Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 23 / Tuesday, February 4, 2014 / Proposed Rules 6509 

Dated: January 23, 2014. 

Kevin C. Kiefer, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Baltimore. 

[FR Doc. 2014–02292 Filed 2–3–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 190 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0689; FRL–9902–20– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AR12 

Environmental Radiation Protection 

Standards for Nuclear Power 

Operations 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: This Advance Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) requests 

public comment and information on 

potential approaches to updating the 

Environmental Protection Agency’s 

‘‘Environmental Radiation Protection 

Standards for Nuclear Power 

Operations’’ (40 CFR part 190). These 

standards, originally issued in 1977, 

limit radiation releases and doses to the 

public from normal operation of nuclear 

power plants and other uranium fuel 

cycle facilities—that is, facilities 

involved in the milling, conversion, 

fabrication, use and reprocessing of 

uranium fuel for generating commercial 

electrical power. These standards were 

the earliest radiation rules developed by 

EPA and are based on nuclear power 

technology and the understanding of 

radiation biology current at that time. 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(NRC) is responsible for implementing 

and enforcing these standards. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before June 4, 2014. 

Additional Public Input. In addition 

to this ANPR, the Agency anticipates 

providing additional opportunities for 

public input. Please see the Web site for 

more information at: www.epa.gov/

radiation/laws/190. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2013–0689, by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (202) 566–9744. 

• Mail: U.S. Postal Service, send 

comments to: EPA Docket Center, 

Environmental Radiation Protection 

Standards for Nuclear Power 

Operations—Advance Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking Docket, Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0689, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460. Please include a total of two 

copies. 

• Hand Delivery: In person or by 

courier, deliver comments to: EPA 

Docket Center, Environmental Radiation 

Protection Standards for Nuclear Power 

Operations—Advance Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking Docket, Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0689, EPA 

West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004. 

Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Docket’s normal hours of 

operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. Please include a total of 

two copies. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013– 

0689. The Agency’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about the EPA’s public docket, visit the 

EPA Docket Center homepage at 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

for which disclosure is restricted by 

statute. Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC. The Public 

Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the Docket Center is (202) 

566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Brian Littleton, EPA Office of Radiation 

and Indoor Air, (202) 343–9216, 

littleton.brian@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Fact Sheets 

The Agency is making several fact 

sheets available to assist the public in 

understanding the issues related to the 

effort to update this rule. These fact 

sheets are as follows: 

1. ANPR Fact Sheet 

2. Radiation Regulations Fact Sheet 

3. Uranium Fuel Cycle Fact Sheet 

These fact sheets are available on the 

Agency’s Web site associated with this 

effort at: www.epa.gov/radiation/laws/

190. 

Glossary of Terms 

What are the important radiationrelated concepts and terms we use in 

this ANPR? Radiation-related terms 

used in this ANPR are defined below. 

Absorbed dose—The amount of 

energy absorbed by an object or person 

per unit mass. This reflects the amount 

of energy that ionizing radiation sources 

deposit in materials through which they 

pass. 

Advanced Boiling Water Reactor 

(ABWR)—New design of boiling water 

nuclear reactor which uses steam and 

high-pressure water to transfer energy to 

turbines. The NRC has detailed criteria 

for meeting this design in its design 

certification rule published in the 

Federal Register on May 12, 1997 (62 

FR 25800). 

Advanced Passive Reactor 1000 

(AP1000)—New design of pressurized 

water nuclear reactor with passive 

safety features incorporated. It uses 

high-pressure water to transfer energy to 

a second low-pressure water loop. This 

secondary water is converted to steam 

which then drives the turbines. The 

NRC has detailed criteria for meeting 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6510 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 23 / Tuesday, February 4, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

this design in its design certification 

rule published in the Federal Register 

on January 27, 2006 (71 FR 4464). 

Advanced Pressurized Water Reactor 

(APWR)—New design of pressurized 

water nuclear reactor which uses highpressure water to transfer energy to a 

second low-pressure water loop. This 

secondary water is converted to steam, 

which then drives the turbines. The 

NRC has received the U.S. APWR design 

certification application and is 

reviewing the application for 

compliance with NRC’s regulations. The 

NRC has not yet certified the design 

under its regulations at 10 CFR part 52. 

