[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 134 (Thursday, July 13, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36038-36043]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-17023]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Parts 19 and 20
RIN 3150-AE80
Radiation Protection Requirements: Amended Definitions and
Criteria
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its
regulations to revise the radiation protection training requirement so
that it applies to workers who are likely to receive, in a year,
occupational dose in excess of 100 mrem (1 mSv); revise the definition
of ``Member of the public'' to include anyone who is not a worker
receiving an occupational dose; revise the definition of ``Occupational
Dose'' to delete reference to location so that the occupational dose
limit applies only to workers whose assigned duties involve exposure to
radiation and not to members of the public; revise the definition of
``Public Dose'' to apply to dose received by members of the public from
material released by a licensee or from any other source of radiation
under the control of the licensee; assure that prior dose is determined
for anyone subject to the monitoring requirements in 10 CFR part 20, or
in other words, anyone likely to receive, in a year, 10 percent of the
annual occupational dose limit; and retain a requirement that known
overexposed individuals receive copies of any reports of the
overexposure that are required to be submitted to the NRC. This change
highlights a requirement which requires licensees to inform members of
the public that they have been overexposed. These amendments are
necessary to clarify criteria that determine when radiation protection
training is required and to restore a notification requirement.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 14, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Roecklein, Office of Nuclear
Regulatory Research, Mail Stop T-9 C24, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301) 415-6223.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On May 21, 1991 (56 FR 23360), the NRC amended 10 CFR part 20 to
add its revised ``Standards for Protection Against Radiation'' (10 CFR
20.1001-20.2402). Compliance became mandatory for all licensees on
January 1, 1994. Extensive discussions regarding interpretations and
implementation of the new regulations resulted in a proposed rulemaking
(February 3, 1994; 59 FR 5132), which would amend certain definitions
and criteria in 10 CFR part 19 and the new 10 CFR part 20. As a result
of public comments and further NRC staff discussions, the NRC is taking
the following actions on the proposed changes.
The proposed rule would have revised Sec. 19.12, Instructions to
workers, so that training in radiation protection would be required of
an individual, who in the course of employment had assigned duties
involving the potential for exposure to radiation. This was intended to
correct the current regulations that require radiation protection
training for individuals who work in or frequent any portion of a
restricted area. It is believed that the current rule may result in
some workers not receiving training even though they may exceed public
dose limits during assigned duties. Seven commenters objected to the
phrase ``potential for'' exposure to radiation stating that it was
vague and might require training for a large number of workers not
currently being trained or receiving significant exposure. These same
commenters requested use of the words ``likely to receive'' since it
would be consistent with language in the Sec. 20.1502 monitoring
requirement, and all added suggestions for a threshold of 100 mrem (1
mSv) in a year. These comments were convincing and this final rule
adopts the new training criterion as ``All individuals who in the
course of employment are likely to receive in a year an occupational
dose in excess of 100 mrem (1 mSv) shall be * * *.''
This approach clearly provides radiation protection training to
workers whose assignments are likely to result in occupational
exposure. Adoption of the 100 mrem (1 mSv) in a year criterion is
believed to provide reasonable assurance that those workers that are
likely to receive a small fraction of the occupational dose limit will
be trained without resulting in an undue burden on licensees in
providing training to workers. The rule does not prohibit licensees
from providing training to workers who are not expected to exceed 100
mrem (1 mSv) in a year. General employee safety training required by
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and others is not
waived by this rule.
In addition, Sec. 20.1101(b) requires that licensees adopt
procedures and engineering controls to achieve occupational doses and
doses to members of the public that are as low as is reasonably
achievable (ALARA). Radiation protection training programs continue to
be an important element of an ALARA program.
Training is an effective mechanism for helping to minimize
radiation exposure to workers. Most workers who work in or frequent
restricted areas are currently provided training on radiation safety
issues. Typically, this training includes instruction on the procedures
that would be used to minimize radiation exposure such as limiting time
in certain areas and actions to be taken in the case of an accident. In
addition,
[[Page 36039]]
individuals who enter areas to perform services such as maintenance or
cleaning should be provided information on the location of radioactive
material and should be instructed to avoid contact with radioactive
material.
