59160 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 186 / Monday, September 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

issue provides a powerful example of 

operating experience emerging at a late 

date in a way that affects the license 

renewal. VT Yankee also provides a 

series of later life structural failures as 

additional examples. The petitioners 

state that it is appropriate, from a 

regulatory audit standpoint, to wait 

until applicable failure rate and 

observed aging phenomena data is in 

hand, before attempting time-limited 

aging analysis or aging management 

planning; less than 10; not less than 20 

years in advance of operating license 

expiration. 

The petitioners state that the current 

rule exacerbates NRC staff and licensee 

difficulty in following license renewal 

commitments. The petitioners state that 

license renewal applications are often 

approved with the proviso that certain 

commitments be made and fulfilled; 

generally before the period of extended 

operation begins. These commitments 

often include inspections, tests, 

analyses, and development of programs 

vital to safety and environmental 

protection. The petitioners state that 

regulatory experience shows NRC staff 

turnover, changes in oversight, licensee 

staff changes, and ownership (licensee) 

changes, greater in a 20-year period than 

a 10-year period, will at once 

complicate and place increased 

emphasis on proper handoff of 

unfulfilled licensee commitments. 

The petitioners state that 20 years 

from application to onset of extended 

operation will, based on regulatory 

history, certainly see an inordinate 

amount of applicable regulatory change, 

with lack of compliance likely to be 

grandfathered in. The petitioners state 

that current issues under consideration 

for treatment in the license renewal 

process include aging management for 

underground, buried, or inaccessible 

pipes that carry radionuclides, and 

aging management for safety-related low 

voltage cables that are below-grade and 

not qualified for a wet environment. 

The petitioners state that, in its 

current form, the regulation conflicts 

with, circumvents, and otherwise 

frustrates the letter and spirit of the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA). The petitioners state it further 

conflicts with, circumvents, and 

otherwise frustrates the object and goals 

of NEPA. The petitioners state that the 

NEPA provides at Section 1500.2, that 

the Federal agencies, ‘‘shall to the fullest 

extent possible: (e) Use the NEPA 

process to identify and assess the 

reasonable alternatives to proposed 

actions that will avoid or minimize 

adverse effects of these actions upon the 

quality of the human environment.’’ The 

petitioners state that the Act provides at 

Section 1500.1(b) that ‘‘NEPA 

procedures must insure that 

environmental information is available 

to public officials and citizens before 

decisions are made and before actions 

are taken. The information must be of 

high quality. Accurate scientific 

analysis, expert agency comments, and 

public scrutiny are essential to 

implementing NEPA. Most important, 

NEPA documents must concentrate on 

the issues that are truly significant to 

the action in question, rather than 

amassing needless detail.’’ 

The Petition 

The petitioners request that the NRC 

amend its regulations to change the time 

before expiration of the operating 

license or combined license currently in 

effect in which a licensee may apply for 

a renewed license from 20 to 10 years. 

The petitioners request that the NRC 

amend 10 CFR 54.17(c) to read as 

follows: 

An application for a renewed license 

may not be submitted to the 

Commission earlier than 20 years before 

the expiration of the operating license or 

combined license currently in effect. 

An application for a renewed license 

may not be submitted to the 

Commission earlier than 10 years before 

the expiration of the operating license or 

combined license currently in effect. 

Petitioner’s Request To Suspend All 

License Renewal Review Pending 

Disposition of the Petition for 

Rulemaking 

The petitioners request that the 

Commission suspend all license 

renewal review pending disposition of 

this petition for rulemaking. The 

petitioners state that given the lead-in 

time on the application(s) and the fact 

that no additional work would be 

required of the licensee, no significant 

additional burden would accrue to the 

applicant. The petitioners state that, 

inasmuch as several petitioners intend 

to file requests for a hearing and 

petitions for leave to intervene in the 

matter of Seabrook license renewal, this 

suspension would preserve the order of 

the application review process and 

contribute to judicial efficiency and 

economy. The petitioners state that 

further suspension of review activities 

now would avoid duplication of effort 

should the Commission issue the 

requested rule change. 

The petitioners state that although 

they are not parties to a proceeding in 

this matter and no proceeding has yet 

been convened, the petitioners urge the 

Commission to find that the present 

situation is analogous to that described 

in 10 CFR 2.802(d) and to exercise its 

discretion for the benefit of the NRC and 

all parties by suspending review of all 

license renewal applications submitted 

more than10 years in advance of current 

license expiration until resolution of 

this petition. 

The NRC has determined that this 

request is not part of the rulemaking 

process. The NRC will address in a 

separate action the petitioners’ request 

to freeze all new relicensing activity 

pending disposition of the PRM. 

Conclusion 

For the reasons stated previously the 

petitioners request that NRC revise its 

regulations at 10 CFR 54.17 to permit 

license renewal application no sooner 

than 10 years before the expiration of 

current license and to apply the rule to 

all license renewal applications that 

have not yet been issued an NRC staff 

FSER. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day 

of September 2010. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Annette L. Vietti-Cook, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–24132 Filed 9–24–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

10 CFR Chapter I 

[NRC–2009–0279] 

Radiation Protection Regulations and 

Guidance; Public Meetings and 

Request for Comments 

AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC). 

ACTION: Notice of Public Meeting and 

Request for Comment. 

SUMMARY: The NRC is conducting a 

series of public meetings, in the format 

of facilitated roundtable workshops, to 

solicit early public input on major 

issues associated with potential updates 

to NRC’s radiation protection 

regulations and guidance in light of 

recommendations presented in the 

International Commission on 

Radiological Protection (ICRP) 

Publication 103 (2007). To aid in that 

process, the NRC is requesting 

comments on the issues discussed in 

this notice. The NRC has not initiated 

rulemaking on this subject, and is 

seeking early input and views on the 

benefits and impacts of options to be 

considered before making any decision 

on whether to proceed with a 

rulemaking. Each meeting will include 

a panel of participants, selected in a 

convening process to represent the 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 186 / Monday, September 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 59161 

diversity of stakeholders for these 

issues, including the various uses of 

radioactive materials licensed by the 

NRC. In addition to the panel, the NRC 

is encouraging observation and 

participation by all interested 

individuals. The meeting agenda will 

specifically include opportunities for 

viewpoints to be expressed from 

individuals in attendance who are not 

members of the panel. The NRC plans 

to transcribe the meetings. 

DATES: Comments on this notice should 

be submitted by January 31, 2011. 

Comments received after this date will 

be considered if it is practical to do so, 

but the NRC is able to assure 

consideration only for comments 

received on or before this date. 

