ML20204C548
| ML20204C548 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/11/1999 |
| From: | Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | J. J. Barton HOUSE OF REP., ENERGY & COMMERCE |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20204C554 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9903230142 | |
| Download: ML20204C548 (16) | |
Text
- -
iQ(.
l*:
a %q'o,,
M, p'y(
[
UNITED STATES
[
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g (F I {,.1 g
E WASMNGTON. D. C. 20665 q
l March 11, 1999 CHAIRMAN The Honorable Joe Barton, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Power Committee on Commerce United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515-6115
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before your Subcommittee on February 10,1999, to discuss the important issues regarding H.R. 45, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1999. The passage of H.R. 45 would affect the mission of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and we appreciate the opportunity to provide input as you develop this bill.
I am enclosing the NRC respons.1 to the post-hearing questions that were transmitted by your letter of February 19,1999. Please contact me if I can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
Enclosure:
As stated cc: The Honorable Ralph Hall y,,
9903230142 990311
~
PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR
t l
Question 1.
NRC indicated in its statement that the 25 millirem all-pathways standard, as promulgated by NRC in 10 CFR Part 63, is consistent with other national and intemational recommendations for radiation that have been adopted by the international community. Please provide a brief survey of the standards in use by the intemational community for the disposal of I
spent fuel and high-level waste.
l Answer.
l The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) is the intemational body that i
develops recommendations for radiation protection standards. Worldwide, ICRP
-)
recommendations provide the basis for most national regulatory standards. In the U.S., the national equivalent to the ICRP is the Congressionally chartered National Council on Radiation i
Protection and Measurements (NCRP).
j i
Both ICRP and NCRP recommend an individual dose limit for members of the public of 100 millirem per year (mrem /y). In addition to this limit, ICRP and NCRP recommend that persons using radiation sources maintain exposures of the public to radiation from the sources As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA).
To assure that exposures to more than one source of radiation do not lead to a total annual dose exceeding 100 mrem, ICRP and NCRP recommend doses from individual sources be limited to a fraction of the 100 mrem /y standard. For this purpose, ICRP recommends a value of 30 mrem /y and NCRP recommends a value of 25 mrem /y. In both cases, the recommended value is an all-pathways standard.
NRC's proposed all-pathways standard of 25 mrem /y and ALARA is therefore consistent with both ICRP and NCRP recommendations for a standard for an individual source of radiation.
Page 2 of this answer is a selected compilation of dose standards in use by the international community.
i l
1
... -. -... ~. -. ~.
Quecon 1. (Continued).
e Selected compilation of dose standards in use by the international community from the references cited.
Country:
Standard Finland' O.1 mSv/yr (10 mrem /yr) l l
Switzerland'
. 0.1 mSv/yr (10 mrem /yr) (likely events) 4 and 1x 10 risk limit for unlikely events; additionally can modify dose limit based l
on size of the critical group-France' O.25 mSv/yr (25 mrem /yr) 4 Canada 8 Maximum individual risk s 10 /yr (equivalent to 2 mrem /yr)
Germany Individual dose < 0.3 mSv/yr (30 l
mrem /yr) for all reasonable scenarios 8
4 United Kingdom Maximum individual risk objective 10 /yr (equivalent to 20 mrem /yr) 2 4
Nuclear Energy Agency Maximum individual risk s 10 /yr (approx. equivalent to 20 mrem /yr)
International Commission on Individual dose 1 mSv/yr (100 mrem /yr) 8 4
Radiological Protection.
(equivalent risk 5 5x10 /y). For multiple sources recommend lesser value by optimization (e.g.,0.3 mSv/y; 30 mrem /yr)
' From BIOMOVS ll Technical Report 8 From lAEA TECDOC-853 (December, No. 6 (1996) 1995)
-cc g-m qq c
,w
Question 2.