However, if the NRC determines that the 

U.S. APWR design meets all applicable 

regulations, it will proceed to certify the 

design through the NRC’s rulemaking 

process. 

Blue Ribbon Commission (BRC)—The 

President’s Blue Ribbon Commission on 

America’s Nuclear Future was 

established as directed by the 

President’s Memorandum for the 

Secretary of Energy dated January 29, 

2010. The purpose of the 15-member 

BRC was to conduct a comprehensive 

review of policies for managing the back 

end of the nuclear fuel cycle and 

recommend a new plan. 

Boiling Water Reactor (BWR)—A type 

of light-water nuclear reactor design 

which uses steam and high pressure 

water to transfer energy to turbines. 

Committed equivalent dose—The 

equivalent dose (see definition below) to 

a tissue or organ that will be received 

for a specified period of time following 

intake of radioactive material. The 

committed dose allows an accounting of 

the total dose from radioactive materials 

taken into (and held in) the body, for 

which the dose will be spread out in 

time, being gradually delivered as the 

radionuclide decays. 

Committed effective dose (CED)—The 

effective dose received over a period of 

time by an individual from 

radionuclides internal to the individual 

following a one-year intake of those 

radionuclides. CED is expressed in units 

of sievert (SI units) or rem. 

Collective dose—The sum of 

individual radiation doses to a specified 

group or population. 

Curie—A unit of radioactivity, 

corresponding to 3.7 × 1010

disintegrations per second. 

Deterministic effects—A health effect 

that has a clinical threshold (i.e., 

exposures below the threshold do not 

result in the effect of concern), beyond 

which the severity increases with the 

dose. Deterministic effects generally 

result from the receipt of a relatively 

high dose over a short time period. 

Radiation-induced cataract formation 

(clouding of the lens of the eye) is an 

example of a deterministic effect. These 

are also termed ‘‘non-stochastic’’ effects. 

Dose, or radiation dose—A general 

term for absorbed dose, equivalent dose, 

effective dose, committed effective dose, 

committed equivalent dose or total 

effective dose as defined in this 

document. A measure of the energy 

deposited in tissue by ionizing 

radiation. 

Dosimetry—The method used to 

calculate dose or other related measures 

of the impacts of exposure to radiation, 

taking into account the type of radiation 

and the duration and mode of exposure. 

Economic Simplified Boiling Water 

Reactor (ESBWR)—New design of 

boiling water nuclear reactor which uses 

high-pressure steam to transfer energy to 

turbines. It takes advantage of natural 

circulation for normal operation and has 

passive safety features. 

Effective dose (E)—This quantity, 

previously called the effective dose 

equivalent (EDE), is the weighted sum of 

the equivalent doses to individual 

organs of the body. The dose to each 

tissue or organ is weighted according to 

the risk that dose represents. These 

organ doses are then added together, 

and that total is the effective dose. The 

relevant units are rem or sieverts (SI 

units). 

Equivalent dose—The product of 

absorbed dose (grays or rads), averaged 

over a tissue or organ, multiplied by a 

radiation weighting factor. The radiation 

weighting factor relates to the degree to 

which a type of ionizing radiation will 

produce biological damage. It is used 

because some types of radiation, such as 

alpha particles, are more biologically 

damaging to live tissue than other types 

of radiation when the absorbed dose 

from both is equal. Equivalent dose 

expresses, on a common scale for all 

ionizing radiation, the biological 

damage to the exposed tissue. It is 

expressed numerically in rems 

(traditional units) or sieverts (SI units). 

This quantity was also known as the 

‘‘dose equivalent’’ until the change in 

terminology was adopted by the 

International Commission on 

Radiological Protection (ICRP). 

Evolutionary Power Reactor (EPR)— 

New design of pressurized water 

nuclear reactor which uses highpressure water to transfer energy to a 

second low-pressure water loop. This 

secondary water is converted to highpressure steam which then drives the 

turbines. 

External dose—That portion of the 

dose equivalent received from radiation 

sources outside the body. 