For interpretation of this rule, the words ``* * * likely to
receive * * *'' include normal situations as well as abnormal
situations involving exposure to radiation which can reasonably be
expected to occur during the life of a licensed facility. For example,
reactor licensees should consider both normal operations and
anticipated operational occurrences (AOOs). AOOs can include, for
example, unplanned onsite events involving spills of reactor coolant;
sudden increases in external radiation levels (loss of shielding); and
a loss of control of radioactive materials leading to a localized high
airborne radioactivity area. However, reactors would not need to
consider for the purpose of 10 CFR 19.12(b) those design basis
accidents analyzed in FSARs which are not reasonably expected to occur
but which are hypothesized or postulated for the purpose of
establishing conservative design requirements for safety equipment.
The decision as to whether a specific worker is likely to receive
in a year a dose in excess of 100 mrem (1 mSv) cannot be based solely
on past experiences at a given facility or the exposure history of the
individual. These decisions may need to take into account the impact
training might have on maintaining exposures below 100 mrem (1 mSv) in
a year for certain workers.
For example, certain workers such as janitors or maintenance
workers who either frequent restricted areas or work in the vicinity of
restricted areas, and are likely to receive doses in excess of 100 mrem
(1 mSv) unless properly trained, should receive training sufficient to
prepare them to avoid unnecessary exposure. On the other hand, clerical
workers, who may work in restricted areas but whose duties are unlikely
to involve direct interaction with radioactive material, are unlikely
to receive doses in excess of 100 mrem (1 mSv) in a year, and for whom
training would have no bearing on exposures, would not necessarily
require training just because of the location of their work.
The final rule adds the following language to 10 CFR 19.12(b) to
clarify that these situations would be included in the phrase ``likely
to receive'': In determining those individuals subject to the
requirements of paragraph (a) of this section, licensees must take into
consideration assigned activities during normal and abnormal situations
involving exposure to radiation and/or radioactive material which can
reasonably be expected to occur during the life of a licensed facility.
This clarification has been integrated with the existing requirement
that the training should be commensurate with the potential health
protection problems present in the workplace. Further, the format of
Sec. 19.12 is revised to clearly indicate the requirements for training
which previously were combined in a single long paragraph.
The proposed rule would have deleted the definition of, and
numerous references to, the ``Controlled Area.'' The intent was to make
it clear that any area to which access is restricted for the purpose of
radiological protection is a ``Restricted Area'' as defined in the
regulation and thus appropriate radiation protection measures
associated with restricted areas would apply. Neither the existing
definitions nor the supplemental information to the new regulations
provide a basis for deciding whether to designate a given area as a
``Restricted Area,'' or a ``Controlled Area,'' and there was a concern
that some confusion had resulted regarding how to implement the new
standards.
Deletion of ``Controlled Area'' was supported by three Agreement
States and several materials licensees. However, six power reactor
licensees and the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), argued that deletion
of ``Controlled Area'' would constitute a major and costly backfit. The
commenters stated that nuclear power plants have areas that sometimes
exceed 2 mrem (0.02 mSv) in an hour, but to which access can easily be
restricted so that no one can exceed 100 mrem (1 mSv) in a year. The
power reactor licensees argued that to change written procedures and
facilities to remove existing ``Controlled Areas'' would be costly.
These licensees believed that using controlled areas permits better
``defense'' of restricted areas. Also, the utilities said that if
unrestricted area boundaries were moved inward, power licensees could
have difficulty monitoring occupancy and calculating effluent doses to
demonstrate compliance with the public dose limits. The commenters
stated that if restricted area boundaries were moved outward, the cost
of applying unneeded radiation protection measures to large areas would
be extensive. NEI stated that the cost per plant to delete the term
``Controlled Area'' now would be from 10 to 100 thousand dollars per
plant with no significant benefit to health and safety.