How much of the difference between the EPA and NRC standards derives from different methods of apportioning the total radiation dose to the repository? In other words, are the NRC and EPA starting from the same 100 millirem standard for total allowable dose and reaching a different answer by attributing a different percentage of that total to the repository?
Answer.
Although both the NRC and EPA accept the same 100 millirem annual standard (mrem /y) for total allowable public dose from Atomic Energy Act materials, the difference between EPA (15 millirem) and NRC standards (25 millirem) for HLW disposal dose is not derived from different methods of apportionment. The difference results from the differing interpretations by the agencies of the impact of newer dose methodology on the calculation of comparable levels of protection provided by previous 1
radiation protection standards.
The following outline of the NRC and the EPA approaches to developing the standard provides clarification:
The NRC aooroach to developino the standard:
o The basic NRC and EPA radiation protection standard for members of the public is 100 mrem /y, According to the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) o and the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), to asame that exposures to more than one source of radiation will not lead to a total annual doss exceeding 100 mrem /y, doses from individual sources should be limited to a fraction of the 100 mrem /y limit. For this purpose, the ICRP recommends a value of 30 mrem /y while the NCRP recommends a value of 25 mrem /y.
o The NRC uses 25 mmm/y all pathway value for this purpose which is equivalent to a lifetime fatal cancer risk of 4x10 based on 30 years exp1 sure. This is 4
consistent with previously established NRC standards, (e.g., license termination and low-level radioactive waste disposa).
Additionally, the NRC, following international and national radiation protection o
recommendations, requires licensees to maintain radiation exposures to be As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA).
o in practice, under NRC regulation, application of ALARA has resulted in exposures of members of the public to a small fraction of the application limits.
The EPA aooroach to develooina the standard:
_... -. - - -...... - - - -.. ~.. -
m The starting point for the EPA limits is different and is derived from a goal of o
maintaining a lifetime risk of fatal cancer from environmental sources to within a 4
4 range of 10 to 10.
i d
15 mrem /y carries a lifetime fatal cancer risk of 2x10 based on 30 years o
exposure.
The EPA view is that this is acceptably close to (although not within) their risk o
target.
Sianificance of the difference:
o The uncertainties of predicting health effects at these very low levelsof radiation exposure are very large; it is assumed that radiation health effects occur at low levels.
o in the United States, about 1 in 5 persons will die from cancer, a lifetime risk of 20 %
o in comparison, the lifetime fatal cancer risk associated with the difference 4
betwee7 the NRC and the EPA standard,10 mrem /y, is 2x10.
o Annual exposures to background radiation average about 300 mrem /y but can vary frcm 100 to 1,000 mrem /y depending upon location and naturally occurring radon levels.
Background / Additional Information.
The ICRP and the NCRP both, in publication 60 and Report No.116,respectively, arrive at 100 millirem per year (mrem /y) as the acceptable individual dose from all man-made sources of radiation excluding medical. In 1991, NRC modified 10 CFR 20 to adopt the 100 mrem /y public dose limit. Current EPA standards promulgated by EPA in 1960 and 1961 limit doses to members of the public to 500 mrem /y. In a draft 1994 revision to these standards, EPA recommended a 100 mrem /y limit but thus far has not completed the process of revising its standards.
c
l Question 3.
In the past, NRC has testified onsite storage is safe, but centralized interim storage is even safer. Is that still the NRC's position?
Answer.
1 The NRC believes that both centralized interim storage and at-reactor storage would protect public health and safety, however, the NRC also believes that a centralized facility would offer a number of benefits and resources savings; for example:
l Use of a central storage facility would focus our oversight activities for spent furi storage at one location versus approximately 75 sites. Licensing and inspection resources would be saved in regulation of one central interim storage facility instead of multiple independent spent fuel storage facilities.
Relocation of spent fuel at one site would permit the sites with shutdown reactors to be decommissioned and released for other uses.
