ML20214U127
| ML20214U127 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/16/1986 |
| From: | Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Moorhead C HOUSE OF REP., ENERGY & COMMERCE |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20214U128 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8609300514 | |
| Download: ML20214U127 (4) | |
Text
r 1
?W m er i
[
UNITED STATES o
8" NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 3
\\...../
September 16, 1986 CHAIRMAN The Honorable Carlos J. Moorhead Ranking Minority Leader Subcommittee on Energy Conservation and Power Comittee on Energy and Commerce United States House of Representatives Washington, D. C.
20515
Dear Congressman Moorhead:
This responds to your request for NRC's comments on a substitute form of H.R. 4848, approved by the Subcommittee on Energy Conservation and Power on August 14, 1986 for consideration by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. Our responses to your specific questions about the bill are set forth below. Our other comments are included in the attachment to this letter.
The Feasibility of Applying NRC Requirements for Commercial Nuclear Power Plants to DOE Facilities Sections 101(a) and 101(b) of the bill would require the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to issue standards for radioactive emissions from DOE facilities not subject to NRC or Agreement State regulation that provide a level of safety and environmental protection at least as great as the level provided by NRC standards for NRC licensed facilities.
EPA has already promulgated radioactive emission standards for DOE facilities in 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart H.
These standards are comparable to those applicable to NRC licensed facilities in 40 CFR Part 190 However, DOE would be more knowledgeable and in a better position than the NRC to comment about the technical feasibility of applying emission controls that are as protective as those which are applicable to NRC licensed facilities.
i The Definition of " Radioactive" i
l The bill defines " radioactive" in section 2(7) as "spontanecusly emitting ionizing radiation through a process of nuclear decay at a level detectable above the natural background level." This broad definition could include any radioactive material in the emissions regardless of origin, such as fallout from foreign nuclear weapons tests.
It could also include naturally occurring and acceleration-produced radioactive materials not subject to direct NRC regulation.
Also, it is not clear what is meant by " detectable above the natural background level." State-of-the-art detection instruments currently in use are capable of measuring radiation in quantities far smaller than the l
variations in natural background radiation itself.
l r
8609300514 860916 E
PDR hRE
a '
The Development of Aggregate Limits for Lifetime Public Exposure The current limits in 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart H are annual limits to individuals. Experience with annual limits to individuals indic'ates that lifetime exposures are likely to be much less than the product of 70 years times the assumed limits, and that the lifetime collective dose will be at most a few percent of the lifetime natural background collective dose.
Moreover, given the mobility of most individuals, implementing an aggregate lifetime limit would entail a very~ complicated and expensive tracking and recordkeeping system that would necessarily entail all sources of exposure.
The Development of Models for Voluntary Public Exposure Which Assume that the Public is 0.5 Miles from the Specific Source Many of the potentially affected DOE facilities are located on large Federal reservations, e.g., the Savannah River reservation, the Hanford reservation, and the lands of the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.
The size and location of such reservations provide both security for the
~
facilities and safety for the public.
For many of the facilities on these reservations, the public cannot approach within 0.5 miles of specific sources even on a transient basis. Thus we believe that the 0.5 mile requirement is inappropriate for developing models to calculate public exposure.
Thar.k you for the opportunity to comment on H.R. 4848.
I trust that this is resoonsive to your reouest for comments.
Sincerely,
,[*fu N.
d.
Lando W. Zech, r.
Attachment:
Detailed Comments cc: Rep. Edward J. Markey
Detailed Comments on H.R. 4848 1.
The term " radioactive waste" is defined in section 2(8) in a manner that is not consistent with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, which has separate definitions of "high-level radioactive waste" and
" low-level radioactive wastes." Differences in definitions could lead to unwieldy implementation of all statutes pertaining to radioactive waste.
2.
The inclusion of the clause, "... or by an agreement State under section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2021)" in section 101(a) is unnecessary as NRC retains regulatory authority over Federal activities in Agreement St-tes (5150.10 of 10 CFR Part 150).
3.
Section 101(b) requires 1that EPA standards for DOE facilities provide a level of protection at least as great as the level of protection provided by standards for " fat.ilities" licensed by NRC.