Public Meeting Dates: The NRC will 

take public comments on the issues 

raised in this notice at a series of three 

2-day public meetings that will be held 

during the weeks of October 25, 2010 

(Washington, DC); November 1, 2010 

(Los Angeles, California) and November 

8, 2010 (Houston, Texas). The meeting 

in Washington DC will also include a 

third day of discussions, focused more 

specifically on the issues associated 

with power reactor licensees, as 

described in Section IV of this notice. 

Specific locations and dates will be 

announced on the NRC public Web site 

at http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/ 

public-meetings/index.cfm. Please refer 

to the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section for additional information. 

ADDRESSES: Members of the public are 

invited and encouraged to submit 

comments by any of the following 

methods: 

1. Mail to Cindy Bladey, Chief, Rules, 

Announcements and Directives Branch, 

Office of Administration, Mail Stop 

5B01M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001; or 

2. Electronically at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

Comments will be made available to 

the public in their entirety. Because 

your comments will not be edited to 

remove any identifying or contact 

information, the NRC cautions you 

against including any information in 

your submission that you do not want 

to be publicly disclosed. 

The NRC requests that any party 

soliciting or aggregating comments 

received from other persons for 

submission to the NRC inform those 

persons that the NRC will not edit their 

comments to remove any identifying or 

contact information, and therefore, they 

should not include any information in 

their comments that they do not want 

publicly disclosed. 

You can access publicly available 

documents related to this notice using 

the following methods: 

Regulations.gov: Documents related to 

this notice, including public comments, 

are accessible at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR): 

The public may examine and have 

copied for a fee, publicly available 

documents at the NRC’s PDR, Public 

File Area O–1F21, One White Flint 

North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland. 

NRC’s Agencywide Document Access 

and Management System (ADAMS): 

Publicly available documents created or 

received at the NRC after November 1, 

1999, are available electronically at the 

NRC’s Electronic Reading Room at 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ 

adams.html. From this site, the public 

can gain entry into ADAMS, which 

provides text and image files of NRC’s 

public documents. If you do not have 

access to ADAMS or if there are 

problems in accessing the documents 

located in ADAMS, contact the PDR 

Reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301– 

415–4737 or by e-mail to 

pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Kimyata Morgan Butler, Office of 

Federal and State Materials and 

Environmental Management Programs, 

telephone (301) 415–0733, e-mail 

Kimyata.MorganButler@nrc.gov or Dr. 

Donald Cool, Office of Federal and State 

Materials and Environmental 

Management Programs, telephone (301) 

415–6347, e-mail Donald.Cool@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Regulations issued by the U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 

are found in Chapter I of Title 10, 

‘‘Energy,’’ of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR). Chapter I is 

divided into Parts 1 through 199, which 

contain requirements that are binding 

for all individuals and entities that 

possess, use, or store nuclear materials 

or operate nuclear facilities under the 

NRC’s jurisdiction. Of these, the 

regulations that are most relevant to the 

subject of this notice are contained in 10 

CFR Part 20, ‘‘Standards for Protection 

Against Radiation,’’ and 10 CFR Part 50, 

‘‘Domestic Licensing of Production, and 

Utilization Facilities.’’ Through the 

existing compatibility criteria, the NRC 

Agreement States have certain 

requirements that are essentially 

identical to 10 CFR Part 20 for their 

licensees. Additional requirements, 

specific to particular uses or classes of 

facilities, are found in other portions of 

the regulations. For example, 10 CFR 

Part 35, ‘‘Medical Use of Byproduct 

Material,’’ contains requirements related 

to medical use of radioactive material. 

Other portions of the regulations also 

may contain radiation protection 

criteria, and cross references to 10 CFR 

Part 20. 

ICRP Publication 103 contains the 

latest in a series of revised international 

recommendations for radiation 

protection. Earlier recommendations of 

the ICRP concerning radiation 

protection were contained in ICRP 

Publication 2 (1959), ICRP Publication 

26 (1977), and ICRP Publication 60 

(1990). On December 18, 2008, the NRC 

staff provided a Policy Issue Notation 

Vote Paper (SECY–08–0197) to the 

Commission which presented the 

regulatory options of moving, or not 

moving, towards a greater degree of 

alignment between NRC’s current 

radiation protection regulatory 

framework and the recommendations 

contained in ICRP Publication 103. In a 

Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) 

dated April 2, 2009, the Commission 

approved the staff’s recommendation to 

immediately begin engagement with 

stakeholders and interested parties to 

ascertain the benefits, burdens, and 

potential stakeholder impacts if updates 

are made to NRC’s radiation protection 

regulations and guidance in order to 

achieve greater alignment with the 

recommendations in ICRP Publication 

103. This notice and series of public 

meetings are part of the NRC staff’s 

ongoing engagement process. 

II. Request for Written and Electronic 

Comments and Plans for a Public 

Meeting 

The NRC is soliciting comments on 

the technical issues and options, as 

presented in Sections III and IV of this 

notice. Comments may be submitted 

either in writing or electronically as 

indicated under the ADDRESSES heading. 

In addition, the NRC is holding a series 

of three public meetings, in the format 

of facilitated roundtable workshops, to 

be held during the weeks of October 25, 

2010 (Washington, DC); November 1, 

2010 (Los Angeles, California); and 

November 8, 2010 (Houston, Texas). 

Specific locations and dates will be 

announced on the NRC public Web site 

at http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/ 

public-meetings/index.cfm. 

Sections III and IV provide 

background and topics of discussion on 

the major issues that will be the subject 

of the public meetings. During the 

public meetings, the NRC will conduct 

roundtable panel discussions, with a 

panel of participants, selected in a 

convening process to represent the 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
59162 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 186 / Monday, September 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

diversity of stakeholders for these 

issues, including the various uses of 

radioactive materials licensed by the 

NRC. The meeting agenda will 

specifically include opportunities for 

viewpoints to be expressed from 

individuals in attendance who are not 

members of the panel. While all 

roundtable meetings will feature a 

discussion of technical issues and 

options for all types of licensed use of 

radioactive materials, as described in 

Section III of this notice, each meeting 

will have some degree of focus on 

particular types of licensed activity. The 

Washington, DC roundtable meeting 

will include a power reactor-focused 

session on the third day of the 

workshop, which will focus on issues 

described in Section IV of this notice. 

The roundtable meeting to be held in 

Los Angeles, California is intended to 

have additional medical use 

participation and the roundtable 

meeting held in Houston, Texas is 

intended to have additional industrial 

applications-focused (industrial 

radiography, well logging, etc.) 

participation. However, all interested 

stakeholders are encouraged to attend 

and participate in any of the three 

workshops, including representatives 

from the university, research, 

manufacturer and distributors, and 

other sectors that use radioactive 

materials. 