Central interim storege wcuid use only dry casks which are passive and less complex than the active systems used in reactor spent fuel pools, which depend i
on a number of pool support systems including cooling water, electrical power, and instrumentation.
f Regarding on-site storage, the NRC considers both wet and dry storage to be safe technologies, but we view dry storage as the preferred method for supplementary storage of spent fuel at operating plants.
A central interim storage facility would require transportation of spent fuel in NRC certified casks, but the Commission believes, based on both experience with previous spent fuel transport and analysis of the risks of sur h a transportation campaign, that such transportation would pose minimal health and safety risks.
Y
Question 4.
In her testimony, Ms. Claybrook of Public Citizen declares " centralized interim storage... would increase the risks to public health and safety."
Do you agree with that statement?
Answer.
No, there would be no incremental increase in risk due to storing spent fuel at a central location versus storing spent fuel at each reactor site.
l The risks to send spent fuel to centralized interim storage are not necessarily greater than they would be in shipping the same fuel to a permanent repository.
There is always some risk involved with shipping hazardous (and non hazardous) materials as evidenced by historical accident rates. However, the staff has no reason to believe that the extremely low accident rates observed for spent fuel shipments would be significantly different than those for other hazardous goods shipments.
Studies conducted for the NRC, such as the Modal Study (Shipping Container Response to Severe Highway and Railway Accident Conditions,1988) and NUREG-0170 (Final Environmental Impact Statement on the Transportation of Radioactive Material by Air and Other Modes,1977) show that the radiological risk of shipping spent fuel is very low. The NRC is in the final steps of revalidating NUREG-0170 to consider new shipping cask types, health effects models, and routing parameters. Initial results of this effort, which will be completed in late 1999, appear to reconfirm that the radiological risk is minimal.
in addition, NRC published a proposed rule and indicates the availability of a draft e
environmentalimpact statement in the February 26,1999, edition of the Federal Reaister The amendment to 10 CFR 51 would eliminate the need for individuallicense renewal applicants to address the environmental impacts associated with the transport of spent fuelin the vicinity of Yucca Mountain based on the analysis contained in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS). The rule would add a requirement that each license renewal applicant address the impact of transportation of spent fuel in the vicinity of the plant during the term of license renewal. The proposed rule and GEIS are available for public comment.
Background / Additional Information.
The NRC's safety record for spent fuel shipments is based on approximately 1300 o
commercial shipments transported in the United States from 1979 through 1997. A total of 356 metric tons were transpor1ed n 1181 highway shipments, while 1097 metric tons were carried in 153 railway shipments. The greatest amount commercially transported in one year was 193.4 metric tons in 1985. During that period, the distance traveled by all commercial spent fuel shipments totaled 850,000 miles.
According to statistics compiled from NRC-licensed waste transporters, eight o
l transportation accidents involving spent fuel casks have occurred from 1971 through l
1997, none of which released radioactive material. That accident rate appears to be generally consistent with tha probabilities predicted in safety studies (Final Environmental Statement on the Transportation of Radioactive Material by Air and Other
l.;
l l
~
Question 4. (continued) 2 Modes, NUREG-0170, December 1977). In four of those accidents, the spent fuel casks being transported were empty and were undamaged. The other four accidents involved loaded casks and, again, none of these accidents involved the release of radioactive materials:
A December 1971 accident, in which a truck left the road and threw off its spent fuel cask, which suffered some damage to the cask surface; An incident in February 1978, in which a truck trailer carrying a spent fuel cask j
buckled under its weight, but the cask was undamaged; A December 1983 accident, when a spent-fuel truck tractor separated from its axles, without damaging the cask; and An accident in March 1987, when a train carrying two casks of Three Mile @nd i
core debris collided with a car, causing no cask damage.
l l
o The U.S. commercial spent fuel shipped from 1971 to 1997 represents about 3 percent l
of the 40,000 metric tons that may eventually require transportation to a central interim l
storage facility as provided for under the proposed H.R. 45.
o NUREG-0725, "Public Information Circular for Shipments of Irradiated Reactor Fuels" (Revision 13 October 1998), provides publicly available shipment information.
l l
l l
l
Question 5.
