ML20202F803
| ML20202F803 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/19/1975 |
| From: | Minogue R NRC OFFICE OF STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT |
| To: | |
| References | |
| SECY-75-046, SECY-75-046-R, SECY-75-46, SECY-75-46-R, NUDOCS 9902040182 | |
| Download: ML20202F803 (20) | |
Text
_
g e
as OfflClkliSE Du rebruary 19, 1975 SECY-7 5 - 4 6 COMMISSIONER ACTION For:
Ihe Cunaissioners Thru:
Acting Executive Director for Operations V
Subject:
STAFF COMMENTS ON EPA PROPOSED STANDARDS WR THE URANIUlf FUEL CYCLE Discussion:
Enclosed is a letter to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency giving the staff comments on the proposed EPA uranium fuel cycle standards.
This letter was discussed on February 13 in connection with SECY-75-35 and SECY-R-75-202." The letter has i
been revised pursuant to the Commissioners comments.
Subject to your further comment, we propose to dispatch the letter to EPA on Friday, February 21, 1975. The OMB staff will be apprised by telephone of the tenor of our comments, and Director Lynn will receive a carbon copy of the letter to Administrator Train.
Copies of the response will also be transmitted to the JCAE and placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
E PA v p ei cy cle A u Comments on the letter should be given directly to the Scix3D staff contact by COB Thursday, February 20.
To.h 17."10 A cc 431-TV-C004
/)
4/EC
/d *W Robert B. Minogue, Acting Director Office of Standards Development
Enclosure:
Ltr to Administrator, EPA
Contact:
Roger J. Mattson a
4 Ext.
443-6955 cn y
T:
" Secretariat Note: SECY-75 Staff Coments on EPA E
7
~
Proposed Standards for the Uranium Fuel Cycle, was e
considered at Policy Session 75-5 on February 13. The ission requested that the proposed letter to EPA be c
m and recirculated.
l 2.:
Q h,
$$055N 0$[]Q R
9902040182 750219 PDR SECY 75-046 R PDR
?. h,f; rebruary 19, 1975 SECY-7 5 - 4 6 COMMISSIONER ACTION For:
The Cvuauissicacts Thru:
Acting Executive Director for Operations M
Subject:
STAFF COMMENTS ON EPA PROPOSED STANDARDS FOR THE URANIUM FUEL CYCLE Discussion:
Enclosed is a letter to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency giving the staff comments on the proposed EPA uranium fuel cycle standards.
This letter was discussed on February 13 in connection with SECY-75-35 and SECY-R-75-202f The letter has been revised pursuant to the Commissioners' comments.
Subject to your further comment, we propose to dispatch the letter to EPA on Friday, February 21, 1975. The OMB staff will be apprised by telephone of the tenor of our comments, and Director Lynn will receive a carbon copy of the letter to Administrator Train. Copies of the response will also be transmitted to the JCAE and placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
EPA v pei cycle seg Comments on the letter should be given directly to the b 3D staff contact by COB Thursday, February 20.
Tob ITio A ec 431-YT-c004
/)
[d' 4/EG Robert B. Minogue, Acting Director Office of Standards Development
Enclosure:
Ltr to Administrator, EPA
Contact:
Roger J. Mattson a
4cn Ext.
443-6955 q
2:
" Secretariat Note: SECY-75 Staff Coments on EPA
-E Q
Propsed Standards for the Uranium Fuel Cycle, was considered at Policy Session 75-5 on February 13. The e
ission requested that the proposed letter to EPA be y
l ed and recirculated.
b
?$$55. 0${ ]Q E
9902040182 750219 5
PDR SECY l
75-046 R PDR
l*
l4 l
UNITED STATES j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 l
1 Honorable Russell E. Train Administrator U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D.C.
20460
Dear Mr. Train:
This is in reply to the letter of December 27, 1974, from the EPA Deputy Assistant Administrator for Rapiation Programs to the AEC Director of Regulation requesting comments on EPA's proposed generally applicable standards for the uranium fuel cycle.
We note that EPA is not, at this time, proposing revisions in existing Federal Radiation Council radiation protection guidance. All of the l
activities licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission are now and will continue to be carried out well within that guidance, We recommend th.-r the proposed standards not be issued before a decision o
is reached in the proceeding now pending before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission regarding the staf f Proposed Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 to-define design objectives for effluent control in light water reactors.
