Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations Update on the ANPR for 40 CFR Part 190 October 30, 2014 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

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

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)

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

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 http://www.epa.gov/radiation/laws/190

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-2013-0689

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

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

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.

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)

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

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

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

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

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 Littleton.brian@epa.gov (202) 343-9216