ML19260F839
| ML19260F839 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/09/1983 |
| From: | Ray J Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| ACRS-R-1045, NUDOCS 8308240138 | |
| Download: ML19260F839 (3) | |
Text
[ln nacuq'o, UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y
'p*
g ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTC$n SAFEGUARDS
- 4
- j g
WASHINGTON, D. C 20555 August 9,1983 Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino Chai rma n U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
Dear Dr. Palladino:
SUBJECT:
ACRS COMMENTS ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S PROPOSED
" NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS -
STANDARDS FOR RADIONUCLIDES" (40 CFR PART 61)
In a notice published in the Federal Register on April 6,1983, the U.S.
E nvi ronmental Protection Agency has proposed "Nationi 1 Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants - Standards for Radionuclides" (40 CFR Part 61).
Because the proposed standards would have an impact on NRC licen-sees, as well as on facilities operated by federal agencies, members of the staffs of the NRC and the U.S.
Department of Energy requested that the Advisory Committee on -Reactor Safeguards review and comment on this matter.
In response to these requests, the ACRS Subcommittee on Reactor Radiological Ef fects met on July 18, 1983, with representatives of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), and the NRC to discuss the proposed standards.
The Subcommittee also had the benefit of the documents listed.
In addition, this matter was the subject of a meeting of the full Committee on August 4,1983.
As a result of these discussions, we of fer the following comments and recommendations.
1.
We believe that experience has demonstrated that the Radiation Protec-tion Guidance originally established by the Federal Radiation Council (Federal Register, M3y 18,1960) and the existing radiation protection standards of the NRC (10 CFR Part 20) have adequately regulated airborne radionuclide releases from the nuclear facilities and operations that would be affected by the proposed EPA regulations.
We also believe that these existing requirements provide an adequate margin of safety.
As a result, we see no need for the regulations proposed by EPA, nor do we see any justification for the added burdens and costs they would impose.
2.
We believe also that the proposed standards are unduly restrictive, their health basis is not clear, they are not based on scientific principles, they have not been subjected to peer review, and they are impossible to verify by environmental measurements.
83o g'2 Vol 3r/q
Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino August 9,1983 3.
The proposed standards represent a departure from the accepted and well recognized applications of the as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) criterion in that they are arbitrarily based solely on the availability, but not necessarily the practicality, of control technology.
Effective use of control technology to reduce emissions is only one form of ALARA.
Such an approach should not be prescribed unilaterally and arbitrarily, without competent analyses and cost-benefit considerations as well as detailed evaluations of alternative methods of control.
Estimates by the NCRP, for example, indicate that implementation of the proposed regulations could result in expenditures of over one billion dollars per health ef fect avoided.
There is also a serious question as to whether the proposed reductions in collective doses to the public that would be accomplished by implementation of the proposed regulations might be more than offset by associated increases in collective occupational doses.
4.
Although the Congress has chartered the NCRP to foster interagency communications on radiation protection matters, we were informed that tr e EPA Staf f had not availed themselves of this resource in develop-ing the proposed standards.
The NCRP could have provided qualified scientific personnel for peer review, general guidance and cost-benefit assessments.
In summary, we believe the regulations proposed by the EPA are unwise and unnecessary, and we would support the NRC in opposing their adoption.
Si nce rely,
Ws w
J. J. Ray Y Chai rma n
References:
1.
Lecture titled " Science, Risk and Public Policy," by EPA Administrator William Ruckelshaus, presen ed at the National Academy of Sciences, dated June 22, 1983 2.
Letter from A. V. Trivelpiece, Department of Energy to C. L. Elkins, Environmental Protection Agency, dated July 14, 1983, transmitting comments on Prv,' sed National Emission Standards for Radionuclides 3.
Letter from W. J. J acks, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, to Environ-mental Protection Agency, dated June 21, 1983 transmitting Comments on the Proposed National Emission Standards for Radionuclides 4.
Testimony of Dr. W. A. Mills, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, dated April 28,1983 on the Environmental Protection Agency's Proposed National Emission Standards
Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino August 9,1983 5.
Testimony presented on April 29, 1983 Before the Environmental Protec-tion Agency by Atomic Industrial Forum Subcommittee on the Radiological Aspects of the 1977 Clean Air Act 6.
Testimony presented on April 29, 1983 Before the Environmental Protec-tion Agency by W. K. Sinclair, National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, on the Environmental Protection Agency Proposed Rule, 40 CFR Part 61 7.
Additional Comments on the Environmental Protection Agency Rule, 40 CFR Part 61, National Emission Standards for Radionuclides by W. K. Sinclair, President, National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements dated July 25, 1983 8.
