Reactor Effluents, 25237-25247 [2015-10408]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
25237
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
Vol. 80, No. 85
Monday, May 4, 2015
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.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I
[NRC–2014–0044]
RIN 3150–AJ38
Reactor Effluents
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed
rulemaking; request for comment.
AGENCY:
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
https://www.regulations.gov and search
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:53 May 01, 2015
Jkt 235001
for Docket ID NRC–2014–0044. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol
Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463;
email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For
technical questions contact the
individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
document.
• Email comments to:
Rulemaking.Comments@nrc.gov. 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: Carolyn.Lauron@nrc.gov; or
Nishka Devaser, telephone: 301–415–
5196, email: Nishka.Devaser@nrc.gov.
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 publiclyavailable information related to this
action by any of the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
https://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
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
adams.html. To begin the search, select
‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then
select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 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
https://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
1 ICRP Publication 2 (1959), ‘‘Permissible Dose for
Internal Radiation.’’ The condensed ICRP reference
E:\FR\FM\04MYP1.SGM
Continued
04MYP1
25238
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 85 / Monday, May 4, 2015 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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
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.
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
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 . . . .’’
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:53 May 01, 2015
Jkt 235001
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
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
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
4 ICRP, 2007. The 2007 Recommendations of the
International Commission on Radiological
Protection, ICRP Publication 103. Ann. ICRP 37 (2–
4).
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\04MYP1.SGM
04MYP1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 85 / Monday, May 4, 2015 / Proposed Rules
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,’’ https://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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:53 May 01, 2015
Jkt 235001
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
6 The 10 CFR part 20 ANPR is available on
https://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.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
25239
guidance, and supporting computer
software.
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
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 costbenefit ratios, to ensure facilities use
radwaste treatment technology that can
reduce the dose to the population
within 50 miles of the reactor. The costbenefit criteria are $1,000 per total body
man-rem and $1,000 per man-thyroidrem. 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
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.
E:\FR\FM\04MYP1.SGM
04MYP1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
25240
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 85 / Monday, May 4, 2015 / Proposed Rules
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–
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:53 May 01, 2015
Jkt 235001
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.
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
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
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 nonalignment 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
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
Radionuclides—Part 4 Inhalation Dose
Coefficients;’’ ICRP Publication 72 (1995), ‘‘Agedependent 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.
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.’’
E:\FR\FM\04MYP1.SGM
04MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 85 / Monday, May 4, 2015 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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.
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
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 lightwater-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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:53 May 01, 2015
Jkt 235001
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,
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
25241
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, ‘‘CostBenefit 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,’’
E:\FR\FM\04MYP1.SGM
04MYP1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
25242
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 85 / Monday, May 4, 2015 / Proposed Rules
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:53 May 01, 2015
Jkt 235001
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 costjustified 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 retrain workers to use a new dose
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 doseequivalent 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
E:\FR\FM\04MYP1.SGM
04MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 85 / Monday, May 4, 2015 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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 1year-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
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 agespecific dose coefficients per unit intake
of radioactivity (inhaled or ingested) is
described in NUREG–0172, ‘‘AgeSpecific 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.
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
14 ICRP Publication 110 (2009), ‘‘Adult Reference
Computational Phantoms.’’
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’’).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:53 May 01, 2015
Jkt 235001
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.
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
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
25243
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
E:\FR\FM\04MYP1.SGM
04MYP1
25244
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 85 / Monday, May 4, 2015 / Proposed Rules
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 SemiInfinite 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.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:53 May 01, 2015
Jkt 235001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\04MYP1.SGM
04MYP1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 85 / Monday, May 4, 2015 / Proposed Rules
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
(mCi) or microcuries per milliliter (mCi/
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:53 May 01, 2015
Jkt 235001
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
mCi 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 mCi, 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
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
25245
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
https://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
E:\FR\FM\04MYP1.SGM
04MYP1
25246
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 85 / Monday, May 4, 2015 / Proposed Rules
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.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Cited documents
ADAMS Accession No.
Proposed Revision to 10 CFR part 20, ANPR (79 FR 43284; July 25, 2014) ..................................................................................
Extension of Comment Period for the 10 CFR part 20 ANPR (79 FR 69065; November 20, 2014) ...............................................
Proposed Revision to 40 CFR part 190, ANPR (79 FR 6509; February 4, 2014) ............................................................................
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,’’ August 2, 2001.
SRM–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,’’ April 12, 2002.
SECY–08–0197, ‘‘Options to Revise Radiation Protection Regulations And Guidance With Respect to the 2007 Recommendations of ICRP,’’ December 18, 2008.
SRM–SECY–08–0197, ‘‘Options To Revise Radiation Protection Regulations and Guidance With Respect to the 2007 Recommendations of ICRP,’’ April 2, 2009.
SECY–12–0064, ‘‘Recommendations For Policy and Technical Direction To Revise Radiation Protection Regulations and Guidance,’’ April 25, 2012.
SRM–SECY–12–0064, ‘‘Recommendations For Policy And Technical Direction To Revise Radiation Protection Regulations
And Guidance,’’ December 17, 2012.
Regulatory Guide 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,’’ June 2009.
Regulatory Guide 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,’’ October 1977.
Regulatory Guide 1.110, ‘‘Cost-Benefit Analysis for Radwaste Systems for Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactors, Rev.
1,’’ October 2013.
Regulatory Guide 1.111, ‘‘Methods for 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 Releases of Radioactive Materials in Gaseous and Liquid Effluents from Light-WaterCooled Nuclear Power Reactors, Rev. 1,’’ March 2007.
Regulatory Guide 1.113, ‘‘Estimating Aquatic 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 Applications for Nuclear Power Plants (LWR Edition),’’ June 2007 .........................
Regulatory Guide 4.15, ‘‘Quality Assurance for 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 for Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants’’ .................................................
NUREG–0133, ‘‘Preparation of Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications for Nuclear Power Plants: A Guidance Manual for
Users of Standard Technical Specifications,’’ October 1978.
NUREG–0172, ‘‘Age-Specific Radiation Dose Commitment Factors for a One-Year Intake,’’ November 1977 ..............................
NUREG–0543, ‘‘Methods for Demonstrating LWR Compliance With the EPA Uranium Fuel Cycle Standard (40 CFR Part
190),’’ February 1980.
NUREG–0800, ‘‘Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants: LWR Edition,’’
March 2007.
NUREG/CR–1276, ‘‘User’s Manual for LADTAP II—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 Guidance: Standard Radiological Effluent Controls for Pressurized Water Reactors,’’ April 1991.
ML14084A333
ML14325A519
Not in ADAMS
ML011580363
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:53 May 01, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\04MYP1.SGM
04MYP1
ML021050104
ML083360555
ML090920103
ML121020108
ML12352A133
ML091170109
ML003740384
ML13241A052
ML003740354
ML070320241
ML003740390
ML070720184
ML071790506
ML14071A275
ML091050057
ML14083A242
ML081360410
ML070660036
Not In
ADAMS 17
ML091050061
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 85 / Monday, May 4, 2015 / Proposed Rules
25247
Cited documents
ADAMS Accession No.
NUREG–1302, ‘‘Offsite Dose Calculation Manual Guidance: Standard Radiological Effluent Controls for Boiling Water Reactors,’’ April 1991.
NUREG–1555, ‘‘Standard Review Plans for 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 Reference and User Guide,’’ April 1986 ......................................................................
ML091050059
NUREG/CR–4653, ‘‘GASPAR II—Technical 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).
IX. Rulemaking Process
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2015–0933; Directorate
Identifier 2014–NM–098–AD]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Fokker
Services B.V. Airplanes
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:
We propose to adopt a new
airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Fokker Services B.V. Model F.27 Mark
200, 300, 400, 500, 600, and 700
airplanes. This proposed AD was
prompted by a design review, which
revealed that no controlled bonding
provisions are present on a number of
critical locations inside the fuel tank or
connected to the fuel tank wall; and no
anti-spray cover is installed on the fuel
shut-off valve (FSOV) in both wings.
This proposed AD would require
installing additional bonding provisions
in the fuel tank, installing an anti-spray
cover on the FSOV, and revising the
airplane maintenance program by
incorporating fuel airworthiness
limitation items and critical design
configuration control limitations. We
are proposing this AD to prevent an
ignition source in the fuel tank vapor
space, which could result in a fuel tank
explosion and consequent loss of the
airplane.
SUMMARY:
We must receive comments on
this proposed AD by June 18, 2015.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments,
using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following
methods:
DATES:
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:53 May 01, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
ML12335A667
Not In
ADAMS 18
Not In
ADAMS 19
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Fax: 202–493–2251.
• Mail: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M–
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M–
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
Examining the AD Docket
You may examine the AD docket on
the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA–2015–
0933; or in person at the Docket
Management Facility between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the
regulatory evaluation, any comments
received and other information. The
street address for the Docket Operations
office (telephone 800–647–5527) is in
the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom
Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM–116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA
98057–3356; telephone 425–227–1137;
fax 425–227–1149.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
We invite you to send any written
relevant data, views, or arguments about
this proposed AD. Send your comments
to an address listed under the
ADDRESSES section. Include ‘‘Docket No.
FAA–2015–0933; Directorate Identifier
2014–NM–098–AD’’ at the beginning of
your comments. We specifically invite
comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy
aspects of this proposed AD. We will
consider all comments received by the
E:\FR\FM\04MYP1.SGM
04MYP1
]]>Agencies
[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 https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2014-0044. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-
3463; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For technical questions contact
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this document.
Email comments to: Rulemaking.Comments@nrc.gov. 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: Carolyn.Lauron@nrc.gov; or Nishka Devaser, telephone: 301-
415-5196, email: Nishka.Devaser@nrc.gov. 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 https://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 https://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 pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 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 https://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,'' https://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 https://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 https://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
