[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 85 (Monday, May 4, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25237-25247]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-10408]


 ========================================================================
 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. 80, No. 85 / Monday, May 4, 2015 / Proposed 
Rules  

[[Page 25237]]



NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I

[NRC-2014-0044]
RIN 3150-AJ38


Reactor Effluents

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking; request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing this 
advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) to obtain input from 
stakeholders on the development of a regulatory basis for the NRC's 
regulations governing radioactive effluents from nuclear power plants. 
The regulatory basis would support potential changes to better align 
the NRC regulations governing dose assessments for radioactive 
effluents from nuclear power plant operations with the most recent 
terminology and dose-related methodology published by the International 
Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) contained in the ICRP 
Publication 103 (2007). The NRC has identified specific questions and 
issues with respect to a possible revision of the NRC's current 
regulations and guidance governing radioactive gaseous and liquid 
effluents from nuclear power plants. The NRC seeks public and other 
stakeholder input on these questions and issues in order to develop the 
regulatory basis.

DATES: Submit comments by September 1, 2015. Comments received after 
this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC 
is only able to ensure consideration of comments received on or before 
this date.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods 
(unless this document describes a different method for submitting 
comments on a specific subject):
     Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2014-0044. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-
3463; email: [email protected]. For technical questions contact 
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of 
this document.
     Email comments to: [email protected]. If you do 
not receive an automatic email reply confirming receipt, then contact 
us at 301-415-1677.
     Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission at 301-415-1101.
     Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and 
Adjudications Staff.
     Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 
Maryland 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (Eastern Time) Federal 
workdays; telephone: 301-415-1677.
    For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting 
comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carolyn Lauron, telephone: 301-415-
2736, email: [email protected]; or Nishka Devaser, telephone: 301-
415-5196, email: [email protected]. Both of the Office of New 
Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-
0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2014-0044 when contacting the NRC 
about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain 
publicly-available information related to this action by any of the 
following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2014-0044.
     NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly available documents online in the 
ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and 
then select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, 
please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 
1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected]. The 
ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available 
in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is referenced in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. For the convenience 
of the reader, the ADAMS accession numbers are also provided in a table 
in the ``Availability of Documents'' section of this document.
     NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public 
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2014-0044 in the subject line of your 
comment submission.
    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact 
information in comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly 
disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment 
submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment 
submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment 
submissions to remove identifying or contact information.
    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons 
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to 
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be 
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should 
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to 
remove such information before making the comment submissions available 
to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.

II. Background

    The requirements of appendix I of part 50 of Title 10 of the Code 
of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) were first published in 1975 (40 FR 
19439; May 5, 1975) and are based on the terminology and methodology 
for dose assessment described in ICRP Publication 2 (1959).\1\

[[Page 25238]]

The requirements of 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, apply to persons who 
hold NRC licenses to operate nuclear power reactors under 10 CFR part 
50 or 10 CFR part 52. Specifically, 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, 
prescribes the design and performance of equipment used to control 
radioactive liquid and gaseous effluents to the environment and doses 
to members of the public from nuclear power plants during normal 
operations and expected operational occurrences. The 10 CFR part 50, 
appendix I, regulations provide guidance to licensees for developing 
technical specifications, as required by 10 CFR 50.36a(a), to keep 
levels of radioactive materials in effluents released in unrestricted 
areas ``As Low As Is Reasonably Achievable'' (ALARA).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ICRP Publication 2 (1959), ``Permissible Dose for Internal 
Radiation.'' The condensed ICRP reference formats used in this 
document are ``ICRP Publication 103,'' and ``ICRP Publication 103 
(2007).''
    \2\ The NRC's regulations (10 CFR 20.1003) define ALARA as 
``making every reasonable effort to maintain exposures to radiation 
as far below the dose limits in this part [10 CFR part 20] as is 
practical consistent with the purpose for which the licensed 
activity is undertaken . . . .''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ALARA requirements for equipment designed to control releases 
of radioactive materials are contained in various provisions in 10 CFR 
parts 50 and 52, and the design objectives are contained in 10 CFR part 
50, appendix I.\3\ The dose criteria are based on ICRP Publication 2 
dosimetry (i.e., total body and critical organ dose concepts and 
models). Since its implementation in 1975, the 10 CFR part 50, appendix 
I, regulations were revised several times, but none of the amendments 
involved an alignment of the dosimetry basis with that of the NRC's 
general radiation protection regulations in 10 CFR part 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The NRC's regulations in 10 CFR 50.34a establish design 
objectives for equipment to control releases of radioactive material 
in effluents. These releases are reported to the NRC in accordance 
with requirements set forth in 10 CFR 50.36a. In addition, 10 CFR 
52.47, 52.79, 52.137, and 52.157 provide that applications for 
design certification, combined license, design approval, or 
manufacturing license, respectively, shall include a description of 
the equipment and procedures for the control of gaseous and liquid 
effluents and for the maintenance and use of equipment installed in 
radioactive waste systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1991, the NRC substantively amended its 10 CFR part 20 
regulations (56 FR 23360; May 21, 1991). The purpose of the 1991 
amendments was to adopt the basic tenets of the ICRP system of 
radiation dose limitation described in ICRP Publication 26 (1977), 
``Recommendations of the ICRP.'' The 1991 amendments to 10 CFR part 20 
were also based upon ICRP Publication 30 (1979-1988), ``Limits for 
Intakes of Radionuclides by Workers,'' including its four parts, four 
supplements and index, which were published during the period of 1979 
through 1988. The concern with the current 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, 
regulations, guidance, and software that supports the guidance is that 
they are based on dosimetry concepts issued in 1959 under the 
recommendations of ICRP Publication 2, and as such, no longer align 
with those used in 10 CFR part 20. In total, the ICRP has updated its 
terminology and methodology for dose assessments three times since 
1959. The most recent terminology and methodology for dose assessments 
are described in ICRP Publication 103, which was published in 2007.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ICRP, 2007. The 2007 Recommendations of the International 
Commission on Radiological Protection, ICRP Publication 103. Ann. 
ICRP 37 (2-4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the ICRP Publication 103 recommendations, the NRC 
staff prepared two papers for the Commission's review, SECY-08-0197, 
``Options to Revise Radiation Protection Regulations and Guidance with 
Respect to the 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on 
Radiological Protection,'' dated December 18, 2008 (ADAMS Accession No. 
ML091310193), and SECY-12-0064, ``Recommendations for Policy and 
Technical Direction to Revise Radiation Protection Regulations and 
Guidance,'' dated April 25, 2012 (ADAMS Accession No. ML121020108). 
Both papers considered potential revisions to the NRC's regulations in 
10 CFR part 20 and 10 CFR part 50, appendix I. The papers are publicly 
available and described in further detail below.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The NRC staff has published an Advance Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (ANPR) for its radiation protection regulations in 10 CFR 
part 20 (79 FR 43284; July 25, 2014). The 10 CFR part 20 ANPR 
described many potential revisions to the 10 CFR part 20 
regulations, including a closer alignment with the ICRP Publication 
103 dosimetry and terminology recommendations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SECY-08-0197 paper described and evaluated the ICRP Publication 
103 recommendations along with an NRC staff recommendation that the 
Commission approve a closer alignment of the NRC regulatory framework 
with the recommendations of ICRP Publication 103. The NRC staff 
identified a number of recommendations to achieve this alignment, 
including (1) the development of a technical basis, or the rationale, 
for revising radiation protection regulations and (2) outreach with 
stakeholders and interested parties to identify issues, options, and 
potential impacts. The NRC staff stated that it would provide the 
Commission with the results of the stakeholder and interested party 
interactions, the scope of any proposed rulemaking, regulatory analysis 
of costs and benefits, evaluation of necessary policy and 
implementation issues, the resources, and the projected rulemaking 
completion date, which would be dependent on the ICRP's development of 
essential technical information. At present, the ICRP is still 
developing this technical information and it is currently scheduled for 
publication in 2015.
    The Commission made findings and provided direction to the NRC 
staff in staff requirements memorandum (SRM), SRM-SECY-08-0197, 
``Options to Revise Radiation Protection Regulations and Guidance with 
Respect to the 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on 
Radiological Protection,'' dated April 2, 2009 (ADAMS Accession No. 
ML090920103). In SRM-SECY-08-0197, the Commission approved the NRC 
staff's recommendation to ``begin engagement with stakeholders and 
interested parties to initiate development of the technical basis for a 
possible revision of the NRC's radiation protection regulations, as 
appropriate and where scientifically justified, to achieve greater 
alignment with the 2007 recommendations . . . contained in ICRP 
Publication 103.'' The Commission agreed with the NRC staff and the 
NRC's Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) ``that the 
current regulatory framework continues to provide adequate protection 
of the health and safety of workers, the public, and the environment.'' 
The Commission further stated, ``[f]rom a safety regulation 
perspective, ICRP Publication 103 proposes measures that go beyond what 
is needed to provide for adequate protection,'' and that ``[t]his point 
should be emphasized when engaging stakeholders and interested parties, 
and thereby focus the discussion on discerning the benefits and burdens 
associated with revising the radiation protection regulatory 
framework,'' which includes 10 CFR part 50, appendix I.
    In response to the Commission's direction in SRM-SECY-08-0197, the 
NRC staff engaged in extensive stakeholder outreach activities on the 
broad issues arising from a possible revision of the NRC's radiation 
protection framework. Three Federal Register notices (FRNs) were issued 
requesting public feedback and comments (74 FR 32198, July 7, 2009; 75 
FR 59160, September 27, 2010; and 76 FR 53847, August 30, 2011). 
Presentations were made and discussions were held at a variety of 
professional societies, licensee organizations, public interest groups, 
and State organizations (e.g., Conference

