Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations, 6509-6527 [2014-02307]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 23 / Tuesday, February 4, 2014 / Proposed Rules
Dated: January 23, 2014.
Kevin C. Kiefer,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port Baltimore.
[FR Doc. 2014–02292 Filed 2–3–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 190
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0689; FRL–9902–20–
OAR]
RIN 2060–AR12
Environmental Radiation Protection
Standards for Nuclear Power
Operations
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking.
AGENCY:
This Advance Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) requests
public comment and information on
potential approaches to updating the
Environmental Protection Agency’s
‘‘Environmental Radiation Protection
Standards for Nuclear Power
Operations’’ (40 CFR part 190). These
standards, originally issued in 1977,
limit radiation releases and doses to the
public from normal operation of nuclear
power plants and other uranium fuel
cycle facilities—that is, facilities
involved in the milling, conversion,
fabrication, use and reprocessing of
uranium fuel for generating commercial
electrical power. These standards were
the earliest radiation rules developed by
EPA and are based on nuclear power
technology and the understanding of
radiation biology current at that time.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) is responsible for implementing
and enforcing these standards.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before June 4, 2014.
Additional Public Input. In addition
to this ANPR, the Agency anticipates
providing additional opportunities for
public input. Please see the Web site for
more information at: www.epa.gov/
radiation/laws/190.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OAR–2013–0689, by one of the
following methods:
• www.regulations.gov: Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov.
• Fax: (202) 566–9744.
• Mail: U.S. Postal Service, send
comments to: EPA Docket Center,
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:37 Feb 03, 2014
Jkt 232001
Environmental Radiation Protection
Standards for Nuclear Power
Operations—Advance Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking Docket, Docket ID
No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0689, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington,
DC 20460. Please include a total of two
copies.
• Hand Delivery: In person or by
courier, deliver comments to: EPA
Docket Center, Environmental Radiation
Protection Standards for Nuclear Power
Operations—Advance Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking Docket, Docket ID
No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0689, EPA
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004.
Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Docket’s normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. Please include a total of
two copies.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–
0689. The Agency’s policy is that all
comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and
may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through www.regulations.gov
or email. The www.regulations.gov Web
site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system,
which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless
you provide it in the body of your
comment. If you send an email
comment directly to EPA without going
through www.regulations.gov your email
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information
about the EPA’s public docket, visit the
EPA Docket Center homepage at
www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the www.regulations.gov
index. Although listed in the index,
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
6509
some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information
for which disclosure is restricted by
statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, will be publicly
available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available
either electronically in
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the EPA Docket Center, EPA West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave.
NW., Washington, DC. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is
(202) 566–1744, and the telephone
number for the Docket Center is (202)
566–1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Brian Littleton, EPA Office of Radiation
and Indoor Air, (202) 343–9216,
littleton.brian@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Fact Sheets
The Agency is making several fact
sheets available to assist the public in
understanding the issues related to the
effort to update this rule. These fact
sheets are as follows:
1. ANPR Fact Sheet
2. Radiation Regulations Fact Sheet
3. Uranium Fuel Cycle Fact Sheet
These fact sheets are available on the
Agency’s Web site associated with this
effort at: www.epa.gov/radiation/laws/
190.
Glossary of Terms
What are the important radiationrelated concepts and terms we use in
this ANPR? Radiation-related terms
used in this ANPR are defined below.
Absorbed dose—The amount of
energy absorbed by an object or person
per unit mass. This reflects the amount
of energy that ionizing radiation sources
deposit in materials through which they
pass.
Advanced Boiling Water Reactor
(ABWR)—New design of boiling water
nuclear reactor which uses steam and
high-pressure water to transfer energy to
turbines. The NRC has detailed criteria
for meeting this design in its design
certification rule published in the
Federal Register on May 12, 1997 (62
FR 25800).
Advanced Passive Reactor 1000
(AP1000)—New design of pressurized
water nuclear reactor with passive
safety features incorporated. It uses
high-pressure water to transfer energy to
a second low-pressure water loop. This
secondary water is converted to steam
which then drives the turbines. The
NRC has detailed criteria for meeting
E:\FR\FM\04FEP1.SGM
04FEP1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6510
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 23 / Tuesday, February 4, 2014 / Proposed Rules
this design in its design certification
rule published in the Federal Register
on January 27, 2006 (71 FR 4464).
Advanced Pressurized Water Reactor
(APWR)—New design of pressurized
water nuclear reactor which uses highpressure water to transfer energy to a
second low-pressure water loop. This
secondary water is converted to steam,
which then drives the turbines. The
NRC has received the U.S. APWR design
certification application and is
reviewing the application for
compliance with NRC’s regulations. The
NRC has not yet certified the design
under its regulations at 10 CFR part 52.
However, if the NRC determines that the
U.S. APWR design meets all applicable
regulations, it will proceed to certify the
design through the NRC’s rulemaking
process.
Blue Ribbon Commission (BRC)—The
President’s Blue Ribbon Commission on
America’s Nuclear Future was
established as directed by the
President’s Memorandum for the
Secretary of Energy dated January 29,
2010. The purpose of the 15-member
BRC was to conduct a comprehensive
review of policies for managing the back
end of the nuclear fuel cycle and
recommend a new plan.
Boiling Water Reactor (BWR)—A type
of light-water nuclear reactor design
which uses steam and high pressure
water to transfer energy to turbines.
Committed equivalent dose—The
equivalent dose (see definition below) to
a tissue or organ that will be received
for a specified period of time following
intake of radioactive material. The
committed dose allows an accounting of
the total dose from radioactive materials
taken into (and held in) the body, for
which the dose will be spread out in
time, being gradually delivered as the
radionuclide decays.
Committed effective dose (CED)—The
effective dose received over a period of
time by an individual from
radionuclides internal to the individual
following a one-year intake of those
radionuclides. CED is expressed in units
of sievert (SI units) or rem.
Collective dose—The sum of
individual radiation doses to a specified
group or population.
Curie—A unit of radioactivity,
corresponding to 3.7 × 1010
disintegrations per second.
Deterministic effects—A health effect
that has a clinical threshold (i.e.,
exposures below the threshold do not
result in the effect of concern), beyond
which the severity increases with the
dose. Deterministic effects generally
result from the receipt of a relatively
high dose over a short time period.
Radiation-induced cataract formation
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:37 Feb 03, 2014
Jkt 232001
(clouding of the lens of the eye) is an
example of a deterministic effect. These
are also termed ‘‘non-stochastic’’ effects.
Dose, or radiation dose—A general
term for absorbed dose, equivalent dose,
effective dose, committed effective dose,
committed equivalent dose or total
effective dose as defined in this
document. A measure of the energy
deposited in tissue by ionizing
radiation.
Dosimetry—The method used to
calculate dose or other related measures
of the impacts of exposure to radiation,
taking into account the type of radiation
and the duration and mode of exposure.
Economic Simplified Boiling Water
Reactor (ESBWR)—New design of
boiling water nuclear reactor which uses
high-pressure steam to transfer energy to
turbines. It takes advantage of natural
circulation for normal operation and has
passive safety features.
Effective dose (E)—This quantity,
previously called the effective dose
equivalent (EDE), is the weighted sum of
the equivalent doses to individual
organs of the body. The dose to each
tissue or organ is weighted according to
the risk that dose represents. These
organ doses are then added together,
and that total is the effective dose. The
relevant units are rem or sieverts (SI
units).
Equivalent dose—The product of
absorbed dose (grays or rads), averaged
over a tissue or organ, multiplied by a
radiation weighting factor. The radiation
weighting factor relates to the degree to
which a type of ionizing radiation will
produce biological damage. It is used
because some types of radiation, such as
alpha particles, are more biologically
damaging to live tissue than other types
of radiation when the absorbed dose
from both is equal. Equivalent dose
expresses, on a common scale for all
ionizing radiation, the biological
damage to the exposed tissue. It is
expressed numerically in rems
(traditional units) or sieverts (SI units).
This quantity was also known as the
‘‘dose equivalent’’ until the change in
terminology was adopted by the
International Commission on
Radiological Protection (ICRP).
Evolutionary Power Reactor (EPR)—
New design of pressurized water
nuclear reactor which uses highpressure water to transfer energy to a
second low-pressure water loop. This
secondary water is converted to highpressure steam which then drives the
turbines.
External dose—That portion of the
dose equivalent received from radiation
sources outside the body.
High-level radioactive waste—The
highly radioactive material resulting
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
from the reprocessing of spent nuclear
fuel, including liquid waste produced
directly in reprocessing and any solid
material derived from such liquid waste
that contains fission products in
sufficient concentrations; and other
highly radioactive material that the
NRC, consistent with existing law,
determines by rule requires permanent
isolation.
Internal dose—That portion of the
dose equivalent received from
radioactive material taken into the body.
International Commission on
Radiological Protection (ICRP)—The
independent, international advisory
body that develops the international
system of radiological protection as a
common basis for standards, legislation,
guidelines, programs and practices.
Recommendations of the ICRP are not
legally binding but are typically given
strong consideration by individual
countries as representing the state-ofthe-art in radiation protection.
Maximum Contaminant Level
(MCL)—The highest level of a
contaminant that EPA allows in
drinking water.
Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel—Fuel
fabricated from mixed uranium and
plutonium oxide, which may be used in
reactors.
Non-stochastic effects—Health effects,
the severity of which varies with the
dose and for which a threshold is
believed to exist. Non-stochastic effects
generally result from the receipt of a
relatively high dose over a short time
period. Also called deterministic effects.
Oxidation, REduction of enriched
OXide (OREOX) process—Fuel
reprocessing technology which
generates a mixed oxide fuel from spent
nuclear fuel assemblies.
Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR)—A
type of light-water reactor which uses
high pressure water to transfer energy to
a second low pressure water loop. This
secondary water is converted to highpressure steam which then drives the
turbines.
Radionuclide Release Limits—In the
context of this ANPR, the specific
radionuclide release limits established
under 40 CFR 190.10(b). These are the
legally permissible maximum amounts
of krypton-85, iodine-129, as well as
plutonium-239 and other alpha emitters
that can enter the environment from the
processes of nuclear power operations
in any given year, on an energy
production basis.
Radiation effects—Health
consequences from exposure to
radiation. The effects may be either
deterministic or stochastic.
E:\FR\FM\04FEP1.SGM
04FEP1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 23 / Tuesday, February 4, 2014 / Proposed Rules
Radiation risk—The probability or
chance that a particular health effect
will occur per unit dose of radiation.
Rem—The traditional unit of effective
dose. It is the product of the tissueweighted absorbed dose in rads and a
radiation weighting factor, WR, which
accounts for the effectiveness of the
radiation to cause biological damage; 1
rem = 0.01 Sv.
Sievert (Sv)—The sievert is the
International System of Units (SI) term
for the unit of effective dose and
equivalent dose; 1 Sv = 1 joule/
kilogram.
Spent nuclear fuel reprocessing—The
initial separation of spent nuclear fuel
into its constituent parts.
Spent nuclear fuel reprocessing
facility—A building or complex of
buildings where spent nuclear fuel
reprocessing and other processes take
place.
Spent nuclear fuel storage—The
storage of spent nuclear fuel from
nuclear fuel cycle and power
operations. Storage can include the
temporary holding of spent nuclear fuel
after it has been removed from the
nuclear reactor, up to and including any
storage of spent nuclear fuel prior to
final disposal. On-site storage at a
nuclear power plant may include the
spent nuclear fuel pools, where the
spent nuclear fuel is held immediately
after removal from the reactor for
several years of initial cooling, as well
as subsequent storage, for example, in
large concrete and metal dry storage
casks and vaults. This term would also
apply to storage at any potential facility
designed for the storage of spent nuclear
fuel prior to its final disposition.
Stochastic effect (of radiation)—
Malignant disease and heritable effects
for which the probability of an effect
occurring, but not its severity, is
assumed to be a function of dose
without threshold as a conservative
planning base.
TED (total effective dose)—The sum
of the effective dose (for external
exposures) and the committed effective
dose (for internal exposures).
Underground Source of Drinking
Water (USDW)—An aquifer or part of an
aquifer which (a) supplies any public
water system or contains a sufficient
quantity of ground water to supply a
public water system and currently
supplies drinking water for human
consumption or contains fewer than
10,000 milligrams/liter of Total
Dissolved Solids (TDS); and (b) is not an
exempted aquifer (see 40 CFR 144.3 for
a complete definition).
Table of Contents
I. Background
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:37 Feb 03, 2014
Jkt 232001
A. What is the basis for the existing
standards? How do the standards apply
and what do they require?
1. Statutory Authority
2. History of the Standards
3. Scope and Content of the Standards
4. Technical Basis for the Standards
B. Why is the Agency considering
updating/revising the standards?
1. What has changed and why could these
changes be important?
2. Guiding principles for review of existing
standards
C. What is the purpose of this ANPR and
how will the Agency use the
information?
D. How can the public comment on the
ANPR and get additional information?
II. Issues for Public Comment
A. Issue 1: Consideration of a Risk Limit
To Protect Individuals
Should the Agency express its limits for
the purpose of this regulation in terms of
radiation risk or radiation dose?
B. Issue 2: Updated Dose Methodology
(Dosimetry)
How should the Agency update the
radiation dosimetry methodology
incorporated in the standard?
C. Issue 3: Radionuclide Release Limits
Should the Agency retain the radionuclide
release limits in an updated rule and, if
so, what should the Agency use as the
basis for any release limits?
D. Issue 4: Water Resource Protection
How should a revised rule protect water
resources?
E. Issue 5: Spent Nuclear Fuel and HighLevel Radioactive Waste Storage
How, if at all, should a revised rule
explicitly address storage of spent
nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive
waste?
F. Issue 6: New Nuclear Technologies
What new technologies and practices have
developed since 40 CFR part 190 was
issued, and how should any revised rule
address these advances and changes?
G. Other Possible Issues for Comment
III. What will we do with this information?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
A. What is the basis for the existing
standards? How do the standards apply
and what do they require?
1. Statutory Authority
Section 161(b) of the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954 (AEA) authorized the
Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) to
‘‘establish by rule, regulation, or order,
such standards and instructions to
govern the possession and use of special
nuclear material, source material, and
byproduct material as the Commission
may deem necessary or desirable to
promote the common defense and
security or to protect health or to
minimize danger to life or property[.]’’
42 U.S.C. 2201(b) (1958). In
Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970,
President Nixon transferred to EPA
‘‘[t]he functions of the Atomic Energy
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
6511
Commission under the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954, as amended, . . . to the
extent that such functions of the
Commission consist of establishing
generally applicable environmental
standards for the protection of the
general environment from radioactive
material.’’ § 2(a)(6), 35 FR 15623, 15624
(Oct. 6, 1970) (‘‘Reorganization Plan’’).
The Reorganization Plan defined
‘‘standards’’ to mean ‘‘limits on
radiation exposures or levels, or
concentrations or quantities of
radioactive material, in the general
environment outside the boundaries of
locations under the control of persons
possessing or using radioactive
material.’’ Id. This transferred to EPA
the portion of the AEC’s authority under
AEA section 161(b) that ‘‘consist[ed] of
establishing generally applicable
environmental standards for the
protection of the general environment
from radioactive material.’’
Reorganization Plan § 2(a)(6); Quivira
Mining v. U.S. Envt’l Prot. Agency, 728
F.2d 477, 480 (10th Cir. 1984)
(recognizing that the Reorganization
Plan transferred to EPA certain AEA
functions under AEA § 161(b)). Relying
on this authority, EPA promulgated
standards in 1977 to protect the public
from exposure to radiation from the
uranium fuel cycle at 40 CFR part 190,
‘‘Environmental Radiation Protection
Standards for Nuclear Power
Operations.’’
2. History of the Standards
On May 10, 1974, the Agency
published an advance notice of its
intent to propose standards under this
authority for the uranium fuel cycle and
invited public participation in the
formulation of this proposed rule (39 FR
16906). On May 29, 1975, EPA proposed
regulations setting forth such standards
(40 FR 23420). The Agency promulgated
the environmental radiation standards
in final form in 1977 (42 FR 2860,
January 13, 1977). The standards specify
the levels of public exposure and
environmental releases below which
normal operations of the uranium fuel
cycle are determined to be
environmentally acceptable. These
standards have not been revised since
their initial publication.
3. Scope and Content of the Standards
The existing standards apply to
nuclear power operations, which are
those operations defined to be
associated with the normal production
of electrical power for public use by any
nuclear fuel cycle through utilization of
nuclear energy. In 1977, the only
nuclear fuel cycle in production within
the U.S. was the uranium fuel cycle;
E:\FR\FM\04FEP1.SGM
04FEP1
6512
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 23 / Tuesday, February 4, 2014 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
thus, EPA developed specific standards
for this industry. The uranium fuel
cycle is defined as the operations of
milling of uranium ore, chemical
conversion of uranium, isotopic
enrichment of uranium, fabrication of
uranium fuel, generation of electricity
by a light-water-cooled nuclear power
plant using uranium fuel, and
reprocessing of spent uranium fuel to
the extent that these directly support the
production of electrical power for
public use utilizing nuclear energy, but
excludes mining operations, operations
at waste disposal sites, transportation of
any radioactive material in support of
these operations, and the reuse of
recovered non-uranium special nuclear
and by-product materials from the cycle.
(Commercial reprocessing has not
occurred within the U.S. since the
publication of the existing standards.)
The Agency has developed some
supporting information to help the
public further understand the uranium
fuel cycle which is located on the
Agency’s Web site for this rulemaking at
www.epa.gov/radiation/laws/190. The
existing standards do not address two
other aspects of nuclear power
production: The disposal of radioactive
waste and the decommissioning of
facilities.
The regulation contains two main
provisions: A dose limit to members of
the public, and a radionuclide release
limit to the environment. The provision
specified in 40 CFR 190.10(a) limits the
annual dose to any member of the
public from exposures to planned
releases from uranium fuel cycle
facilities to 25 millirem (mrem) to the
whole body, 75 mrem to the thyroid,
and 25 mrem to any other organ.
Additionally, the provision specified in
40 CFR 190.10(b) limits the total
quantity of radioactive material releases
for the entire uranium fuel cycle, per
gigawatt-year of electrical energy
produced, to less than 50,000 curies of
krypton-85, 5 millicuries of iodine-129
and 0.5 millicuries combined of
plutonium-239 and other alpha-emitting
transuranic radionuclides with halflives greater than one year.
4. Technical Basis for the Standards
The document Environmental
Radiation Protection Requirements for
Normal Operations of Activities in the
Uranium Fuel Cycle: Final
Environmental Statement (FES) (EPA
Publication no. 520/4–76–016, 1976)
provided the basis for developing 40
CFR part 190. This document states that
at that time there were three fuels
available for commercial nuclear power:
Uranium-235, uranium-233 and
plutonium-239. The first of these
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:37 Feb 03, 2014
Jkt 232001
materials occurs naturally and the last
two occur as products and/or byproducts in uranium-fueled reactors
(uranium-233 is the product of neutron
irradiation of thorium-232). In the
United States, the early development of
technology for the nuclear generation of
electric power focused around the lightwater-cooled nuclear reactor (LWR),
which utilizes uranium-235 fuel. For
this reason, the standards considered
only the use of enriched uranium-235 as
fuel for the generation of electricity.
Additionally, the EPA projected that
well over 300,000 megawatts (300
gigawatts) of nuclear electric generating
capacity would exist within the next
twenty years.1 The part of the standards
that pertain to the end of the fuel cycle
relied on two assumptions: The
availability of commercial nuclear
reprocessing and the existence of a
repository for final disposition for spent
nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive
wastes. The FES and supporting
technical studies, which form the basis
for the 40 CFR part 190 standards,
include calculations of projected
releases into the environment based on
estimates of the growth of the nuclear
industry. None of these assumptions has
materialized.
B. Why is the Agency considering
updating/revising the standards?
1. What has changed and why could
these changes be important?
The standards developed under 40
CFR part 190 were never intended to be
static. The 1975 proposal (40 FR 23420,
May 29, 1975) stated: ‘‘it is the intent of
the Agency to maintain a continuing
review of the appropriateness of these
environmental radiation standards and
to formally review them at least every
five years and to revise them, if
necessary, on the basis of information
that develops in the interval.’’ However,
given the relatively limited change in
the nuclear power industry in the
intervening decades, we continued to
believe that these standards remained
protective of public health and the
environment so we did not consider it
necessary to update the standards.
