P. 1 

# PICK-UPDATE : 3/8/200 7 BO X 1 0 O F 1 0 Ste p 2 : FO R ASR C INTERNA LUS E ONL Y 

### (PARTAo

fB )



# EP ADOCKE TID : 102RQ-R N 1 ) INDE X 3 ) 102RQ-RN-1- 2 5 ) 102RQ-RN-1- 4 7 ) 102RQ-RN-1- 6 9 ) 102RQ-RN-3- 1 11 ) 102RQ-RN-3- 3 13) 102RQ-RN-2-1- 2 15) 102RQ-RN-2-1- 4 17) 102RQ-RN-2-2- 1 19 ) 102RQ-RN-2-3- 1 21 ) 102RQ-RN-2-4- 2 23 ) 102RQ-RN-2-4- 4 25 ) 102RQ-RN-2-4- 6 27 ) 102RQ-RN-2-4- 8 29 ) 102RQ-RN-2-4-1 0 31 ) 102RQ-RN-4- 2 33 ) 102RQ-RN-4- 4 35-XJ02RQ-RN-4- 6 ^ > 37 ) 102RQ-RN-4- 8 39 ) 102RQ-RN-5- 1 Ste p 3 : FOR ASR C INTERNA LUS E ONL Y CD : OA : / 

# 2 ) 102RQ-RN-1- 1 4 ) 102RQ-RN-1- 3 6 ) 102RQ-RN-1- 5 8 ) 102RQ-RN-1- 7 10) 102RQ-RN-3- 2 12 ) 102RQ-RN-2-1- 1 14) 102RQ-RN-2-1- 3 16) 102RQ-RN-2-1- 5 18) 102RQ-RN-2-2- 2 20 ) 102RQ-RN-2-4- 1 22 ) 102RQ-RN-2-4- 3 24 ) 102RQ-RN-2-4- 5 26 ) 102RQ-RN-2-4- 7 28 ) 102RQ-RN-2-4- 9 30 ) 102RQ-RN-4- 1 32 ) 102RQ-RN-4- 3 34 ) 102RQ-RN-4- 5 36 ) 102RQ-RN-4- 7 38 ) 102RQ-RN-4- 9 40 ) 102RQ-RN-5- 2

Ste p 1 : FOR ASR

C INTERNA LUS E ONL Y Ar e ther e more documents fo rthi s Docketi n anothe rbox ? *Fil l ou tContinuatio n Shee tan d go t o Ste p 2 Interna l SFUN D Bo

xNumbe r3 5 O F28 3 Initials/Date : LDS_/_3-8-200 7 YES / N OP. 2 

### /od-Zf-^' 1 

### '-**

ECONOMI C IMPAC TANALYSI S FO R TH E PROPOSE D REPORTABL E QUANTIT YADJUSTMENT S FO R RADIONUCLIDE S UNDE R SECTIO N 10 2 O F TH E COMPREHENSIV E ENVIRONMENTA L RESPONSE , COMPENSATION , AN D LIABILIT YAC T

ARepor tt o th e EMERGENC YRESPONS E DIVISIO N Offic e o fEmergenc yan d Remedia l Respons e U.S

. Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y

Prepare d b y IC F INCORPORATE D unde rsubcontrac tt o Combustio n Engineering , Inc

. EP AContrac t68-03-318 2

Decembe r198 6

IC FINCORPORATE D Internationa l Squar e 185 0 KStreet , Northwest , Washington , D

. C

. 2000 6P. 3 

# I I I I 

# 1 I I I I I 1 I 1 f 1 t I I t ECONOMI C IMPAC TANALYSI S FO R TH E PROPOSE D

REPORTABL E QUANTIT YADJUSTMENT S FO R RADIONUCLIDE S UNDE R SECTIO N 10 2 O F TH E COMPREHENSIV E ENVIRONMENTA L RESPONSE , COMPENSATION , AN D LIABILIT YAC T

ARepor tt o th e EMERGENC YRESPONS E DIVISIO N Offic e o fEmergenc yan d Remedia l Respons e U.S

. Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y

Prepare d b y IC F INCORPORATE D unde rsubcontrac tt o Combustio n Engineering , Inc

. EP AContrac t68-03-318 2

Decembe r198 6P. 4

TABL E O F CONTENT S Pag e CHAPTE R1 : BACKGROUN D AN D INTRODUCTIO

N1- 1 1. 1 Background o nCERCL Aan d R Q Notificatio nRequirement s 1- 1 1. 2 R Q Adjustment s fo r Radionuclide s 1- 2 1. 3 Organizatio no f Thi s Repor t 1- 4 CHAPTE R2 : ALTERNATIVE APPROACHE S CONSIDERE D FORADJUSTIN G RADIONUCLID E REPORTABL E QUANTITIE S 2- 1 2. 1 Establishmen t o f a Dose-Equivalen t Leve l a s th e Radionuclid e R Q 2- 2 2. 2 Th e Selecte d Approac h- - Setting RQ s i nTerm s o f Activit y Level s 2- 3 CHAPTE R3 : BASELINE REPORTABL E RELEASE S 3- 1 3. 1 Baselin e Definitio n3- 1 3. 2 Availabilit yDat a Set s fo r Estimating Radionuclid e Releases.. . 3- 3 3. 3 Estimatio no f Historica l Radionuclid e Release s 3- 5 3.3. 1 Tota l Numbe r o f Annua l Release s o f Radionuclide s 3- 7 3.3. 2 Frequenc yo f Releas e fo r a Particula r Radionuclid e ... . 3-1 4 3.3. 3 Siz e Distributio no f Release s 3-1 4 3. 4 Baselin e Reportabl e Releas e Estimatio n3-1 7 CHAPTE R4 : VALUATIONO F TH E EFFECT S O F TH E PROPOSE D R Q ADJUSTMENT S .. . 4- 1 4. 1 Action s Take nWit ha Reportabl e Releas e 4- 1 4.1. 1 Action s Undertake nB yth e Regulate d Communit y4- 1 4.1.2 . Action s Undertake nb yth e Governmen t 4- 2 4.1. 3 Incrementa l Action s Attributabl e t o th e Radionuclid e

R Q Adjustment s 4- 3 4. 2 Valuatio no f Cost s 4- 4 4.2. 1 Valu e o f Action s Performe d b yRegulate d Partie s 4- 4 4.2. 2 Valu e o f Action s Performe d b yth e Governmen t 4- 7 4. 3 Valuatio no f Benefit s 4-1 0 CHAPTE R5 : ESTIMATE D ANNUAL COST S O F TH E PROPOSE D R Q ADJUSTMENT S 5- 1 5. 1 Estimate d Chang e i nth e Numbe r o f Reportabl e Release s 5- 1 5. 2 Estimate d Cost s o f th e Propose d R Q Adjustment s 5- 2 5. 3 Firm-Leve l Economi c Effect s 5- 5P. 5

TABL EO FCONTENT S (continued ) Pag e CHAPTE R6 : ESTIMATE D BENEFIT S O F TH E PROPOSE D R Q ADJUSTMENT S 6- 1 CHAPTE R7 : SENSITIVITYANALYSI S 7- 1 7. 1 Concept s an

d KeyVariable s 7- 1 7. 2 Result s o f th e Sensitivit yAnalysi s 7- 3 7. 3 Statistica l Analysi s o f Radionuclid e Dat a Bas e 7- 5 7 . 4 Summary7- 6 APPENDI XA : PROFILE S O F FACILITIE S THAT RELEAS E RADIONUCLIDE S A- lP. 6

LIS TO F EXHIBIT S Pag e 3- 1 Radionuclid e Dat a Bas e Characteristic s 3- 6 3- 2 Profil e o f Release s i nNuclea r RegulatoryCommissio nAEOD Dat a Se t 3- 9 3- 3 Frequenc yo f Releas e fo r Radionuclide s i nDat a Bas e 3-1 5 3- 4 Siz e Distributio no f Radionuclid e Release s i nDat a Bas e 3-1 8 4- 1 Releas e Scenario s 4- 8 5- 1 Calculation s o f Annua l Cost s o f R Q Adjustment s Unde r th e Propose d Regulatio n5- 3 6- 1 Radionuclide s Wit hPropose d R Q Greate r Tha nOn e Poun d 6- 2 7- 1 Sensitivit yAnalysi s Result s 7- 4 A- l Facilitie s using o r Producing Radionuclide s A-l lP. 7

CHAPTE R1 BACKGROUN D AN D INTRODUCTIO N
Th e purpos e o f anEconomi c Impac t Analysi s (EIA ) i s t o estimat e th e incrementa l cost s an d benefit s resulting fro ma regulatoryaction . An y regulatio nrequiring behavio r change s wil l usuall yresul t i nsome element s o f societ ywhic hwil l benefi t fro mth e regulatio nan d some element s o f societ y whic hwil l incur costs . A nEI Aanalyze s thos e benefit s an d cost s an

d estimate s th e ne t gai no r ne t los s unde r th e propose d regulation . Thi s chapte r describe s th e genera l reporting requirement s unde r Section s 103(a ) an

d (b ) o f th e Comprehensiv e Environmenta l Response , Compensation , an d Liabilit yAc t (CERCLA ) an d describe s th e reporting requirement s fo r radionuclide s i nparticular . I t explain s th e purpos e o f th e propose d regulatio nan

d introduce s thi s repor t t o th e reader . Sectio n1. 1 describe s CERCLAreporting requirement s an d th e range s o f potentia l respons e activitie s triggere d b

yCERCL Areporting ; Sectio n1. 2 describe s the statutoryauthorit y fo r an d th e intende d purpos e o f th e R Q adjustmen t fo r radionuclides ; an d Sectio n1. 3 describe s th e remaining chapter s o f thi s report . 1. 1 BACKGROUN DO N CERCL A

AN DR Q NOTIFICATIO N REQUIREMENT S Th e Comprehensiv e Environmenta l Response , Compensation , an d Liabilit yAc t o f 198 0 (CERCLA ) establishe s broa d federa l authorit yt o respon d t o release s o r threat s o f release s o f hazardou s substance s fro mvessel s an

d facilities . Th e Ac t require s immediat e notificatio nt o th e Nationa l Respons e Cente r whe na hazardou s substanc e designate d unde r CERCLAi s release d int o th e environmen t i nanamoun t equa l t o o r greate r tha nth e reportabl e quantit y(RQ ) fo r tha t substance . Sectio n 101(14 ) o f CERCLAdefine s a s a CERCL Ahazardou s substanc e an y substanc e designate d under :

• Section s 30 7 an d 31 1 o f th e CleanWate r Act ;

• Sectio n300 1 o f th e Resourc e Conservatio nan d RecoveryAct ;

• Sectio n11 2 o f th e CleanAi r Act ; an d

• Sectio n7 o f th e Toxi c Substance s Contro l Act . I naddition , th e Environmenta l Protectio nAgenc y(EPA ) ha s th e authorit yunde r Sectio n10 2 o f CERCL At o designat e additiona l hazardou s substances . Currently , ther e ar e 71 7 CERCL Ahazardou s substances . Sectio n102(b ) o f th e statut e establishe s a one-pound R Q fo r eac ho f thes e substances , excep t thos e fo r whic hanR Q wa s establishe d pursuan t t o Sectio n31 1 o f th e Clea nWate rP. 8


# f 1- 2

Act . Sectio n102(a ) o f CERCL Aauthorize s EPAt o adjus t statutoryRQ s b y regulation. 1 Unde r regulation s implementing th e genera l reporting requirement s o f Section s 103(a ) an

d (b ) o f CERCLA , a perso ni ncharg e o f a vesse l o r facilit y i s require d t o notif yth e Nationa l Respons e Cente r immediatel ywhe nther e i s a releas e o f a designate d hazardou s substanc e i nanamoun t equa l t o o r exceeding the reportabl e quantit y(RQ ) fo r tha t substanc e (4 0 CFRSectio n302.6(a)) . Thos e person s require d t o notif ybu t wh o fai l t o repor t immediatel yt o th e Nationa l Respons e Cente r ar e subjec t t o crimina l penaltie s unde r CERCLA Sectio n103(b) . Release s tha t ar e federall ypermitte d ar e exemp t fro mth e Sectio n10 3 notificatio nrequirements . Th e purpos e o f R Q notificatio ni s t o aler t th e federa l governmen t t o release s o f hazardou s substance s tha t mayrequir e rapi d respons e t o protec t publi c healt han

d welfar e an

d th e environment . Unde r Sectio n10 4 o f CERCLA , th e federa l governmen t maytak e respons e actio nwheneve r ther e i s a releas e o r a substantia l threa t o f a releas e o f a hazardou s substanc e o r o f an ypollutan t o r contaminan t whic hmaypresen t animminen t an d substantia l dange r t o publi c healt ho r welfare. 2 Notificatio nbase d o nRQ s serve s t o infor mth e governmen t o f a release , thereb yenabling anevaluatio no f th e inciden t an d a timel yfiel d respons e shoul d on e b e deeme d necessary . Notificatio ndoe s no t necessaril ymea ntha t a federa l fiel d respons e wil l occur , no r doe s i t eliminat e liability ' o r responsibilit yfo r respons e cost s o r natura l resourc e damage s associate d wit hth e release . 

### 1. 2 R Q ADJUSTMENT S FO R RADIONUCLIDE S Ther e ar e approximatel y180 0 radionuclides . Aradionuclid e i s anelemen t wit hanunstabl e combinatio no f proton s an d neutron s i nit s nucleus . Instabilit yi s th e ne t effec t o f force s betwee nthes e tw o type s o f nuclea r particles . T o achiev e a mor e stabl e configuration , the nucleu s release s energ yi n th e for

mo f particle s o r ray s b ya proces s o f decaycalle d radioactivity . Eac hradionuclid e decay s a t a differen t rat e and , a s a result , a pound o f tw o differen t radionuclide s coul d represen t significantl ydifferen t level s o f radioactivity .

1 Th e RQ s fo r 34 0 hazardou s substance s wer e adjuste d b yEPAo nApri l 4 , 198 5 (5 0 F R13456) . R Q adjustment s fo r anadditiona l 10 2 substance s wer e establishe d i na fina l rul e publishe d Septembe r 29 , 198 6 (5 1 F R34534) . 2 Notificatio nt o th e Nationa l Respons e Cente r pursuan t t o CERCL A Sectio n10 3 i s limite d t o release s o f designate d hazardou s substance s i n amount s tha t equa l o r excee d th e applicabl e RQ . Release s consisting solel yo f pollutant s o r contaminant s tha t ar e no t designate d a s hazardou s substance s unde r CERCL

Anee d no t b e reporte d t o th e Nationa l Respons e Center .P. 9

1- 3

Radionuclide s ar e designate d a s hazardou s ai r pollutant s unde r Sectio n11 2 o f th e CleanAi r Ac t and , a s such , ar e designate d CERCL Ahazardou s substances . Sectio n10 2 o f CERCL Aestablishe s a one-pound R Q fo r radionuclides , a s a generi c clas s o f substances , bu t authorize s EP At o adjus t th e RQ b yregulatio n i f appropriate . EPArecognize s tha t anR Q o f on e pound fo r radionuclide s i s no t appropriat e i nmos t case s becaus e release s o f les s thanon e poun d may presen t a substantia l hazar d t o publi c healt han d welfar e an

d t o th e environment . I naddition , "pound " unit s fo r measuring radionuclide s ar e no t commonl yuse d fo r th e purpos e o f radiatio nprotection . Al l othe r CERCL

Ahazardou s substance s hav e RQ s i nunit s o f pounds , ranging fro mon e poun

d t o 500 0 pounds . Fo r thes e substances , th e principa l healt h concern s ar e chemica l toxicity , ignitability , reactivity , o r potentia l carcinogenicity , whic hmayb e relate d t o some numbe r o f pound s release d o f th e hazardou s substance . Radionuclide s ar e differen t i nthi s respec t fro mothe r CERCL Ahazardou s substances . Th e principa l healt hhazar d associate d wit h exposur e t o radionuclide s i s carcinogenicity , bu t th e hazar d i s relate d mor e closel yt o th e radioactivit yemitte d rathe r thanth e mas s o f th e substance . Althoughth e leve l o f radioactivit yi s directl yproportiona l t o th e mas s (i.e. , th e numbe r o f pounds ) o f the radionuclid e released , activit ylevel s ar e generall yuse d a s indicator s o f radiatio nhazard . Th e quantit yo f radioactivit yi s measure d i nunit s o f curies 3 (Ci ) and , fo r eac h radionuclide , th e same numbe r o f pound s translate s int o a differen t numbe r o f curies . Thus , th e statutoryone-pound R Q translate s int o a wid e rang e o f curie s fo r differen t radionuclides , covering twent yorder s o f magnitude . Beside s curies , anothe r widel yuse d radiatio nmeasuremen t i s th e Roentge n Equivalen t Ma n(rem). * Th e re mi s a uni t measur e o f radiatio ndos e an d i s ofte nexpresse d a s some numbe r o f re mt o a specifi c orga nsuc ha s th e lungs , thyroid , o r whol e body . Th e differenc e betwee ncurie s an d re mi s tha t th e latte r consider s th e route s o f exposur e an d biologica l effect s and , therefore , directl yreflect s th e level s o f tissu e damage . Curie s canb e converte d int o re mb yidentifying th e radionuclide , mod e an d duratio no f exposure , quantit y o f intake , tissue s mos t acutel yaffected , an d othe r factors . Th e nuclea r industrygenerall ywork s wit hunit s o f curie s an d re mand , i n fact , mos t existing reporting trigger s fo r radionuclid e release s ar e expresse d i nterm s o f on e o f thes e tw o units . I naddition , essentiall yal l existing regulation s an

d control s establishe d b yth e Nuclea r RegulatoryCommissio nan d th e Departmen t o f Energy , whic hgover na majo r portio no f th e nuclea r industry , ar e base d i nunit s o f curie s o r rem . Therefore , i norde r fo r th e R Q unde r CERCL At o b e consisten t an d meaningful , an

d t o ensur e tha t th e radionuclid e R Q

3 Th e curi e i s a measur e o f th e rat e o f radioactiv e decay , wit hon e curi e equa l t o 3. 7 x10 1 0 disintegration s pe r second . ^Radiatio n measurement s canals o b e expresse d i ninternationa l metri c unit s o f becquerel s o r sieverts , however , thes e term s ar e les s commo ni nth e Unite d States .P.1 0



### 1- 4

allow s fo r timel yreporting an d timel yfiel d response , i f necessary , th e statutoryone-pound R Q i s being adjuste d i na propose d regulation . Th e propose d RQ s ar e i nunit s o f curie s an d ar e no t uniformacros s al l radionuclides . Th e Agencyi s proposing t o divid e radionuclide s int o seve nR Q groups : 0.00 1 curie , 0.0 1 curie , 0. 1 curie , 1 curie , 1 0 curies , 10 0 curies , an d 100 0 curies . Th e Agencyi s proposing RQ s fo r 75 7 individua l radionuclide s fo r whic hther e ar e metaboli c dat a presente d i nth e Internationa l Commissio n o nRadiatio nProtectio n(ICRP ) Repor t Numbe r 30 . Th e Agenc yi s als o proposing anR Q fo r al l radionuclide s no t listed b yth e ICRP . Thes e othe r radionuclide s hav e a propose d R Q o f 1 curi e fo r th e entir e class . Fo r mos t radionuclides , th e propose d R Q adjustment s woul d requir e reporting release s tha t ar e considerabl ysmalle r thanon e pound . Th e propose d regulation , therefore , wil l impos e additiona l reporting an d repor t processing cost s o nthe regulate d communit yan d th e governmen t respectively . Thi s analysi s discusse s an d quantifies , t o th e exten t possible , th e cost s an d benefit s tha t wil l resul t fro mth e propose d R Q adjustments . 1. 3 ORGANIZATIO N O FTHI S REPOR T Thi s repor t analyze s th e economi c effect s o f th e propose d R Q adjustment s fo r radionuclides . I t analyze s th e cost s an d benefit s an

d estimate s th e ne t gai no r ne t los s unde r th e propose d regulation . Th e remainde r o f thi s repor t i s organize d a s follows :

Chapte r 2 - - Alternativ e Approache s Considere dfo r Adjustin

gRadionuclide RQ s - - a discussio no f th e regulatoryoption s considere d during th e propose d rulemaking developmen t process ; Chapte r 3 - - Baseline Reportabl e Release s - - ananalysi s o f baselin e (pre-regulatory ) reportabl e releases , including a discussio no f availabl e releas e data , siz e distributio no f releases , an

d th e estimate d numbe r o f baselin e reportabl e releases ; Chapte r 4 - - Valuatio no f th e Effect s of th

e Propose dR Q Adjustment s - - anexplanatio no f th e uni t value s use d i n estimating th e incrementa l cost s an d benefit s o f th e propose d regulation ; Chapte r 5 - - Estimate dAnnua l Cost s o

f the Propose dR Q Adjustment s - - ananalysi s o f th e additiona l cost s tha t woul d b e incurre d b ybot hth e regulate d communit yan d governmen t a s a resul t o f th e propose d regulation ;P.1 1



### 1- 5

Chapte r 6 - - Estimate d Benefit s o f th e Propose d R Q Adjustment s - - a qualitativ e assessmen t o f th e additiona l benefit s unde r th e propose d regulation ; Chapte r 7 - - Sensitivit yAnalysi s - - a tes t o f th e assumption s use d throughou t thi s repor t t o determin e sensitivit yo f th e result s t o variou s assumptions ; an d Appendi xA- - Profile s o f Facilities tha t Releas e Radionuclide s - - a genera l discussio no f th e type s an d numbe r o f facilitie s tha t potentiall yreleas e radionuclides .P.1 2 

# i

CHAPTE R 2 ALTERNATIV E APPROACHE S CONSIDERE D FO R ADJUSTIN G

RADIONUCLID E REPORTABL E QUANTITIE S
Radionuclid e productio nan d us e i nthe Unite d State s i s presentl y regulate d an

d controlle d b

yth e Nuclea r RegulatoryCommissio nan d th e Department s o f Energyan d Transportation . Thes e agencie s wer e aske d b yEPAt o participat e activel yi naninteragencywor k group 1 whos e purpos e wa s t o explor e th e relativ e advantage s an d disadvantage s o f alternativ e approache s fo r adjusting th e radionuclid e RQ . Th e wor k grou p carefull yconsidere d numerou s R Q adjustmen t option s including :

• Optio n1 : Allowing th e radionuclid e R Q t o remai na t on e pound ;

• Optio n2 : Assigning n o R Q t o radionuclides ;

• Optio n3 : Establishing a dose-equivalen t leve l (i.e. , unit s o f .rem ) a s the radionuclid e RQ ;

• Optio n4 : Establishing a singl e leve l o f activit ya s an R Q fo r al l radionuclides ; .