[[Page 25239]]

of Radiation Control Program Directors, and Agreement States). In the 
fall of 2010, the NRC staff conducted a series of facilitated 
roundtable workshops in Washington, DC, Los Angeles, CA, and Houston, 
TX. Each workshop included representatives from a broad range of users 
of radioactive material. This process provided an opportunity for 
various groups of stakeholders to have a more focused discussion. The 
October 2010 workshop in Washington, DC, focused on the nuclear power 
and fuel cycle industries, and the radiation protection programs of 
other Federal agencies, (e.g., U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Navy, Armed Forces 
Radiobiology Research Institute, and National Institutes of Health). 
Some of the participants at the Washington, DC, workshop indicated a 
general support for an integrated alignment of 10 CFR part 20 and 10 
CFR part 50, appendix I, regulations with the recommendations of ICRP 
Publication 103. Participants also urged a coordinated revision of the 
NRC's regulations with the requirements of EPA's 40 CFR part 190 
because the NRC requires licensees to follow this EPA requirement 
through the NRC's regulation in 10 CFR 20.1301(e). Finally, some 
participants noted a concern as to the justification for any revision 
of 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, as it is not a safety standard and 
speculated that such a revision would be costly to the industry. 
Transcripts of each workshop and all written comments received in 
response to the FRNs are publicly available through the NRC's public 
Web site on the page entitled, ``Options to Revise Radiation Protection 
Regulations and Guidance,'' http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/rulemaking/potential-rulemaking/opt-revise.html.
    In addition to the national outreach described above, the NRC's 
staff participated in international outreach activities in response to 
the Commission's direction in SRM-SECY-08-0197. The NRC staff's 
activities during this time included participation in the revision of 
the International Basic Safety Standards by the International Atomic 
Energy Agency (IAEA), from 2009 through its completion in the second 
quarter of 2013, and observation of the revision of the Euratom Basic 
Safety Standards Directive in the European Union. The IAEA's and 
Euratom's revisions focused on aligning their requirements with the 
recommendations of ICRP Publication 103.
    In SECY-12-0064, the NRC staff recommended amending the NRC's 
regulatory framework, including 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, to better 
align with those ICRP Publication 103 recommendations concerning 
terminology and dose calculation methodologies for estimating radiation 
exposure and risk. The NRC staff cautioned, however, that the NRC 
should not initiate a rulemaking to better align with these ICRP 
Publication 103 recommendations until the ICRP publishes its updated 
dose coefficients and other supporting information, thereby allowing 
the NRC to engage in a single rulemaking effort. The NRC staff also 
recommended that it continue to engage in stakeholder outreach.
    In SRM-SECY-12-0064, ``Recommendations for Policy and Technical 
Direction to Revise Radiation Protection Regulations and Guidance,'' 
dated December 17, 2012 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12352A133), the 
Commission directed the NRC staff to develop a regulatory basis for 
proposed revisions to 10 CFR part 20 and to 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, 
in parallel, for the purpose of aligning each with the most recent 
methodology and terminology for dose assessment (namely, the ICRP 
Publication 103 recommendations). With respect to potential changes to 
the 10 CFR part 20 regulations, the NRC issued an ANPR on July 25, 2014 
(79 FR 43284).\6\ The potential changes to the 10 CFR part 50, appendix 
I, regulations under consideration also involve a closer alignment of 
these regulations with the recommendations in ICRP Publication 103 
concerning terminology and dose calculation methodologies for 
estimating radiation exposure and risk due to effluent releases. The 
NRC staff will coordinate the development of both regulatory bases 
together, including consideration of public comments (some of which 
have already been received) that raise matters common to both sets of 
regulations. If rulemaking is eventually promulgated, this approach 
would help ensure that the requirements of 10 CFR part 20 and 10 CFR 
part 50, appendix I, regulations would be based on a common dosimetry 
basis, terminology, and dose calculation methodology. A closer 
alignment of 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, with ICRP Publication 103 
would also modernize the NRC's design objectives, regulatory guidance, 
and supporting computer software.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The 10 CFR part 20 ANPR is available on http://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2009-0279. On November 20, 
2014 (79 FR 69065), the NRC extended the 10 CFR part 20 ANPR comment 
period to March 24, 2015. On March 18, 2015 (80 FR 14033), the NRC 
extended the 10 CFR part 20 ANPR comment period a second time, to 
June 22, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA is also examining possible revisions to the ``Environmental 
Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations,'' 40 CFR 
part 190, which applies to the entire nuclear fuel cycle.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The 40 CFR part 190 ANPR was published by EPA on February 4, 
2014 (79 FR 6509), and is available on www.regulations.gov under 
Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0689.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section II of 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, assigns design objectives 
for doses due to liquid and gaseous effluents. Under Section II.A of 
appendix I, the annual design objectives for liquid effluents from all 
pathways of exposure are 0.03 milliSievert (mSv) (3 millirem (mrem)) to 
the total body and 0.1 mSv (10 mrem) to any organ. Under Section II.B, 
the annual design objectives for noble gases in gaseous effluents are 
0.1 milliGray (mGy) (10 millirad (mrad)) gamma-air dose and 0.2 mGy (20 
mrad) beta-air dose, with provisions for increasing or decreasing the 
design objectives based on total body dose and skin dose. Under Section 
II.C of appendix I, the annual design objective for radioactive iodines 
and particulates in gaseous effluents is 0.15 mSv (15 mrem) to any 
organ.
    These design objectives are referenced to the total body and 
various organs of the human body in accordance with the 1959 
recommendations of ICRP Publication 2. ICRP Publication 103 has a 
larger list of organs and suggests effective dose may be a good 
indicator of health risk for very low exposures, like those normally 
encountered with radioactive effluents from nuclear power plants. The 
design objectives apply to each reactor unit and to radioactive 
releases to unrestricted areas.
    Section II.D of 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, concerns the use of 
cost-benefit ratios, to ensure facilities use radwaste treatment 
technology that can reduce the dose to the population within 50 miles 
of the reactor. The cost-benefit criteria are $1,000 per total body 
man-rem and $1,000 per man-thyroid-rem. The design objectives and cost 
benefit criteria may need to be revised to better align 10 CFR part 50, 
appendix I, with the recommendations of ICRP Publication 103. For 
example, the dose calculation methodologies in 10 CFR part 50, appendix 
I (based on ICRP Publication 2), result in a total body dose, while the 
dose calculation methodologies in ICRP Publication 103 result in an 
effective dose. Although both calculation methodologies result in an 
estimate of the dose to an individual, different assumptions are used 
in each