In addition to inviting public 

comments on the issues presented in 

Sections III and IV of this notice, the 

NRC is also requesting specific 

comments from potentially impacted 

industries. In Section III, the NRC is 

soliciting comments related to: (1) 

Information on the projected costs and 

benefits resulting from consideration of 

the factors described in Sections III; (2) 

operational data on radiation exposures 

from various licensee groups; (3) 

whether the presented issues are 

addressed comprehensively; and (4) 

whether other options should be 

considered. In Section IV, the NRC is 

requesting comments from the nuclear 

power industry, and other stakeholders, 

specifically on operational 

considerations and costs and benefits to 

the industry increasing alignment of 10 

CFR Part 50, Appendix I design 

objectives with the recommendations of 

ICRP Publication 103. The Commission 

believes that stakeholder comments will 

help to identify and quantify the 

potential impact of these proposed 

changes and will assist the NRC as 

potential regulatory action(s) are 

developed. Based on the comments 

received, the Commission will then be 

in a better position to evaluate whether 

to proceed with the development of a 

proposed rulemaking. If the 

Commission decides to proceed with a 

proposed rulemaking, additional 

information will be published in the 

Federal Register for public review and 

comment. 

III. NRC Staff-Identified Technical 

Issues and Options Associated With the 

Potential Revision of NRC’s Radiation 

Protection Regulations and Guidance 

Introduction 

Section A of the following discussion 

presents background information and 

describes some general considerations 

concerning potential revisions to NRC’s 

radiation protection regulations, as 

identified by NRC staff. Section B 

discusses the various issues and options 

that need to be assessed before 

commencing regulatory activities 

related to initiating rulemaking to 

change current radiation protection 

regulations. All public feedback will be 

used in developing an options paper for 

Commission consideration in late 2011. 

A. Background 

The Commission believes that the 

current NRC regulatory framework 

continues to provide adequate 

protection of health and safety of 

workers, the public, and the 

environment. From a safety regulation 

perspective, ICRP Publication 103 

proposes measures that may be seen as 

going beyond what is needed to provide 

adequate protection. In order to ensure 

that the NRC is well informed of all the 

benefits and burdens associated with 

further alignment of NRC’s current 

radiation protection regulations with 

ICRP Publication 103, the NRC is 

actively soliciting stakeholders’ input to 

further clarify the issues, options, 

benefits, impacts, and/or burdens 

associated with making changes to the 

current NRC radiation protection 

regulations. These efforts include 

interactions with the public, the nuclear 

industry, the medical community, the 

radioactive materials community, 

States, and other Federal agencies (i.e., 

EPA, DOE, OSHA, etc.). The staff wishes 

to continue these interactions with more 

detailed stakeholder discussions during 

this series of facilitated roundtable 

workshops. The agenda for each 

workshop will feature the list of NRC 

staff-identified technical options and 

issues (described below) that are 

potential areas for revision of 10 CFR 

Part 20 in light of the recommendations 

contained in ICRP Publication 103. In 

addition, stakeholders and interested 

parties may introduce other options, 

issues, and information for the NRC’s 

consideration. 

The current NRC radiation protection 

framework, taken as a whole, is a 

collection based on three different 

generations of international radiation 

protection guidelines. 10 CFR Part 20 is 

based upon the 1977 recommendations 

contained in ICRP Publication 26, and 

the scientific information contained in 

ICRP Publication 30. In addition, 10 

CFR Part 20 contains certain 

requirements based on 

recommendations and materials 

provided by the U.S. National Council 

on Radiation Protection and 

Measurements. Some other NRC 

requirements, including those for 10 

CFR Part 50 Appendix I, are based on 

the older recommendations from 1959 

contained in ICRP Publication 2. Certain 

licensees, as provided in specific license 

conditions, are implementing the more 

recent recommendations from 1990 in 

ICRP Publication 60 and subsequent 

publications updating the scientific 

information. The situation in other 

agencies of the Federal Government is 

similarly diverse, with requirements 

and guidance values based on all three 

previous generations of ICRP 

recommendations. 

The recommendations in ICRP 

Publication 103 continue to be based on 

the fundamental principles of 

justification of exposures, optimization 

of protection, and limitation of dose. 

ICRP Publication 103 consolidates 

recommendations from ICRP 

Publication 60 and subsequent 

publications using a better integrated 

approach to radiation protection and in 

dealing with various types of radiation 

exposures. Among others things, 

exposures are divided into three 

fundamental exposure situations, 

planned exposure situations, existing 

exposure situations, and emergency 

exposure situations. Planned exposure 

situations include licensed activities 

where planning and controls are in 

place before the exposure is permitted. 

In each exposure situation, ICRP has 

placed an increased emphasis on the 

optimization of protection for such 

types of exposure situations. NRC 

regulations in 10 CFR Parts 20 and 50 

are part of requirements in the United 

States for planned exposure situations, 

as described by the ICRP. 

B. Issues and Options for Discussion 

The following format is used in the 

presentation of the issues that follow. 

Each issue is assigned a number, a short 

title, regulatory options, and a list of 

questions. These issues, options, and 

questions are not meant to be a 

complete or final list, but are intended 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 186 / Monday, September 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 59163 

to initiate discussion. Interested 

stakeholders are welcome to 

recommend additions, deletions, or 

modifications of the key issues for 

consideration and propose 

implementation considerations. These 

issues and options will serve as the 

basis for discussion at the public 

meetings. Meeting participants, and 

those wishing to make comments, are 

strongly encouraged to read more about 

this effort at http://www.nrc.gov/aboutnrc/regulatory/rulemaking/optrevise.html. 

Issue No. 1: Effective Dose and 

Numerical Values 

Currently, 10 CFR Part 20 expresses 

the sum of internal and external 

exposures to an individual as the total 

effective dose equivalent (TEDE). In 

particular, the Commission amended 

the definitions in 10 CFR 20.1003 and 

50.2 (72 FR 68058; December 4, 2007) to 

clarify the definition of TEDE to mean 

the sum of the effective dose equivalent 

(for external exposures) and the 

committed effective dose equivalent (for 

internal exposures). This action was 

made effective on February 15, 2008 (72 

FR 72233; December 20, 2007). The 

revised definition of TEDE allows a 

licensee to substitute ‘‘effective dose 

equivalent’’ for ‘‘deep dose equivalent’’ 

(DDE) for external exposures, when 

calculated using a method found 

satisfactory to the Commission. 

Regulatory Guide 8.40 ‘‘Methods for 

Measuring Effective Dose Equivalent 

from External Exposure’’ recently 

updated and consolidated the guidance 

available on acceptable methods for 

calculation of effective dose. A 

conforming change was made to 10 CFR 

20.1201(c) to clarify the determination 

of occupational radiation dose for 

adults. The rule change is consistent 

with the current recommendations of 

the ICRP. 