• Optio n5 : Grouping radionuclide s int o categorie s an d assigning anR Q i nterm s o f activit yt o eac hcategory ; an d

• Optio n6 : Establishing anR Q fo r individua l radionuclide s base d o nactivit ylevel s (i.e. , unit s o f curies) . Th e optio n o f leaving th e R Q a t on e pound wa s rejecte d becaus e pound unit s ar e no t meaningfu l fo r radiatio nprotectio nan d a quantit yo f on e pound ofte n represent s potentiall yhighlevel s o f radiatio ncontamination . Th e second option , establishing n o R Q fo r radionuclides , wa s rejecte d becaus e i t woul d hav e t o b e supporte d b ya finding tha t existing reporting requirement s adequatel ycove r release s o f al l radionuclides , and , a t present , EPAcoul d no t mak e suc ha finding . I nparticular , man yrelease s o f naturall yoccurring an d accelerato r produce d radionuclide s (NARM ) ar e no t require d t o b e reporte d unde r existing federa l regulations , an d man yexisting reporting requirement s d o no t requir e immediat e telephon e notification . Optio n3 wa s seriousl yconsidere d a s i t i s presentl yth e basi s o f existing reporting requirement s b yth e Departmen t o f Energyan d th e Nuclea r Regulatory

*Work grou

p membershi p als o include d representative s fromth e U.S . Coas t Guar d an

d severa l office s withi nEPA .P.1 3

2- 2

Commission . I t wa s determined , however , tha t thi s reporting optio nrequire d to o muc hjudgmen t o nth e par t o f th e perso ni ncharg e o f the facilit yo r vesse l and , fo r purpose s o f CERCL Areporting , mayno t produc e timel yreports . Optio n4 , establishing a singl e leve l o f activit yfo r al l radionuclides , an d Optio n5 , grouping radionuclide s using specifi c criteri a an d assigning activity-leve l RQ s t o eac hgroup , wer e determine d t o b e inappropriat e becaus e neithe r optio naccounte d fo r th e varying degree s o f hazar d pose d b yth e same activit yleve l o f differen t radionuclides . Thes e option s woul d no t hav e require d radionuclid e b yradionuclid e evaluatio nt o develop anRQ , bu t rathe r woul d hav e require d analysi s o f larg e group s o f radionuclide s base d o na singl e characteristic . Becaus e o f th e lac k o f homogeneit yamong radionuclides , grouping th e radionuclide s int o meaningfu l categorie s fo r purpose s o f R Q developmen t became difficult . EPAultimatel yselecte d i nth e propose d regulatio nth e las t option , establishing a propose d R Q base d o nactivit ylevel s fo r selecte d radionuclides . Thi s fina l optio ninvolve d ananalysi s o f individua l radionuclides , evaluating thei r individua l characteristic s t o determin e appropriat e propose d RQs . Ultimately , al l radionuclide s wer e groupe d int o on e o f seve nR Q categories , bu t onl yafte r completio no f th e individua l radionuclid e evaluations . Thi s chapte r discusse s briefl yoption s 3 an d 6 , th e two adjustmen t option s considere d mos t seriousl yfo r determining radionuclid e RQs . Th e chapte r begin s wit ha discussio no f th e relativ e advantage s an d disadvantage s o f establishing dose-equivalen t level s a s th e radionuclid e RQ . Th e chapte r the n discusse s th e selecte d option , assigning propose d RQ s base d o nth e activit y level s o f individua l radionuclides. 2 2. 1 Establishmen t o f a Dose-Equivalen t Leve l a s th e Radionuclid e R Q EPAexplore d th e optio no f establishing a radionuclid e propose d RQ base d o na singl e dose-equivalen t leve l o r a se t o f dose-equivalen t level s assigne d t o al l radionuclides . Ados e equivalen t i s a direc t measur e o f th e amoun t o f biologica l damag e resulting fro mexposur e t o ionizing radiation . Dos e equivalen t i s measure d generall yi nterm s o f re mo r sieverts . A dose-equivalen t leve l i s no t a measur e o f emitte d radiation , bu t i s a metho d o f normalizing th e effec t o f a nabsorbe d dos e o f radiatio ni ntissue , regardles s o f th e typ e o f radiation . I t i s therefor e usefu l fro ma healt han

d environmenta l protectio nperspectiv e becaus e th e numbe r o f re mcanb e relate d directl yt o th e amoun t o f damag e likel yt o b e incurred . Th e Agenc yseriousl y considere d establishing a propose d R Q fo r radionuclide s i nterm s o f re m becaus e mos t reporting requirement s o f th e Nuclea r RegulatoryCommissio nan d th e Departmen t o f Energyar e i nterm s o f rem .

2 Th e othe r adjustmen t alternative s no t specificall ypresente d i nthi s chapte r ar e discusse d i ndept hin : ICF , Incorporate d an d Environmenta l Monitoring & Services , Inc. , Technica l Background Documen t t o Suppor t Rulemaking Pursuan t t o CERCL ASectio n102 : Radionuclides , Repor t t o th e Environmenta l Protectio nAgency , Offic e o f Soli d Wast e an d Emergenc yResponse , Octobe r 1986 .P.1 4

2- 3

T o assignpropose d RQ s i nterm s o f dos e equivalen t o r rem , the Agenc y firs t had t o determin e whic hdose-equivalen t leve l i s mos t appropriat e fo r a radionuclid e RQ . Severa l agencie s o f th e U.S . Governmen t an d othe r nationa l an d internationa l organization s hav e develope d differen t estimate s o f th e appropriat e dose-equivalen t level . Man yo f thes e dose-equivalen t level s vary substantially . Fo r example , th e Federa l Radiatio nProtectio nGuidanc e recommend s a limiting exposur e o f 50 0 millirempe r yea r fo r the genera l publi c an d th e ICRP recommend s a limi t o f 5 re mpe r yea r fo r employee s o f nuclea r facilities . EPAestablishe d anannua l dose-equivalen t leve l o f 4 millirempe r yea r i n4 0 CFRPar t 14 1 (promulgate d unde r the Saf e Drinking Wate r Act) . Therefore , ther e di d no t appea r t o b e a universall yaccepte d dose-equivalen t reporting trigge r fo r us e unde r CERCLA . Asecon d majo r issu e faced b ythe Agenc ywhe nconsidering thi s alternativ e involve d th e developmen t o f a standardize d methodolog yfo r estimating dose-equivalen t levels . Astandardize d methodologywa s considere d desirabl e becaus e a dos e equivalen t i s no t measurabl e directly . Fo r a give nrelease , differen t judgment s regarding exposur e pathways , intak e quantity , an d othe r factor s coul d lead t o differen t dose-equivalen t estimate s and , thus , differen t determination s o f whethe r th e releas e i s reportabl e t o th e Nationa l Respons e Cente r unde r CERCLA . Th e advantage s o f establishing radionuclid e RQ s base d o ndose-equivalen t level s ar e twofold . First , a dose-equivalen t valu e canb e relate d directl yt o potentia l healt heffect s withou t having t o mak e furthe r assumption s o r performing additiona l calculations . Second , a dose-equivalen t leve l R Q coul d b e establishe d fo r al l radionuclides , including mixtures , becaus e on e R Q leve l woul d suffic e fo r al l radionuclid e releases . Th e disadvantage s o f th e option , however , wer e perceive d t o b e substantial . Among th e primarydisadvantage s wa s tha t estimating a dose-equivalen t leve l canb e quit e complicate d an d it s magnitud e mayvary substantiall yfo r differen t circumstance s involving th e releas e o f th e same amoun t o f th e same radionuclide . Fo r example , differen t exposur e pathways , period s o f exposure , an d bodil yorgan s expose d mayyiel d order-of-magnitud e difference s i ndose-equivalen t estimate s fo r th e same releas e quantity . Moreover , dose-equivalen t level s woul d b e mor e difficul t tha nanactivit y leve l t o estimat e quickl yduring anactua l releas e event . Fo r thes e reasons , th e Agenc ydecide d t o remov e th e dose-equivalen t alternativ e fro

mfurthe r consideration , favoring instead th e determinatio no f propose d RQ s fo r individua l radionuclide s base d o nactivit ylevels . 2. 2 Th e Selecte

dApproac h- - Settin gRQ s i

nTerm s of Activit y Level s Th e Agenc yultimatel ydecide d t o propos e radionuclid e R Q adjustment s base d o nlevel s o f activity . Aleve l o f activity , i nunit s o f curie s (or becquerels) , i s a measur e o f th e rat e o f radioactiv e decayan d thu s th e amoun t o f radiatio ngive nof f b ya substance . Ther e ar e severa l advantage s t o basing radionuclid e RQ s o nactivit y levels . Fo r example , a leve l o f radioactivit yi s muc heasie r t o measur e tha nP.1 5

2- 4

a dos e equivalent . Acommo nsurveyinstrumen t suc ha s a Geige r counte r canb e use d t o measur e directl yth e ionizing radiation . Th e Agencybelieve s setting RQ s i nterm s o f activit ywould , therefore , provid e mor e timel yreporting tha n anR Q expresse d i nterm s o f dos e equivalent . Asecon d advantag e o f using activit ylevel s i s tha t establishing RQ s fo r radionuclide s individuall ywoul d allowconsideratio no f individua l radionuclid e characteristic s (e.g. , nuclid e forms an d th e potentia l t o migrat e throughth e environment) . A nR Q i nterm s o f dos e equivalen t (rem ) woul d als o (b ydefinition ) hav e considere d nuclid e for man d migratio nbu t woul d hav e lef t muc hgreate r judgmen t t o th e perso ni ncharg e o f th e vesse l o r facility . Activit yleve l RQ s (curies ) als o conside r eac hradionuclid e individuall ybu t minimize s judgment s b yth e perso ni ncharg e o f th e vesse l o r facility . Th e optio nt o establis hRQ s i nterm s o f curies , therefore , wa s considere d advantageous . Th e nuclide-specifi c R Q approac hals o ha s disadvantage s however . Primarily , unlik e a dose-equivalen t value , a leve l o f activit yb yitsel f doe s no t necessaril yreflec t a leve l o f dange r t o huma nhealth . A s i s presentl y th e cas e fo r RQ s fo r non-radioactiv e substances , a case-by-cas e evaluatio nb y th e On-Scen e Coordinato r wil l b e necessaryt o estimat e th e healt han d welfar e an d environmenta l hazard s associate d wit ha radionuclid e release , an d t o determin e i f a federa l respons e i s required . Th e genera l methodologyuse d b yth e Agenc yt o develop propose d RQ s bega n wit hth e ALI s listed i nICRP' s Publicatio n30 . Thes e value s ar e annua l intak e limits , i n unit s o f curies , tha t woul d resul t i nradiatio nexposur e o f 5 rem . Th e ALI s wer e adjuste d b yEPAt o reflec t (1 ) th e differenc e betwee nintak e level s an

d releas e level s an d (2 ) a lowe r dos e equivalen t o f 50 0 millirem (0. 5 rem) , a mor e protectiv e releas e level . Usin g conservativ e assumption s regarding differen t release s t o ai r an d water , an

d analyzing exposur e through inhalation , ingestion , an d direc t exposure , EPAestimate d th e smalles t numbe r o f curie s fo r eac hradionuclid e which , i f release d t o th e environment , coul d resul t i na perso nbeing expose d t o a dos e equivalen t o f 50 0 millirem . Th e inhalatio nequatio nderive s a Releas e Valu e b ydividing th e AL I fo r inhalatio ndevelope d b yth e ICR P b

yth e produc t o f th e following factors :

• Th e releas e fractio ntha t describe s th e portio no f radioactiv e material s tha t coul d become airborn e i na release ;

• Th e Atmospheri c Relativ e Concentratio nValu e corresponding t o a ground-leve l relativ e concentratio n a t 3 0 meter s fro

ma ground-leve l releas e unde r stabl e meteorologica l conditions ;

• Th e breathing rat e o f "Referenc e Man" ; an dP.1 6

2- 5

• Severa l numerica l factor s t o accoun t fo r a 50 0 milliremdos e limi t fo r member s o f th e genera l publi c an d th e conversio nfro mmicrocurie s t o curies . Th e ingestio nequatio ni s base d o na ground-wate r releas e scenari o using anadvection-dispersio n mode l combine d wit hconservativ e estimate s fo r suc h parameter s a s ground-wate r flowvelocities , retardatio nfactors , an d transvers e an

d longitudina l dispersion . Th e resulting equation , lik e th e on e fo r inhalation , derive s a Releas e Valu e b ydividing the AL I fo r ingestio nb y th e produc t o f anassume d dilutio nfactor , contac t time , an d wate r consumption , a s wel l a s th e same numerica l factor s a s th e inhalatio nequation . Ase t o f equation s wer e als o develope d t o calculat e Releas e Value s fo r a third rout e o f exposure , direc t exposur e t o a releas e o f a radionuclide . On e direc t exposur e equatio nderive s th e quantit yo f materia l intercepte d b y "Referenc e Man " a t a distanc e 3 0 meter s fro ma poin t sourc e release , assuming anexposur e o f 50 0 millirem . Releas e Value s ar e derive d b ydividing th e produc t o f th e square d distanc e an d th e absorbe d dos e b yth e duratio no f exposur e an

d th e produc t o f photo nenerg yemitte d an

d th e fractio no f th e encountere d radiatio nabsorbed . Asecond direc t exposur e equatio nwa s derive d fo r release s o f nobl e gase s whic hresul t i nexposur e b ysubmersio ni na clou d o f radioactiv e material . Thi s secon

d equatio nuse s ai r concentratio nvalue s rathe r tha nALI s and , therefore , als o incorporate s th e Atmospheri c Relativ e Concentratio nValu e mentione d above . Fo r eac hradionuclide , thre e Releas e Value s wer e derived : inhalation , ingestion , an

d direc t exposure. 3 T o simplif yth e administratio nan d implementatio no f R Q reporting , th e radionuclide s wer e the nassigne d t o seve n group s base d o nth e lowes t Releas e Values :

• 6 radionuclide s (0.8% ) hav e a propose d R Q o f 0.00 1 curie ;

• 2 5 radionuclide s (3.3% ) hav e a propose d R Q o f 0.0 1 curie ;

• 2 4 radionuclide s (3.2% ) hav e a propose d R Q o f 0. 1 curie ;

• 3 5 radionuclide s (4.6% ) hav e a propose d R Q o f 1 curie ;

3 Fo r furthe r detai l o nth e methodologyuse d i ndeveloping th e radionuclid e propose d RQs , se e IC F Incorporate d an d Environmenta l Monitoring an d Services , Inc. , Technica l Background Documen t t o Suppor t Rulemaking Pursuan t t o CERCL

ASectio n102 : Radionuclides , Repor t t o th e Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Offic e o f Soli d Wast e an d Emergenc yResponse .P.1 7

2- 6

• 34 2 radionuclide s (45.2% ) hav e a propose d R Q o f 1 0 curies ;

• 24 2 radionuclide s (31.2% ) hav e a propose d R Q o f 10 0 curies ; an

d

• 8 9 radionuclide s (11.8% ) hav e a propose d R Q o f 100 0 curies . I naddition , radionuclide s no t listed b yth e ICRP hav e a propose d R Q o f 1 curie . Fo r al l bu t 3 0 o f th e radionuclide s wit ha specifi c propose d R Q adjustment , th e propose d RQ i s smalle r tha non e pound . I t i s expecte d tha t th e numbe r o f reportabl e release s fo r thes e radionuclide s wil l increase , resulting i nnotification , recordkeeping , an d respons e cost s fo r th e affecte d communit yan

d notificatio nprocessing an d othe r respons e cost s for th e government . Increase d benefit s o f mor e efficien t an d timel yresponse s ar e als o t o b e expected . Fo r th e 3 0 radionuclide s whos e propose d R Q i s greate r thanon e pound , th e numbe r o f reportabl e release s ar e expecte d t o decrease . Thi s shoul d resul t i n lowe r cost s t o bot hth e affecte d communit yan d the government , an d incrementa l threat s t o publi c healt han d welfar e an

d th e environment . Chapte r 3 begin s b y discussing th e baselin e (pre-regulatory ) reporting requirement s an d lays th e foundatio nfor'estimating th e incrementa l cost s an d benefit s resulting fro m change s i n th e numbe r o f reportabl e release s unde r th e propose d regulation .P.1 8



### CHAPTE R 3 BASELIN E REPORTABL E RELEASE S

Aregulatorybaselin e i s th e starting poin t fo r an yeconomi c analysis . Th e baselin e provide s a measuremen t o f th e estimate d cost s an d benefit s tha t th e affecte d communit ywoul d incur i f th e propose d regulatio nwer e no t t o tak e effect . Onc e th e baselin e ha s bee nestimated , w e canthe nmode l th e effect s o f th e propose d regulatio nan d estimat e th e post-regulatorycost s an d benefit s incurre d b

ysociety . Th e differenc e betwee nth e post-regulatio ncost s an d benefit s an

d th e baselin e represent s th e incrementa l cost s an d benefit s o f th e propose d regulation . Baselin e cost s an

d benefit s ar e relate d directl yt o th e numbe r o f reportabl e radionuclid e release s wit ha radionuclid e reportabl e quantit y(RQ ) o f on e pound . Th e baselin e cost s ar e th e value s place d o naction s resulting fro ma reportabl e releas e an d th e benefit s ar e th e value s place d o ncleanu p o f reportabl e releases . Thi s chapte r describe s th e methodologyuse d t o estimat e baselin e reportabl e release s an d present s the baselin e releas e estimates . Sectio n3. 1 define s th e regulatorybaselin e fo r th e propose d regulation ; Sectio n3. 2 describe s th e dat a set s availabl e fo r estimating baselin e release s o f radionuclides ; Sectio n3. 3 estimate s th e numbe r o f historica l radionuclid e releases ; an

d Sectio n3. 4 estimate s th e baselin e numbe r o f reportabl e release s o f radionuclides . 3. 1 BASELIN E DEFINITIO N Th e baselin e i s anestimat e o f th e cost s an d benefit s th e affecte d communit ywoul d incur i f th e propose d regulatio nwer e no t t o tak e effect . I t i s relate d directl yt o th e numbe r o f reportabl e release s unde r curren t reporting requirements . Man yfacilitie s tha t produc e an d us e radionuclide s ar e regulate d alread y b ya numbe r o f differen t federa l agencies . Th e Nuclea r RegulatoryCommission , th e Departmen t o f Energy , th e Departmen t o f Transportation , an d th e Environmenta l Protectio nAgenc yal l impos e reporting requirement s and/o r releas e limitation s o nfacilitie s unde r thei r auspices . I naddition , loca l an d stat e licens e an

d registratio nprogram s als o contro l th e regulate d community . Eac hagency' s reporting requirement s ar e different , frequentl y involving differen t time frame s fo r reporting . Animportan t consideratio ni nanalyzing baselin e reporting i s tha t Sectio n 103(a ) o f CERCL

Arequire s immediat e notificatio nt o th e Nationa l Respons e Cente r b

yth e perso ni ncharg e o f a facilit yo r vesse l i f a releas e equal s o r exceed s anRQ . Therefore , report s t o othe r agencie s ar e no t a substitut e fo r directl ytelephoning th e Nationa l Respons e Center . Fo r purpose s o f thi s analysis , therefore , th e regulatorybaselin e i s define d a s th e cost s an d benefit s associate d wit hreporting release s o f radionuclide s t o th e Nationa l Respons e Cente r prio r t o th e propose dP.1 9

3- 2

regulation . Release s o f radionuclide s nee d t o b e reporte d immediatel yt o th e Nationa l Respons e Cente r unde r (1 ) Departmen t o f Transportatio nregulation s (4 9 CFRPart s 171-177) , an d (2 ) Section s 103(a ) an d (b ) o f CERCLA . Th e Departmen t o f Transportatio n(DOT ) require s tha t al l transportatio n incident s "involving th e shipmen t o f radioactiv e materia l i nwhic hfire , breakage , spillage , o r suspecte d radioactiv e contaminatio noccurs " shal l b e reporte d b

ytelephon e t o th e Nationa l Respons e Cente r "a t the earlies t practicabl e moment. " (4 9 CFRSectio n171.51(a) ) Section s 103(a ) an

d (b ) o f CERCL

Arequir e immediat e notificatio nt o th e Nationa l Respons e Cente r o f al l release s o f radionuclide s (an d othe r CERCLA hazardou s substances ) i nanamoun t tha t equal s o r exceed s th e applicabl e RQ. . Th e presen t statutoryR Q fo r radionuclide s i s on e pound . Sectio n102(a ) authorize s EPAt o adjus t th e statutoryRQ s fo r al l CERCLAhazardou s substances , including radionuclides . Ther e ar e tw o importan t exclusion s t o CERCL Anotificatio nrequirement s tha t pertai nt o radionuclides :

(1 ) Sectio n101(22)(C ) o f CERCL Aexclude s fro

mth e definitio n o f release , an yreleas e o f ".. . source , byproduct , o r specia l nuclea r materia l fro ma nuclea r incident , a s thos e term s ar e define d i nth e Atomi c EnergyAc t o f 1954 , i f suc hreleas e i s subjec t t o requirement s wit hrespec t t o financia l protectio n establishe d b

yth e Nuclea r RegulatoryCommissio nunde r Sectio n 17 0 o f suc hAct... " (2 ) Sectio n101(10)(K ) o f CERCL Adefine s a federall y permitte d releas e (suchrelease s nee d no t b e reporte d t o th e Nationa l Respons e Center ) t o includ e "an y releas e o f source , specia l nuclear , o r byproduc t material , a s thos e term s ar e define d i nth e Atomi c EnergyAc t o f 1954 , i ncomplianc e wit ha legall y enforceabl e license , permit , regulation , o r orde r issue d pursuan t t o th e Atomi c EnergyAc t o f 1954. " Th e firs t exclusio nrefer s primaril yt o reacto r incidents . Th e second exclusio nha s bee ninterprete d b yth e Agenc yt o mea nan yreleas e tha t i s i n complianc e wit ha regulation , license , o r orde r fro mEPA , th e Nuclea r RegulatoryCommission , anagreemen t state , o r th e Departmen t o f Energy . EP Aha s issue d a propose d regulatio ndefining th e scop e o f th e federall y permitte d releas e reporting exemptio n(4 8 F R23552 , May25 , 1983) . Thi s regulatio n i s schedule d t o b e repropose d i nth e nea r future . Th e draf t reproposa l state s tha t an yreleas e o f a CERCLAhazardou s substanc e mus t b e reporte d immediatel yt o th e Nationa l Respons e Cente r i f th e releas e exceed s federall ypermitte d level s b yanR Q o r more . I f th e releas e i s les s tha na n R Q abov e permitte d levels , th e releas e i s no t considere d federall ypermitte d bu t nonetheles s nee d no t b e reporte d t o th e Nationa l Respons e Cente r unde rP.2 0

3- 3

Section s 103(a ) an

d (b ) o f CERCLA . Release s i ncomplianc e wit hEPA regulations , Nuclea r RegulatoryCommissio nlicenses , agreemen t stat e licenses , an d Departmen t o f Energ yOrder s ar e considere d federall ypermitte d unde r Sectio n101(10)(K ) o f CERCLA , an d therefor e d o no t nee d t o b e reporte d t o th e Nationa l Respons e Center . Give nthes e baselin e reporting requirements , th e following radionuclid e release s woul d be , strictl yspeaking , baselin e reportabl e releases :

• Al l reportabl e transportatio nincidents ;

• Al l federall ypermitte d release s tha t equa l o r excee d permitte d level s b

yth e statutoryone-pound RQ ; an d

• Al l non-federall ypermitte d release s tha t equa l o r excee d th e statutoryone-pound RQ . However , w e focu s th e analysi s o nnon-transportatio nrelease s becaus e al l transportatio nincident s ar e alread yrequire d t o b e reporte d t o the Nationa l Respons e Cente r and , thus , th e propose d regulatio nshoul d no t generat e an y increase d reporting o f transportatio nincidents . Adjustmen t o f th e radionuclid e RQ , however , coul d affec t th e numbe r o f report s fro mfacilitie s wit han d withou t federa l permit s becaus e th e reporting trigge r i s being adjuste d i nth e propose d regulation . 3. 2 AVAILABL E DAT ASET S FO R ESTIMATIN G RADIONUCLID E RELEASE S Aradionuclid e releas e dat a bas e wa s create d fo r thi s analysis . Th e dat a bas e contain s informatio ndescribing radionuclid e release s i nth e Unite d States . Include d i nth e informatio nassemble d i nth e dat a bas e ar e th e dat e o f eac hreleas e and , whe navailable , th e radionuclid e an d quantit y(i ncuries ) released . Thes e dat a wer e use d t o develop siz e an d frequencydistribution s fo r radionuclid e releases . W e estimate d th e expecte d numbe r an d siz e o f futur e radionuclid e release s using dat a o nth e numbe r an d siz e o f pas t radionuclid e releases . I ndeveloping th e radionuclid e releas e dat a base , releas e report s wer e incorporate d fro

msi xsources :