[[Page 25240]]

calculation. As a result, the estimated doses to the individual will be 
different, but the differences are not expected to be significant with 
respect to radiological protection for members of the public. A more 
exact estimate of the differences in dose estimates between the two 
calculation methodologies will be available once all of the dose 
coefficients for ICRP Publication 103 are published, which is currently 
scheduled for 2015. A summary of the differences in the dose estimates 
between ICRP Publication 2 and ICRP Publication 103 methodologies is 
expected to be included in the regulatory basis document.
    Some of the design objectives in 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, are 
stated in terms of organ dose. The ICRP Publication 103 indicates that 
the primary use of effective dose is for demonstrating compliance with 
dose limits. As a result, the NRC is interested in public comments on 
whether the concept of the organ dose, used in 10 CFR part 50, appendix 
I, design objectives, should be replaced with effective dose. The ICRP 
Publication 103 indicates the effective dose is particularly suited to 
cases where the estimated doses are much less than the annual limit for 
a member of the public (i.e., 0.1 mSv or 100 mrem per 10 CFR 20.1301). 
Additionally, if the organ dose design objectives were to be 
eliminated, the NRC is interested in public comments on what new values 
may be assigned to the effective dose values that would replace the 
organ doses.
    In addition, 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, includes additional design 
objectives in Docket RM-50-2, ``Concluding Statement of Position of the 
Regulatory Staff, Guides on Design Objectives for Light-Water-Cooled 
Nuclear Power Reactors'' (February 20, 1974, pp. 25-30).\8\ For liquid 
or gaseous effluents, considering all release pathways, the design 
objective for the site is an annual dose to the total body or to any 
organ of an individual in an unrestricted area not to exceed 0.05 mSv 
(5 mrem). For gaseous effluents, as radioactive iodines and 
particulates in consideration of all release pathways, the design 
objective for the site is an annual dose to any organ of an individual 
in an unrestricted area not to exceed 0.15 mSv (15 mrem). The design 
objective for radioactivity in liquid effluents, excluding tritium and 
dissolved gases, is a calculated annual quantity not to exceed 5 Curies 
(Ci) (185 gigaBequerel (GBq)) per reactor unit. Additionally, the 
design objective for I-131 in gaseous effluents is a calculated annual 
quantity not to exceed 1 Ci (37 GBq) per reactor unit. The annual 
design objective for radioactive material above background in gaseous 
effluents is a calculated quantity not to exceed 0.1 mGy (10 mrad) 
gamma-air dose and 0.2 mGy (20 mrad) beta-air dose, with provisions for 
increasing or decreasing the design objectives based on total body dose 
and skin dose. The Docket RM-50-2 objectives and dose limits are 
applicable to reactor construction permit applications that were 
docketed on or after January 2, 1971, and prior to June 4, 1976. As a 
result, compliance with the Docket RM-50-2 criteria would relieve such 
applicants from the other cost-benefit provisions of Section II.D of 10 
CFR part 50, appendix I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The ``Concluding Statement of Position of the Regulatory 
Staff'' in Docket RM-50-2 is attached as an annex to 10 CFR part 50, 
appendix I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The dose calculation methodology used to demonstrate compliance 
with the 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, design objectives is different 
than the dose methodology used for compliance with 10 CFR part 20. 
There are multiple methods of calculating dose. In 10 CFR part 20, dose 
is expressed as total effective dose equivalent (TEDE), which 
incorporates a risk-based dose, weighted by tissues or organs, as 
outlined in ICRP Publication 26. Under this TEDE approach, the dose to 
the body is expressed in a single value. By contrast, 10 CFR part 50, 
appendix I, uses the recommendations of ICRP Publication 2 to express 
separate doses for the total body and critical organs. Other 
differences between 10 CFR part 20 dose constructs and 10 CFR part 50, 
appendix I, dose constructs exist, such as the use of non-stochastic 
effects in limiting doses to specific organs in 10 CFR part 20. The 
ICRP Publication 2 approach used in 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, does 
not make such distinctions among organs.
    The differences between the various dose calculation methodologies 
used in the NRC's current regulatory framework (i.e., 10 CFR part 20 
and 10 CFR part 50, appendix I) and those recommended by the ICRP after 
ICRP Publication 30,\9\ have created challenges for the NRC and its 
licensees. The NRC staff described these challenges in its paper to the 
Commission, SECY-01-0148, ``Processes for Revision of 10 CFR part 20 
Regarding Adoption of ICRP Recommendations on Occupational Dose Limits 
and Dosimetric Models and Parameters,'' dated August 2, 2001 (ADAMS 
Accession No. ML011580363). Specifically, the challenges included 
licensees' requests to use dosimetry methods based upon the 
recommendations in the various ICRP publications issued after ICRP 
Publication 30 for both external (to the body) and internal (within the 
body) dose assessments; areas of non-alignment between the NRC and 
international regulatory bodies, including the differences in 
occupational exposure limits; and the use by some Federal agencies 
(e.g., DOE and EPA), of dosimetry models based upon ICRP 
recommendations that were either not incorporated in the NRC's 1991 10 
CFR part 20 rulemaking or were published after that rulemaking. The 
reader is encouraged to review the parallel ANPR on the potential 
revisions to 10 CFR part 20 for more details related to SECY-01-
0148.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ These ICRP recommendations include those published in: ICRP 
Publication 60 (1991), ``1990 Recommendations of the International 
Commission on Radiological Protection;'' ICRP Publication 61 (1991), 
``Annual Limits on Intake of Radionuclides by Workers Based on the 
1990 Recommendations;'' ICRP Publication 66 (1994), ``Human 
Respiratory Tract Model for Radiological Protection;'' ICRP 
Publication 67 (1993), ``Age-dependent Doses to Members of the 
Public from Intake of Radionuclides--Part 2 Ingestion Dose 
Coefficients;'' ICRP Publication 68 (1994), ``Dose Coefficients for 
Intakes of Radionuclides by Workers;'' ICRP Publication 69 (1995), 
``Age-dependent Doses to Members of the Public from Intake of 
Radionuclides--Part 3 Ingestion Dose Coefficients;'' ICRP 
Publication 71 (1995), ``Age-dependent Doses to Members of the 
Public from Intake of Radionuclides--Part 4 Inhalation Dose 
Coefficients;'' ICRP Publication 72 (1995), ``Age-dependent Doses to 
the Members of the Public from Intake of Radionuclides--Part 5 
Compilation of Ingestion and Inhalation Coefficients;'' and ICRP 
Publication 74 (1996), ``Conversion Coefficients for use in 
Radiological Protection against External Radiation.''
    \10\ See 79 FR 43287.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, design objectives for plant systems 
are more restrictive than either the 1 mSv (100 mrem) per year dose 
limit for members of the public in 10 CFR 20.1301(a), or the effluent 
concentration limits (ECLs) in 10 CFR part 20, appendix B, Table 2, 
``Effluent Concentrations,'' which correspond to 0.5 mSv (50 mrem) per 
year.\11\ As stated in 10 CFR 50.34a(a), the design objectives of 10 
CFR part 50, appendix I, are not radiation protection standards, but 
are design criteria to ensure equipment designs maintain radioactive 
effluents ALARA. The NRC's regulation in 10 CFR 50.36a(b), which is 
referenced in Section IV of 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, invokes 
compatibility in balancing the need for operational flexibility while 
still ensuring public health and safety. Releases of

[[Page 25241]]

