United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Radiation
Office of
Radiation Programs
Washington, D.C. 20460
January 1987
Radiation Protection
Guidance to Federal
Agencies for Occupational
Exposure
Recommendations Approved
by the President
-------
Tuesday
January 27, 1987
Part II
The President
Radiation Protection Guidance to Federal
Agencies for Occupational Exposure;
Approval of Environmental Protection
Agency Recommendations
[This reprint incorporates corrections published in the
Federal Registers of Friday, January 30, and Wednesday,
February 4, 1987.]
-------
2822
Federal Register
Vol. 52, No. 17
Tuesday, January 27, 1987
Presidential Documents
Title 3—
The President
Recommendations Approved by the President
Radiation Protection Guidance to Federal Agencies
for Occupational Exposure
The recommendations concerning Federal radiation protection guidance for
occupational exposure transmitted to me by the Administrator of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency in the memorandum published below are approved.
I direct that this memorandum be published in the Federal Register. To
promote a coordinated and effective Federal program of worker protection,
the Administrator is directed to keep informed of Federal agency actions to
implement this guidance and to interpret and clarify these recommendations
from time to time, as necessary, in coordination with affected Federal agen-
cies. Consistent with existing authority, the Administrator may, when appro-
priate, consult with the Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering
and Technology. The Administrator may also, when appropriate, issue inter-
pretations and clarifications in the Federal Register.
Approved: January 20,1987
Billing code 3195-01-M
o
\ O-aoyo^
Memorandum for the President
FEDERAL RADIATION PROTECTION GUIDANCE FOR OCCUPATIONAL
EXPOSURE
This memorandum transmits recommendations that would update previous
guidance to Federal agencies for the protection of workers exposed to ionizing
radiation. These recommendations were developed cooperatively by the Nu-
clear Regulatory Commission, the Occupational Safety and Health Adminis-
tration, the Mine Safety and Health Administration, the Department of De-
fense, the Department of Energy, the National Aeronautics and Space Admin-
istration, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Transportation, the
Department of Health and Human Services, and the Environmental Protection
Agency. In addition, the National Council on Radiation Protection and Meas-
urements (NCRP), the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), the Conference of
Radiation Control Program Directors (CRCPD) of the States, and the Health
Physics Society were consulted during the development of this guidance.
Executive Order 10831, the Atomic Energy Act, as amended, and Reorganiza-
tion Plan No. 3 of 1970 charge the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to ". . . advise the President with respect to radi-
ation matters, directly or indirectly affecting health, including guidance for all
Federal agencies in the formulation of radiation standards and in the estab-
lishment and execution of programs of cooperation with States." This guid-
ance has historically taken the form of qualitative and quantitative "Federal
Radiation Protection Guidance." The recommendations transmitted here
would replace those portions of previous Federal guidance (25 FR 4402),
approved by President Eisenhower on May 13, 1960, that apply to the protec-
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 17 / Tuesday, January 27, 1987 / Presidential Documents 2823
tion of workers exposed to ionizing radiation. The portions of that guidance
which apply to exposure of the general public would not be changed by these
recommendations.
These recommendations are based on consideration of (1) current scientific
understanding of effects on health from ionizing radiation, (2) recommenda-
tions of international and national organizations involved in radiation protec-
tion, (3) proposed "Federal Radiation Protection Guidance for Occupational
Exposure" published on January 23,1981 (46 FR 7836) and public comments on
that proposed guidance, and (4] the collective experience of the Federal
agencies in the control of occupational exposure to ionizing radiation. A
summary of the considerations that led to these recommendations is provided
below. Public comments on the previously proposed guidance and a response
to those comments are contained in the document "Federal Radiation Protec-
tion Guidance for Occupational Exposure—Response to Comments" (EPA
520/1-84-011). Single copies of this report are available from the Program
Management Office (ANR-458), Office of Radiation Programs, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 20460; telephone (202) 475-8388.
Background
A review of current radiation protection guidance for workers began in 1974
with the formation of a Federal interagency committee by EPA. As a result of
the deliberations of that committee, EPA published an "Advance Notice of
Proposed Recommendations and Future Public Hearings" on September 17,
1979 (44 FR 53785). On January 23, 1981, EPA published "Federal Radiation
Protection Guidance for Occupational Exposures; Proposed Recommenda-
tions, Request for Written Comments, and Public Hearings" (46 FR 7836).
Public hearings were held in Washington, D.C. (April 20-23, 1981); Houston,
Texas (May 1-2, 1981); Chicago, Illinois (May 5-6, 1981), and San Francisco,
California (May 8-9, 1981) (46 FR 15205). The public comment period closed
July 6, 1981 (46 FR 26557). On December 15, 1982, representatives of the ten
Federal agencies noted above, the CRCPD, and the NCRP convened under the
sponsorship of the EPA to review the issues raised in public comments and to
complete development of these recommendations. The issues were carefully
considered during a series of meetings, and the conclusions of the working
group have provided the basis for these recommendations for revised Federal
guidance.
