, 2* I W latlea neat >Iy erst ineestlee All SAC Air nieter 6*ersee All A L.am it me< 0441em416 de C1ess (41) (pCl) (yCl/el) ( Al/el) (wCt/el) (Al/el) 8 ~3 4:10*33 * *
- M theriwe He w, m 33*In 6:19 1:10 *
*6 (1 10') (2:10*Il
- htt*I" la10*I 2:10 tede swef. teae surf, t, see M in
- 2:10** 7:10* 12 #a10*I' *
- W, m M in es10*II * * *
' M 6a10*I 9:10
- T hee le t,29 (1sle') ( tal0*Il
- Sale
- U 2:10*8 2:10*I teme surf. teme serf.
M in + 2 ale
- I la H'II * *
- T. m
- Oa10*I)
- 4aM*N = *
- tone surf.
f* t hwow De W. see M in 4:19 8 6:10*I 3a10*II * * * (1a19 ) 3 (2 le*I)
- 2a16*I8 tal0*I 1:10*0 teae ovef. Deve svef. .
' V, see U't h
- 2:10*I & ale
- U 3,gg* H , ,
Mn 4:10 I 6 9 10*' tal0*' ta t e 3 W thert w 211 w, see i 6:10 3a10 M in
- 6:10 I 3 10'0 talg ' *
- Y, see M in fa10*I Sal 0*U *
- N 16er6 w 212 W, see lat0*I *
(fale') (h10*I*
- 4:19*II 3a10* 8 bl0* I A .
6ese surf. Same svet { i 1, see 2263 , , 3,3,* 1 g,gg*12 , , , t
* * . gg lg*31 * &aP*II *
- 6eae surf.
l i
1183 Federal Register / Vol St. No. e / Thuredey, January s.19es / Proposed Rules raie a Taie a raie a GCruPAtlonu VAtutt stitetect trytt etttM2 to Casttut pflent _ Hvtaxt Cal 1 Cel. 2 Col. 3- Cel. 1 .Cel, 2* Oral laaelattaa neathly lagettien RI MC Air Water Average
. Ateelt All be. healeaucilee Cleas -(pCl) (wCl) (ptl/el) (Al/el) (Al/el) (wCt/el) 90 therie2H W, see 3#hn kle' 2:30 3 Sale 3 10'3' 4:10 4:10*
- 226
.Y. noe th
- 2:10 2 kle '8 2:10*IO + +
91 Protettlate227 W all seepsmass esteet Laese eleea for T 4:10 g 1s10, late,, . 2:10alt 6:10 l isl6*i T estees eat byerealees 2 1a10 4:10*8 1:10*10 , , el ProtectIntene W, see 22?Pa 3 I 1a10 1:10 na10 + 2sle'I 2:10*i I (2:10 ) - 3a10*II *
- 8eae sver.
] T, see III Ps
- la10 I 6:10'I Is10*II * .
- 08 Pewt+< tin 6 e l M W, see IIIPs 6:10 I 6:10 0
2:10 7s10*12 , , (4:10I ) * *
- 1a10* $, 1:10**
teae surf. 227 0 '> f see P4
- 410 1:10* ' 6:10 12 , ,
el Protestial e 231 W, see III Ps fal0*I tale *I 6:10*II * * * (la t 0* I) (1:10*Il
- esle'II 7:10*' 7 10'8 teae serf. teae avef.
T, 6ee 227Pa
- 4:10*3 !al0*II * *
- I (5610*3)
- 8:10*II *
- 6eae surf.
- I 1
^
m ie i = l raio i raie a 3CcuPAlloset vuull af f terett itvit Nttatt to CamCle1D?10ml MudLACt Cel, la Cel. 2* Cel. 3* Cel. la Cel. 2+ teal lahelettes, anataly lasettlee El SAC Air betee Averece Atests All
; no. 4*sierwelles Class (wCl) (=Cl) (wCl/el) (wCl/31) (wCl/el) .(wCl/el) el Protectlat e 232 W. 6ee # Pa 1:16 3 2:193 - hit"
- 2:10 2:10 "
i (5:10 ) I
- Sale'II -
- toes sv et, UIPs
- f. See
- h10 I 2:10'8 * *
- l
- I d
(6a10 )
- I:10 10 , ,
Game seri. I la 3a10*I laJe*I III Presettlaten 233 W, see Ps 1e10 Ps10 I
- 3 (2:10 ) * *
- aste*I 2:10**
j y ul mil t, see III Ps
- 6a10 I
falt'I Sall' I *
- 91 Protec tlate2H W, set 2Hg , g,gg) 6a10 3
3a10'0 tale *8 3a10* $ g,gg*a f, 6ee NIPs
- 7:19 3
asle 6 ble *
- N Wreale2M 4a10' 4:10*I lal4*IO &a10*I3
- 8. W6 ' "# It' # I3 2 I3l * *
(Sall') * *
- Ps10*8 7:10*I toes s rf.
W.W3 ,W ,WI,
- 4:10'I 1:10 10 bal0*II * *
, t, W g, 3g 5 0
- 3a10*I 1:10'30 4414* U *
- tal0 I N treat e 231 234 8 9 see W 4a10 Sale *I 1:10*8 &a10*I 6:10*
- f e
W, see I30v T, see IIOW
+
&al0
&a10 I
3 2alg*6 2:10 6 erle*' 6:10*'
Federal Regleter / Vol St. No. 4 / Nroday,lanvary e.1ss6 / Proposed hles 1183
- inie z isie a isie i eCCuPA110m4 VAtu(5 afflAtuCl U Vit MUME14 cantte?pfler$ std ual Cel. la Cel. 2* Cel. 3 Cel la Cel. 2 Gral inhelstlea temataly legention Att SAC Alt taster 4,orage Agesle All me. SeJle*eutlJ ee Class M l) M I) M l/el) M l/el) (adl/el) M I/el) er urentagu 3, see M W 2 ale' 2 10*: 9:10*33 * * *
(kle') ila10* Il
- Sal 4*II 4:10*' tale d I teae 6wf. Seae suri.
I38W
- 4:14*I 2a10 10 93g*13 , ,
W. ese T. m II'W
- 6a10* 3 Sal 0*II le10*I" *
- 3
- 92 preal e 211 8. 6ee II's 1:10 Lanc' tale
- H + *
(2:19 ) 3 (2a10')
- 3alk'12 3,gg*1 h10 6
. Gene surf. tone w f.
g W. See IMW
- Fal0*I 3 alt
- N lall'II *
- T. en N W
- dal0*I la10* U la 10* "
- 97 Wea6 e F34 3
D. see
- W la10 I 1:10 8
bale
- H * * *
. (tal0I ) (h10) 8
- Sale
- U A.ll'I 3:10*'
taae w f. teae surf. W. 6e,
- W
- Fa10*I 3 10* H La10* II * * .
T. See # W
- 4:10*I fal0*II bale *I' *
- M th ealeill I S. 6n I 38 W 3,gg i g,gg e 6a1010 , , , l (tal0I ) (tal0')
- 3:10'U hl0*I h18*6 I home evef, tw swel.
W, see 238 W
- ta H*I 3 ale lO g,3,* U . .
T toe
- W
- 4:14*I 2:10*II 6a10*I8 *
- isie a veie a veie.a SCCWPAlletAt DALW1 GElleurt UML aluA34 To tauttrtUTles) MWIUCI tel. la Col. 2* Cel. > Cel. 1* Cel t-eral . Baselettaa sisathly 1
leantles at het Alt tietee aeroge Ataelt All M1/et) Ml/el) M IAel) M l/ ell no. Restemsc11ee Cha M l) Ml) 3 N Weal *lM 8. ese % !=10 Late' bale
- H * * *
(2 altI ) (tant')
- Sale
- U an10*I bl0*6 Some surf, teme swef.
l W, e.e
- W
- aau* 3 naa*w ua*u , ,
j T. see U p
- 4e10*I galg* kk late *ld . .
W ereal e llt D. 6ee N W 2:19 3 kle I laN I cale d tale i 2:18** W, ese N W
- Pa44 3
Fal4*I tale *' * *
. V ese N W
- 1a19 I
6al4*I tane d *
- W trealw2383 8. ese II'W nel0 I tele t 6 alt *I8 * * *
(Alt) I (7 19 ) 8
- Sale
- H hl4* I h10*6 teme 6eef. tems 6erf.
- I 30W
- aste*3 3al4* M Late *II *
- W. See IMW eaWI 2all'II 6al4*I' *
- T. toe
- g, ,,, my M bee =4 * #1,2 p,,3 4 g,gg' n g,3,15 3,3,* ) g,gg 4 9 10*3 W, ese N W
- Sale' 7:14*I Fel6?I *
- N I
l T. ese W
- 2 10 6:14*6 Pal 0*I *
- treat w #60 N I ede I tale *I le M*' tal6*I Sele **
{W *
- 3. see W & ale
'g,ggi g,gg i +4,gg*g I W. ees 238, , , ,
j T. e.e 8'N
- w 8 taw
- ku 8 *
- i l
t
11H Federal Registet / Vol. 31, No. 6 / Thursdey, January s.1966 / Propoted Rulee into a raie a rai, a DCiUPAf!M vatttl agitaDict Ltytt eftgatt to Conctelut tom) tlM as;f Cel.
- Cel. 2 Cel. 3* C41 la Ces. la oest inhelstlen monthly Ateelt Intes tlea All SAC Air h te r everste All me. Redlenwellee Class (Al) (41) . (Al/al) ( Al/el) (Al/el) (di/el) 92 w eal e nsterel 3 8. m #W 1:10 3 1:10 0
6:10*38 * *
- 3 0 (2:19 ) (2a10 )
- 3a10
- 3al0*I 1 10 6 teae surf. Eeae svef.
W, see INW
- Sal 0*I 3:10 10 Sa10*II *
- IMW *I
- 7. See
- Sal 0 2 ale *II 9:10* U *
- 91 apptual e !!2 2 y , , g g ,,,,,,,, 3,gg e is10 3
1410*' * * * (6:19 ) 8 (isl0I )
- Sa10*I Pa l0*
- Fa10*I 6ese svef. Sene surf.
}tl meetunl e ttl I W, all campeeds 4:10 I 3:10 8
late *I Sal 0*' la10*I tal0*I 91 meetunie!H W, all tempounds 2:10 3 3:10 3 la10 6 t al0*I late *I 3:10** 93 meetal.srfll W, e'l campounds 1:10 4 la10 I la10*I 2:10*' 2:10** 2:10*I 93 asetwf e gM , W, all compownes 4:10*I 3a10
*I late *II * *
- tl.thale y)
(le10*I) (1s10*I) * ' 4410*I" Fal0*I 7:10* ' ' Done surf. 6eae surf. 4a.0 I 93 asetuale 2M V, all campounes 2 la10 2 10*' * * * (22.5 m) gg,ge2 ) (tal0I )
- 1a10*I' 1:10*I 1:10**
{ teae surf. Gene surf. la asetw i e ll? W, all compowads Pale *t 6:10*I 2410 12 , , ,
*8
( tal0* I) (1:10*I)
- 2:10* H 2:10 fa10*8
,, teae sor!. teve svef.
reale a Taoie a e Tale a XCUPAilM tAttti effittact t(vit tit!Att IQ Casectetufloss g(g en:8 Cal. la Col. f* C41, 3* Ce). 1* Cal. 2* Oral lamelettee mantnly etasis lacostlee All DAC Air Wier everage all me. Sedle w llee Class (41) (aCl) ( AI/el) ( Al/el) (di/el) (Al/el) 93 fwetale!M
~
W all see m s SaiO 9:30 3 esit i + 1a'0 4 1410 "
- I (fal0 ) * #a10* H *
- 8eae svet.
93 asetwi e llt W, all campe e ds 3:10 I fal0 I 1:10*0 3:10*' 2:10*I tal0** 91 amptele*!40 I V, all campounds 8 2:19 Sale" es'0*I 1:10*I 1:10** 3:10*I N Pietaal e 2 H W, all seepwds escest Pwe g 9:19 3 2:10 I 4 laiO*I' 9a10 1:10** lal0*I g f. P Cg
- fa10 I tal0 ' 3all'N *
- H Pittsal e tin I W, su IM Pw $sts I SalC 6
1a10*I 4 19 is10*I 1:10*I f, see IM Ps
- 3s10 6
g ,3,* 3 4:10 6 . . M Pl teal e # M W, we IM tv 2:10 I 2:10*# Sal 0*II * * * (tal0I ) (3 104)
- 4:10*I" dat0*I en d '
teae svet. 6ene s rf. 1,see IN Pe
- 4:10** la10*I hal4* U *
- M Platan6 e ll? W, see 2H Pu la10' na10 I
1:10*' 4:10*I 2:10** !a10*I
= f see IN Pv
- 3 10 I 1 10 6 4, g ,4 , ,
5
-M ti tanlegu g, p IM , P 7:10 0
6 alt'I 1410 12 , , , (tal0I ) (tal0*I) *
# ale
- H # ale d
2:10
~ teae surf. Sene surf.
T, we IM is
- 2al0 N Pa10* " !al0* I* *
- F Fedusal Regisane / Val M, h 8 / Thursdey, leauary S.1eet / Peopesed bles 1196
. .i. : w.a w.2 GCtMPAf f0 MAL V Att($ Ef! Meet tivtL NLI A51 To mittWTRAtleut 5tw ucf '
tal. 1* Ce2. 2- Col. 3 Cod. 1* Col. F-tral tamalattee panthly laeostlee Att enc Ale taster Average Ataalt all as. Bedissusclies Class (41) (edl) (adI/st) (adWel) (sdl/ml) (yC1/el)
- M P6 eta wilt W, see 33*P. 4:10' 6s10'3 2:14 * * * *
(1210 ) 3 (ia10*I)
- 3:30* N 1:10*I Es10*'
teme surf. Done eerf.
- f, see W. P
- late *I 6a10*II * * *
. p,le* f)
- 3aM*I8 *
- teme 6.cf.
0 M Pletemi e l43 W. 6ee #P . 6 15 9e10*3 fat 0*II * '
- late *b I ( tal0*I) + amne*H . 1:10*I (Lat0 )
teme serf. teae surf.
) f, see 2Hp , , g,gji &all'U * = *
+
- trat0*Il
- is10* H +
Some sur f. M P Mea 6s tel W, see IM Ps 3:10 I 3 10'I talO
*I' * * *
(b 10 ) 2 ($s10*I)
- Sal 0* U fale 7e10*I
- tese sv ef, tone surf '
f, see IN Pe
- 6:10* I 1 10*10 , , , ,
. (galp* I)
- 1:1'0*II ' *
- tone surf.
w w.i w. 4 w.> OCCupt110 mat wat W 1 afflataCl ttytt HLgall 10 i Ceuttelutlass 5(Wt tA.*.T l Cel. 1* (el. F. Col. 3- Cel. 1* Cel. 2-Ocel lansistlea monthly tagestlea All SAC Air nieter Averete atee6c Att he. Sedi6a clies Clags (gl) (f t) (esCl/el) ( Al/el) (yCl/el) (Al/el) 8 M Pietaal e ill W, see #3'Po 7 10 6a10'3 2 10 * * * * (7:10 ) 3 Us10*I) + f al0* H 2:10*I 2:10** 6ene swef. 6ene swet. - Y, see 2Mp , , g,g g* 2 sal 0* U * *
* (2:10*I) * #ait* N *
- 6eae ovef.
,sie
- I M .i.te iero W, . a.v , sit a
esiv i.it $ 6ai0 ' ra>0 f see IN Ps 8 *
- 4:10 2a10*' 6 10*'
- IM Pv I IN Platea 6 um- 244 W, see ble' 3
e s t0* 3
*I
# s10* U *
* !s10* H 2:10 0 #s10*'
(1:10 ) (tal0 l Seae surf. 6wne two f . Y, see IMP .
- 2:10 *I 6a10*II f al0* H +
- W, se, IMPw I 6 sit 3
la10 ' 7:10*' h10* % 3e30 N , tienent w 24% 2:10 T. see IM Pv
- ealY 2 a10*' tale *I *
- Amnesti w !!? I I
St W all tempew ada Sall' 3:10 1:10** es10*I 1 10'3 1:10 gi Am ' 64 4 we D4 I h, all seapovadt onld Isl0 I 1s10 6
- 6a10** 6:14 *3
* (6:19 1 3
- Sing '
- y Seae s ,s i .
I 2
- 8m.er St e ily W, ell tempw rwn la10 3
1:10' 6:10 6 2a10* 0 Pale
- Isis
- l l, to
( l l
- l
11M Federal Register / Vok. 51. No. e / Thursday. leauary 9, tees / Proposed Rulee voie a Teie a vaie a GCCuPAllenat WAtu(5 offl M utt Ltytt eftLAlt 10 CouttsteAtless StWt art Col. l' Col. 2* Cel. 3- Cel. 1* Cel. 2-eral ladulatlee legathly facestlea ALI 4AC Air lister Average Atanl( All es. GeJieemuc line Class (yCl) (yCl) (yCl/el) (yCi/el) (yCl/el) (pCl/el) M Americiel40 W, all sempe. css 2a10 3 3s10 3 1410** 4a10" asle*
- 3a10*'
M Americle241 W, all campounds 8 2a10 12 , la10 Sa10*I , , (2:10') (tal0*I)
- f al0* U 3 ale 3:10*I 6eae avrf. Sene surf.
96 Ameriale!42e W, all campounds ble' Sa10* 3 2s10 12 , , , 0 (2:10 ) (lal0*I)
- Pale
- U asle 3a10*I teve surf. Geen surf.
aa!0 I M W, all tempounds 3 Amer 6 clef 42 $a10 asle la t0* N 6a10*I &a10** M Ameriti e l41 W, all campeeds *3 1a10' 9:10 2:10*II * *
- 0 (2:10 ) (1a 10* 2)
- 2:10* H 3:10*' 3:10*I tone surf. Sene surf M Americi e M 4nI W all sempoeds 0:10' 4:10 3
2100 , , , I (0:10') D:10I )
- Sala d tale *I 110 2 St. well Sene surf.
- M Ameritt e l44 W, all tempowad: 3:10 I I 7:10*'
#s10
- 4 10*I 4:10**
(3:10)
- 4:10*10 , ,
., Seae surf.
M 8eeric le 241 W. all coupeeds Sall' tale' aste*I la t0*I 4:10*' 4:10*I M Americle244e I W. all campe W Sale" fa10 I Fal0 *I tal0*I fal0** 7 10*3 1e.ie a 1.ie a ,' 1.i. a SCCwallenAt vatu(5 GEf(MW( ttvit M ttast to Conctatution5 $(Wi&Mt Cel. 8- Cel. 2- Cel . 3- Cel. 1* Cel. 2-oral lanelatlen Ilmathly lacestlee All SAC Air nieter Average Ateels All me. 044iewllee Class (yCI) (yCI) (yCl/el) (yC1/el) (ptl/el) (,Cl/el) Americ iel46 3 I 10 3 M W, all cas ewaes 3:10' 4:10*3 ! ale *# esit
- 4a10*3 3
M Co letM W, all cae n Jmda 2:10' 1a10
- 4a10*I 1:10*I 2:10*8 tal0*I i M C. ele ,.0 W. an m e.s La,0> .s,0 1 ,a,0 u ,0 n ,.,0 0 ,a,0 s
, M Curi e l41 W, slJ campeenes 1:10 3 fa10 I tal0*' * # ale
*I fale**
l
- O.103 )
- 4:10* H *
- 6ese s r f.
M Carie 742 all sempemes I
~W, 6a10 3a10*I tale *N esit*U *
- I (Osl0I )
4 e s.co.
* *
- 1:10*0 tal0 *I M Ceri e lu W, all campewade late' 0:10*3 4:10 12 , , ,
(late') Hal0*Il
- 2 10*I* 4:10*' 4:10*I te.4 s : f. Seae 6.ef.
W Curie f er w, all compeeds 2:10' t a l0*I 4:10*II * *
- Osle') (la10*I)
- 3:10*I' ia H'8 f a H*I I Seen avrf. 6ere serf.
M Curiel4b w, all temp. ean 1:10' 5:10*3 lal0* II * *
- I (2:10') (4:10*3)
- 1 10* H 3:10'0 3ald'I teae surf. Seae 6.c f.
l
Federal Resister / Vol. 51. No. 6 / mreday,lanuay 9.1986 / Proposed Rules 1137 sei. A isie 1sie a DCCVPAtlanAt VAtvil af f tetEl ttytt attt e t to CasuttefrAf tens 50st RMt - Col. 1 Cel. 2* Cel. 3* Cel. la Cel, f* , lehalation Insathly ersi laces: lea All SAC Alt Water Average 441 steel Class (wCl) (yCl) (yCl/el) (yCl/el) (yC1/el) (yCl/el) she . Radie<=til6e W, all tempowM 6 1:10 8 talf 3 2:10*u , , , 96 Corl e l46 0 (tal0*Il
- 1:10*I8 3:10*8 3:10*I
{2:10) asse surf. Seae surf. 0 , , ,
- W all cespewad6 1:10 6:10*3 2:10 12 M Curi e l47 (2:10 )
8 (1 10*I) * 'sl0*I" i 3s30*8 3 10*I teae 6erf. teae 6erf. N Cer6ve 244 W, all toepovass 4:10*I 1a10* 3 6:10*II -
- o (5:10*I) (tal0* 3)
- 3:10* II 7:10 ' 7a10* 8 som surf. Seae 6erf.
g 8 7:10
- Fal0*I Cer l e 24t I W, all tene+vart 1:10' 2:10 6 10 6 3:10*8 94 W, all casee.aos 2:19 3
1:10 3 Sal 0*I 2:10*' 3ali[I 3:10*
- 97 teriell e 24%
W 411 campovada 3:10 I 3:10 3 1:10 6 4:10*I 4:10 *I 4:10*
- 97 k r6eli w 244 terke t e l47 W, all caseevasi 1:1C 0
til0*I 2:10*II * * * , 97 * (7 10 ) 0 ( 0:10*Il
- lil0*I" 3:10 ' 3 10*I tog surf. tone surf.
I 0 , , , W, all tensevads lan0 t:10 0s10 10 97 k rLell e l49 0 4,3g*12 1:10** (8:10 ) I (1:10 3
, 1:10*I I - tem twrf. Done surf.
1
" isle 1 st. i a seele a DCCUPAll0aAL 144U($ Stf(ttutt t(vil Of Lt48 10 liig ast C0 sit tat tat t 0m%
Cat. 1* Col. 2* Col. 3* f41. la Cel la asentalp test inhalallee Aierege lacestion All 6AC Air Weter ALI Atasit (wCl) (yCl) (Al/el)(wCl/el) (wCl/el) (wCl/el) Ibe. Seelesmallee Clast 3 2a10* #
- 1:10 " 1:10'3
$7 herte16 e TSC W, all tempeeds late' 4.10 d
- I *
* (tal0 )
- 1 ate teae su f r ogg 4 3 98 Callierstelle W, all tegew ade essent g 2:16,, tale late late tasse given for T 3 st'.4 6 alt V, Saleet ad bye *walees
- 6a10 I
fait *I ta10
*I' *
- I tal0 I 4:10* ' tale*3I *
- 98 C411terst e l44 l', see ICf 4:10 *6 I * *
- 7:10 7:10*I (5:10)l til soi
. 3
~
- 1:10 0 4:10* ' tal0*II *
- 9, 6ee I"C f ,
la10 I 9 10 *2 4,3,*11 , , , to Cel' f orele 244 W 6ee #4*Cf 4:10*I 4:10** (3:10I ) (1 10*Il *
.#s10*II , tow surf, te m surf.
Y, 64 ICf
- late *I tale *II init*II *
- I"C f 1:10 8
la10*3 2:10 * *
- M 6416foret e l49 W. See *8 3:10*I '
0 (tal0*I)
- In10*I" 3:10 (2:10 )
teae swef. teae sur I. *
- 1410*I 5a10
- 1.10*I4
- Y, see I"C f
[ I a
119e Federal Resister / Vol 21 No. e / N sday, luusry s. tese / Proposed Rulee unie a soie a roeie a GCCUPAfl0n44 v41W($ E ft M eCl LIVil Ott(451 10 CesEINTufloni Mwf sact_ Cel, la Col. 2 Cal. 3* Cel.1* Cel. 2* Deel Imholettee peonthly Ateelt lagestlea All ,1.tC Air Water A*erege me. Gael uclise All
- Class (g1) (41) (41/el) (sol /el) (Al/el) (yci/et)
M Celt feralwr 250 W, see #"Cf 3:10' 1:10*3 bal0* A# * *
- 8 (la10 ) (fal0*I)
- 3a10* I' 7:10*8 Fal0* I tone sort. Seae sort, f, see I"C f
- 3:10*I tale *II da10 *I' *
- M Cellteroi e tSt W. Su I"C f tale t g, g,* 3 fal0*II * % *
(Pale') (4a10*3) teae surf. Gene surf. 1:10*I' 3:10*8 lal(I Y, 6*e #Cf a tal0*I bale
- U is10* H +
- IN CellterstelS2 W, su I"Cf 6:10 8
3 10*I tal0*U * * * (Is10I ) (h 10*I)
- es10* H lat0*I late
teae surf. Gene swer. f, su I*'Cf
- 4:10*# tal0*U 6s 10* H + +
M Calleere6elil W, see N t 0 Cf Oslo
- 2a10 0 10*10 ' 4:10*II *
- I lea 10 ) * *
- lal0*I tal0**
- Sene serf.
4, see I44 Cf
- 2a10 0
7:10 10 tale
- U *
- M Cal 6 f er nie tS4 n', see I'8 Cf 3:19 8
2a10*2 9 10*12 3a10* H 4:16*0 f fa 6ee I"C f
- 2:10*2 Pal 0*II 2:10*I"
- es10*I M finsteiel e 250 W, all campowds 1410' 7:19I 3:10*I
- 7:10*
- 7:10*3
- 3
** (1 10 )
- 2a10*' *
- Gene surf, iamie a rasie a '
Iaie 1 - KCWAflan4L valut$ Nf tMutt t(vit MttAtt 10 Concluiutl>5 Magnet Cel. 1 CJ1. f* Col. 3 Cel. le Cel. 2* tral tealellen annathly Atamic Immettlea Att teC air Water Average me. Sad,eauc lies All Cless (44) (All (Al/el) (Al/el) (Al/ ell (Al/ ell M Elasta t elett! W, all tempounes 3 7:19 1a10 3 Sale *# tate' tale" 4:10*3 M tiastatel e tt) W, all campownes isl0 I 0 7:10 6a10*IO 2:14*II 3:10'0 hl0*I M f insteleie ttes W, all sempowies k!'I bl0 I 4 ale tale
- U 4s10'8 cal 0
*I M flesteletette V, all smapewies # ale I tal0*I 4 ale
- U 1 ale
- U * *
(la10I ) .
* *
- 4:10*I 4s10 0 tone surf.
ISO f ero6e t% W, all campoweds ba10 I tale I 3 Sale *I 2a10*II 7:10'0 Pal 0*I
100 fermi e tti I la10 I W. , ell campowiss la10 , 4:10 d tale *II fal0*I fal0**
180 forni e tS4 W, all sampowies Sale I 1:10 I 4:10*8 tale *IO tale *I 4a10** fal0 I nas fornieill W, all sampow ds Sale' 9:10*' 3:10* U fale*0 7=10*I 140 f orele tt) W, all campowds kl0 I 2:10*I 1a10 14 3,3,* U , , (Osle ) I * *
- 1 ale.0 g,gg*l tone surf let menemie,lerg) W, all campowws 4:10 I tal0 I 4:10*8 tale *I' latt**
- 1a10*I
{ 101 akseelesterse W, all campowice la10I 3a10*I lant'I' batt* U 1alpe 1:10 b
itse Federal Regletet / Vol. St. No. e / mtsday, lanwy e, toes / Proposed Rules -
"" rai. I imie i Isie : Ettatt le SCMaplenu tatW($ NflueCl ttvit M el hM,f ta ttefediles%
tel, f* Cel, 3- Cel, 1* Col, l' Cel, la Gently 9e al f ameteHen betepe leeritten att tal air tc ter atI 6tes 64 As tas soaw Hee Clell M il M il MI/ett Mt/et) M 4 /eH Mi tell e any stasie testemuttles not hated esm esta meer sees etaer thea elene estuien ee senateasons f 6eales one oitn recie.catw telf*llte *len liesserif oa I
- tele I jele d lelt *
- we f sewes t
- b, 66egte vesieuttes nel listee som oun escar esse otmee thea alche estesten er .
- ses-Leee s f tasten eM etta *8 resteestle hallallte geester . 3,gl 3. lg* 18 tal4*II 114 late *I Laon i eaves ,,,,,
e { *
&ay 66aele ree.lenu.m.e,6 nae e e.e e t. tiles act e,
olene esite 6en De senateseews fission or may statere fee em6cm eIther the testity et tee sosseateetten of ear testeaulies le gne siste et
- es 4
Pel(II bdII fe#I t e M* 0 et eet easwa ensei 6.ne.te an.e er einerae esseeiei,
'e'r'els.ame,rsi&a' esea wt ui.es gi.e. ere roe s.nene ien e
ee,e wiia n Ime tout om e e, emie. eee testelseiu.l malf Inne seu t.aea i to es. we . i= SnC esi fui eiu n ee wu.we
-totene t of ts. ,in.e.a.n 6 esenica wie no se (ie..eeseanties inte un psey 4 e .eu nesea pete.t onet eura set w ee signistsaat taci sentrie. ties te esse oeviesteen fees t
I y esteenen eiees ees. Ihe linesee est setteleteTo $$ edl/el fee the h$ted $4s to eueuas fu um odeerden este
- peoeee<O.elp, s=t 6te.le une iMiete.nl seastwing melui ee euer resituen seesertag instements wt sees.ee estecasi essen ee te emanasteete semehesse otta Las 16etti. (see i 70.793, ) if tan peneat by af w selete einecos et ette e tM ene v itt to ate snestui tesigny any me um He661ae futw, esten arente see tearisoneet) sete ester of of ele ein Je not greete, taen 4, tse sesseatrettom ee>w fee e eermeer emet. net is e.t ett ugesesf e-erees, esetas e ee se.e enesmeios shall met euses sale 8 u pt te/el, a, lesmere testillesaeettetty is tae fmeestris arteestyofof tas m tate temetee ee etner sistveet les meet t0 64 etuotty for heteral erealm is 6 f tat > suelet pe gene g w l.e etu fat r e, Pfle, etit e4 etM. If est 6assa, thsts ee. Sas s 6ile ' ceren/geen y emelei,e. me e.
meere i e D ft. I to um pene tese by estou of e f u, esecesus es ponen, Ell,
- l. ll lie tasolity of tech easiennalten ta e eeletw e is eseus Det tae gassentretles of one se neee of tee eastesembeen le ta= eistere is ant bas a. Lee tac tee tae eletwee 64 ell es Lee telt redenttlee has of soy tefienialles la lle ei s tep e
), 19 tee tee tly of eeth festaaelles (a tee stateev is eJt taewa, bet 96 is &mme wt teetsie tesienditees teetl*
4 tee to this amoegia eee ont peeseen le tas sistece, Lee leAeletten att, enc, apes coferease level aw tesepe tea-f ea4eetiona f ee gne rsiste e are tes leuest selses tootif tet to this eseeMis tee say passesneglise sette es est bassa to IJ eheL* f ree us sitte*e, w Tesie 3 Ishle 3 f ai,le 3 ef fletect tivtt uttest 14 Ottkeallem4 e4Wil Mutt 4M CSoClet eat les% Eat I- 54i, 3 - Eel, S eel I-
~ E41. 3- lhetely Deel
- lse=sist t ea 4.wege lanespea El tag 46e teste, kl MO MO _ ,, _ M a reil M t /et t M usil Mt ren legg=, ht.