Nonetheless, we recognize that they do
not reflect the most recent scientific
information, and that this may be an
opportune time to conduct a thorough
review of their continued applicability.
Therefore, the EPA is issuing this ANPR
at this time for a number of reasons,
including:
1 The total current U.S. generating capacity is
approximately 101 gigawatts for 2010 based on data
provided by U.S. Energy Information
Administration: www.eia.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/
nuc_generation/gensum.html.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
• Projected Growth of Nuclear Power.
Growing concern about greenhouse gas
emissions from fossil fuels has led to
renewed interest in nuclear power.
Nuclear energy emits very low levels of
greenhouse gases, and unlike solar and
wind power, provides a proven source
of electricity capable of supplying a
base-load that is not subject to varying
weather conditions. The nuclear
industry anticipates a demand for
construction of several new nuclear
power plants in the next 10 years.
Increased demand would likely result in
the construction and start-up of any
additional facilities to support the fuel
cycle for LWRs. Other parts of the fuel
cycle are experiencing growth as well.
For example, new uranium enrichment
facilities are coming on line, such as the
facility in Eunice, New Mexico by
Louisiana Enrichment Services (Urenco
USA). The facility was licensed by the
NRC in 2006, began operations in 2010,
and is an indication of the industry’s
improved outlook. The licensing and
operation of spent nuclear fuel
reprocessing facilities are not expected
in the near future.
• Advances in Radiation Protection
and Dosimetry Science. National and
international guidance on radiation
protection have had three significant
revisions since 40 CFR part 190 was
issued. In the 1980s, the organ dosebased system used in 40 CFR part 190
was replaced with a system that
integrated organ doses into a single
expression of dose, which employed
mortality risk-based weighting factors
such that the dose term was a surrogate
for risk (International Commission on
Radiological Protection (ICRP)
Publications 26 and 30). This new
approach allowed the use of one dose
limit for all radionuclides taken into the
body, as well as for external exposures.
Individual dose factors were established
for all radionuclides and weighting
factors for various organs were riskbased. Numerous regulations used this
methodology, including NRC’s 10 CFR
part 20, and EPA’s 40 CFR part 61
radionuclide emission standards. In
addition, this methodology was used in
EPA’s internal and external dose factors
in Federal Guidance Report Nos. 11 and
12. In the 1990s, ICRP improved the
dosimetry models for ingestion and
inhalation, expanded the number of
organ-specific weighting factors and
revised them to be based on new
mortality and morbidity data. The risk
factors in EPA Federal Guidance Report
No. 13 were based on this new
dosimetry. In 2007, ICRP 103 was issued
and the associated dosimetry is under
development. In addition to improved
E:\FR\FM\04FEP1.SGM
04FEP1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 23 / Tuesday, February 4, 2014 / Proposed Rules
intake data and models, ICRP also
addressed age- and gender-specific
elements in the models. This
information will be the basis for revising
existing Federal Guidance Reports,
which include radionuclide specific
dose and risk factors.
• Advances in Radiation Risk
Science. Advances in radiation risk
science since 1977 have led to a better
understanding of the health risks from
ionizing radiation in general, as well as
from specific radionuclides. Improved
tools and methods for calculating
radiation exposure have also become
available. These advancements make
more sophisticated radiological risk
assessments possible. The Agency
intends to review this standard to
ensure its continued protectiveness in
light of these advances. The Agency
believes that the science used for the
regulation is out of date and should be
updated.
• On-site Storage of Spent Nuclear
Fuel. The 1977 standards were based on
the assumption that most spent nuclear
fuel would be reprocessed following
short-term storage on-site and that the
U.S. would have a national repository
for permanent disposal of high-level
radioactive wastes and any remaining
spent nuclear fuel in a time frame that
would eliminate the need for longerterm storage. However, spent nuclear
fuel currently is held at nuclear power
plants in spent nuclear fuel storage
casks or in storage pools as the U.S.
determines a long-term disposal
solution. Increased interest in nuclear
power has also raised the prospect of
commercial reprocessing of spent
nuclear fuel. Nevertheless, near-term
projections indicate that spent nuclear
fuel could remain on site at the power
plants during the operational life of
existing nuclear power plants and into
(or beyond) the decommissioning phase.
The President’s Blue Ribbon
Commission on America’s Nuclear
Future has also identified this as an
issue, especially for decommissioned
facilities.
• Extension of Nuclear Reactor
Licenses. Many of the nuclear reactors
in the U.S. were built in the 1960s and
1970s. These reactors either are
approaching their initial 40-year
operational license limit, or they have
exceeded this time period and continue
to operate under license renewals.
Regardless of the age of the reactor (or
other facility), any U.S. reactor would
still need to meet the EPA standards.
• Ground Water. Ground water
contamination has been identified at a
number of nuclear power plants and
nuclear fuel cycle facilities. The existing
standard contains release limits that
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:37 Feb 03, 2014
Jkt 232001
were intended to address the issue of
long-lived radionuclides in the
environment. However, the rule was
developed under the assumption that air
was the primary exposure pathway, and
in contrast to more recent EPA radiation
standards, it does not include a separate
provision for protecting ground water
outside facility boundaries that could be
a current or future source of drinking
water. The Agency is considering
whether, and if so, how to develop a
ground water provision.
2. Guiding Principles for Review of the
Existing Standards
This review of the existing standards
has two key principles. The first is that
a thorough assessment of the potential
impact on public health should be based
on an up-to-date consensus of currently
available scientific knowledge. The
second is that careful consideration
should be given to the cost and
effectiveness of measures available to
reduce or eliminate radioactive releases
to the environment. In the development
of the existing standards, the Agency
found it necessary to ‘‘balance the
health risks associated with any level of
exposure against the costs of achieving
that level’’ (39 FR 16906, May 10, 1974).
The standard-setting method conducted
in the current standards has been ‘‘best
characterized as cost-effective health
risk minimization’’ (Final
Environmental Statement, 1976, Vol. 1,
p. 28). As the Agency considers these
principles, we are committed to
ensuring that any revision is based on
current science to the extent practicable
and remains protective of public health
and the environment while seeking
alternative ways (methodologies),
within the Agency’s authorities, to limit
public exposure. The Agency may revise
several of the technical criteria used as
a basis for the existing regulation or add
new criteria to the regulation.
C. What is the purpose of this ANPR
and how will the Agency use the
information?
This Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking is being published to
inform stakeholders, including federal
and state entities, the nuclear industry,
the public and any interested groups,
that the Agency is reviewing the
existing standards to determine how the
standards should be updated. As noted
earlier, EPA believes the existing
standards remain protective of public
health and the environment; however,
the Agency also believes that the
changes mentioned above are sufficient
to warrant a review of the standards and
solicit public input on possible updates.
EPA has identified six broad topics that
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
6513
it believes capture the issues of most
importance for a review of the existing
standards. The Agency is requesting
public comment on these specific
topics; however, members of the public
are welcome to comment on other
aspects related to the nuclear fuel cycle
that they believe EPA should consider.
If the Agency decides to revise the
existing standards, then the Agency
would follow the procedures outlined in
the AEA and the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA) and publish a
proposed rule in the Federal Register.
Comments received on the ANPR will
inform the development of a proposed
rule and be used by the Agency to
provide a clearer understanding of
science, technology and other concerns
and perspectives of stakeholders. The
Agency will not respond directly to
comments submitted on this ANPR.
However, the public would have the
opportunity to submit written
comments on any proposed rule that
might be developed.
D. How can the public comment on the
ANPR and get additional information?
The Agency welcomes comments on
this ANPR as it reviews the existing
standards. EPA has set up a Web site for
the public to access the most up-to-date
information regarding our review of
these standards. This site contains
detailed information related to this rule
and any potential revision, including: a
copy of the existing standards, copies of
the Final Environmental Statements and
the Supplemental Environmental
Statement on which the existing
standards are based, as well as related
fact sheets.
EPA plans to conduct public webinars
to discuss specific issues on which the
Agency is seeking comment. Dates,
times and presentation materials for the
webinars will be available on the Web
site at: www.epa.gov/radiation/laws/
190.
II. Issues for Public Comment
A. Issue 1—Consideration of a Risk
Limit To Protect Individuals. Should the
Agency express its limits for the purpose
of this regulation in terms of radiation
risk or radiation dose?
1. Why is this issue important?
The purpose of the 40 CFR part 190
environmental standards is to protect
human health and the environment.
Although the current compliance metric
for worldwide radiation standards is,
and traditionally has been, either
radiation dose or some measurable
concentration or activity level, the
Agency desires feedback to determine
the feasibility of expressing its limits for
E:\FR\FM\04FEP1.SGM
04FEP1
6514
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 23 / Tuesday, February 4, 2014 / Proposed Rules
produced, to less than 50,000 curies of
krypton-85, 5 millicuries of iodine-129
and 0.5 millicuries combined of
plutonium-239 and other alpha-emitting
transuranic radionuclides with halflives greater than one year. Though
views of risks have changed since 1977,
the limits in 40 CFR 190.10(a) and (b)
have as a basis a consideration of
acceptable risk which served as a guide
in developing the limits.
2. What concepts are important to
understanding this issue?
The primary concern from radiation
exposure at the levels relevant for nonemergency situations is the increased
risk of cancer. Two forms of radiation
exposure, internal and external
exposure, can occur depending upon
the location of the source relative to the
receptor. Internal exposures occur when
a person inhales or ingests
contaminated air, food, water or soil.
External exposures occur because a
person is near sources of radioactivity
which are emitting penetrating
radiation, such as x-rays, gamma rays,
beta particles or neutrons. It should be
noted that since the rule limits itself to
the uranium fuel cycle, sources of
radiation from machines, such as x-ray
units and particle accelerators, are not
covered by EPA standards. The term
‘‘radiation dose,’’ as used in dose
standards, is a risk-weighted measure
derived from the physical quantity of
absorbed dose to an organ or tissue. As
defined in this ANPR, ‘‘radiation risk’’
is the probability of an individual
incurring a particular health effect per
dose of radiation. Both dose and risk are
commonly expressed over a lifetime or
annualized depending on regulatory
implementation.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
the purpose of this regulation in terms
of radiation risk.
Conformance with regulatory public
dose limits has traditionally been
demonstrated through modeling
calculations and subsequent personal,
environmental or emissions monitoring.
Compliance with a risk-based standard
would be accomplished in a similar
manner and the limits would be
expressed as the maximum risk that
could be allowed to the receptor from
radiation exposures at any given facility
under regulatory control.
EPA considers risk in establishing
standards and requirements across
programs and environmental media.
Consistent with this practice, the
Agency has stated radiation-specific
standards for protection of individuals
in terms of dose, based on the
underlying risk level.
If the Agency should decide to retain
a dose standard in 40 CFR part 190, that
standard would be related to a level of
health risk. In some cases, standards are
expressed in terms of environmental
flux (release rate) or concentration of
radionuclides in the environment, but
are also related to health impacts.
EPA has heard from some
stakeholders that a standard expressed
as a level of risk could be more
understandable for those less familiar
with radiation science, as it would more
clearly state the health outcome that the
Agency views as acceptable. EPA
believes it would also assist commenters
in evaluating the merits of a risk
standard if the Agency referred to the
reasoning employed by the National
Research Council/National Academy of
Sciences (the NAS committee) in its
1995 report, Technical Bases for Yucca
Mountain Standards. The NAS
committee recommended that EPA
adopt a standard expressed as risk for
two reasons. First, a risk standard is
advantageous relative to a dose-based
standard because it represents a societal
judgment regarding health impacts and
therefore ‘‘would not have to be revised
in subsequent rulemakings if advances
in scientific knowledge reveal that the
dose-response relationship is different
from that envisaged today.’’ Second, a
standard in the form of risk more readily
enables the public to comprehend and
compare the standard with humanhealth risks from other sources
(Technical Bases for Yucca Mountain
Standards, 1995, 64–65).2
3. What does 40 CFR part 190 say and
what is basis of the existing standards?
The existing standards have two
components limiting exposures to the
public. The first is a dose limit to
members of the public, while the second
is a limit on the quantity released of
certain radionuclides or forms of
radioactivity into the environment. The
provision specified in 40 CFR 190.10(a)
limits the annual dose to any member of
the public from exposures to planned
releases from uranium fuel cycle
facilities to 25 mrem to the whole body,
75 mrem to the thyroid and 25 mrem to
any other organ. The provision specified
in 40 CFR 190.10(b) limits the total
quantity of radioactive material releases
for the entire uranium fuel cycle, per
gigawatt-year of electrical energy
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:37 Feb 03, 2014
Jkt 232001
4. What Agency and national policies
and approaches could be relevant?
2A
different NAS committee expressed similar
views in a 2002 report, The Disposition Dilemma,
pp. 33–34.
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
5. How would a risk standard compare
to a dose standard?
Planned or routine releases of
radionuclides from nuclear fuel cycle
facilities represent low-level ionizing
radiation exposures to the public. As
such, these non-emergency releases
represent a potential increased risk of
cancer to the public. Once an acceptable
level of protection is identified, it may
be translated to a release rate, as
radionuclide concentrations in specific
media, or another measurable unit,
which can then serve as a regulatory
limit expressed over time. Alternatively,
site-specific modeling may be
employed, based on measured releases,
to calculate a dose or risk for
comparison to the regulatory standard.
This general approach to
implementation would be used whether
the standard is expressed in terms of
risk or dose. As noted earlier, the
compliance metric for radiation
standards has more traditionally been
either radiation dose or some
measurable concentration or activity
level.
Both calculated doses and risks from
radiation exposure differ depending on
the specific radionuclides involved, as
well as the pathways of exposure. The
same activity level received by an
exposed individual from different
radionuclides or through different
pathways leads to a different dose and
carries different risks. If someone is
exposed to multiple radionuclides, the
risk of adverse health effects is
determined by summing the risks from
each radionuclide involved in the
exposure. The primary technical
difference between a risk standard and
a dose standard is that the relationship
between risk and dose has varied over
time.3 Should this trend continue, there
is the potential for a dose standard to
diverge over time from its original
underlying risk level. In contrast, a risk
standard represents a constant level of
risk, regardless of the type of facility,
mix of radionuclides or changes in the
underlying science involved in
estimating the risk. Because it directly
states the expectation for health
outcome rather than relying on an
overall correlation, it would typically
not require an update, unless there are
changes in what society deems an
acceptable risk. If the standard were
implemented by rule using measurable
quantities such as effluent limits,
however, these criteria would need to be
updated, as they would be if a dose
3 For example, the estimated risk of fatal cancer
per rem of exposure increased in each of our three
rulemakings for high-level radioactive waste (1985,
1993, 2001).
E:\FR\FM\04FEP1.SGM
04FEP1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 23 / Tuesday, February 4, 2014 / Proposed Rules
standard changes. We are interested in
stakeholder views on how this updating
process might differ for a risk or dose
standard.
Although our experience is that the
risk per unit dose has generally
increased over the years, the possibility
also exists that further research may
show that cancer risks are overestimated
for a given dose or for certain
radionuclides or exposure pathways.
Another aspect to consider when
assessing whether a risk standard would
be appropriate is whether cancer
morbidity (incidence) or cancer
mortality (fatality) should be used as the
basis for establishing any risk standard.
While EPA often relies upon morbidity
information for chemical carcinogens,
the Agency has used mortality data as
the basis of both its standards for
disposal of transuranic and high-level
radioactive wastes (40 CFR part 191)
and the Yucca Mountain standards (40
CFR part 197). One factor to consider is
that there appears to be increasing
divergence between morbidity and
mortality; in other words, estimates of
cancer incidence from exposure to
radiation continue to increase, but
cancer fatality has grown at a slower
rate or been reduced (EPA Radiogenic
Cancer Risk Models and Projections for
the U.S. Population, 2011). As a result,
the Agency will take comment on
whether morbidity data or mortality
data, or a combination, would be more
appropriate for the establishment of a
potential risk standard.
Although a risk standard, like a dose
standard, would generally be
implemented through modeling and the
derivation of measurable quantities, the
Agency is also aware that there may be
some challenges specific to a risk
standard, especially given that the
regulatory system is based on dose,
which is far more familiar to the
radiation protection community and
industry practice. If a standard were
developed in the form of a risk level that
was not to be exceeded, then any
meaningful discussion on
implementation would need to address
how the risk would be translated into
measurable quantities such as an
effluent release rate into the
environment, a concentration in
environmental media, an intake by an
individual or external radiation
exposure at specific locations or to
specific persons. As is the case with the
current dose standard, proof of
compliance would most likely rely
heavily on the use of modeling results
coupled with effluent data. Any
accepted modeling use would need to
be either detailed within the standard,
or detailed by the implementing federal
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:37 Feb 03, 2014
Jkt 232001
agency, possibly through development
of subsequent regulations.
As discussed earlier, the Agency
recognizes that different radionuclides
contribute to potential exposures. EPA
further recognizes that different
radionuclides are predominant at the
different types of facilities within the
nuclear fuel cycle. If the Agency were to
move toward a risk standard, the
Agency would conduct an analysis of
the dose-risk relationship at the
different types of facilities. What issues
would the Agency need to consider with
the implementation of a risk standard at
the different facilities? For example,
would the radionuclides of most
concern for a given fuel cycle facility
have different risk implications for
different fuel cycle facilities? Could
NRC implement a risk standard by
establishing a corresponding dose limit
that it determines would keep risks
under the risk standard?
While the Agency has not determined
whether the technical merits or costs
associated with developing a risk
standard warrant a change from the
traditional dose limits, the Agency
believes it is reasonable to take
comment at this time on how a potential
risk limit may be implemented. Such a
discussion could also inform the
consideration of costs of implementing
a risk standard.
EPA also notes that both national and
international radiation protection
guidelines developed by bodies of nongovernmental radiation experts, such as
the ICRP and the National Council on
Radiation Protection and Measurements
(NCRP), generally recommend that
radiation standards be established in
terms of dose. National and
international radiation standards,
including the individual protection
requirements in 40 CFR part 191,
‘‘Environmental Radiation Protection
Standards for Management and Disposal
of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level and
Transuranic Radioactive Waste’’, are
established almost solely in terms of
dose or concentration, not risk.
Therefore, a risk standard would not
allow a convenient comparison with the
numerous existing dose guidelines and
standards, nor with other sources of
radiation exposure, but it would more
readily allow comparisons to other EPA
risk management decisions for
chemicals.
Lastly, it is important to note the
potential costs that could be associated
with moving from a dose standard to a
risk standard. At the time of publication
of this ANPR, the Agency has no
information regarding potential costs to
the regulated community. The Agency is
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
6515
seeking any data that are available on
these potential costs.
6. Questions for Public Comment
As the Agency considers the issue of
establishing a standard expressed in
terms of risk, we believe it to be
appropriate to better understand the
merits of this approach. The industry
currently uses a dose limit, and the
Agency is seeking information on how
the industry would be affected by this
change.
Consequently, the Agency is seeking
input on the following questions:
a. Should the Agency express its limit
for the purpose of this regulation in
terms of radiation risk or radiation
dose?
b. Should the Agency base any risk
standard on cancer morbidity or cancer
mortality? What would be the
advantages or disadvantages of each?
c. How might implementation of a risk
limit be carried out? How might a risk
standard affect other federal regulations
and guidance?
B. Issue 2—Updated Dose Methodology
(Dosimetry). How should the Agency
update the radiation dosimetry
methodology incorporated in the
standard?
1. Why is this issue important?
The dosimetry used for the existing
standards is outdated. Since the
development of the existing dose
standard, the methodology to calculate
radiation exposure has changed with
scientific progress. The existing
standard has separate limits for
exposure of the whole body and
exposure of specific organs. More recent
dosimetry accounts for both types of
exposures in a single numerical value
that provides more consistency and
allows easier comparison of radiation
exposures, regardless of whether they
are internal or external, or whether they
are likely to affect single or multiple
organs. Newer dosimetry approaches
also reflect a better understanding of the
different sensitivity of various organs
and allow more sophisticated
calculations of the impacts to
individuals and even to specialized
groups (i.e., children, sensitive
subpopulations).
2. What does the existing standard say?
What is the technical basis?