EPA has also sponsored or conducted four major studies in support of this
review of occupational radiation protection guidance. First, the Committee on
the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiations, National Academy of Sciences—
National Research Council reviewed the scientific data on health risks of low
levels of ionizing radiation in a report transmitted to EPA on July 22, 1980:
"The Effects on Populations of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation:
1980," National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 1980. Second, EPA has
published two studies of occupational radiation exposure: "Occupational
Exposure to Ionizing Radiation in the United States: A Comprehensive Sum-
mary for the Year 1975" (EPA 520/4-80-001) and "Occupational Exposure to
Ionizing Radiation in the United States: A Comprehensive Review for the Year
1980 and Summary of Trends for the Years 1960-1985" (EPA 520/1-84-005).
Third, the Agency sponsored a study to examine the changes in previously
derived concentration limits for intake of radionuclides from air or water that
result from use of up-to-date dosimetric and biological transport models.
These are presented in Federal Guidance Report No. 10, "The Radioactivity
Concentration Guides: A New Calculation of Derived Limits for the 1960
Radiation Protection Guides Reflecting Updated Models for Dosimetry and
Biological Transport" (EPA 520/1-84-010). Finally, the cost of implementing
the changes in Federal guidance proposed on January 23, 1981 was surveyed
and the findings published in the two-volume report: "Analysis of Costs for
Compliance with Federal Radiation Protection Guidance for Occupational
Exposure: Volume I—Cost of Compliance" (EPA 520/1-83-013-1) and "Volume
II—Case Study Analysis of the Impacts" (EPA 520/1-83-013-2). These EPA
-------
2824 Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 17 / Tuesday, January 27, 1987 / Presidential Documents
reports are available from National Technical Information Service, U.S. De-
partment of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
The interagency review of occupational radiation protection has confirmed the
need for revising the previous Federal guidance, which was promulgated in
1960. Since that time knowledge of the effects of ionizing radiation on humans
has increased substantially. We now have a greatly improved ability to
estimate risk of harm due to irradiation of individual organs and tissues. As a
result, some of the old numerical guides are now believed to be less and some
more protective than formerly. Other risks, specifically those to the unborn,
are now considered to be more significant and were not addressed by the old
guidance. These disparities and omissions should be corrected. Drawing on
this improved knowledge, the International Commission on Radiological Pro-
tection (ICRP) published, in 1977, new recommendations on radiation protec-
tion philosophy and limits for occupational exposure. These recommendations
are now in use, in whole or substantial part, in most other countries. We have
considered these recommendations, among others, and believe that it is
appropriate to adopt the general features of the ICRP approach in radiation
protection guidance to Federal agencies for occupational exposure. In two
cases, protection of the unborn and the management of long-term exposure to
internally deposited radioactivity, we have found it advisable to make addi-
tions.
There are four types of possible effects on health from exposure to ionizing
radiation. The first of these is cancer. Cancers caused by radiation are not
different from those that have been historically observed, whether from
known or unknown causes. Although radiogenic cancers have been observed
in humans over a range of higher doses, few useful data are available for
defining the effect of doses at normal occupational levels of exposure. The
second type of effect is the induction of hereditary effects in descendants of
exposed persons. The severity of hereditary effects ranges from inconsequen-
tial to fatal. Although such effects have been observed in experimental
animals at high doses, they have not been confirmed in studies of humans.
Based on extensive but incomplete scientific evidence, it is prudent to assume
that at low levels of exposure the risk of incurring either cancer or hereditary
effects is linearly related to the dose received in the relevant tissue. The
severity of any such effect is not related to the amount of dose received. That
is, once a cancer or an hereditary effect has been induced, its severity is
independent of the dose. Thus, for these two types of effects, it is assumed
that there is no completely risk-free level of exposure.
The third type includes a variety of effects for which the degree of damage
(i.e., severity) appears to depend on the amount of dose received and for
which there is an effective threshold below which clinically observable effects
do not occur. An example of such an effect is radiation sickness syndrome,
which is observed at high doses and is fatal at very high doses. Examples of
lesser effects include opacification of the lens of the eye, erythema of the skin,
and temporary impairment of fertility. All of these effects occur at relatively
high doses. At the levels of dose contemplated under both the previous
Federal guidance and these recommendations, clinically observable examples
of this third type of effect are not known to occur.
The fourth type includes effects on children who were exposed in utero. Not
only may the unborn be more sensitive than adults to the induction of
malformations, cancer, and hereditary effects, but recent studies have drawn
renewed attention to the risk of severe mental retardation from exposure of
the unborn during certain periods of pregnancy. The risk of less severe mental
retardation appears to be similarly elevated. Although it is not yet clear to
what extent the frequency of retardation is proportional to the amount of dose
(the data available at occupational levels of exposure are limited), it is
prudent to assume that proportionality exists.