- Pale i Sa nt'H + . =
it in to 6s==== ta=st k'1110 u met prese4 11, to easit 6.a et is sen== inst he tt? t,1, left9e,v,toj30w,le!Ww.t.tofil*t,9,
. e, en, 3)f e, 9,6 se o, Pritt e, f el6e-e, Pr 24be, 5 er 344-o, an tel o, arteto o, as lO-e, Co ite o, trie4 e, to 84P e., te 264 e Ge*let e, (f tet s,
- telt,3 le tt.gg * *
- one (f *N v e,e set penen II, 6e adot es, 46 is be== wt trim w, telO o, Cd 144 0,v, Go 1WS,v, le !?e o,f.
le* f kr t. W .'12 9. P P H t, W-lM 9, F in e , FIM 8, r#349 ty lM e,Pr3M e,1,(Pefle9, erfl9-9 er744-1,Prfet t,ertee f, s- 14 3 s , + Co lee o, (0 2491 Cf *tte o,1, (t MI T. (l'ht-o,t,
- tal8 g 146.g g * *
- ene (f fu o,1 eee ant peewat It, 6e easilian it is haeus nnst Pe !19 9 Printe.e, te l&e, as.itt 8,1, in ItP-e,t.
4 v,9 I~cfW,PM.7 o, d.e.2WS,v, t . v 1, i.,Pu,, trien i, nt,Coe 744 o, e 9.
- tegl 3e 3( 40 , , ,
J las two ero aog prose.g d if, le aseittva, it in tas.a that St* 311, 16*44 1 be* IsatPS,(4 481e 0,Le'llPO, le414$,s.Wetto 1$4 0, tritt-e, wifert t.
smo Federal Resister / Vol. 81, No, s / Thursday, lanuary 9, teos / Ptoposed Ru.les
- 1. i . i 1. i e , 1. i e etcwattmat Wawl afaster uv(6 erueu to carf e1talleel WW EW,f sei. I- Ee l, (* Ee l . P E41, P Eel. 4- .
Drel lehe tallen R tely stjen Asl Ge( Air weLee Aserege teveam lier M e l. f411 Mt/ ell MI/ ell M I/ ell f4 4/ ell et. net 0,w 06 flert.W 4e 22J v as 224 W, trtM w, Ee fM*w k IJS-w, at*}f6 0 v f
- Pe f at-W,f. tP!3F8,v, PIM 0,v Pld 8,v. ,
5 836 0,v, Plat 0,w, 84 749-v, df*a64 w.t. ens te*3bHf erg en peseest
- pelt' M e*' * *
- f it le ene that Araff7 6,W f Ie lM v,T, Peafal v,7 and Co led-v erg mettPtit-w,7, preeest e . .
La t4*I8 *
- If, to eastilea, it to bem. thet trite-w, to let 8,W, Ge 412 0. In 8Jt w,9, la ale s,t, 9 817't, PI)FT, Pjk*t, v 2)S f talM*t P 819 1, v-est T g-I Prf 80-v.1, Pethe-w,436 T w, sp 237,w
#w tee-w,f, Prf d w,T, blobs,T, PetW v,9 A top 4FW,de rttiv d #46-w, (e fee o, art 47 5, 744 v S6atef-w,
, (f a#49-w de=ritart, t, (f Mef,f,ArNFv, 8f 868+v.t. (f*#6Pw.f. and if FM w,i ere est petoeet * * .
tet0*II *
- If, la essetten tg to bem. that telt).v,
*fl0 8,v, Ge Sr ffPw, l&# tow,t fellb3, M w te tJw-vOlatters, 4 PefM 8,v,v, to itt-w.t Pfit 8,v, w ee;-w, Priel-w,dePlas6,w.tfee w, Co-E4Ps, (f tee o,v, l le iH-W fe 147 W, ens as #64 v org est pee 6ett * *
- late,g; *
- TIf,leensation 16*44 t le llbi.fw,ete60-E,it Se= 89 le fnessa lW 8, er*IPee Co ll3r0 that $1 17.Tlll 0, 0,w, eI'to-tt4'0, Stallert, te ffe o, to !M v k fM 0.e.t.
- Pe*F30 v.t. P!)Fe,e, v #M 0,w, IP3M 0,v, pcial t, P;m3,v,etM3,v,gastg}$PWeremet to Pet s, (f.tSFe,t, ens (s.
pensenc * *
- la te, g g *
- I i
Tale i vele g Imie a GCCwP& fleet verwl Eftelagt Livtt stue.tt te CSClete4fles) Mut ted
! Cel. 4- Cel. E= Eo i, P Ee l, P Eel, #* e 1 tee) lamelet tee shately ellen ALI SeC 46P water Aseeays tosiaans it er I
M ll M tl M1/ ell fdf / ell M t/ ell M l/ ell If It ing emens ta.et as tit Pe gli, e tM 48,86e14 p), e 437 one co, tee eco set pe, t * * *
- late,, late,,
If, le matition, in to bassa teet & fle, Pe lit, be 116, 04118, te 8tt, te ISt. PS)D, , w lit, er tel, er fe7e, erie), to tel, Co tes, , to lel,te tee, te te), pe.it) (8 349,gf.tge, (F int, ens (f tw are een pass,ent * * *
- La &4* I isle *0 17, la easit6.m. It is tenue thet f e 44, le-ef, to llis, Ce-l!J. Cellt, Irlin,1*179, te*1M, r tries, nrlei, Go le4, 6s lit, og lM leresess),
46114, te fil, 64 224, fritt, k 18 IPIM, 1 1e 338 P fl3 W!M w 2 M , PIM , w-me , I (PelM,, Prid,PIMPelhi, pre 44, erfel, PelH, f tee, (8 h2 lo tw, ens me Me oce est pegseat * * *
- lett g telt og u as. ... i i
!""Wet.T;..
- e. e,r Le ee> erie res.iona.ei
- e. seeeeen.o.
of tes ., ..erf rue erea6.w or.,wles sutoo enante iaw esi.e e se me,e<e ne .e, .ee Lf. us se eues ie m of eeeu<ie m, w w** w ei.te ce. e e 14*88 vci of ,,se sie.e m oeit, f ree ereni.- W, e,esi. :M, in i. W, .8 ,esi. M ,e , I eillilitee of air 3 e 10*N yCl of meteral arente per elll6llter of e6e; se el elsregrees of not. eel areale per e,eis e,ter es see. l . 4. le the e,eetity me tense =stetten of esce realosealles le e staters ace 6an,c, las 16eltlag eel se semel 6 en sees,e4 en feil tetereise, fee eue easiendliae se the eastero, the rette estanee us saartetenties seg6est to pe sister, u ens we senseettetten etaerwise esi ilsass to deseasta 0 ese tae sees sf 6e tesv=< sten snee es le o essa { tees . lee een of 6use rettee fee all of the poeiaansleses to t.se a: stere est est easeos *l* (t.e , *.t i t,* r (aanv ie - Il revieasl6ees *4,* *t
- ead *C* ere peesent le consens. eel 6pe t,, t,, ens e , and H W eseHesele S t 1 w. e.g te;h,i Seig, ead &Afg. seteettleely, teme See senseetro66ame emell as limited se Las t has follamisq rele-tie.*sie e.i Ae&,
e esh i I 1
[7590-01) APPENDIX C , QUANTITIE5* OF LICENSED MATERIAL REQUIRING LA8ELING Radionuclide Quantity (pCi) Radionuclide Quantity (pCi) Hydrogen-3 1,000 Chromium-48 1,000 Sery111w7 1,000 Chromium-49 1,000 Beryllium-10 1 Chromi w S1 1,000 Carbon 11 1,000 Manganese-51 1,000
. Carbon-14 100 Manganese-52m 1,000 Fluorine 18 1,000 Manganese-52 100 Sodi w 22 10 Manganese-53 1,000 Sodium-22 100 Manganese 54 100 Magnesium-28 100 Manganese-56 1,000 Aluminum-26 10 Iron-52 100 Silicon-31 1,000 Iron-55 100 i Silicon-32 1 Iron-59 10 Phosphorus-32 10 Iron-60 1 Phosphorus-33 100 Cobalt 55 100 ,
Sulfur-35 100 Cobalt-56 10 Chlorine-36 10 Cobalt-57 100 Chlorine-38 1,000 Cobalt-58m 1,000 Chlorine-39 1,000 Cobalt-58 100 l Argon-39 1,000 Cobalt-60m 1,000 Argon-41 1,000 Cobalt-60 1 Potassium-40 100 Cobalt-61 1,000 l Potaasium-42 1,000 Cobalt-62m 1 000 Potassium-43 1,000 Nickel-56 h00 Potassium-44 1,000 Nickel-57 100 Potassium-45 1,000 Nickel-59 100 Calci w 41 100 Nickel-63 100 Calcium-45 100 Nickel-65 1,000 i Calcium-47 100 Nickel-66 10 Scandi w 43 1,000 Copper-60 1,000 Scandi w 44m 100 Coper-61 1,000 Scandium 44 100 Copper-64 1,000 j Scandi w 46 10 Copper-67 1,000 Scandium-47 100 Zinc 62 100 , Scandi w 48 100 Zinc-63 1,000 Scandi w 49 1,000 Zinc-65 10 Titant w 44 1 ?ine-69m 100 Titanium-45 1,000 M :,e 59 1,000 Vanadt w 47 1,000 Zinc-71m 1,000 Vanadium-48 100 Zinc-72 100 i Vanadium 1,000 Ga111um-65 1,000 )
"The quantities listed above were derived by taking 1/10th of the most j restrictive ALI listed in Table 1, Columns 1 and 2 of Appendix 8 of this l
part, rounding to the nearest factor of ten, and arbitrarily constraining i } 116 Enclosure 1 i
l [7590-01) APPENDIX C (Continued) Radionuclide Quantity (pci) Radionuclide Quantity (pci) Ga111um-66 100 Krypton-85 1,000 Ga111um-67 1,000 Krypton-87 1,000 Gallium-68 1,000 Krypton-88 1,000 Ga111um-70 1,000 Rubidium-79 1,000 Gallium-72 100 Rubidium-81m 1,000 . Gallium-73 1,000 Rubidium-81 1,000 Germanium-66 1,000 Rubidium-82m 1,000 Germant w 67 1,000 Rubidi w 83 100 Gereanium-68 10 Rubidium 100 Gereanium-69 1,000 Rubidt w 86 100 Germanium-71 1,000 Rubidi w 87 100 Germaniue75 1,000 Rubidi w 88 1,000 Germanium-77 1,000 Rubidium-89 1,000 Geruantum-78 1,000 Strontium-80 100 l Arsenic-69 1,000 Strontium-81 1,000 t Arsenic-70 1,000 Stror. tium-83 100
- Arsenic-71 100 Strontium 85m 1,000 Arsenic-72 100 Strontium-85 100 Arsenic-73 100 strontium-87m 1,000 i
Arsenic-74 100 Strontium 89 10 Arsenic-76 100 Strontium-90 0.1 Strontium-91 100 j Arsenic-77 100 Arsenic-78 1,000 Strontium-92 100 Seleni w 70 1,000 Yttrt w 86m 1 000 , Selenium 73m 1,000 Yttetum 86 3
, 00 i i
Selent w ?3 100 ntrium-87 100 Selenium-75 100 Yttrium-88 10 Selent w ?9 100 Yttrium-90s 1,000 j Selent w 81m 1,000 Yttrium-90 10
- 1,000 Selenium-81 1,000 Yttri w 91m i Selenium 83 1,000 Yttrium-91 10 Brcmine-74m 1,000 Yttrium-92 100
! Bromine-74 1,000 Yttri w 93 100 i Bromine-75 1,000 Yttrium-94 1,000 i Bromine-76 100 Yttri w S5 1,000 i Bromine-77 1,000 Zirconium-86 100 1 Bromine 80s 1,000 Zircont w 88 10 l Bromine-80 1,000 Zirconium-89 100 l Bromine-82 100 Zircont w S3 1 Bromine-83 1,000 Zirconium-95 10 Bromine-84 1,000 Zircont w 97 100
. Krypton-74 1,000 Nisbium-43 1,000 Krypton-76 1,000 Niobium-89 Krypton-77 1,000 T 4 ., in) 1,000
' ... Values of 100 pCi have been the values listed between 0.001 and 1,00i asl igned for radionuclides having a radioactive half-life in excess of l 10 years (except rhenium,1000 pCi) to take into account their low specific activity.
117 Enclosure 1 [
r7590-01) A?PENDIX C (Continued) Radionuclide Quantity (pC1) Radionuclide Quantity (pCi) i Krypton-79 1,000 Niobium-89 Krypton-81 1,000 (122 min) 1,000 Krypton-83m 1,000 Niobium-90 100 Krypton-85m 1,000 Niobium-93m 10 Niobium-94 1 Silver-104 1,000 Niobium-95m 100 Silver-105 100 Niobium-85 100 Silver-106m 100 Niobium-96 100 Silver-106 - 1,000 Niobium 97 1,000 Silver-108m 1 Nicbium-98 1,000 Silver-110m 10 Molybdenum-90 100 Silver-111 100 Molybdenum-93m 100 Silver-112 100 Molybdenum-93 10 Silver-115 1,000 Molybdenum-99 100 Cadmium-104 1,000 Molybdenum-101 1,000 Cadmium-107 1,000 Technetium-93m 1,000 Cadmium-109 1 - Technetium-93 1,000 Cadmium-113m 0.1 Technetium-94m 1,000 Cadmium-113 100 Technetium-94 1,000 Cadmium-115m 10 Technetium-96m 1,000 Cadmium-115 100 Technetium-96 100 Cadmium-117m 1,000 Technetium-97m 100 Cad: tium-117 1,000 Technetium-97 1,000 Indium-109 1,000 Technetium-99 10 Indium-110m Technetium-99m 1,000 (69.1m) 1,100 Technetium-99 100 Indium-110m Technetium-101 ".,000 (4.9h) 1,000 Technetium-104 1,000 Indium-111 100 Ruthenium-94 1,000 Indium-112 1,000 Ruthenium-97 1,000 Indium-113m 1,000 Ruthenium-103 100 Indium-114m 10 Ruthenium-105 1,000 Indium-115m 1,000 Ruthenium-106 1 Indium-115 100 Rhodium-99m 1,000 Indium-116m 1,000 Rhodium-99 100 Indium-117m 1,000 Rhodium-100 100 Indium-117 1,000 Rhodium-101m 1,000 Indium-119m 1,000 Rhodium-101 10 Tin-110 100 Rhodium-102m 10 Tin-111 1,000 Rhodium-102 10 Tin-113 100 Rhodium-103m 1,000 Ti!.-117m 100 Rhodium-105 100 Tin-119m 100 Rhodium-106m 1,000 Tin-121m 100 Rhodium-107 1,000 Tin-121 1,000 Palladive100 100 Tin-123m 1,000 Palladium-101 1,000 Tir-123 10 Pa11adium-103 100 Tin-125 10 Palladium-107 10 Tin-126 10 118 Enclosure 1
(7590-01) APPENDIX C (Continued) Radionuclide Quantity (pC1) Radionuclide Quantity (pCi) Pa11adium-109 100 Tin-127 1,000 Silver-102 1,000 Tin-128 1,000 Silver-103 1,000 Antimony-115 1,000 Silver-104m 1,000 Antimoney-116m 1,000 Antimony-116 1,000- Iodine 131 1 Antimony-117 1,000 Iodine-132m 100 Antimony-118m 1,000 Iodine-132 100 Antimony.-119 1,000 - Iodine-133 10 Antimony-120 Iodine 134 1,000 (16m) 1,000 Iodine-135 100 Antimony-120 Xenon-120 1,000 (5.76d) 100 Xenon-121 1,000 4 Antimony-122 100 Xenon-122 1,000 Antimony-124m 1,000 Xenon 123 1,000 Antimony-124 10 Xenon-125 1,000 Antimony-125 100 Xenon-127 1,000 , Antimony-126m 1,000 Xenon-129m 1,000 Antimony-126 100 Xenon-131m 1,000 Antimony-127 100 Xenon-133m 1,000 - Antimony-128 Xenon-133 1,000 (10.4m) . 1,000 Xenon-135m 1,000 Xenon-135 1,000 Antimony-)128 (9.01h 100 Xenon-138 1,000 Antimony-129 100 Cesium-125 1,000 Antimony-130 1,000- Cesi w 127 1,900 Antimony-131 1,000 Cesium-129 1,000 Te11urium-116 1,000 Cesium-130 1,000 Tellurium-121m 10 Cesium-131 1,000 Te11uri w 121 100 Cesi w 132 100 1 Tellurium-123m 10 Cesium-134m 1,000 Te11uri w 123 100 Cesium-134 10 Tellurium-125m 10 Cesi w 135m 1,000 Te11urium-127m 10 Cesi w 135 100
, Te11urt w 127 1,000 Cesium-136 10 Tellurium-129m 10 Cesium-137 10 Tellurium-129 1,000 Cesium-138 1,000 Tellurium-131m 10 Barium-126 1,000 Te11uriw131 100 Bart w 128 100 l Tellurium-132 10 Bari w 131m 1,000 Tellurt w 133m 100 Barium-131 100 Te11urt w 133 1,000 Barium-133m 100 Te11urt w 134 1,000 Barium-133 100 Iodine-120m 1,000 Barium 135m 100 Iodine-120 100 Barium-139 1,000 Iodine 121 1,000 Bariyel40 100 Iodine-123 100 Bartur141 1,000 Iodine 124 10 larium-142 1,000 Iodine-125 1 Lanthanum-131 1,000 Iodine-126 1 Lanttie.. w 132 100 Iodine-128 1,000 Lanthanum-135 1,000 119 Enclosure 1
. t (7590-01]
APPENDIX C (Continued) Radionuclide Quantity (pCi) Radionuclide Quantity (pCi) Iodine-129 1 Lanthanur 137 10 Iodine-130 10 Lanthanue 138 100 Lanthanum-140 100 Samarium-153 100 Lanthanum-141 100 Samarium-155 1,000 Lanthanum-142 1,000 S.marium-156 1,000 Lanthanum-143 1,000 Europiue145 100 , Cerium-134 - 100 Europium-146 100 Cerium-135 100 Europium-147 100 Ceriur 137m 100 Europium-148 10 Cerium-137 1,000 Europium-149 100 Ceriue 139 100 Europium 150 Cerium-141 100 (12.62h) 100 Cerium-143 100 Europium-150 i Ceriue144 1 (34.2y) 1 Praseodymium-136 1,000 Europium-152m 100 Praseodymium-137 1,000 Europium-152 1 i Praseodymium-138m 1,000 Europium-154 1 Praseodymium-139 1,000 Europium-155, 10 Praseodymiue142m 1,000 Europium-156 100 Praseodymium-142 100 Europium-157 100 Praseodymium-143 100 Europium-158 1,000 Praseodymium-144 1,000 Gadolinium-145 1,000 Praseedymiue145 100 Gadolinium-146 10 l Praseodymium-147 1,000 Gadolinium-147 ,100 Neodymium-136 1,000 Gadolinium-148 0.001 Neodymium-138 100 Gadolinium-149 100 Neodymium-139m 1,000 Gadolinium-151 10 Neodymium-139 1,000 Gadolinium-152 100 , Neodymium-141 1,000 Gadolinium-153 10 l Neodymium-147 100 Gadoliniur 159 100 Neodymium-149 1,000 Terbium-147 1,000 l Neodymium-151 1,000 Terbium-149 100 Promethium-141 1,000 Terbium-150 1,000 Promethium-143 100 Terbiue151 100 Promethive144 10 Terbiue153 1,000 Promethium-145 10 Terbium-154 100 I Promethiue146 1 Terbium-155 1,000 Promethive147 10 Terbium-156m Promethium-148m 10 (5.0h) 1,000 Promethium-148 10 Terbiue156m Promethiue149 100 (24.4h) 1,000 Promethium-150 1,000 Terbiue156 100 Pronethiun-151 100 Terbiur 157 10 i Samarium-141a 1,000 Terbium-158 1 Samarium-141 1,000 Terbium-160 10 l Samarium-142 1,000 Terbiue161 IN ' Samarium 145 100 Dysprosium 155 1,000 Samarium-146 1 Dysprosium-157 1,000 l Samarium-147 100 Dysprosium-159 100
- Samarium-151 10 Dysprosiue165 1,000 I 120 Enclosure 1
[7590-01) APPENDIX C (Continued) Radionuclide Quantity (pCi) Radionuclide Quantity (pCi) Dysprosium-166 100 Hafnium-173 1,000 Holmiun-155 1,000 Hafnium-175 100 Holmium-157 1,000 Hafnium-177m 1,000 Holmium-159 1,000 Hafnium-178m 0.1 Holmium-161 1,000 Hafnium-179m 10 Holmium-162m 1,000 Hafnium-180s 1,000 Holmium-162 1,000 Hafnium-181 10 Holmium-164m 1,000 Hafnium-182m 1,000 Holmiur 164 1,000 Hafnium-182 0.1 Holmium-166m 1 Hafnium-183 1,000 Holmium-166 100 Hafniur184 100 Holmium-167 1,000 Tantalum 172 1,000 ; Erbiur161 1,000 Tantalue173 1,000 ' i Erbiue165 1,000 Tantalue174 1,000 l Erbium-169 100 Tantalum-175 1,000 ! Erbiue 171 100 Tantalum-176 100 * ! Erbium-172 100 Tantalum-177 1,000 Thulium-162 1,000 Tantalum-178 1,000 i Thulium-166 100 Tantalum-179 100 Thulium-167 100 Tantalum-180m 1,000 Thulium-170 10 Tantalum-180 100
, Thulium-171 10 Tantalum-182m 1,000 '
, Thulium-172 100 Tantalum-182 10 Thulium-173 100 Tantalue183 100 Thulium-175 1,000 Tantalum-184 *100 j Ytterbium-162 1,000 Tantalum-185 1,000 , i Ytterbium-166 100 Tantalum-186 1,000 i Ytterbium-167 1,000 Tungsten-176 1,000 Ytterbiue169 100 Tungsten-177 1,000 Ytterbium-175 100 Tungsten-178 1,000 i Ytterbium-177 1,000 Tungsten-179 1,000 4 Ytterbium-178 1,000 Tungsten-181 1,000 l Lutetium-169 100 Tungsten-185 100 Lutetium-170 100 Tungsten-187 100 Lutetium-171 100 Tungsten-188 10 Lutetiue172 100 Rhentue177 1,000 ) Lutetium-173 10 Rhenlue 178 1,000 l Lutetium-174m 10 Rhentue 181 1,000 i Lutetium-174 10 Rheniur182 Lutetium-176m 1,000 (12.7h) 1,000
- Lutetium-176 100 Rnenium-182 I Lutetium-177a 10 (64.0h) 100 Lutetium 177 100 Rhentw-184m 10 Lutetium-178m 1,000 Rhentue184 100 Lutetium-178 1,000 Rhenium-186m 10 Lutetium-179 1,000 Rhenium-186 100 l 1,000 Hafnium-170 100 Rhenium-187 Hafnium-172 1 Rhenium-1BSm 1,000 121 Enclosure 1 l
(759001) APPENDIX C (Continued) Radionuclide Quantity (pCi) Radionuclide Quantity (pCi) Rhenium-188 100 Mercury-194 1 Rhenium-189 100 Mercury-195m 100 Osmium-180 1,000 Mercury-195 1,000 Osmium-181 1,000 Mercury-197m 100 Osmium-182 100 Mercury-197 1,000 Osmium-185 100 Mercury-199m 1,000 Osmium-189m 1,000 Mercury-203 100 Osmium-191m 1,000 Tha111um-194m 1,000 Osmium-191 100 Thallium-194 1,000 Osmium-193 100 Tha111um-195 1,000 Osmium-194 1 Tha111um-197 1,000
- Iridium-182 1,000 Tha111um-198m 1,000 Iridium-184 1,000 Thallium-198 1,000 Iridium-185 1,000 Thallium-199 1,000 -
- Iridium-186 100 Tha111um-200 1,000 Iridium-187 1,000 Tha111um-201 1,000
, Iridium-188 100 Tha111um-202 100
- j Iridium-189 100 Thallium-204 100 Iridium-190m 1,000 Lead-195m 1,000 Iridium-190 100 Lead-198 1,000 Iridium-192m 1 Lead-199 1,000
- Iridium-192 10 Lead-200 100
- Iridium-194m 10 Lead-201 1,000
. Iridium-194 100 Lead-202m 1.,000 j Iridium-195m 1,000 Lead-202 10 Iridium-195 1,000 Lead-203 1.100 Platinum-186 1,000 Lead-205 100 1 Platinum-188 100 Lead-209 1,000 Platinum-189 1,000 Lead-210 0.01 ! Platinum-191 100 Lead-211 100 Platinum-193m 100 Lead-212 1 i Platinum-193 1,000 Lead-214 100 Platinuv 195m 100 Bismuth-200 1,000 Platinum-197m 1,000 Bismuth-201 1,000 Platinum-197 100 Bismuth-202 1,000 Platinum-199 1,000 Bismuth-203 100 Platinum-200 100 Bismuth-205 100 Gold-193 1,000 Bismuth 206 100
- Gold-194 100 Bismuth-207 10 Gold-195 10 Bismuth-210m 0.1 Gold-198m 100 Bismuth-210 1 Gold-198 100 Bismuth-212 10
, Gold-199 100 Bismuth-213 10 Gold 200m 100 Bismuth-214 100 Gold-200 1,000 Polonium-203 1,000 Gold-201 1,000 Polonium-205 1,000 j Mercury-193m 100 Polonium-207 1,000 j Mercury-193 1,000 Polonium-210 0.1 j
' 122 Enclosure 1
[7590-01] APPENDIX C (Continued) Radionuclide Quantity (pC1) Radionuclide Quantity (pCi) Astatine-207 100 Neptuntum-234 100 Astatine-211 10 Neptunium-235 100 Radon-220 1 Neptunium-236 Rado'1-222 1 (1.15x105y ) 0.001 Francium-222 100 Neptunium 236 Francium-223 100 (22.5h) 1 Radi w 223 0.1 Neptunium-237 0.001 Radium-224 0.1 Neptunium 238 10 Radium-225 0.1 Neptunium 239 100 Radi w 226 0.1 Neptunium 240 1,000 Radi w 227 1,000 Plutoritum-234 10 Radi w 228 0.1 Plutonium-235 1,000 Actini w 224 1 Plutonium-236 0.001 Actinium-225 0.01 Plutonium-237 100 Actinium-226 0.1 Plutonium-238 0.001
- Actinium-227 0.001 Plutonium-239 0.001 .
