[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 36 (Tuesday, February 24, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8350-8352]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-3890]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 36 / Tuesday, February 24, 2004 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 8350]]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Parts 19, 20, and 50
Collection, Reporting, or Posting of Information; Availability of
Draft Rule Language
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Availability of draft rule language.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is making available
the draft wording of possible changes to its regulations. The changes
under consideration would clarify or revise the regulations to reduce
unnecessary regulatory burden associated with the collecting,
reporting, and posting of information. The NRC staff is making the
draft rule language available to inform stakeholders of the NRC staff's
consideration of possible changes to its regulations, and to solicit
comments on the staff's direction and draft language. The draft wording
and several specific requests for feedback are available on the NRC's
public Web site at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov.
DATES: Submit comments by April 9, 2004. Comments received after this
date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission
is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before
this date.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods.
Personal information will not be removed from your comments:
Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications
Staff.
E-mail comments to: [email protected]. If you do not receive a reply e-
mail confirming that we have received your comments, contact us
directly at (301) 415-1966. You may also submit comments via the NRC's
rulemaking Web site at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. Address questions
about our rulemaking Web site to Carol Gallagher at (301) 415-5905; e-
mail: [email protected]. Comments can also be submitted via the Federal
eRulemaking Portal http://www.regulations.gov.
Hand deliver comments to 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland
20852, between 7:30 am and 4:15 pm on Federal workdays (Telephone:
(301) 415-1966).
Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(301) 415-1101.
Publicly available documents related to this rulemaking may be
viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's
Public Document Room (PDR), O1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The PDR reproduction contractor
will copy documents for a fee. Selected documents, including comments,
may be viewed and downloaded electronically via the NRC rulemaking Web
site at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov.
Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC after
November 1, 1999, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic
Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this
site, the public can gain entry into the NRC's Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image
files of NRC's public documents. If you do not have access to ADAMS or
if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS,
contact the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at (800)
397-4209, (301) 415-4737, or by e-mail to [email protected].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William D. Reckley, Division of
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001;
telephone: (301) 415-1323; e-mail: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
In SECY-02-0081, ``Staff Activities Related to the NRC Goal of
Reducing Unnecessary Regulatory Burden on Power Reactor Licensees,''
dated May 13, 2002 (ADAMS Accession No. ML020420137), the NRC staff
described various interactions with stakeholders regarding ways to
reduce unnecessary regulatory burden. By memorandum dated June 25, 2002
(ADAMS Accession No. ML021760768), the Commission directed the staff to
proceed with its evaluation of possible rule changes. In developing the
initiative described in SECY-02-0081, the NRC staff solicited
observations and suggestions by placing a notice in the Federal
Register (66 FR 22134; May 3, 2001) and sponsoring a workshop on May
31, 2001. In a letter dated July 2, 2001 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML011870432), the Nuclear Energy Institute provided a list of
suggestions from its members for possible changes to several
regulations that could reduce unnecessary regulatory burden, including
certain reporting and labeling requirements in 10 CFR parts 19 and 20.
The NRC staff has evaluated the suggestions from industry and other
stakeholders and selected 10 CFR 19.13, ``Notifications and reports to
individuals,'' 10 CFR 20.2104, ``Determination of prior occupational
dose,'' and container labeling requirements as being candidates for
further consideration. The NRC staff is also considering changes to 10
CFR 20.1003 to clarify the use of the effective dose equivalent in
place of the deep dose equivalent in dose assessments (see Regulatory
Issue Summary 2003-04, ``Use of the Effective Dose Equivalent in Place
of the Deep Dose Equivalent in Dose Assessments,'' dated February 13,
2003; ADAMS Accession No. ML030370122). The NRC staff's preliminary
assessment is that these regulations result in regulatory burdens on
licensees beyond what is needed to protect workers and the public
against radiation.
Discussion
The rulemaking under consideration would revise several
administrative requirements associated with the collection, reporting,
and posting of information. The draft wording for the changes being
considered by the NRC staff may be viewed on the NRC's public Web site
at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov.