The NRC agrees with the backfit argument. The concept of Controlled
Area is not deleted from 10 CFR Part 20.
The proposed rule would have revised the definition of ``Public
Dose'' so that a licensee was responsible for dose to any member of the
public, from effluents or any other source of radiation under the
control of the licensee, regardless of location. The current rule
limits dose to a member of the public from radiation within a
licensee's controlled area or in unrestricted areas, but permits member
of the public to receive a dose up to the occupational limit within the
licensee's restricted area. Public comment supported the proposed
change and it is adopted in the final rule. The definition of ``Public
Dose'' thus means the dose received by a member of the public from
exposure to radiation and/or radioactive material released by a
licensee, or to any other source of radiation under the control of a
licensee. The change is consistent with the new definition of
``Occupational Dose,'' also made final by this rulemaking action, and
eliminates the possibility that a member of the public could become
subject to occupational dose limits simply by entering a restricted
area. This change also makes it clear that licensees are not
responsible for doses from sources not under their control. This change
does not relieve a licensee from responsibility for, nor does it limit
a licensee's flexibility in, determining whether individual doses
received are occupational or public. Further guidance on this issue is
provided in question and answer numbers 26 and 444 in NUREG/CR-
6204,1 ``Questions and Answers Based on Revised 10 CFR Part 20.''
\1\ Copies of NUREGs may be purchased from the Superintendent of
Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, P.O. Box 37082,
Washington, DC 20013-7082. Copies are also available from the
National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road,
Springfield, VA 22161. A copy is also available for inspection and/
or copying at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW.
(Lower Level), Washington, DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed rule included a revision to the definition of ``Member
of the Public,'' so that an individual is a member of the public except
when that individual is a worker receiving an occupational dose. Part
20 currently defines ``Member of the Public'' as an individual in a
controlled or unrestricted area. This permits the radiation dose to a
member of the public to be controlled by occupational dose limits
rather than public dose limits solely because the individual entered a
restricted area. The proposed change was supported by public comment
and
[[Page 36040]]
is adopted. This change further clarifies that a member of the public
is limited to the public dose limit regardless of where the individual
is located.
Section 20.2104(a), currently requires determination of prior
occupational dose for each individual who may enter a licensee's
restricted or controlled area and is likely to receive, in a year, an
occupational dose requiring monitoring pursuant to Sec. 20.1502. The
final rule adopts the following change. Determination of prior dose
will be required for any individual who is likely to receive, in a
year, an occupational dose requiring monitoring, pursuant to
Sec. 20.1502. Thus, under the new regulations, prior dose
determinations are based only on the likelihood of receiving
significant occupational dose, not on where an individual may be
located.
Before issuance of the revised standards for protection against
radiation, Sec. 20.409(b) provided that whenever a licensee is required
to report to the Commission any overexposure of an identified
individual worker or member of the public to radiation and/or
radioactive material, the licensee must also notify that
individual.2 Although, it was the intent of the Commission that
this provision remain in 10 CFR Part 20, the requirement was
inadvertently omitted from the revised standards. Accordingly,
Sec. 20.2205 was proposed to clearly restore to 10 CFR Part 20, the
requirement that individual workers and members of the public are to be
notified of their exposure when such individuals receive doses in
excess of the dose limits that would require notifying the NRC. This
proposed addition was supported by public comment and is codified here.
Under Sec. 20.2205, the licensee's obligation to notify an individual
will be triggered if (and only if) the licensee's required report to
NRC identifies that individual by name as having received an exposure
to radiation and/or to radioactive material. The licensee's obligation
to identify individuals in a required report to the NRC is provided for
in 10 CFR 20.2203. If an assessment, analysis or evaluation of an
exposure incident is provided to the NRC then it must also be provided
to the individual.
\2\ See also 10 CFR 19.13(d) when a licensee is required to
report to the Commission any exposure of an individual to radiation
or radioactive material, the licensee must also provide the
individual a report on their exposure data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed rule would have changed the definition of
``Unrestricted area'' to ``* * * any area that is not a restricted
area.'' With retention of the ``Controlled area'' concept this change
is not needed.