radioactive effluents from nuclear power plants are controlled by plant 
specific technical specifications to ensure that such releases are 
maintained: (1) ALARA using 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, design 
objectives and requirements; (2) a small fraction of the 10 CFR 20.1301 
public dose limit; and (3) within the EPA's 40 CFR part 190 
environmental dose standards for facilities that are part of the 
uranium fuel cycle,\12\ as required by 10 CFR 20.1301(e).\13\ As a 
result, the 10 CFR 20.1301 public dose limit of 1 mSv (100 mrem) per 
year on radioactive effluents is rarely controlling in limiting 
radioactive releases from nuclear power plants as effluents typically 
are only a fraction of such dose limit or of the 10 CFR part 20, 
appendix B, Table 2 concentration limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ In accordance with 10 CFR 20.1302(b)(2)(i), each NRC 
licensee may demonstrate compliance with the public dose limit set 
forth in 10 CFR 20.1301(a) by showing that the ``annual average 
concentrations of radioactive material released in gaseous and 
liquid effluents at the boundary of the unrestricted area do not 
exceed the values specified in table 2 of appendix B to part 20.''
    \12\ The EPA's regulation in 40 CFR 190.2 defines the uranium 
fuel cycle as ``the operations of milling of uranium ore, chemical 
conversion of uranium, isotopic enrichment of uranium, fabrication 
of uranium fuel, generation of electricity by a light-water-cooled 
nuclear power plant using uranium fuel, and reprocessing of spent 
uranium fuel, to the extent that these directly support the 
production of electrical power for public use utilizing nuclear 
energy, but excludes mining operations, operations at waste disposal 
sites, transportation of any radioactive material in support of 
these operations, and the reuse of recovered non-uranium special 
nuclear and by-product materials from the cycle.''
    \13\ The NRC's regulation in 10 CFR 20.1301(e) states that a NRC 
licensee ``subject to the provisions of EPA's generally applicable 
environmental radiation standards in 40 CFR part 190 shall comply 
with those standards.'' The primary 40 CFR part 190 requirement of 
concern to NRC nuclear reactor licensees is 40 CFR 190.10(a), which 
states that operations must be conducted in such a manner as to 
provide reasonable assurance that ``[t]he annual dose equivalent 
does not exceed 25 millirems to the whole body, 75 millirems to the 
thyroid, and 25 millirems to any other organ of any member of the 
public, as the result of exposures to planned discharges of 
radioactive materials, radon and its daughters excepted, to the 
general environment from uranium fuel cycle operations and to 
radiation from these operations.'' It should be noted that the dose 
limits of this EPA standard are also based on ICRP Publication 2 
dosimetry concepts and dose calculation methods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Inasmuch as the regulatory purpose of 10 CFR part 20 is not the 
same as 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, the difference in dosimetry 
concepts between 10 CFR part 20 (based on ICRP Publication 26) and 10 
CFR part 50, appendix I (based on ICRP Publication 2), does not 
preclude the NRC from having an effective regulatory framework. 
However, there are practical considerations, as discussed in SECY-08-
0197, Enclosure 3, ``Details of Technical Options for Revision of 10 
CFR part 50 and Appendix I Regulations and Regulatory Guidance for 
Light Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactors,'' that the NRC should 
evaluate when determining whether to transition to a common dosimetry 
concept for both 10 CFR part 20 and 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, 
regulations, guidance, and supporting computer software. Enclosure 4, 
``Listing of NRC Guidance Potentially Subject for Update,'' of SECY-08-
0197 lists NRC documents and computer codes that would need to be 
reviewed and updated.
    In implementing the ALARA requirements of 10 CFR part 50, appendix 
I, the NRC published a series of regulatory guides to provide guidance 
on how to demonstrate compliance with 10 CFR part 50, appendix I. The 
regulatory guides address methods for estimating the activity released 
in gaseous and liquid effluents, dispersion of effluents in the 
atmosphere and water bodies, and calculating potential radiation doses 
to offsite members of the public (see Section VIII of this ANPR for the 
full title and availability of documents cited within this ANPR). The 
key guidance document is Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.109, ``Calculation of 
Annual Doses to Man from Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the 
Purpose of Evaluating Compliance with 10 CFR part 50, Appendix I, Rev. 
1,'' which describes mathematical models and assumptions for estimating 
radiation doses to members of the public from radioactive effluents. 
Two separate guidance documents, NUREG/CR-4013, ``LADTAP II-Technical 
Reference and Users Guide,'' and NUREG/CR-4653, ``GASPAR II-Technical 
Reference and Users Guide,'' describe computer models that implement 
the guidance of RG 1.109 and therefore are acceptable methods in 
demonstrating compliance with the 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, 
requirements.
    Regulatory Guide 1.109 contains tables of dose factors. As 
described in SECY-08-0197, a revised set of dose factors are a crucial 
step to any revision of the NRC's radiation protection framework for 
radioactive effluents. These dose factors provide a basis for 
calculating doses and determining design objectives in 10 CFR part 50, 
appendix I. These dose factors would also provide the basis for 
revising the limits for radioactive effluents in 10 CFR part 20, 
appendix B, Table 2, ECLs for a representative member of the public. 
These ECLs are calculated in one of two ways and contain factors to 
account for the exposure time, the breathing rate, the dose limit for 
members of the public, and the various age groups exposed. These dose 
conversion factors also provide a basis for the 10 CFR part 20, 
appendix B, Table 3, ``Releases to Sewers,'' limits, which are 
calculated on a similar basis as 10 CFR part 20 appendix B, Table 2, 
but with different assumptions. The tables of dose factors in RG 1.109 
should be revised as part of any effort to more closely align the NRC's 
regulations with ICRP Publication 103 recommendations.
    Besides the computer codes, RG 1.109 is supported by a series of 
related documents, including RG 1.110, ``Cost-Benefit Analysis for 
Radwaste Systems for Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactors;'' which 
provides methods to conduct cost-benefit analyses in evaluating the 
performance of radwaste systems used in light water reactors; RG 1.111, 
``Methods for Estimating Atmospheric Transport and Dispersion of 
Gaseous Effluents in Routine Releases from Light-Water-Cooled 
Reactors;'' which describes mathematical models and assumptions for 
estimating atmospheric transport, dispersion, and deposition of 
airborne effluents during routine operation; RG 1.112, ``Calculation of 
Releases of Radioactive Materials in Gaseous and Liquid Effluents from 
Light-Water-Cooled Power Reactors,'' which describes methods for 
calculating radioactive source terms for evaluating radioactive waste 
treatment systems; RG 1.113, ``Estimating Aquatic Dispersion of 
Effluents from Accidental and Routine Reactor Releases for the Purpose 
of Implementing Appendix I, Rev. 1,'' which provides mathematical 
models and methods in estimating aquatic dispersion of both routine and 
accidental releases; and RG 1.21, ``Measuring, Evaluating, and 
Reporting Radioactivity in Solid Wastes and Releases of Radioactive 
Materials in Liquid and Gaseous Effluents from Light-Water-Cooled 
Nuclear Power, Rev. 2,'' which provides guidance on how to measure, 
evaluate, and report to the NRC, plant-related radioactivity (excluding 
background radiation) in effluents. These documents should be revised 
as part of any effort to more closely align the NRC's regulations with 
ICRP Publication 103 recommendations.
    The NRC has issued several NUREGS that support RG 1.109 and 10 CFR 
part 50, appendix I. For example, NUREG-1301, ``Offsite Dose 
Calculation Manual Guidance: Standard Radiological Effluent Controls 
for Pressurized Water Reactors,'' NUREG-1302, ``Offsite Dose 
Calculation Manual Guidance: Standard Radiological Effluent Controls 
for Boiling Water Reactors,'' NUREG-0543, ``Methods for Demonstrating 
LWR Compliance With the EPA Uranium Fuel Cycle Standard (40 CFR part 
190),'' and NUREG-0133, ``Preparation of Radiological Effluent 
Technical Specifications for Nuclear Power Plants: A Guidance Manual 
for Users of Standard Technical Specifications,''

[[Page 25242]]

present guidance on the format and contents of operational programs. 
The programs include the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual, the 
radioactive effluent control program (previously known as Radiological 
Effluent Technical Specifications or RETS), and the Radiological 
Environmental Monitoring Program (or REMP).
    There are other regulatory guides, although not issued for the 
purpose of supporting RG 1.109, that are nonetheless linked to 
implementation of 10 CFR part 50, appendix I. For example, RG 4.15, 
``Quality Assurance for Radiological Monitoring Programs (Inception 
through Normal Operations to License Termination)--Effluent Streams and 
the Environment, Rev. 2,'' addresses quality assurance for maintaining 
radiological effluent monitoring programs at or around reactor sites. 
Enclosure 4 of SECY-08-0197 presents an initial listing of NRC guidance 
(documents and computer codes) that would be reviewed and updated, as 
needed, in supporting the implementation of any potential revision to 
10 CFR part 50, appendix I.
    Even though the NRC's regulations on radioactive effluents are 
protective of the health and safety of the public, over the past decade 
there have been discussions with stakeholders about updating the basis 
of 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, design objectives, the regulatory 
guidance documents, and the supporting computer software to be 
consistent with the dose methodology used in 10 CFR part 20. Some of 
the considerations identified by NRC staff are:
    (1) Updating 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, requirements and 
associated dose calculation methodology, which is based upon the 
recommendations of ICRP Publication 2 (1959), to reflect current 
scientific knowledge underlying radiation protection principles, such 
as those described in ICRP Publication 103 (2007);
    (2) Engaging in parallel revisions of 10 CFR part 20 and 10 CFR 
part 50, appendix I, for better alignment with ICRP Publication 103 
terminology and methodology for dose assessments; as well as to ensure 
that any rulemaking amending 10 CFR part 20 and 10 CFR part 50, 
appendix I, have a common effective or compliance date;
    (3) Updating the radiation protection principles because ICRP 
Publication 2 recommendations are no longer taught in current health 
physics university curricula and as a result, the NRC staff and 
industry need to instruct new employees about the implementation of 
ICRP Publication 2 in reviewing and preparing reactor license 
applications that rely upon NRC guidance and dose computer codes (e.g., 
the computer codes LADTAP and GASPAR which calculate doses for liquid 
effluents and gaseous effluents, respectively) based upon ICRP 
Publication 2; and
    (4) Whether amending 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, to more closely 
align with the ICRP Publication 103 recommendations substantially 
increases the overall protection of the public health and safety, and 
is cost-justified under a backfit or issue finality analysis, such that 
a revised 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, should be applied to existing 10 
CFR part 50 licensees and to those persons who hold NRC licenses under 
10 CFR part 52 (e.g., combined license holders and applicants, a holder 
of a standard design certification).
    Given these concerns, the NRC staff is considering more closely 
aligning the dose concepts of 10 CFR part 20 and the 10 CFR part 50, 
appendix I, to the ICRP Publication 103 recommendations.