The Atonio Energy Commission initiated this rulemaking, and an exhaustive proceeding was conducted, including lengthy hearings with significant The NRC participation by the public, industry, and government agencies.
The facts that will base its decision on the record of the proceeding.
the NRC was not in operation until January 20, 1975, and that the record of the proceeding is technically complex and voluminous require that further time be allowed for the final decision. We are advised that the Commission has the matter under active cosideration with high priority for an expeditious decision.
The importance of the NRC decision in this instance derives from the fact that the principal basis for the numerical limits in the EPA draft otandards is the cost ef fectiveness of ef fluent controls, and not the acceptability of a given level of exposure.
An orderly conclusion of the NRC rulemaking decision prior to publishing the EPA standards would be consistent with the memorandum from the Director of the Office of the Management and Budget of December 7,1973, which stated that EPA's anblent' standard "would have to reflect AEC's [now NRC's] findings as to the practicability of emission controls."
~
l I
i
-=
%w..#
Linorable Russell E. Train objectives for other fuel cycle f acilities add oth -
spes of reactors in the future as operating experience is gained
..s of now soce types of facilities in the uranium fuel cycle have..ctie or no operating experience on the commercial scale.
In these cases, the practicability of operating limits cannot be determined precisely, and it would no: be appropriate to establish generally applicable standards near the estimated operating capabilities of the technology and solely on the basis of pro-jected cost effectiveness of emission controls.
Furthermore, the NRC decision on Proposed Appendix I will give definition to the as low as practicable concept and thus inf.luence the further application of the concept to fuel cycle facilit(es.
The staff has identified several specific areas where in its opinion the proposed EPA standard has been established too near or beyond the projected j
capabilities of the uranium fuel cycle technology. These are:
a) for light water reactors, the adding of the dose contribution from direct and ecattered gamma radiation to the exposures from gaseous and liquid effluents; b) the inclusion of the blowing of tailings piles near operating uranium
, mills, and c) the proposed thyroid standard in the case of the milk exposure i
pathway from fuel reprocessing plants. The staf f also believes that standards for the capture of Krypton-85 are premature at this time because the cost benefit justification requires the integration of very small individual doses over the entire world population without fully resolving the question of international cooperation in Kr-85 capture.
Sincerely, Lee V. Cossick Acting Executive Director j
for Operations ec: James T. Lynn, Director Office of Management and Budget I
c.
OFFICHAL USE ONLY D_ STRIBUTION NO.
- u0 PIES Secretary 9
Chairman Anders 3
Commissioner Rowden 2
Commissioner Maso-2 Commissioner Gil.nsky 2
Commissioner Kennedy 2
Exec. Dir. for Operations 1
Agency Inspector 6 Auditor 1
Public Affairs 2
General Counsel 1
Exec. Legal Director 1
Administration 4
Controller 1
Planning 6 Analysis 1
Standards Development 3
1 i
i l
I l
OFFHCHAL USE ONLY
.W
.J Q
d W
1 FEB 2 519T5 Mr. George F. Murphy, Jr.
- ~
Exeeutive Director Joint Committee sa Atomia Energy Congress of the tRaited States
Dear Mr. Hurphy:
AttamW for the info 1rmation of the Joint Caerittee on Atomic EnerEY 1
is a 1strer from the Acting Executive Director for Operaticus of NBC to the Honorable Russell E. Train, Mainistrator of EFA. The subject of the 1sttar is the N=*1=av Regulatory Cammission's staff coennts on EPA's draft proposed generally applicable standards for ths uranium fuel eyels. The principal point of the comments is that the EPA should delay issuance of its standarda rMag a decision by the Nuclear Ragalatory Comatission in the mettar of as low as practicable guidelines for light water reactors.
If ins aan be of any assistance to the Committes in understanding our pseities in this regard, please advise.
DISTRIBUTION:
Sincerely, Central Files SD Rdg File SiiS Rdg File Orf;ina) sig:ed by R. B. Minogue RBMinogue
% ttson Robert B. Minogue, Acting Director Office of Standards Development Ensiseuses Ltr to Administrator, EPA Tast No.(EfA SD:h SDQfppt o n: >
RJMaktbn: bas RIbnogue_
2/21/75 2/p,\\/75 OATS b
.p.L....~...
.r
.+.