The standard in 40 CFR 190.10(a)
states: ‘‘The annual dose equivalent
[must] not exceed 25 millirems to the
whole body, 75 millirems to the thyroid,
and 25 millirems to any other organ of
any member of the public as the result
of exposures to planned discharges of
E:\FR\FM\04FEP1.SGM
04FEP1
6516
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 23 / Tuesday, February 4, 2014 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
radioactive materials, radon and its
daughters excepted, to the general
environment from uranium fuel cycle
operations and to radiation from these
operations.’’ These limits were based on
the Federal Radiation Protection
Guidance in existence at that time (26
FR 4402, May 18, 1960 and 26 FR 9057,
September 26, 1961).
The federal guidance documents, in
turn, were based on recommendations
of the ICRP, which provides expert
guidance on dose limits in view of the
current understanding of dose-response
relationships for exposure to ionizing
radiation. Many international standards
and national regulations addressing
radiological protection are based on or
take into account the ICRP’s
recommendations. The guidance in
effect during the development of the
proposed 4 standards—ICRP Publication
2 (1959)—recommended dose limits
aimed at avoiding deterministic effects
and limiting stochastic effects,
including leukemia and other cancers,
as well as genetic effects. The dose
limitation system at that time was based
on the concept of the critical organ,
defined as the organ or tissue most
susceptible to damage from radiation.
Separate dose limits were set for
different groups of tissues, taking into
account the potential for different types
of radiation to cause greater damage
depending on the mode of exposure. For
example, alpha radiation poses less risk
for external—or whole body—exposure
because it is easily shielded even by the
skin, but can cause greater damage to
critical organs than other types of
radiation when inhaled or ingested.
These concepts, underlying the ICRP
recommendations at the time, served as
the basis of the existing dose limits to
members of the public in 40 CFR part
190.
3. What has changed and how are those
changes important?
Since the publication of the existing
regulation, advancements have been
made in understanding radiation
dosimetry. The ICRP updated its
recommendations to reflect a better
understanding of the different
sensitivity of various organs and of the
risks from different types of radiation.
Of primary importance is that the
critical organ concept was abandoned in
favor of a new concept referred to as the
effective dose equivalent (ICRP
4 In the interim between publication of the
proposed rule and publication of the final 40 CFR
part 190 standards, ICRP 26 was finalized (adopted
Jan 17, 1977). However sufficient time was not
available to incorporate the ICRP 26 findings, and
the Agency went forth with finalization of the
proposed rule which was based on ICRP 2.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:37 Feb 03, 2014
Jkt 232001
Publication 26, 1977). This new
concept, later renamed effective dose
(ICRP Publication 60, 1991), provides a
single dose indicator that accommodates
different types of radiation as well as
different modes of exposure. The use of
a unified dose facilitates understanding
and comparison of the radiation
exposures, regardless of whether they
are internal or external, or whether they
are likely to affect single or multiple
organs. Further studies since the 1977
rule have also reinforced that some
populations, such as pregnant women
and children, are more sensitive to
radiation and have allowed more
specific calculations of risks to such
groups. Such information is not
reflected in the dose limits—or their
form—in the existing uranium fuel cycle
standards, which are based on the older
‘‘critical organ’’ system. Beyond the fact
that the existing standards do not reflect
the most recent scientific
understanding, the use of an outmoded
system also poses some compliance
challenges. The models and methods to
predict the dispersion of radionuclides,
the modes of exposure, and the
movement of radionuclides through the
body (biokinetics) are more advanced
today than in the past. However, the
most sophisticated models are tailored
to work with the more recent dosimetry
systems and are not always compatible
to assess compliance with limits
expressed in the older systems. At the
same time, the older models are less and
less supported. This means that
compliance assessments for the existing
dose limit cannot take advantage of the
best implementation tools. Thus, for
reasons both scientific and practical, we
believe it is worthwhile to consider how
to update the dose methodology if the
rule is revised.
4. What policies and approaches are
relevant?
As noted above, EPA’s dose limits
take into account recommendations of
the ICRP, which has updated its
guidance documents several times since
40 CFR part 190 was issued. ICRP
Publication 26 (1977) abandoned the
critical organ concept of ICRP
Publication 2 in favor of a new concept
referred to as the effective dose
equivalent (now called effective dose).
The effective dose is a weighted sum of
tissue doses intended to represent the
same cancer risk from a non-uniform
irradiation of the body as that from
uniform whole body irradiation.5 The
5 In actuality, the weighting factors used to
calculate effective dose equivalent are not
sufficiently precise to equate risks for a given dose.
The ‘‘true’’ risk is best calculated using
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
effective dose concept has been used in
all subsequent ICRP publications to
date.
The ICRP guidance was updated
beyond ICRP 26 and expanded with
ICRP Publication 60 (1991), based on
additional information on the sensitivity
of different tissues and organs in the
body. ICRP 60 also made it possible to
develop age- and gender-specific dose
estimates. ICRP 60 has been widely
implemented worldwide and serves as
the basis for EPA radiation dose
standards, notably the amended Yucca
Mountain standards issued in 2008.
The Agency has explained its
adoption of the effective dose concept in
previous rulemakings. In the Agency’s
1989 Clean Air Act (CAA) rulemaking
establishing National Emissions
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAPs) in 40 CFR part 61, Subpart
I,6 EPA said the following about
effective dose equivalent (54 FR 51662,
December 15, 1989):
Since 1985, when EPA proposed dose
standards regulating NRC licensees and DOE
facilities, a different methodology for
calculating dose has come into widespread
use, the effective dose equivalent (EDE). In
1987, EPA, in recommending to the President
new guidance for workers occupationally
exposed to radiation, accepted this
methodology for the regulation of risks from
radiation. This method, which was originally
developed by the International Commission
on Radiological Protection, will be used by
EPA in all the dose standards promulgated in
this ANPR. In the past, EPA dose standards
were specified in terms of limits for specific
organ doses and the ‘whole body dose’, a
methodology which is no longer consistent
with current practices of radiation protection.
The EDE is simple, is more closely related
to risk, and is recommended by the leading
national and international advisory bodies.
By changing to this new methodology, EPA
will be converting to the commonly accepted
international method for calculating dose.
This will make it easier for the regulated
community to understand and comply with
our standards.
The EDE is the weighted sum of the doses
to individual organs of the body. The dose to
each organ is weighted according to the risk
that dose represents. These organ doses are
then added together, and that total is the
effective dose equivalent. In this manner, the
risk from different sources of radiation can be
controlled by a single standard.
radionuclide-specific, pathway-specific analyses
and absorbed dose to an organ or whole body.
6 Subpart I established standards for air emissions
from NRC licensees, including uranium fuel cycle
facilities, and non-DOE federal facilities not
licensed by NRC. Subpart I was later rescinded
based on the Administrator’s conclusion that NRC’s
regulatory implementation protected public health
with ‘‘an ample margin of safety’’ (60 FR 46206,
September 5, 1995, and 61 FR 68972, December 30,
1996). Subpart I established standards for the air
pathway of 10 mrem/year EDE, with no more than
3 mrem/year EDE from radioiodine.
E:\FR\FM\04FEP1.SGM
04FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 23 / Tuesday, February 4, 2014 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
This rulemaking (54 FR 51662) also
noted that the EPA Science Advisory
Board (SAB) commented that ‘‘EPA
should use the effective dose equivalent
concept for regulations protecting
people from exposure to radiation.’’
The latest update, in ICRP Publication
103 (2007), provided updated radiation
protection guidance, including new
tissue weighting (i.e., sensitivity)
factors, but left the primary radiation
protection guidance from 1991 virtually
unchanged. ICRP 103 is the most recent
guidance but, as discussed in more
detail below, has not been applied in
EPA regulations to date.
Other EPA policies are also relevant
because, while the Agency takes into
account ICRP guidance, regulatory
limits must reflect additional factors.
The ICRP recommended—in both
Publication 60 and Publication 103—
that public exposures be limited to 100
mrem (0.001 Sv) per year. However, this
applies in principle to all man-made
sources of radiation. In setting
regulatory limits, we allow only a
fraction of 100 mrem from a single
source, such as a uranium fuel cycle
facility. As discussed further in section
II.A of this ANPR (‘‘Consideration of a
Risk Limit to Protect Individuals’’), the
dose limits used in our radiation
regulations are based on an assessment
of the associated risks. In the past, based
on ICRP 26, EPA radiation policies and
regulations have used 15 mrem/year as
a dose limit that aligns with the
Agency’s goals and corresponds to a
limit of 25 mrem to the whole body and
75 mrem to any organ under the
obsolete dose methodology for certain
regulatory applications.7 The
corresponding dose under ICRP 103 has
not been established. EPA is reviewing
the implications of ICRP 103 for our
revised dose and risk estimates. EPA
will address the issue in a rulemaking
if one is pursued.
It should be noted that the Agency
does not have established policies or
guidance on the application of age- and
gender-specific dose calculations to
determine compliance with a dose
standard.8 However, we are considering
the application of age- and genderspecific dose calculations to determine
compliance with the dose standard.
Whether expressed in terms of risk or
7 See OSWER Directive 9200.4–18, EPA’s Yucca
Mountain standards at 40 CFR part 197, and the
preamble to the 1993 revision of the 40 CFR part
191 standards [58 FR 66411, December 20, 1993].
8 The Agency’s ‘‘Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk
Assessment’’ (2005) provide age-specific
adjustments for carcinogens with a mutagenic mode
of action for chemical carcinogens. Regulatory
applications for radioactive compounds have not
been determined.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:37 Feb 03, 2014
Jkt 232001
dose, the standard must identify the
person(s) against whom compliance will
be assessed. The standards at 40 CFR
part 190 currently specify that the dose
standard applies to ‘‘any member of the
public.’’ We have several other ‘‘any
member of the public’’ standards that
specify the use of ICRP 26 dosimetry
and an associated concept, the
‘‘reference man.’’ Concerns have been
raised that the ‘‘reference man’’ concept,
combined with the fact that neither the
ICRP 26 dosimetry nor the ICRP 2
methodology can provide age- and
gender-specific calculations, does not
assure that children or other vulnerable
population segments are protected or
adequately considered. The models
beginning with ICRP 60 are able to
address different age and gender
cohorts, which allows the differing
impact of radiation exposures to be
evaluated. More specifically, ICRP
Publication 89 (2002) provides
anatomical and physiological data for
males and females at ages newborn, 1
year, 5 years, 10 years, 15 years and
adult that allow for age- and genderspecific estimates of dose to be
calculated for these reference
individuals. We note that, while the
current standard is presented as an
annual dose, it is established at a level
that provides protection for an
individual over a lifetime (i.e., at all
ages). Nevertheless, we are examining
the issue to confirm the protectiveness
of our standards as written for all
segments of the population.
Specifically, we are modifying the
computer model CAP–88 PC, which is
used to determine compliance with
Clean Air Act radionuclide emission
standards, to evaluate the relationship
between radionuclide intake and dose
for different age groups. This technical
study will inform our review of our
radiation protection policies, and we
will make our findings available to the
public. We anticipate that this question
will be addressed broadly within the
Agency to identify the most appropriate
approach to resolving the issue as a
whole, rather than for each individual
rule. However, comments on the use of
reference man or the appropriateness of
specifying age- and gender-specific dose
calculations are welcome. Such
comments will be considered both in
the context of this rule and as part of the
overall Agency discussion on the topic.
5. What aspects of this issue are most
important and what options might be
considered to address this issue in any
revised standards?
The Agency intends to review this
portion of the regulation to ensure its
continued protectiveness in light of
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
6517
these technological advances. We
acknowledge that the dose methodology
on which the existing standard is based
is now outmoded, and compliance with
the existing standard poses some
implementation challenges. These
challenges are proving compliance with
an organ-specific dose limit and with
the current suite of compliance models
using an effective dose methodology. As
an example, most health physicists
conducting compliance at nuclear
power plant facilities are trained in the
calculation and use of effective dose.
Requiring compliance with an organspecific dose necessitates the use of a
different calculating technique, and
potentially requires additional training.
If the rule is revised, there would be
little justification for retaining outdated
science as the basis for dose limits.
Therefore, the primary question is how
the Agency would reflect more recent
dose methodology. There are arguments
to be made for using either ICRP 60 or
ICRP 103, or for providing flexibility
without specifying the ICRP basis.
As noted earlier, there is considerable
experience worldwide in implementing
the recommendations of ICRP 60. The
EPA has issued guidance documents to
allow detailed dose calculations for
specific exposure situations, such as
would be needed to determine
compliance at a nuclear fuel cycle
facility. A basis for calculating risks to
more sensitive populations has also
been developed, though (as noted
earlier) there is not clear guidance on
how, if at all, such information should
be used in regulations.
The nuclear industry is familiar with
the guidance and has experience in
using compliance and assessment tools
that are compatible with the ICRP 60
risk basis. Relying on ICRP 60 as the
basis for a revised rule would eliminate
any reference to an outdated individual
organ calculation. The methodology is
biologically and physically robust in its
approach and has been properly peerreviewed, implemented and supported
by the publication of important federal
guidance. This approach would provide
a well-established methodology and
compliance tools using science that is
considerably more advanced than that
used currently in 40 CFR part 190—but
not the absolute most recent science.
Using the most recent science—
which, in principle, is the preferred
approach—would imply that ICRP 103
should be adopted as the basis for any
revised rule. Unfortunately, ICRP 103
has not been widely utilized because the
ICRP has yet to provide the detailed
information needed for full
implementation of the most recent dose
coefficients for specific radionuclides
E:\FR\FM\04FEP1.SGM
04FEP1
6518
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 23 / Tuesday, February 4, 2014 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
and organs. Factors and biokinetic
models to support such calculations are
anticipated in future ICRP publications
but have not yet been released, so there
is a lack of appropriate modeling and
compliance tools now available.
Furthermore, in order to provide the
complete set of tools for calculating
dose to different population age groups
under ICRP 103, the Agency would need
to update Federal Guidance Report No.
13, Cancer Risk Coefficients for
Environmental Exposure to
Radionuclides. However, the Federal
Guidance Technical Report Working
Group under the Interagency Steering
Committee on Radiation Standards has
convened to update these reports and
the first draft could be available by the
end of 2014. As such, these data could
be available prior to any proposal of a
revised standard. Thus, the analysis that
relies on the most recent science (ICRP
103) could be conducted in a timely
manner consistent with the time
necessary for a rulemaking.
A third option would be to establish
a dose limit but not to specify the ICRP
basis for implementation. Under this
approach, the details of implementation
would be left to the NRC. NRC is
beginning a comprehensive review of its
regulations with the long-term view of
adopting ICRP 103, which is likely to
take a number of years. During this
transition period, it may be appropriate
to allow NRC to determine which
method of calculation should be used,
taking into account the views of the
public. This could also anticipate the
use of future ICRP recommendations
beyond ICRP 103. An example of this
approach is EPA’s standards for the
proposed Yucca Mountain disposal
facility.9 The advantage of this approach
is that it allows the flexibility to use
updated ICRP information as soon as
(but not before) it can reasonably be
implemented on a large-scale. A
drawback of this approach is that it
leaves some uncertainty as to what risk
level is represented by the dose limit.
That is, a dose of 15 mrem can represent
a slightly different level of risk
depending on the specific
radionuclides, exposure situation and
dose-risk factors. Therefore, a dose of 15
mrem could, in the future, represent a
9 We provided similar discretion to NRC in our
amendments to the Yucca Mountain standards.
While we specified that the Department of Energy
(DOE) must use ICRP 60 methodologies to project
doses in its long-term performance assessment, we
stated that NRC could permit the use of future
dosimetric systems, as long as they were issued by
consensus organizations, adopted by EPA into
Federal Guidance, and consistent with the effective
dose equivalent methodology first established in
ICRP 26 and continued in ICRP 60. See 40 CFR part
197, Appendix A.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:37 Feb 03, 2014
Jkt 232001
different level of risk than originally
expected. The difference would likely
be small unless there are major changes
in our understanding of radiation risks.
Recent scientific advances have
primarily influenced the understanding
of risks from specific radionuclides to
specific organs and to sensitive
subpopulations—but have reinforced
the overall dose-risk factors that serve as
the major basis for most of EPA’s
radiation regulations and policies.
Finally, it is important that the
economic impacts of any change in the
dose methodology be carefully
considered and acknowledged. The NRC
staff has considered cost-benefit
considerations in providing its
recommendation to the NRC
Commissioners for Options to Revise
Radiation Protection Regulations and
Guidance with Respect to the 2007
Recommendations of the ICRP (Dec 18,
2008). This paper identifies the
inefficiencies with industry meeting the
requirements using two different
methods (40 CFR part 190 requirements
are incorporated into 10 CFR part 50
Appendix I design objectives). This
being the case, any change from the
ICRP 2 approach to more contemporary
dosimetry methodologies could yield a
cost savings for the industry. The
Agency is interested in receiving any
data that are available on these potential
cost savings.
In summary, the Agency is seeking
input from the public on options that
should be considered to update the
radiation dosimetry for the standard.
The range of options identified for
consideration are: (1) Revise the dose
limits to an ‘‘effective dose’’ standard
using ICRP 60 methodology; (2) Revise
the dose limits to an ‘‘effective dose’’
standard using ICRP 103 methodology;
and (3) Specify a dose limit and leave
the decision regarding methodology to
NRC. We welcome comments on these
options, on additional options that we
have not identified, and on factors that
should be considered in selecting and
implementing a dose methodology.
6. Questions for Public Comment
With the aforementioned as
background, the Agency is seeking input
on the following questions:
a. If a dose standard is desired, how
should the Agency take account of
updated scientific information and
methods related to radiation dose—such
as the concept of committed effective
dose?
b. In updating the dose standard,
should the methodology in ICRP 60 or
ICRP 103 be adopted, or should
implementation allow some flexibility?
What are the relative advantages or
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
disadvantages of not specifying which
ICRP method be used for the dose
assessment?
C. Issue 3—Radionuclide Release
Limits. The Agency has established
individual limits for release of specific
radionuclides of concern. Based on a
concept known as collective dose, these
standards limit the total discharge of
these radionuclides to the environment.
The Agency is seeking input on: Should
the Agency retain the radionuclide
release limits in an updated rule and, if
so, what should the Agency use as the
basis for any release limits?
1. Why is this issue important?
The radionuclide specific release
standards established in 40 CFR
190.10(b) set a limit on the total
discharge of long-lived radionuclides
released to the environment. These
limits ensure that the environmental
impacts of these radionuclides on the
human population have a limited effect
throughout the duration of their
existence in the biosphere.
2. What do the existing standards say on
this issue?
The standards at 40 CFR 190.10(b)
specify: ‘‘The total quantity of
radioactive materials entering the
general environment from the entire
uranium fuel cycle, per gigawatt-year of
electrical energy produced by the fuel
cycle, contains less than 50,000 curies
of krypton-85, 5 millicuries of iodine129, and 0.5 millicuries combined of
plutonium-239 and other alpha-emitting
transuranic radionuclides with halflives greater than one year.’’
Excerpts from the 1976 FES (Final
Environmental Statement, 1976, Vol. 1,
p. 5), indicate the Agency’s rationale
and the regulatory facilities of concern
in mandating this second set of
environmental standards: ‘‘Finally,
although fuel reprocessing plants are
few in number, they represent the
largest single potential source of
environmental contamination in the fuel
cycle, since it is at this point that the
fuel cladding is broken up and all
remaining fission and activation
products become available for potential
release to the environment.’’ Other parts
of the nuclear fuel cycle emit much less
of the radionuclides subject to 40 CFR
190.10(b) because the releases to the
environment come after the fission
process. Thus reprocessing facilities
and, to a lesser extent, nuclear power
plants are the focus of 40 CFR 190.10(b).
The Agency developed this portion of
the standard specifically to address the
potential environmental burden
associated with the resulting long-lived
E:\FR\FM\04FEP1.SGM
04FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 23 / Tuesday, February 4, 2014 / Proposed Rules
radionuclides and to ensure that the risk
associated with any long-term
environmental burden is incurred only
in return for a beneficial product:
electrical power. Furthermore, the
Agency stated that ‘‘attention to
individual exposure alone can result in
inadequate control of releases of longlived radionuclides, which may give
rise to substantial long-term impacts
over the lifetime of the radionuclide.’’
The Agency based the limits for
plutonium-239 and other alpha-emitters
on emissions levels that could be
achieved with best available control
technologies. The limits for krypton-85
and iodine-129 relied on control
technologies demonstrated on a
laboratory scale, but not yet in actual
use by 1975. Other long-lived
radionuclides considered for regulation
under this portion of the standard (i.e.,
tritium and carbon-14) ultimately were
not included because appropriate
control technologies were either not
feasible or unavailable.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
3. What has changed and how are those
changes relevant?