• Report s maintaine d b yth e Nuclea r Regulatory Commission' s Offic e fo r Analysi s an d Evaluatio no f Operationa l Dat a (AEOD) , 198 1 through1985 ;

• Report s maintaine d b yth e Transportatio nTechnology Cente r (TTC ) o f Sandi a Nationa l Laboratoryi n Albuquerque , Ne wMexico , 197 1 through1985 ;

• Dat a provide d b yth e Departmen t o f Energy' s Offic e o f Environmen t an

d Health , Emergenc yOperation s Cente r (EOC) , Marc h198 3 throughApri l 1986 ;P.2 1

3- 4

• Report s t o the Nationa l Respons e Center , 198 2 through 1985 ;

• Report s t o the Environmenta l Protectio nAgency' s Offic e o f Radiatio nProgram s (ORP) , Octobe r 198 1 through Septembe r 1983 ; an

d

• Report s t o the Nuclea r RegulatoryCommission' s Operation s Center , January198 3 throughJanuary1986 . O f thes e si xsources , th e Nuclea r RegulatoryCommission' s Offic e o f Analysi s an

d Evaluatio no f Operationa l Dat a (AEOD ) inciden t report s wer e th e mos t complet e fo r ou r purposes , bot hi nterm s o f releas e description s an d th e populatio n o f releas e event s include d i nth e data . Thes e report s usuall y containe d detail s o nth e quantit yan d identit yo f th e radionuclid e released . Th e AEO D reporting populatio ninclude s al l Nuclea r RegulatoryCommissio n licensee s an

d some report s fro

magreemen t stat e licensees . Th e releas e dat a obtaine d fro mth e Transportatio nTechnologyCente r (TTC ) an d DOE' s Emergenc yOperation s Cente r (EOC ) ar e equall ycomplet e i nterm s o f informatio nprovided . Thes e sources , however , provid e informatio no na muc h smalle r subse t o f releas e event s tha ndoe s AEOD . Th e TT C dat a ar e limite d t o transportatio naccidents/incident s involving radioactiv e material ; th e EO C dat a ar e limite d t o th e pas t thre e year s (1983-1986 ) an d includ e onl y reportabl e event s unde r DO E Orde r 5484.1 . Othe r event s ar e no t include d i n th e EO C dat a set . Th e releas e dat a fro mth e Nationa l Respons e Cente r di d no t contai n detaile d quantit yinformatio nan d were , fo r th e mos t part , no t include d i nour dat a base . Report s examine d fro mth e Nuclea r RegulatoryCommission' s Operatio nCente r include d onl y"releas e events " a s define d b yth e Nuclea r RegulatoryCommission . Th e Commission' s definitio ni s narrowe r tha nCERCLA' s definitio no f release . Inciden t repor t duplicatio nbetwee nth e si xsource s appear s t o b e relativel ylimited . I ndeveloping th e radionuclid e releas e dat a base , w e trie d t o avoi d doubl e counting o f release s b ycross-checking th e detail s abou t particula r releas e events . Incompletenes s o f th e report s i nsome o f th e set s an d inconsistencie s i ndate s o f th e events , however , complicate d thi s effort . Duplicates , therefore , hav e probabl yno t bee ntotall yeliminated . Th e radionuclid e releas e dat a bas e develope d fo r thi s analysi s include s 1,13 9 events . Thes e event s rang e i nsiz e ove r man yorder s o f magnitude , fro m

- 9 5. 0 x1 0 curie s t o 56,89 2 curies . O f th e 1,13 9 event s i nth e dat a base , ther e ar e 45 5 event s wit hn o quantit yinformatio no r fo r whic hunit s o f curie s coul d no t b e determine d fro mavailabl e information . Thes e 45 5 releas e event s wer e use d onl yi nth e estimatio nprocedur e t o determin e th e frequencyo f releas e fo r particula r radionuclide s bu t coul d no t b e use d t o estimat e th e siz e distributio no f radionuclid e releases . Ther e ar e als o 2 3 event s include d i nth e dat a bas e tha t d o no t identif yth e radionuclid e release d bu t d o hav eP.2 2

3- 5

informatio no nth e quantitie s released . Thes e event s wer e use d i nth e estimatio nprocedur e t o determin e the siz e distributio no f radionuclid e release s bu t coul d no t b e use d t o estimat e th e frequencyo f releas e fo r particula r radionuclides . I ncase s wher e neithe r th e radionuclid e no r th e quantit yinformatio nwa s availabl e i na dat a set , the even t wa s no t include d i nth e dat a bas e o f 1,13 9 events . Exhibi t 3- 1 summarize s th e characteristic s o f th e dat a base . 3. 3 ESTIMATIO N O F HISTORICA LRADIONUCLID E RELEASE S Baselin e reportabl e release s ar e the numbe r o f release s tha t woul d nee d t o b e reporte d t o th e Nationa l Respons e Cente r i f th e propose d radionuclid e R Q adjustment s wer e no t t o tak e effec t an d th e radionuclid e R Q remaine d a t on e pound . Becaus e i t i s no t possibl e t o predic t th e futur e wit hcertainty , w e rel yo nhistorica l releas e event s t o characteriz e th e likelihood o f futur e release s o f radionuclides . Th e numbe r o f historica l radionuclid e release s (bothreportabl e an d non-reportable ) i s th e starting poin t i nth e estimatio n proces s fo r determining baselin e annua l reportabl e releases . W e estimat e baselin e annua l reportabl e release s t o b e a functio no f thre e factors :

(A ) tota l nunrbe

r o f annua l release s o f radionuclides ; (B ) frequencyo f releas e fo r a particula r radionuclide ; an d (C ) probabilit ytha t a releas e equal s o r exceed s th e reportabl e quantit yo f a particula r radionuclid e (i.e. , th e equivalent , i ncuries , o f on e pound o r on e pound abov e permitte d o r license d levels) . I nparticular , th e tota l numbe r o f baselin e reportabl e release s canb e represente d a s follows :

Tota l Baselin e Release s = (A)*£[(B.)*(C.) ]

Th e produc t o f B . an d C . represent s th e produc t o f B. , th e probabilit y o f a releas e o f a particula r radionuclide , an d C , th e probabilit ytha t an y radionuclid e wil l b e equa l t o o r above reportabl e levels , a s tha t i s define d fo r eac hradionuclide . Therefore , th e produc t [B.*C ] represent s th e probabilit ytha t a releas e o f a particula r radionuclid e wil l b e equa l t o o r above reportabl e levels . Th e summatio no f thi s produc t represent s th e probabilit ytha t an y releas e wil l b e equa l t o o r above reportabl e levels . Whe nw e multipl ythi s latte r probabilit yb y(A) , th e tota l numbe r o f annua l radionuclid e release s a t an ylevel , w e ar e abl e t o deriv e th e tota l numbe r o f annua l radionuclid e release s equa l t o o r greate r tha nth e baselin e RQ . Eac ho f thes e factor s i s discusse d i nmor e detai l below .P.2 3

3- 6

EXHIBI T3- 1 RADIONUCLID E DAT ABAS E CHARACTERISTIC S

Tota l numbe r o f releas e event s i ndat a bas e 1,13 9 Numbe r o f releas e event s withou t quantit y informatio n45 5 1 Numbe r o f releas e event s wit hquantit y|--1,13 9 informatio n(used t o estimat e siz e distri

- | butio no f radionuclid e releases ) 68 4 ' Numbe r o f releas e event s wit hradionuclid e unidentifie d 2 3 1 

# I Numbe r o f releas e event s wit hradionuclid e |--1,13 9 identifie d (used t o estimat e th e probabilit y| o f releas e fo r a particula r radionuclide ) 1,11 6 ' Numbe r o f radionuclide s identifie d i ndat a bas e 6 3

Source : IC F analysis .3- 7

3.3. 1 Tota l Numbe r o f Annua l Release s o f Radionuclide s Th e availabl e dat a set s discusse d i nSectio n3. 2 above d o no t cove r release s fro

mal l facilitie s tha t handl e an d ar e therefor e likel yt o releas e radionuclides. 1 Th e dat a bas e establishe d fo r thi s analysi s i s use d primaril yt o develop th e estimate d frequencyo f releas e fo r particula r radionuclide s (facto r B above ) an d th e estimate d siz e distributio no f release s (facto r C above) . I t i s no t use d t o estimat e the tota l numbe r o f release s (reportabl e an

d non-reportable ) o f radionuclide s b yth e affecte d communit y becaus e a larg e portio no f the release s b yth e affecte d communit yi s no t include d i nth e dat a bas e (e.g. , release s fro mfacilitie s i nagreemen t state s ar e no t include d generall yi nth e dat a base) . T o estimat e th e tota l numbe r o f annua l radionuclid e releases , w e focu s th e analysi s o nnon-transportatio nrelease s becaus e al l transportatio nincident s ar e alread

yrequire d t o b e reporte d t o th e Nationa l Respons e Center . Thus , th e propose d regulatio nshoul d no t generat e an yincrease d reporting o f transportatio nincidents ; th e incrementa l increas e i nreportabl e radionuclid e release s consis t onl yo f non-transportatio nreleases . W e assume tha t th e numbe r o f non-transportatio nrelease s i s pr&portiona l t o th e numbe r o f facilitie s producing an d using radionuclide s i nan y appreciabl e quantity . W e realiz e thi s assumptio ni s anover-simplificatio n and , thus , i s no t entirel yaccurate . Th e probabilit yo f a releas e even t occurring a t a facilit yi s probabl ycorrelate d wit hus e level s an d type s an

d forms o f radionuclide s use d a t a facility . I f a facilit yuse s a smal l quantit yo f radionuclide s i na seale d form , th e likelihoo d o f a releas e fro m tha t facilit ywoul d b e les s tha na t a facilit ytha t use s a larg e quantit yo f radionuclide s i nanunseale d form . Unfortunately , facility-specifi c dat a o n radionuclid e productio nan d us e level s ar e unavailable . T o deriv e th e numbe r o f annua l non-transportatio nradionuclid e releases , therefore , w e rel yo nth e Nuclea r RegulatoryCommissio nAEO D data . W e us e thes e dat a becaus e th e numbe r o f facilitie s require d t o repor t release s t o th e Nuclea r RegulatoryCommissio ni s wel l define d an d w e canthu s establis hth e relationshi p betwee nth e numbe r o f release s an d th e numbe r o f facilitie s require d t o report . Th e AEO D dat a se t include s mos t releas e event s fro m Nuclea r RegulatoryCommissio nlicensee s an d some smal l fractio no f th e releas e event s fro

magreemen t stat e licensees . Onl yCommissio nlicensee s ar e require d t o notif yth e Nuclea r RegulatoryCommissio nwhe nther e i s a radionuclid e release . However , some state s an d some facilitie s license d b yagreemen t

x Appendi xAo f thi s repor t describe s th e majo r type s o f facilitie s tha t produc e an

d us e radionuclides . Release s fro mfacilitie s i nagreemen t state s woul d no t b e expecte d t o b e represente d i nth e Nuclea r RegulatoryCommissio n dat a sets , th e Sandi a Nationa l Laboratory' s dat a set , th e Departmen t o f Energy dat a set , o r th e EPA' s Offic e o f Radiatio nProgram s dat a set . I t i s possibl e tha t release s fro

mthes e facilitie s coul d b e represente d i nth e dat a se t fro m th e Nationa l Respons e Center , bu t th e dat a fro mthi s sourc e ar e mostl y qualitativ e an

d were , fo r th e mos t part , no t include d i nou r dat a base .P.2 5

3- 8

state s notif yth e Commissio no f a releas e eve nthoughtheyar e no t strictl y obligate d t o d o so . I t woul d no t b e appropriat e simpl yt o us e th e averag e numbe r o f event s reporte d annuall yi nth e AEOD dat a se t t o represen t averag e annua l reportabl e release s i nth e baselin e fro mCommissio nlicensees . Becaus e reporting an inciden t i s relativel ysimpl e an d becaus e th e nuclea r industr yi s closel y monitore d an

d highl ysensitiv e t o publi c concerns , ther e i s a tendenc yfo r th e regulate d communit yt o repor t an yincident , regardles s o f th e quantit y involve d an

d regardles s o f whethe r th e even t actuall yresult s i na releas e t o th e environment . Onth e othe r hand , i t i s likel ytha t some facilitie s mayno t b e reporting al l reportabl e releas e events . I naddition , th e AEO D dat a se t doe s includ e some transportatio nincident s tha t mus t b e elminate d befor e w e canus e th e dat a i nou r analysis . Areleas e i s define d a s aneven t wher e radionuclide s ar e release d int o th e environment . Stric t determination s o f release s i nth e AEO D dat a ar e difficul t t o mak e becaus e th e report s generall ylac k detail . I t i s difficul t t o determine , fo r example , whethe r a radionuclid e releas e wa s containe d b ya structur e o r whethe r th e radionuclide s escape d t o th e environment . T o promot e consistency , w e establishe d criteri a fo r categorizing the variou s events . Thes e criteri a ar e conservativ e t o develop anupperbound estimat e o f th e numbe r o f releas e event s pe r year . Thes e releas e event s ar e no t necessaril y larg e no r d o theypos e a dange r t o publi c healt ho r welfar e o r th e environment ; theyar e simpl yreleas e event s reporte d t o th e Nuclea r Regulatory Commissio n ove r th e las t five years . Fo r th e year s 198 1 through1985 , th e releas e profil e fo r th e AEO D dat a se t i s show ni n Exhibi t 3-2 . Abou t 2 5 percen t o f al l report s classifie d i nthi s analysi s a s releas e event s ar e clearl yevent s involving release s t o th e environment . Th e remaining event s wer e classifie d a s release s t o th e environmen t i nth e following manner :

• Report s o f loss , theft , o r buria l o f radioactiv e equipmen t o r source s (approximatel y4 0 percen t o f th e reports ) - - Report s o f los t radioactiv e seeds , stole n machinery , an

d burial s o f radioactiv e machineryo r wast e i nlandfill s wer e classifie d a s release s t o th e environment . Th e mos t commonl yreporte d even t throughou t th e AEO D dat a i s th e abandonmen t o f source s i ndrilling holes . Becaus e th e source s ar e no t recoverable , th e Agenc yconsider s al l suc hevent s t o b e release s t o th e environment , eve ni f th e source s ar e encapsulate d wit hcemen t o r slurry .

• Report s o f contaminatio no f shippe d product s o r equipmen t (approximatel y1 5 percen t o f al l releases ) - - Report s o f contaminate d o r leaking equipmen t involve d i n shipping ar e considere d event s involving release s t o th e environment . Theyare , however , classifie d onl ya s transportatio nrelease s whe nescap e o r leakag e o fP.2 6



### 3- 9

EXHIBI T 3- 2 PROFIL E O F RELEASE S I NNUCLEA RREGULATOR YCOMMISSIO N AEO D DAT ASE T

Yea r 198 1 198 2 198 3 198 4 198 5 Annua l Averag e Tota l

Numbe r o f Releas e Events *
10 3 8 2 10 3 9 2 8 3

s : 9 3 Tota l Numbe r o f Transportatio n Release s
7 5 8 3 9
6 Tota l Nu n Non-Transporta t

fro n Agreemen t State s 2 1 8 3 1 5 ibe

r ion i : o f Release s Commissio n Licensee s 9 4 7 6 8 7 8 6 5 9 

### 8 0

* Areleas e even t i s define d a s aneven t wher e radionuclide s ar e release d int o th e environment . I t wa s ofte ndifficul t t o determin e fro mthe informatio ni nth e report s whethe r a releas e t o th e environmen t actuall y occurred . Whe ni ndoubt , fo r purpose s o f thi s analysis , w e assume d th e even t di d resul t i na releas e t o th e environment . I naddition , man yo f th e release s wer e exceedingl ysmall , posing n o dange r t o publi c healt ho r welfar e o r th e environment . Th e numbe r o f release s represente d i nthi s tabl e ar e no t necessaril yreportabl e unde r eithe r th e one-pound R Q o r th e propose d RQs . Th e tabl e simpl ypresent s th e maximu mnumbe r o f event s i nth e AEO D dat a tha t coul d b e considere d release s t o th e environment . Th e AEO D dat a set s als o includ e additiona l event s tha t wer e no t considere d t o b e releases . Thes e event s include , fo r example , report s o f failur e t o submi t monitoring dat a an d incorrec t label s o ncontainers . Source : IC F estimates .P.2 7

3-1 0

radioactiv e material s i s eviden t t o shipping personne l an d reporte d b

ythem . Aspil l o f materia l o na highway , fo r example , i s considere d a reportabl e transportatio n release . Damage , loss , o r contaminatio no f a packag e during shipping tha t wa s no t clearl yeviden t t o shipping personnel , however , i s assume d t o b e a non-transportatio n release . Fo r example , i f a packag e wa s receive d damaged , an

d the repor t doe s no t clarif ytha t th e shipping agen t wa s awar e o f th e damag e an d had actuall y reporte d the incident , fo r purpose s o f thi s analysis , th e repor t i s considere d a non-transportatio nrelease .

• Report s o f highstac k concentration s an d radiatio ni n unrestricte d area s (approximatel y1 5 percen t o f al l reports ) - - Citation s o f highconcentration s o f radioactiv e materia l i nexhaus t stack s an d airborn e radiatio ni nunrestricte d area s ar e bot hclassifie d a s release s t o th e environment . Tha t is , i f report s d o no t specif yth e locatio no f airborn e radioactiv e materials , w e assume th e even t involve d a releas e t o th e environment .

• Report s o f allegation s o f release s (abou t 2 percen t o f al l reports ) - - Althoughno t officiall yconfirmed , allegation s b

ypersonne l o f releas e event s (e.g. , th e buria l o f radioactiv e wast e i na landfill ) ar e considere d release s t o th e environment .

• Repor t o f fir e (abou t 2 percen t o f al l reports ) - - Citatio no f a fir e i s considere d evidenc e o f a releas e excep t wher e a repor t indicate s specificall yn o contamination . Th e following event s wer e no t classifie d a s release s t o th e environment :

• Report s o f a leaking sourc e - - Althoughi t wa s no t alway s possibl e t o determin e whethe r th e leak occurre d i n a secur e enclosure , w e di d no t classif ythes e event s a s release s t o th e environment .

• Report s o f positiv e radioactivit ytes t result s - - Report s citing tes t result s tha t foun d "removable " radiatio no nla

ban d industria l equipmen t wer e no t classifie d a s release s t o th e environment .

• Report s o f exposur e o f badge s o r personne l - - Wher e badge s wor nb

ypersonne l reflec t exposur e t o radioactivity , thi s analysi s assume s exposur e occurre d i na containe d structure . Badg e exposur e therefor e wa s no t classifie d a s a releas e t o th e environment .3-1 1

• Repor t o f loos e packaging - - Report s o f loos e o r imprope r packaging use d fo r purpose s o f transpor t wer e no t considere d evidenc e o f a release . However , the observe d escap e o f liqui d o r soli d materia l fro m packaging wa s considere d evidenc e o f a release . A s show ni nExhibi t 3-2 , ther e ar e anestimate d 8 0 annua l non-transporta
tio nreleas e event s reporte d b yCommissio nlicensee s i nth e AEOD dat a set . I f w e assume tha t 8 0 percen t o f al l release s ar e actuall yreporte d t o th e Nuclea r RegulatoryCommission, 2 the nth e numbe r o f non-transportatio nradionuclid e release s b

yCommissio nlicensee s i s estimate d t o b e 10 0 release s annually . A s discusse d i nAppendi xAo f thi s report , ther e ar e approximatel y75,00 0 facilitie s tha t coul d potentiall yreleas e radionuclides , including facilitie s i nth e following categories :

• Nuclea r RegulatoryCommissio nlicensee s (8,900) ;

• Agreemen t stat e licensee s (13,000) ;

• DO E facilitie s (78) ; an d

• Unlicense d facilitie s (53,475) :

Laboratorie s (700 ) Coal-fire d utilit yan d industria l boiler s (52,500) , Uraniu mmine s (18 1 - - 2 1 active) , Aluminu msmelter s (32) , Coppe r smelter s (15) , Zin c smelter s (5) , Lead smelter s (5) , Phosphat e roc k plant s (31) , an d Elementa l phosphorou s plant s (6) . Thes e industrie s ar e heterogeneou s and , therefore , hav e verydifferen t probabilitie s o f releasing radionuclide s a t level s tha t equa l o r excee d an RQ . Severa l o f thes e industrie s ar e unlikel yt o b e affecte d b yth e propose d R Q adjustment s becaus e theyreleas e radionuclide s i nverysmal l quantitie s an d onl ya s par t o f thei r norma l operations . Example s o f thes e industrie s include : coal-fire d boilers , aluminum , copper , zinc , an d lea d smelters , an

d phosphat e roc k plants . Radionuclid e releas e canno t occu r du e t o a spil l a t thes e facilities , bu t onl ydu e t o th e burning o f th e coa l o r ore s during th e productio n processes . Th e radionuclid e release s mayoccu r int o water , int o

2 W e hav e n o dat a o nth e amoun t o f under-reporting tha t occurs , bu t becaus e Commissio nlicensee s ar e highl yregulate d an d verysensitiv e t o publi c concern s regarding radiation , w e believ e th e assumptio ntha t 8 0 percen t o f release s ar e reporte d i s reasonable . Thi s figur e i s no t assume d t o b e highe r becaus e ther e wil l alway s b e some release s tha t th e release r wil l no t report . Thus , under-reporting i s take nint o accoun t here . W e tes t th e effec t o f thi s assumptio ni nChapte r 7 o f thi s report .P.2 9

3-1 2

air , o r throughdisposa l o f th e sludge . Ai r release s fro mth e facilitie s wer e examine d closel yb

yth e Agenc ybecaus e radionuclide s ar e a hazardou s ai r pollutan t unde r Sectio n11 2 o f the CleanAi r Act . Th e following discussio n present s th e genera l result s o f the Agency' s analysi s o f th e ai r release s fro m eac ho f th e differen t facilities . Coal-fire d boiler s releas e radionuclide s t o th e ai r onl ywhe ntheybur n coal . Th e radionuclid e quantitie s release d during the coal-burning proces s ar e smalle r tha nthe propose d RQ levels . Radionuclide s release d fro ma larg e utilit yboiler , fo r example , ar e i nth e uraniu man d thoriu

mserie s an

d ar e release d a t level s generall yclos e t o 0.000 1 curie s pe r day , excep t fo r radon-22 0 whic hi s release d a t level s o f clos e t o 0.00 1 curi e pe r day . Thes e level s ar e belo wth e propose d RQ s fo r th e affecte d radionuclides , and wel l belo wth e propose d R Q o f 10 0 curie s fo r radon-220 . Fo r industria l boilers , whic hhav e relativel ysmalle r therma l capacit yan d coa l consumption , emissio n

- 5 level s ar e close r t o 1 0 curi e pe r day, 3 wel l belo wth e propose d RQs . Similarly , aluminum , copper , zinc , an d lead smelter s releas e radionuclide s t o th e ai r onl ywhe ntheyproces s thei r respectiv e ores . Th e radionuclid e quantitie s release d t o ai r fro ma typica l smelte r varyb yth e typ e o f or e

- 7 - 4 processed , bu t rang e generall yfro mclos e t o 1 0 curi e t o 1 0 curi e pe r day , wel l belo wth e lowes t propose d R Q o f 0.00 1 curi e pe r day. * Therefore , ai r release s fro

mthes e industrie s wil l no t b e affecte d b yth e propose d R Q adjustments . Phosphat e roc k plant s ar e als o no t expecte d t o b e affecte d b yth e propose d R Q adjustment s du e t o release s t o air . Phosphat e roc k plant s releas e radionuclide s t o th e ai r during grinding an d drying processe s a t level s n o highe r than1 0 curi e pe r day. 5 Thi s i s wel l belo wth e lowes t propose d