The risks to health from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation were
reviewed for EPA by the NAS in reports published in 1972 and in 1980.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 52. No. 17 / Tuesday. January 27. 1987 / Presidential Documents 2825
Regarding cancer there continues to be divided opinion on how to interpolate
between the absence of radiation effects at zero dose and the observed effects
of radiation (mostly at high doses) to estimate the most probable effects of low
doses. Some scientists believe that available data best support use of a linear
model for estimating such effects. Others, however, believe that other models,
which usually predict somewhat lower risks, provide better estimates. These
differences of opinion have not been resolved to date by studies of the effects
of radiation in humans, the most important of which are those of the Hiroshi-
ma and Nagasaki atom bomb survivors. Studies are now underway to reas-
sess radiation dose calculations for these survivors and in turn to provide
improved estimates of risk. It will be at least several years before these
reassessments and estimates are completed, and it is not likely that they will
conclusively resolve uncertainties in estimating low dose effects. EPA is
monitoring the progress of this work. When it is completed we will initiate
reviews of the risks of low levels of radiation, in order to provide the basis for
any indicated reassessment of this guidance.
In spite of the above uncertainties, estimates of the risks from exposure to low
levels of ionizing radiation are reasonably well bounded, and the average
worker is believed to incur a relatively small risk of harm from radiation. This
situation has resulted from a system of protection which combines limits on
maximum dose with active application of measures to minimize doses within
these limits. These recommendations continue that approach. Approximately
1.3 million workers were employed in occupations in which they were poten-
tially exposed to radiation in 1980, the latest year for which we have compre-
hensive assessments. About half of these workers received no measurable
occupational dose. In that year the average worker measurably exposed to
external radiation received an occupational dose equivalent of 0.2 rem to the
whole body, based on the readings of individual dosimeters worn on the
surface of the body. We estimate (assuming a linear non-threshold model) the
increased risk of premature death due to radiation-induced cancer for such a
dose is approximately 2 to 5 in 100,000 and that the increased risk of serious
hereditary effects is somewhat smaller. To put these estimated risks in
perspective with other occupational hazards, they are comparable to the
observed risk of job-related accidental death in the safest industries, whole-
sale and retail trades, for which the annual accidental death rate averaged
about 5 per 100,000 from 1980 to 1984. The U.S. average for all industries was
11 per 100,000 in 1984 and 1985.
These recommendations are based on the assumption that risks of injury from
exposure to radiation should be considered in relation to the overall benefit
derived from the activities causing the exposure. This approach is similar to
that used by the Federal Radiation Council (FRC) in developing the 1960
Federal guidance. The FRC said then, "Fundamentally, setting basic radiation
protection standards involves passing judgment on the extent of the possible
health hazard society is willing to accept in order to realize the known
benefits of radiation." This leads to three basic principles that have governed
radiation protection of workers in recent decades in the United States and in
most other countries. Although the precise formulation of these principles has
evolved over the years, their intent has continued unchanged. The first is that
any activity involving occupational exposure should be determined to be
useful enough to society to warrant the exposure of workers; i.e., that a finding
be made that the activity is "justified". This same principle applies to virtually
any human endeavor which involves some risk of injury. The second is that,
for justified activities, exposure of the work force should be as low as
reasonably achievable (commonly designated by the acronym "ALARA"); this
has most recently been characterized as "optimization" of radiation protection
by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). Finally, to
provide an upper limit on risk to individual workers, "limitation" of the
maximum allowed individual dose is required. This is required above and
beyond the protection provided by the first two principles because their
primary objective is to minimize the total harm from occupational exposure in
-------
2826 Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 17 / Tuesday, January 27, 1987 / Presidential Documents
the entire work force; they do not limit the way that harm is distributed among
individual workers.
The principle that activities causing occupational exposure should produce a
net benefit is important in radiation protection even though the judgment of
net benefit is not easily made. The 1960 guidance says: "There should not be
any man-made radiation exposure without the expectation of benefit resulting
from such exposure . . ." And "It is basic that exposure to radiation should
result from a real determination of its necessity." Advisory bodies other than
the FRC have used language which has essentially the same meaning. In its
most recent revision of international guidance (1977) the ICRP said ". . . no
practice shall be adopted unless its introduction produces a positive net
benefit," and in slightly different form the NCRP, in its most recent statement
(1975) on this matter, said ". . . all exposures should be kept to a practicable
minimum; . . . this principle involves value judgments based upon perception
of compensatory benefits commensurate with risks, preferably in the form of
realistic numerical estimates of both benefits and risks from activities involv-
ing radiation and alternative means to the same benefits."
This principle is set forth in these recommendations in a simple form: "There
should not be any occupational exposure of workers to ionizing radiation
without the expectation of an overall benefit from the activity causing the
exposure." An obvious difficulty in making this judgment is the difficulty of
quantifying in comparable terms costs (including risks) and benefits. Given
this situation, informed value judgments are necessary and are usually all that
is possible. It is perhaps useful to observe, however, that throughout history
individuals and societies have made risk-benefit judgments, with their success
usually depending upon the amount of accurate information available. Since
more is known about radiation now than in previous decades, the prospect is
that these judgments can now be better made than before.