The Agency developed the existing
standard under the assumption that U.S.
commercial reprocessing would be
available. However, for policy and
economic reasons, reprocessing never
achieved the expected scale, and no
commercial reprocessing plants are
currently operating in the U.S. As of the
drafting of this ANPR, however, there is
renewed interest in Congress and the
industry regarding the possibility of
reprocessing as evidenced by testimony
during hearings of the President’s Blue
Ribbon Commission on America’s
Nuclear Future. The broader nuclear
industry is anticipating growth, with
applications for new nuclear power
plants submitted to the NRC and the
start of construction at two power plant
sites. Additionally, if the nation chooses
to control carbon emissions from power
generators, the number of nuclear power
plants operating in the U.S. may
increase further.
4. What policies and approaches are
relevant?
The release limits were defined to
limit exposures to populations wider
than those in the immediate vicinity of
a facility. Over the intervening decades,
protection standards for individuals
have become preferred, with collective
dose considered less useful for assessing
the risks of a given activity. Particularly
in cases where extremely small doses
combine with extremely large
populations, collective dose can give a
misleading view of the overall impact of
an activity (and impact on individuals),
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:37 Feb 03, 2014
Jkt 232001
based on statistical estimates of the
number of future health effects.
Collective dose should thus be used
with caution. For example, it can be
used to provide meaningful
comparisons of alternatives for a
proposed action (e.g., in facility design).
Since the development of the release
limits was motivated largely by
concerns about emissions from
reprocessing facilities, prospects of
spent nuclear fuel reprocessing
conducted both nationally and
internationally may have a bearing on
reconsideration of this issue.
There have been active reprocessing
facilities in 15 countries, including the
U.S., although some of these facilities
were more research-oriented as opposed
to commercial reprocessing facilities. Of
the current operating facilities, the most
widely known are the facilities at
Sellafield (United Kingdom) and La
Hague (France), which constitute the
first and second leading producers
globally for krypton-85. Both facilities
discharge krypton-85 directly to the
environment. Efforts at these plants are
made to control the releases of iodine129, and tracking the levels of this
radionuclide over the years has shown
decreasing emissions relative to
reprocessing production quantities.
It is also useful to examine the
experience of implementing the release
limits in practice. While EPA sets the
part 190 standards, the NRC has the
responsibility to implement and enforce
them for its licensees. Its requirements
for licensees are found in 10 CFR part
20, ‘‘Standards for Protection Against
Radiation,’’ specifically: 10 CFR
20.1301(e), which requires compliance
with 40 CFR part 190, and 10 CFR
20.2203(a)(4), which further requires
reporting of radiation levels or releases
in excess of the standards in 40 CFR
part 190. However, neither provision
describes how to demonstrate
compliance with 40 CFR part 190,
although NRC has issued guidance to
licensees for light water reactors in
Generic Letters (GL) 79–041, GL79–070
and NUREG–0543 (ADAMS Accession
No. ML081360410).
In anticipation that spent nuclear fuel
reprocessing may again be pursued in
the U.S., the NRC directed its former
technical advisory committee, the
Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste
and Materials (ACNW&M), to define the
issues most important to the NRC
concerning fuel reprocessing facilities.
The ACNW&M published the results of
their effort in NUREG–1909,
‘‘Background, Status, and Issues Related
to the Regulation of Advanced Spent
Nuclear Fuel Recycle Facilities.’’ The
following excerpt from NUREG–1909
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
6519
summarizes the ACNW&M’s finding
regarding 40 CFR part 190: ‘‘Of
particular relevance to fuel recycle is 40
CFR 190.10(b) which limits the release
of krypton-85 and iodine-129 from
normal operations of the uranium fuel
cycle. Because fuel reprocessing is the
only step of the nuclear fuel cycle that
could release significant amounts of
these radionuclides during normal
operations, these limits are effectively
release limits for the fuel reprocessing
gaseous effluent.’’ (NUREG–1909, p.134)
Other issues identified by the ACNW
were: (1) Meeting the standard with
available technologies may not be
feasible; (2) limits on releases of carbon14 and tritium may need to be
considered; (3) the cost-benefit analysis
for collective dose in 40 CFR 190.10(b)
should be reconsidered; and (4) their
belief that the existing regulation does
not include fabrication of fuels enriched
with plutonium or actinides other than
uranium.
5. What compliance history exists for
the current standards?
The Agency has reviewed compliance
issues for these standards and has found
challenges with determining and
enforcing compliance. Without the
operation of a reprocessing plant(s),
there is little likelihood of exceeding the
existing standards for the fission
products krypton-85 and iodine-129.
The basis for this statement is that both
of these radionuclides are fission
products (the result of the fission
reaction occurring in the nuclear
reactor) contained within the fuel rods
at the nuclear power plants, and the
fission products cannot escape unless
the metal cladding around the fuel
pellets ruptures during use or storage
after removal from the reactor. During
normal operations, the failure rate of
cladding is insignificantly small.
Uranium mining and milling, uranium
conversion, uranium enrichment and
fuel fabrication facilities do not generate
these radionuclides since no fission
reaction occurs during these
processes.10 Thus, only nuclear power
plants and potential reprocessing
facilities need to be considered when
determining compliance with krypton85 and iodine-129 limits.
NRC implements 40 CFR 190.10(b)
through its oversight and inspection
authorities for its licensees found in
both 10 CFR part 20 and 10 CFR part 50.
Specifically, 10 CFR part 20 includes
the requirement that licensees comply
10 Fuel fabrication facilities for mixed uraniumplutonium fuel (MOX fuel) could have some
plutonium releases, but these would not be
anticipated to approach the current limit.
E:\FR\FM\04FEP1.SGM
04FEP1
6520
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 23 / Tuesday, February 4, 2014 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
with 40 CFR part 190. Technical
specifications for commercial nuclear
power plants are found in Appendix I
of 10 CFR part 50, ‘‘Domestic Licensing
of Production and Utilization
Facilities.’’ These specifications provide
annual dose objectives for nuclear
power plants that are considered ‘‘As
Low As [is] Reasonably Achievable’’
(ALARA). The ALARA objectives are 3
mrem/year for liquid effluents and 5
mrem/year for gaseous effluents. The
NRC has stated that, ‘‘. . . it was
feasible for a licensee to inherently
show compliance of 40 CFR part 190
limits by meeting the dose objectives in
10 CFR part 50 Appendix I.’’ 11 The NRC
staff has reviewed a sampling of effluent
reports from 1981 to 2005, to assess the
levels of krypton-85, iodine-129 and
plutonium-239 and other transuranic
alpha emitters released from operating
nuclear power plants. Their findings
were that these levels, on an annual unit
of gigawatt-year of electrical energy
produced, were significantly less than
the limits in 40 CFR part 190. The
standards apply to the industry’s release
of certain radionuclides proportional to
the amount of electricity generated.
Thus compliance relies on annual
nationwide emissions for all applicable
uranium fuel cycle facilities. If there
were a case (such as multiple
reprocessing plants) where the
implementing agency considered that
overall emissions were exceeding the
standard, then the regulator may find it
necessary to apportion or divide the
standard to make it applicable to
individual facilities. Further guidance
may be necessary in order to detail a
method for apportioning this standard.
This uncertainty, and the difficulty in
making and enforcing regulatory
decisions about which facilities must
undergo upgrades to meet the standards,
makes implementing the standards
extremely difficult at best if the
situation arises where the entire
uranium fuel cycle emissions are
approaching the regulatory limit. EPA’s
goal in any revision of the standards is
to ensure adequate public health
protections, while providing
appropriate flexibility to implementing
agencies.
6. What aspects of the issue are most
important and what options are
available to address this issue in revised
standards?
The Agency determined in the
development of 40 CFR part 190 that
11 NRC Letter from Margie Kotzalas, MOX Branch
Chief to Ron Fowler; Subj: Response to Concerns
Regarding Ensuring Compliance with 40 CFR part
190. Sept. 24, 2008.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:37 Feb 03, 2014
Jkt 232001
these standards would be important in
reducing the environmental dose
commitments for persistent radiological
contaminants, and still considers this a
desirable goal. The radionuclides
specified in these standards were
identified as those that could potentially
disperse and deliver doses to
widespread populations as they migrate
through the biosphere. However, the
current form of the standards appears to
be impractical to implement.
Furthermore, few consider collective
dose appropriate for risk calculations or
for use as a regulatory basis because
‘‘the summation of trivial average risks
over very large populations or time
periods . . . [produces] a distorted
image of risk, completely out of
perspective with risks accepted every
day.’’ (NCRP, 1995) In more recent
radiation regulations, we have relied
instead on individual dose limits to
limit exposures to the public, combined
with effluent or concentration limits to
protect specific environmental resources
(e.g., 40 CFR part 197).
There are several options under
consideration for this portion of the
regulation:
(a) Eliminate this portion of the
regulation and rely on other limits to
provide protection of public health and
the environment.
(b) Use the concept from the existing
standards of limiting the environmental
burden of long-lived radionuclides in
the biosphere as a guide, and calculate
equivalent standards that could apply
outside individual facilities (e.g.,
reprocessing plants).
(c) Use risk or dose to a designated
receptor to develop radionuclide
specific standards that would apply
outside a given individual facility.
(d) Any additional options considered
technically sound and developed by
other stakeholders.
7. Questions for Public Comment
a. Should the Agency retain the
concept of radionuclide-specific release
limits to prevent the environmental
build-up of long-lived radionuclides?
What should be the basis of these limits?
b. Is it justifiable to apply limits on an
industry-wide basis and, if so, can this
be reasonably implemented? Would
facility limits be more practicable?
c. If release limits are used, are the
radionuclides for which limits have
been established in the existing
standard still appropriate and, if not,
which ones should be added or
subtracted?
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
D. Issue 4—Water Resource Protection.
How should a revised rule protect water
resources?
1. Why is this issue important?
Ground water and surface water are
valuable resources necessary to
maintain human life and healthy
ecosystems now and in the future.
Uranium fuel cycle facilities have the
potential to release radioactive materials
and contaminants that can get into
surface water or ground water. EPA
believes it better to take measures that
prevent water contamination than to
subsequently have to clean up the
contamination.
2. What does 40 CFR part 190 say? What
is the technical basis?
The existing standard for nuclear
power operations does not include a
separate provision for protection of
water resources at or geographically
near these facilities. The FES (Final
Environmental Statement, 1976, Vol. 1,
p. 66) cites the rationale for not
including water-specific standards:
‘‘. . . liquid pathway releases from
these facilities result in much smaller
potential doses than do noble gas
releases [air releases]. Detailed studies
of several specific facilities have
revealed no actual dose to any
individual from this pathway as great as
1 mrem per year.’’ Thus, the Agency
determined at that time that ground
water contamination at these facilities
was not likely to be a pervasive
problem.
3. What has changed and how are those
changes important?
Ground water contamination has
occurred at a number of nuclear power
plants 12 and other uranium fuel cycle
facilities.13 14. The primary radionuclide
responsible for ground water
contamination at power plants is
tritium, for which the Agency has
established a Maximum Contaminant
Level (MCL) of 20,000 picocuries/liter
(pCi/L) for drinking water. Tritium is a
radioactive isotope of hydrogen that can
replace one of the stable hydrogen
atoms in the water molecule, thus
12 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
Leaks and Spills of Tritium at U.S. Commercial
Nuclear Power Plants, Revision 6 (Washington, DC:
2010).
13 U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). Nuclear
Waste Cleanup, DOE’s Paducah Plan Faces
Uncertainties and Excludes Costly Cleanup
Activities. GAO/RCED–00–96. (Washington, DC:
2010).
14 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
Environmental Assessment for the Renewal of U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission License No. SNM–
1227 for AREVA NP, Inc. Richland Fuel Fabrication
Facility. (Washington, DC: 2009).
E:\FR\FM\04FEP1.SGM
04FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 23 / Tuesday, February 4, 2014 / Proposed Rules
producing tritiated water. In the
environment, tritiated water behaves
very similarly to ordinary water.
Tritium levels as high as 3.2 million
pCi/L have been reported to the NRC in
the ground water at some nuclear power
plants. These elevated levels of tritium
in ground water at these plants have
prompted the NRC to create two
specialized task forces to examine the
issue. The task forces did not identify
any instances where the public’s health
was impacted but did nevertheless
recommend modifications to a number
of regulatory documents.
Because of these releases to ground
water at these sites, and related
investigations, the Agency considers it
prudent to re-examine its initial
assumption in 1977 that the water
pathway is not a pathway of concern. At
this time the Agency has not developed
formal options for this issue. Ground
water monitoring is currently conducted
at all facilities subject to NRC
requirements established in 10 CFR
parts 20 and 50, so the economic impact
of potential provisions for ground water
protection is largely undefined at this
time, and the Agency is interested in
estimates of potential costs. If the
Agency proceeds with proposing
options for either surface or ground
water protection, then it would conduct
a cost-benefit analysis for this issue.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
4. What policies and approaches are
relevant?
When considering water resources,
the Agency must determine whether
there is a need to protect the resource
and what protection is appropriate. The
Agency has numerous authorities to
protect ground water and surface water
from contamination, and an
examination of the applicability of these
authorities is appropriate.
Ground water. In the years after 1977
when 40 CFR part 190 was issued, EPA
increased its efforts to address ground
water contamination including
implementing new statutory authorities
such as Superfund, hazardous waste
programs, protection of underground
storage tanks and protection of sources
of drinking water. In recognition of the
growing importance of ground water
and increasing threats of contamination,
EPA first outlined a comprehensive
approach to ground water protection in
its 1984 Ground Water Protection
Strategy. EPA, with review by many
federal agencies through the
Administration’s review procedures,
replaced that strategy in July 1991, with
another one titled Protecting the
Nation’s Ground Water: EPA’s Strategy
for the 1990s—The Final Report of the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:17 Feb 03, 2014
Jkt 232001
EPA Ground-Water Task Force. That
strategy is still in effect.
Consistent with part D of the July
1991 strategy, EPA implements a policy
that ‘‘the Agency will use maximum
concentration limits (MCLs) under the
Safe Drinking Water Act 15 as ‘‘reference
points’’ for water resource protection
efforts when the ground water in
question is a potential source of
drinking water. Water quality standards,
under the Clean Water Act, will be used
as reference points when ground water
is hydrologically connected to surface
water ecological systems. Where MCLs
are not available, EPA Health Advisory
numbers or other approved health-based
levels are recommended as points of
reference. If such numbers are not
available, reference points may be
derived from the health-effects literature
where appropriate. The strategy also
notes that ‘‘[r]eaching the MCL or other
appropriate reference point would be
considered a failure of pollution
prevention.’’
Site clean-up and other remedial
actions generally use the MCLs as a
cleanup goal and also take other factors
into account. In some cases, EPA
institutes the level of protection by
directly incorporating the numerical
limits from the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA) MCLs into other regulations.
The 1991 strategy states relative to
cleanup that ‘‘[r]emediation will
generally attempt to achieve a total
lifetime cancer risk level in the range of
10¥4 to 10¥6 and exposures to noncarcinogens below appropriate reference
doses.’’
EPA considered the issue of ground
water standards for radionuclides most
recently in the development of
‘‘Environmental Protection Standards
for Yucca Mountain’’ (66 FR 32074, June
13, 2001). In this regulation the Agency
states that ‘‘Ground water is one of our
nation’s most precious resources
because of its many potential uses . . .
When that water is radioactively
contaminated, each of those uses
completes a radiation exposure pathway
for people. Ground water contamination
is also of concern to us because of
potential adverse impacts upon
ecosystems, particularly sensitive or
endangered ecosystems. For these
reasons, we believe it is a resource that
needs protection.’’ (66 FR 32106) In this
15 The EPA national primary drinking water
standards under the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA) set limits on radionuclide concentrations—
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs)—in
community drinking water systems (40 CFR
141.66). These SDWA regulations do not apply
directly to ground water not used as drinking
waters. MCLs generally only apply to finished
drinking water after treatment.
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
6521
regulation, consistent with the Agency’s
Ground Water Protection Strategy, EPA
adopted levels consistent with the
drinking water MCLs as a basis for
protecting the ground water resource. It
may be noted that the ground water
protection standards were applied
prospectively at Yucca Mountain, in the
sense that potential contamination of
ground water in the accessible
environment would not be expected for
many hundreds to thousands of years.
As such, the radionuclides of most
concern for geologic disposal would not
necessarily be the same as for operating
fuel cycle facilities.
EPA has the authority under the
Atomic Energy Act to promulgate
generally applicable environmental
standards to limit radioactive materials
in the general environment outside the
facility. Thus, any ground water
standard that would be promulgated as
part of a revision of 40 CFR part 190
would be limited to application of these
limits outside the facility boundary. The
NRC’s 2010 Groundwater Task Force
identified contamination in the aquifers
beneath several nuclear power plants,
but found that most of the
contamination had not left the
boundaries of the facility. While the
Agency would hope that no
contamination is emitted from nuclear
fuel cycle facilities, we realize that this
statement is a goal and may not reflect
actual operating facilities. However, the
Agency believes that it would be
prudent to include limits to protect
against migration of the contamination
outside the fence line. Including a
ground water standard would also bring
the regulation more in line with other
Agency regulations and policy goals.
Surface water. Industrial wastewater
discharges to surface waters are
generally prohibited under Section 301
of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act (known as the ‘‘Clean Water Act’’ or
‘‘CWA’’). Under Section 402 of the Act,
however, a point source may be
authorized to discharge pollutants into
waters of the United States by obtaining
a permit. These permits, which are
issued by the EPA or a state that has an
EPA-approved permit program generally
provide two types of controls: (1)
Technology-based limitations (based on
the technological and economic
achievability); and (2) water qualitybased limitations (to achieve
compliance with water quality
standards). For most major industries,
including the Primary Industrial
Categories listed in 40 CFR part 122,
Appendix A, the Agency has developed
Effluent Limitations Guidelines (ELGs),
pursuant to sections 301(b) and 304 of
the CWA, which set the technology-
E:\FR\FM\04FEP1.SGM
04FEP1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6522
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 23 / Tuesday, February 4, 2014 / Proposed Rules
based limits for discharges from such
industrial categories. Any CWA Section
402 permit for a facility with applicable
ELGs would be required to include
limits prescribed by those regulations.
With the exception of discharges from
the ‘‘Uranium, Radium and Vanadium
Ores’’ subcategory of the ‘‘Ore Mining
and Dressing Point Source’’ category (40
CFR part 440, Subpart C), technologybased limitations for radionuclides
associated with industrial discharges
have not been established in the existing
ELGs. The ‘‘Steam Electric Power
Generating ELGs’’ (40 CFR part 423)
apply to wastewater discharges from
plants primarily engaged in the
generation of electricity for distribution
and sale which results primarily from
the use of nuclear or fossil fuels in
conjunction with a steam-water
thermodynamic cycle. Those ELGs do
not include limitations for
radionuclides. However, where an ELG
does not apply to certain waste streams
or pollutants discharged by an
industrial discharger, the permitting
authority must establish technologybased effluent limits on a case-by-case,
best professional judgment basis. (40
CFR 125.3 (c)(3)).
CWA Section 303 directs states to
adopt standards for the protection of
water quality, including human health
and aquatic life uses. In most cases
where states have adopted water quality
criteria for radionuclides, those criteria
are intended to protect human health
uses such as drinking water. Several
states have also adopted radionuclide
standards for livestock watering and
narrative radionuclide standards for
protection of wildlife and aquatic life.
When a discharge is found to have a
reasonable potential to cause or
contribute to an exceedance of a state
water quality criterion established
under their standards, CWA Section 402
permits must include limitations
intended to protect that standard (see 40
CFR 122.44(d)(1)).
The NRC’s regulations governing the
design of effluent control systems at
nuclear power plants are provided in
General Design Criterion 60, ‘‘Control of
Releases of Radioactive Materials to the
Environment’’ of Appendix A, ‘‘General
Design Criteria for Nuclear Power
Plants’’ in 10 CFR part 50. The criterion
is to provide a ‘‘means to control
suitably the release of radioactive
materials’’ to the environment. NRC
regulations in 10 CFR part 50, Appendix
I provide numerical guidance that limit
releases of radioactive material to ‘‘As
Low As [is] Reasonably Achievable’’
(ALARA) and meet the criteria to
control releases suitably. These
Appendix I guides become requirements
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:37 Feb 03, 2014
Jkt 232001
that are incorporated in the nuclear
power plant operating licenses, and are
consistent with EPA standards at 40
CFR part 190.