- 3 R Q o f 1 0 curie . Th e coal-fire d boilers , smelters , and phosphat e roc k plan t ai r emission s hav e bee nanalyze d thoroughl yb yEPAwhe nth e Agenc ywa s considering regulating radionuclid e emission s unde r Sectio n11 2 o f th e Clea nAi r Act . Th e Agenc yconclude d tha t "good reason s exis t t o propos e no t t o regulat e the following categorie s o f facilities : (1 ) coal-fire d boilers , (2 ) th e phosphat e industry , (3 ) othe r extractio nindustries... " (4 8 F R15076 , Apri l 6 , 1983) . Radionuclid e ai r emission s fro mthes e facilitie s d o no t presen t a potentia l threa t t o publi c healt ho r welfar e o r th e environmen t an d wil l no t b e affecte d b ythi s propose d regulatio nbecaus e ai r release s fro mthes e facilitie s ar e expecte d t o b e th e resul t o f plan t operation s onl yan d t o b e wel l belo wth e

3 IC F analysi s base d o nemission s dat a i nU.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Radionuclide s Background Informatio nDocumen t fo r Fina l Rule , Volume 2 , EPA520/1-84-022-2 , Offic e o f Radiatio nPrograms , Octobe r 1984 , p . 4.2-7 . "Ibid. , pp . 7.1-8 , 7.2-6 , 7.3-4 . 5 Ibid. , p . 6.1-11 .P.3 0

3-1 3

propose d RQs . Radionuclid e release s du e t o contaminatio no f sludg e mayb e reportabl e unde r CERCLA , however , i f th e releas e i s equa l t o o r above anRQ . Regarding release s t o water , th e Supreme Cour t rule s i nTrai nvs . Colorad o Publi c Interes t Researc hGroup , 42 6 U.S . 1 (1976 ) tha t "source, " "special , nuclear, " an

d "byproduct " material s ar e no t pollutant s withi nth e meaning o f th e Clea nWate r Act . A s such , specifi c release s o f radionuclide s wer e no t considere d i ndeveloping effluen t limitation s unde r th e Act . However , NAR M (naturall yoccurring an d accelerato r produce d radioactiv e materials ) canb e limite d specificall yi nwate r discharg e permits , an d regulatio no f certai nke y indicato r pollutant s canresul t i nth e contro l o f othe r pollutants , including radionuclides . Therefore , wate r release s o f radionuclide s mayo r mayno t b e considere d federall ypermitte d unde r Sectio n101(10 ) o f CERCLA . I na simila r manner , unlicense d laboratorie s ar e no t license d b yth e Nuclea r RegulatoryCommissio nbecaus e theyd o no t handl e radionuclide s i n sufficien t quantitie s t o warran t concern . I nparticular , unlicense d laboratorie s d o no t handl e radionuclide s i nquantitie s clos e t o th e propose d RQs . I t woul d b e virtuall yimpossible , therefore , fo r thes e facilitie s t o releas e radionuclide s a t reportabl e levels . Therefore , fo r purpose s o f thi s analysis , w e assume th e univers e o f affecte d facilitie s doe s no t includ e coal-fire d boilers , aluminum , copper , zinc , an d lea d smelters , phosphat e roc k plants , o r small , unlicense d laboratories . Th e remaining unlicense d facilities , uraniu mmine s an

d elementa l phosphorou s plants , coul d b e affecte d b yth e propose d regulation . Thes e two industrie s wer e analyze d b yEPAt o determin e th e level s o f radionuclid e ai r emission s fro

mthes e facilities . Unlik e th e boiler s an d smelter s discusse d above , uraniu

mmine s an

d elementa l phosphorou s plant s wer e foun d t o emi t radionuclide s a t controllabl e levels . Thes e emission s wer e controlled , therefore , unde r Sectio n11 2 o f th e Clea nAi r Ac t an d thes e facilitie s coul d b e releasing radionuclide s i nquantitie s greate r tha no r equa l t o anRQ . However , release s i ncomplianc e wit hSectio n11 2 limitation s ar e considere d federall ypermitte d unde r CERCL ASectio n101(10)(H ) an d woul d nee d t o b e reporte d t o th e Nationa l Respons e Cente r onl yi f th e quantitie s release d excee d federall ypermitte d level s b ya nR Q o r more. 6 Therefore , th e facilitie s tha t coul d b e affecte d b yth e propose d regulatio n becaus e theycoul d releas e radionuclide s a t level s equalling o r exceeding anR Q mak e up a univers e o f approximatel y22,00 0 facilities , consisting o f 8,90 0 Commissio nlicensees , 13,00 0 agreemen t stat e licensees , 7 8 DO E facilities , an d approximatel y2 5 activ e uraniu mmine s an

d elementa l phosphorou s plants . Release s fro mthes e facilitie s coul d b e considere d

6 Th e federall ypermitte d releas e reporting regulatio ni s schedule d t o b e repropose d i nth e nea r future . Thi s propose d rul e require s an yfederall y permitte d release , a s define d i nSectio n101(10 ) o f CERCL At o b e reporte d t o th e Nationa l Respons e Cente r i f i t equal s o r exceed s license d o r permitte d level s b

yanR Q o r more .P.3 1

•1 4

federall ypermitte d eithe r unde r Sectio n101(10)(K ) fo r release s fro m Commissio nlicensees , agreemen t stat e licensees , an d DO E facilities , o r unde r Sectio n101(10)(H ) fo r release s fro muraniu

mmine s an

d elementa l phorphorou s plants . Becaus e ther e ar e 8,90 0 Commissio nlicensee s tha t ar e responsibl e fo r an estimate d 10 0 radionuclid e non-transportatio nrelease s annually , th e tota l numbe r o f annua l non-transportatio nrelease s o f radionuclide s fro mal l 22,00 0 regulate d facilitie s i s approximatel y25 0 releas e event s pe r yea r (assuming proportionalit ybetwee nthe numbe r o f release s an d th e numbe r o f regulate d facilities) . I t mus t b e emphasize d tha t thi s i s jus t a gros s estimate . Becaus e thes e 22,00 0 regulate d facilitie s ar e no t homogeneous , theycanno t b e expecte d t o hav e uniformreleas e patterns . The yreleas e differen t radionuclides , a t differen t propensities , an d a t differen t levels . W e believ e thi s estimat e i s anupperbound estimate , althoughno t al l facilitie s tha t coul d potentiall y releas e radionuclide s hav e bee ninclude d i nthi s estimatio nprocedure . I n particular , facilitie s tha t us e naturall yoccurring an d accelerato r produce d radioactiv e materia l (NARM ) ar e no t include d i nthi s analysis . W e hav e n o dat a o nthes e facilities . Nevertheless , w e believ e th e estimat e o f approximatel y25 0 releas e event s pe r yea r i s reasonable . I t i s base d o n severa l keyassumptions :

• tota l release s fro mregulate d facilitie s ar e proportiona l t o th e numbe r o f regulate d facilitie s using an d producing radionuclides ;

• tota l numbe r o f release s pe r Commissio nlicense e a s reporte d i nth e AEO D dat a represent s th e averag e numbe r o f release s pe r facilit yfo r al l type s o f regulate d facilities ; an

d

• amoun t o f under-reporting fo r Commissio nlicensee s i s 2 0 percent . W e d o rel yheavil yo nthes e assumption s t o estimat e th e numbe r o f non-transportatio nradionuclid e release s fro mfacilitie s using o r producing radionuclide s i nan ysizabl e quantity . W e believe , however , tha t th e assumption s use d ar e reasonabl e fo r purpose s o f thi s analysis . Th e estimate s includ e bot hreportabl e an d non-reportabl e releases . Th e larg e majorit yo f thes e release s ar e expecte d t o b e exceedingl ysmall , wel l belo wth e propose d RQs , an d woul d no t b e expecte d t o pos e a dange r t o publi c healt ho r welfar e o r th e environment . W e tes t th e effec t o f thes e assumption s i nChapte r 7 o f thi s report . 3.3. 2 Frequenc yo f Releas e fo r a Particular Radionuclid e Th e dat a bas e assemble d fo r thi s analysi s identifie s 6 3 radionuclide s i n 1,13 9 releas e events . W e assume tha t i f a releas e o f a particula r radionuclid e occurre d i nth e past , i t serve s a s anindicatio no f th eP.3 2

3-1 5

likelihoo d tha t th e radionuclid e wil l b e release d i nth e future . Fo r eac ho f th e 6 3 radionuclide s identifie d i nou r dat a base , w e assume th e probabilit yo f a futur e releas e canb e derive d fro mth e frequencyo f pas t reporte d release s fo r tha t particula r radionuclide . Fo r example , uranium-23 8 (U-238 ) i s involve d i n12 9 o f th e 1,11 6 event s wit hidentifie d radionuclide s i nour dat a base . W e assume , therefore , tha t th e probabilit ya radionuclid e releas e i s specificall ya releas e o f uranium-23 8 i s 129/1,11 6 o r .116 . Iodine-12 5 (1-125 ) i s involve d i n 6 4 events . W e assume th e probabilit ytha t a radionuclid e releas e i s specificall ya releas e o f iodine-12 5 i s .05 7 (64/1,116) . Thi s calculatio ni s performe d fo r eac ho f th e 6 3 radionuclide s an d i s show

ni nExhibi t 3-3 . Al l othe r radionuclide s hav e bee nassigne d a zer o probabilit yo f releas e becaus e w e hav e n o dat a o npas t release s fo r thes e radionuclides . 3.3. 3 Siz e Distributiono f Release s Th e 68 4 releas e event s i nour dat a bas e tha t hav e quantit yinformatio nar e use d t o develop a siz e distributio no f release s fo r radionuclides . B ytaking th e logarithms o f th e releas e event s i nth e dat a base , a log norma l distributio ndevelops , wit ha mea no f 0.1 5 curie s an d standard deviatio no f 2. 7 curies . Th e dat a ar e skewed , reflecting a muc hhighe r probabilit yo f a smal l releas e an

d a smal l probabilit yo f a larg e release . Exhibi t 3- 4 display s th e siz e distributio no f th e release s i nth e dat a base . Th e frequencydistributio nshows , fo r example , tha t ther e ar e 15 2 releas e event s i nou r dat a bas e wher e th e quantit yrelease d i s greate r thaj i 1 curi e an d les s tha no r equa l t o 1 0 curies . Ther e ar e 11 0 releas e event s i nou r dat a bas e wher e th e quantit yrelease d i s greate r tha n1 0 curie s an d les s thano r equa l t o 10 0 curies . Ther e ar e onl y7 releas e event s i nou r dat a bas e wher e th e quantit yrelease d i s greate r tha n100 0 curies . 3. 4 BASELIN E REPORTABL E RELEAS E ESTIMATIO N Baselin e non-transportatio nradionuclid e release s includ e al l radionuclid e release s tha t excee d permitte d level s b yon e pound o r mor e a t license d o r regulate d facilities . W e hav e alread yestimate d annua l non-transportatio n radionuclid e release s t o b e approximatel y25 0 release s pe r year . W e no w determin e th e fractio no f thes e release s tha t ar e require d t o b e reporte d i n th e baselin e t o th e Nationa l Respons e Center . W e estimat e i nAppendi xAtha t ther e ar e abou t 21,90 0 Commissio nan d agreemen t stat e licensees , 7 8 DO E facilities , an d approximatel y2 5 activ e uraniu mmine s an

d elementa l phosphorou s plants . I naddition , ther e ar e approximatel y53,00 0 facilitie s withou t federa l permit s tha t coul d releas e radionuclide s bu t onl ya t extremel ylo wlevels . Althoughw e estimat e tha t ther e ar e abou t 25 0 annua l release s o f radionuclides , no t al l o f thes e release s ar e reportabl e presentl yunde r CERCLA ; onl yrelease s tha t equa l o r excee d on e pound fo r release s tha t ar e no t federall ypermitted , an d release s tha t excee d permi t o r licens e level s b yon e pound o r mor e nee d b e reporte d t o th e Nationa l Respons e Center .C

O co

co H

_ _ X X U J c o U J

_ J O

_ . 

## z o Q < c _ C

_ U J O 00 i_. <

_ _ *

"** •I - - • ^ U J mmm

--- -

> - 

## o z LU 

# a U J c _ LL. 0 )

c n c d a ) r- l a ) P i m o >-. - p • H i- H •i- t X I c d X I o I- I CL,

MH o I- I a > X i H 3 Z 0 ) -r t •r- l r- l O 3 G o • H T l c d K u a > P- ,

a> X ) • H i— i orc o • H T J c d « r- l c u CL , c n

- P C a ) > w

a) x i • H r H o c i o • H TJ c d cvicom^orNweoco-^flOwi^oxONvocomoi^oocnwrNMcococ^rvffiiowaiN^inaiv o

oov4DO*o(TiCNiOiHrHio>HOcvioo<-iiHooi-0'-i , *oo\o<-ir-ir^ooooi--ioo*j-<o--*ocy » mvOOOOOOOOOOvOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOiOOCMOOOOOCNiHOOC M OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCMOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO O 

### ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo o

-o* t H. o n V Or- * r

H C

M N - DN ( OC l V O l

O CM < N < N i—

i •— i v o C M

r - i— i HC M N - * -4 - v

O C M C O O V M O1(

1 H(O C M T- I C

O

•- Hc

o cjv.-1.4 - r H. 4 r^ CM

-H; • * wH n Loo*t*tNcooriton(oio m NP?-tH4^HrlNIOUV_10HHHH H I —I I I- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2 a p s < c1 <Qwsooot_;OTwcoD O ^•^<imuoouuouuououw w r- » •- < C M 1 0 o v r - r - a v

c o - Oo v

>- HIHo v C O1 0 i-

Ov Or- . HCM N N ( Or t H r-H I I I I C OI r Hr Hr Hi- HI I 1 HH < (_

| • O• •

• *Z « hhhOUKWHHHHH H r HI OOV - 4 OV C O C M 0 0 0 0 OV

CM I Ov o -4 - I I I I 1 I I f_ ] O S O< ! Hr- H 

## wE 5 s z z zP.3 4

3-1 7

EXHIBI T3- 3 FREQUENC YO F RELEAS E FO R RADIONUCLIDE S

I N DAT ABAS E (Continued )

Radionuclid e OS-18 5 OS-19 1 P-3 2 PB-21 0 PB-21 2 PM-14 7 PO-21 0 PU-23 8 PU-23 9 RA-22 6 RB-8 8 RU-10 6 S-3 5 SB-12 5 SR-9 0 TA-18 2 TC-9 9 TH-23 2 TH-23 4 TL-20 1 TL-20 4 U-23 5 U-23 8 XE-13 3 ZN-6 5 Subtota l Unknow n i TOTAL Event s

sotope s Numbe r o f

Pe i

1 ,

1 , • Radionuclid e
2 1 9 1 1 1 4 1 7 3 9 4 1 2 4 1 1 7 2 3 7 1 2 1 2 4 1 8 12 9 1 5 3 11 6 2 3 13 9 Probabilit yo f Releas e Pe r Radionuclid e 0.001 8 0.000 9 0.008 1 0.000 9 0.000 9 0.012 5 0.015 2 0.002 7 0.008 1 0.003 6 0.000 9 0.001 8 0.003 6 0.000 9 0.015 2 0.001 8 0.033 2 0.010 8 0.000 9 0.001 8 0.003 6 0.016 1 0.115 6 0.013 4 0.002 7 1

Source : IC F estimates .P.3 5

3-1 8

EXHIBI T3- 4 SIZ E DISTRIBUTIO N O F RADIONUCLID E RELEASE S

I N DAT ABAS E

Numbe r o f Release s Quantit yi n Dat a Bas e tha t (Curies ) Equal s o r Exceed s Quantit y Probabilit ytha t Releas e Wil l Equa l o r Excee d

Quantit y1

0.00 1 0.0 1 0. 1 1 1 0 10 0 100 0 52 1 43 7 33 7 28 0 12 8 1 8 7 0.76 2 0.63 9 0.49 3 0.40 9 0.18 7 0.02 6 0.01 0

1 Derive d b

ydividing 68 4 int o th e numbe r o f release s i n th e dat a bas e tha t equal s o r exceed s tha t quantity . Ther e i s a tota l o f 68 4 release s wit hquantit yinformatio ni n th e dat a base . Source : IC F analysis .



## FREQUENC YDISTRIBUTIO N
** 7

_ 

### 1 5 RA WOAT A

1 7 

## ^?-—7 - s S O 4 0S

O C O QUANTITY(C Q 7 0 10 0 >10 0P.3 6

3-1 9

Federall ypermitte d release s ar e assume d t o b e al l release s fro m Commissio nlicensees , agreemen t stat e licensees , an d DO E facilitie s tha t ar e i ncomplianc e wit h1 0 CFRPar t 2 0 limitation s an d othe r licens e o r contrac t requirements , an

d release s fro

muraniu

mmine s an

d elementa l phosphorou s plant s tha t ar e specifie d i nan d i ncomplianc e wit hregulation s unde r Sectio n11 2 o f th e Clea nAi r Act . A s discusse d i nChapte r 2 o f thi s report , th e propose d RQ s wer e derive d fro

mth e Annua l Limit s o f Intak e (ALI ) develope d b yth e ICRP . Thes e hav e bee nadopte d b yth e Nuclea r RegulatoryCommissio ni nit s propose d revisio nt o 1 0 CFRPar t 20 . Fo r purpose s o f thi s analysis , therefore , w e assume tha t th e 1 0 CF RPar t 2 0 limitation s ar e equivalen t t o th e propose d RQs . Becaus e o f th e conservativ e assumption s use d i nth e developmen t o f th e propose d RQs , an

d becaus e th e ALI s ar e base d o na dos e equivalen t o f 5 rem , no t 50 0 millirem , i t i s expecte d that , unde r mos t circumstances , facilitie s ca nreleas e mor e tha nth e propose d R Q withou t exceeding th e 50 0 millirempe r yea r limi t fo r exposur e t o th e genera l publi c (i.e. , withou t exceeding federall ypermitte d level s fo r licensees) . Th e assumptio ntha t th e propose d RQ s equa l th e federall ypermitte d releas e level s would , therefore , over-estimat e th e numbe r o f reportabl e release s a t facilitie s wit hfedera l license s i nbot hth e baselin e an d post-regulatio n situations . Th e incrementa l numbe r o f reportabl e release s should , however , remai nunchanged . Th e sensitivit yo f our result s t o th e numbe r o f reportabl e release s i s addressse d i nChapte r 7 o f thi s report . Th e federall ypermitte d releas e level s fo r uraniu mmine s an

d elementa l phosphorou s plant s hav e bee nestablished.b yEPAunde r Sectio n11 2 o f th e Clean Ai r Act . Thes e level s ar e independen t o f th e ALIs . However , fo r purpose s o f thi s analysis , w e trea t al l facilitie s tha t hav e federall ypermitte d release s i nth e same manner ; w e assume th e propensit yt o releas e radionuclide s i s uniforman

d tha t federall ypermitte d releas e level s canb e represente d reasonabl ya s being equivalen t t o th e propose d RQs . Therefore , becaus e baselin e reportabl e release s fro mfacilitie s wit hfedera l permit s ar e al l release s fro

mthes e facilitie s tha t equa l o r excee d permitte d o r license d level s b

yon e pound , an

d becaus e fo r an

yparticula r radionuclide , th e federall ypermitte d releas e leve l i s assume d t o equa l th e propose d RQ , a releas e o f a radionuclid e woul d nee d t o b e reporte d t o th e Nationa l Respons e Cente r i f i t equal s o r exeed s th e propose d R Q plu s on e pound . Fo r eac hradionuclid e i nour dat a base , th e frequencyo f releas e show ni n Exhibi t 3- 2 wa s multiplie d b yth e probabilit ytha t a releas e wil l equa l o r excee d th e propose d R Q plu s on e pound fo r tha t radionuclid e (al l expresse d i n curies) . Thi s probabilit yi s derive d fro mth e siz e distributio no f release s show ni nExhibi t 3-4 . B ymultiplying th e frequencyo f releas e fo r a particula r radionuclid e b

yth e probabilit ytha t an yradionuclid e releas e wil l equa l o r excee d th e equivalent , i ncuries , o f th e propose d R Q plu s on e pound , w e deriv e th e probabilit ytha t a releas e o f a particula r radionuclid e wil l b e reportable . Fo r example , radium-22 6 ha s anestimate d frequencyo f releas e o f 0.003 6 becaus e i t wa s reporte d release d i nou r dat a bas e 4 times . Radium-22 6 ha s a propose d R Q o f 1 curi e an d on e pound o f radium-22 6 i s equivalen t t o 44 9 curies . B

yexamining al l 68 4 release s wit hquantit yinformatio ni nou r dat a base , w e determin e tha t ther e ar e 1 0 radionuclid e release s i nth e dat a bas e tha t equa l o r excee d 45 0 curies , th e propose d R Q plu s on e pound fo r radium-226 . W e estimate , therefore , tha t ther e i s a 0.014 6 (10/684 )P.3 7

3-2 0

probabilit ytha t a releas e o f 45 0 curie s o r greate r wil l occur . Th e estimate d probabilit ytha t radium-22 6 wil l b e release d a t level s tha t equa l o r excee d th e propose d RQ plu s on e pound , therefore , i s equa l t o 0.0000 5 (0.003 6 x 0.0146) . B yperforming thi s calculatio nfo r eac hradionuclid e an d summing , w e deriv e th e probabilit ytha t a radionuclid e wil l b e release d a t level s exceeding it s federall ypermitte d leve l b yon e pound o r more . Multiplying thi s su mb yth e numbe r o f annua l radionuclid e release s (250 ) fro mfacilitie s tha t hav e federa l permits , w e estimat e th e baselin e numbe r o f reportabl e release s t o b e 1 9 release s annually . Onc e again , w e mus t emphasiz e tha t thi s figur e i s anestimate . I t i s base d o na numbe r o f keyassumption s tha t are , t o some extent , over-simplifications , an d shoul d no t b e expecte d t o b e correc t i never y aspect . Chapte r 7 o f thi s repor t demonstrate s th e sensitivit yo f our result s t o thi s estimat e o f reportabl e radionuclid e releases . Baselin e cost s an

d benefit s ar e th e estimate d valu e o f action s take nb y bot hth e regulate d communit yan d th e governmen t whe nbaselin e reportabl e release s occur . Th e valu e o f thes e action s ar e discusse d i nChapte r 4 o f thi s report .CHAPTE R4 VALUATIO NO F TH E EFFECT S O F TH E PROPOSE D R Q ADJUSTMENT S
Th e purpos e o f anEconomi c Impac t Analysi s i s t o estimat e th e incrementa l cost s an

d benefit s resulting fro ma regulatoryaction . An yregulatio n requiring behaviora l change s wil l usuall ylead t o some element s o f societ y benefiting fro

mth e regulatio nan d some element s o f societ yincurring costs . Thi s repor t analyze s thos e benefit s an d cost s an

d estimate s th e ne t gai no r ne t los s resulting fro mth e propose d regulation . Sectio n4. 1 describe s action s tha t coul d b e take nb ybot hth e regulate d communit yan d governmen t a s a resul t o f a reportabl e releas e an d describe s th e action s tha t ar e attributabl e t o th e propose d R Q adjustment s fo r radionuclides ; Sectio n4. 2 discusse s th e valuatio no f the costs ; an d Sectio n4. 3 discusse s th e valuatio n o f th e benefits . 4. 1 ACTION S TAKE N WIT H AREPORTABL E RELEAS E Fo r al l radionuclide s whos e R Q adjustmen t i s downward , th e propose d regulatio ni s expecte d t o resul t i nanincrease d numbe r o f release s reporte d t o th e Nationa l Respons e Center . Thi s increase d reportin g requiremen t wil l impos e cost s o nth e regulate d communit yan d o nth e government . I t coul d als o resul t i nbenefit s fo r societ yi f reporting radionuclid e release s resul t i n faste r an

d mor e efficien t cleanup s o f th e releases . Fo r th e 3 0 radionuclide s whos e R Q adjustmen t i s upward , th e propose d regulatio ni s expecte d t o resul t i ncos t saving s (benefits ) fo r bot hth e regulate d communit yan d th e government , a s fewe r release s wil l b e reportabl e t o th e Nationa l Respons e Center . I t could , however , resul t i nfewe r cleanup s whic hmayimpos e a cos t o nsociet ydu e t o a lowe r leve l o f protectio no f publi c healt han

d th e environment . Thes e cost s an d benefit s ar e th e resul t o f action s take nb

yth e regulate d communit yan d th e governmen t whe na releas e occur s an

d is.reporte d b

ya facilit yt o th e Nationa l Respons e Center . Th e remainde r o f thi s sectio ndescribe s th e likel yaction s b ybot hth e regulate d communit yan

d th e governmen t a s a resul t o f a reportabl e releas e an d describe s th e action s tha t ar e attributabl e t o th e propose d R Q adjustments . 4.1. 1 Action s Undertake nB yth e Regulate d Communit y Whe na radionuclid e releas e occurs , thre e categorie s o f action s ar e undertake nb

yregulate d parties . Thes e action s canb e classifie d a s notification , recordkeeping , an d response . Th e notificatio nactio ni s require d b

yCERCL Ai n respons e t o a reportabl e release . Recordkeeping an d respons e actions , however , occu r indirectl yan d ar e no t require d b yth e statute . Notificatio ninclude s th e notificatio no f th e Nationa l Respons e Cente r b y th e responsibl e part yi f a reportabl e releas e occurs , a s i s require d b y Sectio n103(a ) o f CERCLA . Thi s actio ninclude s activitie s beyond th e timeP.3 9