Ar,tini w 228 1 Plutonium-740 0.001 Thorium-226 10 Plutoni w 241 0.01 Thorium-227 0.01 Plutoni w 242 0.001 Thorium-228 0.001 Plutonium-243 1,000 Thori w 229 0.001 Plutonium-244 0.001 Thorium-230 0.001 Flutoni w 245 100 Thorium-231 100 Americium-237 1,000 Thorium-232 100 Americi w 238 100 Thorium-234 10 Americium-239 1,'000 Thorium-natural 100 Americium-240 100 Protactinium-227 10 Americium-241 0.001 Protactini w 228 1 Americium-242m 0.001 l Protactinium-230 0.1 Americi w 242 10 Protactini w 231 0.001 Americi w 243 0.001 Protactini w 232 1 Americium-244m 100 1 Protactinium-233 100 Americium-244 10 Protactini w 234 100 Americi w 245 1,000 l Uraniw230 0.01 Americium-246m 1,000 Urani w 231 100 Americium-246 1,000 Urantw232 0.001 Curt w 238 100 i Uranium-233 0.001 Curium-240 0.1 l Uranium-234 0.00) Curi w 241 1 Urani w 235 0.001 Curi w 242 0.01 Uranium-236 0.001 Cucium-243 0.001 Uranium-237 100 Curi w 244 0.001 Uranium-238 100 Curium-245 0.001 Urani w 239 1,000 Curt w 246 0.001 0.001 Urani w 240 100 Curt w 247 Uranium-natural 100 Curi w 248 0.001 Neptunium-232 100 Curi w 249 1,000 I Neptunium-233 1,000 Berkelium 245 100 l 123 Enclosure 1 4
. . .. . ~
L/590 01) APPENDIX C (Continued) Radionuclide Quantity (pCi) Radionuclide Quantity (pCi) Astatine-207 100 Neptunium-234 100 Astatine-211 10 . Neptunium 235 100 Raden-220 1 Neptunium 236 Radon-222 1 (1.15x10by) 0.001 Francium-222 100 Neptunium-236 Francium-223 100 (22.5h) 1 Radiur223 0.1 Neptunium 237 0.001 Radium-224 0.1 Neptunium-238 10 Radium-225 0.1 Neptunlet-239 100 Radium-226 U.1 Neptunium-240 1,000 Radiue227 1,000 Plutonium-234 10 Radium-228 0.1 Plutonium-235 1,000 Actini w 224 1 Plutonium-236 0.001 Actinium-225 . 0.01 Plutonium-237 100 Actinium-226 0.1 Plutonive238 0.001 Actiniue 227 0.001 Plutonium-719 0.001 . Actinium-228 1 Plutonium-240 0.001 ' Thoriue226 10 Plutoniue 241 0.01 Thoriue227 0.01 Plutonium-242 0.001 Thorium-228 0.001 Plutonium-243 1,000 Thoriue229 0.001 Plutonium-244 0.001 Thorium-230 0.001 Plutonium-2i5 100 Thorium-231 100 Americtue237 1,000 Thoriur232 100 Americium-20,8 100 Thorium-234 10 Americium-239 1,'000 Thorium-nn ral 100 Americium-240 ,100 PEtactin.Um-227 10 Americium-241 0.001 Pretactiniue228 1 Americium-242r 0.001 Frtctactinium-230 0.1 Americium-242 10 Pectactinium-231 0.001 Americium-243 0.001 Protsetinium-232 1 Americium-244m 100 Pc4tactiniue233 100 .Wricite-244 10 Prata:tini w 234 100 Americium-245 1,000 Uranium-230 0.01 Americium-246m 1,000 Urenium-231 5.00 Americium-246 1,000 Urnnium-232 0.001 Curium 238 100 Uranium 1 33 C.001 Curiur 240 0.1 Uranium-234 0.001 Curfua-241 1 Uranium-235 0.001 Curium-242 0.01 b,001 Curium-243 0.001 Uranium-236 Uranium-237 1W Curtur244 0.001 Uranium-238 104 Curiur-245 0.001 Urenium-239 1,000 Curium-246 0.001 0.001 Uranium-240 100 Curium-247 Uranium-natural 100 Curium-248 0.001
' Neptuniue 232 100 Curium-249 1,000 Neptunive233 1,000 Berkelium-245 100
- 124 Enclosure 1 i
1
- - --.-~. _ .-- - - - , -
[7590-01] APPENDIX C (Continued) Radionuclide Quantity (pCi) Radionuclide Quantity (pCi) Berkelium-246 100 Einsteinium-250 100 Berkelium-247 0.001 Einsteinium-251 100 Berkelium-249 0.1 Einsteinium-253 0.1 Derkelium-250 10 Einsteinium-254m 1 Californium 244 100 Einsteinium-254 0.01 Californium-246 1 Fermium-252 1 Californium-248 0.01 Fermium-253 1 Californium-249 0.001 Fe rmium-254 10
, Californium-250 0.001 Fermium-255 1 Californium-251 0.001 Fe rmium-257 0.01 Californium-252 0.001 Mendelevium-257 10 Californium-253 0.1 Mendelevium-258 0.01 Californium-254 0.001 Any radionuclide Any alpha emitting other than alpha emitting radionuclides radionuclide not listed above or .not listed above, or mixtures of alpha mixtures of beta emitters of unknown emitters of unknown l
composition 0.001 composition 0.01 NOTE: For purposes of il 20.902(e), 20.904(c), and 20.1201(a) where there is involved a combination of radionuclides in known amounts, the limit for the combination should be derived as follows: determine, for each radionuclide in the combination, the ratio belween the i quantity present in the combination and the limit otherwise estab- l l lished for the specific radionuclide when not in combination. The sum of such ratios for all radionuclides in the combination may not exceed "1" (i.e., "unity"). l i l l 125 Enclosure 1 l
' ~ '
[7590-01) APPENDIX D - ADDRESSES OF NRC REGIONAL OFFICES (UPDATED) APPENDIX E (RESERVED) APPENDIX F REQUIREMENTS FOR LOW LEVEL WASTE TRANSFER FOR DISPOSAL AT LAND DISPOSAL FACILITIES AND MANIFESTS I. MANIFEST The shipment manifest shall contain tha name, address, and telephone number of the person generating the waste. The manifest shall also include the name, address, and telephone number or the name and EPA hazardous vaste . ( identification number of the person transporting the waste to the land dis-posal facility. The manifest must also indicate as completely as practi-cable: a physical description of the waste; the volume; radionuclide identity and quantity; the total rtdioactivity; and the principal chemi- . cal form. The solidification agent must be specified. Waste containing more than 0.1% chelating agents by weight must be identified and the waight percentage of the chelating agent estimated. Westes classified as Class A Class B, or Class C in S 61.55 of this chapter must be clearly identified as such in the manifest. The total quantity of the radionu-I clides H-3, C-14 Tc-95 and 1-129 must be shown. The manifest required by this paragraph may be shipping papers used to meet Department of Trans-poitation or Environmental Protection Agency regulations or requirerents of the receiver, provided all the required information is included. , Copies of manifests required by this section may be legible carbon f copies or legible photocopies. 127 Enclosure 1
. . ._ _ . - . . . . = _ .
[7590-01) \. . II. CERTIFICATICN The waste generator shall include in the shipment sanifest a certification that the transported saterials are properly classified, described, packaged, marked, and labeled and are in proper condition for transportation according to the applicable regulations of the Department of Transportation and the Commission. An authorized representative of the waste generator shall sign and date the manifest. III. CONTROL AND TRACKING A. Any generating licensee who transfers radioactive waste to a land disposal facility or a licensed waste :ollector shall comply with the requirements in paragraphs A.1 through 8 of this section. Any generat-ing licensee who transfers waste to a licensed waste processor who treats or repackages waste shall comply with the requirements of pa agraphs A.4 through 8 of this section. A licensee shall:
- 1. Prepare all wastes so that the waste is classified according to 5 61.55 and meets the waste characteristics requirements in 6 61.56 of this chapter;
- 2. Label each package of waste to identify whether it is Class A waste, Class I waste, or Class C waste, in accordance with I 61.55 of this chapter;
- 3. Conduct a quality control program to assure compliance with il 61.55 and 61.56 of this chapter; the program sust include management evaluation of audits; 128 Enclosure 1
[7590-01]
- 4. Prepare shipping manifests to meet the requirements of section I and II of this appendix;
- 5. Forward a copy of the manifest to the intended recipient, at the time of shipment, or, deliver to a collector at the time the waste is col-1ected, obtaining acknowledgement of receipt in the form of a signed copy of the manifest or equivalent documentation from the collector;
- 6. Include one copy of the manifest with the shipment;
- 7. Retain a copy of the manifest and documentation of acknowledge-ment of receipt as the record of transfer of licensed material as rr. quired by Parts 30, 40, and 70 of this chapter; and,
- 8. For any shipments or any part of a shipment for which acknowl- .
edgement of receipt has not been received withir. the times set forth in ' this section. Conduct an investigation in accordance with paragraph E of this appendix. 4 B. Any waste collector licensee who handles only prepackaged waste i shall: ,
- 1. Acknowledge receipt of the waste from the generator within one week of receipt by returning a signed copy of the manifest or equivalent documentation; 1 2. Prepare a new manifest to reflect consolidated shipments; the j new manifest shall serve as a listing or index for the detailed generator manifests. Copies of the generator manifests shall be a part of the new manifest. The waste collector may prepare a new manifest without attach-ing the generator manifests, provided the new manifest contains for each package the information specified in section !! of this appendix. The collector licensee shall certify that nothing has been done to the waste which would invalidate the generator's certification; 129 Enclosure 1 x
(7590-01)
- 3. Forward a copy of the new manifest to the land disposal !
facility operator at the time of shipment;
- 4. Include the new manifest with the shipment to the disposal site;
- 5. Retain a copy of the manifest and documentation of acknowledge-ment of receipt as the record of transfer of licensed material as required by Parts 30, 40, and 70 of this chapter, and retain information from gen-erator manifest until disposition is authorized by the Commission; and,
- 6. For any shipments or any part of a shipment for which acknow-ledgement of receipt is not received witnin the times set forth in this section, conduct an investigation in accordance with paragraph E of this
, section. '
C. Any licensed waste processor who treats or repackages wastes
- shall
- 1. Acknowledge receipt of the waste frcm the generator within one week of receipt by returning a signed copy of the manifest or equivalent documentation;
- 2. Prepare a new manifest that meets the requirements of sections 11 and III of this appendix. Preparation of the new manifest reflects that the processor is responsible for the waste;
- 3. Prepare all wastes so that the waste is classifiert accorcing to
$ 61.55 and meets the waste characteristics requirements in 5 61.56 of 1
this chapter;
- 4. Lab.1 each package of waste to identify whether it is Class A waste Class B waste, or Class C waste, in accordance with 55 61.55 and i
61.57 of this chapter; I i 130 Enclosure 1
[7590-01) !
- 5. Conduct a quality control program to assure compliance with Il 61.55 and 61.56 of this chapter. The program shall include f 1 aianagement evaluation of audits; ;
i
- 6. Forware a copy of the new manifest to the disposal site operator ,
or waste collector at the time of shipment, or deliver to a collector at the time the waste is collected, obtaining acknowledgement of receipt in the form of a signed copy of the manifest or equivalent documentation by the collector;
- 7. Include the new manifest with the shipment; I 8. Retain copies of original manifests and new manifests and documentation of acknowledgement of receipt as the record of transfer of j licensed material required by Parts 30, 40, and 70 of this chapter; and 4 9. For any shipment or part of a shipment for which acknowledgener)t is not received within the times set forth in this section, conduct an investigation in accordance with paragraph E of this section.
l . 1 . I
- D. The land disposal facility operator shall
- 1. Acknowledge receipt of the waste within one week of receipt by I returning a signed copy of the manifest or equivalent documentation to the
\ shipper. The shipper to be notified is the licensee who last possessed the vaste and transferred the waste to the operator. The returne copy i of the manifest or equivalent documentation *shall indicate any discrepan-cies between materials listed on the manifest and materials received.
- 2. Maintain copies of all completed manifests or equivalent i
- de:umentation until the Commission authorizes their disposition; and I
j 3. Notify the shipper (i.e., the generator, the collector, or procuser) and the Director of the nearest Commission Regional Office 131 Enclosure 1
[7590-01) listed in Appendix D of this part when any shipment or part of a shipment has not arrived within 60 days after the advance manifest was received. E. Any shipment or part of a shipment for which acknowledgement is not received within the times set forth in this saction, sust:
- 1. Se investigated by the shipper if the shipper has not received notification or receipt within 20 days after transfer; and
- 2. Be traced and reported. The investigation shall include tracing the shipment and filing a report with the nearest Coenission Regional Office listed in Appendix 0 of this part. Each licensee whc conducts a
. trace investigation shall file a written report with the appropriate NRC ,
Regional office within 2 weeks of completion of the investigattor.. ' i I i j l i 132 Enclosure 1 i f
* * ^ * *
, [7590601)
PART 19 - NOTICES, INSTRUCTIONS, AND REPORTS TO WORKERS; INSPECTIONS
- 2. The authority citation for Part 19 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sec. 161, 68 Stat 948, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201); sec. 201, 88 Stat 1242, as amended (42 U.S.C.5481) i J 3. Section 19.3 is amended by revising paragraph (e) to read as follows: 1 Y l
\
1 1 i i i l J l 1 1
- l. 133 Enclosure 1 1
i 1
(7590-01) I 19.3 Definitions. e a a a n (e) "Restricted area" means an area, access to which is limited by by licensee for the purpose of protecting individuals against undue risks from exposure to radiation and radioactive materials. Restricted area does not include areas used as residential quarters, but separate rooms in a residential building may be set apart as a restricted area.
- 4. In $ 19.13 paragraph,(d) is amended by changing the reference to
"$20.405 and i 20.408" to read "l520.1202, 20.1203, 20.1204 or 20.1206" and ;
byrevisingparagraph(b)toreadasfollows: i i 19.13 Notifications and reports to individuals, a a a e a 1 (b) Each licensee shall advise each worker annually of the worker's dose as shown in records saintained by the licensee pursuant to i 20.1106. n a e i PART 30 - RULES OF GENERAL APPLICA81LITY TO DONESTIC LICEN51N3 0F t 8YPR000CT MATERIAL
- 5. The authority citation for Part 30 continues to read as follows:
- Authority
- Sec. 161, 68 Stat 948, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201); sec. 201, 88 Stat 1242, as amended (42 U.S.C.5481) 134 Enclosure 1 i
(7590-01] l 30.51 [ Amended).
- 6. In 5 30.51(c)(4). the reference to "i 20.401(c)" is changed to read "$ 20.1108."
PART 31 - GENERAL DOMESTIC LICENSES FOR BYPRODUCT MATERIAL
- 7. The authority citation for part 31 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sec. 161, 68 Stat 948, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201); sec. 201, 88 Stat 1242, as amended (42 U.S.C.5481) S 31.5 [ Amended).
- 8. In i 31.5(c)(10), the reference to "H 20.402 and 20.403" is j changed to read "il 20.1201 and 20.1202."
l : l 5 31.7 [ Amended).
- 9. In 5 31.7(b), the reference to "El 20.402 and 20.403" is changed to read "il 20.1201 and 20.1202."
5 31.10 [ Amended).
, 10. In i 31.10(b)(1) the reference to "i 20.301" is changed to
) read "i 20.1001."
- 11. In 5 31.10(b)(3) the reference to "El 20.301, 20.402, and
! 20.403" is changed to read "il 20.1001, 20.1201, and 20.1202." 1 135 Enclosure 1
(7590 01)
$ 31.11 [ Amended].
- 12. In 5 31.11(c)(5), the reference to "S 20.301" is changed to read "$ 20.1001."
- 13. In $ 31.11(f) ,the reference to "$$ 20.301, 20.402, and 20.403" is changed to read "El 20.1001, 20.1201, and 20.1202."
PART 32 - SPECIFIC DOMESTIC ICENSES T0 MNUFACTURE OR TRANSFER CERTAIN ITEMS CONTAINING BYPRODUCT MTERIAL
- 14. The authority citation for Part 32 continues to read as follows:
a Authority: Sec. 161, 68 Stat 948, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201); sec. 201, 88 Stat 1242, as amended (42 U.S.C.5481) i
- 15. Section 32.51 is amendnd by revising paragraphs (a)(2)(ii) and (c) to read as follow:
$ 32.51 Byproduct material contained in devices for use under i 31.5; requirements for license to manufacture er initially transfer.
(a) *** I *** (2) (ii) Under ordinary conditions of handling, storage and use of ths I device, the byproduct saterial contained in the device will not be released or inadvertently removed from the device, and it is unlitely that any person will receive in any period of one calendar year a dose in excess of 10 percent of the annual limits specified in i 20.201(a) of l this chapter; and i 136 Enclosure 1 i
; , (7590.g1) e a e a a (c) In the event the applicant desires that the general licensee under $ 31.5 of this chapter, or under equivalent regulations of an Agree-ment State, be authorized to install the device, collect the sample to be ,,
analyzed by a specific licensee for leakage of radioactive material, ser- l vice the devi;e, test the on-off mechanism and indicator, or remove the device from installation, the applicant shall include in the application written instructions to be followed by thit general licensee, estimated calender quarter doses associated with such activity or activities and the bases for such estimates. The submitted information shall demonstrate that 4 perfomance of such activity or activities by an individual untrained in , radiological protection, in addition to other handling, storage, and use i of devices under the general license, is unlinely to cause that individual a to receive a calendar year dose in excess of 10 percent of the annual limits specified in i 20.201(a) of this chapter. 5 32.61 [ Amended).
- 16. In 5 32.61(d), the reference to "i 20,203(a)" is changed to read "i 20.901(a)."
$ 32.71 [ Amended).
- 17. In i 32.71(c)(2), the reference to "5 20,203(a)(1)" is changed to read "i 20.901(a)."
- 18. In 5 32.71(e), the reference to "i 20.301" is changed to read
. "$ 20.1001."
137 Enclosure 1
(7590-01) PART 34 - LICENSES FOR RADIDGRAPHY AND RADIATION SAFETY REQ IREMENTS FOR RADIDGRADHIC OPERATIONS
- 19. The authority citation for Part 34 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sec. 101, 68 Stat 948, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201); sec. 201, 88 Stat 1242, as ame'nded (42 U.S.C.5481) i 34.29 [ Amended). j 20. In 5 34.29(a), the reference to "i 20,203(c) (2)('i), (2)(111), c? (4)" is changed to read "i 20.601(a)(2), (a)(3), or (b)." ., 6 34,41 [ Amended).
- 21. In i 34.41(a), the reference to "I 20.203(c)(2)" is changed to read "I 20.601(a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(3)." ,
6 34.42 [ Amended). i 22. In 6 34.42, the reference to "i 20.204(c)" is changed to read "i 20.903" and the reference to "$ 20.203(b) and (c)(1)" is changed to read "i 20.902(a) and (b)." 138 Enclosure 1 1
. (7590001)
PART 39 - LICENSES AND RADIATION SAFETY REQUIREMENTS FOR WELL-LOGGING OPERATIONS
- 23. The authority citation for Part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sec. 161, 68 Stat 948, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201); sec. 201, 88 Stat 1242, as amended (42 U.S C.5481)
- 24. in i 39.15(a)(5)(iii)(B), the reference to "i 20.203" is changed to 4 read ""i 20.901(a)." .
l
- 25. In 5 39.31(a)(1), the reference tc "i 20.203" is changed to read "i 20.901(a)."
1 l
- 26. In 5 39.31(a)(2), the reference to "i 20.203" is changed to read "i 20.901(a)." ,'
- 27. In 5 39.77(b), the reference to "$$ 20.402, 20.403, and 20.405" is changed to read "il 20.1201, 20.1202, and 20.1203."
PART 40 - DOMESTIC LICEN51NG 0F SOURCE MATERIAL
- 28. The authority citation for Part 40 continues to read as follows:
1 Authority: Sec. 161, 68 Stat 948, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201); sec. 201, 68 Stat 1242, as amended (42 U.S.C.5481) l 1 139 Enclosure 1
- - l (7590-01)
- 20. Section 5 40.34 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows: .
i
$ 40.34 Special recuirements for 1:suance of specific licenses.
(a) *** t (2) The applicant submits sufficient information relating to the design, manuf acture, prototype testing, quality control procciures, label- ; ing or marking, proposed uses, and potential hazards of the industrial product or device to provide reasonable assut :e that possession, use, or transfer of the deplete:1 uranium in the product or device is not likely [ to cau'se any individual to receive in any period of one calendar year a , f radiation dose in encess of 10 percent of the annual limits specified in
' 5 20.201(a) of this chapter; and a a a a a
$ 40.61 [Ame",dg}.
- 30. It I of .61(c)(4), the reference to "I 20.401(c)" is changed to !
read "I 20.1108." Appendix A to Part 40.
- 31. In the Introduction to Apperdix A, the reference to "i 20.1(c)"
is changed to read "i 20.3." 140 Enclosure 1
6.... ..s PART 50 - DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES
- 32. The authority citation for Part 50 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sec. 161, 68 Stat 948, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201); sec. 201, 88 Stat 1242, as amended (42 U.S.C.5481)
- 33. Section 50.34 is amended by revising paragraph (f)(2)(viii) to l
read as follows: ,
$ 50.34 Contents of applications: technical information, i e a a a a I
(f) (2) *** . (viii) Provide a capability to promptly obtain and analyze' samples from the reactor coolant system and containment e ta may contain TID 14844 source term radioactive materials withos i tion exposures to any indi-vidual exceeding 5 rees to the whole-M. ses to the extremities. l Materials to be analyzed and quantiffs i -
.de certain radionuclides that l
are indicators of the degree of core damage (e.g., noble gases, iodines and cesiums, and non-volatile isotopes), h'ydrogen in the containment atmosphere, dissolved gases, chloride, and boron concentrations. (11.8.3) A A $ $ 2 141 Enclosure 1 I I
(759001)
- 34. In i 50.36a(a), the refer 9nce to "i 20.106" is changed to read "i 20.301" and paragraph (b) fs revised to read as follows:
$ 50.36a Technical specifications on effluents from nuclear power reactors.
a a a a n (b) In establishing and implement'ing the operating procedures described in paragraph (a) of this section, the licensee shall be guided by the following considerations: Experience with the design, construction and operation of nuclear power reactors indicates that compliance with the
. technical specifications described in this section will keep average annual releases of radioactive material in effluents and their resultant committed effective dose equivalerts at small percentages of the values specified in i 20.*101 of this chapter and in the operating license. At the same time, the licensee is permitted the flexibility of operation, compatible with considerations of health and safety, to assure that the public is provided a dependable source of power even under unusual operating conditions which may temporarily result in releases higher than such small percentages, but still within the comitted effective dose equivalent values specified in i 20.301 of this chapter and the operating license. It is expected that in using this operational flexibility under unusual operating conditions, the licensee will exert his best afforts to keep levels of radioactive material in effluents as low as is reasonably achievable. The guides set out in Appendix ! provide numerical guidance on Itatting conditions for operation for light-water-cooled nuclear power reactors to meet the require-ment that radioactive saterials in effluents released to unrestricted areas be kept as low as is reasonably achievable.
142 Enclosure 1
t (7590-01) l
- 35. In 5 50.72 in paragraph (a), Footnote 1, the reference to "5 20.205, l 20.403" is changed to read "i 20.906, 5 20.1202," and para- l graphs (b)(2)(iv)(A) and (B) are revised to read as follows:
5 50.72 !amediate notification recuirements for operatina nuclear power reacton. U a a e e a
= .
( (b) (2) , (iv) (A) Any airborne radioactive release that results in concentrations l in unrestricted areas that exceed 10 times the applicable concentration , ; specified in Appendix B. Table 2. Column 1, of Part 20 of this chapter, I when averaged over a time period of one hour. (B) Any liquid effluent release that exceeds 10 times the applicable [ concentration specified in Appendix B, Table 2, Column 2, of'Part 20 of this chapter at the point of entry into the receiving waters (i.e., j unrestricted area) for all radionuclides except tritium and dissolved f noble gases, when averaged over a time period of one hour. (!ame- l l-diate notifications made under this paragraph also satisfy the requirements of paragraph (a)(2) and (b)(2) of I 20.1202 ofthischapter). l i
- 36. Section 50.73 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(2)(viii)(A) and (B) and (ix) to 'ead as follows:
143 Enclosure 1
(759001)
$ 50.73 Licensee event report sys' tem.
}a) *
(2) *** (viii)(A) Any airborne radioactivity release that exceeded 10 times the applicable concentrations specified in Appendix 8. Table 2. Column 1, of Part 20 of tnis chapter in unrestricted areas, when averaged over a time period of one hour. (B) Any liquid effluent release that exceeded 10 times the applicable concentrations specified in Appendix 8. Table 2, Column 2 of Part 20 of this chapter at the point of entry into the receiv- : ing water (i.e., unrestricted area) for all radionuclides except tritium and dissolved noble gases, when averaged over a time period of one hour. (ix) Reports submitted to the Coanission in accordance with i 1 I paragraph (a)(2)(viii) of this section also meet the effluent release 4 reporting requirements of 5 20.1203(a)(3) of this chapter. PART 61 - LICENSIM REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND DISPOSAL OF . RAD 10 ACTIVE WASTE
- 37. The authority citation for Part 61 continues to read as folic =s:
Authority: Sec. 161, 68 Stat 948, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201); sec. 201, 88 Stat 1242, as amended (42 U.S.C.5481) 144 Enclosure 1
. (7590-01)
J61.52 CAmended].
- 38. In i 61.52(a)(6), the reference to "$ 20.105" is changed to -
read "$$ 20.301 and 20.302." PART 70 - DOMESTIC LICEN5!NG 0F 5PECIAL NUCLEAR MATERIAL
- 39. The authority citation for Part 32 continues to read as follows:
l Authority: Sec. 161, 68 Stat 948, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201); sec. 201, 48' Stat 1242, as amended (42 U.S.C.5481) ,. 9 6 70.51 (Amended). 1 40. In I 70.51(b)(6), the reference to "i 20.401(c)" is changed to
! read "i 20.1108."
Dated at Washington, DC this day of 198_. , For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. l 4 5aawel J. Chilk SecretaryoftheC:mmIssion. 1 - l 4 i 145 Enclosure 1
a . . Draft (May 16,1988) NUREG/CR XXXX PNL XXXX
- NOTICE: This document was prepared primarily '
i for preliminary or internal use. It has not received full review and approval. $1nce there may be suistontive changes, this document should not be considered final. REGULATORY ANALYS!$ FOR THE REVISION OF 10 CFR PART 20 i
- S. E. Merwin J. A. MacLellan M. F. Mullen K. L. Swinth
'J. J. Tawil
! 3. J. Traub I M. G. Woodruf f May 1988 i Prepared for the
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
. Under Contract DE-AC06 76RLO-1830 NRC FIN 832894 i Pacific Northwest Laboratory i Richland, Washington l f i
. . )
ABSTRACT l The NRC plans to substantially revise Code of Federal Regulations Title 10, Part 20, ' Standards for Protection Against Radiation.' The revision would incorporate the fundamental )rinciples of dose limitation first described in ' International Comission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) Publication 26. Also, the revision would be consistent with most of the reconsnendations ublished by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements p(NCRP) in NCRP Publication 91. Further, the revision would be consistent with the recent recomendations by the Enviror, mental Protection Agency (EPA) titled ' Radiation Protection Guidance to Federal Agencies for Occupational Exposure - Recoernendations Approved by the President." As written, the revised 10 CFR Part 20 would have substantial impacts on both NRC and Agreement State licensees. It is estimated that the revision will cost licensees over $170 million (present value); more than half of these costs are related to the new requirement to sum external and internal doses to demonstrate compliance with the annual whole body effective dose equivalent limit of 5 rem. Fuel fabrication and processing facilities will incur significant costs to reduce levels of airborne uranium to below the applicable
. Derived Air Concentrations (DACs). The revision would also have substantial benefits, most notably by reducing doses to both workers and the unborn. Of the $44 million (present value) in benefits identified in this analysis, over ,
80% were related to dose reductions. There were large uncertainties in these estimates, however, and the actual value of the benefit from the reduced doses could be much lower. Although the quantified benefits from the revision do not appear to outweigh the costs, many benefits identified in this analysis were not quantified and their consideration might favor revising 10 CFR Part 20 as planned. iii
e ,e < '.
. , i ;
- s' ? > : T ;s, 9
.ACKM0WLEDGMENTS e
9 6 0 1 9 i s V
l EXECUTIVE SM4ARY l STATENENT OF THE PROBLEM The basic philosophy and scientific basis for the present 10 CFR Part 20 : is 30 years old. Newer concepts of radiation protection and updated . biological data have rendered the present Part 20 outdated and inconsistent with current recomendations by national and international radiation protection organizations. Both the National Council on Radiation Protection and ) Measurements (NCRP) and the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) have published recomendations on limits for exposure to ionizing
; radiation that are in some ways significantly different from the limits '
promulgated in the present Part 20. In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has pu)11shed in the Federal Register its ' Radiation Protection Guidance to Federal Agencies for Occupational Exposure,' signed by the President. The EPA's roccependations incorporate the basic elements of both i
*he ICRP and NCRP recomendations. In the past, it has been NRC's policy to j c g ly with EPA guidance.
There are six principal areas where the present Part 20 is in need of revision to become consistent with the EPA, ICRP, and/or NCRP reconnenda-tions: , , r
- 1) Use of the current 3 rea/ quarter limit on whole-body exposures i allows some (usually older) workers to receive doses greater than 5 res/vr. The EPA reconnends an annual whole-body effective dose l equivalent Ilmit of 5 ren. L I
- 2) Under the current Part 20, internal doses are not included in the [
i assessment of whole-body dose. It is possible for a worker to legally receive internal doses from some radionuclides that are equivalent to whole-body doses of M ren or more (using the newer ICRP method ' for risk assessment) in addition to annual external doses of 12 res. I Because the effective whole bor dose limit of 5 ree reconnended by the EPA includes th; suw of internal and external doses, under the current Part 20 a worker can 1.'ga11y receive an effective whole-body dose equivalent that is four or nort times higher than the EPA-recomended limit. I
- 3) The current limits on intake for some radionuclides do not reflect recent biological infomation or models of radionuclide retention l and consequent risk. As a result the current Ilmits are too high !
formostalphaeelttingradionuc1\desandtoolowformostother ) radionuclides. The associated errors approach or exceed one order 1 of sagnitude in many cases. l
- 4) The current dose Ilmits for specific organs and parts of the body !
are not consistent with recent recomendations. ) i I i ' vil l j ! l
; v , .c : e. ,y y . - -
1 .. '** . 1
- 5) The current Part 20 does not promulgate a dose limit for the embryo / fetus, even though suc t a Iielt is addressed in both a NRC Regulatory Guide and staff position paper. Recent studies suggest
; that the embryo / fetus is especially Jusceptible to hamful effects
- 1 from ionizing radiation and the current dose limits for adults do not ensure adequate protection of the unborn. The EPA recommends a dose limit of 0.5 ren to the embryo / fetus.
- 6) For Ifconsees not covered by*the Uranium Fuel Cycle Standard (40 CFR 190) er the Clean Air Act Standard (40 CFR 61 , there is i noexplicitlystatedannualdoselimitforindividual)asebersof the public. Although the EPA Guidance does not include such a limit, the NCRP recomends an annual dose limit of 100 eroe for continuing long tem exposures.