During nuclear power plant
operations, 10 CFR 20.1406,
‘‘Minimization of Contamination’’
requires that all licensees, to the extent
practical, conduct operations to
minimize the introduction of residual
radioactivity into the site, including the
subsurface. Also, 10 CFR 20.1501,
‘‘general’’ (radiological surveys) require
licensees to perform subsurface surveys
(i.e., soil and ground water surveys) to
identify residual radioactivity. For
decommissioning and license
termination requirements, NRC
establishes cleanup criteria in Subpart E
of 10 CFR part 20, ‘‘Radiological Criteria
for License Termination’’ that are
consistent with EPA standards at 40
CFR part 190.
5. Questions for Public Comment
The Agency is seeking input on the
following aspects of this issue:
a. If a ground water protection
standard is established in the general
environment outside the boundaries of
nuclear fuel cycle facilities, what should
the basis be and how should it be
implemented?
b. Are additional standards aimed at
limiting surface water contamination
needed?
6. Technical support documents and
background information
Several of the issues surrounding the
establishment of ground water
protection standards for radionuclides
have been discussed and addressed by
the Agency in previous rulemaking
efforts, as well as in guidance
documents published or available from
the Agency. The notable citations have
been included in the references for this
document. See reference numbers 9, 10,
13,14,15,16, 29 and 30.
E. Issue 5: Spent Nuclear Fuel and HighLevel Radioactive Waste Storage. How,
if at all, should a revised rule explicitly
address storage of spent nuclear fuel
and high-level radioactive waste?
1. Why is this issue important?
When the existing rule was issued,
storage of radioactive materials at
nuclear fuel cycle facilities was not
explicitly identified as an activity
covered by the standards. Some storage
was expected as part of operations, but
the issue did not seem to merit
particular attention. Greater attention
has been given to storage in recent
years, particularly for spent nuclear fuel
at power plant sites. In the 1970s,
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
extensive reprocessing of spent nuclear
fuel was envisioned, and disposal
capacity was expected to be available,
precluding the need to store spent
nuclear fuel or other wastes at power
plant sites for extended periods of time.
However, interim storage of spent
nuclear fuel, especially on site at
nuclear power plants, has become the
norm and for longer time periods than
originally expected. We are now
considering whether the prospect of
extended storage warrants additional
provisions to clarify how the standards
would be implemented over the
extended storage period.
In addition, in reviewing the
requirements in 40 CFR part 190 as they
apply to spent nuclear fuel storage, we
have realized that the applicability of
the standards is not clear with respect
to its relationship with 40 CFR part 191,
which also contains provisions that
address spent nuclear fuel storage.
Given the greater interest in spent
nuclear fuel storage, we are considering
whether it is useful and appropriate to
clarify, especially with respect to 40
CFR part 191, the applicability of 40
CFR part 190 to spent nuclear fuel
storage operations at facilities in the
uranium fuel cycle and to dedicated
spent nuclear fuel storage facilities.
2. What does 40 CFR part 190 say? What
was the technical basis?
The regulation at 40 CFR part 190 did
not directly address storage activities at
nuclear fuel cycle facilities. At that
time, some storage of radioactive
materials was occurring at various
nuclear fuel cycle facilities as part of
their normal operations. It was assumed
that the spent nuclear fuel was to be
stored in pools for cooling for about 18
months, following which it would be
collected and transported to
reprocessing plants to be recycled for
additional energy generation (Draft
Environmental Statement, 1975). A
reprocessing facility would necessarily
require some storage for both the input
and output of its processes (e.g., spent
nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive
waste) to ensure efficient industrial
operation. Given these conditions, and
the fact that storage was not excluded
from coverage in the current standard—
whereas several other activities were
exempted, including mining,
transportation and disposal—we believe
it is reasonable that any storage
incidental to operations at a nuclear fuel
cycle facility should be covered by 40
CFR part 190.
Similar ambiguity exists regarding
whether dedicated storage facilities are
covered by 40 CFR part 190. Whether or
not such storage facilities fall within
E:\FR\FM\04FEP1.SGM
04FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 23 / Tuesday, February 4, 2014 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
this category is not addressed in the rule
and long-term storage of spent nuclear
fuel was not analyzed during the rule
development.
3. What has changed and how are those
changes important?
Some waste storage practices now in
place were not anticipated when 40 CFR
part 190 was first issued. The most
significant of these involve spent
nuclear fuel. With no nuclear fuel
reprocessing occurring and no disposal
facility opened, spent nuclear fuel is
being kept at nuclear power plants—in
steel-lined, concrete pools or basins
filled with water (spent nuclear fuel
pools) or in massive, airtight steel or
concrete-and-steel canisters, casks and
vaults (spent nuclear fuel storage casks
or dry cask storage)—awaiting national
policy decisions and programs on
reprocessing and ultimate disposal.
The President’s Blue Ribbon
Commission on America’s Nuclear
Future summarizes the current storage
situation succinctly: ‘‘Storage [of spent
nuclear fuel (SNF) at power plants] is
not only playing a more prominent and
protracted role in the nuclear fuel cycle
than once expected, it is the only
element of the back end of the fuel cycle
that is currently being deployed on an
operational scale in the United States. In
fact, much larger quantities of spent
nuclear fuel are being stored for much
longer periods of time than
policymakers envisioned. . . .’’ (BRC
Final Report, January 2012, p.33). The
Commission’s final report also
recommends the development of one or
more consolidated interim storage
facilities for spent nuclear fuel (see BRC
Final Report, January 2012, p. 32),
which would join a number of existing
independent spent nuclear fuel storage
installations (ISFSIs) primarily at
existing and decommissioned nuclear
power plants. The Administration’s
Strategy for the Management and
Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and
High-Level Radioactive Waste (January
2013) is for the Administration, with the
appropriate authorizations from
Congress and with enactment of
required legislation, to implement a
program over the next 10 years that:
• Sites, designs and licenses,
constructs and begins operations of a
pilot interim storage facility by
2021with an initial focus on accepting
used nuclear fuel from shut-down
reactor sites.
• Advances toward the siting and
licensing of a larger interim storage
facility to be available by 2025 that will
have sufficient capacity to provide
flexibility in the waste management
system and allows for acceptance of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:37 Feb 03, 2014
Jkt 232001
enough used nuclear fuel to reduce
expected government liabilities.
(Department of Energy ‘‘Strategy for the
Management and Disposal of Used
Nuclear Fuel and High-Level
Radioactive Wastes’’, 2013, p. 2). Thus,
the foreseeable future holds the
potential for storage of significant
quantities of spent nuclear fuel—more
than envisioned in 1977—at power
plants and perhaps at consolidated
facilities designed and devoted to that
purpose.
Currently, the NRC is updating its
‘‘Waste Confidence’’ rule to address
feasibility of continued storage until a
repository is available. Since storage has
become a more prominent part of
nuclear power plant operations in
recent years and a topic of greater
concern to the public, the Agency
believes it is worthwhile to consider
whether a revised rule should address
the topic more directly.
4. What policies and approaches are
relevant?
Some storage activities—at a
minimum, storage of spent nuclear fuel
and high-level radioactive waste at
disposal facilities—are quite clearly
covered under EPA’s requirements in 40
CFR part 191, ‘‘Environmental Radiation
Protection Standards for Management
and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel,
High-Level and Transuranic Radioactive
Wastes.’’ However, the applicability is
described quite broadly: Those
standards address ‘‘management . . .
and storage of spent nuclear fuel . . . at
any facility regulated by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission or by
Agreement States, to the extent that
such management and storage
operations are not subject to the
provisions of part 190 of title 40.’’ (40
CFR 191.01) The statement could be
construed to apply to facilities beyond
disposal facilities, including at nuclear
power plants.
In practice, therefore, the language
ensures full coverage of spent nuclear
fuel storage—regardless of which
activities are deemed to fall under
which rule—since any activity not
covered under the uranium fuel cycle
should be covered under 40 CFR part
191. Further, the dose limits in 40 CFR
part 191 apply to combined doses from
storage activities covered under both
rules (40 CFR 191.03(a)). The applicable
NRC regulations also take into account
multiple co-located or nearby sources
and activities, and apply dose limits for
the public that are consistent with both
40 CFR part 190 and the storage
provisions of 40 CFR part 191. NRC
storage requirements apply to spent
nuclear fuel, high-level radioactive
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
6523
waste and certain reactor-related lowlevel radioactive waste at stand-alone
facilities as well as some on-site storage
at power plants (10 CFR part 72).
5. What aspects of the issue are most
important and what options might be
considered to address this issue in
revised standards?
The evaluation and licensing of spent
nuclear fuel storage—on site at nuclear
power plants and at other storage
facilities—has been implemented by the
NRC. The NRC has taken steps to
improve the security and safety of
storage in recent years and is further
evaluating what improvements can be
made in light of the events in
Fukushima. (See BRC’s Final Report, p.
46) However, we recognize that the
volume of spent nuclear fuel now being
stored—and expected to be stored in
coming decades—is much greater than
what was expected to be entailed in the
operation of nuclear power plants and
perhaps also at other facilities. If the
Agency decides to revise 40 CFR part
190, it is reasonable to ask whether such
storage operations should be considered
part of the fuel cycle under these
standards (instead of 40 CFR part 191),
as well as whether additional technical
provisions are needed to protect the
public from potential exposures from
such activities.
We believe that the simplest approach
would be to clarify that the nuclear fuel
cycle standards cover storage operations
at nuclear fuel cycle facilities—likely
including interim storage facilities—
under 40 CFR part 190. In essence, it
would specify that the ‘‘fuel cycle’’ ends
only when the spent nuclear fuel
reaches a permanent disposal facility.
Clarifying coverage under 40 CFR part
190 would also ensure that updated
dosimetry and science in any revised
rule would be applied to storage
operations not conducted at disposal
facilities, especially if 40 CFR part 191
is not revised within a comparable time
frame.
If a revised nuclear fuel cycle rule
were to explicitly cover storage, an
additional question is whether further
requirements need to be instituted to
address the long-term aspects of storage
now envisioned. It is important to note
that the existing EPA and NRC
regulations discussed in this section are
aimed at management and storage
operations. With extended storage (60
years or more beyond the licensed
operating period), there is the
possibility that future degradation of dry
casks or repackaging could result in
additional exposures or even releases of
radioactive material. A clarification
regarding the coverage of EPA’s nuclear
E:\FR\FM\04FEP1.SGM
04FEP1
6524
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 23 / Tuesday, February 4, 2014 / Proposed Rules
fuel cycle regulations would provide
additional incentive to monitor storage
operations to take the necessary
measures to ensure continuing
compliance. We believe that such a
clarification would not require
assessment of future storage
performance, nor would it inform policy
decisions on whether long-term storage
should be pursued. We believe that any
storage operation would need to meet
the same regulatory requirements
whether it be during licensing, or at the
end of its post-closure life, so that
additional technical requirements
should not be necessary. In this case,
actual changes to 40 CFR part 190 text
could be limited to applicability and/or
in the definitions.
6. Questions for Public Comment
a. How, if at all, should a revised rule
explicitly address on-site storage
operations for spent nuclear fuel?
b. Is it necessary to clarify the
applicability of 40 CFR part 190 versus
40 CFR part 191 to storage operations?
Should the Agency clarify the scope of
40 CFR part 190 to also cover operations
at separate facilities (off-site) dedicated
to storage of spent nuclear fuel (i.e.,
should we clarify the definition of the
‘‘nuclear fuel cycle’’ to include all
management of spent nuclear fuel up
until the point of transportation to a
permanent disposal site)?
F. Issue 6: New Nuclear Technologies—
What new technologies and practices
have developed since 40 CFR part 190
was issued, and how should any revised
rule address these advances and
changes?
1. Why is this issue important?
The existing standard, as well as any
potential revised standard, applies to
nuclear power operations. Since the
promulgation of the existing rule, new
technologies and processes have been
developed.
2. What does 40 CFR part 190 say? What
was the technical basis?
3. What has changed and how are those
changes important?
The existing rule was developed
based on aspects of the nuclear energy
industry that were in existence in the
early 1970s. The 1976 FES stated: ‘‘In
the United States the early development
of technology for the nuclear generation
of electric power has focused around the
light-water-cooled nuclear reactor. For
this reason the proposed standards and
this statement will consider only the use
of enriched uranium-235 as fuel for the
generation of electricity.’’ (Final
Environmental Statement, 1976, Vol. 1,
p. 3) Thus, the existing standards apply
specifically to the uranium fuel cycle.
The 1976 FES stated: ‘‘The final part
(of the uranium fuel cycle) consists of
fuel reprocessing plants, where the fuel
elements are mechanically and
chemically broken down to isolate the
large quantities of high-level radioactive
wastes produced during fission for
permanent storage and to recover
substantial quantities of unused
uranium and reactor-produced
plutonium.’’ (Final Environmental
Statement, 1976. Vol. 1, p. 4)
The technical basis for the existing
standard anticipated increases in
nuclear power generation. The 1975
Draft Environmental Statement stated
on p. 4: ‘‘. . . well over 300,000
megawatts of nuclear electric generating
capacity based on the use of uranium
fuel will exist within the next 20 years
or by 1997. . . . This increase will
require a parallel growth in a number of
other activities that must exist in order
to support uranium-fueled nuclear
reactors.’’ Furthermore, the DES (p. 5)
stated: ‘‘This technical analysis assessed
the potential health effects associated
with each of the various types of
planned releases of radioactivity from
each of the various operations of the
fuel cycle and the effectiveness and
costs of the controls available to reduce
such effluents.’’
Although more than 30 years have
passed since the 1976 FES first
described the state of the industry for
which 40 CFR part 190 applies, many of
the concepts remain the same. However,
the status of several of the nuclear
technologies has changed if one
considers the international experience.
This section will briefly discuss the
nuclear technologies currently under
consideration in the context of whether
the Agency considers the technology as
pending, and whether it merits revising
existing regulations.
The 1976 FES stated the following:
‘‘There are, in all, three fuels available
to commercial nuclear power. These are
uranium-235, uranium-233 and
plutonium-239.’’ (Final Environmental
Statement, 1976, Vol. 1, p.3) However,
fuels produced from the naturally
occurring thorium-232 isotope are
possible and are currently being
considered internationally for use in
reactors. When used as a fuel for a
nuclear reaction, thorium is transmuted
to uranium-233; however, conventional
nomenclature has termed this reaction
as the thorium fuel cycle. Although
thorium-232 based fuel would be part of
the nuclear fuel cycle, some in the
industry may argue that this reaction,
and the processes considered part of
this fuel cycle, would not technically be
covered by the Subpart B provisions in
40 CFR part 190 for the ‘‘Uranium Fuel
Cycle,’’ and thus there are no applicable
limits for the thorium fuel cycle.
Additionally, for plutonium based fuels
and their inclusion under 40 CFR part
190, the FES only stated that some
commercial use of recycled plutonium
in light-water cooled reactors is
proposed for the near future.
Several new nuclear power processing
technologies have been licensed by the
NRC and other technologies are being
explored. The technologies analyzed by
the Agency are included in the table
below.
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF NEW NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGIES
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Advanced Light-water Reactor Designs 16 ................................................
Fuel Reprocessing Designs 17 ..................................................................
Advanced Reactor Concept 18 ..................................................................
In the above table, the MOX-PWR,
MOX-BWR, Thorium-PWR and
16 Advanced
Light-water Reactor Designs are
light-water reactor concepts with formal designs
either approved or under review by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:37 Feb 03, 2014
Jkt 232001
AP1000; ABWR; ESBWR; US EPR; US APWR.
Aqueous; Electrochemical; OREOX.
MOX-PWR; MOX-BWR; Thorium-PWR; 19 Thorium-BWR;
Water; Gas-Cooled; Sodium Fast.
Heavy
Thorium-BWR are light-water reactors
17 Fuel
Reprocessing Designs are designs for
reprocessing spent nuclear fuel using various
chemical and mechanical reduction techniques.
18 In the context of this table, Advanced Reactor
Concepts are designs where the concept is
available, but no U.S. designs have been approved
for commercialization purposes.
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
19 Thorium fuels have been used in the past both
in small scale reactors in the U.S. (Fort St. Vrain
and Peach Bottom), and overseas. Several countries
are renewing efforts to use thorium as the base fuel
for new reactors with India making new thorium
reactors a major goal of its nuclear program.
E:\FR\FM\04FEP1.SGM
04FEP1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 23 / Tuesday, February 4, 2014 / Proposed Rules
(LWRs) that would operate with either
mixed oxide (i.e., plutonium as well as
uranium) or thorium fuels. The heavy
water, gas-cooled, and sodium fast
reactor concepts do not use light water
for their moderator and/or coolant:
heavy-water reactors (HWRs) use
deuterium oxide (D2O) as the neutron
flux moderator and can use either heavy
water or light water as coolant (the
Canada Deuterium-Uranium reactor
(CANDU) is probably the most widely
used heavy water reactor). Gas-cooled
reactors usually use graphite as their
moderator, and usually use helium as
coolant, but can also use carbon
dioxide. Finally, sodium fast reactors
differ from LWRs. In a fast reactor, the
fission chain reaction is sustained by
fast neutrons, and thus does not need a
neutron moderator. Also, because water
acts as a neutron moderator, it is not
usually used as a coolant in a fast
reactor; rather, the coolant is a gas or a
liquid metal, such as sodium or lead.
Although the list above does include
some advanced reactor designs that are
improvements to previous versions of
LWRs (considered originally in the
existing standard), these technologies
may need to be given greater
consideration in a potential revision to
40 CFR part 190 as design details
regarding effluent contaminants are
developed.
The regulation at 40 CFR part 190
specifically indicates it is restricted to
the uranium fuel cycle for electricity
production. As mentioned above, the
use of thorium as a fuel in power
reactors is being pursued by other
countries and could also be used in the
U.S. Thorium-232 is fertile material,
that is, it cannot be used in the reactor
directly but needs to be irradiated by
neutrons in a uranium fuel reactor first
in order to transmute it to fissile
uranium-233 that can it be used as fuel
in a reactor. As such, a thorium fuel
cycle could also be considered as
simply a variant of the uranium fuel
cycle. However, to remove any potential
ambiguity as to the limit of 40 CFR part
190, it may be useful to broaden the
scope of 40 CFR part 190 to include all
power generation technologies using
nuclear fission.
Another new technology class being
considered for commercialization
within the U.S. is the Small Modular
Reactors (SMRs). The term SMR refers
to the size, or amount of energy
generated by these reactors. They have
been defined by the International
Atomic Energy Agency as nuclear
reactors generating 300 MW of
electricity or less. The SMRs under
development utilize traditional LWR
designs, but also envision non-
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:37 Feb 03, 2014
Jkt 232001
traditional water reactor or non-water
reactor designs, with the common
feature being that of a smaller reactor.
These designs would contain smaller
amounts of fuel, thus posing smaller
safety and associated hazards than those
of traditional 1000 MW reactors or
larger. Some small reactor designs
envision placing compact reactor
modules relatively deep underground
and operating them without refueling
for the entire plant life. Other countries
have already begun building floating
nuclear power plants based on small
reactors. These plants can be docked at
remote locations to deliver power to
ground-based installations on shore.
These designs could be used for
generating electricity in isolated areas or
producing high-temperature process
heat for industrial purposes. The NRC
expects to receive applications for staff
review and approval of some of these
designs in the near future (see
www.nrc.gov/reactors/advanced.html).
As mentioned earlier, this class of
reactors potentially utilizes varying
existing technology concepts at a
smaller scale. The Agency could
consider how to address this class of
reactors in the future, in an updated
rule, because of its projected growth.
4. What policies and approaches are
relevant?
The Agency limited the existing
standards to the uranium fuel cycle and
to light-water reactors, based on the
state of the industry at the time. The
Agency is considering whether the
existing standards need to be revised to
address new nuclear technologies that
have been developed or may come on
line in the near future, and, if so, which
technologies should be considered.
5. What aspects of the issue are most
important and what options might be
considered to address this issue in
revised standards?