Will the NRC have sufficient funds in the next fiscal year to execute its responsibilities with respect to the Yucca Mountain project and to prepare for the licensing process?
Answer.
Yes, if the Congress appropriates the resources requested in the President's budget.
The Commission has requested adequate funding for FY 2000 ($19.15 million) to execute its responsibilities with respect to the Yucca Mountain project and to prepare for the licensing process. Examples of FY 2000 activities include resolving specific key technical issues and subissues that are importi.nt to the performance of a high-level waste repository during the prelicensing period and refining the Yucca Mountain Review Plan that will implement the site specific, risk-informed, and performance based regulations for a proposed rapository at Yucca Mountain. As we move closer to the receipt of the license application in FY 2002, we project a small increase in funding requirements to ensure that NRC will be adequately staffed for its review.
The NRC has not currently budgeted for the licensing review and regulation of the proposed central interim storage facility outlined in H.R. 45 and would need a supplemental appropriation from the Nuclear Waste Fund to carry out those additional responsibilities.
l 1
Question 6.
I understand the difference of professional opinion between the EPA and NRC over radiation standards affects other areas in addition to the Yucca Mountain repository. What other areas under NRC jurisdiction are i
affected by this question, and what is the status regarding standards and guidelines for acceptable radiation exposures in these areas?
Answer.
The NRC Low-Level Waste (LLW) and Decommissioning programs also are affected by e
the differences between the EPA and NRC over radiation standards, Under existing law, the NRC is obligated to implement and enforce generally applicable e
environmental standards promulgated by the EPA in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act.
e in the LLW program, similar and fundamental differenc.es exist involving the acceptable
~ level of risk and the need for separate pathway standards in addition to an all pathways standard. These differences wero rabed in 1995 in NRC comments on the EPA pre-proposal draft of environmemal standards for the management, storage, and disposal of LLW (40 CFR 193). These comments opposed the EPA rulemaking as unnecessary, consistent with the State's comments but the NRC offered to revise its guidance concerning groundwater monitoring if the EPA would agree to exclude NRC licensees from its rule. After reviewing the comments received from NRC, the Department of Energy (DOE), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and States, EPA on June 8,1995, announced that it would not proceed with the development of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Standards (40 CFR 193) for facilities licensed by NRC or Agreement States, including low-lwel radioactive waste disposal facilities, processing facilities, and storage facilities. Since that time, no additional action has been taken by the EPA on this rulemaking with regards to either NRC licensees.
The NRC standards for disposal of low-level radioactive waste are contained in 10 CFR Part 61 and are supported by a series of regulatory guidance related to siting, construction, operation, and closure of a LLW disposal facility. The NRC Agreement States are implementing compatible requirements.
The NRC published a final rule establishing radiological criteria for decommissioning in e
July 1997 that was accompanied by a Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS).
This rule established 25 millirem per year (mrem /y) from all potential exposure pathways at a licensed site as the acceptable criterion for release of licensed sites for unrestricted use. This dose limit is coupled with the provision that the dose from residual radioactivity be As Low As is Reasonably Achievable (ALARA). NRC's GEIS, which analyzes the costs associated with applying Meximum Contaminnnnemis (MCLs),
i indicates that reducing groundwater contamination to these MCLs could be extraordinarily expensive in some cases. For example, it would cost approximately
$23 billion per threatened fatality averted if the MCL for strontium
- is applied (MCL corresponds to 0.07 mrom/y). Moreover, at some sites, there could be a " negative" health impact to safety due to transportation accidents. In July 1998, the NRC published regulatory guidance for a two year period of interim use and comment. The NRC is soliciting comments on this guidance through a series of public workshops and the NRC's web site. The EPA stated that the NRC rule is not protective of the public health and the environment and stated that 15 mrem /y from all pathways, with separate
.~.
l Question 6. (continued) 2 limits established for groundwater, is necessary. The EPA limits on groundwater would l
be the MCLs specified in 40 CFR 141, National Primary Drinking Water Regulations.
l These requirements were contained in the EPA draft proposed cleanup rule, which was withdrawn by the EPA on December 19,1996, in response to issues raised by the NRC, DOE, States, and other interested parties.