OBJECTIVE! { The principal objective of mvising Part 20 is to make the NRC's l ' Standards for Protection Against Radiation" consistent with the recommendations of na*ional (NCRP and EPA) and international (ICRP) { organizations responsible for providing radiation prutection standards. The ICRP and NCRP recommendations have always served as the primary basis for j Federal standards for protection against radiation. Also, as a matter of ' 4 policy, the former Atomic Energy Comission (AEC) and the NRC have considered j past Federal Radiation Council (FRC) and EPA Federal Guidance as binding and j have implemented the guidance in their regulations. The revision of Part 20 will also satisfy other objectives of the NRC. The revision would resolve several proceedings that are still pending. petitions These includefor rulemaking limitation of and doserulemaking to the embryo / fetus (NPRM,13 75), deletion of the $(N 18) dose averaging. formula (NPRM, 2-20 79) and petitions to lower do.e lietts (PAM-20 6 and PM 20 6A). The revistor would also correct the errors and inconsistencies known to be present in the current Part 20. ALTERNAT!vts This regulatory analysis focused on the consequences of the planned revision of Part 20. This alternative and other alternatives available to the NRC are described below. Alternative 1: Revise Part to as Planned Adoption of this alternative would msult in a comprehensive revision of 10 CFR Part 20. This would be the final step in a process initiated by the NRC almost 10 years ago to incorporate the recommendations of the ICRP into the a le. The revis' on would also incorporate many of the recent recommendations of the NCRP and would be consistent with the recent Federal Radiation Protection 64tdance promulgated by the EPA. viti
Alturnative 2: No Action Under this alternative, the NRC would terminate the existing rulemaking,
- publish a notice to this effect in the Federal Register, and initiate individual rulemaking actions as the situation demands. This would leave the principles underlying the current Part 20 in place and the rule would be inconsistent with ICRP and NCRP recommendations as well as the EPA Federal Radiation Protection Guidance. -
Alternative 3: Modify the Revision and Proceed with the Rulemakino Under this alternative, the NRC would modify the current revision to reduce the costs ider.tified in this regulatory analysis. Several provisions of the revision enuld be modified to lessen the impact on licensees; however, some of these modifications would compromise the primary benefits of the revision. 1 Alternative 4: Incorocrate Only those Provisions Necessary for Compliance ~ l with the EPA's Federal Radiation Protection Guidance, Adoption of this alternative would require an extensive modification of the revision. The modified revisien would be consistent with the EPA , ! Guidance but would not contain some of the chang s present in the currently planned revision. This alternative mi ht require republication
! of the revision for public cospent considering t at the modified revision 1 would be markedly different from the pioposed rule pubitshed for public coassent in 1986, 1
,CQNgQp(NCES Alternative 1: Revise Part 20 as Planned .
l l This alternative was the basis for the analysis provided in this report. The present value of the costs of the revision of Part 20 were estimated to be $170,000,000 based on 1989 dollars, e discount rate of 10%, and a 30 year period. Approxlsately70%ofthesecostsarerelatedtotherevisedprovisions for monitoring evaluating, and recording internal doses. These revised provisionswillhavethegreatestimpactonfuelfabricationfact-lities,
- where both the OAC values for uraniva and the requirement to control intakes l based on DACs and ALis will necessitate engineering modifications to reduce
! airborne uranius levels. It is estimated that 44% of the costs of the revision of Part 20 will be incurred by fuel fabrication facilities. Commercial nuclear power plants, medical f acilities, academic /research institutions, and
! 13
! sanufacturinfanddistributionfact11tieswillincuranestimated36%OtherfacilitIesw%,ld J4, and 2% o the costs of the revision, respectively. ou incur relatively insignificant costs. The costs to the NRC were estimated to be $2.800,000, or about 2% of the total cost of the revision.
The benefits of revising Part 20 include both quantifiable and unquantifiable components. One of the principal benefits of the revision is that it would make NRC regulations consistent with ICRP and NCRP recoseendations i and with EPA's Federal Radiation Protection Guidance. This benefit is 1x
9, . 7 ,y,, ,
...e. -
significant but it cannot be measured in dollars. Other benefits 'of revising Part 20 are more readily quantified. These quantified benefits included an annual savings of $880,000 in operating costs and reduced annual doses of 1200 rem and 300 ren to adult workers and the unborn, respectitely. The present value of the quantified benefits were e C ted to be $44,000,000, over 80% of which were related to dose savings. U . present value of the estimated dose savings was highly dependint on scveral assumptions, including the value
, of both avoiding a ren to an adult worker and avoiding a ren to a fetus ($1000 and$10,000,respectively).
One section of the revision was identified to have benefitithat reatly exceeded the associated costs. It was estimated that Section 20.208, Dose
- to an Embryo / Fetus," will result in costs of $5,200,000 (present value) to licensee- 1 reduced doses of 300 res/yr to the unborn. In view of the relative 'h risk associated with dose to the embryo / fetus this rule is 4
anticipa '
' ovide a significant net benefit. ThisanticIpatednetbe.iefit i does not consideration of the ramifications of the limits with regard to civil af female workers.
1 Comparing the quantified costs and benefits and the associated uncertainties in the estimates indicates that the revision of Part 20 does i not have a favorable benefit / cost ratio. However, many of tlie benefits of , the revision were not quet'.fied in this analysis and consideration of these
- benefits might justify the revision of Part 20 as planned.
Alternative 2: No Action The primary consequence of this alternative would be that the NRC would
- not implement the EPA's Federal Radiation Protection Guidance. In addition, licensees who have begun to implement the provisions of the revised rule based on the proposed rule published for public comment would incur adt.itional costs to abandon the implementation. However, these costs would be a small fraction of the costs of Alternative 1. Development costs already incurred by the NRC
- should not be considered as a consequence of this alternative.
i Alternative 3: Modify the Revision and Proceed with the Rulemaking 1 The consequences of this alternative would be primarily two fold. First. i the modifications would reduce the cost impact on licensees. Second, the
; modifications would lessen the consistency of the revision with the EPA j Guidance. Three potential modifications to the rule are presented below.
i l Reintroduce the eneestion for long lived radionuclides. It has previously been reported that tie exemption present in the proposed rule would eliminate the need for facility esodifications at fuel fabrication faellities. In short, this exemption allowed some licensees to calculate effective dose equivalent based on annual effective dose equivalent rather than couaitted effective 1, dose equivalent for intakes of radionuclides having long effective half-lives.
! Based on the analysis in this report, it appears that this exemption would not eliminate tne need for facility modifications even if they were required without the exemption. That is because the exemption specifically x
I
~- - .
. . .c - -
- z ..h- .
. - p,. <
x . . stated that a licensee must operate the facility such that "any individual is 1 unlikely to have an intake from occupational exposure in one year in excess of the ALI value.' In effect, the exemption would allow licensees to calculate doses differently but not operate the facilities differently. - Another important factor is that, according to the analysis provided in this report, it is likely that major facility modifications will not be required in all cases. Currently, most fuel fabrication facilities operate at 10% to 25% of current MPC values; under the revision, licensees would be operating at about 50% to 125% of the DAC values. Apparently, licensees feel that this would be unacceptable. Based on the analysis in this report, however, very few employees would exceed the annual whole-body effective dose equivalent limit at these levels. For those who would, an increased use of respirators or appropriate job rotations would eliminate overexposures. Individuals approaching the dose limits would be identified well in advance through air monitoring. The reason that licensees wculd be unwilling to operate at ambient air concentrations near 1 DAC is that under the present system of dose limita-tion, MPCs are often considered as limits and it is likely that the new DACs will be considered as limits as well. However, ALIs are the principal concern and if particle size studies, studies on worker stay times in high-concentration areas, or solubility studies would show that workers can work ' safely under existing conditions, then proper use of the ALARA principle mandates that these studies be done. It is concluded that the exemption is inconsistent with the EPA's Federal Radiation Protection Guidance and would not result in major cut reductions in any case. Costs could be more effectively reduced through promotion of the concept that DACs need not be considered limits in all cases. Remove the requirement to orovide individual dose records to individuals. This modification would reduce the costs of the revision by an estimated $9.1 million (present value). Because no significant benefits were identified from this requirement, this modification would be cost-beneficial; however, it would be inconsistent with the EPA Guidance. 3 Pavise Section 20.1106, "Records of Individual Monitorina Results." Approx-imately 12% of the costs of the revision will be related to this requirement. Licensees will be recuired to revise recordkeeping procedures to allow the proper assessment anc recording of internal doses. Because few workars receive significant internal doses, these costs appear to be excessive. Some of these costs could be alleviated by relaxing the requirements for docu- menting ' internal uposures on NRC Fors 5. However, this would be inconsist- ent with the recordkeeping requirements in the EPA Guidance.
, Alternativ_e .4: Incorpot., Only Those Provisions Necessary for Como11ance with the EPf Guidance This titernative would result in a complete overhaul of the current Part 20 11 vision. The revision would be rewritten to include only those provisions necessary for compliance with the EPA Guidance. The consequences would essential'y he the same as the consequences of Alternative 1 because most of xi
.- . a:, -
w 4 the costs and benefits of the planned revision are associated with provisions necessary for compliance with the EPA Guidance. Considering the costs of the revision that were unqantified, however, especially the costs associated with the revised limits for disposal to sewers, significant cost savings could be - realized through this alternative.
. DECISION RATIONALE Of the four alternatives, only Alternative 2 (no action) appears to be nonviable. Adoption of this alternative would allow the NRC's "Standards for Protection Against Railation" (10 CFR Part 20) to remain inconsistent with the EPA's Federal Ra lation Protection Guidance. This would disregard MRC policy and would contradict prior Commission comments to EPA supporting development of the Federal Guidance.
Alternative 1 (revise Part 20 as ' planned) would incorporate both the Federal Radiation Protection Guidance and the ICRP and NCRP recon endations on limiting exposure to ionizing radiation. The cost of this alternative to licensees and regulatory agencies is estimated to be approximately $170 million (present value). However, adoption of the alternative would benefit society by reducing occupational exposures to both adult worters and the unborn being carried by pregnant workers. It was estimated that this alternative would result in reduced doses to workers of 1200 rem /yr and reduced doses to embrys/ fetuses of 300 rem /yr. The present value of the benefits of the revision depends on the dollar values assigned to both adult and fetal unit doses and whether health effects are discounted; based on the assumptions used in this report, the present value was escinated to be $44,000,000. Although the quantified benefits from this alternative do not appear to outweigh the costs, man / benefits identified in this analysis were not quantified and their consideration might favor the adoption of this alternative. Also, note that relatively large uncertainties may be associated with the estimates , provided in this analysis. I l Alternative 3 (modify the revision and proceed with the rulemaking) is viable provided that the modifications do not compromise the benefits from the revision. Each potential modification identified in the previous section would result in cost savings but would lessen the consistency of the revision with the EPA Guidance. Whether the individual modifications should be adopted depends primarily on subjective considerations of these competing l factors. l Alternative 4 (incorporate only those provisions necessary for compliance with the EPA Guidance) may be desirable depending on iaether the associated delay would be acceptable in view of the reduced costs. Of the costs identified in the analysis of Alternative 1, only a small fraction could be avoided by adoption of this alternative. However, this alternative would avoid many of the potential costs that were not quantified. Essent- fally all of the primary benefits associated with Alternative 1 would be realized by adoption of Alternative 4. xii l l l
J -{d,' IMPLEMENTATIG4 Alternative 1: Revise Part 20 as Planned Considering that NRC plannUg ..as been based on adoption of this alternative, if it is implemented, this alternative would p obably result in publication of the final rule by December 31, 1988. The NRC would also allow a 5-year implementation period retroactive to the date that the proposed rule was published (January 9,1986). This would effectively allow licensees until January 9, 1991, to implement the provisions of the revision. Granting a longer period of implementation, e.g, 5 years from the date the final rule .is published, would allow licensees to defer the costs of implementation. A longer period of implementation would also provide the NRC with more time to develop and publish regulatory guides in - support of the revised rule. Alternative 3: Modify the Revision and Proceed with the Rulemaking If implemented, the preferred approach would be to identify the potential modifications and perform a se)arate cost-benefit analysis for each one. Favorable modifications would >e introduced into the revision and unfavorable modifications would be dropped from consideration. Because , most of the modifications would result in both reduced costs and reduced consistency with the EPA Guidance, the decisions to nclude each modification wuld require a comparison of the cost sayings to the perceived importance of consistency wit 5 the EPA Guidance. Upon final modification of the rule, the
.rulemaking would proceed and the final rule would be published. An appro-priate implementation period would be granted to licensecs and the NRC would develop and/or revise the regulatory guides required to support the revised rule.
I Alternative 4: Incorporate Only Those Provisions Necessary for Comoliance with the EPA Guidance If implemented, this alternative would result in a major interruption to the current schedule for revising Part 20. The preferred approach would be to carefully examine the current revision and eliminate or rewrite the provisions tha't are not necessary for compliance with the EPA Guidance. Those provisions identified as cost-bet.aficial but not necessar compliance with the EPA Guidance should remain in the revision.y for Depending on the magnitude of the changes, the revision could be republished as a proposed rule for public coment. Following the public cooment period, the revision could be a)propriately revised and published in the Federal l Register. During tais neriod, the NRC could develop and/or revise the I regulatory guides required to support the revised rule. l l
t.. . 3^ 3 .. CONTENTS ABSTRACT .......................................................... EXECUTIVE SUNMARY ................................................. vii
1.0 INTRODUCTION
.............................<.................... 1.1 1.1 BAC KG RO U N D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 1.2 HISTORY OF PART 20 REVISIONS ............................ 1.1 1.3 F U R PO S E O F R EV I S I ON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 1.4 TECHNICAL APPROACH ...................................... 1.3 1.5 CONTENTS OF THIS REPORT ................................. 1.4 2.0 COMPARISON OF PRESENT PART 20 WITH PART 20 REVISION........... 2.1 2.1 SUMHARY OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES REGARDING .
INTERNAL DOSE ASSESSMENT ................................ 2.1 2.1.1 Section 20.202: Compliance with Requirements for Suuration of Internal and External
. Exposures ...................................... 2.1 2.1.2 Section 20.204: Determination of Internal Exposure ....................................... 2.1 2.1.3 Section 20.502: Conditions Requiring Individual Monitoring.of External and Internal .
Occupational Dose .............................. 2.1 2.2 SUH4ARY OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES REGARDING OCCUPATIONAL DOSE LIMITS ................................ 2.2 2.2.1 Section 20.201: Occupational Dose Limits for Adults ..................................... 2.2 2.2.2 Section 20.206: Planned Special Exposures ....... 2.2 2.2.3 Section 20.208: Dose to an Emb ryo/ Fetus . . . . . . . . . 2.3
'A' . 3
SUMMARY
OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES REGARDING LIMITATION OF DOSE TO THE PUBLIC ...................................... 2.3 2.3.1 Section 20.301: Dose Limits for Individual Members of the Public .......................... 2.3 2.3.2 Section 20.302: Compliance with Dose Limits for Indi vidual Members of the Public . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 2.4 SU M ARY OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES REGARDING RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS .............................. 2.3 xV
l 1
.m . . ,
,,7. .
- 2.4.1 Section . 1105 Records of Individual Moni' vring R alts ............................. 2.3 2.4.2 Se W a 20.11C : Records of Dose to Individual -
Lr.b e rs o f t h e Pu b l i c . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 2.4 3 Section 20.1206: Reports of Personnel Monitoring ..................................... 2.4 2.5 SM%RY OF OT H ER CHANG ES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 2.5.1 Changes Regarding Control of Internal Exposure in Restricted Areas ............................... 2.4 2.5.2 Changes Regarding Precautionary Procedures ....... 2.4 2.5.3 Changes Regarding Waste Disposal ................. 2.4 2.5.3 Changes Regarding Recordkeeping Requirements ..... 2.4 2.5.5 Changes Regarding Reporting Requirements ......... 2.5 3.0 CONSEQUENCES OF REVISED DOSE EVALUATION REQUIREMENTS ......... 3.1 3.1 EXTERNAL DOSE EVALUATIONS ............................... 3.1 3.2 INTERNAL DOSE EVALUATIONS ............................... 3.3 , 3.2.1 Bioassay ......................................... 3.4 3.2.2 Air Monitoring ................................... 3.4
. 3.3 DOSE EVALUATION COSTS ................................... 3.8 3.4 DISTRIBUTION OF OCCUPATIONAL DOSES ...................... 3.13 3.4.1 Fuel Fabrication Facilities ....................... 3.13 3.4.2 Other Facilities ................................. 3.14 3.5 RECORDXEEP!hG ........................................... 3.15 l 3.6 SU M ARY OF CONSEQUENCES ................................. 3.17 1
4.0 00tiMQUENCES OF REVIS ED LIMITS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 4.1 OCCUPATIONAL DOSE LIMITS FOR ADULTS ..................... 4.1 l 4.1.1 Whole-body Dose Equivalent Limits ................ 4.1 4.1.2 Other Limits and Their Consequences .............. 4.8 4.2 PLANNED SPECIAL EXPOSURES ............................... 4.9 4.2.1 Use of the Planned Special Exposure P:ovision .... 4.9 4.2.2 Effect on Distribution of Doses .................. 4.10 4.2.3 Cost Implications ................................ 4.10 I xvi l
Pace 4.3 DOS E TO AN 048 RYO/ F ETUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.10 4.3.1 Effect on Distri;ution of Doses .................. 4.11 4.3.2 Cost Implications ................................ 4.12 4.3.3 Othe r Con s ide rati on s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.12 4.4 DOSELIMITFORINDIVIDUALMONBERSOFTHEPUBLIC......... 4.13
~
4.4.1 Effect on Distribution of Doses .................. 4.13 4.4.2 Cost Implications ................................ 4.14 4.5 S UMMAR Y O F CON S EQ U EN C ES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.14 5.0 CONSEQUENCES OF OTHER CHANGES ................................ 5.1 5.1 CONTROL OF INTERNAL EXPOSURE IN RESTRICTED AREAS ........ 5.1 5.2 PRECAUTIONARY PROCEDURES ................................ 5.3
. 5.2.1 Labeling Requirements ............................ 5.3 ,
5.2.2 Posting Requirements ............................. 5.4 5.2.3 Package Handling Requirements .................... 5.4 , 5.3 WASTE DISPOSAL .......................................... 5.4 5.4 RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS .............................. 5.5 5.5 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS .................................. 5.7 5.5.1 Incident Reports ................................. 5.8 5.5.2 Reports of Personnel Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.8 5.5.3 Reports to Indi vi dual s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.9 5.6 OTHER CHANGES ........................................... 5.10 5.6.1 Units of Radiation Dose .......................... 5.10 I 5.6.2 Radiaton Protection Pro rams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.11 ! 5.6.3 Control of Access to Hi h Radiation Areas ........ 5.11 5.7
SUMMARY
OF CONSEQUENCES ................................. 5.11 6.0 OTHER CONS EQUENCES OF THE REVISION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1 6.1 PERSONNEL TRAINING ...................................... 6.1 t l 6.2 PROCEDURE REVISIONS ..................................... 6.3 l 6.3 NRC COSTS ............................................... 6.6 6.3.1 Development ...................................... 6.7 xWi
y.*
- Pace 6.3.2 Implementation ................................... 6.7 6.3.3 Operation ........................................ 6.8 6.4 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESSES ............................. 6.9 6.5 $ UMHARY OF CON S EQUENC ES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.11 7.0 QUALITATIVE BENEFITS FROM REVISING PART 20 ................... 7.1 7.1 POTENTIAL BENEFITS FROM CONSISTENCY WITH MATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS ....................... 7.1 7.2 POTENTIAL BENEFITS FROM REVISED MONITORING REQUIREMENTS ............................................ 7.6 7.3 POTENTIAL BENEFITS FROM REVISED RECORDKEEPING/ REPORTING REQUIREMENTS ............................................ 7.7 7.4 POTENTIAL BENEFITS FROM ADDITIONS / REVISIONS TO CURRENT
- DOSE LIMITS ............................................. 7.9 7.5 POTENTIAL BENEFITS FROM SUPPLIED GUIDANCE FOR COMPLYING WITH THE REVISION ....................................... 7.10 7.6 POTENTIAL BENEFITS FROM DOSE LIMITS FOR PREGNANT WOMEN AN D EMB RYO S / F ETU S E S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.11 7.7 POTENTIAL BENEFITS FROM REVISED LABELING REQUIRENENTS .... 7.11 8.0
SUMMARY
OF COSTS AND BENEFITS .............,................... 8.1 8.1 COMPENDIUM 0F NRC AND AGREEMENT STATE LICENSEES .......... 8.1 , 8.2
SUMMARY
OF COSTS ......................................... 8.4 8.2.1 Summary by Facility Type .......................... 8.5 8.2.2 Summa ry by Pa rt 20 Secti on . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.6 8.2.3 Discussion of Uncertainties ....................... 8.7 8.3 S UMMA RY O F B E N E F I T S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.8 8.3.1 Sunnary by Part 20 Section ........................ 8.8 8.3.2 Discussion af Uncertainties ....................... 8.8 8.4 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS ..................................... 8.10
8.5 CONCLUSION
S .............................................. 8.10 REFERENCES ......................................................... R.1 xviii
a
. r. y . s .
TABLES Pace , 3.1 Doca Limits Promulgated in the Present and Revised Part 20 ....................................................... 3.1 3.2 Misimum Detectable Activity Levels Required to Meet Dr.se Limits in Revised Part 20 for Certain Radionuclides ...... 3.5 3.3 Comparison of Part 20 Current and Revised Air Concentration Limits for Certain Radionuclides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7
's . 4 Estimated Costs of Increased Recordkeeping Requirements Resulting from the Revised Dose Evaluation Requirements ....... 3.16 3.5 Sumary of Consequences of the Revised Dose Evaluation Requirements .................................................. 3.18 4.1 Doses Received by Licensee Employees in 1984 .................. 4.2 4.2 Number of Licensee Employees Reported to Have Received .
Doses Approaching or Exceeding 5 res in 1979 .................. 4.3 4.3 Adjusted Number of Employees Who Received Doses >5 rem in 1979 and 1984 .............................................. 4.5 4.4 Numoer of Women Reported to Have Received Doses >0.5 rem in 1980 ....................................................... 4.11 4.5 Sumary of Consequences of the Revised Limits . . . ... . . . . . . . .. .: 4.14 5.1 Estimated Collective Dose Equivalent Savings During an Outage Through Reduced Respiratory Usage for Selected Tasks ... 5.2 5.2 Current and Revised Average Concentration Limits for Releases into Sanitary Sewerage ............................... 5.6 5.3 Cost of Proviaing Reports to Individuals by Facility C a t e g o ry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.10 ' 5.4 Sumary of Marginal Cost Increases from Other Changes in the Revised Part 20 ........................................ 5.12 6.1 Fraction of Licensees Which Ma Be Classified as Small Business .....................y................................. 6.10 6.2 Per-facility Costs of the 10 CFR Part 20 Revision ............. 6.10 6.3 Total Cost to Small Businesses of the 10 CFR Part 20 Revision ...................................................... 6.11 xix
* * .Y s
_u s '_ . .
.. ..- ..?~. ~ -
- t. .,
Pace 6.4 Summary of Marginal Cost Increases from Other Consequences of 10 CFR Part 20 Revision ....................................... 6.12 - 74 Comparison of the Revision of Part 20 with National and - Inte rnati onal Recommend ati on s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3 8.1 Categories of Licensees ....................................... 8.3 8.2 Number of NRC and Agreement State Licensees in 1985 ........... 8.4 8.3 Employee Data For NRC and Agreement State Licensees in 1985 ....................................................... 8.5 8.4 Quantified Costs Incurred From the Revision of Part 20 by Facility Category ............................................. 8.6 8.5 Quantified Costs Incurred From the Revision of Part 20 by Section of the Rule ........................................... 8.7 8.6 Benefits of the Revision of Part 20 by Section of , the Rule ...................................................... 8.9 8.7 Sensitivity of Net Benefits to Yariations in Basic Assumptions. 8.11
. 3.8 Net Impact (P, resent Value) of the Revision of Part 20 ......... 8.12 r
I S l l XX
F S. . . fy ,u t ._q7 -
; s. . . .
. 1.0 INTRADUCTION The Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) plans to proeul
- revisionofTitle10,Part20,CodeofFederalRegulations,gateacomplete Standards for Protection Against Radiation." This report presents a cost-benefit analysis of the revision which can be used by regulatory authorities to assess the impact of the revision on society. Groups affected by the revision will be NRC licensees, Agreement State licensees, NRC and Agreement State agencies, the general public and businesses directly or indirectly related to the nuclear industry. T1e following five sections provide a historical perspective of Part 20 and describe the methodology used in this report to assess the impact of the revision.
1.1 BACKGROUND
Code of Federal Regulations Title 10, Part 20 provides standards for protection of workers and the public against radiation hazards arising out of activities under licenses issued by the NRC. In addition, these standards are used as the basis for the regulations promulgated by the 28 Agreement States. The current standards are based primarily on the recomendations of the International Coenission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) published in 1959 (ICRP1959). Since that time, 10 CFR Part 20 has undergone numerous minor revisions, but most of the principles underlying the protection standards remain as they were three decades ago. In 1977, the ICRP published a new set of recomendations (ICRP 1977). These recomendations were based on a revised concept of total risk limitation and provided methods for normalizing risks from doses received by different parts of the body. This concept was adopted by both the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurecents (NCRP) (NCRP 1987) and the Environmental Proter. tion Agency (EPA) (FR 1987). If promulgated, the revision of Part 20 would incorporate this fundamental system l of dose limitation. ! t 1.2 HISTORY OF PART 20 REVISIONS l The NRC's standards for protection against radiation are basicall unchanged from those first developed by the Atomic Energy Comission (yAEC) in 1960. These standards were based on ICRP recomendations (ICRP 1959) and reflected the latest scientific understanding of the effects of radiation. Since 1960, Part 20 has undergone numerous minor revisions, but the basic principles underlying the systes of dose limitation have remained intact. Soon after the publication of the ICRP recomendations in ICRP Publication 26 (ICRP 1977), the NRC initiated a rulemaking activity to incorporate these recommendations into 10 CFR Part 20. On March 20, 1980, an
' Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking' was published in the Federal _ Reoister.
In 1982, the NRC prepared a Regulatory Analysis for the most recent version of the planned revision of Part 20. Subsequently, the revision underwent several iterations until a proposed revision was published in 1.1
Y
/. .
'.' l-theFederalReatsteronJanuary9,1986(FR1986). This was a corrected version of the proposed revision first published on December 20, 1985. Announcement of a 120-day connent period coincided with publication of the proposed revision.
Upon publication of the proposed revision, a draft backfit analysis to comply with Section 50.109 of 10 CFR 50 was requested by te Commission. This analysis was developed and published for public cosmer on August 29,
- 1986. Coincident with publication of the backfit analysis, the public connent period on the proposed revision was extended to October 31, 1986.
This provided a 250-day coseent period on the proposed re*fon, including a 60-day joint connent period on the proposed revision and % backfit analysis. A total of 813 corments were received during the 250-day coiwnent period. Based primarily on analysis of the connents on the ph. posed rule, the ' MRC performed further iterations of the revision until Deeder 4 1987, when the final rule language was approved by an NRC Steers!y Comalttee. The analysis provided in this report is based on the December 4,1987, wording of the rule. Although further changes to the wording might occur before the Comission decides whether to promulgate the revis:d rule, any such changes are anticipated to be editorial and should not affect the conclusions of this report. 1.3 PURPOSE OF REVISION ' The primary purpose of revising Part 20 is to incorporate in it the basic principles of ICRP Publication 26, which were endorsed by the EPA in its Federal
. Radiation Protection Guidance (FR 1987). Under the current Part 20, the cuarterly whole-body dose limit applies only to external doses. Internal coses are subject to separate limits based on limiting the dose to a critical organ. Under the revised Part 20, external doses and internal doses would be sumed to demonstrate compliance with the annual whole-body dose limit. This system of dose limitation is consistent with current ICRP and NCRP recommendations on protection of both workers and the public from ionizing radiation (ICRP 1977; NCRP 1987), and is also consistent with the EPA's Radiation Protection Guidance to Federal Agencies for Occupational Exposure, signed by the President (FR 1987).
The* revised Part 20 would also incorporate other recomendations of the ICRP NCRP and EPA. Under the current Part 20, workers are allowed to recelve an, external whole body dose of 3 rem per quarter, provided that their average annual dose after the age of eighteen does not exceed 5 rem. Considering that internal doses are not considered in this limit, the potential exists for some workers under the current rule to receive doses significantly in excess of 12 rem per year. Under the revised Part 20, workers would be limited to 5 rem per year, except under special circumstances when a limit of 10 rem could be applied. The revised Part 20 would include, for the first time, a dose limit to the embryo / fetus. The ICRP, NCRP, and EPA all recosnend a limit to the embryo / fetus that is separate and lower than the whole body dose limit to adult torkers. This provision in the revised Part 20 would introduce a limit that is already being applied for most radiation workers in the United States. 1.2
,I :
The revised Part 20 would correct outdated individual .radionuclide intake limits in the current rule. Because the fundamental principies of the current rule are thirty years old, sc> v of the intake limits are no longer consistent - with current scientific knowle42 and understanding of the behavior of radionuclides in the body. Inc6nsistencies associated with application of the limits would be corrected by the revision, as well. In general, the revision of Part 20 represents a complete overhaul of the current rule. The revision would reflect current scientific knowledge of radiation protection principles and would provide a sound technical basis for the dose limits. 1.4 TECHNICAL. APPROACH The purpose of this report is to provide a regulatory analysis for the revision of Part 20. The methods and format of the analysis are consistent with both the regulatory analysis guidelines of the NRC (USNRC 1984) and accepted methods for performing value-impact assessments (Heaberlin et al. 1983). Although this analysis does not provide a backfit analysis consistent with 10 CFR 50.109, the infomation provided in this report is sufficient for the development of such an analysis. , The analysis provided in this report is a cost-benefit analysis of the revision of Part 20. Only the marginal costs and benefits are identified; that is, only those costs and benefits that represent additions or reductions compared to those currently being incurred under the present Part 20 are considered in this' analysis. The analysis is based on many sources of infomation, including a previous regulatory analysis of an earlier version of the revision (USNRC 1982), public coments on the regulatory analysis, public coments on the proposed rule and backfit analysis, and numerous publications relevant to specific provisions of the revision. The current plan for implementing the revision is to allow a 5-year implementation period beginning the day the proposed rule was published (January 9, 1986). Because the final revision is not expected to be published until the end of 1988, licensees will have approximately two years after publication of the rule to fully im>1ement the provisions of the rule. In this report, all quantified costs and aenefits are nomalized to January 1 1989. For cost estimates obtained from cost infomation provided in the IIterature,a5 per year increase was applied to account for inflation. Because publication of the proposed rule in 1986 prompted many licensees to begin ' gearing up' for sublication of the final rule, implementation costs will be distributed over tie 5-year implementation period. In many cases, licensees will inevitably defer implementation of the rule as long as possible. For this analysis, present value calculations are based on the assumption that M, M,10%, 40%, and 40% of the implementation costs were or will be incurred in 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, and 1990, respectively. To be consistent with accepted guidance on perfoming value-f apact assessments (Heaberlin et al. 1983), the resources spent to quantify the costs 1.3
,.. } F ., . . L *' ', .s !. * ~. -
I and benefits identified in this re> ort were ccamensurate with their expected magnitrde. As a result, many of tie identified impacts have been labeled "negligible." This is not intended to imply that the impacts are nonexistent
- or unimportant to individual licensees; rather, impacts labeled I "negligible" are assumed to have no significan impact on the results of this analysis.