4- 2

spen t b yfacilit ymanager s i na telephon e conversatio nwit hth e Nationa l Respons e Center . Ther e i s ofte nsubsequen t interactio nwit hthe governmen t b y variou s level s o f fir mpersonne l a s th e governmen t evaluate s an d determine s th e appropriatenes s o f a respons e action . Recordkeeping i s ofte nassociate d wit hnotification . AlthoughCERCLA doe s no t requir e tha t record s o f release s b e kept , regulate d partie s ofte n maintai nlog s o f call s t o the Nationa l Respons e Center . Thes e log s migh t includ e a descriptio no f th e incident , it s cause , a brie f accoun t o f conversation s wit hgovernmen t officials , an d a descriptio no f th e outcome o f th e incident , a s wel l a s cleanu p action s taken . Respons e include s action s take nb yth e responsibl e part yt o mitigat e th e effect s o f th e release . Typica l respons e action s migh t includ e sampling the air , water , o r soil ; evaluating th e necessit yfo r evacuatio nan d relocation ; directl ycontaining th e release ; an d removing and/o r neutralizing th e release . 4.1. 2 Action s Undertake nb y th e Governmen t Action s undertake nb ythe governmen t i nrespons e t o a releas e canb e divide d int o four categories . The yinclud e notificatio nprocessing , off-scen e monitoring , on-scen e monitoring , an d direc t removal . Eac hcategoryi s directl ycause d b

yth e notificatio no f a release . Notificatio nprocessing include s th e initia l communicat.io n wit hth e perso nwh o call s i nth e repor t t o th e Nationa l Respons e Center . I t als o include s evaluatio no f th e information , determinatio no f anappropriat e governmen t response , an d subsequen t recordkeeping . Off-scen e monitoring include s supervisio nan d monitoring o f th e responsibl e party' s action s throughtelephon e an d dat a monitoring . On-scen e monitoring include s a governmen t officia l providing advic e an d assistanc e i nperso nt o th e cleanu p team , coordinating communication s among agencies , providin g informatio nt o the public , an d ensuring tha t th e Agency' s concern s ar e represente d i ndetermining th e appropriat e response . Direc t remova l i s necessarywhe nth e responsibl e part ycanno t o r wil l no t adequatel yclea nup th e radionuclid e releas e an d th e releas e represent s a hazar d t o publi c healt ho r welfar e o r t o th e environment . Althoughth e governmen t respons e agencywil l normall yus e a privat e contracto r t o clea nu p th e release , governmen t respons e team s nevertheles s hav e sampling , monitoring , containment , an

d safet yequipmen t t o dea l wit hth e initia l emergencyand t o assis t th e contractor s i nth e cleanup . Direc t removal s als o coul d requir e mor e tha non e governmen t agency. x

*Fo r example , EPA , th e Coas t Guard , th e Nuclea r RegulatoryCommission , th e Departmen t o f Energy , th e Federa l Emergenc yManagemen t Agency , stat e respons e agencies , stat e an d loca l polic e an

d highwayresources , o r loca l fir e department s coul d become involve d i na releas e event .P.4 0

4- 3

4.1. 3 Incrementa l Action s Attributabl e t o th e Radionuclid e R Q Adjustment s Sectio n103(a ) o f CERCL Arequire s an

yreleas e o f anR Q o r mor e o f a hazardou s substanc e t o b e reporte d immediatel yt o the Nationa l Respons e Center . Th e propose d regulatio ni s adjusting th e RQ fo r radionuclides , resulting i na chang e i nth e numbe r o f reportabl e releases . Fo r thos e radionuclide s whos e RQ decreases , th e propose d regulatio nwil l resul t i nan increas e i nth e numbe r o f reportabl e release s t o the Nationa l Respons e Center . Fo r thos e radionuclide s whos e R Q increases , th e propose d regulatio n wil l resul t i na decreas e i nth e numbe r o f reportabl e release s t o th e Nationa l Respons e Center . Thi s wil l affec t notificatio ncosts , recordkeeping , an d respons e cost s incurre d b yth e affecte d facilitie s an d i t wil l affec t notificatio nprocessing costs , off-scen e an d on-scen e monitoring costs , .an d remova l cost s incurre d b yth e government . Th e production , use , an d transportatio no f radionuclide s ar e alread y regulate d an

d controlled . Fo r th e mos t part , facilitie s alread yfac e some reporting requirement s fo r release s o f radionuclides . Al l transportatio n releases , regardles s o f quantity , mus t alread yb e reporte d t o th e Nationa l Respons e Cente r (4 9 CFRPart s 171-177) . Therefore , th e propose d regulatio n adjusting th e radionuclid e R Q fro mon e pound t o some ne wleve l wil l hav e n o effec t o ntransporter s o f radionuclides . Th e propose d regulatio ncoul d increas e notification , recordkeeping , an d respons e activitie s fo r facilitie s handling an d releasing radionuclide s wit ha propose d R Q les s tha n on e pound . Similarly , i t coul d decreas e notification , recordkeeping , an

d respons e activitie s fo r facilitie s handling an d releasing radionuclide s wit ha propose d R Q exceeding on e pound . Th e additiona l cos t (or cos t savings ) an

yfacilit ywil l incur i s relate d t o th e numbe r o f reportabl e release s fro

mtha t facility , whic hi s a functio no f th e handling practice s a t th e facility , th e quantit yan d typ e o f radionuclide s handle d a t th e facility , an d th e form s o f th e radionuclide s (e.g. , seale d sources , solids , liquids , o r gases) . I t i s difficul t t o predic t whic hfacilitie s wil l b e mos t affecte d b y th e propose d R Q adjustments , bu t i t i s reasonabl e t o expec t a chang e i nth e numbe r o f release s o f radionuclide s reporte d t o th e Nationa l Respons e Cente r a s a resul t o f th e propose d regulation . Th e chang e i nth e numbe r o f reportabl e release s wil l directl yaffec t th e cost s an d benefit s tha t accru e t o bot hth e regulate d communit yan d government . I nadditio nt o th e direc t economi c cost s an d cos t saving s resulting fro m th e chang e i nth e numbe r o f release s reporte d t o th e Nationa l Respons e Center , th e propose d R Q adjustment s canaffec t publi c healt han d welfar e an

d environmenta l quality . I f th e likelihoo d o f a cleanu p respons e i s greate r whe nnotificatio nt o th e Nationa l Respons e Cente r i s required , the nR Q adjustment s coul d hav e th e following effects :

• Raising RQ s fo r particula r radionuclide s wil l decreas e th e numbe r o f reportabl e releases . Assuming tha t some releaser s ar e les s likel yt o cleanu p release s o f radionuclide s belo wth e RQ , mor e publi c healt han dP.4 1

4- 4

welfar e an

d environmenta l damage s coul d occu r wit h highe r RQs . Thes e incrementa l damage s ar e cost s o f raising th e RQ s fo r some radionuclides .

• Lowering RQ s fo r a particula r radionuclid e wil l increas e th e numbe r o f reportabl e release s fo r tha t substance . I f thes e lowe r RQ s lea d t o increase d an

d earlie r notification s o f release s an d t o appropriat e an d timel yrespons e action s tha t woul d no t otherwis e hav e occurred , publi c healt han d welfar e an

d environmenta l damage s coul d b e mitigated . Thes e decrease d o r avoide d damage s canb e considere d t o b e a benefi t o f lowering th e RQ s fo r some radionuclides . Identifying , predicting , an d measuring the publi c healt han d welfar e an

d environmenta l effect s o f raising o r lowering RQ s i s inherentl ydifficult . A n analysi s o f thes e effect s i s no t include d i nthi s repor t becaus e o f seriou s informatio nconstraints . Althoughthi s repor t estimate s th e chang e i nth e numbe r o f reportabl e release s unde r the propose d regulation , reliabl e informatio n i s unavailabl e o nth e damage s tha t hav e bee nassociate d wit hpas t radionuclid e releases . Ther e i s n o informatio nregarding th e rol e (i f any ) tha t R Q level s o r reporting requirement s playe d i ncontributing t o thes e effects . Therefore , littl e informatio nexist s upo nwhic ht o bas e a quantitativ e analysi s o f publi c healt han d welfar e an

d environmenta l effects , an d w e discus s thes e change s i nqualitativ e term s only . 4. 2 VALUATIO NO F COST S Thi s sectio ndescribe s th e metho d o f attaching value s t o th e action s cause d b

ychange s i nth e RQs . Th e value s associate d wit hon e reportabl e releas e ar e th e resource s tha t ar e consume d during th e notification , recordkeeping , an

d respons e activitie s b ybot hth e regulate d communit yan d th e governmen t an

d als o includ e th e change s i npubli c healt han d welfar e an

d environmenta l qualit ytha t mayb e produce d b ya response . I ngeneral , estimate s throughou t thi s stud yo f th e resource s consume d a s a resul t o f performing eac hactio nar e quantitative , an d th e estimate s o f change s i n publi c healt han

d welfar e an

d environmenta l qualit yar e qualitative . Th e remainde r o f thi s sectio nprovide s estimate s o f th e valu e o f th e action s performe d b

yregulate d partie s an d th e government . Thes e estimate s ar e examine d mor e closel yi nChapte r 7 o f thi s report , wher e w e tes t th e sensitivit yo f our result s t o eac ho f th e frequencyestimate s discusse d below . 4.2. 1 Value s o f Action s Performe d b yRegulate d Partie s W e bas e mos t o f our cos t estimate s fo r eac hactio no nth e estimate s derive d i nth e RegulatoryImpac t Analysi s (RIA ) supporting th e R Q adjustmen t fo r 34 0 CERCL

Ahazardou s substances. 2

2 IC F Incorporated , RegulatoryImpac t Analysi s o f Reportabl e Quantit y Adjustment s Unde r Section s 10 2 an d 10 3 o f th e Comprehensiv e Environmenta l Response , Compensation , an d Liabilit yAct , Volume I , Marc h1985 .4- 5

Notification . Sectio n103(a ) o f CERCL Aplace s the responsibilit yfo r notificatio no f th e Nationa l Respons e Cente r o nth e perso ni ncharg e o f th e vesse l o r facilit yfro mwhic ha hazardou s substanc e i s released . I t i s reasonabl e t o assume , therefore , tha t a plan t manage r o r representativ e wil l become involve d i nth e notificatio nproces s soo nafte r a releas e i s reported . I nadditio nt o th e plan t manager , th e time expende d an d th e typ e o f othe r peopl e wh o become involve d i nnotificatio nactivitie s depen d o nthe following four factors : the amount , identity , an d for m(solid , liquid , o r gas ) o f radionuclid e released ; th e locatio nwher e i t i s released ; the response s o f governmen t official s an d the release r o f th e radionuclide ; an d th e siz e an

d organizationa l structur e o f th e responsibl e party . Th e RI Ai nsuppor t o f th e R Q adjustmen t fo r 34 0 CERCL Ahazardou s substance s assume d notificatio ncost s fo r release s o f les s tha n5 5 gallon s ar e $121 , an

d notificatio ncost s fo r release s ove r 5 5 gallon s ar e $323. 3 I t woul d no t b e appropriat e t o differentiat e notificatio ncost s fo r radionuclid e release s o nth e basi s o f whethe r th e release s ar e above o r belo w5 5 gallons . A s discusse d earlier , a radionuclid e releas e wel l belo won e pound coul d generat e a grea t dea l o f concer nan d publi c interest , resulting i nrelativel y highnotificatio ncosts . Radionuclid e release s i ngenera l engende r publi c concernan

d scrutin

ybecaus e o f th e lack o f understanding an d genera l fea r fel t b yth e publi c a t larg e regarding radiatio nan d radioactiv e contamination . Th e responsibl e part ymayhav e t o respon d t o mor e call s fro mstat e an

d loca l governmen t official s an d fro mth e press , fo r example , tha nwoul d b e th e cas e fo r a chemica l release . I t seem s mor e appropriate , therefore , t o assume notificatio ncost s t o industryfo r a radionuclid e releas e ar e close r t o $323 , whic hinclude s thre e hour s o f manageria l time an d two hour s o f technica l time , tha ni t i s t o $12 1 whic hinclude s on e hou r o f manageria l time an d on e hou r o f technica l time . W e wil l assume , therefore , tha t eac hreleas e notificatio n cost s th e regulate d communit y$32 3 (198 3 dollars) . Recordkeeping . Th e resource s require d t o performinterna l recordkeeping responsibilitie s wer e estimate d i nth e RI Asupporting th e R Q adjustmen t fo r 34 0 CERCL

Ahazardou s substance s t o b e 1 clerica l hou r pe r release , an d assume s a rati o o f 1 supervisoryhou r t o eac h1 0 hour s o f clerica l time. * Thi s estimat e implie s a cos t o f $28.1 0 pe r release , assuming $2 0 pe r hou r fo r clerica l time an

d $8 1 pe r hou r fo r manageria l time . Recordkeeping associate d wit ha chemica l releas e notificatio nan d recordkeeping associate d wit ha radionuclid e releas e notificatio nshoul d no t diffe r substantially . W e adop t thi s same uni t cos t estimat e i nthi s analysi s o f th e propose d R Q adjustment s fo r radionuclides .

3 Ibid , p . 3-11 . Th e large r release s ar e assume d t o tak e 3 hour s o f manageria l time a t $8 1 anhou r an d 2 hour s o f technica l time a t $4 0 anhour . Th e smalle r releases , whic har e usuall yles s serious , ar e assume d t o tak e 1 hou r o f manageria l time an d 1 hou r o f technica l time . Al l estimate s ar e expresse d i n198 3 dollars . "Ibid , p . 3-11 .4- 6

Response . N o publi c healt han d welfar e o r environmenta l cost s o r benefit s ar e associate d wit hnotificatio nan d recordkeeping , pe r se . Th e publi c healt han

d welfar e an

d environmenta l effect s o f the propose d regulatio n ar e cause d solel yb ythe cleanu

p o f release s tha t woul d no t otherwis e hav e bee ncleane d up , o r whic hwoul d hav e bee ncleane d u p improperly , withou t th e advic e give nt o th e release r b yth e governmen t becaus e o f th e notification . Althoughaccurat e dat a ar e generall yunavailable , Nuclea r RegulatoryCom

mission , Departmen t o f Energy , an d Environmenta l Protectio nAgencysource s agre e generall ytha t responsibl e partie s currentl yrespon d adequatel yt o a verylarg e percentag e o f releases . Responsibl e partie s ar e liabl e fo r respons e cost s an

d natura l resourc e damage s fo r al l release s o f radionuclides , whethe r thes e release s ar e above o r belo wth e RQs . I t i s logica l t o assume , however , tha t a responsibl e part yi s mor e likel yt o respon d t o a releas e tha t i s abov e th e R Q thani t i s t o a releas e tha t i s belo wthe R Q simpl ybecaus e th e releas e i s large r an d th e Nationa l Respons e Cente r mus t b e notifie d o f th e release . Fo r purpose s o f thi s analysis , therefore , w e assume tha t responsibl e partie s adequatel yrespon d t o 9 0 percen t o f radionuclid e release s belo wth e R Q an d adequatel yrespon d t o 9 5 percen t o f radionuclid e release s above th e RQ . Hence , i f th e R Q i s lowered , w e migh t expec t a 5 percen t increas e i nrespons e activitie s fo r thos e release s tha t ar e nowreportable . Fo r thos e radionuclide s whos e propose d R Q i s greate r tha non e pound , w e woul d expec t a 5 percen t decreas e i nrespons e activitie s fo r release s tha t ar e greate r thanon e pound bu t ar e n o longe r reportabl e unde r th e propose d regulation . Th e RegulatoryImpac t Analysi s (RIA ) fo r R Q adjustment s o f 34 0 CERCL A hazardou s substance s estimate d th e rang e o f respons e cost s incurre d b y regulate d partie s t o b e betwee n$18 5 an d $2,09 3 pe r releas e (198 3 dollars). 5 Th e cost s ar e a functio no f th e siz e o f th e release . Radionuclid e release s are , i ngeneral , muc hsmalle r tha nth e chemica l release s considere d i nth e RIA , whic hrang e fro mon e pound t o 500 0 pounds . Radionuclid e releas e responses , however , ofte nrequir e specia l equipmen t an d protectiv e clothing , resulting i nhighe r respons e costs . T o estimat e radionuclid e respons e costs , therefore , w e di d no t rel yo nth e RI Aestimates . Instead , we'develope d thre e mode l releas e scenarios . W e base d our mode l scenario s o nreleas e report s i nth e dat a set s an d trie d t o selec t scenario s whic hreasonabl yrepresente d a fai r numbe r o f th e event s i nth e radionuclid e dat a base . Th e thre e scenario s represen t a rang e o f respons e action s an d respons e costs . Scenari o 1 represent s a smal l radionuclid e releas e resulting fro ma fault y valve , fo r example , a t a conversio nfacilit yo r laboratory . Th e radionuclid e release d coul d conceivabl yb e uranium-238 , tritium , o r krypton-85 . Th e appropriat e respons e fo r scenari o 1 woul d probabl yb e n o mor e thanmonitoring fo r an8-hour period . Cost s fo r scenari o 1 ar e use d fo r al l release s whos e respons e cost s woul d b e expecte d t o b e minimal .

'Ibid , p . 3-13 .P.4 4

4- 7

Scenari o 2 represent s a laborator yo r hospita l situatio nwher e a radionuclid e i s accidentl ydispose d o f wit hth e regula r garbage . Th e radioactiv e materia l i s the nshredde d an d pu t i na dumpster . Radionuclid e release s likel yt o b e represente d b ythi s mode l includ e cobalt-60 , iodine-125 , iodine-131 , an

d iridium-192 . Scenari o 2 cost s includ e monitoring an d decontamination . Scenari o 3 involve s a hypothetica l releas e o f uranium-23 8 t o surfac e water . Th e releas e mayhav e resulte d fro ma pip e failur e o r lagoonoverflo w an d involve s majo r respons e action s including monitoring an d dredging o f contaminate d sediment . Fo r eac hscenario , w e hav e estimate d th e cost s o f hypothetica l responses , show ni nExhibi t 4-1 . Al l cost s ar e i n198 6 dollars . Base d o nth e frequency o f occurrenc e o f differen t type s o f release s i nou r dat a base , w e assume scenari o 1 cost s ar e representativ e cost s fo r 6 6 percen t o f respons e actions ; scenari o 2 cost s ar e representativ e cost s fo r 2 7 percen t o f respons e actions ; an d scenari o 3 cost s ar e representativ e cost s fo r 7 percen t o f respons e actions . Using thes e percent s a s weight s fo r eac ho f th e cos t estimates , w e deriv e anaverag e weighte d respons e cos t fo r radionuclid e release s o f abou t $5,40 0 pe r respons e ((.6 6 x$160 ) + (.2 7 x$5,720 ) + (.0 7 x$53,600)) . Thes e estimate s wer e deliberatel ybase d o nsmal l releas e scenarios , becaus e larg e decontaminatio naction s woul d occur regardles s o f th e RQ s involve d an d ar e therefor e expecte d t o b e unaffecte d b yth e propose d R Q adjustments . W e realiz e tha t thi s estimatio nproces s i s veryimprecise , however , an d i n Chapte r 7 o f thi s report , w e tes t th e sensitivit yo f our result s t o th e respons e cos t estimates . 4.2. 2 Value of Action s Performedb y the Governmen t Mos t o f the.action s performe d b yth e governmen t involve cost s whic hd o no t varywit hth e typ e o f CERCL Ahazardou s substanc e released . Notificatio n processing , off-scen e monitoring , an d on-scen e monitoring cost s fo r radionuclid e release s ar e assume d t o b e simila r t o cost s incurre d fo r othe r CERCLAhazardou s substanc e releases . Th e RI Ai nsuppor t o f th e R Q adjustmen t fo r 34 0 CERCL

Ahazardou s substance s assume d th e governmen t action s wer e value d a t $7 0 fo r proces s notifications , $23 5 fo r off-scen e monitoring , an d $2,76 1 fo r on-scen e monitoring. 6 W e adop t thes e estimate s i nthi s analysi s o f th e effect s o f th e propose d R Q adjustment s fo r radionuclides . Th e RI Aals o assume s tha t th e likelihoo d o f off-scen e monitoring an d on-scen e monitoring b yth e governmen t varie s wit hth e siz e o f th e reporte d release . Fo r off-scen e monitoring , th e RI Aassume s governmen t respons e i s likel ybetwee nfortypercen t an d sevent ypercen t o f th e time . Fo r on-scen e monitoring , th e RI Aassume s governmen t respons e i s likel ybetwee nfiv e an d twent ypercen t o f th e time . Becaus e w e believ e a governmen t respons e actio n i s probabl ymor e likel yfo r a radionuclid e releas e tha nfo r th e averag e chemica l releas e simpl ybecaus e o f publi c awarenes s an d concer nove r radiatio n

'Ibid , p . 3-17 ,P.4 5

4- 8

EXHIBI T4- 1 RELEAS E SCENARI O 1

CIRCUMSTANCE : Asmal l radionuclid e releas e fro ma failed valv e a t a conversio nfacilit yo r laborator y

- 2 TYPICAL RADIONUCLIDES : 1 0 curie s o f Uranium-238 , Tritium , o r Krypton-8 5 RESPONS E ACTIVITIE S AN D COS T ESTIMATES : Arespons e mayno t b e necessaryno r appropriat e fo r ai r release s o f thi s size . However , w e assume the respons e require s 8 hour s o f monitoring . Tota l estimate d cos t = $16 0



## RELEAS E SCENARI O 2

CIRCUMSTANCE : Radionuclid e sourc e accidentl ydispose d o f a s standard soli d

waste , shredded , an d pu t i ndumpster . TYPICAL RADIONUCLIDES : 10~ 2 curie s o f Cobalt-60 , Iodine-125 , Iodine-131 , o r Iridium-19 2 RESPONS E ACTIVITIE S AN D COS T ESTIMATES : Monitoring an

d decontaminatio no f bench , tras hcan , an d janito r car t - - $32 0 Monitoring an

d decontaminatio no f shredde r an d dumpste r - - $5,40 0 Tota l estimate d cos t = $5,72 0P.4 6

4- 9

EXHIBI T 4- 1 (continued )

RELEAS E SCENARI O 3

CIRCUMSTANCE : Radionuclid e releas e fro mproces s discharg e pip e t o strea m whic hfeed s int o a river . TYPICAL RADIONUCLIDES : 2 0 curie s o f Uranium-23 8 RESPONS E ACTIVITIE S AN D COS T ESTIMATES : Monitoring ( 1 wk. ) a t outfall , ditch , stream , an d rive r - - $1,60 0 Ground wate r monitoring wel l (drilling an d sampling ) - - $1,00 0 Treatmen t o f 5,00 0 gallon s o f contaminate d wate r ($0.20/gal , including mobilizatio nfo r ion-exchang e resin ) - - $1,00 0 Dredging an

d disposa l o f contaminate d sediment s (100 0 c u ft ) - - $50,00 0 Tota l estimate d cos t = $53,60 0

Source : IC F analysi s base d o nth e following sources : U.S . Environmenta l

Protectio n Agency , Remedia l Respons e a t Hazardou s Wast e Site s (EP A 540/2-84-002) , Marc h1984 ; Tawil , J.J . e t al. , Off-Sit e Consequence s o f Radiologica l Accidents : Methods , Costs , an d Schedule s fo r Decontamination , Battell e Northwes t Laboratories , Prepare d fo r U.S . Nuclea r RegulatoryCommission , Augus t 1985 ; IC F 1986 .P.4 7

4-1 0

contamination , w e assume , fo r purpose s o f thi s analysis , tha t the likelihoo d o f anoff-scen e monitoring respons e b ythe governmen t i s sevent ypercen t an d th e likelihoo d o f anon-scen e monitoring respons e b ythe governmen t i s twent y percent , the highen d o f th e assume d range s fo r chemica l releases . W e tes t th e sensitivit yo f our result s t o thes e assumption s i nChapte r 7 o f thi s report . Direc t remova l cos t estimate s i nthe RI Afo r 34 0 CERCL Ahazardou s substance s wer e assume d t o b e $39,273. 7 W e modif ythi s cos t estimat e i n thi s analysi s becaus e direc t respons e action s fo r radionuclid e release s ten d t o b e verydifferen t fro mdirec t respons e action s fo r othe r chemica l releases ; fo r example , decontaminatio nprocedure s ofte ninvolve specia l equipmen t an d protectiv e clothing . Fo r purpose s o f thi s analysis , therefore , w e rel yo nth e mode l cos t scenario s discusse d earlie r i nth e chapte r an d describe d i nExhibi t 4-1 . W e assume th e governmen t woul d ge t involve d i n onl yth e mos t costl yscenari o an d s o assume scenari o 3 cost s ($53,600 ) ar e appropriat e fo r governmen t remova l actions . W e furthe r assume tha t five percen t o f al l radionuclid e release s wil l involve governmen t respons e activities. 8 Th e uni t cos t estimate s ar e no t precise , relying o nestimate s tha t mayno t b e totall yapplicabl e fo r radionuclid e releas e actions . W e hav e mad e very conservativ e assumption s regarding likelihoo d o f a respons e actio nan d hav e trie d t o cos t eac hactio nconservativel ys o a s t o er r o nth e sid e o f highe r cos t estimates . W e discuss , i nChapte r 7 o f thi s report , th e sensitivit yo f ou r result s t o thes e assumptions . 