The preceding discussion has implicitly focused on major activities, i.e., those
instituting or continuing a general practice involving radiation exposure of
workers. This principle also applies to detailed management of facilities and
direct supervision of workers. Decisions on whether or not particular tasks
should be carried out (such as inspecting control systems or acquiring specific
experimental data) require judgments which can, in the aggregate, be as
significant for radiation protection as those justifying the basic activities these
tasks support.
The principle of reduction of exposure to levels that are "as low as reasonably
achievable" (ALARA) is typically implemented in two different ways. First, it
is applied to the engineering design of facilities so as to reduce, prospectively,
the anticipated exposure of workers. Second, it is applied to actual operations;
that is, work practices are designed and carried out to reduce the exposure of
workers. Both of these applications are encompassed by these recommenda-
tions.* The principle applies both to collective exposures of the work force
and to annual and cumulative individual exposures. Its application may
therefore require complex judgments, particularly when tradeoffs between
collective and individual doses are involved. Effective implementation of the
ALARA principle involves most of the many facets of an effective radiation
protection program: education of workers concerning the health risks of
exposure to radiation; training in regulatory requirements and procedures to
control exposure; monitoring, assessment, and reporting of exposure levels
and doses; and management and supervision of radiation protection activities,
including the choice and implementation of radiation control measures. A
comprehensive radiation protection program will also include, as appropriate,
* The recomendation that Federal agencies, through their regulations, operational procedures
and other appropriate means, maintain doses ALARA is not intended to express, and therefore
should not be interpreted as expressing, a view whether the ALARA concept should constitute a
duty of care in tort litigation. Implementation of the ALARA concept requires a complex,
subjective balancing of scientific, economic and social factors generally resulting in the attain-
ment of average dose levels significantly below the maximum permitted by this guidance.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 17 / Tuesday, January 27. 1987 / Presidential Documents 2827
properly trained and qualified radiation protection personnel; adequately
designed, operated, and maintained facilities and equipment; and quality
assurance and audit procedures. Another important aspect of such programs is
maintenance of records of cumulative exposures of workers and implementa-
tion of appropriate measures to assure that lifetime exposure of workers
repeatedly exposed near the limits is minimized.
The types of work and activity which involve worker exposure to radiation
vary greatly and are administered by many different Federal and State
agencies under a wide variety of legislative authorities. In view of this
complexity, Federal radiation protection guidance can address only the broad
prerequisites of an effective ALARA program, and regulatory authorities must
ensure that more detailed requirements are identified and carried out. In doing
this, such authorities may find it useful to establish or encourage the use of 1)
administrative control levels specifying, for specific categories of workers or
work situations, dose levels below the limiting numerical values recommend-
ed in this guidance; 2) reference levels to indicate the need for such actions as
recording, investigation, and intervention; and 3) local goals for limiting
individual and collective occupational exposures. Where the enforcement of a
general ALARA requirement is not practical under an agency's statutory
authority, it is sufficient that an agency endorse and encourage ALARA, and
establish such regulations which result from ALARA findings as may be useful
and appropriate to meet the objectives of this guidance.
The numerical radiation protection guidance which has been in effect since
1960 for limiting the maximum allowed dose to an individual worker is based
on the concept of limiting the dose to the most critically exposed part of the
body. This approach was appropriate, given the limitations of scientific
information available at that time, and resulted in a set of five independent
numerical guides for maximum exposure of a) the whole body, head and trunk,
active blood-forming organs, gonads, and lens of eye; b) thyroid and skin of
the whole body; c) hands and forearms, feet and ankles; d) bone, and e) other
organs. A consequence of this approach when several different parts of the
body are exposed simultaneously is that only the part that receives the highest
dose relative to its respective guide is decisive for limiting the dose.
Current knowledge permits a more comprehensive approach that takes into
account the separate contributions to the total risk from each exposed part of
the body. These recommendations incorporate the dose weighting system
introduced for this purpose by the ICRP in 1977. That system assigns weighting
factors to the various parts of the body for the risks of lethal cancer and
serious prompt genetic effects (those in the first two generations); these
factors are chosen so that the sum of weighted dose equivalents represents a
risk the same as that from a numerically equal dose equivalent to the whole
body. The ICRP recommends that the effective (i.e. weighted) dose equivalent
incurred in any year be limited to 5 rems. Based on the public response to the
similar proposal published by EPA in 1981 and Federal experience with
comparable exposure limits, the Federal agencies concur. These recommenda-
tions therefore replace the 1960 whole body numerical guides of 3 rems per
quarter and 5(N-18) rems cumulative dose equivalent (where N is the age of
the worker) and associated critical organ guides with a limiting value of 5
rems effective dose equivalent incurred in any year. Supplementary limiting
values are also recommended to provide protection against those health
effects for which an effective threshold is believed to exist.