1.5 CONTENTS OF THIS REPORT This report is organized as follows. The Executive Summary summarizes the analysis in a fonnat consistent with the regulatory analysO guidelines . of the NRC (USNR0 1984). Section 2.0 com> ares the current M 20 with the
! Part 20 revision to briefly familiarize tie reader with the important changes introduced in the revision. Section 3.0 presents the consequences of the revised dose evaluation requirements, including both external and internal dose evaluation. Section 4.0 presents the consequences of the revised dose limits, and Section 5.0 presents the consequences of other changes to Part i 20. In Section 6.0, consequences of the revision that sre not related to specific provisions are described including the costs associated with personnel training and procedure revisions, the costs that will be incurred by NRC to implement and enforce the revision, and the impact of the revision on small' ,
businesses. Section 7.0 discusses the important benefits from revising Part .
- 20. Although most of these benefits cannot be quantified, they are presented !
i in sufficient detail in this re> ort so that the appropriate authorities can ' evaluate thr.ir significance witi respect to the associated costs of the revision. Finally, Section 8.0 suonarizes the costs and benefits associated
. with the revision.
As discussed in Section 1.2, the revision of Part 20 has undergone numerous iterations. In this report, the following definitions apply. The proposed rule is defined as the rule published for public comment on j January 9, 1986 (FR 1986). It may also be referred to as "the proposed . revision" or "the proposed Part ?.0." The current rule is defined as the rule i present in the Code of Federal Euciations as of January 1,1988. The current
~
i rule may also be refUred to as 'thT ! Part 20", or 'the current (or presentfresent rule",The regulations." 'therevised currentrule (or is present) ! defined as the current version of tne planned revision, as of December 4, 1987. 'The revised rule may also be referred to as "the revised Part 20", i "the revision of Part 20", or simply "the revision." i P l l j 1.4 j r l l _ _ _ . . . - . . . - _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ .
' ,'. r" j , ,, ,
- .e i -
2.0 COMPARISON OF PRESENT PART 20 WITH PART 20 REVISION . l The revision of Part 20 will involve chances to most sections of the - present rule. Also, the revision will result In either the addition or deletion of certain sections. Some of the changes are major and are expected to impact licensees significantly. Other changes, however, are relatively minor and are expected to have little or no impact. Sections 2.1 through 2.4 below contain changes to the rule that are likely to have significant impacts. Section 2.5, however, contains changes that cre Jxpected to have less significant impacts. Changes expected to have little or no impact arc, not
- discussed.
2.1 $UPNARY OF $1GNIFICANT CHANGES REGARDING INTERNAL DOSE ASSESSMENT The primar, purpose fu revising Part 20 is to incorporate in it the 1 current ICRP system of dose limitation (ICRP 1977) as guided by the EPA (FR 1987). Basic to this system is the concept that both internal and external . doses can be sumed to detemine relative risk. As a result, the revised , Part 20 reouires assessment of internal doses and sumation of internal and external dcises to determine the total effective dose equivalents, a measure ! of total health risk to individuals. The present Part 20 does not require , I j sumation of internal and external doses. ' 1 , i An important consideration for this analysis is that under the revised ! Part 20, tis summation recuirement might result in increased whole-body dose ; i equivalents being recordec compared to the external whole-body doses currently [ being recorded even though the actual dose (risk) to the worker remains the ! I same. Because this increase in recorded dose would be a result of changing ? terminology rather than an actual increase in risk, no impact regarding health ; effects is associated with this change. , i 2.1.1 Section 20.202: Compliance with Reauirements for Sumation of i Enternal and External Exposures t i The present Part 20 does not require sumation of external and internal doses. In the revised rule, Section 20.202 specifies when and how a licensee j must consider intakes of radionuclides in detemination of total effective ' dose equivalent. 2.1.2 Section 20.204: Determination of Internal Exposure 4 This section defines acceptable procedures for determining internal exposures based on air sampling or bioassay measurements. The revised section i i is sore detailed than the analogous section in the present Part 20 because f i the revised Part 20 requires sumation of internal and external doses. 2.L3 Section 20.502: Conditions Reautrino Individual Monitorina of ' External and Internal Occupational Dose l The present Part 20 requires monitoring at 25% of the cuarterly limits. However, Section 20.502 of the revised rule requires indivicual monitoring 2.1 I
. .... ...,~...-. .
, j $ _ ( >[
for workers who are likely to receia doses in excess of 10% of the occupational dose limits. This section mandates, in accordance with Section 20.202, that suitable measurements be performed to allow summation of internal and external doses. Sumation is required when internal doses exceed 10% of the applicable annual limits. 2.2 StM4ARY OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES REGARDING OCCUPATIONAL DOSE LIMITS . This section describes the significant changes in occupational dose limits in the revised Part 20. ,,.,: 2.2.1 Section 20.201: Occupational Dose Limits for Adults The present Part 20 specifies a 1.25 res/ quarter limit to the whole body, head and trunk a lens of eyes, or gonads. Under the present rule,ctive if the licensee has a recor d of a worker's exposure history, blood-forming organs, the worker may receive up to 3 res/ quarter, provided the worker's lifetime dose does not exceed 5(N-18) rem, where N is the worker's age in years. However, the revised occupational dose limits for adults specify a total effective dose equivalent per year of 5 res and a limit of 50 rem (sum of deep and comittee dose equivalents) for organs or tissues other than the lens of the eye. . The present Part 20 specifies limits of 1.25 res/ quarter to the lens of the eye, 7.5 res/ quarter to the skin, and 18.75 res/ quarter to each of the extremities. The revised annual limits are 15 rem to the Mns of the eye, 50 rem to the skin, and 50 rem to each of the extremities. Tne definition of
' extremities" in the revision is slightly different than the definition in the present Part 20.
The present Part 70 tiso specifies limits for exposure of individuals to concentrations of radioactive materials in air. The limit can be calculated from air concentrations listed by radionuclide in Appendix B. The revision, on the other hand, does not specify such limits because the total effective dose equivalent limit includes intakes of radionuclides. However, the revision does specify a 10 mg/ week limit for intake of soluble uranium because of its chemical toxicity. Limits on intake of other radioactive materials are implied by the 5 rem /yr limit on total effective dose equivalent for radiation workers. 2.2.2 Section 20.206: Planned Special ExD,olul g i This section in the revised rule allows licenstes to authorize adult workers to receive doses in excess of the cccupational dose limits provided the certain conditions are met. Although there is no analeams provision in the present Part 20, planned special exposures would be sfe ur.f fa t?e '5(N-18)' rule in that wo kers would be allowed to exceed the arinval sceupat b v dose limits under ceru.in canditions. If the provision is vssd. E hv % a; w rkers could receive double the annual occu yea.rs during the worker's lifetime. pational dose linics fr 4 ux W of 5 2.2
l 2.2.3 Section 20.208: Dose to an Embryo / Fetus A limit to the embryo / fetus is not addressed in the present Part 20. Under this section in the revised rule, however, the dose to an embryo / fetus ' is limited to 0.5 rem. The new rule effectively limits the total effective dose equivalent of a declared pregnant woman to 0.5 rem during the pregnancy. practice this limit because it is addressed in both Most a NRClicensees Regulatorycurrently Guide (USNRC 1987b) and a staff position paper. 2.3 SUP94ARY OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES REGARDING LIMITATION OF DOSE TO T,HE PUBLIC Although the present rule or.ly irplies limits on dose to the public, the revised Part 20 would contain explicit limitations on such dose. This section describes the new requirements. 2.3.1 Section 20.301: Dose limits for Individual Members of the Public In the present Part 20, a whole-body limit of 0.5 res/yr for each member of the public is implied Nt is not relicitly stated. This revised section, however, limits the total effective dose equivalent to individual members of the public to 0.1 rem //r. The limit includes doses from all operations by a , licensee, excluding disposal of radioactive material into sanitary sewerage. The revision allows licensees to apply for authorization to operate up to an annual dose of 0.5 res/yr. 2.3.2 Section 20.302: Compliance with Dose Limits for Individual Members of the Public Although the present Part 20 does not include this provision, this section in the revised rule requires licensees to make measurecents as appropriate, todemonstratecompliancewiththelimitsspecifiedinSut}cn20.301. 2.4
SUMMARY
OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES REGARDING RECOR0 KEEPING AND REPORTING lEQUIREMENTS Because the revision to Part 20 includes a revised system of dose limitation, the information collected by licensees to assess doses will be more detailed than the information presently collected. As a result, recording and reporting of this information is expected to be more extensive than under the present rule. 2.4.1 Section 20.110f.: Records of Individual Monitorino Results This section specifies the information that will be required to be l recorded on NRC Form 5. Although the present Part 20 also requires individual monitoring results to be recorded on NRC Fors 5, more information i will be recorded under the revised rule because more information will be required to demonstrate compliance with occupational dose limits. 2.3
' .,t *-
. .... ',,- g y q.. l ..
C, ' ,, f . , 2.4.2 Section 20.1107: Records of Dose to Individual Members of the Public Although not required in the present Part 20, the revised rule requires that records shall be maintained to demonstrate compliance with dose limits - for individual members of the public. 2.4.3 Section 20.1206: Reoorts of Personnel Monitorina , ThepresentPart20doesnotrequirethatindividualmonitorin be submitted for each individual for whoe monitoring was required,butg does reports recuire certain licensees to subett an annual statistical summary report. Uncer section 20.1206 of the revised rule however, the same categories of licensees are required to submit an annual report of the results of individual monitoring for each individual for whom monitoring was required. In addition, the revised 10 CFR Part 19 requires that all licensees submit, at least annually, reports to individuals describing the doses that they received. ' i Currently, licensees are required to submit these reports only upon request. 2.5 $UPNARY OF OTHER CHANGES ) 2.5.1 Chances aeoardina Control of Internal Exposure in Restricted Areas Subpart H of the revision contains requirements pertaining to respira-tory protection controls to restrict internal exposure in restricted areas. ! Most of the chan;;es that appear in the revision are either editorial or are ' ! insignificant with respect to cost. One exception is Section 20.702, which states that the licensee shall -it intakes so that the total effective dose aquivalent is maintained ALARA. The present Part 20 essentially prohibits i deliberate internal exposures that are a significant fraction of the dose ! limits and does not require that the total effective dose equivalent be i maintainedaslowasreasonablyachievable(ALARA). . d 2.5.2 Chances Regardina Precautionary Procedures ' Most of the changes regarding precautionary procedures are expected to have insignificant impacts on licensees with the exception of labeling requinments. In the revised Appendix C, quantities of most radioactive materials that will require labeling are higher than the values provided in Appendix C of the present Part 20. - 2.5.3 Chances Reaardino Waste Disposal Most of the changes regarding waste dis to have insignificant impacts on licensees. posal requirements One exception is thatare theexpected amounts of specific radionuclides that can be released into sanitary sewerage have been changed. In ecst cases, the revised limits are 10-100 times more tcstrictive than the present limits. < 2.5.4 Chances Recardina Recordkeepino Reautrements Subpart L of the revision contains sections that describe re:ordkeeping requirements. The requirements include records of radiation protection i 2.4 1
i . programs, records of surveys, records of prior occupational dose, records of planned special exposures, records of doses to both individual workers and individual members of the public, records of waste disposal, and records of testing entry control devices. Except for the sections that require records of doses to individual workers and individual members of the public (discussed in Section 2.4 above), the changes to the present rule are expected to have only minor impacts on licensees. In several cases, the sections in the revision contain more detail than the relevant sections in the present rule. The impacts of these revised requirements are expected to be minor because most licensees currently keep records that fulfill the requirements of the revision. In two other cases (records of radiation protection programs and records of testing entrycontroldevices),the requirements are new but are not expected to have a significarit cost impact on licensees. 2.5.5 Changes Reaardino Reportina Reautrements Subpart M of the rev ...1 describes reporting requirements. Except for Section 20.1206, which was discussed in Section 2.4 of this resort, the reporting requirements pertain to unusual situations such as tiefts and overexposures. In these cases, the requirements in the revision are similar to the recuirements in the present Part 20 except for minor changes that either . involve ecitorial changes or revise the definitions of reportable events. Because reporting of incidents is very infrequent, these changes are expected to have minimal cost impacts. I i I 2.5 l ' l
?M .
~
3.0 CONSE0VENCES OF REVISED DOSE EVALUATION REQUIREMENTS The present and proposed dose limits stomulgated in 10 CFR Part 20 are - sumarized in Table 3.1. In addition to tie changes to the limits, the fraction of the annual limit at which monitoring is required has effectively been lowered from 25% to 10% for both internal and external doses. Also, the revised annual total dose equivalent limit is based on a weighted fraction concept designed to normalize the risk of adverse health effects from a dose delivered nonuniformly to the body to the risk from a uniform whole body dose. The total effective dose equivalent must include the sum of both external doses and weighted . internal doses when both individually exceed 10% of the annual limit. The anticipated impacts of these changes are evaluated in the following sections. TABLE 3.1. Occupational Dose Limits Promulgated in the Present and Revised Part 20 Revised Present Oose Revised Exposure Annual Doso Present Exposure Cateaory Limit, rem Category , Lim't, rem Whole Body (head and trunk 3/ quarter Total effective b active blood forming organs, 5/ year (avg.) dose equivalent orgonads) Lens of eyes 5/ year Lens of eyes 15 Hands, foreams, teet 75/ year Extremities 50 and ankles , Skin of the whole body 30/ year Skin 50 Internal Dose 520 HPC-hours
/ quarter Comitted Dose Equivalents Whole Body ear Comitted dose 50 Most Organs 5/y/
15 year equivalent (organs) Thyroid 30/ year 3.1 EXTERNAL DOSE f'ALVATIONS The present Part 20 limits external whole body doses to 3 ree/ quarter and a lifetime average less than 5 ree/yr after the age of 18. Internal doses are not considered in calculations for compliance with this limit. The revised annual limit of 5 rem includes the sumation of external and internal doses if the latter exceed 10% of the annual effective dose equivalent limit. 3.1
The annual limit for extremities has been lowered from 75 to 50 rem and the limit for the skin has been raised from 30 to 50 rem. The most restric-tive exposure limit regarding the sensitivity of personnel dosimeters is the j annual whole body limit of 5 ree/yr. Assuming a 1-month exchan 1 minimum
/12 months persensitivity)for the year . Under both the current dosimeter Part 20 and must 1 x be the revised 5000 about mrem Part 40 mrel 20 MRC licensees are required to obtain personnel dosimetry from a processor holding accreditation from the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP). Although NVLAP does not have a provision for lower limit of detection, dosimeters can meet a 40 arem detection limit. Therefore, no costs are anticipated regarding improvements in dosimetry methods.
Because external doses must be monitored for workers likely to receive 10% of the revised dose limits as opposed to 25% of the current limits, it is aossible that increased monitoring will be required at some facilities. iowever, essentially all facilities currently monitor whole-body doses to workers who receive significantly less than 500 ares /yr. The primary reason for monitoring relatively low doses is not to meet applicable state ar.d federal regulations, but to both detect unsafe working conditions and protect the facility from litigation by documenting individual doses (Kelsey, Lane and Hettler1984). Therefore, no increased monitoring of whole-body doses is anticipated from the revised 3enitoring requirements. However, extremity . doses are not currently monito ed at 10% of the revised extremity limits in all cases. At nuclear power plants, extremity dose monitoring is not nomally performed on a routine basis becsuse extremity doses received during routine operations are generally well below 25% of the current limits (Huggins and Watson Jr.1984). However, considering that the revised monitoring require-ment are 50isrem10%/yr of as the revised opposed extremity to 18.75 rem / quarter, some workers who are notlimits, and the currently monitored will be monitored under the revised requirements. Based on a study of hand doses received during 4 months of routine operations at a typical nuclear power plant (Huggins and Watson Jr.1984), it is estimated that additional extremity monitoring will be required for an average of 60 person-months during routine operations per nuclear power plant per year. An additional 120 person months /yr during outages is also anticipated. Increases in extremity monitoring are expected for some other facilities, as well. Procedures such as implantation of radiotherapy needles at hospitals, elution and activity measurements at nuclear pharmacies and glove box operationsatfuelfabricationfacilitiese,ouldresultIndosestoworkers that may require increased extremity moni'.oring under the revised Part 20 (Thind 1987; Harty, Reece and MacLellan 1986). It is estimated that for 10% of medical facilities, average additional extremity monitoring of 12 person months will be required. The remaining 90% of medical facilities are anticipated to incur no increased extremity monitoring costs. Additional extremity monitoring of 24 person months psr nuclear pharmacy and 60 person months per fuel fabrication facility are also estimated. For other facilities, increases in extremity monitoring are expected to be relatively insignificant. 3.2
.:.. p .- - - _ . - . ~ . _ - - ...-- . ..........- . .
Based on the estimates provided above and the data presented in Section ' 8.1, increased extremity monitoring equivalent to 33,600 person-months /yr is ! anticipated from the revised requirements. Assuming a monthl (Huggins and Watson Jr.1984) and two dosimeters one peron person a finger(y exchange p of each hand), 67,200 additional dosimeters per year will be processed. Based on an estimated cost of $5 per dosimeter, which includes both the cost of evaluation and the cost of recording the evaluated dose information, the impact on NRC and Agreement State licensees is estimated to be $340,000 per year. i The present value of these costs is included in the sumaries presented in Sections 3.6 and 8.2.
~
3.2 INTERNAL DOSE EVALUAT10NS Section 20.103 of the current Part 20 promulgates limits for exposure to concentrations of radioactive materials in air in restricted areas. Internal dose is limited by compliance with maxiwa pensissible concentrations (HPC) of radionuclides in air. These MPC va'ues were established using empirically derived biokinetic models and the calc , lated dose to critical organs per unit of radioactivity inhaled. The critieti organs were defined as those receiving the greatest dose and were specific f er each radionuclide. Compliance with the regulations is currently demonstrated by comparison , of the exposure limit with the actual 13-week average air concentration and by appropriate bioassay techniques. The present regulations allow exposures below 2 MPC-hours / day or 10 HPC-hours / week to be igno ed for dose assessment purposes. The required sensitivity level for monitoring potential internal exposures is, therefore, inferred to be 25% of the average weekly intake that would occur during exposure to an air concentration of one MPC. The revised Part 20 requires licensees to monitor intakes of radioactive material for adults likely to receive, in 1 year, an intaku in excess of 10% of the applicable Annual Limits of Intake (AL!s). Intakes through wounds or oral ingestion will be significant for only a small percentage of the worker + population and will almost always be the result of accidents (unplanned exposures). The only mode of entry for which monitoring will be routinely affected by the changes in the proposed rules is intake by inhalation. In accordance with the revised Part 20, compliance with the limit on intake by inhalation may be demonstrated in any of three ways '1) limiting thesumoftheratiosofintakesandAListounity,2)limitingtheDAC-hours of exposure to 2000, or 3) based on calculations from bioassay data, limiting the comitted effective dose equivalents to all orgy.s or tissues to the annual limit. Determination of internal exposure, therefo,e, requires either bioassay l measurements to determine the uptake of radionuclides, or air monitoring to detensine air concentrations to which workers may be exposed. An intake of i radioactive material is defined as material taken into the body by inhalation
- or ingestion. An uptake is the radioactive material deposited in the body immediately following an intake.
3.3 1 I t
3.2.1 Bioassay Bioassay techniques may be separated into two categories, in vitro and in vivo. In vitro techniques estimate uptakes or intakes through analysis of excreta from potentially exposed iridividuals and application of biokinetic models to represent the behavior of radionuclides in the body. In vivo techniques estimate uptakes or intakes by direct measurement of photons emitted from radioactive material present in the body. The measurement data are then extrapolated to uptakes using biokinetic models. Since intakes as small as 10% of an ALI must be included in the total effective dose ecutvalent under the revised Part 20 requirements, the bioassay technique usec to assess internal u > takes must have a minimum detectable activity (MOA) at least as small as tie uptake assumed to follow an intake of 10% of an ALI. Using published data (Lessard et al. 1987) for excretion and lung retention fractions, the MDA necessary for detecting an intake of one-tenth on an ALI 30 days following the intake was calculated for a number of comonly-used radionuclides (Table 3.2). Thirty days was assumed to be the minimum measurement interval for a routine program, even though longer intervals are usual for many radionuclides. The calculated MDAs were then compared to acceptable MDAs (AMDAs) listed in draft ANSI Standard N13.30 Performance Criteria for Radiobioassay (see note "b" to Table 3.2). The AMDAs were , established as the level expected to be obtainable by a competent counting laboratory and are not necessarily "acceptable" to meet health physics needs in all situations. Table 3.2 indicates that for most radionuclides, an intake of 10% of an ALI is detectable 30 days following the intake by either in vitro or in vivo techniques. However, detection at this level may not levelsofsensitivityforafewradionuclides(e.g.,jepossibleatcurrent Sr and plutonium isotoses). If the nuclide-specific MDAs are not beyond the present. capabilities of a sioassay laboratory, implementation of the proposed regulations will incur no additional costs due to sensitivity requirements. If the required MDA is below the present sensitivity of the bioassay system, costs will be incurred either to improve the system sensitivity, increase the frequency of bioassay measurements, or implement an alternate monitoring system for internal exposure (air monitoring). i 3.2.2 Air Monitorino Airborne radioactive material can be monitored and evaluated by air sampling. A volume of air is drawn (pumped) through a detection device which measures the radioactivity directly, or through a collection device such as a filter or impactor, which removes the radioactive material from the air. In the latter case, the sas.ple is analyzed by radioanalytic techniques following collection. 1 Two general types of air samples can be collected: breathing zone and general area. Breathing zone samplers provide a relatively representative sample of the concentration of radioactive material in air breathed by an individual, but suffer from limitations regarding sampling rate. Although
~
3.4 m
TABLE 3.2. Minimum Detectable Activity Levels Required to Meet Dose Limits in Revised Part 20 foi Certain Radionuclides MDAN Required To Detect A 10% ALI Intake 30 Days Post Exposure Required >0A<AMDA N Nuclide Class ALI. sci Urine In vivo Urine In vivo 3H Vapor 8E4 2.5E4 - No - 14 C D 2E5 1.4E6 .
- No -
32 9E2 4.2E1 - No - P D W 4E2 1.9El - No - 35 2E4 1.2E3 - No - 5 D W 2E3 1.8E2 - No - 45 Ca W 8E2 3.0E4 - No - 51 Cr 'D SE4 2.8E6 - No - W 2E4 5.1ES 9.7E4 No No . Y 2E4 1.4E5 1.4E5 No No 54 2.0E2 <1E-3 No - l Mn D 9E2 W BE2 2.0E1 7.6E3 No No l 59 3E2 2.3E3 - No - Fe D W SE2 1.0E3 3.2E3 No No 60 W 2E2 - 2.0E3 - ' No Co Y 3E1 - 4.3E2 - No 65 4.0E3 Zn Y 3E2 5.3E3 No No 86 i Rb D 8E2 9.1E3 - No - 90 9.0E-1 Sr D 2E1 - No - Y 4E0 6.6E-3 - Yes -
)
99 1.1E6 - No ! Mo D 3E3 - Y 1E3 1.8!4 1.5E4 No - l 99m ic D 2E5 . - - - 125 2.6E3 1.1E3 1 0 6El No No 129 5.5E2 2.2E2 No No 1 0 9E0 , 131 2.7E-1 2.4E1 No No 1 0 SE1 I37 Cs D 2E2 - 4.8E1 - No 3.5 1
i YABLE 3.2 (contd) MDAN Required To
- Detect A 10% ALI Intake 30 Days Post Exposure Required MDA<AMDA N Nuclide Class ALI mci Urine In Vivo Urine In vivo 144 Ce W 3E1 - 2.9E2 - No i Y 1El -
6.7El - No l 235 0 D 1E0 1.0E1 <1E-3 No Yes ' W 8E-1 5.0E0 8.2E0 No No Y 4E-2 2.5E-1 5.8E-1 No No . Nat U(b D 1E0 1.0E1 1.5El No No 234T h) y W 8E-1 5.0E0 8.2E0 No No Y 5E-2 2.5E-1 7.2E-1 No Yes 238 Pu W 6E-i 8.0E-6 6.1E-2 Yes Yes Y 2E-2 1.0E-6 2.9E-1 Yes Yes [ j 241 Am W SE-3 5.0E0 5.1E-2 No No . (a) Units are nCi for in vivo bioassay and nCi/L for all urinalysis except , natural uranium urinalysis (ug/L). (b) AMDAs specified in draft ANSI Standard N13.30, Performance Criteria for Radiobioassay. Information on draft ANSI Standard N13.30 is available , from Roscoe Hall, E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co., Savannah River Plant, Aiken, SC 29801. area air samplers can collect larger air samples, general area air concen-trations may differ appreciably from the concentration in the breathing zone of the individual. Uptakes estimated from air samples have 4.n estimated total uncertainty factor of 5 or more for breathing zone samplers and 20 or more for area air samplers (Booth, Bronson and Groth 1985). l ' Table 3.3 sumarizes the revised changes in air concentration limits for a number of radionuclides comonly found in licensee facilities. For those radionuclides not detectable with current bioassay technology, increased sensitivity is most easily obtainable through air monitoring. The costs of 1 implementing the revised limits will, therefore, involve procuring and maintaining additional air monitoring equipment increasing labor costs for collecting and analyzing air samples, and establishing an appropriate personnel monitoring records system. These costs are detailed in Sections 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5, below. 3.6
TABLE 3.3. Comparison of Part 20 Current and Revised Air Concentration Limits for Certain Radionuclides DAC, Nuclide Class sci /ml MPCair sci /ml (,) DAC/MPCair 3H Vapor 2E-5 SE-6(5) 4 I4 C 1E-6 0.3 D 4E-6(S)
~
32 4E-7 6 P ~ D . 7E-8(S) W 2E-7 8E-8(!) 3 353 ' 7E-6 20 D 3E-7(S) W 9E-7 3E-7(!) 3 45 Ca W 4E-7 1E-7(1) 4 51 1E-5 Cr D 2E-5 2 W 1E-5 1E-5 1 Y SE-6 2E-6 4 54 Mn D 4E-7 4E-7(S) 1 W 3E-7 4E-8(1) 8 59 Fe D 1E-7 1E-7(S) 1 W 2E-7 SE-8(1) 4 60 0.2 Co W 7E-8 3E-7(S) Y 1E-8 9E-9(!) 1 65 2 2n Y 1E-7 6E-8(1) 86 Rb D 3E-7 3E-7(f) 1 , 90 8 Sr D 8E-9 1E-9(S) Y 2E-9 SE-9(1) 0.4 99 Ho 0 1E-6 7E7(S) 1 Y 6E-7 2E-7(1) 3 De D 6E-5 4E-5(S) 2 125 l 1 0 3E 8 5E-9(S) 6 129 1 0 4E-9 2E9(S) 2 131 1 0 2E-8 9E-9(S) 2 137 Cs D 6E-8 6E-8(S) 1 3.7
.'}>i.f.,. *i; .?,p O ' *
, p :. .. .
- I TA8LE 3.3 (contd)
DAC MPCair . ! Nuclide $lgss s ggjfdl K i/e1 (,) DAC/MPCair 144 Ce W 1E-8' 1E-8($) 1 . Y 6E-9 IE-9(I) 6 235 U D 6E-10 SE-10 1 W 3E-10 SE-10 0.6 Y 2E-11 1E-10 0.2 Natural D SE-10 1E-10 5 Uranium W 3E-10 1E-10 3 Y 2E-11 1E-10 0.2 238 Pu W 3E-12 2E-12($) 2 Y 7E-12 4E-11(!) 0.2 241 Am W 2E-12, 6E-1(!) 0.3 . (a) 5 = soluble, I = insoluble .. 3.3 00$E EVALOATION COSTS The principal components of value-impact assessment are the attributes that are used to characterire the consequences of a proposed action. There are twelve attributes normally used for NRC value impact assessments (Heaberlin et al. 1983). These attributes may be categorized as factors affecting health, accidental occupational exposure, routine occupational exposure,public offsite onsite propert property, industry implementation,ylndustry operations, NRC development, NRCregulatory implementation, and NRC operations. Changes in dose evaluation requirecients will not affect actual doses received by the public nor the frequency of accidents which could affect occupational exposure,,nor property damage. The effect of the revised dose evaluation requirements on routine occupational exposures will ne discussed in Section 3.4. Changes in dose evaluation requirements may affect regulatory efficiency through changes in reporting requirements. This is discussed in Section 7.3. The changes will not improve knowledge of accident probabilities or consequences. The NRC development costs are s w ken costs and are not considered in the regulatory analysis. The NRC implementation and operations costs will not be specific for dose evaluation requirements and are discussed in Section 6.3. Discussions in this section will therefore be limited to the affect of the revised dose evaluation requirements on industry implementation and operations costs. In this section costs are suonarfred by facility type according to the facility categuries listed in Table 8.1 of this report. Jor each affected facility type, the industry implementation and operations costs expected to 3.8
. . = _ _ _ _ =_ _ _ _ _ _ - _.
. . . . . . . - . . . - - . . - . . . - - ~ . - - . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . .
. s. . ~ *?Q .
be incurred from the revised dose evaluation requirements are estimated. Costs associated with recordkeeping are discussed separately in Section 3.5.
