ML20148P080

Forwards,For Processing,Regulatory Documents Considered to Be of Central Relevance to Final Rulemaking, Resolution of Dual Regulation of Airborne Effluents of Radioactive Matls: Clean Air Act (10CFR20)

ML20148P080
Person / Time
Issue date:	06/26/1997
From:	Roecklein A NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES)
To:	Lanham D NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
Shared Package
ML20148P089	List: ML20148P080 ML20148P191 ML20148P207 ML20148P214 ML20148P269 ML20148P306 ML20149L578 ML20149L585 ML20149L612 ML20149L622 ML20149L634 ML20149L640 ML20149L657 ML20149L916
References
FRN-61FR65120, RULE-PR-20 AF31-2-001, AF31-2-1, SECY-96-172-C, NUDOCS 9707010131
Download: ML20148P080 (6)

Text

....

.a:

c,d#"'%

p t

UNITED STATES.

'g

[

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20066 4 001

.?.

I l

AF31 tal l

i

' June 26,1997 F

MEMORANDUM TO:

Don Lanham, DCB, DISS, ADM n/

FROM:

Alan K. Roecklein, RPHEB, DRA, RES j<

SUBJECT:

REGULATORY HISTORY FOR RESOLUTION OF DUAL REGULATION OF AIRBORNE EFFLUENTS OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS;. CLEAN AIR ACT (10 CFR PART 20) '(61FR65120,12/10/%); FINAL RULE --

RIN 3150-AF31 t

Attached fer your processing are regulatory documents considered to be of central l

relevance to the final rulemaking. entitled "R'esolution of Dual Regulation of Airborne I

Effluents of Radioactive Materials; Clean ' Air Act (10 CFR Part 20). Also attached is an index of these documents. The designat,or assigned by the Rules Review and Directives Branch is AF31-2 and is noted in the upper right hand corner of the cover page for each document.

~

' Attachments:

I

1. Index J

2. Documents U -

f0frille70b gg cc w/att 1: Betty Golden, RRDB/ADM

/

kJ T J

4700'7'?

IllElElII,lR[Elljlll J

i 9707010131'970626 E

/

i PDR PR j

20 61FR65120 PDR

., ~.

e a.

t AF31-2 REGULATORY HISTORY INDEX FOR FINAL RULE RESOLUTION OF-DUAL REGULATION OF AIRBORNE EFFLUENTS OF RADI0 ACTIVE MATERIALS (10 CFR PART 20)

RIN 3150-AF31 m

'1.

Public Comment Letters:

1. 1.

Ltr from E. Exten. GenCorp Aerojet, dated 12/21/95

1. 2.

Ltr from 0. Paulson. Kennecott Energy, dtd 01/05/96

1. 3.

Ltr from M. Loomis. Wyoming Mining Association, dated 01/10/96 l

1. 4.

Email from J. Stephens. Colorado State dtd 01/16/96 l

1. 5, Ltr from J.K.Haveman Jr.. State of Michigan, dtd 01/12/96

1. 6, Ltr from W. Chubb dtd 01/24/96

1. 7.

Ltr from R.W.Granlund dtd 01/26/96

1. 8.

Email from 0.A. Johnson dtd 12/15/95

1. 9.

Ltr from M.T.Ryan, Chem-Nuclear Systems. Inc.

dtd 02/09/96

1. 10.

Ltr from C.S.Marcus. ACNP, dtd 01/03/96

1. 11.

Ltr from A.M.Maxin. NFS. dtd 02/28/96

-#12.

Email from M. Richard. IUPUI. dtd 03/05/96

{

1. 13.

Ltr from T.P,Barton dtd 03/05/96

1. 14.

Ltr from R.J.Dobey.Jr.. U/ Missouri, dtd 03/08/96

1. 15.

Ltr from R.A.Meserve. Covington & Burling, on behalf of Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation, dtd 03/11/96

1. 16.

Ltr from J.H.Johnsrud. ECNP, dtd 03/06/96

1. 17.

Ltr from J.H.Ellis Sequoyah Fuels, dtd 03/07/96

1. 18.

Ltr from J.H.Coleman. TVA. dtd 03/08/96

1. 19. Ltr from the Committee to Bridge the Gap dtd 03/11/96

1. 20.

Ltr from J.G.Tripodes. U/CA-Irvine dtd 03/11/96 i

1. 21.

Ltr from R.L.Lawson. National Mining Association, dtd 03/12/96 r

1. 22.

Ltr from J.F.Schmitt. NEI. dtd 03/12/96

1. 23.

Fax from B. Geary dtd 03/12/96

1. 24.

Ltr from Nuclear Information and Resource Service dtd 03/12/96 i

1. 25.

Fax from D. Kiefer dtd 03/12/96

1. 26.

Ltr from R.L.Woolley. USEC. dtd 03/12/96 i

1. 27.

Ltr from P.Kirchner. ACNP/SNM. dtd 03/12/96 l

1. 28.

Ltr from W.J.Powell dtd 03/10/96

1. 29.

Ltr from R.A.Zoon and S.W.Googins. HHS/NIH dtd 03/12/96

1. 30. Ltr from L.R. Smith, DuPont, dtd 03/11/96 l

1. 31. Ltr from P.J. Merges. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. dtd 03/12/96

.#32. Ltr from R.C.Shinn.Jr.. State of New Jersey, dtd 03/07/96

1. 33.

Ltr from P. Gilbert /J.Johnsrud Sierra Club / CORE. dtd 03/11/96 i

1. 34.

Ltr from M.L. Bowling. Virginia Power. dtd 03/12/96

1. 35.

Ltr from Sierra Club National Nuclear Waste Task Force dtd 03/12/96

1. 36.

Ltr from R. Grunewald dtd 03/06/96

q

]

AF31-2 l

i

-Index (RIN 3150-AF31) '

1. 37.

Ltr from I.'M.Garelick St. Barnabas Medical Center, dtd 03/14/96

1. 38.

Ltr from J. Graham. ANS dtd 03/07/97 1

2.

01/29/96 Federal Register Notice - 61 FR 2765: _01/29/% - Publication '

l

.of EPA proposed rule-40 CFR 61 - National Emissions Standards for Radionuclide Emissions From Facilities Licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Federal Facilities Not Covered by Subpart H.

i 3.

02/15/96 Email from A.M.Schramm to TSHillier re OMB Notice of Action i

4.

02/22/96 Ltr from DACool to 0.Ilari. OECD NEA

~5.

03/20/96 Memo from SHWeiss to JEGlenn re test reactors would not be i

subject to 10 mrem /y constraint on air emissioris i

6.

05/10/96 Memo to Multiple Addressees from DLMorrison.

Dir..RES.

requesting Office review and concurrence on final rule 7.

03/26/96 Note from CRaddatz to multiple re Draft slides for 2/28 meeting on Constraint i

8.

Interoffice comments on final rule:

06/12/96 Memo C.G, Jones to M.F.Seber forwarding IMNS comments 06/13/96 Note to CTrottier from PSobel forwarding DWM/NMSS comments 06/21/96 Memo CJPaper.iello to DLMorrison NMSS comments / concurrence Undated Draft-memo JLieberman to DLMorrison forwarding 0E's comments-06/27/96 NRR markup of final rule 06/27/96 ADM markup of final rule i

06/27/96 Memo MGMalsch to DLMorrison - OGC review and comments t

07/00/96 Draft memo MGMalsch to,DLMorrison - OGC review and i

comments i

9.

07/22/96 Memo from JEGlenn to BJShelton - Final rulemaking - Addition of new reporting requirement 10.

108/05/96 SECY-96-172 l

-11, 08/14/96 Email from BShelton to CRaddatz re Final Rule. Pt. 20.

Questionable Title 12.

109/18/96 Ltr to E. Michlovich (SBREFA) 13,

_10/18/96

'SRM from JCHoyle to JMTaylor and JFCordes re SECY 96-172 1

AF31-2 Index (RIN 3150-AF31) 14.

11/4/96 Note from Phyllis Sobel to multiple re Court opinion on EPA's rescission of Subpart I for power reactors 15.

11/07/96 Note from Phyllis Sobel to multiple re EPA's Federal Register Notice on Subpart I rescission 16.

11/13/96 Email from Phyllis Sobel to multiple re Discussion with Gale Bonanno on NRC's comments on Subpart I FRN 17.

11/14/96 Memo to DLMeyer from CATrottier Implementation of Commission Action 18.

12/03/96 Resolution of Dual Regulation of Airborne Effluents of Radioactive Materials: Clean Air Act 19.

12/10/96 Federal Register Notice - 61 FR 65120: 12/10/96 - Publication of final rule I

Q V3l ch Federal Register / Vol. 61, No.19 / Monday, January 29, 1996 / Proposed Rules 2765 4

Rule 6-Severabihty (Adopted 11/21/78)

Rule 66-Organic Solvents (Adopted 11/24/

Appendix IV-A Soap Bubble Tests (Adopted Rule 7-Zone Boundaries (Adopted 6/14/77) 87) 12/86)

Rule to-Permits Required (Adopted 6/13/

Rule 67-Vacuum Producing Devices 95)

(Adopted 7/5/83)

Rule too-Analytical Methods (Adopted 7/

Rule 11-Definition for Regulation !!

18/72)

( Adopted 6/13/95)

Rule 68-Carbon Monoxide (Adopted 6/14/

Rule 101-Sampling and Testing Facilities 77)

Rule 12-Apphcation for Permits (Adopted (Adopted 5/23/72]

i UnN5)

Rule 71-Crude Oil and Reactive Organic Rule 10bSource Tests (Adopted 11/2 L/78)

Rule 13-Action on Appbcations for an Compound Liquids (Adopted 12/13/94)

Rule 10hStack Monitoring (Adopted 6/4/

Rule 71.1--Crude Oil Production and 91)

Separation (Adopted 6/16/92)

Rule 154-Stage 1 Episode Actions (Adopted Ru e 1 e io on p ica o or a e it d

Ru e 71.2-Storage of Reactive Organic 9/17/91)

Ru e 1

mp in an ting Facilities Compound Liquids (Adopted 9/26/89)

Rule 155--Stage 2 Episode Actions (Adopted e

(Ado ted 10/12/93)

Rule R34ader oWade &gank WM Rule 1 BACT Certification (Adopted 6/13/

Compound Liquids (Adopted 6/16/92)

Rule 156-Stage 3 Episode Actions (Adopted 95)

Rule 71.4-Petroleum Sumps. Pits. Ponds.

9/17/91)

Rule 1% Posting of Permits (Adopted 5/23/

and Well Cellars (Adopted 6/8/93)

Rule 158-Source Abatement Plans (Adopted 72)

Rule 71.5-Clycol Dehydrators (Adopted 12/

9/17/91)

I Rule 20-Transfer of Permit (Adopted 5/23/

13/g4)

Rule 159-Traffic Abatement Procedures 72)

Rule 72-New Source Performance Standards (Adopted 1/17/91)

Rule 23-Exemptions from Permits (Adopted (NSPS)(Adopted 6/28/94)

Rt.le 22% General Conformity (Adopted 5/9/

12/13/94)

Rule 74-Specific Source Standards 95)

Rule 24-Source Recordkeeping, Reporting.

(Adopted 7/6/76) end Emission Statements (Adopted 9/15/

Rule 74.1-Abrasive Blasting (Adopted 11/

(FR Dor,96-1546 Filed 1-26-96; 8:45 aml Rul 26-New Source Review (Adopted 10/

Rule 74.2-Architectural Coatings (Adopted 22/91).

08/11/92)

Rule 26.1-New Source Review-Definitions Rule 74.6-Surface Cleaning and Degressing (Adopted 10/22/91)

(Adopted 5/8/90) 40 CFR Part 61 Rule 26.2-New Source Review-Requirements (Adopted 10/22/91)

Rule 74.6.1-Cold Cleaning Operations (FRL-44 ;84)

(Adopted 9/12/89)

Rule 26,3-New Source Review-Exempti,ons Rule 74.6.2-Batch loaded Vapor Degreasing National Emissions Standards fo (Adopted 10/22/91)

Rule 26.6-New Source Review" Operations ( Adopted 9/12/89)

Radionuclide Emtssions From Rule 74.7-Fugitive Emissions of Reactive Calculations (Adopted 10/22/91)

Nw u R v1 w-Permit To Organic Compounds at Petroleum Facilities Ucensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Federal Ref erles and Chemical Plants (Adopted 9

Rule 26.1bNew Source Review-PSD Facilities Not Covered by Subpart H Rule 74.8-Refinery Vacuum Producing AGENCY: Environmental Protection S SI"m8 85te W8ter S8Parators and Agency (EPA).

Rule 28 Rev ca ion cf Permits (Adopted 7/

Y g

Process Turnarounds (Adopted 7/5/83)

Rule 29--Condhions on Permits (Adopted Rule 74.9-Stationary Internal Combustion ACTION: Notice of public hearing.

10/22/91)

Engines (Adopted 12/21/93)

Rule 3hPermit Renewal (Adopted 5/30/89) Rule 74.10--Components at Crude Oil

SUMMARY

The Office of Radiation and Rule 32-Breakdown Conditions: Emergency Pmduction Facilities and Natural Gas Indoor Alt, Radiation Protection Varian< es. A., H 1., and D. only. (Adopted Prodt ion and I ssing Facihties Division will be holding a public liearing for the notice to reopen the Rule 3 - cid Deposition Control (Adopted Rule 74.11-Natural Gas-Fired Residential comment period for the proposed rule to 3/14/95)

Water Heaters-Control of NO. (Adopted 4/ rescind 40 CFR 61. subpart I for Nuclear Appendix Il-H flest Available Control 9/85)

Regulatory Commission (NRC) and Technology (BACT)1 ables (Adopted 12/86)

Rule 7412-Surface Coating of Metal Parts Agreement State licensees other than Rule 42-Permit Fees (Adopted 7/11/95) and Products (Adopted 12/13/94) nuclear power reactors; and will also be 1

i Rule 44-Exemption Evaluation f ec Rule 74.15-Bollers. Steam Generators and extending the comment period on that Process Heaters (5MM DTUs and greater) notice for Subpart 1.

l Rule 4 Pla ices (Adopted 6/19/90)

Rule 74 51 oi. Steam Generators and Rule 45.2-Asbestos Removal Fees (Adopted m

a unusua mums ances a/4/92)

Process Heaters (1-SMM UTUs)(Adopted Rule 5%Opecity (Adopted 2/20/79) gjgjg3) of the extended furlough, EPA s January Rule $2-Particulate Matter Crmcentration Rule 74.16-Oil Field Drilling Operations 9th public hearing has been (Adopted 5/23/72)

(Adopted 1/s/91) reschedulod. We are also extending the j

Rule 53-Particulate Matter Process Weight Rule 74.20-Adhesives and Sealants com'nent period from January 20th to (Adopted 6/8/93) allow the public additional time to Rule 54 Su f r pounds (Adopted 6/14/ Rule 74.23-Stationary Gas Turbines review NRC's proposed constraint level 94)

(Adopted 3/14/95) rule which was published in the 4

Rule 56--O ien Fires (Adopted 3/29/04)

Rule 74 24-Marine Coating Operations federal Register on December 13,1995.

Rule 57-Combustion Contaminants-Specific (Ad Pted 3/8/941

( Adapted 6/14/77)

Rule 74.2G--Crude Oil Storage Tank Due to the uncertainty created by the 1

Rule 6hNew Non-Mobile Equipment. Sulfur ikgassing Operations (Adopted 11/c!94) lack of appropriated funds and the Dioxide. Nitrogen Oxides, and Particulate Rule 74.27-Gasoline and ROC Liquid Agency's operating under Continuing Matter ( Adopted 7/8/72)

Storuge Tank Degassing Operations Resolutions, we are uesting those Rule 62.7-Astestos-Demolition and (Adopted 11/8/94) who plan to attend a 1)artici iate in I

I Renovation (Adopted 6/16/92)

Rule 74.28-Asphalt Roofing Operations the public hearing on February 29th to Rule 63-Separation and Combination of (Adopted 5/10/94) contact Eleanor Thornton at (202) 233-Eminstons (Adopted 11/21/78)

Rule 74 30-Wood Products Coatings 9773 or Gale Ilonanno at (202) 233-9219

]

Rule 64-Sulfur Content of Fuels (Adopted (Adopted 5/17/94) so they can be advised of any necessary 6/14/94)

Rule 75-Circumvention (Adopted 11/27/78) schedule changes which might occur.

f I

2700 Federal Register /.Vol. 61, No.19 / Monday, January 29, 1996 / Proposed Rules e

DATES:The hearing will he held on Dated: knuary 21.199'i 75 Itawthorne St., San Francisco, CA Thursday, February 29,1990, from 9.00 Richard D. Wilson, 94105. For access to the docket

[

am to 5:00 pm. Tim extension for the Acting Assistant Administmtorfor Airand materials. call (415) 744-1978 for au comment period will allow comments to Radiution!

appointment. In the event of a s

be received by EPA on or before (FR Dnc. 941557 Filed 1-26-90: 8:45 am) government shutdown, also call (415)

February 22,1996.

atu m coos uso4o-p 744-1978 for information. A reasonable in addition, pursuant to Section fee will be charged for copies.

307(d)(5), the public mdy submit FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

40 CFR Part 131 rebuttal and supplemental information Gary Wolinsky, Permits and Compliance for thirty (30) days after the public (WH4RL-6408-3]

qanch, W-5, Water Management hearing. This comment period will end Division, EPA, Region 9, 75 llawthorne on March 29,1996.

Water Quality Standards for Surface St., San Francisco, CA 94105, telephone:

Watersin Arizona 415-744-1978.

A DRESSER S S ' f +

• tab plam AGENCY: Environmental Protection SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

et the Marriott liotel,1999 Jefferson

+,

Davis liighway,in Arlington, Virginia Agency (EPA).

A. Background (accessed from the Crystal City Metro ACTION: Proposed rule and request for Under section 303 (33 U.S.C.1313) of stop). Comments should be submitted mmumnts.

the Clean Water Act (CWA), states are (in duplicate if possible) to: Central

SUMMARY

EPAis oposing water required t devel p water quality Dockot Section, Environmental quality standards iat would be standards for waters of the United States Protection Agency, Attn: Air Docket No. applicable to waters of the United States t.ruh, des that a water quality in the State. Section 303(c)

A-92-50, Washington, DC 20460.

In the State of Arizona. The proposed Provi Docket A-92-5C contains the standards address those six aspects of shall include a designated use or uses to be made of the water and critena rulemaking record. The docket is Arizona's water quality standards that available for public inspection hetween EPA, Region 9 disapproved in 1993 and micessary to protect the uses. States are the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m.,

1994. EPA is taking this action at this required to review their water quality Monday through Friday,in room M1500 t!me pursuant to a court order to standards et least once overy three years of Waterside Mall,401 M Street SW.,

propose such standards by January 31,

[d

"[P' P$"g","33g 1se rad Pt new 33 tatg,

Washington, DC,20460. A reasonable 1990. The proposed standards would

. feo may be charged for copying. The fax establish standards for waters that are required to submit the results of their number is (202) 260-4400.

exempt from State-adopted standards triennial review of their water quality standards to EPA, EPA is to approve or fi nate f*sh FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

u a

for disapprove any new or revised Eleenor Thornton, Center for Federal certain waters,and ma e certain standards. Id.

Guidance and Air Standards, Radiation provisions in the State's standards States may include in their standards Protection Division, Office of Radiation related to " practical quantitation limits" policies generally affecting the and Indoor Air (6602J), Environmental inapplicable for Clean Water Act standards applicatmn and 4

Protection Agency, Washington, DC purposes. In addition, this notice "y9""g.

re low 20460,(202)233-9773.

proposes requirements related t n f cortam narrative and approval. 40 CFR 131.6(f),40 CFR SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This implementat 131,13.

meeting is open to any member of the criteria in the Stato a standards, and

~

Section 303(c)(4)(33 U.S.C.

public. As noted in the notico reopening s Uchs cgmment on the policies that 1313(c)(4)) of the CWA authorizes EPA F

9,i the enmmnnt period (60 FR 50161, No.

to promulgate water quality standards 3

9se i ri a reinte 188, September 28,1995), requests to to nutrients, chronic toxicity, and the that supersede disapproved State water participate in the public hearing should be made in writing to the Director.

effects of mercury on wildlife.

t$uauty s{andards, or in any case where ie Admmistrator determines that a new DATES: EPA will hold a public hearm.g or revised water quality standard is bawrence G. Weinstock, Radiation Protection Division, Office of Radiation n its pmposed actions on February 29 needed to meet the CWA's end Indoor Air (66021), Environmental m6,in I,hmmix, AZ. ET A will consider requirements.

Protection Agency,401 M Street SW.,

written comments on the proposed in September 1993, EPA, Region 9, actions received by February 28,1996, disapproved portions of Arizona's Washington, DC 20460, by February 15' or March 8,1996.

standards pursuant to section 303(c) of 1996, Requests may also be faxed to ADDRESSES: Comments should be the CWA and 40 CFR 131.21. The EPA at (202) 233-9629 or 233-9626.

Requests to panicipato in the public addressed to Catherine Kuhlman, Chief, portions of Arizona's standards hering should also inchide an outline Pennits and Compliance Branch W-5, disapproved in September 1993 relate of the topics to be addressed, th" Water Management Division, EPA, to: The exclusion of mining-related Region 9,75 llawthorne St., San impoundments from water quality emount of time requested, and the Francisco, CA 94105. The public standards; the absence of" fish remes of the participants. EPA may also hearing will be held February 29,1996, consumption" as a designated use for rllow testimony to be given at the from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. at the Arizona certain water bodies; the absence of hearing without prior notice, subject to Department of EnvironmentalQuality implementation procedures for the time restraints and at the discretion of (ADEQ) Public Meeting Room, South State's narrative nutrient standard; the the hearing officer 'ltree (3) copies of Mall, ADEQ,3033 North Central Ave.,

absence of biomonitoring testimony should be submitted at the Phoenix, AZ 85012. This action %

implementation procedums for the time of appearance at the hearings.

administrative record is available for State's narrative toxicity criterion; and review and copying at Water the inclusion of " practical quantitstion Management Division, EPA, Region 9.

limits"in Arizona's standards. In April

~

AV5/-A1*

9DL Y

00CKETE

DENCORP USNRC P.O. Box 399 AiERC3Je i 95 Oct 26 A10:14 Tel: 423-753-1200 Fax: 423-753-8645 0FFICE OF SECRETARY 00CKETmG 1 SrT/'CE 8CANCH December 21,1995 DOCKET NUMBER DD PROPOSED RULEJu ao (boFR_ bS9M) 0 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 ATTN: Docketing and Services Branch

Subject:

Proposed Rule," Constraint Level for Air Emissions of Radionuclides" 1

The following comments are provided concerning the subject proposed rule:

1.

520.1101(d) reads in part, "... [ licensees] shall constrain air emissions of radioactive materials other than radon-222 so that the individual member of the public likely to receive the highest dose will not be expected to receive a dose in excess of 10 mrem /yr TEDE from.these emissions."

".these" should read "the licensee's air" to clarify that the licensee need account only for his own air emissions in determining the dose to an individual member of the public and not other licensees who may be contributing to that dose. This language is consistent with the rationale given in the supplementary information, "... to constrain dose to members of the public from air emissions of radioactive materials from a single source to 10 mrem /yr.

2.

620.2203(a)(2)(vi) reads,"the ALARA constraints for air emissions established under 520.1101(c); or" 620.2203(a)(2)(vi) should read, "... established under $20.1101(d).

-kMdS96F=+.

li -t.-

3.

Appendir E to 40CFR61 provides methods for determining compliance with the standard the proposed rule is to replace, including " Screening Techniques for Determining Compliance with Environmental Standards," from NCRP Commentary.

No. 3 and EPA's COMPLY computer code. Does NRC intend to accept any or all-F of these procedures to demonstrate compliance with the dose. constraint?

Sincerely,

- Arthur E. Exten Senior Environmental Analyst I

e I

i l

l

. l 3 l

& ~' '

((h Sweetwater Uraneum Facmty a o Kennecott Uranium Company o umw cum DOCKETED e o w..,sw 999pg Run Wyorneg B2301 007; 3781478 Far 007)324 4925 ONOOOOff 5 January 1996

{ygfgIg/'

0FFiCE C

C"L%n DOCKET 9.':4

? V CE Nu.' car Regulatory Commission BWh Attn: Docketing and Services Branch Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 DOCKETNUMBERgg m PROPOSED RIF.El GDFRGSFl4h g)

Gentlemen:

Subject:

Comments on the Proposed Rule: Constraint Level for Air Emissions of Radionuclides Kennecott Uranium Company is the operator and manager of the Sweetwater Uranium Project, a uranium recovery facility licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission under Source Material License SUA-1350. The Sweetwater Uranium Project is located in the center of the Great Divide Basin in Sweetwater County, Wyoming This facility is regulated under Subpart I. The following are Kennecott Uranium Company's comments on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's )

proposed Constraint Level for Air Emissions of Radionuclides (Federal Register Volume 60, Number 239, Wednesday, December 13,1995, pages 63984 - 63987):

1. General Kennecott Uranium Company supports the recision of 40 CFR Part 61 Subpart I provided that radon and its decay products are excluded from the calculated efTective dose equivalent used to determine compliance under the proposed ten (10) millirem (mrem) total efTective dose equivalent (TEDE) As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) dose " constraint level" 40 CFR Part 61 Subpart I states (40 CFR 61.101(b)):

"...The unit of effective dose equivalent is the rem. For purposes of this subpart doses caused by radon-222 and its decay products formed after the radon is released from the facility are not included...."

i Kennecott Uranium Company strongly believes that the exclusion for doses due to radon and its decay products, already a part of 40 CFR Part 61 Subpart I, should be carried over into any newly developed constraint level when Subpart I is rescinded and regulatory responsibility is passed on to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The present language of the NRC's proposed constraint level fails to carry over the intent of Subpart 1. The proposed constraint level as published by the NRC states

" shall constrain air emissions of radioactive materials other than radon-222 so that the individual member of the public likely to receive the highest dese will x,. con u. mom C-.ny. ua,e et in. c, n uooni.n u,,,, vm.

nervoron Erwgy Company prowns mesews e o cerer services on twnait of Coroere Wvrg Company.

kC'

%rwetope Com Company Sonng Creek Coal Company atos kennecott &a A

e-

gy l

~4:_

~M L

r 4 -

i

' Nuclear' Regulatory C'ommission

' Page 2.

l

5 January,1996

1

. net be expected to receive a dose in excess of to mrem /yr TEDE from thesc l

emissions."

This language excludes only radon 222 from the dose, not radon-222 and its decay products?

formed after the radon-222 is released Gom the facility, as does the language in 40 CFR Part

'61 Subpan I. Kennecott Uranium Company requests that the language in the NRC's constraint level be cha' ged to explicitly st' ate "...raden-222 and its decay products formed

~

n

~ fter the radon is released from the facility..." in place of merely "...raden-222...".

l l

a J

f' Since the NRC's proposed constraint level applies only to emissions from NRC licensed'

facilities and operations, emissions from unlicensed adjoining operations or unlicensed 4

portions of operations which include an NRC licensed restricted area should be categorically excluded. Emissions from adjoining unlicensed operations can be excluded through the method used to calculate emissions from adjoining NRC licensed operations. This issue it of l

special concern to uranium recovery licensees whose facilities and restricted areas may adjoin uranium mines with attendant uranium ore stockpiles. Uranium mines and unrefined and e

unprocessed ore are exempt from NRC regulation and licensing under 10 CFR 40.13(b) which

~

states:

(b) Any person is exempt from the regulations in this part and from the require-ments for a license set forth in section 62 of the act to the extent that such person

[

receives, possesses, uses, or transfers unrefined and unprocessed ore, containing source material; provided that, except as authorized in a specific license, such n

person shall not refine or process such ore.

Uranium ore piles associated with a uranium mine are exempt from NRC licensing, but still y

g

. could be a source of airborne radionuclides which, depending upon the relative locations of the exempt mine and the NRC licensed facilities and prevailing wind direction could become included in measurements of airborne radionuclides taken for the purposes of assessing the dose from the facility. Kennecott Uranium Company requests that the agency recognize this fact so that only emissions from the NRC licensed facilities or the NRC licensed portions of

. facilities are used to' determine dose to the member of the public likely to receive the highest dose from that facility.

j tL %p'

2. - Rationale for the Continued Exclusion of Radon Decay Products j

Concentrations of radon decay products in ambient air are notoriously variable temporally and l

laterally.' A substantial portion of the background total effective dose equivalent (TEDE) j idose and most of the internal background TEDE dose is from ~ radon decay products. In fact, i

lat 100% equilibrium between radon-222 and its decay products, ~ 1% of the total dose is from j

i 1

c I

t

,-.n.-

a s*

c. ;

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 3.

5 January 1996 radorp222 alone, while 99% of the total dose is from the radon daughters.'(Notes to Radon Daughter Dose - Effective Dose Equivalent (EDD4DE) Table provided by NRC).

40 CFR Part 61 Subpart I establishes an emission standard of 10 mrem TEDE to any member of the general public at the site boundary, excluding any dose from radon and its decay products formed after the radon is released. It would be extremely difficult to accurately measure any dose from radon decay products which would be within the 10 mrem standard, thus radon decay products should continue to be excluded from any new constraint limit.

The resson that it is extremely difficult to measure a very low dose (under 10 mrem TEDE) frort radon decay products is because of the large natural variation in background cc.icentrations of radon progeny both laterally and temporally. _ Small (under 10 mrem) doses af radon decay products become lost in the background " noise" At the Sweetwater Uranium Project, which is located in Sweetwater County, in the center of the Great Divide Basin in Wyoming background radon concentrations vary widely. The following chart shows the range of background radon-222 concentrations and associated total effective dose equivalents from the decay products assuming a measured equilibrium factor of 0.28 for the radon decay products:

Background

Measured Concentration Dose (pCi/L)

(Rems-TEDE)

High:

6.57 0.81 Low:

2.4 0.29 The natural variability of dose and TEDE for this area is 279% or 520 mrems. It is easy to see how a 10 mrem dose due to radon decay products could become lost within this natural variability since the regulatory dose limit is 1.9% of the natural variation.

In addition, requiring licensees to measure radon daughters derived from radon emitted from their facilities would increase environmental monitoring costs and complexities for the licensees without commensurate benefits.

3. Flexibility in Determination of Compliance The individual licensees should be allowed latitude in the methodology used to determine compliance with the new constraint level. This latitude should be allowed for the following reasons:

3.1 Differing Radionuclide Emissions Different licensees will emit different types and combinations of radionuclides in

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 4.

5 January i996 different forms. Iodine-131 emitted from a hospital, for example, will be emitted as a gas while radium-226, thorium-230 and natural uranium potentially blown out of a uranium mill tailings impoundment will probably exist as radiornclides attached to sand and dust sized particles. Natural uranium emissions from a uranium mill dryer will exist as discrete particles of y Jlowcake. Given the broad range of types of emissions, licensees should be allowed Ihtitude in selecting an appropriate method of determining compliance. The only requirements on the method selected should be that it is suited to the type of emission and scientificallyjustifiable.

3.2 Variability in Natural Background The dose limit in 40 CFR Part 61 Subpart I and the level in the NRC's proposed constraint level is 10 mrem Total Effective Dose Equivalent (TEDE). This level is low. Naturally occurring background levels of radionuclides can be high near some sites and also be highly variable from year to year depending en the strength of the prevailing winds and the prevailing wind direction for the given year. The methods used in determining, compliance with the NRC's proposed constraint level must be able to account for natural variability in background.

4. Exclusion of Dose from Non-Licensed Sources Kennecott Uranium Company requests that licensees exclude radionuclides from sources other than the NRC licensed facility, operation and/or restricted area. This problem is discussed in section 1. In the case of a uranium mill in proximity to an operating uranium mine, determination of compliance could be diflicult if windblown material from a uranium mine stockpile, which is exempt from NRC licensure, is measured along with the emissions from the NRC licensed mill due to the relative locations of the mill and mine and the prevailing wind directions.

5. Conclusions Regarding the proposed recision of 40 CFR Part 61 Subpart I, Kennecott Uranium Company believes:

5.1 The cubpart should be rescinded and replaced with an NRC constraint limit, provided that the constraint limit continues to exclude the total efTective dose from radon and 1

its progeny as does the subpart 5.2 The total effective dose from radon and its progeny should continue to be excluded because:

5.2.1 Small doses from radon and its progeny are hard to measure.

3

..4

\\.

• Nuclear Regulatory Commission' Page5.

-l

' 5 January 1996 '

i 5.2.2 Small doses from radon and its progeny become lost in the natural variation of background.

q 5.3 Kennecott Uranium Company believes that emissions from non-licensed neighboring

~

sources should be categorically excluded from inclusion of the dose estimate. In order to acconr;;ish this the licensee's method of computing dose from the NRC licensed portion of his operation should exclude doses from non-licensed sources. This problem could be experienced by a uranium recovery licensee in close proximity to an :

exempt uranium mining operation with a uranium ore stockpile. Depending on the relationship of the licensed uranium recovery operation and the exempt uranium mine stockpile and the prevailing wind direction particulant radionuclides from the uranium ore stockpile could be included in measurements of emissions from the licensed 1

' facility, j

Kennecott Uranium Company appreciates the opportunity to comment on this matter. Ifyou have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely yours,

[

l

)

Q scar Pa son Facility Supervisor 2011DEC cc: M. H. Gibson Pat Lorello Bob Green.

George Worman Dave Crouch Kenneth J. Webber lD. P. (Mike) Svilar

- Katie Sweeney Anthony J. Thompson r

j g). W pae W Y O M I N G M I N Y N Gygp O C I A T I O N PHONE 635-0331 AREA CODE 307

% JAN 16 P4 :02 10 January 1996 HITCHING POST INN Nuclear Regulatory Commission DFFICr ' c m; ; y P. O. Box 866 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 00j": i -

Cheyenne, Wyoming 82003 Attn: Docketing and Services Branch DOCKET NUMBER nD PROPOSED RULE rn an G DFe_(.eass) @

Gentlemen:

Subject:

Comments on the Proposed Rule:

Constraint Level for Air Emissions of Radionuclides The Wyoming Mining Association (WMA) is an industry association of mining companies and associates (suppliers, contractors, service companies, etc.) in the State of Wyoming.

The WMA's membership includes a number of uranium recovery licensees licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and also subject to 40 CFR Part 61 Subpart I.

The Wyoming Mining Association reviewed a copy of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's )

proposed Constraint Level for Air Emissions of Radionuclides (Federal Register Volume 60, Number 239, Wednesday, December 13, 1995, pages 63984 - 63987) and has the following comments:

General

1. The WMA supports the recision of 40 CFR Part 61 Subpart I provided that radon and its decay products are excluded from the calculated effective dose equivalent used to determine Total compliance under the proposed ten (10) millirem (mrem)

Effective Dose Equivalent (TEDE) As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) dose " constraint level".

40 CFR Part 61 Subpart I states (40 CFR 61.101(b)):

"...The unit of effective dose equivalent is the ren.

For purposes of this subpart doses caused by radon-222 and its decay products formed after the radon is released from the facility are not included...."

The WMA strongly believes that the exclusion for doses due to radon and its decay products, already a part of 40 CFR Part 61 Subpart I, should be carried over into any newly developed constraint level when Subpart I is rescinded and regulatory responsibility is passed on to the NRC.

The present language of the URC's proposed constraint level fails to carry over the intent of Subpart I.

The proposed constraint level as published by the NRC states:

"...shall constrain air emissions of radioactive materials other than radon-222 so that the individual member of the h&f7&OOO%

3.,

,- e i

Docketing and Services Branch

)

Nuclear. Regulatory Commission Page 2 q

public.likely to receive the highest dose will not be expected to receive a dose in excess of 10 aren/yr TEDE from 2

these emissions."

The WMA requests that the language in the NRC's constraint level be consistent with the language currently in 40 CFR Part 61 Subpart I.

Since the NRC's proposed cc..straint level applies only to emissions from NRC licensed ' facilities and operations, emissions from unlicensed adjoining operations or unlicensed portions of operations which include an NRC licensed restricted area should be categorically excluded.

Emissions l

from adjoining unlicensed operations can be excluded through the method used to calculate emissions from adjoining NRC licensed operations.

This issue is of special concern to uranium recovery licensees whose facilities and restricted ara.as may adjoin uranium mines with attendant uranium ore i

stockpiles.

Uranium mines and unrefined and unprocessed ore are exempt from NRC regulation and licensing under 10 CFR 40.13(b) which states:

(b) Any person is' exempt from the regulations in this part and from the requirements for a license set forth in section 62 of the act to the extent that such person receives, possesses, uses, or transfers unrefined and unprocessed ore, containing source material; provided that, except as authorised in a specific license, such person shall not l

refine or process such ore.

Uranium ore piles associated with a uranium mine are exempt from NRC licensing, but still could be a source of airborne radionuclides which, depending upon the relative locations of the exempt mine and the NRC licensed mill and prevailing wind l"

direction, could become included in measurements of airborne radionuclides taken for the purposes of assessing the dose i

from the mill.

The WMA requests that the agency recognize this fact and grant the licensees flexibility in the methodology used to determino dose, so that only emissions from the NRC licensed facilities or the NRC licensed portions e

of facilities are used to determine dose to the member of the public likely to receive the highest dose from that facility.

2.

Flexibility in Determination of Compliance The individual licensees should be allowed flexibility in the methodology used to determine compliance with the new l

constraint level.

This flexibility should be allowed for L

the following reasons:

t E

+

-r e-

-n

.-.c.-

_~.

~

i 2

l Docketing and' Services Branch

,ege 2 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2.1.1 Differing Radionuclide Emissions

~

Different licensees will emit different types and 1

combinations of radionuclides'in different forms.

-Radium-226, thorium-230 and natural uranium'potentially j

4 blown out of a uranium mill tailings impoundment will l

-probably exist as radionuclides attached to sand and dust sized particles.

Natural uranium emissions from a uranium mill dryer will exist as descrete particles of i

yellowcake.

Given the broad range of types of emissions, licensees should be allowed flexibility in selecting an appropriate method of determinng i

compliance.

The only requirements on the method selected should be that it is suited to the type of i

emission and scientifically justifiable.

l I

2.1.2 Variability in Natural Background l

The dose limit in 40 CFR Part 61 Subpart I and the level in the NRC's proposed constraint level is 10 mrem Total Effective Dose Equivalent (TEDE).

This level is very low.

Naturally occurring background levels of

)

radionuclides can be higher than 10 mrem near some 4

sites and also be highly variable from year to year depending on the strength of the prevailing winds and the prevailing wind direction for the given year.

t 3.

Exclusion of Dose from Non-Licensed Sources The WMA requests that sufficient flexibility be allowed licensees in determining compliance with the NRC's proposed constraint level so that the licensee can exclude radionuclides from sources other than the NRC licensed facility, operation and/or restricted area.

This problem is discussed in section 1.

In the case of a uranium mill in proximity to an operating uranium mine, determination of compliance could be difficult if windblown material from a uranium mine stockpile, which is exempt from NRC licensure, is measured along with the emissions from the NRC licensed mill due to the' relative locations of the mill and mine and the prevailing wind directions.

4.

Conclusions Regarding the proposed recision of 40 CFR Part 61 Subpart I, the WMA believes:

4.1 The subpart should be rescinded and replaced with an NRC constraint limit, provided that the constraint limit continues tx) exclude the total effective dose i

from radon and its. progeny as does the subpart.

y

e'

• s Docketing a?.d Services Branch Nuclear Regulatory Commission page 4 4.2 The total effective dose from radon and its progeny should continue to be excluded because:

4.2.1 Small doses from radon and its progeny are hard to measure.

4.2.2 Small doses from radon and its progeny become lost in the natural variation of background.

The Wyoming Mining Association believes that emissions 4.3 from non-licensed neighboring sources should be categorically excluded from inclusion of the dose estimate.

In order to accomplish this the licensee should be given flexibility in the method of computing dose from the NRC licensed portion of his operation so that doses from non-licensed sources are not included.

This problem could be experienced by a uranium recovery licensee in close proximity to an exempt uranium mining operation with a uranium ore stockpile.

Depending on the relationship of the licensed uranium recovery operation and the exempt uranium mine stockpile and the prevailing wind direction particulant radionuclides from the uranium ore stockpile could be included in measurements of emissions from the licensed facility.

The WMA appreciates the opportunity to comment on this matter.

If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely yours, O

^

$WW Marion Loomis Executive Director 27e.DEC Katie Sweeney, National Mining Association cc:

Anthony J. Thompson, Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge

,qy.51 - W-(

DOCKET NUMBERen yA PROPOSED RULE rR e 4

GOFe MT*+)

DOCKETED John Stephens <stephens@lamar.colostate.edu>g USNRC From:

- To:

1WD2.TWP9(ctr)

Date:

1/16/96 7:42pm

"% JAN 17 A9:19

Subject:

constraint levels OFFICE OF SECRETARY 00CKE ty.G & gRV CE Mr. Charlene'Raddatz, On the Health Physics BB (radsafe), there has been many enticisms of changir[hNb!

based limit for regulatory concem to 1015 mrom/yr from the generally accepted 100 mrem /yr.'