In recommending a limiting value of 5 rems in any single year, EPA has had to
balance a number of considerations. Public comments confirmed that, for
some beneficial activities, occasional doses aproaching this value are not
reasonably avoidable. On the other hand, continued annual exposures at or
near this level over substantial portions of a working lifetime would, we
believe, lead to unwarranted risks. For this reason such continued annual
exposures should be avoided, and these recommendations provide such guid-
ance. As noted earlier, these recommendations also continue a system of
protection which combines limiting values for maximum dose with a require-
-------
2828 Federal Register / Vol. 52. No. 17 / Tuesday, January 27, 1987 / Presidential Documents
ment for active application of measures to minimize doses—the ALARA
requirement. This has resulted in steadily decreasing average annual doses to
workers (most recently to about one-fiftieth of the recommended limiting
value), and, to date, only a few hundred out of millions of workers have
received planned cumulative doses that are a substantial fraction of the
maximum previously permitted cumulative dose over an occupational lifetime.
EPA anticipates that the continued application of the ALARA requirement,
combined with new guidance on avoidance of large cumulative doses, will
result in maintaining risks to all workers at low levels. EPA will continue to
review worker doses with a view to initiating recommendations for any
further modifications of the dose limitation system that are warranted by
future trends in worker exposure.
Certain radionuclides, if inhaled or ingested, may remain in and continue to
irradiate the body for many years. These recommendations provide that
radionuclides should be contained so as to minimize intake, to the extent
reasonably achievable. When avoidance of situations that may result in such
intake is not practical, the recommendations distinguish between pre-expo-
sure and post-exposure situations. With respect to the former, Federal agen-
cies should base control of prospective internal exposure to radionuclides (e.g.
facility design, monitoring, training, and operating procedures) upon the entire
future dose that may result from any intake (the committed dose), not just
upon the dose accrued in the year of intake. This is to assure that, prior to
exposure to such materials, proper account is taken of the risk due to doses in
future years.
With respect to post-exposure situations, most significant internal exposure to
radionuclides occurs as the result of inadvertent intakes. In the case of some
long-lived radionuclides, it may also be difficult to measure accurately the
small quantities corresponding to the recommended numerical guidance for
control of committed doses. In such cases, when workers are inadvertently
exposed or it is not otherwise possible to avoid intakes in excess of these
recommendations for control of committed dose, it will be necessary to take
appropriate corrective action to assure control has been reestablished and to
properly manage future exposure of the worker. In regard to the latter
requirement, provision should be made to continue to monitor the annual dose
received from radionuclides in the body as long as they remain in sufficient
amount to deliver doses significant compared to the limiting values for annual
dose. These recommendations extend those of the ICRP, because it is appro-
priate to maintain active management of workers who exceed the guidance for
committed dose in order that individual differences in retention of such
materials in the body be monitored, and to assure, whenever possible, con-
formance to the limiting values for annual dose.
These recommendations also incorporate guidance for limiting exposure of the
unborn as a result of occupational exposure of female workers. It has long
been suspected that the embryo and fetus are more sensitive to a variety of
effects of radiation than are adults. Although our knowledge remains incom-
plete, it has now become clear that the unborn are especially subject to the
risk of mental retardation from exposure to radiation at a relatively early
phase of fetal development. Available scientific evidence appears to indicate
that this sensitivity is greatest during the period near the end of the first
trimester and the beginning of the second trimester of pregnancy, that is, the
period from 8 weeks to about 15 weeks after conception. Accordingly, when a
woman has declared her pregnancy, this guidance recommends not only that
the total exposure of the unborn be more limited than that of adult workers,
but that the monthly rate of exposure be further limited in order to provide
additional protection. Due to the incomplete state of knowledge of the transfer
of radionuclides from the mother to the unborn (and the resulting uncertainty
in dose to the unborn), in those few work situations where intake of radionu-
clides could normally be possible it may also be necessary to institute
measures to avoid such intakes by pregnant women in order to satisfy these
recommendations.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 17 / Tuesday, January 27, 1987 / Presidential Documents 2829
The health protection objectives of this guidance for the unborn should be
achieved in accordance with the provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, as amended, with respect to discrimination in employment practices.*
The guidance applies only to situations in which the worker has voluntarily
made her pregnancy known to her employer. Protection of the unborn may be
achieved through such measures as temporary job rotation, worker self-
selection, or use of protective equipment. The guidance recognizes that protec-
tion of the unborn is a joint responsibility of the employer and worker.
Workers should be informed of the risks involved and encouraged to voluntar-
ily make pregnancies known as early as possible so that any temporary
arrangements necessary to modify exposures can be made. Conversely, em-
ployers should make such arrangements in a manner that minimizes the
impact on the worker.