, Cost estimates are not provided for five facility categories (well logging, .
i inustrial radiograph , and other facilities)y,because other measuring systems,costsresearch and test reactors, the associated are anticipated to be either ! zero or insignificent. Costs for these five facility types will be minimal : because significant internal doses are rare and it is not anticipated that
! changes to existing proccdures will be required from the revised dose evaluation i requirements. ,
Medical Facilities. Potential internal exposures in a hospital are primarily 1 limitedtothenuclearmediegedepartment. 5 far the most comon radionuclide ' used in nuetear siedicine is Tg In one stad it was estimated thit 80% of the patient procedures involve Tc (Wiatrowsk etal.1984). , ! The radiophamaceuticals of "Tc are stable in soMion and non-volatile. ! ! If there are 30 sci per patient and 8 patients per day per room of 10 x 15 x ! l 8 feet with one air change per hour 18 ! withoutexceeding10%oftheDACvalue.%ofthetotaldosecouldbevolatilized Withnoairchanges(total l ] recirculation), 0.8% of the total dose could be volatilized without exceeding l 10% of the DAC value. The intakes of these radiopharmaceuticals, therefore, ( j are expected to be less than the 10% threshold for monitoring, ' l Radioiodine cor. pounds com rise most of the remaining radionuclides that
- arepotentiallyinhaledatnuc$earmedicinedepartments. For all of these !
compounds, the DAC values in the revision are at least two times higher than j the current MPC values. Therefore, monitoring will not be required at lower , ' levels of intake than are currently required even though monitoring will be l l required if intakes are likely to exceed 10% of the applicable Alls. It is
- anticipated, however, that some of these Ifcensees will respond to the revised ;
l Part 20 by performing additional monitoring for 1 year to ensure de&onstration l of compliance. This monitoring will consist of a self monitoring program by l
- researchers who handle iodine (USNRC 1982). Associated cost estimates for i
- one-thirdoftheapproximately4800nuclearmedicinedepartments(i.e.,1600
i departments) are $400 each for instrument calibration services and $550 each l ! for equipment purchases, for a total one-time cost of $1,500,000 (USNRC 1982). i i The remainirig two-thirds of the facilities are not anticipated to incur costs l l because they currently do not have quantitative internal exposure monitoring ) programs and are not expected to require one based on the revised regulations. 1 1 A similar response is anticipated free the research hospitals possessing
- a broad license. There are approximately 200 broad-scope research iospitals l l
with 52,000 for internal potentially(exposed exposures USNRC 1982). employees, two-thirds of whom are monitoredAssumin I internal monitoring to demonstrate that intakes are less than 10% of the applicable AL!s, that most researchers handle H-3 or P-32 which can'be evaluated l using urinalysis and that 20% of the researchers would be sampled at a cost ! of$18perurinalysis(USNRC1982),theone-timecostwouldbe52000X0.67 i X 0.2 X $18 X 4, or $500,000. One whole-body count is also anticipated to be l l required for 10% of the researchers who received urinalysis in order to evalutte j i internal deposition of gama esitters. The associated cost estimate, assuming ; 3.9 ! li I
= . - - - _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . . -
*(;gQ
$200 per whole-body count, is $140,000 (that is, 52,000 X 0.67 X 0.2 X 0.1 X
$200). .
The costs tu private practitioners of nuclear medicine will be similar to those of nonresearch hospitals. Of the approximately 1000 private practice licensees, one-third are assumed to have quantitative internal exposure monitoring programs. If th m 330 facilities undergo a self-monitoring program for 1 year at a cost of $1000 each, the total cost estimate is $330,000. The current level of monitoring in nuclear pharmacies is sufficient to satis *v the provisions of the revised regulation. The only additional efforts would be the conversion of organ burden to dose, which falls under the category of recordkeeping (see Section 3.5). Manufacturino and Distribution Facilities. It was assumed that the facilities involved in the manufacture and distribution of large sources currently have limited routine monitoring programs for internal exposures. Although exposures are probably less than 10% of the limits, monitoring would have to be performed for a year to demonstrate this to the inspectors (USNRC 1982). It is estimated that 100 workers in the industry would have to be monitored at a cost estimated to be $200 per whole-body count. With an initial count and four quarterly . counts the cost for the demonstration program would be about $100,000. Facilities involved in manufacture and distribution of small sources utilize extensive routine bioassay and air monitoring at numerous locations. The proqrams are considerably more extensive than that expected to be required under the provisions of the revised Part 20. The programs should not need to be upgraded in response to the revision. Academic /Research Institutions. The.*e are currently about 1b')0 academic and research institutions esp in 692,000 workers,14 of whom are monitored forionizingrediptiog(T e 3). The 1,,Ca,gadipeligscynlyuydatthese instituticas are H, C, , Fe, Co, I, I, and Cs, among o'.ners. The DAC values in the revision for these radionuclides are an averye of 2.4 times higher than the current MPC values. Considering that the revised requirement for monitoring intakes is effectively lower by a factor of 2.5 than the current requirement, no significant changes in long-term monitoring practices are expected to be necessary at these facilities. Even though long term changes are not anticipated, it is expected that some of these licensees will incur initial costs required to demonstru e compliancetoinspectors(USNRC1982). Although these costs may not be i necessary based on strict interpretation of the revision, they are included in this analysis because they are based on anticipated actual resportes by licensees regardless of the necessity of their responses. Based on similar assumptions used to estimate these costs for broad-scope medical facilities, the tr.,tal initial costs for academic /research institutions are estimated to l be $940,000 for urinalysis (i.e., 692.000 X 0.14 X 0,*7 X 0.2 X $18 X 4) and
$260,000 for whole body counts (1.e., 692,000 X 0.14 3.0.67 X 0.2 X 0.1 X
$200). Increases in long-tern operation costs are estimated to be negligible.
3.10 i e
*v r .. .
^%:Un
-Q f. .'. l,..'. .. .' , ',
.;; ,r .
', Fuel Fabricati w snd Processino FacDities. As will be discussed in Section 3.4.1, the effect *e dose equivalent to workers at fuei fabrication facilities from radioscti- ' rial deposited fn the body may currently equal or, at .
least at ore - r, exceed the effective dose equivalent from external radiation. Yht. >
.snel exposures at these facilities are thought to be chronic exposures to % / natorials.
If the prcposed DACs are implemented, if chronic exposures continue to and, if the margin between the DAC be the caseplant et fuel fabr-catien plants,lwil be equal to the present margin between and actual air concentrations I MPCs and plant conditions then it may be assumed that the chronic lung burdens oftheaverageworkerwilldecreasebyafactorof5,whichisthedifference between the revised DAC and current MPC for insoluble (Class Y) uranius. Since the lun burdens at one facility are near the detection liefts of ) currently ava.lable lung counting equi neent, a reduction of the lung burdens by a factor of 5 would result in lung >urdens that are below the detection limitsofcu1entlyavailablelungcountingequipment(Booth,Bronsonand ) Booth, Bronson and ' Groth 1985;)Painer Groth (1985 et al.1987; Robinson et al.1986). concluded that adequate estim i with currently available air monitoring equipment, much of which should be 1 already in place. They also concluded that procedural changes would be required in changing the method of compliance from one based on lung counting to one ' j based on air monitoring, and estimated these costs to be about $24 000 per 4 facility (in 1989 dollars). BasedonrecentinformationonoperatIngfuel fabrication facilities, these costs are anticipated to be incurred by five facilities in this category for a total of $120,000. Although other facilities l in this category ma" incur reisted costs, they are assumed to be relatively j insignificant for tfits analysis. Annual operation costs of $43,000 per facility (Booth, Bronson and Groth 1985) for a total of $215,000 are also anticipated l for additional air sampling equipment. , The primary costs in these facilities will involve facility modifica-tions required to reduce existing airborne levels to below the applicable OACs for uranium. Booth, Bronson and Groth (1985) state that fuel fabri-cation facilities may have areas where airborne activities are routineiy 25% to T,0% of current MPCs. More recentiy, it appears that existing fuel fabrication facilities operate with airborne levels that range from 10% to 25% of the MPCs. Considering that the revised DAC value for Class Y uranium is one-fifth of the current MPC value, facility modifications might be necessary to provide adequate safety margins. Two courses of action are being considered by the facilities: ventila-tion changes and extensive use of glove boxes. One facility has estimated these costs to be $11.5 million for the ventilation change option and $42 million for the glove box option; the ventilation change option will also require an annual maintenance cost of $2 million. Nilson and Malody (1982) have not quantified the costs but estimate that it would be millions of dollars. Although apparentiv act yet evaluated, it might be possible to collect air samples to detersin1 the actual particle size distribution at these facilities; the observed particle size distributions say allow o>eration at current activity levels. There is evidence that such studies would siow that some engineering modifications may not be necessary (West, Scott and Schultz 1979). Licensees 3.11 l l_______
. .; s p:.y .
)
- A. . >
C'
- 3, ,
any choose not to exercise such an option even if it is offered due to the difficulties in explaining to the lay public why air activity concentrations above those publisied in Part 20 do not pose a hazard to the workers. In . i consideration of these factors and assuming that five facilities will be most affected the total cost estimate is $30,000,000 initially ($6 million per facilityjand$5,000,000 in annual operation costs ($1 million per facility). These estimates are based on the assumption that particle size studies will render some modifice.tions unnecessary. 1 It may be asked whether reductions of air concentration levels would be i required at fuel fabrication plants if it were possible to base dose equivalent limits for long-lived radionuclides on the annual effective dose 1 equivalent rather than the cosmitted effective dose equivalent. Even with 4 the exemption described in Section 20.205 of the proposed revision, it appears that the facilities would be re utred to maintain the average air concentration less than the DAC [see 20,205(b (2)]. Since the external contribution to the committed effective dose equiva ent is small, on the average, and even the i maximum exteraal dose equivslents do not exceed approximately 1 rem (which
- would decrease the allowabie air concentration by ~20%), it seems that fuel
! fabrication plants will be required to reduce their air concentrations ) irrespective of whether the dose ecuivalent is based on annual effective dose J equivalent or committed effective cose equivalent. The major question seems a te Le how much below the DAC the licensee would be required to maintain air i concentrations. If the average air concentration is 1 DAC and a worker were f toinhale1ALI(theapparentmaximuminei'hercase),thecommittedeffective
- dose equivalent received is 5 rom, which does not allow for external doses to be accrued. If external doses are received by the worker, then air j
concentrations will need to be reduced below the DAC by corresponding amounts. i In the case of fuel fabrication plants, it appears that 99% of the workers j would not exceed the revised total effective dose equivalent limit if they l inhaled 0.8 ALI. For those few who would procedures such as increased local i ventilation or the use of respirators would serve as sufficient counter 1 measures. genercial Power Reactors. Revised internal exposure provisions are not i expected to alter internal monitoring programs already in existence at these i plants. These programs greatly exceed the requirements of both the current i and revised Part 20. Those utilities that use air monitoring as the surrogate i for internal dose will continue to do so and the calculated doses are so low I that it is unlikely that any utility will refine their methods by measuring
- particle size solubility fraction, etc. The few facilities that use bioassay i data for compliance will probably not alter their procedures. Less than 0.03%
of the individuals counted at nuclear power plants between 1978 and 1983 had { measured body burdens in excess of 10% of the relevant AL!r (Booth, Bronson 1 and Groth 1985) and it is unlikely that any utility will discontinue its
, existing monitoring program. The revised regulation does not require breathing l zone monitoring for intake monitoring and allows general area sampling. The l significant costs associated with the revised dose evaluation requirements i are related to recordkeeping (see section 3.5).
f l I l 3.12 } i
^
,7, . .:
1 j 3.4 DISTRIBUTION 0F OCCUPATIONAL DOSES The revised dose evaluation requirements will result in internal and , external doses being sumed to demonstrate compliance with the dose limits. An important distinction between the current and revised rule is that the latter requires control of internal exposures as long as the controls are consistent with maintaining the totsi effective dose equivalent ALARA. In contrast, the current rule strongly discourages intakes of radioactive material by mandating both quarterly and weekly control measures. As . a Forresult, those facilities where internal doses are significant compared to theintakes of radioa ; revised annual dose limit, e.g., fuel fabrication facilities, added control measures will result in decreased internal and total doses. 3.4.1 Fuel Fabrication Facilities In 1984, there were $379 workers at 11 uranium fuel fabrication plants, 5947ofwhomhadmeasurable(external)radiationdoses. In 1984, the ; i average measurable dose was about 140 mres; in 1983 and 1982, the average ' measurable radiation doses were 160 arem and 140 ares, respectively (Brooks, 1986). These numbers agree well with the measurable average of 170 arem for 1980thatwasreportedbyKumazawa,NelsonandRichardson(1984),andthe = l avera e annual dose equivalent reported by Booth, Bronson and Groth (1985) at
- a sin le facility. Brooks (1986) reported that for fuel fabrication plants, j 99% o the external dose equivalents were less than 1.5 ren in 1982 and 1983, and that 99% were less than 0.95 rem in 1984. The workers at the facility
! studied by Booth,3ronson and Groth (1985) were found to have measurable lung l burdens ranging from 60 to 200 pg, the average of all workers (includingthose I withburdenslessthanmeasurable)wasfoundteje47pg,allbasedon U ; I activity. The average body burden of 47 pg of U will result in an annual effective dose equivalent of 460 arem and an estinsted annual lung dose equivalent of 3900 ares since these body burdens are assumed to be chronic gposurestoClassYmaterials. The maximum observed lung burdens (200 pg U) result in annual lung dose equivalents of approximately 17 res/yr and annual effective dose equivalents of about 2 res/yr. Thus, for at least one l facility, the everage annual effective dose equivalent from internal radiation l exceeded that from external radiation. Because these are values for only cne l /acility, extrapolaticn to the entire industry is tenuous. i Lessard et al. (1987) have published tables that indicate the lung burden I at various times after inhalation of uranium. These tables can be combined with a continuous inhalation model in order to compute the cumulative lung burden following chronic inhalation of uranium. Calculations indicate that l during chronic inhalation, the lung burden quickly builds and begins to level i at about 15 years; the lung burden increases at a rate of only about 14 per year at 15 years. Kumazawa, Nelson and Richardson (1984) found that the median age of a nuclear fuel cycle worker was 35 years. For purposes of this analysis it is assumed that the average worker began work at 25 years of age, which results g a total work time of about 10 years. The average lung burden of 47 pg U found by Booth, Bronson and Groth (1985) will be achieved in 10 years if 3.13
1 1 - s ., , l2 . the chronic inhalation rate is about 102 pg ("U) per year. This annual intake will result in a comitted dose equivalent to the lung of d,=t 5.5 res and a committed effective dose equivalent of 0.65 rem. This indicates , that the average worker at fuel fabrication facilities receives committed
- effective dose equivalents well below 5 res/yr. ;
! Considering external doses, it appears that the average worker receives about 0.8 rem combined external and committed effective dose equivalcat; the internal component is about four times the external component. The only 4 instance in which fuel fabrication facilities appear not to be already in compliance with the revised requirements is for those individuals who receive : the maximal doses, and even then it ap> ears to be a problem only if the ! individuals who have the largest lung surdens have been exposed for less than , 5 years. For a chronic exposure over 5 years, 99% of the workers would have , a total of external ~adiation dose equivalent and committed effective dose f equivalent that is It is Ifkely that the revised dose evaluation requirements will affect l 1 the distribution of doses to some workers who currently receive negligible 1 internal doses. Because the DACs for most radionuclides are higher than the corresponding MPCs, it is anticipated that intakes of radionuclides will ' generally be more common under the revised Part 20 than under the current
! Part 20. This increase will result from both decreased controls on airborne l
activity and more consistent use of the ALARA philosophy regarding tradeoffs between internal and external doses. i In sumary, the revised dose evaluation requirements may result in ! i increased internal doses for some workers at facilities other than fuel fabrication facilities. However, these doses would be justified b concoattant decrease in external doses and/or a cost savings, e.g,yaareduction in the use of respirators. In other words, the fact that the revised requirements will likely result in improved implementation of the ALARA principle virtually assures a positive impact. Othemise, licensees could i not justify allowing increased internal doses. This potential impact is , discussed further in Section 5.1. , i 3.5 RECOR0 KEEPING The revised dose evaluation requirements in combination with the , i revisedrecordkeepingrequirements,willresultinsubstantialcoststo I j licensees who have extensive internal dosimetry programs. These costs are f
- estimated in this section. Recordkeeping costs not associated with the i
! revised dose evaluation requirements are estimated in Section 5.4. 1 { The current Part 20 requires that individual dose records be kept for l ! all personnel for whom monitoring is required. The records are required to l be kept on NRC Forn 5 (cr equivalent) and at least four separate entries per ! year are required because the current rule promulgates quarterly dose limits. l Records of surveys and individual monitoring are also required to be maintained. I
- The revision of Part 20 also requires that individual dose records be l kept for all personnel for whom monitoring was required. However, because individual doses will include ' internal doses when intakes greater than 10% 7 i of ' applicable ALIs occurred, more infomation will be required to evaluate '
doses. Thus, NRC Fom 5 will contain more information und9r the revised rule. For facilities with comprehensive internal dosimetry programs, such l as nuclear power plants and fuel fabrication facilitie:,, extensive l l 3.15 l l t
_ . . _ _ . _ . . _ ~ _ . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . .... ) J . modifications to existing dose evaluation procedures will be required. For facilities where internal doses are nomally insignificant, increased effert to complete NRC Fors 5 shoald not be required (USNRC 1982). , An extensive study on the dosimetry and recordkeeping implications of the revision of Part 20 was performed by the Atomic Industrial Forum (AIF) (Booth, Bronson and Groth 1985). Additional information on recordkeeping costs anticipated from the revised dose evaluation requirements were available j free
- NRCSEA (public 1986).comments on the proposed revision and a report prepared for the l
Costs are anticipated to be incurred by some licensees to develop revised recordkeeping procedures and to implement and operate revised recordkeeping progrees. Development costs may include development and approval of revised procedures. Implementation costs may include modification of computer programs and data bases and acquisition of additional computer-related equipment.
- Operation costs may include equipment replacement and maintenance, labor, and data review (Booth, Bronson and Groth 1985).
l l An extensive study of these costs for nuclear power plants and fuel fabrication facilities was >erformed (Booth, Bronson and Groth 1985). Upon review of this study and otier applicable information, the cost estimates . from this study are adopted for tiis analysis. Table 3.4 lists the appropriate 1 cost estimates in 1989 dollars. ! Assuming that 109 nuclear power plants will be operating in the I beginningof1989.(ANS1988),tietotaldevelopmentandimplementation i costs incurred by nuclear power plant facilities is $2,700,000 and $9,900,000, l respectively. The annual operation costs are estimated to be $2,300,000. It is assumed for this analysis that the nLeber of nuclear power plants operating after January 1,1989, remains constant at 109. Based on five fuel fabrication facilities that will incur most of the ( costs of the revision, the total cost for development and implementation are l estimated to be $70 000 and $336,000, respectively. Total annual operation costs for these facilities are estimated to be $49,000. TABLE 3.4 Estimated Costs of Increased Recordkeeping Requirements Resulting From the Revised Dose Evaluation Requirements Cost oer Facility (1989 dollars) Cost Catecory Nuclear Power Plants Fuel Fabrication Development (initialcost) 25,000 13,900 laplementation(initialcost) 91,000 67,200 Operation (annual cost) 21,000 9.700 PresentValue*) I 290,000 157,000 (a) Calculated using methods described in Section 8.2 of this , report. 3.16 l
Although significant internal doses are relatively rare at other facilities, they do exist and health physicists at these facilities will be required to evaluate and record the appropriate committed and total dose . equivalents. Because these instances will be rare, it is assumed that internal doses will be recorded manually at these facilities when appropriate. It is estimated that at academic and research facilities and at medical facilities, responsible personnel will spend an average of 8 person-hours developing and implementing revised recordkeeping procedures that pertain to dose evaluation. Avorage operation costs of 4 person-hours /yr are anticipated for manual evaluation and recording of infomation on NRC Fom 5. Based on an hourly rate of $25 per health physicist in 1989 dollars (SEA 1986), the development costs per facility are expected to be $200. Annual operation costs are expected to be $100 per facility. Based on the number of academic /research and medical facilities estimated in Section 8.1, academic /research facilities are anticipated to incur $310,000 in development costs and $160,000 in annual operation costs. Medical facilities are anticipated to incur development costs of $1,300.000 and annual operation costs of $650,000. These estimates include both NRC and Agreement State licensees. Most other licensees have limited or nonexistent internal dosimetry programs. Internal doses at these facilities will rarely exceed levels that must be included in the evaluation of total effective dose equivalent. Thus, ' no significa.nt recordkeeping costs related to the revised dose evaluation requirements are anticipated for these facilities. Because licensees will be required to monitor both external doses and intakes of radioactive material likely to exceed 10% of the applicable annual limits under the revised monitoring requirements, licensees wio currently do not record doses over 10% of the current limits will have to record external doses under the revised requirements and might have to record internal doses l depending on the radionuclide. Because the applicable ALis are higfier for most radionuclides than the current MPCs, and considering that most licensees currently record all measured external and internal doses, the impact on recordkeeping with regard to an increased number of workers for whom records , will be kept is considered to be negligible for this analysis. I i 3.6 $UPNARY OF CONSE0VENCES I I This section suanarizes the consequences of the revised dose evaluation requirements described in Sections 3.1-3.5. In Table 3.5, the costs are ! susmarized by facility category in tems of both initial and annual costs. j Initial costs include development and implementation costs annual costs consist 4 of operational costs. Table 3.5alsosummarizestheannualbenefits(reduced l doses) from the revised dose evaluation requirements. The impacts from the j revised dose evaluation requirements are anticipated to be negligible for i facility categories not listed in Table 3.5. I l 3.17 1 i i l
l TABLE 3.5. Summary of Consequences of the Revised Dose Evaluation Requirements Value of Net Present Value' Initi~ al Annual Annual Facility Category Cost, $ Cost, $ Savinas,Dose
$ (a)Benefits, of Costs$ and ID)(C)
Medical 3,800,000 730,000 negligible - 9,700,000 Manufacturint and Distribution 100,000 54,000 negligible - 560,000 Acades!.isesearch Institutions 1,500,000 160,000 negligible - 2,700,000 Fuel Fabrication - 69,000,000 i and Processing 31,000,000 5,300,000 540,000 Commercial Power - 33,000,000 Reactors 13.000.000 N nealiaible Total (d) 49,000,000 8,700,000 540,000 -115,000,000 l (a) Based on a value of $1000/ person-rem. ' (b) Calculated using methods described in Sections 8.2 and 8.3 of this report. The present values are based on 1989 dollars, a discount rate
- of 10% (applied to all costs and benefits), and a 30-year period.
(c) A negative sign indicates a negative impact. (d) Throughout this report there may be minor variations in sussed values j . because of rounding. l l 3.18
4.0 CONSEQUENCES OF REVISED LIMITS , I The revision of Part 20 contains changes to most of the current dose - t limits. These include occu for the eyes, extremities, pational skin, andwhole-body dose limits individual organs. and separate In addition, the limits
- revised Part 20 contains dose limits for the embryo / fetus and for individual !
members of the public; neither of these limits exists in the current Part 20. The consequences of the revised limits are presented below. 4.1 OCCUPAT!0NA1. DOSE LIMITS FOR ADULTS i The present occupational dose limits for adults are 1.25 res/ quarter to the wholecody, head and trunk, active blood-forming organs, los of eyes, or gonads; 18.75 res/ quarter for hands and forearms or feet and ankles; and 7.5 I res/ quarter for skin of the whole body. A licensee may, however, permit a i worker to receive whole body doses up to 3 res/ quarter, provided tiat the worker's average dose to the whole body after the age of eighteen not exceed j 5 rem /yr. Inhalations of radiosctive material per quarter are limited to the amount that would be inhaled by a worker present for 520 hours in the air l concentrations listed in Appendix 8 Table 1. The revised occupational dose limits are a total effective dose equivalent ! of 5 ree/yr, a dose to any organ or tissue other than the lens of the eye of 50 res/yr, an eye dose equivalent of 15 ree/yr, and a shallow dose equivalent of 50 ree/yr to each of the extremities and to the skin. Planned special exposures exceeding the annual limits are allowed, 1roviding there is justification (see Section 4.2). A comparison of tie current and revised 1 limits was presented in Table 3.1. ! i 4.1.1 Whole-Body Dese Eaufvalent Limits . As discussed in Section 3.0, there are significant differences in the dosimetric principles that form the basis for the two sets of limits. Under
- I the present Part 20, whole-body dose limits are based only on external doses. l Internal doses are subject to separate controls on intake. Under the revised
- limits however, external and internal doses are sumed to determine the total i effectIvedoseequivalent. Weighting factors are applied to internal doses i depending on the critical organ (s) for the radionuclides of concern to equate
- the risk to that froo e whole-body exposure.
In this section, the costs and benefits associated with revising the whole-body dose limits are presented. Although it is difficult to compare the two dose limits because they are based on different methodologies for evaluating doses, very few workers currently receive both internal and external doses that approach the separate limits under the current Part 20. (Itis assumed in this section that workers who were reported to receive whole-body doses approaching or exceeding 5 rem did not receive significant internal doses. The few cases where this assus.ption does not apply were discussed in Section3.4). 4.1
i Number of Werkers Who Receive High Doses j Certain licensees are currently recuired under Part 20.407 to submit an annual statistical sunnary report incicating the distribution of whole-body doses received by individuals for whom Weenitoring was required. The reports list the 'tumber of individuals who received doses in any of eighteen dose ranget. The data in these reports are periodically compiled and analyzed by the NRC. To assess the impact of the revision, summary information on the relatively high doses received by individuals at NRCd icensed facilities was reviewed. Table 4.1 lists selected data for the year 1984 for the seven categoriesoflicenseesrequiredtosubmitannualsummaryreports(Brooks 1986). TABLE 4.1. Doses Received by Licensee Employees in 1984 Average Dose No. of Employees No. of Equivalent per Receiving Doses No. of Employees Employee 4 Rem or Greater Facility Type Licensees _ Monitored Monitored, rem 4-5 rm >5 rem Industrial - Radiography 361 8,458 0,30 24 13 a Manufacturing and Distrib. 38 5,009 0.13 1 0 High Level Waste Re >os i t . . y 0 0 - -- 0 0 Low Level Waste - Disposal 2 925 0.08 0 0 Independent Fuel Storage 1 32 0.41 0 0 Fuel Fabrication ' and Processing 14 9,488 0.09 0 0 Commercial Power Reactors ,,18 170,928 g J2
. 18,0 11 Total 504 194,840 0.30 405 24 Similar data for licensee categories other than the seven presented in Table 4.1 are not available for the year 1984 because licensees in other categories were not required to submit annual reports of occupational exposures.
However, data for other t.ategories of licensees were compiled for espesures occurring in 1979 (Brooks, Mcdonald and Richardson 1982). . Selected data from that report are presented in Table 4.2. Although in some cases the facility categories are not consistent between Tables 4.1 to 4.2, analysis of the data from which the tables were derived provides an indication of trends in dose distributions. Of the 577 individuals reported to have received occupational doses between 4 and 5 rom in 1979 only35(6%)werenotemployedbylicenseescategorizedasfacilitiesbelonging to one of the seven types listed in sable 4.1. Of these 35 individuals, 30 were employed at either a medical facility or a well logging facility. The
~
4.2
remaining 5 individuals were employed at other types of facilities. Similarly, of the 228 individuals reported to have received occupational doses greater than 5 rem in 1979, only 53 (23%) were not employed by licens es categorized , as facilities belonging to one of the types listed in Table 4.1. Of these 53 individuals, 46 were employed at either a medical facility or a well logging facility. The remaining 9 individuals were employed at other types of facilities. TABLE 4.2. Number of Licensee Employees Reported to Have Received Doses Approaching or Exceeding 5 rem in 1979
- . No. of Employees Receiving Doses of i No. of Employees 4 rem or Greater -
Facility Cateaory Monitored 4-5 rem >5 rem Academic 24,639 1 1 Medical 64,057 21 29 I Marketing 11,037 31 21 Industrial Radiography 11,969 34 24 . Research and Development 18,663 4 1 i Other Gyptf,juct 27,335 Material 9 22 1 Uranium Hilling / i Production 3,508 0 0 Fuel Fabrication
- and Processing 9,946 0 0 Other Special Nuclear Material 7,562 0 0 Research and Test Reactors 3,003 0 0 i Power Reactors 106.445 47]. J30 1
; Total 288,164 577 228
! (a) Includes well logging. I The number of workers reported by licenseas to have received doses in the ). I various dose ran es does not reflect the actual distribution of doses received because of multi le reporting of trarisient (teoporary) workers who work at more than one fa ility during a year. Transient workers are often employed at nuclear power facilities for relatively brief periods, principally during plant outages or during special maintenance activities (Lawrence et al. 1984). Because a facility is required to report only those doses received at that i facility, a sumation of these reports results in transient workers being ] counted two or more times in relatively low dose ranges; such a practice does not reflect the dose actual'y received by these individuals during the year. 4.3
However, their actual annual doses can be determined by compiling temination reports. When a transient worker terminates employment at a facility, a temination report indicating the dose received by that worker - during employment at that facility is reported to the NRC as required under the present Part 20. Although termination reports are required to be submitted by all seven categories of licensees listed in Table 4.1, more than 95% of termination reports are flied by cosnercial nuclear power facilities (Brooks 1986). Analysis of the termination reports submitted by nuclear power facilities indicates that from 1977 through 1984, multiple reporting of transient workers accounted for an underestimate of the number of workers who were reported to have received annual doses greater than 5 res. The actual total was from 50 to 80 workers per year higher (Brooks 1986). Although this number applies only to transient workers employed at nuclear power plants, it is assumed that relatively few transient workers at other facilities received doses >5 rem during this period because more than 95% of transient worker reports were filed by nuclest power plants. In addition, the nature of the work performed during outages at nuclear power plants suggests that doses >5 rem /yr are most likely to be incurred by transient workers employed at nuclear power plants as opposed to transient work'ers ecoloyed elsewhere. . Using these adjusted dose estimates inr transient workers at comercial I power reactors, the actual number of workers who received annual doses >5 rem
- was derived for the years 1979 and 1934. The results arc ) resented in Table 4.3. For 1984, the data for well logging, medical, and ot1er facilities were
. extrapolated from the 1979 data assuming a reduction in numbers consistent with the reduction observed for industrial radiography facilities. Extra-polation was necessary because 1979 was the last year that data were compiled for facilities other than those required to submit annual sumary reports.