High-level radioactive waste—The 

highly radioactive material resulting 

from the reprocessing of spent nuclear 

fuel, including liquid waste produced 

directly in reprocessing and any solid 

material derived from such liquid waste 

that contains fission products in 

sufficient concentrations; and other 

highly radioactive material that the 

NRC, consistent with existing law, 

determines by rule requires permanent 

isolation. 

Internal dose—That portion of the 

dose equivalent received from 

radioactive material taken into the body. 

International Commission on 

Radiological Protection (ICRP)—The 

independent, international advisory 

body that develops the international 

system of radiological protection as a 

common basis for standards, legislation, 

guidelines, programs and practices. 

Recommendations of the ICRP are not 

legally binding but are typically given 

strong consideration by individual 

countries as representing the state-ofthe-art in radiation protection. 

Maximum Contaminant Level 

(MCL)—The highest level of a 

contaminant that EPA allows in 

drinking water. 

Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel—Fuel 

fabricated from mixed uranium and 

plutonium oxide, which may be used in 

reactors. 

Non-stochastic effects—Health effects, 

the severity of which varies with the 

dose and for which a threshold is 

believed to exist. Non-stochastic effects 

generally result from the receipt of a 

relatively high dose over a short time 

period. Also called deterministic effects. 

Oxidation, REduction of enriched 

OXide (OREOX) process—Fuel 

reprocessing technology which 

generates a mixed oxide fuel from spent 

nuclear fuel assemblies. 

Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR)—A 

type of light-water reactor which uses 

high pressure water to transfer energy to 

a second low pressure water loop. This 

secondary water is converted to highpressure steam which then drives the 

turbines. 

Radionuclide Release Limits—In the 

context of this ANPR, the specific 

radionuclide release limits established 

under 40 CFR 190.10(b). These are the 

legally permissible maximum amounts 

of krypton-85, iodine-129, as well as 

plutonium-239 and other alpha emitters 

that can enter the environment from the 

processes of nuclear power operations 

in any given year, on an energy 

production basis. 

Radiation effects—Health 

consequences from exposure to 

radiation. The effects may be either 

deterministic or stochastic. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 23 / Tuesday, February 4, 2014 / Proposed Rules 6511 

Radiation risk—The probability or 

chance that a particular health effect 

will occur per unit dose of radiation. 

Rem—The traditional unit of effective 

dose. It is the product of the tissueweighted absorbed dose in rads and a 

radiation weighting factor, WR, which 

accounts for the effectiveness of the 

radiation to cause biological damage; 1 

rem = 0.01 Sv. 

Sievert (Sv)—The sievert is the 

International System of Units (SI) term 

for the unit of effective dose and 

equivalent dose; 1 Sv = 1 joule/

kilogram. 

Spent nuclear fuel reprocessing—The 

initial separation of spent nuclear fuel 

into its constituent parts. 

Spent nuclear fuel reprocessing 

facility—A building or complex of 

buildings where spent nuclear fuel 

reprocessing and other processes take 

place. 

Spent nuclear fuel storage—The 

storage of spent nuclear fuel from 

nuclear fuel cycle and power 

operations. Storage can include the 

temporary holding of spent nuclear fuel 

after it has been removed from the 

nuclear reactor, up to and including any 

storage of spent nuclear fuel prior to 

final disposal. On-site storage at a 

nuclear power plant may include the 

spent nuclear fuel pools, where the 

spent nuclear fuel is held immediately 

after removal from the reactor for 

several years of initial cooling, as well 

as subsequent storage, for example, in 

large concrete and metal dry storage 

casks and vaults. This term would also 

apply to storage at any potential facility 

designed for the storage of spent nuclear 

fuel prior to its final disposition. 

Stochastic effect (of radiation)— 

Malignant disease and heritable effects 

for which the probability of an effect 

occurring, but not its severity, is 

assumed to be a function of dose 

without threshold as a conservative 

planning base. 

TED (total effective dose)—The sum 

of the effective dose (for external 

exposures) and the committed effective 

dose (for internal exposures). 