The recommended numerical guidance for limiting dose to workers applies to
the sum of dose from external and internal sources of radiation. This proce-
dure is recommended so as to provide a single limit on the total risk from
radiation exposure. Therefore, in those cases where both kinds of radiation
sources are present, decisions about the control of dose from internal sources
should not be made without equal consideration of their implication for dose
from external sources.
The guidance emphasizes the importance of recordkeeping for annual, com-
mitted, and cumulative (lifetime) doses. Such recordkeeping should be de-
signed to avoid burdensome requirements for cases in which doses are
insignificant. Currently, regulatory records are not generally required for doses
small compared to regulatory limits for annual external and internal doses.
Under this guidance such regulatory practices would continue to be appropri-
ate if due consideration is given to the implications of summing internal and
external doses and to recordkeeping needs for assessing cumulative doses. To
the extent reasonable such records should be established on the basis of
individual dosimetry rather than on monitoring of exposure conditions.
In summary, many of the important changes from the 1960 guidance are
structural. These include introduction of the concept of risk-based weighting
of doses to different parts of the body and the use of committed dose as the
primary basis for control of internal exposure. The numerical values of the
guidance for maximum radiation doses are also modified. These changes bring
this guidance into general conformance with international recommendations
and practice. In addition, guidance is provided for protection of the unborn,
and increased emphasis is placed on eliminating unjustified exposure and on
keeping justified exposure as low as reasonably achievable, both long-stand-
ing tenets of radiation protection. The guidance emphasizes the importance of
instruction of workers and their supervisors, monitoring and recording of
doses to workers, and the use of administrative control and reference levels
for carrying out ALARA programs.
These recommendations apply to workers exposed to other than normal
background radiation on the job. It is sometimes hard to identify such workers
because everyone is exposed to natural sources of radiation and many
occupational exposures are small. Workers or workplaces subject to this
guidance will be identified by the responsible implementing agencies. Agen-
cies will have to use care in determining when exposure of workers does not
need to be regulated. In making such determinations agencies should consider
"The Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, provides that "It shall be an unlawful employment
practice for an employer (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to
discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or
privileges of employment, because of such individual's . . . sex ... or (2) to limit, segregate, or
classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to
deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an
employee, because of such individual's .... sex ..." [42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a)]. The Pregnancy
Discrimination Act of 1978 defines "because of sex" to include because of or on the basis of
pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions [42 U.S.C. 2000e(k)J.
-------
2830 Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 17 / Tuesday, January 27, 1987 / Presidential Documents
both the collective dose which is likely to be avoided through regulation and
the maximum individual doses possible.
Implementation of these recommendations will require changes that can
reasonably be achieved only over a period of time. It is expected that Federal
agencies will identify any problem areas and provide adequate flexibility and
the necessary transition periods to avoid undue impacts, while at the same
time assuring reasonably prompt implementation of this new guidance.
Upon implementing these recommendations, occupational exposure should be
reduced. It is not possible to quantify the overall exposure reduction that will
be realized because it cannot be predicted how efficiently these recommenda-
tions will be implemented or how much of existing exposure is unnecessary.
These recommendations reduce the maximum whole body dose that workers
may receive in any one year by more than half (i.e., from 3 rems per quarter to
5 rems per year), require that necessary exposure to internal radioactivity be
controlled on the basis of committed dose, require that internal and external
doses be considered together rather than separately, and provide increased
protection of the unborn. We also expect the strengthened and more explicit
recommendations for maintaining occupational exposure "as low as reason-
ably achievable" will improve the radiation protection of workers. Finally,
these recommendations would facilitate the practice of radiation protection by
introducing a self-consistent system of limits in accordance with that in
practice internationally.
Recommendations
The following recommendations are made for the guidance of Federal agen-
cies in their conduct of programs for the protection of workers from ionizing
radiation.
1. There should not be any occupational exposure of workers to ionizing
radiation without the expectation of an overall benefit from the activity
causing the exposure. Such activities may be allowed provided exposure of
workers is limited in accordance with these recommendations.
2. No exposure is acceptable without regard to the reason for permitting it,
and it should be general practice to maintain doses from radiation to levels
below the limiting values specified in these recommendations. Therefore, it is
fundamental to radiation protection that a sustained effort be made to ensure
that collective doses, as well as annual, committed, and cumulative lifetime
individual doses, are maintained as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA),
economic and social factors being taken into account.
3. In addition to the above recommendations, radiation doses received as a
result of occupational exposure should not exceed the limiting values for
assessed dose to individual workers specified below. These are given sepa-
rately for protection against different types of effects on health and apply to
the sum of doses from external and internal sources of radiation. For cancer
and genetic effects, the limiting value is specified in terms of a derived
quantity called the effective dose equivalent. For other health effects, the
limiting values are specified in terms of the dose equivalent l to specific
organs or tissues.