There are a couple of key
considerations in determining the
importance of new nuclear technologies.
The first consideration is that any
potential standard revision must
provide protection from radiation
emitted from new nuclear technologies.
The Agency would need to develop
standards for any new technology being
commercialized if it is not already
covered by the existing standards. The
correction may be as simple as a
definition change, but even the
definition change could necessitate an
analysis to identify if the existing
standard appropriately protects the
public from environmental releases
from the new technology. The analysis
may also be significantly more complex
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
6525
if the new technology to be
commercialized uses different
radionuclides as a fuel and produces
fission products in proportions which
are different from those typical of LWRs.
Even in the event that the fission
products are similar in nature to those
in the existing standard, the new
technology could change the effluent
concentrations of fission products
significantly.
An example of this would be the
commercialization of the thorium fuel
cycle. Although the thorium is
transmuted to uranium-233 for fission,
the resulting fission products are
projected to have a different
composition from those generated by
uranium-235. The fuel requirements for
the thorium fuel cycle also require
higher concentrations of enriched
uranium and/or plutonium and would
potentially yield larger amounts of lowlevel wastes. The Agency may have to
conduct a review to determine what, if
any, analyses would need to be
conducted for the thorium variant.
The second consideration is that any
potential revision must provide clarity
on environmental requirements for new
nuclear technologies. This is an
important factor so that the industry
will be able to properly plan and
complete design criteria. The nuclear
power industry has become more
efficient, and new technologies have
been developed for some aspects of the
uranium industry. Many in the nuclear
industry have spoken of the significant
growth that may occur if constraints on
carbon emissions come into existence.20
Developing applicable radiation
protection standards for future
technologies now could provide
regulatory certainty for the nuclear
industry.
We recognize that the technologies
discussed above, or other concepts
being researched, may be at different
stages of development. Some may be
relatively close to commercialization,
while the horizon for development and
adoption of others may be much longer.
While we believe it is appropriate to be
forward-looking in gathering
information to consider as part of a
rulemaking that could adequately
20 In response to major climate change initiatives
proposed by Congress, the Nuclear Energy Institute
has stated ‘‘Two major analyses issued in 2009 of
the House version of the bill (H.R. 2454) make the
case that significant nuclear energy provisions are
necessary to achieve U.S. greenhouse gas emission
reduction goals.’’ The Energy Information
Administration issued Energy Market and
Economic Impacts of H.R. 2454, the American
Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. The
Environmental Protection Agency released EPA
Analysis of the American Clean Energy and
Security Act of 2009 (H.R. 2454).
E:\FR\FM\04FEP1.SGM
04FEP1
6526
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 23 / Tuesday, February 4, 2014 / Proposed Rules
address future technologies, we
acknowledge that it may be premature
to address certain of these technologies
in a rule before their potential
implications and impacts are well
understood. Therefore, the Agency
could potentially address new
technologies by using one of several
approaches. These approaches include:
a. Review the technologies that are
available in the U.S. and propose
potential revisions only if they are not
addressed by our existing standard.
b. Review technologies and
anticipated near-term technologies that
are available in the U.S. and propose
revisions if these technologies are not
addressed by our existing standard.
Near-term technologies would have to
be defined, but could be viewed as
technologies anticipated to be
commercialized within the next 10–30
years.
c. Review internationally available
and anticipated near-term technologies
and propose revisions if they are not
addressed by our existing standard. This
approach would consider foreign
technologies that could be adopted in
the U.S.
6. Questions for Public Comment
The Agency is seeking input on the
following aspects regarding this issue:
a. Are there specific new technologies
or practices with unique characteristics
that would dictate the need for separate
or different limits and do these
differences merit a reconsideration of
the technical basis for 40 CFR part 190?
b. Should the Agency develop
standards that will proactively apply to
new nuclear technologies developed in
the future, and if so, how far into the
future should the Agency look (nearterm, mid-term, etc.)?
c. In particular, do small modular
reactors pose unique environmental
concerns that warrant separate
standards within 40 CFR part 190?
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
G. Other Possible Issues for Comment
If revised, the Radiation Protection
Standards for Nuclear Power Operations
may also address any number of issues
identified during the public comment
period. We will consider the comments
submitted in response to this ANPR as
we consider revision of the existing
standards.
III. What will we do with this
information?
This Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking is being published to
inform stakeholders, including federal
and state entities, the nuclear industry,
the public and any interested groups,
that the Agency is reviewing the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:37 Feb 03, 2014
Jkt 232001
existing standards to determine how the
regulation at 40 CFR part 190 should be
updated and soliciting input on changes
(if any) that should be made. This action
is not meant to be construed as an
advocacy position either for or against
nuclear power. EPA wants to ensure
that environmental protection standards
are adequate for the foreseeable future
for nuclear fuel cycle facilities. As noted
earlier, we believe the existing
standards remain protective of public
health and the environment; however,
we believe that the issues mentioned
above are sufficient to warrant a review
and collection of public input on
whether some portions of the standards
need to be updated.
If the Agency does revise 40 CFR part
190, then the Agency would follow
procedures outlined in the AEA and the
APA and publish a proposed rule in the
Federal Register. Comments received on
this ANPR would be considered in the
development of a proposed rule and
would be used by the Agency to provide
a clearer understanding of science,
technology, or other concerns and
perspectives of stakeholders. However,
the Agency will not respond directly to
comments submitted to this ANPR. The
public would have the opportunity to
submit written comments on any
proposed rule that might be developed.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866,
entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and
Review’’ (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993),
this is a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’
because the action raises novel legal or
policy issues. Accordingly, EPA
submitted this action to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for
review under Executive Order 12866
and any changes made in response to
OMB recommendations have been
documented in the docket for this
action. Because this action does not
propose or impose any requirements,
and instead seeks comments and
suggestions for the Agency to consider
in possibly developing a subsequent
proposed rule, the various statutes and
Executive Orders that normally apply to
rulemaking do not apply in this case.
Should EPA subsequently determine to
pursue a rulemaking, EPA will address
the statutes and Executive Orders as
applicable to that rulemaking.
References
1. Blue Ribbon Commission (BRC). The
President’s Blue Ribbon Commission on
America’s Nuclear Future—Draft Report
to the Secretary of Energy. Washington,
DC: 2011.
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2. Blue Ribbon Commission (BRC). The
President’s Blue Ribbon Commission on
America’s Nuclear Future—Final Report
to the Secretary of Energy. Washington,
DC: 2012.
3. Department of Energy (DOE). Strategy for
the Management and Disposal of Used
Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive
Waste. Washington, DC: 2013.
4. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Environmental Radiation Protection
Requirements for Normal Operation of
Activities in the Uranium Fuel Cycle,
Draft Environmental Statement. EPA
Publication No. 450R75101. Washington,
DC: 1975.
5. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
‘‘Environmental Radiation Protection
Standards for Nuclear Power Operations,
Proposed Rule.’’ Federal Register 40 (29
May 1975): 23420.
6. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
40 CFR 190 Environmental Radiation
Protection Requirements for Normal
Operation of Activities in the Uranium
Fuel Cycle, Final Environmental
Statement. EPA Publication No. 520/4–
76–016. Washington, DC: 1976.
7. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Environmental Analysis of the Uranium
Fuel Cycle, Part IV—Supplementary
Analysis. EPA Publication No. 520/4–
76–017. Washington DC: 1976.
8. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
‘‘40 CFR 190, Environmental Radiation
Protection Standards for Nuclear Power
Operations—Final Rule.’’ Federal
Register 42 (13 January 1977): 2860.
9. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
‘‘40 CFR Part 191, Environmental
Radiation Protection Standards for
Management and Disposal of Spent
Nuclear Fuel, High-Level and
Transuranic Radioactive Waste.’’ Federal
Register 50 (19 September 1985): 38084.
10. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Protecting the Nation’s Ground Water:
EPA’s Strategy for the 1990s.
Washington, DC: 1991.
11. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
High-Level and Transuranic Radioactive
Wastes—Response to Comments for 40
CFR 191. Washington, DC: 1993.
12. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
‘‘40 CFR Part 194, Criteria for the
Certification and Re-Certification of the
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant’s Compliance
with the 40 CFR Part 191 Disposal
Regulations—Final Rule.’’ Federal
Register 61 (9 February 1996): 5235.
13. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response. Directive 9200.4–18.
Washington, DC: 1997.
14. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response. Directive 9200.4–23.
Washington, DC: 1997.
15. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
‘‘40 CFR Parts 9, 141, and 142, National
Primary Drinking Water Regulations;
Radionuclides; Final Rule.’’ Federal
Register 65 (7 December 2000): 76708.
16. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
‘‘40 CFR 197, Public Health and
Environmental Radiation Protection
E:\FR\FM\04FEP1.SGM
04FEP1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 23 / Tuesday, February 4, 2014 / Proposed Rules
Standards for Yucca Mountain, Nevada,
Final Rule.’’ Federal Register 66 (13 June
2001): 32074.
17. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
EPA Radiogenic Cancer Risk Models and
Projections for the U.S. Population. EPA
Publication No. 402–R–11–001.
Washington, DC: 2011.
18. Federal Radiation Council (FRC).
‘‘Radiation Protection Guidance for
Federal Agencies.’’ Federal Register 26
(18 May 1960): 4402
19. Federal Radiation Council (FRC).
‘‘Radiation Protection Guidance for
Federal Agencies.’’ Federal Register 26
(26 September 1961): 9057.
20. International Commission on
Radiological Protection (ICRP).
Recommendations of the International
Commission on Radiological Protection.
ICRP Publication 26. Oxford: Pergamon
Press, 1977.
21. International Commission on
Radiological Protection (ICRP). 1990
Recommendations of the International
Commission on Radiological Protection.
ICRP Publication 60. Oxford: Pergamon
Press, 1991.
22. International Commission on
Radiological Protection (ICRP).
Radiation Protection Recommendations.
ICRP Publication 103. Oxford: Pergamon
Press, 2008.
23. National Research Council. Technical
Bases for Yucca Mountain Standards.
Washington DC: National Academy
Press, 1995.
24. National Research Council. The
Disposition Dilemma—Controlling the
Release of Solid Materials from Nuclear
Regulatory Commission-Licensed
Facilities. Washington DC: National
Academy Press, 2002.
25. National Council on Radiation Protection
and Measurements (NCRP). Principles
and Application of Collective Dose in
Radiation Protection. NCRP Report No.
121. Bethesda, MD: 1995.
26. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
‘‘10 CFR 50, Domestic Licensing of
Production and Utilization Facilities.’’
Federal Register 21 (19 June 1956): 355.
27. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
‘‘10 CFR 20, Standards for Protection
Against Radiation.’’ Federal Register 56
(21 May 1991): 23360.
28. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
‘‘10 CFR 72, Licensing Requirements for
the Independent Storage of Spent
Nuclear Fuel, High-Level Radioactive
Waste, and Reactor-Related Greater Than
Class C Waste.’’ Federal Register 53 (19
August 1988): 31658.
29. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
Groundwater Task Force Final Report.
ADAMS Accession Number
ML101740509. Washington, DC: 2010.
30. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
Tritium, Radiation Protection Limits,
and Drinking Water Standards.
Rockville, MD: 2010.
Dated: January 24, 2014.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2014–02307 Filed 2–3–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:33 Feb 03, 2014
Jkt 232001
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 660
[Docket No. 131203999–4061–01]
RIN 0648–XD020
Fisheries Off West Coast States;
Coastal Pelagic Species Fisheries;
Annual Specifications
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
NMFS proposes to implement
an annual catch limit (ACL), harvest
guideline (HG), annual catch target
(ACT), and associated annual reference
points for Pacific sardine in the U.S.
exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off the
Pacific coast for a one-time interim
harvest period of January 1, 2014,
through June 30, 2014, and to set annual
harvest levels, such as overfishing limit
(OFL), available biological catch (ABC),
annual catch limit (ACL), for Pacific
sardine for the whole calendar year
2014. This rulemaking is proposed
according to the Coastal Pelagic Species
(CPS) Fishery Management Plan (FMP),
and reflects the proposed change to the
starting date of the annual Pacific
sardine fishery from January 1 to July 1
as published in the Federal Register on
December 23, 2013. The proposed 2014
ACT or maximum directed HG is 19,846
(mt). Based on the seasonal allocation
framework in the FMP, this equates to
a first period (January 1 to June 30)
allocation of 6,946 mt (35% of ACT).
This rulemaking also proposes an
adjusted directed non-tribal harvest
allocation for this period of 5,446 mt.
This value was reduced from the total
first period allocation by 1000 mt for
potential harvest by the Quinault Indian
Nation as well as 500 mt to be used as
an incidental set aside for other nontribal commercial fisheries if the 5,446
mt limit is reached and directed fishing
for sardine is closed. This rulemaking is
intended to conserve and manage the
Pacific sardine stock off the U.S. West
Coast.
DATES: Comments must be received by
March 6, 2014.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
on this document identified by NOAA–
NMFS–2013–0180 by any of the
following methods:
• Electronic Submissions: Submit all
electronic public comments via the
Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
6527
www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-20130180, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon,
complete the required fields, and enter
or attach your comments.
• Mail: Submit written comments to
William W. Stelle, Jr., Regional
Administrator, West Coast Region,
NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE.,
Seattle, WA 98115–0070; Attn: Joshua
Lindsay.
• Instructions: Comments sent by any
other method, to any other address or
individual, or received after the end of
the comment period, may not be
considered by NMFS. All comments
received are a part of the public record
and will generally be posted for public
viewing on www.regulations.gov
without change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address, etc.),
confidential business information, or
otherwise sensitive information
submitted voluntarily by the sender will
be publicly accessible. NMFS will
accept anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/
A’’ in the required fields if you wish to
remain anonymous). Attachments to
electronic comments will be accepted in
Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF
file formats only.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Joshua Lindsay, West Coast Region,
NMFS, (562) 980–4034.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: During
public meetings each year, the estimated
biomass for Pacific sardine is presented
to the Pacific Fishery Management
Council’s (Council) Coastal Pelagic
Species (CPS) Management Team
(Team), the Council’s CPS Advisory
Subpanel (Subpanel) and the Council’s
Scientific and Statistical Committee
(SSC), and the biomass and the status of
the fisheries are reviewed and
discussed. The biomass estimate is then
presented to the Council along with the
calculated overfishing limit (OFL),
available biological catch (ABC), annual
catch limit (ACL) and harvest guideline
(HG), along with recommendations and
comments from the Team, Subpanel and
SSC. Following review by the Council
and after hearing public comment, the
Council adopts a biomass estimate and
makes its catch level recommendations
to the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS). Each year NMFS then
implements regulations that set the
annual quota for the Pacific sardine
fishing year that currently begins
January 1 and ends December 31.
However, on December 23, 2013
NMFS published a proposed rule (78 FR
77413) to change the start date of the 12month Pacific sardine fishery from
January 1 to July 1, thus changing the
fishing season from one based on the
E:\FR\FM\04FEP1.SGM
04FEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 23 (Tuesday, February 4, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6509-6527]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-02307]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 190
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0689; FRL-9902-20-OAR]
RIN 2060-AR12
Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power
Operations
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) requests
public comment and information on potential approaches to updating the
Environmental Protection Agency's ``Environmental Radiation Protection
Standards for Nuclear Power Operations'' (40 CFR part 190). These
standards, originally issued in 1977, limit radiation releases and
doses to the public from normal operation of nuclear power plants and
other uranium fuel cycle facilities--that is, facilities involved in
the milling, conversion, fabrication, use and reprocessing of uranium
fuel for generating commercial electrical power. These standards were
the earliest radiation rules developed by EPA and are based on nuclear
power technology and the understanding of radiation biology current at
that time. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is responsible for
implementing and enforcing these standards.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 4, 2014.
Additional Public Input. In addition to this ANPR, the Agency
anticipates providing additional opportunities for public input. Please
see the Web site for more information at: www.epa.gov/radiation/laws/190.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2013-0689, by one of the following methods:
www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov.
Fax: (202) 566-9744.
Mail: U.S. Postal Service, send comments to: EPA Docket
Center, Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power
Operations--Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Docket, Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0689, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Please include a total of two copies.
Hand Delivery: In person or by courier, deliver comments
to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for
Nuclear Power Operations--Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Docket,
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0689, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. Please
include a total of two copies.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2013-0689. The Agency's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov
or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access''
system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an email comment directly to EPA without going through
www.regulations.gov your email address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information about the EPA's public docket,
visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
for which disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material,
such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard
copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket
Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington,
DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the
Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Littleton, EPA Office of
Radiation and Indoor Air, (202) 343-9216, littleton.brian@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Fact Sheets
The Agency is making several fact sheets available to assist the
public in understanding the issues related to the effort to update this
rule. These fact sheets are as follows:
1. ANPR Fact Sheet
2. Radiation Regulations Fact Sheet
3. Uranium Fuel Cycle Fact Sheet
These fact sheets are available on the Agency's Web site associated
with this effort at: www.epa.gov/radiation/laws/190.
Glossary of Terms
What are the important radiation-related concepts and terms we use
in this ANPR? Radiation-related terms used in this ANPR are defined
below.
Absorbed dose--The amount of energy absorbed by an object or person
per unit mass. This reflects the amount of energy that ionizing
radiation sources deposit in materials through which they pass.
Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR)--New design of boiling water
nuclear reactor which uses steam and high-pressure water to transfer
energy to turbines. The NRC has detailed criteria for meeting this
design in its design certification rule published in the Federal
Register on May 12, 1997 (62 FR 25800).
Advanced Passive Reactor 1000 (AP1000)--New design of pressurized
water nuclear reactor with passive safety features incorporated. It
uses high-pressure water to transfer energy to a second low-pressure
water loop. This secondary water is converted to steam which then
drives the turbines. The NRC has detailed criteria for meeting
[[Page 6510]]
this design in its design certification rule published in the Federal
Register on January 27, 2006 (71 FR 4464).
Advanced Pressurized Water Reactor (APWR)--New design of
pressurized water nuclear reactor which uses high-pressure water to
transfer energy to a second low-pressure water loop. This secondary
water is converted to steam, which then drives the turbines. The NRC
has received the U.S. APWR design certification application and is
reviewing the application for compliance with NRC's regulations. The
NRC has not yet certified the design under its regulations at 10 CFR
part 52. However, if the NRC determines that the U.S. APWR design meets
all applicable regulations, it will proceed to certify the design
through the NRC's rulemaking process.
Blue Ribbon Commission (BRC)--The President's Blue Ribbon
Commission on America's Nuclear Future was established as directed by
the President's Memorandum for the Secretary of Energy dated January
29, 2010. The purpose of the 15-member BRC was to conduct a
comprehensive review of policies for managing the back end of the
nuclear fuel cycle and recommend a new plan.
Boiling Water Reactor (BWR)--A type of light-water nuclear reactor
design which uses steam and high pressure water to transfer energy to
turbines.
Committed equivalent dose--The equivalent dose (see definition
below) to a tissue or organ that will be received for a specified
period of time following intake of radioactive material. The committed
dose allows an accounting of the total dose from radioactive materials
taken into (and held in) the body, for which the dose will be spread
out in time, being gradually delivered as the radionuclide decays.
Committed effective dose (CED)--The effective dose received over a
period of time by an individual from radionuclides internal to the
individual following a one-year intake of those radionuclides. CED is
expressed in units of sievert (SI units) or rem.
Collective dose--The sum of individual radiation doses to a
specified group or population.
Curie--A unit of radioactivity, corresponding to 3.7 x 10\10\
disintegrations per second.
Deterministic effects--A health effect that has a clinical
threshold (i.e., exposures below the threshold do not result in the
effect of concern), beyond which the severity increases with the dose.
Deterministic effects generally result from the receipt of a relatively
high dose over a short time period. Radiation-induced cataract
formation (clouding of the lens of the eye) is an example of a
deterministic effect. These are also termed ``non-stochastic'' effects.
Dose, or radiation dose--A general term for absorbed dose,
equivalent dose, effective dose, committed effective dose, committed
equivalent dose or total effective dose as defined in this document. A
measure of the energy deposited in tissue by ionizing radiation.
Dosimetry--The method used to calculate dose or other related
measures of the impacts of exposure to radiation, taking into account
the type of radiation and the duration and mode of exposure.
Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor (ESBWR)--New design of
boiling water nuclear reactor which uses high-pressure steam to
transfer energy to turbines. It takes advantage of natural circulation
for normal operation and has passive safety features.