Underground Source of Drinking 

Water (USDW)—An aquifer or part of an 

aquifer which (a) supplies any public 

water system or contains a sufficient 

quantity of ground water to supply a 

public water system and currently 

supplies drinking water for human 

consumption or contains fewer than 

10,000 milligrams/liter of Total 

Dissolved Solids (TDS); and (b) is not an 

exempted aquifer (see 40 CFR 144.3 for 

a complete definition). 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

A. What is the basis for the existing 

standards? How do the standards apply 

and what do they require? 

1. Statutory Authority 

2. History of the Standards 

3. Scope and Content of the Standards 

4. Technical Basis for the Standards 

B. Why is the Agency considering 

updating/revising the standards? 

1. What has changed and why could these 

changes be important? 

2. Guiding principles for review of existing 

standards 

C. What is the purpose of this ANPR and 

how will the Agency use the 

information? 

D. How can the public comment on the 

ANPR and get additional information? 

II. Issues for Public Comment 

A. Issue 1: Consideration of a Risk Limit 

To Protect Individuals 

Should the Agency express its limits for 

the purpose of this regulation in terms of 

radiation risk or radiation dose? 

B. Issue 2: Updated Dose Methodology 

(Dosimetry) 

How should the Agency update the 

radiation dosimetry methodology 

incorporated in the standard? 

C. Issue 3: Radionuclide Release Limits 

Should the Agency retain the radionuclide 

release limits in an updated rule and, if 

so, what should the Agency use as the 

basis for any release limits? 

D. Issue 4: Water Resource Protection 

How should a revised rule protect water 

resources? 

E. Issue 5: Spent Nuclear Fuel and HighLevel Radioactive Waste Storage 

How, if at all, should a revised rule 

explicitly address storage of spent 

nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive 

waste? 

F. Issue 6: New Nuclear Technologies 

What new technologies and practices have 

developed since 40 CFR part 190 was 

issued, and how should any revised rule 

address these advances and changes? 

G. Other Possible Issues for Comment 

III. What will we do with this information? 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

A. What is the basis for the existing 

standards? How do the standards apply 

and what do they require? 

1. Statutory Authority 

Section 161(b) of the Atomic Energy 

Act of 1954 (AEA) authorized the 

Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) to 

‘‘establish by rule, regulation, or order, 

such standards and instructions to 

govern the possession and use of special 

nuclear material, source material, and 

byproduct material as the Commission 

may deem necessary or desirable to 

promote the common defense and 

security or to protect health or to 

minimize danger to life or property[.]’’ 

42 U.S.C. 2201(b) (1958). In 

Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, 

President Nixon transferred to EPA 

‘‘[t]he functions of the Atomic Energy 

Commission under the Atomic Energy 

Act of 1954, as amended, . . . to the 

extent that such functions of the 

Commission consist of establishing 

generally applicable environmental 

standards for the protection of the 

general environment from radioactive 

material.’’ § 2(a)(6), 35 FR 15623, 15624 

(Oct. 6, 1970) (‘‘Reorganization Plan’’). 

The Reorganization Plan defined 

‘‘standards’’ to mean ‘‘limits on 

radiation exposures or levels, or 

concentrations or quantities of 

radioactive material, in the general 

environment outside the boundaries of 

locations under the control of persons 

possessing or using radioactive 

material.’’ Id. This transferred to EPA 

the portion of the AEC’s authority under 

AEA section 161(b) that ‘‘consist[ed] of 

establishing generally applicable 

environmental standards for the 

protection of the general environment 

from radioactive material.’’ 

Reorganization Plan § 2(a)(6); Quivira 

Mining v. U.S. Envt’l Prot. Agency, 728 

F.2d 477, 480 (10th Cir. 1984) 

(recognizing that the Reorganization 

Plan transferred to EPA certain AEA 

functions under AEA § 161(b)). Relying 

on this authority, EPA promulgated 

standards in 1977 to protect the public 

from exposure to radiation from the 

uranium fuel cycle at 40 CFR part 190, 

‘‘Environmental Radiation Protection 

Standards for Nuclear Power 

Operations.’’ 