- - - -. - - - +
rem Arce:s ia,, = ass Azcx 024o o u. s. n ov e== = e *== -+= = o ee *> a i * * * "'
4
..n,
F.
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W ASHINGTON, D.
C. 20555
.E5 2 5 B75 Honorable Russell E. Train Administrator U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D.C.
20460
Dear Mr. Train:
This is in reply to the letter of December 27, 1974, from the EPA Deputy Assistant Administrator for Radiation Programs to the AEC Director of Regulation requesting comments on EPA's proposed generally applicable standards for the uranium fuel cycle.
We note that EPA's Federal Radiation Council radiation protection guidance will remain unchanged. All of the activities licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission are now and will continue to be carried out well within that guidance.
We recommend that before the proposed standards are issued, time be allowed for a decision in the proceeding now pending before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission regarding the staff Proposed Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 to define design objectives for effluent control in light water reactors.
The Atomic Energy Commission initiated this rulemaking, and an exhaustive pro-ceeding was conducted, including lengthy hearings with significant participation by the public, industry, and government agencies.
The NRC will base its decision on the record of the proceeding.
The facts that the NRC began operation on January 20, 1975, and that the record of the proceeding is technically complex and voluminous require that further time be allowed for the final decision. We are advised that the Commission has the matter under active consideration with high priority for an expeditious decision.
We are pleased to have the opportunity to comment on the draft standard and explain the importance of the NRC decision. We understand that the principal basis for the numerical limits in the EPA draf t standards is the cost effectiveness of effluent controls, rather than the acceptability of a given level of exposure. An orderly conclusion of the NRC rulemaking decision prior to publishing the EPA standards would allow the standards to reflect the NRC's. findings as to the practicability of emir ' yn controls.
The AEC also stated its intention to issue numerical guidance on ALAP design objectives for other fuel cycle facilities and other types of reactors in the future as operating experience is gained. As of now some types of facilities in the uranium fuel cycle have little or no operating experience on the commercial. scale.
In these cases, any determination of the practicability osuTig a
a
)
D -tO6 6
I.
l' Honorable Russell E. Train of operating limits is imprecise. Thus, it is inappropriate to e-lish generally applicable standards near the estimated operating e
..tlities of the technology and solely on the basis of projected cor-
.iectiveness of emission controls. We also note that the NRC decisi-on Proposed Appendix I will give definition to the as low as prar. cable concept and thus influence the further application of the concept to fuel cycle l
facilities.
The staff has identified several specific areas where in its opinion the proposed EPA standard has been established too near or beyond the projected capabilities of the uranium fuel cycle technology.
These are:
a) for light water reactors, the adding of the dose contribution from direct and scattered gamma radiation to the exposures from gaseous and liquid ef fluents; b) the inclusion of the blowing of tailings piles near operating uranium mills, and c) the proposed thyroid standard in the case of the milk exposure pathway from fuel reprocessing plants.
In all of these areas the incremental increases in the proposed standard, which would be required to provide for uncertainties in the practicability of emission controls for a developing technology, would be well within existing FRC Radiation Protection Guides. The staff also believes that standards for the capture of Krypton-85 are premature at this time because the cost benefit justification requires the integration of very small individual doses over the entire world population without fully resolving the question of inter-national cooperation in Kr-85 capture.
Sincerely, l
ee V. Gossick Acting Executive Director for Operations cc:
James T. Lynn, Director Office of Management and Budget 1
WOE XG ?A?ER h*"
~
~.
v SECY-9 The Commissione*'
For:
Executive
..ector for Operations Thru:
Subject:
STAIF COMMENTS ON EPA PROPOSED CENERALLY APPLICABLE STANDARDS FOR THE URANIUM FUEL CYCLE This paper describes a routine staff action which Category:
relates to major NRC policy matters.
To recommend for Commission approval a letter to be
Purpose:
signed by the Executive Director for Operations in response to EPA's request for comments on its pro-posed generally applicable standards for the uranium fuel cycle, and to inform the Commission that this staff action relates to the AEC/NRC proceeding for "as low as practicable" guidance for light water reactor effluents and to the EPA's responsibilities i
pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
t Relationship of the EPA proposed standards to the NRC Issue:
ongoing efforts to limit exposures to as low as reasonably achievable levels, including 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix 1 and the limiting nature of the proposed standards on NRC licensing activities.