### 4. 3 VALUATIO N O F BENEFIT S Th e economi c benefit s o f adjustment s ar e th e decrease d industr yan d governmen t cost s tha t resul t fro mraising RQ s fo r some radionuclides . Assuming tha t industrygenerall yreport s an d respond s t o a releas e a t o r exceeding th e RQ , raising th e R Q shoul d decreas e industry' s an d government' s notification , recordkeeping , processing , monitoring , an d respons e costs . Th e uni t cos t saving s ar e th e same a s th e uni t cos t estimate s discusse d i nSectio n 4. 2 above . Th e publi c healt han d welfar e an

d environmenta l benefit s o f R Q adjustment s ar e th e avoide d o r decrease d damag e cost s tha t resul t fro mlowering RQ s fo r mos t radionuclides . Assuming tha t a release r generall yreport s (or i s mor e

7 Ibid , p . 3-17 . 8 Th e RI Afo r th e 34 0 CERCL Ahazardou s substance s assume d th e likelihoo d o f a direc t governmen t respons e actio nwa s betwee non e an d five percent . W e assume th e highen

d o f th e rang e i s mor e appropriat e fo r radionuclid e releases . W e tes t thi s assumptio ni nChapte r 7 o f thi s report .P.4 8

4-1 1

likel yt o report ) a releas e a t o r exceeding the RQ , lowering th e RQ shoul d bot hincreas e th e numbe r o f notification s an d provid e incentive s fo r earlie r response s t o releases . Th e publi c healt han d welfar e an

d environmenta l effect s o f adjusting RQ s fo r some substance s ar e difficul t t o identify , predict , an d measur e fo r severa l reasons :

• Th e onl ycertai neffec t o f lowering RQ s i s tha t i t increase s th e numbe r o f reportabl e releases . Th e cost s an d benefit s o f RQ adjustment s ar e severa l step s remove d fro mchange s i nth e numbe r o f reportabl e release s an d depend upo nuncertai nregulate d part yan d governmen t behavior .

• Eve ni f i t coul d be establishe d tha t lowering RQ s generall ydecrease s publi c healt han d welfar e an

d environmenta l damages , i t i s difficul t t o specif yth e nature , magnitude , an d valu e o f thos e changes . Almos t n o dat a exis t o nth e damage s associate d wit hpas t release s o f smal l quantitie s o f radionuclides . Ther e i s eve nles s informatio no nth e rol e (i f any ) tha t reporting level s o r notification s playi naugmenting thes e damages . Therefore , ther e i s hardl yan y informatio nupo nwhic ht o bas e predictio no f effects . I f lowering RQ s fo r mos t radionuclide s lead s t o mor e o r earlie r notification s an

d mor e effectiv e respons e actions , the nth e following benefit s coul d occur :

• Reduction s i

nth e threa t o f mortalit y andacut e or chroni c morbidity . Thes e includ e reduction s i nhuma n exposur e (ingestion , inhalation , o r physica l contact ) t o radiatio ncontamination .

• Reduction s i

nthe threa t of genera l environmenta l damage s sucha s plan t andanima l damages . Thes e includ e reduction s i nth e advers e impac t o f release d radionuclide s o ncrop yields , non-crop vegetation , fish , wildlife , an

d far man d commercia l anima l production .

• Reduction s i

nth e threat of publi c damages . Thes e includ e mitigatio no f propert ydamages , recreationa l damages , an

d los t productivity . Withou t dat a o nreleas e damage s an d th e possibl e relationshi p o f notificatio nt o damages , i t i s no t possibl e t o quantif yth e publi c healt han d welfar e an

d environmenta l cost s an d benefit s unde r th e propose d regulation . However , i f greate r non-economi c benefit s resul t fro mmor e reporting , the nth e publi c healt han

d welfar e an

d th e environmenta l benefit s provide d b yth e propose d regulatio nwil l probabl yb e positiv e becaus e 9 6 percen t o f al lP.4 9

4-1 2

specifi c radionuclid e R Q adjustment s ar e downward , resulting i na ne t increas e i nexpecte d report s t o th e Nationa l Respons e Center . Th e uni t cost s an

d cos t saving s estimate s canno wb e combine d wit hth e estimate d numbe r o f baselin e reportabl e release s t o determining the baselin e an d incrementa l cost s an d benefit s attributabl e t o th e propose d regulation . Chapte r 5 present s the cos t estimate s an d Chapte r 6 present s the benefit s estimates .P.5 0



### CHAPTE R5 ESTIMATE DANNUA L COST S O F TH E PROPOSE D

R Q ADJUSTMENT S
Thi s chapte r discusse s th e cost s o f reportabl e quantit y(RQ ) adjustments , including the potentia l increase d economi c burde no nsociet ytha t mayb e cause d b

ylowering mos t o f th e radionuclid e RQs , an d the potentia l reductio n i npubli c healt han d welfar e an

d th e environmenta l qualit ytha t mayb e cause d b yraising some radionuclid e RQs . Th e analysi s i nthi s chapte r combine s th e informatio npresente d i nChapter s 3 an d 4 t o comput e th e annua l cos t o f R Q adjustments . Th e cost s o f R Q adjustment s ar e a resul t o f th e chang e i nth e numbe r o f release s reportabl e t o th e Nationa l Respons e Center . Reporting a releas e cause s bot hth e regulate d communit yan d th e governmen t t o incur cost s fo r notification , recordkeeping , an d possibl e respons e activities ; no t reporting a releas e coul d affec t huma nhealt han d welfar e and environmenta l quality . Sectio n5. 1 present s th e estimate s o f th e chang e i nreportabl e release s unde r th e propose d regulation ; Sectio n5. 2 present s th e estimat e o f th e incrementa l cost s o f th e propose d R Q adjustments ; an d Sectio n5. 3 present s firm-leve l economi c effect s o f th e propose d regulation . 

### 5. 1 TH E ESTIMATE DCHANG E I NTH E NUMBE RO F REPORTABL E RELEASE S Th e estimate d chang e i nth e numbe r o f reportabl e release s i s equa l t o th e differenc e betwee nbaselin e reportabl e release s (19 ) (derived i nChapte r 3 ) an d reportabl e release s unde r th e propose d regulation . I nth e baseline , a radionuclid e releas e a t a license d o r regulate d facilit yi s reportabl e t o th e Nationa l Respons e Cente r i f i t equal s o r exceed s permitte d level s b yon e pound . Unde r th e propose d regulation , a radionuclid e releas e i s reportabl e t o th e Nationa l Respons e Cente r i f i t equal s o r exceed s permitte d level s b yth e propose d RQ . Mos t license d o r regulate d facilitie s mus t compl ywit hthe Nuclea r RegultoryCommissio n1 0 CFRPar t 2 0 releas e limitations . Becaus e th e ALI s i n 1 0 CF RPar t 2 0 ar e th e basi s fo r th e derivatio no f th e propose d R Q adjustments , fo r purpose s o f thi s analysis , federall ypermitte d level s ar e assume d t o equa l th e propose d RQs. 1 Thus , a reportabl e radionuclid e releas e unde r th e propose d regulatio nfro ma facilit yholding a federa l permi t i s assumed , fo r purpose s o f thi s analysis , t o b e al l radionuclid e release s tha t

1 Thi s i s a simplificatio nbecaus e th e 1 0 CF RPar t 2 0 intak e limitation s ar e base d o na dos e o f 5 re mfo r nuclea r facilit yworkers . EPAbase d it s propose d RQ s o na dose-equivalen t o f 50 0 millireman d the nmad e severa l conservativ e assumption s t o calculat e th e releas e level s fo r th e propose d RQs . W e examin e i nChapte r 7 o f thi s repor t th e sensitivit yo f ou r result s t o th e numbe r o f reportabl e releases .P.5 1

5- 2

equa l o r excee d twic e th e propose d RQ . Becaus e th e propose d RQ s ar e being use d a s a prox

yfo r th e federall ypermitte d releas e level s an d release s exceeding thes e level s b yanR Q o r mor e mus t b e reporte d t o th e Nationa l Respons e Center , al l release s fro mfacilitie s holding federa l permit s tha t equa l o r excee d twic e th e propose d R Q mus t b e reporte d t o the Nationa l Respons e Center . T o estimat e th e expecte d numbe r o f release s above two time s th e propose d RQ , w e rel yo nth e siz e distributio no f release s i nour dat a bas e an d eac h radionuclide' s frequencyo f releas e show ni nExhibi t 3- 2 o f thi s report . Th e probabilit ytha t a particula r radionuclid e releas e wil l equa l o r excee d tw o time s th e propose d R Q i s estimate d t o b e th e frequencyo f releas e o f tha t radionuclid e i nou r dat a base , multiplie d b yth e fractio no f release s i nou r dat a bas e tha t equa l o r excee d two time s th e propose d RQ . Thi s calculatio ni s performe d fo r eac ho f the radionuclide s identifie d i nou r dat a base . W e the n su macros s th e radionuclides . Hence , reportabl e radionuclid e release s unde r the propose d regulatio ni s estimate d t o b e th e numbe r o f annua l release s (250) , multiplie d b yth e probabilit ytha t a radionuclid e wil l b e release d i n quantitie s equa l t o o r exceeding tw o time s th e propose d RQ . Reportabl e release s ar e estimate d t o b e approximatel y6 2 release s annually . Thus , th e R Q adjustment s resul t i n 4 3 (62-19 ) incrementa l reportabl e releases . Although3 0 radionuclide s hav e upwar d adjustment s o f thei r RQs , ther e i s n o chang e i nth e numbe r o f reportabl e release s fo r thes e radionuclide s i nou r dat a base . I nbot hth e baselin e an d wit hth e propose d RQs , w e estimat e ther e wil l b e approximatel y1 8 reportabl e release s annuall yo f thes e radionuclides . W e estimat e ther e wil l b e n o chang e i nth e numbe r o f release s tha t mus t b e reporte d t o th e Nationa l Respons e Center . Tha t is , base d o nth e releas e informatio ni nou r dat a base , 1 8 release s woul d b e require d t o b e reporte d i n th e baselin e an

d 1 8 release s wil l b e require d t o b e reporte d unde r th e propose d regulation . Therefore , ther e i s n o expecte d increas e i nth e threa t t o publi c healt ho r welfar e o r th e environment . Th e remainde r o f thi s chapte r wil l estimat e th e incrementa l cost s associate d wit hth e downwar d adjustmen t o f 72 7 radionuclid e RQs . 5. 2 ESTIMATE DCOST S O F TH E PROPOSE DR Q ADJUSTMENT S Becaus e w e estimat e tha t th e 3 0 radionuclide s whos e propose d R Q exceed s on e pound hav e n o expecte d chang e i nth e numbe r o f reportabl e releases , al l o f th e cost s unde r th e propose d regulatio nar e du e t o th e reductio ni nth e propose d radionuclid e RQ s an d economi c cost s associate d wit hincrease s i n reportabl e release s t o th e Nationa l Respons e Center . Th e cos t calculatio ni s show ni nExhibi t 5-1 . Man yo f th e uni t cost s describe d i nChapte r 3 wer e derive d fro

mestimate s i nth e RI Asupporting th e R Q adjustment s fo r 34 0 CERCLA hazardou s substances . Thos e cos t estimate s wer e i n198 3 dollars . Fo r purpose s o f thi s analysis , w e hav e converte d al l cos t estimate s t o 198 6 dollars .

### 5- 3

EXHIBI T 5- 1 CALCULATION S O F ANNUA L COST S O F R Q ADJUSTMENT S

UNDE RTH E PROPOSE D REGULATIO N
COST S T O B E REGULATE D PARTIE S A . Cos t o f Notificatio n (4 3 incrementa l reports ) x$33 6 = $ 14,44 8 B . Cos t o f Recordkeepin g (4 3 incrementa l records ) x$29.2 4 = $ 1,25 7 C . Cos t o f Respons e

(4 3 incrementa l releases ) x(.05 ) x($5,400 ) = $ 11,61 0 TOTA L COST TO REGULATED PARTIE S $ 27,31 5

COST S T O GOVERNMEN T D . Cos t o f Notificatio n Processin

g (4 3 incrementa l reports ) x$7 3 = $ 3,13 9 E . Cos t o f Off-Scen e Monitorin

g (4 3 incrementa l releases ) x(.70 ) x($245 ) = $ 7,37 5 F . Cos t o f On-Scen

e Monitorin

g (4 3 incrementa l releases ) x(.20 ) x(2,873 ) = $ 24,70 8 G . Cos t o f Direc t Remova l

(4 3 incrementa l releases ) x(.05 ) x($53,600 ) = $ 115,24 0 TOTA L COS T T

O GOVERNMEN

T $ 150,46 2 TOTA L COS T O

F PROPOSED REGULATIO N(198 6 dollars) * $ 177,77 7 *The RIAcos t estimate s supportin g th e R Q adjustment fo

r 34 0 CERCL

A hazardous substance s are in 198 3 dollars . The 198 3 dollar s wer e converte d t o 198 6 dollar s usin

g th e Constructio

n Cos t Index . March198 6 dollar s equa l 421 9 an d 198 3 dollar s equa l 4055 ; Engineerin g News Record , March1986 , p . 107 . Source : IC

F estimates .P.5 3

5- 4

Th e tota l cos t t o regulate d partie s i s th e su mo f notification , recordkeeping , an

d respons e costs . Th e cost s o f th e propose d regulatio nar e calculate d i nth e following manner :

A . Notification . Ther e ar e 4 3 incrementa l reportabl e radionuclid e release s an d eac hrepor t cost s anestimate d $336 , yielding a tota l annua l cos t o f abou t $14,500 . B . Recordkeeping . Multiplying 4 3 incrementa l reportabl e release s b

y$29.24 , th e cos t o f recordkeeping pe r reportabl e release , yield s tota l annua l recordkeeping cost s o f abou t $1,260 . C . Response . I t i s assume d i nthi s analysi s tha t th e probabilit yo f respons e t o a give nreleas e i s 9 0 percen t i f th e releas e i s belo wthe R Q an d 9 5 percen t i f th e releas e i s above th e RQ . Therefore , anextr a 5 percen t o f incrementa l reportabl e release s wil l b e responde d t o a s a resul t o f lowering RQs . Multiplying th e numbe r o f incrementa l reportabl e release s (43 ) b yth e incrementa l probabilit yo f respons e (0.05 ) an d b yth e weighte d averag e cos t pe r respons e ($5,400) , equal s tota l annua l respons e cost s o f abou t $11,600. 2 Th e tota l cos t t o regulate d parties , whic hi s th e su mo f notificatio ncosts , recordkeeping costs , an d respons e costs , i s abou t $27,300 . Th e tota l cos t t o th e governmen t o f R Q adjustment s i s th e su mo f notificatio nprocessing , off-scen e monitoring , on-scen e monitoring , an d direc t remova l costs . Thes e cost s ar e calculate d i nth e following manner :

• Notificatio nProcessing . Atota l annua l notificatio n processing cos t o f approximatel y$3,14 0 i s calculate d b y multiplying 4 3 incrementa l reportabl e release s b y$7 3 (the estimate d cos t o f processing on e notification) .

• Off-Scen e Monitoring . Multiplying 4 3 incrementa l reportabl e release s b yth e probabilit ytha t off-scen e monitoring i s required 3 (.70) , b yth e cos t o f off-scen e monitoring pe r releas e ($245) , yield s a tota l annua l off-scen e monitoring cos t o f abou t $7,400 .

2 Th e sensitivit yanalysi s i nChapte r 7 test s th e result s o f assuming differen t probabilitie s o f respons e t o release s belo wan d abov e th e RQ . 3 Th e sensitivit yanalysi s i nChapte r 7 test s th e result s o f assuming differen t probabilitie s o f off-scen e monitoring .P.5 4

5- 5

• On-Scen e Monitoring . Multiplying 4 3 incrementa l reportabl e release s b yth e probabilit ytha t on-scen e monitoring i s required * (.20) , b yth e cos t o f on-scen e monitoring pe r releas e ($2,873 ) yield s a tota l annua l on-scen e monitoring cos t o f abou t $24,700 .

• Direc t Removal . Multiplying 4 3 incrementa l reportabl e release s b yth e probabilit yo f direc t respons e b

yth e governmen t (.05 ) an d th e estimate d cos t o f direc t remova l ($53,600 ) yield s a tota l annua l cos t fo r direc t response s o f abou t $115,000. s Th e tota l cos t t o th e government , whic hi s th e su mo f notificatio nprocessing costs , off-scen e monitoring costs , on-scen e monitoring costs , an d direc t respons e cost s i s approximatel y$150,500 . Th e su mo f th e tota l cost s t o th e governmen t an d t o regulate d partie s equal s th e tota l cost s o f al l effects , whic hi s approximatel y$178,000 . 5. 3 FIRM-LEVE LECONOMI C EFFECT S Th e estimate d cost s o f th e propose d regulatio nar e smal l relativ e t o th e sale s an

d revenue s generate d b yth e industrie s mos t likel yt o b e affecte d b y th e propose d regulation . Th e averag e facilit yhandling radionuclide s i s no t expecte d t o experienc e a radionuclid e releas e above the propose d RQ . W e estimat e tha t ther e wil l b e abou t 4 3 incrementa l reportabl e release s annually , an d ther e ar e a s man

ya s 22,00 0 facilitie s potentiall yaffecte d b yth e propose d regulation . Th e probabilit ytha t an yparticula r facilit ywil l experienc e a reportabl e releas e i s a functio no f th e types , quantities , an d form s o f radionuclide s use d an d produce d a t th e facility , an d th e facility' s handling procedures . Th e type s o f facilitie s affecte d b ythe propose d regulatio nvarywidely , fro mlaboratorie s t o larg e uraniu mmining operations . I t i s no t possibl e t o predic t wit han

ydegre e o f accuracyth e facilitie s mos t likel yt o experienc e reportabl e radionuclid e release s and , therefore , i t i s no t possibl e t o develop a financia l mode l o f a typica l releaser . W e candiscus s i ngenera l terms , however , th e magnitud e o f cost s fo r a facilityexperiencing a reportabl e releas e unde r th e propose d regulation . Thes e cos t estimate s ar e a s follows :

• Notificatio ncost s $33 6
• Recordkeeping cost s $3 0

• Cleanu

p cost s $5,40 0

*The sensitivit yanalysi s i nChapte r 7 test s th e result s o f assuming differen t probabilitie s o f on-scen e monitoring . 5 Th e sensitivit yanalysi s i nChapte r 7 test s th e result s o f assuming differen t probabilitie s o f direc t response .P.5 5

5- 6

Th e tota l cos t t o a facilit yo r vesse l experiencing a reportabl e radionuclid e releas e is , therefore , estimate d t o b e abou t $5,800 . Th e cos t t o th e facilit ywil l depen d directl yupo nthe cleanu p costs , estimate d t o rang e betwee nzer o an

d $54,000 , wit ha weighte d averag e cleanu p cos t o f abou t $5,400 . Th e tota l annua l burde nunde r th e propose d R Q adjustment s experience d b y al l affecte d entitie s depend s o nth e siz e an d numbe r o f reportabl e releases . Th e burde nimpose d b yth e CERCL

Anotificatio nrequirement s o nanindividua l busines s depend s directl yo nthe numbe r o f reportabl e release s tha t occur a t tha t facility . Mos t o f th e facilitie s potentiall yaffecte d would , i nfact , experienc e n o cost s fro mth e notificatio nrequirement s becaus e theywoul d hav e n o reportabl e releases . Eve nassuming a reportabl e releas e occur s a t a facility , th e likel ycost s incurre d ar e s o smal l tha t w e mus t conclud e tha t th e propose d regulatio nwil l no t adversel yaffec t an yfacility , larg e o r small . Th e larges t cost s unde r th e Mos t release s ar e cleane d up r e belo wth e RQ . Cleanu p o f larg e propose d R Q adjustment s becaus e propose d regulatio nan d cleanu

p pu t the magnitud e o f the cost s prospective , i t i s importan t t o adjustment s a s well . Thes e ar e propose d regulatio ni s du e t o cleanu p costs . gardles s o f whethe r th e releas e i s abov e o r release s wil l probabl yno t b e affecte d b yth e theywoul d b e reportabl e eve nwithou t th e woul d probabl yoccu r regardles s o f th e RQ . T o attributabl e t o th e propose d regulatio nint o conside r th e benefit s o f th e propose d R Q discusse d i nChapte r 6 o f thi s report. .P.5 6 

# I I I I I I I 1 I t I I I I 1 I I I I CHAPTE R6 ESTIMATE DBENEFIT S O F TH E PROPOSE DR Q ADJUSTMENT S Thi s chapte r analyze s th e benefit s o f adjusting th e reportabl e quantitie s (RQs ) fo r radionuclides . Th e benefit s fal l int o two categories :

