ML20141K558
| ML20141K558 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/21/1997 |
| From: | Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Markey E HOUSE OF REP. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9705290216 | |
| Download: ML20141K558 (5) | |
Text
._
.,e neb UNITED STATES g
'a NUCLEAR 3EGULATORY COMMISSION
(* A M "Y '
WA SHINGToN, D.C. 20666-0001 k.....
May 21, 1997 CHARMAN The Honorable Edward J. Markey United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Markey:
I am writing in response to your letter of May 9,1997, in which you expressed concern over differences between the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding the content of the Commission's draft final rule for cleanup of groundwater and soil at decommissioned sites.
Differences between the two agency staffs have focused primarily on two specific elements of NRC's draft final rule addressing radiological criteria for license termination:
(1) the seledion of an appropriate all pathways dose standard to be met before a licea could be terminated and (2) the desirability of a separate standard for.the groundwater pathway as a
]
supplement to the all pathway dose stcndard.
NRC proposed the 25 mrem /yr, all-pathways criterion in the draft final rule after careful consideration of stakeholder comments and considers it to be adequately protective of public health and safety.
It must be remembered from the outset that this criterion is not a radiation protection standard for members of the public. That standard is 100 mrem /yr and was previously defined through an NRC rulemaking (10 CFR Part 20). The 25 mrem /yr, all-pathways criterion is a value intended to ensure that no individual member of i
the public could receive an annual dose approaching 100 mrem as a result of exposure to more than one source of man-made radiation othar than those used for medical purposes. The value of 25 mrem /yr is fully cor ' stent with the recommendations made by the leading national and internaticm scientific bodies that recommend radiation protection standards, including those in Report No.116 by the Congressionally chartered National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) and those made by the Chairman of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP).
Further, unlike the EPA's proposed standard of 15 mrem /yr, NRC's proposed final rule would require measures to reduce doses to levels below 25 mrem /yr whenever this is reasonably achievable; that is, to apply the concept that doses should be as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA).
Incorporating the ALARA concept requires licensees to achieve further reductions in contamination levels below the dose criterion based on a site-specific evaluation of the benefits obtained from further reduction in dose levels compared to the costs and risks resulting from that reduction.
For the vast majority of NRC-licensed sites, achieving doses below 25 mrem /yr (and even 15 mrem /yr or lower) will be reasonable based on such a comparison.
Because there are a number of licensed facilities for which this would not be reasonable, the NRC rule has relied on the ALARA principle rather than set a i
lower dose criterion for all cases.
.i s
290001 9705290216 970521
,b PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR
y.-__.____________._.______.
4 i
2 The difference between the NRC and EPA standard,10 mrem /yr, is a dose that is unremarkable when compared to doses received as a result of everyday activities.
For example, it is but 3 percent of the average annual dose from i
i natural background sources, which averages 300 mrem /yr, but varies 4
significantly according to location. The average individual dose from medical diagnoses is about 50 mrem /yr, and ten mrem is a dose that will result from l
two or three round trips by plane from Washington, DC, to the west coast.
EPA i
does not_ regulate the radiation exposure of pilots and flight attendants or the naturally-occurring radioactive material (NORM) in building materials.
Nor has EPA thus far promulgated any regulations regarding such NORM waste as 4
coal ash, which NRC models indicate has residual radioactivity levels i
comparable to those regulated under the decommissioning rule. - Even assuming i
that adverse radiation effects may occur at very low levels of radiation (an f
assumption with which there is significant disagreement among scientists), the j
actual difference in risk is not significant or even meaningful considering that the difference is well within the envelope of scientific uncertainty regarding the magnitude of the actual health effects at these very low doses.
1 This scientific uncertainty occurs because evidence of radiation dose Nalth i
effects has only been observed at high dose levels and dose rates and i
significant uncertainty is introduced when extrapolating to estimate the i
l health effects at.the very low dose levels and dose rates being considered in i
this rulemaking. Whether health effects result from even a dose of 100 mrem is uncertain, as evidenced by the statement by the Committee on the Biological i
Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR V) of the National Academy of Sciences / National Research Council in its 1990 report that:
j Studies of populations chronically exposed to low-level radiation, such i
as those residing in regions of elevated natural background radiation, j
have not shown consistent or conclusive evidence of an associated l
increase in the risk of cancer.
i These comments, of course, apply with equal vigor with respect to EPA's insistence on a separate standard for groundwater in addition to an all-i pathway standard.
Specifically, EPA would have NRC require that local groundwater meet EPA's maximum contamination levels (MCLs), originally i
established to implement the Safe Drinkin M er Act (SWDA).
The MCLs were i
based on an analysis of treated contaminated water in public drinking water systems subject to the SDWA and not on an analysis of the technology and costs of remediating local groundwater at actual contaminated sites.
Furthermore, based on using EPA's dose conversion methodology presented in EPA's Federal Guidanco Report Number 11, the current MCL values result in inconsistent levels of protection because they~ can result in a wide range of doses for different radionuclides (e.g., less than 0.1 mrem /yr to over 30 mrem /yr) and, additionally, do not include all radionuclides (e.g., uranium).
NRC's analysis of the costs associated with decontaminating groundwater to the MCLs indicates that reducing the.in-situ groundwater contamination to these MCLs could be extraordinarily expensive in some cases.