Effective dose (E)--This quantity, previously called the effective
dose equivalent (EDE), is the weighted sum of the equivalent doses to
individual organs of the body. The dose to each tissue or organ is
weighted according to the risk that dose represents. These organ doses
are then added together, and that total is the effective dose. The
relevant units are rem or sieverts (SI units).
Equivalent dose--The product of absorbed dose (grays or rads),
averaged over a tissue or organ, multiplied by a radiation weighting
factor. The radiation weighting factor relates to the degree to which a
type of ionizing radiation will produce biological damage. It is used
because some types of radiation, such as alpha particles, are more
biologically damaging to live tissue than other types of radiation when
the absorbed dose from both is equal. Equivalent dose expresses, on a
common scale for all ionizing radiation, the biological damage to the
exposed tissue. It is expressed numerically in rems (traditional units)
or sieverts (SI units). This quantity was also known as the ``dose
equivalent'' until the change in terminology was adopted by the
International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP).
Evolutionary Power Reactor (EPR)--New design of pressurized water
nuclear reactor which uses high-pressure water to transfer energy to a
second low-pressure water loop. This secondary water is converted to
high-pressure steam which then drives the turbines.
External dose--That portion of the dose equivalent received from
radiation sources outside the body.
High-level radioactive waste--The highly radioactive material
resulting from the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, including liquid
waste produced directly in reprocessing and any solid material derived
from such liquid waste that contains fission products in sufficient
concentrations; and other highly radioactive material that the NRC,
consistent with existing law, determines by rule requires permanent
isolation.
Internal dose--That portion of the dose equivalent received from
radioactive material taken into the body.
International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP)--The
independent, international advisory body that develops the
international system of radiological protection as a common basis for
standards, legislation, guidelines, programs and practices.
Recommendations of the ICRP are not legally binding but are typically
given strong consideration by individual countries as representing the
state-of-the-art in radiation protection.
Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL)--The highest level of a contaminant
that EPA allows in drinking water.
Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel--Fuel fabricated from mixed uranium and
plutonium oxide, which may be used in reactors.
Non-stochastic effects--Health effects, the severity of which
varies with the dose and for which a threshold is believed to exist.
Non-stochastic effects generally result from the receipt of a
relatively high dose over a short time period. Also called
deterministic effects.
Oxidation, REduction of enriched OXide (OREOX) process--Fuel
reprocessing technology which generates a mixed oxide fuel from spent
nuclear fuel assemblies.
Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR)--A type of light-water reactor
which uses high pressure water to transfer energy to a second low
pressure water loop. This secondary water is converted to high-pressure
steam which then drives the turbines.
Radionuclide Release Limits--In the context of this ANPR, the
specific radionuclide release limits established under 40 CFR
190.10(b). These are the legally permissible maximum amounts of
krypton-85, iodine-129, as well as plutonium-239 and other alpha
emitters that can enter the environment from the processes of nuclear
power operations in any given year, on an energy production basis.
Radiation effects--Health consequences from exposure to radiation.
The effects may be either deterministic or stochastic.
[[Page 6511]]
Radiation risk--The probability or chance that a particular health
effect will occur per unit dose of radiation.
Rem--The traditional unit of effective dose. It is the product of
the tissue-weighted absorbed dose in rads and a radiation weighting
factor, WR, which accounts for the effectiveness of the
radiation to cause biological damage; 1 rem = 0.01 Sv.
Sievert (Sv)--The sievert is the International System of Units (SI)
term for the unit of effective dose and equivalent dose; 1 Sv = 1
joule/kilogram.
Spent nuclear fuel reprocessing--The initial separation of spent
nuclear fuel into its constituent parts.
Spent nuclear fuel reprocessing facility--A building or complex of
buildings where spent nuclear fuel reprocessing and other processes
take place.
Spent nuclear fuel storage--The storage of spent nuclear fuel from
nuclear fuel cycle and power operations. Storage can include the
temporary holding of spent nuclear fuel after it has been removed from
the nuclear reactor, up to and including any storage of spent nuclear
fuel prior to final disposal. On-site storage at a nuclear power plant
may include the spent nuclear fuel pools, where the spent nuclear fuel
is held immediately after removal from the reactor for several years of
initial cooling, as well as subsequent storage, for example, in large
concrete and metal dry storage casks and vaults. This term would also
apply to storage at any potential facility designed for the storage of
spent nuclear fuel prior to its final disposition.
Stochastic effect (of radiation)--Malignant disease and heritable
effects for which the probability of an effect occurring, but not its
severity, is assumed to be a function of dose without threshold as a
conservative planning base.
TED (total effective dose)--The sum of the effective dose (for
external exposures) and the committed effective dose (for internal
exposures).
Underground Source of Drinking Water (USDW)--An aquifer or part of
an aquifer which (a) supplies any public water system or contains a
sufficient quantity of ground water to supply a public water system and
currently supplies drinking water for human consumption or contains
fewer than 10,000 milligrams/liter of Total Dissolved Solids (TDS); and
(b) is not an exempted aquifer (see 40 CFR 144.3 for a complete
definition).
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. What is the basis for the existing standards? How do the
standards apply and what do they require?
1. Statutory Authority
2. History of the Standards
3. Scope and Content of the Standards
4. Technical Basis for the Standards
B. Why is the Agency considering updating/revising the
standards?
1. What has changed and why could these changes be important?
2. Guiding principles for review of existing standards
C. What is the purpose of this ANPR and how will the Agency use
the information?
D. How can the public comment on the ANPR and get additional
information?
II. Issues for Public Comment
A. Issue 1: Consideration of a Risk Limit To Protect Individuals
Should the Agency express its limits for the purpose of this
regulation in terms of radiation risk or radiation dose?
B. Issue 2: Updated Dose Methodology (Dosimetry)
How should the Agency update the radiation dosimetry methodology
incorporated in the standard?
C. Issue 3: Radionuclide Release Limits
Should the Agency retain the radionuclide release limits in an
updated rule and, if so, what should the Agency use as the basis for
any release limits?
D. Issue 4: Water Resource Protection
How should a revised rule protect water resources?
E. Issue 5: Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste
Storage
How, if at all, should a revised rule explicitly address storage
of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste?
F. Issue 6: New Nuclear Technologies
What new technologies and practices have developed since 40 CFR
part 190 was issued, and how should any revised rule address these
advances and changes?
G. Other Possible Issues for Comment
III. What will we do with this information?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
A. What is the basis for the existing standards? How do the standards
apply and what do they require?
1. Statutory Authority
Section 161(b) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA) authorized
the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) to ``establish by rule, regulation,
or order, such standards and instructions to govern the possession and
use of special nuclear material, source material, and byproduct
material as the Commission may deem necessary or desirable to promote
the common defense and security or to protect health or to minimize
danger to life or property[.]'' 42 U.S.C. 2201(b) (1958). In
Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, President Nixon transferred to EPA
``[t]he functions of the Atomic Energy Commission under the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended, . . . to the extent that such functions
of the Commission consist of establishing generally applicable
environmental standards for the protection of the general environment
from radioactive material.'' Sec. 2(a)(6), 35 FR 15623, 15624 (Oct. 6,
1970) (``Reorganization Plan''). The Reorganization Plan defined
``standards'' to mean ``limits on radiation exposures or levels, or
concentrations or quantities of radioactive material, in the general
environment outside the boundaries of locations under the control of
persons possessing or using radioactive material.'' Id. This
transferred to EPA the portion of the AEC's authority under AEA section
161(b) that ``consist[ed] of establishing generally applicable
environmental standards for the protection of the general environment
from radioactive material.'' Reorganization Plan Sec. 2(a)(6); Quivira
Mining v. U.S. Envt'l Prot. Agency, 728 F.2d 477, 480 (10th Cir. 1984)
(recognizing that the Reorganization Plan transferred to EPA certain
AEA functions under AEA Sec. 161(b)). Relying on this authority, EPA
promulgated standards in 1977 to protect the public from exposure to
radiation from the uranium fuel cycle at 40 CFR part 190,
``Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power
Operations.''
2. History of the Standards
On May 10, 1974, the Agency published an advance notice of its
intent to propose standards under this authority for the uranium fuel
cycle and invited public participation in the formulation of this
proposed rule (39 FR 16906). On May 29, 1975, EPA proposed regulations
setting forth such standards (40 FR 23420). The Agency promulgated the
environmental radiation standards in final form in 1977 (42 FR 2860,
January 13, 1977). The standards specify the levels of public exposure
and environmental releases below which normal operations of the uranium
fuel cycle are determined to be environmentally acceptable. These
standards have not been revised since their initial publication.
3. Scope and Content of the Standards
The existing standards apply to nuclear power operations, which are
those operations defined to be associated with the normal production of
electrical power for public use by any nuclear fuel cycle through
utilization of nuclear energy. In 1977, the only nuclear fuel cycle in
production within the U.S. was the uranium fuel cycle;
[[Page 6512]]
thus, EPA developed specific standards for this industry. The uranium
fuel cycle is defined as the operations of milling of uranium ore,
chemical conversion of uranium, isotopic enrichment of uranium,
fabrication of uranium fuel, generation of electricity by a light-
water-cooled nuclear power plant using uranium fuel, and reprocessing
of spent uranium fuel to the extent that these directly support the
production of electrical power for public use utilizing nuclear energy,
but excludes mining operations, operations at waste disposal sites,
transportation of any radioactive material in support of these
operations, and the reuse of recovered non-uranium special nuclear and
by-product materials from the cycle. (Commercial reprocessing has not
occurred within the U.S. since the publication of the existing
standards.) The Agency has developed some supporting information to
help the public further understand the uranium fuel cycle which is
located on the Agency's Web site for this rulemaking at www.epa.gov/radiation/laws/190. The existing standards do not address two other
aspects of nuclear power production: The disposal of radioactive waste
and the decommissioning of facilities.
The regulation contains two main provisions: A dose limit to
members of the public, and a radionuclide release limit to the
environment. The provision specified in 40 CFR 190.10(a) limits the
annual dose to any member of the public from exposures to planned
releases from uranium fuel cycle facilities to 25 millirem (mrem) to
the whole body, 75 mrem to the thyroid, and 25 mrem to any other organ.
Additionally, the provision specified in 40 CFR 190.10(b) limits the
total quantity of radioactive material releases for the entire uranium
fuel cycle, per gigawatt-year of electrical energy produced, to less
than 50,000 curies of krypton-85, 5 millicuries of iodine-129 and 0.5
millicuries combined of plutonium-239 and other alpha-emitting
transuranic radionuclides with half-lives greater than one year.
4. Technical Basis for the Standards
The document Environmental Radiation Protection Requirements for
Normal Operations of Activities in the Uranium Fuel Cycle: Final
Environmental Statement (FES) (EPA Publication no. 520/4-76-016, 1976)
provided the basis for developing 40 CFR part 190. This document states
that at that time there were three fuels available for commercial
nuclear power: Uranium-235, uranium-233 and plutonium-239. The first of
these materials occurs naturally and the last two occur as products
and/or by-products in uranium-fueled reactors (uranium-233 is the
product of neutron irradiation of thorium-232). In the United States,
the early development of technology for the nuclear generation of
electric power focused around the light-water-cooled nuclear reactor
(LWR), which utilizes uranium-235 fuel. For this reason, the standards
considered only the use of enriched uranium-235 as fuel for the
generation of electricity.
Additionally, the EPA projected that well over 300,000 megawatts
(300 gigawatts) of nuclear electric generating capacity would exist
within the next twenty years.\1\ The part of the standards that pertain
to the end of the fuel cycle relied on two assumptions: The
availability of commercial nuclear reprocessing and the existence of a
repository for final disposition for spent nuclear fuel and high-level
radioactive wastes. The FES and supporting technical studies, which
form the basis for the 40 CFR part 190 standards, include calculations
of projected releases into the environment based on estimates of the
growth of the nuclear industry. None of these assumptions has
materialized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The total current U.S. generating capacity is approximately
101 gigawatts for 2010 based on data provided by U.S. Energy
Information Administration: www.eia.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/nuc_generation/gensum.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Why is the Agency considering updating/revising the standards?
1. What has changed and why could these changes be important?
The standards developed under 40 CFR part 190 were never intended
to be static. The 1975 proposal (40 FR 23420, May 29, 1975) stated:
``it is the intent of the Agency to maintain a continuing review of the
appropriateness of these environmental radiation standards and to
formally review them at least every five years and to revise them, if
necessary, on the basis of information that develops in the interval.''
However, given the relatively limited change in the nuclear power
industry in the intervening decades, we continued to believe that these
standards remained protective of public health and the environment so
we did not consider it necessary to update the standards. Nonetheless,
we recognize that they do not reflect the most recent scientific
information, and that this may be an opportune time to conduct a
thorough review of their continued applicability. Therefore, the EPA is
issuing this ANPR at this time for a number of reasons, including:
Projected Growth of Nuclear Power. Growing concern about
greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels has led to renewed interest
in nuclear power. Nuclear energy emits very low levels of greenhouse
gases, and unlike solar and wind power, provides a proven source of
electricity capable of supplying a base-load that is not subject to
varying weather conditions. The nuclear industry anticipates a demand
for construction of several new nuclear power plants in the next 10
years. Increased demand would likely result in the construction and
start-up of any additional facilities to support the fuel cycle for
LWRs. Other parts of the fuel cycle are experiencing growth as well.
For example, new uranium enrichment facilities are coming on line, such
as the facility in Eunice, New Mexico by Louisiana Enrichment Services
(Urenco USA). The facility was licensed by the NRC in 2006, began
operations in 2010, and is an indication of the industry's improved
outlook. The licensing and operation of spent nuclear fuel reprocessing
facilities are not expected in the near future.
Advances in Radiation Protection and Dosimetry Science.
National and international guidance on radiation protection have had
three significant revisions since 40 CFR part 190 was issued. In the
1980s, the organ dose-based system used in 40 CFR part 190 was replaced
with a system that integrated organ doses into a single expression of
dose, which employed mortality risk-based weighting factors such that
the dose term was a surrogate for risk (International Commission on
Radiological Protection (ICRP) Publications 26 and 30). This new
approach allowed the use of one dose limit for all radionuclides taken
into the body, as well as for external exposures. Individual dose
factors were established for all radionuclides and weighting factors
for various organs were risk-based. Numerous regulations used this
methodology, including NRC's 10 CFR part 20, and EPA's 40 CFR part 61
radionuclide emission standards. In addition, this methodology was used
in EPA's internal and external dose factors in Federal Guidance Report
Nos. 11 and 12. In the 1990s, ICRP improved the dosimetry models for
ingestion and inhalation, expanded the number of organ-specific
weighting factors and revised them to be based on new mortality and
morbidity data. The risk factors in EPA Federal Guidance Report No. 13
were based on this new dosimetry. In 2007, ICRP 103 was issued and the
associated dosimetry is under development. In addition to improved
[[Page 6513]]
intake data and models, ICRP also addressed age- and gender-specific
elements in the models. This information will be the basis for revising
existing Federal Guidance Reports, which include radionuclide specific
dose and risk factors.
Advances in Radiation Risk Science. Advances in radiation
risk science since 1977 have led to a better understanding of the
health risks from ionizing radiation in general, as well as from
specific radionuclides. Improved tools and methods for calculating
radiation exposure have also become available. These advancements make
more sophisticated radiological risk assessments possible. The Agency
intends to review this standard to ensure its continued protectiveness
in light of these advances. The Agency believes that the science used
for the regulation is out of date and should be updated.
On-site Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel. The 1977 standards
were based on the assumption that most spent nuclear fuel would be
reprocessed following short-term storage on-site and that the U.S.
would have a national repository for permanent disposal of high-level
radioactive wastes and any remaining spent nuclear fuel in a time frame
that would eliminate the need for longer-term storage. However, spent
nuclear fuel currently is held at nuclear power plants in spent nuclear
fuel storage casks or in storage pools as the U.S. determines a long-
term disposal solution. Increased interest in nuclear power has also
raised the prospect of commercial reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel.
Nevertheless, near-term projections indicate that spent nuclear fuel
could remain on site at the power plants during the operational life of
existing nuclear power plants and into (or beyond) the decommissioning
phase. The President's Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear
Future has also identified this as an issue, especially for
decommissioned facilities.
Extension of Nuclear Reactor Licenses. Many of the nuclear
reactors in the U.S. were built in the 1960s and 1970s. These reactors
either are approaching their initial 40-year operational license limit,
or they have exceeded this time period and continue to operate under
license renewals. Regardless of the age of the reactor (or other
facility), any U.S. reactor would still need to meet the EPA standards.
Ground Water. Ground water contamination has been
identified at a number of nuclear power plants and nuclear fuel cycle
facilities. The existing standard contains release limits that were
intended to address the issue of long-lived radionuclides in the
environment. However, the rule was developed under the assumption that
air was the primary exposure pathway, and in contrast to more recent
EPA radiation standards, it does not include a separate provision for
protecting ground water outside facility boundaries that could be a
current or future source of drinking water. The Agency is considering
whether, and if so, how to develop a ground water provision.
2. Guiding Principles for Review of the Existing Standards
This review of the existing standards has two key principles. The
first is that a thorough assessment of the potential impact on public
health should be based on an up-to-date consensus of currently
available scientific knowledge. The second is that careful
consideration should be given to the cost and effectiveness of measures
available to reduce or eliminate radioactive releases to the
environment. In the development of the existing standards, the Agency
found it necessary to ``balance the health risks associated with any
level of exposure against the costs of achieving that level'' (39 FR
16906, May 10, 1974). The standard-setting method conducted in the
current standards has been ``best characterized as cost-effective
health risk minimization'' (Final Environmental Statement, 1976, Vol.
1, p. 28). As the Agency considers these principles, we are committed
to ensuring that any revision is based on current science to the extent
practicable and remains protective of public health and the environment
while seeking alternative ways (methodologies), within the Agency's
authorities, to limit public exposure. The Agency may revise several of
the technical criteria used as a basis for the existing regulation or
add new criteria to the regulation.
C. What is the purpose of this ANPR and how will the Agency use the
information?
This Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is being published to
inform stakeholders, including federal and state entities, the nuclear
industry, the public and any interested groups, that the Agency is
reviewing the existing standards to determine how the standards should
be updated. As noted earlier, EPA believes the existing standards
remain protective of public health and the environment; however, the
Agency also believes that the changes mentioned above are sufficient to
warrant a review of the standards and solicit public input on possible
updates. EPA has identified six broad topics that it believes capture
the issues of most importance for a review of the existing standards.
The Agency is requesting public comment on these specific topics;
however, members of the public are welcome to comment on other aspects
related to the nuclear fuel cycle that they believe EPA should
consider.
If the Agency decides to revise the existing standards, then the
Agency would follow the procedures outlined in the AEA and the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and publish a proposed rule in the
Federal Register. Comments received on the ANPR will inform the
development of a proposed rule and be used by the Agency to provide a
clearer understanding of science, technology and other concerns and
perspectives of stakeholders. The Agency will not respond directly to
comments submitted on this ANPR. However, the public would have the
opportunity to submit written comments on any proposed rule that might
be developed.
D. How can the public comment on the ANPR and get additional
information?
The Agency welcomes comments on this ANPR as it reviews the
existing standards. EPA has set up a Web site for the public to access
the most up-to-date information regarding our review of these
standards. This site contains detailed information related to this rule
and any potential revision, including: a copy of the existing
standards, copies of the Final Environmental Statements and the
Supplemental Environmental Statement on which the existing standards
are based, as well as related fact sheets.
EPA plans to conduct public webinars to discuss specific issues on
which the Agency is seeking comment. Dates, times and presentation
materials for the webinars will be available on the Web site at:
www.epa.gov/radiation/laws/190.
II. Issues for Public Comment
A. Issue 1--Consideration of a Risk Limit To Protect Individuals.
Should the Agency express its limits for the purpose of this regulation
in terms of radiation risk or radiation dose?
1. Why is this issue important?
The purpose of the 40 CFR part 190 environmental standards is to
protect human health and the environment. Although the current
compliance metric for worldwide radiation standards is, and
traditionally has been, either radiation dose or some measurable
concentration or activity level, the Agency desires feedback to
determine the feasibility of expressing its limits for
[[Page 6514]]
the purpose of this regulation in terms of radiation risk.