Decision The OMB policy directive concerning practicability a's Criteria:
stated in the Ash memorandum of December 7, 1973.
The NRC rule on ALAP guidance for radioactive materials in light water reactor effluents.
l Alternatives:
1.
Accept the EPA proposed standard without objections but requesting additional guidance on implementation.
2.
Respond to EPA with staff comments on the practicability and other features of the proposed standard and draft environmental impact statement for the rulemaking action and suggest that the proposal be withdrawn.
3.
(1) or (2) coupled with a request for the technical basis for the EPA proposed standard.
WOEXG ' APER
I The Commissicnars
,2 -
g Discussion:
JCY-R-75-202 the Commissioners were provided copies of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking by the EPA, the supporting environmental statement, the transmittal letter from EPA to AEC requesting Regulatory comments, the Ash memorandum delineating the EPA /AEC interface on these matters, and a brief staff discussion of the j
contents of the proposed rule.
1 In SECY-R-75-35 the Commissioners were provided a j
diecussion of the draft EPA proposed standard for the Uranium Fuel Cycle, a proposed letter to EPA, and a staff paper detailing specific comments on important
+
features of the EPA draft proposal.
A major policy matter related to the apparent conflict between the EPA proposed standards and Appendix I of 10 CFR Part 50 which provides numerical guidelines for ALAP for effluents of light water reactors.
In brief, if EPA adopts the proposed radiation standards for the uranium fuel cycle as now written, NRC will be required to amend again 10 CFR Parts 20 and 50 to comply with 40 -
CFR Part 190. This follows since NRC is required to implement and enforce the EPA's generally applicable standards, and it is entirely possible.for LWR stations' to be operating in compliance with Appendix I but in violation of 40 CFR Part 190. EPA's Statement of Considerations states that use of Appendix I " provide appropriate and satisfactory implementation" of the EPA standards, but the EPA conclusion was apparently based on the staff's proposed Appendix I, rather than i
the rule which was adopted. Staff expressed to EPA concern
]
for apparent conflicts between the EPA proposed standard and the staff's proposed Appendix I which was more restrictive than the Appendix I which is now an effective rule.
The EPA must soon implement guidelines under the Fe al Water, Pollution Control Act to be responsive e
recent (#cisipn by the Tenth Circuit peals regarding EPA's authority rite efflue mitation guidelines.*
Such guidelines woul est practicable discharges to navigable waters.
is that EPA will adopt an edited versio its proposed s a for the uranium fue ycle, where those standards a o water, as su ental regulations pursuant to the Feder ter P
ution Control Act.
The EPA staff has also stated
$ he Commission icipresentl.y se (t' have the Te kuit Couryol' peals decision reversed by the Su eme Court see SEC 63, SqCY-A 'tS-1, SECY-A-1A).
j e
e
~
i n
.am ss oners
- 3 -
i i
their view that having first published a proposed fuel cycle standard in the Federal Register uranium.,d"c'rEdencestp* subsequent actio will len pursuant to the FWPCA.** EPA is a onsidering a National Interim Primary Dr'"
g Water Regulation for the Safe Drinkin erAct,PL%%}-523. This EPA standard (40 W Part 141), among o % r things, would limi,t do6es to the public to 4 mrem"pec,, year from all ban-made radioactive material in drinking water.
Ihg, EPA, at the request of the Executive Director for Operations, p
-day extension Mbe^c'ofmnent deadline for 40 CFR PArp 1975. The I
OMB staff.hes're(Ee'sted that it be in orm f*thes "tenof of our comments" when they have been develope'd.
TpeEPA7topused -stande-d-p4 H em11y nel" A-m __micle_ar 9 - gy --arars from consideration at this time, deferring itandards writing ~for t'ttese< ~ eial eme-e *~ '
aut staff believae ? t-sci rule coui @.*ge **
C~o Ah;_2c~of such centers.
The proposed staff response to the EPA request for comments is provided in enclosure (1).
The staff has found, with some reservations, that the scope and format of the standard might be in accord with the Ash memorandum. The staff finds that compliance with the radiation dos,e commitment limits within the time frame proposed by the' EPA cannot now be readily demonstrated for activities within the uranium fuel cycle. The information available to the staff suggests that in these areas additional engineering solutions would have to be developed to assure compliance. The reroonse to EPA addresses the practicability of such solutions in the time constraints proposed by EPA.
The major areas of concern identified by the staff are:
1.