The data in Table 4.3 suggest that the number of licensee workers who received annual doses >5 rem dropped significantly from 1979 to 1984. In i 1979, 180 nuclear power plant workers received doses >5 rem 110 (72%) of whom were reported by facilities on tne annual statistical sumary report form. The remaining 28% were transient workers reported by two or more facilities during the year. In 1984, 110 workers received >5 rem, none of ! whom were reported on the annual statistical sumary report forus, i.e., all of whom were transient workers. Exposure data for the years 1985 and 1986 suggest that doses received by workers in the nuclear power plant industry dro) ped dramatically during those two year t. In 1985, collective doses received >y nuclear power plant workers were 20% lower than the collective doses received in 1984 (Ryan 1986). Compared j to the reduction in collective doses observed in previous years, t the 20% reduction in collective doses in 1985 was unprecedented. Since 1973, the greatest single year reduction in collective dose equivalent received by I nuclear power plant employees had been 4%. As in 1984, no worker at any one nu: lear power facility received >5 rem in 1985. . 4.4
I y ,. . . 7.. .- , Adjusted Number of Employees Who Received J){1,E J .l. Doses Greater Than 5 rem in 1979 and 1984 No. of Employees Who Facility Type Received Greater Than 5 rem 1979 1984 Industrial Radiography 24 13 Medical 29 16 Well Logging 17 9 Commercial Power Reactors' 180 110(a) All Others . 7 j Total 257 153 (a) Estimate based on discussions with firms providing contract
- personnel (Brooks 1986).
J In 1986, the total collective dose equivalent was lower than the 1985 level. Also in 1986, the average dose per worker reached the lowest level . ever reported for the U.S. nuclear power industry (USNRC 1987a). For the third consecutive year, no worker received a dose >5 rem while at any one facility. The recent dramatic decreases in collective dose equivalents, average individual dose equivalents, and number of workers who received >5 rem per year is not likely to be a short-lived phenomenon. Some of this change is attributable to an increased emphasis by the Institute of Nuclear Power
- Operations (INPO) on keeping doses low (Ryan 1985). INP0, an organization established in 1979 to promote the highest levels of safety and excellence in
- the nuclear industry, has recognized low personnel radiation exposures as one indicator of high plant performance (Pate 19f,6). Combined with NRC efforts j to promote the ALARA concept, efforts by INP0 to reduce individual and
{ collective radiation doses throughout the nuclear industry are apparently j being successful. I Several other factors may have contributed to the re.ent reduction in i doses to workers at both nuclear power plants and other NAC-licensed facilities. ! First, for most of this decade NRC has been moving toward a revision of Part i 20thatincludesa5-resannuallimit. Second, the concept of ALARA has been i emphasized by essentially all influential organizations including the NRC. l ManyfacilitieshaverespondedbybothreducingthecoIIectivedosesincurred j at the facilities and by reducing the number of workers to zero who are receiving an annual dose >5 ren. These two factors have contributed to the I { practice are <5 resby/yr.allFinally, nur. lear power plants post-Three to establish Mile Island cdministrative modifications limits that that involved l high doses have nc'w been completed (Ryan 1985). l - l 4.5 l l )
Direct Implications of Revised Occupational Limits It is evident from the data presented in the preceding section that the number of licensee workers who receive annual doses >5 rem is small and is continually decreasing. Based on the trends indicated by recent exposure
, data, it is estimated that the revised whole-body dose limit will reduce from ) 50 to zero the number of workers at nuclear power plants who will receive
- planned annual doses >5 res. This estimate does not consider the use of the i planned special exposure provision, which is discussed in Section 4.2, nor does it consider gradual implementation of the revision.
Because the workers affected by the revised limits will primarily be temporary workers, licensees will selectively hire temporary workers whose total annual doses from all employers are not approaching the dose limits. This is not expected to result in a change in tie total collective dose
, equivalents received at the facilities, nor is it expected that significant costs will be incirred by licensees, because only 50 workers per year would be expected to receive annual doses >5 rem if the revised Part 20 were not promulgated. This is a very small percentage of the contractor work force, and licensees are not anticipated to experience a shortage of qualified workers ; in the foreseeable future (NESP 1980). The only significant cost associated with nuclear power plant facilities is that some workers will not be eligible .
for some jobs within the nuclear industry for portions of a year because their 4 total annual doses from all emplyers will be near administrative or NRC dose limits. No attempt has been made in this analysis to quantify these costs. No impact from the revised limit is anticipated with regard to reducing annual doses below 5 rem to workers at facilities other than nuclear power plants. Table 4.3 indicated that in 1984, 43 non-power-plant workers were exposed to doses >5 ree. Of these, 16 were employed at medical facilities (hospitals) and it is likely that similar exposures in 1989 would not be planned, with or without promulgation of the revised Part 20. Twenty two of the 43 workers were employed by either well logging or industrial radiography i facilities. It is estimated that by 1989, only a few such workers per year
! would receive annual doses >5 rem if the revised Part 20 were not promul-gated. This estimate considers the continuing overall reduction in relatively i
high doses throughout the nuclear industry as a result of emphasis on ALARA practi.es. For similar reasons the five individual doses >5 rem in 1984
; that were reported by other facllities would not be expected to occur in 1989.
Indirect implications of Revised Occupational Limits l An important effect of the revised occupttional whole body dose limit will be to reduce the administrative limits at some facilities. An admin-istrative limit is a self-imposed limit set by a facility to provide a safety margin to ensure that the NRC limits are not exceeded. As stated previously in this section, nuclear >ower plants currently do not intentionally allow l workers to receive whole-sody doses greater than 5 res/yr. To assure this, the administrative limits at the plants are set lower than 5 ree/yr. Annual administrative limits are comon at many plants, as are quarterly and/or weekly , administrative limits (either in addition to or instead of annual administrative limits) (Pelletier and Voilleque 1979). It is anticipated that a minor 4.6
4 reduction in administrative limits will occur at some nuclear power plants in response to the revision of Part 20 resulting in hiring about 20 permanent - workers for radiation areas who will lessen the burden on similar workers approaching the plant administrative limits. Although this will likely result in a decrease in efficiency for perforzance of some work, the anticipated slight increase in collective dose equivalent is considued negligible for this analysis. It is likely that other facilities wi11 reduce their administrative dose limit in response to the revised whole body dose limits in Part 20. However, Table 4.1 indicated that few employees other than those at nuclear power 21 ants receive doses >4 rem. Therefore, the impact of the revised whole-)ody dose limit with regard to lowered administrative limits is estimated so be negligible for facilities other than nuclear power plants. Before the estimated impact of the revised whole-body dose limits can be quantified, two ime:,rtant factors must be considered. First, as stated previously, the number of workers who have received doses approaching or exceeding 5 res/yr has decreased dramatically in recent years. It is likely
. that this trend will continue regardless of the limits specified in Part 20.
However, because of the difficulty in estimating the rate of decrease, it is , estimated that the work force in the nuclear industry will be permanently increased by 20 workers to ensure that administrative dose limits are not exceeded. This consideration partially accounts for the probability that some of the decrease in individual doses already observed may be directly j attributable to licensee pre-planning in anticipation of the revised limits.
. The second important consideration in assessing the impact of the revised limits is that the implementation seriod for the revision is 5 years
! from the date the proposed revision was pu)11shed (January 9,1986)e If j licensees make use of this implementation period, costs could be deferred I which would result in a lowering of the present value of the costs of the revision. The method usad in this report for calculating present values is ' described in Section 8.2. Statement of impact The estimated impact of the revised whole-body occupational dose limit I on NRC licensees is expected to be limited to the costs associated with hiring l additional permanent workers at nuclear power plants. These workers will be hired in order to reduce annual doses to members of the existing workforce I who currently receive dises approaching or exceeding 5 res per year. Based i on data presented in this report and an annual cost of $60,000/ worker (SEA l 1986), witch includes all costs (labor and overhead) associated with the
- employment of the worker, the estimated annual impact of the revised whole-body
- dose limits is $1,200,000 in 1989 dollars. A one-time margins 1 cost of $280,000 r
is also estimated for hiring 20 workers at a cost of $14,000/ worker in 1989 ' dollars (Va11ario et al. 1985). No other attributes are expected to be significantly affected by the revised whole-body dose 11 sit. 4.7
4.1.2 Other Limits and Their Consecuences In addition to the revised whole-body dose limit, the revision of ' Part 20 includes revised dose limits for the eyes, extremities skin and individual organs. The revised limits for the eyes and skin allow higher annual doses than are allowed by the present limits. The revised limit for the extremities is lower than the present limit; however the revised rule clearlystatesthatthelimitisapplicabletoindividualextremities. In contrast,l individua extremities.theFinally, currentthe ruledose doeslimit not specify that the to individual limit is organs is applicable to essentially unchanged. However, the use of DACs and ALIs to limit the doses to individual doses will indirectly change the limit on intake of certain radionuclides. This consequence of the revised dose evaluation requirements was discussed in Section 3.4. Dose limits for the eyes, skin and extremities are intended to prevent nonstochastic effects to those parts of the body (ICRP 1977. NCRP 1987). When the dose limit to an individual organ is not detemined by the 5. rem annual intendedlimit for thenonstochast to prevent whole-bodyIc effects.the limit to that organ (50 res/yr) is aisc Because nonstochastic effects have i dose threshold, workers should not ' suffer from these effects, providing that their doses are kept below the limits. Under the current dose limits, no nonstochastic effects have been observed except when doses much greater than the limits were received from accidental overexposures. Assusing that the revised dose limits will not affect the l 1robability of an accidental overexposure, no impact regarding occupational ! iealth is anticipated from the revised limits.
- The revised limits could result in slight impacts on operations costs.
I For example, an increased annual eye dose limit could result in a decreased i use of protective goggles (McGuire, Baker and Vandergrif t 1983). Also, a decreased extremity limit could result in increased use of shielding and gloves. Depending on the current interpretation of the dose limit to the skin, however, some individual licensees currently choose to adopt the limit to the skin for limiting dose to the extremities. Although the most recent guidance by NRC states that the dose limit to the skin of the whole body does not apply to the skin of the hand and forears (USNRC 1983), licensees do not use consistent i methods to detemine doses to the skin. Therefore, in some cases, the fact j that the dose limit for skin has increased could result in increased extremity i doses. Although th:re will likely be slight impacts on operations costs from the revised limits, the net impact is estimated to be negligible. Because the revised limits to the eyes and skin are less restrictive than the current limits, the co',cs saved are expected to approxi.nately offset the costs incurred from the more restrictive extremity limits. In addition, previous case studies uave indicated that, except ior a few workers, eye, skin, and extremity doses are well below both the current and revised liatts (USNRL
! 1982). Increased costs for extremity monitoring, which will result from both i 4.8 j
l 1 l reduced limits and reduced doses that require monitoring, were discussed in
- Section 3.1.
a . 4.2 PLANNED SPECIAL EXPOSURES ) Under the planned special exposure provision in the revised Part 20, a l licensee may authorire an adult worker under certain conditions to receive doses in excess of the prescribed annual limits. This provhion may only be used in an exceptional situation, and the dose received by an individual free j all planned specia1 exposures in a year must not Ltceed one times the annual
- limit. Ic order to authorire a planned special exposure, a licensee must I first, ascertain the doses received from all previous planned special exposures and unplanned exposures in excess of the annual limits for each individual i involved. The total lifetion dose from all planned special ex >osums and all j doses in excess of the annual limits must not exceed 5 times tse annual limits.
Although the present Part 20 does not include a planned special exposure j provision, the present '5(N-18)" rule is somewhat similar because, under the rule, annual doses >5 res/yr are permitted. An important difference, however, i is that planned special " rule exposures are limited was essentially to "exceptional' unconditional. As asituations, result, it is , whereas expected that the '5(N-18) individuals will receive annual doses >5 ree fewer under th ! revised Part 20 than are currently receiving such doses under the present Part 20. 4.2.1 Use of the Planned Special Exposure Provision
, use of the planned special exposure provision for whole body doses will be limited primarily to commercial nuclear power facilities. This is because, j as demonstrated in Section 4.1.1, temporary workers at nuclear power plants i
are the only workers at NRC-licensed facilities who currently receive planned i annual doses >5 ree. It is assumed that this would continue in the future t even without implementation of the revised Part 20. As a result, facilities j other than nuclear power plants would have no reason or justification for , i using the planned special exposure provision for whole-body doses. The few exceptions that night occur are assumed for this analysis to be negligible. In Section 4.1.1, it was estimated that reduced administrative limits
- based on the revised Part 20 would result in the hiring of 20 additional l permanent workers at all nuclear power plants combined. In addition, it was estimated that annual individual doses >5 rem would be reduced from 50 to zero once the revised Part 20 is implemented. This reduction would be realized primarily through selective hiring of temporary workers. These estimates were made without consideration of the planned special exposure provision.
j Instead of reducing individual doses through increased or selective hiring, it is >ossible that licensees will use the planned special exposure provision to aut serire annual dos'es >5 ren in order to reduce expenses. However, this possibility is remote because of the conditions of the provision. The condition likely to limit the use of the planned special exposure proviS4n is 20.206(a), j which states that the provision can only be used when otier alternatives are j either "unavailable or impractical.' Because the term ' cost effective' is I 4.9 L - - _ - -- -
not included in this condition, licensees will be likely to use the planned special exposure provisien only when no other reasonable alternative exists. It is estimated that an average of one nuclear power plant facility per year will use the planned special exposure provision. One reason for using the provision could be to avoid a safety hazard that may occur if repairs to - a vital piece of equipment are delayed. Another reason could be to avoid , substantial costs that would be incurred if vital work is delayed, In either case, the benefits would outweigh the costs. Otherwise, the licensee could I not justify using the planned special exposure provision. 4.2.2 Effect on Distribution of Doses Us of the planned special exposure provision should result in a decrease ! in collective dose equivalent because alternatives to use of the provision, i such as performance of a job using more workers than are needed would be less efficient. Therefore useofthepre-isionshouldpartialiyoffsetthe 4 slightincreaseincollectIvedoseequivslentanticipatedfromtherevised whole-body dose equivalent limit. However, because the planned special exposure provision is anticipated to be used an average of only once ser year, the effect on doses to workers is assumed to be negligible for tiis analysis. , 4.2.3 Cost Implications When the planned special exposure provision is used, a cost savings associated with its use is virtually assured because of the conditions that j must be met before the rule can be implemented. Licensees will be unlikely > to use the provision unless alternatives to its use arn significantly less cost-effective. The associated cost savings could be significant if, for example, the down time at a nuclese power plant is reduced (the cost of replacement power averages $400,000 - $500,000 during a nuclear power plant outage). Because the planned special exposure provision is anticipated to be , used infrequently, no attempt has been made in this analysis to quantify the associated net cost savings. It is assumed, however, that these savings will partially offset the cost increases associated with the revised whole-body dose limit. 4.3 DOSE TO AN EMBRYO / FETUS The current Part 20 does not provide a limit of dose to the embryo / fetus. , i Rather, pregnant women are subject to the same occupational dose limits as all other adult workers, although a 0.5 rem limit is paracticed at many < facilities becasue of a NRC Regulatory Guide (USNRC 19870) and a staff position paper that address this subject. The revised Part 20 explicitly states that the dose to an embryo / fetus due to occupational exposure of a declared pregnant woman shall be limited to 0.5 rem during the entire pregnancy. The rule also states that efforts shall be made to avoid substantial variation above a unifom i monthly rate that would satisfy the 0.5-res limit. By comparison, the NCRP recoseends a limit of 0.5 rem to the intus during the entire pregnancy, and also recomends a limit of 0.05 ree/ month once a pregnancy becomes known (NCRP 1987). Essentially, the revised Part 20 rule is consistent with the NCRP l recomendations; however, the rule is worded less strongly. 4.10 1 l
1
\
4.3.1 Effect on Distribution of Doses 8ecause licensees are currently not required to submit detailed annual reports of doses received by individuals, it is not possible to precisely determine the number of female workers at licensee facilities who currently receive doses >0.5 res/yr. However, based on a comprehensive review of occupaional exposure to ionizing radiation in the United States in the year 1980 (Kumazawa, Nelson and Richardson 1984) it is possible to estimate the effect of the embryo / fetus limit on occupatlonal exposures. In 1980, an estimated 80% of female workers monitored for exposure to ionizing radiation were be' tween the ages of 18 and 40. The median age of these women was 27, 1 28, and 32 for workers in medicine, the nuclear fuei cycle, and industry, respectively. Approximately 10,000 women wera reported to have received doses >0.5 ren in 1980. A distribution of these women by dose range and iiidustry is presented in Table 4.4, where the data indicatc that approxir4tely 90% of the women who received doses >0.5 ren were employed in medicine. There is evidence that few pregnant women currently receive doses
>0.5 rem (USNRC 1982). Several factors could account for this trend. First, the NRC published a revised regulatory guide on prenatal radiation exposure in 1975 (USNRC 1975) which specifies that women assigned to work in a restricted '
area should be given specific instruction regarding prenatal exposure risks l to the developing embryo and fetus. Women were instructed that they could request reassignment to nonradiation work if they were pregnant or expected to be soon. Today, most licensees either comply with or go beyond tne recomendations in this regulatory guide. Two other factors that may centribute to the fact that few pregnant women currently receive doses >0.5 res are the emphasis by ICRP (ICRP 1977) and NCRP (NCRP 1987) on limitation of dose to the unborn, and the trend toward reduced individual doses throughout the nuclear industry (see Section 4.1.1). TABLE 4.4 Number of Women Reported to Have Received Doses >0.5 res in 1980 Nueber of Women Employed l Dose Range, Other l rem Medicine Nuclear Fuel Cycle Indust ries, Tota ; 0.5 1.0 5,902 82 560 6,544 1.0-2.0 2,191 111 236 2,538 l 2.0-3,0 587 33 68 688 - 3.0 4.0 188 19 0 207 4.0-5.0 100 J ,_,0 100 Total 8.968 245 864 10,077 l I 4.11
' *~ .
3, . i Although few pregnant women currently receive doses 20.5 ree the embryo / fetus dose limit in the revised Part 20 and the mcent revision of Regulatory Guide 8.13 (USNRC 1g87b) will result in a further reduction in the . number of pregnant women who receive doses >0.5 res. For the reasons discussed l in the paragraph above, it is assumed in this report that essentially all pregnant women who currently receive doses >0.5 rem do so voluntarily. ! Ithasbeenestimatedthatabout1%offemaleradiationworkersinthe U.S.becomepregnantinagivenyear(NCRp1g77). Based on the data in Table 4.4 and the recent trend toward decreased individual doses, and assuming that I declared pregnant wceen will not receive doses >0.5 rem under the new 1< eit, j it is estimated that the doses to 200 pregnant women per year will be reduced below 0.5 rem due to the embryo / fetus limit. It is also estimated that an 4 additional 1000 pregnant women per year will receive reduced doses even though 1 they would not have received doses 30.5 rem had the limit not been promulgated. This estimate is based on the assumption that Ilconsees will be more caut'ous i regarding the exposure of pregnant women to ionizing radiation once the limit I is promulgated. The total dose reduction for the 1200 pregnant women is i estimated to be 300 res. Because these doses will likely be distributed to l nonpregnant replacement workers in most cases, the net savings in collective j dose is anticipated to be insignifican* for workers at licensee facilities,
- i Nowever, it is estimated that 300 res/yr to fetuses will be saved by the dose l limit. It is assumed that 90% of this dose reduction will occur at medical
- facilities and 10% will occur at nucle
- r power plants.
! 4.3.2 ig1LLaplications locause most licensees voluntarily keep doses to pregnant women below the limit specified in the part 20 revision, they have experience in ensuring that declared pregnant women do not receive doses >0.5 ree. Most Itcensees simply remove pregnant women from work involving high radiation doses (USNRC 1982). The costs, therefore, are expected to be administrative costs required to either hire a replacement worker or reassign a present worker to the job . vacated by the pregnant woman. The average estimated cost per pregnant woman who is removed free her work is $500. Based on the estimates in Section 4.3.1, the total cost to licensees is expected to be 5600,000 per year, 90% and 10% of which will be incurred by medical facilities and nuclear power plants, respectively. 4.3.3 Other Considerations Because it will be impossible for licensees to determine in advance which women will become pregnant during their employment, it is possible that some I licensees will select' vely hire either een or older women for jobs that involve relatively high doses. This will lielt the career opportunities for certain women. This phenomenon has already been observed at some facilities, especially nuclear power plants (USNRC 1982), and it is likely that promul-ation of the limit will further affect the employment opportunities to some roe for a snail number of women. This topic is discussed further in section
- 7. .
4.12 l I
1 , e' ,4 4.4 DOSE LIMIT FOR INDIY! DUAL MEMERS OF THE PUBLIC The current Part 20 does not explicitly state a dose limit for individ- . ual members of the public, but does state limits of 2 area in 1 hour and 100 aren in 7 days, based on continuous presence of an individual in an unrestricted area. wording in the An annual rule regarding limit of license 500 area isAimplied, applications. limit of however, 500 area by/yr is also implied by the limit of releases of radioactive material to unrestricted areas. The present Part 20 also refers to 40 CFR Part 190 (EPA 19864) which specifies such lower dose limits to the public from nuclear fuel cycle operations. Even though a 500 mres/yr limit is not explicitly sated in the present Part 20,,the NRC would not allow licensees to operate such that this annual dose is exceeded. The Part 20 revision explicitly states an annual dose limit of 0.1 rem to individual members of the public from continuing operations by a licensee. A licensee may apply for authorization to operate tem >orarily up to an annual limit of 0 5 rem. In addition to the annual limit, tie dose in any unrestricted area is limited to 2 ares /h (there is no 7 day limit). An additional rule
. requires demonstration of complicnce with the dose limits by either measurement or calculation using approved methods. ,
4.4.1 Effect on Distribution of Doses All licensees in the nuclear fuel cycle are constrained by 40 CFR Part 190 (EPA 1986a) to operate such that rE le-body doses to individual members of the pubite are less than 25 eres/yr; 40 CFR Part 61 (EPA 1986b) promu1 I gates a similar limit for air emissions for most other NRC licensees. Nuclear power plants are subject to further release limits promulgated in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix 1. Because of the nature of operations of licensees not affected by 40 CFR Part 190 or 40 CFR Part 61, it is extremely unlikely that any licensee (NRC or Agreement State) currently exceeds the revised 100-eres annual effective dose equivalent limit, except for some medical facilities (see below). For those licensees in the future who can justify exceeding this limit, the revised rule allows for application to operate up to 500 mres/yr, which is the limit implied in the present Part 20. I It is possible that medical facilities where brachytherapy procedures
- are performed will be affected by the revised limits. Many hospitals pe' 'orzing brachytherapy have radiation levels outside a patient's room exceedine ares /h(.hoeadsenetal.1983). In some cases, these facilities must svide shielding or control patient admissions to ensure that dose rates to dents
! next door to brachytherapy patients do not exceed the limits in Pa* s. In many cases, the 100 ares /7-day limit is controlling because the wo ng of ! the rule requires limitation based on continuous presence of an individual in an unrestricted area (Thosadsen et al.1983; Gittersan and Webster 1984). l The revised liafts could be both costly and beneficial to these facilities. 1 The 100-ures annual limit could be restrictive for pattents who would otherwise ' remain at the facility for an extended period near a brachytherapy room. Conversely, the absence of the 100 ares /7 day limit could allow facilities to control dose rates based on the less-restrictive 2-ares /h limit. Based on 4.13 l l t
a 1 these opposing factors and detailed descriptions of the ramifications of the current dose limits (Gitterman and Webster 1984), the net impact from the revised limits is anticipated to be insignificant for this analysis. . 4.4.2 Cost implications Because licensee operations are not expected to be impacted by the revised limit, no operations costs are anticipated. However, the rule requiring demonstration of compliance may involve some added costs. The magnitude of these costs depends on the interpretation of the rule, which does not provide detailed procedures for how compliance must be demonstrated, nor does it provide details on which licensees are affected by tM rule. Discussions with NRC personnel indicate that the intention of the rsle is not to require increased monitoring of the environment, but to require licensees to maintain records of compliance. Therefore, no significant costs other than recordkeeping costs are anticipated from promul to demonstrate compliance. gation The of both associated the revisedcosts recordkeeping limitsareand the requirement discussed in Section 5.4 of this report. 4.5 50 MARY OF CONSEQUENCES In this section, the consequences of the revised limits are sussearized. Table 4.5 sunnarizes these consequences by facility category (as defined in Section 8.1) and is a corpenVium of the consequences identified in Sections 4.1 to 4.4 in this report. The impacts from the revised limits are anticipated to be negitgible for facility categories not listed in Table 4.5. The positive present value of over $10 million listed in the table indicates that the expected benefit from the dose savings to the embryo / fetus exceeds the costs that will be incurred by licensees to comply with the revised dose limits. TABLE 4.5. Susseary of Consequences of the Revised Limits ' Value of Net Present Value Initial Annual AnnualDos{,) Facility Cateoory Cost, $ Cost, $ Savinos, $ ofCostsand(b)(c) lenefits, $ Medical 0 540,000 2,700,000 +19,000,000 Commercial Power Reactors 280,000 1.300,000 300,000 - 9,000,000 Total 280,000 1,800,000 3,000,000 +10,000,000 (a) Based on a value of $10,000/ fetus ree. (b) Calculated using rethods described in Sections 8.2 and 8.3 of this report. The present values are based on 1989 dollars, a discount rate of 10% (applied to all costs and benefits), and a 30 year period. (c) A positive sign indicates a positive impact and a negative sign indicates a negative ispect.
~
4.14
l 5.0 CONSE0VENCES OF OTHER CHANGES In this section, the consequences of other changes in the revision are discussed. These include changes regarding control of internal exposure in restricted areas, precautionary procedures, waste disposal, recordkeeping requirements not discussed in Section 3.5 reporting requirements, and others. TheseconsequencesaresuusarizedinSectIon5.7. 5.1 CONTROL OF INTERNAL EXPOSURE IN RESTRICTED AREAS
'Under the present Part 20, in areas of airborne contamination licensees are required to maintain intakes of radioactive saterial as low as is reasonably achievable without regard to external exposures. In many circuestances this mandates the use of respiratory protective equipment. Under the revised Part 20, internal exposuret are considered a part of the worker's total radiation exposure and the licensee is required to keep the total effective dose equivalent ALARA. This essentially pemits the licensee to base AL).RA decisions on both internal and externf exposure rates, and could lead to a long-tem net benefit in both collective dose and program costs.
Informal studies v 'e 6 tile Island Unit 2 (TH!.2) indicated an overall dose sayings of up to i n/. 1 plus external dose) when the use of a respirator was discont . wu Marelli et al.1986). The higher doses with . a respirator were due to Icss of productivity and consequent lengthened work times. It is well known that wearing respirators can lead to anxiety, which is associated with increased breathing resistance, decreased connunication capabilities, limited vision, and general discomfort, all of which reduce
; work efficiency. A controlled experiment (Cardarelli et al. 1986) failed to show a statistically significant change in work time for a selected, task with and without a respirator. It was observed that due to the disconfort of the respirator the workers operated faster, but this would probably not be true during longer, more complex tasks.
Information on accumulated doses is readily available for the various jobs; however, information on present respirator usage job frequency, and air concentrations by job is not readily available. Clearly,bothcostsavings ) and dose savings accurately withoutare likely,l infonsation.but the additiona magnitude If there will be were a 25% difficult in decrease to assess collective dese due to the greater efficiency from not using respirators in I high extern ), low internal dose rate fields, this could result in an annual i savings of over 600 person rea during outages (Table 5.1). This is based on ) collective doses for selected jobs (Dionne and Baus 1985) and assumes a 25% decrease in collective doses *or 10% of the outage tasks. ! The costs associated with the use of respiratory protection equipment (i.e., costs of canisters and additional personnel to process respirators and track stay times in airborne radioactivity areas) have been estimated at over ! $30,000 per outage week (Hendrixson, Wa With a typical plant outage lasting 8 weeks (ANS, the 1988)gner andsavings annual cost Morris for 1986). the utility l industry would be 31.75 million, counting 0.67 outages per reactor i,er year, i
- 109 reactors (ANS 1988), and a 10% reduction in the overall use of respirators i 5.1 t
, TABLE 5.1. EstimatedCollectiveDeseEquivalentpingsDuringanOutageThroughneduced Respiratory Usage for Selected Tasks No. of Savind in Typical Collective Dose Annual Reactors CollectLve Dese Task Equivalent. person-ree N Frequency"3 Affected Equivalent. person-ree # Assea6ly/ Disassembly ' ruel Shuffle 56 O.67 107 100
~
Snubber Inspection and Repair 75 0.6 107 120 , Torus Inspection /Medification ' nepair 280 0.6 36 151 In-Service Inspection 68 3,6 107 109 SteamGenerator(Test / plug) 76 0.5 71 68 Decontamination 33 0.5 107 44 Reactor Coolant / Circulation Peep Seal Depair 14 0.47 107 35 Total: T (a) Data derived from Dionne and saum 1985. (b) , Collective dose for typical plant based on 1 k (I Ng x D) there Ni - number of plants of Type 1; D - average collective dose for type 1. (c) (Estlested frequency of task per outage) X (annual frequency of outage [0.67]). (d) Assumes a 25% reduction in collective dose dee to efficiency facreases through reduced respiratory usage for 10% of the outage tasks.
y g . l
. r. . .
5 :. p . l during outages. However, a dec nase in the frequenc likely nsult in increased costs for air sonitoring,yhealth of reshysics trator su use will andbioassaymeasurements(Merwin,BrownandHartin1987). herefore,pport, the ' 1 net annual cost savings are estimated to be 1/2 of $1,750,000 or $880,000. There is a large uncertainty in these estimates, and benefits m alized on l other jobs or during routine operation were ignored. The impact on the non- i power reactor segments of the industry were felt to be n latively insignificant and were not considered further. ~ 5.2, PRECAUTIONARY PROCEDURES
- Precautionary procedures are pron,ulcated in Subpart J of the Part 20 revicior.. These include procedures for labeling containers of radioactive material, posting caution signs, and handling packages containing radioactive saterial.
