[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 213 (Wednesday, November 4, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 59662-59689]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-27366]



[[Page 59661]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part III





Department of Energy





_______________________________________________________________________



10 CFR Part 835



Occupational Radiation Protection; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 213 / Wednesday, November 4, 1998 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 59662]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 835

[Docket No.: EH-RM-96-835]
RIN 1901-AA59


Occupational Radiation Protection

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) is amending its primary 
standards for occupational radiation protection. This final rule is the 
culmination of a systematic analysis to identify the elements of a 
comprehensive radiation protection program and determine those elements 
of such a program that should be codified as DOE continues its 
transition from a system of contractually-based nuclear safety 
standards to regulatory-based requirements. The final rule codifies 
requirements previously established in DOE's contractually-based 
standards, clarifies certain issues identified during implementation of 
programs to ensure compliance with the original rule, and corrects 
minor errors.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The amendments to this regulation become effective on 
December 4, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Joel Rabovsky, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Office of Worker Protection Programs and Hazards Management, 
EH-52, 19901 Germantown Road, Germantown, MD 20874, (301) 903-2135.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background
II. Discussion of Significant Changes
III. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act
IV. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
V. Review Under Executive Order 12866
VI. Review Under Executive Order 12612
VII. Review Under Executive Order 12988
VIII. Review Under Paperwork Reduction Act
IX. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
X. Review Under Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
of 1996

I. Background

    On December 14, 1993, DOE published a final rule, 10 CFR part 835, 
``Occupational Radiation Protection'' (58 FR 65458), which established 
regulatory requirements consistent with the ``Radiation Protection 
Guidance to Federal Agencies for Occupational Exposure'' (52 FR 2822) 
(Guidance to Federal Agencies), as well as guidance issued by 
authoritative organizations, including the National Council on 
Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) and the International 
Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). Many of the codified 
requirements were previously established in DOE Order 5480.11, 
``Radiation Protection for Occupational Workers.'' In addition, DOE 
codified in 10 CFR part 835 the ``as low as is reasonably achievable'' 
(ALARA) process as the primary means of maintaining occupational 
radiation doses below regulatory limits.
    As a result of an initiative to eliminate redundant and 
unnecessarily stringent requirements, DOE conducted a systematic 
analysis to identify the elements of a comprehensive radiation 
protection program and determine those elements of such a program that 
should be codified as DOE continues its transition from a system of 
contractually-based nuclear safety standards to regulatory-based 
requirements. The systematic analysis included an evaluation of DOE's 
objectives for occupational radiation protection programs, including 
structured analyses of existing standards for similar programs, 
operational occurrences within the DOE complex, and provisions in the 
original rule. The analysis also included reviews of the requirements 
in DOE Notice 441.1, ``Radiological Protection for DOE Activities,'' 
(extended by DOE N 441.2 and 441.3) and the provisions of the ``DOE 
Radiological Control Manual'' (Manual). DOE proposed to codify 
requirements in use within the DOE complex to ensure that worker health 
and safety programs would continue to be maintained at a level 
commensurate with workplace hazards. DOE also considered approaches 
used by national and international radiation protection organizations 
and experience throughout the DOE complex in achieving compliance with 
10 CFR part 835. The systematic analysis is documented in a report 
entitled, ``Development of the 1996 Proposed Amendment to 10 CFR part 
835, Occupational Radiation Protection,'' (regulatory development 
document, November 1996) which may be viewed in the DOE Freedom of 
Information Reading Room at Room 1E-190, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, 
Washington, DC, 20585, (202) 586-6020.
    On December 23, 1996, DOE published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
that would amend 10 CFR part 835 by:
    1. Modifying the scope to explicitly exclude radioactive material 
transportation and certain activities conducted on foreign soil;
    2. Adding requirements for area posting and sealed radioactive 
source control;
    3. Adding a removable surface contamination value for tritium, to 
be used to identify the need for area posting and imposition of certain 
radioactive material controls;
    4. Expanding and clarifying provisions of the rule to address 
emergent radiation protection issues;
    5. Deleting certain provisions, as appropriate, to eliminate 
redundant and excessively stringent regulatory requirements; and
    6. Clarifying and correcting minor errors.
    As discussed in this Notice of Final Rulemaking, the final rule was 
developed in consideration of the extensive input received during two 
public hearings and through written and electronic public comments.
    The schedule for achieving compliance with the amendments to 10 CFR 
part 835 is as follows. The final rule will become effective 30 days 
following publication in the Federal Register. As provided at 
Sec. 835.101(g)(3), updated radiation protection programs (RPPs) must 
be submitted to DOE within 180 days following the effective date of the 
final rule. Changes that do not decrease the effectiveness of the RPP 
may be implemented prior to DOE approval. Changes that decrease the 
effectiveness of the RPP require DOE approval prior to implementation. 
As provided at Sec. 835.101(i), an update of the RPP shall be 
considered approved 180 days after its initial submission unless 
rejected by DOE at an earlier date. The final rule, at Sec. 835.101(f), 
requires full compliance with the regulatory changes within 180 days of 
RPP approval except for radiobioassay program accreditation required 
under Sec. 835.402(d). Because of the breadth of the joint DOE/DOE-
contractor effort needed to accomplish radiobioassay program 
accreditation, at Sec. 835.101(f) DOE has established January 1, 2002 
as the compliance date for the radiobioassay program accreditation 
requirements.

II. Discussion of Significant Changes

    The discussion of the significant changes to 10 CFR part 835 and 
the response to public comments is organized according to subpart. When 
there was more than one significant change in a subpart the significant 
changes are generally listed in order of section. The topic addressed 
by each significant change is listed. In many cases, inclusion of a 
change to the provisions in one subpart or section required changes to 
other subparts or

[[Page 59663]]

sections of the regulation either for internal consistency or to 
resolve a public comment. For example a number of changes to the 
provisions of the rule required concomitant changes to the definitions 
or recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, the discussion of a change 
may reference other subparts in addition to the one in which the 
primary change was made. This organization of the discussion of the 
significant changes to 10 CFR part 835 and the response to public 
comments was chosen to more clearly explain the changes and how DOE 
responded to the public comments.

A. General Provisions, Subpart A

1. Nuclear Explosive and Weapon Surety Program
Proposed Amendment
    DOE proposed to revise the Nuclear Explosive and Weapon Surety 
Program exclusion at Sec. 835.1(b)(3) to clearly indicate that the 
exclusion applies only to the extent that compliance with 10 CFR part 
835 would compromise the effectiveness of activities essential to 
prevention of an accidental or unauthorized detonation. This action was 
initiated to ensure that radiation protection programs are implemented 
that do not compromise the overriding goal of preventing such 
incidents.
Summary of Public Comments and Disposition
    DOE received comments indicating that this exclusion should also be 
extended to address the provisions of CG-TSS-S2, ``Transportation 
Safeguards System Classification and Unclassified Controlled 
Information Guide (Supplement),'' which states that ``The fact that a 
specific SST (Safe Secure Trailer)/SSR (Safe Secure Railcar) is loaded 
or empty is CNSI (controlled nuclear safeguards information).'' The 
commenters believe that certain posting and labeling provisions of 10 
CFR part 835 would provide indication of the loaded or empty status of 
affected vehicles, contrary to the referenced guidance. DOE believes 
that the existing exclusion already provides the flexibility needed for 
implementation of programs consistent with CG-TSS-S2. Indeed, the 
situation presented by the commenters is exactly the type of condition 
for which the exclusion is intended.
Final Rule
    After further consideration, DOE has determined that the proposed 
clarification is not needed. Ruling 1995-1 makes it clear that the 
existing language recognizes ``the paramount importance of preventing 
accidental or unauthorized nuclear detonations and ensuring that the 
requirements in (part 835) do not come into conflict with any 
activities necessary to prevent such detonation. However, [the language 
is] not intended to relieve the person responsible for a DOE nuclear 
facility or a DOE activity from complying with the requirements in 
(part 835) to the extent they do not interfere with the conduct of 
activities undertaken to prevent an accidental or unauthorized 
detonation.'' (61 FR 4212, February 5, 1996.)
2. Radioactive Material Transportation
Proposed Amendment
    DOE standards for packaging and transporting radioactive material 
are addressed in DOE Orders. DOE Orders 460.1A, ``Packaging and 
Transportation Safety,'' and 460.2, ``Departmental Materials 
Transportation and Packaging Management,'' provide DOE requirements for 
packaging and transportation of radioactive material. Requirements for 
radioactive material transported under DOE's national security mission 
are provided in DOE Order 5610.12, ``Packaging and Off-site 
Transportation of Nuclear Components and Special Assemblies Associated 
with the Nuclear Explosive and Weapon Safety Program,'' and DOE Order 
5610.14, ``Transportation Safeguards System Program Operations.'' The 
requirements of these Orders are consistent with Department of 
Transportation (DOT) regulatory requirements and provide the framework 
for ensuring transportation safety. Certain provisions of 10 CFR part 
835 complement these transportation safety directives by ensuring that 
individuals are afforded an adequate level of radiation protection 
while preparing radioactive materials for transportation and taking 
possession of radioactive material from transportation.
    Although the absence of provisions pertaining to radioactive 
material transportation was addressed in the preamble for the original 
Rulemaking (58 FR 65465), DOE did not explicitly exclude radioactive 
material transportation from the scope of 10 CFR part 835. Consistent 
with its original intent as expressed in the preamble of the final 
rule, DOE proposed an exclusion at Sec. 835.1(b)(4) for radioactive 
material transportation conducted in accordance with applicable DOE 
Orders. DOE also proposed a definition of ``radioactive material 
transportation'' at Sec. 835.2(a) to clarify the distinction between 
the process of transporting radioactive materials, which would be 
excluded from 10 CFR part 835, and those activities leading to or 
resulting from radioactive material transportation, which would be 
subject to 10 CFR part 835. The proposed definition included a 
specified threshold (specific activity) consistent with DOT 
requirements at 49 CFR 171-179.
Summary of Public Comments and Disposition
    Public comments supported DOE's intent to exclude radioactive 
material transportation, but indicated that the proposed approach did 
not clearly establish the interface between 10 CFR part 835 and 
applicable transportation requirements. Other comments indicated that 
the term ``specific activity'' in the proposed Sec. 835.2(a) definition 
of the term ``radioactive material transportation'' could be 
misconstrued, potentially resulting in non-compliant conditions.
Final Rule
    The final rule clearly establishes the interface between the 
occupational radiation protection and transportation requirements. This 
approach makes it clear that 10 CFR part 835 does not apply to the 
radioactive material transportation, which is defined to be movement of 
radioactive material that is subject to DOE Orders or DOT regulations. 
The definition of radioactive material transportation is independent of 
the geographical location of the material being transported (i.e., 
inside or outside of the area controlled by DOE) and also independent 
of the radiological characteristics (e.g., specific activity) of the 
material in question. As a result of this revised approach, DOE has not 
included the term ``specific activity'' in the Sec. 835.2(a) definition 
of the term ``radioactive material transportation.''
3. DOE Activities Conducted on Foreign Soil
Proposed Amendment
    DOE proposed to add an exclusion at Sec. 835.1(b)(5) for DOE 
activities conducted on foreign soil and under requirements agreed to 
between the foreign government and the United States. DOE proposed this 
exclusion in recognition of the primacy of foreign governments' 
occupational radiation protection requirements.
Summary of Public Comments and Disposition
    Several commenters indicated that the development and approval of 
agreements with foreign governments may require action by the State 
Department and that DOE contractors could not take independent actions 
to

[[Page 59664]]

ensure that appropriate agreements have been reached. However, DOE 
activities, including those performed on foreign soil, are conducted 
under the cognizance of the responsible DOE Program Office and these 
offices are responsible for ensuring that such agreements are in effect 
before authorizing the conduct of the activities. The only action 
required of the DOE contractor will be to ensure that the DOE Program 
Office has established, or verified the establishment of, the 
appropriate agreements. Also, the activity is not excluded unless there 
are occupational radiation protection requirements agreed upon.
Final Rule
    The final rule includes the exclusion for DOE activities conducted 
on foreign soil at Sec. 835.1(b)(5).
4. Applicability of Occupational Dose Received From Excluded Activities
Proposed Amendment
    At Secs. 835.1(c), 835.202(a), and 835.202(b), DOE proposed changes 
to clarify the requirements for accounting for occupational doses 
received from non-DOE activities. The proposed amendment indicated 
that, even though certain activities are excluded from the scope of the 
rule at Sec. 835.1(b), an individual's occupational dose resulting from 
excluded activities would be applied toward determination of compliance 
with the occupational dose limits established in subpart C of 10 CFR 
part 835. This is necessary to ensure that an individual's annual 
aggregate occupational dose is maintained below the limits specified in 
the Federal Guidance. This would include occupational doses received 
from activities licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and 
its agreement states, activities conducted under the authority of the 
Director, Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program, activities conducted under 
the Nuclear Explosive and Weapon Surety Program, radioactive material 
transportation activities, and activities conducted under the auspices 
of foreign governments. However, radiation doses received from 
background radiation, as a patient for the purposes of medical 
diagnosis or therapy, and from participation as a subject in medical 
research programs are not considered occupational doses and would not 
be considered in determining compliance with the occupational dose 
limits. Furthermore, occupational dose received as a result of 
authorized emergency exposures and planned special exposures, although 
occupational in nature, would not be considered in determining 
compliance with the dose limits established at Sec. 835.202(a).
Summary of Public Comments and Disposition
    Commenters generally supported this clarification of DOE policy.
Final Rule
    The final rule adopts the proposed clarification that all 
occupational doses, other than doses resulting from authorized 
emergency exposures and planned special exposures, shall be considered 
in determining compliance with the limits set forth in Secs. 835.202, 
and 835.207. Section Sec. 835.206, Limits for the embryo/fetus, was 
included in this provision for consistency and completeness. Because 
Sec. 835.1302 establishes the appropriate criteria for authorizing 
exposures under emergency conditions, DOE has instituted an editorial 
change to reference this section. Procedures for handling doses 
resulting from authorized emergency exposures and planned special 
exposures are discussed in Section II.C of this Notice of Final 
Rulemaking, ``Limitation of Individual Doses.''
5. Definitions
    DOE proposed to add, revise, or remove the definitions of a number 
of terms that appear at Sec. 835.2(a) and (b) as follows:
    a. Adding definitions of the terms ``accountable sealed radioactive 
source,'' ``derived air concentration-hour,'' ``occupational dose,'' 
``radioactive material area,'' ``radioactive material transportation,'' 
``radiological control technician,'' ``real time air monitoring,'' 
``respiratory protective device,'' ``sealed radioactive source,'' 
``source leak test,'' and ``week.''
    b. Revising the definitions of the terms ``airborne radioactive 
material or airborne radioactivity,'' ``airborne radioactivity area,'' 
``contamination area,'' ``controlled area,'' ``DOE activity,'' ``high 
contamination area,'' ``member of the public,'' ``monitoring,'' 
``radiological area,'' ``year,'' ``committed dose equivalent,'' 
``cumulative total effective dose equivalent,'' ``effective dose 
equivalent,'' ``external dose or exposure,'' ``internal dose or 
exposure,'' ``quality factor,'' ``total effective dose equivalent,'' 
and ``weighting factor.''
    c. Removing the definitions of the terms ``ambient air,'' 
``continuous air monitor,'' ``collective dose,'' and ``occupational 
exposure.''
    The effects of these proposed changes, significant public comments 
on these proposed changes, and any resulting changes are discussed in 
this Notice of Final Rulemaking as these terms appear in the final 
rule.
6. Intervals Between Required Activities
Proposed Rule
    DOE proposed to revise the required intervals for internal audits, 
instrument and equipment calibration and maintenance, and radiation 
safety retraining from the specified number of years to the equivalent 
number of months. This change was proposed to eliminate any confusion 
resulting from the Sec. 835.2(a) definition of the term ``year,'' which 
specifically defined the year in terms necessary to ensure compliance 
with the subpart C dose limits.
Summary of Public Comments and Disposition
    DOE received a number of comments indicating that the required 
intervals appeared to be somewhat arbitrary and should therefore 
include some degree of flexibility to accommodate operational and 
scheduling needs. DOE agrees with these observations.
Final Rule
    DOE has included a provision at Sec. 835.3(e) that will allow a 30 
day automatic extension in the required time interval to accommodate 
operational and scheduling constraints. The extension is considered to 
be automatic in that there is no requirement to obtain DOE or other 
approval for the extension. This provision addresses the requirements 
of Secs. 835.102, 835.901, and 835.1202 for internal audits, radiation 
safety training, and sealed radioactive source inventories and leak 
tests, respectively. Because of the varying lengths of the calendar 
months, DOE has not provided a definition of the term ``month.'' DOE 
expects that those entities responsible for ensuring compliance with 10 
CFR part 835 will undertake those measures necessary to perform the 
required activities within the prescribed time frame (i.e., if a sealed 
radioactive source is leak tested on January 15, DOE would expect the 
subsequent leak test to be performed on or before July 15 of the same 
year). When operational or scheduling considerations preclude adherence 
to that schedule, then one may consider utilization of the 30 day 
extension (i.e., the leak test could be performed no later than August 
14 of the same year).

[[Page 59665]]

7. Radiological Units
Proposed Amendment
    DOE proposed to delete the Sec. 835.4 prohibition on use of the 
international (SI) radiological units. The international system of 
radiological units is commonly used for calculational and reference 
purposes. As proposed, Sec. 835.4 would continue to require the use of 
the special radiological units in required records. Consistent with its 
historical endorsement of the special units and in recognition of the 
capabilities of many commercially-available instruments in use 
throughout the DOE complex, DOE also proposed to specifically allow for 
use of subunits and multiples of the unit ``roentgen.''
Summary of Public Comments and Disposition
    Although some comments indicated that DOE should proceed toward use 
of the SI units for required records, DOE believes that considerations 
of consistency with records required by the NRC and its agreement 
states override the impetus toward use of SI units.
Final Rule
    As proposed, Sec. 835.4 of the final rule allows the use of the 
international system of units for calculations or reference purposes. 
Records required by 10 CFR part 835 will continue to be maintained 
using the special radiological units of curie, rad, roentgen, and rem.

B. Management and Administrative Requirements, Subpart B

1. Documented Radiation Protection Programs
Proposed Rule
    Paragraph 835.101(g) of the original rule requires that those 
entities subject to the requirements of 10 CFR part 835 submit an 
update of the documented radiation protection program (RPP) within 180 
days of the effective date of any regulatory modifications. DOE 
proposed to establish provisions at Sec. 835.101(f) requiring 
compliance with amendments to 10 CFR part 835 no later than 180 days 
following approval of the updated RPP, except for the provisions of 
Sec. 835.402(d) for radiobioassay program accreditation. Because of the 
extent of the joint DOE/DOE contractor effort necessary to complete the 
radiobioassay program accreditations, DOE proposed a compliance date of 
January 1, 2000 for this provision. DOE also proposed to delete 
outdated provisions codified at Sec. 835.101 (f) and (g).
Summary of Public Comments and Disposition
    Several commenters indicated that DOE's proposed compliance date of 
January 1, 2000 for radiobioassay program accreditation may be 
inappropriate due to the lack of experience in implementing the 
accreditation program. Other comments indicated that DOE delays in 
implementing the program might result in a state of non-compliance for 
DOE-contractors. DOE agrees that more time may be necessary to complete 
the required program accreditations.
Final Rule
    DOE has codified the proposed 180 day period for achieving 
compliance with the amendments to 10 CFR part 835, except for the 
radiobioassay program accreditation requirements of Sec. 835.402(d). 
DOE has extended the date for compliance with the radiobioassay program 
accreditation requirements until January 1, 2002 to accommodate the 
planned schedule to complete program accreditations throughout the DOE 
complex. DOE expects this extension to provide ample time for 
completion of the program accreditations. Should significant delays 
occur in performing the program accreditations, DOE could exercise 
appropriate enforcement discretion. These changes will not affect the 
compliance status of personnel dosimetry programs currently accredited, 
or excepted from accreditation, under the existing Department of Energy 
Laboratory Accreditation Program (DOELAP) standards.
    DOE has deleted the outdated provisions of Sec. 835.101 (f) and (g) 
as proposed.
2. Education and Training of Cognizant Individuals
Proposed Amendment
    To address a number of shortcomings in its provisions for training 
radiological control technicians identified during its systematic 
analysis, DOE proposed to codify a definition of ``radiological control 
technician'' at Sec. 835.2(a). DOE also solicited comments on four 
alternative approaches that were discussed in the preamble of the 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
Summary of Public Comments and Disposition
    Public comments indicated that DOE's proposed definition of the 
term ``radiological control technician'' did not adequately describe 
the roles and responsibilities of individuals filling this position. 
DOE received comments endorsing each of the proposed alternative 
approaches, with the majority of the comments endorsing Alternative 
Approach 4 as discussed in the preamble of DOE's Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking.
Final Rule
    To satisfy its programmatic objectives for occupational radiation 
protection programs, DOE has codified an approach consistent with that 
discussed as Alternative Approach 4 in its Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking. Under this approach, DOE has eliminated the specific 
requirements for radiological control technician training from subpart 
J of 10 CFR part 835 and added at Sec. 835.103 a requirement for all 
individuals responsible for ensuring compliance with the rule to have 
the appropriate education, training, and skills. This approach provides 
the flexibility necessary to address the wide range of individuals 
involved in developing and implementing measures necessary for ensuring 
compliance with 10 CFR part 835, including cognizant managers, 
supervisors, auditors, engineers, clerks, and technicians.
3. Written Procedures
Proposed Rule
    In its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, DOE noted that the existing 
rule did not establish requirements for written procedures that 
consistently addressed the hazards associated with the specified 
activity. DOE believes that, due to the wide variation of radiological 
activities and their associated hazards conducted at DOE facilities, 
requiring written procedures for specific types of activities may 
divert resources from active management of higher-hazard activities to 
administrative control of lower-hazard activities. DOE discussed two 
alternative approaches in its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 
Alternative Approach 1 would eliminate most or all of the requirements 
for written procedures and leave the determination of the need for 
written procedures to the cognizant DOE Program Office. Alternative 
Approach 2 would eliminate most or all of the existing requirements for 
written procedures in favor of a general requirement that written 
procedures be developed and implemented commensurate with the 
radiological hazards created by the activity and consistent with the 
education, training, and skills of the affected individuals.