The staff is considering whether it is 

appropriate to adopt current ICRP 

terminology and methodology 

throughout 10 CFR Part 20 and other 

portions of the regulations, by using the 

term TED instead of the term TEDE. 

ICRP publications no longer use the 

term TEDE or committed effective dose 

equivalent. The updated terminology 

has been associated with changes to 

various weighting factors within the 

calculation, but the underlying 

conceptual approach has remained the 

same. 

Another area of consideration is 

changing the radiation protection 

weighting factors and numerical values. 

The weighting factors for tissues (WT) 

and types of radiation (WR) are currently 

specified in 10 CFR Part 20 in the 

definitions section, and are based on the 

recommendations in ICRP Publication 

26. ICRP Publication 103 

recommendations provide new values 

for both quantities. Revising values for 

Annual Limits on Intake (ALI) and 

Derived Air Concentrations (DAC) is 

also an area of consideration. At this 

time, the ICRP is still in the process of 

developing a new set of dose 

coefficients, which will incorporate the 

revised radiation and tissue weighting 

factors and account for the latest 

biophysical models. The ICRP has 

indicated that the first volume of these 

new dose coefficients is expected in late 

2011, although the publication of the 

complete set for occupational exposure 

and public exposure is not expected 

before 2014. 

In considering Issue No. 1, the staff 

has identified two main issues and 

options that should be considered and 

discussed relative to effective dose and 

numerical values: 

Issue No. 1.1: Clarifying Effective Dose 

Methodology and Assessing 

Implications for Licensee Compliance 

With Dose Limits and Changes to 

Terminology 

NRC staff wants to clarify, as stated 

above, that the revised definition of 

TEDE allows a licensee to substitute 

EDE for deep dose equivalent (DDE) for 

external exposures and that a 

conforming change was made to 10 CFR 

20.1201(c) to clarify the determination 

of occupational radiation dose for 

adults. The issue of terminology goes 

beyond the simple introduction of a 

new term. Some of the NRC regulations 

continue to be based on older radiation 

protection approaches, and if these 

approaches are changed, then a question 

would be whether to make a change in 

the existing terminology of 10 CFR Part 

20, or to the current terminology used 

worldwide. See Section IV for particular 

considerations in the power reactor 

community. 

In consideration of the potential 

changes to terminology, the following 

three options should be considered: 

Options: 1.1a: No change in the current 

terminology (terminology remains TEDE). 

1.1b: Change the current regulation to align 

with the current ICRP Publication. 

103: Express as Total Effective Dose. 

1c: Allow use of either term. 

Questions: Q1.1–1: In terms of 

implementing the recently changed 

methodology for applying TEDE, are there 

any potential impacts on the ability to 

comply with the options for dose limits (DDE 

vs. TED)? 

Q1.1–2: What are the anticipated impacts 

on records and reports? 

Issue No. 1.2: Numerical Values and 

Weighting Factors 

ICRP Publication 103 provided 

updated tissue and radiation weighting 

factors (WT, WR). In addition, the ICRP 

is in the process of revising the dose 

coefficients based on new values, 

models, and decay data. The weighting 

factors currently used in 10 CFR Part 20 

date from 1977, and the corresponding 

ALI and DAC values are presented in 10 

CFR Part 20 Appendix B. The NRC staff 

also notes that the EPA is currently 

examining the values presented in 

Federal Guidance Reports 11 and 13, 

and is considering an update of these 

values. The difference between the ICRP 

values and the EPA values stems 

primarily from the use of a U.S. 

population cancer incidence and 

mortality analysis, instead of an average 

set of cancer incidence and mortality 

values for a worldwide population. In 

discussion with stakeholders to date, 

the majority have been generally in 

favor of updating the scientific 

information. However, no specific 

information related to potential impacts 

has been presented. 

The following are options and 

questions are related to this issue: 

Options: 1.2a: No change. 

1.2b: Change the current regulation to align 

with the current ICRP Publication. 

103: Update to new values, models, and 

radionuclide decay data. 

Questions: Q1.2–1: Are there any foreseen 

impacts of the timing (2014) of making 

changes to the current numerical values and 

weighting factors? Should NRC consider 

moving forward with a more limited set of 

radionuclides that would be available more 

quickly, and make subsequent amendments 

to add additional values as they are 

published by the ICRP? 

Q1.2–2: Should the NRC use the values 

developed by the EPA, which will be based 

on a US population, instead of the ICRP 

values, which are based on a more diverse 

world population? 

Issue No. 2: Occupational Dose Limits 

The occupational dose limit of 10 rem 

(100 mSv) over 5 years, with a 

maximum of 5 rem (50 mSv) in any one 

year, recommended by ICRP in 1990, 

was not incorporated into the last 

revision of 10 CFR Part 20 because the 

recommendations were not available 

during the public comment period for 

the proposed rule. The ICRP 

recommendations have now been 

adopted, in some form, by the 

International Atomic Energy Agency in 

their International Basic Safety 

Standards (BSS), and by most of the 

other countries in the world. In some 

countries, the limits are as 

recommended by the ICRP. In other 

cases, the national authorities have 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
59164 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 186 / Monday, September 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

chosen to require a single 2 rem (20 

mSv) limit for occupational exposure. In 

the discussions with stakeholders that 

have already taken place, the 

occupational dose limits issue has also 

included discussion of the relationship 

between the limits, and any proposal 

related to establishing constraints for 

occupational exposure (see Issue No. 4). 

The NRC staff is aware from 

stakeholder interactions that there are 

significant global or trans-boundary 

considerations that are important to 

some licensees which would argue in 

favor of changes in the dose limits. The 

staff is also aware that many other 

licensees wish to leave the current NRC 

regulations as they are. Factors 

identified have included potential 

impacts to licensees who have 

occupationally exposed individuals 

who are currently receiving exposures 

in excess of 2 rem (20 mSv) in a year. 

The NRC staff has identified the 

following three options for changes to 

NRC’s occupational dose limits: 

Options: 2.a: No change. Allow the dose 

limit to remain at 5 rem (50 mSv) per year. 

2.b: Change the current regulation to align 

with the current ICRP Publication 103: 10 

rem (100 mSv) over 5 years, with a maximum 

of 5 rem (50 mSv) in any one year. 

2.c: Change the current regulation to align 

with the approach adopted by some other 

countries: yearly dose limit of 2 rem (20 

mSv). 

Questions: Q2–1: Are there any significant 

anticipated impacts in assessing and 

retaining dose histories for each individual in 

order to comply with a multi-year average? 

