ML091170117: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
Line 18: Line 18:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:June 1, 2009 1Enclosure 1 Staff Responses to Public Comments on Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1186 (Proposed Revision 2 of Regulatory Guide 1.21)
{{#Wiki_filter:1 Enclosure 1 Staff Responses to Public Comments on Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1186 (Proposed Revision 2 of Regulatory Guide 1.21)
Public Comments NRC Response ID# Origin  pp Sec. Comment Resolution 1 NEI All All Radiation protection overall would be better served if the NRC were to revise all of the regulations and regulatory guidance concurrently to reflect the current radiation protection standard. The current piecemeal approach has resulted in inconsistencies and confusion. This document references ICRP 2, and ICRP 26. The ICRP recently released ICRP 103 and the NRC is actively considering amending the basis for its regulations as a result. NRC should adopt a more holistic approach to revising the regulatory guidance for calculating dose to the public (and workers). There is limited benefit to revising RG 1.21 to reflect ICRP 26 when 10CFR 50 Appendix I, 40 CFR 190, RG 1.109, and NUREG 0133 all continue to use ICRP 2 and the NRC is planning to update 10 CFR 20 to meet ICRP 103. All of the radiation protection-effluent control documents should be revised concurrently to avoid confusion and to minimize the potential for inadvertent non-compliance. The staff disagrees with the comment. The existing guidance is over 30 years old. It is necessary to update this regulatory guide to bring the guidance up to current industry practices. This RG reflects current regulations (10 CFR 20 and Appendix I) that are based on ICRP-26 and ICRP-2 therefore it is necessary to include references to both. 2 NEI  All All This draft imposes a number of new approaches in terms of monitoring requirements for radionuclides, characterizing and reporting activity, multiple and divergent methods for assessing and summing dose impacts, etc. and is likely to require, among other things, revision and V&V of dose assessment software. A realistic backfit analysis needs to be performed using the existing regulations and The staff disagrees with the comment. The NRC issues regulatory guides to describe methods the staff considers acceptable for use in implementing specific parts of the agency's regulations, to explain techniques that the staff uses in evaluating specific problems or postulated accidents, and to provide guidance to applicants. Regulatory June 1, 2009 2regulatory guidance as the baseline. In the past, the NRC had stated that it was unnecessary to revise Regulatory Guide 1.109 because the cost to the licensees to revise dose assessment. guides are not substitutes for regulations, and compliance with them is not required. The methods and practices outlined in regulatory guides are one acceptable method for implementing the regulations. Nuclear power reactor licensees may continue to use Revision 1 of Regulatory Guide 1.21, dated June, 1974, or may adopt other procedures or practices that provide for the measuring, evaluating, and reporting radioactive material in liquid and gaseous effluents and solid waste. A backfit analysis is not appropriate for this regulatory guide. 3 NEI  4 B.1 [The last paragraph in B.1] states that NUREG-1301/1302 provide the detailed implementation guidance for effluent and environmental monitoring. Having said that, there should be no need to duplicate, nor expand upon, those requirements in RG 1.21. RG 1.21 should emphasize reporting effluent releases, and assessing the impact of those releases to areas beyond the site boundary, only to the extent necessary to provide additional clarification or guidance that does not exist in NUREG-1301/1302. RG 1.21 should not establish additional requirements above and beyond what is required to show compliance with effluent dose limits, such as imposition of calculation of dose to occupational workers onsite. The staff agrees with the comment. The document was revised to accommodate this comment. Much duplicative information was removed (e.g., the tables for Environmental LLDs and Reporting Levels were removed). Additionally, duplication of information already contained in NUREG-1301/1302 is avoided where practical. However, there are instances where clearly stating the objectives establishes the correct framework for a staff position. It is part of a long-range plan to consolidate various historical documents (Health Physics Position Statements, NUREGS, etc) into staff positions as the regulatory guides on radioactive effluents are revised. 4 NEI  16 18 22 B.5 B.5.7 B.5.11.5.2 There are new requirements in draft RG 1.21 that are inconsistent with other NRC regulations and guidance including: NUREG-1301/1302, RG 1.109, NUREG-0133, NUREG-0543, and the Federal Register for the most recent 10CFR20 revision (FR, The staff disagrees with parts of the comment as described below. RGs are not requirements. Additionally, although licensees Technical Specifications may allow licensees to not calculate 40 CFR June 1, 2009 3Vol. 56, No. 98, 5/21/91), as well as licensee Technical Specifications. Under existing regulations, the licensee is only required to demonstrate compliance with 40CFR190 if a 10CFR50 effluent dose objective is exceeded by a factor of two or more. Federal Register, Vol. 56, No. 98, page 23374, states that demonstrating compliance with 10CFR50, App. I and/or 40CFR190 will be deemed to demonstrate compliance with the 0.1 rem 10CFR20 dose limit. However, DG-1186 requires dose calculations for the 0.1 rem TEDE (10CFR20) limit in addition to 10CFR50, App. I, and 40CFR190 calculations. Further, for 10CFR20 doses, it is technically incorrect to sum whole body doses calculated with ICRP-2 dose factors (RG 1.109 dose conversion factors) to demonstrate compliance with TEDE dose limits from ICRP-30. 190 dose unless radioactive effluents exceed twice the 10 CFR 50 Appendix I design objectives, licensees are nonetheless accountable to the regulatory requirement that the 40 CFR 190 limits will not be exceeded. The staff agrees with parts of the comment as described below. Demonstrating compliance with EPA's 40 CFR 190 is sufficient to demonstrate compliance with NRC's 100 mrem TEDE dose limit for members of the public. Sections B.5, B.5.5, B.5.6, B.5.7, and B.5.11 were revised. 5 NEI  56 Table A-5 As stated above, the summation of liquid and gaseous effluent whole body doses per ICRP-2 in RG 1.109 is incongruent with TEDE dose requirements in 10CFR20. Adding a direct radiation component assessed by TLDs may result in duplication of dose from effluents, and would result in an overestimation of dose impact. See comments on pages 22 and 23 of the draft regulatory guide. In addition, the dose contribution from a direct radiation component most likely will result in a different sector and distance being identified than would occur for effluent releases only. The staff agrees with the comment. The document was revised to accommodate this comment. Table A-5 was deleted. 6 NEI 3 B.1 Since RG 1.109 is referred to by NUREG 1301/1302 and in the draft RG 1.21, it should be included as a reference in section B.1 Regulatory Guidance. The staff agrees with the comment. NUREG-1301 and NUREG-1302 were added to the list of references.
Public Comments                                                             NRC Response ID#   Origin       pp Sec.                             Comment                                           Resolution 1     NEI         All All       Radiation protection overall would be better served   The staff disagrees with the comment. The if the NRC were to revise all of the regulations and   existing guidance is over 30 years old. It is regulatory guidance concurrently to reflect the       necessary to update this regulatory guide to current radiation protection standard.                 bring the guidance up to current industry The current piecemeal approach has resulted in         practices. This RG reflects current inconsistencies and confusion. This document           regulations (10 CFR 20 and Appendix I) that references ICRP 2, and ICRP 26. The ICRP               are based on ICRP-26 and ICRP-2 therefore recently released ICRP 103 and the NRC is actively     it is necessary to include references to both.
June 1, 2009 47 NEI  4 B.2 In section B.2, the second item (5) should be corrected as follows:  "Compliance with the effluent reporting requirements of 10 CFR 50.36a". The staff agrees with the comment. The typographical error was corrected as indicated. 8 NEI  5 1(b) This example of less significant or intermittent release points includes many systems that are most likely not currently captured in many plant's ODCMs, nor identified as required in NUREG-1301/1302.
considering amending the basis for its regulations as a result. NRC should adopt a more holistic approach to revising the regulatory guidance for calculating dose to the public (and workers). There is limited benefit to revising RG 1.21 to reflect ICRP 26 when 10CFR 50 Appendix I, 40 CFR 190, RG 1.109, and NUREG 0133 all continue to use ICRP 2 and the NRC is planning to update 10 CFR 20 to meet ICRP 103. All of the radiation protection-effluent control documents should be revised concurrently to avoid confusion and to minimize the potential for inadvertent non-compliance.
The NRC should perform a meaningful backfit analysis before proceeding. The staff disagrees with the comment. The ODCM should include some recognition (e.g., a list) of the potentially significant release points for the site. This staff guidance is appropriate based on 10 CFR 50.36a regarding reporting "principal" nuclides in effluents and 10 CFR 50, Appendix I which states, "account shall be taken of all sources and pathways within the plant contributing to the particular type of effluent being considered." In order to underscore the importance of the above regulations and to ease implementation of this RG, the construct of "significant release points" and "less-significant release points" has been revised as follows. Less-significant release points do not have to be listed in the ODCM unless they could become a significant release point based on expected operational occurrences (e.g., primary to secondary leakage for PWRs or failed fuel). This list of potentially significant release points does not need to be exhaustive or all-inclusive with respect to all possible operational occurrences but instead should demonstrate the licensee has reasonably anticipated expected operational occurrences and their effects on radioactive discharges. This RG now recommends less-significant release points should be listed in site documentation.
2    NEI          All All      This draft imposes a number of new approaches in      The staff disagrees with the comment. The terms of monitoring requirements for radionuclides,    NRC issues regulatory guides to describe characterizing and reporting activity, multiple and    methods the staff considers acceptable for divergent methods for assessing and summing            use in implementing specific parts of the dose impacts, etc. and is likely to require, among    agencys regulations, to explain techniques other things, revision and V&V of dose assessment      that the staff uses in evaluating specific software. A realistic backfit analysis needs to be    problems or postulated accidents, and to performed using the existing regulations and           provide guidance to applicants. Regulatory June 1, 2009
June 1, 2009 5The issue regarding a backfit analysis is addressed in NRCs comment to NEI question #2. 9 NEI  6 9 1 The Reg. Guide should explicitly state that only plant-related licensed material must be reported in the ARERR. Naturally-occurring and/or background radioactivity, such as K-40 and U/Th progeny, should not be reported in the effluent reports. The staff agrees with the comment. To ensure that background radioactivity would not be included in the reported results, the first sentence of section A was revised to mention "plant-related activity" and to exclude background radiation. 10 NEI 6 1 This revision establishes a new threshold for what is considered "significant" related to release activity or dose impact. Regulatory Guide 1.109 established 10% as the threshold for determining whether an exposure pathway should be factored into dose calculations. This draft RG 1.21 drops that threshold to 1%, and applies it to all activity released and/or to overall dose impact without any meaningful backfit analysis or health-based justification. Other than the subjective phrase "-to the extent reasonable", this revision does not allow licensees to omit an impact less than 1%; licensees are effectively required to continue to track these as "less than significant", with apparently no lower cutoff. The staff disagrees that RG 1.21 Revision 2 revises the threshold for "significant exposure pathways" established by RG 1.109. These criteria (10% in RG 1.109 and 1% in RG 1.21) are used in different ways and for different purposes. The staff agrees that a new 1% threshold is established for purposes of determining the "principal nuclides" and "significant release points." The staff guidance in RG 1.109 section "C" (i.e., 10%) applies to determining the significance of new (or "other") exposure pathways not listed in RG 1.109 (not release points). The guidance in RG 1.109 does not provide guidance for reporting (or not reporting) the activity discharged in radioactive effluents. The guidance in RG 1.109 does not provide a basis for adjusting the sample frequencies for release points. That is why the "1%
 
concept" in RG 1.21 was developed. The 1% concept in RG 1.21 allows licensees to modify sampling and analysis of less-significant release points. This allows licensees to focus their efforts on significant release points (and nuclides) and address June 1, 2009 6less-significant release points (and not principal nuclides) is an appropriate manner. The 1% staff guidance in RG 1.21 provides licensees a risk-informed method to meet the regulatory requirements of 10 CFR 50 Appendix I, Section III.A.1 -"such that the actual exposure - is unlikely to be underestimated" where "account shall be taken of all sources and pathways within the plant contributing to the particular type of effluent being considered." The issue regarding a backfit analysis is addressed in NRCs comment to NEI question #2. 11 NEI  7 1 The notification of the public is described in detail in NEI 07-07 "INDUSTRY GROUND WATER PROTECTION INITIATIVE - FINAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT" issued August 31, 2007. There is no known regulatory basis for the inclusion of such a requirement by the staff in this regulatory guide.
2 regulatory guidance as the baseline. In the past,   guides are not substitutes for regulations, the NRC had stated that it was unnecessary to        and compliance with them is not required.
We believe this to be good practice and would continue to do so as a part of the GWPI. The staff agrees that NEI 07-07 contains details regarding the voluntary ground water initiative. The staff disagrees that there is no regulatory requirements regarding communication with the public (see 10 CFR 50.72(b)). The section on "Monitoring Leaks and spills was revised to clarify and sharpen the intent. The intent is to (1) prevent the unmonitored release of radioactive materials to offsite areas and (2) ensure proper reporting of materials released offsite. And (3) highlight NRCs interest in notifications to public officials with respect to 10 CFR 50.72(b)(xi). This guidance should be included in this RG since it is concerned with reporting releases. 12 NEI  7 1 The proposed definition of "promptly" with regards to remediation of a leak or spill is unreasonable and is not always practically achievable. Licensees should have the flexibility to define the appropriate timeframe for clean-up of a spill or leak, taking into The staff disagrees with the comment. It is important to include a timeframe in the RG. 48 hour is an example timeframe that the NRC considers to be a reasonably timely response for prompt remediation. This does June 1, 2009 7consideration ALARA, realistic exposure pathways, and the site-specific soil and ground water characteristics. This apparently arbitrary time frame is inconsistent with current requirements for materials and fuel cycle. not exclude the use of other time frames. Licensees may use other timeframes if it is justified. 13 NEI  8 1 This discussion states that the list of nuclides in NUREG-1301/1302 for which LLDs are specified is not a list of principal nuclides and is only a starting point.
revise Regulatory Guide 1.109 because the cost to    The methods and practices outlined in the licensees to revise dose assessment.             regulatory guides are one acceptable method for implementing the regulations.
The draft goes on to say that "principal" nuclides may be site specific and could make compliance with "requirements" difficult.
Nuclear power reactor licensees may continue to use Revision 1 of Regulatory Guide 1.21, dated June, 1974, or may adopt other procedures or practices that provide for the measuring, evaluating, and reporting radioactive material in liquid and gaseous effluents and solid waste.
This definition conflicts with the definition in the NUREGS and is likely to result in confusion and potential non-compliance.
A backfit analysis is not appropriate for this regulatory guide.
Further, the risk-based approach could have the unintended consequence of allowing licensees to trim the list of "principal" nuclides to only one or two nuclides. For example, if gaseous tritium releases account for curie-level quantities and 99.99% of the total activity and also account for 95% of the dose (with the other 5% coming from I-131 and C-14), then potentially, all other nuclides would not be analyzed or reported as long as they contribute less that 1% of the activity or dose.
3    NEI    4  B.1       [The last paragraph in B.1] states that NUREG-      The staff agrees with the comment. The 1301/1302 provide the detailed implementation        document was revised to accommodate this guidance for effluent and environmental monitoring. comment. Much duplicative information was Having said that, there should be no need to         removed (e.g., the tables for Environmental duplicate, nor expand upon, those requirements in   LLDs and Reporting Levels were removed).
In addition, this allowance for licensees to drop nuclides from the principal nuclides list directly conflicts with the requirement to report ALL activity as established on page 6 [of the proposed draft RG 1.21]. The staff agrees that RG 1.21 Revision 2 introduces a risk-informed concept with respect to determining principal nuclides and establishing the appropriate analytical sensitivity (e.g., LLD) for analyses. The staff also agrees that the risk-informed concept could be improved by including some of the ideas presented in this comment. As a result, the words "starting point" have been deleted. This staff guidance applies a risk-informed philosophy that allows licensees to focus the appropriate attention on those radionuclides that predominate at a nuclear power plant site (i.e., those that are most important contributors to the dose to members of the public or the total activity at a site). The staff guidance does not conflict with NUREG-1301/1302 since the guidance suggests licensees may continue to use the guidance in NUREG-1301/1302. Two methods of determining principal radionuclides are provided in RG 1.21; (1) use the existing list of principal radionuclides from NUREG-1301/1302, and (2) use a risk informed approach. Both methods are acceptable, and licensees may choose another method provided it is documented and it satisfies the regulation (10 CFR 50.36a).
RG 1.21. RG 1.21 should emphasize reporting          Additionally, duplication of information effluent releases, and assessing the impact of      already contained in NUREG-1301/1302 is those releases to areas beyond the site boundary,    avoided where practical. However, there are only to the extent necessary to provide additional  instances where clearly stating the clarification or guidance that does not exist in     objectives establishes the correct framework NUREG-1301/1302. RG 1.21 should not establish       for a staff position. It is part of a long-range additional requirements above and beyond what is     plan to consolidate various historical required to show compliance with effluent dose       documents (Health Physics Position limits, such as imposition of calculation of dose to Statements, NUREGS, etc) into staff occupational workers onsite.                         positions as the regulatory guides on radioactive effluents are revised.
June 1, 2009 8The choice is left to the licensee. The NRC thinks it is important to allow licensees the choice to use the existing approach (NUREG-1301/1302) or a risk informed approach. The use of a risk informed approach (involving "principal radionuclides") allows licensees some options with respect to selecting LLDs for analysis of waste streams that do not provide significant contribution to effluent dose or activity. This flexibility may be desirable to some licensees and is consistent with a risk-informed philosophy. Licensees are not required to implement a risk-informed approach. Licensees may consider other approaches or may continue to use the (historical) approach outlined in NUREG-1301/1302. The NRCs intent is to allow licensees the option to shift toward a risk-informed approach that provides guidance acceptable to meet the regulations to ensure adequate protection of the public. NUREG-1301 and NUREG-1302 provide a definition of "principal gamma emitter," but do not define the term "principal radionuclide."  NUREG-1301/1302 list 11 gamma emitters in liquid effluents for which the LLD control applies (17 gamma emitters for gaseous effluents), and says that other "gamma peaks" should be analyzed and reported. Analytical sensitivity levels for the other gamma peaks are not provided in NUREG-1301/1302. As a result, NUREG-1301/1302 does not provide analytical sensitivity levels for all radionuclides that may be present at a site. Providing June 1, 2009 9sensitivity levels for all nuclides present at a site is desirable from the NRCs perspective of ensuring adequate protection of the public. Rev 1 of RG 1.21 (1974) listed a common sensitivity level of 5E-7 uCi/ml for all gamma emitters in liquid effluents. Although this was reasonable and appropriate guidance when RG 1.21 was published in 1974, this is no longer possible for some gamma emitting nuclides (e.g., Te-125m) unless licensees adopt significantly longer count times or employ alternate analytical techniques. The risk informed approach of "principal nuclides" addresses this issue while ensuring adequate protection of the public. The regulation that forms the basis for the ARERR (10 CFR 50.36a) says licensees "shall submit a report to the Commission annually that specifies the quantities of each of the principal radionuclides released to the unrestricted area-."  The guidance in RG 1.21 is intended to outline a staff position the NRC considers acceptable to meet this regulation. NUREG-1301/1302 do not address the term "principal radionuclide." The concept of principal radionuclide may not be used as a basis to not report nuclides detected in a waste stream. As described in DG-1186, the concept of "principal nuclide" may be used by the licensee to select an appropriate LLD for analysis. Page 6 of the proposed RG 1.21 said if a nuclide is detected, it should be reported. That statement is consistent with NUREG-1301/1302 and it does not conflict with the June 1, 2009 10concept of principal nuclide. 14 NEI  9 1 The reg. guide requires the reporting of carbon 14 which is a new reporting requirement for U. S. reactors. Carbon 14 is a very low energy beta release with very low dose conversion factor. The basis for the new reporting requirement is discussed in Section 1. The option to calculate C-14 effluent discharge is a reasonable alternative to monitoring. Since we are required to report uncertainties on our measurements, the NRC needs to provide guidance on how licensees should determine what uncertainties would apply to C-14 release estimated by scaling the power rating of the reactor. The staff agrees with the comment, and the following guidance has been added to the document. Licensees need to account for and report all principal radionuclides; i.e.,
4    NEI    16 B.5        There are new requirements in draft RG 1.21 that    The staff disagrees with parts of the 18 B.5.7      are inconsistent with other NRC regulations and      comment as described below.
those contributing more than 1% by dose or activity. C-14 may be a principal radionuclide contributing more than 1% of the total radioactive effluent by activity or by dose, and if so, should be considered a principal radionuclide and reported in the annual report. The following statement was added to the document:  It is not necessary to calculate uncertainties for C-14 nor include C-14 uncertainty in any subsequent calculation of overall uncertainty. 15 NEI  9 2 The words "up to three volumes" implies that anything in excess of 3 volumes is not desirable, and that even 1/10th of a tank volume would be adequate, since it meets the definition of "up to three". The language needs to be clarified. The staff agrees with the comment. The wording was changed to reflect the actual intent (to recirculate at least 3 volumes). 16 NEI  10 2 There are several concerns about short-lived nuclides and the proposed changes to regulatory guidance, chief among which is the conflict with current regulation in 10 CFR 50, and guidance in RG 1.109 and NUREG-1301/1302. Also, there seems to be confusion in the basis and a potential misleading statement made regarding decay-correcting short lived activity to sample midpoint. Short-lived activity collected on days 1 through 6 of a 1-week sample period should be accounted for in the buildup-decay equation in gamma spec software. However, if the activity is decay-corrected to the sample mid-point, the The staff agrees with the comment. This section was revised.
guidance including: NUREG-1301/1302, RG 1.109,       RGs are not requirements. Additionally, 22 B.5.11.5.2 NUREG-0133, NUREG-0543, and the Federal              although licensees Technical Specifications Register for the most recent 10CFR20 revision (FR,   may allow licensees to not calculate 40 CFR June 1, 2009
June 1, 2009 11activity level will be grossly OVERESTIMATED by several orders of magnitude, potentially by as much as a factor of 1E+47 for 138Cs and other short-lived nuclides. One option to avoid this overestimation would be to delay the counting of particulate filters for 24 hours following collection to allow these nuclides, and any naturally-occurring radon progeny, to decay before counting the filters. 17 NEI  10 11 3 Not all existing plants are committed to RG 1.23. Each plant's licensing basis identifies the regulatory guide commitments. The staff agrees with the comment. The reference to RG 1.23 on meteorology is provided as an acceptable method of measuring and determining meteorological parameters. Regulatory guides are not substitutes for regulations, and compliance with them is not required. The methods and practices outlined in regulatory guides are one acceptable method for implementing the regulations. The verbiage was changed from "should use" to "should consider using" 18 NEI  11 12 3 The NRC "Liquid Radioactive Release Lessons Learned Taskforce Final Report" (LRRLLTF) concluded that no regulatory requirement exist for the monitoring of groundwater onsite exists {"- there are no specific regulatory requirements for licensees to conduct routine on-site environmental surveys and monitoring for potential abnormal spills and leaks of radioactive liquids" page 19 of the LRRLLTF report}. The staff agrees with the LRRLLTF Final Report. The LRRLLTF Final Report concluded no routine on-site surveys are required for potential abnormal spills and leaks of radioactive liquids. However as noted in the following sentence of the LRRLLTF report, surveys are required for on-site spills and leaks in order to satisfy the records requirements of 10 CFR 50.75(g). 19 NEI  11 3 The emphasis on on-site groundwater monitoring for inadvertent subsurface contamination from leaks and spills is unjustified given that the NRC's Liquid Effluent Releases Task Force Lessons Learned Final Report issued September 1, 2006 stated, "The most significant conclusion of the task force regarded public health impacts. Although The staff disagrees with the comment. Due to ground water contamination events over the last 4 years, NEI and the industry have made changes to industry guidance documents. Because subsurface contamination events may impact reporting of radioactive effluents, it is appropriate to June 1, 2009 12there have been a number of industry events where radioactive liquid was released to the environment in an unplanned and unmonitored fashion, based on the data available, the task force did not identify any instances where the health of the public was impacted." (page 4 LRRLLTF report) include such discussions in this guidance document. 20 NEI  All All The NRC has now generated several guidance documents on the same subject of groundwater monitoring that are duplicative and are likely to have the unintended consequence of resulting in conflicting guidance. These include Regulatory Guide 4.21, Regulatory draft Regulatory Guide 4.1 and the Draft Guidance to Implement Survey and Monitoring Requirements Pursuant to Proposed Rule Text in 10 CFR 20.1406(c) and 10 CFR 20.1501(a) that supports the Decommissioning Planning Rulemaking. All of the proposed guidance documents should be withdrawn and, if risk-justified, a single guidance document provided. These all claim to be implementing the same regulatory requirements but with different results. These multiple regulatory guidance documents create a high likelihood for conflict and confusing licensees. The staff disagrees with the comment. The NRC has issued or plans to issue regulatory guides on a number of topics. Regulatory Guide 4.21 was issued to provide guidance to new reactor licensees. This document contains information about groundwater monitoring that is applicable to new reactor license applicants but is not (at this time) applicable to existing reactors. Similarly, RG 4.22 will be issued to provide guidance to licensees on decommissioning funding. That document addresses ground water in a limited regard with respect to decommissioning funding and surveys. RG 4.1 (scheduled to be issued 2009) addresses ground water with respect to environmental programs. RG 1.21 (scheduled to be issued in 2009) provides staff guidance on sampling, monitoring, and evaluating and reporting ground water results in the annual report. Each document has a different scope and it is not practical to combine all the guidance into a single document. 21 NEI  1 A The Regulatory Guide needs to clearly state the applicability of the on-site environmental monitoring program for the existing as well as new plants.
 
NRC should give licensees the option to continue using the current version of R.G. 1.21, as The staff has clarified the position on monitoring, evaluating, and reporting leaks and spills in the context of the Annual Radiological Effluent Release Report. The guidance is the same for new license applicants and existing power reactors.
3 Vol. 56, No. 98, 5/21/91), as well as licensee      190 dose unless radioactive effluents exceed Technical Specifications. Under existing            twice the 10 CFR 50 Appendix I design regulations, the licensee is only required to        objectives, licensees are nonetheless demonstrate compliance with 40CFR190 if a            accountable to the regulatory requirement 10CFR50 effluent dose objective is exceeded by a    that the 40 CFR 190 limits will not be factor of two or more.                              exceeded.
June 1, 2009 13referenced by licensing documents. Clarification was added to section A specifying licensees could continue to use RG 1.21 Rev 1. 22 NEI  6 1 Draft RG 1.21 appropriately recognizes the need for a graded approach to ground water monitoring and characterization studies even though the proposal to impose requirements for on-site monitoring of ground water is not justified from a risk-informed perspective. The staff disagrees that no on-site monitoring is justified for leaks and spills since the survey requirements of 10 CFR 20.1501 and the records requirements of 10 CFR 50.75(g) would apply. The staff positions in RG 1.21 Revision 2 relate to monitoring, evaluating, and reporting effluents from nuclear power plants. This includes contributions from leaks and spills. The verbiage regarding a graded approach will be retained. 23 NEI  12 3 The reference to an unapproved and unpublished standard (ANSI 2.17) is inappropriate; delete  The staff disagrees with the comment. The reference will be retained. Although the document is still in draft form, it is expected to be approved within 6 months of issuance of RG 1.21. The NRC has reviewed this document and it is considered appropriate to reference this document as one source of information. No changes required. 24 NEI  12 3 The EPRI Groundwater Protection Guidelines (1015118, Ref. 32) should be referenced directly in the text and not left to the imagination of the reader as to what the reference to various other industry documents might include. There is a public version of EPRI Groundwater Protection Guidelines and therefore no transparency issues. The staff agrees with the comment. A direct reference to the EPRI Groundwater Protection Guidelines (1015118, Ref. 32) was added to the text (under the section on spills and leaks to ground water). 25 NEI  12 3 The quoted statement implies that sites with residual contamination more than a factor of 10 to 100 above laboratory LLDs require extensive site characterization or monitoring. This statement does The staff agrees with the comment. Reference to a factor of 10 to 100 was removed from the document.
Federal Register, Vol. 56, No. 98, page 23374,       The staff agrees with parts of the comment states that demonstrating compliance with            as described below. Demonstrating 10CFR50, App. I and/or 40CFR190 will be deemed      compliance with EPAs 40 CFR 190 is to demonstrate compliance with the 0.1 rem          sufficient to demonstrate compliance with 10CFR20 dose limit. However, DG-1186 requires        NRCs 100 mrem TEDE dose limit for dose calculations for the 0.1 rem TEDE (10CFR20)    members of the public. Sections B.5, B.5.5, limit in addition to 10CFR50, App. I, and 40CFR190   B.5.6, B.5.7, and B.5.11 were revised.
June 1, 2009 14not appear to be risk-informed. Tritium, for example, has a required LLD of 2000 pCi/l. At a concentration of 20,000 pCi/l (10 times the LLD),
calculations. Further, for 10CFR20 doses, it is technically incorrect to sum whole body doses calculated with ICRP-2 dose factors (RG 1.109 dose conversion factors) to demonstrate compliance with TEDE dose limits from ICRP-30.
the potential dose impact is less than 1 mrem/year using ICRP 30 methodology (see also Federal Guidance Report 11) to calculate the MCL at 86,000 pCi/l for [tritium]. 26 NEI  13 3 This requires reporting of on-site ground water sample results in the AREOR. This creates unnecessary conflict with NEI 07-07 Objective 2.2 acceptance criterion b, which requires the reporting of non-REMP ground water samples in the ARERR, and REMP ground water samples in the AREOR. The staff agrees with the comment. The guidance for the environmental monitoring program was relocated to RG 4.1. 27 NEI  15 22  5.11.3 The discussion of elements to include in measurement uncertainty identifies some contributions that may not be obvious but does not appear to include uncertainties contributing to dose assessment, such as meteorology measurements, dispersion (X/Q, D/Q) factors, environmental buildup and transport factors, dose conversion factors, TLDs, etc. Also, using the square root of the sum of squares of the pooled uncertainties is a bit of an oversimplification and potentially misleading. The uncertainties presented in tables A-1 and A-2 pool all release points and all nuclides within a given category, including those release points that contribute much less than 1% of the total activity or dose. The pooled uncertainty needs to be somehow weighted with respect to the release point's relative contribution, and the simplified approach of taking the square root of the sum of squares of pooled. The staff agrees that additional clarification is needed for uncertainties. Staff guidance on uncertainty was revised to clarify the intent to provide a reasonable estimate of the uncertainty. A rigorous calculation involving every possible contributor to uncertainty is not necessary. The staff guidance in RG 1.21 allows licensees to calculate uncertainty in different ways provided licensees include an estimate of the uncertainty in the annual report. 28 NEI  16 5.3 [The definition of member of the public may be inconsistent with 10 CFR 50.]. Is the correct verb The usage of "reside" is correct. Reworded June 1, 2009 15"reside"? and note that this definition continues to be inconsistent with 10 CFR 50 Appendix I definition - see 5.7.2  paragraph 5.7.2. 29 NEI  16 5.2 The discussion about "Occupational Workers" in section B.5.2 is not appropriate for the effluent control program. These individuals' exposure are managed under the Radiation Protection Program  The staff agrees with the comment. Discussion on occupational workers has been deleted. 30 NEI  16 5.3 The on-site monitoring program in the draft RG 1.21 promulgates the unintended confusion caused by the 1991 revision to 10 CFR 20 without the concurrent revision to 10 CFR 50 Appendix I or RG 1.109, particularly with regards to the definition of a "member of the public."  As stated earlier, all of the regulations and regulatory guidance should be revised in a comprehensive effort to implement the most recent radiation protection recommendations. The staff disagrees with the comment. The existing guidance is over 30 years old. It is necessary to update this regulatory guide to bring the guidance up to current industry practices. This RG reflects current regulations for part 20 particularly for 10 CFR 20.1302 that requires surveys of radiation levels and radioactive materials in effluents in controlled areas for purposes of complying with dose limits for members of the public. 31 NEI  18 18 22 5.6.4 5.7.7 5.11.4 Licensees already account for and report dose impacts from releases to the environment. Requiring licensees to effectively reduce (handicap) the dose limit by taking into account that residual dose is not risk-justified, particularly when considering RIS 2008-03 and given that the licensee must include any dose from residual activity at decommissioning. The discussion in this section is misleading and incorrect. While dose contributions from tritium and other nuclides dissolved or suspended in water continue after the release has occurred but may not have been included in the ARERR, it does not apply to all effluent exposure pathways. To the contrary, the RG 1.109 methodologies for sediment exposure, ground plane shine, and vegetable+milk+meat pathways already assume a The staff agrees that additional clarification with respect to residual radioactivity was warranted. Paragraph 5.6.4 was deleted. Paragraph 5.11.4 was deleted.
5    NEI    56 Table A-5 As stated above, the summation of liquid and        The staff agrees with the comment. The gaseous effluent whole body doses per ICRP-2 in      document was revised to accommodate this RG 1.109 is incongruent with TEDE dose               comment. Table A-5 was deleted.
requirements in 10CFR20. Adding a direct radiation component assessed by TLDs may result in duplication of dose from effluents, and would result in an overestimation of dose impact. See comments on pages 22 and 23 of the draft regulatory guide. In addition, the dose contribution from a direct radiation component most likely will result in a different sector and distance being identified than would occur for effluent releases only.
6    NEI    3  B.1      Since RG 1.109 is referred to by NUREG              The staff agrees with the comment.
1301/1302 and in the draft RG 1.21, it should be    NUREG-1301 and NUREG-1302 were included as a reference in section B.1 Regulatory    added to the list of references.
Guidance.
June 1, 2009
 
4 7    NEI    4 B.2  In section B.2, the second item (5) should be      The staff agrees with the comment. The corrected as follows: Compliance with the effluent typographical error was corrected as reporting requirements of 10 CFR 50.36a.           indicated.
8    NEI   5 1(b) This example of less significant or intermittent    The staff disagrees with the comment. The release points includes many systems that are      ODCM should include some recognition most likely not currently captured in many plant's  (e.g., a list) of the potentially significant ODCMs, nor identified as required in NUREG-        release points for the site. This staff 1301/1302.                                         guidance is appropriate based on 10 CFR 50.36a regarding reporting principal nuclides in effluents and 10 CFR 50, The NRC should perform a meaningful backfit Appendix I which states, account shall be analysis before proceeding.
taken of all sources and pathways within the plant contributing to the particular type of effluent being considered.
In order to underscore the importance of the above regulations and to ease implementation of this RG, the construct of significant release points and less-significant release points has been revised as follows. Less-significant release points do not have to be listed in the ODCM unless they could become a significant release point based on expected operational occurrences (e.g., primary to secondary leakage for PWRs or failed fuel). This list of potentially significant release points does not need to be exhaustive or all-inclusive with respect to all possible operational occurrences but instead should demonstrate the licensee has reasonably anticipated expected operational occurrences and their effects on radioactive discharges.
This RG now recommends less-significant release points should be listed in site documentation.
June 1, 2009
 
5 The issue regarding a backfit analysis is addressed in NRCs comment to NEI question #2.
9    NEI    6 1 The Reg. Guide should explicitly state that only        The staff agrees with the comment. To 9  plant-related licensed material must be reported in    ensure that background radioactivity would the ARERR. Naturally-occurring and/or                  not be included in the reported results, the background radioactivity, such as K-40 and U/Th        first sentence of section A was revised to progeny, should not be reported in the effluent        mention plant-related activity and to reports.                                               exclude background radiation.
10    NEI    6 1 This revision establishes a new threshold for what      The staff disagrees that RG 1.21 Revision 2 is considered significant related to release activity revises the threshold for significant or dose impact. Regulatory Guide 1.109                  exposure pathways established by RG established 10% as the threshold for determining        1.109. These criteria (10% in RG 1.109 and whether an exposure pathway should be factored          1% in RG 1.21) are used in different ways into dose calculations. This draft RG 1.21 drops        and for different purposes. The staff agrees that threshold to 1%, and applies it to all activity    that a new 1% threshold is established for released and/or to overall dose impact without any      purposes of determining the principal meaningful backfit analysis or health-based            nuclides and significant release points.
justification. Other than the subjective phrase to    The staff guidance in RG 1.109 section C the extent reasonable, this revision does not allow    (i.e., 10%) applies to determining the licensees to omit an impact less than 1%; licensees    significance of new (or other) exposure are effectively required to continue to track these as pathways not listed in RG 1.109 (not release less than significant, with apparently no lower      points).
cutoff.
The guidance in RG 1.109 does not provide guidance for reporting (or not reporting) the activity discharged in radioactive effluents.
The guidance in RG 1.109 does not provide a basis for adjusting the sample frequencies for release points. That is why the 1%
concept in RG 1.21 was developed.
The 1% concept in RG 1.21 allows licensees to modify sampling and analysis of less-significant release points. This allows licensees to focus their efforts on significant release points (and nuclides) and address June 1, 2009
 