Below are some of the main points:

1. The exposure rate corresponds to 1 microR/hr, can not measure this accurately.

J'

2. The cost does not out weigh the benefit, since populations living in regions with several times higher exposure have no signifcant adverse health effects.

i John Stepnens t

f l

h M

l 4

l 1

l i

~

a u

(W 31

.2 *U g

STATE OF MICHIGAN yQ 8

00CKETED-USHRC 445,r JOHN ENGLER, Governor

'91$ jfW 22 p } :j g DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH 3423 N. MARTIN L. KING JR. BLVD.

OFFIC; m;,

P.O. BOX 30195. LANSING. MICHIGAN 48909 DOCKEi4 s.'

James K. IIaveman. Jr., Acting Director DOCKET NUMSER g PROPOSED RULE il40

&oFfe (cS%4)

January 12,1996 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Docketing and Services Branch Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 This is to respond to a Federal Register notice (Vol. 60, No. 239, December 13,1995) on a proposed rule by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for a constraint level for air emissions of radionuclides.

Based upon the review of my stalT, this department has no objection to the NRC's proposed rule, as described, and is supportive of the overall goal ofimplementing appropriate regulatory changes to effect the elimination of unnecessary dual regulation, llowever, we feel that NRC should be aware of this department's concerns related to the recent associated proposal by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to rescind 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart I, as it pertains to NRC licensed facilities. The enclosed letter from me to EPA, dated i

January 11,1996, describes our concems.

Should you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact my staffin the Division of Radiological Health, Bureau of Environmental and Occupational Health, at (517) 335-8200.

f Cordially, '

l v) n

~

ve Jgmes K. IIWeman, Jr.

Enclosure i

03 g/g 21 og g

==-

285 5*

STATE OF MICHIGAN

• I y

)

JOHN ENGLER. Govemor DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH 3423 N. MARTIN L KING JR. BLVD.

P.O. Box 30195, LANSING. MICHIGAN 48909 6

James K. Itaveman, Jr Acting Director January 11,1996 Central Docket Section LE-131 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Attention: Air Docket No. A-92-50 Washington, D.C. 20460 This letter is in response to a Federal Register notice (FR Vol. 60, No.188, September 28,1995) on the reopening of the comment period on a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposal to rescind 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart I, as it applies to facilities, other than commercial nuclear power reactors, licensed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) or NRC Agreement States.

Based upon a review by my staff, the following general commer,ts are submitted:

1. This department supports the overall goal of eliminating unnecessary or duplicative federal regulation of air emissions involving radionuclides. However, we note that EPA's current proposal is unclear on its impact on facilities whose air emissions may include naturally-occurring and accelerator-produced radioactive materials (NARM). For those facilities, the recision action by EPA may eliminate potentially necessary controls for NARM emissions that are not considered duplicative and that go beyond the regulatory authority of NRC. In our reading of 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart I, and the associated provisions of the Clean Air Act, as amended, it seems that all radionuclides, including NARM, am covered for those NRC licensed facilities subject to EPA's regulation. In contrast, the regulatory authority of NRC and the applicability of NRC regulations do not extend to NARM. In panicular, NRC regulations in 10 CFR Part 20 cannot be assumed to apply to NARM air emissions by NRC licensees Similarly, NRC cannot be expected to enforce 10 CFR Part 20 requirements as they relate to NARM. Only in NRC Agreement States couim the regulatory authority and sufficiency be considered adequately extended to cover NARM emissions.

- Therefore, EPA's proposed recision of 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart I, would not necessarily assure EPA that the public dose limit of 10 millirem per year from air emissions from NRC licensed facilities in non-NRC Agreement States would be met if the air emissions included NARM, for which no controls are available on the basis of NRC regulatory authority. As an example of the potential significance of the NARM issue, our records indicate that over 40% of all NRC licensed facilities in Michigan (a non-NRC Agreement State) are also authorized to possess NARM.

~o6 Z 2$ bl94 x~3

• L U.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 11,1996 Page 2

2. If, in consideration of comment #1, above, EPA chose to retain the applicability of 40 CFR

.Subpart I, to those NRC licensed facilities whose air emissions include NARM, it is n to us what enforcement mechanism EPA would use to assure compliance. The enforcement mechanism is especially uncertain in non-NRC Agreement states, like Michigan, where the regulatory ' authority and resources at the state agency level may be severely limi fragmented.

i ii I recommend that EPA clarify the impact ofits proposal as it relates to the control of a r em ss ons involving NARM from NRC licensed facilities and clarify the associated enforcement impa various state radiation control programs.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on this issue.

n C6hditily,

(

C-James K. Havem m, Jr.

I

/

cc: U.S. NRC /

ppfj-2 f

^

DOCKET NUMBER DG 7 D2-PROPOSED RULEIp a'o M q ED WPJo2RSM January 24 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission h

~

'C attn. Docketing and Service Branch Washington, DC 2U555 - 0001

% JAN 29 P3 :35 RE:

Tne E.P. A. 's proposed dose limit of 10 mrem /yr.

.. ~' 1 j

OFFICE N "

is a mistake to extrapolate empirical eqtgggKqrtsNbrdersTCt It ItR is t an of magnitude from tneir data sets; as from rema to mrema.

error to assume tnat the or16 n ( zero, zero) is a datum point. Second 1

order phenomena tend to invalidate the predictions of lar60 extrapolations. The second order effect whicn the fear-mon 6ers ignore is the bodily process of repair of the fatigue-like effects of radiation. Prompt deaths from radiation require a short-time exposure I

of over 200,000 mrem. Clearly, bodily repair is capable of nand11n6 the damage caused by such large doses. Apparently, bodily repair is extremely efficient at low doses. External natural radiation produces a dose of over 125 mrem per year in high altitude areas but less than 90 mrem at sea level. Cancer mortality rates are nalf as nisn in nigh altitude areas as they are near sea level. Tnus, the empli'ical equation expressing cancer mortality rates as a function of dose reaches a minimum at a dose above 125 mrem per year.

The first amendment to the Constitution pronibits tne the erroneous belie f and fear that an government from promoting /yr of radiation can cause bodily harm.

additional dose of 10 mrem This sort of dose can be received from the gaseous emissions of all en6 nes, incinerators, kilns, and furnaces burning 1

s toves, heaters, caroonaceous mate rials. Also, from X-rays, air travel, and medical radioisotopes. The courts have sustained this Constitutional prohibition in case after case involving persons who have developed cancers after being exposed to trivial doses of radiation. If any court should accept the notion that 10 mrem /yr can and always does cause bodily harm, the potential costs to America in terms of fear and damage suits are staggerin6 The E.P.A. 's proposed dose limit of 10 mrem /yr is alarmist, unreasonable, impractical, and pre judiced. Such unreason is likely to work against the E.P.A.

The current budget cutting exercises are driven by "the fact that the U.S. Bovernment has reached its " credit card limit. It can no lon$er af ford to pay the interest on the national debt. The first government economisin6 will involve cost-benefit studies. Fear-mon 6ering activities are counter-productive.

Over 400,000 people die each year from breathin6 tobacco smoke.

Since rely, K

Walston Chubb 3450 MacArthur Drive Murrysville, PA 15668 412-327-8592

-LeoVStGEUCL lp<

.)QP~3l-Y i

wfL i

,. 7 DOCXETED Rodger W. Granlund U3 W 133 Old Mill Road State College, PA 1680k FEB -1 M 06 814 865-3459 i

26 Jan %-

OM Q '

[

i 000/1 6 aE 4

6 r

DOCKET NtNBER99 PROPOSED RULE mh U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission GOPR.Q!Rth g ATTN:' Docketing and Services Branch Washington, DC 20555-0001 Re: RIN 3150-AF31

Dear Sir or Madam:

The following comments are in response to the publication of a notice of proposed rulemaking on constraint levels for air emissions of radionuclides in the Federal Register on 13 Dec 95.

i It is a positive step to eliminate the dual regulation of airborne emissions and place it under the NRC with other radioactive material regulations. The elimination of annual reports for the EPA and allowing the use of calculations and measurements other than the cumbersome ones required by the EPA is also an improvement. However, there are some basic flaws in the proposed regulation, as explained below.

l The information presented as Supplementary Information is more than adequate to show that this rulemaking and the EPA regulation that it replaces are unnecessary. The EPA study of 367 l

randomly chosen NRC licensees clearly showed that exposure of the public to airborne releases

~

was insignificant. Even the second study of 43 licensees, selected to be those most likely to have airborne effluents that would produce a significant public dose, showed that effective doses were less than 10 mrem. Instead of using this as a reason to drop further consideration of a regulation, it was used by the EPA tojustify a regulation requiring these same licensees to prove that the maximum effective dose to a member of the public did not exceed 10 mrem. This has to be a classic case of an unnecessary regulatory burden. The proposed NRC regulation, under the guise of eliminating dual regulations, merely transfers this unnecessary regulation to the

?,

.NRC. The licensee will see very little relief, because the NRC will use at least some of the same cumbersome techniques instituted by the EPA to show compliance with the regulations, according to the Draft Regulatory Guide DC-8016.

The proposed regulation essentially revokes a concept of the ALARA principle. The definition

of ALARA in 20.1003 is "AIARA means making every reasonable effort to maintain exposures to radiation as far below the dose limits in this part as is practical...". Thus, ALARA levels are not and should not be a set value, except for identical operations. In the proposed 20.1101(d) t 1

St.o O L O2-Q \\%

2-W i

p.<

4'=

.y

]

and 20.2203(b)(1)(iv) it requires that 10 mrem be adopted as an ALARA limit. This precludes an operation by a licensee where the TEDE from airborne releases might exceed 10 mrem but still be ALARA. This seems to prove the position of those who argued against adoption of the j

' ALARA regulations on the grounds that ALARA values would become limits. The NRC stated

~

that this would not happen.

1 i

The proposed regulation adds a new definition for constraint in 20.1003 " Constraint (dose constraint) means a value above which specified licensee actions are required". The proposed Regulatory Guide DG-8016 state mat "A limit is an upper permissible bmmd..." and "A j

constraint is a dose value above which specified licensee actions are required". According to the proposed regulation changes the actions to be taken by the licensee are "...promptly take appropriate corrective action to ensure against recurrence." The only difference I can see between a constraint and a limit is that a notice of violation is not issued the firr* time a 1

constraint value is exceeded. After that it is effectively a limit. Thus, in the space of a few l

years the NRC dose limit for individuals in the general public from airborne releases has gone from 500 mrem / year to 50 mrem /yr (the current limit for all but submersion exposures) to the proposed limit of 10 mrem /yr. This has been accomplished without any indication of harm to the public, even at the 500 mrem /yr level.

The NRC has sufficient authority to require licensees to reduce emissions to ALARA levels, if a licensee does not operate according to the ALARA philosophy. Issuing a notice of violation may be more difficult for an ALARA violation than for a limit, but it can be done if the deviation from ALARA is significant. Thus, I see little need for either the existing EPA i

regulation or the proposed NRC changes. As a health physicist I want to see that the public is protected from unnecessary and harmful radiation doses. However, there is no evidence that there is a problem which justifies these regulations. Each unnecessary regulation consumes a fraction of the limited resources available for radiation safety and other problems. Regulations addressing problems that do not exist, are not simply a nuisance, they squander resources that could be put to better use on problems that do pose a significant risk to the public.

In summary, I recommend that the EPA regulation of airborne radionuclides be terminated.

I Regulation of these emissions is more than adequately controlled by the existing NRC regulations and the 10 miem limit, which is disguised as a constraint, should not be adopted.

j i-j Sincerely, l

Rodger W. Granlund i

i i

?

i NO4M 2

f 2

.e

,,-e-.

RV.31 - O ~ A PDL DOCXFTED U 3 "PI' From:

Douglas A. Johnson <doug@ nucleus.tamu.edu>

To:

TWD2.TWP9(ctr)

Date:

12/15/9511:57am

'95 FEB -6 P :33

Subject:

Re: 10 mrem annuallimit 0FFicE r9 e

.-TARY Charleen 00CXEi! G i:

1.ulCE Just to get it off my chest, the 10 has no technical merit, period. NRC has ma$/brNasonable aspects, EPA is clearly irrational. I am sorry conditions exist where you and we, are forced into this. Keep a clear head and when the political climate changes be prepared to retum to being simply unreasonable.

Standard disclaimers.

DOCKET Mg Doug PROPOSED RULE rn m h

Douglas A. Johnson Senior Health Physicist / Laser Safety Officer Texas A&M University Office of Radiological Safety College Station, Texas 77843-3261 phone 409-845-1392 fcx 409-845-1348 e-mail:

doug-johnson @tamu.edu

.t 2

4

%+7=c7 0%e ys

(V P*31 cP '

PDR-oCHEM-NUCLEAR SYSTEMS,INC.

03NC " 140 Stoneridge Drive

• Columbia. South Carolina 29210 * (803) 256-0450 96 FE915 P12:45 February 9,1996 RA-0063 96 0FFla i m rp y DOCKEi

,jf;cg U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Y* Washington, DC 20555-0001 ATTN: Docketing and Services Branch DOCKETNtW8 Erne x PROPOSED RULE rn ao

Dear Sir or Madam:

@FR.(cS%4) Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc. appreciates the opportunity to comment on proposed revision to 10 CFR 20 to establish a " constraint doso" of 10 mrem /yr which cpp!!es to air emicciens. Chem-Nuclear has previously commented on the EPA proposal to rescind 40 CFR part 61, subpart 1. CNSI agrees with the EPA proposal and expects that eliminating this dual regulation will be a benefit to the regulated community, the regulatory agencies, and the public. CNSI does not agree with the NRC's proposed rule since the requirement has simply been passed from the EPA to the NRC without an attempt to eliminate the inconsistencies between the two methods of emission control, i.e. a dose limit to a member of the public versus concentration limits in the unrestricted area. In addition, it must be noted that to achieve the laudatory goal of eliminating dual regulation the EPA has caused the NRC to establish a contradictory position between occupational and public dose control. The current occupationallimits require that internal and external doses be controlled consistently, i.e. a mrem is a mrem. The new proposed ALARA rule requires that doses to the public which result from air emissions be controlled more stringently than doses from external i sources, e.g. a dose of 90 mrem /yr from external sources would be acceptable as long as the dose from air emissions doesn't exceed 10 mrem /yr. Further, the NRC has stated to justify a Finding of No Significant. -pact that "This action is not expected to have any significant environmental impact because the programs would provide equivalent protection. Actual air emissions are not expected to change"(emphasis added). Thus, this rule will cause licensees additional work and expense to demonstrate that their emissions result in less than 10 mrem /yr in addition to meeting the current requirement of 10 CFR 20.1302(b)(2)(i). In addition, the NRC is expe'nding limited resources to develop guidance for licensees on methods for demonstrating compl;ance with a rule that wil!, by the NRC's own admission, have no effect on actue! emissions, Simply passing the EPA standard to NRC does not solve the problem of inconsistent regulation. It would be more appropriate for the EPA to recognize that licensees are conscientiously minimizing air emissions and these rules are a waste of valuable resources. The NRC should not change existing requirements. Sincerely, CHEM-NUCLEAR SYSTE , INC. ) kul ( /-/ f 4Michael T. Ryan, Ph.D. CHP Vice President, Regulatory Affairs WD-CO@ kp,

g /:: g/ g2 -// o poe r[C QTiv 2 blg, A R. 00Cri TD f kD , m: c. :.: C L. j_ M N R.' March 1, 1996 ~ ggy American U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission % tM -d Ali ;i 7 College Of Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Nuclear GFiY uv e:7 %.. cam Docketing and Services Branc@0 5.to-Attn: c,r.,s.% n California RE: RIN 3150-AF31: Constraint Level for Air Emissions of Radionuclides. Fed Reg 60(239): Chapter 63984-63987, 13 Dec 95. Dorothy Duffy Pnce Executive Director and gg Los Altos. CA 94023 Draft Regulatory Guide DG-8016: Constraints for Air Effluents for Licensees other than Power [$Ill$lll$) Reactors, Dec. 95, and Regulatory Analysis for the NRC Constraint Rule on Radionuclide Air Emissions from NRC and Agreement State Licensees other than Nuclear Power Reactors.

Dear Sir / Madam:

The California Chapter of the American College of Nuclear Physicians (ACNP) are pleased to comment on the above documents. Each year, over 10 million nuclear medicine patient procedures are performed in the United States, 20% of which are performed in California. We have been deeply concerned with EPA's radionuclide NESHAPS since 1989, because of inappropriate dual regulation, poor quality science, incorrect risk estimates, flawed compliance methodology, and huge unwarranted cost. We have estimated compliance at over $100 million for the first year. We have repeatedly expressed our concerns, especially with the tightening up of resources for medicine and for academic research. We were very grateful for the Simpson Amendment of 1990, in which the EPA Administrator was obliged to make a determination of whether NRC's airborne radionuclide emissions standards for NRC and Agreement State licensees protected the public with an " ample margin of safety". EPA performed two studies to make this determination. Licensees were forced to use a user-unfriendly and scientifically flawed computet program called " COMPLY", which hugely overestimated (by orders of magnitude) radiation dose to the public. In the first study, 367 randomly selected nuclear 0 NT68]& t&- 3

March 1, 1996 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page materials licensees were expected, without compensation, to develop a data base and use the COMPLY program to ascertain public dose. The highest estimated dose was'8 mrem /yr TEDE, and 98% of the facilities caused less than 1 mrem. This is using highly conservative assumptions, and these estimates are in fact gross overestimates. The EPA limit is 10 mrem /yr TEDE, so all were very comfortably within that limit. EPA's second study involved choosing 43 licensees expected to have ~the highest emissions. None exceeded the 10 mrem standard, and 75% were under 1 mrem /yr TEDE. Again, these estimates 'were also gross overestimates of actual airborne emissions. In order to put these doses in perspective, recall that the average American receives about 300 mrem /yr TEDE from natural background, and another 63 mrem /yr TEDE from man-made sources, mainly routine medical exposures. In mountainous areas with high levels of naturally-occurring radionuclides, natural background can be 1.5-2 times the national average; in one town in Colorado it is 3 times higher. Thus, 1 mrem /yr TEDE is only about half of 1% of the difference in background radiation dose between Washington, D.C. and Denver, CO. (Colorado is tied for the third lowest cancer death rate in the United States. The District of Columbia has the hiahest cancer death rate in the nation.) In addition, we have the whole issue of airplane flight. Passengers and flight crews receive 1 mrem TEDE/1000 miles flown. This is a completely unregulated source of radiation exposure, and rightly so. However, in an abuse of logic to satisfy an antinuclear pressure group, the EPA administrator determined that NRC's standards provided an ample margin of safety only at nresent. As it was alvays possible for NRC to fail to do so in the future, EPA refused to relinquish its role. EPA insisted that NRC change its existing regulations to essentially look like EPA's. After a prolonged negotiation period that produced much more heat than light, NRC published EPA's forced rule change on 13 Dec. 95. The NRC version is far worse than EPA's even though they were meant to be similar. The nuclear medicine community cannot possibly support NRC's Proposed Rule, its draft regulatory guide, or its economic analysis. Detailed comments will follow to endeavor to make a repeat NRC effort respectable. However, we believe that even a vastly improved NRC document is only the fourth best solution to the problem.

1 March 1, 1996 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page l One excellent solution to the problem is for the EPA Adg.!nistrator to stop beina in contemot of the Simpson Amendment. She made the determination that NRC keeps us to a safe standard. She spent a great deal of our money and time accomplishing that. Good. Now the EPA Administrator should withdraw Subpart I completely, as the Simpson Amendment so instructs her. Ms. Browner is at present showing contempt for the law, contempt for President Clinton's Executive Order 12866, and contempt for science. This behavior should I not be permitted to continue. Another excellent solution would be for Conaress to understand that this reaulatory cat _fiaht is very destructive to the nation, and_therefore stop it by amendina the Clean Air Act (CAA) to remove radioactive airborne emissions from the CAA's iurisdiction. We would then revert to NRC's present, entirely adequate standards. Better vet. Conaress could ao further and end EPA's entire l radiation procram. reinstatina a Federal Radiation Council l (FRC) for standard-settina resemblina the FRC that existed until a 1970 Executive Order transferred those tasks to the l newlv-formed EPA. That would permit the establishment of excellent quality, highly respected, uniform radiation standards by the most qualified experts in the United i States. This would be an extraordinary improvement over what we have now from both EPA and NRC. j SPECIFIC COMMENTS: THE PROPOSED RULE 1. The CAA referred to uncontrolled airborne emissions beyond the boundary of the licensee's property. Limits for the public were offsite limits. Airborne emissions l within the licensee's establishment are completely and I { adequately covered by NRC's extensive requirements for I facility operation. NRC needs to change S20.1101(d) to .....so that the individual member of the public

read, likely to receive the highest offsite dose....".

2. The nuclear power plants were exempted from EPA control when found to be kept to an ample margin of safety by analyzing NRC's calculation of dose at the facility j boundary, not inside the power plant. The nuclear power l i plants did not use the COMPLY code; they chose their own method of calculation.

a i o March 1, 1996 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page The nuclear power plants have high enough airborne emissions that they can be measured. Almost all our facilities are so low they cannot be measured, but they can only be calculated. We cannot have twg different airborne emissions standards within the same j acency. NRC's airborne emission standards, and its i " constraint" rule, if we must have one, must apply to ) everyone, power plants and hospitals alike. l l 3. This rule should not be an item of compatibility at j level 2. We cannot tolerate more restrictive standards I on a state-by-state basis. Airborne radionuclides cross l state lines, and a national standard is appropriate. j Level 2 compatibility simply invites antinuclear groups l to lobby for state airborne emissions standards low l enough to close down all biomedical research and l nuclear medicine in the state. To make nuclear power plant airborne emission levels untouchable (level 1), yet hold materials licensees to a standard 5 times more restrictive than nuclear power plants and also permit antinuclear groups to influence states to make them even more restrictive than that, is absurd. NRC is surely aware that "antinukes" have attacked nuclear i medicine and medical research licensees because we are l loudly supportive of low level radioactive waste sites. l Why is NRC " setting us up"? Why NRC would be irresponsible and malevolent enough to set the stage for such mischief we do not comprehend, but we urge Chairman Jackson and the Commissioners to reconsider, i oppose staff and management if necessary, and keep the l standard at level 1. SPECIFIC COMMENTS: THE DRAFT REGULATORY GUIDE 1. The example chosen in Appendix A needs to be changed completely to that of an offsite example. In addition, the example has the wrong volatility fraction (1.0E-3, not 1) ; the average concentration is missing division by 3, and combination with the rest of the year; the mathematics of a first order rate equation is avoided erroneously; no member of the public stands at an open laboratory door for 24 straight hours; the division of 7.9E-10 by 2.0E-10 is ten times too small; the exposure dose is grossly in error and far too large. 2. NRC has omitted default levels needed so that a large number of licensees will immediately be exempt from more detailed and expensive analyses. They are in 40

O .= March 1, 1996. ,i i .U.S.fNuclearfRegulatory.Comm ss on' Page. CFR Part:61,.and belong in NRC's. rule as well. The calculations;that led to them should.be reviewed 1

and improve.d upon. These default values lare'too conservative. ACNP/SNM were repeatedly unable to get' EPA's'or"its contractor's actual calcu7mtions under FOIA..There may not be very valid calcu'ations to begin-twith..

5 The default quantities in Part 61 would be adequate if medical and research licensees could apply. realistic ~ release fractions, based on'60 years of experience, to itheir annual throughput of: radioactive materials.-For i example, we-could use 10 or less'for nonvolatile forms 4 .and 10 for volatile forms. Then,-calculations'should j d 4 only be:neededLfor new processes exceeding-these~ values. 4 3. EPA appreciated that sealed containers, not only sealed sources, do not contribute airborne emissions. Therefore sealed containers were exempt. NRC needs to l exempt sealed containers as well. Sterile, pyrogen-free j radiopharmaceuticals in sealed vials, for example, were t exempted'by EPA, as well as radionuclide generator columns. 4. EPA exempted airborne emissions from patients, just as ~ l NRC exempts patient's excreta going into sewers. NRC i .should explicitly state that here. i ? l 5. The COMPLY Code is of poor quality, and should not be recommended by NRC. Nevertheless, if used, the COMPLY Code-exempts emissions from patients, is only defined l for offsite emissions, and requires data for activity 0 possessed ~per year, not possession limits at any L particular time, as' stated erroneously by NRC in the I Ldraft regulatory guide. -l r 6.. The equationLin 2.1, p..4', is incorrect..The equation is written ~c = fQ/v,.where Q is defined as the effluent -rolease rate. The-rata is irrelevant. The equation. j would kut more : accurate as. c = fA/VT, where A = -total-i -activity released in one' year and.T=1 year. "f" should ~ -be redefined as "the fraction of activity-released when the wind-is blowing toward the receptor of interest".- 2

t. Winds change.

j r ~! ~.. a-

March 1, 1996 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page, 7. The draft Regulatory Guide permits three methods for demonstrating compliance, but omits a very simple method used by many smaller facilities described in EPA 520/1-89-002, a Guide for Determining Compliance with the Clean Air Act Standards for Radionuclide Emissions from NRC-Licensed and Non-DOE Federal Facilities, Revision 2, October, 1989. This should be added. 8. The NRC directed the costliest, most paperwork-intensive possible manner of showing compliance with emissions standards. As EPA has demonstrated that all 22,000 materials licensees are " safe" at present, why do we have to repeat this pointless exercise every year? Why not permit facilities to ignore this unless they significantly alter their activities? New activities could be studied up front and " vetted" for the whole country, such as a new I-131-labeled therapy antibody. Nuclear medicine facilities have been " safe" for 60 years, and it is foolish and expensive to pretend that we need to show how safe we are, over and over again, so that an inspector will have more paper to inspect. SPECIFIC COMMENTS: THE REGULATORY ANALYSIS 1. The Regulatory Analysis is astounding. It calculates J the cost to the regulators, but omits costs to -licensees. NRC appears to believe that licensees produce analyses like these for zero dollars. If the average licensee spends 80 hours a year on this, and this is a realistic estimate, at $120/hr (NRC's rate),22. 000 = 11,000 licensees will spend 2 $105,600,000. EPA has shown that none of this is necessarv. $100 million is real money, and it is downright careless for NRC to leave it out of its submission to OMB. 2. NRC states that 15 of its FTE's worked for 6 years with EPA on this issue. At NRC's rate of'$120/hr x 2000 hrs. x 15 FTE's, we have already paid $3.6 million in User Fees and received a completely unusable package from NRC. Although NRC estimates its costs to complete this regulation, we believe it-is not a credible number. How much would NRC have to spend to do a aood job? 4 + 1

i>

.i-*

t March.1, 1996_ U.S. Nuclear-Regulatory ~ Commission Page We recommended that~different individuals at NRC redo this regulation.'We cannot afford to pay such prices for unusable material. CONCLUSION 1. We recommend that'NRC submit a new Proposed Rule, Draft Regulatory _ Guide, and Regulatory Analysis, and that it be done promptly by individuals with education, training, and experience in airborne emissions. ACNP and other. professional societies would be happy'to-help NRC further in this effort. 2.: Ideally, Administrator Browner will review her obligations under the Simpson Amendment and do the honorable thing. Perhaps Congress could induce her to reevaluate her position. 3. Hopefully Congress will remove radionuclides from the CAA and end this misery. In a perfect world, Congress would end EPA's radiation program entirely, reinstating a Federal Radiation Council using guidance recommended by ACNP and the Society of Nuclear Medicine. Thank you for your attention and consideration. Sincerely, Carol S. Marcus, Ph.D., M.D. Director, Nuclear Med. Outpt. Clinic and Professor of Radiological Sciences, -UCLA and President, American College of Nuclear Physicians,JCalifornia Chapter waccwn.ceu

~ _.. -4 . j.- g s March 1, 1996' .U.S.' Nuclear. Commission. I iPage - 4 9 v cc:. ' Chairman Shirley Jackson Commissioner Kenneth Rodgers J Commissioner Greta Dicus Hugh' Thompson, Deputy, EDO Carol 1 Browner,. Administrator, EPA Senator Alan Simpson. ] ' Senator Bob Dole Representative Newt:Gingrich< J I Troy. Hillier, OMB i 4 i CSM:sfd' i i s l l 1 I t i + l i .i NKCWD.CW i 1 4 ) 8

;3 'lpjf yl% ... ~3; T P D/D I .DOCNGED nuctear ruetservices. Inc. i}$ ? C. P.O. Box 337. MS 123 & win, rN37650 04 - N -4 P 2 :00 21G-96-0018 . CenQled Men. GOV-01-35 Rehem Rece&t Requeded. ) gn 7 ,,,;* ' ~; 7 ' ACF-96-029 00CKEi; s 2 JiVILE N' l February 28,1996 3.. c., .U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. DOCKET NUMBER s . Washington D. C.. 20555-0001 PROPOSED RULE ao' < A'ITN: Docketing and Services Branch (lcoFE.bs9Q g e t

SUBJECT:

Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. (NIT) Conunents on the Proposed Rule: Constraint Izvel for Air Emissions of Radionuclides (60 FR 63984, l 4 dated 12/13/95) il

Dear Sirs:

Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc., (NFS) respectfully submits the following comments on the Pmposed Rule: Constraint Levelfor Air Emissions ofRadionuclides (60 FR 63984, dated l 12/13/95). NFS opposes the imposition of a new standard for air emissions of radionuclides for the following reasons: 1. Emission standards already exist in 10 CFR Part 20, Subpart D, for all NRC l licensees. The largest licensees, fuel cycle facilities, are also regulated by the even ) c more restrictive standard of 40 CFR 190, Subpart B. These standards have proven l' effective in adequately protecting the public from excessive exposure to radiation and { radioactive material. j 12.. As stated by the NRC, the proposed rule is "necessary to provide assurance to the 7 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that future emissions from NRC licensees 4

will not exceed levels that will provide an ample margin of safety." Due to the same basic reasons, the EPA promulgated the radionuclide emission standards of the Clean Air Act (40 CFR 61, Subpart 1) which causes the generation of thousands of dose i

assessments each year by NRC licensees. These dose assessments show that ~ emissions from licensees are already being controlled adequately to protect the public. 1There is a no data known to NFS indicating a public safety problem for which the . proposed regulation is needed. i. 3. The constraint level is a standard. ' Although presented as part of the ALARA

provision, the verylact of establishing a set action level which requires reporting and corrective action by the licensee in full public view is indistinguishable from a basic regulatory standard.

~ l fMO699GTQ 2ipp i

21G-96-0018 l, j' GOV-01-$$ i ACF-96-029 Page 2 ~4. For most licensees, airborne emissions dominate offsite dose; this new rule would l . effectively lower the allowable offsite dose limit by a factor of 10. A change of this magnitude should be justified by more scientific evaluation and economic impact j studies than are apparent from this rulemaking effort. l i ~ 5. The assertion that a 10 mrem /yr constraint provides an appropriate level of protection implies that higher levels do not. Since there is no difference in dose received from airborne and direct radiation exposure, one might infer from this action that exposure from direct radiation would seem to be in need of similar constraint. This is not the case. Current standards in 10 CFR 20 limit most licensees to 100 mrem /yr public dose from all sources (except sewer) combined. Thus, the proposed rule begs the i question: Is 10 mrem /yr from airborne radioactivity and 90 mrem /yr from direct radiation more acceptable than 90 mrem /yr from airborne and 10 mrem /yr from direct? The answer is no. Licensees should be permitted to demonstrate compliance j with the cumulative limit of 100 mrem /yr without regard as to whether the dose resulted from mostly airborne or mostly direct exposure. By accepting this airborne constraint level of 10 mrem /yr, one is, in effect, accepting a general ALARA constraint limit. NFS applauds the effort of the NRC to transfer the regulation of the Clean Air Act (CAA) f standard from the EPA to the NRC. However, there is little benefit if the EPA standard continues in a merely altered form. The NRC should continue to argue that adequate protection is provided by its current regulations and should back this up with data from j licensees. The EPA should use the data created under the CAA radionuclide standard, which 2 has been in effect for three calendar years, to show that the public is already adequately protected. No new rule should be promulgated unless the existing data clearly demonstrates l that the current NRC rules do not provide an adequate level of safety. In conclusion, NFS does not believe that the proposed constraint level is necessary. NFS recommends that the NRC rescind this proposal and work with the EPA to demonstrate the adequacy of the current NRC standards so that the EPA may also rescind or modify the CAA i standard to match the proven NRC standards. If you have any questions or need further information,'please contact me or Mr. John W. I Nyy at (423) 743-1784. Please reference our unique document identification number i (21G-96-0018) in any correspondence concerning this letter. Sincerely, NUC EAR FUEL SERVICES, INC. 'l ) y l Andrew M. Mlxin Vice President MN/rcy Safety and Regulatory j L

3I~W .1 I DCCG WM889 N PROPOSED RULE DOCKE M ,p. ~~s e a:- From: Mack Richard <MRICHARD@wpo.iupui.edu> TWD2.TWP9(ctr)_ .q, g,; g g _.To: Date: 3/5/9611:12am

Subject:

Comments on " Constraints for Air Effluents" ._,e' p 0F?l There is no question that dual regulation of radionuclide air emi[sNsIby the fiRC and ~ the EPA is redundant and unnecessary. However, the EPA's insistence that the NRC . adopt " constraint" levels for air emissions which will result in an effective dose of 10 ' i mrem is ridiculous for a number of reasons. b By their own admission, the EPA has stated that licensees who adhere to the NRC's current air concentration limits do not expose individuals to greater than 10 mrem. That - being the case, what can possibly'be gained by adding another " limit" for air emissions l - (I know the NRC says the constraint level isn't a limit - l'Il discuss that later)? SThe EPA is apparently taking the approach that if routine, radionuclide emissions don't result in individual effective doses in excess of 10 mrem, then the limit should be set at i 10 mrem. That is like saying that automobiles are capable of traveling at 30 mph. There are fewer accidents (risk) if all cars would drive no more than 30 mph; therefore, . let's make the national speed limit 30 mph. If an individual exceeds 30 mph, he must report it and describe how he plans to prevent exceeding that limit in the future.(perhaps modifying his automobile engine). Obviously, such an idea is preposterous but demonstrates the same logic being employed by the EPA. 4 There is absolutely no evidence that indicates EPA's arbitrarily low limit of 10 mrem p carries any discernible. risk. All risk estimates are based upon extrapolation from higher levels which the majority of experts feel is highly questionable in the mrem range. To establish such a low level based upcn questionable methodology is unreasonable. The i 100 mrem effective dose limit recommendation for the general public has been reiterated in NCRP Report No.116. It is difficult to understand the EPA's reluctance to adopt the recommendations of the '~ NCRP. The air concentration which results in an annua', individual exposure of 10 mrem is not measurable. _ While computer modeling programs (e.g. COMPLY) are available to estimate such low effective doses, there is no way to

substantiate their validity. As a result, licensees may simply modify their assumptions to assure they will meet the 10 mrem limit.~ While this may solve the problem of exceeding the constraint level, why are we going through tuch calculational gymnastics for 10 mremil-iThe NRC goes to some length to explain that the " constraint levei is not a lirr.it. Based upon my review, it appears _that the constraint level is basically a limit, "once removed."

What.is meant by that is a licensee will be allowed to exceed the constraint level one

time.

Upon submitting the required report, the licensee will then be required to meet the f

i L w

k 't constraint level or risk being cited. The NRC is certainly trying to eliminate dual regulation of radionuclide emissions. For that, they should be commended. On the other hand, the time has come to attempt to educate the EPA regarding their unreasonable 10 mrem limit. If the NRC goes forward with this constraint level, it will simply substantiate the EPA's inappropriate levels. Sometimes, one has to do what is right rather than what is easiest. The aforementioned comments are my own and do not necessarily represent the l opinion of Indiana University. L Mack L. Richard, M.S. Radiation Safety Officer I.U. Medical Center a i ) \\ i -l 1 l

T. P. (Pat) Barton, Ph.D. 10586 Mitchell's Mill Rd "I esi-w TFh"##"' FDS 00CKE(116) 285-3276 (voice orfar) Certyled Health Physicist UsN % MAR -8 P3 :23 OfflCE OF $ECRETARY 00CKETitiG & CERVICF BRANCH DOCKET NUMBER March 5,1996 gg4 E = (,foORM Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

Dear Secretary:

hogarding the proposed change to a 10 millirem constraint level for releases from NRC-licensed facilities other than nuclear power plants. There is no public health and safety reason for this change; you, your agency, every competent health physicist and I all know this. Just because everybody can probably live with it and won't complain too loudly doesn't mean it isn't a dumb idea. Inter-agency turf battles don't make for good regulation. Sincerely, e ~ Pat Barton ) \\ kUODILOID kp

ffbIOlPDL: 6 ? Environmental Health & Safety CON.EU h Researco Park Development B1dg II (n Columtra. M.ssouri 65211 o Telephone (573) 882-7018 FAX [573] 882=7940 UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI-COLUMBIA

• C4 FM 11 A! 23 Hazardous Waste Mar'agement 882-7018

'~ Industnal Hyg ene Sennees 882-7018 Radiat,on safety office e82-7221 March 8,1996 Workers' Compensation 882-7018 O f,'.,c g;* ' U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission n ATTN: Docketing and Services Branch DOCKET NUMBERg s Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 PROPOSED RULE m ao h

Dear Sir / Madam:

I am commenting in response to the proposed regulations as published in the December 13, 1995 Fedcral Register on pages 63984-63987 regarding the proposed reporting requirements under Part 20, specifically the constraint of the 10 mrem / year dose limit (TEDE) to members of the genera public. First let me state that I can find no rational or scientific reasons for the imposition of these reporting requirements in this proposed regulations other that to keep the NRC and EPA bureauc regulating something andjustifying weir existence. Lese proposed regulations do nothing to improve the health and safety ofindividual members of the public. The members of the general public are adequately protected by the constraints of 20.1301 and its 100 mrem limit. Epidemiological evidence does not support imposition of a 10 mrem limit from air emissions, the general 100 mrem limit for members of the general public, or even the 5000 mrem limit for occupationally exposed individuals. %e occupational dose limit is based on probabilities and assumptions which attempt to limit detrimental effects of working with ionizing radiation, to those levels of hazards which may be found in other " safe" occupations. The limit of 100 mrem has built into it 1.) A degree of protection which includes a conservative reduction factor for those members of the general public who choose not to be occupationally exposed to radiation and 2.) Considerations of exposures from muhiple sources of radiation. If there is valid scientific evidence to support that the 5000 mrem limit for occupational exposures or the 100 mrem limits are not adequate for purposes of radiation protection, then we s work to fmd a " safe" level of exposure. If the proposed limit of 10 mrem due to airborne radio-nuclides is due to some new evidence which is not incorporated into the current regulations of Part 20, then I would suggest that this information be disseminated to licensees' so that appropriate actions can be taken to safeguard the public's health and safety. If this reporting requirement is necessary to protect members of the general public, then I and all health physicists need to review this evidence because we as a group have missed something extremely important in our professional careers. j . Licensees' are currently required to limit exposure to members of the general public to less than 100 mrem per year. The Relative Biological Effectiveness of the nuclides to which a member of l the general public could likely be exposed to, have already been accounted for m Part 20.1201 and in Appendix B of Part 20, regardless of how the individuals are exposed, whether through extemal or intemal (ingestion or inhalation) pathways. It is currently a requirement that licensees' maintain this limit to less than 100 mrem TEDE per year. Is there now some special concem that exposure via the inhalation pathway is substantially different or more detrimental than other exposure pathways or is this another attempt by the EPA via the NRC to rachet down dose levels further so that we can all feel j better that we are " protecting the public"? If this is the case, than of course 10 mrem is "better" than 100 mrem. If however, that this is just another way for the EPA, now through the NRC, to an equa%portun% estitute %crsitus y

p r Nuclear Regulatory Commission '2 3 promulgate regulations which ensure the survival of the agencies, then I suggest that they are doing theirjobs extremely well! The Simpson Amendment to the CAA clearly states that regulations need not be promulgated if existing regulations provide an adequate margin of safety to the public. I suggest that NRC come up with some reasonable data to support limiting air emissions to 10 mrem per year, ifin fact the 100 mrem limit is insufTicient to protect public health and safety. It should make no difference whether or not the exposures occur via i'nhalation, ingestian, or externally, if we are to believe the limits i as set forth in Pan 20. As stated in NRC's own commentary conceming these proposed regulations, studies show that the vast majority oflicensees' are well under the proposed 10 mrem per year limit. I would suggest that if there is a problem with licensees' exceeding a dose limit that this should be addressed during routine licensee inspections when the NRC inspectors are reviewing records for compliance with occupational doses and limits of doses to members of the public. It should be noted i that most occupationally exnosed personnel receive far less than their allowable radiation dose limit. It glso follows that_ persons not occupationally exposed to ionizintt radiation receive far less than their allowable limiA The vast majority oflicensees' whose ALARA programs work well enough to keep their emissions below the 10 mrem limit should be evidence enough that new regulations are not l needed to solve a non problem. If by the EPA's own admission, according to their own data, there does not appear to be a problem with 98% of the licensee's surveyed exceeding even I mrem per year, j what is the purpose of requiring licensees' to report this or greater than one mrem per year information to the NRC7 i t In the past I have worked with the " Comply" code developed for the purpose of assessing air emission dose contributions. I found that this code can be a useful tool for a licensee to as particular contribution of ali emissions to the total dose to which they may expose members of the general public through their operations. In this sense it fits well into a licensee's ALARA program. However, it has not been demonstrated that compliance at the 10 mrem level improves the general public's health. One must also remember that even by the EPA's own estimates, the " Comply" code provides information which is based on conservative assumptions, thus if anything, overestimating th doses it calculates. In fact by limiting doses to members of the public, no matter how small, you may actually be allowing negative health effects to these persons, based on some data which suggests a j beneficial or protective efTect below 10 rem. Perhaps you should read the Health Physics Society's latest position paper (March 1996, IIealth Physics Newsletter)," Radiation Risk in Perspective" concerning low doses of radiation. It also concems me that these regulations were stayed by the EPA soon after they were originally promulgated. I assume they were stayed due to some concern that they were not necessary or were duplicative with NRC's own regulations. When they miraculously reappeared in 1993(?) none of the people that I contacted within the EPA, NRC, or various state agencies, could explain why the stay was lifted. Is this perhaps a pet project of someone at one of the agencies who refuses to let it die . in the face of opposition? Perhaps someone at NRC or EPA could tell me! In conclusion, I am firmly opposed to any requirement that licensees

• demonstrate compliance with the 10 mrem limit for air emissions until EPA /NRC can provide valid data which suggests how 4

this will benefit society and the general public as a whole. If there is scientific evidence which suggests I s u.