(1 ) Cos t saving s t o affecte d parties . Raising RQ s fo r some radionuclide s coul d decreas e th e numbe r o f reportabl e releases . Thi s decreas e i ntur nreduce s th e cost s t o regulate d partie s an d governmen t fo r notification , recordkeeping , response , an d monitoring . (2 ) Publi c healt han d welfar e an

d environmenta l benefits . Lowering RQ s fo r some radionuclide s increase s th e numbe r o f reportabl e releases . Thi s increas e i nturndecrease s th e probabilit yo f publi c healt ho r welfar e o r environmenta l damag e i f earlie r o r mor e notification s o f releases*ar e followe d b yprompt , appropriat e respons e action s b

yth e responsibl e part y(or i nsome cases , b y th e variou s local , state , o r federa l agencie s involved) . Benefit s o f th e propose d regulatio nflowfro mgovernmen t an

d regulate d part y response s t o change s i nth e numbe r o f reportabl e releases . I f w e assume tha t industrynormall yreport s an d respond s t o a radionuclid e releas e equa l t o o r exceeding it s RQ , the nraising th e R Q leve l shoul d decreas e th e notification , recordkeeping , processing , monitoring , an d respons e cost s o f th e regulate d communit yan

d government . O f th e 75 7 radionuclide s whos e RQ s ar e individuall yadjuste d i nth e propose d regulation , onl y3 0 radionuclide s hav e a propose d R Q greate r tha non e pound . Exhibi t 6- 1 display s thes e 3 0 radionuclide s an d thei r propose d RQs . Si xo f thes e 3 0 radionuclide s ar e represente d i nour dat a base . Thes e si x radionuclide s wit hpropose d RQ s tha t ar e greate r tha nth e curi e equivalen t o f on e pound wer e reporte d release d 19 8 time s i nth e recen t pas t i nth e dat a set s w e examined . However , becaus e w e estimat e ther e wil l b e n o chang e i nth e numbe r o f reportabl e release s o f thes e 3 0 radionuclide s a s a resul t o f th e propose d R Q adjustments , ther e ar e n o cos t saving s attributabl e t o th e propose d regulation . Th e publi c healt han d welfar e an

d environmenta l benefit s o f R Q adjustment s are , therefore , th e avoide d o r decrease d damag e cost s tha t resul t fro mth e lowe r RQ s fo r 72 7 radionuclides . Assuming tha t a responsibl e part yi s mor e likel yt o respond t o a releas e a t o r exceeding th e RQ , lowering reporting level s fo r a substanc e shoul d increas e th e numbe r o f notification s an d provid e incentive s fo r earlie r response s t o releases . Thes e notification s maylea d t o mor e prompt , effectiv e cleanu p o r containmen t o f releases , thu s avoiding o r mitigating damage s tha t woul d otherwis e occur .P.5 7 

# I I I I 6- 2

EXHIBI T6- 1 RADIONUCLIDE S WIT H PROPOSE D RQ s GREATE R THA N ON E POUN D

Radionuclid e Aluminum-2 6 Cadmium-11 3 Calcium-4 1 Cesium-13 5 Chlorine-3 6 Gadolinium-15 2 Hafnium-18 2 Indium-11 5 *Krypton-8 1 Lanthanum-13 8 Lead-20 5 Lutetium-17 6 Manganese-5 3 *Nickel-5 9 Palladium-10 7 Plutonium-24 4 Potassium-4 0 Rhenium-18 7 Rubidium-8 7 Samarium-14 7 Selenium-7 9 Tantalum-18 0 Techne t ium9 7 Technetium-9 8 *Technetium-9 9 Tellurium-12 3 *Thorium-23 2 *Uranium-23 5 Uranium-23 6 *Uranium-23 8 Propo s Curie s
1 0 1 100 0 10 0 10 0 0.00 1 0. 1 0. 1 100 0 - • 1 10 0 1 100 0 100 0 10 0 0.0 1 10 0 100 0 100 0 0.0 1 10 0 1 0 100 0 1 0 10 0 10 0 0.00 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 ed RQ

905 ,

3 1

5 1 2 6

11 1

98 5 Pound s

1. 2 000,00 0 25. 3 25 0 6. 7 103,00 0 1 200,00 0 10 4 90,10 0 1,91 0 39,00 0 1,20 0 32. 7 42 8 1.. 2 30,80 0 900,00 0 200,00 0 97 8 2. 9 000,00 0 1,55 0 25. 3 1 3 000,00 0 2 0 10 3 3. 4 65 4 ^Radionuclide s represente di nou r dat abase
. Source : Memorandumfro mAla nMessing , Environ

-

menta lMonitorin g an dServices , Inc
. t o Elle nWarhit , ICF , "Radionuclide s wit h Propose dRQs i nGreate r Tha no r

Equa lt o on epound, " Octobe r 1986
.P.5 8

6- 3

I f lowering RQ s fo r certai nradionuclide s lead s t o mor e o r earlie r notification s an

d mor e effective respons e actions , the nthe following benefit s mayoccur :

• Reduction s i nth e threa t o f mortalit yan d acut e chroni c morbidity ;

• Reduction s i nthe threa t o f genera l environmenta l damage s sucha s plan t an d anima l damages ; an d

• Reduction s i nthe threa t t o publi c welfar e damage s (including propert ydamage , recreationa l damage , an d los t productivity) . Unfortunately , w e hav e n o dat a o nreleas e damage s no r o nth e possibl e relationshi p o f th e timing o f notification s t o th e exten t o f damages . I t i s no t possible , therefore , t o quantif yth e benefit s o f th e propose d regulation . Th e directio no f al l bu t 3 0 o f th e 75 7 individua l propose d R Q adjustment s i s downward , however , resulting i nanexpecte d increas e i nth e futur e numbe r o f radionuclid e release s reporte d t o th e Nationa l Respons e Center . W e anticipat e tha t th e earlie r notificatio nwil l resul t i nfaste r an d mor e appropriat e respons e actions , yielding benefit s t o bot hth e regulate d communit y(i nterm s o f lowe r respons e costs ) an d t o societ yi ngenera l (i nterm s o f reduce d theat s t o huma nhealt han

d welfar e an

d th e environment) . Ou r analysi s o f bot hcost s an d benefit s unde r th e propose d regulatio ni s base d o nsevera l ke yassumption s which , i f inaccurate , coul d caus e th e estimate s t o misrepresen t th e effect s o f th e propose d regulation . We , therefore , tes t th e majo r assumption s t o determin e th e sensitivit yo f ou r result s t o eac hassumption . Th e result s o f thi s analysi s ar e presente d i n Chapte r 7 o f thi s report .P.5 9

CHAPTE R 7 SENSITIVIT YANALYSI S

Severa l time s i nthi s analysis , dat a hav e bee nuse d whos e margi no f erro r coul d hav e bee nimprove d throughfurthe r research . Similarly , i nsevera l instances , keystud yassumption s wer e mad e whic huse d th e bes t availabl e informatio nfro

ma verylimited dat a base . Unde r thes e circumstances , therefore , i t i s importan t t o conduc t a sensitivit yanalysi s t o tes t th e impac t tha t changing keystud yassumption s woul d hav e upo nth e result s o f th e analysis . Th e firs t two section s o f thi s chapte r presen t a sensitivit y analysi s o n th e result s o f thi s analysis . Th e firs t sectio ndiscusse s th e importanc e o f a sensitivit yanalysi s an d establishe s the range s fo r th e key variable s an

d assumption s tha t wil l b e tested . Th e secon d sectio npresent s th e result s o f th e sensitivit yanalysi s usin g thes e ranges . Th e thir d section , Sectio n7.3 , describe s ou r statistica l analysi s o f ou r radionuclid e releas e dat a base ; an d Sectio n7. 4 summarize s our results . 7. 1 CONCEPT S AN D KE YVARIABLE S I ngeneral , a sensitivit yanalysi s indicate s ho wth e result s o f an analysi s migh t varyi f some o f th e basi c building block s o f th e stud yha d bee n different . If , fo r example , th e analys t i s reasonabl ycertai ntha t on e o f tw o particula r value s fo r a keyvariabl e i s correc t bu t doe s no t kno wwhic hone , o r tha t tw o value s wil l bracke t th e tru e value , eac hmayb e use d i nth e sensitivit yanalysis . Th e resul t i s the npresente d twic e - - onc e fo r eac h valu e o f th e keyvariable . I nothe r situations , ther e mayb e verylittl e guidanc e o na particula r key variable . Areasonabl e gues s canb e mad e abou t th e likel yvalu e fo r th e variable ; othe r value s mayb e selecte d t o determin e th e sensitivit yo f th e result s t o thi s choice . Thi s techniqu e ha s th e virtu e o f indicating th e rang e o f possibl e results , althoughi t doe s no t indicat e whethe r th e "true " result s ar e included . Asensitivit yanalysi s i s sometime s though t t o ad d information , an

d i t doe s i nth e sens e o f bracketing a range . Nonetheless , th e rang e mayb e to o smal l o r to o large , depending o nth e qualit yo f th e value s use d i nth e sensitivit yanalysis . Thus , th e valu e o f th e analysi s stil l depend s o nth e qualit yo f th e inpu t data . Thi s sensitivit yanalysi s test s th e impac t o f changing si xbasi c assumption s tha t hav e bee nuse d during thi s analysis . Thes e assumption s include : (1 ) th e numbe r o f incrementa l reportabl e releases ; (2 ) th e hour s require d and , therefore , th e uni t cos t pe r releas e notification ; (3 ) th e frequencyo f on-scen e monitoring ; (4 ) th e frequencyo f direc t removal ; (5 ) th e frequencyo f off-scen e monitoring ; an d (6 ) th e frequencyo f cleanup s b y responsibl e parties . W e tes t th e frequencyo f action s rathe r tha nth e uni tP.6 0

7- 2

cost s o f performing suc haction s becaus e th e cos t estimate s ar e considere d reasonabl e an

d adjustment s i nthe cos t estimate s ar e overwhelme d b yth e frequencyestimates . Assumption s regarding eac ho f thes e keyvariable s ar e varie d i nth e following manne r i nth e sensitivit yanalysis : 1 . Numbe r o f incrementa l reportabl e releases . Th e numbe r o f incrementa l reportabl e release s i s perhap s th e mos t importan t singl e variabl e o nwhic h cost s ar e estimated . Th e analysi s i nChapte r 5 assume s ther e wil l b e 4 3 annua l incrementa l reportabl e release s o f radionuclides . Thi s estimat e may varybecaus e th e estimate s o f under-reporting coul d b e inaccurate , th e AEO D dat a se t mayno t contai nrepresentativ e facilities , o r th e numbe r o f release s mayno t b e proportiona l t o the numbe r o f facilities . T o reflec t th e order-of-magnitud e change s i ncost s tha t woul d resul t fro mlarg e difference s i nth e number s o f incrementa l reportabl e releases , th e sensitivit yanalysi s wil l estimat e th e result s o f halving an d doubling thi s figure . Thus , th e following assumptio ni s tested : Numbe r o f Incrementa l Release s LowEstimat e Bas e Cas e HighEstimat e 2 0 4 3 10 0 2 . Notificatio nhours . Th e cost s associate d wit hnotificatio nrepresen t ove r 5 0 percen t o f tota l cost s t o regulate d parties . Th e bas e cas e analysi s i nChapte r 5 assume s tha t 3 hour s o f manageria l time an d 2 hour s o f technica l time woul d b e require d fo r eachrelease . T o estimat e a rang e o f notificatio n cost s tha t migh t b e experience d b yindustryan

d individua l firms , th e estimat e o f hour s ar e halve d an d double d fo r th e senstivit yanalysis , resulting i nth e following uni t cos t estimates :

Manageria l an

d Technica l Hour s Require d fo r Reporting Lo wEstimat e Bas e Cas e HighEstimat e $16 8 $33 6 $67 2 No variatio no f th e hourl ycos t o f manageria l an d technica l time i s available . Th e averag e hourl yrate s use d i nth e bas e cas e analysi s ar e considere d t o b e reasonabl yaccurate . Moreover , potentia l variation s i nth e magnitud e o f thes e rate s i s overwhelme d b yth e potentia l variatio ni nhour s require d fo r reporting . 3 . Frequenc yo f cleanups . Th e bas e cas e analysi s assume s tha t ther e i s a measurabl e differenc e i nresponse s t o release s tha t ar e abov e o r belo wth e RQ . I f thi s assumptio ni s inaccurat e (i.e. , i f responsibl e partie s woul d no t respond differentl yt o release s above o r belo wth e RQ) , the nn o cost s o r benefit s o f cleanu

p canb e attribute d t o regulation s tha t adjus t RQs . I nth e sensitivit yanalysis , variou s assumption s ar e use d relating t o thi s differenc e i npercentag e o f release s cleane d u p above an

d belo wRQ s t o estimat e respons e costs .P.6 1

7- 3

Frequenc yo f Cleanup s LowEstimat e Bas e Cas e HighEstimat e .0 0 .0 5 .2 0 4 . Frequenc yo f off-scen e monitoring . I nChapte r 5 , i t i s assume d tha t al l release s requir e notificatio nprocessing bu t tha t some o f thes e release s requir e n o furthe r action . Th e thre e set s o f estimate s fo r frequencyo f off-scen e monitoring tha t wil l b e use d i nth e sensitivit yanalysi s ar e a s follows : Frequenc yo f Off-Scen e Monitoring

LowEstimat e Bas e Cas e HighEstimat e .3 5 .7 0 .9 0 5 . Frequenc yo f on-scen e monitoring . I t i s als o importan t t o examin e th e sensitivit yo f estimate s o f th e frequencywit hwhic hon-scen e monitoring effort s wil l b e neede d (i.e. , th e percen t o f incident s tha t result s i nfedera l governmen t on-scen e monitoring ) bot hbecaus e th e governmen t shar e o f cost s i s abou t 8 5 percen t o f tota l effects , an d becaus e on-scen e monitoring activitie s accoun t fo r abou t 1 6 percen t o f governmen t effects . Base d o njudgment s o f th e likelihoo d o f nee d fo r on-scen e monitoring an d th e availabilit yo f resources , th e following "low " an d "high " estimate s hav e bee nformulated : Frequenc yo f On-Scen e Monitoring Lo wEstimat e Bas e Cas e HighEstimat e .1 0 .2 0 .4 0 6 . Frequenc yo f direc t removal . Th e following estimate s o f frequencyo f direc t remova l ar e constructe d an d use d i nth e sensitivit yanalysis . Direc t remova l cost s represen t abou t 7 7 percen t o f governmen t costs . Frequenc yo f Direc t Remova l Lo wEstimat e Bas e Cas e HighEstimat e .02 5 .0 5 .2 0 7. 2 RESULT S O F TH E SENSITIVIT YANALYSI S Thi s sectio npresent s th e result s o f th e sensitivit yanalysis . Th e sectio ninclude s a descriptio no f change s i nestimate d cost s t o th e governmen t an d regulate d partie s tha t occu r fro mreporting an

d cleanu

p activitie s usin g th e assumption s whic hwer e describe d i nSectio n7.1 . Th e result s o f thi s analysi s ar e organize d i nth e same manne r a s th e previou s sectio nan d presente d i nExhibi t 7-1 .7- 4 P.6 2

EXHIBI T7- 1 SENSITIVIT YANALYSI S RESULT S

Lo w Estimat eBas eCas e 1
. Number

o f incrementa l Reportabl erelease s Assumptio n: Cos t o f propose dregulation : 2 . Notificatio nhour s Assumptio n Notificatio nCost s Cos t o f propose d regulatio n 3 . Incrementa l frequencyo f cleanup s b

yresponsibl e partie s 2 0 $ 82,70 0

16 8 $ 7,20 0 $170,70 0

4 . Frequenc yo f off-scen e monitoring Assumptio n Off-scen e monitoring cost s Cos t o f propose d regulatio n 5 . Frequenc yo f on-scen e monitoring Assumptio n On-scen e monitoring cost s Cos t o f propose d regulatio n 6 . Frequenc yo f direc t govern men t remova l .3 5 $ 3,70 0 $174,30 0

.1 0 $ 12,35 0 $165,40 0 4 3

$178,00 0

33 6 $ 14,50 0 $178,00 0

.2 0 $ 24,70 0 $178,00 0 HighEstimat e

10 0 $ 413,40 0

67 2 $ 28,90 0 $ 192,40 0

Assumption s : Cos t o f Cleanup s : Cos t o f propose d regulation : .0 0 $ 0 $166,20 0 .0 5

$ 11,60 0 $178,00 0 $

$ .2 0 46,40 0 212,80 0

.7 0 $ 7,40 0 $178,00 0 $

$ .9 0 9,50 0 180,00 0

.4 0 $ 49,40 0 $ 202,50 0

Assumptio n: Direc t remova l cost s : Cos t o f propose d regulation : 7 . Cos t o f Propose d Regulatio n wit hAl l assumption s varie d : .02 5 $ 57,60 0 $120,20 0

$ 40,00 0 .0 5

$115,24 0 $178,00 0

$178,00 0 .2 0

$ 461,00 0 $ 523,50 0

$1,400,00 0

Source : IC F estimates .7- 5

1 . Numbe r o f incrementa l reportabl e releases . Estimate s o f th e numbe r o f reportabl e release s affec t al l o f th e estimate s o f cost s tha t resul t fro m increase d notification , recordkeeping , an d respons e activitie s o nth e par t o f governmen t an

d regulate d parties . Exhibi t 7- 1 present s th e result s o f changing the estimate d numbe r o f incrementa l reportabl e release s an d compare s th e cos t o f th e propose d regulatio nt o th e bas e cas e estimat e o f 4 3 incrementa l reportabl e releases . 2 . Notificatio nhours . Varying th e estimate d numbe r o f hour s require d t o repor t release s wil l affec t the cos t estimate s associate d wit hnotificatio n activities . Exhibi t 7- 1 present s th e result s o f th e sensitivit yanalysis , i n whic hth e bas e cas e hour s estimate s ar e halve d an d doubled . Not e tha t thi s sensitivit yanalysi s pertain s onl yt o effect s o nregulate d parties ; th e cost s t o governmen t d o no t chang e wit hvariation s i nindustr yhours . 3 . Frequenc yo f responsibl e part ycleanups . Varying th e assumptio n concerning th e differenc e i nresponsibl e parties ' cleanu p effort s fo r reporte d versu s unreporte d release s lead s t o differen t respons e cost s fo r regulate d parties . Th e differenc e i nindustr yrespons e t o reporte d release s versu s unreporte d release s i s show ni nExhibi t 7-1 . 4 . Frequenc yo f off-scen e monitoring . Variation s i nth e assume d frequencyo f off-scen e monitoring affec t th e cost s associate d wit hgovernmen t off-scen e monitoring activities . Exhibi t 7- 1 show s th e effec t o ngovernmen t costs . 5 . Frequenc yo f on-scen e monitoring . Variation s i nth e assume d frequencyo f on-scen e monitoring fo r radionuclid e release s affec t th e cost s associate d wit hgovernmen t on-scen e monitoring activitie s fo r eac h alternative . Exhibi t 7- 1 show s th e effec t o non-scen e monitoring cost s o f th e bas e cas e frequencie s an d o f lowe r an

d highe r frequencyestimates . 6 . Frequenc yo f governmen t direc t response . Variation s i nth e assume d •frequencyo f direc t respons e affec t th e cost s o f th e propose d regulation . Exhibi t 7- 1 show s th e effec t o ndirec t respons e cost s o f th e bas e cas e frequencie s an

d o f changing th e frequencyestimates . B yvarying al l assumption s simultaneously , w e estimat e tha t the propose d regulatio nwil l cos t betwee n$40,00 0 an d $1,400,00 0 annually , wit ha mos t likel yannua l cos t o f abou t $178,000 . 7. 3 STATISTICA L ANALYSI S O FRADIONUCLID E DAT ABAS E Th e analysi s fo r estimating th e numbe r o f reportabl e release s i nbot hth e baselin e situatio nan d unde r th e propose d regulatio nimplicitl yassume s tha t ther e i s n o correlatio nbetwee nth e siz e o f a releas e an d th e identit yo f th e radionuclid e released . W e hav e teste d thi s hypothesis . Ananalysi s o f varianc e mode l (ANOVA ) wa s use d t o tes t thi s hypothesi s o n a forma l basis . Th e releas e observation s wer e groupe d b yisotop e an

d th eP.6 4

7- 6

Genera l Linea r Mode l (GLM ) procedur e o f th e Statistica l Analysi s System(SAS ) wa s use d fo r th e test . Th e result s indicated 1 tha t w e coul d no t rejec t th e hypothesi s o f n o associatio nbetwee nisotop e an d mea nreleas e amount . Therefore , w e hav e assume d tha t ther e i s n o suc hassociation . 

### 7. 4 SUMMAR Y Asensitivit yanalysi s i s a s enlightening a s th e dat a tha t caus e th e estimate s t o change . Th e result s i nthi s chapte r sugges t tha t halving an d doubling man

yo f the effect s an d altering othe r keyassumption s woul d no t chang e th e overal l conclusion s o f the analysi s tha t th e estimate d cos t o f th e regulatio ni s small . Becaus e dat a o nth e healt han d welfar e an

d environmenta l effect s o f altering RQ s ar e no t available , thi s sensitivit yanalysi s doe s no t varythes e effects .