Q2–2: Are there any anticipated 

implementation impacts expected if the dose 

limit is decreased? 

Q2–3: Is there any information about the 

actual dose distributions for industrial and 

medical licensees? What are the trends for 

this data? Are the data available to share with 

the NRC? 

Q2–4: For the medical industry, are there 

any potential impacts on patient care? 

Issue No. 3: Doses to Special 

Populations 

Issue No. 3.1: Dose Limits for Embryo/ 

Fetus of a Declared Pregnant Worker 

The limits for the embryo/fetus of a 

declared pregnant worker are specified 

in 10 CFR 20.1208. Currently, the dose 

limit to the embryo/fetus of a declared 

pregnant worker is 0.5 rem (5 mSv) for 

the gestation period with 0.05 rem (0.5 

mSv) additional dose during the 

gestation period if the dose to the 

embryo/fetus has already exceeded 0.5 

rem (5 mSv) at the time of declaration. 

The current requirements are based on 

the recommendations available in ICRP 

Publication 26. The ICRP 

recommendations now state that 

protection should be provided that is 

generally equivalent to that provided to 

a member of the public. Thus, the ICRP 

has now recommended a simplified 

approach, which is 100 mrem (1 mSv) 

after the declaration of pregnancy. 

In the discussions with stakeholders 

that have already taken place, many 

stakeholders have indicated that the 

ICRP proposal would not cause any 

issues. However, the NRC staff is also 

aware of some licensee segments, such 

as Nuclear Pharmacy licensees, where 

the change could result in an impact. To 

date, specific information and 

supporting data on impacts have not 

been received. 

The NRC staff identified the following 

three options for the dose limit to an 

embryo/fetus of a declared pregnant 

worker: 

Options: 3.a: No change. Continue with the 

dose limit of 0.5 rem (5 mSv) per year. 

3.b: Change the current regulation to align 

with the current ICRP Publication 103: 100 

mrem (1 mSv) after the declaration of 

pregnancy. 3.c: Change the current regulation 

to another single value after declaration: For 

example, 0.05 rem (.5 mSv) after declaration, 

the provision of the current rule if a dose of 

0.5 rem (5 mSv) has already been exceeded 

at the time of declaration of the pregnancy. 

Questions: Q3–1: Are there any significant 

anticipated impacts associated with reducing 

the dose limit to the embryo/fetus of a 

declared pregnant woman, including 

operational impacts? 

Q3–2: Are there any anticipated 

implementation impacts on record keeping? 

Q3–3: Is there a reduction in burden in 

assessment and record keeping if the ICRP 

recommendation is considered for adoption? 

Q3–4: Are there technological 

implementation issues, such as limits of 

detection, which would make adoption of the 

ICRP recommendation difficult in certain 

circumstances? 

Q3–5: Is there data on actual dose 

distributions to the embryo/fetus of a 

declared pregnant worker? What are the 

trends for this data? Is this data available to 

share with the NRC? 

Issue No. 3.2: Dose Limits for Members 

of the Public, Alternative Provisions for 

500 mrem (5 mSv) 

In addition to the dose to the embryo/ 

fetus of a declared pregnant female, 

stakeholders have asked about the 

implementation of the ICRP 

recommendations to sensitive 

populations. In particular, stakeholders 

have noted that the ICRP 

recommendations have stated that, 

although the dose limits for members of 

the public continue to provide 

flexibility for doses greater than 100 

mrem (1 mSv) in certain limited 

circumstances, sensitive populations 

such as young children should not be 

allowed to receive doses greater than the 

dose limits. This leads to an issue 

regarding the public dose limits that the 

NRC staff has not previously solicited 

comments. 

The current NRC public dose limits in 

10 CFR 20.1301 contain a provision that 

allows for licensees to apply for a 

limited application of a dose limit up to 

500 mrem (5 mSv). In consideration of 

the ICRP’s latest set of 

recommendations, the following options 

have been identified: 

Options: 3.2–a: No change. Continue to 

allow a dose limit of 0.5 rem (5 mSv) per 

year, applicable only upon specific approval 

of a licensee request. 

3.2–b: Change the current regulation to 

limit the applicability of the provision to 

situations in which sensitive populations are 

not receiving the exposure. 

3.2–c: Clarify in guidance that the NRC 

will require licensees to demonstrate that 

sensitive populations are not included in any 

proposals for alternative public dose limits. 

Questions: Q3.2–1: Are there any 

significant anticipated impacts associated 

with limiting the applicability of alternative 

public dose limits? 

Q3.2–2: Are these impacts the same for the 

options of a rule change, or for changes to 

guidance? 

Q3.2–3: Is there data available about the 

actual use of the alternative dose criteria? Is 

this data available to share with the NRC? 

Issue No. 4: Incorporation of Dose 

Constraints 

One of the most significant 

recommendations made in ICRP 

Publication 103 was the increased 

emphasis on the use of constraints and 

reference levels as part of the process of 

optimization of protection for all 

exposure situations. Licensees are 

currently required by 10 CFR 20.1101 to 

use sound radiation protection 

principles to achieve occupational doses 

and doses to members of the public that 

are ‘As Low As Is Reasonably 

Achievable (ALARA). The term, 

‘‘constraint,’’ is already included in the 

definitions of 10 CFR Part 20. A 

constraint, as currently defined, is a 

value at which licensee actions are 

required. Many licensees are generally 

familiar with the concept of constraints, 

although the term may be unfamiliar, 

because the concept is very similar to 

the use of various types of planning 

values (such as self-imposed 

administrative limits) in their programs 

to ensure that the dose limits are not 

exceeded. Thus, many established 

radiation protection programs already 

incorporate this concept, at least to 

some degree. The ICRP 

recommendations indicate that the 

constraint is the starting point for 

optimization, serving as an upper bound 

on the annual dose for members of the 

public, or an occupationally exposed 

individual, should receive from the 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 186 / Monday, September 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 59165 

planned operation of any controlled 

source of radiation. ICRP has stated that 

constraints are not to be considered as 

limits. In the discussions with 

stakeholders that have already taken 

place, many stakeholders have asked 

questions about the concept of 

constraints, the relationship of 

constraints to limits, and the 

relationship between possible changes 

to the limits and the use of constraints. 

In the current NRC regulatory structure, 

a constraint is defined as a level at 

which a licensee action is required. This 

provision is applied to airborne 

effluents from non-reactor facilities, and 

the actions are to evaluate the situation, 

develop actions to return effluents 

levels to less than the constraint, and 

provide a report to the NRC. Thus, as 

presently used in the regulations, an 

effluent release in excess of the 

numerical value of the constraint is not 

a violation. A violation only occurs if 

actions are not implemented in response 

to the situation. This approach is similar 

to the description presented by the 

ICRP, where a dose in excess of the 

constraint would not be seen as a 

violation, but as a point when 

reevaluation of the planning and 

implementation of the optimization 

ALARA program is needed. 