[[Page 59666]]

Summary of Public Comments and Disposition
    Public comments overwhelmingly favored Alternative Approach 2. 
Commenters indicated that this approach would provide for an 
appropriate level of radiological safety while providing the 
flexibility needed to address the wide range of DOE activities. DOE 
agrees with the public comments.
Final Rule
    DOE has established a requirement at Sec. 835.104 consistent with 
that described as Alternative Approach 2 in its Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking. As a result of this change, DOE has deleted specific 
requirements for written procedures from Secs. 835.501(d), 835.1001(a), 
835.1001(b), 835.1003(a), 835.1101(c), and 835.1102(c)(3) (formerly 
835.404(d)). In addition, proposed requirements for written procedures 
at Secs. 835.405(f) and 835.1201(a) were omitted from the final rule.
    DOE's adoption of this approach is not intended to imply a global 
requirement that written procedures be developed and implemented to 
address all of the requirements of 10 CFR part 835. In evaluating the 
need for written procedures addressing any particular provision of 10 
CFR part 835, consideration must be given to the nature and extent of 
the radiological hazards, the complexity of the measures necessary to 
achieve compliance, and the education, training and skills of the 
individuals who must implement those measures. Under such a regimen, a 
low hazard activity employing a stable staff of highly educated and 
skilled workers having an advanced knowledge of radiation protection 
principles and practices could have fewer and less detailed procedures 
than a higher hazard activity employing a transient force of workers 
with less knowledge of radiation protection principles and practices. 
The adequacy of the written procedures is ultimately determined by the 
appropriate implementation of the necessary compliance measures by the 
affected individuals.
    Because the scope of subpart B of 10 CFR part 835 has been 
expanded, DOE has changed the title of this subpart to ``Management and 
Administrative Requirements.''

C. Limitation of Individual Doses, Subpart C

1. Summing of Internal and External Doses
Proposed Amendment
    DOE proposed to revise Sec. 835.203(a) to provide flexibility in 
requirements for summing of individual internal and external dose 
equivalents to determine the total effective dose equivalent. As 
proposed, Sec. 835.203(a) would require summing only when the 
individual was monitored in accordance with Sec. 835.402 (that is, when 
the individual's dose was likely to exceed the mandatory individual 
monitoring thresholds) or when the individual's dose exceeded the 
mandatory monitoring thresholds, regardless of a priori expectations.
    DOE also proposed to delete Sec. 835.203(c) because this provision 
is redundant with provisions included in the Sec. 835.2(b) definition 
of the term ``weighting factor.''
Summary of Public Comments and Disposition
    DOE received comments indicating that all monitored individual 
internal and external doses should be summed to determine the total 
effective dose equivalent. Commenters noted that these data were 
available and could be important in future dose reconstruction or 
litigation efforts. DOE agrees with these comments. Although DOE is 
concerned about the administrative burden associated with the need to 
sum trivial internal and external doses, DOE has provided ample 
flexibility for ameliorating such burdens through codification of the 
individual monitoring thresholds provided at Sec. 835.402.
Final Rule
    DOE has omitted the proposed change from Sec. 835.203(a), but 
deleted the second sentence of Sec. 835.203(a) because this sentence is 
redundant with provisions included in the definition of the term 
``effective dose equivalent'' at Sec. 835.2(b). DOE has deleted 
Sec. 835.203(c), as proposed.
2. Planned Special Exposures
Proposed Amendment
    DOE proposed changes to the 10 CFR part 835 requirements for 
conducting planned special exposures in excess of the dose limits 
established at Sec. 835.202. The proposed changes included:
    a. Changing the Sec. 835.204(a)(1) reference from 
Sec. 835.202(a)(1) to Sec. 835.202(a) to indicate that all of the 
Sec. 835.202 dose limits apply.
    b. Revising Sec. 835.204(c) to indicate that doses resulting from 
planned special exposures may exceed the numerical values established 
at Sec. 835.202(a) without actually exceeding the occupational dose 
limits.
    c. Clarifying documentation requirements for planned special 
exposures at Sec. 835.204(d).

    DOE also solicited comments on the possibility of deleting the 
provisions for planned special exposures because these provisions have 
not been used to date.
Summary of Public Comments and Disposition
    Commenters generally supported the proposed changes to the 
provisions for planned special exposures. Many commenters indicated 
that the provisions for planned special exposures should be retained to 
provide the maximum practical degree of flexibility.
Final Rule
    Consistent with the comments received, DOE has retained the 
provisions for planned special exposures, with the proposed revisions, 
in the final rule.
3. Radiation Dose Limits
Proposed Amendment
    DOE proposed editorial changes to Sec. 835.207 and the heading of 
that section to clarify that the dose limits for minors apply to doses 
resulting from occupational exposure only. DOE also proposed to add 
deterministic dose limits for minors consistent with the Federal 
Guidance. Non-occupational exposure of minors is subject to the dose 
limits established at Sec. 835.208 for members of the public entering a 
controlled area. DOE also proposed changes to Sec. 835.208 to clarify 
that the member of the public dose limit applies to members of the 
public in the controlled area only. DOE proposed to revise the 
definition of ``member of the public'' at Sec. 835.2(a) to clearly 
distinguish members of the public from temporary or transient workers 
or visiting scientists who could receive occupational doses.
    DOE proposed to revise the definition of ``cumulative total 
effective dose equivalent'' (CTEDE) at Sec. 835.2(b) to include all 
total effective dose equivalent (TEDE) values, where available, from 
January 1, 1989, whether or not the dose was received at that DOE site 
or facility.
Summary of Public Comments and Disposition
    Several commenters questioned DOE's proposed approach to 
controlling doses to minors, pointing out that a minor could possibly 
receive 0.1 rem in a year occupational dose and 0.1 rem in a year as a 
member of the public. Although this scenario is possible, the resulting 
maximum dose is well below the most recent recommendations of 
scientific bodies for exposures that do not occur repeatedly.

[[Page 59667]]

    DOE did not receive any substantive comments on the proposed change 
to the definition of the term ``cumulative total effective dose 
equivalent.''
Final Rule
    DOE has adopted the changes, essentially as proposed. DOE has also 
made editorial changes to Secs. 835.207 and 835.208 for clarity. These 
changes include omitting, in Sec. 835.207, the proposed occupational 
dose limit for minors of 10% of the Sec. 835.202(a)(2) limit. This 
limit is redundant because the 0.1 rem total effective dose equivalent 
limit for minors is always more restrictive.
4. Exposures to Airborne Radionuclides
Proposed Amendment
    DOE proposed to delete Sec. 835.209(b) because of redundancy with 
other rule requirements for inhalation exposures and external exposures 
from airborne radionuclides.
Summary of Public Comments and Disposition
    DOE did not receive any substantive comments on the proposed 
deletion.
Final Rule
    DOE has deleted Sec. 835.209(b) and redesignated Sec. 835.209(c) as 
Sec. 835.209(b). In addition, DOE has initiated an editorial change by 
deleting the word ``representative'' from Sec. 835.209(c)(3) 
(redesignated as Sec. 835.209(b)(3)). This word was redundant with the 
remaining requirement that the internal dose estimate based upon air 
concentration values must be as or more accurate than that based upon 
bioassay results.

D. Monitoring of Individuals and Areas, Subpart E

1. General Requirements for Area and Individual Monitoring
Proposed Amendment
    In reviewing the requirements of 10 CFR part 835, DOE noted that 
the terms ``monitoring'' and ``survey'' were not used consistent with 
the definitions provided at Sec. 835.2(a). DOE proposed changes to the 
definition of the term ``monitoring'' at Sec. 835.2(a) to clearly 
establish that ``monitoring'' involves measurement of radiological 
conditions and the subsequent use of the results of these measurements 
to evaluate potential and actual exposures to ionizing radiation. As 
proposed, the term ``survey,'' would be more directly related to the 
assessment of workplace or material radiological conditions through 
direct measurement, assessment, or calculation for the purposes of 
hazards assessment. DOE proposed changes throughout the rule to ensure 
consistent application of these terms.
    DOE proposed to clarify the requirements of Secs. 835.401(c) and 
835.703(d) by making the calibration requirements apply to both 
``instruments'' and ``equipment.'' This clarification is consistent 
with current field practice with regard to equipment, such as an air 
sampler, that, although incorporated into or associated with 
instrumentation systems, does not have any instrumentation.
Summary of Public Comments and Disposition
    DOE received a number of comments supporting its attempt to clarify 
the ``monitoring'' and ``surveying'' terminology. However, comments 
indicated that the usage of these terms remained inconsistent.
    With regard to the proposed Sec. 835.401(c) requirements for 
calibration and maintenance of instruments and equipment, DOE received 
a number of comments indicating that the required one year calibration 
frequency was overly stringent given the reliability of many modern 
instruments, particularly certain fixed monitors. Other commenters 
indicated that the term ``equipment'' could conceivably be extended to 
include vehicles, calculators, and other equipment routinely used in 
the course of area monitoring.
    Commenters indicated that the use of the undefined term 
``workplace'' in this subpart could result in confusion regarding the 
scope of the requirements. Commenters also indicated that the use of 
the term ``area monitoring'' at Sec. 835.401(b) seemed to imply that 
stationary area monitors were required under certain conditions.
Final Rule
    DOE has determined that, for regulatory purposes as established in 
10 CFR part 835, there is no substantive difference between the uses of 
the terms ``monitoring'' and ``survey.'' Therefore, in the final rule 
DOE has revised the definition of the term ``monitoring'' and deleted 
the term ``survey,'' replacing this term with ``monitoring'' (as 
modified) throughout the rule. DOE has also deleted the undefined terms 
``sampling'' and ``measurements'' in favor of the defined term 
``monitoring.''
    DOE has deleted the term ``workplace'' from subpart E of 10 CFR 
part 835, instead adopting a performance-oriented approach of 
``monitoring of individuals and areas.'' In a related editorial change, 
DOE has deleted the term ``area monitoring'' from proposed 
Sec. 835.401(b) and redesignated the remaining text as 
Sec. 835.401(a)(6) to eliminate any connotation regarding requirements 
for stationary radiation monitors. DOE has also substituted the defined 
term ``individual'' for the undefined term ``personnel'' in this 
provision.
    In response to comments on DOE's requirements for calibration and 
maintenance of instruments and equipment, DOE has revised these 
requirements (at redesignated Sec. 835.401(b)(1)) such that calibration 
and maintenance will be required ``periodically'' on an ``established 
frequency.'' This change is consistent with NRC requirements at 10 CFR 
20.1501 and provides flexibility for acceptance of recommendations 
provided in various consensus standards accepted by the instrument 
calibration community and used within the DOE complex. DOE will provide 
guidance regarding measures for establishing appropriate maintenance 
and calibration frequencies and proper application of these 
requirements to ``equipment'' used for monitoring.
    As used in 10 CFR part 835, instruments and equipment used for 
monitoring includes devices used for both area monitoring (e.g., 
portable and installed radiation, contamination, and airborne 
radioactivity sampling and monitoring devices) and individual 
monitoring devices (e.g., thermoluminescent dosimeters, pocket ion 
chambers, track etch dosimeters, and electronic dosimeters). Note that 
the calibration of personnel dosimeters that are required under 
Sec. 835.402 is addressed by the DOELAP for personnel dosimetry.
2. Individual Monitoring and Dose Determination
Proposed Amendment
    DOE proposed several changes to the existing requirements for 
monitoring individual radiation doses. The proposed changes included:
    a. Clarifying the requirements for external and internal dose 
monitoring programs at Sec. 835.402(b) and (d) by providing that such 
programs must be capable of demonstrating compliance with all of the 
individual dose equivalent limits in subpart C. This approach is 
consistent with DOE's previously established requirements for records 
required under Sec. 835.701(a).
    b. Revising the monitoring requirements for minors at 
Sec. 835.402(a)(3) and (c)(3) to expressly state that these 
requirements apply to occupationally exposed minors only.

[[Page 59668]]

Minors who are not occupationally exposed are subject to the member of 
the public monitoring requirements found at Sec. 835.402(a)(4) and 
(c)(4).
    c. Deleting from Sec. 835.402(c)(1) the monitoring threshold based 
on organ and tissue committed dose equivalent. The monitoring threshold 
based upon committed effective dose equivalent obviates the need for 
this threshold because, through application of the weighting factors 
defined at Sec. 835.2(b), the committed effective dose equivalent 
always provides a more restrictive basis for individual monitoring.
    d. Changing Sec. 835.402(a)(1)(i) to require individual monitoring 
on the basis of deep dose equivalent rather than effective dose 
equivalent because deep dose equivalent is the parameter actually 
monitored by existing dosimetry programs.
    e. Removing provisions at Sec. 835.402(a)(1)(iv) for measuring deep 
dose equivalent from external sources to any organ or tissue other than 
the lens of the eye because any doses meeting this condition are 
adequately addressed by Sec. 835.402(a)(1)(i).
    f. Clarifying Sec. 835.402(a)(4) and (c)(4) to indicate that these 
provisions apply to members of the public inside the controlled area 
only.
Summary of Public Comments and Disposition
    Commenters indicated that the proposed Sec. 835.402(a)(1)(i) 
requirement for monitoring of deep dose equivalent, as worded, would 
challenge the capabilities of modern dosimetry systems. While the 
technical basis for the comments was not clear, reflection on these 
comments revealed that the wording in the proposed rule could suggest 
the basis for initiating monitoring was the highest dose received by 
any portion of the whole body. Furthermore, although deep dose 
equivalent is the quantity most commonly measured, effective dose 
equivalent is the appropriate criterion upon which the mandatory 
individual monitoring threshold should be based because the 
corresponding occupational dose limits are stated in terms of effective 
dose equivalent.
Final Rule
    DOE agrees with the public comments regarding the proposed change 
to Sec. 835.402(a)(1)(i). The language in the original version of 10 
CFR part 835 has been retained. DOE has included the other proposed 
changes in the final rule.
3. Program Accreditation
Proposed Amendment
    DOE proposed a number of enhancements and additions to the existing 
requirements for the DOELAP. These proposed changes included:
    a. Amending Sec. 835.402(b) to indicate that, except as discussed 
below, personnel dosimetry programs must be either accredited under the 
DOELAP or excepted from accreditation under that program.
    b. Amending Sec. 835.402(d) to require radiobioassay program 
accreditation or exception through the recently developed DOELAP for 
Radiobioassay. This proposed change was intended to ensure the 
integrity of radiobioassay programs and prevent recurrence of recent 
adverse events.
    c. Revising Sec. 835.402(b) and (d) to limit the scope of the 
DOELAP requirements to personnel dosimetry and radiobioassay programs 
implemented to ensure compliance with Sec. 835.402 (i.e., monitoring 
when individual doses are likely to exceed the stated thresholds). In a 
related change, because Sec. 835.401(b) addresses calibration of 
instruments and equipment used for monitoring and DOELAP for Personnel 
Dosimetry provides appropriate dosimetry system performance criteria, 
DOE proposed to delete the dosimeter calibration requirement from 
Sec. 835.402(b).
    d. Adding Sec. 835.402(e) to require that external dosimetry and 
bioassay programs conform to the most recent revisions of the DOELAP 
technical standards or be subject to review and approval of the 
Secretarial Officer responsible for environment, safety, and health 
matters (currently the Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety and 
Health). For those programs that are not accredited or excepted from 
the accreditation program, this provision would also allow this same 
officer to provide approval if the programs demonstrate performance 
equivalent to those accredited under the DOELAP. This provision would 
ensure that, to the extent practical, DOE radiation protection programs 
will reflect the latest advances in the sciences of external and 
internal dosimetry. To prevent the automatic loss of accreditation 
status as a result of changes to the DOELAP technical standards, the 
DOELAP technical standards provide that changes in the standards become 
effective only during the ensuing accreditation cycle.
Summary of Public Comments and Disposition
    Several commenters suggested that all individual dose measurements 
be performed under an accredited dosimetry program in order to maintain 
credibility of all monitoring data. However, DOE does not believe that 
is appropriate to impose regulatory accreditation requirements on 
monitoring programs that are not required by regulation. Existing 
regulatory provisions at Sec. 835.402(a) and (c) require individual 
monitoring for all individuals likely to receive a dose equivalent 
exceeding the specified thresholds. As part of a comprehensive 
radiation protection program, measures used to identify these 
individuals should include comprehensive, documented area monitoring 
and could include, if management so chooses, individual monitoring. 
Section 835.401 establishes minimum requirements for performing such 
monitoring, including requirements for calibration and maintenance of 
instruments and equipment used to perform the monitoring. As required 
by Secs. 835.701(a) and 835.703, the monitoring results must be 
documented.
    Several commenters recommended that DOE revise the rule to permit 
DOE facilities to procure the services of dosimetry processors who are 
accredited by the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program 
(NVLAP) administered through the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology, as an alternative to accreditation under the DOELAP for 
personnel dosimetry. These comments noted the NRC's regulations require 
licensees to use dosimetry processors with NVLAP accreditation. They 
argued that permitting NVLAP accreditation in lieu of DOELAP 
accreditation, would maximize private sector competition for DOE 
contracts. DOE has not accepted the commenters' recommendations because 
NVLAP accreditation does not meet DOE's requirement for an external 
dose monitoring program. DOELAP accreditation covers both the 
facility's and the processor's quality assurance program, whereas NVLAP 
only deals with the dosimetry processor. The commenter's reference to 
the NRC's use of NVLAP accreditation for dosimetry processors ignores 
the fact that NRC has the resources to perform frequent on-site 
inspections of a facility's dosimetry program. In the absence of such 
resources at DOE facilities, DOE relies upon the DOELAP accreditation 
to ensure that a facility's personnel dosimetry program provides 
accurate results.