Liquid and gaseous ef fluents from light-water-cooled nuclear power reactors.
A two-unit LWR power station operating at the design objective conditions specified in Appendix 1 could result in an individual obtaining an annual whole-body dose of 16 mrem and an organ dose of 60 mrem from J. -
,4 t
W
j The Commissioners.
exposure to gaseous effluents. The limiting cond'
.. s
-_s to for operation of this station could result in an individual as much as twice that which v-
.a be received at design objective levels, i.e, a whole-body dose of 32 mrem and an organ dose of 120 mrem. Thus, without considering any dose c'ontribution from radiation from sources other than gaseous effluents, vis N-16 in turbines, storage of radioactive material on site, shipping of radioactive material, etc., could exceed l
the EPA proposed standard for both whole-body and organ
]
doses for an individual.
In the extreme case, a single-unit BWR station could operate within the provisions of Appendix I and exceed the EPA proposed standard if an individual were to have access to locations in unrestrict areas near the turbine for a substantial period of time.
"V-The statement of considerations for the EPA proposed standard states that Appendix I would be a satisfactory implementation of 40 CFR Part 190. The staff disagrees with this EPA conclusion for the reasons stated above.
2.
Direct and scattered gamma radiation from turbine i
components of Boiling Water Reactors (turbine
. shine).
i s
Measured off-site whole-body dose rates due to direct and
'7 scattered gamma radiation from BWRs, taking into account I reasonable periods of occupancy near the site boundary, indicate this source of exposure can be a significant fraction of the EPA proposed standard for some small sites with high public access to areas near the turbines. That standard would limit the whole-body dose to 25 mrem per year for any persons from all exposure modes due to normal operations of the uranium fuel cycle facilities and acti'vities.
When the dose contribution from direct and scattered gamma radiation is added to the doses from gaseous and liquid effluents, the 25 mrem / year proposed limit could be exceeded at some sites with a single i
BWR. -Two effective measures for controlling whole body dose from direct and scattered gamma radiation are the increasing of distance and the decreasing of occupancy.
As an alternative to these measures, shielding of the source of radiation can be used. Shielding of turbine systems can affect the maintainability and accessibility of equipment. This source of radiation exposure was not considered in the ALAP proceeding for light-water reactors.
O M
L
- 5. j l
l g-I f
I The Commissioners -
=
We are aware that work by the *
.atry has, ongoing
[
engineering studiesLof shi-
-ag and equipment layout to reduce shine from Bir..rbine systems. - The j
practice of the staf' as been to examine engineering alternatives onLa ;ase-by-case basis for dose i
estimation. Consequently, we have. only approximations of the costs associated with generic standards-which would restrict turbine shine.
3.
Radioiodine thyroid dose rates from reprocessing plants.
The-staff, in recent licensing activities for a repro-cessing plant (Barnwell), found that with current technology and assuming 160 day old fuel,-the off-site doses could be in excess of the EPA proposed standard of 75 mress per. year to the thyroid.
In addition,'the staff has an ongoing study to contribute to the data base required to define "as low as practicable" radio-iodine dose rates for fuel reprocessing plants. The ALAP generic study shows that changes in assumptions on fuel age beyond 160 days do not significantly alter.
the calculated doses because of the contribution of long-lived iodine 129. The staff estimates that, if initiated now, technology advances in effluent treatment systems could be achieved by 1980 for receptors located near the site boundaries to reduce the potential thyroid dose rate below'75 mrem / year. That 'date is three years beyond the 1977 compliance date proposed by EPA.
4.- Dose rates to organs resulting from uranium milling operations.
The NRC staff has an ongoing study to provide a technical and economic data base which is required to define "as low as practicable" dose rates for normal uranium milling operations. This study and recent licensing reports indicate that off-site dose rates te organs from normal milling operations can significantly exceed EPA proposed standards for organs other P.han the thyroid, assuming total occupancy.*. Dose rates encountered in the surroundings of uranium milling facilities principally
-result from the air transport and subsequent human inhalation ~of radon--22, thorium-230, and radium-226
- " Total. occupancy" is defined as personal continuous residency near the site boundary.
i 2
1 4
y
~
r-
+,,,,,.. - -
-v s.
e
,s.
n
--r
... - - - ~ ~ -.