For example, an NRC analysis of the cost for remediation of groundwater containing strontium-90 (the current MCL value for which corresponds to 0.07 mrem /yr) by pumping and treatment estimated that the cost to meet the MCL value could be as high as
3
$23 billion dollars per theoretical fatality averted. Moreover, if at a site without current groundwater contamination it became necessary to move contaminated soil to prevent future groundwater contamination, there could be a net detriment to safety due to transportation accidents.
It is highly unlikely that a decommissioned site meeting the 25 mrem /yr dose criterion would result in a community water system delivering water to the tap with concentrations above the MCLs.
This is because the processes of dilution, decay, and transport occur in nature as nuclides move through the aquifer and also occur as part of the water extraction, treatment, and/or distribution process.
NRC believes that the pathway-by-pathway approach is unwise because it encourages the compartmentalization of issues that should instead be looked at as part of the whole.
This is an issue as to what the appropriate approach should be to environmental protection.
EPA and NRC have consistently disagreed with respect to the need to include separate groundwater protection i
criteria in decommissioning and HLW disposal standards.
In both cases, NRC believes that individual protection criteria which take into account all pathways are sufficiently protective of the groundwater pathway and represent a more uniform and comprehensive approach to protecting public health and safety. Thus, NRC does not agree that there is any need for separate groundwater protection criteria.
j As a point of clarification, your letter indicates that NRC's rule would result in sites being released at levels of 100 mrem /yr.
It should be noted that release of sites at levels above 25 mrem /yr would only occur in unusual l
circumstances in which a licensee had applied to the NRC for alternate criteria; it would be difficult and very rare for alternate criteria to be granted. The use of alternate criteria for certain difficult site-specific j
cases is included in the final rule because it is preferable to codify
{
provisions for dealing with these problem sites under the aegis of the rule rather than requiring licensees to seek an exemption process outside the rule.
It is anticipated that alternate criteria would be considered in only a few cases because the very large majority of NRC-licensed sites would be able to reduce doses to less than 25 mrem / year either through the unrestricted or restricted use provisions of the rule.
To further ensure that the use of j
alternate criteria will be confined to rare cases, the draft final rule has been modified to require that the NRC staff: (1) obtain Commission approval for each application of alternate site criteria, (2) solicit comment from EPA during the public comment period, and (3) ensure substantive public 1
participation when alternate criteria are considered.
In summary, NRC believes that its all pathways 25 mrem /yr criterion coupled with ALARA provisions:
Is fully protective of public health and safety and of groundwater, j
Is consistent with the recommendations of national and international e
radiation safety organizations, and
B L
4 3
Provides an appropriate balance between protecting public health and the costs to meet public health goals.
With regard to the issue raised in your letter regarding community involvement i
in cleanup decisions, it should be noted that the final rule would retain the L
requirement that licensees seek advice from affected communities on the site l
restrictions, but that the specific convening of a site specific advisory board (SSAB) would be only one way among several to obtain such advice.
- Thus, the final rule focuses on ensuring that advice has been sought on the capability of institutional controls to provide reasonable assurance that exposure at the site does not exceed the dose criteria of the rule, and that i
the controls are enforceable and will not impose undue burden on the l
community. To make it clear that there will continue to be significant opportunity for public participation as part of the decommissioning process, we have modified the draft final rule to specifically require that licensees, i
in seeking community advice, provide (1) for participation by a broad-cross section of community interests, (2) an opportunity for comprehensive, L
collective discussion on the issues, and (3) a publicly available summary of the results of the discussions.
i NRC has werked closely with the EPA in a variety of forums during the preparation of both the proposed and final rules on radiological criteria for decommissioning, although we now find ourselves in a situation where j
differences have arisen regarding the appropriate content of the final rule.
We are endeavoring to continue to work with EPA to resolve these areas of i
differences.
To that end, the Commission directed the staff to meet with the EPA staff in a public forum for the purpose of clarifying both staffs' views i
on areas of disagreement.
This meeting was held on April 21, 1997, and the i
remaining areas of disagreement between the NRC and EPA staffs were identified and have been summarized for the Commission's consideration. The two specific elements of the radiological criteria for license termination rule and 1
groundwater discussed above still remain areas of disagreement.
In addition, the EPA expressed additional concerns with the NRC staff's draft final rule in i
the two areas of alternate criteria and public participation. These and the NRC staff's perspectives on EPA concerns are discussed further in the enclosed i
report on the meeting with EPA.
1 On May 20, 1997, I met with Mr. Fred Hansen, the Deputy Administrator of the I
EPA, to discuss the proposed final rule. At that meeting, I discussed the i
. features of the rule and NRC's position on the adequacy of the 25 mrem / year i
all pathways standard, the concept of "as low as reasonably achievable" i
(ALARA) included in the NRC's rule, and the NRC's. position that, in light of
{
the all-pathways standard and ALARA, there is no need for a separate groundwater standard. Mr. Hansen expressed EPA's interest in continuing 4
discussions'with NRC regarding timely notice to EPA of proposed NRC license i
termination in some specific categories of cases.
The Commission has agreed
]
to continue a dialogue with EPA following finalization of the rule.
l Sincerely, l
W f
Enclosure:
As stated 1
a 4
m
- ~ +
m w,
w n
m.-
y
,4 e
=
y yy-r
Identical letter to:
4 4
The Honorable Thomas J.. Manton United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 The Honorable Diana L. DeGette United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 The Honorable Eliot L. Engel United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 The Honorable Ted Strickland
' United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 The Honorable Henry A. Waxman United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 j
The Honorable Sherrod Brown United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 The Honorable Thomas C. Sawyer United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 The Honorable Elizabeth Furse United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 i
!