The first change being considered would affect 10 CFR 19.13 and
related regulations in 10 CFR Part 20. Prior to 1992, 10 CFR 19.13(b)
required licensees to provide each worker annually the worker's
occupational dose ``[a]t the request of any worker.'' Thereafter, the
Commission amended its regulations (58 FR 23360; May 21, 1991) to
conform to 1987 Presidential guidance for Federal agencies on
[[Page 8351]]
occupational radiation protection (52 FR 2822; January 27, 1987). NRC
licensees are currently required to advise each worker annually of the
worker's received dose as shown in records maintained by the licensee
pursuant to 10 CFR 20.2106, ``Records of individual monitoring
results.'' Licensees are required by 10 CFR 20.2106 to maintain records
of doses received by all individuals for whom monitoring was required
pursuant to 10 CFR 20.1502, ``Conditions requiring individual
monitoring of external and internal occupational dose.'' Under 10 CFR
20.1502, licensees are required to monitor occupational radiation
exposure for workers likely to receive a dose in excess of 10 percent
of the limits specified in 10 CFR 20.1201, ``Occupational dose limits
for adults,'' or for workers who enter a high or very high radiation
area. Licensees make this determination prospectively with a measure of
conservatism, so that many of the workers monitored by licensees
actually receive no measurable exposure or only a small fraction of the
doses specified in 10 CFR 20.1502. As a result, the recordkeeping and
reporting requirements have applied to a large number of workers,
thereby increasing administrative costs to licensees. The NRC staff is
considering a change to the reporting requirement so that licensees
would continue the current reporting for workers who receive more than
2 percent of the limits specified in 10 CFR 20.1201 (this would
generally translate to exceeding a total effective dose equivalent
(TEDE) of 100 millirem in one year), but would not be required to
provide annual dose reports to workers who receive less than 2 percent
of those limits. Licensees would continue to provide all workers access
to information from their dose records and would provide any worker
with a copy of their annual dose report upon request. The staff's
initial criteria of 100 millirem was selected because it corresponds to
the annual dose limit in 10 CFR 20.1301, ``Dose limits for individual
members of the public,'' and is also the threshold for requiring
employee training pursuant to 10 CFR 19.12, ``Instruction to workers.''
In addition to other comments or suggestions regarding this
possible change to NRC regulations, the NRC staff requests that
stakeholders responding to this solicitation address the following
questions:
(1) Does the language being considered appropriately balance the
intent of the Federal government's guidance and regulations related to
occupational exposure in terms of avoiding burdensome requirements for
doses that are insignificant while adequately providing individuals
with information about their occupational exposures?
(2) Has the staff suggested appropriate criteria for when licensees
are required to provide a report to workers (i.e., is ``exceeds 2
percent of the dose limits in 10 CFR 20.1201(a) or the worker makes a
request for a report of their dose'' a reasonable threshold)?
(3) Would the change, if made based on the language being
considered, result in cost savings to licensees? If so, please provide
an estimate of the savings.
(4) Should licensees be required to notify workers periodically of
their right to request their dose report (e.g., when the worker is
issued a personal dosimeter or annually)?
(5) Does the possible consolidation of required reports to
individuals into 10 CFR 20.2205 and the deletion of 10 CFR 19.13(d)
clarify the regulations and would there be a significant cost
associated with implementing this possible change?
The second change under consideration would revise 10 CFR 20.1905,
``Exemptions to labeling requirements,'' or alternatively add a new
regulation to 10 CFR part 50 which would define an exemption from 10
CFR 20.1904 for certain containers within facilities with licenses
issued under parts 50 or 52. The exempted containers would need to
satisfy conditions such as being located within an area posted in
accordance with 10 CFR 20.1902, being conspicuously marked, and being
accessible only to trained individuals.
In addition to other comments or suggestions regarding this
possible change to NRC regulations, the NRC staff requests that
stakeholders responding to this solicitation address the following
questions:
(1) Does the language being considered provide adequate controls
for radioactive materials stored within facilities licensed under 10
CFR part 50?