7 1 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 3

that the current regulations are not sumcient to protect public health and safety, then I suggest that the NRC inform the public and members of the radiation protection community so that appropriate actions can be taken. The use of pseudo science and bowing to political pressure does no om in society any service in the long run! I would however, support the'use of computer codes such as " Comply" to help in assessing any doses to which an individual of the general public might be exposed to as part of a facility's ALARA program, however it should not be mandatory, especially considering the fact the.

licensee is already charged with maintaining doses less than 100 mrem per year and ALARA. These opinions are my own and are shared by some of my colleagues. However, they do not represent the omcial position of the University of Missouri-Columbia. Sincerely,

Ronald J. Dobey, Jr., CHP Deputy Radiation Safety Omcer 1

't 1 f 5 i 1 I d 4 I l

e ' d gr3t && ,CovlNGTON & BURLING g 1201 PENN SY LV AN I A AVEN@Q@W.T f g P.O. BOX 7566 lj$fQ[] WASHINGTON, D.C. 20044-7566 C"'" (202) 662-6000 cuazoN racrt ggj y.q ND * / LONDON WlY BA. Ytterax. iscri cor.easi

• '""~#**^**"

RICHARD A. MESERVE ' " < ' " ~ " ' * *

• c^='t ': 4FflC!.1.

ii.' W iA H Y o,a,c,o,,L w.. a 00CHE.!rG e ^""'" N

u. m.c o~x ~1 o m cc

,,o,,.... 20. 3 9.. +, . c uc oc.,ar. eausscco so4o erLoium TELEPHONE 32 2 SL2 969. TELEF A x 32 4 902-t538 March II,1996 DOCKET NUMBER DD PROPOSED RULEJ u m doDFR.(oS%h By Federal Express Docketing and Services Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852 Re: Constraint Level for Air Emissions of Radionuclides (10 CFR Part 20), 60 Fed. Reg. 63.984 (Dec.13.1995)

Dear Sir:

I enclose two sets of comments submitted by Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation in connection with the above-captioned proposed rule. I would appreciate it if you would include these comments in the rulemaking docket. Please contact me if you have any questions. V truly yourp, !. t/k Richard A. Meserve Enclosures %@Mi% 2h PP 1

[: 1 I - BEFORE THE UNITED STATES ~ ~ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ) Constraint Level for Air ) Emissions of Radionuclides ) ) 10 CFR Part 20 ) - ) -- l 60 Fed. Reg. 63,984 (Dec. 13, 1995) ) ) ) COMMENTS OF KERR-McGEE CHEMICAL CORPORATION Richard A. Meserve COVINGTON & BURLING 1201 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. P.O. Box 7566 l Washington, D.C. 20044 { (202) 662-6000 Counsel for Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation l R Date: March 11, 1996 l m

1 i Dl' i l 1 1 I BEFORE THE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ). Constraint Level for Air ) Emissions of Radionuclides ) ) l 10 CFR Part.20 ) i ) 60 Fed. Reg. 63,984 (Dec. 13, 1995) ) ) ) COMMENTS OF KERR-McGEE CHEMICAL CORPORATION 'These comments are submitted by Kerr-McGee Chemical I Corporation ("Kerr-McGee") concerning the proposed rule to establish a constraint level for air emissions of radionuclides from NRC-licensed facilities other than power J-l reactors. 60 Fed. Reg. 63,984 (Dac. 13, 1995). Kerr-McGee holds licenses from the NRC and the State of Illinois (an i Agreement State) for facilities covered by the proposed rule and, as a result, Kerr-McGee is directly affected by the NRC's proposal. As explained in the preamble to the proposed rule,- NRC seeks to promulgate a constraint level for air emissions from certain licensed facilities that would parallel an EPA -National Emission Standard for Hazardous-Air. Pollutants . (NESHAPs") that was promulgated under the Clean Air Act. Ij. at 63,985-86; 333 40-C.F.R. Part 60, Subpart I. .The NRC

i. L p L anticipates that its actions will enable EPA to rescind its . regulation. Kerr-McGee strongly endorses and encourages the efforts by the NRC to. eliminate duplicative regulation. However, the NRC has perpetuated an error in EPA's regulations in its proposed rule. Kerr-McGee submits these comments to explain the error and to urge the NRC to correct it before 4 final promulgation. We also urge the NRC to require l compatibility by Agreement ~ States with the resulting final rule. I. -The NRC Rule Should Exclude Both Radon-220 And j 1 Radon-222. The EPA NESEAPs for emissions from NRC-licensed I f acilities. state in pertinent part that "[fl or purposes of this subpart doses caused by radon-222 and its decay products formed after the radon is released from the facility are not included." 40 C.F.R. 5 61.101(b). The NRC proposed rule is similar in that it would " constrain air emissions of radioactive materials other than radon-222." 60 Fed. Reg. at 63,987 (proposed 10 C.F.R. 5 2 0.1101 (d) ). Kerr-McGee presumes that the NRC rule, like the EPA rule, would exclude the dose from daughters of radon-222 that are formed after release. Where both the-EPA rule and the NRC proposal err, however, is inlthe failure to exclude' radon-220 (thoron) and its daughters from the dose limit. __.-___2__m. _-_______m._-

7 l -3 A. The EPA Erred In Its Treatment of Radon-220. As it happens, the failure of EPA to exclude both raden-222 and radon-220 was the apparent result of a last-minute scrivener's error in the most recent promulgation of the NESHAPs for radionuclides. EPA first promulgated its NESEAPs for radionuclides in February 1985. The original rule provided in pertinent part: Doses due to radon-220, radon-222, and their respective decay products are excluded from these limits. 50 Fed. Reg. 5,190, 5,195 (Feb. 6, 1985) (final rule, 40 l C.F.R. 5 61.102) (Exhibit 1). Obviously, in this incarnation, both radon and thoron (and daughters) were excluded from the dose standard. As it happened, the EPA rule was reconsidered by the F agency as a result of the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Natural Resources Defense gpuncil v. EPA, 824 F.2d 1146 (D.C. Cir. 1987); see 54 Fed. Reg. 9,612, 9,614-15 (Mar. 7, 1989). The reason for the reconsideration related to the court's guidance as to how risk should be considered in the NESEAPs rulemaking process. The need for EPA to undertake a new rulemaking did not relate in any fashion to the exclusion of radon and thoron from the dose standard. In the new rulemaking, EPA did not initially modify the aspect of its previous rule relating to radon and thoron. The proposed rule provided:

-4 For purposes of this subpart doses caused by radon-220, radon-222, and their decay products formed after their release from the-facility are not included. 54 Fed. Reg. 9,612, 9,653 (Mar. 7, 1989) (proposed 40 C.F.R. 5 61.101(b)) (Exhibit 2). Thus, like the prior rule, the proposed rule would exempt both radon and thoron from the dose limit. In the'-final rule -- the currently effective version EPA removed the exclusion for radon-220,-while maintaining it for radon-222. 40 C.F.R. 5 61.101(b). We are not aware of l-anything in the rulemaking record, however, that explains this I l modification of the proposed rule. There is no discussion of this-significant change from the proposed rule in the preamble. Egg 54 Fed. Reg. 51,654 (Dec. 15, 1989).

And, documents that were prepared in connection with the rulemaking show that the final rule was intended to exclude both radon-220 and radon-222.

l I For example, an EPA Background Information Document concerning procedures for demonstrating compliance a document that'was prepared shortly before final promulgation -- provides that "[t]he standard specifically excludes doses b caused by radon-220 or radon-222 and their decay products that ' are' formed after release." EPA, Rap)cround Information Docn==nt: Procedures'Accroved for Demonstratina Compliance with 40 CFR Part 61. Suboart I, 1-3 (Oct. 1989) (Exhibit 3); gag 54 Fed. Reg. at 51,6671(describing document as providing the " system for. implementing this NESHAP"). Similarly, the t- .am m _.-. - ._....J._.._

( ) 1 -5 COMPLY computer code that provides a means of demonstrating compliance (see 40 C.F.R. 5 61.103) does not include either radon-220 or radon-222, thus showing that EPA intended to exclude both. See EPA, User's Guide for the Comply Code, App. E (EPA 520/1-89-003) (Oct. 1989) (Exhibit 4). It is apparent that EPA intended its rule to exclude both radon-220 and radon-222 (and daughters), but tnat an inadvertent error was introduced in the drafting of the final rule.1' The NRC should not perpetuate the error in its rulemaking. B. The Rationale For Excludirg Dose From Radon-222 Applies To Raden-220 As Well. There is no discussion in the 1989 EPA rulemaking of which we are aware that explains the basis of the exclusion for raden-222. The matter was considered, however, in connection with the original NESHAPS rulemaking in 1985. In the preamble to that final rule, the EPA explained: t This standard. does not apply to radon-220, radon-222, and their respective i decay products. Facilities covered by this standard are likely only to have relatively small quantities of the sources [ of these radionuclides and are expected to take appropriate control action to limit emissions as part of the NRC's ALARA

program, l'

On September 8, 1994, Kerr-McGee presented this information to EPA's Region V in connection with a facility that is affected by the error. Although Region V stated that -it would consult with EPA's Office of Radiation Programs on the matter, Region V has not rebutted Kerr-McGee's showing.

. - ~ - ~ i t .6-50 Fed.' Reg. 5,190,: 5,192 (Feb. 6,.1985). This rationale }' provides no foundation for drawing-a distinction between I radon-220.and radon-222. P The exclusion of both radon and' thoron from the dose j s. . limit is fully consistent with. existing requirements and l 4 guidance.in other areas.- EPA's environmental standards for j .the uranium fuel cycle exclude the dose from radon and its i daughters (without specification of the radon isotopes). 40 C.F.R. 5 :190.10 (a). The counterpart' EPA standards for thorium 3 the relevant mills explicitly exclude the dose for radon-220, . isotope for such facilities. 40 C.F.R. 5 192.41(d);'see 10 4 C.F.R. Part 40, Appendix A, criterion 8 (excluding thoron from dose' limit for thorium mills). EPA's guidance to federal i agencies on radiation protection standards for members.of the j-public excludes radon doses (without specifying the radon isotope). 59 Fed. Reg. 66,414, 66,427 (Dec. 23, 1994).I' i l' In connection with its proposed radiological criteria for decommissioning, the NRC staff observed: The'NRC staff believes that it is not possible to measure or distinguish . ] concentrations of radon which will produce radiation doses of a few mrem TEDE/y above background using current technology.- This belief is based on: (1) Recognition of the ubiquitous nature of radon in.the general environments. i (2)~ Large uncertainties in the models used to project radon concentrations in a indoor air based on-soil concentrations of precursors; and q (continued...) i l Y. l P i 1

In light of these considerations, the NRC should not perpetuate EPA's error; the proposed rule should exclude both radon-220 and radon-222. II.- The NRC Should Require Strict Agreement State Conformance To The' Final Rule. .The NRC states.in'the preamble to the proposed rule that it is the NRC's intention to allow an Agreement State to choose.to adopt a rule that'is more restrictive (but no less restrictive) than one approved by the Commission. 60 Fed. Reg. at 63,986. It is Kerr-McGee's view that the better course is to require strict Agreement State compliance with all radiation-related NRC' rules, including the final rule arising from this rulemaking. A requirement for strict compatibility would assure that licensees are confronted with uniform policies throughout the country and thereby would avoid the confusion arising from disparate standards. Egg 59 Fed. Reg. 37,269, 37, 273 (July } 21, 1990) (Draft Statement of Policy for Agreement State compatibility). We thus urge the NRC to reconsider its 2/(... continued) (3) Limitations of existing measurement techniques _in distinguishing between-elevated radon concentrations and radon i attributed to natural sources. 59 Fed. Reg. 43,200, 43,210 (Aug. 22, 1994). These same considerations justify exclusion of all radon isotopes from .the criteria.at issue here. 1

8-position. The NRC should require literal and strict conformance by Agreement States with this final rule. Conclusion In light of the foregoing, we urge the NRC to avoid the error in EPA's NESHAPs and to modify its proposed rule so as to exclude both radon-220 and radon-222 (and their 1 daughters formed af ter release) from the dose limit. The NRC should also require strict compatibility with its final rule ] 3 i by Agreement States, Res ectfully submitted, 1 Rfchard A. Neserve COVINGTON & BURLING 1201 Pennsylvania' Ave., N.W. P.O. Box 7566 Washington, D.C. 20044 (202) 662-6000 Counsel for Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation Date: March 11, 1996

-em---- -x---------,- l l l g I i 1 l l'l

Ee*br Y's5isas I 9 I I Part lli i Environmental Protection Agency 40 dFR Part 61 us Poll tants a dards for Radlonuclides; Final Rules l l N

i l Federal Regist;r / Vol. 50. No. 25 / Wednesday. February 6.1985 / Rules and Regulations 5195 / (v) Estimste of dosa equivalent rata to from all sources. excluding natural due to the quzlity of radiation and its l the member of the public at the point of background and medical procedures. distnbution in the body. The unit of dose } maximum annual air concentration in an The application shall include the equivalent is the rem. unrestricted area where an individual followmg: (c)

• NRC. licensed facility" means any resides or abides.

(a) An assessment of the additional facility licensed by the Nuclear (si) A description of the existing effective dose equivalents to the Regulatory Commission or any ) ^ control equipment for each emission individual receiving maximum exposure Agreement State to receive title to. I point. from the facility due to all other sources. receive. possess. use. transfer. or deliver d I (A) Primary control device (s) for (b) The information required in any source, byproduct, or special radionuclide emissions. t 6t.94. nuclear material, except facihties (D) Secondary control desicc[s) for (cl The effective dose equivalent shall regulated by 40 CFR Parts 190.191. or rudionuclide emissions. be calculated using the following 192'.' Critical organ.. means the most (C) Estimated control efficiency weighting factors: (d) (percent) for each control device. exposed human organ or tissue (vil) A statement by the owner or ow w waw l opeystor of the source as to whether he exclusive of the integumentary system l r %. mal (skin) and the cornea. can comply with the standards (*"=a s prescribed in this part within 90 days of (e)"Radionuclide" means any nuclide the effective date. Requests for alternative emission that emits radiation. (A nuclide is a All information collection provisions in standards shall be sent to the Assistant species of atom characterized by the ) l this subpart are not effective until the Administrator for Air and Radiation constitution of its nucleus and hence by i Office of Management and Budget ( ANR443). U.S. Environmental the number of protons, the number of Protection Agenc Washington. Dt.y. 401 M Street, neutrons. and the energy content.) l' approves them. I' (c)In addition to the reporting 20460. (f)"Whole body" means all organs or requirements described in paragraphs i s t.se Esemption from reporting and tissues exclusive of the integumentary (a) and (b) of this section. DOE shall' testing requirementa of 40 CFR st.10. system (skin) and the cctnea. submit to EPA an annual report, by June Facilities having emissions of (g)" Effective dose equivalent" means 1.1986, and annually thereafter, that radionuclides to air that do not exceed the sum of the products of the dose those amounts tiat cause a dose equivalents to individual orgens and m ssion f a Po n s sub ct this { equivalent of 5 neem /y to the whole tissues and appropriate weighting tfon body or 15 miem/> :: the critical organ factors representing the risk relative to l is i fo at o shall be calcu f any member of the public residing or that for an equal dose to the whole 8 based on data collected during the abiding at the point of maximum annuaI

body, Calendar year immediateIy preceding att c neentration in an unrestricted the re9uired date of submission of the area. are exempt from the reporting.

I s1.102 Emiselon standard. annual report. This report shall be sent requirements of 40 CFR 61.10. Emissions of radionuclides to att from to the Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation (ANR443). U.S. Subpart I-National Emission Standard facilities subject to this subpart shall not f Environmental Protection Agency. for Radionucilde Emissions From exceed those amounts that cause a dose l Washington, D.C. 20460. Facilities Uconsed by the Nuclear equivalent of 25 mrem /y to the whole P Reguistory Commission (NRC) and body or 75 mrem /y to the criti:al organ i si 9s Recordkeeping. lReservedl Federal Facilities Not Covered by of any member of the public. Doses due i Subpart H to radon.220. radon.222. and their l I ei.e4 Watver of =;n r.e. respective decay products are excluded l To request a waiver, applicants shall iem Designecon ounceses, from these limits. provide the information required in The provisions of this subpart apply I 61.11 and i 61.94 (a) and (b). Waiver to NRC-licensed facilities and to I s1.103 Emisalon monitoring and I requests shall be sent to the Assistant facilities owned or operated by any compaance procedures. Administrator for Air and Radiation Federal agency other than the To determine compliance with the ( ANR-443). U.S. Environmental Department of Energy that emit standard, radionuclide emissions shall Protection Agency. Washington. D.C. radionuclides to air.This subpart does 20460' not apply to facilities regulated under 40 be determined and dose equivalent to c. CFR Parts 190.191 or 192. to any low members of the public shall be energy accelerator, or to any user of the calculated using EPA. approved I s1.97 Altomative emiselon standards. sealed radiation sources. sampling procedures. EPA codes if a facility may exceed the values AIRDOS-EPA and RADRISK. or other established in i 6132. DOE may apply i st.101 Definitions-procedures, including those based on s"' to EPA for an attemative emission (a)" Agreement State" means any environmental measurements. that EPA standard. The Administrator will review State with which the Atomic Energy has determined to be suitable. In most such applications and will establish an Commission or the Nuclear Regulatory cases, compliance with this standard l appropriate attemative emission Commission has entered into an will be determined by calculating the standard that will ensure that no effective agreement under subsection dose to members of the public at the

g member of the public being exposed to 274(b) of the Atomic Energy Act of1954.

po nt of maximum annual air emissions from the facility will receive a as amended. concentration in an unrestricted area g continuous exposure of than 100 mrem /y (b)" Dose equivalent" means the where any member of the public resides effective dose equivalent and a product of absorbed dose and O' ' bid"' noncontinuous exposure r*!.nore than appropriate factors to account for $00 mrem /y effective dow equivalent differences in biological effectiveness t.ist of approved procedures:lReserved]

3196 Federal Registar / Vol. 50. No. 25 / Wednesday, Fsbruary 6,1985 / Rules and Regul:tions I e1.104 Reporung.1,iservedi can c:mply with thi stInd:.rds subp rt, c Icinirs and nodulizing kilns i s1.194 Resermeeping. lReservedl prescnbed in this part within 90 days of are considered to be similar units. the effective date. (c)" Curie"is a unit of radioactivity I H.106 Esemption frorn repor#ng and equal to 37 billion nuclear testing requirements of 40 CFR 61.10. I 61.100 Altemative emisalon standard. transt rmations (decays) per second. Facihties in possession of a If a facility may exceed the emission radionuclide in annual quantities less standard established in i 61.102, the ( 61.122 Emlesion standard, than the activity shown in Table 1 are operator may apply to EPA for an Emissions of polonium 210 to air from exempt from the reporting requirements a temative emission standard.The of 40 CFR 61.10. If a facihty possesses Administrator will review such calciners and nodulizing kilns at an more than one radionuclide, and the applications and will establish an elemental phosphorus plant shall not exceed a total of 21 cunes in a calendar i sum of the annual amount possessed appropriate alternative emission divided by the equivalent activity in standard that will ensure that no year. 1 f, Table l is sumined for all radionuclides member of the public being exposed to j 61.123 Emission testing. in possession. and the sum is less than emissions from the faci!Ity receives a unity, then the facility is exempt from continuous exposure of more than 100 (a) Unless a waiver of emission the reporting requirements of 40 CFR mrem /y effective dose equivalent and a testing is obtained under i 61.13. each 61.10. For radionuclides not on this list. noncontinuous exposure of more than owner or operator of an elemental a facility may apply to the 500 mrem /y effective dose equivalent phosphorus plant shall test emissions ) I Administrator for an exemption from the from all sources excluding natural from his olant according to the following g rzporting requirements. background and medical procedures. requirements: + The application shallinclude the (1) Within 90 days of the effective 1 Table 1 (Reserved) following' date of this standard for a source that l I 8 f.107 Wafver of compliance. (a) An assessment of the additional has an initial start.up date preceding the (a) To request a waiver spplicants effective dose equivalents to the effective date of this standard; or shall follow the requirements of I 61.10 member of the pubhc receiving (2) Within 90 days of start-up for a L l (b)-{dl. maximum exposure from tba facility due source, that has an initial startup after (b)The following provisions also to all other sources. ne nas al the effective date of the standard. ,l apply. radiation background shall be part of (b)The Administrator shall be I I (1) the owner or operator of any this assessment. notified at least 30 days prior to an existing source, or any new source to (b) The information required in emiss on test so that EPA may, at its which a standard prescribed under this 1 61.107 option, observe the test. l part is applicable which had an initial (c) The effective dose equivalent shall st:rtup which preceded the effective be calculated using the following (c) An emission test shall be k dite of a standard prescribed under this weighting factors: conducted at each operational calciner calciner or noduh'"ng kiln are l

1. D dU i* "8 p:rt shall. within 90 days after the zi l

effective date provide the followin8 discharged thmugh more than one stack. .f t n n writing to the g% - Pamu then an emission test shall be conducted l at each stack and the total emission rate (i) Name and address of the owner or lj operator. Request = for attemative emission from the calciner or kiln shall be the (ii) The location of the source. standards shall be sent to the Assistant sum of the emission rates from each of i (iii) The types of radionuclides Administrator for Air and Radiation the stacks. emitted by the stationary source and the (ANR-443) U.S. Environmental (d) Each emission test shall consist of annual quantity (in C1/y for the most Protection Agency. 401 M Street SW, three valid sampling runs.ne recent calendar year) of each Washington. D.C. 204eo. nis action phosphate rock processing rate during radionuclide emitted, shall be taken for existing facilities by each run shall be recorded. An emission A ril17.1966. rate in curies per metric ton of (iv) A brief description of the natum. P size, design, and method of operation of phosphate rock processed shall be the stationary source including the Subpert K--National Emission calculated for each run. ne average of Standard for Radionucede Emissions all three runs shall apply in computing ) operating design ca acity of such source. Identify ear point of emission Frorf. Elemental W Mants the emission rate for the test. ne e for each hazardous pollutant. l 81.120 Appaceedsty, annual polonium.210 emission rate from a calciner or nodulizing kiln shall be (v) Estimate of dose equivalent rate to The provisions of this subpart are the member of the public at the point of applicable to owners and operators of determined by multiplying the measured maximum annual air concentration in an calciners and nodulizing kilns at polonium 210 emission rate in curies per unrestricted area where any member of elemental phosphorus plants. metric ton of phosphate rock processed the public resides or abides. by the annual phosphate rock ) (vi) A description of the existing l 41.121 Definitions, processing rate in metric tons. In control equipment for each emisiton (a)" Elemental phosphorus plant" determining the annual phosphate rock Point-means any facility that processes processing rate, the values used for I (A) Primary control device (s) for phosphate rock to produce elemental operating hours and operating capacity l radionuclide emissions. phosphorus using pyrometallurgical shall be values that will maxinare the L (B) Secondary control device (s) for techniques. expected processing rate. For radionuclide emissions. (b) "Calciner" or "Nodulizing kiln" determining compliance with the (C) Estimated control efficiency means a unit in which phosphate rock is emission standard of Section 61.122 the (percent) for each control device. heated to high temperatures to remove total annual emission rate is the sum of (vil) A statement by the owner or organic material and/or to convert it to the annual emission rates for all operator of the source as to whether he a nodular form. For the purpose of this operating calciners or nodulizing kilns. I l dl

[$55'f,ine 9 1 [ Part IV i i i l Environmental Protection Agency l 40 CFR Part 61 bo$*I il$ negulation of-a

; g ; g,;.

so. t ii. I y. 1

i 90Et Federal Register / Vol. R No. 43 / Tuesday. March 7.1939 / Proposed Rules 8 tillt een be shown thr.t the obtainmg the tabras ues. I behees that presenbed in i ets2.The effecave dose ! requirements of paragraph 6 61.93(b) are the submitted udonnation to trus, equrvalent shall be calculsted uomg the impractical for the effhaent stream. accurate and complete.1 am aware that source term derived asmg Appendix D (ii)%e alternative procedure willaot there are siptficant pensities for as input to the dupersion and other sigraficantly underestimate the submitting raise indormation meloding computer== data described in l 8123. he emissions. the possibility of fine and imprisonment. addition. besed on its last annual report (iii) The alternative procedure is fully See.18 U.S.C.1021." the facahry is in comphance with this de...a.M. (c)If the facihty le not in cornpliance subpar *. (iv)The operetor has received prior with the sesseion hunts of f 91.92 in the approval from EPA. calender year covered by the report iStJ7 Esempeen Wem em mooreng and "'""' '*M'*"'"" *" CN 8

• then the facihty most report to the l

lsm canonneesandwearung. Administrator on a monthly bevis the All facilities designatad under thia l (a) Comphance with tina standard information usted in paragraph (b) of subpart are exempt from the reporting oball be determmed by calculating the this section. for the premdtag nronth. requiremants of 40 CFR 61.10. effective dose equivalant to any member nese reports wiD be due 33 days 3.By revising Subpart 1 to read as of the public at the offsise pobt of following the end of each month.This follows: marimum annual Sir Concentalien, in dlevelof" rting 11 where there is a residence, school. con i e undl the A nimone irse m m'"8"" business or off2ce. The operators of each determined that the monthly reports are usenses my em musmer neeulanery facthey shall submit an annual report to no longer necessary. In addition to aB commese6en and Feeeral Fecaues Net EPA by June 30 which inchades the the information required in peregraph covered by subpart H results of the monitorms and the dose (b) of this section. montidy reports shall calculatione reqstred by 9 3133 for the also include the following informenom 7100 Apphcabety' Pwv6ous calender yeer. (1) All controle or other changes in ethat Deruunaan. (b)In addition to the requirements of operanon of the facility that will be or et. tor standard. paragraph (a) of the secties, an annual are being installed to brmg the facihty 61.1o3 Determining Compliance. npon shall melude the followmg into compliance. 61.104 Reporung requirements. Informatiere (2) If the facility is ander a ludicial or et.tu6 Recordkeepag requirements. (1) The name of the facihty. admmistronve enf_. r.t decree the et.tos Appbcauons to conearact or moddy em7 Emein Detemunatim. (2) A het of the radeactrve materials report will desenbe the facilities et.tos Eumpuu imm se repomns and used at the facility. performance under the terms of the '"8 9 "*** *I '" CI* *"" (3) A description of the handhas and decree. procesamg that the radioactive matenals Subpart I-National Emlealon undergo at the facihty. I 61.06 Rosesekeepeig rogswomente. Standante 5de Emlasione (4) A list of the staska or vents or All facihties must maintain records N'* ' i other points where radmactive materials documenting the source ofinput Nucteer WM hW and are released to the atmosphere. parameters H-W the moults of all heereU m M h e m (5) A descrrpuan of the aHluant measurements upon which they are Subpe M i 1 controls that are used on each stack. based. the calculations and/or i vent. or other release pomt aad an analytical methods used to derive I a1.100 W. ) estunate of the efficiency of each control values for input parameters, and the The provisions of this subp.ri apply device. procedure used to determine dose.In to NRC. licensed facihties and to (6) Distances from the points of addition, the documentation should be I'* E " *""*d " release to the nearest residence, school, sufficient to allow an independent Federal agency othe basinus or office and the nearest farms auditor to venfy the correctness of the P"""# producing vegetables, milk, and meat. determeauon made concerning the a o j l (7) The values used for all other user-facility's comphance with the standard. (", '[,dou n 1 1subpert l suppbed input parameters for the These records must be kept at the site of B. e to low mugy acc&nton M i l computermodels (e.g. meteorological the facihty for at least five years and any NRC-hcensee that posseue nd data) and the source of these data, upon request be made available for usu ndandes onh e se bn o j (e) Allinformation reqmrod in an inspection by the Administrator, or his spphceton to constreet ormodify a authonted representative. facihty under el subpert A. for all I si.101 n=a===== ( construenon and modifications which i St.es Appmessons to sensevet or I Aa und in due subpen, aH tenne nm are completed in the omiender year for medley which the report to propered. bot for (a) In addition to any activity that is defined here have the mesmag given them in the Cless Air Act or subpart A which the requirement to apply for defined as construction under et subpart of Part 61.The followmg terms shall approval to constroot orreeddy was A. any fabrication. erection or have the following spec 2fic meamngs: waived under i et.as, instalianon of a new building or l (e) Each report shall be signed and ' structure within a facility is also defined (a) " Agreement Stata" means a State dated by the pnncipal execuove otheer as new constructaan for purposes of 40 with which the Atomic Energy or pubhc officialin charge of the facihty CFR Part et. subpart A. Comnussion or the Nuclear Regulatory and contain the followmg declarauen (b) An apphcanon for approval under Commissian has ensoredinto en tmmediately above the segnatura lias:l l 61.07 does not need to be filed for any effective agreement under subsecuan i ceruly under penalty of law that I have new constractaos of ormeddicanos 274(b) of the Atomac Energy Act of 1964, personally examaned and am famahar within an emisang facuity if the essesive as amended. j wtth the infa-anaa subaktted besoin does egnavalent, cameed by all emissions (b) "Effocave does agarvalent" means and based on my inqalry of thees from the new sometrunnes er the sua of the predacts of absorbed individuals e- ^W 1741-for moddicamen,is less than is of the husit does and appropneta factors to account l i

Federal Registee / Vol. 54. No. 43 / Tussday March 7,19as / Proposed Rules 9653 for ddferences is biological l 6. Mr1 or tha smaaston f:ctors in I cemfy under penalty of law thit I bm effsctaveness due to the quality of Appendix D. personally exvmnsd and am facult:r with . redsatson and its distnbution in the the m!ormation submitted hermn and based l body, ne umt of the effective dose i et.tos Reporting reWrements. on my inquiry of those udviduais I equivelent is the rem. For purposes of (a) ne owner or operator of a facility immediately responsible for obtaining the this subpart doses caused by redon-220. must submit an annual report to the EPA information.1 beheve that the submitted informsoon is eme. accurate and com#ers.1 I l9, rsdon-222 and their decay products by March 30 of the followmg year. am awam that thm em sigmucant penaltisa formed after their release from the (1) ne report or application must for subautting false information including the heility are not included.%s method for provide the following information: P t:y of fine and impnsonment. See. as calculating effective dose equivalent is (f)The name of the facihty. U'8E 10UI' cutlined in the Intemational (ii)The name of the person Commission on Radiological responsible for the operation of the (b) Facihties emitting radionuclides in Pretzetion's Publication No. 28. facility and the name of the person an amount that would cause less than (c)" Facility" means all buildings, prepants the report (if different). 10% of the dose listed in I 61.102, as structures and operations on one (iii) The location of the facility, determmed by the compliance contignons site. including emte and/or building number. procedures from i 81.103, am exempt (d)" Federal faculty" means any street, city, county, state. and zip code. from the reportmg requirements of - fac2hty owned or operated by any (iv)De mailing address of the i 61.104. Facthties shall annually make a dep rtment. commission. sgency, office. facility. if different from item (111). new determinat2an whether they am burru or other umt of the govemment (v) A list of the radioactive materials exempt from reportmg. cf the United States of Amenca except used at the facility. (c)If the facility is not in compliance for {scalities owned or operated by the (vil A desenption of the handling and with the emission limits of I 61.102 in Dep rtment of Enerry. processmg that the radioactive matenals the calendar year covered by the report (e)"NRC.licensedlacility" means any undergo at the fullity, then the facthty must report to the i facility licensed by the Nuclear (vii) Alist of the stacka or vents or Administrator on a monthly basis the l Regulstory Commission or any other potats where radioactive materials nformation listed in paragraph (a) of Agreement State to receive title to, are released to the atmosphere. this section. for the precedir+g month. 3 . rec:tve. possess. use. transfer, or deliver (viii) A description of the effluent These reports wdl be due 30 days ,any source, by. product. or special controls that are used on each stack. followmg the end of each month.nis nuclect matenal. vent, or other release point and an d level f will ini7trator has (f)"Radionuchde" means a type of estimate of the efficiency of each device. c e until the atom which spontaneously undergoes (ix) Distances from the point of determined that the monthly reports are fedioecuve decay. release to the nearest residence, school, no longer necessary, in addition to all business or office and the nearest farme the information required in paragraph producing vegetables, milk. and meat. (a) of this section, monthly reports shall (x) The effective dose equivalent also include the following information: (Approach A and Approach B

• • '"I t Emissions of radionuclides to the air

[1] All controla or other changesin ,trom a NRC. licensed or federal facdity PI'*'[dpb form and quantity of operation of the facihty that win be w 6 03 j

• shill not exceed those amounta that each radionuclide emitted from each are being installed to bring the facility

,would cause any member of the pub!Ac stack, vent or other release point. and into comphance. to receive an effective does equivalent. the method (s) by which these quantittaa (2)If the facdity is under a judicialor o to mnm/yr. were determined. administrative enforcement decree the (xillThe volanotic flow, diameter, report wdl desenbe the facuities -l ApproachC efiluent temperatum, and niease height performance under the terms of the Emissions of radionuclides to the air for each stack, vent or other release decree. from a NRC.llcensed or federal facility sh ll not exceed those amounts that point where radioactive materials are would cause any member of the public emitted the method (s) by which these were detannmed. ne owne or opeator of any faciuty t2 rec:ive an effective dose equivalent (xiiilne height and width of each must maintain records documenting the of 3 mrem /yr' building from which radionuclidas am source of input parameters 5da% the results of au measurements upon which Approsch D emitted. Emissions of ruhw%s to the air (xiv) The values used for all other they are based, the calculations and/or from a NRC-bcensed or federal facdity user supplied input parameters (e.g. analytical methods used to derive sh:11 not exceed those amounts that meteorological data) and the source of values for input parameters, and the weuld cause any member of the public these data, procedurs used to determine to receive an effective dose equivalent (xv) Allinformation required in an compliance. In addition, the of 0.03 miem/yr. application to construct or modify a documentation should be sufficient to facility under 61 subpart A. for all allow an independent auditor to venfy INos Detemwng compmenee. construction and modifications which the correctness of the detennination ne only critetta by which compliance were completed in the relevant calendar made concerning the facility's with the emisston standard in this year but for which the requirement to compliance with the standard and if subpsrt shall be determined is the doses apply for approval to construct or claimed. quahficat2on for exemption calculated by either the EPA computer modify was waived under i 61.108. from reportmg.These records must be cod 2 COMP 1.Y or the alternative (xvi) Each report shallbe signed and kept at the site of the facility for at least requirements of Appendix E.ne source dated by the principal executive officer five years and upon request be made terms to be used for input into COMP 1.Y or public officialin charge of the facility available for inspection by the sh:ll be de termined through the use of and contain tha followmg declaration Admimstrator, or his authortand the measurement procedures listed in immediately above the signature line: representative. " ~ - - - - - - -

9654 Federal Resister / Vol. 54. No. 43 / Tutaday. Mtrch 7.1989 / Proposed Rules I et.108 Appmoseone to construst or sampling (greb samples) may be used calciners and nodulizing kilns at

• • 84 only with epa's prior approval. Such elemental phosphorus plants.