... -. _. ~.
l
~
i i
f The Commissioners l
fr-
.Alings piles. While the EPA exempts Kn-222 f
i
, its decay products from the proposed standard, our ALAP study indicates that exposure rates from the other radionuclides at some locations are such that if i
^
people were present for reasonable periods of occupancy, their dose might exceed the proposed standards. The practicability of engineering solutions for reducing j
1 the blowing of tailings piles, especially in the case of operating mills, hap been studied. However, there are at present no. demonstrated methods that would allow compliance with the EPA standards. The difficulty is associated with the size of the piles (on the order of several hundred acres). the nature of the tailings (a fine powder when dry), the form of the tailings as they come from the mill (a water slurry), and the dynamic nature of an active tailings pond.*
5.
Krypton-85 Removal The staff believes that EPA's decision to include limits for releases of krypton-85 in the proposed standard is premature for two reasons: (a) the cost-benefit analysis performed by EPA requires the integration of very small individual doses from Kr-85 over the total world population in order to establish cost effectiveness, and an integral over smaller populations would not substantiate the cost effectiveness f
of krypton capture; and (b) the capture.of Kr-85 extends beyond domestic policy considerations to include the l
willingness of other nations to require Kr-85 collection, a matter which might best be addressed under the An auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
additional consideration that was not included in the environmental impact statement prepared by EPA is the broad issue of what maximum benefit can be achieved by the commitment of resources to improve man's environment.
The vast resources ($100,000,000 by EPA's estimate by the year 2000 for the United States, alone) which would be required to capture Kr-85 should be analyzed in view of other societal benefits which could be obtained by application of these resources to reduction of other' pollutants associated with the generation of power.
- The stabilization of' inactive tailings piles is the subject of an ANSI l
standard (N313 - 1974) which has been-implemented in R,egulatory Guide 3.23, November 1974.
l I
k
2 1
I The Co--
aers '
)
l In the meantime, we agree with EPA that work should be continued to prove out krypton removal equipment in practice in a fuel reprocessing plant, particularly in view of the possibility of international agreement to limit releases of krypton-85.
6.
Utility of the EPA Proposed Standard g
In view of the existing NRC regulations 10 CFR Parts 20 and 50 which contain "as low as practicable" criteria for all exposures to radiation and the demonstrably effective effort by staff in implementing these criteria in licensing actions, staff concludes that the EPA i
proposed s.tandards represent an unnecessary duplication of regulation.
4 7.
Implementation of the EPA Proposed Standard Staff anticipates a substantive administrative burden to-be placed on the NRC in order to demonstrate compliance with the EPA proposed standard.
Problems which would be presented if the EPA proposed standard is adopted would' range from amendments of regulations, technical specifica-tions, and regulatory guides to policy decisions or allocation of release quantities, consideration of future land and water usage in evaluations, and guidance on the bases for making judgments on " variances" as provided in 40 CFR Part 190.
8.
Perspective of the Impact of the EPA Proposed Standard The EPA DES states that implementation of 40 CFR Part 190 would avert an estimated 1,030 potential " health effects" from exposures to radioactive materials released to the envitonment by the U.S. uranium fuel cycle facilities by the year 2000.
Staff has tried in vain to persuade EPA to include some perspective when discussing estimated health effects.
Staff estimates that the comparable number of health effects which can be anticipated from normal incidence could be about 86,000,000 for the U.S. and 4,200,000,000 for the world.
In perspective, the impact of' EPA proposed standard would be statistically insignificant and might be zero.
EPA voluntarily provided a draft environmental impact statement (DES) for the rulemaking action on 40 CFR Part 190.
4 O
R
O e
i i
]
The Commissioners
- The DES cites three EPA reports as the technical bases for the rulemaking action.
Staff has reviewed the three supporting reports and the DES and concluded they are inadequate to serve as a technical base for the rule, are' inconsistent among themselves, and contain several significant errors. The DES draws many conclusions but contains no detailed information and the rationale presented in the DES does not appear to be correlated with the three supporting technical reports.
Recommendation:
That the Commission note the relationship between the proposed response to EPA and the AEC/NRC proceeding on "as low as practicable" regulations for light water reactors; Note the relationship between the proposed response and the question of EPA responsibility for limitation of radioactive discharges to navigable waters under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act; Note that there is substantial staff disagreement regarding the technical and economic bases used by EPA to support" their proposed standard. The numerical guidelines proposed in the standard cannot be derived from the supporting technical / economic data.