Health Physics Society Newsletter, dated July 1983, "HPS Offers Comments to EPA" regarding the proposed rule 9.
" Review of EPA Proposed ' National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants - Standards for Radionuclides'" Report by the ACRS Subcommittee on Reactor Radiological Effects, dated July 18, 1983 cc:
Commissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Asselstine Commissioner Bernthal Hon. William Ruckelshaus, EPA Administrator G. Sjoblom, EPA A. Trivelpiece, Department of Energy W. K. Sinclair, NCRP
REFERENCE 9
\\
q Review of EPA Proposed " National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants - Standards for Radionuclides" (40 CfR Part 61)
ACRS Subcommittee on React;or Radiological Effects July 18, 1983 At a meeting on July 18, 1983 members of the ACRS Subcommittee on Reactor Radiological Effects met with representatives of the U.S. Environmental i
Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Department'of Energy (DOE), the National i
Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory C.onraission (HRC) to discuss the EPA proposed " National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants - Sfandards for Radionuclides" (40 CFR Part 61).
As'a result of these discussions, tht Subcommittee developed a number of comments and recommendations which can be summarized as follows:
General:
1.
We believe that existing radiation protection standards of the N',
(10 CFR 20) adequately regulate airborne radionuclide releases and s
that they provide an ample margin of safety. The Clean Air Act I
clearly,requit ps the EPA to avoid duplicating existing federal For this reason, we believd there is a regulator; responsir(ilities.
basic question as to the need' for the standards proposed by EPA.
We also believe that the nroposed new regalations would impose unneces-sary added burdens and costs on a, wide range of government facilities and nuclear related industries.
i
2 2.
The proposed standards are unduly restrictive, they are not based on scientific principles which have been subjected to peer review, and they are impossible to verify by measurements.
In addition, the health basis for the proposed standards is not clear.
The standards, as proposed, would also apply different limits depending on the source and the circumstances. This is contrary to estab-lished radiation protection practice.
3.
The proposed standards represent a departure from the accepted and well recognized applications of the as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) criterion in that they are arbitrarily based solely on the avSilability, but not necessarily the reasonableness, of control technology.
Effective use of control technology to reduce emissions is only one form of ALARA. Such an approach should not be prescribed unilaterally and arbitrarily in the guise of necessity for the pro-tection of public health, without competent analyses and cost-benefit considerations as well as detailed evaluations of alternative methods of control.
A more rational approach would be to set upper dose limits for the public at the existing levels tnat have been specified N
by the Federal Radiation Council (FRC) and have been incorporated
-~
- In a talk before the National Academy of Sciences on June 22, 1983, the EPA Administrator stated that "... risk assessment at EPA must be based on scientific evidence and scientific consensus only.
Nothing will erode public confidence faster than the suspicion that policy considerations have beca allowed to influence the assessment of risk."
\\
3 into most existing federal st6ndards.. Follcuing this approach, ap-propriate federal regula+.ory gencies could then work with licensees of individual nucle'ar facilities to 6:.sure Et mly that the limits were bei% met but also thSt the ALARA criterion was being properly irrplemented.
4.
The departure from ALM;A is sharply underscored by noting that, al-though estimates of th! econonic impact of the implementation of the proposed regulations vary, calculations show that the cost per year per health effect evcided could readily exceed one billion dollars.
Thi. estiniate is based on EPA's projected capital cost of 25 million dollars for the DUF to meet the proposed standards by installing the raquired additional controls at two of its high-emistion facilities, with a concurrent reduction in the collective dose to the general pub-lic of 4 person rem.
There is tiso a serious question as to whether the proposed reduction in collective dosa f.o the public might be offset by associated incraase3 in the collective occupational dose required to implement the propcted regulations.
5.
'it is our understandirg that the EPA staff did not consult Nith the NRC Staf f during the development of ths proposed standards.
- Yet, according to existing EPA statutes [42 USC 7422(c)(1)] "before listing (as an air pollutant) any source, special nuclear, or by-product naterial...the Administrator shall crisult with the
4 Nuclear Regulatory Commission." EPA is also instructed in the 1977 knendment to the Clean Air Act [P.L. 95-95, footnote in Section 122]
to " conduct a study in conjunction with other appropriate agencies concerning the effects on the public health and welf are of... radio-active pollutants...which may reasonably be anticipated in the ambient air."
While the Subcommittee recognizes that there are mitigating circumstances relative to such interactions, it does appear that more interagency consultati'on would have been beneficial.
6.
Althcugh the Congress has chartered the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements to foster interagency ccmmunication on radiation protection matters, the EPA also failed to avail itself of this resource of qualified scientific personnel who could have provided peer review, general guidance, and cost-benefit assessments relative to the proposed radiation protection standards.