6 less-significant release points (and not principal nuclides) is an appropriate manner.
The 1% staff guidance in RG 1.21 provides licensees a risk-informed method to meet the regulatory requirements of 10 CFR 50 Appendix I, Section III.A.1 such that the actual exposure  is unlikely to be underestimated where account shall be taken of all sources and pathways within the plant contributing to the particular type of effluent being considered.
The issue regarding a backfit analysis is addressed in NRCs comment to NEI question #2.
The issue regarding a backfit analysis is addressed in NRCs comment to NEI question #2.
June 1, 2009 1615-year buildup period. As such, these exposure pathways already account for radioactivity remaining in the environment from prior years' effluent releases. This imposes new requirements that will result in licensees potentially overestimating dose to the public. A meaningful backfit analysis should also be performed. In addition, there is no guidance in existing Reg Guides or NUREGs on how to assess dose contributions from previous years' discharges. The NRC needs to provide methodologies and a means of assessment for this additional pathway source term. 32 NEI  20 5.8.6 This section essentially requires licensees to perform a land use census. Under current guidance in NUREG-1301/1302, licensees are allowed to forego a land use census if they sample and monitor vegetation from the two sectors yielding the highest D/Q. This new requirement in RG 1.21 conflict with existing guidance and allowances in other NUREGs. Conversely, there needs to be an allowance to permit licensees to omit an exposure pathway (e..g, cow or goat milk) if it does not exist. This section should be retained, but clarified to state that it does not impose the requirement for a land use census. The staff disagrees with the comment. A land use census is required, but a garden census may be replaced by sampling vegetation as outlined in the NUREG-1301/1302. NUREG-1301/1302 says "-a LUC shall be conducted and shall identify the-nearest milk animal, - residence, and garden*."  The footnote reference on garden provides clarification by saying, "-vegetation sampling.. may be performed at the site boundary- in lieu of the garden census." This provision only affects the "garden census" and it does not eliminate the requirements for the remainder of the land use census (e.g., nearest milk animal or nearest residence). Section 9.4.1.1 says dose calculations do not need to be performed if the pathway does not exist. 33 NEI  10 19  2 5.8.2.2 The reporting of gaseous effluents requires the reporting short lived airborne particulate activities such as Cesium 138 with a 2 minute half life.
11    NEI    7 1 The notification of the public is described in detail in The staff agrees that NEI 07-07 contains NEI 07-07 INDUSTRY GROUND WATER                        details regarding the voluntary ground water PROTECTION INITIATIVE - FINAL GUIDANCE                  initiative. The staff disagrees that there is no DOCUMENT issued August 31, 2007. There is              regulatory requirements regarding no known regulatory basis for the inclusion of such      communication with the public (see 10 CFR a requirement by the staff in this regulatory guide. 50.72(b)).
The staff disagrees with the comment. Page 10, section 2, "Short-lived Nuclides" provides general staff guidance for short-lived nuclides. That particular section does not June 1, 2009 17There is no apparent technical justification for reporting isotopes with a half-life of less than eight days in air particulate matter. Some of the "particulate" nuclides listed in the example airborne tables, such as Tc-99m, Nb-95m, Te-132m, Cs-138, La-142, etc. have half lives much less than 8-days. Note this requires the reporting short lived airborne particulate activities such as Cesium 138 with a 2 minute half life.
The section on Monitoring Leaks and spills We believe this to be good practice and would            was revised to clarify and sharpen the intent.
If we report nuclides with half life less than 8 days, do we now have to perform dose assessments for those nuclides?  This is inconsistent with NUREG-1301/1302 and Reg Guide 1.109 dose assessment guidance/requirements and even section 5.8.2.2 of the draft. require reporting of short lived nuclides. That staff guidance is located on page 6, where it says, "If activity is detected when monitoring a - release point, it must be reported in the effluent totals-."  That guidance is consistent with NUREG-1301/1302 (which says, "Other gamma peaks that are identifiable, together with those of the above nuclides, shall also be analyzed and reported in the Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report.")  It is also consistent with 10 CFR 50 Appendix I, Section III.A.1 ("account shall be taken of the cumulative effect of all pathways and sources-"). NUREG-1301 and each licensee's technical specifications/ODCM specify calculating doses for (1) nuclides with half-lives greater than 8 days, and (2) I-131 and I-133. . The half-life criterion only applies to dose calculations. If short lived nuclides (less than 8 days) are detected, they should be reported in the annual report. According to NUREG-1301/1302 (3.11.2.3) and the licensee's ODCM, dose assessments only need to include (1) nuclides with half-lives less than 8 days, and (2) I-131 and I-133. The regulatory logic is that the short lived nuclides would not NORMALLY have significant contribution to the dose. The NRC may always impose additional restrictions per 10 CFR 50 Appendix I II.B.2(a). For example, if there is significant failed fuel at a site and the dose calculations indicated doses may exceed design objectives, the NRC could request June 1, 2009 18the licensee to include I-135 and I-132 in the dose calculations. 34 NEI  20 5.9.1.2 Draft RG 1.21 directs licensees to sum maximum organ doses from liquid and gaseous effluent pathways even though the releases will most likely affect different organs. Summing the GI-LLI In the case of liquid effluents, in which dose will likely occur from activation products such as Mn-54 or Co-60, the critical organ is most likely going to be GI-LLI. In the case of gaseous doses, which will likely be dominated by H-3, C-14, and I-131, the critical organ will be the thyroid. When organ doses are summed as in Section 5.11.5.1.2 one will be adding GI-LLI dose to thyroid dose. Such summation of doses across different organs is inappropriate and incorrect. The staff agrees with the comment. Section 5.9 was deleted. The example calculation in 5.11.5.1.2 was deleted. 35 NEI  22 5.11.3 TLDs do not selectively respond only to direct radiation from ISFSI and shine but are also responsive to exposure/dose from noble gas plumes and immersion, as well as any dose from particulate radioactivity deposited on the ground. These latter exposure pathways are already calculated and accounted for in RG 1.109 effluent dose calculations. Further, most environmental TLDs are specifically "calibrated" against Cs-137 exposure in air, and as such do NOT precisely measure deep-dose equivalent (i.e., total body dose) received by an individual. Deep-dose equivalent is usually considered to be some fraction of the air exposure. Summing effluent doses and TLD exposure in such situations will likely result in overestimating total dose. The staff agrees with the comment. The example calculation in 5.11 was deleted. 36 NEI 22 5.11.3.2 Typographical Error. Should that be TLDs (not Tads)?  The staff agrees with the comment. The example calculation in 5.11 was deleted.
continue to do so as a part of the GWPI.                 The intent is to (1) prevent the unmonitored release of radioactive materials to offsite areas and (2) ensure proper reporting of materials released offsite. And (3) highlight NRCs interest in notifications to public officials with respect to 10 CFR 50.72(b)(xi).
June 1, 2009 1937 NEI  22 5.11.3 The average "background" dose should be calculated from both Control TLDs as opposed to one control TLD to account for uncertainty. As such, the pooled uncertainty for background radiation assessed from the two control locations must incorporate the between-location-based variance in addition to the within-location uncertainty. The NRC should also consider and provide guidance on reporting direct radiation when the difference from background is not statistically different from zero. The staff agrees that licensees may choose to perform background subtraction by a number of techniques. The RG was modified to provide guidance. The example calculation in 5.11 was deleted. 38 NEI  22 5.11.4 Section 5.11.4 requires performing dose calculations from on-site pond H-3 evaporation. Unless this pathway represents a "significant exposure pathway" (contributes 10% of the total dose from all pathways considered), dose calculations should not be required. In addition, the NRC needs to provide clear guidance, and possibly an example of a dose calculation for this pathway. The staff agrees the 10% guidance in RG 1.109 (Section C) is sometimes misinterpreted. Pond evaporation involves a release point (e.g., the pond) and an exposure pathway (e.g., inhalation). The 10% provision of RG 1.109 applies to exposure pathways, not release points. As a result, dose calculations for an on-site pond would be required as part of a hazard assessment associated with an adequate survey (see 10 CFR 20.1501). See also the response to NEI comment #10 regarding the 10% provision in RG 1.109. Staff guidance for calculation of inhalation dose associated with the evaporation of water (e.g., from a pond) is given in RG 1.109 (C.3.b or Appendix C.2) and duplication in RG 1.21 is not needed. The example calculation in 5.11 was deleted. 39 NEI  23 5.11.5.2 Draft RG 1.21 directs licensees to sum 10CFR50 Appendix I whole body doses calculated based on ICRP-2 methodologies to approximate TEDE dose for 10CFR20, which are based on assumptions of ICRP-26/30. ICRP-26/30 uses different The staff agrees the example calculation in the draft guide had technical faults. The example calculation in 5.11 was deleted.
This guidance should be included in this RG since it is concerned with reporting releases.
12    NEI    7 1 The proposed definition of promptly with regards      The staff disagrees with the comment. It is to remediation of a leak or spill is unreasonable and    important to include a timeframe in the RG.
is not always practically achievable. Licensees          48 hour is an example timeframe that the should have the flexibility to define the appropriate    NRC considers to be a reasonably timely timeframe for clean-up of a spill or leak, taking into  response for prompt remediation. This does June 1, 2009
 
7 consideration ALARA, realistic exposure pathways,        not exclude the use of other time frames.
and the site-specific soil and ground water              Licensees may use other timeframes if it is characteristics. This apparently arbitrary time          justified.
frame is inconsistent with current requirements for materials and fuel cycle.
13    NEI    8 1 This discussion states that the list of nuclides in     The staff agrees that RG 1.21 Revision 2 NUREG-1301/1302 for which LLDs are specified is          introduces a risk-informed concept with not a list of principal nuclides and is only a starting  respect to determining principal nuclides and point.                                                  establishing the appropriate analytical sensitivity (e.g., LLD) for analyses. The staff also agrees that the risk-informed concept The draft goes on to say that principal nuclides could be improved by including some of the may be site specific and could make compliance ideas presented in this comment. As a with requirements difficult.
result, the words starting point have been deleted.
This definition conflicts with the definition in the    This staff guidance applies a risk-informed NUREGS and is likely to result in confusion and          philosophy that allows licensees to focus the potential non-compliance.                               appropriate attention on those radionuclides that predominate at a nuclear power plant Further, the risk-based approach could have the          site (i.e., those that are most important unintended consequence of allowing licensees to          contributors to the dose to members of the trim the list of principal nuclides to only one or two public or the total activity at a site). The staff nuclides. For example, if gaseous tritium releases      guidance does not conflict with NUREG-account for curie-level quantities and 99.99% of the     1301/1302 since the guidance suggests total activity and also account for 95% of the dose      licensees may continue to use the guidance (with the other 5% coming from I-131 and C-14),          in NUREG-1301/1302.
then potentially, all other nuclides would not be        Two methods of determining principal analyzed or reported as long as they contribute less     radionuclides are provided in RG 1.21; (1) that 1% of the activity or dose.                        use the existing list of principal radionuclides from NUREG-1301/1302, and (2) use a risk In addition, this allowance for licensees to drop        informed approach. Both methods are nuclides from the principal nuclides list directly      acceptable, and licensees may choose conflicts with the requirement to report ALL activity    another method provided it is documented as established on page 6 [of the proposed draft RG      and it satisfies the regulation (10 CFR 1.21].                                                  50.36a).
June 1, 2009
 
8 The choice is left to the licensee. The NRC thinks it is important to allow licensees the choice to use the existing approach (NUREG-1301/1302) or a risk informed approach. The use of a risk informed approach (involving principal radionuclides) allows licensees some options with respect to selecting LLDs for analysis of waste streams that do not provide significant contribution to effluent dose or activity. This flexibility may be desirable to some licensees and is consistent with a risk-informed philosophy.
Licensees are not required to implement a risk-informed approach. Licensees may consider other approaches or may continue to use the (historical) approach outlined in NUREG-1301/1302. The NRCs intent is to allow licensees the option to shift toward a risk-informed approach that provides guidance acceptable to meet the regulations to ensure adequate protection of the public.
NUREG-1301 and NUREG-1302 provide a definition of principal gamma emitter, but do not define the term principal radionuclide. NUREG-1301/1302 list 11 gamma emitters in liquid effluents for which the LLD control applies (17 gamma emitters for gaseous effluents), and says that other gamma peaks should be analyzed and reported. Analytical sensitivity levels for the other gamma peaks are not provided in NUREG-1301/1302. As a result, NUREG-1301/1302 does not provide analytical sensitivity levels for all radionuclides that may be present at a site. Providing June 1, 2009
 
9 sensitivity levels for all nuclides present at a site is desirable from the NRCs perspective of ensuring adequate protection of the public. Rev 1 of RG 1.21 (1974) listed a common sensitivity level of 5E-7 uCi/ml for all gamma emitters in liquid effluents.
Although this was reasonable and appropriate guidance when RG 1.21 was published in 1974, this is no longer possible for some gamma emitting nuclides (e.g., Te-125m) unless licensees adopt significantly longer count times or employ alternate analytical techniques. The risk informed approach of principal nuclides addresses this issue while ensuring adequate protection of the public.
The regulation that forms the basis for the ARERR (10 CFR 50.36a) says licensees shall submit a report to the Commission annually that specifies the quantities of each of the principal radionuclides released to the unrestricted area. The guidance in RG 1.21 is intended to outline a staff position the NRC considers acceptable to meet this regulation. NUREG-1301/1302 do not address the term principal radionuclide.
The concept of principal radionuclide may not be used as a basis to not report nuclides detected in a waste stream. As described in DG-1186, the concept of principal nuclide may be used by the licensee to select an appropriate LLD for analysis.
Page 6 of the proposed RG 1.21 said if a nuclide is detected, it should be reported.
That statement is consistent with NUREG-1301/1302 and it does not conflict with the June 1, 2009
 
10 concept of principal nuclide.
14    NEI    9 1 The reg. guide requires the reporting of carbon 14  The staff agrees with the comment, and the which is a new reporting requirement for U. S.       following guidance has been added to the reactors. Carbon 14 is a very low energy beta        document. Licensees need to account for release with very low dose conversion factor. The    and report all principal radionuclides; i.e.,
basis for the new reporting requirement is          those contributing more than 1% by dose or discussed in Section 1. The option to calculate C-  activity. C-14 may be a principal 14 effluent discharge is a reasonable alternative to radionuclide contributing more than 1% of monitoring.                                         the total radioactive effluent by activity or by Since we are required to report uncertainties on our dose, and if so, should be considered a measurements, the NRC needs to provide              principal radionuclide and reported in the guidance on how licensees should determine what      annual report.
uncertainties would apply to C-14 release            The following statement was added to the estimated by scaling the power rating of the        document: It is not necessary to calculate reactor.                                            uncertainties for C-14 nor include C-14 uncertainty in any subsequent calculation of overall uncertainty.
15    NEI    9 2 The words up to three volumes implies that         The staff agrees with the comment. The anything in excess of 3 volumes is not desirable,    wording was changed to reflect the actual and that even 1/10th of a tank volume would be      intent (to recirculate at least 3 volumes).
adequate, since it meets the definition of up to three. The language needs to be clarified.
16    NEI    10 2 There are several concerns about short-lived        The staff agrees with the comment. This nuclides and the proposed changes to regulatory      section was revised.
guidance, chief among which is the conflict with current regulation in 10 CFR 50, and guidance in RG 1.109 and NUREG-1301/1302.
Also, there seems to be confusion in the basis and a potential misleading statement made regarding decay-correcting short lived activity to sample midpoint. Short-lived activity collected on days 1 through 6 of a 1-week sample period should be accounted for in the buildup-decay equation in gamma spec software. However, if the activity is decay-corrected to the sample mid-point, the June 1, 2009
 
11 activity level will be grossly OVERESTIMATED by several orders of magnitude, potentially by as much as a factor of 1E+47 for 138Cs and other short-lived nuclides. One option to avoid this overestimation would be to delay the counting of particulate filters for 24 hours following collection to allow these nuclides, and any naturally-occurring radon progeny, to decay before counting the filters.
17    NEI    10 3 Not all existing plants are committed to RG 1.23.        The staff agrees with the comment. The 11  Each plants licensing basis identifies the regulatory  reference to RG 1.23 on meteorology is guide commitments.                                      provided as an acceptable method of measuring and determining meteorological parameters. Regulatory guides are not substitutes for regulations, and compliance with them is not required. The methods and practices outlined in regulatory guides are one acceptable method for implementing the regulations. The verbiage was changed from should use to should consider using 18    NEI    11 3 The NRC Liquid Radioactive Release Lessons              The staff agrees with the LRRLLTF Final 12  Learned Taskforce Final Report (LRRLLTF)                Report. The LRRLLTF Final Report concluded that no regulatory requirement exist for       concluded no routine on-site surveys are the monitoring of groundwater onsite exists {          required for potential abnormal spills and there are no specific regulatory requirements for        leaks of radioactive liquids. However as licensees to conduct routine on-site environmental      noted in the following sentence of the surveys and monitoring for potential abnormal spills    LRRLLTF report, surveys are required for and leaks of radioactive liquids page 19 of the         on-site spills and leaks in order to satisfy the LRRLLTF report}.                                         records requirements of 10 CFR 50.75(g).
19    NEI    11 3 The emphasis on on-site groundwater monitoring          The staff disagrees with the comment. Due for inadvertent subsurface contamination from            to ground water contamination events over leaks and spills is unjustified given that the NRCs    the last 4 years, NEI and the industry have Liquid Effluent Releases Task Force Lessons              made changes to industry guidance Learned Final Report issued September 1, 2006            documents. Because subsurface stated, The most significant conclusion of the task    contamination events may impact reporting force regarded public health impacts. Although          of radioactive effluents, it is appropriate to June 1, 2009


June 1, 2009 20methodologies, different metabolic models, different organ weighting factors and different dose factors than ICRP-2. This is technically incorrect; the NRC should revise all of the radiation protection regulations and regulatory guidance in a comprehensive, holistic manner rather than piecemeal  See also the NRC response to NEI comment 1 above regarding revision of all regulations. 40 NEI  23 6 Table A3 NRC should give consideration to deleting any Solid Radioactive Waste reporting requirements from RG 1.21 since DOE is already charged with collecting LLRW disposal data nationally (via the Manifest Information Management System (MIMS) "and irradiated fuel transport via the SNM Form 741"). This would align the two Federal government agencies and reduce the burden on licenses for redundant reporting. The staff agrees that the Solid Radioactive Waste reporting guidance should be more closely aligned with MIMS where possible.
12 there have been a number of industry events where      include such discussions in this guidance radioactive liquid was released to the environment    document.
The MIMS data base tracks waste disposal at licensed waste disposal facilities, but does not track information regarding shipments of nuclear waste from nuclear power plants. If MIMS is updated/revised to track solid waste generation and shipment from nuclear power plants, then RG 1.21 can be revised. Until that time, solid waste reporting should be reported under RG 1.21. The Solid Radioactive Waste reporting guidance in RG 1.21 was revised an aligned more closely to MIMS. 41 NEI 23 6 Table A3 If NRC believes it needs Solid Radwaste Shipment data, then a means should be provided within Rev 2 of RG 1.21 for DOE MIMS data to be transferred or released to the NRC. This will enable electronic reporting in compliance with the paperwork reduction act and again unburden licenses from redundant reporting of the same data to two different Federal Agencies. The staff agrees with this comment. NRC contacted MIMS and other industry personnel and revised section 6 and Table A-3 so that the data format requested in RG 1.21 matches the data format in common industry software packages. This will facilitate reporting data for the Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report. 42 NEI  23 6 7.1 The presentation of "small errors" in sections 7.1.1 and 7.1.2 can be mutually exclusive. For example, a Sr-90 activity with an associated error of 300% after all of the error terms are pooled may only contribute 0.0001% of the total dose from all The staff agrees the discussion of errors should be related to dose to the public. The RG incorporates a provision that discusses errors with respect to dose to the public. The staff also considers completeness and June 1, 2009 21gaseous effluents, resulting in a impact. The discussion of small versus large errors needs to somehow incorporate the relative impact on dose/risk to a member of the public. accuracy should also apply to quantities other than dose. It is recognized that the relationship between activity and dose will be nuclide dependent, and that a small amount of activity may translate into a dose impact that may not be considered small. Licensees need to supply the appropriate information for both activity and dose in the ARERR. If an error is discovered in either quantity (or with other related quantities such as volumes, flow rates, etc), licensees should submit amended data as indicated in sections 7.1.1 and 7.1.2 as appropriate. 43 NEI 24 8 Given that there has been a marked decrease in radioactive effluents from nuclear power plants over time, what is the purpose for the new requirement for data trending over a 10 year period? The new requirement is not risk-informed and will not result in any improvement in radiation protection  As a minimum, the NRC should clarify whether the source term to be trended is by site or by release point. The staff agrees with this comment. The section of data trending was eliminated with the exception that licensees should still ensure the provisions of 10 CFR 50 Appendix I, Section IV.B.2 (i.e., to evaluate the relationship between quantities of radioactive material released in effluents and resultant radiation doses to individuals) are addressed. 44 NEI 24 9 Typically Gross Alpha has been identified as less than a given curie level. The wording here seems to suggest that the whole cell will be left BLANK if no Alpha counts come back positive. If a nuclide is detected in one quarter but not others, and entry of "NDA" should be made to indicate "No Detectable Activity" as opposed to leaving the table cell empty. This indicates that that nuclide was actually assessed during that period. (need more editorial work)  The staff agrees with this comment. RG 1.21 section 8 was revised as suggested. The guidance in RG 1.21 suggests that if a nuclide is not detected in a quarter, an entry of N/D (or other designation) may be used to denote the nuclide was not detected. 45 NEI  26 9.2.1 The discussion about dilution flow needs to be The staff agrees with this comment. RG June 1, 2009 22clarified. Does the licensee account for dilution flow only during the summation of periods when the discharges are occurring, or total dilution flow over the entire quarterly or annual period?  For example, if I have a single discharge during a quarter in which I release 1 Curies of tritium in a discharge which takes 100 minutes while the dilution flow rate is 100,000 Liters/min, then my effective concentration of tritium during period of discharge is 1 Ci divided by 10 million liters, or 1E-7 Ci/L, or 1E-4 uCi/mL. I would use this to determine my compliance with the Effluent Control Limit (ECL) in 10CFR20 Appendix B, Table 2, Column 2 value of 1E-3 uCi/mL. However, the effective tritium concentration in the environment over the course of the quarter is orders of magnitude lower. The buildup of tritium in fish, shellfish, and crops is not going to be based on a tritium concentration of 1E-4 uCi/mL for the entire quarter, but instead the effective concentration will be based on a total dilution volume of over 1E+10 Liters (100,000 L/min
in an unplanned and unmonitored fashion, based on the data available, the task force did not identify any instances where the health of the public was impacted. (page 4 LRRLLTF report) 20    NEI    All All The NRC has now generated several guidance             The staff disagrees with the comment. The documents on the same subject of groundwater          NRC has issued or plans to issue regulatory monitoring that are duplicative and are likely to      guides on a number of topics. Regulatory have the unintended consequence of resulting in        Guide 4.21 was issued to provide guidance conflicting guidance. These include Regulatory        to new reactor licensees. This document Guide 4.21, Regulatory draft Regulatory Guide 4.1      contains information about groundwater and the Draft Guidance to Implement Survey and        monitoring that is applicable to new reactor Monitoring Requirements Pursuant to Proposed          license applicants but is not (at this time)
Rule Text in 10 CFR 20.1406(c) and 10 CFR              applicable to existing reactors. Similarly, RG 20.1501(a) that supports the Decommissioning          4.22 will be issued to provide guidance to Planning Rulemaking. All of the proposed              licensees on decommissioning funding. That guidance documents should be withdrawn and, if        document addresses ground water in a risk-justified, a single guidance document provided. limited regard with respect to These all claim to be implementing the same            decommissioning funding and surveys. RG regulatory requirements but with different results. 4.1 (scheduled to be issued 2009) addresses These multiple regulatory guidance documents          ground water with respect to environmental create a high likelihood for conflict and confusing    programs. RG 1.21 (scheduled to be issued licensees.                                             in 2009) provides staff guidance on sampling, monitoring, and evaluating and reporting ground water results in the annual report. Each document has a different scope and it is not practical to combine all the guidance into a single document.
21   NEI   1  A  The Regulatory Guide needs to clearly state the       The staff has clarified the position on applicability of the on-site environmental monitoring  monitoring, evaluating, and reporting leaks program for the existing as well as new plants.        and spills in the context of the Annual Radiological Effluent Release Report. The guidance is the same for new license NRC should give licensees the option to continue applicants and existing power reactors.
using the current version of R.G. 1.21, as June 1, 2009
 
13 referenced by licensing documents.                    Clarification was added to section A specifying licensees could continue to use RG 1.21 Rev 1.
22    NEI   6 1 Draft RG 1.21 appropriately recognizes the need        The staff disagrees that no on-site for a graded approach to ground water monitoring      monitoring is justified for leaks and spills and characterization studies even though the          since the survey requirements of 10 CFR proposal to impose requirements for on-site            20.1501 and the records requirements of 10 monitoring of ground water is not justified from a    CFR 50.75(g) would apply.
risk-informed perspective.                            The staff positions in RG 1.21 Revision 2 relate to monitoring, evaluating, and reporting effluents from nuclear power plants. This includes contributions from leaks and spills.
The verbiage regarding a graded approach will be retained.
23    NEI    12 3 The reference to an unapproved and unpublished        The staff disagrees with the comment. The standard (ANSI 2.17) is inappropriate; delete          reference will be retained. Although the document is still in draft form, it is expected to be approved within 6 months of issuance of RG 1.21. The NRC has reviewed this document and it is considered appropriate to reference this document as one source of information. No changes required.
24    NEI    12 3 The EPRI Groundwater Protection Guidelines            The staff agrees with the comment. A direct (1015118, Ref. 32) should be referenced directly in    reference to the EPRI Groundwater the text and not left to the imagination of the reader Protection Guidelines (1015118, Ref. 32) as to what the reference to various other industry    was added to the text (under the section on documents might include. There is a public version    spills and leaks to ground water).
of EPRI Groundwater Protection Guidelines and therefore no transparency issues.
25    NEI   12 3 The quoted statement implies that sites with          The staff agrees with the comment.
residual contamination more than a factor of 10 to    Reference to a factor of 10 to 100 was 100 above laboratory LLDs require extensive site      removed from the document.
characterization or monitoring. This statement does June 1, 2009
 
14 not appear to be risk-informed. Tritium, for example, has a required LLD of 2000 pCi/l. At a concentration of 20,000 pCi/l (10 times the LLD),
the potential dose impact is less than 1 mrem/year using ICRP 30 methodology (see also Federal Guidance Report 11) to calculate the MCL at 86,000 pCi/l for [tritium].
26    NEI    13 3      This requires reporting of on-site ground water      The staff agrees with the comment. The sample results in the AREOR. This creates            guidance for the environmental monitoring unnecessary conflict with NEI 07-07 Objective 2.2     program was relocated to RG 4.1.
acceptance criterion b, which requires the reporting of non-REMP ground water samples in the ARERR, and REMP ground water samples in the AREOR.
27    NEI   15        The discussion of elements to include in              The staff agrees that additional clarification 22 5.11.3 measurement uncertainty identifies some              is needed for uncertainties. Staff guidance contributions that may not be obvious but does not    on uncertainty was revised to clarify the appear to include uncertainties contributing to dose  intent to provide a reasonable estimate of assessment, such as meteorology measurements,        the uncertainty. A rigorous calculation dispersion (X/Q, D/Q) factors, environmental          involving every possible contributor to buildup and transport factors, dose conversion        uncertainty is not necessary. The staff factors, TLDs, etc.                                   guidance in RG 1.21 allows licensees to Also, using the square root of the sum of squares of  calculate uncertainty in different ways the pooled uncertainties is a bit of an              provided licensees include an estimate of the oversimplification and potentially misleading. The    uncertainty in the annual report.
uncertainties presented in tables A-1 and A-2 pool all release points and all nuclides within a given category, including those release points that contribute much less than 1% of the total activity or dose. The pooled uncertainty needs to be somehow weighted with respect to the release points relative contribution, and the simplified approach of taking the square root of the sum of squares of pooled.
28    NEI    16 5.3    [The definition of member of the public may be        The usage of reside is correct. Reworded inconsistent with 10 CFR 50.]. Is the correct verb June 1, 2009
 
15 reside? and note that this definition continues to    paragraph 5.7.2.
be inconsistent with 10 CFR 50 Appendix I definition - see 5.7.2 29    NEI    16 5.2    The discussion about Occupational Workers in          The staff agrees with the comment.
section B.5.2 is not appropriate for the effluent      Discussion on occupational workers has control program. These individuals exposure are        been deleted.
managed under the Radiation Protection Program 30    NEI    16 5.3    The on-site monitoring program in the draft RG          The staff disagrees with the comment. The 1.21 promulgates the unintended confusion caused        existing guidance is over 30 years old. It is by the 1991 revision to 10 CFR 20 without the          necessary to update this regulatory guide to concurrent revision to 10 CFR 50 Appendix I or RG      bring the guidance up to current industry 1.109, particularly with regards to the definition of a practices. This RG reflects current member of the public.                                regulations for part 20 particularly for 10 As stated earlier, all of the regulations and          CFR 20.1302 that requires surveys of regulatory guidance should be revised in a              radiation levels and radioactive materials in comprehensive effort to implement the most recent      effluents in controlled areas for purposes of radiation protection recommendations.                  complying with dose limits for members of the public.
31    NEI    18 5.6.4  Licensees already account for and report dose          The staff agrees that additional clarification 18 5.7.7  impacts from releases to the environment.              with respect to residual radioactivity was Requiring licensees to effectively reduce (handicap)    warranted. Paragraph 5.6.4 was deleted.
22 5.11.4 the dose limit by taking into account that residual    Paragraph 5.11.4 was deleted.
dose is not risk-justified, particularly when considering RIS 2008-03 and given that the The issue regarding a backfit analysis is licensee must include any dose from residual addressed in NRCs comment to NEI activity at decommissioning.
question #2.
The discussion in this section is misleading and incorrect. While dose contributions from tritium and other nuclides dissolved or suspended in water continue after the release has occurred but may not have been included in the ARERR, it does not apply to all effluent exposure pathways. To the contrary, the RG 1.109 methodologies for sediment exposure, ground plane shine, and vegetable+milk+meat pathways already assume a June 1, 2009
 
16 15-year buildup period. As such, these exposure pathways already account for radioactivity remaining in the environment from prior years' effluent releases. This imposes new requirements that will result in licensees potentially overestimating dose to the public. A meaningful backfit analysis should also be performed.
In addition, there is no guidance in existing Reg Guides or NUREGs on how to assess dose contributions from previous years discharges. The NRC needs to provide methodologies and a means of assessment for this additional pathway source term.
32    NEI    20 5.8.6  This section essentially requires licensees to        The staff disagrees with the comment. A perform a land use census. Under current              land use census is required, but a garden guidance in NUREG-1301/1302, licensees are            census may be replaced by sampling allowed to forego a land use census if they sample    vegetation as outlined in the NUREG-and monitor vegetation from the two sectors          1301/1302. NUREG-1301/1302 says a yielding the highest D/Q. This new requirement in    LUC shall be conducted and shall identify RG 1.21 conflict with existing guidance and          thenearest milk animal,  residence, and allowances in other NUREGs. Conversely, there        garden*. The footnote reference on garden needs to be an allowance to permit licensees to      provides clarification by saying, omit an exposure pathway (e..g, cow or goat milk) if  vegetation sampling.. may be performed it does not exist. This section should be retained,  at the site boundary in lieu of the garden but clarified to state that it does not impose the    census. This provision only affects the requirement for a land use census.                    garden census and it does not eliminate the requirements for the remainder of the land use census (e.g., nearest milk animal or nearest residence). Section 9.4.1.1 says dose calculations do not need to be performed if the pathway does not exist.
33    NEI    10 2      The reporting of gaseous effluents requires the      The staff disagrees with the comment. Page 19 5.8.2.2 reporting short lived airborne particulate activities 10, section 2, Short-lived Nuclides provides such as Cesium 138 with a 2 minute half life.        general staff guidance for short-lived nuclides. That particular section does not June 1, 2009
 
17 There is no apparent technical justification for      require reporting of short lived nuclides.
reporting isotopes with a half-life of less than eight That staff guidance is located on page 6, days in air particulate matter. Some of the            where it says, If activity is detected when particulate nuclides listed in the example airborne  monitoring a  release point, it must be tables, such as Tc-99m, Nb-95m, Te-132m, Cs-          reported in the effluent totals. That 138, La-142, etc. have half lives much less than 8-    guidance is consistent with NUREG-days. Note this requires the reporting short lived    1301/1302 (which says, Other gamma airborne particulate activities such as Cesium 138    peaks that are identifiable, together with with a 2 minute half life.                            those of the above nuclides, shall also be analyzed and reported in the Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report.) It is If we report nuclides with half life less than 8 days, also consistent with 10 CFR 50 Appendix I, do we now have to perform dose assessments for Section III.A.1 (account shall be taken of the those nuclides? This is inconsistent with NUREG-cumulative effect of all pathways and 1301/1302 and Reg Guide 1.109 dose assessment sources).
guidance/requirements and even section 5.8.2.2 of the draft.                                            NUREG-1301 and each licensees technical specifications/ODCM specify calculating doses for (1) nuclides with half-lives greater than 8 days, and (2) I-131 and I-133. . The half-life criterion only applies to dose calculations. If short lived nuclides (less than 8 days) are detected, they should be reported in the annual report.
According to NUREG-1301/1302 (3.11.2.3) and the licensees ODCM, dose assessments only need to include (1) nuclides with half-lives less than 8 days, and (2) I-131 and I-133. The regulatory logic is that the short lived nuclides would not NORMALLY have significant contribution to the dose. The NRC may always impose additional restrictions per 10 CFR 50 Appendix I II.B.2(a). For example, if there is significant failed fuel at a site and the dose calculations indicated doses may exceed design objectives, the NRC could request June 1, 2009
 
18 the licensee to include I-135 and I-132 in the dose calculations.
34    NEI    20 5.9.1.2  Draft RG 1.21 directs licensees to sum maximum        The staff agrees with the comment. Section organ doses from liquid and gaseous effluent          5.9 was deleted. The example calculation in pathways even though the releases will most likely    5.11.5.1.2 was deleted.
affect different organs. Summing the GI-LLI In the case of liquid effluents, in which dose will likely occur from activation products such as Mn-54 or Co-60, the critical organ is most likely going to be GI-LLI. In the case of gaseous doses, which will likely be dominated by H-3, C-14, and I-131, the critical organ will be the thyroid. When organ doses are summed as in Section 5.11.5.1.2 one will be adding GI-LLI dose to thyroid dose. Such summation of doses across different organs is inappropriate and incorrect.
35    NEI    22 5.11.3  TLDs do not selectively respond only to direct        The staff agrees with the comment. The radiation from ISFSI and shine but are also          example calculation in 5.11 was deleted.
responsive to exposure/dose from noble gas plumes and immersion, as well as any dose from particulate radioactivity deposited on the ground.
These latter exposure pathways are already calculated and accounted for in RG 1.109 effluent dose calculations. Further, most environmental TLDs are specifically calibrated against Cs-137 exposure in air, and as such do NOT precisely measure deep-dose equivalent (i.e., total body dose) received by an individual. Deep-dose equivalent is usually considered to be some fraction of the air exposure. Summing effluent doses and TLD exposure in such situations will likely result in overestimating total dose.
36    NEI    22 5.11.3.2 Typographical Error. Should that be TLDs (not        The staff agrees with the comment. The Tads)?                                                example calculation in 5.11 was deleted.
June 1, 2009
 