Changes were proposed to Secs. 20.1301, 20.1302, 20.1801, and
20.1802 to accommodate the proposed deletion of the ``Controlled area''
term. These changes are not needed in view of the decision to retain
``Controlled Area,'' and are withdrawn.
Public Comments
Proposed revisions to 10 CFR Parts 19 and 20 were published on
February 3, 1994 (59 FR 5132). The public comment period closed on
April 4, 1994. Twenty-three letters of public comment were received.
Comment letters were received from four Agreement States, seven nuclear
utilities and an extensive commentary from the Nuclear Energy Institute
(NEI) for the nuclear power industry. Two radiopharmaceutical
manufacturers, two radiation protection services firms, three
interested individuals, National Institute of Science and Technology
(NIST), the Department of Veterans Affairs, the American Iron and Steel
Institute, Continental Airlines and Columbia Gas responded to the
proposed rule request for comment.
All of the Agreement States and Continental Airlines agreed in
general with the proposed rule. The State of Texas suggested further
revision of 10 CFR 20.1801, which states ``The licensee shall secure
from unauthorized removal or access licensed materials that are stored
in unrestricted areas.'' Texas would delete the words ``in unrestricted
areas,'' arguing that materials can be stored in restricted areas as
well. The NRC agrees but because other provisions for access control to
restricted areas exist and are considered adequate to prevent
unauthorized removal of sources, this suggestion is rejected.
Columbia Gas supported the proposed rule, but questioned the
proposed wording of the training requirement in Sec. 19.12. This
commenter suggested adding the underlined words as follows: ``All
individuals who in the course of employment with a licensee or a
contractor to a licensee in which * * *.'' This suggestion is not
included because many individuals, such as INPO and NRC
representatives, often require training but are not employees or
contractors to the licensee.
Both radiopharmaceutical firms, the Department of Veterans Affairs,
the American Iron and Steel Institute, and a radiation protection
service firm questioned basing training requirements on the
``potential'' for exposure. These commenters argued that this term was
so vague that prudence would require training everyone. Each of these
commenters suggested language consistent with the monitoring
requirement in Sec. 20.1502, ``individuals likely to receive
exposure.'' In addition, the public dose limit of 100 mrem (1 mSv) in a
year was suggested by several commenters as a threshold for training.
These suggestions are incorporated into the final rule. The phrase
``likely to receive'' has been clarified in Sec. 19.12(b) and in this
statement of considerations.
NIST argued that removing the definition of ``Controlled Area''
while explicitly permitting its use in the statement of considerations,
accomplishes little. NIST stated that although 2 mrem (0.02 mSv) in any
hour is a boundary condition for the unrestricted area, the current
regulations do not make it clear that a dose greater than 2 mrem (0.02
mSv) must be a boundary condition for the restricted area. NIST also
stated that it is the public dose limit (100 mrem (1 mSv) in a year)
that distinguishes a restricted area from an unrestricted area. NIST
also stated that within the existing definition a restricted area is
any area to which access is controlled for radiological purposes. Since
the concept of a controlled area has demonstrated usefulness to certain
types of licensees and does not affect the permissible dose to a member
of the public the definition of ``Controlled Area'' is retained.
NIST objected to the proposed definition of ``Occupational dose''
on the grounds that it is vague and suggested that licensees should be
required to specifically identify those individuals subject to
occupational dose limits. NIST suggested adding a definition of a
``worker'' as someone subject to occupational dose limits. This
suggestion is not added to the final rule because licensees must
designate individuals as either occupationally exposed or members of
the public. The NRC believes that the language in the definition of
occupational dose makes it clear that only individuals designated by
the licensee are subject to occupational dose limits.
A radiation protection service firm questioned the proposed
definition of ``Occupational dose'' because it does not specify who
assigns the individuals duties. The NRC believes that it is clearly the
responsibility of licensees to control occupational dose and thus
licensees must be directly or indirectly responsible for assigning
individual duties.