5.2.1 LabelinaRecuirements The revised rules that address container labeling are essentially the same as the present rules. In both cases, containers of radioactive material must ! be labeled with caution signn, and the labels must provide information on the
- radioactive material present in the containers. Containers are exempt from i the labeling requirement if they contain concentrations or quantities of '
rad,9 active material less than the values tabulated in Appendixes B and C. The significant differences between the revised and present requirements are the exempt quantitles provided in Appendix C. The present Appendix C lists the exempt quantities of ISO separate radionuclides, whereas the revhed Appendix C lists the exempt quant; ties of 761 separate radianuclides. Of the 140 radionuclides listed in the revised Appendix C that are also litted in i the present Appendix C, the exempt quantities in the revision are unchanged !' for g3 radionuclides, higher for 7g radionuclideJ, and lower for 8 radionuclides. Of the 87 exempt quantities that were changed, 76 were changed by exactly one order of magnitude and 11 were changed by exactly two orders , of magnitude. The current opeopt quantities of the radionuclides not listed in the present Appendix C are equal to one of two default values, depending on i dether tse radionuclide is an alpha emitter. Of the 581 radionuclides ! listed in the revised Appendt C that are not Itsted in the present l Appendix C. 557 of the mvised exempt quantities are equal to or, in most ' cases, higher than the current default quantities. Only 24 revised quantities ; are lower than the relevant default values listed in the p msent Appendix C. Because the Part 20 nvision M1ases the requironent for labeling for I most radionuclides, there could be a net cost savings free the revised i labeling requirements. However, most of the radionuclides listed in the : revised Appendix C are not connonly found in licensee facilities. For most l of the radionuclides that are common, the revised exempt quantities are only ; one order of magnitude higher than the present except quantities. Also, it i 5.3 i l I i 1
i is comen practice to label containers of radioactive saterial with appro-priate labels regardless of the quantity. The main ext.eption to this practice occurs for packages containing naturally occurring radionuclides, such as
- thorium and uranium, for w'sich the exempt quantities in Appendix C are unchanged. As a result, the net benefit from the revised labeling requirements is anticipated to be posiLive but small. No attempt has been made in this report to quantify the pctential benefits nor the potential for increased doses to the public. However, a qualitative discussion of the potential benefits from the reviset labeling requirement? is presented in Section 7.8.
5.2.2 Postina Peauire e nts The revised posting requirements, which address the types of posting recuired for rooms containing radioactive saterial or having specified racintion dose rates, are essentially equivalent to the current require-ments. The changes are not expected to result in significant impacts. 5.2.3 Packaae Handlino Reevirements These requirements address the receiving, monitoring, and opening of packages containing radioactive material. The changes are relatively minor ; and no signifit. ant impacts from the revision are anticipated. * ' 3 5.3 WASTE DISPOSAL , The revision of Part 20 explicitly permits onsite storage of radioactive wastes to pemit them to decay (decay in storage). The expense of radioactive i 1 waste disposal and the lack of factitties has forced licensees to segregate,
; recycle, and compact wastes in an attempt to reduce waste volume and thus, 4
costs (Bunker 1985). More alaming than cost is the possible excluslon from I commercial low-level waste disposal facilities which the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Poiicy Act of 1990 (P.L. 96-573) portends. This has led to the building of onsite radweste storage facilities as an alternative to immediate disposal. The NRC issued a generic letter (USNRC 1981) which provides guidance for . temporary (5 yr) onsite radwaste storage at power reactors. Temporary onsite i storage is regarded as a contingency that would become legalized by the new Part 20. This change will have little impact on the industry since facilities i are already being built at medical research institutions (Masse 1984) and nuclear power plants (Rutland and Tuohy 1984; Keeper, Kohlerand and Scholz 1984). The NRC encourages medical licensees to modify their license to store wastes with half-lives up to 100 days for decay and disposal by conventional seans. The value of this change is already being realized and the cost tapact
- is already being assumed by the industry.
The only changes regarding waste disposal requirements that are expected to have a significant impact are the revised requirements for disposal by release into sanitar Althougn there are some changes in the wording of the rule,y sewerage.these are relatively insignificant compared to the changes in the concentration limits Itsted in Appendix 5. Under the current ) Part 20 releases to sewers must be in concentratio9s lower than the values listedInAppendixB,TableI, Column 2. Under the revised Part'20, the i ) limiting concentrations are listed in Appendix 8. Table 3. A comparison of
~
5.4 i l I
the current and revised average concentration limits for sewage disposal is i p nsented in Table 5.2. 1 l Table 5.2 indicates that for the radionuclides listed, the revised ' concentration limits are generally one to two orders of magnitude lower than , the current values. For alpha emitters, the disparity is often greater than !
; two orders of magnitude.
, I It is anticipated that some licensees will be required to take action to -
1 reduce the concentrations of radionuclides that are released to the ! j sanitary sewerage system. Based on a review of puL11shed data on releases of !
- tedionuclides by licensus (Tichler and Norden 1986; Cook 1981) and on a !
review of numerous NRC inspection reports, it is concluded that some medical,Itcensees laundry could be affected by tse revised release Itaits. academic /research,! Because of the large volumes of water released by most major medical and academic / !
, research licensees, the impact on these licensees should be nlatively small.
It is likely, however that some manufacturing and distribution and nuclear i laundry licensees could be required to improve filtration systems, increase
, . %1 dup times, and/or increase the amount of water released to sewers in order I > m camply with the n vised limits. Nuclear power plants should not be affected ;
i acause releases from these facilities are currently very low in accordance l
! with the requirements in 10 CFR 50, Appendix 1. Nilson and Malody (1982) t suggestthgsomefuelfabricationfacilitiesafghtbeimpactedbytherevised >
limit for U; however, the magnitude of this potential impact is currently
! uncertain, and may be smaller than originally anticipated. Because the I available data are not sufficient for a complete evaluation of these potential l impacts, the impact of the revised limits for releases inte sanitary sewerage i has not been quantified for this analysis. It should be recognized, however, i i that the impact on some licensee operations could be significant. , ! i ! 5.4 RECORorEEPING Rt0VIREMENTS !
I Subpart L of the revision describes the records required to be kept by ' licensees. As discussed in section 3.5 of this report, the requirements for recording individual monitoring resu'its will be costly to licensees because I more information must be evaluated and recorded than under the present Part ' I
- 20. Changes regarding other recordkeepin insignificant impacts as described below.g Therequirements requirement towill have niatively maintain records i of radiation protection programs is included in the discussion presented in i j 5ection 5.6. [
} kocords of Surveys. Although the n vised requirements are more detailed than ,
, & present requirements, essentially all licensees currently keep records I
, required by the revised Part 20. Therefore, no significant impact is I anticipated. l ) Deterwination of Prior occupational Dose. The primary change regarding requirements for determining prior occupational dose is that Itcensees sust '
' attempt' to obtain lifetime records of dose before permitting individuals l who will require monitoring to enter the licensee's restricted or controlled l areas. Under the cu rent Part 20, licensees must obtain record of prior doses [
5.5 ( l t
TAsLE 5.2. Current and Revised Average Concentration Limits for Releases into Sanitary Sewerage Current Revised Redu'. tion Factor, Radionuclide Limit. sci /e1 Limit. sci /el Current / Revised 3 M 1E l' . 1E 2 10 I4 C 2E-2 3E 4 70 j 32 P SE 4 9E 5 60 35 5 2E-3 1E-3 2 45c , 3g,4 gg g g 51
! Cr 5E-2 St 3 10 54 Mn 4E-3 3E 4 10 1
597 ,
- 2E-3 1E-4 20 ,
i 60 Co 1E 3 3E 5 30 , 65 2n 3[-3 5E-5 60 80 '
- Rb 2[-3 7E-5 30
#r $ 1E 5 4E 6 2 H Mo SE-3 1E-4 55 j 'De IE 1 1E-2 20 15 l 1 4E 5 2E-5 2 129 1 1E 5 3E 6 3
! I3I I 6E 5 1E 5 6 ) 137 ] Cs 4[-4 IE-5 40 ) 144 Ce 3E 4 3E 5 10 235 i U AE 4 3E 6 300 234 l 7u 1[ 4 2E-6 50 241 Am 1E 4 3E 7 300 e 5.6
only for the current calendar quarter, unless they plan to use t'ne 5(N-18) dose-averaging provision. Only then are licensees required to determine lifetime cumulative doses. - There should be both costs and benefits from the revised requirements. . Because licensees will be required to determine lifetime cumulative doses for more workers, additional costs will be incurred. On the other 1 nd, the revised requirements will result in better tracking of individual uuses and licensees will expend less effort per worker to determine prior doses. The latter point is especially important for tracking transient worker eioses, where under the current recordkeeping requirements time is often lost
, waiting for and verifying exposure histories (Hageman, Artz and Humphress 1982). Because the revised requirements will result in both costs and benefits that are difficult to quantify, the net impact has not been estimated for this analysis. ,
yecords of Planned Special Exposures. As discussed in Section 4.2, the planned special exposure provision will not be used frequently, Therefore, the associated recordkeeping costs are assumed to be insignificant for this
- analysis.
Records of Dose to Individual Members of the Public. Under this new requirement, licensees must maintain records sufficient to demonstrate compliance with the dose limit for individual members of the public. Although not explicitly required under the present Part 20, records currently being maintained by most licensees should be sufficient to demonstrate compliance. The someonly licensees medical thatacademic facilities, are likely/research institutions,to be affected by the new requirem and manufacturing and distribution facilities, where health physicists or radiation safety officers will maintain more detailed records of radioactive releases and inventories of radioactive materials. It is estimated that for facilities in these catt;ories, a health )hysicist or other appropriate r to these tasks. Based en a professional cost of $3 per will devote hour an average for health of 21/y(SEA 1986) and 9027 licensees in physicists these categories (see Section 8.1), the estimatt.d annt.a1 cost is $450,000. Records of Waste Disposal. The changes that appear in the revised Part 20
~
are relatively minor and are expected to have no impact on licensees. ) Records of Testina Entry Control Devices for Very Hiah Radinion Areas-Althougn licensees are currently requirea toTest entry coritrel devices, they cre not required to maintain test records. Although this requirement in the revision is new, s.ost licensees voluntarily keep records to demonstrate compliance with the currertt testing requirements. Therefore, no sigriificant impact is anticipated. 5.5 REPORTING REQUIRENENTS The NRC currently requires that licensees report the theft or loss of licensed material and incidents involving radiation exposures that exceed the annual limits. Certain licensees are also required to submit an annual sumary report of radiation exposures received by workers (Brooks 1986). However, 5.7
the revision contains three significant changes regarding reporting requirements. First, 21anned special exposures must be reported to the NRC within 15 days after t1e exposure occurs. A similar requirement is not included in the current Part 20 because planned special exposures are not currently allowed. Second, licensees that are currently required to submit annual exposure data will be required to submit separate reports for each individual for whom monitoring was required rather than one report containing summarized information. Third, all licensees will be required to submit reports, at least annually, to all individuals for whom monitoring was required, indicating the doses that they received in the work place. Although the latter requirement will actually be included in the revised 10 CFR Part 19, Section 19.13, it is included in the analysis provided in this report. 5.5.1 incident Reports Some incidents not reportable under the current requirements will be reportable under the revised requirements. Such events, including planned special exposures, are expected to be rare. Also, the cost of reporting an incident to the NRC is relatively insignificant. As a result, no significant impact is anticipated frem the revised incident reporting requirements. 5.5.2 Reports of Personnel Monitorino Under the current Part 20, certain licensees are required to submit an annual ;tatistical sumary report containing information on doses received by personnel . Under the revised requirements, individual reports rather than a sumary report must be submitted. As a result the affected licensees will annually submit one NRC Form 5 (or equivalent),for each individual for whom monitoring was required, rather than one report that sumarizes all of the individual expcsure information.. , Because licensees are re utred to reo rd individual dose information on l NRC Form 5 (or equivalent) unker a separeto section of Part 20, the revised I reporting requirement it not anticipated to result in significant costs regarding collection of information. The affected licensee will simply mail copies of ferns they are reautred to maintain under the recordkeeping requirements. The amount of time required to assemble these forms and mail them is anticipated to be equivalent to the count of time expended under the current requirements to pratare a statistical sunrary report. AQitional sailing costs will be incurred under the revised requirements, but these costs are assumed to be riegligible fcr ths analysis. Costs associated with updating computer programs and data bases so that licensees can process the reportable exposure information were included under the category of recordkeeping requirements (Section 3.5). The significant costs from the revised requirements for reporting personnel exposures to the NRC will be incurred by the NRC itself. The NRC personnel responsible for processing licensee exposure data estimate that the marginal annual cost increase for processing exposure data could range from zero to
$300 000 per year, depending on the format of the reports sent by the licensees.
IfalllicenseessubmitcomputerdiskscontainingexposureinformationinNRC Form 5 format, no additional annual costs would be needed to process the data. 5.8 l l
. - ~ _ _ - , _ .
, ; , )' - ,
.s- ,. -
.s -:
However, the revised rule only requires that the reports contain all information 1 required in NRC Form 5; the revised rule does not require that NRC Form 5 be used. Personnel at NRC estimate that approximately 30% of licensees will . submit computer disks containing exposure information in NRC Fors 5 format. Therefore, the estimated marginal cost increase is 70% of $300,000, or $210,000 per year. The NRC personnel also anticipate a one-time cost of $20,000 to upgrade software for processing the new data. 5.5.3 Reports to Individuals Under the revised 10 CFR Part 19, all NRC licensees will be required
- to submit individual dose reports to all individuals for whom monitoring was required. As a minimum, licensees will be required to provide the reports at least annually. Three factors must be considered in order to estimate the impact on licensees: 1) some licensees currently provide these reports voluntarily; 2) some licensees may choose to provide these reports more than once per year; and 3) under the current requirements, licensees must provide these reports to individuals who request them. Based on discussions with licensees and former licensee health physicists and radiation safety officers,.it is assumed for this report that 1) 25% of licensees currently comply with the revised requirement, 2) licensees who choose to ,
provide reports more frequently than onca per year >erceive a benefit from doing so (thus, the marginal cost can be estimated )y assuming all licensees provide reports annually), and 3) the fraction of workers who currently request these reports is insignificant. I Based on the' data provided in Section 8.1 and the assumptions listed above, it is estimated that an additional 583,000 resorts per year (one each for 75% of monitored employees, see Table 8.3) will >e submitted to individual workers. This estimate is also based on the assumption that for convenience, licensees will provide reports to all individuals actually monitored, not ; I only to those individuals for whoan monitoring was rea,uired. Licensees will have three primary options for providing reports to individuals. First, larger facilities may maintain a database of personnel l exposurcs and simol l to the indivicuals.y printSecond, the inforweien on awho smaller facilities formrecord that ispersonnel provided exposure data by hand will probably prepare annual individual reports by hand. Third, licensees who use the services of a dosimetry processor may pay the processor to prepare the annual sunnary reports. It is estimated that ,10 matter which of these three options is used, the cost per individual report will range from $1 to $2. For this analysis, an average value of $1.50 per report is assumed. Based on 583,000 additional reports per year, the marginal annual cost is $870,000. In addition, licensees who choose to maintain a database will be recuired to modify existing software. It is estimated that 25% of all medical, acacemic/ research, and manufacturing and distribution licensees will select this option. This option will also be selected by an astimated 90% of all commercial power reactor and fuel fabrication facilities. A relatively insignificant fraction of other licensees will choose this option. A cost estimate for software modification is based on several factors: an estimated one person-week of effort by a computer 5.9 l l
programer per licensee, hourly costs of $33 for programmers at nuclear power plants (SEA 1986) and fuel fabrication facilities and $23 for programers at other facilities; and the asstoption that 25% of the licensees currently provide reports voluntarily. Based on these factors, the estimated one-time cost for software modifications is $1,650,000. Table 5.3 presents the estimated costs by facility category. The > resent values provided in the table were calculated ' based on the methods descrised in Section 8.2 of this report. 5.6 OTHER CHANGES Miscellaneous changes in the revision that do r,ot fall under one of the categories discussed previously in this resort are discussed in thi3 section. In general, these changes are expected to 1 ave minimal impacts on licensees. Changes in the revisicn that are editorial changes only are not discussed in this report. 5.6.1 Units of Radiation Dose Although the revision references the International System of Units (SI), it presents the conventional units found in the present Part 20. Thus, . licensees will not be required to use the SI system for purposes of l recordkeeping or reporting. In addition, the default quality for neutrons ' remains at 10 and it is unlikely that licensees will be impacted by the slight changes in the table that presents factors for converting neutron fluence to dose. TABLE 5.3. Cost of Providing Reports to Individuals by Facility Category Initial Annual Presen$ Volue Facility Category Cost, $ Cost, $/yr of Costs, $ Medical 1,100,000 220,000 2,900,000 l Well Logging negligible 44,000 M9,000 Industrial l Radiography negligible 22,000 190,000 Nanufacturing and Distribution 170,000 140,000 1,400,000 Academic /Research Institutions 270,000 110,000 1,200,000 Other Measuring Systems negligible 43,000 370,000 Fuel Fabrication and Processing 12,000 11,000 110,000 Research and Test Reactors negligible 4,000 34,000 Comercial Power Reactors 97,000 240,000 2,100,000 All Others neolioible 49,000 420,000 Totals 1,700,000 880,000 9,100,000 l 5.10 l
t 5.6.2 Radiation Protection Programs The revised Part 20 states that licensees must develop and dor.ument a . radiation protection program that is "conmensurate with the scope and extent of licensed activities...." In addition, licensees are required to use, "to the extent practicable," procedures and controls to maintain doses ALARA. In comparison, the present Part 20 does not specifically require a radiation protection program to be maintained, but does require that doses be main-tained ALARA. An important point here is that the revision does not require a documented ALARA program, a requirement that was present in the proposed
.Part 20.
Although the new requirement to develop a radiation protection program may appear to place a substantial burden on some licensees, the marginal impact will not be severe because most licensees currently maintain a radiation protection program that is commensurate with the scope of their licensed activities. These programs are in place because of either license conditions, or regulatory guides, or both. For example, all nuclear power plants maintain both radiation protection programs and ALARA programs that greatly exceed the requirements in the revised Part 20. Also, most medical licensees maintain programs comensurate with Regulatory Guide 8.18 and a supportingpublication(Brodsky1982). ' The only marginal costs anticipa'ted from this re increased program documentation for a few licensees.For quirement will be who those licensees have radiation documentation (protection manuals, the manuals should serve as acceptablesee Sect thesemanuals). For licensees who do not have radiation protection manuals, the limited scope of their activities sl.ould be sufficient to prevent the need for dt.velopment of a program. Thus, for this analysis, it is assumed that the associated costs are negligible. !bwever, the costs could be significart dependira en the interpretstioq of the requirement by both licensees and the Nl.C. The NRC plans to publish several regulatory guides that will provide i'iformatieti on acceptable radiatien protection programs for specific categories of licensces. 5.6.3 Control of Ac ess to Hiah Radiation Areas The revised Part 20 provides more detailed requirements than the present Part 20 for controlling access to high and very high radiscion areas. Althot.gh the changes will affect ome licensees, the associated l costs are assumed to be negligible for this analysis. l 5.7 SUPNARY OF CONSEQUENCES In this section, the estimated impacts from other changes in the revised Part 20 are sumarized. Table 5.4 sumarizes these impacts by licensee facility category. It is a compendium of the costs and benefits identified in Sections 5.1 through 5.6 of this report. , 5.11
TABLE 5.4. Summary of Marginal Cost Increases from Other Changes in the Revised Part 20 Net Value of Present Value Initial Annual Annual Facility Category Cost, $ Cost, $ Savinos,DoseI,)
$ of Costs and(b)(c)
Senefits, $ Medical 1,100,000(d) 540,000(d) negligible -5,600,000(d) Well Logging negligible 44,000 negligible -380,000 Industrial Radiography negligible 22,000 negligible -190,000 Manufacturing and Distribution 170,000(d) 190,000(d) negligible -1,800,000(d) Academic /Research Institutions 270,000(d) 180,000(d) negligible -1,800,000(d) Other Measuring Systems negligible 43,000 negligible -370,000 Fuel Fabrication and Processing 12,000(d) 11,000(d) negligible -110,000(d) , Research and Test Reactors negligible 4,000 negligible -34,000 '
. Connercial ' Power ,) 630,000 Reactors 97,000 +11,000,000(d)
All Others . negligible (d) (640,000 50,000 negligible -430,000 NRC 20,000 210,000 neolicible -1,800,000 Total 1,700,000(d) 650,000(d) 630,000 -1,500,000(d) fa) Based on a value of $1000/ person-rem. l (b) Calculated using methods described in Sections 8.2 and 8.3 of this report. The preser.t values tre based on 1989 doll:,rs, a discount rate of 10% (applied to all costs and benefits), and a 30-year period. ' (c) A positise sign indicates a ,;ositiva impa't and a negative sign indicates a negative impset. (d)Notincludingpotentialcostsfromrevisedconcentrationlimitsfor release) into sanitary sewerage. (e)Numberinparenthesesindicatesacostsatings. 1 ( e 5.12
(.* ,
':? .
6.0 OTHER CNSE0VENCES OF THE REVISION Some of the costs associated with the revision of Part 20 cannot be attributed to specific sections of the rule. These costs include training of personnel and revision of procedures, and are discussed in Sections 6.1 and 6.2, respectively. Impacts on the NRC and small businesses are discussed in Sections 6.3 and 6.4, respectively. These consequences are sumarized in Section 6.5.
. Many of the costs identified in this section are calculated based on published labor rates (including overhead costs) for nuclear powe plant workers (SEA 1986). Because labor rates for non-power reactor workers a'e generally lower, these costs were estimated by ap)1ying a factor of 0.7 te the rates for power reactor workers where applica)le. All costs are tJjusted to 1989 dollars.
6.1 PERSONNEL TRAINING Some Itensees will incur significant costs associated with training of personnel lupervisory, health physics, and other professional personnel as , well as g+ tal employees might require training depending on the facility. In the sut actions below, cost estimates are provided for the ten categories offacilitiesdefinedinthisreport(seeSection8.1). In most cases, the costs per facility have a wide range within each category. Where appropriate, cost estimates are provided for separate classes of facilities withir. s category. An important consideration in developing these costs estimates was that personnel training is performed routinely at most facilities. Personnel are often reqaired to attend periodic training sessions conducted or sponsored by the licensees. The content and level of training with re protection depends on t M work performed by the employee. gard to radiation To eliminate nonmarninal costs from this analysis, a factor of 0.75 has been applied to some cf the cost estimates to account for the fact that increased training or retraining in response to promulgation of the revised l Part 20 can be partially incorporated into routine training programs. In
- addition, intensive training imediately following promalgation of the revision will result in a decreased need for training in the short ter's.
In some cases, the marginal cost factor should be higher or lower than 0.75. Where applicable, the appropriate factor is provided in the sections below, i ( Some of the casts estimated in this section (and other sections) are l considered to be marginal even though it is likely that in many cases, the i costs will be absorbed during the normal daily activities of the relevant personnel. For radiation protection personnel nose primary function is to ensure that operations by the facility are in compliance with radiation protection regulations, part of their responsibility is to be familiar with the regulations and familiarization with new regulations would not result in increased actual costs to the facilities. 6.1
o Medical. .It is anticipated that nuclear physicians and nuclear medicine technologists would use their allotted time for continuing education to inform themselves of the content of the revised regulations and the ICRP 26 - recomendations are considered to (USNRC be margina1982)l and must be included in the assessment of theFor this a impact of the revision. It is estimated that 5% of the werkers sonitored for radiation exposure at these facilities will comit 2 hours each to studying the revised regulations and their implications. At a cost of $1a per technician hour (SEA 1986) and applying the data in Tables 8.2 and 8.3, the cost estimate for these workers is 193,000 X 0.05 X 2 X $14, or
$270,000. Ap)1ying the marginal cost factor of 0.75, the marginal costs are estimated to )e $200,000. Costs for professionals to study the regulations are included in the cost estimates provided in Section 6.2.
Well 1.oaaina. No significant retraining of workers or managers is anticipated for these facilities (USNRC 1982). All costs associated with studying the revision are decounted for in Section 6.2. Industrial Radiooraphy. In a survey of several of these facilities, none envisioned a need for retraining personnel (USNRC 1982). Thus, no significant costs are anticipated. All costs associated with studying the revision by , responsible management are accounted for in Section 6.2. Panufacturino and Distribution. It has been estimated that for facilities in this category, supervisors, health physicists, and other professionals will comit 250 perst n-hours, 200 person-hours, and 150 person-hours, respectively, to retraining (U:wiRC 1982). Other costs associated with retraining are assumed to be insignificant for this facility categcry. Assuming $31 per professional hour (SEA 1986), the total cost is estimated to be $19,000. The associated marginal cost estinate is $19,000 X 0.75, or $!4,000. - Academic /Research Institutions. It is anticipat94 that users of radioactive material at these institutions will learn of the Part 20 revision and its implications through routine training and infonnation programs. All of these costs are considered to be nonmarginal. Costs incurred by radiation safety officers to understand and implement the revised requirements are included in the cost estimates provided in Section 3.5. Other Measurino Systens. No significant costs regard 9ng sertonnel training ATTTe required for these facilitics. However responsi)1e personnel at mostofthefacilitieswillhavetobecomefamiliarwiththerevisiontosome degree. An average of 2 person-hours for each facility is estimated. At a cost of $31 per professional hour (SEA 1986) and 5060 facilities (see Section 8.1), the marginal cost estimate is $310,000. Fuel Fabrication and Processino. Booth,'Bronton and Groth (1985) estimated that the revision would result in training costs of 3145,000 (in 1989 dollars) at a typical fuel fabrication facility. For this analysis, it is estimated that of the 14 facilities in this category (see Section 8.1), five will incur marginal costs of $145,000 and nine will incur one-fourth of those costs, or $36,000. The total cost estimate for fuel fabrication facilities is $1,000,000. 6.2
.. , .. . a Research and Test Reactors. For these facilities, retraining of personnel will be absorbed in the normal training cycles (USNRC 1982). However, health physics personnel will have to become familiar with the revision. It is .
estimated that eight hours will be comitted per facility to become familiar with the rsvision and its ramifications. Assuming a cost of $31 per ~ professional hour (SEA 1986) and 80 facilities (see Section 8.1), the total cost would be $20,000. Comercial Power Reactors. Detailed cost estimates for training and retraining of perscnnel at coseen:ial power reactors in response to prowulgation of the revision of 10 CFR 20 are available in the open literature (Booth, Bronson and Groth 1935; USNRC 1986) and from the public comments on the proposed revision. It appears that training for a new employee under the revised Part 20 will be comparable to current training for new employees. ..owever, most employees will have to be retrained to become familiar with the revised regulations and the relevant revisions to plant procedures. In addition, health physics and dosimetry personnel will have to be retrain'.d in the areas of their work affected by the revision. It has been estimated that at a typical nuclear power plant, total costs associated with training are $175,000 (in 1989 dollars) (Booth, Bronson and
- Groth 1985). For this analysis, it is estimated that two-thirds of these costs are marginal. Further, a factor of 0.75 is applied to these costs to account for thi. f act that some nuclear power stations have multiple units, i.e., the training costs per unit at these sites will be less than at a typical one-unit station. For 109 nuclear power plants expected to be operating in 1989 (ANS 1988), the marginal cost estirate is $175,000 X 0.67 X 0.75 X 109, or $9,500,000.
f All Othet,,s.. In general, the licensees in this category do not have. extensive radiatior. protection progre.ms and general empicyee treining will not be required, h ever, radiation protection personnel responsible for compliance with NRC regulations will probably read the revised Part 20 to become familiar with its provisions. It is estimated that an average of and understanding the revision and 2 hours perdocuments. associa%d facility will Assuming be spent areading cost of $31 per professional hour (SEA 1986) and 1752 facilities in this category (see Section 8.1), the total coat would i be $110,000. Applying the marginal cost factor of 0.75, the marginal cost estimate for this category of licensees is $81,000. 6.2 PROCEDURE REVISIONS Some licensees will incur significant costs to incorporate the revised requirements into existing procedures and related documents. The magnitude of the impact on individual licensees is related to the magnitude of the i licensee's radiation protection program. The affected documents could include operating procedures, (tr,aining manual revisionsradiation protection were included manuals,imates in the est providedand policy stateme in Section 6.1. ) . In this section, the costs associated with revising recordkeeping procedures are not included because they were included in the recordkeeping costs discussed in Section 3.5. 6.3 J
In the subsections below, cost estimates are provided for the ten categori~es of facilities defined for this analysis (see Section 8.1). In most cases, the costs per facility have a wide range within each category. . Where appropriate, cost estimates are provided for separate classes of facilities within a category. An important consideration in developing these cost estimates was that many procedures and related documents are routinely revised by licensees. Therefr e; Til of the rosts associated with procedure revisions will not be marg',a'. anl should not be considered in this analysis. Several competing fact u exist in separating the marginal costs from the nonmarginal costs:
- 1) cvns 4 ing the implementation perlad permitted by the NRC, some revisions can be incorporated without interruption of the usual schedule; 2) consider-ing both the implementation period and the magnitude of the revised Part 20, some revisions cannot be incorporated without interruption of the usual schedule; 3) some revisions will be much more extensive than would have been performed without a revised Part 20 and 4) extensive procedure revisions in responsetotherevisedPart20willdecreasetheneedforfurtherrevisions in the short term. In consideration of these factors, for this analysis the n rginal costs of revising procedures are estimated to be 75% of the total costs unless othenvise noted. ,
Medical. For these facilities, the cost of required procedure changes depends reatly on the type of facility. Of the 6506 facilities in this catege y see Section 8.1) Hendricksonetal.anestimated4735areclassifiedasmedicalinstitutions 1987). The remaining facilities include private of nuclear medicinc, in vitro labs, veterinary medicine, and others see (practice Table 8.1). It is anticisated that a radiation protection manual at each medical institution will 1 ave to be revised. In addition to the procedure changes regarding recordkeeping that were estir.ated in Section 3.5, an estimated 8
. At a cost of person-ht'Jrs will be hour
$31 per professional comitted (SEAto this task 1986), and (USNRC assuming 1982)$400 that in printing and duplicating costs will be required per facility, the tntal cost estimate is $3,100,000. ,.
It is exoected that the costs of required procedurs r.hanges at other redical facilities will be limited to recordkeeping changes associated with the recording of infrequent internal exposures. (Thesecostswereestimated in Section medical 3.5.) The facilities mar is $3,ginal costXestimate for procedure revisions for all 100,000 0.75, or $2,300,000.
- Well Locain'a. It is estimated that only five of the licensees in this category have radiation protection programs extensive enough to warrant procedure revisions in a radiation protection manual (USNRC 1982). It is estimated that for each of these firms, 80 perso}}