1 "Dose equivalent" is the product of the absorbed dose, a quality factor which varies with the
energy and type of radiation, and other modifying factors, as defined by the International
Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 17 / Tuesday, January 27. 1987 / Presidential Documents 2831
Cancer and Genetic Effects. The effective dose equivalent, HE, received in any
year by an adult worker should not exceed 5 rems (0.05 sievert).2 The effective
dose equivalent is defined as:
HE * WT HT •
T
where WT is a weighting factor and HT is the annual dose equivalent averaged
over organ or tissue T. Values of WT and their corresponding organs and
tissues are:
Gonads [[[ 0.25
Breasts [[[ 0-15
Red bone marrow [[[ 0-12
Lungs [[[ 0-12
Thyroid [[[ 0-03
Bone surfaces [[[ °-03
Remainder3 ........................................... - ............................................. 0.30
For the case of uniform irradiation of the whole body, where HT may be
assumed the same for each organ or tissue, the effective dose equivalent is
equal to the dose equivalent to the whole body.
Other Health Effects. In addition to the limitation on effective dose equivalent,
the dose equivalent, HT, received in any year by an adult worker should not
exceed 15 rems (0.15 sievert) to the lens of the eye, and 50 rems (0.5 sievert) to
any other organ, tissue (including the skin), or extremity4 of the body.
Additional limiting values which apply to the control of dose from internal
exposure to radionuclides in the workplace are specified in Recommendation
4. Continued exposure of a worker at or near the limiting values for dose
received in any year over substantial portions of a working lifetime should be
avoided. This should normally be accomplished through application of appro-
priate radiation protection practices established under Recommendation 2.
4. As the primary means for controlling internal exposure to radionuclides,
agencies should require that radioactive materials be contained, to the extent
reasonably achievable, so as to minimize intake. In controlling internal expo-
sure consideration should also be given to concomitant external exposure.
The control of necessary exposure of adult workers to radioactive materials in
the workplace should be designed, operated, and monitored with sufficient
frequency to ensure that, as the result of intake of radionuclides in a year, the
following limiting values for control of the workplace are satisfied: (a) the
anticipated magnitude of the committed effective dose equivalent from such
intake plus any annual effective dose equivalent from external exposure will
not exceed 5 rems (0.05 sievert), and (b) the anticipated magnitude of the
committed dose equivalent to any organ or tissue from such intake plus any
annual dose equivalent from external exposure will not exceed 50 rems (0.5
sievert). The committed effective dose equivalent from internal sources of
radiation, HE^o, is defined as:
"E,50 ' £ 'T «
T.50
2 The unit of dose equivalent in the system of special quantities for ionizing radiation currently
in use in the United States is the "rem." In the recently-adopted international system (SI) the unit
-------
2832 Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 17 / Tuesday, January 27, 1987 / Presidential Documents
where WT is defined as in Recommendation 3 and the committed dose
equivalent, HT,5o, is the sum of all dose equivalents to organ or tissue T that
may accumulate over an individual's anticipated remaining lifetime (taken as
50 years) from radionuclides that are retained in the body. These conditions
on committed doses should provide the primary basis for the control of
internal exposure to radioactive materials.5
In circumstances where assessment of actual intake for an individual
worker shows the above conditions for control of intake have not been met,
agencies should require that appropriate corrective action be taken to assure
control has been reestablished and that future exposure of the worker is
appropriately managed. Provision should be made to assess annual dose
equivalents due to radionuclides retained in the body from such intake for as
long as they are significant for ensuring conformance with the limiting values
specified in Recommendation 3.
5. Occupational dose equivalents to individuals under the age of eighteen
should be limited to one-tenth of the values specified in Recommendations 3
and 4 for adult workers.
6. Exposure of an unborn child should be less than that of adult workers.
Workers should be informed of currrent knowledge of risks to the unborn6
from radiation and of the responsibility of both employers and workers to
minimize exposure of the unborn. The dose equivalent to an unborn as a result
of occupational exposure of a woman who has declared that she is pregnant
should be maintained as low as reasonably achievable, and in any case
should not exceed 0.5 rem (0.005 sievert) during the entire gestation period.
Efforts should be made to avoid substantial variation above the uniform
monthly exposure rate that would satisfy this limiting value. The limiting
value for the unborn does not create a basis for discrimination, and should be
achieved in conformance with the provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, as amended, regarding discrimination in employment practices, in-
cluding hiring, discharge, compensation, and terms, conditions, or privileges of
employment.
7. Individuals occupationally exposed to radiation and managers of activities
involving radiation should be instructed on the basic risks to health from
ionizing radiation and on basic radiation protection principles. This should, as
a minimum, include instruction on the somatic (including in utero] and genetic
effects of ionizing radiation, the recommendations set forth in Federal radi-
ation protection guidance for occupational exposure and applicable regula-
tions and operating procedures which implement this guidance, the general
levels of risk and appropriate radiation protection practices for their work
situations, and the responsibilities of individual workers to avoid and mini-
mize exposure. The degree and type of instruction that is appropriate will
depend on the potential radiation exposures involved.