This commenter also objected to deletion of the definition of
``Controlled Area'' because for many general licensees using sealed
sources such as gauges, it serves as an intermediate area
[[Page 36041]]
between restricted and unrestricted areas where dose rates might exceed
2 mrem (0.02 mSv) in any one hour but where doses would not exceed l00
mrem (1 mSv) in a year. The commenter observes that installation of
shielding and other dose reduction measures would be very costly for
these licensees.
An individual commenter suggested that before the inclusion of the
term ``Controlled Area,'' nuclear power plants had two kinds of
restricted areas, (1) inside the site boundary for effluent and public
dose control; and (2) a smaller area within the plant for occupational
radiation protection. The term ``Controlled Area'' replaced the former
and is used to control exposure to the public. This commenter suggested
that deletion of the controlled area concept would create problems with
respect to calculating effluent doses at the boundary of the smaller
restricted area because of uncertainty in the uniformity of
concentrations at distances close to the release point.
NEI supported by six nuclear utilities with comments, strongly
opposed deletion of the term ``Controlled Area.'' These commenters
contended that nuclear power plants are not having difficulty, nor is
there any confusion, with implementing the new rules. Further, nuclear
plants have extensive experience with the use of the term ``controlled
area.'' The physical plant designs at nuclear plants make it practical
to control access to controlled areas to assure compliance with public
dose limits. Finally, the existence of a controlled area in many cases
permits better control of access to restricted areas.
These commenters noted that removing the provision for controlled
areas now would require extensive and costly changes in procedures and
plant layout and would constitute a backfit. NEI estimated a cost of
from 10 to 100 thousand dollars per plant just for changing procedures
and training. Deleting controlled areas would require changing
unrestricted area boundaries. This would result in problems with
monitoring occupancy factors and calculating effluent concentrations in
close proximity to release points to monitor public dose.
NEI, NIST and five nuclear utilities objected to the proposed
criterion for training indicating that the ``potential for exposure''
language is vague. NEI estimated that this wording would add
significantly to training costs (50 percent) with no decrease in dose.
These commenters also suggested that training should be required for
anyone likely to receive in a year an occupational dose in excess of
100 mrem (1 mSv).
As a result of its analysis of public comments, the NRC has decided
that changes to the proposed rule are necessary. The definition of the
term ``Controlled Area'' is retained but licensees are reminded that
the dose limits for members of the public apply. The training
requirement is revised so that workers who are likely to receive in a
year, an occupational dose in excess of 100 mrem (1 mSv) shall receive
training.
Agreement States
The amendments apply to all NRC licensees and are considered
matters of compatibility for the Agreement States. The division
classification for the changes are: the changes in definitions in
Sec. 20.1003 and the changes in Sec. 20.2104 are considered Division I
items; the change to Sec. 19.12 is considered a Division II item; and
the addition of Sec. 20.2205 is considered a Division III item. The
proposed changes had been discussed in June 1994, with Agreement State
representatives and there was strong support for the proposed changes.
Four States commented during the comment period and supported the
proposed amendments. Subsequent to the comment period, the Organization
of Agreement States submitted a letter that, among other things,
presented that the Agreement States unanimously voted to oppose
retention of the controlled area concept in 10 CFR Part 20. One of the
primary reasons stated was because they found little value in adopting
this provision for materials licensees. The NRC has decided to retain
the definition of Controlled area, and since the designation of an area
as controlled is optional for licensees it is considered to be a
division III matter of compatibility. Use of the designation
``restricted area'' alone is sufficient to assure protection of
individuals against undue risks from exposure to radiation and
radioactive materials.
Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact: Availability
The NRC has determined under the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in Subpart A of
10 CFR Part 51, that this rule will not be a major Federal action
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and
therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required.
Changing the definition of ``Occupational dose'' to make it clear
that individual's whose assigned duties involve exposure to radiation
and radioactivity are subject to radiation protection procedures
associated with occupational exposure and that members of the public
cannot be permitted to receive doses that exceed public dose limits
just by entering a restricted area is considered a benefit with no
environmental impact. This change will have no effect on the type or
quantity of material released into the environment and, if anything,
will make it less likely for members of the public to be exposed to
more than public dose limits.
