[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