2. History of the Standards 

On May 10, 1974, the Agency 

published an advance notice of its 

intent to propose standards under this 

authority for the uranium fuel cycle and 

invited public participation in the 

formulation of this proposed rule (39 FR 

16906). On May 29, 1975, EPA proposed 

regulations setting forth such standards 

(40 FR 23420). The Agency promulgated 

the environmental radiation standards 

in final form in 1977 (42 FR 2860, 

January 13, 1977). The standards specify 

the levels of public exposure and 

environmental releases below which 

normal operations of the uranium fuel 

cycle are determined to be 

environmentally acceptable. These 

standards have not been revised since 

their initial publication. 

3. Scope and Content of the Standards 

The existing standards apply to 

nuclear power operations, which are 

those operations defined to be 

associated with the normal production 

of electrical power for public use by any 

nuclear fuel cycle through utilization of 

nuclear energy. In 1977, the only 

nuclear fuel cycle in production within 

the U.S. was the uranium fuel cycle; 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6512 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 23 / Tuesday, February 4, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

1The total current U.S. generating capacity is 

approximately 101 gigawatts for 2010 based on data 

provided by U.S. Energy Information 

Administration: www.eia.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/

nuc_generation/gensum.html. 

thus, EPA developed specific standards 

for this industry. The uranium fuel 

cycle is defined as the operations of 

milling of uranium ore, chemical 

conversion of uranium, isotopic 

enrichment of uranium, fabrication of 

uranium fuel, generation of electricity 

by a light-water-cooled nuclear power 

plant using uranium fuel, and 

reprocessing of spent uranium fuel to 

the extent that these directly support the 

production of electrical power for 

public use utilizing nuclear energy, but 

excludes mining operations, operations 

at waste disposal sites, transportation of 

any radioactive material in support of 

these operations, and the reuse of 

recovered non-uranium special nuclear 

and by-product materials from the cycle. 

(Commercial reprocessing has not 

occurred within the U.S. since the 

publication of the existing standards.) 

The Agency has developed some 

supporting information to help the 

public further understand the uranium 

fuel cycle which is located on the 

Agency’s Web site for this rulemaking at 

www.epa.gov/radiation/laws/190. The 

existing standards do not address two 

other aspects of nuclear power 

production: The disposal of radioactive 

waste and the decommissioning of 

facilities. 

The regulation contains two main 

provisions: A dose limit to members of 

the public, and a radionuclide release 

limit to the environment. The provision 

specified in 40 CFR 190.10(a) limits the 

annual dose to any member of the 

public from exposures to planned 

releases from uranium fuel cycle 

facilities to 25 millirem (mrem) to the 

whole body, 75 mrem to the thyroid, 

and 25 mrem to any other organ. 

Additionally, the provision specified in 

40 CFR 190.10(b) limits the total 

quantity of radioactive material releases 

for the entire uranium fuel cycle, per 

gigawatt-year of electrical energy 

produced, to less than 50,000 curies of 

krypton-85, 5 millicuries of iodine-129 

and 0.5 millicuries combined of 

plutonium-239 and other alpha-emitting 

transuranic radionuclides with halflives greater than one year. 

4. Technical Basis for the Standards 

The document Environmental 

Radiation Protection Requirements for 

Normal Operations of Activities in the 

Uranium Fuel Cycle: Final 

Environmental Statement (FES) (EPA 

Publication no. 520/4–76–016, 1976) 

provided the basis for developing 40 

CFR part 190. This document states that 

at that time there were three fuels 

available for commercial nuclear power: 

Uranium-235, uranium-233 and 

plutonium-239. The first of these 

materials occurs naturally and the last 

two occur as products and/or byproducts in uranium-fueled reactors 

(uranium-233 is the product of neutron 

irradiation of thorium-232). In the 

United States, the early development of 

technology for the nuclear generation of 

electric power focused around the lightwater-cooled nuclear reactor (LWR), 

which utilizes uranium-235 fuel. For 

this reason, the standards considered 

only the use of enriched uranium-235 as 

fuel for the generation of electricity. 