Amending the radiation protection training requirements to clarify
that they apply to individuals who are likely to receive, in a year, an
occupational dose in excess of 100 mrem (1 mSv), regardless of whether
they may or may not be within a restricted area, will result in no
impact on the environment.
Adding Sec. 20.2205 which clearly restores the requirement that
individual workers and individual members of the public are notified
that they have been exposed to radiation or radioactive material in
excess of the dose limits whenever NRC is notified, will have no impact
on the environment.
The environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact
on which this determination is based are available for inspection at
the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW. (Lower Level),
Washington, DC. Single copies of the environmental assessment and
finding of no significant impact are available from Alan K. Roecklein,
U.S. NRC, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852, (301) 415-6223.
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
This final rule does not contain a new or amended information
collection requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Existing requirements were approved by the
Office of Management and Budget, approval numbers 3150-044, 3150-0014,
3150-0005, and 3150-0006.
Regulatory Analysis
The NRC has prepared a regulatory analysis on this regulation. The
analysis examines the costs and benefits of the alternatives considered
by the NRC. The analysis is available for inspection in the NRC Public
Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC. Single
copies of the regulatory analysis are available from Alan K. Roecklein,
U.S. NRC, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852, (301) 415-6223.
[[Page 36042]]
Regulatory Flexibility Certification
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C.
605(b), the Commission certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small
entities. The amendments apply to all NRC and Agreement State
licensees. Because these amendments only clarify, restore, and conform
existing requirements to the 1991 version of Part 20, they are
considered to have no significant economic impact on any large or small
entities.
Backfit Analysis
Because 10 CFR Parts 19 and 20 apply to all NRC licensees, any
proposed changes to these parts must be evaluated to determine if these
changes constitute backfitting for reactor licensees such that the
provisions of 10 CFR 50.109, ``Backfitting,'' apply. These requirements
apply to the rule only to the extent the changes affect reactor
licensees. That evaluation follows.
The final rule consists of six changes: (1) Modification of the
training requirement contained in 10 CFR 19.12; (2) deletion of the
phrase ``in a restricted area'' contained in the definition of
occupational dose; (3) revision of the definition of ``Public dose'' so
that it applies to dose to the public from sources under the control of
the licensee; (4) revision of the definition of ``Member of the
public'' so that it includes anyone who is not receiving an
occupational dose; (5) revision of Sec. 20.2104(a) so that prior dose
must be determined for anyone who is likely to require monitoring; and
(6) retaining a requirement in Part 20 so that known overexposed
individuals receive copies of any reports of the overexposure that are
required to be submitted to the NRC.
The change to 10 CFR 19.12 is consistent with the revised
definition of occupational exposure. Because occupational dose is to be
based upon the individual's activities involving radiation and/or
radioactive materials, rather than the location of the work (e.g.,
restricted area), a conforming change in Part 19 is needed to ensure
that workers who receive an occupational dose are appropriately trained
regardless of the physical location where the work is performed. This
is also needed so that members of the public, such as delivery persons,
who occasionally enter a restricted area will not be required to
receive occupational training merely because they enter a restricted
area when their potential exposures do not exceed the 100 mrem (1 mSv)
public dose limit and their activities, therefore, would not subject
them to any significant risk.
The NRC staff believes that the impact of the change to 10 CFR Part
19.12 is negligible for 10 CFR Part 50 licensees, given that the
expected numbers of additional occupationally exposed individuals
requiring training is small relative to the number of workers already
receiving training at these facilities and compared to the number who
will no longer require training only because they enter a restricted
area. In any case requiring training of additional workers who do not
enter a restricted area but who are exposed to radiation in excess of
the 100 mrem (1 mSv) in a year is considered as providing a substantial
improvement in safety for those individuals. Since the training would
address ALARA and measures to reduce exposure, this training would
assist those workers in controlling risk. Given the overall reduction
in training and the fact that the additional trained workers will
experience a significant improvement in safety, this change is
justified under 10 CFR 50.109.