(a)In addition to any activity that is approval may be granted in cases where defined as construction under 61 subpart continuous sampling is not practical and I st.121 pennmona. A. any fabrication, erection or radionuclide emission rates are (a)" Elemental phosphorus plant" or installation of a new building or relatively constant. " plant" means any facility that structure within a facility is also defined (iii) Radionuclides shall be collected processes phosphate rock to produce as new construction for purposes of 40 and measured using procedures based elemental phosphorus. A plant includes CFR Part St. subpart A. on the principles of measurement all buildings, structures, operations. (b) An application for approval under described in Appendix B. Method 114. calciners and nodulizing kilns on one 161.07 does not need to be filed for any Use of methods based on principles of contiguous site, i new construction of or modification measurement different from those (b)"Calciner" or "Nodulizing kiln" within an existing facility if one of the described in Appendix B. Method 114 means a unit in which phosphate rock is i following conditions is met: must have prior approval from the heated to high temperatures to remove (1) The effective dose equivalent Administrator. EPA reserves the right to organic material and/or to convert it to ( calculated by using methode described approve of measurement procedures. a modular form. For the purpose of this i in i 61.103 that is caused by all (iv) A quality assurance program shall subpart. calcincts and nodultzmg kiins emissions from the facility including the be conducted that meets the are considered to be similar units. prCPosed new construction or performance mquirements described in (c)" Operator" means any person who modification,is less than 10% of the Appendix B. Method 114. owns operates or controls elemental j limit prescribed in 101.102. (3) When it is impractical to sample phosphorous plant. (2) The effective dose equivalent an effluent stream at an existing source calculated by using methode described in accordance with the site selection Iem E.missionstanderd. l in i 81.103. that is caused by all and sample extraction requirements of Approach A and B l emissions from the new construction or paragraphs 101.107(b)(2), the facility I modification,is less than 1% of the limit operator may use alternative site Emissions of polonium.210 to air from presenbed in i 81.102. selection and sample extraction all calciners and noduhzmg kilns at an ie1.107 Emiselonesterminemon. procedures provided thet: elemental phosphorus plant shall not l (a) Facility owners or operators may. (i)It can be shown that the exceed a total of to curies a year. in lieu of monitoring, estimate requirements of paragraphs Approach C 5 b2 re impractical for the radionuclide emissions in accordance ,jlf () a$on el d'e emission rates from(ii) The alternative procedure will not all calciners and nodulizing ki ns at an pomt sources (stacks or vents) shall be significantly underestimate the e eme ta h sp ru ant s a not measured in accordance with the emissions. following requirements: (iii) The alternative procedure is fully Approach D i l (1) Effluent flow rete measurements documented. liv) Emissions of polonium-210 to air from ) shall be made using the following l approv]egperator has received priorall calciners and nodulizing kilns at an m EPA. methods: j gg pg g j (i) Reference Method 2 of Appendix A to Part so shall be used to determine I e1.10e Esempeon from the Reporang exceed a total of 0.006 curies a year. and Teeeng Requiremenn of 40 CFR 81.10 l velocity and volumetric flow rates for I' "'**'*"***"8' All facilities desigr.ated under this

11) Referen eYet o'd 2A of Appendixsubpart are exempt from the reportmg (a) Each owner or operator of an A to Part 60 shall be used to measure requirements of 40 CFR 61.10.

elemental phosphorus plant shall test flow rates through pipes and small

4. By revisms subpart K to reed as emissions from the plant accoiding to follows:

the following requirements: 1 vents (2)itadionuclides shall be extracted. subpart K-4eemones Em6ee6en stoneeres (1) Within 90 days of the effective collected and measured usmg the for Radlonustee Emise6 ens From Elemental date of this standard for a plant tKet has j following methods: Phoepnerus Plants an initial start-up date preceding the (i) Reference Method 1 of Appendix A effective date of this standard: or i s, to Part 60 shall be used to select e1$20 Applicability. (2) Within 90 days of start.up for a l sampling sites. 61.121 Definitions. plant, that has an initial startup after the l (ii) Representative samples of an et.122 Emission standard. effective date of the standard. i effluent stream shall be withdrawn 61.123 Emission testms. (b) The Administrator shall be contmuously for the samphng site et.124 Recordkeepmg requirements. notified at least 30 days prior to an followmg the guidance presented in 61.125 Test methods and procedures emission test so that EPA may, at its ANSI-N13.1 " Guide to Sampling et.128 Monitonns of opersoons, option, observe the test. Airborne Matenals in Nuclear ,$,'"g,('.*y,P'

• "Id (c) An emission test shall be l

Facihties' (includma the guidance testma requirements of 40 Cnt et.to. conducted at each operational calcmer presentedin Appendix A of ANSI-or nodulizing kiln. If emissions from a N13.1), as specified in paragraph I 61.18. Setsport K-National Emission calciner or nodulizing kiln are Samples shall be collected contmuously Standards for Radionuclide Emiselone discharged through more than one stack, i whenever there is potential for From Elemental Phosphorus Plants then an emission test shall be conducted radionuclides to be emitted.The at each stack and the total emission rate requirements for continuous sampling g s1.130 Appenemeny. from the calciner or kiln shall be the are applicable to batch processes when The provisions of this subpart are sum of the emission rates from each of the urut is in operation. Periodic applicable to owners and operators of the stacks. 1 i

t1-t1 \\( ~x t tl - (3 - 5 l 40 CFR Part 61 EPA 520il-89-Di National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants R ]Dy @ @ 3 i $_ RJ g \\ n! OCT 3 ' '9F' uM \\ ._ _.a FSA AIR DOCD.T. J Background Information Document: Procedures Approved for Demonstrating Compliance with 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart I Office of Radiation Programs U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC October 1989

e applies to an estimated 6,000 government, academic, medical, and industrial facilities. 1.2.2 The' Standard The NESHAP' limits annual radionuclide emissions to'the atmosphere from these facilities to such quantities that will not result in any member of the public receiving an effective dose equivalent in excess of 10 millirem per year (mrem /yr). Further, not more than 3 mrem /yr effective dose equivalent may he caused by iso-l topes of iodine. The standard specifically excludes doses caused by radon-220 or~raden-222 and their decay products that are L formed after release. 1 I l Facilities covered by the NESHAP are also subject to the report-l l ing and approval requirements of 40 CFR Pat: 61, Subpart I, Sec-tions-61.104(a) and 61.106(a) of Part 61. However, Sections 61.104(b) and 61.106(b) of Subpart I exemp-from these requira-ments any facility that, using the specified procedures, demon-strates that its total emissions do not cause any member of the public to receive a dose greater than 10 percent of the limits of the standard. Further, the approval requirements are waived if, again using'the specified procedures, the emissions from a newly l - constructed or modified facility will not cause any member of the public to' receive a dose in excess of 1 percent of the standard. 1.2.3 Demonstrating Compliance The standard limits doses to the most exposed member of the public.- Dose is a_ complicated function of the quantity of each radionuclide emitted; the: physical configuration of the facility releasing the material; the dispersion, transport, and build-up 1-3

t I?Al520/.-59-::2. i l l l i USER'S GUIDE FOR THE COMPLY CODE I i l i ( l U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Office of Radiation Programs Was ingte b $0 l l October 1989 i u t p- .m_..__ __m

APPIND2X E - L:37 CF ti'.*C*::E5 ::; CCP.F ' ? Ac-225 3i-22' i Ac-227 31-210 l Ac-228 3i-212 1 Ag-106 3 -2;3 Ag-106m Bi-214 Ag-108m ak-249 Ag-110m Sk-250 As-lli Br-77 Al-26 Br-80 Am-241 Br-80m Am-242 Br-82 Am-242m Br-83 Am-243 Br-84 Am-244 C-ll Am-245 C-14 ) Am-246 Ca-41 Ar-37 Ca-45 Ar-41 Ca-47 As-72 Cd-109 As-73 Cd-113 As-74 Cd-113m As-76 Cd-115 As-77 Cd-ll5m At-211 Cd-117 Au-193 Cd-117m Au-194 Ce-139 Au-195 Ce-141 Au-198 Ce-143 Au-199 Ce-144 Ba-131 Cf-248 Ba-133 Cf-249 Ba-133m Cf-250 Ba-135m Cf-251 Ba-139 Cf-252 Ba-140 Cf-253 I Ba-141 Cf-254 Ba-142 Cl-36 Be-7 Cl-38 Be-10 cm-242 Bi-206 cm-243 E-1

P APPIN :X I'-

3 CF N'JCL

IS

S C : M P '. -

Cm-244 Eu-156 Cm-245 F-13 Cm-246 Fe-52 Cm-247 Fe-55 cm-248 Fe-59 Cm-249 Fm-254 Cm-250 Fm-255 Co-56 Fr-223 Co-57 Ga-66 Co-58 Ga-67 Co-58m Ga-68 Co-60 Ga-72 4 Co-60m Gd-152 Co-61 Gd-153 Cc-49 Gd-159 Cr-51 Ge-68 Cs-129 Ge-71 Cs-131 Ge-77 Cs-132 H-3 Cs-134 Ef-181 Cs-134m Hg-193m Cs-135 Hg-197 Cs-136 Hg-197m Cs-137 Hg-203 Cs-138 Ho-166 Cu-61 Ho-166m ) l Cu-64 I-123 Cu-67 I-124 l Dy-157 I-125 Dy-165 I-126 s Dy-166 I-128 Er-169 I-129 Er-171 I-130 Es-253 I-131 Es-254 I-132 Es-254a I-133 Eu-152 I-134 l Eu-152m-I-135 l Eu-154 In-111 Eu -155 In-113m E-2 (; s I

APPINO:X I-

3! CF N'JC ' ! : IS :S COMP' i

~.40 5:-95 15 N -95:

n-: 5m.

Sc-96 l l

n-ils:

N=-97 l-

n-li7 Nd-147 l

In-117m Nd-149 ( Ir-190 Ni-56 It-192 Ni-57 Ir-194 Ni-59 Ir-194m Ni-63 l-K-40 Ni-65 K-42 Np-235 K-43 Np-237 K-44 Np-238 Kr-79 NP-239 Kr-81 Np-240 Kr-83m NP-240m Kr-85 Os-185 Kr-85m os-191m Kr-87 os-191 Kr-88 Os-193 La-140 P-32 La-141 P-33 La-142 Pa-230 Lu-177 Pa-231 Lu-177m Pa-233 Mg-28 Pa-234 Mn-52 Pb-203 s Mn-52m Pb-205 Mn-53 Pb-209 r Mn-54 Pb-210 -Mn-56 Pb-211 Mo-93 Pb-212 [ Mo-99 Pb-214 Mo-101 Pd-103 r na-22 Pd-107 Na-24 Pd-109 Nb-90 Pm-143 Nb-93m Pm-144 L. Nb-94 Pm-145 e. E-3 l ~~~

APPIS :X I - *:S! 0F NCC*::ES :: : .v.? ? L f. ?m ' 4 6 Re '34m L ~ Pm.47 Re-136 ?m-148 Re '67 r- ?m-146m Re-138 Pm-149 R. 03m Pm-151 Rh-105 l Po-210 Ru-97 Pr-142 Ru-103 Pr-143 Ru-105 Pr-144 Ru-106 l Pt-191 S-35 Pt-193 Sb-117 Pt-193m .Sb-122 L Pt-195m Sb-124 Pt-197 Sb-125 r Pt-197m Sb-126 Pu-236 Sb-126m Pu-237 Sb-127 Pu-238 Sb-129 Pu-239 Sc-44 r Pu-240 .Sc-46 L Pu-241 Sc-47 Pu-242 Sc-48 e Pu-243 Sc-49 l Pu-244 Se-73 s. Pu-245 Se-75 I Pu-246 Se-79 Ra-223 Si-31 Ra-224 Si-32 Ra-225 Sm-147 L Ra-226 Sm-151 Ra-228 Sm-153 [ Rb-81 Sn-113 L Rb-83 Sn-117m Rb-84 Sn-119m Rb-86 Sn-123 Rb-87 Sn-125 Rb-88 Sn-126 ( Rb-89 St-82 Re-184 St-85 1 E-4

f_ APPE;;;X E-

• 5T CF tiL'T;; DES :1 CCP?l:

L I Sr-65m Th-232 L sr-67m T.i-2 3 4 ~ St-69 Ti-44 Sr-90 Ti-45 r [ S:-91 0-200 St-92 T1 - 2 01' f' Ta-182 T1-202 L Tb-157 T1-204 Tb-160 Tm-170 e Tc-95 Tm-171 l Tc-95m U-230 Tc-96 U-231 l Tc-96m U-232 Tc-97 U-233 Tc-97m U-234 Tc-98 U-235 Tc-99 U-236 Tc-99m U-237 ~ I Tc-101 0-238 Te-121 U-239 F Te-121m U-240 Te-123 V-48 Te-123m V-49 Te-125m W-181 L Te-127 W-185 Te-127m W-187 [ Te-129 W-188 Te-129m Xe-122 Te-131 Xe-123 Te-131m Xe-125 r t L 1 Te-132 Xe-127 Te-133 Xe-129m f Te-133m Xe-131m l Te-134 Xe-133 Th-226 Xe-133m j Th-227 Xe-135 l Th-228 Xe-135m Th-229 Xe-138 r Th-230 Y-86 J Th-231 Y-87 e E-5 ) [. r

l-t j ar. ...X. ,............C...... -.s. ..w.. a... I Y-33 2.. - 6 5 Y-90 .. - 6 9 Y-90m

.-69m Y-91

-36 Y..m

: - s..e 1.

Y-92 Z:-89 Y-93

-93 Yb-169 Z:-95 Yb-175 Z:-97 Zn-62 l

1 t l I l l t I s I l i I l ( e E-6

p, t_. RPSI % -n 10D2- ^^'4 Diremon Justkh.ph.o' -w MVIRONMENTAL COAIJTION ON NUCLEAR POWER Te WMum 3 Orlando Avenue. State Cologe, PA 16803 \\ March 6, 1996 3 !!M 13 A7 59 e ^"

• l RE: 60 FR 63984 bh^

i Hr.. John C. Hoyle 4 I i i Secretary of.the Consission ConstraintLevelforI_t'tEmissions: ll.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission of Radionuctides Washington,LD.C. 20555-0001 ] . ATTN Docketing'and Services Branch FAX: 301-415-1672 DOCKET NW8ER 4 .s 1 N RULE _Q e gpgq Dear. Secretary Hoyles The following consents on 60 FR 63984 NRC's Proposed Rule on Constraint L6 vel for Air Emissions of Radionuclides. are submitted by the Environmenta a not-for-profit public-interest Pennsyl-j Coalition on Nuclear Power (ECNP), 1970. ECNP has participated in .vania-based citizens' organization. founded innumerous NRC reac f d l ' EPA's prfor NESHAPS proceedings. ECNP j With Sierra Club and Nuclear Information and Resource Serv i for has challenged epa's rescission of its NESHAPS standards-setting author ty j radionuclides under the Clean Air Act. NESHAPS by the Commission 'to respond to EPA's reluctance to relinquish its l authority to NRC'for all non-reactor NRC and Agreement State licensees. 1989. 40 CFR The EPA air emission standard was promulgated on October 31, l t

61. Subpart 1. to establish a 10 millites per year Effective Dose Equiva en when Its effectiveness was stayed 1

dose limit for seabers of the public. d Agree-the stay expired, the standard was implemented for non-reactor (EDE) I " and " ample that the. Administrator may be satisfied that both " acceptable risk sent State licensees. This conclusion rests ' margin of safety"'will be provided in the future by NRC.l proposed by NRC. on promulgation of-this 10 ares /yr TEDE ALARA constraint leve l l Coalition Position on the Proposed Rule and Recommendation of the Environmenta 3 on Nuclear Power _: d ECNP does not believe that the ALARA constraint leve t by the NRC statf in the Proposed Rule, will in practice provide adequa e l istently set assurance that an ample sargin of safety will in actuality be consWe therefore opp i by Agreement State and NRClicensees in the future.ECNP reauests, and utsen, the ALARA constraint' level as it has been proposed.NRC to withd d effort to to the NRC for reasons transfer its Clean Air Act statutory renconsibility discussed in the consents that"followw lition on Nuclear Power for Extension of the iteauest of the Environmental Coa Comment Periodt d the public comment. .ECNP also respectfully requests that the NRC extenint' level rule for an addit . period for'this 60 FR 63904 constraWe ask-for this extension for several re . days. d The shutdown -of Federal agencies in December. and January delaye information disseatnation of this proposal. (1) I g \\ l ~ =

Page two . ECNPLCo=2snts on NRC Proposed ALARA Constroint Lcvel Rulo) ( rescission for non-reactor NRC and Agreement State licensees was also postponed and took place only on February 29. (2) We are finding that scarcely anyone we have been able to contact who is. living near non-reactor NRC-or Agreement State-licensed facilities or 4 proposed sites for nuclear facilities, potentially including low-level waste treatment and disposal sites, had been aware of the constraint level proposal or its connection with the EPA's NESHAPS standards-setting authority for.radionuclide sit emissions under the Clean Air Act and proposed rescission -- or the significance of these related matters to air emissions in the vicinity.of their residences. ~lt is.only reasonable for the NRC to afford such affected persons full opportunity to comment on'this proposed rule, and on its relationship to an EPA finding of.asple margin of safety and health risks that are or are not acceptable to them. 'since they are potentially the most exposed populations. J (3) Because the ALARA constraint level rule is designed to alleviate EPA's reluctance to give up its responsibility and is central to that decision, members of the public who live and work in the vicinity of quite literally thousands of nuclear faellity sites will be affected by both .this rule and EPA's NESHAPS rescission decision; the EPA proceedings with l respect to NESHAPS have now gone on for more than a decades they aes } extraordinarily intricate -- Byzantine -- in their complexities; and responses to this NRC proposal perforce require affected citizens to dig back through a mare and mass of background materials in order properly to i evaluate and comment on this ALARA constraint level rule and how it will affect their health and safety and, with respect to the NRC's recent incorporation of its econoalc determination of the revised costs to licensees for avoidance of person-rem dose (NUREG/BR-0058 Rev. 2, dated November 1995, but not widely available to members of the public). Comments of the Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power on 60 FR 63984: !/'

1. Accompanying this letter and the requests it contains (and rather than S a*

completely rewriting our recent lengthy comments on these topics), ECNP submits lvpf} ss our consents on 60 FR 63984 for the NRC's record in this Droceedins our consents on EPA's NESHAPS rescission for non-reactor NRC and Asteenent State licensees. # We particularly draw NRC staff's attention to, and we recommend that the staff absorb and adoct, both our crittaues and reconnendationss 1 (a) ECNP's February 17, 1996, comments, EPA Air Docket No. A-92-50, especially pp. 8 through 141 e (b) Summary of ECNP's oral comments at the February 29, 1996, EPA heiring on EPA's proposed rescission, same Air Docket, at pp. 1-21 l (c) Letter to Mr. Weinstock, gt kl., March 1, 1996, ECNP Responses to EPA ' Staff Question on ECNP Proposals and Supplemental Rebuttal Comments. l same EPA Air Docket, pp. 1-4. The three sets of ECNP comments to EPA total nearly 30 pages and are being placed in'the U.S. mail, first class, on March 12, 1996, with these comments to NRC;on its ALARA Constraint Level Proposed Rule. The latter are being taxed to the Secretary of the Commission today, March 12, 1996. l e

l Pago three (ECNP Co: ents on NRC proposed ALARA Constraint Level Rule)

2. ECNP recommends that any Memorandum of Understanding between EPA and NRC. or any other agreements between these agencies, with respect to EPA's rescission of NESHAPS air emissions standards-settina authority for radio-nuclides and transfer to NRC include NRC's formal and bindine adoption of the proposals we surrest.__ This course of action is recommended in part as a good faith demonstration by the Commission of its earenst intent to tighten and improve its regulatory authority over all licensees, the lack of which was more than amply described in the recent (March 4, 1996) Ileg sagazine special investigation. " Blowing the Whistle on Nuclear Safety." Nothing could go further to restore public confidence in the NRC than the Commission's replace-ment of its use of mere regulatory " guidance" with promulgation and rigorous enforcement (no exceptions, exemptions. or waivers) of the aandatory release and dose limit that we suggests the design basis level of 5 millirem per year to'be the maximum dose, TEDE. to any member of the public from tha routine operations of any NRC or Agreesent State nuclear facility licensee.

3. Our fundamental concerns about, and disagreement with. NRC's proposed ALARA constraint level ares (a) The constraint level is only a guidance limit, as is stated in the NRC Draft Revised Regulatory Guide 8.37.

It is not a regulatory rule promulgated in accordance with the Federal Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 that is mandatory, binding upon licensees, or enforceable. (b) The constraint level is intended by NRC, according to the staff document, to supplement NRC's ALARA guidance program, which is also not a madated regulation that is enforceable. (c) The Commission may chose to issue a violation and penalize a licensee for failing to meet ALARA or the constraint level, but it is not required to do so. (d) The air emissions are self-reported by licensees. With due regard to them and to NRC and Agreement States, not all of NRC's and Agreement States' licensees, nor the NRC itself or all Agreement States, have perfect records of honesty and openness. It me" be in the economic interests of a licensee to provide less than complete data to its regulator (s). (e) Neither licensees nor NRC nor Agreement States conduct continuous dose monitoring to measure real doses actually received by members of the public from air emissions from nuclear facilities. The computer codes and models used by NRC and licensees in the calculations of estimated doses to individuals in the pub!!c are uncertain the accuracy and comprehensiveness of some codes have been called into question in the recent case of Maine Yankee and earlier with respect to, among others, Three Mile Island and Pilgrim. (f) The NRC has recently adopted Regulatory Guidelines to clarify and formalize its "value-added guidance" for the " dollar per person-rem conversion factor policy." implementing a $2000/ person-rem avoided dose but subjecting it to present worth considerations and limiting its scope to health effects. However. by so doing, the future application of this ALARA defining limit on an economic basis may result in less. rather than greater. protection of public health and safety. The health ef f ects basis must incorporate LLL health impacts and f orms of health ef f ects and their true economic costs to the s i

9 WeD%JM i Page four (ECNP Comments on NRC Proposed ALARA Constraint Level Rule) victims. including the effects of low-dose and chronic low-dose non-cancer and non-fatsi tapacts, such as those that result from lapairment of functioning of the human lamune system. (g) The NRC fails to provide for citizen law suits in the event,of the agency's_ failure to abide by its responsibility to maintain air emissions and consequent independently measured doses well below EPA's 1989 NESHAP for -radionuclides of 10 area /yr EDE. only thereby assuring that an " ample margin of ~ safety" has in fact been met. It is for all of these reasons plus others enumerated in the referenced ECNP comments to EPA which accompany this filing submitted to the NRC that we have requested the Commission to withdraw this ALARA constraint level rule and instead to promulgate an enforceable standard for earlaus TEDE to a member of the public of no more than 5 area /yr a figure reasonably ample to provide a margin of safety below EPA's NESHAP dose limit from radionuc!!de air emissions. The fix version of these comments is being submitted to the Secretary of N,' I,d the Commission at $7*5 p.m. on March 12th. The hard copy with all attachments is being asiled on this same day. Thank you for accepting and we hope heading I our recommendations for assuring public health and safety. Sincerely, pYlU{shd Judith H. Johnsrud. Ph.D. Director. ECNP W i I i a

yyyg -a;c n PD/2-f s owwroues couem 99g g c9 mm UP M RE: %26-N. . March 7,19961 .c6 rr 13 P2:05 Cestified Mall-Return Receipt Requested Ofl c,_. "4 i DOCM ' l, ' . Office of the Secretary DCCKETNU M Atta: Docketing and Service Branch PROPOSED RULE _M _u e Mail Stop: 0-16 GIS ~ U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission gpg.m@ Washington, DC 20555-0001 l

Subject:

Comments on Constraint Level for Air Emissions of Radionuclides (RIN 4 3150-AF31)' 60 FR 63984; December 13,1995 j.

Dear Sir / Madam:

S Sequoyah Fuels Corporation has recently reviewed the above referenced proposed change to 10 CFR Part 20 and recommends that the proposed change should not be made for the following reasons: Proposed Change is a New Limit NRC is proposing a new Sec' ion 20.1101(d) that would require licensees to implement a " constraint" upon air emissions from facilities. Although NRC states in the notice of the proposed rule change that this " constraint" is not a new limit, it cienr1y is. The proposed change would " constrain air emissions of radioactive materials other than radon-222 so that the individual member of the public likely to receive the i i highest dose will not be expected to receive a dose in excess of10 mremlyr TEDEfrom these emissions. If a licensee subject to this requirement exceeds this dose constraint, the licensee ^shall report the exceedence as provided in i 20.2203 and promptly take appropriate corrective action to ensure against recurrence." As defined in Webster's dictionary', constrain means, "to force by imposed stricture, restriction, or limitation." The fact that NRC requires that an exceedence of the. " constraint" be reported and actions taken to ensure against recurrence means that this proposed change is s' new limit. Therefore, if NRC has determined that the dose limit for members of the public should be reduced from 100. mrem /yr to 10 mrem /yr, a proposed rule change to take this action should be published. This change should apply to all licensees from all sources. I ebster's' Ninth'New Collegiate Dictionary, Merriam-Webster j W

Inc., 1988.

HtGHWAY 10 & 640 ' PO BOX 810, GORE, OKLAHCMA 74435 : . {918) 489-5611 FAX; 19181489-2291. l l f'

ec ' 4 : +f Docketing and Seivices Branch-March 7,1996 K Page 2 i J No Benefit from Proposed Channe NRC states in proposed Regulatory Guide DG-8016, Constraints for Air Effluents. 1 for Licensees Other Than Power Reactors," that NRC licensees have consistently ) reduced doses from air effluents to small fractions of the dose limits using the ALARA process. In 1992, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reported the results of two studies of materials facilities [57 FR 43173; September 18,1995). j The first was a survey of 367 randomly selected nuclear materials licensees, and indicated that the highest estimated dose to a member of the public from effluents was 8 mremiyr, based on conservative modeling. In' addition,98% of the facilities 3 examined had doses to members of the public resulting from effluents less than 1 j mrem /yr. The second study evaluated effluents from 43 additional facilities thatwere selected because of their potential for effluent that could result in significant public exposures.. Of these 43 facilities, none exceeded 10 mrem /yr to a member of the public, and 75% of them reported less than 1 mrem /yr to a member of the public. l This indicates that licensees are applying ALARA to their operations as ALARA . as intended to be applied. w There is absolutely no need for additional regulation in this area. Licensees have been proactive and demonstrated that the ALARA principle is fully protective of the health and safety of the public. Although the proposed constraintlevel may be easily achieved, there is no need to take the action. ALARA Guidelines Should Not be Codified as Numeric Values The ALARA principle reduces any given dose to "as low as is reasonably achievable" taking into account the state of technology, and the economics of improvements in relation to benefits to the public health and safety, and other societal and socioeconomic considerations. He ALARA concept has long been a part of radiation protection programs of NRC licensed facilities. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission first promulgated the' ALARA concept in its radiation protection regulations in 1975. A-1991 revision established a requirement for all licensees to have a radiation protection program that includes ALARA provisions. n ( ' ALARA guidelines 'should not. be codified as numeric values. However, the l proposed change referenced above does just that, hnposition of this proposed change, and others like it, will make ALARA meaningless. Under the ALARA j concept, a licensee would take measures to reduce emissions and radiation doses to { workers and the public' to levels which are ALARA balancing the benefit with the risk. In the case of system upsets, licensees.would look at the incident, evaluate what . happened and take actions to prevent recurrence. However, with a regulatory thnit J l l

v' t 3 ? Docketing and Services Branch 1 March 7,1996 - Page 3 ~ in place, a report would be filed, a regulatory review would likely take place and - special inspections may be performed. This level of response is not be justified. If NRC continues to reduce the limits to slightly above operating levels, a point will be r_ eached where any upset in normal operating conditions will exceed a limit, even l though it represents an insignificant health concern. Likewise, licensees will cease to improve their operations and take a strict compliance posture. Sequoyah Fuels Corporation does not believe that increased regulation is necessary of the air emissions of NRC licensed facilities, and suggests that this proposed change is contrary to the stated congressional and executive direction which is to reduce the regulatory burden . on industry. l Sincerely, l / t John H. Ellis President i JHE:jp i + i 94 I .[ i

RF3l-v m P.DR-- DOC T

1. A I;?

A 96 M..3 13 P'! :09 !~, Tennessee Valley Authority. Post Office Box 1010, Muscle Shoais Alabama 35062-1010 m-O r_ i 2, V-00C6c, ~ March 8, 1996 e HiCPOSEO,1 h. A M U.S Nuclear Regulatory Commission {ggggg ATTN: Docketing and Services Branch 1( Washington, DC 20555-0001

Dear Sir or Madam:

The Tennessee Valley Authority appreciates this opportunity to comment on proposed changes to 10 CFR 20 contained in Draft Regulatory Guide DG-8016, CONSTRAINTS FOR AIR EFFLUENTS FOR LICENSEES OTHER THAN POWER REACTORS. We wish to comment on only one aspect of the proposed regulation. If the calculated dose (total effective dose equivalent or TEDE) to an actual individual exceeds the constraint level of 10 mrem in a year, then a report must be sent to the NRC within 30 days and the report must include the individual's name, social security number, and date of birth. The term " actual individual" is not defined and it is not clear what the term is intended to mean. For example, suppose that a licensee calculates the TEDE at their facility boundary and an occupied dwelling is at that location. Has the TEDE to an " actual individual," the occupant of that dwelling, been calculated? It could be very difficult to gather the name, social security number, and age of any person not directly employed by the licensee. Many people consider this information to be personal and may refuse to divulge it. Also, attempting to gather it could cause undue alarm or hostility in members of the public. Indeed, even asking a' member of the public for this information could form the basis for unwarranted litigation against the licensee. The constraint )cvel of a TEDE of only 10 mrem is extremely low. This fact and the great uncertainty and conservatism built into the models employed in COMPLY and NCRP Commentary No. 3 make the collection and reporting of this personal information an unnecessary burden on licensees. &&&0h05 kf

'e t U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 2 March 8, 1996 Therefore, we request that this reporting requirement be deleted. If you decide to retain the requirement, then please clearly define the term " actual individual." Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the proposed regulations. If you have any questions, please call me at (205) 386-2993. a Jesse H. Coleman, Radiation Safety Officer Program Operations, Safety MPB 1B-M

22) f. COMMITTEE TO BRIDGELTHE G AP F 3/ O I j pR_ [ - 163713CTLER AVENCE, SUITE 203 - , N 1Y o J t-LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90025 J'Y 4 lyoc:GTED g j (310)478-0829 -c q; ! ? M M., i Comments a of. C ine Committee to Bridge-the Gap $ccx5TINo a-G i v - sgRvicE BRANCH - SEcV41Rc on z 4 The Proposed " Constraint" Rule for Air Emissions x Dc and Associated Draft Regulatory Guide, Environmental AssessmenY; y Finding of No Significant Impact, and Regulatory Analysis by } - The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission j i DOCKET NUMBER o n 11 March 1996 PROPOSED RULE rll ao ~ ((. opt. Wit $ t ~ The U.S. Nuclear' Regulatory Commission (NRC) has published for public comment a proposed " constraint" rule for air emissions. Certain other ~! documents, associated with the proposed rule, have also been published, l particularly a draft regulatory guide (DG-8016), a Regulatory Analysis, an F Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (F0NSI). l j The Committee to Bridge the Gap, a Los Angeles-based nuclear policy i organization, hereby submits the following comments on the proposed constraint rule and associated documents. Introduction. The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate air emissions from a. wide variety of domestic. nuclear facilities. EPA, under pressure from the nuclear industry, has for years i resisted. exercising that statutory responsibility,. requiring several. court orders to' force compliance. Its~1atest approach to thwarting the intent of 4 the CAA is to propose recission of its regulatory powers over hazardous air emissions from NRC-licensed nuclear facilities other than nuclear power plants (it has already rescinded its authority over the power plants.) In order to i i rescind the EPA regulatory authority, however, EPA must find that the NRC program to regulate such air emissions provides an ample margin 'of safety, a standard that EPA has set as a 10 mrem effective dose equivalent for the whole body for the maximally exposed individual, of which no' more than 3 mrem can-be i from radiciodines. EPA has further defined this standard as requiring regulatory limits that are not to be exceeded and are to be calculated in a i certain fashion,. or via certain specified alternative methods.

NRC has.now published a draft rule which would establish not a binding regulatory limit but. a." constraint" level, a level which if exceeded would not constitute a violation' of the regulations. - The proposed rule on its face does not meet the EPA standard. The rule, as proposed, is clearly unacceptable.-

In testimony.before the EPA (copy attached), we delineated detailed i . deficiencies inithe NRC proposed rule and why those defects made it legally ' impossible for EPA to' rescind its regulatory authority in the area. Rather .than' repeat-those arguments here, our testimony and the points raised therein I D't2vTit4 %e n

y se f i q o. q are incorporated herein by reference. ,In what follows,..we add to those points.. j . The Proposed NRC " Constraint" Rule b The~ proposed rule ~is a transparent attempt to provide EPA with sufficient. superficial. basis to rescind its-own regulatory program without substantively altering NRC's standards, which are markedly less protective of ' j the'public and provide markedly less margin of safety At the core ~ of the. .differenceLbetween the two agencies' standards and programs is a ten-fold or 1 more difference in permissible exposures from air emissions. The NRC's l regulatory limit for members'of the public sets.the 11mit normally. at _100 E millirem per year [10 CFR 20.1301(a)(1)], although with permission from NRC 1 facilities can legally operate so as to produce public exposures five times ~ that, or 500 mrem [10 CFR 20.1301(c)]. i .- These " permissible" doses are 10 to 50 times higher than EPA's air. ' emissions standards of 10 mrem. The NRC limits of 100 to 500 mrem per year are roughly 10 to 50 chest X-ray equivalents per year. Doctors are extremely -reluctant to order even-a single X-ray if not clearly medically needed, e because of the risks associated with the extra radiation exposure. It is . difficult to believe the public would find acceptable these permissible - radiation exposure levels-set by NRC were they to be informed NRC viewed as i acceptable the exposures. to members of the public equal to hundreds or i thousands of additional _ chest X-rays over one's lifetime. Indeed, the current NRC regulatory limits are equivalent to a-1 in 300 l . lifetime risk of cancer (at the 100 mrem standard) and.1 in 60 risk (at the l 500 mrem standard).- [ Source:.. U.S. General Accounting Office, " Consensus on_ Acceptable Radiation' Risk to the Public is Lacking," September 1994, GA0/RCED-94-190.] This estimate by GA0 is based on somewhat outdated risk estimates; if one uses the estimates of.the National Academy of Sciences' -Committee _on Biological. Effects of _ Ionizing Radiation (BEIR V), the risk factors are even higher--I in 180 and 1 in 36 respectively. By contrast, " acceptable" risk for carcinogen exposure under EPA standards is-generally set l .at 1 in a million.- Thus, NRC's radiation standards for exposures of the l public are currently four to five orders of magnitude less protective than the o risk level generally considered acceptable by. EPA. ~ Furthermore, NRC's method of calculating doses, found in 10 CFR 20 1 ~ Appendix ~B, are substantially less protective than EPA's, even for the same exporures. As was pointed out to EPA in a 27 November 1995 letter by Robert C ) 15hinn, Jr. Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Environmental . Protection, allowed air concentrations--for the same presumed dose--are n . generally tens.to hundreds of times higher under NRC regulatory methods of. 1

calculation than EPA's. The dose conversion factors used by NRC in 10 CFR 20-Appendix B, Table'2, are up to'460 times less protective'than are the factors l

used by EPA in'10 CFR 61, Appendix E Table 2. ] _ It is' thus clear that NRps current regulatory limits for radiation-l exposure'.to members of the public from air emissions are. orders of. magnitude 'less protectivetthan EPA standards. The question then becomes whether the 1 L 1 I! p,k i 3 a

proposed " constraint" rule adequately improves that situation--or, indeed, whether it changes it at all. The answer is clearly no. It is self-evident, both from the content and stated purpose of the proposed rule, that its intention is to preserve the current relaxed j regulatory posture of the NRC with regards to radiation exposures to the public while attempting to present to EPA a " basis" for rescinding its own, more protective regulations. Indeed, NRC states at the outset that the purpose of the proposed is not to provide stricter regulatory limits for its licensees and thus greater protection for the public, but instead merely to As provide a basis for EPA to rescind its own regulatory program in the area. shall be seen below, the NRC rule is carefully constructed so as to not create a regulatory limit more protective than the current NRC permissible levels of 10 to 50 chest-X-ray equivalents per year to members of the public. (Over 70 years, that is a " permissible" exposure of 700 to 3500 additional chest X-rays to an individual from nuclear facilities, as astonishingly lax regulatory framework.) The NRC Proposed " Constraint" Rule is Not a Regulatory Limit; Exceeding it Would Not Constitute a Violation The EPA limits are regulatory limits; exceeding them is a violation. NRC has been careful to not produce an equivalent level of protection. The proposed rule sets a level which is not a violation to exceed. If one breaches the " constraint" level, all one has to do is submit a report and identify corrective measures to be taken. Failure to carry out the corrective measures would be a violation, but under the language as written, failure of the corrective measures to prevent a second breach of the constraint level would not be. It appears one could violate the constraint level time and time again, so long as one submits a report each time and carries out the corrective measures promised. The " constraint" level is tied to the ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable) requirement. However, ALARA is defined in the NRC regulations as merely a goal, and the necessity of achievement of the goal is defined as necessary only to the extent that factors such as technology and economics make it acceptable. In other words, ALARA is not a requirement, but merely a suggestion to keep emissions as low as readily achievable given the economics and other factors of reducing emissions. On the other hand, regulatory limits such as EPA's NESHAP are real limits--one must not exceed certain exposures to the public, or a violation exists. NRC has created an empty shell of a standard, one that is not mandatory. Non-mandatory limits are no limits at all--that is why NRC has called this a " constraint" level, not a regulatory limit. As such, it is unacceptable. The draft regulatory guide further relaxes matters unacceptably, by permitting far less stringent methods of calculating estimated exposures than under the EPA NESHAP. Furthermore, NRC has not incorporated the proposed " constraint level" into any other section of the regulations than 10 CFR 20, so it has not become part of any licensing standard (see, e.g., 10 CFR 30, 61, or 70). s 3

1 d 2 Conclusion The proposed NRC " constraint rule" is.a hollow'shell designed to give. EPA a superficial-basis for rescinding its stricter regulations without altering the tremendously lax NRC regulatory standards and program. After the .I constraint rule, the " permissible" levels of exposure to members of the public l 2 from air emissions will be what they were before the rule--the equivalent of .l - up to thousands of additional chest X-rays to an individual over his or.her. .) . lifetime. Of a million people exposed to the NRC " permissible" levels, 5,000 l to 28,000 would die from cancers caused by that " acceptable" exposure from the nuclear enterprise. And this does not even compensate for the NRC method of converting concentration of radioactive material to dose, which is 10 to 100 l times more lax than EPA's. -(One should note that even were the 10 mrem level i - to be not a " constraint" level but an actual regulatory limit, and were the j NRC conversion factors for' dose as lax as they are, the 10 mrem level is the equivalent' of a 1 in 1800 lifetime risk of cancer, five' hundred times more lax than the general EPA one-in-a-million level for acceptable risk.) _ The proposed NRC " constraint" rule is not a regulatory limit; exceeding the 10 mrem figure is permissible, not prohibited; it does not include the EPA - requirement of limiting radioiodine exposures to 3 mrem; more lax l calculational techniques are permitted, making true exposures far higher than j under the EPA scheme; and the only regulatory limits now in existence for the-t public (100 to 500 mrem annually) would remain the only limits after the " constraint" rule is finalized. The proposal, to put it gently, is a sham, . leaving the NRC regulatory limits as lax as it was before the rule, but with the public less protected than under the current ' situation. This is because j ~ the purpose of the rule is to get EPA to rescind its regulatory program and standards, which are substantially more protective of the public than either 4 the current or proposed NRC radiation programs. The rule should be substantially strengthened; the EA and FONSI 4 rejected, having failed to analyze either the alternatives of a stronger rule-1 or the effect of the weak rule on the environment by contributing to rescission of the more protective EPA regulations and regulatory program; and i the draft Reg. Guide rejected, as it permits calculation of exposure by means far less protective than EPA's. L i v 1 i \\ z 3-e s s

d Attachment 1 Testimony of Committee-to Bridge the Gap Before. the Office of Radiation and Indoor. Air Radiation Protection Division ~ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Regarding EPA's Proposals to Rescind Its Authority to Regulate Radionuclide Air Emissions from All Civil Nuclear Facilities Washington, D.C. ?9 February 1996 Introduction This testimony is presented on behalf of the Committee to Bridge the Gap (CBG), a Los Angeles-based nuclear policy organization. Officers of CBG. regret that, due to the distance and expense involved. in traveling three thousand miles to Washington, D.C., they cannot be physically present at this hearing.. On 30 October 1995, in timely response to EPA's Federal Register notice of 28 September 1995 (60 FR 50161), ten organizations, including CBG, wrote to EPA requesting hearings on its proposal to rescind its authority under the 4 - Clean Air Act to protect the public from hazardous air emissions from all civil nuclear facilities, many thousands of such facilities in total. As we said in that letter, the EPA final rescission of its regulatory authority over air emissions from nuclear power plants and its proposed rescission of authority over all other licensed nuclear facility " entail wholesale removal of hard-won public protections from excessive emissions of radionuclides.from the entire civil nuclear sector." In our October 1995 letter to EPA, the ten groups requested, "to avoid the hearing being solely an "inside-the-Beltway affair," that hearing sessions be held elsewhere in the nation. Most of the groups requesting the hearings were not based in Washington; half were based in California. The groups requested expressly that one of the hearings be held in California. As we ;oncluded in that letter: The abdication of EPA regulatory authority over hazardous air emissions from all non-Department of Energy nuclear. facilities is a serious

matter, one which could lead.to significant diminution of public protection from radionuclides of significant toxicity.

It should be entertained only after thorough review of the issues. 4

m. p l i I \\ Nonetheless, as of.this date, we have received.no' response from EPA to our October letter. EPA did publish a notice in the Federal Register i i announcing a hearing'in' Washington, D.C. Since we have had no response to our request for hearings in California, we do not know if EPA will grant that request. On the chance that it will not, we hereby ' submit testimony to the hearing in Washington, but are handicapped by not being able.to be present.in i. person, with the opportunity to ask questions, rebut or comment upon other 7 p testimony, and the like. r Process Concerns EPA published its notice of proposed rescission on 28 September 1995, based on a ' proposed NRC " constraint" rule which had not even been published for public comment at that time.- The NRC draft rule was not published until 13 December. It is not yet a final rule, and may be changed prior to ! finalization. Additionally, a draft regulatory guide was to be -issued in ' connection with the NRC draft rule. The draft regulatory. guide is to provide + guidance as to how to meet the draft " constraint" rule. Notice of the availability of the draft regulatory guide for public review and comment was not published in the Federal Register until 22 January. We have.so far been unable to obtain it.. Nonetheless, it too is not yet final and may be substantially revised in response to comments. Furthermore, NRC policy ' statements and procedures attempting to remedy EPA concerns about the adequacy and criteria for the NRC Agreement State program have not been finalized to date. Additionally, NRC inspection procedures appear not to have'yet been i. modified to reflect the proposed " constraint" rule. j i EPA has previously indicated that the current NRC + egulatory program did not provide the assurance of an ample margin of safety required by the Clean Air Act (CAA) for EPA to rescind its regulatory authority in the arena of hazardous air emissions from NRC licensed facilities. It.has insisted.upon a new rule adopting the 10 mrem standard; a revised regulatory guide detailing l' how to comply with that rule; new inspection procedures detailing how to enforce it; and new NRC policy and procedures to remedy inadequacies in the NRC Agreement State program. Not one of these is yet final. Yet EPA has proposed rescinding its authority anyway, and insisted upon public comment on the adequacy of NRC steps not yet taken. This makes little sense. It puts the cart before the horse. To be rational, and not arbitrary and capricious, EPA should await finalization of any prospective NRC actions, and then solicit public comment as to whether those " final" NRC actions are adequate to provide the " ample margin of safety" assurance required by the CAA for EPA rescission. On 17 January 1996,.the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS), the' Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power, the Sierra Club, and CBG wrote to EPA requesting the comment period on EPA's proposal to rescind its NESHAPs be extended until after final action by the NRC on the matters that are supposed to provide equivalent protection to that of the EPA NESHAPs. To date, we have had no response to that request, either. We hereby renew our request in this regard, specifying in detail the rule, reg. guide, inspection procedures, and Agreement State policy and j procedures identified above. Public comment on these issues is premature

L.* until those items are finalized by NRC. Scope of Comments Solicited on EPA Proposed Rescission We object to EPA's' assertion in its 28 September 1995 Federal Register notice attempting to severely restrict the scope of public comments permitted on its-proposed rescission of its NESHAP authority. All issues relevant-to l that proposed rescission should be within the scope of permitted comm2nts. In particular, important developments have occurred in the last few years; prohibiting comments on those matters would arbitrarily shut the agencies ears, so to speak, to new facts that should be considered in determining whether public health would be harmed were EPA to rescind its NESHAP authority. Comments on the Sufficiency of the' Revisions of the NRC Program to Support the -Finding Required by CAA Section 112(d)(9).