Additionally, the EPA projected that 

well over 300,000 megawatts (300 

gigawatts) of nuclear electric generating 

capacity would exist within the next 

twenty years.1 The part of the standards 

that pertain to the end of the fuel cycle 

relied on two assumptions: The 

availability of commercial nuclear 

reprocessing and the existence of a 

repository for final disposition for spent 

nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive 

wastes. The FES and supporting 

technical studies, which form the basis 

for the 40 CFR part 190 standards, 

include calculations of projected 

releases into the environment based on 

estimates of the growth of the nuclear 

industry. None of these assumptions has 

materialized. 

B. Why is the Agency considering 

updating/revising the standards? 

1. What has changed and why could 

these changes be important? 

The standards developed under 40 

CFR part 190 were never intended to be 

static. The 1975 proposal (40 FR 23420, 

May 29, 1975) stated: ‘‘it is the intent of 

the Agency to maintain a continuing 

review of the appropriateness of these 

environmental radiation standards and 

to formally review them at least every 

five years and to revise them, if 

necessary, on the basis of information 

that develops in the interval.’’ However, 

given the relatively limited change in 

the nuclear power industry in the 

intervening decades, we continued to 

believe that these standards remained 

protective of public health and the 

environment so we did not consider it 

necessary to update the standards. 

Nonetheless, we recognize that they do 

not reflect the most recent scientific 

information, and that this may be an 

opportune time to conduct a thorough 

review of their continued applicability. 

Therefore, the EPA is issuing this ANPR 

at this time for a number of reasons, 

including: 

• Projected Growth of Nuclear Power. 

Growing concern about greenhouse gas 

emissions from fossil fuels has led to 

renewed interest in nuclear power. 

Nuclear energy emits very low levels of 

greenhouse gases, and unlike solar and 

wind power, provides a proven source 

of electricity capable of supplying a 

base-load that is not subject to varying 

weather conditions. The nuclear 

industry anticipates a demand for 

construction of several new nuclear 

power plants in the next 10 years. 

Increased demand would likely result in 

the construction and start-up of any 

additional facilities to support the fuel 

cycle for LWRs. Other parts of the fuel 

cycle are experiencing growth as well. 

For example, new uranium enrichment 

facilities are coming on line, such as the 

facility in Eunice, New Mexico by 

Louisiana Enrichment Services (Urenco 

USA). The facility was licensed by the 

NRC in 2006, began operations in 2010, 

and is an indication of the industry’s 

improved outlook. The licensing and 

operation of spent nuclear fuel 

reprocessing facilities are not expected 

in the near future. 

• Advances in Radiation Protection 

and Dosimetry Science. National and 

international guidance on radiation 

protection have had three significant 

revisions since 40 CFR part 190 was 

issued. In the 1980s, the organ dosebased system used in 40 CFR part 190 

was replaced with a system that 

integrated organ doses into a single 

expression of dose, which employed 

mortality risk-based weighting factors 

such that the dose term was a surrogate 

for risk (International Commission on 

Radiological Protection (ICRP) 

Publications 26 and 30). This new 

approach allowed the use of one dose 

limit for all radionuclides taken into the 

body, as well as for external exposures. 

Individual dose factors were established 

for all radionuclides and weighting 

factors for various organs were riskbased. Numerous regulations used this 

methodology, including NRC’s 10 CFR 

part 20, and EPA’s 40 CFR part 61 

radionuclide emission standards. In 

addition, this methodology was used in 

EPA’s internal and external dose factors 

in Federal Guidance Report Nos. 11 and 

12. In the 1990s, ICRP improved the 

dosimetry models for ingestion and 

inhalation, expanded the number of 

organ-specific weighting factors and 

revised them to be based on new 

mortality and morbidity data. The risk 

factors in EPA Federal Guidance Report 

No. 13 were based on this new 

dosimetry. In 2007, ICRP 103 was issued 

and the associated dosimetry is under 

development. In addition to improved 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 23 / Tuesday, February 4, 2014 / Proposed Rules 6513 

intake data and models, ICRP also 

addressed age- and gender-specific 

elements in the models. This 

information will be the basis for revising 

existing Federal Guidance Reports, 

which include radionuclide specific 

dose and risk factors. 