The deletion of the phrase ``in a restricted area or,'' contained
in the definition of occupational dose is to ensure that the
Commission's intent to apply the dose limits of 10 CFR 20.1301 to
members of the public regardless of their physical location, is
properly implemented. Currently, only occupationally exposed
individuals are subject to the higher occupational dose limits and just
because a member of the public is permitted entry into a restricted
area does not mean that he or she should be allowed to receive an
occupational dose and exceed the public dose limit. For this reason,
the reference to a restricted area is removed from the definition of
occupational dose.
The staff believes that designating employment and assigned duties
as criteria for determining that exposure is occupational will have
little impact on Part 50 licensed operations, other than to make it
even more unlikely that members of the public will be subject to
occupational dose limits.
Changing the definition of ``Public dose'' so that it is not
dependent on where an individual is, and so that licensees are
responsible for doses to the public only from effluents and from
sources under their control, adds no significant burden to Part 50
licensees. This change is consistent with the changes to ``Occupational
dose'' and is considered clarifying.
Revising the definition of ``Member of the public'' is conforming
with the revised definition of ``Occupational dose,'' and makes it
clear that a member of the public does not become a worker just by
entering a restricted area. This change has no significant impact on
Part 50 licensees.
The requirement to determine prior dose is changed so that the
possibility of entering a restricted or controlled area is no longer a
condition. Prior dose determination is only required if an individual
is likely to receive, in a year, an occupational dose requiring
monitoring, which is not a change. This change is considered to have
little impact on Part 50 licensees.
The addition of 10 CFR 20.2205, ``Reports to individuals of
exceeding dose limits'' is considered to be the restoration of a
previous requirement. The provisions of 10 CFR 20.409(b) required
licensees to notify an individual worker or member of the public
whenever a report to the NRC is required regarding an exposure of the
identified individual. This requirement was inadvertently omitted from
the revised standards published on May 21, 1991, (56 FR 23360).2
Although few incidents occur that involve exposure of a member of the
public in excess of dose limits, restoring this provision to Part 20
will ensure that licensees are aware of their obligation to notify
members of the public as well as workers if, and when, they are
required to submit a report to the NRC of an occurrence that identifies
that individual as having received an overexposure. If an assessment,
analysis or evaluation of an exposure incident is provided to the NRC
then it must also be provided to the identified individual.
\2\ See also 10 CFR 19.13(d) when a licensee is required to
report to the Commission any exposure of an individual to radiation
or radioactive material, the licensee must also provide the
individual a report on their exposure data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NRC believes that these changes to 10 CFR Part 20 will have
some, albeit minor, impacts on reactor licensees. Licensees who have
implemented the revised standards, or who have written procedures to do
so, will need to revise those procedures to reflect the changes.
Benefits such as simplifying the use of occupational and public dose
designation, making it clear that only workers can receive occupational
dose, relating training requirements to the likelihood of receiving
occupational exposure and ensuring that overexposed individuals are
notified, are considered by the NRC to far outweigh the impacts.
However, these benefits are qualitative in nature, and are expressed in
terms of reduced uncertainty in regulatory requirements, clarity of
regulatory intent, and consistency of regulatory approach. Thus, the
NRC believes that the modifications are not backfits.
[[Page 36043]]
List of Subjects
10 CFR Part 19
Criminal penalties, Environmental protection, Nuclear materials,
Nuclear power plants and reactors, Occupational safety and health,
Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sex
discrimination.
10 CFR Part 20
Byproduct material, Criminal penalties, Licensed material, Nuclear
materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Occupational safety and
health, Packaging and containers, Radiation protection, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Source material, Special nuclear material,
Waste treatment and disposal.
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of
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 amendments to 10 CFR parts 19 and 20.