1.

EPA has determined that a 10 mrem total effect dose equivalent (TEDE) from all pathways from air emissions, with no more than 3 mrem coming from - radioiodines, is necessary to meet the CAA requirements. The NRC proposed " constraint" rule includes neither requirement. NRC has inexplicably dropped the 3 mrem standard from radiciodines, and the proposed rule is therefore on its face not equivalent to the standard set by EPA. Additionally, NRC appears to permit calculations based on 10 CFR'20 Appendix B, air limits, which does not include all pathways (e.g., ingestion of agricultural products contaminated by air emissions) that are included in the EPA NESHAP. Thus, 10 mrem TEDE under the NRC proposed " constraint" rule is also on. its face not equivalently protective and would result in doses above 10 mrem TEDE when all pathways are included, as required by EPA. L I 2. The EPA NESHAP limits are enforceable regulations, breach of which are 9 prohibited as violations. The proposed NRC " constraint" goals are I unenforceable suggestions, breach of which are permitted and not deemed violations. As such, they are not equivalently protective. Indeed, NRC would permit breach of the 10 mrem level, so long as it is reported; EPA NESHAP regulations prohibit breach of the 10 mrem level. EPA has found that compliance with CAA requires prevention of doses from hazardous air emissions exceeding 10 mrem TEDE and 3 mrem from radiciodines. I As such, exceedance of those limits is a violation of the EPA NESHAPs. The NRC draft rule declares doses in excess of 10 mrem TEDE to not be a violation. ( i l The current EPA rule prohibits doses greater than 10 mrem; the NRC proposed rule permits such doses. The two rules obviously do not produce equivalent protection. '3. The draft NRC regulation merely requires reporting when one exceeds 10 mrem and identifying proposed corrective actions. It is ambiguous as to whether, if the 10 mrem level is subsequently breached again, there is even then a violation, so long as one has taken the actions one previously proposed. ______;_______-______-_-_-__-_________-__-___--______________-________u_--___--

The NRC draft rule implies that, so long as one has taken the corrective actions one identified at the time of the first breach, there is no violation if one subsequently goes over the 10 mrem figure again. For example, if the second breaking of the 10 mrem figure is due to a different cause than the first or, even if due to the same cause, if one had taken the corrective measures promised, it would appear no violation would exist. 4. The rule does not require the use of the COMPLY code for calculating compliance with the NESHAP limit, or specified alternatives, as required by EPA. It therefore would potentially permit a calculational method less protective than the EPA rule. The rule is completely silent as to how it is to be determined if one has gone over the 10 mrem figure. One can always calculate a dose to be as i low as one wishes for regulatory purposes; if there is no mandatory calculational method, estimated doses will always be far tview true doses. 1 Apparently, the draft revised Regulatory Guide provides some guidance on these matters; but NRC Regulatory Guides are not mandatory. Furthermore, it appears the Reg. Guide permits the licensee to ignore COMPLY and the EPA-approved alternatives and invent an alternative it wishes. NRC estimates it will take only I hour to demonstrate that any alternative code prepared by or used by a licensee has been " validated" against COMPLY or the other approved methods for demonstrating compliance and to " verify that each calculation l performed by the code is being completed correctly." (NRC Supporting Statement for 10 CFR 20 ALARA Constraint and Draft Regulatory Guide DG-8016). Clearly, one cannot in a mere hour adequately validate an alternative code and verify that each calculation is being performed correctly; thus NRC is tacitly admitting inadequately validated and verified alternative calculational methods will be tolerated. 5. The EPA NESHAP has a provision for citizen suits to require compliance. The NRC " constraint" rule has none. A significant part of the EPA program is the provision for citizen suits. This public right to action has had a salutary effect on the agency, prodding it to enforce the NESHAP more vigorously. It has had a salutary effect on the regulated entities, prodding them to more accurately report emissions and more aggressively try to limit them, knowing that their actions can result in court action brought by the public. And, when both the agency and the regulated entities fail, this mechanism has resulted in the public being able to obtain from the courts binding intervention requiring rectification of violations. EPA knows that this citizen right to action, found in the CAA, has not infrequently resulted in courts mandating corrective l actions not voluntarily undertaken by polluters nor enforced by EPA prior to the court intervention. Taking away this protection can only result in a diminution of protection of public health and safety. The NRC rule in this j regard too is not equivalent, and provides significantly less of a margin of ? l safety than the EPA rule. I 6. The Agreement States frequently regulate even more weakly than does NRC. NRC has never revoked an Agreement, thus never enforced the compatibility requirement. In addition, NRC will permit Agreement States three years to adopt parallel regulations to the " constraint rule." Thus, there will be a - e-

i F i period of.three years from the time of the proposed rescission of EPA authority to.the time Agreement States even have constraint rules in place (if they comply in a timely fashion). The public would therefore be bereft of I 4 protection from hazardous air emissions for several years--clearly not in i i keeping with the " ample margin of safety" requirement. 1 1 i While some Agreement States have comparable or better regulatory programs to those of the NRC, many are disastrously weak.. Inspections are often very much less frequent than under.the NRC. Regulation is.often limited to' receiving annual reports from licensees and approving license amendment requests.. It has recently been revealed that the State of Nevada, for example, failed to detect illegal du11ng of liquid wastes by NECO (now US Ecology) at its Beatty, Nevada, radQactive waste. facility for something on the order of.a decade. Radioactivt iy contaminated tools were being taken from waste barrels and distributed in the nearby town for years before being caught by state regulators. We have seen the same weaknesses and excessive coziness with licensees on the part of state regulators in California. NRC just gives carte blanche to Agreement States. It has never revoked an Agreement, no matter how egregiously weak the Agreement State's program may be. It has no l way of ensuring adequacy of those programs if it fails to enforce the compatibility requirements; its only enforcement mechanism is revocation, a measure it has never taken. Therefore, the current and proposed NRC practices with regards Agreement States are inadequate to assure public protection with regards the NESHAPs.- 7. The existing EPA rule requires that proposed facilities demonstrate that they will meet the NESHAP in order to obtain a permit to construct. The proposed NRC rule contains no such provision. Currently, in order to obtain permission to construct a facility that may emit hazardous air pollutants such as radionuclides, an applicant must demonstrate that it will comply with the NESHAP limits, and EPA must approve or deny approval on that basis. The proposed NRC rule deals only with operations, not with permits to construct (or operate). Now, EPA cannot permit a facility to even be constructed if it can't demonstrate NESHAP i compliance will result; under the NRC rule, there will be no such requirement, and construction will be permitted no matter what. This represents a serious lack of equivalency on the part of the NRC program and a significant reduction in public protection. 8. EPA has no basis for. determining that the current or proposed NRC regulatory program is indeed keeping air emissions below the NESHAP levels. Much evidence, not reviewed by EPA, demonstrates the opposite. EPA's review of this issue is based on data seven years older or older. It is arbitrary an capricious to.not consider data more recent and relevant. Additionally, EPA did no actual measurements or even review of measurements to make'a determination in this regard. It merely asked a select group of licensees to provide estimates of its releases. There was no verification of .these numbers, no independent measurements. 'Most importantly, there was no review of actual dose / exposure data. Self-reporting is a grossly inadequate means of determining compliance. It is like asking a group of accused . criminals which among them is guilty. The innocent among them may answer honestly, but it:is a rare guilty person who will. Enforcement requires I ,a

1 independent determination of whether limits are being breached; not asking people whether they have breached limits. Just one example of why relying on self-reporting is dangerous: The UCLA research reactor for years reported its Argon-41 emissions as a fraction of a curie per year. Years later, calibration errors and other violations of the license were detected, indicating that for years the Argon-41 emissions were under-reported by orders of magnitude. One year 0.303 curies had been reported; the true figure turned out to be 124.9. The next year 0.1046 Ci was reported; the corrected figure, corrected years later, was 41.9. And so on. Self-reported values without independent verification cannot be relied upon. Additionally, it is very dangerous to rely upon models for estimating dose instead of looking at hard data. Given again the UCLA reactor example, the Argon-41 releases, even when corrected, are about an order of magnitude lower than those reported to EPA by MIT for its larger research reactor.

EPA, 1

using a computer model, estimated maximum doses from the MIT Argon-41 as well below the NESHAP of 10 mrem. Yet, UCLA, with its lower emissions, used TLDs to measure doses from Argon-41 which were many times the NESHAP. Indeed, the NRC estimated doses inside the Math Sciences Building adjacent to the reactor as several times greater than the NESHAP value, because the exhaust stack for the reactor was lower than and directly upwind of the main air inlet for the Math Building. EPA claims that low-level radioactive waste facilities, for example, are well below the NESHAP. It bases that claim, however, on US Ecology's applications for NESHAP permits to construct for its California and Nebraska facilities. Self-serving claims by applicants are not evidence of compliance. EPA has not yet even approved or given final endorsement to the California application (we presume the same is true for Nebraska). Indeed, several COMPLY runs performed by US Ecology for its California project (and not provided to EPA) showed the project to not be in compliance with the NESHAP--by wide margins. EPA's claims regarding existing LLRW dumps are even more incorrect. EPA l claims that no exposures in excess of background have ever been reported at either the Richland or Beatty sites. No source is given for these i extraordinary claims, but recent data make clear that both claims are false. US Ecology's Richland dump, in the desert of western Washington State, l has reported elevated tritium in vegetation at the site. In order to confirm i it was coming from the trenches, the State authorities directed the creation i of a vadose zone monitoring program, which identified elevated tritium in soil f moisture, far in excess of standards. Tritium at a control location, far from the trenches, was orders of magnitude lower, confirming that the tritium was coming from US Ecology operations and not some other source on the Hanford i site. Thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) measuring gamma radiation routinely report doses there many times the exposures permitted under EPA's National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) or NRC's standards for low-level radioactive waste facilities. i The Thermc-Luminescent Dosimeters (TLDs) monitoring gamma radiation at j i ,. i

US Ecology's Richland, Washington LLRW dump routinely show doses far in excess of both EPA's 40 CFR 561.102 NESHAPs (10 mrem /yr whole body) and NRC's 10 CFR 561 standards for LLRW sites (25 mrem /yr whole body). For example, in 1991, the TLDs at the southwest corner of US Ecology's dump (i.e., outside US Ecology's property line) recorded 172 mrem. That is more than twice background for that area. The nearby town of Richland, chosen as a background location, was at 74 mrem. Indeed, the northeast corner of the US Ecology property, farther from the trenches than the southwest corner, was at 86 mrem. Thus, the dose off the US Ecology property was on the order of 100 mrem above background--far in excess of NESHAP or 10 CFR 561 standards. Washington State Department of Health, Environmental Healthy Programs, Environmental Radiation Program 1991 Annual Report, August 1993, p. 34,134-6, 243. The radiation is clearly coming from US Ecology's operations and not other activities elsewhere on the Hanford property. The TLDs on the southern edge of US Ecology's property, close to the radioactive waste trenches, are consistently higher than those on the northern edge of the property, which are considerably further away from the trenches. See p. 243, id. This pattern is reinforced in US Ecology's TLD measurements, which likewise show elevated readings, highest along the south fence. Readings as high as 270 mrem /yr. above background were reported in 1991, according to US Ecology's annual report. (p. 5-118) The elevated fenceline readings-- elevated along all sides of the property--continues each year. The TLD fenceline reading in 1992, for example, led to this conclusion in US Ecology's Annual Report for 1992, p. 5-123, "The exposure attributable to site EPA's NESHAP standard is 10 mrem /yr annual operations was 170 mrem." exposure; the 10 CFR 61 standard for " low-level" radioactive waste sites is 25 mrem /yr from all exposure pathways combined. It is clear US Ecology's Richland operations are well above those standards. Using theoretical doses calculated by US Ecology for Ward Valley of a few mrem per year is clearly irrational, when the measured values at its other sites (including its arid sites) is one or two orders of magnitude higher. In a 16 September 1994 letter to US Ecology, the NRC states that monitoring data for the Richland facility " clearly point to the U.S. Ecology facility as the source of elevated radiation." The letter refers to TLD l measurements in excess of 100 millirem per year above background (10 times the NESHAPs) and reminds US Ecology that the NRC's former limit of 500 millirem per year had been reduced to 100 millirem and that the reported doses would thus be in excess of the NRC 100 millirem standard. Clearly, if that is true, the facility is far in excess of the NESHAPs as well. At US Ecology's Beatty site, the same is true. Recent cata, including a comprehensive review of the full operating record of the Beatty site just j rew M1v released by the Conference of Radiation Control Protection Directors (CRCPD), d Aument widespread contamination, far in excess of background and far over the NESHAP standard. Vegetation has been reported significantly elevated in radioactivity. Soil samples have also been repeatedly contaminated. TLDs at the fenceline have shown quarterly doses of 500-700 millirem in 1965, 1.2 Rem the next year, and 480 mrem in 1967. EPA then commenced independent monitoring; six measurements exceeded 100 mrem / quarter. In 1976 they measured 1.14 Rem in a single quarter. Beginning in 1977, US i \\ r

i \\ Ecology monitored 14 locations using TLDs. The maximum annual exposures during that period was 415 mrem, with doses between two hundred and four hundred mrem per year fairly standard between 1977 and the early 1980s. The releases were clearly coming from the facility, as doses at the south boundary remained significantly higher than all other locations (the south boundary is closest to the trenches). Doses remained many multiples of the NESHAP throughout the life of the facility, up through the most recent data reported by CRCPD, for the early 1990s. These dose data are so far above the NESHAP that were any member of the public to spend just a few days in a year near the site, they would get exposures in excess of the NESHAP limits. And numerous members of the public (truckers, people delivering supplies, visitors, etc.) do spend in aggregate more than a few days per year near the facilities. A thorough review of more recent data, and a reliance on actual data instead of self-reporting by licensees, is essential if EPA is to avoid making an arbitrary decision on the adequacy of the NRC program to provide an ample j margin of safety and meet the NESHAP levels. Conclusion NRC's regulatory limit is 100 mrem per year; with permission, one can go i up to 500 mrem. These regulatory limits are ten times and fifty times EPA's NESHAPs, not counting other factors involving the method for calculating doses that result in NRC actually permitting doses even higher relative to EPA's NESHAPs. In order to eliminate the more stringent regulations by EPA, NRC has proposed, not a new regulatory limit equivalent to EPA's NESHAP, but an "ALARA constraint" level, breach of which would not be even a violation of the regulations. NRC's ALARA principle is a goal that one should reduce radiation to levels " reasonably achievable," taking into account economics and other factors not related to public health protection. It is clear that NRC has created a Potemkin Village type proposed ruled, an empty shell with nothing behind it, solely in order to provide EPA with an argument for rescinding its own authority to regulate emissions. The sole purpose in getting rescission i is relief for industry from having to comply with what is clearly recognized to be a stricter standard, more adequately enforced. It is precisely because the NRC proposed rule is so much weaker, and the NRC's regulatory program so much weaker as well, that EPA cannot make the finding required by the Clean Air Act to justify rescinding its own regulatory program. Let us be frank about the matter. The CAA NESHAP authority was a hard-won victory for public health and safety. EPA for.many years now has resisted assuming the authority mandated it by law. Now it is attempting to eliminate that hard-won protection for the public. The NRC " constraint" rule provides markedly less protection for the public than the EPA NESHAP, and to rescind the latter would be to place the public at increased risk.

R P.31-M i 9 f 1 UNIVERSITY OF cal.lFORNI A. IRVINE 8 i) m. m.,. n. m. -. - u s. m m. m ,.. A.m asco 9 y so mi,m. s.oma g '96 ti n U P 2 :1 1 Environrnental Health & Safety inine.CA 92717 2725 s C March 11,1996 gegi' NUMBER p: M' g ' p.OPOSED RULtl_ E p (GomCS9%) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-001 Attn: Docketing and Services Branch RE: Comments on RIN3150-AF31: Proposed Constraint Level for Air Emissions of Radionuclides (60FR 63984), Draft Regulatory Guide DG-8016: Constraints for Air Effluents for Licensees other than Power Reactors, and Regulatory Analysis for the NRC Constraint Rule on Radionuclide Air Emissions from NRC and Agreement State Licensees other than Nuclear Power Reactors The llealth Physics Society's State and Federal Legislation Committee appreciates the opportunity to present the following comments on NRC's proposed rule, its guidance for implementation and regulatory analysis. These comments are those of this committee and do not necessarily represent those of the entire membership of the IIPS or any committee member's employer.

GENERAL COMMENT

S The Simpson Amendment to the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 requires that before promulgating any new standard the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency must determite if the NRC's regulatory program pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act provides an " ample margin of safety to protect the public health" from airborne radionuclide emissions. In order to make such a deteimination, the EPA conducted two studies and required non-power reactor and Agreement-State licensees to perform evaluations and submit reports to EPA. The results showed that airborne radionuclide emissions from these categories oflicensees are below EPA's arbitrary limit of 10 mrem 'l EDE per year, indeed, using very conservative assumptions (thereby overestimating doses),98% of those licensees randomly selected for one of those studies showed less than Imrem TEDE per year. Even so, the EPA Administrator expressed concem that future licensed activities could exceed the arbitrary 10 mrem per year limit, thus requiring ' NRC to propose a new rule calling this value a " constraint" dose. %oSt$Usc4 5pp

i 4 . U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission March 11,1996 Page 2 Scientifically, the NRC's present annual limit of 100 mrem (from all licensed activities) and the EPA's present annual limit of 25 mrem (from nuclear fuel cycle activities) to any member of the public already provide an ample margin of safety. These numerical values are consistent with the recommendations of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. In September 1992, the IIcalth Physics Society's " Position Statement on Radiation Dose Limits for the General Public" stated that the Society " endorses the dose limits recommended by the NCRP and adopted by the NRC and EPA noting that (1) they are sufficiently conservative for public health protection, (2) compliance can be verified by actual measurement, (3) they can be achieved in most cases without sacrificing significant public benefits, and (4) they can be applied without discrimination to essentially all manmade sources." Thus, there is no need to establish any new constraints or limits for airborne radionuclide emissions. However, if the NRC choses to continue with this rulemaking, please consider the following specific comments. COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED RULE 1. The proposed limit of 10 mrem /y TEDE is only a very small fraction of the differences in natural background radiation levels which occur within the United States. The NCRP has estimated that the average resident of the United States receives (in round numbers) about 300 mrem /y TEDE from natural background radiation, including radon progeny, and about 60 mrem /y TEDE from medical radiation exposures as a patient. However, mountainous areas have higher natural background levels, from increased levels of cosmic rays due to altitude and higher quantities of naturally occurring radioactive materials in the soils and in building materials. In fact, natural background levels in much of Colorado and Wyoming average 100 to 200 mrem /y higher than in coastal regions. Thus, the 10 mrem /y TEDE constraint level is only 5 to 10 percent of the difference in background levels between coastal areas and the mountainous states. 2. The Clean Air Act limits airborne emissions to the environment-to areas outside the boundary of the facility. Airborne releases within the licensee's facility are more than adequately regulated by current NRC regulations. If the proposed dose -. constraints are kept, Section 20.1101(d) should be changed to apply to the individual member of the public likely to receive the highest offsite dose. 3 y.

I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission March 11,1996 Page 3 3. Airborne radionuclide emissions from all current materials licensees have already been shown to be below the 10 mrem /y level, even with the unrealistic methods of-the COMPLY code (yielding very conservative overestimates). Licensees have already spent a considerable amount of funds to show that they are in compliance (in the order of 100 million dollars). They should not have to do this again unless they increase their present uses of radioactive materials by a considerable amount- -at least by several orders of magnitude. 4. Default values for each radionuclide should be included in the regulation to provide guidance on when licensees would need to do additional analyses (e.g., as an appendix to the rule). The values used for EPA's analyses would be a start. With improved and more realistic release fractions (such as 10" for volatile forms and 10 for nonvolatile forms) applied to the annual throughput of radioactive 4 materials used by a licensee, calculations would only be needed for new processes, experiments and operations exceeding these values. Such evaluations should be conducted during the licensing process, rather than as a separate - exerdise. 5. Sealed containers, not just sealed sources, should be exempted from the calculations. For example, many radioactive compounds used in research are routinely stored in ultracold freezers for extended periods of time. These will not become airborne while frozen. Another example are the " multi-dose" or " single dose" vials, from which the contents are removed by hypodermic needles and syringes, then injected into patients or experimental systems, with no airborne releases. 6. Just as the present regulation of airborne emissions from all NRC-licensed facilities is adequate, so too is the regulation of airborne emissions from patients under present regulatory programs. To require extended patient stays in medical i facilities after undergoing routine nuclear medicine procedures would be a further waste of the nation's limited resources. l I s

n i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission March 11,1996 Page 4 COMMENTS ON TIIE PROPOSED REGULATORY GUIDE 1. Appendix A should be changed so that it contains an example to show calculations for an ofTsite release, rather than for airborne contamination within a l licensee's building. 2. Incidentally, the inappropriate example in Appendix A has several significant errors in the equations and calculations, and should be corrected ifit is used for any purpose. 3. The COMPLY code is very difficult to use and should be replaced by a much more user-friendly version'in Windows with adjusted release fractions as stated above. COMMENT ON TIIE REGULATORY ANALYSIS i The Regulatory Analysis neglects the significant amount of time required for licensees to 1 obtain an extensive amount of detailed information and for making the calculations. We estimate that each licensee will spend 50-100 hours on the initial analyses, and perhaps 20 to 30 hours per year to accumulate data and show that no significant changes have occurred; to reconfirm the results of previous studies and reports prepared for the EPA! This unnecessary burden will likely cost the nation more than 100 million dollars, in addition to that already spent. CONCLUSIONS The proposed rule is scientifically amd economically unjustifiable. Existing regulatory limits are more than sufficient to provide an ample margin of safety for members of the public from all licensed activities, especially considering that detrimental human health i effects do not occur until doses reach several orders of magnitude higher then those limits. The proposed rule is unnecessary, considering the EPA's studies and reports which j demonstrate that airborne radioactive emissions are not only well below NRC's existing safe limits, they are also below the proposed constraint level. The only action necessary to comply with the Simpson Amendment is the EPA's recission ofits National Emission Standard for llazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for all radionuclide emissions. 1 ) - -~ J

e t U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission March 11,1996 Page 5 If the NRC goes forward with this rulemaking, changes should be made (1) to clarify that it applies only to offsite environmental releases, (2) to provide exemptions for materials in sealed containers, and (3) to specify annual usage values for each radionuclide with appropriate release fractions. Also, the regulatory guide needs to provide a more appropriate mathematically correct example and the regulatory analysis needs to include a realistic estimate of the costs to the regulated community and an estimate of any societal benefits. Please contact me if you desire any clarification of our concerns on this matter or if we can assist you by reviewing future rulemakings on any radiation protection issue. Sincerely, James G. Tripodes, Chairman llPS State and Federal Legislation Committee cc: Chairman Shirley A. Jackson Commissioner Kenneth C. Rogers Commissioner Greta J. Dieus EDO James M. Taylor Deputy EDO l-lugh Thompson EPA Administrator Carol Browner Troy Ilillier, OMB

j9F SI-- L - 22.

1. /DL s

D0Q:FTED gyqc National Mining Association e <.7:, a,-c o s : e GFF,Ci :. i ~:5 t DOCFET,.

b. E '

March 12,1996 ~ DOCKET NUMBER nn PROPOSED RULEIJ.L@ ~ Mr. John C. Iloyle MN h Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 20855 ATTN: Docketing and Services Branch Re: Proposed Rule for Constraint Level For Air Emissions of Radionnelides And Draft Regulatory Gui<le DG-8016 L) ear Mr. Iloyle: The National Mining Association (NMA) submits these comments in response to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) proposed rule to establish a constraint level of 10 millirem a year (mrem /yr) total effective dose equivalent (TEDE) for dose to members of the public from air emission releases of radionuclides (other than Radon-222) from NRC licensed facilities (except power reactors). 60 Fed. Reg. 63984 (December 13,1995). These conunents also address NRC's modifications to Regulatory Guide 8.37 (Draft Regulatory Guide DG-8016 " Constraints for Air Effluents for Licensees Other Than Power Reactors," December 1995)(Dratl Guidance). While NMA believes the proposed rule is unnecessary, it will support the constraint rule provided that the final rule excludes radon-222 and its decay products. NMA's 381 members represent producers of most of America's coal, metals, industrial and agricultural minerals; manufacturers of mining and mineral processing machinery equipment and supplies; transporters; financial engineering firms; and other businesses related to coal and hardrock mining. These comments are submitted by NMA on behalf ofits member companies who are NRC licensees. These members include the owners and operators of uranium mills and mill tailings sites and in stu uranium production facilities. ..v ~ww, w w e.,. -, m.w b h

1. +

4 Mr. John C. Hoyle March 12,1996 Page 2 . Eroposed Constraint Rule NMA continues to believe that NRC's existing comprehensive regulatory scheme provides an ample margin of public health and safety. If, however, as it appears, it is. necessary for NRC to promulgate a constraint goal of 10 mrem /yr in order for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to finally rescind Subpart I for facilities other than power reactors, NMA does not oppose a constraint rule if NRC excludes doses caused by radon-222 and its decay products. Specifically, NMA requests that the language in the constraint rule track the language of Subpart I so that it reads: " licensees. sha!! constrain air emissions of radioactive materials other than radon-222 and its decay products so that the individual member of the public likely to receive the highest dose will not be expected to receive a dose in excess of 10 mrem /yr TEDE from these emissions." For consistency reasons, it is important that the language of the two provisions match. Moreover, NMA believes it is appropriate for NRC to also exclude radon-220 and its daughter products as these appear to have been inadvertently left out of the final Subpart I rule's exclusion. As proposed, Subpart I provided that "[fjor purposes of this subpart doses caused by radon 220, radon-222 and their decay products formed after their release from the facility are not included." 54 Fed. Reg. 9612,9653 (March 7,1989). The final rule did not mention radon-220. 54 Fed. Reg. 51654,51697 (December 15,1989). This seems to be more of an oversight than a reasoned decision and is not a mistake that should be carried over by NRC. Subpart I facilities are already more than adequately regulated under 40 C.F.R. 190 (the so-called 25 mrem rule) promulgated by EPA pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) and conformed to and enforced by NRC in 10 C.F.R. (( 20.1101 and 20.1301, in conjunction with the ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable) principle. The current AEA regulatory program already provides an ample margin of public health and safety. As NRC acknowledges, even without a constraint rule, air emissions from NRC licensed facilities will not exceed 10 mrem /yr. EPA's surveys and computer models show that even without a constraint rule, " virtually all of the facilities would cause doses to members of the public which are below 10 mrem /yr." 60 Fed. Reg. 50161,50163 (September 28,1995). NRC's notice even notes that "98% of the facilities surveyed [by EPA] reported doses to members of the public resulting from air emissions less than 1 mrem /yr." 60 Fed. Reg at 63985. EPA's survey of Subpart I licensees found that "all surveyed facilities are presently in compliance with the quantitative emission limit in Subpart I [10 mrem /yr limit)" -- a far higher compliance percentage than exists in any other EPA regulatory program. 57 Fed. Reg. 56789 (December 1,1992). Indeed, the NRC AEA regulatory program is more comprehensive than s .4> 4 w - - - - + <

' t Mr. John C. Iloyle March 12,1996 Page 3 Subpart I because, unlike the Clean Air Act which addresses only airborne radioactivity (excluding radon), the AEA regulations cover exposure from all pathways (excluding radon). According to NRC, the proposed constraint rule "would codify numerical values for NRC's application of ALARA guidelines on radioactive air emissions from its licensees, other than power reactors." 60 Fed. Reg. at 63985. NMA is concerned that codifying the ALARA concept may create unnecessary implementation problems. As defined by NRC, ALARA by its very nature must take into account "the state of technology, the economics of improvement in relation to the state of technology, the economics ofimprovements in relation to benefits to the public health and safety, and other societal and socioeconomic considerations, and in relation to utilization of nuclear energy and licensed materials in the public interest." 10 C.F.R. 20.1003. These are onen site-specific and ever-changing elements that cannot be codified in any meaningful fashion. Indeed, the D.C. Circuit has held that NRC cannot establish a single numerical value under the "as low as practicable" standard, the precursor to ALARA: [as low as practicable] requires consideration of health and safety effects, costs, the state of technology, and utilization of atomic energy in the public interest. While the last two factors may be constant for any reactor built or operating during a particular time period, the first two will presumably vary depending on the circumstances of each reactor. Since two of the four factors which determine whether radioactive emissions are "as low as practicable" are not constant, the Commission is precluded from determining that any particular positive level of emissions satisfies its requirement in all cases. York Committee For A Safe Environment vs. NRC,527 F.2d 812,814-15 (D.C. Cir.1975). Even though, as NRC's draft regulatory guidance for the proposed constraint rule states, "a constraint is not a limit....A constraint is a dose value above which specified licensee actions are required,"L' ALARA still cannot be reduced to a single number. NMA does not oppose the constraint goal, although, for the reasons noted above, it is unnecessary and cannot be deemed ALARA. k Draft guidance, p. 3 (emphasis added). .)'

A .k Mr. John C. Hoyle March 12,1996 Page 4 NMA believes the constraint goal should be set forth in 10 C.F.R. Part 20 as proposed, rather than separately in each appropriate part of Title 10 as it is generic guidance and belongs with the other generally applicable standards for radiation protection. Reculatory Guidance The guidance notes that "[e]nforcement action would only be expected if a licensee fails to report an exceedence of the constraint or fails to take appropriate corrective action." (p. 3) In this context, NRC needs to recognize that there is uncertainty inherent in detennining whether or not the constraint level has been exceeded. For example, if a model changed or new data were obtained it could affect the determination. A licensee also could be unaware that the 10 mrem level had been exceeded because of problems with the model or the data. In many instances, these sites are in very remote areas and the nearest individual who would receive the highest dose may be five miles or more away. Since the proposed rule, in effect, is an exercise in compliance by model, the Commission should build in reasonableness in the application of the rule in terms oflicensee knowledge that the 10 mrem constraint limit has been exceeded, in this vein, NRC needs to give licensees flexibility in determining compliance to account for the differences in radionuclide emissions from different sources (e.g., hospitals versus uranium mill tailings impoundments), and the variability in natural background levels. Background levels of radiation vary depending on the climate, geography, weather, meteorology, topography, and time. These variations account for differences among sites and even across time at one particular site. Application of NRC's constraint rule guidance must account for such factors in the licensee's selection of a scientifically sound methodology to determine compliance with the rule. Subpart I allows licensees to use other, better methods of determining compliance. NMA urges NRC to include in the constraint rule the methodologies allowed in {61.107 of Subpart 1. In addition, NMA requests that NRC clarify that NRC licensees only need to include in their calculations emissions from NRC licensed facilities and operations. Part 20 " establishes standard for protection against ionizing radiation resulting from activities conducted under licenses issued by" NRC.10 C.F.R. @ 20.1001(a). Emissions from unlicensed adjoining operations or unlicensed portions of operations, therefore, should not be part of the calculations. For example, for uranium recovery licensees, this means that windblown emissions from an adjoining uranium ore stockpile would not be included in the compliance determinations as unrefined and unprocessed ore is not subject to NRC regulation.

L.y g . ta.

...'s l,V

,lMrflohn C. Ifoyle - j ' March 12,1996 liage 5! ~ Finally, in explaining wliat information should be reported to NRC if the 10 mrem /yr is exceeded, NRC requires that, among other things, the following be included in the report: ) "[t]he estimate of dose to actual or modeled individuals (if actual individual doses are j calculated, include the name, social security number, and date of birth for each individual i exposed to concentrations in excess of the constraint)." It may not, however, always be - possible for the licensee to identify the specific individual or obtain all the information. requested.~ Accordingly, NMA requests that the phrase "if available" be added so that the-language reads: "(if actual individual doses are calculated, include, if available, the name, -

social security number, and date of birth for each individual exposed to concentrations in excess of the constraint)".

f I ' NMA appreciates the opportunity to comment on this matter. If you have any questions or if.we can be of assistance, please contact Katie Sweeney, NMA Associate General Counsel at 202/463-2627. Sincerely, b e4H k + Richard L. Lawson I t 210 0s-01 IIxtsDct t ) 1 l, I l a i s r- [

8F31 - 3

• N E lecver;n PE g

" n.p - NUCLEAR ENiRGY IN511TUTE 96 F 13 P2 :09 John F. Schmitt. CHP 0F("- , %Ecatgao1Ec1,ou. C h +j g. EME NCY P EDNESS m March 12,1996 PROPOSED RULE _ E = Information and Records Management MW g Branch (T-6 F33) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 ATTENTION: Docketing and Services Branch

SUBJECT:

NRC Proposed Rule - 10 CFR Part 20, " Constraint Level for Air Emissions of Radionuclides," (60 Fed. R_gg. 63984, dated December 13,1995) This letter provides comments from the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)1 on behalf of the nuclear energy industry in response to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) request for public comment on the subject proposed rule. These comments have been prepared considering the nuclear energy industry's interest in the continued safe and beneficial use of radiation and radioactive materials without the burden of unnecessary duplicative regulation that provides no added benefit to public health and safety or protection of the environment. In the supplementary information, NRC notes that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has previously made the initial determination that "...the NRC program under the Atomic Energy Act provides an ample margin of safety to protect the public health" (57 FR 56880, dated December 1,1992). However, according to NRC, " EPA continued to express concern regarding the adequacy of measures to assure EPA that future emissions from NRC licensees will not exceed levels that will provide an ample margin of safety." NRC expects that this action will be the final step in "...providing EPA with a basis upon which to rescind Subpart Ilof 40 CFR G1] for NRC licensees other than power reactors." Based on this understanding of NRC's rationale for pursuing this additional regulation of radionuclides in air NEl is the organization responsible for establishing unified nuclear industry policy on matters 1 affecting the nuclear energy industry, including the regulatory aspects of generic operational and technicalissues. NEl's members include all utilities licensed to operate commercial nuclear power plants in the United States, nuclear plant designers, major architect / engineering firms, fuel idbrication facilities, materials licensees, and other organizations and individuals involved in the nuclear energy industry. i m i stem ~w som m wism~um~ ec e.m ,mme m m m e,, f N

3 -} y U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission - March 12,1996-Page 2 s e emissions from licensee facilities (other than power reactors),' we concur with the intent of the proposed action and strongly encourage NRC to pursue this matter to conclusion, i.e. rescission by EPA ofits Clean Air Act regulations for NRC and l Agreement State licensees. 4 i Froci our review of the subject Federal Register notice and the regulatory analysis contained in SECY 95-133, dated May'24,1995, and SECY-95-229, dated September 8,1995, we offer the following comments for consideration in the final e rulemaking:

1. NRC should clarify explicitly that current NRC regulations, i.e., the limit of 100 mrem /yr on public dose and implementation of the ALARA principle, provide

,an adequate level of protection of public health and safety. Without such ' clarification, this action may incorrectly be taken to infer that maintaining the dose from radionuclides in air emissions at or below 10 mrem /yr is necessary to adequately protect health and safety. In fact, the intent of the rule is to address EPA's concern that the existing adequate level of protection of health and safety be maintained in the future, and thereby to support EPA's decision to rescind i Subpart I of 40 CFR 61. As stated by NRC, "there is expected to be little if any . direct benefit to the health and safety of the public as a result of this rulemaking" (SECY-95 229). The rulemaking's principaljustification is that it will have the 1 beneficial effect of reducing burden on licensees, ifit leads to EPA's rescission of Subpart I to 40 CFR 61. Explaining this situation in the final rulemaking will help clarify that NRC is not redefining the existing adequate level of protection of health and safety.

2. The wording in the proposed rule may be taken to infer that the 10 mrem /yr constraint is a generic ALARA value for dose from radionuclides in air emissions for licensee facilities (other than power reactors). Examples include the wording in section 20.1101(d),"...[t]o implement the ALARA requirements of f 20.1101(b),"

and in section 20.2203, which refers to "ALARA constraints." It is our understanding that "...there is no data currently available to indicate that 10 niremlyr is ALARA or that any single value would be an appropriate generic ALARA value" (SECY-95 229). Therefore, we suggest wording be used in the

final rule that better clarifies the intent, for example, wording in section 20.1101(d) such as, " consistent with the AIARA principle codified in S 20.1101(b)," and use of the term " dose constraint" in section 20.2203.

l '3. We generally do not support regulation of a specific exposure pathway, rather than regulation of the total dose to members of the public from a source or . practice. The proposed use of a dose constraint for a specific exposure pathway, e.g., air emissions,'is not consistent with its use by other pertinent . organizations, e.g., the International. Commission on Radiological Protection a

_ ____ _ ~. l J, i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ' March 12,1996 l-Page 3 - .(ICRP), International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), which have more commonly recommended application of constraints that are inclusive of the total dose from all exposure pathways with regard to a source or practice. However, we. recognize in this case that use in the rule of a constraint on air emissions appears necessary to bring consistency between the different regulatory approaches of NRC and EPA and to be able to move forward to eliminating the unneeded duplicative regulation. '4' In the absence'of a rescission by EPA of Subpart I to 40 CFR 61 the proposed rule, when issued and effective, will introduce additional regulatory burden on non-power reactor licensees. In light of NRC's stated intent to reduce the burden on licensees by eliminating unnecessary duplicative regulation, we suggest that NRC, in issuing the final rule, establich that the rule will not become effective until the rescission of Subpart I of 40 CFR 61 is completed by i EPA and in effect. In summary, we view the proposed rulemaking as a means for bringing some consistency between NRC and EPA regulatory approaches and thereby enhancing the basis for EPA to rescind Subpart I of 40 CFR 61, as provided by the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act. Rescission of Subpart I will have the effect of reducing burden on licensees because it will eliminate unnecessary duplicative regulation. The rule is not expected to, nor is it necessary or intended to, affect the existing adequate level of protection of health and safety assured by current NRC regulations. In light of this, the final rule should be promulgated in a manner that assures continuation in the future of the existing adequate level of protection of health and safety, while minimizing disruption of the underlying regulatory i concepts and structure which has successfully assured that level of protection. NEI appreciates the opportunity to comment on behalf of the nuclear energy - industry on this proposed rule. If you have any questions or wish to discuss our j comments, please contact Ralph Andersen (202/739-8111), Felix Killar (202/739-j 8126), or me (202/739-8108). 1i Sincerely, k l ~ John F. Schmitt -JFS/RLA/ec 2 -as ,ee, .-w + wen ~

pme, en,,a enx-:m

--en , ~ rn -

Gif!!-Jd M:': i" ili/d MED-I :'!: AF 3/.2.I':1.H PD)2. -- from B. Geary

• Jto FAX 301-415-1672 OCPF.EiEQ 2545 S. Birmingham P1, 0 3 N N',

Tulsa, OK 74114 l '% t:M 13 A 7 $9 1 ^ c'2.Y 0FF ~ I ./, f US Nuclear Regulatory Commission DOCNr...t ? ,i u:p Washington, DC 20555-0001 000tET NtAABER Attn Docketing and Service Branch PROPOSED RULE __M Go6FR_6S@h Q

Concerning standards for radioactive ' air emissions from nuclear power plantet '

l l .The NRC's proposed standards for radioactive air emissions are inadequate. Exceeding that limit would be. First.of all,'a real LIMIT on emissions is needed. _Any company exceeding the limit should receive a NOTICE OF VIOLATIO. N a VIOLATION, BE ALLOWED TO SUE a company which exceeds ~ Secondly, citizens absolutely'MUST j regulatory limits or constraints (whichever they may be called) as to radioactive air emissions. I \\ 1 4 4 h 4

p: 9)~ W h ${h fDV Nuclear Information and Resource Service / 142416th Street NW suite 404 l -- e, es L-+ h' N VICi U.n ic. h~- ',. Z, m,, Washington, DC 20036 ,Q'. H 202-328-0002; 202-462-2183 fax s SECY-NPC \\ Comments on US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Proposed Rule g t Constraint Level for Air Emissions of Radionuclides 10 CFR 20, RIN 3150-AF31 60 FR 239:63984-63987, Wednesday, December 13,1995 US NRC March 12,1996 Washington, DC 20555-0001 ~~ ghb_i ATTN: Docketing and Service Branch l1555 Rockville Pike g PR Rockville, Maryland The Nuclear Information and Resource Service opposes the Constraint Rule. It is completely inadequate as substitute for the Environmental Protection Agency's National Emission Standards on Hazardous Air Pollutants for radionuclides from NRC and Agreement State licensed facilities. The constraint level of 10 millirems TEDE is not a limit but a goal, whereas the NESHAPS are. ALARA is not an enforceable regulation. NRC's operative regulations,10 CFR 20, allow higher levels of radionuclide emissions and employ less comprehensive methods for calculating millirem doses than required by the EPA. None of these (Constraint rule, ALARA,10 CFR 20) provide as much protection as the EPA NESHAPS nor the ample margin of safety required by federal law. Additionally,10 CFR 61, which allows 25 millirems annual exposure from " low-level" radioactive waste sites is less protective than the EPA's NESHAPS. There appears to be no penalty in the proposed rule for repeated exceedences of the 10 millirem constraint level, no enforcement and no opportunity, as provided under the EPA regime, for citizen suits. It appears that self-reporting and confession of exceedences will be relied on for enforcement. Only failure to take self-imposed steps to prevent exceeding the levelis a violation, even if those measures do not prevent future exceedences. This is unacceptable as the operative protection of the public from radionuclide air emissions. We fully support the comments submitted on this proposed " Constraint" Rule and its associated draft regulatory guide, environmental assessment, analysis and the FONSI, by the Committee to Bridge the Gap. NIRS comments to EPA on their proposed rescission of Subpart I NESHAPS are enclosed for the record. -Qig[)cSaud): N/A8 & O WA @b6 ^ 4t9 0 316roFM Mpp- ~

.y - Nuclear Information and Resource Service I l 142416th Street NW, Suite 404 Washington, DC 20036 202-328-0002; 202-462-2183 fax i Comments on Environmaa*=1 Protection Agency 40 CFR 61, [FRL-5301-1]- National Emission Standards for Radionuclide Emissions. From Facilities Licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Federal Facilities Not Covered by Subpart H ] 60 FR 188:50161, Thurs. 9/28/95; [RIN 2060-AE39] Ceutral Docket Section LE-131 1 Environmental Protection Agency. Atta: Air Docket No. A-92-50 j Washington, DC _20460 - 202-233-%29 fax ~ ~ February 29,1996 The Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS), many ofits members and associated - orgerL41ons, including the Safe Energy Communication Council, continue to oppose the - <^ Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposal to rescind 40 CFR 61 Subpart I for facilities (other than corrunercial nuclear power reactors) licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

• ~

(NRC) and Agreement States. (In the related, but now separate decision, NIRS is challenging the { EPA's final decision to rescind Subpart I for reactors.) In response to the September 28,1995 reopening of the comment period, we submit the following comments: i EPA's NESHAP of 10 millirems ede (effective dose equivalent) per year for radioactive air emissions is a legal limit. Exceeding that level is a violation. It appears that citizen suit provisions are possible to increase the potential for enforemnant, under EPA authority. -RMading EPA's responsibility and authority to NRC, based on the proposed Constraint Rule (Constraint Level for Air Emissions ofRadionuclides, 60 FR 239:63984-63987,12/13/95), replaces a legal limit with a design goal and appears to sacrifice citizen suits. i - If, as NRC and EPA claim, the facilities can meet the 10 millirem ede/ year goal, why not make it enforceable? Why remove this level of protection from public? It is clear firom page 63986 of the NRC's proposed rule that "...The constraint on dose from air emissions is different than a limit. Ex@ag this constraint would not result in a Notice of - Violation.." It's not illegal to release levels that lead to doses greater than 10 millirems TEDE 1 -(total effective dose equivalent) per year. Incentives and design goals are nice, but legal limits are e i k. a ,u. +, -, - ~, r,

.y ~ NIRS suggests that if a design goal is desired, it should be a zero release, zero dose goal. accompanied by a legal, enforceable limit. We contend that adequate protection of the public i means preventing exposure to radiation. In practice, since nuclear facilities routinely release. radioactive materials into the air, there must be a legal, enforceable limit, not reliance on the good intentions of the licensee to self-report and correct to a Commission that has a history of failing to enforce technical speci6 cations. In addition, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is just now compiling a list of the exemptions it has granted in the past. Procedurally, the public comment on this proposed rescission should be AFTER the NRC has - adopted its Constraint Rule, or preferably somCg enforceable. What we are now being asked to comment on is a proposed rule which might never be adopted, might be adopted as is and later 4 revised or rescinded, or be adopted in a different form than proposed. Even though EPA has stated the intent not to finalize its rescission until aAer the final adoption 'of the NRC rule, the. public comment period should be reopened at that time. What legally-binding assurances are there that the NRC will adopt, enforce, and retain constraints?. What mechanism is there for implementing more protective standards as knowledge about low-dose health effects continues to indicate greater cancer and non-cancer negative health j effects? This is a-y to provide an ample margin of safety. A listing ofrelevant studies indicating that the health effects oflow-dose radiation are more harmful than previously believed I will be provided. Studies with which EPA may be unfamiliar can be provided for the record. Those that are published by national and international radiation bodies and government agencies i-are referenced since they would be expected to be easily available to the EPA staff dealing with l radiation protection. With regard to " low-level" radioactive disposal sites and radioactive incinerators, we strongly support continued regulatory control by EPA. The EPA level appears to be more protective than 4 NRC or Agreement States would require. Existing facilities are presumably already complying. If so, such protection should not be sacrificed. (We do question this presumption.) i We also have concerns about nuclear laundries, fuel fabrication, conversion and radioactive metal I _ processing facilities, among others. 3 Responses to Questions posed:

1) No, NRC's Constraint rule will not assure that routine radionuclide releases result in doses that are consistently'and predictably no greater than 10 millirems per year. Ifit were a verifiable legal limit with enforcement whaniama beyond self-reporting by licensees, it might,-but it is clearly only a design goal.