Approve transmittal of the proposed staff response to the EPA; Note that the OMB staff will be apprised by telephone of the tenor of our comments prior to their transmittal to EPA; and Note that copies of the response will be transmitted to the JCAE and placed in the NRC public document i
room.
Coordination:
The Offices of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards. Inspection and i
Enforcement, and the Executive Legal Director concur in the recommendations of this paper, j
6 l
3
)
I-1 E
- e l
t
r --
i 1
. - e l
l l.
The Cousnissioners.
Scheduling:
For consideration at an early Polic"
. ton.
4 e
Robert B. Minogue, Director Office of Standards Development
Enclosures:
1.
Proposed Response to EPA 2.
Comments of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff on EPA Proposed Rulemaking on Radiation Standards
Contact:
Dr. Roger J. Mattson Ext.
443-6955 4
0 l
l i
l e
h 9
1 l
L l
. = - -
~
n-
[ ' ' vf _
~
' UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY j
l
,f Moh C C
!UBJECT: Impact of Final Appendix I on EPA Standards fe" DATE: MAY 5 1975
~
Uranium Fuel Cycle -- INFORMATI3N MEMORANDT"'
),."
b f ) p) J r A l
W. D. Rowe, Ph.D. l FM:
s Deputy Assistant Administrator pLh l
for Radiation Programs (AW-550
- 0:
Roger Strelow Assistant Admin'istrator for Air and Waste Management (AW-443)
[~
SUMMARY
On April 30, 1975.the Nuclear Regulatory Commission released to
-the public its final decision on Appendix I (Numerical Guides for Design Objectives and Limiting Conditions for Operation te Meet the
' Criterion "As Low As Practicable" for Radioactive Material in Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor Effluents). We have exacined this rulemaking with respect to its suitability as implementation of EPA's draft proposed standards for the Uranium Fuel Cycle, as well as its possible impact on other ORP programs, and conclude that:
1)
It would provide a satisfactory implementation of the EPA l
draft proposed standards, and
~
- 2) discussion with NRC will be required concerning the Commission's proposal to conduct public hearings.to establish a suitable dollar value for radiation doses for use in cost-benefit analyses of control requirements above and beyond the nu erical criteria of Appendix I.
DISCUSSION A.
Implementation of EPA's pronosed standards.
l The Cossaission has made a number of major changes in Appendix I, some of which tend to decrease potential public exposure and others which could increase it.
The net effect appears to be a reduction in the maximum potential impact of nuclear reactors. The principal
~ hanges and their anticipated impact are as follows:
c
- 1) The guides apply to individual reactors, not to sites. This raises.the possibility of exposures at sites being the product of the design objectives and the number of reactors per site. Eevever, the l
Commission states (p.63):
l i
f1 *. F..em 1320 6 (b., M2) l
2
"...we see no way tv 4gn-objective guides set on a per-reactor bar"-
., in the nehr future, result in individual -
.; ares that are more than 5% of present-day (10 CFP '
radiation standards (i.e., are more than 25 Indeed, we believe that, with the reauired are-asion of all radvaste augments justified on a cost-d senefit basis and with the realization that several reactors cannot be physically placed so as to all be a minimum distance from the maximally exposed individual, the actual doses received by individuals will be appreciably less...."
We concur, and add the points that a) only one site is currently projected to contain as many as five reactors through 1986 (the basis of the above statement) and b) the possibility is small that all of the reactors on such sites would simultaneously experience the fuel failure and other characteristics assumed to model the source terms used to predict potential doses.
2)
The guide for whole-body dose from liquid effluents is reduced from 5 to 3 mrem /yr.
This further reduces the already small contribution of the liquid pathway as a source of concern for maximum doses to individuals from a site.
- 3) Quantity limits (for liquids and iodines), as well as language requiring " state of the art" ef fluent controls under certain conditions are replaced by a requirement for any control system exhibiting, at a particular site, a favorable cost-benefit ratio. The interim criteria for such determinations are $1000/ man-rem or man-thyroid-rem.
This is an improvement over the previous inflexible pro-posal.
It would simultaneously relieve requirements for unnecessary controls but require any improvements appropriate to specific situations.