19 37    NEI    22 5.11.3  The average background dose should be              The staff agrees that licensees may choose calculated from both Control TLDs as opposed to      to perform background subtraction by a one control TLD to account for uncertainty. As        number of techniques. The RG was such, the pooled uncertainty for background          modified to provide guidance.
radiation assessed from the two control locations    The example calculation in 5.11 was deleted.
must incorporate the between-location-based variance in addition to the within-location uncertainty. The NRC should also consider and provide guidance on reporting direct radiation when the difference from background is not statistically different from zero.
38    NEI    22 5.11.4  Section 5.11.4 requires performing dose              The staff agrees the 10% guidance in RG calculations from on-site pond H-3 evaporation.      1.109 (Section C) is sometimes Unless this pathway represents a significant        misinterpreted. Pond evaporation involves a exposure pathway (contributes 10% of the total      release point (e.g., the pond) and an dose from all pathways considered), dose              exposure pathway (e.g., inhalation). The calculations should not be required. In addition, the 10% provision of RG 1.109 applies to NRC needs to provide clear guidance, and possibly    exposure pathways, not release points. As a an example of a dose calculation for this pathway. result, dose calculations for an on-site pond would be required as part of a hazard assessment associated with an adequate survey (see 10 CFR 20.1501). See also the response to NEI comment #10 regarding the 10% provision in RG 1.109. Staff guidance for calculation of inhalation dose associated with the evaporation of water (e.g., from a pond) is given in RG 1.109 (C.3.b or Appendix C.2) and duplication in RG 1.21 is not needed.
The example calculation in 5.11 was deleted.
39    NEI    23 5.11.5.2 Draft RG 1.21 directs licensees to sum 10CFR50        The staff agrees the example calculation in Appendix I whole body doses calculated based on      the draft guide had technical faults. The ICRP-2 methodologies to approximate TEDE dose        example calculation in 5.11 was deleted.
for 10CFR20, which are based on assumptions of ICRP-26/30. ICRP-26/30 uses different June 1, 2009
 
20 methodologies, different metabolic models, different See also the NRC response to NEI comment organ weighting factors and different dose factors  1 above regarding revision of all regulations.
than ICRP-2. This is technically incorrect; the NRC should revise all of the radiation protection regulations and regulatory guidance in a comprehensive, holistic manner rather than piecemeal 40    NEI    23 6        NRC should give consideration to deleting any        The staff agrees that the Solid Radioactive Table A3 Solid Radioactive Waste reporting requirements      Waste reporting guidance should be more from RG 1.21 since DOE is already charged with      closely aligned with MIMS where possible.
collecting LLRW disposal data nationally (via the    The MIMS data base tracks waste disposal Manifest Information Management System (MIMS)        at licensed waste disposal facilities, but does "and irradiated fuel transport via the SNM Form      not track information regarding shipments of 741"). This would align the two Federal government  nuclear waste from nuclear power plants. If agencies and reduce the burden on licenses for      MIMS is updated/revised to track solid waste redundant reporting.                                generation and shipment from nuclear power plants, then RG 1.21 can be revised. Until that time, solid waste reporting should be reported under RG 1.21. The Solid Radioactive Waste reporting guidance in RG 1.21 was revised an aligned more closely to MIMS.
41    NEI    23 6        If NRC believes it needs Solid Radwaste Shipment    The staff agrees with this comment. NRC Table A3 data, then a means should be provided within Rev    contacted MIMS and other industry 2 of RG 1.21 for DOE MIMS data to be transferred    personnel and revised section 6 and Table or released to the NRC. This will enable electronic  A-3 so that the data format requested in RG reporting in compliance with the paperwork          1.21 matches the data format in common reduction act and again unburden licenses from      industry software packages. This will redundant reporting of the same data to two          facilitate reporting data for the Annual different Federal Agencies.                          Radioactive Effluent Release Report.
42    NEI    23 6        The presentation of small errors in sections 7.1.1 The staff agrees the discussion of errors 7.1      and 7.1.2 can be mutually exclusive. For example,    should be related to dose to the public. The a Sr-90 activity with an associated error of 300%    RG incorporates a provision that discusses after all of the error terms are pooled may only    errors with respect to dose to the public.
contribute 0.0001% of the total dose from all        The staff also considers completeness and June 1, 2009
 
21 gaseous effluents, resulting in a impact. The        accuracy should also apply to quantities discussion of small versus large errors needs to      other than dose.
somehow incorporate the relative impact on            It is recognized that the relationship between dose/risk to a member of the public.                  activity and dose will be nuclide dependent, and that a small amount of activity may translate into a dose impact that may not be considered small. Licensees need to supply the appropriate information for both activity and dose in the ARERR. If an error is discovered in either quantity (or with other related quantities such as volumes, flow rates, etc), licensees should submit amended data as indicated in sections 7.1.1 and 7.1.2 as appropriate.
43    NEI    24 8    Given that there has been a marked decrease in        The staff agrees with this comment. The radioactive effluents from nuclear power plants over  section of data trending was eliminated with time, what is the purpose for the new requirement    the exception that licensees should still for data trending over a 10 year period? The new      ensure the provisions of 10 CFR 50 requirement is not risk-informed and will not result  Appendix I, Section IV.B.2 (i.e., to evaluate in any improvement in radiation protection            the relationship between quantities of As a minimum, the NRC should clarify whether the      radioactive material released in effluents and source term to be trended is by site or by release    resultant radiation doses to individuals) are point.                                                addressed.
44    NEI    24 9    Typically Gross Alpha has been identified as less    The staff agrees with this comment. RG than a given curie level. The wording here seems      1.21 section 8 was revised as suggested.
to suggest that the whole cell will be left BLANK if  The guidance in RG 1.21 suggests that if a no Alpha counts come back positive. If a nuclide is  nuclide is not detected in a quarter, an entry detected in one quarter but not others, and entry of  of N/D (or other designation) may be used to NDA should be made to indicate No Detectable      denote the nuclide was not detected.
Activity as opposed to leaving the table cell empty.
This indicates that that nuclide was actually assessed during that period. (need more editorial work) 45    NEI    26 9.2.1 The discussion about dilution flow needs to be        The staff agrees with this comment. RG June 1, 2009
 
22 clarified. Does the licensee account for dilution      1.21 Revision 1 indicated licensees should flow only during the summation of periods when the      list the diluted concentration at the point of discharges are occurring, or total dilution flow over  entry into the receiving waters in the the entire quarterly or annual period? For example,    unrestricted area. RG 1.21 Revision 1 if I have a single discharge during a quarter in        specifies the volume should be calculated which I release 1 Curies of tritium in a discharge      based on the flow rate ant the duration of the which takes 100 minutes while the dilution flow rate    release; however, HPPOS-099 was issued is 100,000 Liters/min, then my effective                as clarification. RG 1.21 Revision 2 applies concentration of tritium during period of discharge     the clarification from HPPOS-099 as the staff is 1 Ci divided by 10 million liters, or 1E-7 Ci/L, or position.
1E-4 uCi/mL. I would use this to determine my compliance with the Effluent Control Limit (ECL) in 10CFR20 Appendix B, Table 2, Column 2 value of 1E-3 uCi/mL. However, the effective tritium concentration in the environment over the course of the quarter is orders of magnitude lower. The buildup of tritium in fish, shellfish, and crops is not going to be based on a tritium concentration of 1E-4 uCi/mL for the entire quarter, but instead the effective concentration will be based on a total dilution volume of over 1E+10 Liters (100,000 L/min
* 60 min/hr
* 60 min/hr
* 24 hr/day
* 24 hr/day
* 91 days/qtr), yielding an effective tritium concentration of 8E-8 uCi/L. Perhaps two definitions of dilution volume are in order. The first definition of dilution volume would refer to that available only during actual releases, as used to demonstrate compliance with 10CFR20 Appendix B ECL values, whereas the second dilution volume would apply to the total dilution volume available during the entire release period, as would be used to calculate exposure pathway media concentrations. 1.21 Revision 1 indicated licensees should list the diluted concentration at the point of entry into the receiving waters in the unrestricted area. RG 1.21 Revision 1 specifies the volume should be calculated based on the flow rate ant the duration of the release; however, HPPOS-099 was issued as clarification. RG 1.21 Revision 2 applies the clarification from HPPOS-099 as the staff position. 46 NEI  26 9.3 Is the terminology of "principal isotopes" as used in Table A-3 for reporting solid waste synonymous with "principal radionuclides" as defined for effluent releases?  Does the same 1% threshold apply?  If There staff agrees there are two issues related to this comment, and both have now been corrected. The first issue is that the document used the terms "principal nuclide" June 1, 2009 23not, this needs to be clarified. and "principal isotope." These two terms were used interchangeably. To avoid any confusion, all instances of "principal isotope" were replaced with "principal nuclide." The second issue is that the term "principal isotope" was used with respect to reporting solid radioactive waste shipments. The proper (and historically used term) with respect to solid waste reporting is "major nuclides."  The document now uses "major nuclides" when discussing reporting solid waste. 47 NEI  27 9.5.13 The 100 gallon threshold is a very low threshold established to establish transparent public disclosure. This standard was not established as part of any regulatory requirement and does not of itself represent any health and safety significance. The staff agrees that the guidance regarding 100 gallons is not a requirement. The regulatory basis for reporting effluents is 10 CFR 50.36a, that states in part, "Each holder of an operating license - shall submit a report to the Commission annually that specifies the quantity of each of the principal radionuclides released to unrestricted areas in liquid and in gaseous effluents during the previous 12 months, including any other information as may be required by the Commission to estimate maximum potential annual radiation doses to the public resulting from effluent releases."  Licensees should report their effluents even though it is recognized that these effluents may not have any health or safety significance. Since effluents released onsite have the potential to expose members of the public either in the controlled area or the unrestricted area, this information is relevant. The 100 gallon criterion is a reasonable quantity, and is already being reported to June 1, 2009 24local and State authorities under the NEI ground water protection initiative.
* 91 days/qtr), yielding an effective tritium concentration of 8E-8 uCi/L.
48 NEI 27 9.4.1.2 Does the terminology of "...could be occupied" imply a real individual at a real residence (house, apartment, etc.)? Or could it be construed as to applying to a "fencepost" individual at the site boundary? Since licensees do not control the area beyond their site boundary, they cannot assume zero occupancy for the "fencepost" location. Can licensees take credit for occupancy factor in such cases? If so, this needs to be clarified. Discussion of member of the public on Page 17 goes to length to emphasize that doses are to be calculated to REAL individuals. This discussion also needs to mesh correctly with "realistic individual" as described in NUREG-0133 and 40CFR190, as well as the definition of maximally-exposed individual in the context of RG 1.109 and 10CFR50. The staff agrees that additional clarification to the guidance is appropriate. That clarification has been added. For purposes of calculating air doses (mrad) licensees should use a conservative location. This has historically been assumed to be a "fence post individual" with 100% occupancy. This would be the most conservative calculation of dose and may also be the easiest to calculate. If a licensee would calculate an air dose using the above guidance, and the resulting doses would exceed the 10 CFR 50 Appendix I, Section B.1 design objectives, then the NRC may apply 10 CFR 50 Appendix I, Section B.2(b) and allow the licensee to show compliance. Definitions of hypothetical exposure pathway and maximum individual were added to the glossary. The use of realistic exposure pathway was removed from the document except in reference to the Attachment 6 to SECY 0069. The guidance provided in RG 1.21 is only one method the staff finds acceptable to meet the regulations. Licensees need to conduct a land use census. If licensees choose to use hypothetical exposure pathways to provide bounding estimates of exposures to demonstrate compliance with station technical specifications (Appendix I design objectives), the assumptions and June 1, 2009 25methodology should be listed in the ODCM (or supporting documents). 49 NEI  27 9.5.1 The specific definition of "Abnormal Releases" imposes new requirements above and beyond what is currently in RG 1.21. This is especially true as related to groundwater and onsite contamination that is of interest to future decommissioning, but is not related to offsite effluent releases and dose impact. This appears to be an attempt to codify the groundwater monitoring program, and to carry over requirements for onsite radiological controls as related to 10CFR50.75g and decommissioning. The staff disagrees with this comment. A regulatory guide does not impose requirements. The concept of abnormal releases is included in the original version of RG 1.21 (1974) to provide guidance for reporting non-routine radioactive material releases from nuclear power plants (i.e., releases that are not controlled or planned).
Perhaps two definitions of dilution volume are in order. The first definition of dilution volume would refer to that available only during actual releases, as used to demonstrate compliance with 10CFR20 Appendix B ECL values, whereas the second dilution volume would apply to the total dilution volume available during the entire release period, as would be used to calculate exposure pathway media concentrations.
That overarching concept with respect to reporting releases still applies, however operating experience gained during the last 35 years has revealed situations in which the original definition is lacking. For example, there have been situations in which occurrences at a NPP were clearly abnormal releases, but they did not fit the strict definition as outlined in RG 1.21 (1974). Conversely, there have been situations in which releases were being categorized as abnormal releases when in fact they were not. This clarification in the definition of abnormal release is intended to satisfy the original intent for licensees to provide information (in the body of the ARERR) on abnormal releases (and abnormal discharges) that may impact the environment. 50 NEI  28 9.5.2.1 Ground water that is released through an ODCM-credited release point is already included in the ARERR. The staff agrees with this comment. Section 9.5.2.1 was revised so that only those remediation efforts not identified in the ODCM should be reported in the supplemental section of the ARERR. 51 NEI  28 9.5.8 [A typographical error] should be ARERR not The staff agrees with this comment. The June 1, 2009 26Arrears. typographical errors were corrected. 52 NEI 31 D.3.2 The NRC is asserting under Alternative 2 that the industry's implementation of the voluntary Ground Water Protection Initiative results in minimal impact from the expanded scope of draft RG 1.21. The NRC should perform a back fit analysis, using existing regulatory requirements as the baseline. The staff disagrees with this comment. This is addressed by NRCs response to NEI comment #2. 53 NEI  32 Glossary Terms in the glossary need to be consistent with existing regulations, regulatory guidance, and proposed revisions to regulatory guidance (i.e. RG 4.1). For example: a priori; abnormal release; effluent discharge; impacted areas; lower limit of detection; monitoring; restricted area; significant exposure pathway; significant residual radioactivity; site environs; unrestricted area. See below for additional details The staff agrees with this comment. The following definitions were revised: Channel Calibration, Channel Check, Member of the public, Residual Radioactivity, Restricted Area, Site Boundary, and Unrestricted Area.
46    NEI    26 9.3 Is the terminology of principal isotopes as used in   There staff agrees there are two issues Table A-3 for reporting solid waste synonymous          related to this comment, and both have now with principal radionuclides as defined for effluent  been corrected. The first issue is that the releases? Does the same 1% threshold apply? If          document used the terms principal nuclide June 1, 2009
54 NEI  33 Glossary [The definition of] "Effluent Discharge" should be revised for consistency as follows "A discharge of licensed material from a liquid or gaseous release point from a facility into the site environs."  The staff agrees the definition of effluent discharge should be clarified. The definition was revised. 55 NEI 33 Glossary Revise [definition of] "Effluent Monitor Inoperability" to avoid confusion - a monitor that is classified as not inoperable. It is reportable in the ARERR if the instrument is unavailable for a period of  time greater than 30 continuous days (in accordance with NUREG-1301 or and NUREG-1302, Section 3.3.3.10.b)."  The monitor is inoperable whenever it is not operable. However, it is only included in the ARERR if it remains not operable for more than 30 days. The staff agrees with this comment. The entry was removed from the glossary because it was not a definition. 56 NEI 33 Glossary "Impacted Area":  Draft RG 1.21 imposes new requirements related to onsite radioactivity, 10CFR50.75g, and decommissioning criteria do not belong in RG 1.21 as it relates to effluents and The staff disagrees with this comment. A regulatory guide does not impose requirements and compliance with this regulatory guide is optional. The discussion June 1, 2009 27offsite dose impact. of impacted area is applicable with respect to monitoring, evaluating, and reporting spills and leaks.
 
57 NEI 33 Glossary Glossary "Leachate" is one word. The staff agrees with this comment. The typographical error was corrected. 58 NEI  34 Glossary "Minimum Detectable Concentration" - is there any intent to define this term as a priori or a posteriori?  There was no intent to define as a priori or a posteriori, however the reference to "a posteriori" was added to the definition. 59 NEI  35 Glossary
23 not, this needs to be clarified.                    and principal isotope. These two terms were used interchangeably. To avoid any confusion, all instances of principal isotope were replaced with principal nuclide.
[Definition of] "Principal Radionuclide" should also refer to NUREG-1301/1302 as an acceptable basis per the discussion on page 8. Spell check throughout the document - should be "principal" not "principle"  The staff agrees with this comment. The definition of principal nuclide was changed to specifically reference NUREG-1301/1302. A spell check was conducted and all usages of "principal" are correct. 60 NEI  35 Glossary
The second issue is that the term principal isotope was used with respect to reporting solid radioactive waste shipments. The proper (and historically used term) with respect to solid waste reporting is major nuclides. The document now uses major nuclides when discussing reporting solid waste.
[Definition of] "Restricted Area" seems to be missing part of the definition from 10 CFR 20.1003  The staff agrees with this comment. This was addressed under comment #53 above. 61 NEI 35 Glossary
47    NEI    27 9.5.13 The 100 gallon threshold is a very low threshold    The staff agrees that the guidance regarding established to establish transparent public          100 gallons is not a requirement. The disclosure. This standard was not established as    regulatory basis for reporting effluents is 10 part of any regulatory requirement and does not of   CFR 50.36a, that states in part, Each holder itself represent any health and safety significance. of an operating license shall submit a report to the Commission annually that specifies the quantity of each of the principal radionuclides released to unrestricted areas in liquid and in gaseous effluents during the previous 12 months, including any other information as may be required by the Commission to estimate maximum potential annual radiation doses to the public resulting from effluent releases. Licensees should report their effluents even though it is recognized that these effluents may not have any health or safety significance.
[Definition of] "Significant Release Point" see earlier comment. Draft RG 1.21 imposes a 1% threshold in delineating minor release point, significant release point, and principal radionuclide and is a significant departure from previously established thresholds in RG 1.109 and other guidance. The staff disagrees with this comment. This was addressed under NEI comment #10 above. 62 NEI  35 Glossary Should there be a definition for "spill or leak"?  The staff does not recognize a need to define "leak or spill" in this RG. 63 NEI 35 Glossary "Uncontrolled Release" - replace "release path" with "release point" for consistency. This definition appears to say that unless the uncontrolled release results in (1) not monitored) and (2) results in significant amounts of radioactive material (not defined) being discharged, and (3) did not have a preplanned method for terminating the release, it was (by default) controlled. This also seems to contradict existing requirements to control essentially all  detectable concentrations of The staff agrees to replace "release path" with "release point."  The staff does not agree that the guidance for uncontrolled releases contradicts any existing requirements. The guidance provided in RG 1.21 Revision 1 regarding abnormal release, unplanned release, and uncontrolled release was not very detailed. This has been the source of much discussion in the industry. The June 1, 2009 28radioactive material. Is this a deliberate choice by the NRC?  additional detail provided in RG 1.21, Revision 2, is intended to provide more detailed staff guidance based on experience that has been gained over the last 35 years (since Revision 1 was published). As a result, the guidance provided in Revision 2 of RG 1.21 regarding uncontrolled release provides a common and consistent basis for determining if a release is controlled (only within the context of determining if a release is an abnormal release). 64 NEI 36 Glossary "Unplanned Release" also appears to be a significant change, particularly in the paragraph following (3)  The staff agrees RG 1.21 Revision 2 provides more detailed guidance for determining if a release is an unplanned release. The guidance provided in RG 1.21 Revision 1 regarding abnormal release, unplanned release, and uncontrolled release was not very detailed. This has been the source of much discussion in the industry. The additional detail provided in RG 1.21, Revision 2, is intended to provide more detailed staff guidance based on experience that has been gained over the last 35 years (since Revision 1 was published). As a result, the guidance provided in Revision 2 of RG 1.21 regarding unplanned release provides a common and consistent basis for determining if a release is planned (only within the context of determining if a release is an abnormal release). 65 NEI 38 Glossary Several citations relevant to effluent monitoring and compliance need to be added, including NUREG-0133; NUREG-0475; NUREG-0543, "Methods for demonstrating LWR compliance with the EPA uranium fuel cycle standard: 40 CFR Part 190"; and The staff agrees with this comment. The appropriate references were added.
Since effluents released onsite have the potential to expose members of the public either in the controlled area or the unrestricted area, this information is relevant.
June 1, 2009 29RIS 2008-003. In addition, if it is deemed necessary to maintain requirements for 10CFR50.75g and decommissioning issues within RG 1.21, NUREG/CR-5512. 66 NEI  A-1 Table A-1 The term "Alpha" in this table should be replaced with "Gross Alpha" to match Tables A-1A through A-1F, and past-established terminology. Also, this table is missing a column to record total uncertainty, as is presented in Table A-2 for Liquid Effluents on page A-8. The staff agrees with this comment. All instances of "Alpha" were replaced with "Gross Alpha." A column was added to Table A-1 for recording uncertainty. 67 NEI A-1 Table A1A Zinc-72 is a very unusual isotope and is not typically identified in operating reactors  The staff agrees with this comment. The list is table A-1A is just an example list and is not intended to be the list used by licensees. Zn-72 was removed from the list. 68 NEI A-1 Table A1A Rhodium 188 is not listed in the table of the isotopes. Is this a typographic error?  The staff agrees with this comment. The list is Table A-1A is just an example list and is not intended to be the list used by licensees. The entry "Rh-188" was removed from the list. 69 NEI A-2 Table A1 Requiring the ARERR to include an estimate of overall measurement uncertainty over an entire year for various fission product groups would not provide any more useful or accurate information than the current measurement error requirement has provided.   
The 100 gallon criterion is a reasonable quantity, and is already being reported to June 1, 2009
 
24 local and State authorities under the NEI ground water protection initiative.
48   NEI   27 9.4.1.2 Does the terminology of ...could be occupied     The staff agrees that additional clarification imply a real individual at a real residence (house, to the guidance is appropriate. That apartment, etc.)? Or could it be construed as to   clarification has been added. For purposes applying to a fencepost individual at the site   of calculating air doses (mrad) licensees boundary? Since licensees do not control the area   should use a conservative location. This has beyond their site boundary, they cannot assume     historically been assumed to be a fence zero occupancy for the fencepost location. Can   post individual with 100% occupancy. This licensees take credit for occupancy factor in such would be the most conservative calculation cases? If so, this needs to be clarified.           of dose and may also be the easiest to Discussion of member of the public on Page 17       calculate. If a licensee would calculate an goes to length to emphasize that doses are to be   air dose using the above guidance, and the calculated to REAL individuals. This discussion     resulting doses would exceed the 10 CFR 50 also needs to mesh correctly with realistic       Appendix I, Section B.1 design objectives, individual as described in NUREG-0133 and         then the NRC may apply 10 CFR 50 40CFR190, as well as the definition of maximally-   Appendix I, Section B.2(b) and allow the exposed individual in the context of RG 1.109 and   licensee to show compliance.
10CFR50.                                           Definitions of hypothetical exposure pathway and maximum individual were added to the glossary.
The use of realistic exposure pathway was removed from the document except in reference to the Attachment 6 to SECY                                                                            0069.
The guidance provided in RG 1.21 is only one method the staff finds acceptable to meet the regulations. Licensees need to conduct a land use census. If licensees choose to use hypothetical exposure pathways to provide bounding estimates of exposures to demonstrate compliance with station technical specifications (Appendix I design objectives), the assumptions and June 1, 2009
 
25 methodology should be listed in the ODCM (or supporting documents).
49    NEI    27 9.5.1   The specific definition of Abnormal Releases        The staff disagrees with this comment. A imposes new requirements above and beyond what        regulatory guide does not impose is currently in RG 1.21. This is especially true as  requirements. The concept of abnormal related to groundwater and onsite contamination      releases is included in the original version of that is of interest to future decommissioning, but is RG 1.21 (1974) to provide guidance for not related to offsite effluent releases and dose    reporting non-routine radioactive material impact. This appears to be an attempt to codify the  releases from nuclear power plants (i.e.,
groundwater monitoring program, and to carry over    releases that are not controlled or planned).
requirements for onsite radiological controls as      That overarching concept with respect to related to 10CFR50.75g and decommissioning.           reporting releases still applies, however operating experience gained during the last 35 years has revealed situations in which the original definition is lacking. For example, there have been situations in which occurrences at a NPP were clearly abnormal releases, but they did not fit the strict definition as outlined in RG 1.21 (1974).
Conversely, there have been situations in which releases were being categorized as abnormal releases when in fact they were not. This clarification in the definition of abnormal release is intended to satisfy the original intent for licensees to provide information (in the body of the ARERR) on abnormal releases (and abnormal discharges) that may impact the environment.
50    NEI    28 9.5.2.1 Ground water that is released through an ODCM-        The staff agrees with this comment. Section credited release point is already included in the     9.5.2.1 was revised so that only those ARERR.                                                remediation efforts not identified in the ODCM should be reported in the supplemental section of the ARERR.
51    NEI    28 9.5.8  [A typographical error] should be ARERR not          The staff agrees with this comment. The June 1, 2009
 
26 Arrears.                                                typographical errors were corrected.
52    NEI    31 D.3.2    The NRC is asserting under Alternative 2 that the      The staff disagrees with this comment. This industrys implementation of the voluntary Ground      is addressed by NRCs response to NEI Water Protection Initiative results in minimal impact  comment #2.
from the expanded scope of draft RG 1.21. The NRC should perform a back fit analysis, using existing regulatory requirements as the baseline.
53    NEI    32 Glossary Terms in the glossary need to be consistent with        The staff agrees with this comment. The existing regulations, regulatory guidance, and          following definitions were revised: Channel proposed revisions to regulatory guidance (i.e. RG      Calibration, Channel Check, Member of the 4.1). For example: a priori; abnormal release;          public, Residual Radioactivity, Restricted effluent discharge; impacted areas; lower limit of     Area, Site Boundary, and Unrestricted Area.
detection; monitoring; restricted area; significant exposure pathway; significant residual radioactivity; site environs; unrestricted area. See below for additional details 54    NEI    33 Glossary [The definition of] Effluent Discharge should be     The staff agrees the definition of effluent revised for consistency as follows A discharge of      discharge should be clarified. The definition licensed material from a liquid or gaseous release      was revised.
point from a facility into the site environs.
55    NEI   33 Glossary Revise [definition of] Effluent Monitor Inoperability The staff agrees with this comment. The to avoid confusion - a monitor that is classified as    entry was removed from the glossary not inoperable. It is reportable in the ARERR if the   because it was not a definition.
instrument is unavailable for a period of time greater than 30 continuous days (in accordance with NUREG-1301 or and NUREG-1302, Section 3.3.3.10.b). The monitor is inoperable whenever it is not operable. However, it is only included in the ARERR if it remains not operable for more than 30 days.
56    NEI    33 Glossary Impacted Area: Draft RG 1.21 imposes new              The staff disagrees with this comment. A requirements related to onsite radioactivity,           regulatory guide does not impose 10CFR50.75g, and decommissioning criteria do not        requirements and compliance with this belong in RG 1.21 as it relates to effluents and        regulatory guide is optional. The discussion June 1, 2009
 
27 offsite dose impact.                                    of impacted area is applicable with respect to monitoring, evaluating, and reporting spills and leaks.
57    NEI    33 Glossary Glossary Leachate is one word.                        The staff agrees with this comment. The typographical error was corrected.
58    NEI   34 Glossary Minimum Detectable Concentration - is there any      There was no intent to define as a priori or a intent to define this term as a priori or a posteriori? posteriori, however the reference to a posteriori was added to the definition.
59    NEI    35 Glossary [Definition of] Principal Radionuclide should also    The staff agrees with this comment. The refer to NUREG-1301/1302 as an acceptable basis        definition of principal nuclide was changed to per the discussion on page 8. Spell check              specifically reference NUREG-1301/1302. A throughout the document - should be principal not     spell check was conducted and all usages of principle                                            principal are correct.
60    NEI    35 Glossary [Definition of] Restricted Area seems to be          The staff agrees with this comment. This missing part of the definition from 10 CFR 20.1003      was addressed under comment #53 above.
61    NEI   35 Glossary [Definition of] Significant Release Point see earlier The staff disagrees with this comment. This comment. Draft RG 1.21 imposes a 1% threshold          was addressed under NEI comment #10 in delineating minor release point, significant        above.
release point, and principal radionuclide and is a significant departure from previously established thresholds in RG 1.109 and other guidance.
62    NEI    35 Glossary Should there be a definition for spill or leak?      The staff does not recognize a need to define leak or spill in this RG.
63    NEI   35 Glossary Uncontrolled Release - replace release path        The staff agrees to replace release path with release point for consistency. This definition  with release point. The staff does not appears to say that unless the uncontrolled release    agree that the guidance for uncontrolled results in (1) not monitored) and (2) results in        releases contradicts any existing significant amounts of radioactive material (not        requirements.
defined) being discharged, and (3) did not have a      The guidance provided in RG 1.21 Revision preplanned method for terminating the release, it      1 regarding abnormal release, unplanned was (by default) controlled. This also seems to         release, and uncontrolled release was not contradict existing requirements to control            very detailed. This has been the source of essentially all detectable concentrations of           much discussion in the industry. The June 1, 2009
 
28 radioactive material. Is this a deliberate choice by additional detail provided in RG 1.21, the NRC?                                              Revision 2, is intended to provide more detailed staff guidance based on experience that has been gained over the last 35 years (since Revision 1 was published). As a result, the guidance provided in Revision 2 of RG 1.21 regarding uncontrolled release provides a common and consistent basis for determining if a release is controlled (only within the context of determining if a release is an abnormal release).
64    NEI   36 Glossary Unplanned Release also appears to be a              The staff agrees RG 1.21 Revision 2 significant change, particularly in the paragraph    provides more detailed guidance for following (3)                                         determining if a release is an unplanned release. The guidance provided in RG 1.21 Revision 1 regarding abnormal release, unplanned release, and uncontrolled release was not very detailed. This has been the source of much discussion in the industry.
The additional detail provided in RG 1.21, Revision 2, is intended to provide more detailed staff guidance based on experience that has been gained over the last 35 years (since Revision 1 was published). As a result, the guidance provided in Revision 2 of RG 1.21 regarding unplanned release provides a common and consistent basis for determining if a release is planned (only within the context of determining if a release is an abnormal release).
65    NEI   38 Glossary Several citations relevant to effluent monitoring and The staff agrees with this comment. The compliance need to be added, including NUREG-        appropriate references were added.
0133; NUREG-0475; NUREG-0543, Methods for demonstrating LWR compliance with the EPA uranium fuel cycle standard: 40 CFR Part 190; and June 1, 2009
 
29 RIS 2008-003. In addition, if it is deemed necessary to maintain requirements for 10CFR50.75g and decommissioning issues within RG 1.21, NUREG/CR-5512.
66    NEI   A-1 Table A-1 The term Alpha in this table should be replaced    The staff agrees with this comment. All with Gross Alpha to match Tables A-1A through      instances of Alpha were replaced with A-1F, and past-established terminology. Also, this   Gross Alpha.
table is missing a column to record total            A column was added to Table A-1 for uncertainty, as is presented in Table A-2 for Liquid recording uncertainty.
Effluents on page A-8.
67   NEI   A-1 Table     Zinc-72 is a very unusual isotope and is not         The staff agrees with this comment. The list A1A      typically identified in operating reactors          is table A-1A is just an example list and is not intended to be the list used by licensees.
Zn-72 was removed from the list.
68   NEI   A-1 Table     Rhodium 188 is not listed in the table of the       The staff agrees with this comment. The list A1A      isotopes. Is this a typographic error?              is Table A-1A is just an example list and is not intended to be the list used by licensees.
The entry Rh-188 was removed from the list.
69   NEI   A-2 Table A1 Requiring the ARERR to include an estimate of       The staff disagrees that an error estimate overall measurement uncertainty over an entire       provides no useful information. Licensees year for various fission product groups would not   should make an estimate of the uncertainty.
provide any more useful or accurate information     A detailed analysis including all parameters than the current measurement error requirement       is not necessary. Because it may be difficult has provided.                                       to assign error terms for each parameter affecting the final measurement, detailed statistical evaluations of error are not It's not clear why DG-1186 requires an uncertainty suggested.
estimate for Liquid Effluents in Table A-2, but not for Gaseous Effluents in Table A-1. In either case   The omission of a column for uncertainty the proposed measurement uncertainty                on Table A-1 was corrected by adding a requirement for the ARERR would be difficult to      column to the table.
accurately determine if done correctly, is redundant It is beneficial to have some measure of to existing QA/QC                                    uncertainty for several reasons, two of which include (1) uncertainties exist and they June 1, 2009
 
30 should be recognized in a broad sense, at minimum, and (2) uncertainties provide the reader (e.g., the public) with some understanding that the data reported may assume a range of values where each value may be statistically indistinguishable from the next, and (3) evaluation of uncertainties provides additional information from which is derived reasonable assurance that actual exposure of an individual through appropriate pathways is unlikely to be substantially underestimated even when all uncertainties are considered together (10 CFR 50 Appendix I).
70    NEI    A2 Table    The listing for Xe-131m should use a lower case      The staff agrees the use of a lower-case m A3 A1A      M to follow standard convention.                    is appropriate to represent a metastable Thru      The inclusion of I-132, I-134, and I-135 is a        state for a nuclide. All instances of Xe-A4 departure away from current requirements in RG        133M were changed to Xe-133m.
A5 Table A1F 1.21, and is not in accordance with the radioiodines  The staff disagrees that the reporting A6          required per NUREG-1301/1302. Also, as pointed        guidance for short lived nuclides in RG 1.21 A7          out in comments related to nuclides with short half-  revision 2 is a departure from current A9          lives on Page 10, these nuclides could be subject    requirements.
to gross overestimation if decay-corrected to        NUREG-1301/1302 includes a sensitivity sample midpoint.                                      level (LLD) for I-131, and states that other These tables should be simplified to contain only    nuclides that are identifiable together with those nuclides actually detected by the licensee      [the principal gamma emitters] shall also be over the course of the reporting period. If a nuclide analyzed and reported in the [Annual]
is detected in one quarter but not others, and entry  Radioactive Effluent Release Report. As a of NDA should be made to indicate No              result, reporting the short-lived iodines is not Detectable Activity as opposed to leaving the table  inconsistent with NUREG-1302/1302.
cell empty. This indicates that that nuclide was      Refer also to the NRCs response to NEI actually assessed during that period.                comment #13.
Regulatory guides do not establish requirements.
The text that describes the tables in RG 1.21 June 1, 2009
 
