ML20246L594
| ML20246L594 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/03/1989 |
| From: | Beckjord E NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| To: | Knebel J AMERICAN MINING CONGRESS |
| References | |
| FRN-51FR30870, FRN-56FR23360, RULE-PR-20 AA38-2, AA38-2-0199, AA38-2-199, NUDOCS 8907180471 | |
| Download: ML20246L594 (2) | |
Text
- _ -
JUL 3 1989 t
j 1tr. John A. Knebel, President 4
American Mining Congress g1 Suite 300 4)g;'A 1920 N. Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C.
20036 j
Dear Mr. Knebel:
d This letter is in response to your letter of May 11, 1989, concerning the problems of demonstrating compliance with the lower radon-222 concentration limits in the revised 10 CFR Part 20. This problem was identified by the NRC staff earlier this year, and we have been examining the issue and possible solutions in detail. We have also discussed the issue with members of the American Mining Congress in an effort to obtain accurate data for uranium recovery facilities.
The NRC faces in this issue the dual problems of relatively high ambient radon concentrations in the environment and the application of consistent dose limits for the general public.
We are considering a proposal that would provide increased flexibility by allowing licensees to submit site-specific air concentration limits for NRC staff approval.
Such limits could better reflect actual exposure conditions, including the percentage of equilibrium between radon and its particulate decay products on a site-specific basis.
This flexibility would be in addition to the provisions which would permit the evaluation of doses to individuals at the actual location of the individuals as an alternate means of compliance, and allow licensees to request a temporary higher dose' limit (up to 0.5 rem per year).
We recognize the particular concern of the American Mining Congress on the radon issue, and we appreciate the information related to the issue that you have provided. The NRC staff plans to forward a position to the Commission in the near future which will address this and other issues related to the revision of 10 CFR Part 20.
Sincerely, ORIGIRAL SIGlc BY Eric S. Beckjord, Director Office of Nuclear Reculatory Research khk71 l
"f$471 890703 -
fN //
1
}
- ~ ~ - - - - - - - -
~' ]
.g, ;
.AMEEGCAN x
MDf!NG MNUMESS
- {
May 11, 1989 sa m ass me:
some 300 l a N treet K W.
r
. _nc.aaoss Nuclear Regulatory Commission anz/est am 1717 H Street, N.W.
Qj'jg Washington, DC 20555 Fas: sot /ast 7835 Gentlemen en uM,,,n" RE:
Proposed Final Rules for Protection ue.cn n.naen.
Against Radiation in 10 CFR ngCa""""
Parts'19 et,sy.-
t MUc n,.
The American Mining Congress (AMC) filed gH%
comments (on behalf of its uranium producing mem-bers) on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC a.,.
g o,
QQ or the Commission) proposed revisions to 10 CFR o e x, w Part 20 in 1986.
AMC has recently becomo aware of a n="*'
a potentially serious problem for its uranium pro-
,'*"*"Q ducing licensee members as a result of the proposed 3,,,,,,y final revised-radon limit in Table 2 of Appendix B-awn.,s as,,,
to 10 CFR Part 20.
The value for Radon-222 (with hem,w daughters) allowable to unrestricted areas will be 8'"*""'*"*
lowered from 3 picoeuries per liter (pci/1) to 0.1 l
g pCi/1 above background at the fenceline of the i
,,,,. x m % c, restricted area.
CoMn A Cemeten.Jr. Cneogo DaT"cQ"'"
The plain facts are that none of the mill,
(*c o * * = taneoa or even in situ, licensees will be able to meet the E"""de.',,'*,,"*** C 0.1 pCi/1 radon standard consistently. ' Addition-D '.**".".',, T, '= PA ally, the 0.1 pCi/1 limit above background cannot
- dwan ase**
be measured accurately since it is miniscule rela-n,
- aad o t'*'"*n C**ad tive to the daily variations in background radon, j
fn.n tN'w',",ym c*
which range from 0.1 to 6.0 pCi/1.
Thus, while the
)
Q**y-".u w e no proposed final limit may represent sound mathe-natics based on regulatory " theory, it represents e exo g"g",6*'=ma co bad regulatory practice due to the ubiquitous no.ramaom nse w,,*
nature of radon at levels that dwarf the standard.
1 coen 8t pen-o Yemm d*x*y AMC is aware that some on the NRC staff L***"gg*
recognize that the new limit poses an acute problem j
w vA x i= woumon for uranium licensees because AMC has upon request "da"'** "'"g*
submitted considerable data regarding radon concen-annure n.co.ure w n.
trations at various licensed facilities.