The Commission's final rule is based on considerations of risk, radiation protection principles, national and international standards, and costs compared to associated berefits of cleanup. In issuing the final rule, we concluded that it not only protects the puolic health and safety, but also establishes a framework to address the limited number of difficult cases which would otherwise require case-by-caso exemptions. We believe this approach ensures adequate protection of the public health and safety and the environment, does not impose an unnecessary regulatory burden, and is based on sound policy.
The EPA has not established a regulatory standard for this area under the Atomic Energy Act. However, EPA has stated that it would apply its guidance for cleanup of Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) sites. The EPA approach results in the imposition of the CERCLA risk range on radionuclides without the informed and open discussions that would be part of the rulemaking process to establish such radiation protections standards - a process which NRC has completed.
Question 7.
Would licensing an interim storage facility pose great challenges to NRC7 Have you licensed similar facilities in the past? If so, how long has it taken to license similar facilities?
Answer.
No, the !icensing of an interim storage facility would not pose any great challenges to e
the NRC provided sufficient resources were available to the NRC.
The NRC has licensed dry independent spent fuel storage installations located at j
e reactor sites. The time-frames associated with licensing a dry independent spent fuel storage installation have varied considerably based upon: the unique licensing considerations of the applicant; site characteristics; the storage vendor / technology chosen; staff familiarity with the chosen vendor / technology (a previously reviewed storage cask or topical report); and the need for an environmental assessment or an l
environmentalimpact statement. For the previous reviews, the time-frame ranged from j
approximately 1.5 years to more than 7 years. The staff estimates that it should normally take approximately 30 to 40 months to license a dry at-reactor independent j
spent fuel storage installation.
Although the NRC has not licensed a central interim storage facility, staff is currently e
reviewing the Private Fuel Storage, L.L.C. application for an away-from-reactor independent spent fuel storage installation to be located on a site leased at the Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indian Reservation in Utah. The staff received the application in June 1997 and expects to complete the safety review by October 1999 and the environmental review by September 2000. The staff anticipates that the contested hearing proceedings will be completed around October 2001. The license will not be issued until after the hearing is completed.
The DOE submitted to the NRC a topical report for a non-site-specific central interim e
storage facility in May 1997. The staff, utilizing the Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses, is reviewing the Department's generic approach to central interim storage. The staff expects to complete its review by October 1999. The NRC's Assessment Report will provide an early indication of the acceptability and feasibility of the DOE approach to central interim storage, and it will provide constructive experience and feedback to the DOE prior to submitting a site-specific application.
l 1
l
Question 8.
The WIPP site has a Congressionally-mandated radiation standard of 15 millirems with a separate groundwater standard. Why is NRC reportedly indicating that the Yucca Mountain geologic repository does not need to meet the same radiation protection standards as those applied by EPA at the WIPP facility? Is contaminated groundwater a health and safety issue at the WIPP facility?
Answer.
The EPA often claims that the WIPP standards of 15 millirem per year (mrem /y) with a separate groundwater standard is congressionally mandated. However as documented in succeeding paragraphs, NRC does not believe that either the radiation standard for WIPP (i.e.,15 millirem /y) or a separate groundwater protection standard has been specifically mandated by Congress as EPA claims. Further, NRC believes that the separam groundwater protection requirements in 40 CFR Part 191 are unnecessary because individual protection criteria, which take into account all pathways of potential exposure, are sufficiently protective of the groundwater pathway. Individual protection criteria also represent a more uniform and comprehensive approach to protecting public health and safety. The NRC proposed standards in 10 CFR Part 63, if implemented, will ensure that groundwater will remain a resource for the citizens of Nevada and that its use will not pose an unacceptable risk to their health. Finally, application of groundwater protection standards based on the drinking water standards is not necessary at the WIPP facility because any potential releases at WIPP, were they to occur, are expected to be confined to highly saline groundwater (i.e., not a drinking water source).
in June 1997, the NRC commented on the application of the EPA's generic standards at e
WIPP as they relate to disposal of high-level wastes at Yucca Mountain. In that letter, the NRC summarized extensive NRC comments made during the development of the EPA standards including referencing the fact that the technical community had raised significant concerns regarding the scientific basis for, and appropriateness of, the 1985 EPA standards. EPA chose, in its 1993 rulemaking, not to accept comments, including those from NRC, on those portions of the standards that were legislatively reinstated.
Regarding the " Congressionally-mandated' radiation standard of 15 millirems, the Wasto isolation Pilot Plant Land Withdrawal Act (WIPP LWA) reinstated those aspects of the EPA generic standards not specifically found problematic by the First Circuit Court in NRDC v. EPA. EPA believes that the WIPP LWA " arguably" represents an endorsement by Congress of the policy decisions (including risk levels they represent) that underlie the numerical standards in the version of 40 CFR 191 issued in 1985. The NRC disagrees with this view. In revising the 1985 standards, the EPA notes that in those standards, the dose limits were 25 mrem /y to the whole body and 75 mrem /y, to any critical organ. Subsequent to the WIPP LWA, the EPA revised these standards to reflect current practices in measuring and assessing radiation exposures by incorporating an annual 15 mrem effective dose standard. The EPA chose 15 mrem because they believe it represents an equivalent level of risk to that identified by the EPA in the older standards. However, the NRC considers 25 mrem /y total effective dose equivalent (TEDE) as the appropriate dose limit within the range of potential doses represented by the older (1985) dose limits.
~
l Ouestion 8. (continued) 2 The NRC believes that 25 mrem /y is the appropriate dose limit for the geologic o
repository for the following reasons. The Intemational Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) and the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements i
(NCRP) use similar approaches in setting an acceptable risk level. ICRP and NCRP are organizations which are chartered, and international!y revognized, for the development of basic radiation protection standards throughout the world and in the U.S. Their findings are contained in ICRP Publication 60 and in NCRP Report No.116, respectively. Based on their review of health and societalissues, both organizations (while acknowledging the difficulty of setting standards for an " acceptable" public dose limit) arrive at 100 mrem /y as a level that can be said to be acceptable. Current generally applicable Federal Guidance for protection of the public, issued by the EPA in 1960 and 1961, limits doses to members of the public to 500 mrem /y. In a draft 1994 revision to this guidance, the EPA recommended a limit of 100 mrem /y, consistent with international and national recommendations, and NRC regulations, coupled with further constraints to apportion this total dose limit to specific sources of exposure. Thus far, the EPA has not completed the process of revising its Federal Guidance. The Natic nel Academy of Sciences reported that various countries allocate high-level waste disposal between 10 and 30 mrem per year as the dose limit. ICRP emphasizes that these partitions of the individual dose standard for individual activities such as waste disposal, are not limits, but rather constraints, above which doses would not necessarily be considered unacceptable. The NRC believes an all-pathway 25 mrem /y dose limit is consistent with international practices, other NRC regulated activities, and protective of public health and safety.
Regarding a separate groundwater protection standard, the NRC continues to believe that the separate groundwater protection requirements in 40 CFR Part 191 are unnecessary. Specifically, the NRC believes that individual protection criteria, which take into account all pathways, are sufficiently protective of the groundwater patway, and represent a more uniform and comprehensive approach to protecting public health and safety. Further, the use of the existing Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for protection of groundwater in HLW disposalis fundamentally incompatible with the technical basis the EPA employed to derive the HLW standards, and is a continuation of the EPA practice of applying the MCLs found in 40 CFR 141 to other activities without adequate justification or cost benefit analysis.