31 (section 9) has been revised to clearly indicate nuclides that are not detected do not need to be included in the tables.
The issue with blank entries is addressed in NRCs response to NEI question #44 above.
71    NEI    A-13 Table A3 The volumes are listed in cubic feet rather than    The staff agrees with this comment. Volume cubic meters. Is this the intent to change from      units are in cubic meters.
cubic meters for reporting solid waste volumes as is the current requirement? All other references in this document are in metric units.
72    NEI    A-13 Table A3 The Table does not provide entry rows for Class C    The staff agrees type C waste should be waste. Some plants generate Class C filters and      addressed. Although there is very little some Class C resin. I suggest the three rows that    Class C waste shipped, the format provides list "Class B Resins, Filters, Evaporator bottoms"  for identifying shipments if/when Class C be changed to "Class B/C Resins, Filters,            shipments are made.
Evaporator bottoms."                                The regulatory guide has been changed to specifically exclude mixed waste and hazardous waste.
This section has been revised to include on-site disposals.
Information on volumes and Classes of stored waste onsite (e.g., due to Barnwell closure) should be reported in the ARERR.
73    NEI    A-13 Table A3 Section header title from "2 LLW Shipped for        The staff agrees with this comment. Title in Processing (before disposal or return to site)" to  Table A-3, section 2, was changed from "LLW shipped by Processor to a LLW disposal          LLW Shipped for Processing (before site". This change will align the Solid Radwaste    disposal or return to site)" to LLW Shipped Reporting with the DOE MIMS report.                  for Direct Disposal (to licensed waste disposal facilities).
74    NEI    A-13 Table A3 If NRC Accepts The Recommendation to Use the        The staff disagrees with this comment.
MIMS Data (See Item 40 Above), [and reflects that    Reliance on the MIMS data base for all solid change in the] glossary. This change also            radwaste data necessary for the ARERR will June 1, 2009
 
32 eliminates the need for NRC to define what a          not be used at this time. Refer to NRCs Waste Processor is and when potential radioactive      response to NEI question #40.
material is a waste.
75    NEI    23  6        Additional Guidance Needed for LLRW Reporting.        The staff agrees with this comment.
There are several items or types of waste materials    Additional detail was added to sections 6 (e.g. single use protective clothing, secondary filter and 8.3 of the document. This is also cake, trash from the RCA, metal, equipment for        reflected in Table A-3.
refurbishing and return) that are being processed or decontaminated, resulting in very little LLRW.
Additional clear guidance is needed from the NRC on whether these shipments to waste processors are to be included in the RG 1.21 (ARERR) Report and the volume and activity of the waste to be reported. Further examples where additional guidance is indicated include:
1- Shipments of contaminated laundry for dissolving (the domestic section of NRC has defined this as radiological material for decontamination [not waste], the Import/Export Section of NRC has defined this material as waste).
2-Shipments of contaminated equipment (pumps, valves & motors) for refurbishment.
3- Shipments of contaminated metals for recycling by smelting or decontamination and clearance.
4- Shipments of material for clearance.
76    NEI    A14 Table A4 The affected Sector/Distance could be different        The staff agrees with this comment. The from quarter to quarter. In the case of gaseous        column for Sector and Distance was effluent discharges, the limiting sector/distance may  removed from Table A-4.
be driven by the majority of activity released from    The guidance in RG 1.21 only required dose an elevated release point during routine operation. assessments for I-131 and I-133 and However, during an outage quarter, ground-level        nuclides with half-lives greater than 8 days.
releases may dominate and may result in the highest dose occurring in a totally different sector.
The table is too simplistic to accommodate such June 1, 2009
 
33 differences. Also, this table requires assessment of gaseous doses from particulates with half-lives of greater than 8 days, and may be out of step with short-lived activity presented in Tables A-1A through A-1F.
77    NEI    A17 Table A8  Table A-8 is a partial list of screening values for soil The staff agrees that none of the main from NUREG-1757. What values should the                  objectives of RG 1.21 is to provide licensee use for water?                                  decommissioning guidance. Many references to decommissioning were removed from the document. The table A-8 was removed. Licensees may still want to use some screening criteria, but specific criteria (other than significant residual radioactivity) is not explicitly described in RG 1.21.
78    NEI    28  9.5.1.4.15 It appears that the NRC is attempting in draft RG        The staff disagrees with this comment.
A17 Table A8  1.21 and other regulatory guidance revisions (i.e.      Regulatory guides are not requirements.
RG 4.1) to impose, without meaningful backfit            The issue regarding a backfit analysis is analysis, operational remediation requirements that      addressed in NRCs comment to NEI effectively are the 10 CFR 20 Subpart E criteria for    question #2.
unrestricted license termination. Existing programs      Guidance on spills and leaks is appropriate for radiation protection, recordkeeping under            as it relates to measuring, evaluating, and 10CFR50.75g, and decommissioning regulations            reporting information in the ARERR.
and guidance already address this issue. These          Guidance provided regarding residual new effluent control requirements are not justified      radioactivity screening values are only based on public health or protection of the              provided as one possible means licensees environment and should be assessed under the            may use to determine how to respond to backfit rule.                                            spills and leaks with respect to measuring, evaluating, and reporting effluents in the ARERR. Licensees may use other means, techniques, or methods provided the appropriate information is contained in the ARERR.
1    STARS  4  B.2        Page 4, last paragraph,                                  The staff agrees with the comment, and the June 1, 2009
 
34 Acronyms used such as ISFSI (Independent Spent      acronyms have been defined.
Fuel Storage Installation) and ARERR (Annual Radiological Effluent Release Report) should be defined prior to their use.
2    STARS  6 1 Page 6, 4th paragraph, "                            The staff agrees that the wording, as initially Less-significant release points are, to the extent proposed, could be interpreted to be overly reasonable, required to be listed in the ODCM. restrictive. The staff position is that licensees should effectively demonstrate It is unclear as to the source of this requirement.
conformity to guides on design objectives as NUREG-1301 and NUREG-1302 do not appear to outlined in 10 CFR 50, Appendix I, Section contain this requirement. This seems to III, which states, conformity shall be contradict the statement on page 4 that demonstrated by calculational procedures statesNUREG-1301/1302 contains detailed based on models and data such that the guidance for the content and format of a licensees actual exposure is unlikely to be ODCM.
underestimated.
The wording was revised to allow licensees, to the extent reasonable, to maintain the list of less-significant release points in documents other than the ODCM. The ODCM should contain the list of significant release points and that should include anticipated operational occurrences which may include significant cross-contamination of systems normally not contaminated and primary to secondary leakage (for PWRs).
3    STARS  7 1 Page 7, last paragraph, "Monitoring Batch          The staff agrees with this comment. A Releases --For batch releases, measurements        qualifier was added to state the hard-to-should be performed to identify specific            detect nuclides listed in the example were radionuclides before a release to the environment. applicable to liquid releases.
In those cases in which an analysis of specific-radionuclides (such as strontium-89/90 and iron-55) cannot be done before release (see NUREG-1301 and NUREG-1302), representative samples should be collected for the purpose of subsequent composite analysis. The composite samples should June 1, 2009
 
35 be analyzed at the scheduled frequencies specified in NUREG-1301 and NUREG-1302."
NUREG-1301 and NUREG-1302 only require strontium-89/90 and iron-55 sampling and analysis for Liquid Batch releases. Strontium-89/90 and iron-55 sampling are not required for gaseous batch releases.
4    STARS  9  1    Page 9, 2nd paragraph, "However, the concept of        The concept of a required sensitivity levels
                      'principal radionuclides' does not reduce the burden    for analytical analyses was applicable in RG for reporting nuclides detected in effluents. In        1.21 Revision 1, and that concept is still addition to 'principal radionuclides, ' other          applicable in Revision 2 of RG 1.21. The radionuclides detected during routine monitoring of    new guidance provided in Revision 2 release points must be reported in the radioactive      (regarding principal nuclides) merely allows effluent release report and included in dose            licensees to select analytical sensitivity assessments to members of the public. "                levels that are most appropriate for the radionuclide mixture experienced at their site while still ensuring doses are not Without a standardized lower limit of detection underestimated and that consideration is (LLD), how can a licensee ensure they meet the taken of all sources within the facility.
                      "1 % of the total activity" approach?
As a result, all licensees will specify the required sensitivity levels for nuclides. This approach ensures all licensees (or anyone who inspects the licensees data) can calculate 1% of the total and determine which nuclides are major contributors at a particular facility.
5    STARS  11 3    Page 11, 3rd paragraph, "Release Height,"              The staff agrees with this comment.
The Release Height section should reference            Reference to RG 1.111 was added in the Regulatory Guide 1.111 for definition or discussion. paragraph.
6    STARS  20 5.8.5 Page 20, Section 5.8.5, " ... A pathway is              The staff agrees that the wording is not considered significant if a realistic evaluation yields exactly the same as RG 1.109. It is not the an additional dose increment equal to or more than      staffs intent to reproduce RG 1.109 within 10% of the total from all pathways considered (see      RG 1.21. RG 1.21 captures the significant the regulatory position in Regulatory Guide 1.109)."    aspects from RG 1.109 and then refers the June 1, 2009
 
36 This is not the exact wording in Regulatory Guide      reader to RG 1.109 for more detail. The staff 1.109: "A pathway is considered significant if a        considers this an acceptable approach. The conservative evaluation yields an additional dose      staff agrees that some of the wording could increment equal to or more than 10 percent of the      be improved, and the sentence referenced in total from all pathways considered in this guide."      the STARS comment was revised.
7    STARS  21 5.10.3 Page 21, Section 5.10.3, "The dose contributions        The staff agrees with this comment. The from direct radiation may be estimated based on        changes were made. Licensees are either (1) thermoluminescent dosimetry (TLD)            cautioned that if alternate means are used measurements, (2) calculations, or (3) a                for direct radiation measurements, it could combination of TLD measurements and                    introduce new modes of failure which may calculations."                                          impact the availability of the data. Such In addition to TLD measurement, there are other        changes should be carefully evaluated.
methods available for direct radiation measurements (e.g., ion chambers). Recommend changing "TLD measurements" to "direct measurements."
8    STARS  24 8      Page 24, Section 8, "Data Trending, "                  The staff agrees that too much emphasis General Comments:                                      was placed on data trending in DG-1186.
The section of data trending was eliminated There is no stated purpose for Data Trending in the with the exception that licensees should still ARERR. Data trending in the ARERR does not ensure the provisions of 10 CFR 50 provide meaningful information and is redundant to Appendix I, Section IV.B.2 (i.e., to evaluate other trending requirements.
the relationship between quantities of Total curies released are typically a function of core  radioactive material released in effluents and effective full power days, thermal plant rating and    resultant radiation doses to individuals) are fuel integrity. Dose values are a function of curies    addressed.
released, pathways present, physical location of residences and meteorological data. Generally, a plant has little control over airborne effluent release concentrations. Fuel reliability is already tracked through the INPO Consolidated Data Entry (CDE) process. A comparison of a given plant from year to year is possible but of questionable value. It is not possible to compare different plants, especially when individual plants are allowed to establish June 1, 2009
 
37 LLDs based on "principal nuclides" (see page 8, Principal Radionuclides for Effluent Monitoring).
This is implied in Section 9, "The aspect of consistency aids review by members of the public and allows easier industry-wide comparisons of the data."
Effluent Release Data was formerly compiled in NUREG/CR-2907 (ADAMS Accession Number:
ML041450170),
http://hps.ne.uiuc.eduinatcenviro/eff2000s.htm and http://www.reirs.comieffluent/EDB_Main.asp.
The most current data is only available through 2004 at http://www.reirs.comieffluent/EDB_Main.asp The issue of summarizing data was also the subject ofSECY-06-0212 (http://www.nrc.gov/reading-nnldoc-.
collections/commissi0n/secys/2006/secy2006-0212/2006-0212scy.html)
If the desire is to provide data for "review by members of the public and allows easier industry-wide comparisons of the data", it would be more appropriate to keep the on-line database current, and provide on-line trending tools, rather than providing this information in each individual ARERR.
9    STARS  24 8.1.1 Page 24, Section 8.1.1, "source term for curies of  The staff agrees with this comment. The total mixed fission and activation products, "      section on data trending was eliminated.
Is this intended to include tritium, gases, and alpha? If not, change to "curies of fission and activation products (excluding tritium, gases, and alpha)." (See Table A-2).
10    STARS  24 8.2.1 Page 24, Sections 8.1.2 and 8.2.4, "source term for The staff agrees with this comment. The June 1, 2009
 
38 8.2.4 curies of tritium, "                                section on data trending was eliminated.
Change to "curies of tritium."
11    STARS  24  8.2.1 Page '24, Section 8.2.1, "source term for curies of  The staff agrees with this comment. The total mixed fission and activation products, "      section on data trending was eliminated.
Change to "curies of fission and activation gases" (see Table A-I).
12    STARS  24  8.2.3 Page 24, Section 8.2.3, "source term for curies of  The staff agrees with this comment. The iodine, "                                            section on data trending was eliminated.
From a practical perspective and to standardize trending it is more useful to simply trend 1-131.
Suggest changing to "curies of I-131."
13    STARS  A-2 Table Page 24, Section 9.1.1 References Table A-I, "(b)    The staff agrees with this comment. Table A1A  iodines halogens,"                                  A-1 was changed.
Table A-I, Column heading states only "iodines," it does not include "halogens."
14    STARS  24  9.1.2 Page~4/25, "9.1.2 Table A-lA, Gaseous Effluents--    The staff agrees with this comment. Tables A-2 Table Ground-Level Release--Batch Mode contains a          and paragraph were changed.
A1A  summation of gaseous effluent releases from ground-level release points in the batch mode of release for the five radionuclide categories of fission gases, iodines/halogens, particulates, tritium, and gross alpha. Report the following:
9.1.2.1 curies of each radionuclide released by quarter and year, and .
9.1.2.2 total curies released in each radionuclide category (fission and activation gases, iodines halogens, particulates, tritium, and gross alpha) by quarter and year. "
Section 9.1.2 should state "fission and activation gases" instead of just "fission gases" for consistency with section 9.1.2.2, Table A-IA should state "fission and activation gases" instead of just June 1, 2009
 
39 "fission gases" in the heading row.
15    STARS  25 9.1.3      Sections should state "fission and activation gases"  The staff agrees with this comment. Tables 9.1.4      instead of just "fission gases" for consistency-with  and paragraphs were changed.
section 9.1:2.2. Tables A-lA, A-1B, A-1C, A-1D, A-9.1.5 IE, and A-IF should state "fission and activation 9.1.6      gases" instead of just "fission gases" in the heading 9.1.7      row.
16    STARS  26 9.4        "The annual evaluations of public dose should be      The staff agrees with this comment. The calculated."                                          paragraph was changed.
Change "public dose" to "dose to Members of the Public." This is consistent with the wording in Section 5 and the term in the glossary.
17    STARS  27 9.5.1.3.2  " ... minimum detectable activity (MDA) ... , "      The staff agrees with this comment.
This is the only occurrence of the term "MDA" in      Additional detail was added at the location this document. Section 4, Quality Assurance, has a    where MDA is discussed.
lengthy discussion of RG 4.15, but no discussion of MDA.
18    STARS  28 9.5.1.4.15 Page 28, Section 9.5.1.4.15 [states] "residual        The staff agrees with the Liquid Radioactive radioactivity levels and whether any levels exceed    Release Lessons Learned Task Force Final the DCGLs provided in Table H.2 in Appendix H to      Report (LLTF) Report. The Liquid NUREG-1757, Volume 2,"                                Radioactive Release Lessons Learned Task This is a decommissioning requirement. There is      Force Final Report (LLTF) Report concluded no routine sampling requirement for Soil Surface      no routine on-site surveys are required for Contamination.                                        potential abnormal spills and leaks of radioactive liquids. However as noted in the following sentence of the LLTF report, surveys are required for on-site spills and leaks in order to satisfy the records requirements of 10 CFR 50.75(g).
19    STARS  28 9.5.5      Page 28, Section 9.5.5 references NUREG-              The staff agrees with this comment. The 1301/1302, section 3.3.3.10.b,                        Additional reference was added.
June 1, 2009
 
40 NUREG-1301, section 3.3.3.10.b, is for Liquid effluent monitoring instrumentation channels only.
NUREG-1301, Section 3.3.3.11.b for gaseous effluent monitoring instrumentation should also be included.
20    STARS  32 Glossary Channel Calibration" ... See also the definition in The staff agrees with this comment. The NUREG-1301/1302. This appears to be a typo.        definition of channel calibration was deleted The definition should refer to "NUREG-1301/1302."    since it was not used in the body of the document.
21    STARS  32 Glossary "Channel Operational Test (COT), " and "Source      The staff agrees with this comment. The to          Check, " These are not the exact definitions in      definitions were revised.
35          NUREG-1301.
22    STARS  33 Glossary Controlled Area," "Member of the Public,"          The staff agrees with this comment. The to          "Monitoring, " "Restricted Area, " "Site Boundary,"  following definitions were revised: Channel 35          and "Source Check."                                  Calibration, Channel Check, Monitoring, These are not the exact definitions in              Member of the Public, Residual 10CFR20.1003.                                        Radioactivity, Restricted Area, Site Boundary, and Unrestricted Area.
23    STARS  35 Glossary "Significant Release Point," See the definition for  The staff agrees with this comment. Minor Minor Release Point. The wording is not consistent. release point was deleted.
24    STARS  32 Glossary Definitions for "A priori," "Abnormal Release,"      The staff agrees the wording should be to          "Effluent Discharge (Radioactive)," "Significant. exactly the same in both documents.
36          Contamination," "Significant Residual                Changes were made.
Radioactivity," "Site Environs," and "Unlicensed Material," do not match definitions listed the Glossary of DG-4013, Radiological Environmental Monitoring for Nuclear Power Plants.
25    STARS  A1 Tables  Appendix A, Tables A-1A, A-1B, A-1C, A-1D, A-1E      The staff agrees with this comment. This is to A1A thru and A-1F,                                            a duplicate of STARS comment #15. See A7 A1F      Tables A-1A, A-1B, A-1C, A-1D, A-1E, and A-1F        NRCs response to STARS comment #15.
should state fission and activation gases instead of just fission gases in the heading row.
June 1, 2009
 
41 1    PPL    A1 Tables  Clarify the requirements for reporting of air          The staff agrees that additional guidance to A1A thru particulates with half lives less than eight days.      and clarification is warranted.
A7 A1F      Table A1A through A1F reference short lived            NUREG-1301/1302 includes a sensitivity airborne particulate radioisotopes such as Cesium      level (LLD) for I-131, and states that other 138 (which has a 2 minute half life). Dose              nuclides that are identifiable together with assessments Section 9.4.1.3 references dose            [the principal gamma emitters] shall also be calculations for particulates with half lives greater  analyzed and reported in the [Annual]
than 8 days. There does not appear to be                Radioactive Effluent Release Report. As a reasonable justification for reporting air particulates result, reporting the short-lived iodines is not radioisotopes with half lives of less than 8 days.      inconsistent with NUREG-1301/1302.
RG 1.21 Revision 1 states that when monitoring iodines, the samples should be analyzed weekly for I-131. An analysis shall also be made monthly or more often for I-133 and I-135.
RG 1.21, Revision 1 also states that for particulates in gaseous effluents, Measurements should be made to determine the quantities of radionuclides with half-lives greater than 8 days An inspection of licensees Technical Specifications indicates most licensees have adopted the verbiage from NUREG-1301/1302, and as a result nuclides with half-lives less than 8 days are reported if they are detected during an analysis.
This reporting of nuclides with half-lives less than 8 days is consistent with 10 CFR 50.36a(a) that states licensees shall submit a reportannually that specifies the quantity of each of the principal radionuclides released to the unrestricted areas in liquid and gaseous effluents as well as any other information that may be required by the commission to estimate maximum potential June 1, 2009
 
42 annual radiation doses to the public resulting from effluent releases. This is also one of the reasons why the concept of principal nuclide is addressed in RG 1.21 Revision 2.
It should be noted that for calculation of doses, only I-131 and those particulate nuclides that are greater than 8 days are normally required to be included in the dose assessment.
2    PPL    A1 Tables  Rh-188 is listed in Tables A1A through A1F. There      The staff agrees with this comment.
to A1A thru is no such isotope listed in any of the references      Changes were made as indicated.
A7 A1F      available to us. Also included in Tables A1A through A1F is Zn-72. Zn-72 is an isotope (with a short half life of 46 hours) not normally identified in reactor coolant, solid radioactive waste or radioactive effluent samples. This isotope should not be included in the reporting table.
3    PPL    24 8.1      Source term trending (ten year trend period) is a      The staff agrees with this comment with the 8.2      new requirement. Please clarify the term source        exception that regulatory guides are not term as referenced in Section 8.1 and 8.2.            requirements. The section of data trending was eliminated with the exception that licensees should still ensure the provisions of 10 CFR 50 Appendix I, Section IV.B.2 (i.e., to evaluate the relationship between quantities of radioactive material released in effluents and resultant radiation doses to individuals) are addressed.
4    PPL    22 5.11.5  Section 5.11.5 states, Based on the above              The staff agrees with this comment. The information, the dose calculations are performed as    example calculation was deleted.
shown below. The referenced dose calculations in Section 5.11.5.1.1, 5.11.5.1.2, 5.11.5.2.1, 5.11.5.3.1 and 5.11.5.3.2 appear to use an incorrect value for Whole Body and Organ dose due to on-site pond H-3 evaporation to nearest June 1, 2009
 
43 residence (ingestion, leafy vegetables). 0.017 mrem is the value used in the dose calculations but the value referenced (from Section 5.11.4) for use in the calculations is 0.0017 mrem.
5    PPL    25 9.2.1  Section 9.2.1 details reporting of liquid waste            The staff agrees with this comment that the dilution flow, specifically, external dilution flow rate, dilution flow (dilution volume) should have average (river to stream flow rates). Please clarify      additional clarification. This was provided in the averaging period for external dilution flow rate      accordance with HPPOS-099 and has been (daily during periods of release, monthly, quarterly,      included in the Regulatory Guide.
annual).
6    PPL    28 9.5.8.1 Omissions from previously submitted Arrears              The staff agrees with the comment. The Please correct/clarify/define Arrears.                  incorrect spelling has been corrected.
G1    Dom    1  All    The NRC appears to be taking too much out of the          The staff agrees that some level of existing Regulatory Guides and restating it in this        unnecessary duplication existed, and the draft. In some cases guidance is outside the scope        unnecessary duplication was eliminated.
of the draft Regulatory Guide.
G2    Dom    1  All    Similar to other Regulatory guides, such as RG            The staff agrees that Revision 2 of RG 1.21 4.15, the NRC should give licensees the option to          is just another method of complying with the continue using the current version of RG 1.21, as          regulatory requirements. Licensees with referenced by licensing documents.                        licensing commitments to Revision 1 of RG 1.21 may maintain their existing commitments. Licensees are not required to adopt the guidance in RG 1.21 Rev 2.
G3    Dom    1  All    It would be helpful if this RG included a Table of        The staff agrees with the comment. A Table Contents.                                                  of Contents was added.
G4    Dom    1  All    Since one of the objectives listed in Section B.2 is      The staff agrees that dose to the public is evaluating dose to the public, it seems more              addressed in RG 1.21. RG 1.21 will only appropriate to list the 10 CFR 20.1301                    address 10 CFR 50.75(g) in the context of requirements in this RG and not in RG 4.1.                measuring, evaluating, and reporting Similarly, this RG may be the appropriate document        effluents. The staff addresses 10 CFR to address the 10 CFR 50.75(g) compliance issue.          20.1301 requirements in RG 1.21 and this This is consistent with the General Comments that          guidance was removed from RG 4.1.
we provided on DG-4013 (RG 4.1).
June 1, 2009
 
44 1    Dom    5 1(b)  The definition for less significant release points is The staff agrees to add definition of less-not provided in the glossary. More importantly, the    significant release point to glossary.
requirement to list these in the ODCM will be a        The staff agrees that less-significant release problem since there is no threshold below which a      points do not necessarily need to be release point is insignificant. Suggest a third        included in the ODCM, and that text was category of insignificant release points. Listing    revised. It is appropriate to include, to the various insignificant release points such as main      extent reasonable, the less significant steam-line safety valves and steam-driven feed          release points in some site documentation water pumps in an ODCM will typically be                (e.g., procedures or basis documents).
meaningless (especially when the curie totals and The staff agrees that a reference to the doses will typically be less than 1% of the totals Appendix I limits as a basis for significant from the other release points). A documented release points has merit, and that has been detailed site review of potential unmonitored incorporated into the definition of significant release points and actions to take depending on release points (and less significant release changing conditions would seem more appropriate points).
to address the required monitoring/tracking requirements for the less significant and insignificant categories. Suggest that the categories be:
significant release points - those listed in NUREG 1301/2 (thus typically already in the ODCM) or have the potential to be greater than 1 % of the Appendix I limits less significant release points - 1% to 0.1% of the Appendix I limits insignificant release points - less than 0.1% of the Appendix I limits This should be much more meaningful and appropriate (e.g. Why penalize plants with the undue burden of additional monitoring if their significant releases are low?)
2    Dom    5 1.(c) Only the significant release points need to be listed  The staff agrees with the comment. The text on the map.                                            was revised.
3    Dom    5 1.(d) Does this apply to direct doses? It should. This        The staff disagrees with this comment.
means that doses may need to be routinely              Paragraph 1.(d) is based on the guidance in June 1, 2009
 
45 calculated for direct radiation even when these are    RG 1.109. Since RG .109 does not include not distinguishable from background (at the location    a formula for direct radiation for effluents, of exposure to the public, however extrapolations      direct radiation is not included as a may be possible based upon measurements much            contributor to the (reference to) 10% in RG closer to the source term where the direct dose      1.109, section C. As a result, RG 1.21 does may be distinguishable) since direct radiation can      not include direct doses in reference to the be the most significant dose pathway at many sites. 10% guidance of RG 1.109 (Section C).
These calculations would be more consistent with what is done for the other pathways (e.g., typically dont see any positive activity in REMP samples, but calculations are performed based upon the effluents released and pathway modeling).
4    Dom    6 1 (last sentence in both Monitoring a Significant        The staff agrees the use of the words Release Point and Monitoring a Less-significant        significant figures does not correctly reflect Release Point) - The requirement to use 3              the intent of this regulator position. The significant figures can be quite meaningless in        word 3 significant figures will be changed to many cases. These typically include the cases          3-digit exponential format.
where there is significant error in the actual values  Licensees may choose to round numbers (e.g. containment purges where the RCS leak rate        prior to reporting if technically justified. The may be changing). Why list 3 significant figures        licensee should report number that are where the errors in the values are +/- 30 or            technically correct.
more %? The use of these figures implies a high degree of sensitivity which in realty may not exist 5    Dom    6 1 (first sentence, second paragraph in Monitoring a      The staff agrees that the wording, as initially Less-significant Release Point) - The need to list      proposed, could be interpreted to be overly less-significant release points in an ODCM will be      restrictive. The staff position is that very difficult to implement. This would result in very  licensees should effectively demonstrate frequent changes to the ODCM based upon                conformity to guides on design objectives as changing plant conditions (e.g., changing activity      outlined in 10 CFR 50, Appendix I, Section levels in the secondary, changing safety/steam          III, which states, conformity shall be dump flow rates, changing activity in the RCS, etc.). demonstrated by calculational procedures Therefore, the statement in the last sentence          based on models and data such that the requiring reporting of any activity detected in a less- actual exposure is unlikely to be significant release point will also be difficult to    underestimated, and that licensees should implement. The need to report should be any            take account for all sources and pathways at June 1, 2009
 
46 activity that is greater than 1% of the total effluent the facility.
activity or can contribute to greater than 1% of the  The wording in the RG was revised to allow dose, regardless of its release classification        licensees, to the extent reasonable, to maintain the list of less-significant release points in documents other than the ODCM.
This eliminates the potential of frequent changes to the ODCM.
The ODCM should contain the list of significant release points and that should include anticipated operational occurrences which may include significant cross-contamination of systems normally not contaminated and primary to secondary leakage (for PWRs).
6    Dom    7 1 (last sentence in Monitoring Continuous Releases)      The staff agrees with the comment. The
                - The statement ...used to establish  should be    document was changed.
used to verify (or check)  since in many cases it may not be appropriate to change these factors based upon normal conditions. Many of these monitors are required to function during emergency conditions where other factors may be more appropriate! Tracking the normal effluents from such monitors can easily be accomplished by the use of appropriate correction factors. Being too prescriptive here may be dangerous in certain conditions.
7    Dom    8 1 Section C.1 (Principal Radionuclides for Effluent      The staff believes some specificity is Monitoring) -                                          necessary to ensure a consistent and This section is a potential problem. It has additional reasonable approach to the determination of requirements that may be difficult to interpret and    principal nuclides. However, licensees implement. For instance: the statement that            should remember that a list of principal principal radionuclides is dependent onsite          nuclides is prepared for purposes of specific factors (e.g. failed fuel and extent of      ensuring that (1) the appropriate sensitivity system leakage among others) and the statement        levels are used for analyses and (2) the the principal radionuclides list is contained in the Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report June 1, 2009
 
47 ODCM means that the ODCM requires changing          includes the principal nuclides.
when fuel conditions or leak rates change. How      Licensees are not required to implement the can this be reasonably implemented?                risk-informed concept of principal nuclide as outlined in RG 1.21, Revision 2. For This section needs to be much more general          licensees who wish to adopt the risk-without many of the specific details that are very  informed concept of principal nuclides, the difficult to implement.                            ODCM would not need to be revised immediately, and the ODCM could be revised within approximately 12 months following the determination of the principal nuclides.
In a reasonable implementation, the list of principal nuclides for liquid radioactive waste, for example, would be dominated by a very few nuclides (typically less than 12 nuclides), and that list would not change significantly even though plant conditions may change (e.g., failed fuel).
8    Dom    8 1 (Principal Radionuclides for Effluent Monitoring) - The 10% provision described in C.1.d (RG-1.109) is applicable to methods for determining significant exposure pathways Why 1%?
(e.g., inhalation or ingestion) which are unique at a site and for which equations are Would 10% be more appropriate and consistent        not provided in RG 1.109.
with C.1.(d) dose calculation statement on page 5  The 1% criteria in DG-1186 is applicable to as long as the wording reflects that the aggregate  methods for determining principal dose (or Curie total) from all the non-principal  radionuclides. Defining methods for nuclides is what needs to be considered. In many    determining principal nuclides and significant cases [it] may be appropriate to address nuclide    release points provides guidance that allows groups (e.g., HTDs like Fe-55, Sr-89 and Sr-90) as licensees to meet the regulatory requirement opposed to individual nuclides; if they dont      of 10 CFR 50 Appendix I, Section III.A.1, contribute to 10% or more of the dose, then why    which states licensees should make analyze for them?                                  estimates of exposure such that the actual exposure  is unlikely to be The technical approach and classification scheme    underestimated where account shall be June 1, 2009