AMC is, g g g *"****
however, unaware whether the results of those sub-anan o amas(own.
missions will be considered by the Commission in
' E* "w""'*Of '"
making its final decision on the 10 CFR 20 limits.
unc 8 tan wm ownse ui It is for this reason that AMC is bringing the mat-LT,,,,;,W ter directly to the Commission's attention with the a== s omaan. e.,- wi hope that it will receive serious consideration at O d'""c*,. T.
the Commission level.
- C r%
(
J Bugues Wwner.$sn Manuel AZ S len MacO,egor.peow wyk t M T Ceremoa Creenmen t Chanes F Serber 9
[i
+-==== ems o=--
_0
~,
n <) R
?q eq
~
V/&MYG
-/
f i Murl::r1 Regulatory. commission.
T May'11, 1989 Page Two t.
The Commission has traditionally _ set radiation protec-tion limits at levels it deems protective of public health and which include an ample margin of safety.
The Commission has then relied upon the ALARA (as low as reasonably-achievable) policy to further lower: exposures to populations. and individuals below the regulatory limits.
This approach to regulation, as noted'in the recent testimony of Dr. Paperia11o of the NRC to the Radiation Advisory Committee of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
Sc13nce Advisory Board, allows for. regulatory flexibility for boti the regulator and the regulated.
As a result, it would'be unwi.3, unfortunate and inconsistent to set the radon concentra-tion. tait in 10 CFR 20 at the unrealistic 0.1 pCi/l level.
This
- level, ven if it were measurable, is at the lowe.: end of the variati-of natural background and would essential 1.y remove.all regulato y flexibility 'to the point of requiring "rege;1ation-by-exception."
Regulation-by-exception is not a favored regulatory posture.
Although the proposal apparently provides some oppor-tunity for liceneses to invoke exceptions, it is apparent that.
there are genuine technical problems regarding compliance that 1
have not been envisioned by the staff.
They relate to the equi-librium factor associated with radon daughter concentrations at a-facility fenceline.
Under any circumstances, this subject needs to be addressed in some detail in order to assure an appropriate final rule.
EPA currently has an action level of 4 pCi/1 for radon indoors where its decay products pose the most serious potential health hazard.
It is incongruous that NRC would, at the very time it is critical of EPA's proposed Clean Air Act regulations for NRC licensees (including uranium licensees), promulgate a regulatory limit for outdoor radon concentrations that is 40 times lower than EPA's indoor action level.
Additionally, since NRC and EPA have on numerous occasions acknowledged on the public record that radon emissions from uranium milling facilities dis-appear into background within 0.5 to 1 kilometer of the fenceline of a pile, setting a limit of 0.1 pCi/l appears overly conserva-
{
tive, to say the least.
This has been confirmed by the National Academy of Sciences / National Research Council's 1986 Mill Tail-ings Study, which indicates that the excess risk to anyone beyond a few kilometers from a uranium mill tailings facility is by any measure " trivial."
In consideration of the above, AMC respectfully requests that the Commission itself specifically address this issue by requesting staff briefings and, if deemed necessary and appro-
]
I e
d Nuclear l Regulatory Commission
. r May 11','.1989
- O Page Three
'C priate,'a' presentation by AMC member companies.
Carefu'l con-sideration at this late'date in the regulatory process may be-l, inconvenient, but it is necessary to alleviate the serious and unnecessary problems that will be created by.the' proposed final O.1 pCi/1 limit.
i..
F Sincerely.,
- 9. l(a n A. Knebel President
.4 cc Lando
. Zech, Jr., Chairman, Nuclear Regulatory Commission Kenneth M. Carr, Commissioner,. Nuclear Regulatory Commission James R. Curtiss, Commissioner, Nuclear Regulatory Commission Thomas M. Roberts, Commissioner, Nuclear Regulatory -
' Commission William C. Parler, General Counsel, Nuclear Regulatory Commission Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary, Nuclear Regulatory Commission Victor Stello, Jr., Executive Director for Operations, Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
y e
-e.
a s eWas.*
t
___.._______._m__________________.____.____.._____.__.__._..._.___._.._____.._.m.___
_m.____.____
.m-____.._
__.________-___m._..___
Y i,
c/ '
NOTE T0:. Document Control gm al6/de/ NM FR0M:
//n L' p y m e g,J ff),.4 Please place the attached document in the PDR using the following file and file points:
PDR File Related Documents (Select One)
(Enter if appropriate)
Proposed Rule (PR)- (o ACRS Minutes No.
Reg. Guide ProposedRule(PR')
Draft Reg. Guide Draft Reg. Guide Petition (PRM)
Reg. Guide Petition (PRM)
Effective Rule (RM)
. Effective Rule (RM)
. Federal Register Notice.
SD Task No.
('siW NUREG Report-0 4
Contract No.
i C 9h f 10
Subject:
/C
/
t
_