Conformance with regulatory public dose limits has traditionally
been demonstrated through modeling calculations and subsequent
personal, environmental or emissions monitoring. Compliance with a
risk-based standard would be accomplished in a similar manner and the
limits would be expressed as the maximum risk that could be allowed to
the receptor from radiation exposures at any given facility under
regulatory control.
2. What concepts are important to understanding this issue?
The primary concern from radiation exposure at the levels relevant
for non-emergency situations is the increased risk of cancer. Two forms
of radiation exposure, internal and external exposure, can occur
depending upon the location of the source relative to the receptor.
Internal exposures occur when a person inhales or ingests contaminated
air, food, water or soil. External exposures occur because a person is
near sources of radioactivity which are emitting penetrating radiation,
such as x-rays, gamma rays, beta particles or neutrons. It should be
noted that since the rule limits itself to the uranium fuel cycle,
sources of radiation from machines, such as x-ray units and particle
accelerators, are not covered by EPA standards. The term ``radiation
dose,'' as used in dose standards, is a risk-weighted measure derived
from the physical quantity of absorbed dose to an organ or tissue. As
defined in this ANPR, ``radiation risk'' is the probability of an
individual incurring a particular health effect per dose of radiation.
Both dose and risk are commonly expressed over a lifetime or annualized
depending on regulatory implementation.
3. What does 40 CFR part 190 say and what is basis of the existing
standards?
The existing standards have two components limiting exposures to
the public. The first is a dose limit to members of the public, while
the second is a limit on the quantity released of certain radionuclides
or forms of radioactivity into the environment. The provision specified
in 40 CFR 190.10(a) limits the annual dose to any member of the public
from exposures to planned releases from uranium fuel cycle facilities
to 25 mrem to the whole body, 75 mrem to the thyroid and 25 mrem to any
other organ. The provision specified in 40 CFR 190.10(b) limits the
total quantity of radioactive material releases for the entire uranium
fuel cycle, per gigawatt-year of electrical energy produced, to less
than 50,000 curies of krypton-85, 5 millicuries of iodine-129 and 0.5
millicuries combined of plutonium-239 and other alpha-emitting
transuranic radionuclides with half-lives greater than one year. Though
views of risks have changed since 1977, the limits in 40 CFR 190.10(a)
and (b) have as a basis a consideration of acceptable risk which served
as a guide in developing the limits.
4. What Agency and national policies and approaches could be relevant?
EPA considers risk in establishing standards and requirements
across programs and environmental media. Consistent with this practice,
the Agency has stated radiation-specific standards for protection of
individuals in terms of dose, based on the underlying risk level.
If the Agency should decide to retain a dose standard in 40 CFR
part 190, that standard would be related to a level of health risk. In
some cases, standards are expressed in terms of environmental flux
(release rate) or concentration of radionuclides in the environment,
but are also related to health impacts.
EPA has heard from some stakeholders that a standard expressed as a
level of risk could be more understandable for those less familiar with
radiation science, as it would more clearly state the health outcome
that the Agency views as acceptable. EPA believes it would also assist
commenters in evaluating the merits of a risk standard if the Agency
referred to the reasoning employed by the National Research Council/
National Academy of Sciences (the NAS committee) in its 1995 report,
Technical Bases for Yucca Mountain Standards. The NAS committee
recommended that EPA adopt a standard expressed as risk for two
reasons. First, a risk standard is advantageous relative to a dose-
based standard because it represents a societal judgment regarding
health impacts and therefore ``would not have to be revised in
subsequent rulemakings if advances in scientific knowledge reveal that
the dose-response relationship is different from that envisaged
today.'' Second, a standard in the form of risk more readily enables
the public to comprehend and compare the standard with human-health
risks from other sources (Technical Bases for Yucca Mountain Standards,
1995, 64-65).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ A different NAS committee expressed similar views in a 2002
report, The Disposition Dilemma, pp. 33-34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. How would a risk standard compare to a dose standard?
Planned or routine releases of radionuclides from nuclear fuel
cycle facilities represent low-level ionizing radiation exposures to
the public. As such, these non-emergency releases represent a potential
increased risk of cancer to the public. Once an acceptable level of
protection is identified, it may be translated to a release rate, as
radionuclide concentrations in specific media, or another measurable
unit, which can then serve as a regulatory limit expressed over time.
Alternatively, site-specific modeling may be employed, based on
measured releases, to calculate a dose or risk for comparison to the
regulatory standard. This general approach to implementation would be
used whether the standard is expressed in terms of risk or dose. As
noted earlier, the compliance metric for radiation standards has more
traditionally been either radiation dose or some measurable
concentration or activity level.
Both calculated doses and risks from radiation exposure differ
depending on the specific radionuclides involved, as well as the
pathways of exposure. The same activity level received by an exposed
individual from different radionuclides or through different pathways
leads to a different dose and carries different risks. If someone is
exposed to multiple radionuclides, the risk of adverse health effects
is determined by summing the risks from each radionuclide involved in
the exposure. The primary technical difference between a risk standard
and a dose standard is that the relationship between risk and dose has
varied over time.\3\ Should this trend continue, there is the potential
for a dose standard to diverge over time from its original underlying
risk level. In contrast, a risk standard represents a constant level of
risk, regardless of the type of facility, mix of radionuclides or
changes in the underlying science involved in estimating the risk.
Because it directly states the expectation for health outcome rather
than relying on an overall correlation, it would typically not require
an update, unless there are changes in what society deems an acceptable
risk. If the standard were implemented by rule using measurable
quantities such as effluent limits, however, these criteria would need
to be updated, as they would be if a dose
[[Page 6515]]
standard changes. We are interested in stakeholder views on how this
updating process might differ for a risk or dose standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ For example, the estimated risk of fatal cancer per rem of
exposure increased in each of our three rulemakings for high-level
radioactive waste (1985, 1993, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although our experience is that the risk per unit dose has
generally increased over the years, the possibility also exists that
further research may show that cancer risks are overestimated for a
given dose or for certain radionuclides or exposure pathways. Another
aspect to consider when assessing whether a risk standard would be
appropriate is whether cancer morbidity (incidence) or cancer mortality
(fatality) should be used as the basis for establishing any risk
standard. While EPA often relies upon morbidity information for
chemical carcinogens, the Agency has used mortality data as the basis
of both its standards for disposal of transuranic and high-level
radioactive wastes (40 CFR part 191) and the Yucca Mountain standards
(40 CFR part 197). One factor to consider is that there appears to be
increasing divergence between morbidity and mortality; in other words,
estimates of cancer incidence from exposure to radiation continue to
increase, but cancer fatality has grown at a slower rate or been
reduced (EPA Radiogenic Cancer Risk Models and Projections for the U.S.
Population, 2011). As a result, the Agency will take comment on whether
morbidity data or mortality data, or a combination, would be more
appropriate for the establishment of a potential risk standard.
Although a risk standard, like a dose standard, would generally be
implemented through modeling and the derivation of measurable
quantities, the Agency is also aware that there may be some challenges
specific to a risk standard, especially given that the regulatory
system is based on dose, which is far more familiar to the radiation
protection community and industry practice. If a standard were
developed in the form of a risk level that was not to be exceeded, then
any meaningful discussion on implementation would need to address how
the risk would be translated into measurable quantities such as an
effluent release rate into the environment, a concentration in
environmental media, an intake by an individual or external radiation
exposure at specific locations or to specific persons. As is the case
with the current dose standard, proof of compliance would most likely
rely heavily on the use of modeling results coupled with effluent data.
Any accepted modeling use would need to be either detailed within the
standard, or detailed by the implementing federal agency, possibly
through development of subsequent regulations.
As discussed earlier, the Agency recognizes that different
radionuclides contribute to potential exposures. EPA further recognizes
that different radionuclides are predominant at the different types of
facilities within the nuclear fuel cycle. If the Agency were to move
toward a risk standard, the Agency would conduct an analysis of the
dose-risk relationship at the different types of facilities. What
issues would the Agency need to consider with the implementation of a
risk standard at the different facilities? For example, would the
radionuclides of most concern for a given fuel cycle facility have
different risk implications for different fuel cycle facilities? Could
NRC implement a risk standard by establishing a corresponding dose
limit that it determines would keep risks under the risk standard?
While the Agency has not determined whether the technical merits or
costs associated with developing a risk standard warrant a change from
the traditional dose limits, the Agency believes it is reasonable to
take comment at this time on how a potential risk limit may be
implemented. Such a discussion could also inform the consideration of
costs of implementing a risk standard.
EPA also notes that both national and international radiation
protection guidelines developed by bodies of non-governmental radiation
experts, such as the ICRP and the National Council on Radiation
Protection and Measurements (NCRP), generally recommend that radiation
standards be established in terms of dose. National and international
radiation standards, including the individual protection requirements
in 40 CFR part 191, ``Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for
Management and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level and
Transuranic Radioactive Waste'', are established almost solely in terms
of dose or concentration, not risk. Therefore, a risk standard would
not allow a convenient comparison with the numerous existing dose
guidelines and standards, nor with other sources of radiation exposure,
but it would more readily allow comparisons to other EPA risk
management decisions for chemicals.
Lastly, it is important to note the potential costs that could be
associated with moving from a dose standard to a risk standard. At the
time of publication of this ANPR, the Agency has no information
regarding potential costs to the regulated community. The Agency is
seeking any data that are available on these potential costs.
6. Questions for Public Comment
As the Agency considers the issue of establishing a standard
expressed in terms of risk, we believe it to be appropriate to better
understand the merits of this approach. The industry currently uses a
dose limit, and the Agency is seeking information on how the industry
would be affected by this change.
Consequently, the Agency is seeking input on the following
questions:
a. Should the Agency express its limit for the purpose of this
regulation in terms of radiation risk or radiation dose?
b. Should the Agency base any risk standard on cancer morbidity or
cancer mortality? What would be the advantages or disadvantages of
each?
c. How might implementation of a risk limit be carried out? How
might a risk standard affect other federal regulations and guidance?
B. Issue 2--Updated Dose Methodology (Dosimetry). How should the Agency
update the radiation dosimetry methodology incorporated in the
standard?
1. Why is this issue important?
The dosimetry used for the existing standards is outdated. Since
the development of the existing dose standard, the methodology to
calculate radiation exposure has changed with scientific progress. The
existing standard has separate limits for exposure of the whole body
and exposure of specific organs. More recent dosimetry accounts for
both types of exposures in a single numerical value that provides more
consistency and allows easier comparison of radiation exposures,
regardless of whether they are internal or external, or whether they
are likely to affect single or multiple organs. Newer dosimetry
approaches also reflect a better understanding of the different
sensitivity of various organs and allow more sophisticated calculations
of the impacts to individuals and even to specialized groups (i.e.,
children, sensitive subpopulations).
2. What does the existing standard say? What is the technical basis?
The standard in 40 CFR 190.10(a) states: ``The annual dose
equivalent [must] not exceed 25 millirems to the whole body, 75
millirems to the thyroid, and 25 millirems to any other organ of any
member of the public as the result of exposures to planned discharges
of
[[Page 6516]]
radioactive materials, radon and its daughters excepted, to the general
environment from uranium fuel cycle operations and to radiation from
these operations.'' These limits were based on the Federal Radiation
Protection Guidance in existence at that time (26 FR 4402, May 18, 1960
and 26 FR 9057, September 26, 1961).
The federal guidance documents, in turn, were based on
recommendations of the ICRP, which provides expert guidance on dose
limits in view of the current understanding of dose-response
relationships for exposure to ionizing radiation. Many international
standards and national regulations addressing radiological protection
are based on or take into account the ICRP's recommendations. The
guidance in effect during the development of the proposed \4\
standards--ICRP Publication 2 (1959)--recommended dose limits aimed at
avoiding deterministic effects and limiting stochastic effects,
including leukemia and other cancers, as well as genetic effects. The
dose limitation system at that time was based on the concept of the
critical organ, defined as the organ or tissue most susceptible to
damage from radiation. Separate dose limits were set for different
groups of tissues, taking into account the potential for different
types of radiation to cause greater damage depending on the mode of
exposure. For example, alpha radiation poses less risk for external--or
whole body--exposure because it is easily shielded even by the skin,
but can cause greater damage to critical organs than other types of
radiation when inhaled or ingested. These concepts, underlying the ICRP
recommendations at the time, served as the basis of the existing dose
limits to members of the public in 40 CFR part 190.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ In the interim between publication of the proposed rule and
publication of the final 40 CFR part 190 standards, ICRP 26 was
finalized (adopted Jan 17, 1977). However sufficient time was not
available to incorporate the ICRP 26 findings, and the Agency went
forth with finalization of the proposed rule which was based on ICRP
2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. What has changed and how are those changes important?
Since the publication of the existing regulation, advancements have
been made in understanding radiation dosimetry. The ICRP updated its
recommendations to reflect a better understanding of the different
sensitivity of various organs and of the risks from different types of
radiation. Of primary importance is that the critical organ concept was
abandoned in favor of a new concept referred to as the effective dose
equivalent (ICRP Publication 26, 1977). This new concept, later renamed
effective dose (ICRP Publication 60, 1991), provides a single dose
indicator that accommodates different types of radiation as well as
different modes of exposure. The use of a unified dose facilitates
understanding and comparison of the radiation exposures, regardless of
whether they are internal or external, or whether they are likely to
affect single or multiple organs. Further studies since the 1977 rule
have also reinforced that some populations, such as pregnant women and
children, are more sensitive to radiation and have allowed more
specific calculations of risks to such groups. Such information is not
reflected in the dose limits--or their form--in the existing uranium
fuel cycle standards, which are based on the older ``critical organ''
system. Beyond the fact that the existing standards do not reflect the
most recent scientific understanding, the use of an outmoded system
also poses some compliance challenges. The models and methods to
predict the dispersion of radionuclides, the modes of exposure, and the
movement of radionuclides through the body (biokinetics) are more
advanced today than in the past. However, the most sophisticated models
are tailored to work with the more recent dosimetry systems and are not
always compatible to assess compliance with limits expressed in the
older systems. At the same time, the older models are less and less
supported. This means that compliance assessments for the existing dose
limit cannot take advantage of the best implementation tools. Thus, for
reasons both scientific and practical, we believe it is worthwhile to
consider how to update the dose methodology if the rule is revised.
4. What policies and approaches are relevant?
As noted above, EPA's dose limits take into account recommendations
of the ICRP, which has updated its guidance documents several times
since 40 CFR part 190 was issued. ICRP Publication 26 (1977) abandoned
the critical organ concept of ICRP Publication 2 in favor of a new
concept referred to as the effective dose equivalent (now called
effective dose). The effective dose is a weighted sum of tissue doses
intended to represent the same cancer risk from a non-uniform
irradiation of the body as that from uniform whole body irradiation.\5\
The effective dose concept has been used in all subsequent ICRP
publications to date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ In actuality, the weighting factors used to calculate
effective dose equivalent are not sufficiently precise to equate
risks for a given dose. The ``true'' risk is best calculated using
radionuclide-specific, pathway-specific analyses and absorbed dose
to an organ or whole body.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ICRP guidance was updated beyond ICRP 26 and expanded with ICRP
Publication 60 (1991), based on additional information on the
sensitivity of different tissues and organs in the body. ICRP 60 also
made it possible to develop age- and gender-specific dose estimates.
ICRP 60 has been widely implemented worldwide and serves as the basis
for EPA radiation dose standards, notably the amended Yucca Mountain
standards issued in 2008.
The Agency has explained its adoption of the effective dose concept
in previous rulemakings. In the Agency's 1989 Clean Air Act (CAA)
rulemaking establishing National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAPs) in 40 CFR part 61, Subpart I,\6\ EPA said the
following about effective dose equivalent (54 FR 51662, December 15,
1989):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Subpart I established standards for air emissions from NRC
licensees, including uranium fuel cycle facilities, and non-DOE
federal facilities not licensed by NRC. Subpart I was later
rescinded based on the Administrator's conclusion that NRC's
regulatory implementation protected public health with ``an ample
margin of safety'' (60 FR 46206, September 5, 1995, and 61 FR 68972,
December 30, 1996). Subpart I established standards for the air
pathway of 10 mrem/year EDE, with no more than 3 mrem/year EDE from
radioiodine.
Since 1985, when EPA proposed dose standards regulating NRC
licensees and DOE facilities, a different methodology for
calculating dose has come into widespread use, the effective dose
equivalent (EDE). In 1987, EPA, in recommending to the President new
guidance for workers occupationally exposed to radiation, accepted
this methodology for the regulation of risks from radiation. This
method, which was originally developed by the International
Commission on Radiological Protection, will be used by EPA in all
the dose standards promulgated in this ANPR. In the past, EPA dose
standards were specified in terms of limits for specific organ doses
and the `whole body dose', a methodology which is no longer
consistent with current practices of radiation protection.
The EDE is simple, is more closely related to risk, and is
recommended by the leading national and international advisory
bodies. By changing to this new methodology, EPA will be converting
to the commonly accepted international method for calculating dose.
This will make it easier for the regulated community to understand
and comply with our standards.
The EDE is the weighted sum of the doses to individual organs of
the body. The dose to each organ is weighted according to the risk
that dose represents. These organ doses are then added together, and
that total is the effective dose equivalent. In this manner, the
risk from different sources of radiation can be controlled by a
single standard.
[[Page 6517]]
This rulemaking (54 FR 51662) also noted that the EPA Science
Advisory Board (SAB) commented that ``EPA should use the effective dose
equivalent concept for regulations protecting people from exposure to
radiation.''
The latest update, in ICRP Publication 103 (2007), provided updated
radiation protection guidance, including new tissue weighting (i.e.,
sensitivity) factors, but left the primary radiation protection
guidance from 1991 virtually unchanged. ICRP 103 is the most recent
guidance but, as discussed in more detail below, has not been applied
in EPA regulations to date.
Other EPA policies are also relevant because, while the Agency
takes into account ICRP guidance, regulatory limits must reflect
additional factors. The ICRP recommended--in both Publication 60 and
Publication 103--that public exposures be limited to 100 mrem (0.001
Sv) per year. However, this applies in principle to all man-made
sources of radiation. In setting regulatory limits, we allow only a
fraction of 100 mrem from a single source, such as a uranium fuel cycle
facility. As discussed further in section II.A of this ANPR
(``Consideration of a Risk Limit to Protect Individuals''), the dose
limits used in our radiation regulations are based on an assessment of
the associated risks. In the past, based on ICRP 26, EPA radiation
policies and regulations have used 15 mrem/year as a dose limit that
aligns with the Agency's goals and corresponds to a limit of 25 mrem to
the whole body and 75 mrem to any organ under the obsolete dose
methodology for certain regulatory applications.\7\ The corresponding
dose under ICRP 103 has not been established. EPA is reviewing the
implications of ICRP 103 for our revised dose and risk estimates. EPA
will address the issue in a rulemaking if one is pursued.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See OSWER Directive 9200.4-18, EPA's Yucca Mountain
standards at 40 CFR part 197, and the preamble to the 1993 revision
of the 40 CFR part 191 standards [58 FR 66411, December 20, 1993].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It should be noted that the Agency does not have established
policies or guidance on the application of age- and gender-specific
dose calculations to determine compliance with a dose standard.\8\
However, we are considering the application of age- and gender-specific
dose calculations to determine compliance with the dose standard.
Whether expressed in terms of risk or dose, the standard must identify
the person(s) against whom compliance will be assessed. The standards
at 40 CFR part 190 currently specify that the dose standard applies to
``any member of the public.'' We have several other ``any member of the
public'' standards that specify the use of ICRP 26 dosimetry and an
associated concept, the ``reference man.'' Concerns have been raised
that the ``reference man'' concept, combined with the fact that neither
the ICRP 26 dosimetry nor the ICRP 2 methodology can provide age- and
gender-specific calculations, does not assure that children or other
vulnerable population segments are protected or adequately considered.
The models beginning with ICRP 60 are able to address different age and
gender cohorts, which allows the differing impact of radiation
exposures to be evaluated. More specifically, ICRP Publication 89
(2002) provides anatomical and physiological data for males and females
at ages newborn, 1 year, 5 years, 10 years, 15 years and adult that
allow for age- and gender-specific estimates of dose to be calculated
for these reference individuals. We note that, while the current
standard is presented as an annual dose, it is established at a level
that provides protection for an individual over a lifetime (i.e., at
all ages). Nevertheless, we are examining the issue to confirm