III. Regulatory Objectives

    The NRC staff has identified the following objectives in any 
potential rulemaking to revise 10 CFR part 50, appendix I:
    1. Engage stakeholders in a discussion on ways to improve 10 CFR 
part 50, appendix I, with particular emphasis on improving the 
terminology and methodology for dose assessments.
    2. Collect stakeholder comments, consider stakeholder input, and 
evaluate various options to achieve a better alignment between 10 CFR 
part 50, appendix I, and the most recent terminology and methodology 
for dose assessments in ICRP Publication 103.
    3. Establish a technical basis for exceptions to the 
recommendations of ICRP Publication 103, to the extent these 
recommendations are considered by the NRC in a future proposed 
rulemaking.
    4. Prepare and submit a regulatory basis document to the Commission 
in accordance with the Commission's direction in SRM-SECY-12-0064.

IV. Policy and Technical Issues

    Achieving a closer alignment between 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, 
and the ICRP Publication 103 recommendations would involve changing the 
underlying terminology and methodology for dose assessment in 10 CFR 
part 50, appendix I. This closer alignment, if adopted by the NRC, 
would pose several challenges for the NRC, including the need to revise 
guidance documents and implementing procedures, and updating computer 
codes. Likewise, a closer alignment would require licensees to re-train 
workers to use a new dose assessment system, revise implementing 
procedures and programs, and revise record keeping and data reporting 
practices. Therefore, the NRC is seeking to understand the impacts of 
more closely aligning 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, and associated 
guidance with the ICRP Publication 103 recommendations regarding 
terminology and methodology for dose assessments. The issues and 
options below are intended to elicit input from the public, the 
regulated community, and other stakeholders. This information will be 
used to support the development of a regulatory basis for a potential 
revision of the 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, regulations and associated 
guidance.

A. Issue No. 1: Closer Alignment of 10 CFR Part 20 and 10 CFR Part 50, 
Appendix I, With the Terminology and Methodology Recommendations of 
ICRP Publication 103

    The ICRP has published four primary sets of radiological protection 
recommendations, namely, ICRP Publication 2 (1959), ICRP Publication 26 
(1977); ICRP Publication 60 (1990), and ICRP Publication 103 (2007). As 
noted earlier, the 10 CFR part 20 regulations are based on ICRP 
Publication 26, while the 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, requirements are 
based on ICRP Publication 2. One important way the dose terminology 
used in 10 CFR part 20 deviates from the ICRP Publication 26 
recommendations is by the use of the term ``Total Effective Dose 
Equivalent.'' This term was created by the NRC to describe the 
summation of internal and external exposure. The ICRP Publication 26 
recommendations use the phrase ``the sum of the dose-equivalent from 
external exposure'' and ``the committed effective dose equivalent from 
the intake of radionuclides.'' The ICRP Publication 60 recommendations 
changed the way tissue and radiation weighting factors were defined and 
used. There was also a corresponding change in the terminology from 
quality factors to radiation weighting factors. The ICRP Publication 60 
introduced the terms ``Effective Dose'' (ED) and ``Total Effective 
Dose'' (TED) to clearly represent the summation of the dose 
contributions from external exposure and the intake of radioactive 
material.
    The ICRP Publication 103 recommendations retained the terminology 
of effective dose and equivalent dose but made several revisions to the 
calculation of dose, including: (1) The modification of the modeling 
used for calculation of radiation exposures; (2) changes in tissue 
weighting factors and radiation

[[Page 25243]]

weighting factors; and (3) modifications of the metabolic models used 
to represent the movement of radioactive material through the human 
body, by use of computer models. These revisions have resulted in the 
development of reference computational phantoms that are specific 
models for adult males and females, 15-year-old males and females, and 
for various other age groups, including infants and 1-year-old, 5-year-
old, and 10-year-old children. The reference phantoms for the human 
body are described in general terms in ICRP Publication 103 and more 
specifically in ICRP Publication 110 (2009).\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ ICRP Publication 110 (2009), ``Adult Reference 
Computational Phantoms.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The availability of new models for different age groups provides 
the opportunity to calculate the numeric values for public exposure to 
effluents in a more comprehensive manner as compared to the previous 
calculation methodology of basing assessments primarily on an adult 
member of the public. As part of the potential rulemaking to amend 10 
CFR part 20, the NRC is considering the use of an age and gender 
weighted dose coefficient and revising the definition of the term 
``reference man'' \15\ to be used in environmental dose calculations. 
With respect to the implementation of 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, RG 
1.109 considers four age groups: Infant, child, teenager, and adults. 
The development of age-specific dose coefficients per unit intake of 
radioactivity (inhaled or ingested) is described in NUREG-0172, ``Age-
Specific Radiation Dose Commitment Factors for a One-Year Intake.'' As 
part of this ANPR, the NRC is considering the use of an age and gender 
averaged approach in any revision to the 10 CFR part 20 and 10 CFR part 
50, appendix I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The NRC regulations use the term ``Reference man,'' which 
means a hypothetical aggregation of human physical and physiological 
characteristics arrived at by international consensus. These 
characteristics may be used by researchers and public health workers 
to standardize results of experiments and to relate biological 
insult to a common base (10 CFR 20.1003, definition of ``Reference 
man'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NRC staff, as part of its development of the regulatory basis, 
will consider revising the regulations in 10 CFR part 20 and 10 CFR 
part 50, appendix I, as well as making conforming changes to other NRC 
regulations to incorporate the ICRP Publication 103 terms, equivalent 
dose, effective dose, and ``Total Effective Dose.'' The NRC staff 
recognizes the preference, from a regulatory stability standpoint, for 
retaining TEDE but will analyze, in the regulatory basis, the 
advantages and disadvantages of replacing TEDE with TED in the NRC 
regulations. The reader is encouraged to review the parallel ANPR 
(Docket ID NRC-2009-0279, 79 FR 43284) on the proposed revision to 10 
CFR part 20 for more details.
    The following options and questions are intended to elicit 
information and initiate a dialog with the public, the regulated 
community, and other stakeholders in future workshops and meetings.
    Option 1a: Do not change the basis of 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, 
and continue to use the existing requirements and NRC guidance. This 
option is based on current NRC regulations continuing to adequately 
protect the public, although 10 CFR part 20 and 10 CFR part 50, 
appendix I, are based on different methods of assessing dose. Licensee 
compliance with 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, will continue to 
demonstrate that radioactive effluents to unrestricted areas are ALARA. 
If the NRC selects this option, the NRC may make minor revisions to 
update supporting NRC guidance, as most of such guidance was published 
in the late 1970s.
    Option 1b: Revise the terminology and methodology for dose 
assessments in 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, to more closely align with 
the recommendations of ICRP Publication 103, in parallel with any 
revisions made to the 10 CFR part 20 regulations.\16\ This approach 
would ensure a consistent application of regulatory criteria between 10 
CFR part 20 and 10 CFR part 50, appendix I. This option would offer the 
opportunity to use to a common regulatory basis for calculating and 
reporting doses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See the 10 CFR part 20 ANPR (Docket ID NRC-2009-0279), 
published in the Federal Register on July 25, 2014 (79 FR 43284), 
for further details about potential revisions to 10 CFR part 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Questions
    Question 1-1: What are the advantages and disadvantages of the NRC 
selecting option 1a?
    The following questions are based upon the NRC selecting option 1b:
    Question 1-2: What are the advantages and disadvantages of more 
closely aligning the 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, terminology and 
methodology for dose assessments with those of the ICRP Publication 103 
recommendations?
    Question 1-3: At this time, the NRC is contemplating a parallel 
rulemaking effort, one for 10 CFR part 20 and one for 10 CFR part 50, 
appendix I, with a common effective or compliance date for both rules. 
What are the advantages or disadvantages of the NRC conducting such a 
parallel rulemaking effort?
    Question 1-4: What are the backfitting implications of applying 
option 1b to 10 CFR part 50 licensees? What are the issue finality 
implications of applying option 1b to those persons who hold NRC 
approvals under 10 CFR part 52 (e.g., combined license holders and 
applicants, a holder of a standard design certification)?
    Question 1-5: What cost savings would be realized over the life of 
the operational programs if dose calculation methods (for 10 CFR part 
20 and 10 CFR part 50, appendix I) are standardized?
    Question 1-6: What operational impacts and costs (per reactor unit) 
would be incurred by licensees (e.g., in updating licensee programs, 
procedures, computer codes, training)?
    Question 1-7: Would licensee costs and the operational impacts of 
complying with a revised 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, be similar for 
both BWRs and PWRs?
    Question 1-8: Should all of the conforming changes to the dose 
based criteria in 10 CFR part 50 (e.g., the TEDE criteria in 10 CFR 
50.34(a)(1)(ii), 10 CFR 50.67, and appendix A, ``General Design 
Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants,'' Criterion 19, ``Control Room'') be 
changed coincident with the changes to 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, or 
should conforming changes to other parts of the regulations be 
conducted in a separate, later rulemaking?
    Question 1-9: Should the NRC expand the number of age groups from 4 
to 6 as recommended in ICRP Publication 103?

