1. Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations
Update on the ANPR for 40 CFR Part 190
October 30, Presented by: Dan Schultheisz U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Radiation and Indoor Air Radiation Protection Division
Presented to: Low-Level Radioactive Waste Forum
Fall 2014 Meeting
Denver, CO

2. Overview of Presentation
Background
Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR)
Issues for Public Comment
Summary of Public Comments
Overview of comments on specific issues
Next Steps

3. Background (1 of 2)
40 CFR Part 190 establishes radiation protection standards for nuclear power operations
Applies only to electricity production from the uranium fuel cycle, defined to include
Uranium milling
Uranium conversion & enrichment
Uranium fuel fabrication
Production of electricity in nuclear power reactors
Reprocessing facilities
Transportation and disposal are not included in fuel cycle
Final Rule published Jan 13, 1977 (42 FR 2860)

4. Background (2 of 2)
40 CFR Part 190 contains two radiation protection standards:
Public Dose limits
Dose to any individual shall not exceed 25 mrem/yr whole body, 75 mrem/yr to thyroid, or 25 mrem/yr to any other organ
Based on ICRP 2 dosimetry (1950s era)
Radionuclide Release limits
Annual limits on total quantities of certain radionuclides released per Gigawatt electricity produced by fuel cycle
50,000 curies Kr-85
5 millicuries I-129
0.5 millicuries combined of Pu 239 & other alpha emitters
Primarily intended to address reprocessing

5. Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
EPA issued an ANPR on February 4, 2014
79 FR 6509
Initial comment period through June 4, 2014
Extended through August 4, 2014
EPA conducted 5 webinars on aspects of the ANPR
General overview (twice)
Use of a risk standard instead of a dose standard
Water resource protection
Radionuclide release limits
Presentations and recordings at

6. Summary of Public Comments
Good response to the ANPR
Over 24,000 comment submittals
Commenters included individuals, activist groups, government (federal and state), nuclear industry, academia
~98% were duplicates or form submittals
General opposition to relaxing the protection limits
Appear to be prompted by erroneous media reports
Comments can be viewed at regulations.gov
Docket EPA-HQ-OAR

7. Issues for Public Comment
General Question – How should the Agency update the requirements for radiation protection from nuclear power operations?
Specific Issues for Comment
Risk as the format for the individual protection standard
Dosimetry
Radionuclide release limits
Water resource protection
Spent fuel and high-level waste storage
New nuclear technologies

8. Interesting Themes (Non-Issue Specific)
Standards should be more/less stringent
EPA should not proceed with a rulemaking
Several industry commenters
Linear Non-Threshold (LNT) is/is not a sound basis for estimating health effects
Relevant to the risk/dose issue
Apparent confusion with Protective Action Guides
PAG levels are not operational regulatory standards
Consider comparable/greater risks from coal
Consistent regulation for all hazards

9. Issue 1 – Risk or Dose Standard
Should the Agency express its limits for the purpose of this regulation in terms of radiation risk or radiation dose?
This issue drew the most comment
Support for both options from industry and activists
EPA should recognize limited risk at low doses
Support for both morbidity and mortality as risk basis
Morbidity – consider “quality of life” issues
Mortality – better data, consistent regulation, lower uncertainty
Industry expressed concern about implementation
Procedures, licenses, policies, training, software, etc.

10. Issue 2 – Updated Dose Methodology
How should the Agency update the radiation dosimetry methodology incorporated in the standard?
General support for most recent science/methods
Continued support for organ-specific doses, primarily from activists/individuals
Effective dose does not adequately limit organ doses
Iodine may be the prime example (thyroid)
No matter the method, protect the most vulnerable
Necessary information to implement ICRP 103 should be available (e.g., FGR-13 updates)
Specifying the method is not really necessary (rely on NRC)

11. 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?
No support for the limits in their current form, but no consensus on how to modify. Suggestions include:
Individual dose standard alone is adequately protective
Limits should be retained on a facility-specific basis
Some view limits as preventing reprocessing
Some continued support for a collective dose approach
Limit on Krypton-85 should be removed
Limits on tritium and Carbon-14 should be added
These were considered in the original rulemaking

12. Issue 4 – Water Resource Protection
How should a revised rule protect water resources?
This issue received the second most comments
Support for and against separate standards
Need to protect all water sources cited
Others point to existing efforts as adequate
Industry voluntary programs
NRC taking steps to identify and control the problem
All-pathways individual standard is sufficiently protective
Differing views on the basis for any new standards
MCLs appropriate and consistent with EPA policies
MCLs are outdated and inconsistent level of protection

13. Issue 5 – Spent Fuel/High-Level Waste Storage
How, if at all, should a revised rule explicitly address storage of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste?
Very few comments on this issue
Majority see no changes needed
NRC requirements sufficient to address extended storage
Some commenters wanted time limits on pool storage or requirements for dry cask storage
Some see need for clarification of coverage between 40 CFR parts 190 and 191
Specify that dose standards are not additive for reactor sites that store spent fuel

14. Issue 6 – New Nuclear Technologies
What new technologies and practices have developed since Part 190 was issued, and how should any revised rule address these advances and changes?
This issue received the least comment
No support for changes at this time
U.S. is not pursuing thorium fuel cycle
Small modular reactors do not need special standards
New/revised standards may be warranted if reprocessing becomes more likely

15. Next Steps Continue review/analysis of comments
Prepare summary of comments for public release
Identify issues for follow-up analysis
Technical/economic/policy studies
Interactions with Science Advisory Board
Determine direction/scope of rulemaking activity
For more information, contact
Brian Littleton, EPA Radiation Protection Division
(202)