Under the Atomic Energy Act " facility" has a specific meaning (i.e.,
production and utilization).
It is not clear if the term used here is to have the same narrow meaning as in the Atomic Energy Act.
If so, then the EPA standards proposed here may be inappropriate for other kinds of facilities and materials for which NRC also has standards.
4.
Sections 101(c)(2) and 101(c)(3)(B) require the promulgation of standards 12 months before models calculating the exposures are~ issued.
.Models are usually developed to support standards.
5.
The term "models" in Section 101(c)(3) needs to be better defined. The NRC, for example, would use models in this context to mean actual numerical simulations to determine the behavior of a natural system at a site.
Such a usage implies a site specific exercise that requires calibration and validation utilizing an extensive data base collected in the site vicinity over an extended time period (i.e., one or two years). What may be meant here is the term " Codes," which are programs that are used in computer simulations that are part of the modeling process.
Section 101(c)(3)(B) requires that models for calculating public exposure shall be issued not later than 24 months after enactment.
Given the current state of the science of groundwater modeling, the development of validated models to determine public exposures within this time frame would appear to te very difficult. Also, it is not clear as to whether DOE or EPA is to do the public exposure calcula-tions, once the models are in place.
Is DOE to do the modeling and provide the results to EPA, or is EPA to obtain data from DOE and use the data to do the model calculations?
6.
In view of the requirements of Section 101(c)(3)(B), the requirement of Section 102 that monitoring be conducted not later than 24 months after enactment implies that data collection for use in the models for calcu-lating public exposure must begin no later than the date the models are issued.
It may be difficult to design and establish a data collection
- program that is to be used as model input without advance knowledge of the model data input requirements.
7.
The limits on civil. penalty authority in. Sections 104(b) and 104(c) are l
vauge and potentially contradictory with respect to the amount of.
penalty that may be imposed for each violation of a standard. Section 104(b)(5) suggests a $25,000 ceiling per violation in some instances, while Section 104(c) suggests a $1,000,000 ceiling. Section 104 also is not clear on whether there must be an administrative hearing under Section 104(b)(3) before the Administrator attempts collection under Section 104(c).
8.
Section 107 provides that states acting under an agreement with EPA shall " share" investigation and enforcement powers and duties granted to EPA. It is not clear how EPA would " share" if the States are authorized to perform all of EPA's functions.
If there is some sharing, there is the possibility of conflicting interpretations of the law and policies concerning the enforcement actions required. This provision for state investigation and enforcement of DOE facilities would also result in an anomalous situation where private nuclear activities licensed under the Atomic Energy Act are subject to exclusive Federal regulation of radiation hazards, but DOE nuclear activities are subject to dual Federal and State regulation.
9.
Groundwater should be included in Section 201(b)(2).
(See Chapter 5, "Hydrogeologic Investigations of Groundwater Contamination" in Protecting the Nation's Groundwater frem Contamiration, Washington, l,
October 1984.) gress, Office of Technology Assessment, OTA-2-233, D.C.:
U.S. Con
- 10. Section 203 requires the Secretary of Energy to submit a report to.
Congress describing all sites that "present a threat" to public health and safety or the environment "due to past disposal" of hazardous waste. This section leaves " threat" undefined. The section also does not define "past disposal" and does not cover storage.
j
- 11. Section 206, which authorizes the President to exempt any DOE facility from requirements established under this Act, should be clarified to indicate whether the President may also exempt DOE facilities from any State requirements.
{
- 12. Section 302(3) provides that the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA), as amended, shall not apply to nuclear nstes disposed of at a repository under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. Section 303, however, provides j
that the amendments of Title III may not be construed to alter Congressional intent concerning the application of the SWDA to mixed I
waste disposal at facilities " licensed by... the Nuclear Regulatory Commission." We are uncertain as to whether repositories are or are not to comply with.the Solid Waste Disposal Act.
r l
- 13. The time periods set forth in H.R. 4848 are too short for standards setting of adequate quality. There is scarcely time allowed for the mechanical procedures of standards setting, leaving no time for scientific work.
i
-