It's not clear why DG-1186 requires an uncertainty estimate for Liquid Effluents in Table A-2, but not for Gaseous Effluents in Table A-1. In either case the proposed measurement uncertainty requirement for the ARERR would be difficult to accurately determine if done correctly, is redundant to existing QA/QC The staff disagrees that an error estimate provides no useful information. Licensees should make an estimate of the uncertainty. A detailed analysis including all parameters is not necessary. Because it may be difficult to assign error terms for each parameter affecting the final measurement, detailed statistical evaluations of error are not suggested. The omission of a column for "uncertainty" on Table A-1 was corrected by adding a column to the table. It is beneficial to have some measure of uncertainty for several reasons, two of which include (1) uncertainties exist and they June 1, 2009 30should be recognized in a broad sense, at minimum, and (2) uncertainties provide the reader (e.g., the public) with some understanding that the data reported may assume a range of values where each value may be statistically indistinguishable from the next, and (3) evaluation of uncertainties provides additional information from which is derived reasonable assurance that actual exposure of an individual through appropriate pathways is unlikely to be substantially underestimated even when all uncertainties are considered together (10 CFR 50 Appendix I). 70 NEI  A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A9 Table A1A Thru Table A1FThe listing for Xe-131m should use a lower case "M" to follow standard convention. The inclusion of I-132, I-134, and I-135 is a departure away from current requirements in RG 1.21, and is not in accordance with the radioiodines required per NUREG-1301/1302. Also, as pointed out in comments related to nuclides with short half-lives on Page 10, these nuclides could be subject to gross overestimation if decay-corrected to sample midpoint. These tables should be simplified to contain only those nuclides actually detected by the licensee over the course of the reporting period. If a nuclide is detected in one quarter but not others, and entry of "NDA" should be made to indicate "No Detectable Activity" as opposed to leaving the table cell empty. This indicates that that nuclide was actually assessed during that period. The staff agrees the use of a lower-case "m" is appropriate to represent a metastable state for a nuclide. All instances of "Xe-133M" were changed to "Xe-133m." The staff disagrees that the reporting guidance for short lived nuclides in RG 1.21 revision 2 is a departure from current requirements. NUREG-1301/1302 includes a sensitivity level (LLD) for I-131, and states that "other nuclides that are identifiable together with [the principal gamma emitters] shall also be analyzed and reported in the [Annual]
48 listed in EPRI NP-3840 may be worth considering        taken of all sources and pathways within the plant contributing to the particular type of effluent being considered.
Radioactive Effluent Release Report."  As a result, reporting the short-lived iodines is not inconsistent with NUREG-1302/1302. Refer also to the NRCs response to NEI comment #13. Regulatory guides do not establish requirements. The text that describes the tables in RG 1.21 June 1, 2009 31(section 9) has been revised to clearly indicate nuclides that are not detected do not need to be included in the tables. The issue with "blank" entries is addressed in NRCs response to NEI question #44 above. 71 NEI  A-13 Table A3 The volumes are listed in cubic feet rather than cubic meters. Is this the intent to change from cubic meters for reporting solid waste volumes as is the current requirement?  All other references in this document are in metric units. The staff agrees with this comment. Volume units are in cubic meters.
The use of a 10% criteria was tested with typical nuclear power plant data. And was judged not to be appropriate. At this time, the NRC is not prepared to consider 10% to be appropriate criteria when determining principal nuclides.
72 NEI  A-13 Table A3 The Table does not provide entry rows for Class C waste. Some plants generate Class C filters and some Class C resin. I suggest the three rows that list "Class B Resins, Filters, Evaporator bottoms" be changed to "Class B/C Resins, Filters, Evaporator bottoms." The staff agrees type "C" waste should be addressed. Although there is very little Class C waste shipped, the format provides for identifying shipments if/when Class C shipments are made. The regulatory guide has been changed to specifically exclude mixed waste and hazardous waste. This section has been revised to include on-site disposals. Information on volumes and Classes of stored waste onsite (e.g., due to Barnwell closure) should be reported in the ARERR. 73 NEI  A-13 Table A3 Section header title from "2 LLW Shipped for Processing (before disposal or return to site)" to "LLW shipped by Processor to a LLW disposal site". This change will align the Solid Radwaste Reporting with the DOE MIMS report. The staff agrees with this comment. Title in Table A-3, section 2, was changed from "LLW Shipped for Processing (before disposal or return to site)" to "LLW Shipped for Direct Disposal (to licensed waste disposal facilities)." 74 NEI  A-13 Table A3 If NRC Accepts The Recommendation to Use the MIMS Data (See Item 40 Above), [and reflects that change in the] glossary. This change also The staff disagrees with this comment. Reliance on the MIMS data base for all solid radwaste data necessary for the ARERR will June 1, 2009 32eliminates the need for NRC to define what a Waste Processor is and when potential radioactive material is a waste. not be used at this time. Refer to NRCs response to NEI question #40. 75 NEI  23 6 Additional Guidance Needed for LLRW Reporting. There are several items or types of waste materials (e.g. single use protective clothing, secondary filter cake, trash from the RCA, metal, equipment for refurbishing and return) that are being processed or decontaminated, resulting in very little LLRW. Additional clear guidance is needed from the NRC on whether these shipments to waste processors are to be included in the RG 1.21 (ARERR) Report and the volume and activity of the waste to be reported. Further examples where additional guidance is indicated include: 1- Shipments of contaminated laundry for dissolving (the domestic section of NRC has defined this as radiological material for decontamination [not waste], the Import/Export Section of NRC has defined this material as waste). 2-Shipments of contaminated equipment (pumps, valves & motors) for refurbishment. 3- Shipments of contaminated metals for recycling by smelting or decontamination and clearance. 4- Shipments of material for clearance. The staff agrees with this comment. Additional detail was added to sections 6 and 8.3 of the document. This is also reflected in Table A-3. 76 NEI  A14 Table A4 The affected Sector/Distance could be different from quarter to quarter. In the case of gaseous effluent discharges, the limiting sector/distance may be driven by the majority of activity released from an elevated release point during routine operation. However, during an outage quarter, ground-level releases may dominate and may result in the highest dose occurring in a totally different sector. The table is too simplistic to accommodate such The staff agrees with this comment. The column for "Sector and Distance" was removed from Table A-4. The guidance in RG 1.21 only required dose assessments for I-131 and I-133 and nuclides with half-lives greater than 8 days.
EPRI NP-3840 was reviewed. That report suggested nuclides >1% of the 5 mrem/yr whole body Appendix I design objective were either significant or possibly significant and listed those as <1% (of the 5 mrem/yr whole body Appendix I design objective) as not significant. If a licensee chooses to implement EPRI NP-3840, documentation of justification should be kept on file for inspection.
June 1, 2009 33differences. Also, this table requires assessment of gaseous doses from particulates with half-lives of greater than 8 days, and may be out of step with short-lived activity presented in Tables A-1A through A-1F. 77 NEI  A17 Table A8 Table A-8 is a partial list of screening values for soil from NUREG-1757. What values should the licensee use for water?  The staff agrees that none of the main objectives of RG 1.21 is to provide decommissioning guidance. Many references to decommissioning were removed from the document. The table A-8 was removed. Licensees may still want to use some screening criteria, but specific criteria (other than significant residual radioactivity) is not explicitly described in RG 1.21. 78 NEI  28 A17 9.5.1.4.15 Table A8 It appears that the NRC is attempting in draft RG 1.21 and other regulatory guidance revisions (i.e.
9     Dom    9 1 (last paragraph in Principal Radionuclides for         C-14 may be a principal radionuclide Effluent Monitoring) -                                 contributing more than 1% of the total radioactive effluent by activity or by dose, and if so, should be considered a principal Does this mean all sites need to account for C-14?      radionuclide and accounted for.
RG 4.1) to impose, without meaningful backfit analysis, operational remediation requirements that effectively are the 10 CFR 20 Subpart E criteria for unrestricted license termination. Existing programs for radiation protection, recordkeeping under 10CFR50.75g, and decommissioning regulations and guidance already address this issue. These new effluent control requirements are not justified based on public health or protection of the environment and should be assessed under the backfit rule. The staff disagrees with this comment. Regulatory guides are not requirements.
An evaluation should be made for the What about other hard-to-detect nuclides like P-32,     principal nuclides. Other radionuclides Ni-63 and others?                                      contributing more than 1% by activity or dose, whether hard to detect or not, should also be accounted for.
The issue regarding a backfit analysis is addressed in NRCs comment to NEI question #2. Guidance on spills and leaks is appropriate as it relates to measuring, evaluating, and reporting information in the ARERR. Guidance provided regarding residual radioactivity screening values are only provided as one possible means licensees may use to determine how to respond to spills and leaks with respect to measuring, evaluating, and reporting effluents in the ARERR. Licensees may use other means, techniques, or methods provided the appropriate information is contained in the ARERR. 1 STARS 4 B.2 Page 4, last paragraph, The staff agrees with the comment, and the June 1, 2009 34Acronyms used such as ISFSI (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation) and ARERR (Annual Radiological Effluent Release Report) should be defined prior to their use. acronyms have been defined. 2 STARS 6 1 Page 6, 4th paragraph, " "Less-significant release points are, to the extent reasonable, required to be listed in the ODCM." It is unclear as to the source of this requirement. NUREG-1301 and NUREG-1302 do not appear to contain this "requirement."  This seems to contradict the statement on page 4 that states"NUREG-1301/1302 contains detailed guidance for the content and format of a licensee's ODCM." The staff agrees that the wording, as initially proposed, could be interpreted to be overly restrictive. The staff position is that licensees should effectively demonstrate conformity to guides on design objectives as outlined in 10 CFR 50, Appendix I, Section III, which states, "conformity -shall be demonstrated by calculational procedures based on models and data such that the actual exposure -is unlikely to be underestimated." The wording was revised to allow licensees, to the extent reasonable, to maintain the list of less-significant release points in documents other than the ODCM. The ODCM should contain the list of significant release points and that should include anticipated operational occurrences which may include significant cross-contamination of systems normally not contaminated and primary to secondary leakage (for PWRs). 3 STARS 7 1 Page 7, last paragraph, "Monitoring Batch Releases --For batch releases, measurements should be performed to identify specific radionuclides before a release to the environment.
10    Dom    9 2 (Sampling Liquid Radwaste, second sentence) -           The staff agrees with the comment. The text recirculated by up to three volumes should       has been changed.
In those cases in which an analysis of specific-radionuclides (such as strontium-89/90 and iron-55) cannot be done before release (see NUREG-1301 and NUREG-1302), representative samples should be collected for the purpose of subsequent composite analysis. The composite samples should The staff agrees with this comment. A qualifier was added to state the hard-to-detect nuclides listed in the example were applicable to liquid releases.
be recirculated by at least three volumes            (This is a duplicate of NEI comment #15).
June 1, 2009 35be analyzed at the scheduled frequencies specified in NUREG-1301 and NUREG-1302."  NUREG-1301 and NUREG-1302 only require strontium-89/90 and iron-55 sampling and analysis for Liquid Batch releases. Strontium-89/90 and iron-55 sampling are not required for gaseous batch releases. 4 STARS 9 1 Page 9, 2nd paragraph, "However, the concept of 'principal radionuclides' does not reduce the burden for reporting nuclides detected in effluents. In addition to 'principal radionuclides, ' other radionuclides detected during routine monitoring of release points must be reported in the radioactive effluent release report and included in dose assessments to members of the public. "
otherwise it is acceptable to recirculate for less than three volumes which is not the intent June 1, 2009
Without a standardized lower limit of detection (LLD), how can a licensee ensure they meet the "1 % of the total activity" approach?  The concept of a required sensitivity levels for analytical analyses was applicable in RG 1.21 Revision 1, and that concept is still applicable in Revision 2 of RG 1.21. The new guidance provided in Revision 2 (regarding principal nuclides) merely allows licensees to select analytical sensitivity levels that are most appropriate for the radionuclide mixture experienced at their site while still ensuring doses are not underestimated and that consideration is taken of all sources within the facility. As a result, all licensees will specify the required sensitivity levels for nuclides. This approach ensures all licensees (or anyone who inspects the licensee's data) can calculate 1% of the total and determine which nuclides are major contributors at a particular facility. 5 STARS 11 3 Page 11, 3rd paragraph, "Release Height," The Release Height section should reference Regulatory Guide 1.111 for definition or discussion. The staff agrees with this comment. Reference to RG 1.111 was added in the paragraph. 6 STARS 20 5.8.5 Page 20, Section 5.8.5, " ... A pathway is considered significant if a realistic evaluation yields an additional dose increment equal to or more than 10% of the total from all pathways considered (see the regulatory position in Regulatory Guide 1.109)." The staff agrees that the wording is not exactly the same as RG 1.109. It is not the staff's intent to reproduce RG 1.109 within RG 1.21. RG 1.21 captures the significant aspects from RG 1.109 and then refers the June 1, 2009 36This is not the exact wording in Regulatory Guide 1.109: "A pathway is considered significant if a conservative evaluation yields an additional dose increment equal to or more than 10 percent of the total from all pathways considered in this guide." reader to RG 1.109 for more detail. The staff considers this an acceptable approach. The staff agrees that some of the wording could be improved, and the sentence referenced in the STARS comment was revised. 7 STARS 21 5.10.3 Page 21, Section 5.10.3, "The dose contributions from direct radiation may be estimated based on either (1) thermoluminescent dosimetry (TLD) measurements, (2) calculations, or (3) a combination of TLD measurements and calculations."  In addition to TLD measurement, there are other methods available for direct radiation measurements (e.g., ion chambers). Recommend changing "TLD measurements" to "direct measurements." The staff agrees with this comment. The changes were made. Licensees are cautioned that if alternate means are used for direct radiation measurements, it could introduce new modes of failure which may impact the availability of the data. Such changes should be carefully evaluated. 8 STARS 24 8 Page 24, Section 8, "Data Trending, "  General Comments:  There is no stated purpose for Data Trending in the ARERR. Data trending in the ARERR does not provide meaningful information and is redundant to other trending requirements. Total curies released are typically a function of core effective full power days, thermal plant rating and fuel integrity. Dose values are a function of curies released, pathways present, physical location of residences and meteorological data. Generally, a plant has little control over airborne effluent release concentrations. Fuel reliability is already tracked through the INPO Consolidated Data Entry (CDE) process. A comparison of a given plant from year to year is possible but of questionable value. It is not possible to compare different plants, especially when individual plants are allowed to establish The staff agrees that too much emphasis was placed on data trending in DG-1186. The section of data trending was eliminated with the exception that licensees should still ensure the provisions of 10 CFR 50 Appendix I, Section IV.B.2 (i.e., to evaluate the relationship between quantities of radioactive material released in effluents and resultant radiation doses to individuals) are addressed.
June 1, 2009 37LLDs based on "principal nuclides" (see page 8, Principal Radionuclides for Effluent Monitoring). This is implied in Section 9, "The aspect of consistency aids review by members of the public and allows easier industry-wide comparisons of the data."  Effluent Release Data was formerly compiled in NUREG/CR-2907 (ADAMS Accession Number:
ML041450170), http://hps.ne.uiuc.eduinatcenviro/eff2000s.htm and http://www.reirs.comieffluent/EDB_Main.asp. The most current data is only available through 2004 at http://www.reirs.comieffluent/EDB_Main.asp  The issue of summarizing data was also the subject ofSECY-06-0212 (http://www.nrc.gov/reading-nnldoc-.
collections/commissi0n/secys/2006/secy2006-0212/2006-0212scy.html)  If the desire is to provide data for "review by members of the public and allows easier industry-wide comparisons of the data", it would be more appropriate to keep the on-line database current, and provide on-line trending tools, rather than providing this information in each individual ARERR. 9 STARS 24 8.1.1 Page 24, Section 8.1.1, "source term for curies of total mixed fission and activation products, "  Is this intended to include tritium, gases, and alpha? If not, change to "curies of fission and activation products (excluding tritium, gases, and alpha)." (See Table A-2). The staff agrees with this comment. The section on data trending was eliminated. 10 STARS 24 8.2.1 Page 24, Sections 8.1.2 and 8.2.4, "source term for The staff agrees with this comment. The June 1, 2009 388.2.4 curies of tritium, "  Change to "curies of tritium."  section on data trending was eliminated. 11 STARS 24 8.2.1 Page '24, Section 8.2.1, "source term for curies of total mixed fission and activation products, "  Change to "curies of fission and activation gases" (see Table A-I). The staff agrees with this comment. The section on data trending was eliminated. 12 STARS 24 8.2.3 Page 24, Section 8.2.3, "source term for curies of iodine, "  From a practical perspective and to standardize trending it is more useful to simply trend 1-131. Suggest changing to "curies of  I-131."  The staff agrees with this comment. The section on data trending was eliminated. 13 STARS A-2 Table A1A Page 24, Section 9.1.1 References Table A-I, "(b) iodines halogens,"  Table A-I, Column heading states only "iodines," it does not include "halogens."  The staff agrees with this comment. Table A-1 was changed. 14 STARS 24 A-2 9.1.2 Table A1A Page~4/25, "9.1.2 Table A-lA, Gaseous Effluents--Ground-Level Release--Batch Mode contains a summation of gaseous effluent releases from ground-level release points in the batch mode of release for the five radionuclide categories of fission gases, iodines/halogens, particulates, tritium, and gross alpha. Report the following:  9.1.2.1 curies of each radionuclide released by quarter and year, and . 9.1.2.2 total curies released in each radionuclide category (fission and activation gases, iodines halogens, particulates, tritium, and gross alpha) by quarter and year. "  Section 9.1.2 should state "fission and activation gases" instead of just "fission gases" for consistency with section 9.1.2.2, Table A-IA should state "fission and activation gases" instead of just The staff agrees with this comment. Tables and paragraph were changed.
June 1, 2009 39"fission gases" in the heading row.
15 STARS 25 9.1.3 9.1.4 9.1.5 9.1.6 9.1.7 Sections should state "fission and activation gases" instead of just "fission gases" for consistency-with section 9.1:2.2. Tables A-lA, A-1B, A-1C, A-1D, A-IE, and A-IF should state "fission and activation gases" instead of just "fission gases" in the heading row. The staff agrees with this comment. Tables and paragraphs were changed. 16 STARS 26 9.4 "The annual evaluations of public dose should be calculated."
Change "public dose" to "dose to Members of the Public." This is consistent with the wording in Section 5 and the term in the glossary. The staff agrees with this comment. The paragraph was changed. 17 STARS 27 9.5.1.3.2 " ... minimum detectable activity (MDA) ... , "  This is the only occurrence of the term "MDA" in this document. Section 4, Quality Assurance, has a lengthy discussion of RG 4.15, but no discussion of MDA. The staff agrees with this comment. Additional detail was added at the location where MDA is discussed. 18 STARS 28 9.5.1.4.15 Page 28, Section 9.5.1.4.15 [states] "residual radioactivity levels and whether any levels exceed the DCGLs provided in Table H.2 in Appendix H to NUREG-1757, Volume 2,"  This is a decommissioning requirement. There is no routine sampling requirement for Soil Surface Contamination. The staff agrees with the Liquid Radioactive Release Lessons Learned Task Force Final Report (LLTF) Report. The Liquid Radioactive Release Lessons Learned Task Force Final Report (LLTF) Report concluded no routine on-site surveys are required for potential abnormal spills and leaks of radioactive liquids. However as noted in the following sentence of the LLTF report, surveys are required for on-site spills and leaks in order to satisfy the records requirements of 10 CFR 50.75(g). 19 STARS 28 9.5.5 Page 28, Section 9.5.5 references NUREG-1301/1302, section 3.3.3.10.b,  The staff agrees with this comment. The Additional reference was added.
June 1, 2009 40NUREG-1301, section 3.3.3.10.b, is for Liquid effluent monitoring instrumentation channels only. NUREG-1301, Section 3.3.3.11.b for gaseous effluent monitoring instrumentation should also be included. 20 STARS 32 Glossary "Channel Calibration" ... See also the definition in NUREG-1301/1302."  This appears to be a typo. The definition should refer to "NUREG-1301/1302." The staff agrees with this comment. The definition of channel calibration was deleted since it was not used in the body of the document. 21 STARS 32 to 35 Glossary "Channel Operational Test (COT), " and "Source Check, " These are not the exact definitions in NUREG-1301. The staff agrees with this comment. The definitions were revised. 22 STARS 33 to 35 Glossary "Controlled Area," "Member of the Public," "Monitoring, " "Restricted Area, " "Site Boundary,"
and "Source Check." These are not the exact definitions in 10CFR20.1003. The staff agrees with this comment. The following definitions were revised: Channel Calibration, Channel Check, Monitoring, Member of the Public, Residual Radioactivity, Restricted Area, Site Boundary, and Unrestricted Area. 23 STARS 35 Glossary "Significant Release Point," See the definition for Minor Release Point. The wording is not consistent. The staff agrees with this comment. Minor release point was deleted. 24 STARS 32 to 36 Glossary Definitions for "A priori," "Abnormal Release," "Effluent Discharge (Radioactive)," "Significant. Contamination," "Significant Residual Radioactivity," "Site Environs," and "Unlicensed Material," do not match definitions listed the Glossary of DG-4013, Radiological Environmental Monitoring for Nuclear Power Plants. The staff agrees the wording should be exactly the same in both documents. Changes were made. 25 STARS A1 to A7 Tables A1A thru A1F Appendix A, Tables A-1A, A-1B, A-1C, A-1D, A-1E and A-1F, Tables A-1A, A-1B, A-1C, A-1D, A-1E, and A-1F should state "fission and activation gases" instead of just "fission gases" in the heading row. The staff agrees with this comment. This is a duplicate of STARS comment #15. See NRCs response to STARS comment #15.
June 1, 2009 411 PPL  A1 to A7 Tables A1A thru A1F Clarify the requirements for reporting of air particulates with half lives less than eight days. Table A1A through A1F reference short lived airborne particulate radioisotopes such as Cesium 138 (which has a 2 minute half life). Dose assessments Section 9.4.1.3 references dose calculations for particulates with half lives greater than 8 days. There does not appear to be reasonable justification for reporting air particulates radioisotopes with half lives of less than 8 days. The staff agrees that additional guidance and clarification is warranted. NUREG-1301/1302 includes a sensitivity level (LLD) for I-131, and states that "other nuclides that are identifiable together with [the principal gamma emitters] shall also be analyzed and reported in the [Annual] Radioactive Effluent Release Report."  As a result, reporting the short-lived iodines is not inconsistent with NUREG-1301/1302. RG 1.21 Revision 1 states that when monitoring iodines, "-the samples should be analyzed weekly for I-131. An analysis shall also be made monthly or more often for I-133 and I-135." RG 1.21, Revision 1 also states that for particulates in gaseous effluents, "Measurements should be made to determine the quantities of radionuclides with half-lives greater than 8 days-" An inspection of licensee's Technical Specifications indicates most licensees have adopted the verbiage from NUREG-1301/1302, and as a result nuclides with half-lives less than 8 days are reported if they are detected during an analysis. This reporting of nuclides with half-lives less than 8 days is consistent with 10 CFR 50.36a(a) that states licensees "shall submit a report-annually that specifies the quantity of each of the principal radionuclides released to the unrestricted areas in liquid and gaseous effluents as well as any other information that may be required by the commission to estimate maximum potential June 1, 2009 42annual radiation doses to the public resulting from effluent releases."  This is also one of the reasons why the concept of "principal nuclide" is addressed in RG 1.21 Revision 2. It should be noted that for calculation of doses, only I-131 and those particulate nuclides that are greater than 8 days are normally required to be included in the dose assessment. 2 PPL  A1 to A7 Tables A1A thru A1F Rh-188 is listed in Tables A1A through A1F. There is no such isotope listed in any of the references available to us. Also included in Tables A1A through A1F is Zn-72. Zn-72 is an isotope (with a short half life of 46 hours) not normally identified in reactor coolant, solid radioactive waste or radioactive effluent samples. This isotope should not be included in the reporting table. The staff agrees with this comment. Changes were made as indicated. 3 PPL  24 8.1 8.2 Source term trending (ten year trend period) is a new requirement. Please clarify the term "source term" as referenced in Section 8.1 and 8.2. The staff agrees with this comment with the exception that regulatory guides are not requirements. The section of data trending was eliminated with the exception that licensees should still ensure the provisions of 10 CFR 50 Appendix I, Section IV.B.2 (i.e., to evaluate the relationship between quantities of radioactive material released in effluents and resultant radiation doses to individuals) are addressed. 4 PPL  22 5.11.5 Section 5.11.5 states, "Based on the above information, the dose calculations are performed as shown below."  The referenced dose calculations in Section 5.11.5.1.1, 5.11.5.1.2, 5.11.5.2.1, 5.11.5.3.1 and 5.11.5.3.2 appear to use an incorrect value for Whole Body and Organ dose due to on-site pond H-3 evaporation to nearest The staff agrees with this comment. The example calculation was deleted.
June 1, 2009 43residence (ingestion, leafy vegetables). 0.017 mrem is the value used in the dose calculations but the value referenced (from Section 5.11.4) for use in the calculations is 0.0017 mrem. 5 PPL  25 9.2.1 Section 9.2.1 details reporting of liquid waste dilution flow, specifically, "external dilution flow rate, average (river to stream flow rates)."  Please clarify the averaging period for external dilution flow rate (daily during periods of release, monthly, quarterly, annual). The staff agrees with this comment that the dilution flow (dilution volume) should have additional clarification. This was provided in accordance with HPPOS-099 and has been included in the Regulatory Guide. 6 PPL  28 9.5.8.1 "Omissions from previously submitted Arrears"  Please correct/clarify/define "Arrears." The staff agrees with the comment. The incorrect spelling has been corrected. G1 Dom  1 All The NRC appears to be taking too much out of the existing Regulatory Guides and restating it in this draft. In some cases guidance is outside the scope of the draft Regulatory Guide. The staff agrees that some level of unnecessary duplication existed, and the unnecessary duplication was eliminated. G2 Dom  1 All Similar to other Regulatory guides, such as RG 4.15, the NRC should give licensees the option to continue using the current version of RG 1.21, as referenced by licensing documents. The staff agrees that Revision 2 of RG 1.21 is just another method of complying with the regulatory requirements. Licensees with licensing commitments to Revision 1 of RG 1.21 may maintain their existing commitments. Licensees are not required to adopt the guidance in RG 1.21 Rev 2. G3 Dom  1 All It would be helpful if this RG included a Table of Contents. The staff agrees with the comment. A Table of Contents was added. G4 Dom 1 All Since one of the objectives listed in Section B.2 is evaluating dose to the public, it seems more appropriate to list the 10 CFR 20.1301 requirements in this RG and not in RG 4.1. Similarly, this RG may be the appropriate document to address the 10 CFR 50.75(g) compliance issue. This is consistent with the General Comments that we provided on DG-4013 (RG 4.1). The staff agrees that dose to the public is addressed in RG 1.21. RG 1.21 will only address 10 CFR 50.75(g) in the context of measuring, evaluating, and reporting effluents. The staff addresses 10 CFR 20.1301 requirements in RG 1.21 and this guidance was removed from RG 4.1.
June 1, 2009 441 Dom  5 1(b) The definition for "less significant release points" is not provided in the glossary. More importantly, the requirement to list these in the ODCM will be a problem since there is no threshold below which a release point is insignificant. Suggest a third category of "insignificant release points."  Listing various insignificant release points such as main steam-line safety valves and steam-driven feed water pumps in an ODCM will typically be meaningless (especially when the curie totals and doses will typically be less than 1% of the totals from the other release points). A documented detailed site review of potential unmonitored release points and actions to take depending on changing conditions would seem more appropriate to address the required monitoring/tracking requirements for the less significant and insignificant categories. Suggest that the categories be: significant release points - those listed in NUREG 1301/2 (thus typically already in the ODCM) or have the potential to be greater than 1 % of the Appendix I limits  less significant release points - 1% to 0.1% of the Appendix I limits insignificant release points - less than 0.1% of the Appendix I limits This should be much more meaningful and appropriate (e.g. Why penalize plants with the undue burden of additional monitoring if their significant releases are low?) The staff agrees to add definition of less-significant release point to glossary. The staff agrees that less-significant release points do not necessarily need to be included in the ODCM, and that text was revised. It is appropriate to include, to the extent reasonable, the less significant release points in some site documentation (e.g., procedures or basis documents). The staff agrees that a reference to the Appendix I limits as a basis for significant release points has merit, and that has been incorporated into the definition of significant release points (and less significant release points). 2 Dom  5 1.(c) Only the significant release points need to be listed on the map. The staff agrees with the comment. The text was revised. 3 Dom  5 1.(d) Does this apply to direct doses?  It should. This means that doses may need to be routinely The staff disagrees with this comment. Paragraph 1.(d) is based on the guidance in June 1, 2009 45calculated for direct radiation even when these are not distinguishable from background (at the location of exposure to the public, however extrapolations may be possible based upon measurements much closer to the "source term" where the direct dose may be distinguishable) since direct radiation can be the most significant dose pathway at many sites. These "calculations" would be more consistent with what is done for the other pathways (e.g., typically don't see any positive activity in REMP samples, but calculations are performed based upon the effluents released and pathway modeling). RG 1.109. Since RG .109 does not include a formula for direct radiation for effluents, direct radiation is not included as a contributor to the (reference to) 10% in RG 1.109, section C. As a result, RG 1.21 does not include direct doses in reference to the 10% guidance of RG 1.109 (Section C). 4 Dom  6 1 (last sentence in both Monitoring a Significant Release Point and Monitoring a Less-significant Release Point) - The requirement to use 3 significant figures can be quite meaningless in many cases. These typically include the cases where there is significant error in the actual values (e.g. containment purges where the RCS leak rate may be changing). Why list 3 significant figures where the errors in the values are +/- 30 or more %?  The use of these figures implies a high degree of sensitivity which in realty may not exist The staff agrees the use of the words "significant figures" does not correctly reflect the intent of this regulator position. The word "3 significant figures" will be changed to "3-digit exponential format." Licensee's may choose to round numbers prior to reporting if technically justified. The licensee should report number that are technically correct. 5 Dom  6 1 (first sentence, second paragraph in Monitoring a Less-significant Release Point) - The need to list less-significant release points in an ODCM will be very difficult to implement. This would result in very frequent changes to the ODCM based upon changing plant conditions (e.g., changing activity levels in the secondary, changing safety/steam dump flow rates, changing activity in the RCS, etc.). Therefore, the statement in the last sentence requiring reporting of any activity detected in a less-significant release point will also be difficult to implement. The need to report should be any The staff agrees that the wording, as initially proposed, could be interpreted to be overly restrictive. The staff position is that licensees should effectively demonstrate conformity to guides on design objectives as outlined in 10 CFR 50, Appendix I, Section III, which states, "conformity -shall be demonstrated by calculational procedures based on models and data such that the actual exposure -is unlikely to be underestimated", and that licensees should take account for all sources and pathways at June 1, 2009 46activity that is greater than 1% of the total effluent activity or can contribute to greater than 1% of the dose, regardless of its release classification the facility. The wording in the RG was revised to allow licensees, to the extent reasonable, to maintain the list of less-significant release points in documents other than the ODCM. This eliminates the potential of frequent changes to the ODCM. The ODCM should contain the list of significant release points and that should include anticipated operational occurrences which may include significant cross-contamination of systems normally not contaminated and primary to secondary leakage (for PWRs). 6 Dom  7 1 (last sentence in Monitoring Continuous Releases) - The statement "...used to establish -" should be " - used to verify (or check) -"  since in many cases it may not be appropriate to change these factors based upon normal conditions. Many of these monitors are required to function during emergency conditions where other factors may be more appropriate!  Tracking the normal effluents from such monitors can easily be accomplished by the use of appropriate correction factors. Being too prescriptive here may be dangerous in certain conditions. The staff agrees with the comment. The document was changed. 7 Dom  8 1 Section C.1 (Principal Radionuclides for Effluent Monitoring) -  This section is a potential problem. It has additional requirements that may be difficult to interpret and implement. For instance:  the statement that "principal radionuclides" is dependent onsite specific factors (e.g. failed fuel and extent of system leakage among others) and the statement the "principal radionuclides" list is contained in the The staff believes some specificity is necessary to ensure a consistent and reasonable approach to the determination of principal nuclides. However, licensees should remember that a list of principal nuclides is prepared for purposes of ensuring that (1) the appropriate sensitivity levels are used for analyses and (2) the Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report June 1, 2009 47ODCM means that the ODCM requires changing when fuel conditions or leak rates change. How can this be reasonably implemented?
This section needs to be much more general without many of the specific details that are very difficult to implement. includes the principal nuclides. Licensees are not required to implement the risk-informed concept of principal nuclide as outlined in RG 1.21, Revision 2. For licensees who wish to adopt the risk-informed concept of principal nuclides, the ODCM would not need to be revised immediately, and the ODCM could be revised within approximately 12 months following the determination of the principal nuclides. In a reasonable implementation, the list of principal nuclides for liquid radioactive waste, for example, would be dominated by a very few nuclides (typically less than 12 nuclides), and that list would not change significantly even though plant conditions may change (e.g., failed fuel). 8 Dom  8 1 (Principal Radionuclides for Effluent Monitoring) - 


Why 1%?
49 11    Dom    15 4    (Measurement Uncertainty) - This whole section        The staff disagrees with the comment.
Would 10% be more appropriate and consistent with C.1.(d) dose calculation statement on page 5 as long as the wording reflects that the aggregate dose (or Curie total) from all the "non-principal" nuclides is what needs to be considered. In many cases [it] may be appropriate to address nuclide groups (e.g., HTD's like Fe-55, Sr-89 and Sr-90) as opposed to individual nuclides;  if they don't contribute to 10% or more of the dose, then why analyze for them?
should be deleted. In theory this is a nice            Licensees should make an estimate of the parameter to calculate, but it is so variable and     uncertainty. A detailed analysis including all dependent on many conditions, including actual        parameters is not necessary. Because it isotopic mixture, the relative magnitude of this      may be difficult to assign error terms for mixture (which can be dependent on dilution in the     each parameter affecting the final effluent stream, especially for airborne releases      measurement, detailed statistical evaluations and can change significantly over time) that in most  of error are not suggested.
The technical approach and classification scheme The 10% "provision" described in C.1.d (RG-1.109) is applicable to methods for determining significant "exposure pathways" (e.g., inhalation or ingestion) which are unique at a site and for which equations are not provided in RG 1.109. The 1% criteria in DG-1186 is applicable to methods for determining principal radionuclides. Defining methods for determining principal nuclides and significant release points provides guidance that allows licensees to meet the regulatory requirement of 10 CFR 50 Appendix I, Section III.A.1, which states licensees should make estimates of exposure "-such that the actual exposure - is unlikely to be underestimated" where "account shall be June 1, 2009 48listed in EPRI NP-3840 may be worth considering taken of all sources and pathways within the plant contributing to the particular type of effluent being considered." The use of a 10% criteria was tested with typical nuclear power plant data. And was judged not to be appropriate. At this time, the NRC is not prepared to consider 10% to be appropriate criteria when determining principal nuclides. EPRI NP-3840 was reviewed. That report suggested nuclides >1% of the 5 mrem/yr whole body Appendix I design objective were either "significant" or "possibly significant" and listed those as <1% (of the 5 mrem/yr whole body Appendix I design objective) as not significant. If a licensee chooses to implement EPRI NP-3840, documentation of justification should be kept on file for inspection. 9 Dom  9  1 (last paragraph in Principal Radionuclides for Effluent Monitoring) - 
cases it is only a guess based on a specific set of    (This is a duplicate of NEI comment #69).
circumstances. The last sentence discusses sampling uncertainty, but the most significant uncertainty occurs for grab samples of continuous release pathways (especially when some of these pathways, especially ventilation have significant flow rate which provides very large dilution resulting in significant measurement error). Most licensees track radiation monitor changes, but there are limitations and the error in the isotopics is significant, especially for routine low level releases and the more difficult to detect nuclides (e.g., Kr-85). Much better sensitivity occurs for the higher activity samples obtained during outages, but these typically occur for shorter periods of time.
Therefore, these still may make up a fraction of the quarterly and annual totals and this fraction will change with time. Anyone performing detailed calculations for this uncertainty has significant uncertainty in their calculations, especially since it is grouped as an aggregate (both for nuclides and release points).
12    Dom    18 5.6.4 Why do the 10 CFR 20.1301(c) doses need to            Appendix I applies to current year releases include prior-year discharges and the 10 CFR 50        from effluents only, whereas 10 CFR 20 Appendix I do not (see Section C.5.8.4)?              applies to total dose (from both current year It would seem appropriate to be consistent and do      direct radiation, from current year effluents, the prior-year for both.                               and prior year effluents).
June 1, 2009


Does this mean all sites need to account for C-14?
50 10 CFR 50 Appendix I is an annual limit for committed dose due to effluents, whereas 10 CFR 20.1301 is an annual limit of effective dose equivalent for both effluents and direct radiation. The occupational dose of 10 CFR 20.1301 is the dose from licensed operation which includes dose from previous years effluents. See 20.1001(b) that establishes the purpose as controlling the total dose to an individual (including doses from licensed and unlicensed radioactive material). The unlicensed material includes the previous years discharges to the environment.
What about other hard-to-detect nuclides like P-32, Ni-63 and others? C-14 may be a principal radionuclide contributing more than 1% of the total radioactive effluent by activity or by dose, and if so, should be considered a principal radionuclide and accounted for. An evaluation should be made for the principal nuclides. Other radionuclides contributing more than 1% by activity or dose, whether hard to detect or not, should also be accounted for. 10 Dom  9 2 (Sampling Liquid Radwaste, second sentence) - "- recirculated by up to three volumes -" should be "recirculated by at least three volumes -" otherwise it is acceptable to recirculate for less than three volumes which is not the intent The staff agrees with the comment. The text has been changed. (This is a duplicate of NEI comment #15).  
13    Dom    19 5.8.3  The second sentence is not always true; in some      The staff agrees with the comment. This has cases it is possible that food and/or drink at a      been revised to state that only when the downwind location may be obtained from another        downstream drinking water is consumed by location. This is especially true for drinking water  the upstream resident should it be added.
which may be obtained from a public water supply where the intake may be downstream of the liquid discharge point but not downwind of the airborne release point. Therefore, the third sentence is not a good example since is dependent on site conditions and may not always be true.
14    Dom    21 5.10.2 Similar to Specific [Dominion] comment 3, there      The staff agrees that licensees may use can be an issue here.                                measurements, calculations, or a combination of measurements and calculations to determine direct radiation.
What is indistinguishable from background?
Additionally, licensees may use methods (e.g., as outlined in RG 1.21, Revision 2) to Best efforts should be performed to calculate direct  make a determination of direct radiation that doses; these can be based upon measurements          is distinguishable from background.
performed near the source terms and appropriately    Licensees may use other methods, but the extrapolated (e.g., based upon shine modeling) to  methods should be clearly documented.
the point of exposure and then compared to actual June 1, 2009