B. Issue No. 2: Scope of Changes to NRC Guidance Documents Associated 
With 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I in Terms of Regulatory Guide 1.109

    In the event of a revision of the 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, 
regulations, the NRC would need to consider making revisions to several 
guidance documents associated with the 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, 
regulations. In Enclosure 3 of SECY-08-0197, the NRC staff examined a 
tiered approach reflecting increasing levels of complexity of a 
revision to the associated guidance documents. The discussion in SECY-
08-0197 considered three options for revising those guidance documents 
associated with 10 CFR part 50, appendix I. The NRC staff notes that 
the primary guidance document, RG 1.109, has not been updated since 
1977.
    The following options and questions are intended to elicit 
information and initiate a dialog with the public, the regulated 
community, and other

[[Page 25244]]

stakeholders in future workshops and meetings.
    Option 2a: Limited Scope Revision (no changes to the numerical 
values)--Under this option, the proposed revision would include very 
limited changes to 10 CFR part 50, appendix I (e.g., to change the 
design objectives for total body dose only), and would involve very 
limited changes to only one regulatory guide (e.g., the dose 
coefficients in R.G. 1.109, Table B-1, ``Dose Factors for Exposure to a 
Semi-Infinite Cloud of Noble Gases,'' and Tables E-6, ``External Dose 
Factors for Standing on Contaminated Ground,'' to E-14, ``Ingestion 
Dose Factors for Infant,'' only).
    Option 2b: Full Scope Revision--Under this option, the NRC would 
consider a complete revision to 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, and all NRC 
guidance documents, which would include a total of more than 30 
regulatory guides, NUREGs, generic communications, and associated 
software programs. A full scope revision also involves evaluating new 
radwaste systems, updating dispersion models, new source terms, 
rewriting RG 1.109, RG 1.110, RG 1.111, and RG 1.112.
    Option 2c: Expanded Scope Revision--Under this option, the NRC 
would include more substantive changes to the regulations and 
applicable guidance documents than included in Option 2a and 
potentially substantially less than that listed in Option 2b.
Questions
    Question 2-1: Which Option (i.e., what scope of changes to NRC 
guidance documents) seems most appropriate, and are other options 
available?
    Question 2-2: What are the advantages and disadvantages of each of 
the three options?

C. Issue No. 3: Detailed Considerations for Revising 10 CFR Part 50, 
Appendix I

    The questions in this section explore some of the specific 
technical details that may be associated with revising the design 
objectives. The NRC staff has identified the following options for 
potential revisions to the 10 CFR part 50, appendix I. It should be 
noted that the various options below are not considered to be mutually 
exclusive; that is, the NRC may consider one or more of these options, 
or various combinations of these options:
    Option 3a: Maintain the numerical values of the 10 CFR part 50, 
appendix I, design objectives--the NRC staff would keep the numerical 
values for design objectives, but change the units. For example, the 
annual design objective for liquid effluents, which is currently a 
total body dose of 3 mrem on an annual basis, would be changed to an 
effective dose of 3 mrem.
    Option 3b: Eliminate the use of organ dose as design objectives in 
10 CFR part 50, appendix I, for liquid and gaseous effluents--the NRC 
staff would provide a single effective dose based criterion in lieu of 
specific organ dose criteria (e.g. thyroid).
    Option 3c: Eliminate the use of annual gamma and beta-air doses for 
gaseous effluents--the NRC staff would eliminate annual gamma-air and 
beta-air doses for gaseous effluents or convert them to an effective 
dose.
    Option 3d: Update cost-benefit criteria in Section II.D of 10 CFR 
part 50, appendix I--the NRC staff would update the constant dollar 
basis in the cost-benefit criteria in Section II.D of 10 CFR part 50, 
appendix I.
    Option 3e: Disposition of Docket RM-50-2, ``Guides on Design 
Objectives for Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactors,'' in the 
``Concluding Statement of Position of the Regulatory Staff,'' pp. 25-30 
(February 20, 1974)--the NRC staff would remove Docket RM-50-2 from 10 
CFR part 50, appendix I, Section V, if the NRC staff determines that it 
is no longer applicable to any pending applications.
    The following options for potential revisions to 10 CFR part 50, 
appendix I, are unrelated to the alignment with the ICRP Publication 
103 terminology and methodology but have some implications for 
associated NRC guidance.
    Option 3f: Light-water-cooled reactor provisions of 10 CFR part 50, 
appendix I--the NRC staff would expand scope of 10 CFR part 50, 
appendix I, to include designs other than Light-Water-Cooled Reactors.
    Option 3g: Consolidation of NRC licensing guidance implementing 10 
CFR part 50, appendix I--the NRC staff would consolidate some NRC 
guidance documents, if appropriate, and update the following RGs and 
NUREGs:

a. RG 1.21
b. RG 1.109
c. RG 1.206
d. RG 4.15
e. NUREG-1301
f. NUREG-1302
g. NUREG-0133
h. NUREG-0543
i. NUREG/CR-4013--LADTAP
j. NUREG/CR-4013--GASPAR
k. NUREG-0800

    The following questions are intended to elicit information and 
initiate a dialog with the public, the regulated community, and other 
stakeholders in future workshops and meetings.
Questions
    Question 3-1: Should the NRC focus on only those changes necessary 
to align 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, with ICRP Publication 103 dose 
calculation methods (e.g., Issue 3, options 3a thru 3e) or should all 
of the specific changes identified in options 3a thru 3g be evaluated?
    Question 3-2: What significant impacts would be expected if 10 CFR 
part 50, appendix I, were revised to include all of the options (Issue 
3, options 3a thru 3g)?
    Question 3-3: Given the scope of the regulatory and technical 
issues associated with making all of the specific changes identified in 
Issue 3, options 3a thru 3g, is there any merit in addressing selected 
options in future implementation phases of this rulemaking (or in 
separate rulemaking efforts)? If so, which of the options should be 
delayed?
    Question 3-4: Should licensees still report doses separately for 
organs, such as skin and thyroid, whenever airborne effluent releases 
are dominated by radioactive iodines and noble gases?
    Question 3-5: Should licensees continue to report skin doses, skin 
dose rates, total body dose rates, and organ doses (including thyroid 
doses) if organ doses are eliminated? Why or why not?
    Question 3-6: Should the categories of releases described in 10 CFR 
part 50, appendix I (liquid activity, noble gases in gaseous releases, 
radioactive iodines, tritium, other nuclides in gaseous releases), be 
expanded or otherwise revised?