8. Appropriate monitoring of workers and the work place should be performed
and records kept to ensure conformance with these recommendations. The
types and accuracy of monitoring methods and procedures utilized should be
periodically reviewed to assure that appropriate techniques are being compe-
tently applied.
Maintenance of a cumulative record of lifetime occupational doses for each
worker is encouraged. For doses due to intake of radioactive materials, the
committed effective dose equivalent and the quantity of each radionuclide in
the body should be assessed and recorded, to the extent practicable. A
summary of annual, cumulative, and committed effective dose equivalents
should be provided each worker on no less than an annual basis; more
5 When these conditions on intake of radioactive materials have been satisfied, it is not
necessary to assess contributions from such intakes to annual doses in future years, and, as an
operational procedure, such doses may be assigned to the year of intake for the purpose of
assessing compliance with Recommendation 3.
6 The term "unborn" is defined to encompass the period commencing with conception and
ending with birth.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 17 / Tuesday, January 27, 1987 / Presidential Documents 2833
detailed information concerning his or her exposure should be made available
upon the worker's request.
9. Radiation exposure control measures should be designed, selected, utilized,
and maintained to ensure that anticipated and actual doses meet the objec-
tives of this guidance. Establishment of administrative control levels7 below
the limiting values for control may be useful and appropriate for achieving this
objective. Reference levels8 may also be useful to determine the need to take
such actions as recording, investigation, and intervention. Since such admin-
istrative control and reference levels will often involve ALARA consider-
ations, they may be developed for specific categories of workers or work
situations. Agencies should encourage the establishment of measures by
which management can assess the effectiveness of ALARA efforts, including,
where appropriate, local goals for limiting individual and collective occupa-
tional doses. Supervision should be provided on a part-time, full-time, or task-
by-task basis as necessary to maintain effective control over the exposure of
workers.
10. The numerical values recommended herein should not be deliberately
exceeded except during emergencies, or under unusual circumstances for
which the Federal agency having jurisdiction has carefully considered the
reasons for doing so in light of these recommendations. If Federal agencies
authorize dose equivalents greater than these values for unusual circum-
stances, they should make any generic procedures specifying conditions under
which such exposures may occur publicly available or make specific instances
in which such authorization has been given a matter of public record.
The following notes are provided to clarify application of the above recom-
mendations:
1. Occupational exposure of workers does not include that due to normal
background radiation and exposure as a patient of practitioners of the healing
arts.
2. The existing Federal guidance (34 FR 576 and 36 FR 12921) for limiting
exposure of underground miners to radon decay products applies independ-
ently of, and is not changed by, these recommendations.
3. The values specified by the International Commission on Radiological
Protection (ICRP) for quality factors and dosimetric conventions for the
various types of radiation, the models for reference persons, and the results of
their dosimetric methods and metabolic models may be used for determining
conformance to these recommendations.
4. "Annual Limits on Intake" (ALIs) and/or "Derived Air Concentrations"
(DACs) may be used to limit radiation exposure from intake of or immersion
in radionuclides. The ALI or DAC for a single radionuclide is the maximum
intake in a year or average air concentration for a working year, respectively,
for a reference person that, in the absence of any external dose, satisfies the
conditions on committed effective dose equivalent and committed dose equiv-
alent of Recommendation 4. ALIs and DACs may be derived for different
chemical or physical forms of radioactive materials.
5. The numerical values provided by these recommendations do not apply to
workers responsible for the management of or response to emergencies.
These recommendations would replace those portions of current Federal
Radiation Protection Guidance (25 FR 4402) that apply to the protection of
• workers from ionizing radiation. It is expected that individual Federal agen-
cies, on the basis of their knowledge of specific worker exposure situations,
7 Administrative control levels are requirements determined by a competent authority or the
management of an institution or facility. They are not primary limits, and may therefore be
exceeded, upon approval of competent authority or management, as situations dictate.
8 Reference levels are not limits, and may be expressed in terms of any useful parameter. They
are used to determine a course of action, such as recording, investigation, or intervention, when
the value of a parameter exceeds, or is projected to exceed, the reference level.
-------
2834 Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 17 / Tuesday, January 27, 1987 / Presidential Documents
will use this new guidance as the basis upon which to revise or develop
detailed standards and regulations to the extent that they have regulatory or
administrative jurisdiction. The Environmental Protection Agency will keep
informed of Federal agency actions to implement this guidance, and will issue
any necessary clarifications and interpretations required to reflect new infor-
mation, so as to promote the coordination necessary to achieve an effective
Federal program of worker protection.
If you approve the foregoing recommendations for the guidance of Federal
agencies in the conduct of their radiation protection activities, I further
recommend that this memorandum be published in the Federal Register.
Lee M.Thomas,
Administrator, Environmental
Protection Agency.
[FR Doc. 87-1716
Filed 1-22-87; 9:44 am]
Billing code 6560-50-M
------- |