[[Page 59669]]

    DOE received comments on its proposal to require DOELAP 
accreditation, exception from accreditation under DOELAP, or DOELAP 
equivalency, for radiobioassay programs that would satisfy the internal 
dose monitoring program requirement in the rule. The commenters argued 
that it would be premature to impose this requirement because DOE has 
not completed the process for developing accreditation standards for 
radiobioassay programs. As discussed in connection with Sec. 835.101, 
concerning the effective date of the rule, DOE has responded to these 
concerns by extending the deadline for complying with this provision to 
January 1, 2002. In any event, Sec. 835.402(d) provides for Secretarial 
Officer approval of radiobioassay programs that are not accredited 
under DOELAP.
    Several commenters objected to proposed Sec. 835.402(e), which 
would have required Secretarial Officer approval of personnel dosimetry 
and radiobioassay programs that do not comply with the latest edition 
of DOE's technical standards governing program accreditation. They 
argued that incorporation by reference of the technical standards was 
inappropriate because the requirements in the technical standards had 
not been proposed for public comment in a rulemaking. In light of these 
comments, DOE has deleted the reference to DOE's technical standards 
for accreditation in the regulatory text of the final rule. DOE does 
not intend to codify the accreditation standards through this 
rulemaking. DOE technical standards are guidance documents to assist 
contractors in implementing regulatory requirements. As a matter of 
policy (DOE P 450.2A, May 15, 1996), DOE routinely seeks public 
comments on guidance documents issued to implement environment, safety 
and health requirements at DOE sites. On April 24, 1997, DOE published 
a notice of availability of draft guides and technical standards for 
the Occupational Radiation Protection Program (62 FR 19940). At that 
time, DOE invited public comment on draft technical standard, 
``Department of Energy Laboratory Accreditation Program 
Administration,'' which includes requirements for personnel dosimetry 
and radiobioassay program accreditation. The revised regulatory 
provisions will accomplish DOE's purpose of providing that programs 
which DOE accredits, or excepts from accreditation, under DOELAP will 
satisfy the requirements in this rule for programs that are implemented 
to demonstrate compliance with Sec. 835.402(a) and (c). Accreditation 
under DOELAP will obviate the need for contractors to secure approval 
of the Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety and Health.
Final Rule
    In the final rule DOE has revised Sec. 835.402(b) and (d) to 
provide that contractors may demonstrate the adequacy of external and 
internal dose monitoring programs, respectively, by submitting their 
programs to the Secretarial Officer responsible for environment, safety 
and health for approval in lieu of accreditation or exception from 
accreditation under the DOELAP. Alternative programs will be approved 
if their performance is demonstrated to be substantially equivalent to 
that of accredited programs. This change makes unnecessary, and DOE has 
deleted, proposed Sec. 835.402(e), which would have required 
Secretarial Officer approval of programs not complying with the latest 
edition of the technical standards for DOELAP accreditation.
    DOE has adopted the other changes as proposed, with minor editorial 
corrections.
4. Air Monitoring
Proposed Amendment
    DOE proposed to revise the Sec. 835.403(a)(1) air sampling 
requirement to be based on potential individual exposures in derived 
air concentration (DAC)-hours in a year rather than a percentage of the 
annual limit on intake (ALI) because the values provided in appendices 
A and C of 10 CFR part 835 are listed as DACs. DOE proposed to add 
Sec. 835.403(a)(2) to require that air sampling be performed when 
respiratory protective devices are prescribed to protect individuals 
from exposure to airborne radionuclides. DOE also proposed an editorial 
change to delete Sec. 835.403(b), eliminating redundancy with 
Sec. 835.401(b).
    To enhance air monitoring programs, DOE proposed to provide more 
practical and technically accurate criteria at Sec. 835.403 for the use 
of real-time air monitors based on potential releases that would exceed 
a defined threshold exposure levels of 40 DAC-hours in a week. In a 
related change, DOE proposed to replace the term ``continuous air 
monitor'' with the term ``real-time air monitor'' with supporting 
changes to the definitions provided at Sec. 835.2(a). DOE also proposed 
to add a definition of the term ``week'' at Sec. 835.2(a).
Summary of Public Comments and Disposition
    DOE received a number of comments indicating that the proposed 
revision of the requirements for real-time air monitoring was unclear 
and did not acknowledge the actual capabilities of available monitors. 
Other commenters indicated that the proposed definition of the term 
``week,'' based upon a period beginning on Monday, might cause 
unnecessary changes in existing schedules for real-time air monitor 
filter changes. Several commenters indicated that the proposed 
provisions for air sampling when respiratory protective devices are 
prescribed could be construed to mean that an air sample must be taken 
each time an individual enters an area wearing a respiratory protective 
device.
    DOE received comments indicating that the existing criterion based 
upon the percentage of an ALI was more appropriate for prospective 
establishment of air monitoring programs. DAC-hours are related to the 
fraction of an ALI in a consistent and fixed manner; therefore, 
potential exposures in units of DAC-hours are an appropriate basis for 
prospectively determining the need for air sampling.
Final Rule
    As suggested through public comments, DOE clarified the mandatory 
airborne radioactivity monitoring criteria in the final rule. Section 
835.403(a) of the final rule requires the implementation of air 
sampling programs in areas in which an individual is expected to be 
exposed in excess of 40 DAC-hours in a year. The final rule clarifies 
that airborne radioactivity monitoring during use of respiratory 
protective equipment is required ``as necessary'' to characterize the 
hazard. This provision is consistent with requirements imposed by both 
the NRC and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) 
(see 10 CFR 20.1703(a)(3), ``Use of individual respiratory protection 
equipment,'' and 29 CFR part 1910, ``Occupational Safety and Health 
Standards,'' Sec. 1910.134(d)(1)(iii), respectively).
    The Sec. 835.403(b) criterion for real-time air monitoring is based 
upon the need to alert potentially exposed individuals of the need for 
action to reduce or terminate exposures to airborne radioactive 
material. This approach provides more flexibility for implementation on 
a site-and facility-specific basis, taking into account realistic event 
scenarios, source terms, and instrument capabilities. This requirement 
acknowledges the wide

[[Page 59670]]

variety of configurations and hazards associated with DOE activities 
and the limitations of currently available real-time air monitoring 
equipment. DOE's implementing guidance provides an acceptable approach 
for achieving compliance with this provision. The restructuring of the 
requirements for real-time air monitoring rendered proposed 
Sec. 835.403(c) redundant; DOE has therefore deleted this provision.
    In support of the revised provisions, Sec. 835.2(a) provides 
definitions for the terms ``derived air concentration-hour (DAC-
hour),'' ``real-time air monitoring,'' ``respiratory protective 
device,'' and ``week'' which are used at Sec. 835.403. In consideration 
of public comments, DOE has revised the proposed definition of the term 
``week'' to omit a mandatory starting day. In addition, DOE has deleted 
the definitions of ``ambient air'' and ``continuous air monitor'' 
because these terms are no longer used in 10 CFR part 835.
5. Contamination Monitoring
    In consideration of public comments received, DOE has revised the 
Sec. 835.404 requirements for contamination monitoring and control and 
moved these requirements to Sec. 835.1102. The proposed changes, public 
comments, and final rule provisions are discussed in full in Section 
II.J of this Notice of Final Rulemaking.
6. Receipt of Packages of Radioactive Material
Proposed Amendment
    DOE proposed to add requirements at Sec. 835.405 for surveys of 
packages of radioactive material received from radioactive material 
transportation to ensure adequate protection is provided to 
individuals, including warehouse and office workers, who may be exposed 
to these materials. The proposed provisions included requirements for 
taking possession of radioactive material packages from transport and 
performing surveys of these packages. At 835.405(d), DOE proposed to 
establish requirements for completion of the necessary surveys within 
three hours of receipt of the package (if received during working 
hours) or within three hours of the beginning of the following working 
day (if received after working hours). The proposed requirements are 
similar to NRC requirements at 10 CFR 20.1906.
Summary of Public Comments and Disposition
    Several commenters suggested that the time provision included in 
the proposed amendment was unnecessarily stringent. During evaluation 
and resolution of these comments, DOE determined that the nature of 
many of its sites and facilities and the stringency of the requirements 
for radioactive material transportation indicate that this observation 
is accurate.
Final Rule
    In deference to the comments received and in recognition of the 
variety of sites and facilities subject to 10 CFR part 835, DOE has 
extended the time required for monitoring packages received from 
radioactive material transportation to 8 hours after the beginning of 
the working day following the receipt of the package. In practice, the 
actual interval may also be constrained by the requirements for 
individual monitoring and radiation safety training at Secs. 835.402 
and 835.901 respectively, and by the ALARA requirements at 
Sec. 835.101.
    As used in Sec. 835.405, a ``working day'' is considered to be the 
interval of time within each 24 hour period during which the building 
or area in which the received package is stored is routinely occupied 
or available for operations other than emergency activities. For 
example, if the received package is stored in a warehouse awaiting the 
required monitoring and that warehouse is occupied or accessible to 
shipping and receiving personnel, then the working day is that period 
of time within each 24 hour period during which the shipping and 
receiving personnel are scheduled to be working or to have ready access 
to the warehouse. The working day does not include periods during which 
shipping and receiving personnel would have to return to work on a non-
scheduled basis to address emergent issues requiring their attendance.

E. Entry Control Program, Subpart F

Proposed Amendment
    DOE proposed more detailed provisions for written work 
authorizations at Sec. 835.501(e) to address operational occurrences 
throughout the DOE complex. DOE also proposed to revise Sec. 835.502 to 
add measures for control of access to high radiation areas. The 
proposed control measures were consistent with those previously 
established in the Manual and included requirements for use of a 
supplemental dosimetry device and appropriate area surveys.
Summary of Public Comments and Disposition
    Commenters expressed concern that the proposed Sec. 835.501(e) 
entry control requirements were inappropriate for relatively minor 
hazards present in areas such as radiation areas. With regard to the 
proposed high radiation area access control requirements, commenters 
also indicated that devices capable of rendering an immediate 
indication of an individual's integrated dose resulting from neutron 
radiation are not commercially available. Several commenters also 
indicated that the proposed Sec. 835.502(c) requirements for control of 
access to very high radiation areas could be taken to mean that the 
required controls must be impenetrable. DOE agrees that these issues 
require clarification.
Final Rule
    Regarding low-hazard radiological areas, the final rule provides 
significant flexibility for implementation of access controls on a 
facility-and hazard-specific basis. The written authorizations required 
by 835.501(d) must specify radiation protection measures consistent 
with existing and potential hazards. DOE does not intend for this 
provision to establish a global requirement for the development and 
implementation of radiological work permits to address all entries into 
radiological areas. The written authorization may take the form of 
generally applicable procedures, as appropriate. Guidance on the use of 
written authorizations will be published in DOE's Radiological Control 
Standard. As a result of the deletion of specific requirements for 
written procedures (discussed in Section II.B.3 of this Notice of Final 
Rulemaking), DOE has redesignated proposed Sec. 835.501(e) as 
Sec. 835.501(d) in the final rule.
    To address the unavailability of devices capable of providing an 
immediate indication of an individual's dose resulting from exposure to 
neutron radiation in a high radiation area, Sec. 835.502(a)(2) allows 
for supplemental dosimeters or other means of immediately estimating or 
measuring the individuals' integrated doses during the area entry. The 
other means may include knowledge of the area exposure rates combined 
with tracking of individual access times. Consistent with the existing 
definition of the terms ``high radiation area'' and ``very high 
radiation area,'' DOE has revised the proposed requirements to indicate 
that the required devices and measures must be capable of estimating 
the affected individual's deep dose equivalent, rather than the dose 
equivalent. DOE also provided an editorial correction at 
Sec. 835.502(b)(2), substituting the defined term ``individuals'' for 
the undefined term ``personnel.''

[[Page 59671]]

    In response to public comments, DOE has clarified Sec. 835.502(c) 
to indicate that the additional controls required for very high 
radiation areas need to be sufficient to prevent ``unauthorized or 
inadvertent'' entries rather than to prohibit entry into the area.

F. Posting and Labeling, Subpart G

1. Controlled Area and Radiological Area Posting Requirements
Proposed Amendment
    DOE proposed several changes to clarify and simplify requirements 
for area hazard posting and to provide additional flexibility in 
implementing these requirements. In acknowledgment of the differing 
hazards and controls associated with removable and fixed radioactive 
contamination, DOE proposed to revise the Sec. 835.2(a) definitions of 
``contamination area'' and ``high contamination area'' to be based upon 
removable surface contamination levels only and to clearly establish 
these areas based on accessibility rather than the general reference to 
``working areas'' which appeared at Sec. 835.601(a). DOE proposed a 
similar change to the Sec. 835.2(a) definition of the term ``airborne 
radioactivity area.'' DOE also proposed to move the controlled area 
maximum dose expectation from the Sec. 835.2(a) ``controlled area'' 
definition to the Sec. 835.602(a) controlled area posting provision.
    Because radiological area terms are defined at Sec. 835.2(a), DOE 
proposed to remove redundant definitions imbedded in the posting 
provisions at Sec. 835.603. DOE also proposed to delete the requirement 
for DOE approval of warning signs from Sec. 835.601(b) because 
acceptable signs are described in DOE's implementing guidance and DOE 
did not intend to establish a formal process for approval of 
radiological postings and labels. In addition, DOE proposed to expand 
its provision at Sec. 835.601(e) (redesignated as Sec. 835.601(d) in 
the proposed amendment) allowing modification of postings and labels to 
accommodate special considerations of DOE activities involving private 
residences to also include private businesses.
    Consistent with NRC requirements published at 10 CFR 20.1902, DOE 
proposed to amend Sec. 835.603(b), (d), and (f) to allow use of the 
words ``Caution'' or ``Danger'' on postings for high radiation, high 
contamination, and airborne radioactivity areas, respectively. This 
proposed change would accommodate the wide range of radiological 
conditions that may be present in these areas to provide some degree of 
flexibility in their posting.
    Proposed Sec. 835.604(a) would create an exception from posting 
requirements for periods of less than 8 continuous hours as long as the 
radiological area is placed under continuous observation and control of 
a person able to implement the required access and exposure control 
measures. This exception would cover temporary conditions or activities 
such as maintenance, repair or cleanup activities so long as the 
absence of posting is kept to within the prescribed time and the 
prescribed control measures are implemented.
    DOE also proposed to add Sec. 835.604(b) and (c) delineating 
specific exceptions from the radiological area posting requirements of 
Sec. 835.603, recognizing that compensatory measures may be implemented 
that would obviate the need for area posting. The proposed exceptions 
are similar to those established by the NRC at 10 CFR 20.1903.
Summary of Public Comments and Disposition
    DOE received several comments indicating that the proposed 
definition of the term ``airborne radioactivity area'' should include 
an exposure-based criterion (i.e., based upon potential individual 
exposures in term of dose, percentage of an ALI, or DAC-hours) instead 
of, or in addition to, the existing criterion based upon the absolute 
airborne radioactivity concentration. DOE agrees that this issue 
requires clarification.
    Some commenters expressed support for the current 10 CFR part 835 
posting provisions based upon the identification of ``working areas.'' 
However, the term ``working areas'' is not defined and DOE does not 
believe that posting of only ``working areas'' provides adequate 
protection of individuals approaching or entering radiological areas in 
which there is no work in progress. The commenters did not provide any 
evidence that such a practice would provide for adequate protection.
    DOE received a number of comments on the proposed allowance for the 
use of ``Caution'' or ``Danger'' on certain radiological hazard warning 
signs. Commenters indicated that the terms ``Caution'' and ``Danger'' 
are not interchangeable and that the term ``Danger'' generally carries 
a connotation of greater hazard than ``Caution.'' While DOE agrees with 
these observations, DOE believes that, in the continuum of possible 
radiological conditions associated with DOE activities, the threshold 
at which ``Danger'' becomes more appropriate than ``Caution'' most 
likely lies somewhere within those conditions described in the 
Sec. 835.2(a) definitions of ``airborne radioactivity area,'' ``high 
radiation area,'' and ``high contamination area.'' Furthermore, 
individual protective actions required for entry into these areas are 
dependent upon the radiological area title, not the ``Caution'' or 
``Danger'' heading. DOE believes that the demarcation between those 
conditions requiring ``Caution'' and ``Danger'' headings is best left 
to the discretion of those responsible for individual DOE activities to 
ensure that activity-specific conditions are addressed. Therefore, DOE 
believes that it is appropriate to allow flexibility in the use of the 
``Caution'' and ``Danger'' headings for posting of high radiation, high 
contamination, and airborne radioactivity areas.
    Some commenters indicated that provisions for alternative measures 
for DOE activities conducted at private residences and businesses 
should be extended to DOE activities conducted on state- and Federally-
owned lands. However, DOE does not believe that considerations of 
individual property rights and property value impacts extend to DOE 
activities conducted on state and Federal lands. Furthermore, the great 
majority of DOE activities are conducted at state-and Federally-owned 
sites. Such an exception would negate the specific posting requirements 
for essentially all DOE activities.
    Commenters generally supported DOE's proposed exceptions to the 
radiological posting requirements. However, comments indicated that the 
proposed Sec. 835.604(c) exception for packages received from 
radioactive material transportation should not apply to damaged 
packages. DOE agrees that this issue requires specific attention.
Final Rule
    DOE has revised the Sec. 835.2(a) definition of the term ``airborne 
radioactivity area'' such that posting and control of these areas will 
be required when the airborne radioactivity concentration exceeds the 
DAC values provided in appendix A or C of 10 CFR part 835 or when an 
individual present in the area without a respiratory protective device 
could be exposed to airborne radioactive material in excess of 12 DAC-
hours in a week. This definition is similar to that provided by the NRC 
at 10 CFR 20.1003.
    DOE has codified the changes to the radiological hazard posting 
requirements as proposed. In the final rule, DOE has deleted 
Sec. 835.601(a) to eliminate redundancy. As a result, Sec. 835.601(b)--
(d) have been redesignated as Sec. 835.601(a)--(c), respectively. The 
Sec. 835.604 radiological

[[Page 59672]]

area posting exceptions do not apply to the radiological area entry 
control requirements established at Secs. 835.501 and 835.502 or to the 
radiation safety training requirements at Sec. 835.901. In response to 
public comments, DOE has restricted the scope of the posting exception 
for packages received from radioactive material transportation to those 
packages received in a non-degraded condition.
2. Radioactive Material Area Posting
Proposed Amendment
    To ensure that individuals entering controlled areas but not 
entering radiological areas are adequately protected, DOE proposed 
requirements for posting of radioactive material areas similar to the 
existing requirements of DOE N 441.1 (extended by DOE N 441.2 and DOE N 
441.3). The proposed posting requirements were based on quantities of 
radioactive materials that exceeded 10 times the threshold values 
proposed in appendix E of 10 CFR part 835 and were similar to NRC 
requirements at 10 CFR 20.1902. DOE proposed to define ``radioactive 
material area'' and include this term in the definition of 
``radiological area'' at Sec. 835.2(a) and establish requirements for 
posting radioactive material areas at Sec. 835.603(g). DOE also 
proposed exceptions to the radioactive material area posting 
requirements at Sec. 835.604(b).
Summary of Public Comments and Disposition
    DOE received numerous comments on these proposed requirements. The 
major issues included: (1) The threshold values (based on ten times the 
activity levels provided in proposed appendix E of 10 CFR part 835) 
which would require posting of radioactive material areas were overly 
restrictive; (2) the hazards present in a radioactive material area, as 
defined, did not warrant the imposition of specific entry controls and 
radiation safety training programs required for radiological areas; (3) 
posting of radioactive material areas should not be required when the 
radioactive material consists solely of activated structures or 
installed components; and (4) there is no apparent difference between 
the hazards in a controlled area and a radioactive material area, as 
defined at Sec. 835.2(a).
    DOE agrees that: (1) The proposed appendix E values, as a basis for 
defining a radioactive materials area, were somewhat restrictive; (2) 
posting of radioactive material areas should not be required when the 
material solely consists of structures or installed components which 
have been activated; and (3) the hazards present in a radioactive 
material area, as defined, are not always significantly different than 
the hazards in a controlled area and would not always warrant 
imposition of the entry controls required for the defined radiological 
areas.
Final Rule
    DOE recognizes the fact that the radiological conditions expected 
in radioactive material areas, as proposed, are less hazardous than 
those present in radiological areas as defined in the original rule. 
Accordingly, a less restrictive approach to radiological protection is 
warranted. In the final rule, DOE has omitted the term ``radioactive 
material area'' from the Sec. 835.2(a) definition of ``radiological 
area.'' Therefore, radioactive material areas will not be subject to 
the specific entry control provisions of Sec. 835.501. As a result of 
the codification of hazard-based radiation safety training requirements 
at Sec. 835.901 (discussed in Section II.H. of this Notice of Final 
Rulemaking), applicability of the radiation safety training 
requirements for entry into radioactive material areas will be subject 
to an evaluation of the activities to be performed in the area and the 
degree of actual or potential exposure to radiological hazards.
    Section 835.603(g) of the final rule requires posting of 
radioactive material areas at the entry points to accessible areas 
where there exist items or containers of radioactive material in excess 
of the revised appendix E values as published, rather than ten times 
the appendix E values, as proposed. The basis for the revised appendix 
E values is discussed in detail in Section II.K of this Notice of Final 
Rulemaking. Because of the minimal hazards present in radioactive 
material areas, DOE has omitted the allowance for the use of the 
``Danger'' heading from the Sec. 835.603(g) requirement for posting of 
radioactive material areas.
    DOE has included proposed exceptions to the radioactive material 
area posting requirement at Sec. 835.604. In response to the comments 
received, DOE has included another posting exception for areas in which 
the radioactive material consists solely of structures or installed 
components which have been activated, such as activation by exposure to 
neutron radiation or radiation incident to operation of a particle 
accelerator. DOE expects that this exception will most commonly be 
applied to building and shielding structures associated with nuclear 
reactors and particle accelerators. Note that these structures and 
components are not excepted from the radiological area posting 
requirements.
    Because the term ``radioactive material area'' has been deleted 
from the Sec. 835.2(a) definition of the term ``radiological area,'' 
DOE has revised the heading of Sec. 835.603 and the provisions of 
Sec. 835.602(a) to reflect the inclusion of the radioactive material 
area posting requirements in subpart G of 10 CFR part 835.
3. Radioactive Material Labeling
Proposed Amendment
    To augment and clarify existing requirements, DOE proposed to add 
requirements for labeling items and containers of radioactive materials 
at Sec. 835.605, with appropriate exceptions being proposed at 
Sec. 835.606. These proposed provisions are similar to those in the 
Manual and consistent with requirements imposed by the NRC at 10 CFR 
20.1904 and 20.1905.
Summary of Public Comments and Disposition
    DOE received comments indicating that, because the proposed 
labeling provisions were based upon the proposed appendix E total 
activity values, they were not adequate to ensure proper labeling of 
items having removable contamination exceeding the 10 CFR part 835 
appendix D surface radioactivity values. However, even though labeling 
of contaminated items is not explicitly required by the rule, adequate 
controls are established under Secs. 835.1101 and 835.1102 which will 
require that either labeling or equivalent measures be implemented to 
inform individuals of the contamination hazard.
    DOE also received comments on the proposed exceptions from the 
labeling requirements. Commenters indicated that exceptions should also 
be provided for nuclear weapons and their components, for inaccessible 
radioactive material, and for activated building components. DOE agrees 
with these comments.
Final Rule
    DOE has codified the proposed requirements for labeling with minor 
editorial changes. Section 835.605 requires labeling of radioactive 
items and containers of radioactive materials. Section 835.606 provides 
an exception from the labeling requirements for items and containers 
having a total activity of less than \1/10\ of the appendix E values 
rather than at the proposed appendix E values because DOE has 
reevaluated the appendix E values to address concerns regarding the 
stringency of the proposed