A number of stakeholders have 

expressed an interest in exploring the 

implications of using the mandatory 

application of constraints as a 

mechanism to achieve the same level of 

protection as a change in dose limits, 

while retaining some flexibility on the 

part of the licensee to examine and 

control their own programs. The NRC 

staff is interested in continuing to 

explore these proposals and their 

implications from various groups of 

licensees. 

NRC staff has identified three options 

for the incorporation of dose constraints 

to NRC’s radiation protection 

framework: 

Options: 4.a: No change. Do not 

incorporate the use of constraints into NRC’s 

radiation protection framework. 

4.b: Change the current regulation to 

specify that licensees establish and use 

constraints as part of their radiation 

protection program and the implementation 

of the ALARA requirement. 

4.c: In addition to requiring the 

establishment and use of constraints, require 

that the licensee use a numeric value that 

does not exceed some specified value. One 

such value for occupational exposure could 

be the 2 rem (20 mSv) per year level. 

Questions: Q4–1: Are there any significant 

anticipated benefits and impacts associated 

with imposing the use of constraints in a 

licensee’s radiation protection program? 

Q4–2: Are there any anticipated 

implementation impacts on inspection, 

compliance, and reporting anticipated? 

Q4–3: What relationship should a 

constraint have to the dose limit, if any? 

Q4–4: Is a requirement to establish and use 

constraints an appropriate, or inappropriate, 

insertion of a regulatory requirement? 

Q4–5: How familiar are you with the use 

and implementation of constraints or 

planning values in a radiation protection 

program? 

Q4–6: Are constraints (planning values) 

used in your current licensed activities, and 

if so, can you share insights on the use of 

these constraints? 

IV. NRC Staff-Identified Technical 

Issues and Options Associated With the 

Possible Revision of 10 CFR Part 50, 

Appendix I Regulations and Guidance 

Section A of the following discussion 

presents background information and 

describes general considerations 

concerning potential revisions to NRC 

regulations controlling radioactive 

liquid and gaseous effluent releases in 

the environment, as identified by NRC 

staff. The regulations are contained in 

Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50, 

‘‘Numerical Guides for Design 

Objectives and Limiting Conditions for 

Operation to Meet the Criterion ‘As Low 

as is Reasonably Achievable’ for 

Radioactive Material in Light-WaterCooled Nuclear Power Reactor 

Effluents.’’ Section B discusses the 

various issues and options that need to 

be assessed before initiating any 

regulatory activities leading to a 

rulemaking proposing to align the 

dosimetry basis, current dose 

terminology, and dose calculation 

methods of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix 

I design objectives with the 

recommendations of ICRP Publication 

103. 

A. Background 

In 1975, the NRC adopted the ALARA 

principle in regulating radioactive 

liquid and gaseous effluent releases 

from nuclear power plants. Radioactive 

liquid and gaseous effluents are 

controlled under 10 CFR Part 20, 10 

CFR Parts 50.34a and 50.36a, and 

Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50. 10 CFR 

Part 50, Appendix I contains provisions 

to ensure that gaseous and liquid 

radioactive effluents released in 

unrestricted areas and doses to members 

of the public are ALARA. These 

requirements are based on dosimetry 

concepts issued in 1959 as ICRP 

Publication 2. This approach was 

consistent with the version of Part 20 in 

effect prior to 1991, but is no longer 

consistent with current 10 CFR Part 20. 

The revision under consideration may 

propose the adoption of the radiation 

protection framework recommended by 

ICRP Publication 103. This NRC staff is 

considering the approach in parallel 

with the consideration of changes to 10 

CFR Part 20 so that the resulting 

requirements can be consistent. 

The Commission believes that the 

current NRC regulatory framework of 10 

CFR Part 50, Appendix I, and reactor 

oversight program continues to ensure 

that gaseous and liquid radioactive 

effluents released in unrestricted areas 

and doses to members of the public are 

ALARA. The alignment of 10 CFR Part 

50, Appendix I regulations and design 

objectives with ICRP Publication 103 

recommendations would not be 

intended to change the design objective 

criteria and regulatory guidance used by 

the nuclear power industry in 

demonstrating compliance with these 

requirements. 

B. Issues and Options for Discussion 

Issue No. 1: Proposed Revision to the 

Basis of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I 

Design Objectives 

Currently, the design objectives of 10 

CFR Part 50, Appendix I, and associated 

guidance documents, are still based on 

ICRP Publication 2 dosimetry concepts, 

which include dose to the whole body 

and to critical organs. The ICRP 

Publication 26 and ICRP Publication 

103 recommendations moved to a more 

risk-based approach, and expressed the 

dose limits as TEDE, a sum of external 

and internal radiation exposures. 

Currently, nuclear power plant licensees 

must apply two different methodologies 

in calculating doses, one in determining 

compliance with the requirements of 10 

CFR Part 50, Appendix I, and another in 

calculating doses to members of the 

public under 10 CFR Part 20. The intent 

of a possible revision is to align and 

improve 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I 

regulations and guidance by 

incorporating current developments in 

radiation protection principles and 

advances in radiation dosimetry that 

have occurred since the issuance of 

ICRP Publication 2, over 50 years ago, 

and promulgation of 10 CFR Part 50 and 

Appendix I in 1975. 

The staff has identified three main 

issues and options that should be 

considered and discussed relative to 

alignment with more recent 

recommendation: 

Options: 1.a: Leave the basis of 10 CFR Part 

50, Appendix I design objectives as is and 

continue to apply the requirement under 

existing NRC guidance and industry 

practices. This approach argues that there is 

no necessary connection between 10 CFR 

Part 50, Appendix I design objectives and 10 

CFR Part 20 dose limits to the public, given 

that 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I is not a 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
59166 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 186 / Monday, September 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

radiation protection standard under 10 CFR 

Parts 50.34a. The 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix 

I design objectives are an ‘‘ALARA design 

basis’’ requirement. If the numerical guides 

for design objectives and ALARA provisions 

of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I are met, it 

constitutes a demonstration that effluent 

releases and associated doses to the public 

are ALARA and no additional efforts are 

required to reduce radioactive effluent 

releases. As a result, it could be argued that 

there is no need to link the two. This 

approach would result in minor revisions to 

supporting NRC guidance. The revision 

would require that a few regulatory guides, 

currently as draft, be finalized and re-issued 

as final. 