7.
Although mandated by a court order, it is the opinion of the Sub-committee that the schedule for confirmation and implementation of the proposed regulations is far too brief to allow for proper public and agency input and for the development of the additional scientific information that could have been helpful in making a decision on this important matter.
5 8.
This review of the proposed regulations has brought to the atten-tion of the Subcommittee the need for a comprehensive examination of all radiation sources to which the public is exposed, followed by the development of a systematic program for their regulation.
This should include a detailed review of all existing radiation protection regulations within all federal agencies with a view to bringing them into harmony. A reconstituted FRC might be helpful in this regard.
Part of this effort should be an attempt to develop a uniform approach to risk assessment and management within all Federal agencies.
Specific:
1.
The proposed standards, in part, are stated in terms of dose limits 3
(mrem /y r).
Standards based on release limits (Ci/m ) could be measured and verified.
2.
The proposed standards require use of EPA computer models (or modelling techniques that are judged by EPA to be suitable) to verify compliance.
The suggested pathway model, AIRDOSE-EPA, is only applicable to point source or elevated releases over plane surfaces and seriously misestimates doses in hilly terrain.
This model also applies only to doses outdoors.
Estimates are that people spent 90%
or more of their time indoors, where the doses may be significantly di f ferent.
6 4.
No attempt has been made to correlate the proposed standards with the safety goals proposed oy the NRC. Although the proposed regula-tions imply that the risk to * ' - population would be considered in setting dose rate limits, all the proposed limits are based on the risk to individuals.
Nowhere in the commentary and background documents for the proposed standards are the judgments used in developing the risk factors given.
5.
It was not clear the extent to which the public and national benefits of a given nuclear operation would be considered in weighing the need for it to meet the proposed regulations.
This appears to be a significant omission.
As an example, the proposed dose rate limits, for a given category, are the same regarriless of the magnitude of the Higher power nuclear reactors would be required to meet the sou rce.
same limits as those of lower power; spent-fuel cheuical processing plants would be required to meet the same limits as small radio-nuclide users.
Open pit uranium mines would not be controlled; underground minas would.
6.
The proposed standards do not include any reference to accidental releases.
Even the most minor of mishaps could cause the unnes-sarily st;'ingent standards, as proposed, to be exceeded.
7.
The categorization chosen by EPA for NRC licensees does not delinedte clearly all classes of NRC licensed (and agreement state licensed) activities from non-NRC licensed activities.
This could seriously impede the implementation and enforcement of the proposed standards.
- 3. -..
f.'
llCRS DATE OF DOCUMENT
" " " ' " ' ^ " "
D. J. Ray g 9 33
,,,, n,, nc,o TO.
PREPARE FOR SIGNATURE Of '.
. _ _FfNAL nLPLY Chairman O gggw rite toCATiON gxxccumtoinccion CTHER 5Eh[bMIPTION O tt rren O utuo O ncpont O orsta
]~setl5AL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS
-d ACRS comments on EPA's Proposed
" National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants - Standanfs for Radionuclides" (40 CFR het 61)
.. _ _"" 'ill[. _ o^"
'"' o""^ "o" "*"o
_Minowe. RESJ/8-lD-BL Dircks
_approp_ action __
Roe Relm g
Stello Denton Davis DeYoung 4
CCunningham Heltm" SECY 83-2147
{
_. _._._______...__1__.
(Central _Eiles iJ t-NRC F EXECUTIVE DIREC*OR FOR OPERATIONS l
- ** ORM 2r PRINCIPAL CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL l-
'83 2147 togg,ng o,i, 8/9/83 N o.
NRC S'ECRETARI AT TO.
O Comm si.oner o.ie XX8 Emec. DirJOper.
Gen. Counsel O Coag Lia, son O sone,ior C P, tac Af f airs C Secretary b 'nspector & Auditor
[
Policy Evaluation J. J. Ray, Chairman incoming ACR5 F rom:
8/ 9/ 6.3 To: Palladino p,1, ACRS Comments on the EPA s pro " fiat' i unmission subject:
tds for Hazardous Air Pollutants-Stds for Kaolonuciloed l
40 CFR Pt 61) 0 eren.re repiv or signature oe:
v Chairman O Commissioner O E oo. cc. ct. so t. P A. S ECY, l A. PE C Signature block omitted Retum original of incoming with response O For direct reoiv.
$X or appropriate action
~
O F
~
O rorinformatioa Time...../h.........
~
~
RF Remark s:
billie For the Commission:
'Sead three (3) copies o' reply to Secy Cr esp:ncence and Recores B anen I
ACTION SLIP NRC FORM 62A p s2)
~
r s
j_.
q.
M gp I Y
.