Radiation Protection Requirements: Amended Definitions and Criteria

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

10 CFR Parts 19 and 20

RIN 3150-AE80

Radiation Protection Requirements: Amended Definitions and

Criteria

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its

regulations to revise the radiation protection training requirement so

that it applies to workers who are likely to receive, in a year,

occupational dose in excess of 100 mrem (1 mSv); revise the definition

of ``Member of the public'' to include anyone who is not a worker

receiving an occupational dose; revise the definition of ``Occupational

Dose'' to delete reference to location so that the occupational dose

limit applies only to workers whose assigned duties involve exposure to

radiation and not to members of the public; revise the definition of

``Public Dose'' to apply to dose received by members of the public from

material released by a licensee or from any other source of radiation

under the control of the licensee; assure that prior dose is determined

for anyone subject to the monitoring requirements in 10 CFR part 20, or

in other words, anyone likely to receive, in a year, 10 percent of the

annual occupational dose limit; and retain a requirement that known

overexposed individuals receive copies of any reports of the

overexposure that are required to be submitted to the NRC. This change

highlights a requirement which requires licensees to inform members of

the public that they have been overexposed. These amendments are

necessary to clarify criteria that determine when radiation protection

training is required and to restore a notification requirement.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 14, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Roecklein, Office of Nuclear

Regulatory Research, Mail Stop T-9 C24, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301) 415-6223.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On May 21, 1991 (56 FR 23360), the NRC amended 10 CFR part 20 to

add its revised ``Standards for Protection Against Radiation'' (10 CFR

20.1001-20.2402). Compliance became mandatory for all licensees on

January 1, 1994. Extensive discussions regarding interpretations and

implementation of the new regulations resulted in a proposed rulemaking

(February 3, 1994; 59 FR 5132), which would amend certain definitions

and criteria in 10 CFR part 19 and the new 10 CFR part 20. As a result

of public comments and further NRC staff discussions, the NRC is taking

the following actions on the proposed changes.

The proposed rule would have revised Sec. 19.12, Instructions to

workers, so that training in radiation protection would be required of

an individual, who in the course of employment had assigned duties

involving the potential for exposure to radiation. This was intended to

correct the current regulations that require radiation protection

training for individuals who work in or frequent any portion of a

restricted area. It is believed that the current rule may result in

some workers not receiving training even though they may exceed public

dose limits during assigned duties. Seven commenters objected to the

phrase ``potential for'' exposure to radiation stating that it was

vague and might require training for a large number of workers not

currently being trained or receiving significant exposure. These same

commenters requested use of the words ``likely to receive'' since it

would be consistent with language in the Sec. 20.1502 monitoring

requirement, and all added suggestions for a threshold of 100 mrem (1

mSv) in a year. These comments were convincing and this final rule

adopts the new training criterion as ``All individuals who in the

course of employment are likely to receive in a year an occupational

dose in excess of 100 mrem (1 mSv) shall be * * *.''

This approach clearly provides radiation protection training to

workers whose assignments are likely to result in occupational

exposure. Adoption of the 100 mrem (1 mSv) in a year criterion is

believed to provide reasonable assurance that those workers that are

likely to receive a small fraction of the occupational dose limit will

be trained without resulting in an undue burden on licensees in

providing training to workers. The rule does not prohibit licensees

from providing training to workers who are not expected to exceed 100

mrem (1 mSv) in a year. General employee safety training required by

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and others is not

waived by this rule.

In addition, Sec. 20.1101(b) requires that licensees adopt

procedures and engineering controls to achieve occupational doses and

doses to members of the public that are as low as is reasonably

achievable (ALARA). Radiation protection training programs continue to

be an important element of an ALARA program.

Training is an effective mechanism for helping to minimize

radiation exposure to workers. Most workers who work in or frequent

restricted areas are currently provided training on radiation safety

issues. Typically, this training includes instruction on the procedures

that would be used to minimize radiation exposure such as limiting time

in certain areas and actions to be taken in the case of an accident. In

addition,

[[Page 36039]]

individuals who enter areas to perform services such as maintenance or

cleaning should be provided information on the location of radioactive

material and should be instructed to avoid contact with radioactive

material.