(2) Would the change, if made based on the language being
considered, result in cost savings to part 50 licensees? If so, please
provide an estimate of the savings.
(3) Are there categories of materials licensees to which this
exemption might be applied, where adequate controls for radioactive
materials stored within these facilities could be provided by the
conditions being considered for the exemption? If so, what would be the
cost savings to these licensees?
The third change under consideration involves 10 CFR 20.2104. This
possible change would revise the requirement in 10 CFR 20.2104(a)(2)
for licensees to attempt to obtain the records of cumulative
occupational radiation dose for each worker requiring monitoring
pursuant to 10 CFR 20.1502. The information on occupational doses in
years other than the current year is not used except in performing
evaluations required by 10 CFR 20.1206, ``Planned special exposures.''
Requirements related to obtaining information, performing evaluations,
maintaining records, and making reports to individuals and the NRC
about planned special exposures are codified in 10 CFR 20.1206 and
20.2104(b). The NRC staff is considering changing 10 CFR 20.2104 to
require that licensees obtain the records of cumulative occupational
radiation dose only for those individuals being authorized to receive a
planned special exposure.
In addition to other comments or suggestions regarding this
possible change to NRC regulations, the NRC staff requests that
stakeholders responding to this solicitation address the following
questions:
(1) Would the change, if made based on the language being
considered, ensure adequate protection of radiation workers?
(2) Would the change, if made based on the language being
considered, result in cost savings to licensees? If so, please provide
an estimate of the savings.
The fourth change under consideration by the NRC staff is to revise
the definition of TEDE in 10 CFR 20.1003 to be more consistent with the
technical basis for the requirements in Part 20 (e.g., the
recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological
Protection in its Publication 30, a copy of which may be purchased
through Elsevier at http://www.elsevier.nl/locate/series/icrp). The
change under consideration resolves a source of possible confusion in
the current regulation by clarifying that the TEDE is the sum of the
effective dose equivalent (for external exposures) and the committed
effective dose equivalent (for internal exposures). If a licensee is
not using a method approved by the NRC for determining effective dose
equivalent with radiation measuring devices, the deep dose equivalent,
determined for the highest exposed part of the whole body, will be
substituted for the effective dose equivalent (for external exposures).
Regulatory Issue Summary 2003-04 provides the regulatory basis, and
approved methods, for using the effective dose equivalent from external
exposures in complying with the regulatory requirements, and limits, on
TEDE.
In addition to other comments or suggestions regarding this
possible
[[Page 8352]]
change to NRC regulations, the NRC staff requests that stakeholders
responding to this solicitation address the following questions:
(1) Is the proposed definition of TEDE consistent with the
technical basis of the current regulations in 10 CFR part 20 (e.g.,
recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological
Protections in its Publications 26 and 30)?
(2) Does the language clarify the existing requirements as
explained in Regulatory Issue Summary 2003-04?
(3) Should the rule address approvals by Agreement States of
dosimetry methods for using effective dose equivalent when external
exposure is determined by measurement? If so, how should approval by
one jurisdiction be considered by other jurisdictions to ensure
consistent results and to minimize state-by-state variations in
approach for licensees operating in multiple jurisdictions?
The draft rule language is preliminary and may be incomplete in one
or more respects. The NRC staff is releasing the draft rule language to
inform stakeholders of the NRC staff's consideration of possible
changes to 10 CFR parts 19, 20, and 50, and to invite stakeholders to
comment on the draft revisions. As appropriate, the Statements of
Consideration for the proposed rule will briefly discuss substantive
changes made to the rule language as a result of comments received.
Comments may be provided as indicated under the ADDRESSES heading. The
NRC may post updates periodically on the rulemaking web site that may
be of interest to stakeholders.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day of February, 2004.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
William H. Ruland,
Director, Project Directorate IV, Division of Licensing Project
Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 04-3890 Filed 2-23-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P