June 1, 2009 4911 Dom  15 4  (Measurement Uncertainty) - This whole section should be deleted. In theory this is a nice parameter to calculate, but it is so variable and dependent on many conditions, including actual isotopic mixture, the relative magnitude of this mixture (which can be dependent on dilution in the effluent stream, especially for airborne releases and can change significantly over time) that in most cases it is only a guess based on a specific set of circumstances. The last sentence discusses sampling uncertainty, but the most significant uncertainty occurs for grab samples of continuous release pathways (especially when some of these pathways, especially ventilation have significant flow rate which provides very large dilution resulting in significant measurement error). Most licensees track radiation monitor changes, but there are limitations and the error in the isotopics is significant, especially for routine low level releases and the more difficult to detect nuclides (e.g., Kr-85). Much better sensitivity occurs for the higher activity samples obtained during outages, but these typically occur for shorter periods of time. Therefore, these still may make up a fraction of the quarterly and annual totals and this fraction will change with time. Anyone performing detailed calculations for this uncertainty has significant uncertainty in their calculations, especially since it is grouped as an aggregate (both for nuclides and release points). The staff disagrees with the comment. Licensees should make an estimate of the uncertainty. A detailed analysis including all parameters is not necessary. Because it may be difficult to assign error terms for each parameter affecting the final measurement, detailed statistical evaluations of error are not suggested.   (This is a duplicate of NEI comment #69).
51 REMP measurements (if possible) similar to what should be done for all pathways. (see Specific comment 3 for more specific details) 15    Dom    21 5.10.3  Based upon previous comments (Specific                    The staff agrees with the comment.
12 Dom  18 5.6.4 Why do the 10 CFR 20.1301(c) doses need to include prior-year discharges and the 10 CFR 50 Appendix I do not (see Section C.5.8.4)?  It would seem appropriate to be consistent and do the prior-year for both. Appendix I applies to current year releases from effluents only, whereas 10 CFR 20 applies to total dose (from both current year direct radiation, from current year effluents, and prior year effluents).
comments 3 and 14), it would seem appropriate to          Licensees should perform an evaluation perform both calculations and measurements for            based on their site specific factors to direct radiation, since it is likely the most significant determine the best method of estimating dose pathway for many sites. As mentioned in the          dose from direct radiation. The existing previous comment, calculations can be performed          verbiage allows licensees to use a using onsite (near the source term) measurements          combination of calculations and and these can be compared to measurements                measurements. No change needed.
June 1, 2009 5010 CFR 50 Appendix I is an annual limit for committed dose due to effluents, whereas 10 CFR 20.1301 is an annual limit of effective dose equivalent for both effluents and direct radiation. The occupational dose of 10 CFR 20.1301 is the "dose from licensed operation" which includes dose from previous years effluents. See 20.1001(b) that establishes the purpose as controlling the total dose to an individual (including doses from licensed and unlicensed radioactive material). The unlicensed material includes the previous year's discharges to the environment. 13 Dom  19 5.8.3 The second sentence is not always true; in some cases it is possible that food and/or drink at a downwind location may be obtained from another location. This is especially true for drinking water which may be obtained from a public water supply where the intake may be downstream of the liquid discharge point but not downwind of the airborne release point. Therefore, the third sentence is not a good example since is dependent on site conditions and may not always be true. The staff agrees with the comment. This has been revised to state that only when the downstream drinking water is consumed by the upstream resident should it be added. 14 Dom 21 5.10.2 Similar to Specific [Dominion] comment 3, there can be an issue here.
much closer to the location of public exposure.
What is indistinguishable from background?  
16    Dom    22 C.5.11.3 Section C.5.11.3 - This example showing an               The staff agrees with the comment, the extrapolation of doses seems like an endorsement          calculation in section 5.11 was deleted.
of a potentially very unscientific method. Why            Additional information and references were extrapolate a number that includes both                  added regarding extrapolation of background and direct dose? Extrapolating the            background.
station contribution (e.g., subtract background from the 50 ft. away indicator and then extrapolate to the nearest residence based upon modeling) would seem to be more valid and probably lead to less error. As already mentioned, this source term calculation could then be compared to the REMP measurement at the location of public exposure.
17    Dom    22 5.11.4  The 0.0017 values listed in steps 5.11.4.3 and           The staff agrees with the comment, the 5.11.5  5.11.4.4 are not consistent with the 0.017 values        calculation in section 5.11 was deleted.
listed in values 5.11.5.5.1.1 - 5.11.5.3.2.               (This is a duplicate of the comment from PPL
                                                                                  #4) 18    Dom    24 8        Section C.8 - All the phases source term (the real      The staff agrees with the comment. Section source term is typically the Reactor Coolant              8, on data trending, was deleted.
System) should more accurately be called release term.
19    Dom   24 8        Section C.8 - 10 year trends are a great practice,        The staff agrees with the comment. The but does it really belong in the ARERR? Trends            section of data trending was eliminated with June 1, 2009


Best efforts should be performed to calculate direct doses;  these can be based upon measurements performed near the source terms and appropriately extrapolated (e.g., based upon "shine" modeling) to the point of exposure and then compared to actual The staff agrees that licensees may use measurements, calculations, or a combination of measurements and calculations to determine direct radiation. Additionally, licensees may use methods (e.g., as outlined in RG 1.21, Revision 2) to make a determination of direct radiation that is distinguishable from background. Licensees may use other methods, but the methods should be clearly documented.
52 are very useful for the release (not source as         the exception that licensees should still mentioned above) terms, but trending all the           ensure the provisions of 10 CFR 50 various doses will likely be overkill. In most cases Appendix I, Section IV.B.2 (i.e., to evaluate the doses are well below the limits; why trend these   the relationship between quantities of when they usually range from less than 0.01% to         radioactive material released in effluents and 1%. Should the trend be for each unit? In many         resultant radiation doses to individuals) are cases the limits are per unit. Therefore, this will     addressed.
June 1, 2009 51REMP measurements (if possible) similar to what should be done for all pathways. (see Specific comment 3 for more specific details) 15 Dom  21 5.10.3 Based upon previous comments (Specific comments 3 and 14), it would seem appropriate to perform both calculations and measurements for direct radiation, since it is likely the most significant dose pathway for many sites. As mentioned in the previous comment, calculations can be performed using onsite (near the source term) measurements and these can be compared to measurements much closer to the location of public exposure. The staff agrees with the comment. Licensees should perform an evaluation based on their site specific factors to determine the best method of estimating dose from direct radiation. The existing verbiage allows licensees to use a combination of calculations and measurements. No change needed. 16 Dom  22 C.5.11.3 Section C.5.11.3 - This example showing an extrapolation of doses seems like an endorsement of a potentially very unscientific method. Why extrapolate a number that includes both background and direct dose?  Extrapolating the station contribution (e.g., subtract background from the 50 ft. away indicator and then extrapolate to the nearest residence based upon modeling) would seem to be more valid and probably lead to less error. As already mentioned, this "source term calculation" could then be compared to the REMP measurement at the location of public exposure. The staff agrees with the comment, the calculation in section 5.11 was deleted. Additional information and references were added regarding extrapolation of background. 17 Dom  22 5.11.4 5.11.5 The 0.0017 values listed in steps 5.11.4.3 and 5.11.4.4 are not consistent with the 0.017 values listed in values 5.11.5.5.1.1 - 5.11.5.3.2. The staff agrees with the comment, the calculation in section 5.11 was deleted. (This is a duplicate of the comment from PPL #4) 18 Dom  24 8 Section C.8 - All the phases "source term" (the real source term is typically the Reactor Coolant System) should more accurately be called "release term." The staff agrees with the comment. Section 8, on data trending, was deleted. 19 Dom  24 8 Section C.8 - 10 year trends are a great practice, but does it really belong in the ARERR?  Trends The staff agrees with the comment. The section of data trending was eliminated with June 1, 2009 52are very useful for the release (not source as mentioned above) terms, but trending all the various doses will likely be "overkill."  In most cases the doses are well below the limits; why trend these when they usually range from less than 0.01% to 1%. Should the trend be for each unit? In many cases the limits are per unit. Therefore, this will lead to a lot of typically meaningless trends, especially for multiunit stations. Suggest only one "dose" trend should be listed here; the one that seems to be the most useful is: "maximum individual dose" (for whole body, thyroid and maximum organ) for the three "source terms" (airborne, liquid and "radwaste storage" (which includes all the "direct radiation doses," e.g., ISFSI, radwaste, etc.)) versus the 40 CFR 190 limits. Unfortunately the list of items to trend that is presented here is too prescriptive and any deviations will need to be justified (and therefore, potentially open to "interpretation"). Wording should be used to make the list be more "suggestive." the exception that licensees should still ensure the provisions of 10 CFR 50 Appendix I, Section IV.B.2 (i.e., to evaluate the relationship between quantities of radioactive material released in effluents and resultant radiation doses to individuals) are addressed. (This duplicates PPL comment #3, STARS comment #8, and NEI comment #43) 20 Dom 24 8.2 "activation products" should be "activation gases" (particulates are also typically activation products for gaseous releases) to be consistent with Section C.9.1.1. The staff agrees with the comment. The changes were made. 21 Dom 24 9 The statement "the entry should be left blank" requirement for results "determined to be below detectable levels" may be even better handled buy use of a "-" to provide an indication that the actual analysis(es) was (were) performed. Past experience on this issue indicates that without a clear distinction on which analyses were actually performed will raise questions (from the Public and NRC inspectors) even though the sampling The staff agrees with the comment. The guidance was revised to allow licensees to use whatever term is appropriate.
lead to a lot of typically meaningless trends,         (This duplicates PPL comment #3, STARS especially for multiunit stations. Suggest only one     comment #8, and NEI comment #43) dose trend should be listed here; the one that seems to be the most useful is: maximum individual dose (for whole body, thyroid and maximum organ) for the three source terms (airborne, liquid and radwaste storage (which includes all the direct radiation doses, e.g., ISFSI, radwaste, etc.)) versus the 40 CFR 190 limits.
June 1, 2009 53requirements are listed elsewhere in the report. 22 Dom  25 9.1.4 9.1.6 In many cases the batch releases for certain required samples (e.g., containment purges, containment vents, waste gas decay tanks) do not require all the listed radionuclide categories (e.g.,
Unfortunately the list of items to trend that is presented here is too prescriptive and any deviations will need to be justified (and therefore, potentially open to interpretation). Wording should be used to make the list be more suggestive.
iodines/halogens, particulates, gross alpha) because they are released via a continuous pathway which already has these radionuclide categories  measured (and reported). The staff agrees with the comment. The guidance was revised. 23 Dom  25 9.2.1 The need to report both volume of primary and secondary waste is a good practice. Consistent with this practice would be the need to report dilution flow for both primary and secondary waste since the isotopic mix and dilution flows can be significantly different for these two waste streams. The staff agrees with the comment. The guidance was revised. 24 Dom  26 9.2.3 The four categories listed here should be consistent with Section C.9.2.2 The staff agrees with the comment. The guidance was revised. 25 Dom  31 3.2 Don't agree with Section 3.2. Implementation of this update will have an impact;  this depends on how many of our comments are addressed. The staff disagrees with the comment. The guidance in RG 1.21 is not a requirement. Licensees may continue to use RG 1.21 Revision 1 or they may use other equivalent methods of meeting the regulations. The staff does agree that the data trending could have been time consuming; however, the section on data trending was deleted. 26 Dom  32 to 36 Glossary a priori - by definition it is "before the fact" as listed in the definition and as such, it is based upon prior study. How could it be determined before the "actual measurement" if it is not based upon prior study or examination?
20   Dom   24 8.2 activation products should be activation gases     The staff agrees with the comment. The (particulates are also typically activation products   changes were made.
Abnormal Release - what is the definition of short release?  In outages containment purge exhaust The staff agrees the definition could be improved. The definition of a priori was revised. The definition of abnormal release was June 1, 2009 54fans can be off for several days. Is this short?  What about a week?
for gaseous releases) to be consistent with Section C.9.1.1.
Effluent Monitor Inoperability - Definition as listed is the requirement for when inoperable monitors need to be reported, not for the definition of when a monitor is considered inoperable.
21   Dom   24 9   The statement the entry should be left blank         The staff agrees with the comment. The requirement for results determined to be below         guidance was revised to allow licensees to detectable levels may be even better handled buy       use whatever term is appropriate.
Less Significant Release Point - where is this definition" Significant Release Point - In the first sentence, the "and" before "(2)" is not consistent with the text (see page 6). More importantly, see Specific comment
use of a - to provide an indication that the actual analysis(es) was (were) performed. Past experience on this issue indicates that without a clear distinction on which analyses were actually performed will raise questions (from the Public and NRC inspectors) even though the sampling June 1, 2009
: 1. revised and an example of a short duration was included.


The definition of effluent monitor inoperability was deleted.  
53 requirements are listed elsewhere in the report.
22    Dom    25 9.1.4    In many cases the batch releases for certain              The staff agrees with the comment. The 9.1.6    required samples (e.g., containment purges,                guidance was revised.
containment vents, waste gas decay tanks) do not require all the listed radionuclide categories (e.g.,
iodines/halogens, particulates, gross alpha) because they are released via a continuous pathway which already has these radionuclide categories measured (and reported).
23    Dom    25 9.2.1    The need to report both volume of primary and              The staff agrees with the comment. The secondary waste is a good practice. Consistent            guidance was revised.
with this practice would be the need to report dilution flow for both primary and secondary waste since the isotopic mix and dilution flows can be significantly different for these two waste streams.
24    Dom    26 9.2.3    The four categories listed here should be consistent      The staff agrees with the comment. The with Section C.9.2.2                                      guidance was revised.
25    Dom    31 3.2      Dont agree with Section 3.2. Implementation of            The staff disagrees with the comment. The this update will have an impact; this depends on          guidance in RG 1.21 is not a requirement.
how many of our comments are addressed.                    Licensees may continue to use RG 1.21 Revision 1 or they may use other equivalent methods of meeting the regulations. The staff does agree that the data trending could have been time consuming; however, the section on data trending was deleted.
26    Dom    32 Glossary a priori - by definition it is before the fact as listed The staff agrees the definition could be to          in the definition and as such, it is based upon prior      improved. The definition of a priori was 36          study. How could it be determined before the              revised.
actual measurement if it is not based upon prior study or examination?
Abnormal Release - what is the definition of short release? In outages containment purge exhaust The definition of abnormal release was June 1, 2009


A definition for less-significant release point was added to the glossary.
54 fans can be off for several days. Is this short?        revised and an example of a short duration What about a week?                                      was included.
The definition was revised as indicated.}}
Effluent Monitor Inoperability - Definition as listed is the requirement for when inoperable monitors need The definition of effluent monitor inoperability to be reported, not for the definition of when a was deleted.
monitor is considered inoperable.
Less Significant Release Point - where is this definition                                              A definition for less-significant release point was added to the glossary.
Significant Release Point - In the first sentence, the and before (2) is not consistent with the text (see  The definition was revised as indicated.
page 6). More importantly, see Specific comment 1.
June 1, 2009}}

Latest revision as of 07:45, 14 November 2019

Staff Responses to Public Comments on DG-1186 (Rg 1.21, Rev. 2)
ML091170117
Person / Time
Issue date: 06/01/2009
From:
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
To:
O'Donnell, Edward, RES/DE/RGB, x6265
Shared Package
ML091170100 List:
References
DG-1186 RG-1.021, Rev 2
Download: ML091170117 (54)
v • d • e


Text

1 Enclosure 1 Staff Responses to Public Comments on Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1186 (Proposed Revision 2 of Regulatory Guide 1.21)

Public Comments NRC Response ID# Origin pp Sec. Comment Resolution 1 NEI All All Radiation protection overall would be better served The staff disagrees with the comment. The if the NRC were to revise all of the regulations and existing guidance is over 30 years old. It is regulatory guidance concurrently to reflect the necessary to update this regulatory guide to current radiation protection standard. bring the guidance up to current industry The current piecemeal approach has resulted in practices. This RG reflects current inconsistencies and confusion. This document regulations (10 CFR 20 and Appendix I) that references ICRP 2, and ICRP 26. The ICRP are based on ICRP-26 and ICRP-2 therefore recently released ICRP 103 and the NRC is actively it is necessary to include references to both.

considering amending the basis for its regulations as a result. NRC should adopt a more holistic approach to revising the regulatory guidance for calculating dose to the public (and workers). There is limited benefit to revising RG 1.21 to reflect ICRP 26 when 10CFR 50 Appendix I, 40 CFR 190, RG 1.109, and NUREG 0133 all continue to use ICRP 2 and the NRC is planning to update 10 CFR 20 to meet ICRP 103. All of the radiation protection-effluent control documents should be revised concurrently to avoid confusion and to minimize the potential for inadvertent non-compliance.

2 NEI All All This draft imposes a number of new approaches in The staff disagrees with the comment. The terms of monitoring requirements for radionuclides, NRC issues regulatory guides to describe characterizing and reporting activity, multiple and methods the staff considers acceptable for divergent methods for assessing and summing use in implementing specific parts of the dose impacts, etc. and is likely to require, among agencys regulations, to explain techniques other things, revision and V&V of dose assessment that the staff uses in evaluating specific software. A realistic backfit analysis needs to be problems or postulated accidents, and to performed using the existing regulations and provide guidance to applicants. Regulatory June 1, 2009

2 regulatory guidance as the baseline. In the past, guides are not substitutes for regulations, the NRC had stated that it was unnecessary to and compliance with them is not required.

revise Regulatory Guide 1.109 because the cost to The methods and practices outlined in the licensees to revise dose assessment. regulatory guides are one acceptable method for implementing the regulations.

Nuclear power reactor licensees may continue to use Revision 1 of Regulatory Guide 1.21, dated June, 1974, or may adopt other procedures or practices that provide for the measuring, evaluating, and reporting radioactive material in liquid and gaseous effluents and solid waste.

A backfit analysis is not appropriate for this regulatory guide.

3 NEI 4 B.1 [The last paragraph in B.1] states that NUREG- The staff agrees with the comment. The 1301/1302 provide the detailed implementation document was revised to accommodate this guidance for effluent and environmental monitoring. comment. Much duplicative information was Having said that, there should be no need to removed (e.g., the tables for Environmental duplicate, nor expand upon, those requirements in LLDs and Reporting Levels were removed).

RG 1.21. RG 1.21 should emphasize reporting Additionally, duplication of information effluent releases, and assessing the impact of already contained in NUREG-1301/1302 is those releases to areas beyond the site boundary, avoided where practical. However, there are only to the extent necessary to provide additional instances where clearly stating the clarification or guidance that does not exist in objectives establishes the correct framework NUREG-1301/1302. RG 1.21 should not establish for a staff position. It is part of a long-range additional requirements above and beyond what is plan to consolidate various historical required to show compliance with effluent dose documents (Health Physics Position limits, such as imposition of calculation of dose to Statements, NUREGS, etc) into staff occupational workers onsite. positions as the regulatory guides on radioactive effluents are revised.

4 NEI 16 B.5 There are new requirements in draft RG 1.21 that The staff disagrees with parts of the 18 B.5.7 are inconsistent with other NRC regulations and comment as described below.

guidance including: NUREG-1301/1302, RG 1.109, RGs are not requirements. Additionally, 22 B.5.11.5.2 NUREG-0133, NUREG-0543, and the Federal although licensees Technical Specifications Register for the most recent 10CFR20 revision (FR, may allow licensees to not calculate 40 CFR June 1, 2009

3 Vol. 56, No. 98, 5/21/91), as well as licensee 190 dose unless radioactive effluents exceed Technical Specifications. Under existing twice the 10 CFR 50 Appendix I design regulations, the licensee is only required to objectives, licensees are nonetheless demonstrate compliance with 40CFR190 if a accountable to the regulatory requirement 10CFR50 effluent dose objective is exceeded by a that the 40 CFR 190 limits will not be factor of two or more. exceeded.

Federal Register, Vol. 56, No. 98, page 23374, The staff agrees with parts of the comment states that demonstrating compliance with as described below. Demonstrating 10CFR50, App. I and/or 40CFR190 will be deemed compliance with EPAs 40 CFR 190 is to demonstrate compliance with the 0.1 rem sufficient to demonstrate compliance with 10CFR20 dose limit. However, DG-1186 requires NRCs 100 mrem TEDE dose limit for dose calculations for the 0.1 rem TEDE (10CFR20) members of the public. Sections B.5, B.5.5, limit in addition to 10CFR50, App. I, and 40CFR190 B.5.6, B.5.7, and B.5.11 were revised.

calculations. Further, for 10CFR20 doses, it is technically incorrect to sum whole body doses calculated with ICRP-2 dose factors (RG 1.109 dose conversion factors) to demonstrate compliance with TEDE dose limits from ICRP-30.

5 NEI 56 Table A-5 As stated above, the summation of liquid and The staff agrees with the comment. The gaseous effluent whole body doses per ICRP-2 in document was revised to accommodate this RG 1.109 is incongruent with TEDE dose comment. Table A-5 was deleted.

requirements in 10CFR20. Adding a direct radiation component assessed by TLDs may result in duplication of dose from effluents, and would result in an overestimation of dose impact. See comments on pages 22 and 23 of the draft regulatory guide. In addition, the dose contribution from a direct radiation component most likely will result in a different sector and distance being identified than would occur for effluent releases only.

6 NEI 3 B.1 Since RG 1.109 is referred to by NUREG The staff agrees with the comment.

1301/1302 and in the draft RG 1.21, it should be NUREG-1301 and NUREG-1302 were included as a reference in section B.1 Regulatory added to the list of references.

Guidance.

June 1, 2009

4 7 NEI 4 B.2 In section B.2, the second item (5) should be The staff agrees with the comment. The corrected as follows: Compliance with the effluent typographical error was corrected as reporting requirements of 10 CFR 50.36a. indicated.

8 NEI 5 1(b) This example of less significant or intermittent The staff disagrees with the comment. The release points includes many systems that are ODCM should include some recognition most likely not currently captured in many plant's (e.g., a list) of the potentially significant ODCMs, nor identified as required in NUREG- release points for the site. This staff 1301/1302. guidance is appropriate based on 10 CFR 50.36a regarding reporting principal nuclides in effluents and 10 CFR 50, The NRC should perform a meaningful backfit Appendix I which states, account shall be analysis before proceeding.

taken of all sources and pathways within the plant contributing to the particular type of effluent being considered.

In order to underscore the importance of the above regulations and to ease implementation of this RG, the construct of significant release points and less-significant release points has been revised as follows. Less-significant release points do not have to be listed in the ODCM unless they could become a significant release point based on expected operational occurrences (e.g., primary to secondary leakage for PWRs or failed fuel). This list of potentially significant release points does not need to be exhaustive or all-inclusive with respect to all possible operational occurrences but instead should demonstrate the licensee has reasonably anticipated expected operational occurrences and their effects on radioactive discharges.

This RG now recommends less-significant release points should be listed in site documentation.

June 1, 2009

5 The issue regarding a backfit analysis is addressed in NRCs comment to NEI question #2.

9 NEI 6 1 The Reg. Guide should explicitly state that only The staff agrees with the comment. To 9 plant-related licensed material must be reported in ensure that background radioactivity would the ARERR. Naturally-occurring and/or not be included in the reported results, the background radioactivity, such as K-40 and U/Th first sentence of section A was revised to progeny, should not be reported in the effluent mention plant-related activity and to reports. exclude background radiation.

10 NEI 6 1 This revision establishes a new threshold for what The staff disagrees that RG 1.21 Revision 2 is considered significant related to release activity revises the threshold for significant or dose impact. Regulatory Guide 1.109 exposure pathways established by RG established 10% as the threshold for determining 1.109. These criteria (10% in RG 1.109 and whether an exposure pathway should be factored 1% in RG 1.21) are used in different ways into dose calculations. This draft RG 1.21 drops and for different purposes. The staff agrees that threshold to 1%, and applies it to all activity that a new 1% threshold is established for released and/or to overall dose impact without any purposes of determining the principal meaningful backfit analysis or health-based nuclides and significant release points.

justification. Other than the subjective phrase to The staff guidance in RG 1.109 section C the extent reasonable, this revision does not allow (i.e., 10%) applies to determining the licensees to omit an impact less than 1%; licensees significance of new (or other) exposure are effectively required to continue to track these as pathways not listed in RG 1.109 (not release less than significant, with apparently no lower points).

cutoff.

The guidance in RG 1.109 does not provide guidance for reporting (or not reporting) the activity discharged in radioactive effluents.

The guidance in RG 1.109 does not provide a basis for adjusting the sample frequencies for release points. That is why the 1%

concept in RG 1.21 was developed.

The 1% concept in RG 1.21 allows licensees to modify sampling and analysis of less-significant release points. This allows licensees to focus their efforts on significant release points (and nuclides) and address June 1, 2009

6 less-significant release points (and not principal nuclides) is an appropriate manner.

The 1% staff guidance in RG 1.21 provides licensees a risk-informed method to meet the regulatory requirements of 10 CFR 50 Appendix I, Section III.A.1 such that the actual exposure is unlikely to be underestimated where account shall be taken of all sources and pathways within the plant contributing to the particular type of effluent being considered.

The issue regarding a backfit analysis is addressed in NRCs comment to NEI question #2.

11 NEI 7 1 The notification of the public is described in detail in The staff agrees that NEI 07-07 contains NEI 07-07 INDUSTRY GROUND WATER details regarding the voluntary ground water PROTECTION INITIATIVE - FINAL GUIDANCE initiative. The staff disagrees that there is no DOCUMENT issued August 31, 2007. There is regulatory requirements regarding no known regulatory basis for the inclusion of such communication with the public (see 10 CFR a requirement by the staff in this regulatory guide. 50.72(b)).

The section on Monitoring Leaks and spills We believe this to be good practice and would was revised to clarify and sharpen the intent.

continue to do so as a part of the GWPI. The intent is to (1) prevent the unmonitored release of radioactive materials to offsite areas and (2) ensure proper reporting of materials released offsite. And (3) highlight NRCs interest in notifications to public officials with respect to 10 CFR 50.72(b)(xi).

This guidance should be included in this RG since it is concerned with reporting releases.

12 NEI 7 1 The proposed definition of promptly with regards The staff disagrees with the comment. It is to remediation of a leak or spill is unreasonable and important to include a timeframe in the RG.

is not always practically achievable. Licensees 48 hour5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> is an example timeframe that the should have the flexibility to define the appropriate NRC considers to be a reasonably timely timeframe for clean-up of a spill or leak, taking into response for prompt remediation. This does June 1, 2009

7 consideration ALARA, realistic exposure pathways, not exclude the use of other time frames.

and the site-specific soil and ground water Licensees may use other timeframes if it is characteristics. This apparently arbitrary time justified.

frame is inconsistent with current requirements for materials and fuel cycle.

13 NEI 8 1 This discussion states that the list of nuclides in The staff agrees that RG 1.21 Revision 2 NUREG-1301/1302 for which LLDs are specified is introduces a risk-informed concept with not a list of principal nuclides and is only a starting respect to determining principal nuclides and point. establishing the appropriate analytical sensitivity (e.g., LLD) for analyses. The staff also agrees that the risk-informed concept The draft goes on to say that principal nuclides could be improved by including some of the may be site specific and could make compliance ideas presented in this comment. As a with requirements difficult.

result, the words starting point have been deleted.

This definition conflicts with the definition in the This staff guidance applies a risk-informed NUREGS and is likely to result in confusion and philosophy that allows licensees to focus the potential non-compliance. appropriate attention on those radionuclides that predominate at a nuclear power plant Further, the risk-based approach could have the site (i.e., those that are most important unintended consequence of allowing licensees to contributors to the dose to members of the trim the list of principal nuclides to only one or two public or the total activity at a site). The staff nuclides. For example, if gaseous tritium releases guidance does not conflict with NUREG-account for curie-level quantities and 99.99% of the 1301/1302 since the guidance suggests total activity and also account for 95% of the dose licensees may continue to use the guidance (with the other 5% coming from I-131 and C-14), in NUREG-1301/1302.

then potentially, all other nuclides would not be Two methods of determining principal analyzed or reported as long as they contribute less radionuclides are provided in RG 1.21; (1) that 1% of the activity or dose. use the existing list of principal radionuclides from NUREG-1301/1302, and (2) use a risk In addition, this allowance for licensees to drop informed approach. Both methods are nuclides from the principal nuclides list directly acceptable, and licensees may choose conflicts with the requirement to report ALL activity another method provided it is documented as established on page 6 [of the proposed draft RG and it satisfies the regulation (10 CFR 1.21]. 50.36a).

June 1, 2009

8 The choice is left to the licensee. The NRC thinks it is important to allow licensees the choice to use the existing approach (NUREG-1301/1302) or a risk informed approach. The use of a risk informed approach (involving principal radionuclides) allows licensees some options with respect to selecting LLDs for analysis of waste streams that do not provide significant contribution to effluent dose or activity. This flexibility may be desirable to some licensees and is consistent with a risk-informed philosophy.

Licensees are not required to implement a risk-informed approach. Licensees may consider other approaches or may continue to use the (historical) approach outlined in NUREG-1301/1302. The NRCs intent is to allow licensees the option to shift toward a risk-informed approach that provides guidance acceptable to meet the regulations to ensure adequate protection of the public.

NUREG-1301 and NUREG-1302 provide a definition of principal gamma emitter, but do not define the term principal radionuclide. NUREG-1301/1302 list 11 gamma emitters in liquid effluents for which the LLD control applies (17 gamma emitters for gaseous effluents), and says that other gamma peaks should be analyzed and reported. Analytical sensitivity levels for the other gamma peaks are not provided in NUREG-1301/1302. As a result, NUREG-1301/1302 does not provide analytical sensitivity levels for all radionuclides that may be present at a site. Providing June 1, 2009

9 sensitivity levels for all nuclides present at a site is desirable from the NRCs perspective of ensuring adequate protection of the public. Rev 1 of RG 1.21 (1974) listed a common sensitivity level of 5E-7 uCi/ml for all gamma emitters in liquid effluents.

Although this was reasonable and appropriate guidance when RG 1.21 was published in 1974, this is no longer possible for some gamma emitting nuclides (e.g., Te-125m) unless licensees adopt significantly longer count times or employ alternate analytical techniques. The risk informed approach of principal nuclides addresses this issue while ensuring adequate protection of the public.

The regulation that forms the basis for the ARERR (10 CFR 50.36a) says licensees shall submit a report to the Commission annually that specifies the quantities of each of the principal radionuclides released to the unrestricted area. The guidance in RG 1.21 is intended to outline a staff position the NRC considers acceptable to meet this regulation. NUREG-1301/1302 do not address the term principal radionuclide.

The concept of principal radionuclide may not be used as a basis to not report nuclides detected in a waste stream. As described in DG-1186, the concept of principal nuclide may be used by the licensee to select an appropriate LLD for analysis.

Page 6 of the proposed RG 1.21 said if a nuclide is detected, it should be reported.

That statement is consistent with NUREG-1301/1302 and it does not conflict with the June 1, 2009

10 concept of principal nuclide.

14 NEI 9 1 The reg. guide requires the reporting of carbon 14 The staff agrees with the comment, and the which is a new reporting requirement for U. S. following guidance has been added to the reactors. Carbon 14 is a very low energy beta document. Licensees need to account for release with very low dose conversion factor. The and report all principal radionuclides; i.e.,

basis for the new reporting requirement is those contributing more than 1% by dose or discussed in Section 1. The option to calculate C- activity. C-14 may be a principal 14 effluent discharge is a reasonable alternative to radionuclide contributing more than 1% of monitoring. the total radioactive effluent by activity or by Since we are required to report uncertainties on our dose, and if so, should be considered a measurements, the NRC needs to provide principal radionuclide and reported in the guidance on how licensees should determine what annual report.

uncertainties would apply to C-14 release The following statement was added to the estimated by scaling the power rating of the document: It is not necessary to calculate reactor. uncertainties for C-14 nor include C-14 uncertainty in any subsequent calculation of overall uncertainty.

15 NEI 9 2 The words up to three volumes implies that The staff agrees with the comment. The anything in excess of 3 volumes is not desirable, wording was changed to reflect the actual and that even 1/10th of a tank volume would be intent (to recirculate at least 3 volumes).

adequate, since it meets the definition of up to three. The language needs to be clarified.

16 NEI 10 2 There are several concerns about short-lived The staff agrees with the comment. This nuclides and the proposed changes to regulatory section was revised.

guidance, chief among which is the conflict with current regulation in 10 CFR 50, and guidance in RG 1.109 and NUREG-1301/1302.

Also, there seems to be confusion in the basis and a potential misleading statement made regarding decay-correcting short lived activity to sample midpoint. Short-lived activity collected on days 1 through 6 of a 1-week sample period should be accounted for in the buildup-decay equation in gamma spec software. However, if the activity is decay-corrected to the sample mid-point, the June 1, 2009

11 activity level will be grossly OVERESTIMATED by several orders of magnitude, potentially by as much as a factor of 1E+47 for 138Cs and other short-lived nuclides. One option to avoid this overestimation would be to delay the counting of particulate filters for 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> following collection to allow these nuclides, and any naturally-occurring radon progeny, to decay before counting the filters.

17 NEI 10 3 Not all existing plants are committed to RG 1.23. The staff agrees with the comment. The 11 Each plants licensing basis identifies the regulatory reference to RG 1.23 on meteorology is guide commitments. provided as an acceptable method of measuring and determining meteorological parameters. Regulatory guides are not substitutes for regulations, and compliance with them is not required. The methods and practices outlined in regulatory guides are one acceptable method for implementing the regulations. The verbiage was changed from should use to should consider using 18 NEI 11 3 The NRC Liquid Radioactive Release Lessons The staff agrees with the LRRLLTF Final 12 Learned Taskforce Final Report (LRRLLTF) Report. The LRRLLTF Final Report concluded that no regulatory requirement exist for concluded no routine on-site surveys are the monitoring of groundwater onsite exists { required for potential abnormal spills and there are no specific regulatory requirements for leaks of radioactive liquids. However as licensees to conduct routine on-site environmental noted in the following sentence of the surveys and monitoring for potential abnormal spills LRRLLTF report, surveys are required for and leaks of radioactive liquids page 19 of the on-site spills and leaks in order to satisfy the LRRLLTF report}. records requirements of 10 CFR 50.75(g).

19 NEI 11 3 The emphasis on on-site groundwater monitoring The staff disagrees with the comment. Due for inadvertent subsurface contamination from to ground water contamination events over leaks and spills is unjustified given that the NRCs the last 4 years, NEI and the industry have Liquid Effluent Releases Task Force Lessons made changes to industry guidance Learned Final Report issued September 1, 2006 documents. Because subsurface stated, The most significant conclusion of the task contamination events may impact reporting force regarded public health impacts. Although of radioactive effluents, it is appropriate to June 1, 2009

12 there have been a number of industry events where include such discussions in this guidance radioactive liquid was released to the environment document.

in an unplanned and unmonitored fashion, based on the data available, the task force did not identify any instances where the health of the public was impacted. (page 4 LRRLLTF report) 20 NEI All All The NRC has now generated several guidance The staff disagrees with the comment. The documents on the same subject of groundwater NRC has issued or plans to issue regulatory monitoring that are duplicative and are likely to guides on a number of topics. Regulatory have the unintended consequence of resulting in Guide 4.21 was issued to provide guidance conflicting guidance. These include Regulatory to new reactor licensees. This document Guide 4.21, Regulatory draft Regulatory Guide 4.1 contains information about groundwater and the Draft Guidance to Implement Survey and monitoring that is applicable to new reactor Monitoring Requirements Pursuant to Proposed license applicants but is not (at this time)

Rule Text in 10 CFR 20.1406(c) and 10 CFR applicable to existing reactors. Similarly, RG 20.1501(a) that supports the Decommissioning 4.22 will be issued to provide guidance to Planning Rulemaking. All of the proposed licensees on decommissioning funding. That guidance documents should be withdrawn and, if document addresses ground water in a risk-justified, a single guidance document provided. limited regard with respect to These all claim to be implementing the same decommissioning funding and surveys. RG regulatory requirements but with different results. 4.1 (scheduled to be issued 2009) addresses These multiple regulatory guidance documents ground water with respect to environmental create a high likelihood for conflict and confusing programs. RG 1.21 (scheduled to be issued licensees. in 2009) provides staff guidance on sampling, monitoring, and evaluating and reporting ground water results in the annual report. Each document has a different scope and it is not practical to combine all the guidance into a single document.

21 NEI 1 A The Regulatory Guide needs to clearly state the The staff has clarified the position on applicability of the on-site environmental monitoring monitoring, evaluating, and reporting leaks program for the existing as well as new plants. and spills in the context of the Annual Radiological Effluent Release Report. The guidance is the same for new license NRC should give licensees the option to continue applicants and existing power reactors.

using the current version of R.G. 1.21, as June 1, 2009

13 referenced by licensing documents. Clarification was added to section A specifying licensees could continue to use RG 1.21 Rev 1.

22 NEI 6 1 Draft RG 1.21 appropriately recognizes the need The staff disagrees that no on-site for a graded approach to ground water monitoring monitoring is justified for leaks and spills and characterization studies even though the since the survey requirements of 10 CFR proposal to impose requirements for on-site 20.1501 and the records requirements of 10 monitoring of ground water is not justified from a CFR 50.75(g) would apply.

risk-informed perspective. The staff positions in RG 1.21 Revision 2 relate to monitoring, evaluating, and reporting effluents from nuclear power plants. This includes contributions from leaks and spills.

The verbiage regarding a graded approach will be retained.

23 NEI 12 3 The reference to an unapproved and unpublished The staff disagrees with the comment. The standard (ANSI 2.17) is inappropriate; delete reference will be retained. Although the document is still in draft form, it is expected to be approved within 6 months of issuance of RG 1.21. The NRC has reviewed this document and it is considered appropriate to reference this document as one source of information. No changes required.

24 NEI 12 3 The EPRI Groundwater Protection Guidelines The staff agrees with the comment. A direct (1015118, Ref. 32) should be referenced directly in reference to the EPRI Groundwater the text and not left to the imagination of the reader Protection Guidelines (1015118, Ref. 32) as to what the reference to various other industry was added to the text (under the section on documents might include. There is a public version spills and leaks to ground water).

of EPRI Groundwater Protection Guidelines and therefore no transparency issues.