The proposed Constraint rule clearly allows doses greater than 10 mdlirems per yr. The rule itself, as proposed does not require the licensees to limit exposures to 10mdlirems/ year-10 is the goal-which if exceeded requires some unstated action by the licensee to get back down under 10. i ) Even if enforced,10 millirems / year ede presents a fatal cancer risk of 1 in 2860 people-which is j J not an adequate level of protection. a ) 7 ~

6 .,1

2) No, NRC can't make that assurance beenne it is not required legally ofits licensees. The Constraint rule is not an enforceable provision. ALARA is not enforceable in court and therefore not a regulation. It doesn't appear to be any stronger than a reg guide.

4

3) If states adopt the same constraint rule as NRC proposes, the same limitations will apply.

States can, ofcourse, with or without the Constraint rule, set stricter enforceable standards regardless ofwhat NRC or EPA do.

4) States have authority to set stricter standards.

1

5) No.

EPA is relying on past-performance to predict the future performance. EPA is relying on good faith ofNRC and its licensees. EPA is reMading a potentially enforceable legal limit and greater opportunities for public input, to NRC based on a goal. This is unfounded. b e b d f se. O I e 0 e e Diane D'Anigo Radioactive Waste Project Director NIRS 2/29/96 e e

~ COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE G AP 1637 dUrLER AVENUE, suffE 2(D LOs ANGELES,CALITORNIA 90025 (310) 478 2 29 ~ a Comments of. The Committee to Bridge the Gap on The Proposed " Constraint" Rule for Air Emissions Jand Associated Draft Regulatory Guide, Environmental Assessment, Finding of No Significant Impact, and Regulatory Analysis i by -The U.S. Nudear Regulatory Commission 11 March 19% The U.S. Nudear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has published for public comment a proposed " constraint" rule for air emissions. Certain other documents, associated with the proposed rule, have also been - published, particularly a draft regulatory guide (DG-8016), a Regulatory Analysis, an Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). The Committee.to Bridge the Gap, a Los Angeles-based nudear policy organization, hereby submits the following comments on the proposed constraint rule and associated documents. 4 ^ Introduction-J The Clean Air Act (CAA) requ res t eh US. Environmental Protection i Agency (EPA) to regulate air emissions from a wide variety of domestic nudear facilities. EPA, under pressure from the nudear industry, has for y years resisted exercising that statutory responsibility, requiring several l court orders to forte compliance. Its latest approach to thwarting the intent - of the CAA is to propose recission of its regulatory powers over hazardous 'k k k w a w v

= -. air emissions from NRC-licensed nuclear facilities other than nuclear power plants (it has already rescinded its authority over the power plants.) In order to rescind the EPA regulatory authority, however, EPA must find l that the NRC program to regulate such air emissions provides an ample margin of safety, a standard that EPA has set as a 10 mrem effective dose equivalent for the whole body for the maximally exposed individual, of l which no more than 3 mrem can be from radioiodines. EPA has further l defined this standard as requiring regulatory limits that are not to be exceeded and are to be calculated in a certain fashion, or via certain specified alternative methods. a NRC has now published a draft rule which would establish not a binding regulatory limit but a " constraint" level, a level which if exceeded would not constitute a violation of the regulations. The proposed rule on its face does not meet the EPA standard. The rule, as proposed, is clearly unacceptable. In testimony before the EPA (copy attached), we delineated detailed i deficiencies in the NRC proposed rule and why those defects made it legally impossible for EPA to rescind its regulatory authority in the area. Rather than repeat those arguments here, our testimony and the points raised therein are incorporated herein by reference. j. In what follows, we add to those points'. The Proposed NRC " Constraint" Rule The proposed rule is a transparent attempt to provide EPA with j fficient superficial basis to rescind its own regulatory program without su substantively altering NRC's standards, which are markedly less protective of the public and provide markedly less margin of safety. At the com of the difference between the two agencies' standards and programs is a ten-fold or more difference in permissible exposures from air emissions. The NRC's regulatory limit for membem of the public sets the limit normally at 100 millimm per year [10 CFR 20.1301(a)(1)], although with permission from NRC facilities can legally operate so as to produce public exposures five times that, or 500 mrem [10 CFR 20.1301(c)]. l h ) .n

e These " permissible" doses are 10 to 50 times higher than EP A's air cmissions standards of 10 mrem. The NRC limits of 100 to 500 mrem per year are roughly 10 to 50 chest X-ray equivalents per year. Doctors are extremely reluctant to order even a single X-ray if not clearly medically needed, because of the risks associated with the extra radiation exposure. . It is difficult to believe the public would find acceptable these permissible radiation exposure levels set by NRC were they to be informed NRC viewed as acceptable the exposures to members of the public equal to - hundreds or thousands of additional chest X-rays over one's lifetime. f r Indeed, the current NRC regulatory limits are equivalent to a 1 in 300 lifetime risk of cancer (at the 100 mrem standard) and 1 in 60 risk '500 mrem standard). [ Source: U.S. General Accounting Office," Consensus on Acceptable Radiation Risk to the Public is Lacking," September 1994, .GAO/RCED-94-190.] This estimate by GAO is based on somewhat outdated risk estimates;if one uses the estimates of the National Academy of Sciences' Committee on Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR V), the risk factors are even higher-1 in 180 and 1 in 36 respectively. By contrast, " acceptable" risk for carcinogen exposure under EPA standards is generally set at 1 in a million. Thus, NRC's radiation standards for exposures of the public are currently four to five orders of magnitude less protective than the risk level generally considered acceptable by EPA. Furthermore, NRC's method of calculating doses, found in 10 CFR 20 i Appendix B, are substantially less protective than EPA's, even for the sam exposures. As was pointed out to EPA in a 27 November 1995 letter by Robert C Shinn, Jr. Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, allowed air concentrations-for the same presumed dose-are generally tens to hundreds of times higher under N regulatory methods of calculation than EPA's. The dose conversion factors used by NRC in 10 CFR 20 Appendix B, Table 2, are up to 460 times less protective than are the factors used by EPA in 10 CFR 61, Appendix E, Table 2. It is thus dear that NRC's current regulatory limits for radiation exposure to members of the public from air emissions are orders of i magnitude less protective than EP A standards. The question then becomes whether the proposed " constraint" rule adequately improves that situation --or, indeed, whether it changes it at all. The answer is clearly no. ,s l_,

e It is self-evident, both from the content and stated purpose of the s proposed rule, that its intention is to preserve the current relaxed regulatory posture of the NRC with regards to radiation exposures to the public while attempting to present to EPA a " basis" for rescinding its own, more protective regulations. Indeed, NRC states at the outset that the J purpose of the proposed is not to provide stricter mgulatory limits for its licensees and thus greater protection for the public, but instead merely to 1 provide a basis for EPA to rescind its own regulatory program in the area. As shall be seen below, the NRC rule is carefully constructed so as to not create a regulatory limit more protective than the current NRC permissible levels of 10 to 50 chest-X-ray equivalents per year to members of the public. (Over 70 years, that is a " permissible" exposure of 700 to 3500 additional chest X-rays to an individual from nuclear facilities, as astonishingly lax regulatory framework.) i The NRC Proposed " Constraint" Rule is Not a Regulatory Limit; Exceeding it Would Not Constitute a Violation i The EPA limits are regulatory limits; exceeding them is a violation. NRC has been careful to not produce an equivalent level of protection..The proposed rule sets a level which is not a violation to exceed. If one breaches the " constraint" level, all one has to do is submit a l report and identify cormctive measures to be taken. Failure to carry out the corrective measures would be a violation, but under the language as written, failure of the corrective measures to prevent a second breach of the constraint level would not be. It appears one could violate the constraint level time and time again, so long as one submits a report each time and carries out the corrective measures promised. The " constraint" level is tied to the ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable) requirement. However, ALARA is defined in the NRC regulations as merely a goal, and the necessity of achievement of the goal is defined as necessary only to the extent that factors such as technology and economics make it acceptable. In other words, ALARA is not a requirement, but merely a suggestion to keep emissions as low as readily achievable given the economics and other factors of reducing emissions. On the other hand, mgulatory limits such as EPA's NESHAP are real Umits i M'4 ~ ww y u-n -'i w

--one must not exceed certain exposures to the public, or a violation exists. L NRC has created an empty shell of a standard, one that is not mandatory. Non-mandatory limits are no limits at all-that is why NRC has called this a " constraint" level, not a regulatory limit. As such, it is unacceptable. The draft regulatory guide further relaxes matters unacceptably, by permitting far less stringent methods of calculating estimated exposures than under the EPA NESHAP. Furtherraore, NRC has not incorpomted the proposed " constraint level" into any other section of the reguladons than 10 CFR 20, so it has not become part of any licensing standard (see, e.g.,10 CFR 30,61, or 70). i Conclusion The proposed NRC " constraint rule"is a hollow shell designed to t l give EPA a superficial basis for rescinding its stricte'r regulations without altering the tremendously lax NRC regulatory standards and program. After the constraint rule, the " permissible" levels of exposure to members of the public from air emissions will be what they wem before the rule-the equivalent of up to thousands of additional chest X-rays to an individual over his or her lifetime. Of a million people exposed to the NRC " permissible" levels,5,000 to 28,000 would die from cancers caused by that " acceptable" exposure from the nuclear enterprise. And this does not even compensate for the NRC method of converting concentration of radioactive l material to dose, which is 10 to 100 times more lax than EPA's.- (One l should note that even were the 10 mrem level to be not a " constraint" but an actual regulatory limit, and were the NRC conversion factors for dose as lax as they are, the 10 mrem level is the equivalent of a 1 in 1800 lifetime risk of cancer, five hundred times more f ax than the general EPA one-in-a-million level for acceptable risk.) The proposed NRC " constraint" rule is not a regulatory limit; exceeding the 10 mrem figure is permissible, not prohibited; it does not include the EPA requirement oflimiting radiciodine exposures to 3 mrem; ) more lax calculational techniques are permitted, making true exposures far higher than under the EPA scheme; and the only regulatory limits now in existence for the public (100 to 500 mrem annually) would remain the only - limits after the " constraint" nde is finalized. The proposal, to put it gently, g n

is a sham, leaving the NRC regulatory limits as lax as they were before the rule, but with the public less protected than under the current situation. This is because the purpose of the rule is to get EPA to rescind its regulatory program and standards, which are substantially more protective of the public than either the current or proposed NRC radiation programs. The rule should be substantially strengthened; the EA and FONSI rejected, having failed to analyze either the alternatives of a stronger rule or i the effect of the weak rule on the environment by contributing to rescission of the more protective EPA regulations and regulatory program; and the draft Reg. Guide rejected, as a permits calculation of exposure by means far less protective than EPA's. 9 O 6

n ' COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE GAP l t ^ 1637 HIJrl.ER AVENUE, SUrili 203 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90025 .(310)478-0829 Testimony I of Committee to Bridge the Gap Before l the Office of Radiation and Indoor Air Radiation Pmtection Division l U.S. Environmental Pmtection Agency Regarding EPA's Pmposals to Rescind its Authority to Regulate Radionuclide Air l fmm AllCivilNuclearFacilities 2 Washington, D.C.. l 29 Februasy 1996 t i t Introdaction This testimony is presented on behalf of the Committee to Bridge the Gap (CBG), a Los Angeles-based nuclear policy organization. Officers of CBG regret that, due to th expense involved in traveling three thousand miles to Washington, D.C., they cannot l physically presentat this heanng. On 30 October 1995, in timely response to EPA's Federal Register nodce of 28 September 1995 (60 FR 50161), ten organizations, including CBG, wrote to EPA hearings on its proposal to rescind its authority under the Clean Air Act to protect the fmm hazardous air emissions imm all civil nuclear facilities, many thousands of such facil total. As we said in that letter, the EPA final rescission of its regul authority overair i emissions from nuclear power plants and its proposed rescission of au 'ty over all other licensed nuclear facility " entail wholesale removal of harti-won public protections fmm excessive emissions of radionuclides from the entire civil nuclear sector." In our October 1995 letter to EPA, the ten gmups requested, "to avoid the hearing being 5 solely an 'inside-the-Beltway affair,'" that hearing sessions be held elsewhere in' the n of the gmups requesting the hearings were not based in Washington; half were based in California. The gmups requested expressly that one of the heanngs be held in California. i I As we coccluded in that letter, The abdication of EPA regulatory authority over hazardous air emissions from all non-Department of Energy nuclear facilities is a serious matter, one which could lead to significant diminution of public protection from radionuclides of 1 . significant toxicity..it should be entertained only after thorough re5iew of the Issues. Nonetheless, as of this date, we have received no response from EPA to our October letter. EP ~ Ldid publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing a hearing in Washington, D.C. S 3 v '$' i, 7 +,-

~. . have had no response to our request for hearings in California, we do not know if EPA will grant ~ that request. On the chance that it will not, we hereby submit testimony to the hearing in Washington, but are handicapped by not being able to be present in person, with the opportunity to ask questions, rebut or comment upon other testimony, and the like. Process Concerns EPA published its notice of proposed rescission on 28 September 1995, based on a proposed NRC " constraint" rule which had not even been published for public comment at that i ume. The NRC draft rule was not published until 13 December. It is not yet a final rule, and may be changed prior to finalization. Additionally, a draft regulatory guide was to be issued in connection with the NRC draft rule. The draft regulatory guide is to provide guidance as to how j to meet the draft "constmint" rule. Notice of the availability of the draft regulatory guide for public review and comment was not published in the Fedeml Register until 22 January. We have so far been unable to obtain it. Nonetheless, it too is not yet final and may be substantially revised in response to courments. Furthermore, NRC pohey statements and procedures attempting to remedy EPA concerns about the adec uacy and criteria for the NRC Agreement State program have not been finalized to date. Adc itionally, NRC inspection pmcedures appear not to have yet been modified to reflect the proposed " constraint" rule. EPA has previously indicated that the current NRC regulatory program did not provide the assurance of an ampic margin of safety required by the Clean Air Act (CAA) for EPA to ree.:ind its te gulator,y authority in the arena of hazardous air emissions from NRC licensed ' facilities. It lias insisted upon a new rule adopting the 10 miem standarti; a revised regulatory - guide detailing how to com )ly with that rule; new inspection procedures detailing how to enforce it; and new NRC policy anc procedures to remedy inadequacies in the NRC Agreement State program. Not one of these is yet final. Yet EPA has sed rescinding its authosity anyway, and insisted upon public comment on the adequacy N C steps not yet taken. Tids makes httle 4 sense. It puts the cart before the horse. To be mtional, and not arbitrary and capricious, EPA should await finalization of any prospective NRC actions, and then solicit public conunent as to whether those " final" NRC actions are adequate to provide the " ample margin of safety" assurance required by the CAA for EPA rescission. On 17 January 1996, the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS), the Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power, the Sierra Club, and CBG wrote to EPA requesting the comment )eriod on EPA's proposal to rescind its NESHAPs be extended until after final action by the NRC on the matten that are supposed to peuvide equivalent protection to that of the EPA NESHAPs. To date, we have had no response to that request, either. We heaA, enew our request in this regard, specifying in detail the rule, reg. guide, inspection pixedum, and Agreement State policy and procedures identified above. Public comment or Cae i ues is premature until those items are finalized by NRC. Scope of Comments Solicited on EPA Pmposed Rescission We object to EPA's assertion in its 28 September 1995 Federal Register notice attempting to severely restrict the scope of public comments permitted on its proposed rescission of its NESHAP anthority. All issues relevant to that proposed rescission should be within the scope of permitted comments. In paiticular, important developments have occurred in the last few years; prohibiting comments on those mattem would arbitmrily shut the agencies ears, so to speak, to new facts that should be considered in determining whether public health would be harmed were EPA to rescind its NESHAP authority. 9 I

~- ) l Comments on the SatDelency of the Revisions of the NRC Program to Support the Finding Regaired by CAA Section 112(d)(9). L EPA has determined that a 10 mrem total effect dose equivalent (TEDE) from all 4 pathways from air emiadous, with no more than 3 mrem i acither nqahement. ' NRC has inexplicably dropped the 3 mrem standard from radiciodines, and the p) rule is therefore on its face not equivalent to the standard set by EPA. Additionally, NRa rmit calculations based on 10 CFR 20 Appendix B, air limits, which does not ~ j thways (e g., ingestion of agricultuml products contaminated by air emission appears to in the EPA NESHAP. Thus,10 mrem TEDE under the NRC pmposed ' constrain ' include all areinclu rule is also on its face not equivalently protective and would result in doses above 10 miem TEDE when all pathways are included; as required by EPA.

2. The EPA NESHAP lindts are enforceable regulations, hitack of wklek are pmbibited violations. The pmposed NRC " constraint" goals are unenforteable suggestions, br which are permitted and not deemed violations. As sack, they are act equivalently 1

protective. Indeed, NRC would pennit breach of the 10 mrte level, so long as it reported; EPA NESHAP nguistions pmbibilbreach of the 10 mrem level. EPA has found that compliance with CAA requires preycatwo of doses fmm hazan air emissions exceeding 10 mrem TEDE and 3 mrem fmm radioiodines. As such, those limits is a violation of the EPA NESHAPs The NRC draft mie 10 nuem TEDE to not be a violation. The cunent EPA mie pmhibits doses greater than mrem; the NRC proposed rule permits such doses. The two mies obviously do not pro equivalent pmtection.

3. The draft NRC nguistion mertly sequins re mrting when one exceeds 10 mrem and 1s subsequently breached again, thett is even then a l

actions one previously proposed. The NRC draft rule implies that, so long as one has taken the corrective actions one identified at the time of the first breach, there is no violation if one subsequently g' es o mrem figure again. For example, if the second breaking of the 10 mrem figure is due to different cause than the first or, even if due to the same cause, if one had taken the corre measures pmmised, it would appear no violation would exist.

4. The rate does not tiquire the use of the COMPLY code for calculating compliance wit the NFSilAP limit, or specined alternatives, as required by EPA. It'theerfore would potentially permit a calculational method less pmtective than the EPA rule.

The rule is completely silent as to how it is to be detennined if one has gone ove miem figure. One can always calculate a dose to be as low as one wishes for regulator aurposes; if there is no mandatory calculational method, estimated doses will al xiow true doses. but NRC Regulatery Guides are not mandatory. Further l the licensee to ignore COMPLY and *he EPA-approved alternatives and invent an alt 9 4

wishes. NRC estimates it will take only I hour to demonstrate that any alternative code prepared bv or used by a licensee has been " validated" against COMPLY or the other approved methods ) fer demonstrating compliance and to " verify that each calculation performed by the code is being completed correctly." (NRC Supporting Statement for 10 CFR 20 ALARA Constraint and Draft Regulatory Guide DG-8016), Clearly, one cannot in a mem hour adequately validate an alternative code and verify that each calculation is being performed correctly; thus NRC is tacitly admitting inadequately validated and verified alternative calculational methods will be tolerated.

5. The EPA NESIIAP has a provision for citizen suits to require compliance. The NRC

" constraint" rule has nome. A significant part of the EPA program is the pmvision forcitizen suits. This public right to action has had a salutary effect on the agency, pmdding it to enforce the NESHAP more vigorously, it has had a salutary effect on the regulated entities, prodding them to more J accurately report emissions and mom aggressively try to limit them, knowing that their actions can result in court action bmught by the public. And, when both the agency and the regulated entities fail, this mechanism has resulted in the public being able to obtain from the courts binding intervention requiring rectification of violations. EPA knows that this citizen right to action, found in the CAA, has not infrequently resulted in courts mandating corrective actions not voluntarily undertaken by polluters nor enforced by EPA prior to the court intervention. Taking away this pmtection can only result in a diminution of protection of public health and safety. The NRC rule in this regard too is not equivalent, and provides significandy less of a l margin of safety than the EPA rule.

6. The Agreement States frequently ngalate even more weakly than does NRC. NRC has aever revoked an Ar.w.t, thus never enforced the compatibuity airement. In

) i addition, NRC willpermit Agnement States thne yean to adopt ngulations to the " constraint rule." Ihas, there wHl be a period of thne years from the time of the proposed rescission of EPA authority to the time Agreement States even have constraint rules in place (if they comply in a timely fashion). The public would therefon.be bereft of i protection from hazandous air emissions for several yenn -clearly not in keeping with the " ample maqgin of safety" requirement. While some Agreement States have compamble or better tegulatory programs to those of the NRC, many are disastrously weak. Inspections are often very much less frequent than under i the NRC. Regulation is often limited to receiving annual rexrts from licensees and approving - license amendment requests. It has recently been revealed tut the State of Nevada, for example, failed to detect illegal dumping of liquid wastes by NECO (now US Ecology) at its Beatty, Nevada, radioactive waste facility for something on the order of a decade. Radioactively contaminated tools were being taken from waste barrels and iistributed in the nearby town for years befom being caught by state regulators. We have ren the same weaknesses and excessive i coziness with licensees on the part of state Irgulatom ir. California. NRCjust gives carte blanche to Agreement States. It has never revoked r.: Agreement, no matter how egregiously weak the Agreement State's program may be. It b no way of ensuring adequacy of those programs if it fails to enforce the compatibil".y requirements: its only enforcement mechanism is revocation, a measure it has never tah rherefore, the current and proposed NRC practices with regards Agreement States e madequate to assure public protection with regards the NESHAPs. o r e

? 7.--The existing EPA rule requins that proposed faellities demonstrate that they will meet the NESilAP la order to obtain a permit to constract. The pmposed NHC rule ecstains no 1-such provision. . Cunently, in order to obtain pennission to construct a facility that may emit hazardous air allutants such as radionuclides, an applicant must demonstrate that it will comply with the NESIIAP limits, and EPA must aprove or deny approval on that basis. The proposed NRC rule deals only with operations, not with permits to construct (or operate). Now, EPA unnot permit a facility to even be constructed if it can't demonstrate NESilAP compliance will result; under the NRC rule, there will be no such requirement, and construction will be pennitted no matter what. - This represents a serious lack of equivalency on the part of the NRC progntm and a significant reduction m pubhc protection.

8. EPA has no basis for determining that the current or proposed NRC regulatory program is indeed keeping air emismanns'below the NESilAP levels. Meek evidence, not ruviewed by EPA, demonstrates the opposite.

EPA's teview of this issue is based on data seven years older or older. It is arbitrary an capricious to not consider data more recent and relevant. Additionally, EPA did no actual measun;ments or even review of measurements to make a determination in this regard. It merely asked a select group of licensees to pmvide estimates of its releases. There was no verification of these numbers, no independent measurements. Most importandy, there was no review of - 4 - actual doselexposum data. Self-reporting is a grossly inadequate means of detennining i compliance. It is like asking a gmup of~ accused criminals which among them is guilty. The innocent among them may answer honestly, but it is a rare guil person who will. Enforcement requires independent determination of whether limits are bemg hed; not asking people whether they have breached limits. Just one example of why relying on self-reporting is dangemus: The UCLA research j / Jeactor for years reported its Argon-41 emissions as a fmetion of a cmie per year. Years later, calibration ermrs and other violations of the license were detected, indicatmg that for years the Argon-41 emissions were under-reponed by orders of magnitude. One year 0303 cunes had been reported; the true figure turned out to be 124.9. The next year 0.1046 Ci was reported; the conected figure, corrected years later, was41.9. And so on. Self-reported values without independent verification cannot be relied upon. Additionally, it is very dangemus to rely upon models for estimating dose instead of looking at hard data. Given again the UCLA reactor example, the Argon-41 releases, even when conected, are about an order of magnitude lower than those reported to EPA by MIT for its larger research reactor. EPA, using a computer model, estimated maximum doses fmm the MIT Argon 41 as well below the NESHAP of 10 mrem. Yet. UCLA, with its lower emissions, used TLDs to measure doses Imm Argon-41 which were many times the NESHAP. Indeed, the NRC estimated doses inside the Math Sciences Building adjacent to the reactor as several times greater than the NESHAP value, because the exhaust stack for the reactor was lower than and directly upwind of the main airinlet for the Math Building. EPA claims that low-level radioactive waste facilities, for examSe, are well below the NESHAP. It bases that claim, however, on US Ecology's applicadoms for NESHAP permits to construct for its California and Nebraska facilities. Self serving claims by applicants are not evidence of compliance. EPA has not yet even appmved or given final endorsement to the California application (we xesume the same is true for Nebraska). Indeed, several COMPLY ) runs perfonned by US Eco. ogy for its California pmject (and not provided to EPA) showed the y - pmject to not be in compliance with the NESIIAP-by wide margms. j i b wemuur"* i

.F-EPA's claims regarding existing LLRW dumps are even more incorrect. EPA claims that no exposures in excess of background have ever been reponied at either the Richland or Beatty sites. No source is given for these extraordinary claims, but recent data make clear that both - claims are false. c US Ecology's Richland dump, in the desert of western Washington State, has reported elevated tntium in vegetation at the site. In order to confirm it was coming from the trenches, the State authorities directed the creation of a vadose zone monitoring program, which identified elevated tritium in soil moisture, far in excess of standards. Tritium at a control location, far from the trenches, was orders of magnitude lower, confirming that the tritium was coming from US Ecology operations and not some other source on the Hanfoni site. l Thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) measuring gamma radiation routinely seport. doses there many times the ex res pennitted under EPA's National Emission Standards for 4 HAP) or NRCs standards for low-level radioactive waste Hazardous Air Pollutants ( 4 facilities.

• The Thenno-Luminescent Dosimetem (TLDs) monitoring gamma radiation at US Ecology's Richland, Washington LLRW dump routinely show doses far in excess of both EPA's 40 CFR $61.102 NESHAPs (10 mrem /yr whole body) and NRC's 10 CFR l61 standards for LLRW sites (25 miemlyr whole body). For example, in 1991, the TLDs at the southwest corner of US Ecology's dump (i.e., outside US Ecology's pmperty line) recorded 172 miem.

That is mote than twice backgmund for that area. The nearby town of Richland, chosen as a background location, was at 74 miem. Indeed, the northeast corner of the US Ecology property. l farther fmm the trenches than the southwest corner, was at 86 mrem. Thus, the dose off the .US Ecology pici ty was on the order of 100 mrem above backgmund-far in excess of NESHAP or 10 CFR 961 standards. Washington State Department of Health, Environmental ' Healthy Programs, EnvironmentalRadiation Progran 1991 AnnualReport, August 1993, p. 34, 134-6,243. l The radiation is clearly coming from US Ecology's operations and not other activities elsewhere on the Hanford property. The TLDs on the southern edge of US Ecology's property, close to the radioactive waste trenches, are consistently higher than those on the northem edge of the psoperty, which are considerably further away from the trenches. See p. 243, id. 4 This attern is reinforced in US Ecology's TLD measurements, which likewise show elevated remoings, highest along the south fence. Readings as high as 270 miemlyr. above background were reported in 1991, according to US Ecology's annual report. (p. 5118) The elevated fenceline readings-elevated along all sides of the property-continues each year. The i TLD fenceline reading in 1992, for example, led to this conclusion in US Ecology's Annual Re it for 1992, p. 5-123, "The exposure attributable to site o 'ons was 170 miem." EPA's 61 standard for " low-level" HAP standard is 10 mremlyr annual exposure; the 10 radioactive waste sites is 25 mremlyr from all exposure pathways combined, it is clear US Ecol 's Richland operations are well above those standards. Using theoretical doses nacasured values at its other si. ard Valley of a few mrem per year is clearly irratio calculated US Ecology forW tes (including its arid sites) is one or two orders of magnitude higher. . In a 16 September 1994 letter to US Ecology, the NRC states that monitoring data for the ] Richland facility "cleady point to the U.S. Ecology facility as the source of elevated radiation." - The letter refem to TLD measurements in excess of 100 millirem per year above background (10 times the NESilAPs) and reminds US Ecology that the NRCs fonner limit of 500 millitem per i year had been reduced 60100 millirem and that the reported doses would thus be in excess of the 6 i - 4 g m ,-,+,n

1 NRC 100 millitem standard Clearly, if that is true, the facility is farin excess of the NESHAPs 1 as well. At US Ecology's Beatty site, the same is true. Recen? dara, including a comprehensive review of the full operating record of the Beatty sitejust recently released by the Conference of . Radiation Control Protection Directors (CRCPD), document widespread contamination, far in j excess of background and far over the NESHAP standant. Vegetation has been reported sigmlicantly elevated in radioactivity. Soil samples have also been repeatedly contaminated. TLDs at the fenceline have shown quarterly doses of 500 700 millirem in 1965,1.2 Rem the next year, and 480 mrem in 1967. EPA then commenced independent monitoring; six measurements exceeded 100 mrem / quarter. In 1976 they measured 1.14 Rem in a single quarter. Beginning in 1977, US Ecology monitored 14 locations using TLDs. The maximum annual exposures during that period was 415 mrem, with doses between two hundred and four hundred mrem per year faidy standard between 1977 and the early 1980s. The releases were clearly coming from the facility, as doses at the south boundary remained significantly higher can all - other locahons (the south boundary is closest to the trenches). Doses remained many multiples of the NESHAP throughout the life of the facility, up through the most recent data reported by ' CRCPD, for the early 1990s. These dose data are so far above the NESilAP Sat wem any member of thepublic to spendjust a few days in a year near the site, they would get exposures in excess of the NESHAP . limits. And numerous members of the public (truckers, people delivering supplies, visitors, etc.) do spend in aggregate more than a few days per year near the facilities. l A thorough review of more recent data, and a reliance on actual data instead of self-reporting by licensees, is essential if EPA is to avoid making an arbitrary decision on the adec uncy of the NRC program to provide an ample margin of safety and meet the NESHAP l leve s, t Conclusion p NRCs regulatosy limit is 100 mrem per year; with permission, one can go up to 500 I mrem. These regulatory limits are ten times and fifty times EPA's NESHAPs, not counting other factors involving the method for calculating doses that result in NRC actually permitting doses even higher relative to EPA's NESHAPs In order to eliminate the more stringent regulations by EPA, NRC has proposed, not a i new regulatory limit equivalent to EPA's NESHAP, but an "ALARA constraint" level, breach of which would not be even a violation of the regulations. NRCs ALARA principle is a goal that one should reduce radiation to levels " reasonably achievable," taking into account economics and' other factors not related to public health protection. Itis clear that NRC has created a Potemkin Village type proposed ruled, an empty shell with nothing behind it, solely in order to provide EPA with an argument for lescinding its own authority to regulate emissions. The sole purpose in getting rescission is relief for industry from having to comply with what is clearly recogmzed 1 to be a stricter standard, more adequately eriforced. It is precisely because the NRC proposed rule is so much weaker, and the NRC's regulatory program so much weaker as well, that EPA l cannot make the finding required by the Clean Air Act tojustify rescinding its own regulatory . program. let us be frank about the matter. The CAA NESHAP authority was a hard-won victory l for public health and safety. EPA for many years now has resisted assuming the authority marxiated it by law. Now it is attempting to eliminate that hard-won protection for the public. 1 The NRC " constraint" rule piuvides markedly less protection for the public than the EPA NESHAP, and to rescind the latter would be to place the public at increased risk. 7 I .) U' gg Cj

r ingry pt>R se.t.; va-a u-aa+> ner-s no .a;a aa vva r.v-gp 3]+- Z& 00C*.-(E0 4 aspec 96 MAR 13 r 59 FAX to 202 634-3343 J.... ./ ' 0F F!... i4. 4 00CKEi' ~ '" r r '^' -To: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Dockello; ad' service Branch Trums Dootay Kiefer 00Cm %%R ~ l. 629 Highland Ed., Ithaca, NY 14850 PROPOSED ELE e i '8ubjects Standards for radioactive air emissions $c9ilbSRM) -( Date: 12. March 1996 No. Of pages: 1 ) l

Dear Sir / Madam,

1 I' understand that US EPA is bowing QuL Of the plotQre and leaving it to the NRC'to regulate air emissions from Nuclear reactors and other nuclear facilitlew. I have two strong coments : '1) Please adopt the EPA's proposed 10 millirem / year effective. ) dose equivalent as a real standard, not as a 'oluntary " constraint,". v

2) Such a standmed needs to be enforceable; if NRC does not intend to enforce, then allow citizen enforcement suits.

p I feel strongly about this, since radiation is not good for living things! il Thankd you for thn chance to cement. Sincavely, i l I 'l I h

f } }"N* 90& United States Enrichrnent Corporation [)r[*!:~.., ~ T.1 2 Democracy Center ~ 6903 Rockledge Onve Bethesda, Mo 20817 '96 (4fg y ','.C5 m (3 n ss4-3200 Fax: (301) 564-3201 Uniini States Enrichment Corp > ration March 12,1996 CFF G if 00CM,; ' .1 u -. U.S. Nuclear Reguhtory Commission SERIAL: GDP 96-0052 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Attention: Docketing and Services Branch WMET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE s 40

Dear Sir or Madam:

(bow-62Rs9 g The United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC) wishes to submit comments in support i of the proposed revision to 10 CFR Part 20, Constraint Level for Air Emissions of Radionuclides, which appeared in the FederalRegister on December 13,1995 (60 FR 63984). USEC supports this revision to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) radiological protection regulations because the revision facilitates the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) proposed recision of 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart I, National Emissions Standards for Radionuclide Emissions for facilities licensed by the NRC, other than commercial nuclear power reactors. USEC believes that the proposed revision assures the EPA that the level of radionuclide releases from NRC regulated facilities will continue to be kept as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA), and that air emissions will be maintained below the level of 10 mrem /yr Effective Dose Equivalent (EDE) established in the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) regulations. USEC appreciates that the NRC and the EPA have been working together to develop an appropriate regulatory method to ensure that once EPA rescinds Subpart I, the traditionally low levels of air emissions from NRC's regulated facilities and the operational philosophy of ALARA continue to be maintained. Once this proposed revision to 10 CFR Part 20 is promulgated, EPA can, as authorized under Section 112(d)(9) of the Clean Air Act.hendments, rescind its regulations under 40 CFR 61, Subpart I for NRC regulate'd facilities other than commercial nuclear power reactors. ~ Please feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss this matter further. I can be reached at (301) 564-3413. Sincerely, N &enY / h s', Q Robert L. Woolley Nuclear Regulatory Assurance and Policy Manager @M 6 ewe \\ p.

y 3 j-;L,3 fDW i / DOChETED American College of Nuclear Physicians / Society of Nuclear Medicine UMM GOVERNMENT RELATIONS OFFICE OFFi-DCCN - March 12,1996 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission DOCKER NUMBER g PROPOSED RULE rit M Attn: Docketing and Services Branch (Aca 68%N Washington, DC 20555-0001 RE: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Proposed Rule," Constraint Level for Air Emissions of Radionuclides," December 13,1995,60 FR 63984.