[[Page 59673]]

requirements for accountable sealed radioactive sources (see discussion 
in Section II.K. of this Notice of Final Rulemaking). Because 
Secs. 835.1101 and 835.1102 establish appropriate requirements for 
control of contaminated material and equipment, DOE has not included 
specific requirements for labeling of contaminated items in this 
subpart.
    In response to the comments received, DOE has revised the 
radioactive material labeling exceptions proposed at Sec. 835.606 to 
include nuclear weapons and their components and inaccessible 
radioactive material. In addition, the exception from the Sec. 835.601 
design and color specifications for labels applied to sealed 
radioactive sources, proposed at Sec. 835.1201(b), has been codified at 
Sec. 835.606(b).

G. Records and Reports, Subparts H and I

Proposed Amendment
    DOE proposed a number of changes to its requirements for records 
demonstrating compliance with 10 CFR part 835. The proposed changes 
included:
    1. Revising Secs. 835.203(a) and 835.702(b) to provide that, when 
monitoring is performed, but not required by Sec. 835.402, internal and 
external doses must be summed and records must be maintained only if 
the doses determined by the non-mandatory monitoring exceed the 
thresholds of Sec. 835.402. This proposed change was intended to reduce 
the burden of recordkeeping consistent with the recommendations in the 
Guidance to Federal Agencies.
    2. Deleting the words ``caused by contamination on the skin'' from 
Sec. 835.702(b) to ensure consistency with the referenced requirements 
at Sec. 835.205.
    3. Revising Sec. 835.702(c)(1) to provide that records must be 
sufficient to demonstrate compliance with all of the subpart C dose 
limits. This provision is consistent with Sec. 835.701(a).
    4. Deleting the requirement at Sec. 835.702(c)(4)(iii) to record 
the estimated intake associated with internal dose assessments. This 
change was necessary because determination of the individual dose 
equivalent resulting from intakes of certain radionuclides, such as 
tritium, does not require determination of the estimated intake.
    5. Revising Sec. 835.702(d) and (e) such that acceptance of written 
estimates of an individual's prior occupational dose is based upon an 
inability to obtain formal records, rather than the absence of those 
records. DOE also proposed to revise Sec. 835.702(d) consistent with 
the previously discussed clarification of the components of 
occupational dose and to reference DOE Orders for authorizing emergency 
exposures. DOE further proposed to revise Sec. 835.702(e) to indicate 
that efforts to obtain records of prior years doses were necessary only 
for those individuals monitored in accordance with Sec. 835.402.
    6. Technical and editorial changes to clarify the recordkeeping 
provisions and to ensure consistency with other changes included in 
subparts J and M. DOE also proposed to revise Sec. 835.704(d) to 
require documentation of revocations of declarations of pregnancy.
    7. Because some individuals may not have social security numbers, 
DOE proposed to revise Sec. 835.801(a) to allow for use of another 
unique identification number in reports associated with such 
individuals.
Summary of Public Comments and Disposition
    DOE received a number of comments indicating that the results of 
all individual monitoring that is performed should be recorded. DOE 
agrees that this approach has merit. Furthermore, DOE has provided 
adequate flexibility under the individual monitoring requirements of 
Sec. 835.402 to eliminate any onerous administrative burdens resulting 
from records of trivial doses.
    DOE received comments indicating that the term ``accident'' was not 
clearly defined, resulting in uncertainty about the proper application 
of the individual monitoring records requirement of Sec. 835.702(a).
    DOE received comments suggesting that the proposed change to 
Sec. 835.702(e) was not needed because, in the absence of a cumulative 
dose limit, written estimates would not serve any substantive purpose. 
DOE agrees with this observation.
Final Rule
    DOE has revised Sec. 835.702(a) to delete reference to accidents 
and to specify that records be maintained to document unplanned doses 
exceeding the monitoring thresholds of Sec. 835.402.
    In consideration of the comments received, DOE has not included the 
proposed changes to Sec. 835.702(b) in the final rule.
    Consistent with the changes to Sec. 835.1302 discussed in Section 
II.L of this Notice of Final Rulemaking, DOE has revised 
Sec. 835.702(d) to reference the emergency exposure authorization 
measures included in that section.
    DOE has also not included in the final rule the proposed change to 
Sec. 835.702(e) allowing written estimates of prior years doses. DOE 
has included the remaining changes with minor editorial corrections to 
enhance clarity.
    DOE's review of 10 CFR part 835 revealed the fact that 
Sec. 835.702(c)(2) inappropriately invoked the requirements of certain 
DOE Orders. The applicability of these Orders is established through 
DOE contractual processes. DOE has revised the text to delete this 
invocation of DOE Orders.
    Consistent with changes discussed elsewhere in this Notice of Final 
Rulemaking, DOE has revised the heading of Sec. 835.703 and language at 
Sec. 835.703(a) and (e) to eliminate the use of the term ``workplace'' 
and to reference those subparts of the rule (subparts E and L) that 
establish monitoring requirements.
    Because individuals generally do not record the results of 
contamination monitoring upon exiting contamination and high 
contamination areas and there is little perceived value in maintaining 
such records, DOE has clarified Sec. 835.703(a) to permit such a 
practice. In consideration of comments on the specificity of the 
proposed Sec. 835.703(c) recordkeeping provisions, DOE has not included 
the second portion of proposed Sec. 835.703(c) regarding informational 
content of these records in the final rule. DOE has revised the 
recordkeeping requirements of Sec. 835.703(d) consistent with the 
changes made to Sec. 835.401.
    In recognition of the need to record the estimated date of 
conception for a declared pregnant worker (in order to determine 
compliance with the applicable dose limit for the embryo/fetus), DOE 
has clearly stated this as a requirement at Sec. 835.704(d). Also, 
consistent with the changes made at Sec. 835.401, DOE has deleted the 
term ``workplace'' from Sec. 835.704(e).

H. Radiation Safety Training, Subpart J

1. Training Course Content and Administration
Proposed Amendment
    When 10 CFR part 835 was originally developed, the detailed 
radiation safety training requirements provided in the Manual obviated 
the need to specify minimum training course content in the rule. 
Because the Manual is no longer mandatory, DOE proposed to specify 
minimum training course content at Sec. 835.901(b). Also at 
Sec. 835.901(b), DOE proposed requirements that would allow more 
liberal acceptance of an individual's previous radiation safety 
training.
    DOE proposed to further consolidate and simplify its requirements 
for

[[Page 59674]]

radiation safety training. Under the proposed amendment, the level of 
training required would be based upon the areas entered by the 
individual unescorted, the activities performed, and the likely doses, 
rather than the individual's classification as a member of the public, 
general employee, or radiological worker. Implementation of this 
hierarchical approach to training would result in the appropriate level 
of radiation safety training for general employees, with a higher level 
of training required for radiological workers. This approach is 
consistent with field experience and feedback from DOE operating 
contractors and is similar to the approach previously taken by DOE in 
DOE Order 5480.11 and currently taken by the NRC in 10 CFR part 19, 
``Notices, Instructions and Reports to Workers: Inspection and 
Investigations.'' DOE proposed to eliminate the examination requirement 
for individuals who are not permitted unescorted access to radiological 
areas and who do not perform unescorted assignments as a radiological 
worker. DOE also proposed to provide specific requirements at 
Sec. 835.901(f) for individuals who may act as escorts of individuals 
who have not completed required training.
Summary of Public Comments and Disposition
    Public comments generally endorsed DOE's proposed hierarchical 
approach to radiation safety training. However, some commenters were 
concerned that the proposed approach, which would require an individual 
to complete radiation safety training prior to being occupationally 
exposed to radiation, would needlessly penalize those facilities that 
conduct training inside the controlled area or in other areas in which 
trivial occupational exposures may occur. However, as proposed, 
Sec. 835.901(c) (Sec. 835.901(b) in the proposed rule) requires 
training to the extent appropriate to the individual's degree of 
exposure to potential radiological hazards. Under the circumstances 
described, the ``extent appropriate'' may be minimal (perhaps a 
briefing on appropriate alarm responses).
    Comments indicated that the proposed Sec. 835.901(b)(3) requirement 
to provide training on ``measures implemented at the facility to 
minimize exposures'' was inappropriate, as there is no requirement to 
``minimize exposures.'' Other comments indicated that it was 
unnecessary for the required training to be appropriate to 
``anticipated and actual'' work assignments; training appropriate to 
the individual's work assignments should be sufficient. DOE agrees with 
these observations.
    DOE received comments indicating that the existing Sec. 835.2(a) 
definition of the term ``radiological worker'' was overly restrictive 
and unclear due to its inclusion of individuals who operate radiation 
producing devices. Commenters indicated that this inclusion could 
require extensive training and testing of individuals who operate 
devices emitting nominal amounts of radiation or those who operate 
devices such as televisions and computer monitors. However, consumer 
devices that emit nominal amounts of radiation are clearly excluded 
from the scope of 10 CFR part 835 under the provisions of 835.1(b)(6) 
and the related Sec. 835.2(a) definition of ``background.'' Although 
the proposed provisions of Sec. 835.901(d) (see Sec. 835.901(b) in the 
final rule) would require training and testing of individuals who 
operate other radiation producing devices, the provisions of 
Sec. 835.901(c) (see Sec. 835.901(b) in the proposed rule) would only 
require that such training be appropriate to the extent of the 
individual's potential exposure to radiological hazards.
    Although many commenters favored DOE's proposed relaxation of the 
examination requirements, other commenters indicated that an 
examination should be required for all forms of training to ensure that 
the student has an understanding of the material presented. DOE agrees 
that examinations are useful tools for assessing the retention of 
information by the student. However, as stated in DOE's Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, the radiological hazards present in those portions 
of controlled areas which are outside of radiological areas are so 
minimal that the information needed prior to entry does not warrant a 
regulatory requirement for an examination. However, the absence of this 
regulatory requirement does not preclude DOE's operating entities from 
administering an examination.
    Several commenters indicated that DOE's proposed requirements for 
use of escorts in lieu of training were unclear because of the use of 
the phrase ``where an escort is required.'' These commenters correctly 
pointed out that the proposed Sec. 835.901(c) and (d) would permit, but 
would not explicitly require, the use of escorts.
    Other commenters were concerned that the retraining requirements of 
proposed Sec. 835.901(g) might require individuals to complete the full 
introductory radiation safety training course every 24 months. DOE 
agrees that this issue requires clarification.
Final Rule
    As proposed, DOE has reformatted subpart J into one section in the 
final rule, codifying an approach similar to that previously published 
in the Manual and eliminating redundancy. DOE has omitted proposed 
Sec. 835.901(a) from the final rule because that paragraph would not 
establish any substantive requirements. DOE has also eliminated the 
examination requirement for individuals who are not permitted 
unescorted access to radiological areas and who do not perform 
unescorted assignments as a radiological worker, as proposed. Although 
not a regulatory requirement, DOE contractors may still choose to 
administer examinations or to undertake other means of assessing 
individual understanding, such as interactive classroom discussions.
    DOE has included at Sec. 835.901(c) (Sec. 835.901(b) in the 
proposed amendment) a requirement for training to be provided to the 
extent appropriate to the individual's work assignment. DOE has also 
included at Sec. 835.901(c)(3) (proposed Sec. 835.901(b)(3)) a 
requirement that the training address measures used to ``manage doses 
and maintain doses ALARA,'' rather than ``minimize'' doses. This 
modification makes clear the distinction between maintaining doses well 
below the dose limits using the ALARA process and maintaining doses 
well below the dose limits by minimizing doses regardless of other 
considerations.
    DOE has established requirements applicable to instances in which 
escorts are used, rather than required, in lieu of training at revised 
Sec. 835.901(d) (Sec. 835.901(f) in the proposed amendment).
    With regard to the requirements for biennial retraining, DOE has 
eliminated the use of the undefined term ``retraining.'' Section 
835.901(e) of the final rule requires affected individuals to complete 
the required training at least every 24 months. Like the initial 
training, this follow-on training is for individuals subject to the 
requirements of Sec. 835.901(a) and (b), and is subject to the 
provisions of Sec. 835.901(c). Thus, the content and scheduling (prior 
to the end of the two year time interval) of such training needs to 
incorporate considerations of the individual's prior training, work 
assignments, and degree of exposure to radiological hazards, as well as 
significant changes to radiation protection policies and procedures 
that affect the individual.

[[Page 59675]]

2. Radiological Control Technician Training [Sec. 835.903]
    DOE also proposed changes to the 10 CFR part 835 requirements for 
training of radiological control technicians. These changes are 
discussed in detail in Section II.B.3. of this Notice of Final 
Rulemaking.

I. Design and Control, Subpart K

Proposed Amendment
    Experience in implementing programs to ensure compliance with 10 
CFR part 835 revealed that the design objectives currently included at 
Sec. 835.1002(b) and (c) may not be practical in developing certain 
modifications to existing facilities. Therefore, DOE proposed to delete 
Sec. 835.1002(b) and (c). DOE also proposed to move the remaining 
requirements in paragraphs (a) and (d) of Sec. 835.1002 to 
Sec. 835.1001.
    The design criteria established at Sec. 835.1003(a) did not include 
all of the occupational dose limits of Sec. 835.202, e.g. the lens of 
the eye dose limit established at Sec. 835.202(a)(3). This omission 
implied that the design of new facilities or modification of existing 
facilities could include design features that would result in doses 
exceeding the lens of the eye dose equivalent limit of 15 rem 
established at Sec. 835.202. DOE proposed to correct this omission by 
including all applicable occupational dose limits established at 
Sec. 835.202 in this section.
Summary of Public Comments and Disposition
    Comments indicated that the phrase ``as low as is reasonably 
achievable'' at Sec. 835.1001(a) could be construed to have a meaning 
that differed from ``ALARA'' as defined at Sec. 835.2(a).
    Many commenters stated that DOE should retain the numerical design 
objectives provided at Sec. 835.1002. Although achievement of the 
numerical design objectives may not be practical in some cases 
(particularly for minor modifications of existing facilities), the 
design objectives are important components of the ALARA process. Public 
comments suggested that elimination of the numerical design objectives 
could result in confusion over when to apply quantitative design 
objectives and the appropriate magnitude of those objectives. Comments 
also indicated that Sec. 835.1003(b) did not establish any substantive 
requirements beyond those established in subpart E of 10 CFR part 835.
    DOE agrees with these observations.
Final Rule
    At Sec. 835.1001(a), DOE has substituted ``ALARA'' for ``as low as 
is reasonably achievable.''
    Because procedural requirements are a type of administrative 
control, DOE has deleted the term ``procedural requirements'' from 
Sec. 835.1001 and deleted the term ``procedures'' from Sec. 835.1003 to 
eliminate redundancy. For consistency, DOE has revised the heading of 
Sec. 835.1003 to read ``Workplace Controls.''
    Because the use of quantitative design objectives plays a 
significant role in the ALARA process as it applies to facility design, 
DOE has chosen to defer this critical change until more experience is 
gained through implementation of these regulatory provisions. DOE has 
accepted the public comments and has retained the numerical design 
objectives of Sec. 835.1002; however, DOE has retained the proposed 
editorial change at Sec. 835.1002 (proposed Sec. 835.1001(c)) 
substituting the term ``existing facilities'' for the term ``old 
facilities.'' DOE will address its concerns with the application of 
these requirements through enhanced guidance for achieving compliance. 
DOE has included in the final rule the proposed change related to the 
lens of the eye dose limit. In consideration of public comments, DOE 
has also deleted Sec. 835.1003(b) from the final rule.

J. Radioactive Contamination Control, Subpart L

Proposed Amendment
    Consistent with the changes to the Sec. 835.2(a) definitions of the 
terms ``contamination area'' and ``high contamination area,'' DOE 
proposed changes to the Sec. 835.404 requirements for areas having only 
fixed contamination exceeding the appendix D total surface 
radioactivity values.
    DOE proposed several changes to appendix D of 10 CFR part 835, 
which provides mandatory surface radioactivity values for contamination 
control. DOE proposed to add the word ``alpha'' after the values for 
uranium isotopes in appendix D to clarify the applicability of these 
values. DOE also proposed to add to appendix D of 10 CFR part 835 a 
contamination control value of 10,000 disintegrations per minute per 
100 square centimeters for surfaces contaminated with tritium and 
Footnote 6 to explain the use of this value. The surface contamination 
value would be used to determine the applicability of the Sec. 835.603 
contamination hazard posting provisions and the Secs. 835.404 and 
835.1101 contamination control provisions. DOE has prepared an 
Environmental Assessment, available at DOE's Freedom of Information 
Reading Room at the address provided above, that addresses this change 
in detail.
    DOE also proposed to move the existing requirements of 
Sec. 835.1101(d) to Sec. 835.703(c) to consolidate recordkeeping 
requirements and to add a new requirement for removal of radioactive 
material labels from released materials and equipment at 
Sec. 835.1101(d).
Summary of Public Comments and Disposition
    Public comments were generally supportive of DOE's proposed changes 
to the requirements for control of radioactive contamination. Public 
comments also indicated that the recordkeeping requirements of proposed 
Sec. 835.703(c) were overly prescriptive in comparison to related 
requirements of the rule. Public comments also indicated that a literal 
reading of Sec. 835.404(f) would indicate that the performance of 
individual contamination monitoring by someone other than the 
individual exiting a contamination or high contamination area (i.e., 
individual frisking by radiological control technicians) would be 
contrary to 10 CFR part 835. DOE agrees with these observations.
    Comments indicated that the related requirements of Secs. 835.404 
and 835.1101 were confusing and possibly contradicting. The existing 
provisions of Sec. 835.404 establish requirements for control of areas 
contaminated by radioactive material; the provisions of Sec. 835.1101 
establish similar requirements for materials and equipment contaminated 
by radioactive materials. Upon reexamination of these requirements in 
light of the comments received, DOE believes that there is opportunity 
for simplification and clarification of the rule.
Final Rule
    DOE has combined and simplified the requirements of Secs. 835.404 
and 835.1101 in the final rule as follows:
    a. Although the provisions of Sec. 835.404 were specifically 
related to controlling the spread of contamination, they were located 
in subpart E, which was entitled ``Monitoring in the Workplace.'' 
Therefore, DOE has moved these requirements, with revisions discussed 
below, to subpart L.
    b. Although the title of subpart L indicates that the subject 
matter is related to ``Releases of Materials and Equipment from 
Radiological Areas,'' the requirements are more specifically related to 
retention and control of

[[Page 59676]]

contaminated materials in radiological areas. Therefore, DOE has 
retitled subpart L, ``Radioactive Contamination Control.''
    c. DOE has clarified and simplified the structure of 
Sec. 835.1101(a).
    d. DOE has retained paragraphs 835.1101(b) and (c) with minor 
editorial clarifications. Consistent with the discussion in Section 
II.B.3 of this Notice of Final Rulemaking regarding written procedures, 
DOE has omitted the requirement for written procedures (formerly 
Sec. 835.1101(c)(3)).
    e. Because the existing requirements of Sec. 835.404(a) established 
no substantive requirements, DOE has omitted this paragraph from the 
final rule.
    f. DOE has redesignated paragraph 835.404(b) as Sec. 835.1102(a) in 
the final rule.
    g. DOE has edited paragraph 835.404(c) and redesignated it as 
Sec. 835.1102(b) in the final rule. DOE has omitted the provision 
related to posting of contamination hazards (formerly 
Sec. 835.404(c)(1)) because this provision is redundant with 
Sec. 835.603(e) and (f).
    h. DOE has edited paragraph 835.404(d) and redesignated it as 
Sec. 835.1102(c) in the final rule. Consistent with the discussion in 
Section II.B.3 of this Notice of Final Rulemaking regarding written 
procedures, DOE has omitted the requirement for written procedures 
(formerly Sec. 835.404(d)(5)).
    i. Because of the changes to the Sec. 835.2(a) definitions of 
``contamination area'' and ``high contamination area'' discussed above, 
the areas discussed at Sec. 835.404(d) (i.e., those having fixed 
contamination at levels exceeding the appendix D total contamination 
values, but removable contamination levels below the appendix D 
removable contamination values) would no longer be considered 
radiological areas. This renders the provisions of Sec. 835.404(e) 
redundant; therefore, DOE has omitted these requirements from the final 
rule.
    j. DOE has clarified Sec. 835.404(f) and redesignated it as 
Sec. 835.1102(d).
    k. DOE has revised the language at Sec. 835.404(g) for clarity and 
redesignated it as Sec. 835.1102(e).
    DOE has reconsidered its proposal to add Sec. 835.1101(d) 
establishing requirements for removal of radioactive material labels 
from released materials and equipment. Although DOE considers materials 
and equipment meeting the requirements of Sec. 835.1101(a) to be 
appropriate for release from radiological areas, such materials and 
equipment are not necessarily ``non-radioactive'' and conditions may 
arise under which retention of the radioactive material labels is 
appropriate. DOE has therefore omitted this provision from the final 
rule.
    As before, the requirements of Sec. 835.1101 address release of 
materials and equipment from radiological areas to controlled areas. 
DOE requirements for release of materials and equipment from its 
control are addressed in DOE environmental protection standards.

K. Control of Sealed Radioactive Sources, Subpart M

Proposed Amendment
    DOE proposed to add subpart M to 10 CFR part 835 to establish 
requirements for control of sealed radioactive sources. These 
requirements would supersede similar requirements established in DOE 
Notice 5400.9, ``Sealed Radioactive Source Accountability'' (extended 
through DOE Notice 5400.13 and superseded by DOE N 441.1 through DOE N 
441.3). DOE proposed to add the terms ``accountable sealed radioactive 
source,'' ``sealed radioactive source,'' and ``source leak test'' at 
Sec. 835.2(a) and to add recordkeeping requirements at Sec. 835.704(f). 
DOE also proposed to add appendix E to 10 CFR part 835 to establish 
threshold values for sealed radioactive source accountability, 
radioactive material labeling, and radioactive material area posting.
Summary of Public Comments and Disposition
    Although many commenters supported DOE's efforts to codify 
requirements for sealed radioactive source control, several commenters 
indicated that the accountability threshold values proposed for 
inclusion in appendix E of 10 CFR part 835 were overly restrictive. 
Commenters also indicated that the definition of ``sealed radioactive 
source'' was too broad to allow for exclusion of certain items, such as 
reactor fuel elements, that are not commonly produced or used as sealed 
radioactive sources. In addition, several commenters indicated that 
DOE's proposed minimum activity requiring performance of periodic leak 
tests (0.005 microcuries) was overly restrictive.
    Commenters indicated that inaccessible sources should be excepted 
from the requirements for leak testing and inventory. Such a measure 
would obviate the need to disassemble facility components and 
instruments for the purpose of performing the inventories and leak 
tests. Commenters also indicated that common contamination control 
measures are capable of minimizing, but perhaps not preventing, the 
spread of contamination as would be required by proposed 
Sec. 835.1202(e).
    DOE agrees with these observations.
Final Rule
    In response to public comments, DOE has revised the Sec. 835.2(a) 
definition of the term ``sealed radioactive source'' to exclude reactor 
fuel elements, nuclear explosive devices, and radioisotope 
thermoelectric generators. DOE has included the definitions of 
``accountable sealed radioactive source'' and ``source leak test'' at 
Sec. 835.2(a) as proposed. DOE has revised Sec. 835.1202(d) to provide 
an exception from leak testing and inventory for sealed radioactive 
sources that are inaccessible. DOE has also revised Sec. 835.1202(e) to 
indicate that the required contamination control measures must 
``minimize'' the spread of contamination.
    DOE has revised the proposed appendix E values. DOE determined the 
appendix E values in the final rule as follows: For each radionuclide, 
DOE considered two scenarios: (1) the activity quantity resulting in a 
deep dose equivalent from external radiation of 0.1 rem (0.001 sievert) 
assuming an individual was irradiated for a period of 12 hours per day 
at a distance of 1 meter from the source for 365 days; and (2) the 
activity quantity resulting in a committed effective dose equivalent of 
0.1 rem (0.001 sievert) assuming an instantaneous intake of 0.001% of 
the material by an individual. DOE compared the activity quantities for 
the deep dose equivalent and the committed effective dose equivalent 
and selected the more restrictive value as the basis for the 
accountability threshold value. DOE selected the value of 0.1 rem as 
the basis for the revised appendix E values for consistency with DOE's 
mandatory threshold for monitoring of general employee dose (see 
Sec. 835.402) and dose limit for members of the public in controlled 
areas (see Sec. 835.208). DOE also assumed more realistic values for 
the exposure time and intake factor and eliminated the arbitrary 300 
microcurie activity cap. The basis for the appendix E values is 
discussed in more detail in a technical basis document available in 
DOE's Freedom of Information Reading Room at the address provided 
above.
    Because all of the revised appendix E values are greater than 0.005 
microcuries, DOE has deleted this threshold from the requirements for 
sealed radioactive source leak tests (proposed Sec. 835.1202(b)). DOE 
has also omitted the proposed requirement for written procedures from 
the final rule. For details on this omission, see Section II.B.3 of 
this Notice of Final Rulemaking. Finally, because DOE's

[[Page 59677]]

reevaluation of the appendix E values resulted in significant increases 
in all of the accountability threshold values, DOE has codified a 
general requirement at Sec. 835.1201 for all radioactive sources (both 
accountable and non-accountable) to be used, handled, and stored in a 
manner commensurate with the radiological hazards created by the 
operation involving the sources. DOE will provide implementing guidance 
to discuss acceptable methods for achieving compliance with this 
provision.
    The basis for the control of sealed radioactive sources is a 
hierarchy of increasing radiological controls based upon the maximum 
credible dose consequence resulting from the loss of a source. The 
maximum credible dose consequence should not be considered to be a 
release criterion. Under the requirements of 10 CFR part 835, some 
degree of radiological control is required for all sealed radioactive 
sources, regardless of their activity. This hierarchy of controls 
reduces the likelihood of losing a sealed radioactive source. Thus the 
approach to sealed radioactive source control is analogous to that 
taken in nuclear safety. As the potential consequences of a credible 
incident increase, additional controls are imposed to reduce the 
probability that the incident will occur and mitigate the consequences 
of that incident.
    For the lowest activity sealed radioactive sources, a minimal level 
of radiological control is required based upon the hazards associated 
with the operations involving the sources. More specific actions are 
not considered necessary and are therefore not specified.
    For sealed radioactive sources whose loss could result in a maximum 
credible dose consequence of 0.1 rem or more in a year, additional 
controls are imposed. The requirement for semi-annual inventories 
reduces the possibility of losing the source and, by triggering 
investigative action, mitigates the consequences of a lost source. The 
requirement for semi-annual leak testing provides a means of monitoring 
the integrity of the source and likewise triggers action to mitigate 
the consequences of a leaking source.

L. Accident and Emergency Exposures, Subpart N

Proposed Amendment
    DOE proposed to correct Sec. 835.1301(a), (b), and (d) by deleting 
references to Sec. 835.205, which provides no dose limits. Consistent 
with changes to Sec. 835.204, DOE proposed to revise Sec. 835.1301(a) 
to indicate that doses resulting from accident and emergency exposures 
may exceed the numerical values established at Sec. 835.202(a) without 
violating the occupational dose limits. Both accident and emergency 
doses are considered occupational doses and are included in a general 
employee's occupational dose record, but emergency doses are explicitly 
excluded from consideration in determining compliance with the 
occupational dose limits at Sec. 835.202(a).
    DOE proposed to delete Sec. 835.1302(d) because these provisions 
are adequately addressed in related DOE Orders and emergency management 
guides.
    DOE clarified Sec. 835.1304 by substituting the defined term 
``individual'' for the term ``personnel'' which eliminates any 
confusion regarding the coverage of the personal nuclear accident 
dosimetry provisions. DOE also proposed to remove the reference to 
``all personnel'' to provide flexibility in implementing the personal 
nuclear accident dosimetry provisions.

Summary of Public Comments and Disposition

    Regarding accident and emergency exposures, public comments 
indicated that DOE had failed to clearly define the terms ``accident'' 
and ``emergency,'' resulting in uncertainty about the proper 
application of these provisions.
    Comments regarding the proposed approach basing personal nuclear 
accident dosimetry requirements on the need for nuclear criticality 
alarms indicated that this approach would be impractical due to the 
vagueness of the referenced requirements for these alarms.
    DOE agrees with these observations.
Final Rule
    DOE has included the proposed changes into the final rule.
    Consistent with the clarification of the requirements for 
accounting for occupational doses, including doses resulting from 
authorized planned special exposures and emergency exposures, DOE has 
deleted the term ``accident'' from Sec. 835.1301(a). This deletion 
results from DOE's recognition that, except for doses resulting from 
planned special exposures and authorized emergency exposures, all doses 
in excess of the regulatory limits may be considered to be 
``accidents.'' Under such circumstances, DOE believes that provisions 
allowing affected individuals to return to work without further 
detailed review subverts the intent of the Sec. 835.202 occupational 
dose limits. DOE believes that it is most appropriate for this section 
to address doses resulting from authorized emergency exposures. Despite 
this change, DOE recognizes the fact that issues of individual work 
rights and DOE liability may arise as a result of ``accidental'' 
exposures exceeding the regulatory dose limits. Mechanisms for 
addressing doses resulting from accidents, and authorizations to return 
affected individuals to work, exist within the exemption process 
established in 10 CFR part 820.
    In response to public comments, DOE revised the text in 
Sec. 835.1301(c) and (d) to eliminate the terms ``emergency'' and 
``accident'' and specify that the notification and resumption 
provisions apply when doses were received in excess of the limits of 
Sec. 835.202, except those doses received in accordance with 
Sec. 835.204.
    As discussed above with regard to Sec. 835.702(c)(2), DOE found 
that Sec. 835.1301(e) inappropriately invoked the requirements of DOE 
Orders. The applicability of these Orders is established through DOE 
contractual processes. Therefore, DOE has deleted this provision.
    To resolve issues related to requirements for personal nuclear 
accident dosimetry, DOE has revised the requirement to simply indicate 
that the nuclear accident dosimetry system must include personal 
nuclear accident dosimeters. This approach will allow for flexible 
implementation on a site-and facility-specific basis.

M. Use of Appendices

Proposed Amendment
    DOE proposed to clarify the application of the data presented in 
the appendices of 10 CFR part 835 by adding introductory text to each 
appendix referencing those sections of the rule requiring use of the 
appendix. DOE also proposed to delete the absorption factor (f1) values 
and the related footnote (footnote 5) from appendix A of 10 CFR part 
835 because absorption factors and alternative absorption factors are 
neither used nor referenced in the rule. DOE determined that 10 CFR 
part 835 established no substantive requirements for use of the data 
presented in appendix B, and therefore proposed to delete appendix B.
    DOE's review of exemption requests concerning occupational exposure 
to 220Rn and 222Rn and their daughter products revealed that DAC values 
for these radioisotopes are inappropriately referenced in both 
appendices A and C. Exposure to these radionuclides results in a lung 
dose and therefore, the air immersion DACs in appendix C are 
inappropriate. Accordingly, DOE

[[Page 59678]]

proposed to delete the air immersion DAC values for 220Rn and 222Rn 
from appendix C.
    Experience in implementing programs that ensure compliance with 10 
CFR part 835 has proven that the exposure conditions used to determine 
the appendix C DAC values (immersion in a semi-infinite cloud) often 
differ from those at DOE facilities (i.e., exposure in relatively small 
enclosures). Use of the appendix C DAC values under these conditions 
can result in the overestimation of individual doses. Therefore, DOE 
proposed to revise appendix C, note b., to allow modification of the 
DAC values to compensate for immersion in a cloud of finite dimensions 
and to provide instructions for determining the DAC of a mixture of 
radionuclides.
Summary of Public Comments and Disposition
    Although several commenters suggested that the data in appendix B 
were useful and should be retained, the correlation of chemical form to 
lung retention class is available directly from Table 3 of Federal 
Guidance Report Number 11, ``Limiting Values of Radionuclide Intake and 
Air Concentration and Dose Conversion Factors for Inhalation, 
Submersion, and Ingestion.''
    Commenters favored DOE's proposal to allow for modification of the 
appendix C values. However, contrary to the information provided in 
appendix C, note b., these values were calculated based upon an 
exposure of 2000 hours per year, and not based upon a continuous 
exposure.
Final Rule
    DOE has included the proposed changes in the final rule with minor 
editorial corrections. For consistency with the existing provisions 
associated with appendix C of 10 CFR part 835, DOE has included a note 
with appendix A of 10 CFR part 835 that will allow use of the sum of 
the fractions rule when there exists a mixture of radionuclides in the 
area of interest. DOE has also revised appendix C, note b., to reflect 
the 2000 hour per year exposure basis of the values.
    Consistent with terminology used throughout the rule and in DOE's 
guidance documents, DOE has also retitled the table in appendix D of 10 
CFR part 835 ``Surface Contamination Values.''

N. Corrections and Clarifications

Proposed Amendment
    DOE proposed numerous editorial corrections and technical 
clarifications that do not change the requirements of the rule or the 
measures necessary to ensure regulatory compliance. The proposed 
changes included:
    1. Correction of the definitions of ``airborne radioactive 
material'', and ``year'' (Sec. 835.2(a)) and ``external dose or 
exposure,'' and ``quality factor'' (Sec. 835.2(b));
    2. Clarification of the application of the mean quality factors for 
neutrons provided at Sec. 835.2(b);
    3. Deletion of Sec. 835.2(d) because the convention stated in that 
paragraph for the use of singular, plural, masculine, and feminine 
terms is not used in part 835;
    4. Revision of the requirements of Sec. 835.102 for clarity;
    5. Change of the heading of Sec. 835.202 to ``Occupational dose 
limits for general employees'' to accurately reflect the content of 
that section;
    6. Deletion from Sec. 835.203(a) and the Sec. 835.2(b) definition 
of ``total effective dose equivalent'' the provision related to 
substitution of deep dose equivalent for effective dose equivalent from 
external exposure. This provision is redundant with the revised 
definition of ``effective dose equivalent'' proposed at Sec. 835.2(b).
Summary of Public Comments and Disposition
    DOE received no substantive comments on these changes.
Final Rule
    DOE has included the proposed changes in the final rule.

III. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act

    DOE has reviewed the promulgation of this amendment to 10 CFR part 
835 under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and the Council on Environmental Quality 
regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508). DOE has 
completed an Environmental Assessment and on the basis of that 
information has issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for 
this amendment. The FONSI and the Environmental Assessment update the 
FONSI and Environmental Assessment issued when the proposed amendment 
was published for public comment and reflect changes in the final rule 
made in response to public comments. The Environmental Assessment and 
FONSI are available for inspection at the DOE Freedom of Information 
Reading Room, 1E-190, 1000 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20585, 
between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 
Federal holidays.

IV. Review Under Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, requires that an 
agency prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis and publish 
it at the time of publication of general notice of rulemaking for the 
rule. This requirement does not apply if the agency certifies that the 
rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
    Today's action amends DOE's regulations governing programs 
established at DOE facilities to protect individuals from ionizing 
radiation resulting from DOE activities. The contractors who manage and 
operate DOE facilities are responsible for implementing the 
occupational radiation protection program. DOE has considered whether 
management and operating (M&O) contractors are ``small businesses,'' as 
that term is defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 
601(3)). The Regulatory Flexibility Act's definition incorporates the 
definition of ``small business concern'' in the Small Business Act, 
which the Small Business Administration (SBA) has developed through 
size standards in 13 CFR part 121. Small businesses are business 
concerns which, together with their affiliates, have no more than 500 
to 1500 employees, varying by SIC category, and annual receipts of 
between $0.5 million to $25 million, again varying by SIC category--
Title 13 CFR part 121. DOE's M&O contractors exceed the SBA's size 
standards for small businesses. In addition, it is noted that M&O 
contractors are reimbursed through their contracts with DOE for the 
costs of complying with DOE occupational radiation protection 
requirements. They will not, therefore, be adversely impacted by the 
requirements in the rule. For these reasons, DOE certifies that the 
final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.

V. Review Under Executive Order 12866

    Today's regulatory action has been determined not to be a 
``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866, 
``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). 
Accordingly, today's action was not subject to review under the 
Executive Order by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs

[[Page 59679]]

within the Office of Management and Budget.

VI. Review Under Executive Order 12612

    Executive Order 12612, 52 FR 41685 (October 30, 1987) requires that 
regulations, rules, legislation, and any other policy actions be 
reviewed for any substantial direct effects on States, on the 
relationship between the National Government and the States, or in the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among various levels of 
government. If there are sufficient substantial direct effects, then 
the Executive Order requires preparation of a federalism assessment to 
be used in all decisions involved in promulgating and implementing a 
policy action.
    This final rule would not have a substantial direct effect on the 
institutional interests or traditional functions of States.

VII. Review Under Executive Order 12988

    With respect to the review of existing regulations and the 
promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, 
``Civil Justice Reform,'' 61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996), imposes on 
Executive agencies the general duty to adhere to the following 
requirements:
    (1) Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations 
to minimize litigation; and (3) provide a clear legal standard for 
affected conduct rather than a general standard and promote 
simplification and burden reduction. With regard to the review required 
by section 3(a), section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 specifically 
requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure 
that the regulation: (1) clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if 
any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or 
regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct 
while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies the 
retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms; and (6) 
addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general 
draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. 
Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to 
review regulations in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and 
section 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to 
meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the required review and 
determined that the amendments to 10 CFR part 835 meet the relevant 
standards of Executive Order 12988.

VIII. Review Under Paperwork Reduction Act

    DOE submitted the proposed collections of information in this rule 
to the Office of Management and Budget for review under section 3507(d) 
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (42 U.S.C. 3507(d)), and, by 
separate notice on May 26, 1998, invited public comment on DOE's 
statement of need and estimates of the burden of the collection of 
information in 10 CFR part 835 (63 FR 28495). The information that DOE 
management and operating contractors are required to produce, maintain 
and report is necessary to permit the Department and its contractors to 
manage and oversee health and safety programs that control worker 
exposure to radiation. DOE estimates that the total annual burden of 
the collection of information requirements to be 50,000 hours for the 
approximately 50 contractors subject to the rule.
    The Office of Management and Budget has approved the collections of 
information in 10 CFR part 835 and assigned to the part OMB Number 
1910-5105. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 
required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number (5 CFR 1320.5(b)).

IX. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (the Act), 
Pub.L. 104-4 on March 22, 1995, codified at 2 U.S.C. 1501-1571, 
requires each Federal agency, to the extent permitted by law, to 
prepare a written assessment of the effects of any Federal mandate in a 
proposed or final agency rule that may result in the expenditure by 
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate or by the 
private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for 
inflation) in any one year. Section 204(a) of the Act, codified at 2 
U.S.C. 1534(a), requires the Federal agency to develop an effective 
process to permit timely input by elected officers (or their designees) 
of State, local, and tribal governments on proposals containing 
``significant Federal intergovernmental mandates.'' Section 203(a) of 
the Act, codified at 2 U.S.C. 1533(a), provides that before 
establishing any regulatory requirements that might significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, the agency shall have developed a 
plan that, among other things, provides for notice to potentially 
affected small governments, if any, and enables officials of affected 
small governments to provide meaningful and timely input in the 
development of regulatory proposals containing significant 
intergovernmental Federal mandates.
    The final rule published today does not contain any Federal mandate 
that would result in any expenditure by State, local or tribal 
government. The provisions of 10 CFR part 835 apply only to activities 
conducted by or for DOE. Therefore, the requirements of Title II of the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do not apply.

X. Review Under Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
of 1996

    As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress 
promulgation of this rule prior to its effective date. The report will 
state that it has been determined that the rule is not a ``major rule'' 
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 835

    Emergency radiation exposures, Nuclear material, Occupational 
safety and health, Radiation exposures, Radiation protection, 
Radioactive material, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Safety 
during emergencies, Training.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 29, 1998.
Peter N. Brush,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Environment, Safety and Health.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, Title 10, Code of 
Federal Regulations, part 835 is amended as set forth below:

PART 835--OCCUPATIONAL RADIATION PROTECTION

    1. The authority citation for part 835 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2201; 7191.

Subpart A--General Provisions

    2. Section 835.1 is amended by revising the introductory text of 
paragraph (b) and paragraph (b)(3), redesignating paragraph (b)(4) as 
(b)(6), and by adding paragraphs (b)(4), (b)(5), and (c) as follows:


Sec. 835.1  Scope.

* * * * *
    (b) Exclusion. Except as discussed in paragraph (c) of this 
section, the requirements in this part do not apply to:
* * * * *
    (3) Activities conducted under the Nuclear Explosives and Weapons 
Surety Program relating to the prevention of accidental or unauthorized 
nuclear detonations;

[[Page 59680]]

    (4) Radioactive material transportation as defined in this part;
    (5) DOE activities conducted outside the United States on territory 
under the jurisdiction of a foreign government to the extent governed 
by occupational radiation protection requirements agreed to between the 
United States and the cognizant government; or
    (6) Background radiation, radiation doses received as a patient for 
the purposes of medical diagnosis or therapy, or radiation doses 
received from participation as a subject in medical research programs.
    (c) Occupational doses received as a result of excluded activities 
and radioactive material transportation, as listed in paragraphs (b)(1) 
through (b)(5) of this section, shall be considered when determining 
compliance with the occupational dose limits at Secs. 835.202 and 
835.207, and with the limits for the embryo/fetus at Sec. 835.206. 
Occupational doses resulting from authorized emergency exposures and 
planned special exposures shall not be considered when determining 
compliance with the dose limits at Secs. 835.202 and 835.207.
    3. At Sec. 835.2, paragraph (a) is amended by removing definitions 
of the terms ``ambient air'', ``continuous air monitor'', ``DOE 
activities'', ``occupational exposure'', ``representative'', and 
``survey''; by adding in alphabetical order, definitions for the terms 
``accountable sealed radioactive source'', ``derived air concentration-
hour'', ``DOE activity'', ``occupational dose'', ``radioactive material 
area'', ``radioactive material transportation'', ``real-time air 
monitoring'', ``respiratory protective device'', ``sealed radioactive 
source'', ``source leak test'', and ``week''; and revising the 
definitions of the terms ``airborne radioactive material or airborne 
radioactivity'', ``airborne radioactivity area'', ``contamination 
area'', ``controlled area'', ``declared pregnant worker'', ``general 
employee'', ``high contamination area'', ``member of the public'', 
``monitoring'', ``radiological area'', and ``year'' to read as follows. 
At Sec. 835.2, paragraph (b), the definition of ``collective dose'' is 
removed, the definition of ``dose'' is added, and the definitions of 
the terms ``cumulative total effective dose equivalent'', ``effective 
dose equivalent'', ``external dose or exposure'', ``quality factor'', 
``total effective dose equivalent'', and ``weighting factor'' are 
revised as follows. Paragraph (d) of Sec. 835.2 is removed.


Sec. 835.2  Definitions.

    (a) As used in this part:
    Accountable sealed radioactive source means a sealed radioactive 
source having a half-life equal to or greater than 30 days and an 
isotopic activity equal to or greater than the corresponding value 
provided in appendix E of this part.
    Airborne radioactive material or airborne radioactivity means 
radioactive material dispersed in the air in the form of dusts, fumes, 
particulates, mists, vapors, or gases.
    Airborne radioactivity area means any area, accessible to 
individuals, where:
    (1) The concentration of airborne radioactivity, above natural 
background, exceeds or is likely to exceed the derived air 
concentration (DAC) values listed in appendix A or appendix C of this 
part; or
    (2) An individual present in the area without respiratory 
protection could receive an intake exceeding 12 DAC-hours in a week.
* * * * *
    Contamination area means any area, accessible to individuals, where 
removable surface contamination levels exceed or are likely to exceed 
the removable surface contamination values specified in appendix D of 
this part, but do not exceed 100 times those values.
* * * * *
    Controlled area means any area to which access is managed by or for 
DOE to protect individuals from exposure to radiation and/or 
radioactive material.
    Declared pregnant worker means a woman who has voluntarily declared 
to her employer, in writing, her pregnancy for the purpose of being 
subject to the occupational dose limits to the embryo/fetus as provided 
at Sec. 835.206. This declaration may be revoked, in writing, at any 
time by the declared pregnant worker.
* * * * *
    Derived air concentration-hour (DAC-hour) means the product of the 
concentration of radioactive material in air (expressed as a fraction 
or multiple of the DAC for each radionuclide) and the time of exposure 
to that radionuclide, in hours.
    DOE activity means an activity taken for or by DOE in a DOE 
operation or facility that has the potential to result in the 
occupational exposure of an individual to radiation or radioactive 
material. The activity may be, but is not limited to, design, 
construction, operation, or decommissioning. To the extent appropriate, 
the activity may involve a single DOE facility or operation or a 
combination of facilities and operations, possibly including an entire 
site or multiple DOE sites.
* * * * *
    General employee means an individual who is either a DOE or DOE 
contractor employee; an employee of a subcontractor to a DOE 
contractor; or an individual who performs work for or in conjunction 
with DOE or utilizes DOE facilities.
    High contamination area means any area, accessible to individuals, 
where removable surface contamination levels exceed or are likely to 
exceed 100 times the removable surface contamination values specified 
in appendix D of this part.
 * * * * *
    Member of the public means an individual who is not a general 
employee. An individual is not a ``member of the public'' during any 
period in which the individual receives an occupational dose.
* * * * *
    Monitoring means the measurement of radiation levels, airborne 
radioactivity concentrations, radioactive contamination levels, 
quantities of radioactive material, or individual doses and the use of 
the results of these measurements to evaluate radiological hazards or 
potential and actual doses resulting from exposures to ionizing 
radiation.
* * * * *
    Occupational dose means an individual's ionizing radiation dose 
(external and internal) as a result of that individual's work 
assignment. Occupational dose does not include doses received as a 
medical patient or doses resulting from background radiation or 
participation as a subject in medical research programs.
* * * * *
    Radioactive material area means any area within a controlled area, 
accessible to individuals, in which items or containers of radioactive 
material exist and the total activity of radioactive material exceeds 
the applicable values provided in appendix E of this part.
    Radioactive material transportation means the movement of 
radioactive material by aircraft, rail, vessel, or highway vehicle when 
such movement is subject to Department of Transportation regulations or 
DOE Orders that govern such movements. Radioactive material 
transportation does not include preparation of material or packagings 
for transportation, monitoring required by this part, storage of 
material awaiting transportation, or application of markings and labels 
required for transportation.
    Radiological area means any area within a controlled area defined 
in this section as a ``radiation area,'' ``high radiation area,'' 
``very high radiation

[[Page 59681]]

area,'' ``contamination area,'' ``high contamination area,'' or 
``airborne radioactivity area.''
* * * * *
    Real-time air monitoring means measurement of the concentrations or 
quantities of airborne radioactive materials on a continuous basis.
* * * * *
    Respiratory protective device means an apparatus, such as a 
respirator, worn by an individual for the purpose of reducing the 
individual's intake of airborne radioactive materials.
    Sealed radioactive source means a radioactive source manufactured, 
obtained, or retained for the purpose of utilizing the emitted 
radiation. The sealed radioactive source consists of a known or 
estimated quantity of radioactive material contained within a sealed 
capsule, sealed between layer(s) of non-radioactive material, or firmly 
fixed to a non-radioactive surface by electroplating or other means 
intended to prevent leakage or escape of the radioactive material. 
Sealed radioactive sources do not include reactor fuel elements, 
nuclear explosive devices, and radioisotope thermoelectric generators.
    Source leak test means a test to determine if a sealed radioactive 
source is leaking radioactive material.
* * * * *
    Week means a period of seven consecutive days.
    Year means the period of time beginning on or near January 1 and 
ending on or near December 31 of that same year used to determine 
compliance with the provisions of this part. The starting and ending 
date of the year used to determine compliance may be changed provided 
that the change is made at the beginning of the year and that no day is 
omitted or duplicated in consecutive years.
    (b) * * *
    Cumulative total effective dose equivalent means the sum of all 
total effective dose equivalent values recorded for an individual, 
where available, for each year occupational dose was received, 
beginning January 1, 1989.
* * * * *
    Dose is a general term for absorbed dose, dose equivalent, 
effective dose equivalent, committed dose equivalent, committed 
effective dose equivalent, or total effective dose equivalent as 
defined in this part.
* * * * *
    Effective dose equivalent (H) means the summation of the 
products of the dose equivalent received by specified tissues of the 
body (H) and the appropriate weighting factor (w)--
that is, H = wH. It includes the 
dose from radiation sources internal and/or external to the body. For 
purposes of compliance with this part, deep dose equivalent to the 
whole body may be used as effective dose equivalent for external 
exposures. The effective dose equivalent is expressed in units of rem 
(or sievert).
    External dose or exposure means that portion of the dose equivalent 
received from radiation sources outside the body (i.e., ``external 
sources'').
* * * * *
    Quality factor (Q) means the modifying factor used to calculate the 
dose equivalent from the absorbed dose; the absorbed dose (expressed in 
rad or gray) is multiplied by the appropriate quality factor.
    (i) The quality factors to be used for determining dose equivalent 
in rem are as follow:

                             Quality Factors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Quality
                       Radiation type                           factor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
X-rays, gamma rays, positrons, electrons (including tritium
 beta particles)............................................           1
Neutrons, 10 keV.................................           3
Neutrons, >10 keV...........................................          10
Protons and singly-charged particles of unknown energy with
 rest mass greater than one atomic mass unit................          10
Alpha particles and multiple-charged particles (and
 particles of unknown charge) of unknown energy.............          20
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When spectral data are insufficient to identify the energy of the 
neutrons, a quality factor of 10 shall be used.
    (ii) When spectral data are sufficient to identify the energy of 
the neutrons, the following mean quality factor values may be used:

                      Quality Factors for Neutrons
 [Mean quality factors, Q (maximum value in a 30-cm dosimetry phantom),
 and values of neutron flux density that deliver in 40 hours, a maximum
 dose equivalent of 0.1 rem (0.001 sievert). Where neutron energy falls
between listed values, the more restrictive mean quality factor shall be
                                 used.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Neutron
                                                      Mean        flux
              Neutron energy  (MeV)                  quality    density
                                                     factor    (cm-2s-1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.5 x 10-8 thermal...............................         2          680
1 x 10-7.........................................         2          680
1 x 10-6.........................................         2          560
1 x 10-5.........................................         2          560
1 x 10-4.........................................         2          580
1 x 10-3.........................................         2          680
1 x 10-2.........................................         2.5        700
1 x 10-1.........................................         7.5        115
5 x 10-1.........................................        11           27
1................................................        11           19
2.5..............................................         9           20
5................................................         8           16
7................................................         7           17
10...............................................         6.5         17
14...............................................         7.5         12
20...............................................         8           11
40...............................................         7           10
60...............................................         5.5         11
1 x 10 2.........................................         4           14
2 x 10 2.........................................         3.5         13
3 x 10 2.........................................         3.5         11
4 x 10 2.........................................         3.5         10
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    Total effective dose equivalent (TEDE) means the sum of the 
effective dose equivalent (for external exposures) and the committed 
effective dose equivalent (for internal exposures).
    Weighting factor (wT) means the fraction of the overall 
health risk, resulting from uniform, whole body irradiation, 
attributable to specific tissue (T). The dose equivalent to tissue 
(HT) is multiplied by the appropriate weighting factor to 
obtain the effective dose equivalent contribution from that tissue. The 
weighting factors are as follows:

            Weighting Factors For Various Organs and Tissues
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weighting
                    Organs or tissues, T                      factor, wT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gonads.....................................................         0.25
Breasts....................................................         0.15
Red bone marrow............................................         0.12
Lungs......................................................         0.12
Thyroid....................................................         0.03
Bone surfaces..............................................         0.03
Remainder 1................................................         0.30
Whole body 2...............................................        1.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 ``Remainder'' means the five other organs or tissues, excluding the
  skin and lens of the eye, with the highest dose (e.g., liver, kidney,
  spleen, thymus, adrenal, pancreas, stomach, small intestine, and upper
  large intestine). The weighting factor for each remaining organ or
  tissue is 0.06.
2 For the case of uniform external irradiation of the whole body, a
  weighting factor (wT) equal to 1 may be used in determination of the
  effective dose equivalent.

    (c) * * *

[[Page 59682]]

    4. Section 835.3 is amended by adding paragraph (e) as follows:


Sec. 835.3  General Rule

* * * * *
    (e) For those activities that are required by Secs. 835.102, 
835.901(e), 835.1202 (a), and 835.1202(b), the time interval to conduct 
these activities may be extended by a period not to exceed 30 days to 
accommodate scheduling needs.


Sec. 835.4  [Amended]

    5. Section 835.4 is amended by adding ``roentgen,'' after ``rad,'' 
in the first sentence and removing the last sentence.

Subpart B--Management and Administrative Requirements

    6. The heading of subpart B is revised to read as set forth above.
    6a. Section 835.101 is amended by revising paragraph (f) to read as 
follows, removing paragraph (g), and redesignating paragraphs (h), (i), 
and (j) as (g), (h), and (i) respectively; in paragraph (d), the 
reference to ``Sec. 835.101(i)'' is changed to ``Sec. 835.101(h)''.


Sec. 835.101  Radiation protection programs.

* * * * *
    (f) The RPP shall include plans, schedules, and other measures for 
achieving compliance with regulations of this part. Unless otherwise 
specified in this part, compliance with amendments to this part shall 
be achieved no later than 180 days following approval of the revised 
RPP by DOE. Compliance with the requirements of Sec. 835.402(d) for 
radiobioassay program accreditation shall be achieved no later than 
January 1, 2002.
* * * * *
    7. Section 835.102 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 835.102  Internal audits.

    Internal audits of the radiation protection program, including 
examination of program content and implementation, shall be conducted 
through a process that ensures that all functional elements are 
reviewed no less frequently than every 36 months.
    8. Section 835.103 is added as follows:


Sec. 835.103  Education, training and skills.

    Individuals responsible for developing and implementing measures 
necessary for ensuring compliance with the requirements of this part 
shall have the appropriate education, training, and skills to discharge 
these responsibilities.
    9. Section 835.104 is added as follows:


Sec. 835.104  Written procedures.

    Written procedures shall be developed and implemented as necessary 
to ensure compliance with this part, commensurate with the radiological 
hazards created by the activity and consistent with the education, 
training, and skills of the individuals exposed to those hazards.
    10. Section 835.202 is amended by revising the section heading, 
revising the introductory text of paragraph (a), and revising 
paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as follows:


Sec. 835.202  Occupational dose limits for general employees.

    (a) Except for planned special exposures conducted consistent with 
Sec. 835.204 and emergency exposures authorized in accordance with 
Sec. 835.1302, the occupational dose received by general employees 
shall be controlled such that the following limits are not exceeded in 
a year:
* * * * *
    (b) All occupational doses received during the current year, except 
doses resulting from planned special exposures conducted in compliance 
with Sec. 835.204 and emergency exposures authorized in accordance with 
Sec. 835.1302, shall be included when demonstrating compliance with 
Secs. 835.202(a) and 835.207.
    (c) Doses from background, therapeutic and diagnostic medical 
radiation, and participation as a subject in medical research programs 
shall not be included in dose records or in the assessment of 
compliance with the occupational dose limits.
    11. Section 835.203 is amended by revising the section heading and 
paragraph (a) to read as follows and by removing paragraph (c):


Sec. 835.203  Combining internal and external dose equivalents.

    (a) The total effective dose equivalent during a year shall be 
determined by summing the effective dose equivalent from external 
exposures and the committed effective dose equivalent from intakes 
during the year.
* * * * *
    12. Section 835.204 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1), 
(a)(3), (c)(1), (c)(2) and (d) to read as follows:


Sec. 835.204  Planned special exposures.

    (a) * * *
    (1) The planned special exposure is considered only in an 
exceptional situation when alternatives that might prevent a 
radiological worker from exceeding the limits in Sec. 835.202(a) are 
unavailable or impractical;
* * * * *
    (3) Joint written approval is received from the appropriate DOE 
Headquarters program office and the Secretarial Officer responsible for 
environment, safety and health matters.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) In a year, the numerical values of the dose limits established 
at Sec. 835.202(a); and
    (2) Over the individual's lifetime, five times the numerical values 
of the dose limits established at Sec. 835.202(a).
    (d) Prior to a planned special exposure, written consent shall be 
obtained from each individual involved. Each such written consent shall 
include:
    (1) The purpose of the planned operations and procedures to be 
used;
    (2) The estimated doses and associated potential risks and specific 
radiological conditions and other hazards which might be involved in 
performing the task; and
    (3) Instructions on the measures to be taken to keep the dose ALARA 
considering other risks that may be present.
* * * * *
    13. Section 835.207 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 835.207  Occupational dose limits for minors.

    The dose equivalent limits for minors occupationally exposed to 
radiation and/or radioactive materials at a DOE activity are 0.1 rem 
(0.001 sievert) total effective dose equivalent in a year and 10% of 
the occupational dose limits specified at Sec. 835.202(a)(3) and 
(a)(4).
    14. Section 835.208 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 835.208  Limits for members of the public entering a controlled 
area.

    The total effective dose equivalent limit for members of the public 
exposed to radiation and/or radioactive material during access to a 
controlled area is 0.1 rem (0.001 sievert) in a year.


Sec. 835.209  [Amended]

    15. Section 835.209 is amended by changing the first ``to'' to 
``of'' in paragraph (a), removing paragraph (b), redesignating 
paragraph (c) as (b), and removing the word ``representative'' from 
(b)(3).

Subpart E--Monitoring of Individuals and Areas

    16. The heading of Subpart E is revised to read as set forth above.
    16a. Section 835.401 is amended by removing paragraph (b), 
redesignating

[[Page 59683]]

paragraph (c) as (b), revising paragraphs (a), introductory text, 
(a)(2), (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(6), and revising in newly redesignated 
paragraph (b), the introductory text, and (b)(1) to read as follows:


Sec. 835.401  General requirements.

    (a) Monitoring of individuals and areas shall be performed to:
    (1) * * *
    (2) Document radiological conditions;
    (3) * * *
    (4) Detect the gradual buildup of radioactive material;
    (5) Verify the effectiveness of engineering and process controls in 
containing radioactive material and reducing radiation exposure; and
    (6) Identify and control potential sources of individual exposure 
to radiation and/or radioactive material.
    (b) Instruments and equipment used for monitoring shall be:
    (1) Periodically maintained and calibrated on an established 
frequency;
* * * * *
    17. Section 835.402 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 835.402  Individual monitoring.