Since $1000/ man-rem or man-thyroid-rem is considerably higher than the corresponding value assumed by EPA for health effects, this requirement has the effect of insuring, for any reasonable situation, conformance with EPA's proposed standards.*
- 4) The degree of operating flexibility is significantly reduced from 2-8x design objectives annually to a maxieum of 0.5x the annual design objective in any quarter (i.e., at a rate of 2x the annual
- 0ur value for health effects corresponds to a range of approximately
$80-400/ man-rem. A corresponding value for man-thyroid-rem is not available, since ve do not believe that the use of population dose is appropriate for establishing a limit for thyroid dose; maximum individual dose is the appropriate limiting factor.
J b
3 design objective, but for one quarter of a year, only).
The Co= mission also states, with repeated emphasis, that it is expected that "... annual releases...can generally be maintained within the levels set forth as nucerical guides for design objectives..." and further, that "...in using... operational flexibility under unusual operating conditions, the licensee will exert his best efforts to keep levels...within the nurerical guides for design objectives."
The justification for use of this operating flexibility is "...to assure the public is provided a dependable source of power even under unusual operating conditions which may temporarily result in releases higher than such numerical guides..." (emphasis added).
We believe that the impact of this language is that reactors will, in general, except under conditions that would satisfy EPA's proposed variance, be required to operate within design objectives.
Such operation would clearly satisfy EPA's proposed standards.
- 5) Appendix I is effective on June 4, 1975, and will apply immediately to all reactors for which construction permits wera. filed j
on or after January 2, 1971.
For applications filed prior to that date, plans and proposed technical specifications to ' meet "as low as practicable" guidelines cust be filed within 12 months and will, presumably, be disposed of on a case-by-case basis.
Sixty-three such reactors are involved, and cost either do not require or have already instituted retrofitting to meet Appendix I in its proposed form.
In the absence of any retrofit, only six facilities would not meet EPA's
~
proposed standard, on the basis of their performance in 1972-73.
However, several of these have completed retrofits, and it is considered extrecely unlikely that ALAP considerations will not require the minical upgrading of existing systems required for the balance to satisfy EPA's proposed standards.
B.
Proposed rulecakine en eenetary value of nopulation dose.
The Commission proposal "...at the earliest practicable date to conduct a rulecaking hearing to establish appropriate monetary values for the worth of reduction of radiation doses to the population" raises quesgions aboue the division of Federal responsibility in this
____ area-tha't'should be resolved prior to convening any such hearing.
The "as low as practicable" process that is carried out using such criteria is part of Federal Radiation Guidance, the development of which is a responsibility that is vested in EPA, and not NRC.
Such monetary values are basic to ALAP procedures for all radiation and would have implications far beyond ALAP findings for nuclear power, including both medical and natural radioactivity exposure of the public, as well as all forms of occupational exposure.
Our present program for addressing Federal Radiation Guidance on "as low as practicable" methodology and criteria includes the NAS-BEIR Committee study referred to by the Commission; indeed, the FRC vas charged to carry out this work prior to transfer of its functions to EPA. CRP l
+ -
=
4 4
is, as you:are aware, currently actively engaged in this effort, as
.well as the updating of occupational' guidance and the development of guidance for medical radiation exposure. Although EPA's authority does not preempt other Federal agencies from exercising independent.
judgment when implem?.nting ALAP guidance, and it is not.now conten-l plated that our present program will' make recommendations for spr.tiic monetary values for the exposure of ran to radiation, it is antici-pated that a detailed exposition of the factors which should be considered in such an evaluation will be made, and some of these may
~
well be assigned at least a range of acceptable values. Thus, while
.we applaud the initiative and objectives of the NRC, and have no objection to their gathering input on this matter of general impor-tance to radiation protection, we believe that_ final determination of such basic criteria must_come after general criteria "nr all forms and uses of radiation.have been developed by EPA, with its more broadly-based responsibility.
C.
Recognition of EPA's Standards by Appendix I.
The Federal Register Notice accompany'ing Appendix I contains 'the following footnote, which appears to adequately recognize EPA 1
standards authority, and its relation to Appendix I "Under'the President's Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is respon-
- sible for establishing generally applicable environmental radiation standards for the protection of the general environment from radioactive materials. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission'is responsible for implementation and enforcement of EPA's generally applicable environmen-tal standards.
If the design objectives and operating limits established in this decision should prove to be incompatible with any generally applicable standard hereafter established by EPA, these objectives and limits will be modified as necessary."
~
i l
i 1
l' k
i
-j i
?
,