25 NEI 12 3 The quoted statement implies that sites with The staff agrees with the comment.

residual contamination more than a factor of 10 to Reference to a factor of 10 to 100 was 100 above laboratory LLDs require extensive site removed from the document.

characterization or monitoring. This statement does June 1, 2009

14 not appear to be risk-informed. Tritium, for example, has a required LLD of 2000 pCi/l. At a concentration of 20,000 pCi/l (10 times the LLD),

the potential dose impact is less than 1 mrem/year using ICRP 30 methodology (see also Federal Guidance Report 11) to calculate the MCL at 86,000 pCi/l for [tritium].

26 NEI 13 3 This requires reporting of on-site ground water The staff agrees with the comment. The sample results in the AREOR. This creates guidance for the environmental monitoring unnecessary conflict with NEI 07-07 Objective 2.2 program was relocated to RG 4.1.

acceptance criterion b, which requires the reporting of non-REMP ground water samples in the ARERR, and REMP ground water samples in the AREOR.

27 NEI 15 The discussion of elements to include in The staff agrees that additional clarification 22 5.11.3 measurement uncertainty identifies some is needed for uncertainties. Staff guidance contributions that may not be obvious but does not on uncertainty was revised to clarify the appear to include uncertainties contributing to dose intent to provide a reasonable estimate of assessment, such as meteorology measurements, the uncertainty. A rigorous calculation dispersion (X/Q, D/Q) factors, environmental involving every possible contributor to buildup and transport factors, dose conversion uncertainty is not necessary. The staff factors, TLDs, etc. guidance in RG 1.21 allows licensees to Also, using the square root of the sum of squares of calculate uncertainty in different ways the pooled uncertainties is a bit of an provided licensees include an estimate of the oversimplification and potentially misleading. The uncertainty in the annual report.

uncertainties presented in tables A-1 and A-2 pool all release points and all nuclides within a given category, including those release points that contribute much less than 1% of the total activity or dose. The pooled uncertainty needs to be somehow weighted with respect to the release points relative contribution, and the simplified approach of taking the square root of the sum of squares of pooled.

28 NEI 16 5.3 [The definition of member of the public may be The usage of reside is correct. Reworded inconsistent with 10 CFR 50.]. Is the correct verb June 1, 2009

15 reside? and note that this definition continues to paragraph 5.7.2.

be inconsistent with 10 CFR 50 Appendix I definition - see 5.7.2 29 NEI 16 5.2 The discussion about Occupational Workers in The staff agrees with the comment.

section B.5.2 is not appropriate for the effluent Discussion on occupational workers has control program. These individuals exposure are been deleted.

managed under the Radiation Protection Program 30 NEI 16 5.3 The on-site monitoring program in the draft RG The staff disagrees with the comment. The 1.21 promulgates the unintended confusion caused existing guidance is over 30 years old. It is by the 1991 revision to 10 CFR 20 without the necessary to update this regulatory guide to concurrent revision to 10 CFR 50 Appendix I or RG bring the guidance up to current industry 1.109, particularly with regards to the definition of a practices. This RG reflects current member of the public. regulations for part 20 particularly for 10 As stated earlier, all of the regulations and CFR 20.1302 that requires surveys of regulatory guidance should be revised in a radiation levels and radioactive materials in comprehensive effort to implement the most recent effluents in controlled areas for purposes of radiation protection recommendations. complying with dose limits for members of the public.

31 NEI 18 5.6.4 Licensees already account for and report dose The staff agrees that additional clarification 18 5.7.7 impacts from releases to the environment. with respect to residual radioactivity was Requiring licensees to effectively reduce (handicap) warranted. Paragraph 5.6.4 was deleted.

22 5.11.4 the dose limit by taking into account that residual Paragraph 5.11.4 was deleted.

dose is not risk-justified, particularly when considering RIS 2008-03 and given that the The issue regarding a backfit analysis is licensee must include any dose from residual addressed in NRCs comment to NEI activity at decommissioning.

question #2.

The discussion in this section is misleading and incorrect. While dose contributions from tritium and other nuclides dissolved or suspended in water continue after the release has occurred but may not have been included in the ARERR, it does not apply to all effluent exposure pathways. To the contrary, the RG 1.109 methodologies for sediment exposure, ground plane shine, and vegetable+milk+meat pathways already assume a June 1, 2009

16 15-year buildup period. As such, these exposure pathways already account for radioactivity remaining in the environment from prior years' effluent releases. This imposes new requirements that will result in licensees potentially overestimating dose to the public. A meaningful backfit analysis should also be performed.

In addition, there is no guidance in existing Reg Guides or NUREGs on how to assess dose contributions from previous years discharges. The NRC needs to provide methodologies and a means of assessment for this additional pathway source term.

32 NEI 20 5.8.6 This section essentially requires licensees to The staff disagrees with the comment. A perform a land use census. Under current land use census is required, but a garden guidance in NUREG-1301/1302, licensees are census may be replaced by sampling allowed to forego a land use census if they sample vegetation as outlined in the NUREG-and monitor vegetation from the two sectors 1301/1302. NUREG-1301/1302 says a yielding the highest D/Q. This new requirement in LUC shall be conducted and shall identify RG 1.21 conflict with existing guidance and thenearest milk animal, residence, and allowances in other NUREGs. Conversely, there garden*. The footnote reference on garden needs to be an allowance to permit licensees to provides clarification by saying, omit an exposure pathway (e..g, cow or goat milk) if vegetation sampling.. may be performed it does not exist. This section should be retained, at the site boundary in lieu of the garden but clarified to state that it does not impose the census. This provision only affects the requirement for a land use census. garden census and it does not eliminate the requirements for the remainder of the land use census (e.g., nearest milk animal or nearest residence). Section 9.4.1.1 says dose calculations do not need to be performed if the pathway does not exist.

33 NEI 10 2 The reporting of gaseous effluents requires the The staff disagrees with the comment. Page 19 5.8.2.2 reporting short lived airborne particulate activities 10, section 2, Short-lived Nuclides provides such as Cesium 138 with a 2 minute half life. general staff guidance for short-lived nuclides. That particular section does not June 1, 2009

17 There is no apparent technical justification for require reporting of short lived nuclides.

reporting isotopes with a half-life of less than eight That staff guidance is located on page 6, days in air particulate matter. Some of the where it says, If activity is detected when particulate nuclides listed in the example airborne monitoring a release point, it must be tables, such as Tc-99m, Nb-95m, Te-132m, Cs- reported in the effluent totals. That 138, La-142, etc. have half lives much less than 8- guidance is consistent with NUREG-days. Note this requires the reporting short lived 1301/1302 (which says, Other gamma airborne particulate activities such as Cesium 138 peaks that are identifiable, together with with a 2 minute half life. those of the above nuclides, shall also be analyzed and reported in the Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report.) It is If we report nuclides with half life less than 8 days, also consistent with 10 CFR 50 Appendix I, do we now have to perform dose assessments for Section III.A.1 (account shall be taken of the those nuclides? This is inconsistent with NUREG-cumulative effect of all pathways and 1301/1302 and Reg Guide 1.109 dose assessment sources).

guidance/requirements and even section 5.8.2.2 of the draft. NUREG-1301 and each licensees technical specifications/ODCM specify calculating doses for (1) nuclides with half-lives greater than 8 days, and (2) I-131 and I-133. . The half-life criterion only applies to dose calculations. If short lived nuclides (less than 8 days) are detected, they should be reported in the annual report.

According to NUREG-1301/1302 (3.11.2.3) and the licensees ODCM, dose assessments only need to include (1) nuclides with half-lives less than 8 days, and (2) I-131 and I-133. The regulatory logic is that the short lived nuclides would not NORMALLY have significant contribution to the dose. The NRC may always impose additional restrictions per 10 CFR 50 Appendix I II.B.2(a). For example, if there is significant failed fuel at a site and the dose calculations indicated doses may exceed design objectives, the NRC could request June 1, 2009

18 the licensee to include I-135 and I-132 in the dose calculations.

34 NEI 20 5.9.1.2 Draft RG 1.21 directs licensees to sum maximum The staff agrees with the comment. Section organ doses from liquid and gaseous effluent 5.9 was deleted. The example calculation in pathways even though the releases will most likely 5.11.5.1.2 was deleted.

affect different organs. Summing the GI-LLI In the case of liquid effluents, in which dose will likely occur from activation products such as Mn-54 or Co-60, the critical organ is most likely going to be GI-LLI. In the case of gaseous doses, which will likely be dominated by H-3, C-14, and I-131, the critical organ will be the thyroid. When organ doses are summed as in Section 5.11.5.1.2 one will be adding GI-LLI dose to thyroid dose. Such summation of doses across different organs is inappropriate and incorrect.

35 NEI 22 5.11.3 TLDs do not selectively respond only to direct The staff agrees with the comment. The radiation from ISFSI and shine but are also example calculation in 5.11 was deleted.

responsive to exposure/dose from noble gas plumes and immersion, as well as any dose from particulate radioactivity deposited on the ground.

These latter exposure pathways are already calculated and accounted for in RG 1.109 effluent dose calculations. Further, most environmental TLDs are specifically calibrated against Cs-137 exposure in air, and as such do NOT precisely measure deep-dose equivalent (i.e., total body dose) received by an individual. Deep-dose equivalent is usually considered to be some fraction of the air exposure. Summing effluent doses and TLD exposure in such situations will likely result in overestimating total dose.

36 NEI 22 5.11.3.2 Typographical Error. Should that be TLDs (not The staff agrees with the comment. The Tads)? example calculation in 5.11 was deleted.

June 1, 2009

19 37 NEI 22 5.11.3 The average background dose should be The staff agrees that licensees may choose calculated from both Control TLDs as opposed to to perform background subtraction by a one control TLD to account for uncertainty. As number of techniques. The RG was such, the pooled uncertainty for background modified to provide guidance.

radiation assessed from the two control locations The example calculation in 5.11 was deleted.

must incorporate the between-location-based variance in addition to the within-location uncertainty. The NRC should also consider and provide guidance on reporting direct radiation when the difference from background is not statistically different from zero.

38 NEI 22 5.11.4 Section 5.11.4 requires performing dose The staff agrees the 10% guidance in RG calculations from on-site pond H-3 evaporation. 1.109 (Section C) is sometimes Unless this pathway represents a significant misinterpreted. Pond evaporation involves a exposure pathway (contributes 10% of the total release point (e.g., the pond) and an dose from all pathways considered), dose exposure pathway (e.g., inhalation). The calculations should not be required. In addition, the 10% provision of RG 1.109 applies to NRC needs to provide clear guidance, and possibly exposure pathways, not release points. As a an example of a dose calculation for this pathway. result, dose calculations for an on-site pond would be required as part of a hazard assessment associated with an adequate survey (see 10 CFR 20.1501). See also the response to NEI comment #10 regarding the 10% provision in RG 1.109. Staff guidance for calculation of inhalation dose associated with the evaporation of water (e.g., from a pond) is given in RG 1.109 (C.3.b or Appendix C.2) and duplication in RG 1.21 is not needed.

The example calculation in 5.11 was deleted.

39 NEI 23 5.11.5.2 Draft RG 1.21 directs licensees to sum 10CFR50 The staff agrees the example calculation in Appendix I whole body doses calculated based on the draft guide had technical faults. The ICRP-2 methodologies to approximate TEDE dose example calculation in 5.11 was deleted.

for 10CFR20, which are based on assumptions of ICRP-26/30. ICRP-26/30 uses different June 1, 2009

20 methodologies, different metabolic models, different See also the NRC response to NEI comment organ weighting factors and different dose factors 1 above regarding revision of all regulations.

than ICRP-2. This is technically incorrect; the NRC should revise all of the radiation protection regulations and regulatory guidance in a comprehensive, holistic manner rather than piecemeal 40 NEI 23 6 NRC should give consideration to deleting any The staff agrees that the Solid Radioactive Table A3 Solid Radioactive Waste reporting requirements Waste reporting guidance should be more from RG 1.21 since DOE is already charged with closely aligned with MIMS where possible.

collecting LLRW disposal data nationally (via the The MIMS data base tracks waste disposal Manifest Information Management System (MIMS) at licensed waste disposal facilities, but does "and irradiated fuel transport via the SNM Form not track information regarding shipments of 741"). This would align the two Federal government nuclear waste from nuclear power plants. If agencies and reduce the burden on licenses for MIMS is updated/revised to track solid waste redundant reporting. generation and shipment from nuclear power plants, then RG 1.21 can be revised. Until that time, solid waste reporting should be reported under RG 1.21. The Solid Radioactive Waste reporting guidance in RG 1.21 was revised an aligned more closely to MIMS.

41 NEI 23 6 If NRC believes it needs Solid Radwaste Shipment The staff agrees with this comment. NRC Table A3 data, then a means should be provided within Rev contacted MIMS and other industry 2 of RG 1.21 for DOE MIMS data to be transferred personnel and revised section 6 and Table or released to the NRC. This will enable electronic A-3 so that the data format requested in RG reporting in compliance with the paperwork 1.21 matches the data format in common reduction act and again unburden licenses from industry software packages. This will redundant reporting of the same data to two facilitate reporting data for the Annual different Federal Agencies. Radioactive Effluent Release Report.

42 NEI 23 6 The presentation of small errors in sections 7.1.1 The staff agrees the discussion of errors 7.1 and 7.1.2 can be mutually exclusive. For example, should be related to dose to the public. The a Sr-90 activity with an associated error of 300% RG incorporates a provision that discusses after all of the error terms are pooled may only errors with respect to dose to the public.

contribute 0.0001% of the total dose from all The staff also considers completeness and June 1, 2009

21 gaseous effluents, resulting in a impact. The accuracy should also apply to quantities discussion of small versus large errors needs to other than dose.

somehow incorporate the relative impact on It is recognized that the relationship between dose/risk to a member of the public. activity and dose will be nuclide dependent, and that a small amount of activity may translate into a dose impact that may not be considered small. Licensees need to supply the appropriate information for both activity and dose in the ARERR. If an error is discovered in either quantity (or with other related quantities such as volumes, flow rates, etc), licensees should submit amended data as indicated in sections 7.1.1 and 7.1.2 as appropriate.

43 NEI 24 8 Given that there has been a marked decrease in The staff agrees with this comment. The radioactive effluents from nuclear power plants over section of data trending was eliminated with time, what is the purpose for the new requirement the exception that licensees should still for data trending over a 10 year period? The new ensure the provisions of 10 CFR 50 requirement is not risk-informed and will not result Appendix I,Section IV.B.2 (i.e., to evaluate in any improvement in radiation protection the relationship between quantities of As a minimum, the NRC should clarify whether the radioactive material released in effluents and source term to be trended is by site or by release resultant radiation doses to individuals) are point. addressed.

44 NEI 24 9 Typically Gross Alpha has been identified as less The staff agrees with this comment. RG than a given curie level. The wording here seems 1.21 section 8 was revised as suggested.

to suggest that the whole cell will be left BLANK if The guidance in RG 1.21 suggests that if a no Alpha counts come back positive. If a nuclide is nuclide is not detected in a quarter, an entry detected in one quarter but not others, and entry of of N/D (or other designation) may be used to NDA should be made to indicate No Detectable denote the nuclide was not detected.

Activity as opposed to leaving the table cell empty.

This indicates that that nuclide was actually assessed during that period. (need more editorial work) 45 NEI 26 9.2.1 The discussion about dilution flow needs to be The staff agrees with this comment. RG June 1, 2009

22 clarified. Does the licensee account for dilution 1.21 Revision 1 indicated licensees should flow only during the summation of periods when the list the diluted concentration at the point of discharges are occurring, or total dilution flow over entry into the receiving waters in the the entire quarterly or annual period? For example, unrestricted area. RG 1.21 Revision 1 if I have a single discharge during a quarter in specifies the volume should be calculated which I release 1 Curies of tritium in a discharge based on the flow rate ant the duration of the which takes 100 minutes while the dilution flow rate release; however, HPPOS-099 was issued is 100,000 Liters/min, then my effective as clarification. RG 1.21 Revision 2 applies concentration of tritium during period of discharge the clarification from HPPOS-099 as the staff is 1 Ci divided by 10 million liters, or 1E-7 Ci/L, or position.

1E-4 uCi/mL. I would use this to determine my compliance with the Effluent Control Limit (ECL) in 10CFR20 Appendix B, Table 2, Column 2 value of 1E-3 uCi/mL. However, the effective tritium concentration in the environment over the course of the quarter is orders of magnitude lower. The buildup of tritium in fish, shellfish, and crops is not going to be based on a tritium concentration of 1E-4 uCi/mL for the entire quarter, but instead the effective concentration will be based on a total dilution volume of over 1E+10 Liters (100,000 L/min

  • 60 min/hr
  • 24 hr/day
  • 91 days/qtr), yielding an effective tritium concentration of 8E-8 uCi/L.

Perhaps two definitions of dilution volume are in order. The first definition of dilution volume would refer to that available only during actual releases, as used to demonstrate compliance with 10CFR20 Appendix B ECL values, whereas the second dilution volume would apply to the total dilution volume available during the entire release period, as would be used to calculate exposure pathway media concentrations.

46 NEI 26 9.3 Is the terminology of principal isotopes as used in There staff agrees there are two issues Table A-3 for reporting solid waste synonymous related to this comment, and both have now with principal radionuclides as defined for effluent been corrected. The first issue is that the releases? Does the same 1% threshold apply? If document used the terms principal nuclide June 1, 2009

23 not, this needs to be clarified. and principal isotope. These two terms were used interchangeably. To avoid any confusion, all instances of principal isotope were replaced with principal nuclide.

The second issue is that the term principal isotope was used with respect to reporting solid radioactive waste shipments. The proper (and historically used term) with respect to solid waste reporting is major nuclides. The document now uses major nuclides when discussing reporting solid waste.

47 NEI 27 9.5.13 The 100 gallon threshold is a very low threshold The staff agrees that the guidance regarding established to establish transparent public 100 gallons is not a requirement. The disclosure. This standard was not established as regulatory basis for reporting effluents is 10 part of any regulatory requirement and does not of CFR 50.36a, that states in part, Each holder itself represent any health and safety significance. of an operating license shall submit a report to the Commission annually that specifies the quantity of each of the principal radionuclides released to unrestricted areas in liquid and in gaseous effluents during the previous 12 months, including any other information as may be required by the Commission to estimate maximum potential annual radiation doses to the public resulting from effluent releases. Licensees should report their effluents even though it is recognized that these effluents may not have any health or safety significance.

Since effluents released onsite have the potential to expose members of the public either in the controlled area or the unrestricted area, this information is relevant.

The 100 gallon criterion is a reasonable quantity, and is already being reported to June 1, 2009

24 local and State authorities under the NEI ground water protection initiative.

48 NEI 27 9.4.1.2 Does the terminology of ...could be occupied The staff agrees that additional clarification imply a real individual at a real residence (house, to the guidance is appropriate. That apartment, etc.)? Or could it be construed as to clarification has been added. For purposes applying to a fencepost individual at the site of calculating air doses (mrad) licensees boundary? Since licensees do not control the area should use a conservative location. This has beyond their site boundary, they cannot assume historically been assumed to be a fence zero occupancy for the fencepost location. Can post individual with 100% occupancy. This licensees take credit for occupancy factor in such would be the most conservative calculation cases? If so, this needs to be clarified. of dose and may also be the easiest to Discussion of member of the public on Page 17 calculate. If a licensee would calculate an goes to length to emphasize that doses are to be air dose using the above guidance, and the calculated to REAL individuals. This discussion resulting doses would exceed the 10 CFR 50 also needs to mesh correctly with realistic Appendix I, Section B.1 design objectives, individual as described in NUREG-0133 and then the NRC may apply 10 CFR 50 40CFR190, as well as the definition of maximally- Appendix I, Section B.2(b) and allow the exposed individual in the context of RG 1.109 and licensee to show compliance.

10CFR50. Definitions of hypothetical exposure pathway and maximum individual were added to the glossary.

The use of realistic exposure pathway was removed from the document except in reference to the Attachment 6 to SECY 0069.

The guidance provided in RG 1.21 is only one method the staff finds acceptable to meet the regulations. Licensees need to conduct a land use census. If licensees choose to use hypothetical exposure pathways to provide bounding estimates of exposures to demonstrate compliance with station technical specifications (Appendix I design objectives), the assumptions and June 1, 2009

25 methodology should be listed in the ODCM (or supporting documents).

49 NEI 27 9.5.1 The specific definition of Abnormal Releases The staff disagrees with this comment. A imposes new requirements above and beyond what regulatory guide does not impose is currently in RG 1.21. This is especially true as requirements. The concept of abnormal related to groundwater and onsite contamination releases is included in the original version of that is of interest to future decommissioning, but is RG 1.21 (1974) to provide guidance for not related to offsite effluent releases and dose reporting non-routine radioactive material impact. This appears to be an attempt to codify the releases from nuclear power plants (i.e.,

groundwater monitoring program, and to carry over releases that are not controlled or planned).

requirements for onsite radiological controls as That overarching concept with respect to related to 10CFR50.75g and decommissioning. reporting releases still applies, however operating experience gained during the last 35 years has revealed situations in which the original definition is lacking. For example, there have been situations in which occurrences at a NPP were clearly abnormal releases, but they did not fit the strict definition as outlined in RG 1.21 (1974).

Conversely, there have been situations in which releases were being categorized as abnormal releases when in fact they were not. This clarification in the definition of abnormal release is intended to satisfy the original intent for licensees to provide information (in the body of the ARERR) on abnormal releases (and abnormal discharges) that may impact the environment.

50 NEI 28 9.5.2.1 Ground water that is released through an ODCM- The staff agrees with this comment. Section credited release point is already included in the 9.5.2.1 was revised so that only those ARERR. remediation efforts not identified in the ODCM should be reported in the supplemental section of the ARERR.

51 NEI 28 9.5.8 [A typographical error] should be ARERR not The staff agrees with this comment. The June 1, 2009

26 Arrears. typographical errors were corrected.

52 NEI 31 D.3.2 The NRC is asserting under Alternative 2 that the The staff disagrees with this comment. This industrys implementation of the voluntary Ground is addressed by NRCs response to NEI Water Protection Initiative results in minimal impact comment #2.

from the expanded scope of draft RG 1.21. The NRC should perform a back fit analysis, using existing regulatory requirements as the baseline.

53 NEI 32 Glossary Terms in the glossary need to be consistent with The staff agrees with this comment. The existing regulations, regulatory guidance, and following definitions were revised: Channel proposed revisions to regulatory guidance (i.e. RG Calibration, Channel Check, Member of the 4.1). For example: a priori; abnormal release; public, Residual Radioactivity, Restricted effluent discharge; impacted areas; lower limit of Area, Site Boundary, and Unrestricted Area.

detection; monitoring; restricted area; significant exposure pathway; significant residual radioactivity; site environs; unrestricted area. See below for additional details 54 NEI 33 Glossary [The definition of] Effluent Discharge should be The staff agrees the definition of effluent revised for consistency as follows A discharge of discharge should be clarified. The definition licensed material from a liquid or gaseous release was revised.

point from a facility into the site environs.

55 NEI 33 Glossary Revise [definition of] Effluent Monitor Inoperability The staff agrees with this comment. The to avoid confusion - a monitor that is classified as entry was removed from the glossary not inoperable. It is reportable in the ARERR if the because it was not a definition.

instrument is unavailable for a period of time greater than 30 continuous days (in accordance with NUREG-1301 or and NUREG-1302, Section 3.3.3.10.b). The monitor is inoperable whenever it is not operable. However, it is only included in the ARERR if it remains not operable for more than 30 days.

56 NEI 33 Glossary Impacted Area: Draft RG 1.21 imposes new The staff disagrees with this comment. A requirements related to onsite radioactivity, regulatory guide does not impose 10CFR50.75g, and decommissioning criteria do not requirements and compliance with this belong in RG 1.21 as it relates to effluents and regulatory guide is optional. The discussion June 1, 2009

27 offsite dose impact. of impacted area is applicable with respect to monitoring, evaluating, and reporting spills and leaks.

57 NEI 33 Glossary Glossary Leachate is one word. The staff agrees with this comment. The typographical error was corrected.

58 NEI 34 Glossary Minimum Detectable Concentration - is there any There was no intent to define as a priori or a intent to define this term as a priori or a posteriori? posteriori, however the reference to a posteriori was added to the definition.

59 NEI 35 Glossary [Definition of] Principal Radionuclide should also The staff agrees with this comment. The refer to NUREG-1301/1302 as an acceptable basis definition of principal nuclide was changed to per the discussion on page 8. Spell check specifically reference NUREG-1301/1302. A throughout the document - should be principal not spell check was conducted and all usages of principle principal are correct.

60 NEI 35 Glossary [Definition of] Restricted Area seems to be The staff agrees with this comment. This missing part of the definition from 10 CFR 20.1003 was addressed under comment #53 above.

61 NEI 35 Glossary [Definition of] Significant Release Point see earlier The staff disagrees with this comment. This comment. Draft RG 1.21 imposes a 1% threshold was addressed under NEI comment #10 in delineating minor release point, significant above.

release point, and principal radionuclide and is a significant departure from previously established thresholds in RG 1.109 and other guidance.

62 NEI 35 Glossary Should there be a definition for spill or leak? The staff does not recognize a need to define leak or spill in this RG.

63 NEI 35 Glossary Uncontrolled Release - replace release path The staff agrees to replace release path with release point for consistency. This definition with release point. The staff does not appears to say that unless the uncontrolled release agree that the guidance for uncontrolled results in (1) not monitored) and (2) results in releases contradicts any existing significant amounts of radioactive material (not requirements.

defined) being discharged, and (3) did not have a The guidance provided in RG 1.21 Revision preplanned method for terminating the release, it 1 regarding abnormal release, unplanned was (by default) controlled. This also seems to release, and uncontrolled release was not contradict existing requirements to control very detailed. This has been the source of essentially all detectable concentrations of much discussion in the industry. The June 1, 2009

28 radioactive material. Is this a deliberate choice by additional detail provided in RG 1.21, the NRC? Revision 2, is intended to provide more detailed staff guidance based on experience that has been gained over the last 35 years (since Revision 1 was published). As a result, the guidance provided in Revision 2 of RG 1.21 regarding uncontrolled release provides a common and consistent basis for determining if a release is controlled (only within the context of determining if a release is an abnormal release).

64 NEI 36 Glossary Unplanned Release also appears to be a The staff agrees RG 1.21 Revision 2 significant change, particularly in the paragraph provides more detailed guidance for following (3) determining if a release is an unplanned release. The guidance provided in RG 1.21 Revision 1 regarding abnormal release, unplanned release, and uncontrolled release was not very detailed. This has been the source of much discussion in the industry.

The additional detail provided in RG 1.21, Revision 2, is intended to provide more detailed staff guidance based on experience that has been gained over the last 35 years (since Revision 1 was published). As a result, the guidance provided in Revision 2 of RG 1.21 regarding unplanned release provides a common and consistent basis for determining if a release is planned (only within the context of determining if a release is an abnormal release).

65 NEI 38 Glossary Several citations relevant to effluent monitoring and The staff agrees with this comment. The compliance need to be added, including NUREG- appropriate references were added.

0133; NUREG-0475; NUREG-0543, Methods for demonstrating LWR compliance with the EPA uranium fuel cycle standard: 40 CFR Part 190; and June 1, 2009

29 RIS 2008-003. In addition, if it is deemed necessary to maintain requirements for 10CFR50.75g and decommissioning issues within RG 1.21, NUREG/CR-5512.

66 NEI A-1 Table A-1 The term Alpha in this table should be replaced The staff agrees with this comment. All with Gross Alpha to match Tables A-1A through instances of Alpha were replaced with A-1F, and past-established terminology. Also, this Gross Alpha.

table is missing a column to record total A column was added to Table A-1 for uncertainty, as is presented in Table A-2 for Liquid recording uncertainty.

Effluents on page A-8.

67 NEI A-1 Table Zinc-72 is a very unusual isotope and is not The staff agrees with this comment. The list A1A typically identified in operating reactors is table A-1A is just an example list and is not intended to be the list used by licensees.

Zn-72 was removed from the list.

68 NEI A-1 Table Rhodium 188 is not listed in the table of the The staff agrees with this comment. The list A1A isotopes. Is this a typographic error? is Table A-1A is just an example list and is not intended to be the list used by licensees.

The entry Rh-188 was removed from the list.

69 NEI A-2 Table A1 Requiring the ARERR to include an estimate of The staff disagrees that an error estimate overall measurement uncertainty over an entire provides no useful information. Licensees year for various fission product groups would not should make an estimate of the uncertainty.

provide any more useful or accurate information A detailed analysis including all parameters than the current measurement error requirement is not necessary. Because it may be difficult has provided. to assign error terms for each parameter affecting the final measurement, detailed statistical evaluations of error are not It's not clear why DG-1186 requires an uncertainty suggested.

estimate for Liquid Effluents in Table A-2, but not for Gaseous Effluents in Table A-1. In either case The omission of a column for uncertainty the proposed measurement uncertainty on Table A-1 was corrected by adding a requirement for the ARERR would be difficult to column to the table.

accurately determine if done correctly, is redundant It is beneficial to have some measure of to existing QA/QC uncertainty for several reasons, two of which include (1) uncertainties exist and they June 1, 2009

30 should be recognized in a broad sense, at minimum, and (2) uncertainties provide the reader (e.g., the public) with some understanding that the data reported may assume a range of values where each value may be statistically indistinguishable from the next, and (3) evaluation of uncertainties provides additional information from which is derived reasonable assurance that actual exposure of an individual through appropriate pathways is unlikely to be substantially underestimated even when all uncertainties are considered together (10 CFR 50 Appendix I).

70 NEI A2 Table The listing for Xe-131m should use a lower case The staff agrees the use of a lower-case m A3 A1A M to follow standard convention. is appropriate to represent a metastable Thru The inclusion of I-132, I-134, and I-135 is a state for a nuclide. All instances of Xe-A4 departure away from current requirements in RG 133M were changed to Xe-133m.

A5 Table A1F 1.21, and is not in accordance with the radioiodines The staff disagrees that the reporting A6 required per NUREG-1301/1302. Also, as pointed guidance for short lived nuclides in RG 1.21 A7 out in comments related to nuclides with short half- revision 2 is a departure from current A9 lives on Page 10, these nuclides could be subject requirements.

to gross overestimation if decay-corrected to NUREG-1301/1302 includes a sensitivity sample midpoint. level (LLD) for I-131, and states that other These tables should be simplified to contain only nuclides that are identifiable together with those nuclides actually detected by the licensee [the principal gamma emitters] shall also be over the course of the reporting period. If a nuclide analyzed and reported in the [Annual]

is detected in one quarter but not others, and entry Radioactive Effluent Release Report. As a of NDA should be made to indicate No result, reporting the short-lived iodines is not Detectable Activity as opposed to leaving the table inconsistent with NUREG-1302/1302.

cell empty. This indicates that that nuclide was Refer also to the NRCs response to NEI actually assessed during that period. comment #13.

Regulatory guides do not establish requirements.

The text that describes the tables in RG 1.21 June 1, 2009

31 (section 9) has been revised to clearly indicate nuclides that are not detected do not need to be included in the tables.

The issue with blank entries is addressed in NRCs response to NEI question #44 above.

71 NEI A-13 Table A3 The volumes are listed in cubic feet rather than The staff agrees with this comment. Volume cubic meters. Is this the intent to change from units are in cubic meters.

cubic meters for reporting solid waste volumes as is the current requirement? All other references in this document are in metric units.

72 NEI A-13 Table A3 The Table does not provide entry rows for Class C The staff agrees type C waste should be waste. Some plants generate Class C filters and addressed. Although there is very little some Class C resin. I suggest the three rows that Class C waste shipped, the format provides list "Class B Resins, Filters, Evaporator bottoms" for identifying shipments if/when Class C be changed to "Class B/C Resins, Filters, shipments are made.

Evaporator bottoms." The regulatory guide has been changed to specifically exclude mixed waste and hazardous waste.

This section has been revised to include on-site disposals.

Information on volumes and Classes of stored waste onsite (e.g., due to Barnwell closure) should be reported in the ARERR.

73 NEI A-13 Table A3 Section header title from "2 LLW Shipped for The staff agrees with this comment. Title in Processing (before disposal or return to site)" to Table A-3, section 2, was changed from "LLW shipped by Processor to a LLW disposal LLW Shipped for Processing (before site". This change will align the Solid Radwaste disposal or return to site)" to LLW Shipped Reporting with the DOE MIMS report. for Direct Disposal (to licensed waste disposal facilities).

74 NEI A-13 Table A3 If NRC Accepts The Recommendation to Use the The staff disagrees with this comment.

MIMS Data (See Item 40 Above), [and reflects that Reliance on the MIMS data base for all solid change in the] glossary. This change also radwaste data necessary for the ARERR will June 1, 2009

32 eliminates the need for NRC to define what a not be used at this time. Refer to NRCs Waste Processor is and when potential radioactive response to NEI question #40.

material is a waste.

75 NEI 23 6 Additional Guidance Needed for LLRW Reporting. The staff agrees with this comment.

There are several items or types of waste materials Additional detail was added to sections 6 (e.g. single use protective clothing, secondary filter and 8.3 of the document. This is also cake, trash from the RCA, metal, equipment for reflected in Table A-3.

refurbishing and return) that are being processed or decontaminated, resulting in very little LLRW.

Additional clear guidance is needed from the NRC on whether these shipments to waste processors are to be included in the RG 1.21 (ARERR) Report and the volume and activity of the waste to be reported. Further examples where additional guidance is indicated include:

1- Shipments of contaminated laundry for dissolving (the domestic section of NRC has defined this as radiological material for decontamination [not waste], the Import/Export Section of NRC has defined this material as waste).

2-Shipments of contaminated equipment (pumps, valves & motors) for refurbishment.

3- Shipments of contaminated metals for recycling by smelting or decontamination and clearance.

4- Shipments of material for clearance.

76 NEI A14 Table A4 The affected Sector/Distance could be different The staff agrees with this comment. The from quarter to quarter. In the case of gaseous column for Sector and Distance was effluent discharges, the limiting sector/distance may removed from Table A-4.

be driven by the majority of activity released from The guidance in RG 1.21 only required dose an elevated release point during routine operation. assessments for I-131 and I-133 and However, during an outage quarter, ground-level nuclides with half-lives greater than 8 days.

releases may dominate and may result in the highest dose occurring in a totally different sector.

The table is too simplistic to accommodate such June 1, 2009

33 differences. Also, this table requires assessment of gaseous doses from particulates with half-lives of greater than 8 days, and may be out of step with short-lived activity presented in Tables A-1A through A-1F.

77 NEI A17 Table A8 Table A-8 is a partial list of screening values for soil The staff agrees that none of the main from NUREG-1757. What values should the objectives of RG 1.21 is to provide licensee use for water? decommissioning guidance. Many references to decommissioning were removed from the document. The table A-8 was removed. Licensees may still want to use some screening criteria, but specific criteria (other than significant residual radioactivity) is not explicitly described in RG 1.21.

78 NEI 28 9.5.1.4.15 It appears that the NRC is attempting in draft RG The staff disagrees with this comment.

A17 Table A8 1.21 and other regulatory guidance revisions (i.e. Regulatory guides are not requirements.

RG 4.1) to impose, without meaningful backfit The issue regarding a backfit analysis is analysis, operational remediation requirements that addressed in NRCs comment to NEI effectively are the 10 CFR 20 Subpart E criteria for question #2.

unrestricted license termination. Existing programs Guidance on spills and leaks is appropriate for radiation protection, recordkeeping under as it relates to measuring, evaluating, and 10CFR50.75g, and decommissioning regulations reporting information in the ARERR.

and guidance already address this issue. These Guidance provided regarding residual new effluent control requirements are not justified radioactivity screening values are only based on public health or protection of the provided as one possible means licensees environment and should be assessed under the may use to determine how to respond to backfit rule. spills and leaks with respect to measuring, evaluating, and reporting effluents in the ARERR. Licensees may use other means, techniques, or methods provided the appropriate information is contained in the ARERR.