It is important to note that any potential releases at WIPP, were they to occur, are expected to be confined to highly saline groundwater that is not subject to EPA's MCLs i
in groundwater. Thus, the EPA has never applied its groundwater protection requirements to a high-level waste site where there is suitable groundwater. Outside of salt formations, it is not clear that 40 CFR Part 191's groundwater provisions can be j
achieved. The standards applicable to WIPP and the proposed NRC rule (10 CFR Part
- 63) approved by the Commission for a Yucca Mountain site, adopt effectively similar strategies for protecting public health and safety because of the absence of groundwater issues at the W1PP site. In practice, both standards lay out an all-pathways approach. The approach taken in 10 CFR Part 63 is to rely on an all-pathways individual dose limit to protect the public health and the environment (including groundwater that might be used by the citizens of Nevada). This ensures that no single pathway of exposure will result in an unacceptable risk to the public health. Therefore, 4
f Question 8. (continued) 3 the groundwater will remain a resource for the citizens of Nevada and its use will not pose an unacceptable risk to their health.
I 1
1 I
i I
I I
^l
.y w
y w-
Question 9.
EPA, in its testimony, identified several concerns with H.R. 45 such a=
the 100 millirems per year standard being too high, lack of stylized human intrusion scenarlo, etc. Does NRC's proposed rule address these concerns?
Answer.
Yes, the NRC proposed requirements at 10 CFR Part 63 address, to varying degrees, many of EPA's stated concerns. Specifically, the EPA stated that the 100 millirem per year (mrem /y) standard is not sufficiently protective of public health and safety and is too high compared to other standards. The NRC has proposed an individual protection standard of 25 mrem /y to the average member of the critical group to account for the fact that some members of the critical group may be exposed to more than one source of non-medical, man-made radiation. The EPA also states that H.R. 45 is not consistent with international high-level waste standards. The NRC proposed limit is consistent with national and international radiation protection standards which recommend that individual dose from waste disposal facilities not exceed 30 mrem /y. This is a conservative constraint within the 100 mrem /y public dose limit, and members of the public are likely to comment during the rulemaking that a larger fraction is appropriate to the Yucca Mountain site. Mr. David Joos, President and Chief Operating Officer of Consumer Energy Company, testifying on behalf of the Nuclear Energy Institute, made that point at the February 10,1999, hearing. Others will argue for effectively a zero limit. The Commission received similar comments during its cleanup rulemaking before deciding to set the 25 mrem /y standard in its final rule issued in July 1997. The proposed Part 63 criteria incorporate the internationally-accepted concept of providing protection to the " average member of the critical group" rather than the " average person in the general vicinity" as envisioned in H.R. 45, which is less protective and which the EPA expressed concern about. Also, the proposed Part 63 criteria limit the consequences of an assumed human intrusion scenario to ensure that the public dose limit would not be exceeded in the case of such limited intrusion which is consistent with the 1995 recommendation of the National Academy of Sciences. The EPA stated that H.R. 45 is faulty in that it totally ignores the National Academy of Sciences recommendation to address human intrusion.
The proposed 10 CFR Part 63 does not address EPA's concern regarding the need for a separate dose requirement for the groundwater pathway.
The NRC has proposed an individual protection standard of 25 millirem /y total effective dose equivalent (expected dose) to the average member of the critical group based on an all pathway analysis (the only quantitative limits for judging post closure performance) and specified assumptions to be used for the reference biosphere, critical group, and evaluation of a human intrusion scenario. The proposed requirements are designed to implement a health-based, risk-informed, safety objective for long-term repository performance that is fully protective of public health and safety, and the environment, and is consistent with national and intemational recommendations for radiation protection.