For interpretation of this rule, the words ``* * * likely to

receive * * *'' include normal situations as well as abnormal

situations involving exposure to radiation which can reasonably be

expected to occur during the life of a licensed facility. For example,

reactor licensees should consider both normal operations and

anticipated operational occurrences (AOOs). AOOs can include, for

example, unplanned onsite events involving spills of reactor coolant;

sudden increases in external radiation levels (loss of shielding); and

a loss of control of radioactive materials leading to a localized high

airborne radioactivity area. However, reactors would not need to

consider for the purpose of 10 CFR 19.12(b) those design basis

accidents analyzed in FSARs which are not reasonably expected to occur

but which are hypothesized or postulated for the purpose of

establishing conservative design requirements for safety equipment.

The decision as to whether a specific worker is likely to receive

in a year a dose in excess of 100 mrem (1 mSv) cannot be based solely

on past experiences at a given facility or the exposure history of the

individual. These decisions may need to take into account the impact

training might have on maintaining exposures below 100 mrem (1 mSv) in

a year for certain workers.

For example, certain workers such as janitors or maintenance

workers who either frequent restricted areas or work in the vicinity of

restricted areas, and are likely to receive doses in excess of 100 mrem

(1 mSv) unless properly trained, should receive training sufficient to

prepare them to avoid unnecessary exposure. On the other hand, clerical

workers, who may work in restricted areas but whose duties are unlikely

to involve direct interaction with radioactive material, are unlikely

to receive doses in excess of 100 mrem (1 mSv) in a year, and for whom

training would have no bearing on exposures, would not necessarily

require training just because of the location of their work.

The final rule adds the following language to 10 CFR 19.12(b) to

clarify that these situations would be included in the phrase ``likely

to receive'': In determining those individuals subject to the

requirements of paragraph (a) of this section, licensees must take into

consideration assigned activities during normal and abnormal situations

involving exposure to radiation and/or radioactive material which can

reasonably be expected to occur during the life of a licensed facility.

This clarification has been integrated with the existing requirement

that the training should be commensurate with the potential health

protection problems present in the workplace. Further, the format of

Sec. 19.12 is revised to clearly indicate the requirements for training

which previously were combined in a single long paragraph.

The proposed rule would have deleted the definition of, and

numerous references to, the ``Controlled Area.'' The intent was to make

it clear that any area to which access is restricted for the purpose of

radiological protection is a ``Restricted Area'' as defined in the

regulation and thus appropriate radiation protection measures

associated with restricted areas would apply. Neither the existing

definitions nor the supplemental information to the new regulations

provide a basis for deciding whether to designate a given area as a

``Restricted Area,'' or a ``Controlled Area,'' and there was a concern

that some confusion had resulted regarding how to implement the new

standards.

Deletion of ``Controlled Area'' was supported by three Agreement

States and several materials licensees. However, six power reactor

licensees and the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), argued that deletion

of ``Controlled Area'' would constitute a major and costly backfit. The

commenters stated that nuclear power plants have areas that sometimes

exceed 2 mrem (0.02 mSv) in an hour, but to which access can easily be

restricted so that no one can exceed 100 mrem (1 mSv) in a year. The

power reactor licensees argued that to change written procedures and

facilities to remove existing ``Controlled Areas'' would be costly.

These licensees believed that using controlled areas permits better

``defense'' of restricted areas. Also, the utilities said that if

unrestricted area boundaries were moved inward, power licensees could

have difficulty monitoring occupancy and calculating effluent doses to

demonstrate compliance with the public dose limits. The commenters

stated that if restricted area boundaries were moved outward, the cost

of applying unneeded radiation protection measures to large areas would

be extensive. NEI stated that the cost per plant to delete the term

``Controlled Area'' now would be from 10 to 100 thousand dollars per

plant with no significant benefit to health and safety.

The NRC agrees with the backfit argument. The concept of Controlled

Area is not deleted from 10 CFR Part 20.