PART 19--NOTICES, INSTRUCTIONS AND REPORTS TO WORKERS: INSPECTION
AND INVESTIGATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 19 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 53, 63, 81, 103, 104, 161, 186, 68 stat. 930,
933, 935, 936, 937, 948, 955, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as
amended, sec. 1701, 106 Stat. 2951, 2952, 2953 (42 U.S.C. 2073,
2093, 2111, 2133, 2134, 2201, 2236, 2282, 2297f); sec. 201, 88 Stat.
1242, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5841). Pub. L. 95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat.
2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851).
2. Section 19.12 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 19.12 Instruction to workers.
(a) All individuals who in the course of employment are likely to
receive in a year an occupational dose in excess of 100 mrem (1 mSv)
shall be--
(1) Kept informed of the storage, transfer, or use of radiation
and/or radioactive material;
(2) Instructed in the health protection problems associated with
exposure to radiation and/or radioactive material, in precautions or
procedures to minimize exposure, and in the purposes and functions of
protective devices employed;
(3) Instructed in, and required to observe, to the extent within
the workers control, the applicable provisions of Commission
regulations and licenses for the protection of personnel from exposure
to radiation and/or radioactive material;
(4) Instructed of their responsibility to report promptly to the
licensee any condition which may lead to or cause a violation of
Commission regulations and licenses or unnecessary exposure to
radiation and/or radioactive material;
(5) Instructed in the appropriate response to warnings made in the
event of any unusual occurrence or malfunction that may involve
exposure to radiation and/or radioactive material; and
(6) Advised as to the radiation exposure reports which workers may
request pursuant to Sec. 19.13.
(b) In determining those individuals subject to the requirements of
paragraph (a) of this section, licensees must take into consideration
assigned activities during normal and abnormal situations involving
exposure to radiation and/or radioactive material which can reasonably
be expected to occur during the life of a licensed facility. The extent
of these instructions must be commensurate with potential radiological
health protection problems present in the work place.
PART 20--STANDARDS FOR PROTECTION AGAINST RADIATION
3. The authority citation for part 20 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 53, 63, 65, 81, 103, 104, 161, 182, 186, 68
stat. 930, 933, 935, 936, 937, 948, 953, 955, as amended, sec. 1701,
106 Stat. 2951, 2952, 2953 (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, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846).
4. In Sec. 20.1003, the definitions of ``Member of the public''
``Occupational dose,'' and ``Public dose'' are revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 20.1003 Definitions.
* * * * *
Member of the public means any individual except when that
individual is receiving an occupational dose.\1\
\1\ Except as delineated in other parts of 10 CFR chapter I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Occupational dose means the dose received by an individual in the
course of employment in which the individual's assigned duties involve
exposure to radiation and/or to radioactive material from licensed and
unlicensed sources of radiation, whether in the possession of the
licensee or other person. Occupational dose does not include dose
received from background radiation, as a patient from medical
practices, from voluntary participation in medical research programs,
or as a member of the public.
* * * * *
Public dose means the dose received by a member of the public from
exposure to radiation and/or radioactive material released by a
licensee, or to any other source of radiation under the control of a
licensee. It does not include occupational dose or doses received from
background radiation, as a patient from medical practices, or from
voluntary participation in medical research programs.
* * * * *
5. In Sec. 20.2104, the introductory text of paragraph (a) is
revised to read as follows:
Sec. 20.2104 Determination of prior occupational dose.
(a) For each individual who is likely to receive in a year, an
occupational dose requiring monitoring pursuant to Sec. 20.1502 the
licensee shall--
* * * * *
6. Section 20.2205 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 20.2205 Reports to individuals of exceeding dose limits.
When a licensee is required, pursuant to the provisions of
Secs. 20.2203, 20.2204, or 20.2206, to report to the Commission any
exposure of an identified occupationally exposed individual, or an
identified member of the public, to radiation or radioactive material,
the licensee shall also provide a copy of the report submitted to the
Commission to the individual. This report must be transmitted at a time
no later than the transmittal to the Commission.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 30th day of June, 1995.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
James M. Taylor,
Executive Director for Operations.
[FR Doc. 95-17023 Filed 7-12-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P