D. Issue No. 4: Metrication--Units of Radioactivity, Radiation 
Exposure, and Dose

    The current 10 CFR part 20 radiation protection regulations were 
promulgated approximately 1 year prior to the publication of the NRC's 
metrication policy (57 FR 46202; October 7, 1992). The metrication 
policy addresses the units to be used to express radioactivity, 
radiation exposure and dose. Therefore, regulations referencing dose 
limits and other measurements are formatted with the SI units in 
parentheses. Other NRC regulations have instances in which the SI units 
are listed first, with the traditional or ``English'' units in 
parentheses. Numerical values listed in the 10 CFR part 20 appendices 
are given only in the traditional units. In SRM-SECY-12-0064, the 
Commission disapproved the elimination of traditional units or 
``English'' dose units from the NRC's

[[Page 25245]]

regulations. The SRM further stated that both the traditional and SI 
units should be maintained.
    Pursuant to the NRC's 1992 metrication policy, the NRC supports and 
encourages the use of the metric system of measurement by the nuclear 
industry. The 1992 policy directed that the NRC, beginning in 1993, 
publish the following documents in dual units, with the SI units listed 
first followed by the English units in parentheses: New regulations, 
major amendments to existing regulations, regulatory guides, NUREG-
series documents, policy statements, information notices, generic 
letters, bulletins, and all written communications directed to the 
public. The NRC's policy further directs that NRC documents specific to 
a licensee, such as inspection reports and docketed material concerning 
a particular licensee, will be in the system of units employed by the 
licensee. Furthermore, all event reporting and emergency response 
communications between licensees, the NRC, and State and local 
authorities will use the traditional system of measurement. In a 1996 
review of its 1992 metrication policy, the Commission stated that it 
does not intend to revisit the 1992 policy unless it is shown to cause 
an undue burden or hardship (61 FR 31169-31171; June 19, 1996).
    The NRC has issued an ANPR concerning a potential revision to its 
radiation protection regulations in 10 CFR part 20. In its 10 CFR part 
20 ANPR, the NRC staff is seeking input on how the Commission's 
metrication policy should be implemented, particularly with how the 
numerical values should be presented in appendix B of 10 CFR part 20. 
Appendix B of 10 CFR part 20 is set forth in a tabular format with nine 
columns providing each radionuclide's annual limits on intake (ALI) and 
derived air concentrations (DAC), effluent concentration limits for 
airborne and liquid releases to the general environment, and 
concentration limits for discharges to sanitary sewer systems in the 
traditional units of microcuries ([micro]Ci) or microcuries per 
milliliter ([micro]Ci/ml).
    The concerns identified in the 10 CFR part 20 ANPR, such as the use 
of dual units (SI and traditional) are also relevant to the guidance 
used in implementing 10 CFR part 50, appendix I. For example, RG 1.109, 
presents traditional units of radioactivity, dose coefficients, and 
dose conversion factors, specifically in Table A-1, ``Bioaccumulation 
Factors to Be Used in the Absence of Site-Specific Data;'' Table B-1, 
``Dose Factors for Exposure to a Semi-Infinite Cloud of Noble Gases;'' 
Table E-6, ``External Dose Factors for Standing on Contaminated 
Ground;'' Tables E-7 to E-10, ``Inhalation Dose Factors;'' and Tables 
E-11 to E-14, ``Ingestion Dose Factors.'' As noted in the 10 CFR part 
20 ANPR, the conversion of the unit of radioactivity from the 
traditional unit of [micro]Ci to the SI unit of becquerel (Bq) is not a 
whole number or an integer value. As a result, the number of 
significant digits will result in different values, with the difference 
determined by the rounding of the numerical values. For example, if 
rounded to one significant digit, using the standard rounding 
conventions, the value in SI unit would be smaller than the value in 
[micro]Ci, and would be more restrictive. Therefore, the NRC staff is 
seeking to explore the implications of presenting dose coefficients, 
dose conversions factors, and cost-benefit ratios in both SI and 
traditional units. Licensees are encouraged to review the technical and 
metrication policy issues described in the 10 CFR part 20 ANPR, as they 
are not repeated here for brevity.
    If 10 CFR part 20 and appendix B to 10 CFR part 20 were revised to 
include both SI and traditional units, then it would be necessary for 
consistency to also revise the numerical guides of Section II of 10 CFR 
part 50, appendix I, and guidance used to implement these requirements. 
Therefore, providing both sets of units may be perceived as resulting 
in a cumbersome set of regulatory criteria and tabulations in RG 1.109. 
Similarly, parallel revisions would need to be made to computer codes 
used to calculate doses such that dose results would be expressed in 
both units. One alternative could be to provide an expanded set of 
tables in the regulatory guide or a NUREG for the convenience of users. 
The use of traditional and SI units pose significant communication 
challenges given the potential for confusion when different sets of 
units are used. The NRC staff is interested in views of possible 
alternatives, and implications of alternatives on the format of 
regulations and guidance and impacts on plant operations in aligning 
any revisions to 10 CFR part 20 and 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, with 
the Commission's metrication policy.
    The following questions are intended to elicit information and 
initiate a dialog with the public, the regulated community, and other 
stakeholders in future workshops and meetings.
Questions
    Question 4-1: Should the annual radioactive effluent release 
reports contain both metric and English units (e.g., metric units 
first, followed by English units in parentheses)? Would this be an 
undue burden or hardship, as identified in the Commission's 1996 review 
of the 1992 metrication policy (61 FR 31171; June 19, 1996)? Explain 
and provide examples.
    Question 4-2: What costs or other impacts to operational programs 
would be incurred if metrication was changed as described above?
    Question 4-3: Should the requirements of 10 CFR 20.2101(a) and the 
guidance of RGs 1.21 and 4.15 be revised and integrated with those in 
10 CFR part 50, appendix I, thereby allowing licensees to provide 
records and reports in SI units only?

V. Public Meetings

    The NRC plans to conduct public meetings and participate in 
industry workshops and conferences for the purpose of discussing the 
issues identified in this ANPR. The public meetings will provide forums 
for the NRC staff to discuss the issues and questions identified in 
this ANPR with external stakeholders and to receive information to 
support development of a regulatory basis for a potential revision to 
10 CFR part 50, appendix I. The meetings are not intended to be a 
formal solicitation of comments, but rather to encourage stakeholders 
to provide feedback in written form during the ANPR comment period. The 
NRC will post public meeting announcements at least 10 calendar days 
before the date of the meetings at http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/public-meetings/index.cfm. Stakeholders should monitor this NRC public 
meeting Web site for information about the meetings and issues specific 
to the potential revision of 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, regulations 
and guidance.

VI. Cumulative Effects of Regulation

    The NRC has implemented a program to address the possible 
``Cumulative Effects of Regulation'' (CER) in the development of 
regulatory bases for rulemakings. The CER recognizes the challenges 
that licensees or other impacted entities (such as Agreement States) 
may face while implementing new NRC or other agency regulatory 
requirements. The CER is an organizational effectiveness challenge that 
results from a licensee or other impacted entity implementing a number 
of complex positions, programs or requirements within a prescribed 
implementation period and with limited available resources, including 
the ability to access technical expertise to address

[[Page 25246]]

a specific issue. The NRC is specifically requesting comments on the 
cumulative effects that may result from potential amendments to 10 CFR 
part 50, appendix I, and revisions to associated guidance documents. 
When developing comments on the possible cumulative effects of any 
future rulemaking to amend the 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, and 
associated guidance documents, please consider the following questions:
Questions
    Question 5-1: If the NRC conducts a parallel rulemaking effort 
(amending its regulations in both 10 CFR part 20 and 10 CFR part 50, 
appendix I), should there be a separate, later compliance date (i.e., a 
period of time between the rules' effective date and a date when 
licensees must be in compliance with the rules)? If so, when should the 
compliance date be set, e.g., 1 year after the effective date? Two 
years? Another length of time? Please explain the rationale or 
justification for any such compliance date.
    Question 5-2: What actions could be taken to reduce or minimize the 
implementation time?
    Question 5-3: What other requirements, regulations, or orders, 
whether issued or promulgated by the NRC or another Federal agency, may 
compete with, or take priority over implementing any potential changes 
to 10 CFR part 50, appendix I? If so, what are the consequences, 
including associated costs, and how should they be addressed?
    Question 5-4: If 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, is amended, what 
unintended consequences, including associated costs, may arise that 
would negate the benefits to revising it? What could be done to 
minimize unintended consequences?
    In addition to responding to the questions above, please provide, 
if available, information on the costs and benefits of any potential 
revisions to the 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, regulations and associated 
guidance documents. This information will be used to support any 
regulatory analysis performed by the NRC.