Dear Sir / Madam:

The American College of Nuclear Physicians (ACNP) and the Society of Nuclear Medicine (SNM) are pleased to comment on this proposed rule. ACNP and SNM represent 14,000 physicians, technologists, pharmacists, and scientists who provide quality diagnostic and therapeutic nuclear medicine services to patients and perform research and development in this specialty. Each year over 10 million nuclear medicine procedures are performed in the United States. The ACNP and SNM are concerned about the implementation of the NRC proposed rule as currently written. While we support NRC jurisdiction over EPA jurisdiction in this area, we believe there are several aspects of the NRC rule that need to be addressed. We will attempt to outline those points below. The Clean Air Act (CAA) referred to uncontrolled airborne emissions beyond the boundary of the licensee's property. Limits for the public were off-site limits. Airborne emissions within the licensee's establishment are completely and adequately covered by NRC's extensive requirements for facility operation. NRC needs to change s 20.1101(d) to read, ". so that individual member of the public likely to receive the highest off-site dose..." which simply adds the clarification of "off-site" to the regulation. ACNP and SNM are concerned that NRC regulations could be interpreted as controlling air emissions for a member of the public within the facility. This concern of ours is directly derived from Appendix A of the regulatory guide which cites an example that is not off-site. ACNP and SNM are also very concerned about problems that could arise in the states if the compatibility level remains at division 2. This determination could potentially allow states to set a more restrictive standard that could jeopardize the field of nuclear medicine. Airborne radionuclides cross state lines and we believe that addressed as a radiation safety issue, a federal standard isjustified. Also with a level as low as 10 mrem /yr., any level lower than that threatens the practice of nuclear medicine. We strongly believe that the compatibility levels should be consistent with the regulations for power plants and be changed to division level 1. 1850 Samuel Morse Drive, Reston, Virginia 22090-5316 * (703) 708-9773 / Fax: (703) 708-9777 f / Et~ Gob \\6Dt W 299 ~

c e 8 ACNP/SNM Comments March 12,1996 Page 2 Finally, we urge the NRC to consider provisions that would allow facilities to avoid the burden of calculating air emissions every year. The EPA has already dernonstrated that all 22,000 materials licensees are under the allowable limits at present. We strongly recommend that unless facilities alter their current activities they not be required to complete the calculations requested by NRC in the supplementary information section of this proposed rule. Nuclear medicine facilities have been safe for 60 years, and it is unnecessary to require calculations every year simply to prove that the licensee is consistent with EPA and NRC data already gathered. This would not however, change the reporting structure if a licensee had reason to beheve that new activities led to a level that exceeded 10 mrem /yr. We urge the NRC to consider these comments in conjunction with comments submitted on the Regulatory Guide before publishing a final rule in this area. If the ACNP and SNM can offer any assistance or answer any additional questions feel free to contact Mr. David Nichols, Associate Director of Government Relations, at (703) 708-9773. Sincerely, t.h>.$ rcdd' ^ a/ \\ David R. Brill, M.D. Peter T. Kirchner, M.D. President President American College of Nuclear Physicians Society of Nuclear Medicine i

Enclosure:

ACNP/SNM comments on the constraint rule regulatory guide e

N kD O!COm,i _........ y_.. yyghl Mf ~;yy' Q 7Y N %2[f/(" s g;wrevvo ,+ W! ,, wh5-rfll rw$ v" o ,,, f," [r m n y$ 4 el ' & w r n ' a r fffl 27 ,p 77( W / yrd I/d? V mv Tr w 4 A n,,

',u w A mtm n 7 ff*,r" 7"/"4 pyg y

&v 1 l y o u n w w w r? c 7 " e'1 " " U r ni ugo' einrm:ev]w Yg' ?7'7 :f'1T kw,ycnyorgpd ^!7 9O l WB'

@ f 5 e. m 4 % s

~ cre g B38 WON li>iO3G [(./ g-,99 (? n 3'108 0390dO8d / ] 6/47/ .)llV .jpg .a uyy4jj67fryg dem 1seJo puels! pLgp 6t} TV Pl cMODEB6 VM'puels! JeoJetu 1 96E9-E03 (9031 ISIO07030T 833NIDN3 ~173 mod T 3001897VM 0850 0313DJO Gdd ),2. - @ l 6.dll

.. ~ - -. -. ~. - f f= 31-;2.np p.y

pgg, h

. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 8L HUMAN SERVICES ' Public Health Service f OCcy:MD q ~ 1 '(of JE National Institutes of Health Bethesda.#aMand 20892 g @ % km.5-) 1 m m WaY March 12,1996 Of fiC;, g:h. ;.j&!lCE T / 00CN 1 t e Rules Review and Directives Branch, DFIPS I Office of Administration - U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission DOCKET NI.NBER no i - Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 PROPOSED RULE rn oc 1 (MWN

Dear Madam / Sir:

l The Radiation Safety Branch (RSB), National Institutes of Health (NIH) wishes to provide comments regarding the proposed rule " Constraint Level for Air Emissions of Radionuclides." Federal Register Vol. 60 No. 239, December 13,1995 and Draft Regulatory Guide DG-8016, i " Constraints for Air Effluents for Licensees Other than Power Reactors", December 1995. 1 The NIH is a large facility licensee conducting biomedical research, medical diagnosis and treatment. Our management of extensive and varied uses of radioactive material within a large and diverse community comprised of research, patient, and ancillary services personnel at NIH, provides us with the experience and knowledge to offer pertinent and realistic comments on the consequences of the proposed rule. NIH was one of the over 400 NRC licensees studied by EPA l i during its implementation of NESHAPS and was a " beta" test site for the COMPLY computer l code. Furthermore, the professional staff of the RSB includes a number of past employees of EPA, one of whom was responsible for the implementation of radionuclide NESHAPs and who has intimate knowledge of the intended application of the EPA regulation under consideration for l - NRC adoption. 3 The premise of the proposed rule is to provide a basis for the withdrawal of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's regulation under 40 CFR 60, Subpart 1. However, the U.S. ~ Nuclear Regulatory Commission's proposal appears to have redefined the conditions for the [ 7 application of NESHAPs to the point that the regulatory analysis performed by NRC is not i accurate. - This is particularly true for location of the member of the " general public" which the ' NRC has redefined as an individual inside the facility, rather than outside, and the release point has been inappropriately moved (as noted in the example in the draft regulatory guide) to a i-laboratory door inside the facility, The proposed rule 10 CFR 20.1003,20.1101,20.2203 elicit the following concems: o The reporting conditions are overty burdensome due to the redefinition of the " individual member of the' general public likely to receive the highest dose" to be an individual inside the licensed l facility. Clearly the EPA intended this limit to apply to members of the general public outside the l facility, not inside.' A conflict exists as the NRC defines a member of tne public in 10 CFR 4 ~. 20.1003 and the EPA definition which considers " emissions of radionuclides, including iodine, to = the ambient air from a facility [not within the facility) regulated under this subpart..." (40 CFR 61.102(a) Standard). The NRC already limits' dose to non-occupationally exposed individuals . within a facility under 20.1003 and 20.1301 (100 mrom/yr TEDE.) The NRC should specinsd y e j 1 z

l l Review and Directives Branch, USNRC 2 March 12,1996 exclude the public inside the facility from consideration in this proposed rule. 20.1101 should specifically address exposure "offsite" or "outside the licensed facilities". Requiring licensees to report individual names, social security numbers etc, for an "exceedance" of the dose constraint is not only unnecessary but may be impractical as the doses are calculated to a " hypothetical" receptor. What purpose would such reporting serve when no data exists to demonstrate any harm or effect from a dose which is a small fraction of annual background? Requiring the reporting of trivial or minimal exposures contributes to the public's escalating fear of alllevels of radiation. Requiring reports of trivial," hypothetical" doses, against an established " constraint" implies absolute and determinable risk for all exposures, and reinforces and perpetuates the public's perception that all levels of radiation are potentially harmful. Furthermore, this reporting level is completely inconsistent with the recent position statement " Radiation Risk in Perspective," articulated by the Health Physics Society. In addition, the proposal creates a reporting inconsistency where the reporting limit for a member of the public is 100 mrem for any other circumstances, but exposure from an airbome route must be reported if calculated above 10 mrem. What basis is there for this inconsistency? The NRC or the EPA has not provided proof that the airbome radioactivity exposure pathway is more harmful than any other mode of radiation exposure, such that a reporting " quality factor" of ten is now required. The proposed rule is unnecessary and inconsistent with the NRC's own guidance "Use of Probabilistic Risk / ~ mment in Nuclear Regulatory Activities; Final Policy Statement' Federal Register Vol 61 August 16,1995, Notices. Based on the studies performed by EPA, over 98% of ensees studied in the category considered by this rulemaking are already operat..,g L s 1 mrem /yr and all of the remainder are below 10 mrem /yr using the exceedingly conservauve assumptions of the COMPLY code. An additional 43 facilities, which were expected to produce the highest potential exposure, demonstrated that 75% were below 1 mrem /yr and none exceeded 10 mrem /yr. Given this data, there is no basis for the proposed rule, let alone the cost of reporting. All natural and non-byproduct radioactive materials are not within the control of the NRC to regulate. However, the new section 20.1101 does not specifically exempt anything from its regulation except222Rn. It is suggested that the phrase " licensed materials" replace " radioactive materials" in 20.1101(d). The proposed rule neglects the cost of the rule to the licensee and time to use COMPLY as well as time spent compiling the data necessary to perform the calculations through COMPLY or other method. The cost estimates and regulatory impact conclusions are therefore not complete. The COMPLY code is not " user friendly" and must be fixed prior to the NRC recommending its use. The code, as currently configured, requires repeated entry of data and costs licensees significant time to run without any demonstrated benefit. The regulatory guide does not provide a list of physical forms exempt from consideration such as sealed containers, syringes for patient administration, "Mo *"'Tc generators, patients, etc. The regulatory guide example contains numerous technical errors. These are as follows:

~. g. ? f Review and Directives Branch, USNRC ' 3 March 12,1996 1 The example sums total Activity used over three separate days and then divides this sum by the room volume to get the " average concentration during 24 hours following use." Obviously i i this is not the average, but the sum of the concentrations for the three days. To calculate the -." average annual concentration" the example then divides this value by approximately 121.5 1 (is this 365 divided by 3 ?) arriving at the result 7.9 E-10 pCi/ml. It then states that this result is 40 % of the Appendix B, Table 2, Column 1 limit of 2.0 E -10 pCi/ml, which it is obviously not since it is greater.than that limit. This example defies analysis and neglects the EPA' ' approved use of release fractions or of the practical aspects of occupancy times for such a I situation. All of the release fraction criteria and guidance for use as provided by EPA in its COMPLY ~ code is omitted from the guide. The release fractions used in the example are inconsistent with those of the EPA compliance methodology. The release fraction foriodine in liquid form is 0.001 not 1.0; i.e. one hundred percent of the material is not volatilized. 1 The guide does not use an effective clearance time for the room or hallway, some air ] tumover is present and this has been neglected. l 1 The EPA regulations do not consider a member of the public to be present in the licensed j facility, particularly at a laboratory door for 24 hours on three separate days. The commonly used terminology for the device that provides air flow and regative pressure for chemical fume hoods or glove boxes is a " fan", not a " pump." l Licensee possession limits are not correct. The EPA used the quantities possessed over a. i period of one year. 4 .We would appreciate your consideration of these critical comments on the proposed regulation. Sincerely, 8. = ~ Robert A. Zoon, M.., .S. S gin M.S.,C.H.P. Radiation Safety Officer, NIH Deputy Radiati fety Officer, NIH I i 1 ) i M s 7 v- ,----r +-, .-e..,~ aw e = m- ..wi 4

gp 3 p w -41 ..k ) h PDb 00CKETED f E.I. DU'PONT DE NEMOURS & CO (INC.) ' USNRC '( MEDICA 1. PRODUCTS DEPARTMENT .l '96 MtR 14 P2 :04 March 11,199hfFICE U LJTIARY I ~ DOCKEuw & MRV!CE EAMKH ^ DOCKET NWBER Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC ~ 20555-0001 PROPOSED ROLE M i U.0FR M % D l Docketing and Services Branch Attn.: a

Reference:

NRC Proposed Rule: Constraint Level for Air Emissions of Radionuclides. Federal Register. Vol. 60, No. 239. December 13,1995. Page 63984 e These comments are submitted on behalf of NEN Products, Medical Products, E. I. DuPont de Nemours and Company NEN Products is a major manufacturer and supplier of radioactive materials for biomedical and industrial research applications. The manufacture and ) ' use of radionuclides necessarily results in low level emissions, consequently this proposed rule i applies to our facility and those of our customers. At NEN Products we have long expenence m 1 testing various models for predicting the effects of emissions and have assisted numerous j customers in environmental monitoring. We are therefore in a particularly good position to judge ~ the efficacy of regulatory requirements concerning radionuclide emission control. As indicated in the attached comments to the EPA, we have supported the EPA proposal to rescind 40 CFR 61 Subpart I because it is an unnecessary and duplicative regulation that burdens NRC and agreement state licensees with additional costs of demonstrating compliance r without any benefit to the public. We believe that the rescinding of 40 CFR 61 Subpart I and adoption of the proposed NRC constraint rule will be of some benefit because it will return regulatory control to one agency and reduce the cost of demonstrating compliance. Furthermore j we recognize that the NRC has provided viable alternative methods for demonstrating compliance l which could be easier to implement, give more accurate results and/or be already in place for some licensees. However while we concede that the NRC constraint rule is preferable to dual regulations, we strongly urge that this proposal is not necessary and that current emission standards expressed in 10 CFR 20 are sufficient to assure that the public is adequately protected from licensee. emissions. l Furthermore current NRC regulations have the important distinction that they are ~ compatible with Interr.ational Commission on Radiological Protection and National Council on j Radiation Protection and Measurements recommendations. MEDICAL PRODUCTS DEPARTMENT ' t 540' Albany Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02118 Telephone 617-482-9595 Fax (617) 542-8468 bl l @* r '*W "'I "2

k. -

a mw - r i#

r Consequently we recommend that the NRC deletes the proposed constraint rule and the EPA rescinds 40 CFR 61 Subpart I for NRC and agreement state licensees. These actions should be completed expeditiously to remove the adverse impact these burdensome requirements have on i - essential life saving medical and research services. l Attached are detailed comments on the proposed rule. We have also sent by separate cover comments on Draft Regulatory Guide DG-8016. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this proposed rule and would be glad to provide clarification or further information. Sincerely yours, / 7 Leonard R. Smith, CHP Radiation Protection Consultant a A 1 i i l l i 4

l March,1996 4 NEN PRODUCTS COMMENTS ON PROPOSED NRC CONSTRAINT RULE FOR AIR EMISSIONS OF RADIONUCLIDES 1. Page 63985, column 3, paragraph 1. " Based on the... studies conducted by EPA and licensee reporting...it is evident that less than 10 mrem /yr. to the maximally exposed member of the public from air emissions is reasonably achievable." We agree with the above conclusion. In fact licensees have been reporting to the regulators and in public comments long before the EPA conducted studies that controls were sufficient to maintain public exposures to as low as reasonably achievable below NRC limits. However the ability oflicensees to control emissions is not the issue here. The concern is the cost of demonstrating compliance. Accurate radiological assessments are complex and costly exercises. While it is relatively easy to demonstrate compliance with the 100 mrem /yr, public dose limit, it becomes increasingly more difficult and expensive to demonstrate compliance with lower limits such as the proposed constraint level. Furthermore this cost does not result in reduction of emissions or any benefit to the public and has the counterproductive effect of removing finite resources from more important safety functions and increasing the cost and availability oflife saving biomedical research and medical applications. l l 2. Page 63985, column 3, paragraph 1. "The NRC is proposing to establish a constraint of 10 mrem /yr...to members of the public...as part ofits program to maintain doses ALARA." We disagree that the establishment of a 10 mrem /yr. constraint rule can be considered ALARA or will have any affect on public dose. In fact the proposed rule violates the ALARA principle because its implementation will add cost of demonstrating compliance without affecting the actual dose to members of the public. Increase cost with no benefit is not ALARA. 4 1 )

e 3. Page 63986, column 1, paragraph 2. " NRC proposes to provide a basis for rescission of[ EPA] Subpart I...to constrain - dose to members of the public...to 10 mrem /yr." While we agree that one benefit of establishing a constraint rule is that it might result in the EPA rescinding Subpart I, this is not sufficient justification. The proper action that should be taken is to rescind Subpart I unconditionally. The failure of the NRC and EPA to achieve the proper result expeditiously implies that the two agencies are not capable of resolving their differences in a manner that is beneficial to the public and that further Congressional action is necessary to resolve this issue. 4. Page 63986, column 1, paragraph 3. l " the licensee would be required to report the dose to NRC in writing within 30 d sys..." The proposed reporting requirements and corrective actions are not justifiable considering the current status oflicensee emissions. The EPA has determined that more than 99% of licensees routinely demonstrate compliance with the 10 mrem EPA limit. Furthermore it is well recognized that the reason that a few licensees can't demonstrate compliance is because the EPA requires them to use a computer program that can grossly over estimate the dose to the public from emissions. Consequently the appropriate corrective actions are likely only to involve recalculating dose and not reducing emissions that are already negligible. A much better approach to demonstrating compliance is for the NRC to require each licensee to determine current emissions and corresponding dose initially If the estimate adequately demonstrates compliance with current NRC limits and ALARA requirements then in subsequent years licensees should only need to demonstrate compliance when emissions have increased or other changes have occurred that could result in significant increase in off site dose. By these means licensees can assure the public that they are protected without generating an interminable quantity of redundant records every year. 2

p q J (Th y E.1. DU PONT DE NEMOURS & CO. (INC.) MEDICAL PRODUCTS DEPARTMENT ' November 16,1995 -l . Central Docket Section LE-131 - Environmental Protection Agency - Attn.: Air Docket No. A-92-50 Washington,DC 20460 i

Reference:

Proposed EPA Rule: National Emissions Standards for Radionuclide Emissions From Facilities Licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Federal Facilities Not Covered by Subpart H. Federal Register, Vol. 60, No.168, September 28,1995, Page 50161. These comments are submitted on behalf of NEN Products, Medical Products / Imaging Systems, E. I. QuPont de Nemours and Company. NEN Products is a ! major manufacturer and supplier of radioactive materials for biomedical and industrial research applications. The manufacture and use of radionuclides necessarily results in low i level emissions, consequently this mie applies to our facility and those of our customers. i At NEN Products we have long experience in testing various models for predicting the effects of emissions and have assisted numerous customers in environmental monitoring. We are therefore in a particularly good position to judge the efficacy of regulatory requirements concerning radionuclide emission control. As reported to the EPA in numerous comments we find EPA errdssion standards to be redundant and an unw-y regulatory burden to NRC and Agreement State licensees We therefore strongly recommend that subpart I be rescinded for NRC and Agreement State licensees without any further conditions. The proposed NRC constraint level ALARA rule will have no effect on emissions because NRC and Agreement State licensees already comply. However, duplicate EPA regulations and additional constraints make it much more complicated and costly for licensees to demonstrate compliance. We strongly agree with the numerous EPA findings that NRC regulations have and ' continue to assure an ample measure of protection to the public and support the EPA proposal to rescind EPA emission standards for NRC and Agreement State licensees. Detailed comments are attached. We thank you'for the opportunity to comment 3 on this proposed rule and would be glad to provide clarification or further comments. j l/ 1 Sincereiy yours, Leonard R. Smith, CHP, Radiation Protection Consultant , MEDICAL PRODUCTS DEPARTMENT 549 Albany Street, Boston,' Massachusetts 02118 - Ti,*,066 617-482-9595 Fax (617) 542-8468 t j. v n -n w-

COMMENTS ON EPA PROPOSED RULE, NATIONAL EMISSIONS STANDARDS FOR RADIONUCLIDE EMISSIONS FROM FACILITIES LICENSED BY THE NUCLEAR REGULNIDRY COMMISSION. FEDERAL i REGISTER, VOL 60, NO.188, SEPTEMBER 28,1995, PAGE 50161. 1. Page 50161, column 3, paragraph 2. p "On December 1,1992, EPA proposed to rescied 40 CFR part 61 subpart L " 4 We believe that it is i...partant that the public is amply protected from airborne emissions of all potentially hazardous materials. We support regulations that are effective in assuring public protection. We are aware that regulations promulgated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) have provided ample protection in the past and provide ample protection nop. The EPA's 40 CFR part 61 subpart I serves no useful purpose, is duplicative and should therefore be promptly rescinded. l L 2. Page 50161, column 3, paragraph 3. "This document reaffirms the EPA pesposal to rescind subpart I for NRC and Agreement State Licensees." We agree that subpart I should be promptly rescinded to remove a duplicative, [ costly and unwa-y regulatory burden that provides no benefit to the public. I 3. Page 50161, colema 3, paragraph 3. "[the EPA] invites additional cosament on the sufficiency of the revisions of the NRC program to support the finding required by Section 112 (e) (9)." On October 1984 and December 15,1989 the EPA published in the Federal Register their finding that the current NRC regulations already assured an ample i margin of safety to the public. At that time NRC regulations required emissions to be controlled to limit public dose to 500 mrem in any 12 month period. The NRC l also required licensees to have adequate radiation protection progreins which in practice further limited emission to as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) below the limits. The 500 mrem limit and ALARA practices were effective in i ensuring that' actual public doses were far below 500 mrem per year and generally far below EPA standards of 10 and 3 mrem per year. L I L n n..

i i Furthermore since 1994 NRC and Agreement States have promulgated a lower public dose limit e a00 mrem per year and have made ALARA a requirement. Past licensee perbrmance and more restrictive NRC requirements are more than sufficient to assure ample protection of the public. 4. Page 50163, colume 2, paragraph 1 "When the results for the survey were statistically extrapolated to the entire population of NRC and Agreessent State h*==, EPA concluded that virtually all of the facilities would cause doses to memben of the public which are below 10 mrem / year." While we agree with EPA's conclusion, it is clear that the EPA finding has understated the case. The EPA uses the COMPLY computer program to estimate doses to the public. The COMPLY code is simply a sequence of screening programs that can be used with various degrees of conservatism to demonstrate compliance with the EPA's stplards. Th6 code is not constructed to accurately determine public doses but instead makes estimates that have been shown to bc much higher than indicated by more accurate methods. l This problem ofoverestimating public doses is exacerbated due to most small licensees with low emissions not having detailed measurements necessary to use the higher levels of the code. Instead these licensees must use lower levels of the code which grossly exaggerate public doses. Doses estimated by this method have been shown to be billions of times higher than actual doses. Consequently EPA's survey is based on dose constructions that are orders of magnitude higher than actual doses. The actual protection assured by current NRC and Agreement State licenses is orders of magnitude greater than that implied by the EPA's survey. i 5. Page 50164, column 1, paragraph 1 " EPA concluded that there was no element in the NRC regulatory program which expressly required or assured that licensees would maintain emissions below the 10 mrem /yr. EPA standard." We disagree with this conclusion. The EPA's own survey showed that 18,000 licensees are in compliance with the standard. When adjustments are made for the i tendency of the COMPLY code to overestimate, the survey shows that licensees are far below the EPA standard. That licensees comply with EPA and NRC standards is to be expected. Generally licensees do not possess enough radioactive material to cause significant public exposure through emissions. In these circumstances the public is adequately protected and regulations are redundant.

.. _ _ ~. [ o

6. -

Page 50164, column 8, paragaph 3. t "the ALARA" constraint level" rule [is to be] a matter of Division I4 vel 2 compatibility. " The EPA seeks assurance from the NRC that licensees in Agreement States will be subject to the same emission standards as the NRC licensees However the EPA already has this information. NRC has always required Agreement States to be strictly compatible with NRC in limiting public dose. The EPA has not shown that licensees in Agreement States are less able to comply with the emission standard than NRC licensees.- 7. Page 50165, column 2, paragraph 3. j "Out of the thousands oflicensees subject to the standarii, only 16 facilities art presently reporting radionuclide emissions exceeding the EPA standard, and EPA expects that most of these reported violations will be resolved through EPA approval of adjustments in the COMPLY methodology for calculating doses." This statement implies that licensees exceed the emission standard and the EPA accepts this. However we are aware that some licensees are unable to demonstrate j compliance because the COMPLY code grossly overestimates the dose. In otherwords these licensees are in full compliance with the standard but EPA's prescribed methods for demonstrating compliance are not accurate. This is a clear indication of the counterproductive nature of the EPA radionuclide emission standards. The time that a licensee's health physicist must spend in resolving such issues with the EPA is time removed from activities that can improve the control of radioactive material. When the EPA emission standards were implemented for l NRC and Agreement State Licensees in 1992 licensees were already in compliance with the standard and did not need to change practices to reduce emissions. However, the new standards greatly increased the cost and complexity of demonstrating compliance. Hence EPA regulations have increased costs without any benefit to the public, 4 i 8. Page 50165, column 3, paragraph 5. j "(1) If NRC adopts the proposed ALARA constraint level rule, will the itsultant C regulatory program assure that routine radionuclide emissions from NRC licensees... result in doses which are consistently and predictably no greater than 10 artm/ year?" ' Current NRC regulations already assure that public doses are consistently and predictably below 10 mrem / year. Furthermore public doses are generally far below 10' mrem / year. NRC arid Agreement State regulations have provided sufficient p i

i protection to the public. EPA regulations and the proposed NRC constraint rule will not provide any further benefit to the public but simply increase the regulatory i burden on licensees. 9. Page 50165, column 3, paragraph 6. "(2) If NRC adopts the pmposed ALARA constraint level rule, will NRC have sufficient authority to require affected facility with routine radionuclide emissions at a level which results in a dose exceeding 10 mrem /yr. to reduce i its emissions to a level resulting in a dose no getater than 10 mmn/ year?" l l The NRC already has sufficient authority to mie that such emissions are not ALARA and to impose license conditions to further restrict emissions. The 4 proposed ALARA constraint level rule is redundant, serving the same purpose. 10. Page 50165, column 3, paragraph '/. 4 "(3) If NRC makes the proposed ALARA constraint level rule a matter of Division Level 2 compatibility, will this assure that each individual Agreement State establishes an ALARA constraint level for its licensees which is no greater than 10 mrem /yr., and requires it licensees to report and correct exceedances of that level?" j Agreement State rules that are classified as Division Level 2 compatibility must be strictly compatible with NRC rules. Agreement States are currently required to implement regulations to protect the public that are strictly compatible with NRC Regulations. There is already ample assurance that licensees in individual i Agreement States comply with the proposed ALARA constraint level. 11. Page 50165, column 3, paragraph 8. j "(4) Are the NRC policies establishing criteria to evaluate the adequacy and compatibility of Agreement State programs, and adopting procedures t'o permit suspension of termination of Agreement State programs, sufficient to enable NRC to take necessary action ifit determines that an Agreement State program is inadequate or incompatible?" NRC currently has the authority to suspend Agreement State programs that are inadequate or incompatible and has exercised this authority in the past. Current NRC policies do not change this status.

l e *.f .r-

12..

Page 50166, colema 1, paragraph 2. "(5) Do these four actions, la addition to other actions taken by NRC combine to provide an ample margia of safety to protect public health." The EPA has on several occasions shown that the public is protected with an ample margin of safety. This condition was determined when the only regulation was the NRC 500 mrem /yr. public dose limit. It still applies now under the NRC 100 mrem /yr. limit and ALARA requirements. Neither the above four actions nor the EPA standard will significantly increase public protection because current practices already result in exposures well below the proposed constraint level It is, however, necessary that the EPA standard and proposed NRC constraint level be promptly rescinded. What is needed is one regulation that implements the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) and National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement (NCRP) recommendation to constrain public dose to below 100 mrem per year. ICRP and NCRP recommendations are respected for their ability to provide the necessary protection to the public. The EPA standard and proposed NRC constraint level should be rescinded to remove a - costly regulatory burden from licensees who manufacture and use radionuclides in biomedical research and medicine. This is especially important since these unn~myy costs severly impact patients who rely on life-saving radiopharmaceutical procedures. .1 I \\ i I

RP 316 New York Stato D:p:rtment cf Envir:nment:1 C:n=rv;ti:n PDb Division of Solid & Hazardous Materials 00CE 3 Bureau of Pesticides & Radiation

jyp; 50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York 12233-7255 518 457-2225 FAX 518-485 8390

% titR 14 P3 :04 ,,,,,n z,,, Commissioner OFFiQ J S:A 'W DOCKL ! A - M W.E HNR Nb DOCKET NUMBER DD PROPOSED RULE 1rn m (combSv+)h Rules Review and Directives Branch DFIPS Office of Administration U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Docketing and Services Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

Dear Addressees:

Re: 10 CFR 20, Proposed Rule, Constraint Level For Air Emissions of Radionuclides Draft Regulatory Guide DG-8016, Constraints for Air Effluents for Licensees Other than Power Reactors The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has reviewed the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission's December 7, 1995 (NRC) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) on the Constraint Level for Air Emissions of Radionuclides 10 CFR Part 20 and the Draft Regulatory Guide DG-8016 (Proposed Revision 1 to Regulatory Guide 8.37), Constraints For Air Effluents For Licensees Other Than Power Reactors. In response to both proposals, we recommend that the NRC evaluate better the alternative of leaving the responsibility for implementing Subpart I with the EPA. We understand the long history of the EPA's duplicative regulation of emissions from NRC and Agreement State licensees, and we agree that it would be desirable to eliminate it. However, this proposed rule appears to merely transfer to NRC the EPA's role in imposing a new dose limit on radioactive materials licensees. As explained in more detail in our enclosed comments, the proposed " constraint" appears to be a dose limit in all but name. Yet, there will be no health and safety benefit from this 9(oDNGO%cn LePP

~ q j 4 i Page 2 regulation. -Both'the EPA'andxthe NRC have acknowledged that i C almost all facilities will meet this " constraint."- 'In its September 28, 1995, Notice of Reopening of Comment Period, the; i EPA stated, " EPA' concluded that virtually all of the facilities would.cause doses to members of.the public which are belowf l 10 mrem /yr." [60 FR'50163] In the NPR,.'the NRC supports its NEPA i Finding of No Significant-Impact, in part by: stating, " Actual' air-emissions are:not expected.to change." i J The4 NRC estimates that" licensees will-have'to devote an -average CME 80 hours.toL meet the reporting requirements of this j f proposed rule. NRC also proposes to make this a Division 2. rule, forcing Agreement. States to: spend their owniscarce resources on-adopting a rule that will have no effect on the environment-or l . public health and safety. Since the EPA is already administering -l this program under its own existing regulations, and there is,no-f zpublic. health benefit to be gained, we question whether this >rulemaking should'be undertaken. At.the least, the NRC should

i explain ~in:the NPR the benefit of adopting this rule compared to leaving the existing EPA program in place.

l l Our detailed comments are enclosed. Please call me if you .have any questions. 1 Sincerely, Paul . Merges, Ph.D., Chief Bureau of' Pesticides & Radiation Division of Solid & Hazardous Materials L i i I l + ? e bh h i t y v e- .s e-

' *:e ' Comments.of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation on 4 L .10'CFR 20, Proposed Rule, Constraint Level For Air Emissions of . Radionuclides and-Draft Regulatory Guide DG-8016, Constraints for Air Effluents for Licensees Other than Power Reactors L i March 12, 1996 l INTRODUCTION -The NRC is proposing to revise two-sections of.10 CFR 20: Section 20.1101,' Radiation protection programs, and i c Section 20.2203, Reports of exposures, radiation levels, and concentrations of radioactive material exceeding the limits. These Sections are to be expanded to incorporate new requirements l 'for a 10 mrem " dose constraint." The new proposed Section 20.1101 (d) would' require materials licensees to constrain air emissions of radioactive materials l (other than radon-222) so that a member of the public would not j receive a dose in excess of 10 mrem /yr total effective dose equivalent (TEDE). A licensee exceeding the proposed dose constraint would be required to report the exceedance to the NRC under the new proposed Section 20.2203 (a) (2) (vi) and to promptly take corrective actions to ensure against recurrence. Draft q l Regulatory Guide DG-8016 identifies those methods acceptable to l l-NRC for implementing the i osed rule.

GENERAL COMMENT

S i '1. The NRC has not yet finalized its compatibility policy for Agreement States, yet at the same time has made it clear that this rulemaking will be designated as a Division 2 rule (i.e., Agreement States must adopt a rule that is at least as stringent as NRC's rule). Since NRC has apparently decided to make this rule a Division 2 (or its equivalent) compatibility matter, NRC should have provided Agreement 4 StatesLwith the opportunity to participate in its developmentat an earlier stage. For example, NRC could provide states with a draft of the proposed:rulemaking prior to publishing the NPR in the Federal Register. In addition, i NRC should give additional weight to. comments submitted by Agreement States. NRC'has-verbally committed to both j approaches during past AgreementLStates' meetings. .2. Its is not clear whether the NRC will allow licensees to exceed the dose constraint if'they have taken appropriate y steps to keep-their emissions as low as reasonably achievable - (ALARA). Both.the NPR and DG-8016.do.not appear l Page 1 of 4 j r 4 i _,_,m,_ ,.m-

to allow for such a situation. According to DG-8016, a constraint is a dose value "above which specified licensee actions are required." Those required actions include reporting and taking appropriate and timely corrective actions to prevent recurrence, or else NRC will take an enforcement action. The NPR states that a Notice of Violation would be issued upon licensee failure to report the exceedance and/or failure to institute appropriate measures to correct and prevent recurrence. This language implies that anY exceedance of the proposed dose constraint, coupled with failure to take appropriate corrective action, will be treated as a violation. Hence, a corrective action that does not ensure that the constraint will not be exceeded -- even if that action ensures that emissions will be maintained ALARA -- apparently will not be deemed an adequate corrective measure by NRC. It appears that the dose constraint is a requirement and, therefore, a de facto limit. 3. The word constraint is a poor choice of words. Webster defines constraint as "something that restricts, limits, or regulates." This definition, however, appears to contradict the NPR and DG-8016, which state that a constraint is H2L a limit. To reduce confusion, the NRC should use a different word or phrase. Examples: action level, reference level, ALARA goal, etc. / In 10 CFR 50, Appendix I sets ALARA guidelines for many I different sources from nuclear power plants, including gaseous and airborne particulate discharges. Contrasted to ) " constraint level," Appendix I uses the term " design objectives and limiting conditions for operation." of note, however, is the value proposed for the ALARA level. j Appendix I to 10 CFR 50 limits the dose due to releases of airborne particulates to 15 mrem / year to any organ, and the dose due to gaseous effluents to 5 mrem / year to the total body and 15 mrem / year to the skin. NRC should not contribute to the proliferation of different dose limits for i i different types of facilities. If NRC intends to establish a new public dose limit, the new limit should be codified in Section 20.1301. I 4. The explanatory language in the NPR and DG-8016 suggests that NRC believes the proposed dose constraint would only be exceeded under atypical operating conditions (i.e., accidental or higher-than-expected radioactive air emissions, equipment f ailure, or operator error). In fact, on page 3, DG-8016 states that "NRC believes that the j constraint level. is easily achievable by NRC materials licensees." However, the draft guide also states that "It i is understood that the constraint dose could be approached 1 Page 2 of 4 j I j

d routinely - (page 3). " These appear to be contradictory. Instead of making the proposed dose constraint a de facto i limit, NRC could designate the dose constraint as an "ALARA goal." Rather than require licensees' corrective actions to " ensure against recurrence," NRC could instead require that i licensees' corrective actions " ensure'that emissions are maintained ALARA." To implement this approach, NRC should change the last sentence of the proposed Section 20.1101(d) the licensee shall. . promptly take to read, appropriate _ corrective actions to ensure that emissions are ALARA." Likewise, the proposed Section 20.2203 (a) (2) (iv) should be reworded to include the statement, corrective steps taken or planned to ensure that emissions are ALARA when constraint levels have been exceeded." 6. We find that NRC's proposed dose constraint for air emissions of radioactive material is a reasonable goal. However, NRC has not presented the dose constraint proposal as an ALARA goal, but rather as a de facto limit. For the reasons presented above, NRC should revise the NPR and DG-8016 to clarify that the dose constraint is an ALARA goal, not a limit. By doing so, NRC would confirm that it is not lowering the current public dose limit of 100 mrem /yr, which i should lesson public confusion about the adequacy / safety of the current 100 mrem /yr public dose limit. SPECIFIC COMMENTS on NPR 7. The language proposed to be added to 10 CFR 20 appears to treat identified exceedances of the dose constraint (even when reported as required) as a violation of a standard if not corrected to prevent recurrence. Why will licensees be required, by regulation, to prevent the recurrence of a j failure to meet a standard that has clearly been described as "not a limit"? How will the NRC ensure compliance with something that is not a limit? 8. The proposed 10 mrem /yr dose constraint contradicts NRC's previously stated ALARA philosophy. The NPR states that the rulemaking proposed would codify numerical values ..for application of IdJJUL guidelines

However, during the last major revision of 10 CFR 20, a published public comment requested that the NRC institute " reference levels" for-licensee action.

The NRC responded to that comment as follows: ...if the NRC were to specify generic reference levels for licensee action, the impact might be similar to lowering the magnitude of the dose limits. The Commission believes that the use of the ALARA philosophy is a preferable means to keep exposures well Page 3 of 4 ~ 1

r below the limits established by the Commission. It appears that the NRC has modified its ALARA philosophy to define and codify what is ALARA. However, no explanation for this change was given in either the NPR or DG-8016. NRC should provide an explanation for this apparent change. SPECIFIC COMMENTS on DG-8016 9. According to DG-8016, the draft guide deals with controlling doses resulting from the release of air effluents to levels below the proposed 10 mrem dose constraint. However, it is not clear where air effluents must be controlled to meet the proposed dose constraint - does this mean in uncontrolled areas inside and/or outside of a licensed facility? It is unclear if the dose constraint is to be limited to effluents outside the f acility (e.g., in the environment), because the one example given in DG-8016 dealt with air effluents to an uncontrolled area inside the facility. The final regulatory guide should clearly define where radioactive air effluents must be controlled to ensure that public doses are less than the proposed 10 mrem /yr dose constraint. 10. Appendix A to the Draft Regulatory Guide contains a mathematical error. Appendix A is a sample report of an exceedance of the 10 mrem / year " constraint level." The average annual concentration of I-131 discharged to the air from the f acility is stated as 7.9x10-2 pCi/ml. It is then stated that this annual average concentration is 40% of the 10 CFR 20 Appendix B, Table 2, Column 1 value of 2. 0x10'" i pCi/ml, and that this would yield a dose of 20 mrem / year.

7. 9x10'2 is actually 395% higher than the Table 2 value, and the resulting dose would be 197.5 mrem / year.

It is possible that the annual average concentration should have been printed as 7. 9x10-22 pCi/ml, in which case the percent and dose estimate are correct. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Notice of Propose Rulemaking on the new constraint level and Draft Regulatory Guide DG-8016. We are hopeful that NRC will give full consideration to our comments on the proposed rule and guide, as well as our comments regarding the lack of opportunity for Agreement States participation in the development of this proposed rule. ) i Page 4 of 4

N.) y 3 p D-D g v' O-fDL i DOCKETED USMP.C finie of )Tefu 3erseg Department of Environmental Protectio'96 mR 15 P 3 :34obert C. Shinn, Jr. Christine Todd Whitman CN 402 Commissioner Governor Trenton, NJ 08625-0402 0FflCf M OEMU DOCKE V 3, m u r w.o v March 7,'1996 DoctET O M E Docketing and-Services Branch PROPOSED RULE U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (( A F R M N Washington, DC 20555-0001 re: RIN 3150-AF31: The following are the comments of the State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection concerning the proposed constraint level for air emissions of radionuclides in Federal-Register. Vol. 60. No. 239. pp. 63984-63987. The'New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (the Department) has supported the U.S. Environmental. Protection Agency's (EPA) National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) in the past,'and still agrees that the EPA 10 millirem (mrem) annual dose limit is protective of the public health. The Vepartment also considers the specific hierarchical methods set forth in 40 CFR. 61 for determining compliance with this limit to be scientifically sound. The Department is concerned with the proposed U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) changes to 10 CFR 20 for several reasons. We are particularly interested in possible changes to the current .i regulatory position because there are a number of facilities (predominantly radiopharmaceutical companies, hospitals, research and academic institutions) located in populated areas of New Jersey which have the potential for emission of radionuclides. Since the EPA has established the 10 mrem / year limit to meet the " ample ~ margin of safety" requirement of the Clean Air Act (CAA), it is clear that the NRC regulatory program must assure that routine radionuclide emissions result in doses which are consistently and predictably no greater than 10 mrem / year. The Department is of the opinion that the proposed NRC regulatory program will be sufficient only when the proposal satisfactorily. addresses the following [ issues. 1) .In limiting the total effective ' dose equivalent (TEDE) to 10 mrem / year, the EPA considers a number ' of potential exposure pathways due to air releases; i.e., inhalation, immersion, external exposure from ground i l deposition,c and internal exposures from resuspension and the vegetable, milk, and meat pathways.- The proposed NRC regulatory method for determining . compliance with air derived dose limits allows for the use of 10 CFR 20, NewJerwyin an EqualOpporturuty EtnpJoyer Recydedraper _N' i_ I t

Prgo 2 Appendix B, Table 2 which was derived by evaluating only the immersion and inhalation pathways for air emissions. The proposed NRC constraint rule can therefore significantly underestimate the actual radiation dose delivered to an individual. Even if the NRC allowed concentrations are reduced by a factor of 5 to represent a " numerical" 50 mrem / year to 10 mrem / year reduction, the resulting air concentration values still are eignificantly higher than the allowed air concentration values in the current EPA NESHAP rule (40 CFR 61, Appendix E, Table 2) as shown in Enclosure 1. If the dose to a member of the public is calculated correctly (utilizing all potential pathways) from the allowed concentrations in the scaled down NRC Table 2, the 10 mrem annual limit is actually exceeded by significant factors. The proposed NRC effluent concentrations still do not provide the same level of protection of human health and the environment as do the current EPA concentrations. Therefore, the proposed rule cannot be considered to be equivalent to the existing EPA rule. 2) The NRC currently requires licensees to take actions to further reduce risk below the dose limits in keeping with the principle that exposures should be as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA). This is an NRC intended goal for radiation protection programs. In Regulatory Guide 8.37, "ALARA Levels for Effluents from Materials Facilities," it is maintained that if the licensee chooses to demonstrate compliance with the dose limit by calculating the TEDE, all significant environmental pathways should be evaluated. Further reference is made to NCRP Commentary No. 3, " Screening Techniques for Determining Compliance with Environmental Standards" for use in dose calculations. This publication includes the use of all pathways in its calculations. Unfortunately, the use of Regulatory Guide 8.37 is not a requirement for determining compliance with the 10 mrem / year limit and the licensee is still free to use Appendix B, Table 2 to demonstrate compliance. Even though Draft Regulatory Guide DG-8016 (Proposed Revision 1 to Regulatory Guide 8.37) contains the EPA COMPLY computer code as an acceptable ] method for determining compliance with the constraint, the Department believes j that regulatory language requiring the use of all relevant pathways as an essential part of determining compliance with the dose limit should be included in the NRC rule. This would involve adoption by the NRC of the EPA l COMPLY code or other equivalent code directly in the rule. A tiered regulatory procedure, perhaps similar to EPA's, would provide confidence that the 10 mrem annual dose limit was not exceeded. l 3) The NRC should adopt consistent implementing procedures for determining compliance with its established dose limits. The method of determining compliance with the dose limits in 10 CFR 20 is not consistent with that of 10 CFR 50, Appendix I, which considers all pathways. 1 4) There is no discussion or mention of why the EPA sublimit of 3 mrem / year for radioiodines was not included in the proposed rule. The NRC rule should include the EPA's sublimit of 3 mrem / year for radioiodines or explain why this limit has been deleted. Again, the proposed rule can significantly underestimate the actual radiation dose delivered to an individual for this series of biologically important radionuclides. J I

j Page 2 If the NRC adopts a rule including a provision to make emissions exceeding 10 mrem / year a reportable event, the Department believes that the NRC will have sufficient authority to require a facility to reduce its emissions. However, - this - proposal is rendered ineffective at the outset because, as stated above, NRC has not required to date a consistent, scientifically valid methodology for a licensee to define when the 10 mrem limit is being exceeded. Additionally the public's recource to compel compliance _would be substantially narrowed under NRC rules as contrasted with the citizen suit provisions under the CAA (Sec. 304). To summarize, the Department believes that the NRC rule proposal does not provide the required legal and regulatory equivalence of the EPA program. The NRC. program apparently will continue to allow regulatory use of its Appendix B, Table 2 that may, depending on the nuclide, significantly understate actual dose received, and does not yet provide for a consistent clear method to

calculate and thus report exceedences of the 10 mrem level.

~ In order to address these issues, the Department believes that, at a minimum, the NRC should either recalculate the values in 10 CFR 20, Appendix-B, Table 2 to include all relevant pathways, or disallow use of this table to. demonstrate compliance with the 10 mrem / year requirement, and instead require the use of.the COMPLY or an equivalent computer code. In addition, NRC needs to establish consistent regulatory procedures and parameters for licensees to use in estimating the dose received. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If there are any technical questions pertaining to our comments please contact Dr. Jill Lipoti, Assistant Director for Radiation Protection Programs at 609-984-5520. f '[])'s E f }. // p /y/ Robert C. Shinn, Jr. Commissioner Enclosure i i ) l l l

l Comparison of Allowed Air Concentrations Under Proposed 10 CFR 20 Revisions and 40 CFR 61 NRC* EPA *

• Ratio of Nuclide 10 CFR 20 (pCi/m')

40 CFR 61 (pCi/m') 10CFR20:40CFR61 'll 20,000 1,500 13 "C (compounds) 600 10 60 1 60 0.13 460 i25 P (as phosphates) 100 0.3 330 '2 "S (elemental) 600 1.3 460 "Ca 200 1.3 150 5'Cr 12,000 31 390 "Mo 800 14 57 Mc 60,000 1,700 35 "'I 40 .21 190 "'Xe 120,000 63,000 1.9 "Y 180 13 14

• Current values in 10 CFR 20, Appendix B, Table 2 reduced by a factor of 5
• Current values in 40 CFR 61, Appendix E, Table 2

A F 5>-.2> d 0 PDL 8 sm 4 SIERRA CLE SsW#nnSyivenieesegier 96 tn 5 g3b.O. Box 606 P __ Reply to: , PA 17 os 'SIE g %* CLUB) Committee on Radiation and the Environment OFFICL 7 7 Ri IAIW e "1 yj ',ly n e mw r {iR.J o ' March 11. 1996 DOCKET NUMBERnD Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission PROPOSED RULE rn m Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 gryt,@C ATTN Docketing and Services Branch

1. For the Pennsylvania Chapter of Sierra Club, the Committee on Radiation and the Environment (CORE) submits these comments on NRC Proposed Rule entitled

" Constraint Level for Air Emissions of Radionuclides." The NRC suggests that The the main purpose of the rule is to eliminate duplicative regulations. Chapter's CORE believes that this proposed NRC guidance will have far more serious impacts that relate to health, safety, and environmental protection.

2. We cannot support the constraint level as it has been proposed at Code of Federal Regulations, vol. 60, no. 239. p. 68984ff. December 13, 1995. for reasons detailed below.

We ask that these comments be included in the record and given full consideration by the Commission. We also request that NRC extend the comment period. Publication of this proposal in mid-December meant that the Federal Register was not timely received and available to the public due in part to Federal government shut-down and in part to winter weather that interfered also with our scheduled Chapter meetings. Thus, affected Sierra Club members have only begun to learn of this issue at our March 9-10 Chapter meeting. We ask for a 60-day extension. The EPA NESHAPS issues have been in process for a decades most of the radionuclides in question will remain: no unreasonable burden will be imposed on any party by such an extension.

3. Commenters' Interest: In the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, there are many dozens -- some hundreds -- of nuclear production, utilization, treatment, storage. and, at least potentially in the future, waste disposal facilities that are and will be affected by this proposed rule.

Sierra Club Chapter members reside and work in the immediate vicinity of some of these facilities or are located in downwind sectors that are or will be affected by air emissions from one or more of these sites.

4. The NRC constraint level rule was developed in response to the Environ-mental Protection Agency's unwillingness to relinquish its Clean Air Act authority to set air emissions standards for radionuclides for all NRC-and Agreement State-licensed facilities other than nuclear power reactors, certain Federal facilities, those possessing only sealed sources or emitting Radon-222.

remediated uranium mill tailings piles, and high-level waste repositories (if .any are eventually built and operatedl.. EPA'n islM1 AMP WAR DA AAA All IM uncertainty that NRC would assure that these non-reactor nuclear facilities could and would consistently meet the Court-ordered EPA tests of " acceptable i risk" and " ample margin of safety to protect the public health." allowing air emissions that result in doses to members of_the public at or below the 1989 EPA NESHAPS limit of 10 millirem per year effective dose equivalent. Is i

2 '.g, The Sierra Club CORE must conclude that NRC cannot now provide an adequate assurance to EPA so long as the nuclear facility. licensees are allowed toMore-report their emissions'without any independent monitor or measurement. over, because the NRC does not do direct measurement of doses received by off-site individuals.'it is. impossible for EPA to confirm whether or not its 10 mres/yr NESHAP standard is currently being met. We conclude, therefore, that the " ample margin of safety" has not been shown by NRC.

5. The constraint level proposed by NRC is also 10 mrem per year total effective dose equivalent. but this limit is to be used in conjunction with the NRC's As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) program.

Our objection lies in the indisputable fact'that NRC's'ALARA program is not a required regulationi -its application by NRC is discretionary, and may or ma/ not be enforced, where-as EPA -is required under the Clean Air Act to promulga te NESHAPS standards that must be met by a licensee.

6. The Clean Air Act allows citizens to file law suits it EPA falls to enforce its promulgated standards.

The NRC's Part 2 regulations that govern citizen suits and the right to appeal do not provide this capability in the The constraint event that:the.NRC fails to enforce its regulatory guidelines. rule does not state clear provision for citizen law suits. Courts have thus far not found that NRC's Part 2.206 lets citizens challenge Commission decisions. The constraint rule. like the ALARA program, is not a mandatory limitt it is only guidance to licensees. An unenforceable guidance, or recom-mendation to a licensee provides no grounds for litigation. the licensee

7. The wording of this proposed rule suggests merely that report to NRC if its air emissions exceed the limit for a calculated TEDE must to a member of the public and describe its plans to improve its performance and meet the ALARA constraint level in the future.

The Sierra Club CORE believes that this is not adequate to assure protection of public health and safety or environmental quality from unacceptable radiation exposures.

8. The ability of NRC to exercise sufficient regulatory authority in the future has been cast in doubt by Congressional proposals to limit or eliminate regulatory authority of Federal agencies. Without' clear distinctions drawn among the agencies with respect to the impacts on health and safety or the environment.

Similarly. Agreement States -- all states -- are also feeling the pinch of declining funds to devote to stringent regulation of nuclear facility licensees (and others, as well). The lack of certainty of assured regulation, inspection. and enforcement at all' levels of government militates against reliance on NRC's proposed ALARA constraint level guidance.

9. The Sierra Club CORE must conclude that this.NRC proposal is not drawn rigorously enough to assure that the resultant health risks will acceptable to our affected members or that a discretionary ALARA constraint level guidance will in the future provide and continuously provide a margin of safety that is

' ample, i.e., well below the maximum airLemission dose level permitted by the EPA NESPAP standard.

- e -- 3 ..i4; For these r.easons, among others, we ask that the NRC revise this ALARA- ] - related 10 stem /yr TEDE constraint level to accomplish the followinE:

a. Set a mandatory regulatory limit which muet be enforced and which is equal to or more restrictive than the EPA's 1989 NESHAP air emission standard for radionuclides.

I b.' Set forth in'the regulation the requirement for continuous actual dose measurement of members of the public who.-according to their location and to-micro-meteorological conditions, may reasonably be expected lto receive.the highest doses, c.' Clarify conditions under which EPA can and must reclaim its authority ~ to. set Clean Air Act NESHAPS air emissions standards-for radionuclides

d. Require an independent entity to monitor the accuracy of air emissions f

data rubmitted by licensees.

e. Stiffen NRC rules for issuance of violations, setting of monetary I

penalties (with rebuttable presumption that clearly placing burdens of proof on the licensee, collection of all financial penalties assessed + without. waivers or reductions, and rigidly enforce all regulations. including license suspensions and revocations for repetitive violators. .The Sierra Club Pennsylvania Chapter CORE urges NRC to adopt, at minimum. i the recommendations outlined above. Respectfully submitted, P. Gilbert and J. Johnsrud. Co-Chairs I Sierra Club Pennsylvania Chapter Committee on Radiation and the Environment ,,g &LJ 4 MiVs.rP4 y* e s/d v [ #, ' " 5"* W $Y/ h s g y g ,e

5LMilbammion ikmkwnl C D Gkn Alkn, \\1ryinta 23(W) ? if f}F 5/ & DOCKETED Mb USNRC '96 MR 15 P3 :54 March'12, 1996 0FFICE D b 3EIA.Pd 00CKEEG iiht U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission aa,mcs Serial No. GL 95-087 NL&OS/EJL Washington, DC 20555-0001 ATTN: Docketing and Services Branch g UM h

Dear Sir:

PROPOSED RULE - 10 CFR PART 20 CONSTRAINT LEVEL FOR AIR EMISSIONS OF RADIONUCLIDES FEDER AL REGISTER / Vol. 60, No. 239 / DECEMBER 13,1995 / p. 63984 This letter provides Virginia Power's comments regarding the subject proposed rule. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to establish a constraint of 10 mrem /yr total effective dose equivalent (TEDE) for dose to members of the public from air emissions of radionuclides from NRC licensed facilities other than power reactors. This proposed rule is necessary to provide assurance to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that future emissions from NRC licensees will not exceed levels that will provide an ample margin of safety. This action is expected to be the final step in providing EPA with a basis upon which to rescind its Clean Air Act (CAA) regulations for NRC licensed facilities (other than power reactors) and Agreement State licensees, thereby relieving these licensees from unnecessary dual regulations. We agree with the objective of the proposed rule - to eliminate unnecessary dual regulations, and agree that the proposed rule will help accomplish this objective. However, it appears that some clarification would appear to be warranted. More specifically, it is not clear whether or not the general exclusion that the proposed rule provides to power reactors would also apply to an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) that is located on the same site with a power reactor, especially since there are typically no air emissions of radionuclides associated with the operation of an ISFSI. It would be very helpfulif the rule and the statements of consideration explicitly addressed how the rule applies to ISFSis that are located on the same site as commercial power reactors. Additionally, we fully endorse the comments sent separately to the NRC by the Nuclear Energy Institute. We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on this proposed rule. Very truly yours, M. L. Bowling, Manager Nuclear Licensing & Programs C33( CQ(4 g

.l 10 CFR Part 20 Constraint Level-

f' '

For Air Emissions Of Radionuclides ~ Serial No. GL 95-087 page 2 of 2 l cc: Mr. Ralph Anderson Project Manager, Radiological Protection, Emergency Preparedness, and Waste Regulation Department Nuclear Energy Institute .1776 i Street N.W. Suite 400 Washington, DC 20006-3708 - 1 i l w.

w= m r- <+ g ~~' SIERRA oocmuuse@ 80 USRC oocxeuo ~ CLUB pg0 POSED RULE booFM%h Q 96 NAR 18 A8 :28 NATIONAL NUCLEAR WASTE TASK FORCE March 12. 1996 Secretary of the Commission In the Matter of: 60 g j6 g64p e g q g U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 00CKEiWG t KRymE Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 g,(MC ' ATTN: Docketing and Services Branch FAX: 301-415-1672 As a member of the Sierra Club National Nuclear Waste Task Force. I am asked to submit comment on behalf of the Task Force on the NRC's Proposed Rule " Constraint Level for Air Emissions of Radionuclides." This matter is of significance for members of the Sierra Club who live or work near nuclear facilities, nationwide, and who will be affected by promulgation of this rule. We recognize the potentially positive gain for protection of the public from an enforceable NRC regulation that will reduce the level of radioactive air emissions to the environment. However, we regret that this proposed rule has not been posed in a way that guarantees that actual doses received by individual members of the public offsite will in the future conform with the requirements that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must meet before { the Administrator may relinquish EPA's statutory duty imposed by the Clean Air Act to promulgate air emission standards for radionuclides. The Task Force recommends that NRC withdraw this proposed rule. At the minlaum, the rule should be revised to provide for promulgation of an air emission standard for exposure of members of the public from radionuclides that is mandatory and must be rigorously and consistently enforced by the NRC. rather than a constraint level that is simply a regulatory guidance with which a licensee may or may not properly comply, and may or may not be charged with i violation or penalized by the regulator. An NRC constraint level air emission and dose limit designed to operate with the ALARA program must set an enforceable maximum dose to a member of the public that not only sometimes meets the EPA's NESHAPS standard of 10 mrem /yr EDE but results in a certainty that an ample margin of safety is truly achieved by requiring facility operations that reduce air emissions well below the 10 mrem /yr TEDE that NRC proposes as guidance. The reason for this reduction is to assure that the margin of safety will be ample -- that is, well below the level set as a maximum by EPA in its 1989 NESHAP standard for radionuclides. The NRC must also make unequivocal provision for citizen litigation in the event that the ALARA constraint level is not met. The current situation would preclude appeal to courts, in part because the only avenue is NRC's 2.206 provision and in part because it is impossible to mount an effective challenge to a limit that is merely a guideline that a licensee is not required to meet. l Actual measurement of doses to actual people is sorely needed: NRC should incorporate such a program into a mandatory program of ALARA with constraint level. The NRC should also initiate and require a program of independent con-tinuous measurement of air releases from nuclear facilities to replace the NRC's present system that permits licensees to provide the data without any independent monitoring of the accuracy of what they submit to NRC. j 1 1 D1 f nnI m v m 96E9ciu. 2pp l

. =... -. i e a P.'2 of Sierra Club National Nuclear Waste Task Forcs Coasants When the NRC issued construction permits for nuclear production and ut1112ation facilities, the applicants had to demonstrate (or promise) that i their designs were capable of maintaining routine radioactive releases at a levei that results in a' maximum dose to a member of the public that is no greater than 5 mrea/yr. This was called a " design basis release." In view of all that has subsequently been learned about'the adverse health effects of. low-dose irradiation and protracted or repetitive low-dose exposure, it would.now be prudent for the NRC to make that dose limit mandatory for all nuclear facility licensees. This is a reasonable regulatory position for the NRC to adopt. since the agency has claimed to EPA that its licensees' releases already'are giving doses to the public that are within one to three eres/yr of that level. It is..after all, on the basis of this NRC assurance that EPA is proposing to rescind its NESHAPS standards-setting authority under the Clean Air Act and turn over that authority to NRC. Now NRC must take the necessary steps to be certain that the margin of_ safety is consistently met by all, not just some, licensees, state and federal, at all times in the future. The best way to do so is to require by regulation, not mere guidance, the conservative dose limit we are recommending, along with the additional safeguards of independent monitoring and measurement of emissions and doses received. ~ The recommendations that.we offer relate directly to the protection of public health and safety and quality of the environment with respect to the 1 l problems of isolating radioactive wastes from the biosystem for their very long periods of biological toxicity. That task has proven far more difficult than NRC Agreement States. Congress, and the nuclear waste industry anticipated. Waste isolation is not likely to become easiert here, too, is a strong reason for the NRC to adopt a conservative mandatory enforceable regulatory stance that is. consonant with the Commission's long-standing claim of its commitment to defense in' depth and redundancy of safeguards. We ask that the NRC adopt these suggestions in order to improve the protection of health, safety, and the environment that are the fundamental concerns of the Sierra Club. Respectfully submitted by Judith Johnsrud for the Sierra Club National Nuclear Waste Task Force f' /j/ f I certify that this document has been placed in the U.S. Mail, first class, postage paid, on the /J6 day of March 1996. t G F i ?

W S t.- W ' g. % d,. i DOCKETED-USNRC 438 Timbercrest Court L Cedarburg, Wisconsin 53012 .% MR 18 P1 :18 March 6,1996 CFmt nr crrRFTARY . Rules Review' and Directive Branch 00CL g DFIPS Office of Administration .U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission g ~ Washington, D.C. 20555 DR 2 j GooFRin3Rh

To Whom it May Concern:

8 The regulation proposed for 10 CFR 20.1101(d) should be withdrawn and allow the EPA;to continue to implement the.NESHAPS for the moment and then the 10 mrem / year. regulation should be deleted from the EPA regulations. i The process developed by the NRC will be much more difficult to implement operationally, based on the proposed regulation. Considerable more staff time,- documentation, measurement, and reporting will be required to be in compliance with i the proposed regulation with no benefit to individual members of the public. A major concern that comes out of the proposed regulation is that it implies that there f is a danger associated with 10 mrem / year. Radiation exposures of 10 mrem / year do l not have any significance. If the 10 mrem / year is implemented the public, and more importantly, aggressive legal and anti-technology groups, will take that number and advocate that the 10 mrem / year is a limit above which harm could result, otherwise the government would not have promulgated that as a maximum level of exposure for an individual member of the public. Since all individual events inside of a facility that could potentially expose a member of the public must be reported,'it implies that harm 4 could result from exposures exceeding 10 mrem / year. l The natural cosmic and terrestriallevels of radiation exposure, not including radon, in - the U.S. ranges from a low of 63 mrem / year in Florida to a high of 142 mrem / year in - Colorado. Since the difference-is about 80 mrem / year, how does that give any credibility.to a 10' mrem / year maximum allowed exposure to a member.of the'public?

I have enclosed a table comparing natural radiation exposure and the rates of cancer

~ for selected states. The states that were selected were the six with natural radiation levels above.100 mrem / year and the six that have the lowest annual exposures. The data clearly show that to reduce the risk of cancer, in general, it is better to live in a state that has an annual radiation exposure level above 100 mrem / year than one with ' exposures in the 60 to 70 mrem / year. An individual member of the public living in Mississippi one year.and moving to Wyoming would increase their natural radiation

e e exposure by just over 60 mrem / year with a reduction in the overall cancer rate from 180 down to 155/100,000 of population for the states. Millions of members of the public will get greater that 10 mrems/ year additional radiation exposure from flying the " friendly skies" at 37,000 feet during their normal travels for busines and pleasure. In about 25 hours of flying time, about 10 mrem of additional radiation exposure is ac :umulated. Airline staff are each individual members of the public and receive hundieds of mrem / year as they go aboa their normal work of getting passengers from place to place. The regulation proposed as 20.1101(d) does not conform to the ALARA process. Recall that under ALARA we attempt to keep' exposures to less than 10% of the allowed exposure. When the exposure is greater than 10% and 30%, we conduct an evaluation and if it warranted, take action, as described in Reg. Guide 10.8, Rev 2, for Lexample. There are no reporting requirements if exposures stay bek,w regulatory limits. The proposed regulation requires reporting if 10 mrem is exceeded, and a commitment that the 10 mrem will never be exceeded again. The information in DG-8016 describes that compliance must be shown by calculation or measurement. By measurement it would require the use of multiple expensive ultrasensitive environmental dosimeters. Calculation using the methodology shown in Appendix A is not possible as there are errors in the methods used for the calculations. By either method compliance cost will be very high without any benefit to an individual member of the public. Millions of individual members of the public exceed 10 mrem / year from medical procedures. Medical and dental x-rays, nuclear medicine, and radiation therapy diagnostic procedures and treatment methods result in exposures from 20 mrem to more than 20,000 mrem, many getting multiple procedures in a year. The proposed regulation will only affect the radiation exposure of a few individual members of the public that are present in or near restricted areas inside of licensed facilities while many millions of members of the public will exceed 10 mrem / year from many other sources such as natural, medical, flying, etc. Since an exposure of 10 mrem / year to an individual member of the public has no significance the regulation as proposed for 20.1101(d) should not be implemented. Yours truly, )%~ Ralph Grunewald, Ph.D.

.-n h x 7. i .SOME NATURAL RADIATION EXPOSURE AND CANCER MORTALITY RATES p STATE.- EXPOSURE CANCER RATIO MONTANA : 105 161 1.53 IDAHOi 106 148 1.4 ' UTAH: - 114 125-1.1' NEW MEXICO 125 146 1.17 WYOMING. . 126 155 1.23 - COLORADO 142 I48 1.04 FLORIDA 63 167 2.65 j LOUISIANA 64 193 3.01 i MISSISSIPPI 64' 180 2.81 DELAWARE 72 196 2.72 3 ARKANSAS 73 178 2.44 MARYLAND 73 192 2.63 Exposure is in mrem / year average for the state as reported in ORP/SID 72-1, prepared by_ U. S. Environmental Protection Agen'cy, Office of Radiation Programs, " Natural Radiation. Exposure in the United States," by Donald Oakley, June 1972. The exposure.is based on terrestrial and cosmic radiation and does not include exposure from Radon gas-and decay products. . Cancer is the average annual mortality rate for the state for all forms of cancer in. . deaths per 100,000 from 1987 to 1991 as reported in " Cancer Facts and Figures - 1995," prepared by the American Cancer. Society.

Ratio is the average annual cancer rate / average annual radiation exposure.

V. i v w s .. c. .-w y y y

HPS News /ett:r 4 Wrch 1996 Health Physics Society

• Position Statement

" RADIATION RISK IN PERSPECTIVE-in individuals exposed to small dases (less than 10 rem) - Kenneth L. Mossman, Marvin Gol& nan, Frank Masse, Wnam A. MHis, Keith.l. Schlager, RichardJ. Vetter y y at or Above 5 Rem per Year or 10 Rem Ilfetime i In +> -- ' = uid current knowledge of rodasion haald In view of the above, the Society has concluded that risks, de Neald Physter Society rec- 't against quansiamsive ensimasion (heald risk below an indviAsal a=h==a== of risk should be linaited to individuals receiving &ne 45 rem' in one year or a lifetime dose afl0 ram in a dose of at least 5 seas in one year or a lifetinse dose of addsion so '=:b_1'rudasion ftid estimasion in Als at least 10 rem in addition to natural background. Below ' does regge should he strictly qualisasive accensuasing a these doses, risk aah===taa should not be used; expressions - nage phypodestemiheefA outcomes wie an emphasis on of risk should only be qualitative emphasizing the inability ' the likely possibility of zero adurrse heald ducts. De to detect any i :& beelth detriment (i.e., sem beelth cunentphilaeophy of maation protection is based on the e& cts is the most likely outcome). i assmyaias that anv radation dare, no matter how small, Impact On Radiation Protection may result in hmnan health efects, such as cancer and Limiting the use of quantitative risk assessment, as . heredrary genetic damage. 7here is h ^' and con. described above, has the following implications for radia-Wadag scientife evidencefor health risks at high dare. tin pmtectaon: Below 10 rem (which includes occupational and environ-(a) ne possibility that health effects might occur at mental exporures), risks of health efects are either too small doses should not be entirely discounted. Conse-t small to be observed or are non-c.xistent. quently, risk assessment at low doses should focus on Current radiation pmtection standards and practices are establishing a range of health outcomes in the dose range l i h==ad on the premise that any radiation dose, no matter how ofinterest including the possibility of zero health effects. small, can result in detrimental health effects, such as (b) Collective dose (the sum of individual doses in an cancer and genetic damage. Further, it is assumed that exposed population expressed as person-rern) renmins s l these e& cts are produced in direct pmportion to the dose usefulindex for quantifying dose in large populations and received, i.e., doubling the radiation dose results in a in comparing the magnitude of exposures from different doubling of the e&ct. %ese two assumptions lead to a radiation sources. However, for a population in which all done-response relationship, often referred to as the linear, individuals receive lifetime doses ofless than 10 rem above l no4hmehold model, for estimating health effects at radia. backgmund, collective dose is a highly speculative and l tion done levels of interest. Here is, however, substantial uncertain measure of risk and should not be quantified for scientific evidence that this model is an oversimplification the purposes of estimating population health risks. of the dose-response irlationship and results in an overesti, mation of health risks in the low dose range. Biological mechanisms including cellular repair of radiation injury, 'The rem is the unit of effective dose. In intemational units,1 which are not accounted for by the liccar, no-threshold rem =0.01 elevert (sv). Inodel, teduce the likelihood of cancers and genetic effects. f

• The Heahh Physics Society is a non-profit scientific organization i

"a4xch*v*1 to the protectim of people and the environmera 7 Radingenic Ilealth Effects I'"'"'*di'"i " Si""i I '**** n in 1956, the society has smwn to Have Not Been Observed Below 10 Rem mxe than 6,s00 sensasts, physicians, ensineen, iswyers, and other Radiogeme health e& cts (primarily cancer) are observed pmfessionals npreenains acaderma, indwry, sovemmera, nmional 4 , humans only at doses in excess of 10 rem dehvered at laboratories, trade unions, and other orsanizations. The Society's in high dose rates. Below this dose, estimation of adverse objective is the protection of people and the envimament from health effects is speculative. Risk estimates that are used um-- y expone to radiatim, and its concem is undenianding, d * '""Hi"8 'h* 'i'k' I'*" '*diati n e*posun nlative to pendict health effects in exposed individuals or popula- ""k""8'r*a"s derived from the activities that produce the expo i io. to the bene tions are based on ep.dem. logical stud.ies of well-defined official Position statements are prepmd and adopted in accordance populations (e.g., the Japanese survivors of the atomic with standard policies and procedures of the Society. The Society bombings in 1945 and medical patients) exposed to rela-may be contacted at: 1313 Dolley Madison Blvd., Suite 402 McLean, VA 22101; Telephone: 703-790-1745; FAX: 703-790-4 tively high doses delivered at high dose rates. Epidemiolog. e 0672; e-mail: hrsburkmpgeol.com. ical studies have not demonstrated adverse health e& cts i 3 t

1 HPS Newsletter Mcich 1996 years gives 120 CWLM. At 4-8 pCi L4, exposures in Scottsdale Radon Panel homes would give about 1-2 WLM y' or 30-60 CWLM for 30 years. She reported that the latest NCRP risk as-RaymondJohnson, President, Radon Sect /on sessment at 1-2 WLM y' is expected to asult in a 1-6 he Radon Section hosted a panel on redon health percent increase in lifetime lung cancer risk. Trisks at the HPS Midyear meeting with presentations Audience Response Otta Raabe asked for a show of bands on how many by myself, William Mills, and Naomi Harley. believed that radou caused more than 10,000 lung cancer i I discussed "Why Some Scientists and the Public Do Not Believe in Radon Risks."I suggested that most of the deaths a year in the U.S. No one :mised a hand. Most of radon risk controversy is about the estunates of effects the audience voted for a number less than 1,000. This for redon exposures at levels found in homes. Such esti-response was mieresting as an indication of redon risk mates rely upon knear extrapolations from observed lung perceptions among HPs. Naomi indicated that the esti-cancer incidence in miners. Risk coefficients derived mate of 14,000 lung cancer deaths y may be overesti-a from miner studies, adjusted for differences between mated by 2-3X. I asked if HPs abould igante ndon if the miner exposures and home exposures, are then multiplied real risks are only a 1,000 y87 I also asked, if we agree by the estimated population exposure to estimate popula-that redon is the largest source of radiation dose at 1-2 tion risks. For example, EPA has determined that life-mSv y', how can we discount radon risks and still justify time exposure to a million person-WI.M y' should result ourjobs as HPs when we are implementing ALARA pro-in 224 lung cancer deaths a year. When multiplied by the grams to protect workers at a few tenths of a mSv y'? Ken Mossman said that our message to the public estimated U.S. exposure of 62 milhon person-WIM y', should be "stop smoking." Naomi said the HPS should the radea risk in the U.S. is estimated at 14,000 lung focus on ndon, but note that smoking and radon greatly cancer deaths y'. increase lung cancer risk. One HP indicated that public Radon risks are not easily understood by the general public azul most people are not too concerned about radon funds wouki be better spent on promoting child immuni-a unless that they are buying a home. In light of the uncer-zation. He received a large mund of applause, tainties on radon risk, what do we tell the public? I con-cluded that the prudent public health message should con-tinue to be " test your home for radon and mitigate if the i levels are above 4 pCi L4 according to EPA and State protocols." Bill Mills described the origins of the radon action level at 4 pCi L4 (150 Bq m 8). He noted that the 1970 Surgeon General's guidelines called for remediation for radon above 0.05 WL. Remediation was indicated for levels between 0.01 to 0.05 WL and no action was rec-ommended below 0.01 WL. These guides were above a background of 0.01 WL. When these guidelines were implemented in Colorado, the decision was made for remediation at 0.01 WL above background. Thus the action level of 0.02 WL (4 pCi L4) was derived. He con-cluded that 4 pCi L4 is too low. Naomi liarley discussed the limitations with epidemi-ology studies of miners. She noted that risk models de-rived fmm such studies usually overestimate risks. She emphasir.ed that some miner cohorts are outliers and should not be used. She felt that the Colorado miner co-hort still represented the best data with a relative risk of minut 0.004 WLht'. Naomi gave a dose conversion factor of 1 mSv y' for i pCi L4 (37 Bq m4) and noted that this corresponds to 4 the current population dose limit of 1 mSv y. She noted that, at the current occupational limit. 4 WLM y' for 30 15 i 1

_-m_~..._..- -m.....,..,..-mm--m-s..- -._, ---- -. - mm..-&.- -. _ ? Contrary to the l DAYA i l l Radiation 1 MUST be l Dangerous i. l . ~.

x g3r w 0 SAINT HARNABAS gao ~ MEDICAL CENTE&cnereo USNRC ,,,,f,"',j st,"di,, W MR 18 P1 :14 0FFICE (5 sc' HC TARY DOCXEi!ria a,.i!RVICF BRANCH DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE e March 14,1996 gggg . U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission . Attn: Docketing and Services Branch Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Gentlemen: i This is in response to the NRC's recent proposed rule regarding Constraint Level for Air Emissions of Radionuclides (60 FR 63984). I believe that medical licensees should be exempt from this requirement, should it be enacted. Except for those few facilities that use Xe.-133, medical licensees will not have any air emissions into the environment. Licensees should not have to perform calculations, with numerous assumptions, for events that will not occur. In addition, only actual events should be reported, not estimates. With respects to Xenon, those users are currently required to calculate clearance times and intemal exposures. These measures take into account estimates of " spills" and are the basis for instructions should one actually occur. Again, I believe due to lack of emissions for the vast majority of medical uses of radiation, these licensees should be exempt from any such regulations. Sincerely yours, h '/ Ira M. arelick, M.S. D.A.B.R Health Physicist L IMGrji L3USNURE OLD SHORT HILLS ROAD E LIVINGSTON, NEW JERSEY 07039 E (201) 533-5000 . A nonprofit, nonsectarian medical center, founded in 1865, and a major affiliate of the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey l 0 (

f h/~ % ~ PDiL 3 ffc AMERICAN NUCLEAR S 555 North Kensington Avenue Tel: 708/ 3524611 cis La Grange Park, Illinois E-Mail: NUCLEUSvans.org '96 MR 19 P4 31 M526 USA Fac 708/ 3524M99 0FFICE < 5 ;iE NY Dr. Shirley Jackson DOCKE M G 3.7.:C' DOCMETNt248 erg s Chaim1an 'N PROPOSED RULE rn ao Nuclear Regulatory Comnu,ss,on (ggg i Mailstop 16G15 g Washington, DC 20555 Thursday, Mamh 07,1996 Draft Regulatory Guide DG-8016

Dear Dr. Jackson,

The attached letter to the Rules Review and Directives Branch of your agency is the officialcomment by the American Nuclear Society on the proposed rescission of 40 CFR Part 61 Subpart I and the implementation of DG-8016 (Revision 1 to Regulatory Guide 8.37.) In summary, we agree with the proposed action in the interests of avoiding dual regulatory oversight, making note of the need to exclude radon from the ' constraint limit' and noting also that the proposed constraint should not be coupled with the ALARA concept. So much for the rule. I would now like to raise,in this covering letter, a wider issue. As a you know, the i emission constraint level of 10 mrem /yr is illustrative of the lack of realism which has crept into US regulations over the last two decades. First, the value is nonsense when measured against the everyday variability of dose rates to the public; second, it is a constraint based on an contrived calculation rather than a measund occurrence; and third, it is an example of creeping reg lation in which a voluntary constraint later can become a hard-line regulation. 1 am particularly concerned on the first count, for, as you know, recent data shows that reducing radioactive doses as close to background as possible is not necessarily to the benefit of the human population involved. The data, denved principally from the RERF studies of 70,000 bomb survivors, and their 90,000 progeny over two human-generation times, is not in question. It is supported by a wealth of excellent epidemiological investigations as well as studies at the cellular level which show well-defined thresholds to harm. What is in question appears to be the will of those involved in producing standards j upon which regulations are based. We need to spend available funds in limiting high risks to the public -- maybe through regulatory oversight of DOE facilities and operations, but surely not in limiting doses in the millirem range. We need to prepare for change. LnJm m the.hykyment. hsomwum and ambtstum of nudmpma nosfrahm>La k hosciit humanuty __ JolIN GRAllAM, Pld3IDENT BNfL inc. Tel: 303/ 694&00 5655 S. Yosemite Street, Suite 100 E-Mail: JGrahamaans.org Englewood, CO 80111 USA Far 303/ 694-1816 b b

I '4 The American. Nuclear Society urges the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to support responsible risk-based regulation firmly based on available data, rather than forty- . year-old conservatism. That conservatism was based on an absence of data and was appropriate for its time - it is not now. The NRC is charged with making a risk determination in regulating the use of nuclear materials, and we believe that that responsibility involves more than just an acceptance of existing standards. There should be an ongoing program which addresses changing views of risk with the intention of reviewing the data and, perhaps, relaxing regulatory limhs in the years ahead.- We are willing to assist. The American Nuclear Society, as an association of professionals engaged in work across the whole spectrum of nuclear science -and technology, is in a unique position to assist the NRC by independently compiling and J evaluating the available data outside the context of any commercial operations. If you feel that there is value in our offer, I and my colleagues, would be happy to meet with your staff on the issue. Yours sincerely John Graham President

pei av f N e 4 'i j AMERICAN NUCLEAR SOCIETY O 4 555 North Kensington Avenue Tel: 708/ 35246H La Grange Park, Hlinois E-Mail: NUC1.EuS@ans.org 60526 USA Fax: 708/ 352-o199 March 6,1996 Rules Review and Directives Branch DFIPS, Office of Administration U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Re: Comments of Draft Regulatory Guide DG-8016 (Proposed Revision 1 to Regulatory Guide 8.37);. Constraints for Air Effluents for Ucensees other than Power Reactors Gentlemen: The American Nuclear Society is a 15,000-strong professional association of members who work in the nuclear industry, nuclear medical facilities, universities, national laboratories, govemment, and elsewhere. Our members are employed in all aspects of nuclear technology, from fundamental research to nuclear medicine, electric power generation, and general industrial activities. As a general matter, the American Nuclear Society (ANS) supports the rescission of 40 C.F.R. Part 61 Subpart I and implementation of Revision 1 to Regulatory Guide 8.37, as long as NRC's constraint rule excludes radon from the 10 mrem /yr ' constraint' limit. ANS believes Subpart I imposes unnecassary, confusing and complicated duplicative regulatory requirements that burden licensees without producing commensurate public health benefits. Subpart i facilities are already more than adequately regulated under 40 C.F.R.190 (the so-called 25 mrem rule) promulgated by EPA pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) and conformed to and enforced by NRC in 10 C.F.R. 20.1101 and 20.1301. EPA provides no sound information to suggest that the current AEA regulatory program applicable to these sites has not provided an ample margin of public health and safety. To the contrary, EPA's own surveys and computer models show that even without a constraint rule, ' virtually all of the facilities would cause doses to members of the public which are below 10 mrem /yr' (60 Fed. Reg. 50163). EPA's survey of Subpart I licensees found that 'all surveyed facilities are presently in compliance with the quantitative emission Emit in Subpart I [10 mremfyr limit]' - a far higher compliance percentage than exists in any EPA regulatory program (57 Fed. Reg. 56879, December 1,1992.) Additionally, the EPA /NRC AEA program is more comprehensive than Subpart I because, unlike the Clean Air Act which addresses only airbome radioactivity, the AEA regulations cover exposure from all pathways. Thus, while the constraint rule is totally unnecessary, it would indeed assure that emissions remain below 10 mremlyr. Specific comments on the draft regulatory guide (DG 8016) include the following: 1. This proposed 10 rrtem/yr constraint should not be coupled to the Al. ARA concept. ALARA is an operating philosophy, not a quantifiable entity. By defining 10 mrem /yr as an 'Al. ARA constraint,' the NRC is attempting to regulate a philosophy with that may evolve into a de facto limit. Paragraph 20.1101(b)in 10CFR20 is sufficient to ensure that ALARA principles are incorporated into radiological operations. The following changes to the proposed 10CFR20 ImJers in the Jna,.....t. ahswesnshon end sppfkst,on e/ nudcar sciencr and archno&yy to benefit hununity JOllN GRAHAM, PRIsrDENT BNIL inc. Tel 3(0/ 694&00 56M S. Yosemite Street, Suite 100 E-Mail: JCrahamaans.org Englewood. CO 80111 USA Fax: 303/ 694-1816 \\ C

i ' ~ ' Rules Review and Dweetwes ' Branch, U.S. NRC

• i Mach 6,1996

- Page 2 - ~ language wil define the 10 mrem /yr constraint concept while retaining ALARA as an operating j philosophy. 4 (a). In proposed Sec 20.1101(d), delete the phrase "To implement the ALARA requirements of Sec 20.1101(b), and. ' Begin Sec 20.1101(d) with 'notwithstanding the requirements..' (b) In proposed Sec 20.2203(aX2Xvi), delete the word 'ALARA.* (c) In proposed Sec 203(bXI)(iv), delete the word 'ALARA.' J i 2. ' The ANS supports the rescission of Subpart I provided that radon and its decay products ara _ excluded from the calculated effective dose equivalent to determine compliance with the e , proposed ten (10) militem (mrom) total effective dose equivalent (TEDE) constraint level'. The exclusion for doses due to radon and its progeny, already a part of Subpart I should be carried over into any newly developed constraint level when Subpart I is rescinded and NRC assumes sole regulatory responsibility. 3. Since the proposed constraint level applies only to emissions from NRC licensed facilities and operations, emissions from adjoining unlicensed operations or unlicensed portions of operations i which include an NRC licensed restricted area, should be categorically excluded. j 4. Individual licensees should be allowed latitude in methodology used to determir.e compliance with the new constraint level, due to: (1) differing types of emissions, or differing combinations and forms of radionuclides; and (2) variability in natural background. The draft regulatory guide L limits the licensee to only three methods of determining compliance, including (1) measurement of air conceritration at point of release; (2) modeling; and (3) use of NGP commentary No. 3, J but provides that "the simplest model that will adequately address the problem should be applied first...' The EPA has allowed use of measurements of radionuclide concentrations at i critical receptor locations to determine compliance with 40 CFR Part 61 Subpart L This method is superior to the three proposed in the draft regulatory guide in that actual data are used (rather than modeling) and is more appropriate useful when nonpoint sources are involved. The American Nuclear Society appreciates the opportunity to comment on this matter. I can be reached at -(303) 694 0700. } Sincerely, cd& J John Graham - President -JGlab g - p 1 r e5...t e-- w .-,... ~, - - -,.. _ E,_..e%4' m .~ ,,.-4 e -}}