1.b: Align dose definitions and quantities 

of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I criteria with 

the ICPR 103 recommendations, in parallel 

with any changes made to 10 CFR Part 20. 

This approach argues that there is a benefit 

in aligning the basis of 10 CFR Part 50, 

Appendix I design objectives with 10 CFR 

Part 20, as updated to ICRP Publication 103 

recommendations. This approach would 

ensure a consistent application of regulatory 

criteria between 10 CFR Part 20 and 10 CFR 

Part 50. Such a revision could offer the 

opportunity to standardize the process to a 

common regulatory basis in calculating 

doses. This approach would result in 

significant revisions to supporting NRC 

guidance, including key regulatory guides, 

NUREG documents, and computer codes. 

1.c: Align dose definitions and quantities 

of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I design 

objectives with the current framework of 10 

CFR Part 20 based on ICRP Publication 26. 

This approach has the same goal as option 

1.2, and is offered as an option if the NRC 

decides to not update 10 CFR Part 20. As 

before, this approach would ensure a 

consistent application of regulatory criteria 

between 10 CFR Part 20 and 10 CFR Part 50. 

The revision would result in standardization 

to a common but still outdated regulatory 

dosimetry basis and method in calculating 

doses. This approach would result in 

significant revisions to supporting NRC 

guidance, including key regulatory guides, 

regulatory guides (NUREG) documents, and 

computer codes. 

Questions: Q1–1: What are the benefits and 

impacts of each option identified above? Is 

there a preferred ranking of the options? 

Q1–2: What is the scope of operational 

impacts and costs in updating programs and 

procedures given a revision of 10 CFR Part 

50, Appendix I design objectives and NRC 

guidance? Identify specific types of impacts 

that the NRC should consider in 

implementing a revision of 10 CFR Part 50, 

Appendix I design objectives and NRC 

guidance to ICRP Publication 103 

recommendations. 

Q1–3: Are there estimates available for the 

costs to revise operational programs, 

implementing procedures, computer codes, 

and personnel training for a typical 

pressurized water reactor (PWR) and boiling 

water reactor (BWR) power plant or for a 

generic power plant? Is there an estimate of 

the aggregate cost for the operating fleet of 

nuclear power reactors? 

Q1–4: Should the NRC combine both 10 

CFR Part 20 and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix 

I updates into one rulemaking effort, or 

consider two parallel rulemaking efforts with 

the implementation of the revised rules 

synchronized to a common implementation 

date when all regulatory conforming changes 

and revisions of implementing guidance are 

completed for 10 CFR Part 20 and 10 CFR 

Part 50, Appendix I? 

Issue No. 2: Voluntary or Required 

Implementation of Revised 10 CFR Part 

50, Appendix I Regulations 

This issue examines the different 

possibilities for implementation of a 

possible revision for existing licensee 

facilities. Voluntary implementation 

should not pose any backfitting 

considerations under the Backfit Rule 

(10 CFR 50.109). However, the staff 

would need to address the potential 

impacts on the reactor inspection 

program for those plants and new 

applicants that would voluntarily 

implement the revised regulations. 

Options: 2.a: No change. Leave the current 

requirements and guidance intact for all 

currently licensed and operating plants 

under Parts 50 and 52. 

2.b. Make the implementation of new 

requirements voluntary for all currently 

licensed and operating plants under Parts 50 

and 52 using a separate set of revised 10 CFR 

Part 50, Appendix I regulations and 

guidance. 

2.c. Require the implementation of revised 

10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I regulations and 

guidance for all operating plants and 

applicants over time with a mandated 

common implementation date. 

Questions: Q2–1: If 10 CFR Part 50, 

Appendix I was revised, should the NRC 

make the implementation of the revised 

requirements voluntary or mandatory on all 

nuclear power plant licensees? 

Q2–2: If 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I were 

revised and became mandatory, what should 

be the duration of the implementation phase 

for power plant licensees, e.g., 2, 4, or 6 

years? 

Issue No. 3: Approaches and 

Considerations in Revising 10 CFR Part 

50, Appendix Regulations 

In addition to the possible update of 

dosimetric concepts and methods, there 

are a number of additional areas within 

10 CFR Part 50 Appendix I which could 

be considered for possible revision and 

update. The staff is examining a tiered 

set of options, reflecting increasing 

levels of complexity of the update, with 

the scope of the revision ultimately 

depending on the chosen option on how 

to proceed with the revisions, whether 

the implementation is mandated or 

voluntary, and taking full 

considerations of impacts on regulations 

and guidance. 

Options: 3.a: Limited Scope Revision— 

Besides specific revisions to the regulations, 

target only those elements of the guidance 

dealing with dose conversion factors and, if 

necessary, directly supporting radiological 

parameters, such as specific adjustments to 

the basis of dose conversion factors, based on 

ICRP Publication 103 or ICRP Publications 26 

and 30. The balance of the technical 

guidance and default values of other 

parameters would remain as stated in current 

regulatory guides. The revision would 

identify changes to computer codes using 

new dose conversion factors based on ICRP 

Publication 103 or ICRP Publications 26 and 

30 recommendations. 

3.b: Expanded Scope Revision—In addition 

to the above, the basis of specific parameters 

used in dose calculations would be 

evaluated, and an assessment would identify 

the need to update or retain specific default 

values. Such parameters, for example, would 

include human food or animal consumption 

rates, bio-accumulation factors, shore-line 

width factors, agricultural productivity rates, 

usage and time factors for exposed 

individuals, etc. The revision would also 

identify changes to computer codes using 

new dose conversion factors based on ICRP 

Publication 103 or ICRP Publications 26 and 

30 recommendations. 

3.c: Full Scope Revision—This approach 

would consider a full review of the guidance, 

including a complete update of models 

addressing liquid and gaseous treatment 

options and development of radiological 

effluent source terms, atmospheric and 

aquatic dispersion, and environmental 

transport using the current literature and 

industry standards. The review would assess 

model assumptions, parameters (as partly 

described above), and their default values. 

The revision would identify changes to 

computer codes, modeling assumptions and 

parameters, and apply new dose conversion 

factors based on ICRP Publication 103 or 

ICRP Publications 26 and 30 

recommendations. 

Questions: Q3–1: Which option should the 

NRC apply in aligning 10 CFR Part 50, 

Appendix I regulations with ICRP 

Publication 103 if 10 CFR Part 20 were 

revised, or with ICRP Publications 26 and 30 

if 10 CFR Part 20 were not revised? 

Q3–2: What are the impacts and benefits in 

the implementation of revised 10 CFR Part 

50, Appendix I regulations that the NRC 

should consider? 