1 Th e F-statisti c wa s 1.0 5 (d.f . o f 52;632 ) whic hwa s a p-valu e o f 0.39 .APPENDI XA PROFILE S O F FACILITIE S THA TRELEAS E RADIONUCLIDE S
Radionuclid e emission s ar e mos t closel yidentifie d wit hthe nuclea r powe r industry , bu t ar e commonl yrelease d fro mothe r activitie s a s well . Th e Nuclea r RegulatoryCommission , agreemen t state s delegate d authorit yb yth e Commission , an

d th e Departmen t o f Energy(DOE ) al l licens e o r overse e a variet yo f industria l facilitie s an d non-industria l operation s tha t emi t radionuclides . I naddition , severa l industria l categorie s no t license d b yth e Commissio no r anagreemen t stat e coul d als o potentiall yreleas e radionuclide s a t level s equalling o r exceeding anRQ . Coal-fire d utilitie s an d industria l boilers , an

d minera l extractio nindustrie s suc ha s uranium , aluminum , zinc , copper , lead , an

d phosphorou s mining al l releas e certai namount s o f radionuclide s during thei r operations . Th e following section s briefl ydiscus s eac ho f th e releas e categorie s cite d above , describing th e sourc e o f radionuclid e emissions , th e numbe r o f facilitie s withi neac hcategory , and , wher e available , genera l trend s i nth e industries . Discussio ni nA. l encompasse s mos t o f th e Nuclea r Regulatory Commissio nan

d agreemen t stat e licensees ; Sectio nA. 2 discusse s Departmen t o f Defens e facilities ; Sectio nA. 3 discusse s Departmen t o f Energyfacilities ; an d Section s A. 4 an

d A. 5 discus s coal-fire d utilit yan d industria l boilers , an d th e primaryminera l extractio nindustries , respectively . A . l NUCLEA R REGULATOR YCOMMISSIO N AN D AGREEMEN TSTAT E LICENSEE S Th e Nuclea r RegulatoryCommissio nha s authorit yunde r th e Atomi c Energy Ac t t o licens e source , byproduct , an d specia l nuclea r materials . Agreemen t state s hav e bee ndelegate d licensing authorit yb yth e Commissio nt o licens e source , byproduct , an d specia l nuclea r material s fo r facilitie s withi nthei r boundaries . A s o f 1984 , ther e wer e 8,90 0 Commissio nlicensee s an d 13,00 0 agreemen t stat e licensees. 1 Al l licensee s ar e subjec t t o th e radioactiv e materia l releas e limit s specifie d i n1 0 CFRPar t 20 , a s wel l a s othe r control s specifie d b

yth e license . Fo r purpose s o f thi s discussion , licensee s hav e bee ndivide d int o five genera l categories : powe r reactors , researc han d tes t reactors , radiopharmaceuticals , radiatio nsourc e manufacturing , an d othe r licensees . Mos t Departmen t o f Defens e facilitie s ar e als o license d b yth e Commissio nbu t ar e discusse d separatel yi nSectio nA. 2 o f thi s report . A . 1 . 1 Powe r Reactor s Powe r reactor s ar e unit s whic hutiliz e a controlle d fissio nreactio no f uraniu mfue l t o produc e heat . Th e hea t convert s wate r t o steam , whic h

U.S . Nuclea r RegulatoryCommission , 198 4 Annua l Report , p . 73 .P.6 6

A- 2

provide s th e forc e t o spi na turbine-generato r t o produc e electricity . "Th e nuclea r fissio nchai nreactio ni s controlle d b yth e reactor' s contro l rods . Th e movemen t o f th e contro l rod s u p o r dow

nwithi nth e fue l assemblie s sustain s th e chai nreactio na t a desire d powe r level . Ther e ar e ove r 10 0 nuclea r plant s i nth e Unite d State s i noperation , generating approximatel y1 3 percen t o f electricit yconsumption . Release s resulting fro m"nuclea r incidents " (se e Sectio n11(q ) o f th e Atomi c EnergyAct ) a t facilitie s covere d b yth e Price-Anderso nAc t ar e exemp t fro mCERCL Areporting requirements . Release s a t thes e facilitie s tha t ar e an R Q o r more , bu t d o no t constitut e a nuclea r incident , mus t b e reporte d unde r CERCL At o th e Nationa l Respons e Center . A . 1. 2 Researc han d Tes t Reactor s A s o f 1983 , ther e wer e 7 0 reactor s i noperatio ni nth e Unite d State s fo r basi c an

d applie d researc han d fo r teaching purposes . Th e researc hconducte d include s testing o f reacto r designs , components , an d safet yfeatures , a s wel l a s wor k i n th e field s o f physics , biology , an d chemistry . A . 1. 3 Radiopharmaceutical s Radiopharmaceutical s ar e radioactiv e chemical s use d fo r medica l application s an

d research . I n1979 , ther e wer e twenty-si xindustria l supplier s o f radiopharmaceutical s producing sixty-fiv e generall yuse d radionuclides . Thes e twenty-si xfirms exclud e firms tha t purchas e radiopharmaceutica l product s i nbul k an d repackag e themint o smalle r container s (repackagers) . I n1984 , ther e wer e ove r 2,80 0 medica l facilitie s license d b yth e Commissio n t o us e radiopharmaceuticals , an d approximatel yanothe r 7,00 0 facilitie s license d b yagreemen t states. 2 I n1946 , almos t 4 0 year s earlier , onl ythirty-eigh t medica l facilitie s wer e licensed . Medica l facilitie s us e radionuclide s i nal l forms including solids , liquids , an d gases ; use s includ e diagnosti c an

d therapeuti c procedures . A . 1. 4 Radiatio

nSourc e Manufacturing "Radiatio n sources " refe r t o radioactiv e material s enclose d i nseale d containers . Theyar e foun d i na numbe r o f industria l an d consume r product s

2 Th e numbe r o f medica l facilitie s tha t ar e Commissio nlicensee s i s reporte d o npag e 7 3 o f th e 198 4 U.S . Nuclea r RegulatoryCommissio nAnnua l Report , bu t th e publicatio ndoe s no t repor t th e numbe r o f medica l facilitie s tha t ar e agreemen t stat e licensees . Th e U.S . EPAestimate d th e tota l numbe r o f radiopharmaceutica l manufacturer s an d user s t o b e ove r 10,00 0 i n197 7 (U.S . Environmenta l Protectio nAgency , Radionuclide s Background Informatio n Documen t fo r Fina l Rules , Volume II , Octobe r 1984 , p . 3.3-5.) . Subtracting th e 280 0 Commissio nlicensee s fro mth e tota l estimat e o f 10,000 , yield s rougl y 7,00 0 agreemen t stat e licensees .A- 3

suc ha s radioisotop e gauge s use d t o measur e thickness , stati c eliminator s fo r industria l machinery , testing equipment , self-illuminating sign s an d watc h dials , an

d smok e detectors . Manufacturer s o f radiatio nsource s proces s bul k quantitie s o f radioactiv e material s receive d fro mradionuclid e productio nfacilitie s sucha s accelerator s o r reactors . Th e radiatio nsourc e manufacturer s keep inventorie s o f radio

active material s i nquantitie s ranging fro mte ncurie s t o 100,00 0 curies . A . 1. 5 Othe r Commissio no r Agreemen t Stat e Licensee s Othe r Nuclea r RegulatoryCommissio no r agreemen t stat e licensee s includ e laboratories , low-leve l wast e disposa l sites , minera l an d meta l processing facilities , fue l cycl e facilities , an d uraniu

mmills . Theyar e al l subjec t t o th e emissio nrequirement s o f 1 0 CFRPar t 20 , Appendi xB , Tabl e II . Laboratorie s Approximatel y70 0 laboratorie s ar e license d t o handl e radioisotope s i n unseale d form , an

d i t i s assume d tha t anequa l numbe r o f smalle r laboratorie s tha t ar e unlicense d handl e unseale d radioisotopes , resulting i nanestimate d tota l o f 140 0 laboratorie s tha t ar e potentia l source s o f low-leve l radioactiv e emissions. 3 Thes e laboratorie s ar e establishe d i nindustry , governmen t agencies , an

d academi c an

d researc hinstitutions . Theyperformtesting an d researc han

d development , an

d varya grea t dea l i nsize . Whil e some facilitie s hav e onl yon e small , multi-purpos e laboratory , other s hav e up t o 30 0 individua l laboratorie s i nsevera l buildings . Smal l laboratorie s ten d t o specializ e i na limite d us e o f radionuclide s fo r a singl e specifi c testing purpose . Academi c an d industria l laboratorie s us e byproduc t material s i nresearc han d testing . Medica l laboratorie s conduc t basi c chemica l an

d applie d radionuclid e researc hrelate d t o diseas e an d healt h problems . Governmen t laborator yfacilitie s mayus e radionuclide s fo r purpose s suc ha s food an

d drug testing o r wate r an d ai r qualit ymonitoring . Th e mos t commonl yuse d radionuclide s i nlaborator ywor k ar e tritium , carbon-14 , xenon-133 , iodine-125 , an d iodine-131 . Testing an d industria l laboratorie s ten d t o us e large r quantitie s o f radionuclide s thanacademi c o r othe r researc h laboratories ; conversely , academi c an d researc hlaboratorie s ten d t o us e a wide r variet yo f radionuclides . Wast e Disposa l Site s Althoughther e ar e si xlow-leve l radioactiv e wast e disposa l site s licensed , onl ythre e ar e operational . Thes e site s accep t low-leve l radioactiv e waste s i na stabilize d for mfro mthre e majo r sources : power-reacto r an d fue l cycl e

3 Corbi t CD. , Herringto nW.N. , Higb yD.P. , Stou t L.A. , an d CorleyJ.P. , Background Informatio no nSource s o f Low-Leve l Radionuclide s Emission s t o Air , PNL-4670 , Prepare d fo r EPAunde r U.S . DO E Contrac t b yBattell e Memoria l Institute , Septembe r 1983 .A- 4

operations , laborator yresearch , an

d medica l facilities . Waste s accepte d b y thes e facilitie s fo r disposa l b yshallow-land buria l mus t mee t specifi c sit e acceptanc e criteria . Th e disposa l site s d o no t accep t specia l nuclea r materials , transuranic s (element s having a highe r atomi c numbe r tha nuranium) , o r spen t reacto r fuel . Waste s ar e burie d a t the disposa l sit e i nth e transpor t container s i nwhic htheyarrive . Minera l an

d Meta l Processing Facilitie s Commissio nan

d agreemen t stat e licensee s includ e facilitie s whic hextrac t metal s fro

mthorium

- an

d uranium-bearing ores . Te nsuc hfacilitie s ar e license d i nth e following nin e states : Alabama , California , Colorado , Florida , Illinois , Ne wMexico , Oregon , Pennsylvania , an d Tennessee . Thes e facilitie s generall yproces s ore s fo r eithe r refractorymetal s an d thei r oxide s (sucha s zirconium , columbium/niobium , tantalum , an d hafnium) , o r fo r rar e earth s (sucha s cerium , praseodymium , neodymium , dysprosium , an d ytterbium) . Thoriu mi s als o use d i nsome o f thes e facilitie s t o manufactur e welding rod s an

d t o cas t machin e parts . Fue l Cycl e Facilitie s Th e Commissio nan

d agreemen t state s als o licens e th e us e o f source , byproduct , an

d specia l nuclea r materia l a t facilitie s engage d i nth e productio n o f nuclea r fuel . Thes e facilitie s includ e operating uraniu mmills , uranium.hexafluoride . conversio nplants , an d uraniu

mfue l fabricatio nplants . Ther e i s currentl yn o plutoniu mfue l fabricatio nbeing don e i nth e Unite d States . Uraniu mMilling Uraniu mor e i s delivere d t o mill s wher e i t i s crushe d an d ground , an

d uraniu moxid e i s chemicall yextracted . Th e mil l product , als o calle d uraniu m concentrat e o r yello wcake , i s the nsen t t o conversio nfacilities , wher e i t i s chemicall yconverte d t o uraniu mhexafluoride . Uraniu mmilling activit yi s a declining industry . A s o f Novembe r 1985 , ther e wer e onl ythre e activ e uraniu mmill s i nth e U.S . (one o f whic hi s expecte d t o g o o nstandb ystatus) . A nadditiona l 1 7 mill s ar e alread yo nstandb

ystatus . Tota l uraniu moxid e productio n fro

mmill s wa s abou t 7,40 0 ton s i n1984 , dow nfro ma hig ho f 21,80 0 ton s i n1980. " A. 2 DEPARTMEN TO FDEFENS E (DOD ) FACILITIE S Departmen t o f Defens e (DOD ) facilitie s ar e als o license d b yth e Nuclea r RegulatoryCommissio nan d mus t compl ywit hlimit s fo r airborn e an d liqui d discharge s t o unrestricte d area s unde r 1 0 CFRPar t 20 , Appendi xB , Tabl e II .

* U.S . Environmenta l Protectio nAgency , Propose d Standar d fo r Radon-22 2 Emission s fro

mLicense d Uraniu

mMil l Tailings ; Draf t Economi c Analysis , Offic e o f Radiatio nPrograms , EPA520/1-86-002 , January1986 .P.6 9

A- 5

Th e Arme d Force s Radiobiolog yResearc hInstitut e (AFRRI) , located a t th e Nationa l Nava l Medica l Cente r i nBethesda , Maryland , operate s bot ha therma l researc hreacto r an d a linea r accelerato r (linac) , mainl yi nsuppor t o f researc ho nth e medica l effect s o f nuclea r radiatio nan d th e effect s o f transien t radiatio no nelectronic s an d othe r equipment . Th e U.S . Arm yTes t an d Evaluatio nComman d operate s two reactor s whic har e simila r i ndesignan d ar e use d t o suppor t studie s i nth e effect s o f nuclea r radiation . Bot har e fuele d wit henriche d uranium . Nin e nava l shipyard s contribut e almos t al l th e radionuclid e release s fro m U.S . Nav

yfacilities . Pressurize d wate r reactor s powe r th e nuclea r flee t a t th e nava l shipyards . Standard operation s a t th e shipyard s includ e construction , startu p testing , refueling , an d maintenanc e o f th e reactors . Radioactiv e waste s generate d b ythes e operation s ar e processe d an d sealed , the nshippe d t o commercia l wast e disposa l sites . A. 3 DEPARTMEN TO F ENERG Y(DOE ) FACILITIE S Th e U.S . Departmen t o f Energy(DOE ) i s give nauthorit yb yth e Atomi c EnergyAc t o f 195 4 (Section16 1 o f Publi c Law83-703 ) "t o protec t th e publi c healt han

d safety " wit hrespec t t o th e operatio no f so-calle d "G0C0 " facilitie s - - facilitie s whic har e "governmen t owned , contracto r operated. " Majo r DO E facilitie s includ e nationa l laboratories , facilitie s associate d wit hth e Formerl yUtilize d Site s Remedia l Actio nProgra m(FUSRAP) , th e Uraniu m Mil l Tailing s Remedia l Actio nProgra m(UMTRAP) , th e Gran d Junctio nRemedia l Actio nProgra

m(GJRAP) , th e Surplu s Facilitie s Managemen t Progra m(SFMP) , an

d facilitie s involve d i n specifi c researc han d developmen t programs. 5 DO E i s als o responsibl e fo r operating uraniu menrichmen t facilities , a step i nth e nuclea r fue l cycle . Othe r DO E operation s involving radionuclide s includ e nuclea r weapon s research , development , an d production ; medica l an d biologica l research ; an

d industria l application s an d development . A s o f 1980 , 7 8 GOC O facilitie s i n2 4 state s wer e subjec t t o th e healt han d safet yrequirement s containe d i nDO E Orde r 5484.1 . I n1982 , ther e wer e thirt y "active " DO E complexes , man yo f whic hhav e severa l operating facilities . ("Active " i s define d t o mea nfacilitie s currentl ygenerating radioactiv e waste. ) Fourtee no f thes e complexe s ar e laboratorie s operating diversifie d programs . Th e othe r complexe s operat e program s including primaril yweapon s productio nan

d testing , nuclea r material s production , an d physica l research . A . 4 COAL-FIRE D UTILIT YAN D INDUSTRIA LBOILER S Larg e coal-fire d boiler s ar e use d t o generat e electricit yfo r publi c an d industria l us e an

d t o provid e proces s steam , proces s ho t water , an d spac e heat . Boiler s use d i nth e utilit yindustryar e designate d a s utilit yboilers , an d thos e use d t o generat e proces s steam , proces s ho t water , spac e heat , o r electricit yfo r in-hous e us e ar e designate d a s industria l boilers .

5 Roger s an

d Associate s Engineering Corp. , Radioactiv e Contaminatio na t Federall yOwne d Facilities , Jun e 1982 , pp . 3-2 , 3-3 .P.7 0

A- 6

I n1983 , coal-fire d stea melectri c powe r unit s accounte d fo r 6 3 percen t o f tota l capacit yan

d 5 5 percen t o f tota l energ ygeneratio nb

yU.S . electri c utilit ygenerating units. 6 I nearl y1985 , ther e wer e 1,28 1 coal-fire d unit s on-lin e wit ha tota l generating capacit yo f 28 1 gigawatts. 7 Coal-fire d industria l boiler s ar e use d mainl yt o produc e proces s stea man d ho t water , generat e electricit y(for th e producer' s ow nuse) , an

d provid e spac e heat . Majo r user s o f industria l boiler s includ e th e steel , aluminum , chemical , an

d pape r industries . Ther e ar e approximatel y51,20 0 coal-fire d industria l boiler s operating i nth e Unite d States. 8 Mor e tha n60 0 millio nton s o f coa l ar e burne d eac hyea r i nutilit yan d industria l boilers . Coa l contain s minera l matte r including trac e quantitie s o f naturall yoccurring radionuclides . Uranium-23 8 an d thorium-23 2 an

d thei r decayproduct s ar e foun d i nrelativel ylarg e quantitie s i ncoal. 9 Th e emissio no f radionuclide s t o th e ai r fro mcoal-fire d utilit yan d industria l boiler s i s small . I npromulgating radionuclid e emissio nstandard s unde r th e Nationa l Emissio nStandard s fo r Hazardou s Ai r Pollutant s (NESHAP) , EPAdi d no t regulat e radionuclid e emission s fro mthes e boiler s (5 0 FR5190) . Coal-fire d stea

melectri c powe r generator s an d industria l boiler s ar e no t considere d affecte d b yth e propose d R Q adjustment s becaus e radionuclid e emission s t o th e ai r fro mthes e facilitie s ar e small . Quantitie s o f al l radionuclide s expecte d t o b e release d ar e wel l belo wth e propose d R Q values . A. 5 MINERA L EXTRACTIO NINDUSTR Y Almos t al l minera l extractio nindustrie s tha t involve th e remova l an d processing o f ore s t o recove r meta l releas e some radionuclides . EPAha s identifie d th e following minera l extractio nindustrie s a s having potentia l fo r release s o f radionuclides : th e uraniu mmining industry , th e aluminu m industry , th e coppe r industry , th e zin c industry , th e lea d industry , an

d th e phosphat e industry . Thes e industrie s wer e identifie d becaus e o f th e larg e quantit yo f or e mine d domesticall yan d becaus e th e mining processe s use d

6 U.S . Departmen t o f Commerce , Statistica l Abstrac t o f th e U.S . (1985) , 105t hEdition . Governmen t Printing Office , Washington , D.C , p . 564 . 7 IC F EnergyService , Summer/Fal l 198 5 Coa l an d Electri c Utilitie s Marke t Assessment , p . 1- 2 (1985) . 8 U.S . Environmenta l Protectio nAgency , Th e Radiologica l Impac t o f Coal-Fire d Industria l Boiler s (Draft) , Offic e o f Radiatio nPrograms , Washington , D.C , Octobe r 1981 . 9 U.S . Environmenta l Protectio nAgency , Radionuclide s Background Informatio nDocumen t fo r Fina l Rules , Volume II , Octobe r 1984 , p . 4.0-1 .P.7 1

A- 7

creat e a likelihoo d fo r radionuclid e emissions. 1 0 Onl yunderground uraniu m mining an

d elementa l phosphoru s plant s wer e foun d t o warran t radionuclid e emissio nstandard s unde r the Clea nAi r Ac t (5 0 F R5190) . Eac hminera l extractio nindustryi s discusse d below . A.5. 1 Uraniu mMining Ther e ar e severa l differen t type s o f uraniu mmine s an

d extractio n processes . Thes e include : ope npit , underground , an d in-sit u (solution ) mining operations . I n1982 , ther e wer e 2 4 ope npi t uraniu mmines , 13 9 underground uraniu

mmines , an

d 1 8 in-sit u mine s i noperation , producing abou t 8 6 percen t o f th e tota l uraniu moxid e domesti c productio ni ntha t year . Tota l uraniu moxid e productio nwa s 13,40 0 tons. 1 1 Domesti c uraniu

mi s almos t exclusivel ymine d i nth e wester nportio no f th e Unite d States , mostl yi nNewMexico , Wyoming , an d Texas . A s o f 1984 , uraniu m productio ni nthes e state s collectivel yaccounte d fo r approximatel y6 5 percen t o f th e nationa l total . Severa l othe r state s (including Arizona , Colorado , Florida , Sout hDakota , Utah , an d Washington ) togethe r accounte d fo r th e remaining 3 5 percen t o f th e total. 1 2 Th e majorit yo f th e uraniu mindustr

yi s owne d b

ylarge , publicl yhel d corporations . During th e earl yan d mid-1970's , th e industryexperience d rapi d growth , spurre d b

yexpectation s o f increasing demand . Thi s demand , however , di d no t materializ e and , a s a result , th e industryi s presentl yface d wit han exces s o f capacit yan d supply , an

d th e potentia l fo r increase d competitio n fro mimports . A.5. 2 Aluminu mIndustry Severa l material s ar e use d i nth e productio no f aluminum . Bauxit e i s th e principa l aluminu

mor e foun

d i nnature . Bauxit e contain s elevate d level s o f bot huranium-23 8 an d thorium-232 . Th e or e i s processe d a t th e min e t o produc e alumina , th e basi c feed i nth e aluminu mreductio nprocess . Twelv e domesti c firm s produc e primaryaluminum . Almos t al l o f th e bauxit e or e use d i n aluminu mproductio ni s imported . Onl yfive o f th e twelv e firms tha t ow n primaryaluminu

mplant s als o ow

ndomesti c plant s tha t produc e alumina . Thes e fiv e firms ow

n7 3 percen t o f th e curren t U.S . primaryaluminu mcapacity . Currently , ther e ar e 3 2 operating primaryaluminu msmelter s i nth e Unite d States . Wit hon e exception , al l o f th e plant s ar e locate d i nrura l areas .

1 0 U.S . Environmenta l Protectio nAgency , Radionuclid e Background Informatio nDocumen t fo r Fina l Rules , Volume II , Octobe r 1984 , p . 7.1-1 . 1 1 U.S . Departmen t o f Energy , Statistica l Dat a o f th e Uraniu mIndustry , GJO-100(83) , Grand Junction , Colorado , January1983 , p . 9 . 1 2 Ibid .P.7 2

A- 8

Thes e smelter s releas e radionuclide s t o the ai r fro mth e uraniu

m an d thoriu mserie s a t extremel ylo wlevels , however . Atypica l aluminu msmelting operatio nrelease s radionuclide s i na rang e fro mclos e t o 1 0 curi e pe r day t o nearl y1 0 curi e pe r day, 1 3 whic hi s wel l belo wth e lowes t propose d R Q value . Therefore , thes e facilitie s ar e no t affecte d b yth e propose d R Q adjustments . A.5. 3 Coppe r Industry Mos t firms i nth e coppe r industryperformal l productio nprocesse s fro m mining throughrefining . Coppe r mill s an d smelter s ar e locate d nea r coppe r mines . Ther e ar e fiftee noperating primarysmelter s i nth e Unite d States . Al l smelter s ar e locate d i nrura l area s wit hlo wpopulatio ndensities . Ninet y percen t o f U.S . coppe r smelte r capacit yi s locate d i nArizona , Montana , Nevada , Ne wMexico , Texas , an d Utah . Th e site s ten d t o b e larg e an

d generall y contai nassociate d mining an d milling operations . I n1978 , 1. 5 millio nmetri c ton s o f primarycoppe r wa s produced. 1 * Coppe r smelter s als o releas e radionuclide s t o th e ai r a t verysmal l levels . A t a typica l coppe r smelter , radionuclide s ar e release d principall yfro mth e uraniu

man d thoriu

mserie s a t level s ranging fro

m1.4x1 0 t o 5.4x1 0 curie s pe r day. 1 5 Thes e level s ar e wel l belo wth e lowes t propose d R Q valu e o f 0.00 1 curi e pe r day , an d therefore , thes e facilitie s ar e no t affecte d b yth e propose d R Q adjustments . A.5. 4 Zin c Industry Zin c i s usuall yfoun d i nnatur e a s a sulfid e or e calle d sphalerite . Th e ore s ar e processe d a t th e min e t o for mconcentrate s typicall ycontaining 6 2 percen t zin c an

d 3 2 percen t sulfur . I nth e pas t 1 0 years , U.S . demand fo r zin c meta l ha s grownslowly , bu t U.S . smelting capacit yha s decline d b ymor e tha n5 0 percent . Plant s close d becaus e theywer e obsolete , coul d no t mee t environmenta l standards , o r coul d no t obtai nsufficien t concentrat e feed . Consequently , th e meta l ha s replace d concentrat e a s th e majo r for mo f import . Thi s situatio ni s expecte d t o continue . Ther e ar e fiv e operating primaryzin c productio nfacilitie s i nth e Unite d States . Radionuclide s i nth e uraniu man d thoriu mserie s ar e release d fro mzin c smelter s a t extremel ylo wlevels , excep t fo r radon-222 . Mos t radionuclide s fro mzin c smelter s t o th e ai r ar e release d

- 4 - 6 i nlevel s ranging fro m1.1x1 0 curi e t o 1.5x1 0 curi e pe r day , al l wel l belo wth e propose d R Q values . Radon-22 2 i s release d a t anexpecte d leve l o f

13 U.S . Environmenta l Protectio nAgency , Radionuclid e Background Informatio nDocumen t fo r Fina l Rules , Volume II , Octobe r 1984 , p . 7.1-8 . 1 4 Schroede r H.J. , Minera l Commodit yProfile s - - Copper , U.S . Departmen t o f th e Interior , Burea u o f Mines , Washington , D.C , 1979 . 15 U.S . Environmenta l Protectio nAgency , Radionuclid e Background Informatio nDocumen t fo r Fina l Rules , Volume II , Octobe r 1984 , p . 7.2-6 .