VII. Plain Writing

    The Plain Writing Act of 2010, (Pub. L. 111-274) requires Federal 
agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, and well-organized 
manner. The NRC has written this document to be consistent with the 
Plain Writing Act as well as the Presidential Memorandum, ``Plain 
Language in Government Writing,'' published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 
31883). The NRC requests comments on this ANPR with respect to the 
clarity and effectiveness of the language used.

VIII. Availability of Documents

    The documents identified in the following table are available to 
interested persons through one or more of the following methods, as 
indicated.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Cited documents                    ADAMS Accession No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Revision to 10 CFR part 20, ANPR (79   ML14084A333
 FR 43284; July 25, 2014).
Extension of Comment Period for the 10 CFR      ML14325A519
 part 20 ANPR (79 FR 69065; November 20, 2014).
Proposed Revision to 40 CFR part 190, ANPR (79  Not in ADAMS
 FR 6509; February 4, 2014).
SECY-01-0148, ``Processes For Revision of 10    ML011580363
 CFR Part 20 Regarding Adoption Of ICRP
 Recommendations On Occupational Dose Limits
 And Dosimetric Models and Parameters,''
 August 2, 2001.
SRM-SECY-01-0148, ``Processes For Revision of   ML021050104
 10 CFR Part 20 Regarding Adoption Of ICRP
 Recommendations On Occupational Dose Limits
 And Dosimetric Models And Parameters,'' April
 12, 2002.
SECY-08-0197, ``Options to Revise Radiation     ML083360555
 Protection Regulations And Guidance With
 Respect to the 2007 Recommendations of
 ICRP,'' December 18, 2008.
SRM-SECY-08-0197, ``Options To Revise           ML090920103
 Radiation Protection Regulations and Guidance
 With Respect to the 2007 Recommendations of
 ICRP,'' April 2, 2009.
SECY-12-0064, ``Recommendations For Policy and  ML121020108
 Technical Direction To Revise Radiation
 Protection Regulations and Guidance,'' April
 25, 2012.
SRM-SECY-12-0064, ``Recommendations For Policy  ML12352A133
 And Technical Direction To Revise Radiation
 Protection Regulations And Guidance,''
 December 17, 2012.
Regulatory Guide 1.21, ``Measuring,             ML091170109
 Evaluating, and Reporting Radioactivity in
 Solid Wastes and Releases of Radioactive
 Materials in Liquid and Gaseous Effluents
 from Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power, Rev.
 2,'' June 2009.
Regulatory Guide 1.109, ``Calculation of        ML003740384
 Annual Doses to Man from Routine Releases of
 Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of
 Evaluating Compliance with 10 CFR Part 50,
 Appendix I, Rev. 1,'' October 1977.
Regulatory Guide 1.110, ``Cost-Benefit          ML13241A052
 Analysis for Radwaste Systems for Light-Water-
 Cooled Nuclear Power Reactors, Rev. 1,''
 October 2013.
Regulatory Guide 1.111, ``Methods for           ML003740354
 Estimating Atmospheric Transport and
 Dispersion of Gaseous Effluents in Routine
 Releases from Light-Water-Cooled Reactors,
 Rev. 1,'' July 1977.
Regulatory Guide 1.112, ``Calculation of        ML070320241
 Releases of Radioactive Materials in Gaseous
 and Liquid Effluents from Light-Water-Cooled
 Nuclear Power Reactors, Rev. 1,'' March 2007.
Regulatory Guide 1.113, ``Estimating Aquatic    ML003740390
 Dispersion of Effluents from Accidental and
 Routine Reactor Releases for the Purpose of
 Implementing Appendix I, Rev. 1,'' April 1977.
Regulatory Guide 1.206, ``Combined License      ML070720184
 Applications for Nuclear Power Plants (LWR
 Edition),'' June 2007.
Regulatory Guide 4.15, ``Quality Assurance for  ML071790506
 Radiological Monitoring Programs (Inception
 through Normal Operations to License
 Termination)--Effluent Streams and the
 Environment, Rev. 2,'' July 2007.
Docket RM-50-2, ``Guides on Design Objectives   ML14071A275
 for Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants''.
NUREG-0133, ``Preparation of Radiological       ML091050057
 Effluent Technical Specifications for Nuclear
 Power Plants: A Guidance Manual for Users of
 Standard Technical Specifications,'' October
 1978.
NUREG-0172, ``Age-Specific Radiation Dose       ML14083A242
 Commitment Factors for a One-Year Intake,''
 November 1977.
NUREG-0543, ``Methods for Demonstrating LWR     ML081360410
 Compliance With the EPA Uranium Fuel Cycle
 Standard (40 CFR Part 190),'' February 1980.
NUREG-0800, ``Standard Review Plan for the      ML070660036
 Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear
 Power Plants: LWR Edition,'' March 2007.
NUREG/CR-1276, ``User's Manual for LADTAP II--  Not In ADAMS \17\
 A Computer Program for Calculating Radiation
 Exposure to Man from Routine Releases of
 Nuclear Reactor Liquid Effluents,'' May 1980.
NUREG-1301, ``Offsite Dose Calculation Manual   ML091050061
 Guidance: Standard Radiological Effluent
 Controls for Pressurized Water Reactors,''
 April 1991.

[[Page 25247]]

 
NUREG-1302, ``Offsite Dose Calculation Manual   ML091050059
 Guidance: Standard Radiological Effluent
 Controls for Boiling Water Reactors,'' April
 1991.
NUREG-1555, ``Standard Review Plans for         ML12335A667
 Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power
 Plants: Environmental Standard Review Plan
 (with Supplement 1 for Operating Reactor
 License Renewal),'' June 2013.
NUREG/CR-4013, ``LADTAP II, ``Technical         Not In ADAMS \18\
 Reference and User Guide,'' April 1986.
NUREG/CR-4653, ``GASPAR II--Technical           Not In ADAMS \19\
 Reference and User Guide,'' March 1987.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NRC may post additional materials to the Federal rulemaking Web 
site at www.regulations.gov, under Docket ID NRC-2014-0044. The Federal 
rulemaking Web site allows you to receive alerts when changes or 
additions occur in a docket folder. To subscribe: (1) Navigate to the 
docket folder (NRC-2014-0044), (2) click the ``Email Alert'' link; and 
(3) enter your email address and select how frequently you would like 
to receive emails (daily, weekly, or monthly).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ NUREG/CR-1276, NUREG/CR-4013, and NUREG/CR-4653 are 
available through the Radiation Safety Information Computational 
Center at https://rsicc.ornl.gov/Default.aspx.
    \18\ See footnote 17.
    \19\ See footnote 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IX. Rulemaking Process

    The NRC will consider comments received or other information 
submitted in response to this ANPR in the development of the proposed 
draft regulatory basis or any other documents developed as a part of 
any potential revisions to the 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, regulations. 
The NRC, however, does not intend to provide responses to comments or 
other information submitted in response to this ANPR. If the NRC 
develops a regulatory basis sufficient to support a proposed rule, then 
there will be an opportunity for public comment when the proposed rule 
is published and the NRC will respond to such comments if and when it 
publishes a final rule. If the NRC develops draft supporting guidance 
or proposes revisions to existing guidance documents associated with 
the 10 CFR part 50, appendix I regulations, then the public, the 
regulated community, and other stakeholders will have an opportunity to 
provide comment on the draft guidance. If NRC decides not to pursue a 
10 CFR part 50, appendix I rulemaking, as described in this ANPR, the 
NRC will publish a document in the Federal Register that will generally 
address public comments and withdraw this ANPR.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day of April, 2015.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Mark A. Satorius,
Executive Director for Operations.
[FR Doc. 2015-10408 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P