Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

Responds to FOIA request for four categories of documents re occupational radiation exposure.Forwards documents listed in app.

Accession Number: ML19241B591

Date Released: Thursday, October 24, 2024

Package Contents

The following links on this page are to Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) files. To obtain a free viewer for displaying this format, see our Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools.

• ML20004B292 - Responds to FOIA request for four categories of documents re occupational radiation exposure.Forwards documents listed in app. (5 page(s), 4/8/1981)
• ML20004B297 - Comments on proposed rule to amend 10CFR19 & 20 to eliminate accumulated dose averaging formula,5(N-18),NRC-4 exposure history,impose a 5 rem annual dose limitation & retain 3 rem per quarter limit.Related comments encl. (6 page(s), 4/24/1979)
• ML20004B299 - Requests documents leading to formation of NRC decisions & proposals impacting radiation protection stds,regulations & legislation.Info is needed for use in development of chronology of radiation protection events. (2 page(s), 3/27/1979)
• ML20004B302 - Comments on proposed rule 10CFR19 & 20:criteria re regulations establishing procedure for waiver of 5 rem annual limit should be implemented if (N-18) X5 rem criteria is eliminated. (1 page(s), 3/26/1979)
• ML20004B303 - Comments on proposed rule 10CFR19 & 20:NRC should retain accumulated dose average formula as mechanism to grant exception for essential procedures. (2 page(s), 3/12/1979)
• ML20004B305 - Requests receipt of proposed amends to 10CFR19 & 20 re reduction of stds for occupational exposures for nuclear workers. (1 page(s), 3/6/1979)
• ML19241B593 - Comments on proposed rule 10CFR19 & 20:supervisory personnel need guide to employ in case of radiation emergency. (1 page(s), 3/12/1979)
• ML19241B590 - Comments on proposed rule 10CFR19 & 20:NRC should eliminate quarterly exposure limits & should consider removing lens of eyes from 5 rem/yr limit of 20.101 since there is no reason why this structure should be singled out. (2 page(s), 3/5/1979)
• ML19261E197 - Comments on proposed rule 10CFR19 & 20:elimination of 5 (N-18) rule would reduce recordkeeping load re securing & maintaining prior lifetime exposure history of each worker. (2 page(s), 5/1/1979)
• ML19261E307 - Comments on proposed rules 10CFR19 & 20:concurs w/proposal to delete accumulated dose average formula. (2 page(s), 4/25/1979)
• ML19270G839 - Comments on proposed rules 10CFR19 & 20:urges delay in consideration of proposed rule until completion of hearings considering adequacy of occupational radiation dose stds. (2 page(s), 4/24/1979)
• ML19269E479 - Comments on proposed rules 10CFR19 & 20 opposes proposed changes.New rule lacks flexibility & provides little corresponding benefits to workers. (2 page(s), 4/24/1979)
• ML19269E429 - Comments on proposed rule 10CFR19 & 20:opposes rule because it was formulated before EPA had time to review input from various organizations & make recommendation. (3 page(s), 4/23/1979)
• ML19269E422 - Comments on proposed rule 10CFR19 & 20:recommends inclusion of criteria giving flexibility to enforcement of radiation protection stds & limiting requirement of written statement of prior dose to personnel in danger of high exposure. (2 page(s), 4/17/1979)