1 STARS 4 B.2 Page 4, last paragraph, The staff agrees with the comment, and the June 1, 2009

34 Acronyms used such as ISFSI (Independent Spent acronyms have been defined.

Fuel Storage Installation) and ARERR (Annual Radiological Effluent Release Report) should be defined prior to their use.

2 STARS 6 1 Page 6, 4th paragraph, " The staff agrees that the wording, as initially Less-significant release points are, to the extent proposed, could be interpreted to be overly reasonable, required to be listed in the ODCM. restrictive. The staff position is that licensees should effectively demonstrate It is unclear as to the source of this requirement.

conformity to guides on design objectives as NUREG-1301 and NUREG-1302 do not appear to outlined in 10 CFR 50, Appendix I, Section contain this requirement. This seems to III, which states, conformity shall be contradict the statement on page 4 that demonstrated by calculational procedures statesNUREG-1301/1302 contains detailed based on models and data such that the guidance for the content and format of a licensees actual exposure is unlikely to be ODCM.

underestimated.

The wording was revised to allow licensees, to the extent reasonable, to maintain the list of less-significant release points in documents other than the ODCM. The ODCM should contain the list of significant release points and that should include anticipated operational occurrences which may include significant cross-contamination of systems normally not contaminated and primary to secondary leakage (for PWRs).

3 STARS 7 1 Page 7, last paragraph, "Monitoring Batch The staff agrees with this comment. A Releases --For batch releases, measurements qualifier was added to state the hard-to-should be performed to identify specific detect nuclides listed in the example were radionuclides before a release to the environment. applicable to liquid releases.

In those cases in which an analysis of specific-radionuclides (such as strontium-89/90 and iron-55) cannot be done before release (see NUREG-1301 and NUREG-1302), representative samples should be collected for the purpose of subsequent composite analysis. The composite samples should June 1, 2009

35 be analyzed at the scheduled frequencies specified in NUREG-1301 and NUREG-1302."

NUREG-1301 and NUREG-1302 only require strontium-89/90 and iron-55 sampling and analysis for Liquid Batch releases. Strontium-89/90 and iron-55 sampling are not required for gaseous batch releases.

4 STARS 9 1 Page 9, 2nd paragraph, "However, the concept of The concept of a required sensitivity levels

'principal radionuclides' does not reduce the burden for analytical analyses was applicable in RG for reporting nuclides detected in effluents. In 1.21 Revision 1, and that concept is still addition to 'principal radionuclides, ' other applicable in Revision 2 of RG 1.21. The radionuclides detected during routine monitoring of new guidance provided in Revision 2 release points must be reported in the radioactive (regarding principal nuclides) merely allows effluent release report and included in dose licensees to select analytical sensitivity assessments to members of the public. " levels that are most appropriate for the radionuclide mixture experienced at their site while still ensuring doses are not Without a standardized lower limit of detection underestimated and that consideration is (LLD), how can a licensee ensure they meet the taken of all sources within the facility.

"1 % of the total activity" approach?

As a result, all licensees will specify the required sensitivity levels for nuclides. This approach ensures all licensees (or anyone who inspects the licensees data) can calculate 1% of the total and determine which nuclides are major contributors at a particular facility.

5 STARS 11 3 Page 11, 3rd paragraph, "Release Height," The staff agrees with this comment.

The Release Height section should reference Reference to RG 1.111 was added in the Regulatory Guide 1.111 for definition or discussion. paragraph.

6 STARS 20 5.8.5 Page 20, Section 5.8.5, " ... A pathway is The staff agrees that the wording is not considered significant if a realistic evaluation yields exactly the same as RG 1.109. It is not the an additional dose increment equal to or more than staffs intent to reproduce RG 1.109 within 10% of the total from all pathways considered (see RG 1.21. RG 1.21 captures the significant the regulatory position in Regulatory Guide 1.109)." aspects from RG 1.109 and then refers the June 1, 2009

36 This is not the exact wording in Regulatory Guide reader to RG 1.109 for more detail. The staff 1.109: "A pathway is considered significant if a considers this an acceptable approach. The conservative evaluation yields an additional dose staff agrees that some of the wording could increment equal to or more than 10 percent of the be improved, and the sentence referenced in total from all pathways considered in this guide." the STARS comment was revised.

7 STARS 21 5.10.3 Page 21, Section 5.10.3, "The dose contributions The staff agrees with this comment. The from direct radiation may be estimated based on changes were made. Licensees are either (1) thermoluminescent dosimetry (TLD) cautioned that if alternate means are used measurements, (2) calculations, or (3) a for direct radiation measurements, it could combination of TLD measurements and introduce new modes of failure which may calculations." impact the availability of the data. Such In addition to TLD measurement, there are other changes should be carefully evaluated.

methods available for direct radiation measurements (e.g., ion chambers). Recommend changing "TLD measurements" to "direct measurements."

8 STARS 24 8 Page 24, Section 8, "Data Trending, " The staff agrees that too much emphasis General Comments: was placed on data trending in DG-1186.

The section of data trending was eliminated There is no stated purpose for Data Trending in the with the exception that licensees should still ARERR. Data trending in the ARERR does not ensure the provisions of 10 CFR 50 provide meaningful information and is redundant to Appendix I,Section IV.B.2 (i.e., to evaluate other trending requirements.

the relationship between quantities of Total curies released are typically a function of core radioactive material released in effluents and effective full power days, thermal plant rating and resultant radiation doses to individuals) are fuel integrity. Dose values are a function of curies addressed.

released, pathways present, physical location of residences and meteorological data. Generally, a plant has little control over airborne effluent release concentrations. Fuel reliability is already tracked through the INPO Consolidated Data Entry (CDE) process. A comparison of a given plant from year to year is possible but of questionable value. It is not possible to compare different plants, especially when individual plants are allowed to establish June 1, 2009

37 LLDs based on "principal nuclides" (see page 8, Principal Radionuclides for Effluent Monitoring).

This is implied in Section 9, "The aspect of consistency aids review by members of the public and allows easier industry-wide comparisons of the data."

Effluent Release Data was formerly compiled in NUREG/CR-2907 (ADAMS Accession Number:

ML041450170),

http://hps.ne.uiuc.eduinatcenviro/eff2000s.htm and http://www.reirs.comieffluent/EDB_Main.asp.

The most current data is only available through 2004 at http://www.reirs.comieffluent/EDB_Main.asp The issue of summarizing data was also the subject ofSECY-06-0212 (http://www.nrc.gov/reading-nnldoc-.

collections/commissi0n/secys/2006/secy2006-0212/2006-0212scy.html)

If the desire is to provide data for "review by members of the public and allows easier industry-wide comparisons of the data", it would be more appropriate to keep the on-line database current, and provide on-line trending tools, rather than providing this information in each individual ARERR.

9 STARS 24 8.1.1 Page 24, Section 8.1.1, "source term for curies of The staff agrees with this comment. The total mixed fission and activation products, " section on data trending was eliminated.

Is this intended to include tritium, gases, and alpha? If not, change to "curies of fission and activation products (excluding tritium, gases, and alpha)." (See Table A-2).

10 STARS 24 8.2.1 Page 24, Sections 8.1.2 and 8.2.4, "source term for The staff agrees with this comment. The June 1, 2009

38 8.2.4 curies of tritium, " section on data trending was eliminated.

Change to "curies of tritium."

11 STARS 24 8.2.1 Page '24, Section 8.2.1, "source term for curies of The staff agrees with this comment. The total mixed fission and activation products, " section on data trending was eliminated.

Change to "curies of fission and activation gases" (see Table A-I).

12 STARS 24 8.2.3 Page 24, Section 8.2.3, "source term for curies of The staff agrees with this comment. The iodine, " section on data trending was eliminated.

From a practical perspective and to standardize trending it is more useful to simply trend 1-131.

Suggest changing to "curies of I-131."

13 STARS A-2 Table Page 24, Section 9.1.1 References Table A-I, "(b) The staff agrees with this comment. Table A1A iodines halogens," A-1 was changed.

Table A-I, Column heading states only "iodines," it does not include "halogens."

14 STARS 24 9.1.2 Page~4/25, "9.1.2 Table A-lA, Gaseous Effluents-- The staff agrees with this comment. Tables A-2 Table Ground-Level Release--Batch Mode contains a and paragraph were changed.

A1A summation of gaseous effluent releases from ground-level release points in the batch mode of release for the five radionuclide categories of fission gases, iodines/halogens, particulates, tritium, and gross alpha. Report the following:

9.1.2.1 curies of each radionuclide released by quarter and year, and .

9.1.2.2 total curies released in each radionuclide category (fission and activation gases, iodines halogens, particulates, tritium, and gross alpha) by quarter and year. "

Section 9.1.2 should state "fission and activation gases" instead of just "fission gases" for consistency with section 9.1.2.2, Table A-IA should state "fission and activation gases" instead of just June 1, 2009

39 "fission gases" in the heading row.

15 STARS 25 9.1.3 Sections should state "fission and activation gases" The staff agrees with this comment. Tables 9.1.4 instead of just "fission gases" for consistency-with and paragraphs were changed.

section 9.1:2.2. Tables A-lA, A-1B, A-1C, A-1D, A-9.1.5 IE, and A-IF should state "fission and activation 9.1.6 gases" instead of just "fission gases" in the heading 9.1.7 row.

16 STARS 26 9.4 "The annual evaluations of public dose should be The staff agrees with this comment. The calculated." paragraph was changed.

Change "public dose" to "dose to Members of the Public." This is consistent with the wording in Section 5 and the term in the glossary.

17 STARS 27 9.5.1.3.2 " ... minimum detectable activity (MDA) ... , " The staff agrees with this comment.

This is the only occurrence of the term "MDA" in Additional detail was added at the location this document. Section 4, Quality Assurance, has a where MDA is discussed.

lengthy discussion of RG 4.15, but no discussion of MDA.

18 STARS 28 9.5.1.4.15 Page 28, Section 9.5.1.4.15 [states] "residual The staff agrees with the Liquid Radioactive radioactivity levels and whether any levels exceed Release Lessons Learned Task Force Final the DCGLs provided in Table H.2 in Appendix H to Report (LLTF) Report. The Liquid NUREG-1757, Volume 2," Radioactive Release Lessons Learned Task This is a decommissioning requirement. There is Force Final Report (LLTF) Report concluded no routine sampling requirement for Soil Surface no routine on-site surveys are required for Contamination. potential abnormal spills and leaks of radioactive liquids. However as noted in the following sentence of the LLTF report, surveys are required for on-site spills and leaks in order to satisfy the records requirements of 10 CFR 50.75(g).

19 STARS 28 9.5.5 Page 28, Section 9.5.5 references NUREG- The staff agrees with this comment. The 1301/1302, section 3.3.3.10.b, Additional reference was added.

June 1, 2009

40 NUREG-1301, section 3.3.3.10.b, is for Liquid effluent monitoring instrumentation channels only.

NUREG-1301, Section 3.3.3.11.b for gaseous effluent monitoring instrumentation should also be included.

20 STARS 32 Glossary Channel Calibration" ... See also the definition in The staff agrees with this comment. The NUREG-1301/1302. This appears to be a typo. definition of channel calibration was deleted The definition should refer to "NUREG-1301/1302." since it was not used in the body of the document.

21 STARS 32 Glossary "Channel Operational Test (COT), " and "Source The staff agrees with this comment. The to Check, " These are not the exact definitions in definitions were revised.

35 NUREG-1301.

22 STARS 33 Glossary Controlled Area," "Member of the Public," The staff agrees with this comment. The to "Monitoring, " "Restricted Area, " "Site Boundary," following definitions were revised: Channel 35 and "Source Check." Calibration, Channel Check, Monitoring, These are not the exact definitions in Member of the Public, Residual 10CFR20.1003. Radioactivity, Restricted Area, Site Boundary, and Unrestricted Area.

23 STARS 35 Glossary "Significant Release Point," See the definition for The staff agrees with this comment. Minor Minor Release Point. The wording is not consistent. release point was deleted.

24 STARS 32 Glossary Definitions for "A priori," "Abnormal Release," The staff agrees the wording should be to "Effluent Discharge (Radioactive)," "Significant. exactly the same in both documents.

36 Contamination," "Significant Residual Changes were made.

Radioactivity," "Site Environs," and "Unlicensed Material," do not match definitions listed the Glossary of DG-4013, Radiological Environmental Monitoring for Nuclear Power Plants.

25 STARS A1 Tables Appendix A, Tables A-1A, A-1B, A-1C, A-1D, A-1E The staff agrees with this comment. This is to A1A thru and A-1F, a duplicate of STARS comment #15. See A7 A1F Tables A-1A, A-1B, A-1C, A-1D, A-1E, and A-1F NRCs response to STARS comment #15.

should state fission and activation gases instead of just fission gases in the heading row.

June 1, 2009

41 1 PPL A1 Tables Clarify the requirements for reporting of air The staff agrees that additional guidance to A1A thru particulates with half lives less than eight days. and clarification is warranted.

A7 A1F Table A1A through A1F reference short lived NUREG-1301/1302 includes a sensitivity airborne particulate radioisotopes such as Cesium level (LLD) for I-131, and states that other 138 (which has a 2 minute half life). Dose nuclides that are identifiable together with assessments Section 9.4.1.3 references dose [the principal gamma emitters] shall also be calculations for particulates with half lives greater analyzed and reported in the [Annual]

than 8 days. There does not appear to be Radioactive Effluent Release Report. As a reasonable justification for reporting air particulates result, reporting the short-lived iodines is not radioisotopes with half lives of less than 8 days. inconsistent with NUREG-1301/1302.

RG 1.21 Revision 1 states that when monitoring iodines, the samples should be analyzed weekly for I-131. An analysis shall also be made monthly or more often for I-133 and I-135.

RG 1.21, Revision 1 also states that for particulates in gaseous effluents, Measurements should be made to determine the quantities of radionuclides with half-lives greater than 8 days An inspection of licensees Technical Specifications indicates most licensees have adopted the verbiage from NUREG-1301/1302, and as a result nuclides with half-lives less than 8 days are reported if they are detected during an analysis.

This reporting of nuclides with half-lives less than 8 days is consistent with 10 CFR 50.36a(a) that states licensees shall submit a reportannually that specifies the quantity of each of the principal radionuclides released to the unrestricted areas in liquid and gaseous effluents as well as any other information that may be required by the commission to estimate maximum potential June 1, 2009

42 annual radiation doses to the public resulting from effluent releases. This is also one of the reasons why the concept of principal nuclide is addressed in RG 1.21 Revision 2.

It should be noted that for calculation of doses, only I-131 and those particulate nuclides that are greater than 8 days are normally required to be included in the dose assessment.

2 PPL A1 Tables Rh-188 is listed in Tables A1A through A1F. There The staff agrees with this comment.

to A1A thru is no such isotope listed in any of the references Changes were made as indicated.

A7 A1F available to us. Also included in Tables A1A through A1F is Zn-72. Zn-72 is an isotope (with a short half life of 46 hours5.324074e-4 days <br />0.0128 hours <br />7.60582e-5 weeks <br />1.7503e-5 months <br />) not normally identified in reactor coolant, solid radioactive waste or radioactive effluent samples. This isotope should not be included in the reporting table.

3 PPL 24 8.1 Source term trending (ten year trend period) is a The staff agrees with this comment with the 8.2 new requirement. Please clarify the term source exception that regulatory guides are not term as referenced in Section 8.1 and 8.2. requirements. The section of data trending was eliminated with the exception that licensees should still ensure the provisions of 10 CFR 50 Appendix I, Section IV.B.2 (i.e., to evaluate the relationship between quantities of radioactive material released in effluents and resultant radiation doses to individuals) are addressed.

4 PPL 22 5.11.5 Section 5.11.5 states, Based on the above The staff agrees with this comment. The information, the dose calculations are performed as example calculation was deleted.

shown below. The referenced dose calculations in Section 5.11.5.1.1, 5.11.5.1.2, 5.11.5.2.1, 5.11.5.3.1 and 5.11.5.3.2 appear to use an incorrect value for Whole Body and Organ dose due to on-site pond H-3 evaporation to nearest June 1, 2009

43 residence (ingestion, leafy vegetables). 0.017 mrem is the value used in the dose calculations but the value referenced (from Section 5.11.4) for use in the calculations is 0.0017 mrem.

5 PPL 25 9.2.1 Section 9.2.1 details reporting of liquid waste The staff agrees with this comment that the dilution flow, specifically, external dilution flow rate, dilution flow (dilution volume) should have average (river to stream flow rates). Please clarify additional clarification. This was provided in the averaging period for external dilution flow rate accordance with HPPOS-099 and has been (daily during periods of release, monthly, quarterly, included in the Regulatory Guide.

annual).

6 PPL 28 9.5.8.1 Omissions from previously submitted Arrears The staff agrees with the comment. The Please correct/clarify/define Arrears. incorrect spelling has been corrected.

G1 Dom 1 All The NRC appears to be taking too much out of the The staff agrees that some level of existing Regulatory Guides and restating it in this unnecessary duplication existed, and the draft. In some cases guidance is outside the scope unnecessary duplication was eliminated.

of the draft Regulatory Guide.

G2 Dom 1 All Similar to other Regulatory guides, such as RG The staff agrees that Revision 2 of RG 1.21 4.15, the NRC should give licensees the option to is just another method of complying with the continue using the current version of RG 1.21, as regulatory requirements. Licensees with referenced by licensing documents. licensing commitments to Revision 1 of RG 1.21 may maintain their existing commitments. Licensees are not required to adopt the guidance in RG 1.21 Rev 2.

G3 Dom 1 All It would be helpful if this RG included a Table of The staff agrees with the comment. A Table Contents. of Contents was added.

G4 Dom 1 All Since one of the objectives listed in Section B.2 is The staff agrees that dose to the public is evaluating dose to the public, it seems more addressed in RG 1.21. RG 1.21 will only appropriate to list the 10 CFR 20.1301 address 10 CFR 50.75(g) in the context of requirements in this RG and not in RG 4.1. measuring, evaluating, and reporting Similarly, this RG may be the appropriate document effluents. The staff addresses 10 CFR to address the 10 CFR 50.75(g) compliance issue. 20.1301 requirements in RG 1.21 and this This is consistent with the General Comments that guidance was removed from RG 4.1.

we provided on DG-4013 (RG 4.1).

June 1, 2009

44 1 Dom 5 1(b) The definition for less significant release points is The staff agrees to add definition of less-not provided in the glossary. More importantly, the significant release point to glossary.

requirement to list these in the ODCM will be a The staff agrees that less-significant release problem since there is no threshold below which a points do not necessarily need to be release point is insignificant. Suggest a third included in the ODCM, and that text was category of insignificant release points. Listing revised. It is appropriate to include, to the various insignificant release points such as main extent reasonable, the less significant steam-line safety valves and steam-driven feed release points in some site documentation water pumps in an ODCM will typically be (e.g., procedures or basis documents).

meaningless (especially when the curie totals and The staff agrees that a reference to the doses will typically be less than 1% of the totals Appendix I limits as a basis for significant from the other release points). A documented release points has merit, and that has been detailed site review of potential unmonitored incorporated into the definition of significant release points and actions to take depending on release points (and less significant release changing conditions would seem more appropriate points).

to address the required monitoring/tracking requirements for the less significant and insignificant categories. Suggest that the categories be:

significant release points - those listed in NUREG 1301/2 (thus typically already in the ODCM) or have the potential to be greater than 1 % of the Appendix I limits less significant release points - 1% to 0.1% of the Appendix I limits insignificant release points - less than 0.1% of the Appendix I limits This should be much more meaningful and appropriate (e.g. Why penalize plants with the undue burden of additional monitoring if their significant releases are low?)

2 Dom 5 1.(c) Only the significant release points need to be listed The staff agrees with the comment. The text on the map. was revised.

3 Dom 5 1.(d) Does this apply to direct doses? It should. This The staff disagrees with this comment.

means that doses may need to be routinely Paragraph 1.(d) is based on the guidance in June 1, 2009

45 calculated for direct radiation even when these are RG 1.109. Since RG .109 does not include not distinguishable from background (at the location a formula for direct radiation for effluents, of exposure to the public, however extrapolations direct radiation is not included as a may be possible based upon measurements much contributor to the (reference to) 10% in RG closer to the source term where the direct dose 1.109, section C. As a result, RG 1.21 does may be distinguishable) since direct radiation can not include direct doses in reference to the be the most significant dose pathway at many sites. 10% guidance of RG 1.109 (Section C).

These calculations would be more consistent with what is done for the other pathways (e.g., typically dont see any positive activity in REMP samples, but calculations are performed based upon the effluents released and pathway modeling).

4 Dom 6 1 (last sentence in both Monitoring a Significant The staff agrees the use of the words Release Point and Monitoring a Less-significant significant figures does not correctly reflect Release Point) - The requirement to use 3 the intent of this regulator position. The significant figures can be quite meaningless in word 3 significant figures will be changed to many cases. These typically include the cases 3-digit exponential format.

where there is significant error in the actual values Licensees may choose to round numbers (e.g. containment purges where the RCS leak rate prior to reporting if technically justified. The may be changing). Why list 3 significant figures licensee should report number that are where the errors in the values are +/- 30 or technically correct.

more %? The use of these figures implies a high degree of sensitivity which in realty may not exist 5 Dom 6 1 (first sentence, second paragraph in Monitoring a The staff agrees that the wording, as initially Less-significant Release Point) - The need to list proposed, could be interpreted to be overly less-significant release points in an ODCM will be restrictive. The staff position is that very difficult to implement. This would result in very licensees should effectively demonstrate frequent changes to the ODCM based upon conformity to guides on design objectives as changing plant conditions (e.g., changing activity outlined in 10 CFR 50, Appendix I, Section levels in the secondary, changing safety/steam III, which states, conformity shall be dump flow rates, changing activity in the RCS, etc.). demonstrated by calculational procedures Therefore, the statement in the last sentence based on models and data such that the requiring reporting of any activity detected in a less- actual exposure is unlikely to be significant release point will also be difficult to underestimated, and that licensees should implement. The need to report should be any take account for all sources and pathways at June 1, 2009

46 activity that is greater than 1% of the total effluent the facility.

activity or can contribute to greater than 1% of the The wording in the RG was revised to allow dose, regardless of its release classification licensees, to the extent reasonable, to maintain the list of less-significant release points in documents other than the ODCM.

This eliminates the potential of frequent changes to the ODCM.

The ODCM should contain the list of significant release points and that should include anticipated operational occurrences which may include significant cross-contamination of systems normally not contaminated and primary to secondary leakage (for PWRs).

6 Dom 7 1 (last sentence in Monitoring Continuous Releases) The staff agrees with the comment. The

- The statement ...used to establish should be document was changed.

used to verify (or check) since in many cases it may not be appropriate to change these factors based upon normal conditions. Many of these monitors are required to function during emergency conditions where other factors may be more appropriate! Tracking the normal effluents from such monitors can easily be accomplished by the use of appropriate correction factors. Being too prescriptive here may be dangerous in certain conditions.

7 Dom 8 1 Section C.1 (Principal Radionuclides for Effluent The staff believes some specificity is Monitoring) - necessary to ensure a consistent and This section is a potential problem. It has additional reasonable approach to the determination of requirements that may be difficult to interpret and principal nuclides. However, licensees implement. For instance: the statement that should remember that a list of principal principal radionuclides is dependent onsite nuclides is prepared for purposes of specific factors (e.g. failed fuel and extent of ensuring that (1) the appropriate sensitivity system leakage among others) and the statement levels are used for analyses and (2) the the principal radionuclides list is contained in the Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report June 1, 2009

47 ODCM means that the ODCM requires changing includes the principal nuclides.

when fuel conditions or leak rates change. How Licensees are not required to implement the can this be reasonably implemented? risk-informed concept of principal nuclide as outlined in RG 1.21, Revision 2. For This section needs to be much more general licensees who wish to adopt the risk-without many of the specific details that are very informed concept of principal nuclides, the difficult to implement. ODCM would not need to be revised immediately, and the ODCM could be revised within approximately 12 months following the determination of the principal nuclides.

In a reasonable implementation, the list of principal nuclides for liquid radioactive waste, for example, would be dominated by a very few nuclides (typically less than 12 nuclides), and that list would not change significantly even though plant conditions may change (e.g., failed fuel).

8 Dom 8 1 (Principal Radionuclides for Effluent Monitoring) - The 10% provision described in C.1.d (RG-1.109) is applicable to methods for determining significant exposure pathways Why 1%?

(e.g., inhalation or ingestion) which are unique at a site and for which equations are Would 10% be more appropriate and consistent not provided in RG 1.109.

with C.1.(d) dose calculation statement on page 5 The 1% criteria in DG-1186 is applicable to as long as the wording reflects that the aggregate methods for determining principal dose (or Curie total) from all the non-principal radionuclides. Defining methods for nuclides is what needs to be considered. In many determining principal nuclides and significant cases [it] may be appropriate to address nuclide release points provides guidance that allows groups (e.g., HTDs like Fe-55, Sr-89 and Sr-90) as licensees to meet the regulatory requirement opposed to individual nuclides; if they dont of 10 CFR 50 Appendix I, Section III.A.1, contribute to 10% or more of the dose, then why which states licensees should make analyze for them? estimates of exposure such that the actual exposure is unlikely to be The technical approach and classification scheme underestimated where account shall be June 1, 2009

48 listed in EPRI NP-3840 may be worth considering taken of all sources and pathways within the plant contributing to the particular type of effluent being considered.

The use of a 10% criteria was tested with typical nuclear power plant data. And was judged not to be appropriate. At this time, the NRC is not prepared to consider 10% to be appropriate criteria when determining principal nuclides.

EPRI NP-3840 was reviewed. That report suggested nuclides >1% of the 5 mrem/yr whole body Appendix I design objective were either significant or possibly significant and listed those as <1% (of the 5 mrem/yr whole body Appendix I design objective) as not significant. If a licensee chooses to implement EPRI NP-3840, documentation of justification should be kept on file for inspection.

9 Dom 9 1 (last paragraph in Principal Radionuclides for C-14 may be a principal radionuclide Effluent Monitoring) - contributing more than 1% of the total radioactive effluent by activity or by dose, and if so, should be considered a principal Does this mean all sites need to account for C-14? radionuclide and accounted for.

An evaluation should be made for the What about other hard-to-detect nuclides like P-32, principal nuclides. Other radionuclides Ni-63 and others? contributing more than 1% by activity or dose, whether hard to detect or not, should also be accounted for.

10 Dom 9 2 (Sampling Liquid Radwaste, second sentence) - The staff agrees with the comment. The text recirculated by up to three volumes should has been changed.

be recirculated by at least three volumes (This is a duplicate of NEI comment #15).

otherwise it is acceptable to recirculate for less than three volumes which is not the intent June 1, 2009

49 11 Dom 15 4 (Measurement Uncertainty) - This whole section The staff disagrees with the comment.

should be deleted. In theory this is a nice Licensees should make an estimate of the parameter to calculate, but it is so variable and uncertainty. A detailed analysis including all dependent on many conditions, including actual parameters is not necessary. Because it isotopic mixture, the relative magnitude of this may be difficult to assign error terms for mixture (which can be dependent on dilution in the each parameter affecting the final effluent stream, especially for airborne releases measurement, detailed statistical evaluations and can change significantly over time) that in most of error are not suggested.

cases it is only a guess based on a specific set of (This is a duplicate of NEI comment #69).

circumstances. The last sentence discusses sampling uncertainty, but the most significant uncertainty occurs for grab samples of continuous release pathways (especially when some of these pathways, especially ventilation have significant flow rate which provides very large dilution resulting in significant measurement error). Most licensees track radiation monitor changes, but there are limitations and the error in the isotopics is significant, especially for routine low level releases and the more difficult to detect nuclides (e.g., Kr-85). Much better sensitivity occurs for the higher activity samples obtained during outages, but these typically occur for shorter periods of time.

Therefore, these still may make up a fraction of the quarterly and annual totals and this fraction will change with time. Anyone performing detailed calculations for this uncertainty has significant uncertainty in their calculations, especially since it is grouped as an aggregate (both for nuclides and release points).

12 Dom 18 5.6.4 Why do the 10 CFR 20.1301(c) doses need to Appendix I applies to current year releases include prior-year discharges and the 10 CFR 50 from effluents only, whereas 10 CFR 20 Appendix I do not (see Section C.5.8.4)? applies to total dose (from both current year It would seem appropriate to be consistent and do direct radiation, from current year effluents, the prior-year for both. and prior year effluents).

June 1, 2009

50 10 CFR 50 Appendix I is an annual limit for committed dose due to effluents, whereas 10 CFR 20.1301 is an annual limit of effective dose equivalent for both effluents and direct radiation. The occupational dose of 10 CFR 20.1301 is the dose from licensed operation which includes dose from previous years effluents. See 20.1001(b) that establishes the purpose as controlling the total dose to an individual (including doses from licensed and unlicensed radioactive material). The unlicensed material includes the previous years discharges to the environment.

13 Dom 19 5.8.3 The second sentence is not always true; in some The staff agrees with the comment. This has cases it is possible that food and/or drink at a been revised to state that only when the downwind location may be obtained from another downstream drinking water is consumed by location. This is especially true for drinking water the upstream resident should it be added.

which may be obtained from a public water supply where the intake may be downstream of the liquid discharge point but not downwind of the airborne release point. Therefore, the third sentence is not a good example since is dependent on site conditions and may not always be true.

14 Dom 21 5.10.2 Similar to Specific [Dominion] comment 3, there The staff agrees that licensees may use can be an issue here. measurements, calculations, or a combination of measurements and calculations to determine direct radiation.

What is indistinguishable from background?

Additionally, licensees may use methods (e.g., as outlined in RG 1.21, Revision 2) to Best efforts should be performed to calculate direct make a determination of direct radiation that doses; these can be based upon measurements is distinguishable from background.

performed near the source terms and appropriately Licensees may use other methods, but the extrapolated (e.g., based upon shine modeling) to methods should be clearly documented.

the point of exposure and then compared to actual June 1, 2009

51 REMP measurements (if possible) similar to what should be done for all pathways. (see Specific comment 3 for more specific details) 15 Dom 21 5.10.3 Based upon previous comments (Specific The staff agrees with the comment.

comments 3 and 14), it would seem appropriate to Licensees should perform an evaluation perform both calculations and measurements for based on their site specific factors to direct radiation, since it is likely the most significant determine the best method of estimating dose pathway for many sites. As mentioned in the dose from direct radiation. The existing previous comment, calculations can be performed verbiage allows licensees to use a using onsite (near the source term) measurements combination of calculations and and these can be compared to measurements measurements. No change needed.

much closer to the location of public exposure.

16 Dom 22 C.5.11.3 Section C.5.11.3 - This example showing an The staff agrees with the comment, the extrapolation of doses seems like an endorsement calculation in section 5.11 was deleted.

of a potentially very unscientific method. Why Additional information and references were extrapolate a number that includes both added regarding extrapolation of background and direct dose? Extrapolating the background.

station contribution (e.g., subtract background from the 50 ft. away indicator and then extrapolate to the nearest residence based upon modeling) would seem to be more valid and probably lead to less error. As already mentioned, this source term calculation could then be compared to the REMP measurement at the location of public exposure.

17 Dom 22 5.11.4 The 0.0017 values listed in steps 5.11.4.3 and The staff agrees with the comment, the 5.11.5 5.11.4.4 are not consistent with the 0.017 values calculation in section 5.11 was deleted.

listed in values 5.11.5.5.1.1 - 5.11.5.3.2. (This is a duplicate of the comment from PPL

  1. 4) 18 Dom 24 8 Section C.8 - All the phases source term (the real The staff agrees with the comment. Section source term is typically the Reactor Coolant 8, on data trending, was deleted.

System) should more accurately be called release term.

19 Dom 24 8 Section C.8 - 10 year trends are a great practice, The staff agrees with the comment. The but does it really belong in the ARERR? Trends section of data trending was eliminated with June 1, 2009

52 are very useful for the release (not source as the exception that licensees should still mentioned above) terms, but trending all the ensure the provisions of 10 CFR 50 various doses will likely be overkill. In most cases Appendix I,Section IV.B.2 (i.e., to evaluate the doses are well below the limits; why trend these the relationship between quantities of when they usually range from less than 0.01% to radioactive material released in effluents and 1%. Should the trend be for each unit? In many resultant radiation doses to individuals) are cases the limits are per unit. Therefore, this will addressed.

lead to a lot of typically meaningless trends, (This duplicates PPL comment #3, STARS especially for multiunit stations. Suggest only one comment #8, and NEI comment #43) dose trend should be listed here; the one that seems to be the most useful is: maximum individual dose (for whole body, thyroid and maximum organ) for the three source terms (airborne, liquid and radwaste storage (which includes all the direct radiation doses, e.g., ISFSI, radwaste, etc.)) versus the 40 CFR 190 limits.

Unfortunately the list of items to trend that is presented here is too prescriptive and any deviations will need to be justified (and therefore, potentially open to interpretation). Wording should be used to make the list be more suggestive.

20 Dom 24 8.2 activation products should be activation gases The staff agrees with the comment. The (particulates are also typically activation products changes were made.

for gaseous releases) to be consistent with Section C.9.1.1.

21 Dom 24 9 The statement the entry should be left blank The staff agrees with the comment. The requirement for results determined to be below guidance was revised to allow licensees to detectable levels may be even better handled buy use whatever term is appropriate.

use of a - to provide an indication that the actual analysis(es) was (were) performed. Past experience on this issue indicates that without a clear distinction on which analyses were actually performed will raise questions (from the Public and NRC inspectors) even though the sampling June 1, 2009

53 requirements are listed elsewhere in the report.

22 Dom 25 9.1.4 In many cases the batch releases for certain The staff agrees with the comment. The 9.1.6 required samples (e.g., containment purges, guidance was revised.

containment vents, waste gas decay tanks) do not require all the listed radionuclide categories (e.g.,

iodines/halogens, particulates, gross alpha) because they are released via a continuous pathway which already has these radionuclide categories measured (and reported).

23 Dom 25 9.2.1 The need to report both volume of primary and The staff agrees with the comment. The secondary waste is a good practice. Consistent guidance was revised.

with this practice would be the need to report dilution flow for both primary and secondary waste since the isotopic mix and dilution flows can be significantly different for these two waste streams.

24 Dom 26 9.2.3 The four categories listed here should be consistent The staff agrees with the comment. The with Section C.9.2.2 guidance was revised.

25 Dom 31 3.2 Dont agree with Section 3.2. Implementation of The staff disagrees with the comment. The this update will have an impact; this depends on guidance in RG 1.21 is not a requirement.

how many of our comments are addressed. Licensees may continue to use RG 1.21 Revision 1 or they may use other equivalent methods of meeting the regulations. The staff does agree that the data trending could have been time consuming; however, the section on data trending was deleted.

26 Dom 32 Glossary a priori - by definition it is before the fact as listed The staff agrees the definition could be to in the definition and as such, it is based upon prior improved. The definition of a priori was 36 study. How could it be determined before the revised.

actual measurement if it is not based upon prior study or examination?

Abnormal Release - what is the definition of short release? In outages containment purge exhaust The definition of abnormal release was June 1, 2009

54 fans can be off for several days. Is this short? revised and an example of a short duration What about a week? was included.

Effluent Monitor Inoperability - Definition as listed is the requirement for when inoperable monitors need The definition of effluent monitor inoperability to be reported, not for the definition of when a was deleted.

monitor is considered inoperable.

Less Significant Release Point - where is this definition A definition for less-significant release point was added to the glossary.

Significant Release Point - In the first sentence, the and before (2) is not consistent with the text (see The definition was revised as indicated.

page 6). More importantly, see Specific comment 1.

June 1, 2009

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML091170117&oldid=2146468"