nrc rule 20.2205 (proposed)

["Les Slaback, Health Physics" <SLABACK@micf.nist.gov>]

NRC proposed rule 20.2205 (61FR3334) pertains to making reports
of intentional misuse of licensed material.  However there are
several aspects of this proposed rule that many RADSAFERs might
want to comment on.  Comments are due 1 March.  I offer some food
for thought, and would appreciate hearing directly of any other
points regarding this rule.  Please pepper me directly with you
comments about the following notes, and NRC with any substantive
comments.  I offer this because I have not seen any RADSAFE posting on
this proposal.

For a paranoid licensee with past experience with agressive
inspection practices, this rule is a classic "catch-22".  If you
have not reported every small, trivial event and have not
conducted a full investigation complete with documentation of
such events to demonstate that you can prove the negative, i.e.,
that they were not 'intentional', you can be cited by that
inspector.  So your choices of action under this rule are either:
     report every trivial occurance of contamination, exposure,
     etc. not obviously linked to an authorized operation; or

     investigate and document your life away; or

     trust that your inspector will liberally interpret the rule.

The major fault of this proposed rule is section 20.2205(b),
where you must report if you cannot "rule out" (i.e., prove
beyond an inspector's doubt) that the event was the result of an
intentional or unauthorized use.  Without some threshold this
simply opens Pandora's Box.  Every positive (i.e., statistically
non-zero) smear result would appear to require a report since the
activities are so low as to be unidentifiable, and hence of
unprovable linkage to authorized activities.  How would
statically non-zero environmental monitoring results (TLDs, soil
samples) be treated when any reasonable projection from an
authorized activity is zero?  How about those unexplained visitor
1-2 mrem dosimeter readings that should be zero?

If one accepts literally the provisions of this proposal many
licensees would individually be making tens, if not hundreds, of
reports annually.  The statement that these "events are expected
to be rare" would seem to indicate that what NRC intends is not
what was said, either in the proposed rule or in the statements
of consideration.  Clearly further clarification is needed.

NRC argues that a threshold is not desireable because NRC is
concerned about any intentional unnecesary exposure.  While that
is certainly proper policy, in practice a threshold allows a
licensee to rationally prioritize the protection program, which
basically means that events of trivial import are given low
priority.  Clearly a threshold of some sort is needed, say 1% of
the regulatory limit (public dose, occupational dose, etc) that
should not require direct reporting and can be left for routine
inspection review.

The requirement to prove the negative, i.e., "...rule out that
the use was intentional", is particularly egregious.  Some added
interpretive conditions are needed like ...
     "it would be unreasonable to presume it was related to an
authorized activity",
or
     "a reasonable person would conclude that it was more
     probable than not that it was intentional misuse".

Without a threshold the standard put forth in the statements of
consideration for interpreting the "rule out" condition clearly
represents an economic impact on licensees out of proportion of
any benefits resulting from this standard.  Economic benefits
from reports relating to potential public exposures of nrem and
frem, or even a few mrem to several individuals, are difficult to
balance against the tens or hundreds of man-hours on the part of
NRC and the licensee that will result from every such report.

SLABACK@MICF.NIST.GOV  [NBSR Health Physics Group]
    ...a little risk, like a bit of spice, adds flavor to life