    (a) For the purpose of monitoring individual exposures to external 
radiation, personnel dosimeters shall be provided to and used by:
    (1) Radiological workers who, under typical conditions, are likely 
to receive one or more of the following:
    (i) An effective dose equivalent to the whole body of 0.1 rem 
(0.001 sievert) or more in a year;
    (ii) A shallow dose equivalent to the skin or to any extremity of 5 
rems (0.05 sievert) or more in a year;
    (iii) A lens of the eye dose equivalent of 1.5 rems (0.015 sievert) 
or more in a year;
    (2) Declared pregnant workers who are likely to receive from 
external sources a dose equivalent to the embryo/fetus in excess of 10 
percent of the limit at Sec. 835.206(a);
    (3) Occupationally exposed minors likely to receive a dose in 
excess of 50 percent of the applicable limits at Sec. 835.207 in a year 
from external sources;
    (4) Members of the public entering a controlled area likely to 
receive a dose in excess of 50 percent of the limit at Sec. 835.208 in 
a year from external sources; and
    (5) Individuals entering a high or very high radiation area.
    (b) External dose monitoring programs implemented to demonstrate 
compliance with Sec. 835.402(a) shall be adequate to demonstrate 
compliance with the dose limits established in subpart C of this part 
and shall be:
    (1) Accredited, or excepted from accreditation, in accordance with 
the DOE Laboratory Accreditation Program for Personnel Dosimetry; or
    (2) Determined by the Secretarial Officer responsible for 
environment, safety and health matters to have performance 
substantially equivalent to that of programs accredited under the DOE 
Laboratory Accreditation Program for Personnel Dosimetry.
    (c) For the purpose of monitoring individual exposures to internal 
radiation, internal dosimetry programs (including routine bioassay 
programs) shall be conducted for:
    (1) Radiological workers who, under typical conditions, are likely 
to receive a committed effective dose equivalent of 0.1 rem (0.001 
sievert) or more from all occupational radionuclide intakes in a year;
    (2) Declared pregnant workers likely to receive an intake or 
intakes resulting in a dose equivalent to the embryo/fetus in excess of 
10 percent of the limit stated at Sec. 835.206(a);
    (3) Occupationally exposed minors who are likely to receive a dose 
in excess of 50 percent of the applicable limit stated at Sec. 835.207 
from all radionuclide intakes in a year; or
    (4) Members of the public entering a controlled area likely to 
receive a dose in excess of 50 percent of the limit stated at 
Sec. 835.208 from all radionuclide intakes in a year.
    (d) Internal dose monitoring programs implemented to demonstrate 
compliance with Sec. 835.402(c) shall be adequate to demonstrate 
compliance with the dose limits established in subpart C of this part 
and shall be:
    (1) Accredited, or excepted from accreditation, in accordance with 
the DOE Laboratory Accreditation Program for Radiobioassay; or,
    (2) Determined by the Secretarial Officer responsible for 
environment, safety and health matters to have performance 
substantially equivalent to that of programs accredited under the DOE 
Laboratory Accreditation Program for Radiobioassy.
    18. Section 835.403 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 835.403  Air monitoring.

    (a) Monitoring of airborne radioactivity shall be performed:
    (1) Where an individual is likely to receive an exposure of 40 or 
more DAC-hours in a year; or
    (2) As necessary to characterize the airborne radioactivity hazard 
where respiratory protective devices for protection against airborne 
radionuclides have been prescribed.
    (b) Real-time air monitoring shall be performed as necessary to 
detect and provide warning of airborne radioactivity concentrations 
that warrant immediate action to terminate inhalation of airborne 
radioactive material.


Sec. 835.404  [Reserved]

    19. Section 835.404 is removed and reserved.
    20. Section 835.405 is added to subpart E to read as follows:


Sec. 835.405  Receipt of packages containing radioactive material.

    (a) If packages containing quantities of radioactive material in 
excess of a Type A quantity (as defined at 10 CFR 71.4) are expected to 
be received from radioactive material transportation, arrangements 
shall be made to either:
    (1) Take possession of the package when the carrier offers it for 
delivery; or
    (2) Receive notification as soon as practicable after arrival of 
the package at the carrier's terminal and to take possession of the 
package expeditiously after receiving such notification.
    (b) Upon receipt from radioactive material transportation, external 
surfaces of packages known to contain radioactive material shall be 
monitored if the package:
    (1) Is labeled with a Radioactive White I, Yellow II, or Yellow III 
label (as specified at 49 CFR 172.403 and 172.436-440); or
    (2) Has been transported as low specific activity material (as 
defined at 10 CFR 71.4) on an exclusive use vehicle (as defined at 10 
CFR 71.4); or
    (3) Has evidence of degradation, such as packages that are crushed, 
wet, or damaged.
    (c) The monitoring required by paragraph (b) of this section shall 
include:
    (1) Measurements of removable contamination levels, unless the 
package contains only special form (as defined at 10 CFR 71.4) or 
gaseous radioactive material; and
    (2) Measurements of the radiation levels, unless the package 
contains less than a Type A quantity (as defined at 10 CFR 71.4) of 
radioactive material.
    (d) The monitoring required by paragraph (b) of this section shall 
be completed as soon as practicable following receipt of the package, 
but not later than 8 hours after the beginning of the working day 
following receipt of the package.

Subpart F--Entry Control Program

    21. Section 835.501 is amended by revising paragraph (d) as 
follows:


Sec. 835.501  Radiological areas.

* * * * *

[[Page 59684]]

    (d) Written authorizations shall be required to control entry into 
and perform work within radiological areas. These authorizations shall 
specify radiation protection measures commensurate with the existing 
and potential hazards.
    22. At Sec. 835.502, paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) are redesignated 
as paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) respectively; the paragraph heading of 
redesignated paragraph (b) is revised; a new paragraph (a) is added and 
redesignated paragraphs (b)(2) and (c) are revised as follows:


Sec. 835.502  High and very high radiation areas.

    (a) The following measures shall be implemented for each entry into 
a high radiation area:
    (1) The area shall be monitored as necessary during access to 
determine the exposure rates to which the individuals are exposed; and
    (2) Each individual shall be monitored by a supplemental dosimetry 
device or other means capable of providing an immediate estimate of the 
individual's integrated deep dose equivalent during the entry.
    (b) Physical controls. * * *
    (1) * * *
    (2) A device that functions automatically to prevent use or 
operation of the radiation source or field while individuals are in the 
area;
* * * * *
    (c) Very high radiation areas. In addition to the above 
requirements, additional measures shall be implemented to ensure 
individuals are not able to gain unauthorized or inadvertent access to 
very high radiation areas.

Subpart G--Posting and Labeling

    23. Section 835.601 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 835.601  General requirements.

    (a) Except as otherwise provided in this subpart, postings and 
labels required by this subpart shall include the standard radiation 
warning trefoil in black or magenta imposed upon a yellow background.
    (b) Signs required by this subpart shall be clearly and 
conspicuously posted and may include radiological protection 
instructions.
    (c) The posting and labeling requirements in this subpart may be 
modified to reflect the special considerations of DOE activities 
conducted at private residences or businesses. Such modifications shall 
provide the same level of protection to individuals as the existing 
provisions in this subpart.
    24. Section 835.602 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 835.602  Controlled areas.

    (a) Each access point to a controlled area (as defined at 
Sec. 835.2) shall be posted whenever radiological areas or radioactive 
material areas exist in the area. Individuals who enter only controlled 
areas without entering radiological areas or radioactive material areas 
are not expected to receive a total effective dose equivalent of more 
than 0.1 rem (0.001 sievert) in a year.
* * * * *
    25. Section 835.603 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 835.603  Radiological areas and radioactive material areas.

    Each access point to radiological areas and radioactive material 
areas (as defined at Sec. 835.2) shall be posted with conspicuous signs 
bearing the wording provided in this section.
    (a) Radiation area. The words ``Caution, Radiation Area'' shall be 
posted at each radiation area.
    (b) High radiation area. The words ``Caution, High Radiation Area'' 
or ``Danger, High Radiation Area'' shall be posted at each high 
radiation area.
    (c) Very high radiation area. The words ``Grave Danger, Very High 
Radiation Area'' shall be posted at each very high radiation area.
    (d) Airborne radioactivity area. The words ``Caution, Airborne 
Radioactivity Area'' or ``Danger, Airborne Radioactivity Area'' shall 
be posted at each airborne radioactivity area.
    (e) Contamination area. The words ``Caution, Contamination Area'' 
shall be posted at each contamination area.
    (f) High contamination area. The words ``Caution, High 
Contamination Area'' or ``Danger, High Contamination Area'' shall be 
posted at each high contamination area.
    (g) Radioactive material area. The words ``Caution, Radioactive 
Material(s)'' shall be posted at each radioactive material area.
    26. Section 835.604 is added to subpart G to read as follows:


Sec. 835.604  Exceptions to posting requirements.

    (a) Areas may be excepted from the posting requirements of 
Sec. 835.603 for periods of less than 8 continuous hours when placed 
under continuous observation and control of an individual knowledgeable 
of, and empowered to implement, required access and exposure control 
measures.
    (b) Areas may be excepted from the radioactive material area 
posting requirements of Sec. 835.603(g) when:
    (1) Posted in accordance with Secs. 835.603(a) through (f); or
    (2) Each item or container of radioactive material is labeled in 
accordance with this subpart such that individuals entering the area 
are made aware of the hazard; or
    (3) The radioactive material of concern consists solely of 
structures or installed components which have been activated (i.e., 
such as by being exposed to neutron radiation or particles produced by 
an accelerator).
    (c) Areas containing only packages received from radioactive 
material transportation labeled and in non-degraded condition need not 
be posted in accordance with Sec. 835.603 until the packages are 
monitored in accordance with Sec. 835.405.
    27. Section 835.605 is added to subpart G to read as follows:


Sec. 835.605  Labeling items and containers.

    Except as provided at Sec. 835.606, each item or container of 
radioactive material shall bear a durable, clearly visible label 
bearing the standard radiation warning trefoil and the words ``Caution, 
Radioactive Material'' or ``Danger, Radioactive Material.'' The label 
shall also provide sufficient information to permit individuals 
handling, using, or working in the vicinity of the items or containers 
to take precautions to avoid or control exposures.
    28. Section 835.606 is added to subpart G to read as follows:


Sec. 835.606  Exceptions to labeling requirements.

    (a) Items and containers may be excepted from the radioactive 
material labeling requirements of Sec. 835.605 when:
    (1) Used, handled, or stored in areas posted and controlled in 
accordance with this subpart and sufficient information is provided to 
permit individuals to take precautions to avoid or control exposures; 
or
    (2) The quantity of radioactive material is less than one tenth of 
the values specified in appendix E of this part; or
    (3) Packaged, labeled, and marked in accordance with the 
regulations of the Department of Transportation or DOE Orders governing 
radioactive material transportation; or
    (4) Inaccessible, or accessible only to individuals authorized to 
handle or use them, or to work in the vicinity; or
    (5) Installed in manufacturing, process, or other equipment, such 
as reactor components, piping, and tanks; or

[[Page 59685]]

    (6) The radioactive material consists solely of nuclear weapons or 
their components.
    (b) Radioactive material labels applied to sealed radioactive 
sources may be excepted from the color specifications of 
Sec. 835.601(a).

Subpart H--Records

    29. In Sec. 835.702, paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e) are 
revised to read as follows:


Sec. 835.702  Individual monitoring records.

    (a) Records shall be maintained to document doses received by all 
individuals for whom monitoring was required pursuant to Sec. 835.402 
and to document doses received during planned special exposures, 
unplanned doses exceeding the monitoring thresholds of Sec. 835.402, 
and authorized emergency exposures.
    (b) The results of individual external and internal dose monitoring 
that is performed, but not required by Sec. 835.402, shall be recorded. 
Recording of non-uniform shallow dose equivalent to the skin is not 
required if the dose is less than 2 percent of the limit specified for 
the skin at Sec. 835.202(a)(4).
    (c) The records required by this section shall:
    (1) Be sufficient to evaluate compliance with subpart C of this 
part;
    (2) Be sufficient to provide dose information necessary to complete 
reports required by subpart I of this part;
    (3) Include the following quantities for external dose received 
during the year:
    (i) The effective dose equivalent from external sources of 
radiation (deep dose equivalent may be used as effective dose 
equivalent for external exposure);
    (ii) The lens of the eye dose equivalent;
    (iii) The shallow dose equivalent to the skin; and
    (iv) The shallow dose equivalent to the extremities.
    (4) Include the following information for internal dose resulting 
from intakes received during the year:
    (i) Committed effective dose equivalent;
    (ii) Committed dose equivalent to any organ or tissue of concern; 
and
    (iii) Identity of radionuclides.
    (5) Include the following quantities for the summation of the 
external and internal dose:
    (i) Total effective dose equivalent in a year;
    (ii) For any organ or tissue assigned an internal dose during the 
year, the sum of the deep dose equivalent from external exposures and 
the committed dose equivalent to that organ or tissue; and
    (iii) Cumulative total effective dose equivalent.
    (6) Include the dose equivalent to the embryo/fetus of a declared 
pregnant worker.
    (d) Documentation of all occupational doses received during the 
current year, except for doses resulting from planned special exposures 
conducted in compliance with Sec. 835.204 and emergency exposures 
authorized in accordance with Sec. 835.1302(d), shall be obtained to 
demonstrate compliance with Sec. 835.202(a). If complete records 
documenting previous occupational dose during the year cannot be 
obtained, a written estimate signed by the individual may be accepted 
to demonstrate compliance.
    (e) For radiological workers whose occupational dose is monitored 
in accordance with Sec. 835.402, reasonable efforts shall be made to 
obtain complete records of prior years occupational internal and 
external doses.
* * * * *
    30. In Sec. 835.703, paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d) are revised 
to read as follows:


Sec. 835.703  Other monitoring records.

* * * * *
    (a) Results of monitoring for radiation and radioactive material as 
required by subparts E and L of this part, except for monitoring 
required by Sec. 835.1102(d);
    (b) Results of monitoring used to determine individual occupational 
dose from external and internal sources;
    (c) Results of monitoring for the release and control of material 
and equipment as required by Sec. 835.1101; and
    (d) Results of maintenance and calibration performed on instruments 
and equipment as required by Sec. 835.401(b).
    31. Section 835.704, paragraph (a) is amended by removing the 
reference to '', 835.902, and 835.903''; paragraphs (d) and (e) are 
revised and a new paragraph (f) is added as follows:


Sec. 835.704  Administrative records.

* * * * *
    (d) Written declarations of pregnancy, including the estimated date 
of conception, and revocations of declarations of pregnancy shall be 
maintained.
    (e) Changes in equipment, techniques, and procedures used for 
monitoring shall be documented.
    (f) Records shall be maintained as necessary to demonstrate 
compliance with the requirements of Secs. 835.1201 and 835.1202 for 
sealed radioactive source control, inventory, and source leak tests.

Subpart I--Reports to Individuals

    32. Section 835.801, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 835.801  Reports to individuals.

    (a) Radiation exposure data for individuals monitored in accordance 
with Sec. 835.402 shall be reported as specified in this section. The 
information shall include the data required under Sec. 835.702(c). Each 
notification and report shall be in writing and include: the DOE site 
or facility name, the name of the individual, and the individual's 
social security number, employee number, or other unique identification 
number.
* * * * *

Subpart J--Radiation Safety Training

    33. In subpart J, Sec. 835.901 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 835.901  Radiation safety training.

    (a) Each individual shall complete radiation safety training on the 
topics established at Sec. 835.901(c) commensurate with the hazards in 
the area and the required controls:
    (1) Before being permitted unescorted access to controlled areas; 
and
    (2) Before receiving occupational dose during access to controlled 
areas at a DOE site or facility.
    (b) Each individual shall demonstrate knowledge of the radiation 
safety training topics established at Sec. 835.901(c), commensurate 
with the hazards in the area and required controls, by successful 
completion of an examination and performance demonstrations:
    (1) Before being permitted unescorted access to radiological areas; 
and
    (2) Before performing unescorted assignments as a radiological 
worker.
    (c) Radiation safety training shall include the following topics, 
to the extent appropriate to each individual's prior training, work 
assignments, and degree of exposure to potential radiological hazards:
    (1) Risks of exposure to radiation and radioactive materials, 
including prenatal radiation exposure;
    (2) Basic radiological fundamentals and radiation protection 
concepts;
    (3) Physical design features, administrative controls, limits, 
policies, procedures, alarms, and other measures implemented at the 
facility to manage doses and maintain doses ALARA, including both 
routine and emergency actions;
    (4) Individual rights and responsibilities as related to

[[Page 59686]]

implementation of the facility radiation protection program;
    (5) Individual responsibilities for implementing ALARA measures 
required by Sec. 835.101; and
    (6) Individual exposure reports that may be requested in accordance 
with Sec. 835.801.
    (d) When an escort is used in lieu of training in accordance with 
paragraph (a) or (b) of this section, the escort shall:
    (1) Have completed radiation safety training, examinations, and 
performance demonstrations required for entry to the area and 
performance of the work; and
    (2) Ensure that all escorted individuals comply with the documented 
radiation protection program.
    (e) Radiation safety training shall be provided to individuals when 
there is a significant change to radiation protection policies and 
procedures that may affect the individual and at intervals not to 
exceed 24 months. Such training provided for individuals subject to the 
requirements of Sec. 835.901(b)(1) and (b)(2) shall include successful 
completion of an examination.


Secs. 835.902 and 835.903  [Removed and Reserved]

    34. Sections 835.902 and 835.903 of subpart J are removed and 
reserved.

Subpart K--Design and Control

    35. In Subpart K, section 835.1002 is amended by changing the word 
``old'' to ``existing'', and section 835.1001 is revised to read as 
follows:


Sec. 835.1001  Design and control.

    (a) Measures shall be taken to maintain radiation exposure in 
controlled areas ALARA through physical design features and 
administrative control. The primary methods used shall be physical 
design features (e.g., confinement, ventilation, remote handling, and 
shielding). Administrative controls shall be employed only as 
supplemental methods to control radiation exposure.
    (b) For specific activities where use of physical design features 
is demonstrated to be impractical, administrative controls shall be 
used to maintain radiation exposures ALARA.
    36. Section 835.1003 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 835.1003  Workplace controls.

    During routine operations, the combination of physical design 
features and administrative controls shall provide that:
    (a) The anticipated occupational dose to general employees shall 
not exceed the limits established at Sec. 835.202; and
    (b) The ALARA process is utilized for personnel exposures to 
ionizing radiation.

Subpart L--Radioactive Contamination Control

    37. The heading of subpart L is revised to read as set forth above.
    37a. Section 835.1101 is revised and Sec. 835.1102 is added to read 
as follows:


Sec. 835.1101  Control of material and equipment.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, 
material and equipment in contamination areas, high contamination 
areas, and airborne radioactivity areas shall not be released to a 
controlled area if:
    (1) Removable surface contamination levels on accessible surfaces 
exceed the removable surface contamination values specified in appendix 
D of this part; or
    (2) Prior use suggests that the removable surface contamination 
levels on inaccessible surfaces are likely to exceed the removable 
surface contamination values specified in appendix D of this part.
    (b) Material and equipment exceeding the removable surface 
contamination values specified in appendix D of this part may be 
conditionally released for movement on-site from one radiological area 
for immediate placement in another radiological area only if 
appropriate monitoring is performed and appropriate controls for the 
movement are established and exercised.
    (c) Material and equipment with fixed contamination levels that 
exceed the total contamination values specified in appendix D of this 
part may be released for use in controlled areas outside of 
radiological areas only under the following conditions:
    (1) Removable surface contamination levels are below the removable 
surface contamination values specified in appendix D of this part; and
    (2) The material or equipment is routinely monitored and clearly 
marked or labeled to alert personnel of the contaminated status.


Sec. 835.1102  Control of areas.

    (a) Appropriate controls shall be maintained and verified which 
prevent the inadvertent transfer of removable contamination to 
locations outside of radiological areas under normal operating 
conditions.
    (b) Any area in which contamination levels exceed the values 
specified in appendix D of this part shall be controlled in a manner 
commensurate with the physical and chemical characteristics of the 
contaminant, the radionuclides present, and the fixed and removable 
surface contamination levels.
    (c) Areas accessible to individuals where the measured total 
surface contamination levels exceed, but the removable surface 
contamination levels are less than, corresponding surface contamination 
values specified in appendix D of this part, shall be controlled as 
follows when located outside of radiological areas:
    (1) The area shall be routinely monitored to ensure the removable 
surface contamination level remains below the removable surface 
contamination values specified in appendix D of this part; and
    (2) The area shall be conspicuously marked to warn individuals of 
the contaminated status.
    (d) Individuals exiting contamination, high contamination, or 
airborne radioactivity areas shall be monitored, as appropriate, for 
the presence of surface contamination.
    (e) Protective clothing shall be required for entry to areas in 
which removable contamination exists at levels exceeding the removable 
surface contamination values specified in appendix D of this part.
    38. Subpart M is added, consisting of Secs. 835.1201 and 835.1202, 
to read as follows:

Subpart M--Sealed Radioactive Source Control


Sec. 835.1201  Sealed radioactive source control.

    Sealed radioactive sources shall be used, handled, and stored in a 
manner commensurate with the hazards associated with operations 
involving the sources.


Sec. 835.1202  Accountable sealed radioactive sources.

    (a) Each accountable sealed radioactive source shall be inventoried 
at intervals not to exceed six months. This inventory shall:
    (1) Establish the physical location of each accountable sealed 
radioactive source;
    (2) Verify the presence and adequacy of associated postings and 
labels; and
    (3) Establish the adequacy of storage locations, containers, and 
devices.
    (b) Except for sealed radioactive sources consisting solely of 
gaseous radioactive material or tritium, each accountable sealed 
radioactive source shall be subject to a source leak test upon receipt, 
when damage is suspected, and at intervals not to exceed six months. 
Source leak tests shall be capable of detecting radioactive material 
leakage equal to or exceeding 0.005 microcurie.

[[Page 59687]]

    (c) Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraph (b) of this 
section, an accountable sealed radioactive source is not subject to 
periodic source leak testing if that source has been removed from 
service. Such sources shall be stored in a controlled location, subject 
to periodic inventory as required by paragraph (a) of this section, and 
subject to source leak testing prior to being returned to service.
    (d) Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of 
this section, an accountable sealed radioactive source is not subject 
to periodic inventory and source leak testing if that source is located 
in an area that is unsafe for human entry or otherwise inaccessible.
    (e) An accountable sealed radioactive source found to be leaking 
radioactive material shall be controlled in a manner that minimizes the 
spread of radioactive contamination.

Subpart N--Emergency Exposure Situations

    39. In Sec. 835.1301, paragraphs (a), introductory text, (b), (c), 
and (d) are revised to read as follows:


Sec. 835.1301  General provisions.

    (a) A general employee whose occupational dose has exceeded the 
numerical value of any of the limits specified in Sec. 835.202 as a 
result of an authorized emergency exposure may be permitted to return 
to work in radiological areas during the current year providing that 
all of the following conditions are met:
* * * * *
    (b) All doses exceeding the limits specified in Sec. 835.202 shall 
be recorded in the affected individual's occupational dose record.
    (c) When the conditions under which a dose was received in excess 
of the limits specified in Sec. 835.202, except those received in 
accordance with Sec. 835.204, have been eliminated, operating 
management shall notify the Head of the responsible DOE field 
organization.
    (d) Operations after a dose was received in excess of the limits 
specified in Sec. 835.202, except those received in accordance with 
Sec. 835.204, may be resumed only with the approval of DOE.
    40. Section 835.1302 is revised in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) as 
follows:


Sec. 835.1302  Emergency exposure situations.

* * * * *
    (b) Operating management shall weigh actual and potential risks 
against the benefits to be gained.
    (c) No individual shall be required to perform a rescue action that 
might involve substantial personal risk.
    (d) Each individual authorized to perform emergency actions likely 
to result in occupational doses exceeding the values of the limits 
provided at Sec. 835.202(a) shall be trained in accordance with 
Sec. 835.901(b) and briefed beforehand on the known or anticipated 
hazards to which the individual will be subjected.
* * * * *
    41. At Sec. 835.1304, paragraphs (a) and (b)(1), the word 
``personnel'' is revised to read ``individuals'' and paragraph (b)(4) 
is revised as follows:


Sec. 835.1304  Nuclear accident dosimetry.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (4) Personal nuclear accident dosimeters.
    42. Appendix A of Part 835 is amended by removing footnote 5 from 
the Footnotes for Appendix A and, adding the following two paragraphs 
at the beginning of the introductory text:

Appendix A to Part 835--Derived Air Concentrations (DAC) for 
Controlling Radiation Exposure to Workers at DOE Facilities

    The data presented in appendix A are to be used for controlling 
individual internal doses in accordance with Sec. 835.209, 
identifying the need for air monitoring in accordance with 
Sec. 835.403, and identifying the need for posting of airborne 
radioactivity areas in accordance with Sec. 835.603(d).
    The DAC values are given for individual radionuclides. For known 
mixtures of radionuclides, determine the sum of the ratio of the 
observed concentration of a particular radionuclide and its 
corresponding DAC for all radionuclides in the mixture. If this sum 
exceeds unity (1), then the DAC has been exceeded. For unknown 
radionuclides, the most restrictive DAC (lowest value) for those 
isotopes not known to be absent shall be used.
* * * * *

Appendix B--[Removed and Reserved]

    43. Appendix B to Part 835 is removed and reserved.
    44. Appendix C to Part 835 is amended by removing the entries 
for the radionuclides Rn-220 and Rn-222 and their corresponding 
half-lives and air immersion DACs from the table and revising the 
introductory text preceding the table as follows:

Appendix C to Part 835--Derived Air Concentration (DAC) for Workers 
From External Exposure During Immersion in a Contaminated 
Atmospheric Cloud

* * * * *
    a. The data presented in appendix C are to be used for 
controlling occupational exposures in accordance with Sec. 835.209, 
identifying the need for air monitoring in accordance with 
Sec. 835.403, and identifying the need for posting of airborne 
radioactivity areas in accordance with Sec. 835.603(d).
    b. The air immersion DAC values shown in this appendix are based 
on a stochastic dose limit of 5 rems (0.05 Sv) per year or a 
nonstochastic (organ) dose limit of 50 rems (0.5 Sv) per year. Four 
columns of information are presented: (1) Radionuclide; (2) half-
life in units of seconds (s), minutes (min), hours (h), days (d), or 
years (yr); (3) air immersion DAC in units of Ci/ml; and 
(4) air immersion DAC in units of Bq/m3. The data are 
listed by radionuclide in order of increasing atomic mass. The air 
immersion DACs were calculated for a continuous, nonshielded 
exposure via immersion in a semi-infinite atmospheric cloud. The 
DACs listed in this appendix may be modified to allow for submersion 
in a cloud of finite dimensions.
    c. The DAC value for air immersion listed for a given 
radionuclide is determined either by a yearly limit on effective 
dose equivalent, which provides a limit on stochastic radiation 
effects, or by a limit on yearly dose equivalent to any organ, which 
provides a limit on nonstochastic radiation effects. For most of the 
radionuclides listed, the DAC value is determined by the yearly 
limit on effective dose equivalent. Thus, the few cases where the 
DAC value is determined by the yearly limit on shallow dose 
equivalent to the skin are indicated in the table by an appropriate 
footnote. Again, the DACs listed in this appendix account only for 
immersion in a semi-infinite cloud and do not account for inhalation 
or ingestion exposures.
    d. Three classes of radionuclides are included in the air 
immersion DACs as described below.
    (1) Class 1. The first class of radionuclides includes selected 
noble gases and short-lived activation products that occur in 
gaseous form. For these radionuclides, inhalation doses are 
negligible compared to the external dose from immersion in an 
atmospheric cloud.
    (2) Class 2. The second class of radionuclides includes those 
for which a DAC value for inhalation has been calculated, but for 
which the DAC value for external exposure to a contaminated 
atmospheric cloud is more restrictive (i.e., results in a lower DAC 
value). These radionuclides generally have half-lives of a few hours 
or less, or are eliminated from the body following inhalation 
sufficiently rapidly to limit the inhalation dose.
    (3) Class 3. The third class of radionuclides includes selected 
isotopes with relatively short half-lives. These radionuclides 
typically have half-lives that are less than 10 minutes, they do not 
occur as a decay product of a longer lived radionuclide, or they 
lack sufficient decay data to permit internal dose calculations. 
These radionuclides are also typified by a radioactive emission of 
highly intense, high-energy photons and rapid removal from the body 
following inhalation.
    e. The DAC values are given for individual radionuclides. For 
known mixtures of radionuclides, determine the sum of the ratio of 
the observed concentration of a particular

[[Page 59688]]

radionuclide and its corresponding DAC for all radionuclides in the 
mixture. If this sum exceeds unity (1), then the DAC has been 
exceeded. For unknown radionuclides, the most restrictive DAC 
(lowest value) for those isotopes not known to be absent shall be 
used.
* * * * *
    45. Appendix D to part 835 is revised as follows:

Appendix D to Part 835--Surface Contamination Values

    The data presented in appendix D are to be used in identifying 
the need for posting of contamination and high contamination areas 
in accordance with Sec. 835.603(e) and (f) and identifying the need 
for surface contamination monitoring and control in accordance with 
Secs. 835.1101 and 835.1102.

                               Surface Contamination Values \1\ in dpm/100 cm \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 Total (Fixed +
                                Radionuclide                                    Removable \2\    Removable) \2\,
                                                                                     \4\               \3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U-nat, U-235, U-238, and associated decay products..........................         \7\ 1,000         \7\ 5,000
Transuranics, Ra-226, Ra-228, Th-230, Th-228, Pa-231, Ac-227, I-125, I-129..                20               500
Th-nat, Th-232, Sr-90, Ra-223, Ra-224, U-232, I-126, I-131, I-133...........               200             1,000
Beta-gamma emitters (nuclides with decay modes other than alpha emission or
 spontaneous fission) except Sr-90 and others noted above \5\...............             1,000             5,000
Tritium and tritiated compounds \6\.........................................            10,000              N/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The values in this appendix, with the exception noted in footnote 5, apply to radioactive contamination
  deposited on, but not incorporated into the interior or matrix of, the contaminated item. Where surface
  contamination by both alpha-and beta-gamma-emitting nuclides exists, the limits established for alpha-and beta-
  gamma-emitting nuclides apply independently.
\2\ As used in this table, dpm (disintegrations per minute) means the rate of emission by radioactive material
  as determined by correcting the counts per minute observed by an appropriate detector for background,
  efficiency, and geometric factors associated with the instrumentation.
\3\ The levels may be averaged over one square meter provided the maximum surface activity in any area of 100 cm
  \2\ is less than three times the value specified. For purposes of averaging, any square meter of surface shall
  be considered to be above the surface contamination value if: (1) From measurements of a representative number
  of sections it is determined that the average contamination level exceeds the applicable value; or (2) it is
  determined that the sum of the activity of all isolated spots or particles in any 100 cm \2\ area exceeds
  three times the applicable value.
\4\ The amount of removable radioactive material per 100 cm \2\ of surface area should be determined by swiping
  the area with dry filter or soft absorbent paper, applying moderate pressure, and then assessing the amount of
  radioactive material on the swipe with an appropriate instrument of known efficiency. (Note--The use of dry
  material may not be appropriate for tritium.) When removable contamination on objects of surface area less
  than 100 cm \2\ is determined, the activity per unit area shall be based on the actual area and the entire
  surface shall be wiped. It is not necessary to use swiping techniques to measure removable contamination
  levels if direct scan surveys indicate that the total residual surface contamination levels are within the
  limits for removable contamination.
\5\ This category of radionuclides includes mixed fission products, including the Sr-90 which is present in
  them. It does not apply to Sr-90 which has been separated from the other fission products or mixtures where
  the Sr-90 has been enriched.
\6\ Tritium contamination may diffuse into the volume or matrix of materials. Evaluation of surface
  contamination shall consider the extent to which such contamination may migrate to the surface in order to
  ensure the surface contamination value provided in this appendix is not exceeded. Once this contamination
  migrates to the surface, it may be removable, not fixed; therefore, a ``Total'' value does not apply.
\7\ (alpha)

    46. Appendix E to Part 835 is added as follows:

Appendix E to Part 835--Values for Establishing Sealed Radioactive 
Source Accountability and Radioactive Material Posting and Labeling 
Requirements

    The data presented in this appendix E are to be used for 
identifying accountable sealed radioactive sources as defined at 
Sec. 835.2(a), establishing the need for radioactive material area 
posting in accordance with Sec. 835.603(g), and establishing the 
need for radioactive material labeling in accordance with 
Sec. 835.605.

    Note: The data are listed in alphabetical order by nuclide.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Activity                          Activity                         Activity
            Nuclide             (Ci)       Nuclide       (Ci)       Nuclide      (Ci)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ac-227........................      1.5E+00    H-3..............      1.6E+08    Re-184m.........       1.5E+02
Ag-105........................      2.1E+06    Hf-172...........      3.1E+04    Re-186m.........       2.8E+05
Ag-108m.......................      1.8E+01    Hf-175...........      1.8E+06    Rh-101..........       2.5E+05
Ag-110m.......................      2.2E+01    Hf-178m..........      4.1E+03    Rh-102..........       8.3E+04
Al-26.........................      1.6E+01    Hf-181...........      3.5E+02    Rh-102m.........       2.1E+05
Am-241........................      2.3E+01    Hf-182...........      3.0E+03    Ru-103..........       4.4E+02
Am-242m.......................      2.4E+01    Hg-194...........      3.5E+04    Ru-106..........       2.1E+04
Am-243........................      2.3E+01    Hg-203...........      4.9E+02    S-35............       4.0E+06
As-73.........................      5.4E+02    Ho-166m..........      2.2E+01    Sb-124..........       9.1E+01
Au-195........................      4.8E+02    I-125............      3.5E+02    Sb-125..........       6.8E+01
Ba-133........................      5.2E+01    I-129............      1.8E+02    Sc-46...........       6.2E+01
Be-10.........................      2.8E+04    In-114m..........      7.8E+02    Se-75...........       6.4E+01
Be-7..........................      3.2E+03    Ir-192...........      1.4E+02    Se-79...........       1.0E+06
Bi-207........................      1.7E+01    Ir-192m..........      2.6E+04    Si-32...........       9.9E+03
Bi-208........................      1.5E+01    Ir-194m..........      2.7E+01    Sm-145..........       9.1E+05
Bi-210m.......................      1.3E+03    K-40.............      2.8E+02    Sm-146..........       1.2E+02
Bk-247........................      1.7E+01    La-137...........      1.1E+05    Sm-151..........       2.5E+05
Bk-249........................      7.2E+03    Lu-173...........      4.4E+05    Sn-113..........       3.1E+02
C-14..........................      4.8E+06    Lu-174...........      2.5E+05    Sn-119m.........       3.3E+02
Ca-41.........................      7.4E+06    Lu-174m..........      3.9E+05    Sn-121m.........       8.7E+05
Ca-45.........................      1.5E+06    Lu-177m..........      5.8E+01    Sn-123..........       1.3E+04
Cd-109........................      1.6E+02    Md-258...........      6.0E+02    Sn-126..........       1.8E+02
Cd-113m.......................      6.5E+03    Mn-53............      2.0E+07    Sr-85...........       1.2E+02

[[Page 59689]]

Cd-115m.......................      1.0E+04    Mn-54............      6.5E+01    Sr-89...........       2.4E+05
Ce-139........................      2.4E+02    Mo-93............      7.7E+01    Sr-90...........       7.7E+03
Ce-141........................      2.4E+03    Na-22............      1.9E+01    Ta-179..........       1.5E+06
Ce-144........................      1.5E+03    Nb-91............      7.0E+01    Ta-182..........       7.3E+01
Cf-248........................      2.0E+02    Nb-91m...........      3.6E+02    Tb-157..........       2.5E+03
Cf-249........................      1.7E+01    Nb-92............      1.8E+01    Tb-158..........       3.9E+04
Cf-250........................      3.8E+01    Nb-93m...........      4.4E+02    Tb-160..........       1.2E+02
Cf-251........................      1.7E+01    Nb-94............      2.3E+01    Tc-95m..........       1.3E+02
Cf-252........................      6.4E+01    Nb-95............      3.4E+02    Tc-97...........       8.1E+01
Cf-254........................      3.4E+01    Ni-59............      7.5E+06    Tc-97m..........       3.6E+02
Cl-36.........................      4.6E+05    Ni-63............      3.2E+06    Tc-98...........       2.5E+01
Cm-241........................      6.8E+04    Np-235...........      1.2E+02    Tc-99...........       6.8E+06
Cm-242........................      5.8E+02    Np-236...........      2.2E+01    Te-121m.........       1.9E+02
Cm-243........................      3.3E+01    Np-237...........      1.9E+01    Te-123m.........       2.8E+02
Cm-244........................      4.0E+01    Os-185...........      1.4E+02    Te-125m.........       4.4E+02
Cm-245........................      2.2E+01    Os-194...........      1.5E+04    Te-127m.........       8.0E+02
Cm-246........................      2.2E+01    Pa-231...........      7.8E+00    Te-129m.........       2.3E+03
Cm-247........................      2.4E+01    Pb-202...........      1.0E+05    Th-228..........       2.9E+01
Cm-248........................      6.0E+00    Pb-205...........      9.1E+01    Th-229..........       4.7E+00
Cm-250........................      1.1E+00    Pb-210...........      9.2E+01    Th-230..........       3.1E+01
Co-56.........................      4.0E+01    Pd-107...........      7.8E+05    Th-232..........       6.1E+00
Co-57.........................      2.3E+02    Pm-143...........      1.3E+02    Ti-44...........       1.6E+02
Co-58.........................      1.4E+02    Pm-144...........      2.9E+01    Tl-204..........       2.2E+04
Co-60.........................      1.8E+01    Pm-145...........      2.6E+02    Tm-170..........       8.4E+03
Cs-134........................      2.7E+01    Pm-146...........      4.5E+01    Tm-171..........       2.8E+04
Cs-135........................      2.2E+06    Pm-147...........      2.5E+05    U-232...........       1.5E+01
Cs-137........................      6.0E+01    Pm-148m..........      1.1E+02    U-233...........       7.4E+01
Dy-159........................      4.1E+06    Po-209...........      6.3E+03    U-234...........       7.5E+01
Es-254........................      6.3E+01    Po-210...........      1.1E+03    U-235...........       6.7E+01
Es-255........................      4.6E+04    Pt-193...........      4.4E+07    U-236...........       8.0E+01
Eu-148........................      7.0E+05    Pu-236...........      6.9E+01    U-238...........       8.4E+01
Eu-149........................      5.3E+06    Pu-237...........      3.3E+02    V-49............       2.9E+07
Eu-152........................      3.1E+01    Pu-238...........      2.5E+01    W-181...........       1.1E+03
Eu-154........................      3.1E+01    Pu-239...........      2.3E+01    W-185...........       3.9E+06
Eu-155........................      3.7E+02    Pu-240...........      2.3E+01    W-188...........       6.4E+04
Fe-55.........................      3.7E+06    Pu-241...........      1.2E+03    Y-88............       3.4E+01
Fe-59.........................      2.0E+02    Pu-242...........      2.4E+01    Y-91............       5.0E+04
Fe-60.........................      1.3E+04    Pu-244...........      2.5E+01    Yb-169..........       5.5E+02
Fm-257........................      4.3E+02    Ra-226...........      1.2E+03    Zn-65...........       1.1E+02
Gd-146........................      2.6E+05    Ra-228...........      2.1E+03    Zr-88...........       1.2E+02
Gd-148........................      3.0E+01    Rb-83............      9.2E+01    Zr-93...........       3.1E+04
Gd-151........................      1.1E+06    Rb-84............      2.0E+02    Zr-95...........       2.0E+02
Gd-153........................      2.1E+02    Re-183...........      5.4E+02
Ge-68.........................      5.7E+02    Re-184...........      2.6E+02
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any alpha emitting radionuclide not listed above and mixtures of 
alpha emitters of unknown composition have a value of 10 
microcuries.
    Any radionuclide other than alpha emitting radionuclides not 
listed above and mixtures of beta emitters of unknown composition 
have a value of 100 microcuries.

    Note: Where there is involved a combination of radionuclides in 
known amounts, derive the value for the combination as follows: 
determine, for each radionuclide in the combination, the ratio 
between the quantity present in the combination and the value 
otherwise established for the specific radionuclide when not in 
combination. If the sum of such ratios for all radionuclides in the 
combination exceeds unity (1), then the accountability criterion has 
been exceeded.

[FR Doc. 98-27366 Filed 11-3-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P