Q3–3: If significant impacts in the 

implementation of revised 10 CFR Part 50, 

Appendix I regulations are envisioned, what 

types of issues should the NRC evaluate and 

consider in revising 10 CFR Part 50, 

Appendix I regulations? 

Issue No. 4: Scope of Revisions to 10 

CFR Part 50, Appendix I Regulations 

At this time, the NRC assumes that 

any proposed revision to 10 CFR Part 

50, Appendix I will be multi-fold. One 

aspect involves conforming changes in 

ensuring that the nomenclature used in 

defining doses and dosimetric 

quantities, as described in Issue 1 above. 

The implementation of conforming 

changes in regulations and guidance is 

expected to be a relatively simple 

process, once all nomenclatures and 

definitions have been finalized and 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 186 / Monday, September 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 59167 

integrated in a revised 10 CFR Part 20. 

However, some challenges are expected 

in modifying some of the regulatory 

provisions of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 

50. The following identifies specific 

provisions of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 

50 and 10 CFR Part 20 regulations that 

may need to be reviewed and updated, 

as warranted: 

Provisions: 4.1: Numerical design 

objectives of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I for 

liquid and gaseous effluents—The revision 

would retain the current numerical dose 

criteria, but would redefine doses as effective 

dose (ED) or TED for consistency with ICRP 

Publication 103 dosimetry concepts in a 

revised 10 CFR Part 20, or as TEDE with the 

current 10 CFR Part 20 (ICRP Publications 26 

and 30) if 10 CFR Part 20 were not realigned 

with ICRP Publication 103. The update 

would necessitate a revision of dose 

calculation methods described in Regulatory 

Guide 1.109 and associated computer codes. 

4.2: Organ numerical design objectives of 

10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I for liquid and 

gaseous effluents—The revision would assess 

whether there is still a need to report doses 

separately for organs since this would not be 

necessary if ICRP Publication 103 or ICRP 

Publications 26 and 30 were adopted. The 

assessment would consider the provisions of 

Sections II and III of Appendix I to 10 CFR 

Part 50 on doses associated with radioiodine 

in situations where releases might be 

dominated by the presence of noble gases 

and radioiodine, resulting in potentially 

significant skin and thyroid doses. The 

assessment would also consider the need to 

revise the scope of thyroid dose contributors 

to include radionuclides present as vapor 

(tritium) and gases (e.g., 14C in inorganic and 

organic forms) in addition to radioiodine and 

particulates. 

4.3: Annual gamma and beta air dose for 

gaseous effluents—The gamma and beta dose 

criteria characterize an absorbed dose rate in 

air, expressed in mrad/year, while the 

balance of the design objectives are expressed 

in mrem/year for the total body and organs. 

The revision would assess the need to still 

report gamma and beta absorbed air dose 

results based on a review of historical 

gaseous effluent releases and doses from 

operating PWR and BWR plants. The revision 

might consider dropping that requirement 

altogether, or alternatively, converting the 

design objective to an ED or TED dose for a 

receptor assumed to be located at the site 

boundary. 

4.4: Light-Water-Cooled Reactor Provisions 

of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50—The 

revision would consider whether there is a 

need to expand current regulatory provisions 

for design certifications and new reactor 

applications involving other types of reactor 

technologies. Such new technologies might 

include new types of reactor fuels and 

modular reactor technologies, e.g., high 

temperature gas-cooled reactors, molten-salt 

or lead-cooled reactors, and breeder reactors. 

4.5: Compliance with Requirements for 

‘‘Licensed Operation’’ under 10 CFR Part 20— 

The revision would consider the need to 

expand provisions describing compliance 

requirements for ‘‘licensed operation’’ for 

sites with two or more licensed entities 

contributing to and radiation exposures to a 

single offsite dose receptor under Parts 

20.1301(a)(1) and 20.1302(a) and (b). The 

expanded provisions would identify 

acceptable methods in the regulation or 

guidance for apportioning radioactive 

effluent releases and doses between two or 

more licensed entities. The discussion would 

also consider compliance with EPA 

regulations of 40 CFR Part 190 as 

implemented under 10 CFR Part 20.1301(e). 

Questions: Q4–1: Given the above 

summary descriptions of the provisions of 10 

CFR Part 50, Appendix I that might be 

considered for possible revision, should the 

NRC evaluate all provisions described above, 

or focus instead only on those necessary to 

align 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I regulations 

with ICRP Publication 103 if 10 CFR Part 20 

were revised, or with ICRP Publication 26 

and 30 if 10 CFR Part 20 were not revised? 

Q4–2: Given the above, are there any 

significant impacts in the implementation of 

revised 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I 

regulations that the NRC should consider if 

it were to proceed with a rulemaking? 

Q4–3: If significant impacts in the 

implementation of revised 10 CFR Part 50, 

Appendix I regulations are envisioned, what 

types of issues should the NRC evaluate and 

consider in revising 10 CFR Part 50, 

Appendix I regulations? 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day 

of September, 2010. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Mark Thaggard, 

Deputy Director, Division of 

Intergovernmental Liaison and Rulemaking, 

Office of Federal and State Materials and 

Environmental Management Program. 

[FR Doc. 2010–24137 Filed 9–24–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2010–0858; Directorate 

Identifier 2010–NM–183–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing 

Company Model 737–600, –700, –700C, 

–800, –900, and –900ER Series 

Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for certain 

Model 737–600, –700, –700C, –800, 

–900, and –900ER series airplanes. This 

proposed AD would require modifying 

the thrust reverser inner walls, 

inspecting for damage of the upper and 

lower inner wall insulation blankets, 

measuring the electrical conductivity on 

the aluminum upper compression pads 

2 and 3 as applicable, inspecting for 

discrepancies of the inner wall of the 

thrust reverser, and corrective actions if 

necessary. This proposed AD would 

also require, for certain airplanes, doing 

various concurrent actions (including 

replacing the inner wall blanket 

insulation, installing updated fullauthority digital electronic control 

software, and modifying the thrust 

reverser inner wall and insulation 

blankets). This proposed AD results 

from reports of heat damage to the inner 

wall of the thrust reversers. We are 

proposing this AD to detect and correct 

such heat damage, which could result in 

separation of adjacent components and 

consequent structural damage to the 

airplane, damage to other airplanes, and 

injury to people on the ground. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by November 12, 

2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://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 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this proposed AD, contact Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data 

& Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, 

MC 2H–65, Seattle, Washington 98124– 

2207; telephone 206–544–5000, 

extension 1; fax 206–766–5680; e-mail 

me.boecom@boeing.com; Internet 

https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You 

may review copies of the referenced 

service information at the FAA, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington. 

For information on the availability of 

this material at the FAA, call 425–227– 

1221. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov; or in person at the 

Docket Management Facility between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS