ML20148P191
| ML20148P191 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/26/1996 |
| From: | Raddatz C NRC |
| To: | Cool D, Clint Jones, Sobel P, Trottier C, Weber M NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS), NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20148P089 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-61FR65120, RULE-PR-20 AF31-2-043, AF31-2-43, NUDOCS 9707020019 | |
| Download: ML20148P191 (22) | |
Text
'
g p 3 ,. g '9 .._
PDL
. N via osnail t e mail 4
- to: Michael Weber, NMSS/DWM Phyllis Sobel, NMSS/DWM Cynthia Jones, NMSS/IMNS Donald Cool, NMSS/IMNS
. Cheryl Trottier, RES Chip Cameron, OGC l Dennis Sollenberger, OSP from: Charleen T. Raddatz subject: Draft slides for our 2/28 meeting on Constraint date: March 26,1996 1
Here are the slides for our meeting. I have also included a preliminary summary of comments l recieved as oflast week. There have been a couple more inches since then that I have not yet summarized.
I I
9707020019 970626 PDR PR O 6FR6MO N ._--______-________-----------__--_j
.. .l Options
! 1 Go forward with constraint, and address
~
=
public comments that are opposed i - Withdraw Constraint in response to l
comments '
i l
Go forward with constraint, addressing public comments
= Make clear in SOC that constraint is not needed for adequate protection
= Make clear in SOC that NRC licensees t already achieving constraint levels
= Make clear in SC'C that constraint is only to allow rescission of Subpart l .
Make effective upon final rescission
= Make a level 1 matter of compatibility
Changes to final Constraint
= Exempt Rn-220, Rn-222 and all .
l ~
daughters
, = Do not require name and SSN of exposed member of public in report
! = Exempt patient effluents
- = Apply to offsite members of the public
= Provide more flexibility in demonstration of compliance
-Withdraw Constraint in response ia comments l = Acknowledge the weight of the comments that EPA has adequate evidence to support rescission j
= Argue that the existing information meets the criteria of the Simpson Amendment Encourage EPA to go forward with FOCSISSlon
~
Constraint Rule l
l t
Pros Cons l = Reduces burden on Not scientifically l
licensees justifiable
= puts reculation of = not risk-informed l all radioactive performance-based l
effluent in NRC = wastes NRC, state and licensee l resources for-switching over to l
new regulatory structure j l ;
4 Withdraw Constraint Pros Cons
= Technically correct Dual regulation
= EPA might rescind Excessive burden anyway (though on NRC and State 1 very unlikely} licensees I ,
l l
1 Licensees GenCorp AeroJet i
Kennecott Energy l Colorado State University Chem-Nuclear Nuclear Fuel Services University ofMissouri NIH USEC Kerr-McGee Sequoyah Fuels TVA UCI 3
USEC MH DuPont Licensee Reps ACNP Wyoming Mining Association National Mining Association
. NEI ACNP/SNM 1
'l States State ofMichigan Texas Fatural Resource Conservation Commission i NYS Dept. OfEnvironmental Conservation I Public Walston Chubb Roger W. Granlund l Douglas A. Johnson 4
Mack Richard T.P.Barton, Ph.D.
B. Geary Walbridge J. Powell Environmental Groups Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power Committee to Bridge the Gap Nuclear Information and Resource Service l
j
Basis for RulemaWg
^l "
v
~
': 1 ' ,
EPA studies show that constraint is not needed 6 4 1 2 *"
Costs cannot bejustified 4 1 3 ***
ALARA is adequate to protect the public 1 1 There is no justification for a single pathway limit 1 1 LN-T should not be applied at such low doses 2 *"
10 mrem is insignificant relative to background variability 1 There is no justification for a 10-fold reduction in the limit for some licensees 2 ***
Calling the constraint ALARA damages the ALARA philosophy 2 2 1 1 agree This is a limit, and a limit is not needed to protect the public 3 1 3 2 disagree.
Very small doses might be beneficial 1 no basis Should be a limit, and should be 5 mrem /y 1 disagree 10 mrem /yis not measureable 2 not true Constraint is only guidance and therefore unenforceable. 1 not tme ALARA is only a recommendation and therefore unenforceable. 4 not true Failure to provide for citizen lawsuits makes this unacceptable 2 no
- *
- NRC Staff agrees, but this would not be acceptable to EPA
l Rule Provisions
^ '
Comment' w' ,, m, s lid $ repi sts envi Action: -
Corrective actions should ensure ALARA not <10 mrem /y 1 l
! Exempt Rn-220 and Rn-222 and daughters 1 1 ok, check w/ EPA Do not require collection of name and SSN for exposed member of public 1 ok Make it a level 1 matter of compatibility instead oflevel 2 1 2 ok Constraint should not be effective until rescission is final 1 ok Exempt Rn-222 and daughters 1 1 ok Exempt patient effluents 1 ok Do not apply to on site members of the public 2 2 ok, but not sure how Make constraint apply to licensed and unlicensed sources, including NARM 1 ok Exempt unlicensed sources 2 1 no Exempt sealed containers, notjust sealed sources I no The rule should apply to all licensees including reactors 1 no Exceeding 10 mrem /y must result in NOV 4 no Extend public comment period I no NRC or the State must perform confirmatory measurements I no
- *
- NRC Staff agrees, but this would not be acceptable to EPA
Demonstration ofCompliance
~
~
CLei - lie My
^
s :a a 'sti. p0b$ Action E '
Do not require any demonstration ofcompliance unless something changes 1 Provide more flexibilite in demonstration of compliance 3 1 ok add EPA guidance doe add actual measurments at receptor location add CAP 88PC and other EPA approved software include list of max possession so that nothing else need be done include a list of average concentrations that require no further demonstration Demonstration of compliance is not as protective as EPA. 1 This was also said at the No separate iodine limit SubpartIhearings. EPA Allows Appendix B which is inhalation pathway only. may seek strengthening of our rule to support rescission.
- ** NRC Staff agrees, but this would not be acceptable to EPA
SUMMARY
OF COMMENTS ON PR-20
, . CONSTRAINT LEVEL FOR AIR EMISSIONS OF RADIONUCLIDES T "
EF '%M N Corh5nterd lCdmment -
RE5610tidn $
1 _GenCorp AeroJet Change "these" to "the licensee's air" in ok
$20.1101(d)
]' Change " established under $20.1101(c)" to ok
" established under $20.1101(d)" in
$20.2203(a)(2)(vi). ,
l Will Comply and NCRP Commentary # 3 be yes acceptable l 2 Kennecott Energy Supports rule and rescission if Rn-222 + ok ,
l; daughters are exempted from rule '
l Provide flexibility in demonstration of ;
i compliance requirements done Exclude unlicensed sources such as wind blown tailings near an operating U-mill 3
3 Wyoming Mining Supports rule and rescission if Rn-222 + ok Association daughters are exempted from rule Provide flexibility in demonstration of compliance requirements done Exclude unlicensed sources such as wind
- blown tailings near an operating U-mill
,l l'
4 John Stevens, 10 mrem /yr=1pR/hr and cannot be measured )
Colorado State l l University Costs will not be justifiable since populations living in regions with background doses several times higher show no adverse health j effects i
1 4 Comments on PRM-20 1 March 26,1996 i s )
, _ , . , . , , - ~ . - . - . ,. , - . . _ . -___. _________ __ ____ _ __ _ __ ._l
4 d
- ' Commenter? Comment Resolution 1 5 State of No objection to our rule. Objects to rescission We said Michigan, Dept. because it leaves a regulatory hole for NARM. we Of Public Health covered licensed and unlicensed sources.
That is why EPA went along with the rule.
G Walston Chubb LN-t makes no sense
, The first amendment prohibits govemment spreading lies to scare the public This is alarmist, unreasonable, impractical and prejudiced.
7 Roger W. Rescission is good Granlund Supplementary information given proves that rule is necessary.
Proposed rule essentially revokes ALARA.
Once a constraint is exceeded one time, it becomes a limit for that facility as exccedence is then a violation.
Current ALARA provisions adequate to protect public.
Proposed rule should be killed 8 Douglas A. 10 has no technical merit. This is Johnson unreasonable and irrational.
Comments on PRM-20 2 March 26,1996
L # s. Commenter : Commenti '
Resolution" 9 Chem-Nuclear Rescission is good. But it has no positive effect if the same stupid requirement is imposed by NRC. There is no reduction in burden.
10 ACNP (CA bpt) Simpson Amendment required EPA to make a finding re. NRC program. EPA did studies to support finding. Studies grossly overestimated dose and yet showed NRC program adequate. There is no basis to require NRC to impose an unneeded standard.
NRC's rule is far worse than EPA's Limits to members of the public should be OFFSITE as stated in the CAA.
If there is a constraint rule it should apply to all NRC licensees equally.
The rule should not be a level 2 item of compatibility. Identical rule is bad enough.
More stringent is unreasonable.
I Comments on PRM-20 3 March 26,1996 L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ - _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
'I'. '
., /;.. .f $
11 NFS Existing standards are adequate to protect the public even in the absence of Subpart 1.
There is no data to support the thesis that this rule is needed to control excessive effluent emissions. _
The constraint is a standard, not ALARA.
For most licensees, airborne emissions dominate public doses offsite. This rule reduces the public dose limit for those licensees by a factor of 10.
Dose from airborne emissions is not more hazardous than dose from other pathways.
There is no reasonable justification for limiting this single pathway.
12 Mack Richard The current regulatory structure has been proven adequate to protect the public. This is burden with no benefit.
- There is no basis for applying LNT to doses
, as small as 10 mrem in a year per NCRP.
Air concentrations that would result in these doses are unmeasurable by any reasonable means. Modeling programs including COMPLY grossly overestimate doses further lowering effective limits.
The constraint is so a limit.
The elimination of dual regulation is laudable, but just imposing some other stupid limit is no help.
13 T. P. Barton, There is no health and safety reason for this Ph.D. change. Every competent HP knows that.
Comments on PRM-20 4 March 26,1996
/
'#i Commentsri - ' Comment Ib Rhsolution 2 14 U of Missouri, There is no rational or scientific reason for the C61umbia imposition of these proposed requirements.
4 The public dose limits adequately protect the public by definition.
Occupational doses are historically well below limits. Public doses probably are also.
COMPLY is conservative and overestimates dose. ;
i 1 Very small doses may be beneficial so the limit could cause harm. 4 15 Kerr-McGee Exclude Radon 220 and 222 + daughters l
l Make a matter of level 1 not level 2 1 compatibility. Identical ok, more stringent not ok.
J 3
l i
l l
Comments on PRM-20 5 March 26,1996 l
. i l
l i
- i#; Commenter.C Comment ~
Res61utiont 16 Environmental Proposed not adequate. Withdraw proposed Coalition on and refuse responsibility for NESHAPS. I Nuclear Power Extend public comment period for 60 additional days.
Adopt all'our comments as a part of the MOU.
Constraint is only guidance. It is not l enforceable. 1 ALARA is only a recommendation.
NOV is not required for >10.
NRC nor the agreement States conduct confirmatory monitoring.
Raising the $/ person rem value to 2k will result in worse protection.
NRC fails to provide for citizen law suits.
17 Sequoyah Fuels Not a constraint, it is a limit.
For some, this is a 10 fold reduction in the public dose limit. It unfairly penalizes those licensees for whom the inhalation pathway j dominates public dose, There is no benefit to the proposed rule.
ALARA should not be codified as numerical values.
18 TVA The term " actual individual" is undefined and unclear. ,
1 1
1 Comments on PRM-20 6 March 26,1996
1#; Commenter-: Comment? Resolution 1 19 CTBTG NRC standards are 10 to 50 times less stringent than EPA.
Risk from NRC standards is far too high.
Constraint is not a limit, violation is not a ,
violation.
ALARA is only a goal.
Demonstration of compliance is far less stringent than EPA.
Since it is only in Part 20, it is not a licensing standard.
The EA and FONSI should be redone.
l 1
i I
d Comments on PRM-20 7 March 26,1996 i
. ~
<#: Commenter? Comment s
Resolutione 20 UCI The findings of the 2 EPA studies satisfy the requirements of the Simpson Amendment and should be adequate to justify rescission without the imposition of the constraint.
HPS endorsed NCRP position statement stating that current limita are sufficiently protective, compliance is verifiable, they are achievable, and can be applied without consideration of background. There is therefore no need for new, more stringent limits.
10 mrem is such a small fraction of the variability of background as to be insignificant.
MOP should be defined as outside facility It has already been demonstrated, using incredibly conservative calculations, that the current requiatory structure controls doses to MOPS to < 10/y.
Provide default values using more realistic parameters than EPA (such as 1E-4 and 1E-6 for volatile and non volatild forms)
Exempt sealed containers, not just sealed sources.
4 Explicitly exempt patient effluents.
RA neglects burden to collect data to reconfirm previously reported results.
2 21 National Mining NRC's existing regulatory framework should Association be adequate to support rescission.
If EPA insists, exclude radon 222 and radon 220 and all daughters.
Do not codify ALARA. This is a limit.
' Comments on PRM-20 8 March 26,1996.
~
- - Commenter; Comment . Res61utioni 22 NEl Concur with intent of rule.
Clarify that existing regulations adequately protect the public.
Do not tie constraint to ALARA. ,
Specific wording changes.
Single pathway limit is inconsistent with ICRP, IAEA, NCRP and good sense.
Make sure the rule is not effective until rescission.
23 8. Geary Constraint is not good enough. Limit is essential.
Allow citizen suits.
24 NIRS Reiterates CTBTG comments. l 25 Dooley Kiefer Should be a limit not a constraint.
Standard must be enforceable.
26 USEC Supports constraint in order to achieve rescission.
27 ACNP/SNM impose constraint offsite only.
Must be level 1 not 2 compatibility.
Do not require annual calculations if nothing has changed since last report.
28 Walbridge J. evidence does not support loosening of Powell standard. Constraint should be a 5 mrem /y LIMIT.
Comments on PRM-20 9 March 26,1996
4
, 9#L Commenter Comment n2 Re's6liJtion : l 1
29 NIH The rule inappropriately defines a member of the public as someone on site.
Don't require licensees to report names and SSNs of members of the public as it may not always be available. _
Reporting requirements are inconsistent with Part 20 which requires reporting only when in l l
excess of 100. 1 1
Given the results of the EPA studies, there is !
no basis for the rule or justification for the )
costs.
The reg analysis ignores the cost for the time l to use COMPLY and time spent filling out l forms. COMPLY is not user friendly and 1 requires repeated entry of the same data.
! 30 DuPont Constraint is preferable to dual regulation, but is still unecessary.
Constraint is not ALARA. i Congressional intervention is necessary instead of NRC promulgating unecessary, burdonsome standards.
Reporting and corrective action requirements are not justifiable given current demonstrated very low risk. Rather, require initial l demonstration with annual updates only when there are major changes.
i l
Comments on PRM-20 10 March 26,1996
_ _ _ _ . .. .. .- - - - . =- - - - . .- .
i
!#- C6mmerkert - Comment? -
Resol'utiore 31 NYS Dept. Of if we are just transfering the burden from EPA
' Environmental to NRC, then leave it alone. There is no i
Conservation benefit and it is a limit. The EPA should be able to rescind on the basis of existing evidence. Making a matter of compatibility will eat up state resources with no , ,.
improvement in health and safety. 1 States should have been provided an opportunity to participate at an earlier stage.
This constraint is a limit. Put it in $20.1301 where it belongs.
Rather than requiring corrective actions to get doses <10, require corrective actions to get doses ALARA even if that is > 10.
NRC is not fooling anyone by calling this j something other than a limit.
The constraint is not ALARA. Reasonable never enters into the equation. This alters the i ALARA philosophy in a negative way.
1 1
i i
1 l Comments on PRM-20 11 March 26,1996
. -. - - -