The proposed rule would have revised the definition of ``Public

Dose'' so that a licensee was responsible for dose to any member of the

public, from effluents or any other source of radiation under the

control of the licensee, regardless of location. The current rule

limits dose to a member of the public from radiation within a

licensee's controlled area or in unrestricted areas, but permits member

of the public to receive a dose up to the occupational limit within the

licensee's restricted area. Public comment supported the proposed

change and it is adopted in the final rule. The definition of ``Public

Dose'' thus means the dose received by a member of the public from

exposure to radiation and/or radioactive material released by a

licensee, or to any other source of radiation under the control of a

licensee. The change is consistent with the new definition of

``Occupational Dose,'' also made final by this rulemaking action, and

eliminates the possibility that a member of the public could become

subject to occupational dose limits simply by entering a restricted

area. This change also makes it clear that licensees are not

responsible for doses from sources not under their control. This change

does not relieve a licensee from responsibility for, nor does it limit

a licensee's flexibility in, determining whether individual doses

received are occupational or public. Further guidance on this issue is

provided in question and answer numbers 26 and 444 in NUREG/CR-

6204,1 ``Questions and Answers Based on Revised 10 CFR Part 20.''

\1\ Copies of NUREGs may be purchased from the Superintendent of

Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, P.O. Box 37082,

Washington, DC 20013-7082. Copies are also available from the

National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road,

Springfield, VA 22161. A copy is also available for inspection and/

or copying at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW.

(Lower Level), Washington, DC.

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

The proposed rule included a revision to the definition of ``Member

of the Public,'' so that an individual is a member of the public except

when that individual is a worker receiving an occupational dose. Part

20 currently defines ``Member of the Public'' as an individual in a

controlled or unrestricted area. This permits the radiation dose to a

member of the public to be controlled by occupational dose limits

rather than public dose limits solely because the individual entered a

restricted area. The proposed change was supported by public comment

and

[[Page 36040]]

is adopted. This change further clarifies that a member of the public

is limited to the public dose limit regardless of where the individual

is located.

Section 20.2104(a), currently requires determination of prior

occupational dose for each individual who may enter a licensee's

restricted or controlled area and is likely to receive, in a year, an

occupational dose requiring monitoring pursuant to Sec. 20.1502. The

final rule adopts the following change. Determination of prior dose

will be required for any individual who is likely to receive, in a

year, an occupational dose requiring monitoring, pursuant to

Sec. 20.1502. Thus, under the new regulations, prior dose

determinations are based only on the likelihood of receiving

significant occupational dose, not on where an individual may be

located.

Before issuance of the revised standards for protection against

radiation, Sec. 20.409(b) provided that whenever a licensee is required

to report to the Commission any overexposure of an identified

individual worker or member of the public to radiation and/or

radioactive material, the licensee must also notify that

individual.2 Although, it was the intent of the Commission that

this provision remain in 10 CFR Part 20, the requirement was

inadvertently omitted from the revised standards. Accordingly,

Sec. 20.2205 was proposed to clearly restore to 10 CFR Part 20, the

requirement that individual workers and members of the public are to be

notified of their exposure when such individuals receive doses in

excess of the dose limits that would require notifying the NRC. This

proposed addition was supported by public comment and is codified here.

Under Sec. 20.2205, the licensee's obligation to notify an individual

will be triggered if (and only if) the licensee's required report to

NRC identifies that individual by name as having received an exposure

to radiation and/or to radioactive material. The licensee's obligation

to identify individuals in a required report to the NRC is provided for

in 10 CFR 20.2203. If an assessment, analysis or evaluation of an

exposure incident is provided to the NRC then it must also be provided

to the individual.

\2\ See also 10 CFR 19.13(d) when a licensee is required to

report to the Commission any exposure of an individual to radiation

or radioactive material, the licensee must also provide the

individual a report on their exposure data.

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

The proposed rule would have changed the definition of

``Unrestricted area'' to ``* * * any area that is not a restricted

area.'' With retention of the ``Controlled area'' concept this change

is not needed.

Changes were proposed to Secs. 20.1301, 20.1302, 20.1801, and

20.1802 to accommodate the proposed deletion of the ``Controlled area''

term. These changes are not needed in view of the decision to retain

``Controlled Area,'' and are withdrawn.

Public Comments

Proposed revisions to 10 CFR Parts 19 and 20 were published on

February 3, 1994 (59 FR 5132). The public comment period closed on

April 4, 1994. Twenty-three letters of public comment were received.

Comment letters were received from four Agreement States, seven nuclear

utilities and an extensive commentary from the Nuclear Energy Institute

(NEI) for the nuclear power industry. Two radiopharmaceutical

manufacturers, two radiation protection services firms, three

interested individuals, National Institute of Science and Technology

(NIST), the Department of Veterans Affairs, the American Iron and Steel

Institute, Continental Airlines and Columbia Gas responded to the

proposed rule request for comment.

All of the Agreement States and Continental Airlines agreed in

general with the proposed rule. The State of Texas suggested further

revision of 10 CFR 20.1801, which states ``The licensee shall secure

from unauthorized removal or access licensed materials that are stored

in unrestricted areas.'' Texas would delete the words ``in unrestricted

areas,'' arguing that materials can be stored in restricted areas as

well. The NRC agrees but because other provisions for access control to

restricted areas exist and are considered adequate to prevent

unauthorized removal of sources, this suggestion is rejected.

Columbia Gas supported the proposed rule, but questioned the

proposed wording of the training requirement in Sec. 19.12. This

commenter suggested adding the underlined words as follows: ``All

individuals who in the course of employment with a licensee or a

contractor to a licensee in which * * *.'' This suggestion is not

included because many individuals, such as INPO and NRC

representatives, often require training but are not employees or

contractors to the licensee.

Both radiopharmaceutical firms, the Department of Veterans Affairs,

the American Iron and Steel Institute, and a radiation protection

service firm questioned basing training requirements on the

``potential'' for exposure. These commenters argued that this term was

so vague that prudence would require training everyone. Each of these

commenters suggested language consistent with the monitoring

requirement in Sec. 20.1502, ``individuals likely to receive

exposure.'' In addition, the public dose limit of 100 mrem (1 mSv) in a

year was suggested by several commenters as a threshold for training.

These suggestions are incorporated into the final rule. The phrase

``likely to receive'' has been clarified in Sec. 19.12(b) and in this

statement of considerations.

NIST argued that removing the definition of ``Controlled Area''

while explicitly permitting its use in the statement of considerations,

accomplishes little. NIST stated that although 2 mrem (0.02 mSv) in any

hour is a boundary condition for the unrestricted area, the current

regulations do not make it clear that a dose greater than 2 mrem (0.02

mSv) must be a boundary condition for the restricted area. NIST also

stated that it is the public dose limit (100 mrem (1 mSv) in a year)

that distinguishes a restricted area from an unrestricted area. NIST

also stated that within the existing definition a restricted area is

any area to which access is controlled for radiological purposes. Since

the concept of a controlled area has demonstrated usefulness to certain

types of licensees and does not affect the permissible dose to a member

of the public the definition of ``Controlled Area'' is retained.

NIST objected to the proposed definition of ``Occupational dose''

on the grounds that it is vague and suggested that licensees should be

required to specifically identify those individuals subject to

occupational dose limits. NIST suggested adding a definition of a

``worker'' as someone subject to occupational dose limits. This

suggestion is not added to the final rule because licensees must

designate individuals as either occupationally exposed or members of

the public. The NRC believes that the language in the definition of

occupational dose makes it clear that only individuals designated by

the licensee are subject to occupational dose limits.

A radiation protection service firm questioned the proposed

definition of ``Occupational dose'' because it does not specify who

assigns the individuals duties. The NRC believes that it is clearly the

responsibility of licensees to control occupational dose and thus

licensees must be directly or indirectly responsible for assigning

individual duties.

This commenter also objected to deletion of the definition of

``Controlled Area'' because for many general licensees using sealed

sources such as gauges, it serves as an intermediate area

[[Page 36041]]

between restricted and unrestricted areas where dose rates might exceed

2 mrem (0.02 mSv) in any one hour but where doses would not exceed l00

mrem (1 mSv) in a year. The commenter observes that installation of

shielding and other dose reduction measures would be very costly for

these licensees.

An individual commenter suggested that before the inclusion of the

term ``Controlled Area,'' nuclear power plants had two kinds of

restricted areas, (1) inside the site boundary for effluent and public

dose control; and (2) a smaller area within the plant for occupational

radiation protection. The term ``Controlled Area'' replaced the former

and is used to control exposure to the public. This commenter suggested

that deletion of the controlled area concept would create problems with

respect to calculating effluent doses at the boundary of the smaller

restricted area because of uncertainty in the uniformity of

concentrations at distances close to the release point.

NEI supported by six nuclear utilities with comments, strongly

opposed deletion of the term ``Controlled Area.'' These commenters

contended that nuclear power plants are not having difficulty, nor is

there any confusion, with implementing the new rules. Further, nuclear

plants have extensive experience with the use of the term ``controlled

area.'' The physical plant designs at nuclear plants make it practical

to control access to controlled areas to assure compliance with public

dose limits. Finally, the existence of a controlled area in many cases

permits better control of access to restricted areas.

These commenters noted that removing the provision for controlled

areas now would require extensive and costly changes in procedures and

plant layout and would constitute a backfit. NEI estimated a cost of

from 10 to 100 thousand dollars per plant just for changing procedures

and training. Deleting controlled areas would require changing

unrestricted area boundaries. This would result in problems with

monitoring occupancy factors and calculating effluent concentrations in

close proximity to release points to monitor public dose.

NEI, NIST and five nuclear utilities objected to the proposed

criterion for training indicating that the ``potential for exposure''

language is vague. NEI estimated that this wording would add

significantly to training costs (50 percent) with no decrease in dose.

These commenters also suggested that training should be required for

anyone likely to receive in a year an occupational dose in excess of

100 mrem (1 mSv).

As a result of its analysis of public comments, the NRC has decided

that changes to the proposed rule are necessary. The definition of the

term ``Controlled Area'' is retained but licensees are reminded that

the dose limits for members of the public apply. The training

requirement is revised so that workers who are likely to receive in a

year, an occupational dose in excess of 100 mrem (1 mSv) shall receive

training.

Agreement States

The amendments apply to all NRC licensees and are considered

matters of compatibility for the Agreement States. The division

classification for the changes are: the changes in definitions in

Sec. 20.1003 and the changes in Sec. 20.2104 are considered Division I

items; the change to Sec. 19.12 is considered a Division II item; and

the addition of Sec. 20.2205 is considered a Division III item. The

proposed changes had been discussed in June 1994, with Agreement State

representatives and there was strong support for the proposed changes.

Four States commented during the comment period and supported the

proposed amendments. Subsequent to the comment period, the Organization

of Agreement States submitted a letter that, among other things,

presented that the Agreement States unanimously voted to oppose

retention of the controlled area concept in 10 CFR Part 20. One of the

primary reasons stated was because they found little value in adopting

this provision for materials licensees. The NRC has decided to retain

the definition of Controlled area, and since the designation of an area

as controlled is optional for licensees it is considered to be a

division III matter of compatibility. Use of the designation

``restricted area'' alone is sufficient to assure protection of

individuals against undue risks from exposure to radiation and

radioactive materials.

Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact: Availability

The NRC has determined under the National Environmental Policy Act

of 1969, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in Subpart A of

10 CFR Part 51, that this rule will not be a major Federal action

significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and

therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required.

Changing the definition of ``Occupational dose'' to make it clear

that individual's whose assigned duties involve exposure to radiation

and radioactivity are subject to radiation protection procedures

associated with occupational exposure and that members of the public

cannot be permitted to receive doses that exceed public dose limits

just by entering a restricted area is considered a benefit with no

environmental impact. This change will have no effect on the type or

quantity of material released into the environment and, if anything,

will make it less likely for members of the public to be exposed to

more than public dose limits.

Amending the radiation protection training requirements to clarify

that they apply to individuals who are likely to receive, in a year, an

occupational dose in excess of 100 mrem (1 mSv), regardless of whether

they may or may not be within a restricted area, will result in no

impact on the environment.

Adding Sec. 20.2205 which clearly restores the requirement that

individual workers and individual members of the public are notified

that they have been exposed to radiation or radioactive material in

excess of the dose limits whenever NRC is notified, will have no impact

on the environment.

The environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact

on which this determination is based are available for inspection at

the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW. (Lower Level),

Washington, DC. Single copies of the environmental assessment and

finding of no significant impact are available from Alan K. Roecklein,

U.S. NRC, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852, (301) 415-6223.

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement

This final rule does not contain a new or amended information

collection requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Existing requirements were approved by the

Office of Management and Budget, approval numbers 3150-044, 3150-0014,

3150-0005, and 3150-0006.

Regulatory Analysis

The NRC has prepared a regulatory analysis on this regulation. The

analysis examines the costs and benefits of the alternatives considered

by the NRC. The analysis is available for inspection in the NRC Public

Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC. Single

copies of the regulatory analysis are available from Alan K. Roecklein,

U.S. NRC, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852, (301) 415-6223.

[[Page 36042]]

Regulatory Flexibility Certification

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C.

605(b), the Commission certifies that this rule will not have a

significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small

entities. The amendments apply to all NRC and Agreement State

licensees. Because these amendments only clarify, restore, and conform

existing requirements to the 1991 version of Part 20, they are

considered to have no significant economic impact on any large or small

entities.

Backfit Analysis

Because 10 CFR Parts 19 and 20 apply to all NRC licensees, any

proposed changes to these parts must be evaluated to determine if these

changes constitute backfitting for reactor licensees such that the

provisions of 10 CFR 50.109, ``Backfitting,'' apply. These requirements

apply to the rule only to the extent the changes affect reactor

licensees. That evaluation follows.

The final rule consists of six changes: (1) Modification of the

training requirement contained in 10 CFR 19.12; (2) deletion of the

phrase ``in a restricted area'' contained in the definition of

occupational dose; (3) revision of the definition of ``Public dose'' so

that it applies to dose to the public from sources under the control of

the licensee; (4) revision of the definition of ``Member of the

public'' so that it includes anyone who is not receiving an

occupational dose; (5) revision of Sec. 20.2104(a) so that prior dose

must be determined for anyone who is likely to require monitoring; and

(6) retaining a requirement in Part 20 so that known overexposed

individuals receive copies of any reports of the overexposure that are

required to be submitted to the NRC.

The change to 10 CFR 19.12 is consistent with the revised

definition of occupational exposure. Because occupational dose is to be

based upon the individual's activities involving radiation and/or

radioactive materials, rather than the location of the work (e.g.,

restricted area), a conforming change in Part 19 is needed to ensure

that workers who receive an occupational dose are appropriately trained

regardless of the physical location where the work is performed. This

is also needed so that members of the public, such as delivery persons,

who occasionally enter a restricted area will not be required to

receive occupational training merely because they enter a restricted

area when their potential exposures do not exceed the 100 mrem (1 mSv)

public dose limit and their activities, therefore, would not subject

them to any significant risk.

The NRC staff believes that the impact of the change to 10 CFR Part

19.12 is negligible for 10 CFR Part 50 licensees, given that the

expected numbers of additional occupationally exposed individuals

requiring training is small relative to the number of workers already

receiving training at these facilities and compared to the number who

will no longer require training only because they enter a restricted

area. In any case requiring training of additional workers who do not

enter a restricted area but who are exposed to radiation in excess of

the 100 mrem (1 mSv) in a year is considered as providing a substantial

improvement in safety for those individuals. Since the training would

address ALARA and measures to reduce exposure, this training would

assist those workers in controlling risk. Given the overall reduction

in training and the fact that the additional trained workers will

experience a significant improvement in safety, this change is

justified under 10 CFR 50.109.

The deletion of the phrase ``in a restricted area or,'' contained

in the definition of occupational dose is to ensure that the

Commission's intent to apply the dose limits of 10 CFR 20.1301 to

members of the public regardless of their physical location, is

properly implemented. Currently, only occupationally exposed

individuals are subject to the higher occupational dose limits and just

because a member of the public is permitted entry into a restricted

area does not mean that he or she should be allowed to receive an

occupational dose and exceed the public dose limit. For this reason,

the reference to a restricted area is removed from the definition of

occupational dose.

The staff believes that designating employment and assigned duties

as criteria for determining that exposure is occupational will have

little impact on Part 50 licensed operations, other than to make it

even more unlikely that members of the public will be subject to

occupational dose limits.

Changing the definition of ``Public dose'' so that it is not

dependent on where an individual is, and so that licensees are

responsible for doses to the public only from effluents and from

sources under their control, adds no significant burden to Part 50

licensees. This change is consistent with the changes to ``Occupational

dose'' and is considered clarifying.

Revising the definition of ``Member of the public'' is conforming

with the revised definition of ``Occupational dose,'' and makes it

clear that a member of the public does not become a worker just by

entering a restricted area. This change has no significant impact on

Part 50 licensees.

The requirement to determine prior dose is changed so that the

possibility of entering a restricted or controlled area is no longer a

condition. Prior dose determination is only required if an individual

is likely to receive, in a year, an occupational dose requiring

monitoring, which is not a change. This change is considered to have

little impact on Part 50 licensees.

The addition of 10 CFR 20.2205, ``Reports to individuals of

exceeding dose limits'' is considered to be the restoration of a

previous requirement. The provisions of 10 CFR 20.409(b) required

licensees to notify an individual worker or member of the public

whenever a report to the NRC is required regarding an exposure of the

identified individual. This requirement was inadvertently omitted from

the revised standards published on May 21, 1991, (56 FR 23360).2

Although few incidents occur that involve exposure of a member of the

public in excess of dose limits, restoring this provision to Part 20

will ensure that licensees are aware of their obligation to notify

members of the public as well as workers if, and when, they are

required to submit a report to the NRC of an occurrence that identifies

that individual as having received an overexposure. If an assessment,

analysis or evaluation of an exposure incident is provided to the NRC

then it must also be provided to the identified individual.

\2\ See also 10 CFR 19.13(d) when a licensee is required to

report to the Commission any exposure of an individual to radiation

or radioactive material, the licensee must also provide the

individual a report on their exposure data.

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

The NRC believes that these changes to 10 CFR Part 20 will have

some, albeit minor, impacts on reactor licensees. Licensees who have

implemented the revised standards, or who have written procedures to do

so, will need to revise those procedures to reflect the changes.

Benefits such as simplifying the use of occupational and public dose

designation, making it clear that only workers can receive occupational

dose, relating training requirements to the likelihood of receiving

occupational exposure and ensuring that overexposed individuals are

notified, are considered by the NRC to far outweigh the impacts.

However, these benefits are qualitative in nature, and are expressed in

terms of reduced uncertainty in regulatory requirements, clarity of

regulatory intent, and consistency of regulatory approach. Thus, the

NRC believes that the modifications are not backfits.

[[Page 36043]]

List of Subjects

10 CFR Part 19

Criminal penalties, Environmental protection, Nuclear materials,

Nuclear power plants and reactors, Occupational safety and health,

Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sex

discrimination.

10 CFR Part 20

Byproduct material, Criminal penalties, Licensed material, Nuclear

materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Occupational safety and

health, Packaging and containers, Radiation protection, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Source material, Special nuclear material,

Waste treatment and disposal.

For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of

the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization

Act of 1974, as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the NRC is adopting

the following amendments to 10 CFR parts 19 and 20.

PART 19--NOTICES, INSTRUCTIONS AND REPORTS TO WORKERS: INSPECTION

AND INVESTIGATIONS

1. The authority citation for part 19 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 53, 63, 81, 103, 104, 161, 186, 68 stat. 930,

933, 935, 936, 937, 948, 955, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as

amended, sec. 1701, 106 Stat. 2951, 2952, 2953 (42 U.S.C. 2073,

2093, 2111, 2133, 2134, 2201, 2236, 2282, 2297f); sec. 201, 88 Stat.

1242, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5841). Pub. L. 95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat.

2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851).

2. Section 19.12 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 19.12 Instruction to workers.

(a) All individuals who in the course of employment are likely to

receive in a year an occupational dose in excess of 100 mrem (1 mSv)

shall be--

(1) Kept informed of the storage, transfer, or use of radiation

and/or radioactive material;

(2) Instructed in the health protection problems associated with

exposure to radiation and/or radioactive material, in precautions or

procedures to minimize exposure, and in the purposes and functions of

protective devices employed;

(3) Instructed in, and required to observe, to the extent within

the workers control, the applicable provisions of Commission

regulations and licenses for the protection of personnel from exposure

to radiation and/or radioactive material;

(4) Instructed of their responsibility to report promptly to the

licensee any condition which may lead to or cause a violation of

Commission regulations and licenses or unnecessary exposure to

radiation and/or radioactive material;

(5) Instructed in the appropriate response to warnings made in the

event of any unusual occurrence or malfunction that may involve

exposure to radiation and/or radioactive material; and

(6) Advised as to the radiation exposure reports which workers may

request pursuant to Sec. 19.13.

(b) In determining those individuals subject to the requirements of

paragraph (a) of this section, licensees must take into consideration

assigned activities during normal and abnormal situations involving

exposure to radiation and/or radioactive material which can reasonably

be expected to occur during the life of a licensed facility. The extent

of these instructions must be commensurate with potential radiological

health protection problems present in the work place.

PART 20--STANDARDS FOR PROTECTION AGAINST RADIATION

3. The authority citation for part 20 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 53, 63, 65, 81, 103, 104, 161, 182, 186, 68

stat. 930, 933, 935, 936, 937, 948, 953, 955, as amended, sec. 1701,

106 Stat. 2951, 2952, 2953 (42 U.S.C. 2073, 2093, 2095, 2111, 2133,

2134, 2201, 2232, 2236), secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 stat.

1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846).

4. In Sec. 20.1003, the definitions of ``Member of the public''

``Occupational dose,'' and ``Public dose'' are revised to read as

follows:

Sec. 20.1003 Definitions.

* * * * *

Member of the public means any individual except when that

individual is receiving an occupational dose.\1\

\1\ Except as delineated in other parts of 10 CFR chapter I.

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

* * * * *

Occupational dose means the dose received by an individual in the

course of employment in which the individual's assigned duties involve

exposure to radiation and/or to radioactive material from licensed and

unlicensed sources of radiation, whether in the possession of the

licensee or other person. Occupational dose does not include dose

received from background radiation, as a patient from medical

practices, from voluntary participation in medical research programs,

or as a member of the public.

* * * * *

Public dose means the dose received by a member of the public from

exposure to radiation and/or radioactive material released by a

licensee, or to any other source of radiation under the control of a

licensee. It does not include occupational dose or doses received from

background radiation, as a patient from medical practices, or from

voluntary participation in medical research programs.

* * * * *

5. In Sec. 20.2104, the introductory text of paragraph (a) is

revised to read as follows:

Sec. 20.2104 Determination of prior occupational dose.

(a) For each individual who is likely to receive in a year, an

occupational dose requiring monitoring pursuant to Sec. 20.1502 the

licensee shall--

* * * * *

6. Section 20.2205 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 20.2205 Reports to individuals of exceeding dose limits.

When a licensee is required, pursuant to the provisions of

Secs. 20.2203, 20.2204, or 20.2206, to report to the Commission any

exposure of an identified occupationally exposed individual, or an

identified member of the public, to radiation or radioactive material,

the licensee shall also provide a copy of the report submitted to the

Commission to the individual. This report must be transmitted at a time

no later than the transmittal to the Commission.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 30th day of June, 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

James M. Taylor,

Executive Director for Operations.

[FR Doc. 95-17023 Filed 7-12-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P