• Advances in Radiation Risk 

Science. Advances in radiation risk 

science since 1977 have led to a better 

understanding of the health risks from 

ionizing radiation in general, as well as 

from specific radionuclides. Improved 

tools and methods for calculating 

radiation exposure have also become 

available. These advancements make 

more sophisticated radiological risk 

assessments possible. The Agency 

intends to review this standard to 

ensure its continued protectiveness in 

light of these advances. The Agency 

believes that the science used for the 

regulation is out of date and should be 

updated. 

• On-site Storage of Spent Nuclear 

Fuel. The 1977 standards were based on 

the assumption that most spent nuclear 

fuel would be reprocessed following 

short-term storage on-site and that the 

U.S. would have a national repository 

for permanent disposal of high-level 

radioactive wastes and any remaining 

spent nuclear fuel in a time frame that 

would eliminate the need for longerterm storage. However, spent nuclear 

fuel currently is held at nuclear power 

plants in spent nuclear fuel storage 

casks or in storage pools as the U.S. 

determines a long-term disposal 

solution. Increased interest in nuclear 

power has also raised the prospect of 

commercial reprocessing of spent 

nuclear fuel. Nevertheless, near-term 

projections indicate that spent nuclear 

fuel could remain on site at the power 

plants during the operational life of 

existing nuclear power plants and into 

(or beyond) the decommissioning phase. 

The President’s Blue Ribbon 

Commission on America’s Nuclear 

Future has also identified this as an 

issue, especially for decommissioned 

facilities. 

• Extension of Nuclear Reactor 

Licenses. Many of the nuclear reactors 

in the U.S. were built in the 1960s and 

1970s. These reactors either are 

approaching their initial 40-year 

operational license limit, or they have 

exceeded this time period and continue 

to operate under license renewals. 

Regardless of the age of the reactor (or 

other facility), any U.S. reactor would 

still need to meet the EPA standards. 

• Ground Water. Ground water 

contamination has been identified at a 

number of nuclear power plants and 

nuclear fuel cycle facilities. The existing 

standard contains release limits that 

were intended to address the issue of 

long-lived radionuclides in the 

environment. However, the rule was 

developed under the assumption that air 

was the primary exposure pathway, and 

in contrast to more recent EPA radiation 

standards, it does not include a separate 

provision for protecting ground water 

outside facility boundaries that could be 

a current or future source of drinking 

water. The Agency is considering 

whether, and if so, how to develop a 

ground water provision. 

2. Guiding Principles for Review of the 

Existing Standards 

This review of the existing standards 

has two key principles. The first is that 

a thorough assessment of the potential 

impact on public health should be based 

on an up-to-date consensus of currently 

available scientific knowledge. The 

second is that careful consideration 

should be given to the cost and 

effectiveness of measures available to 

reduce or eliminate radioactive releases 

to the environment. In the development 

of the existing standards, the Agency 

found it necessary to ‘‘balance the 

health risks associated with any level of 

exposure against the costs of achieving 

that level’’ (39 FR 16906, May 10, 1974). 

The standard-setting method conducted 

in the current standards has been ‘‘best 

characterized as cost-effective health 

risk minimization’’ (Final 

Environmental Statement, 1976, Vol. 1, 

p. 28). As the Agency considers these 

principles, we are committed to 

ensuring that any revision is based on 

current science to the extent practicable 

and remains protective of public health 

and the environment while seeking 

alternative ways (methodologies), 

within the Agency’s authorities, to limit 

public exposure. The Agency may revise 

several of the technical criteria used as 

a basis for the existing regulation or add 

new criteria to the regulation. 

C. What is the purpose of this ANPR 

and how will the Agency use the 

information? 

This Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking is being published to 

inform stakeholders, including federal 

and state entities, the nuclear industry, 

the public and any interested groups, 

that the Agency is reviewing the 

existing standards to determine how the 

standards should be updated. As noted 

earlier, EPA believes the existing 

standards remain protective of public 

health and the environment; however, 

the Agency also believes that the 

changes mentioned above are sufficient 

to warrant a review of the standards and 

solicit public input on possible updates. 

EPA has identified six broad topics that 

it believes capture the issues of most 

importance for a review of the existing 

standards. The Agency is requesting 

public comment on these specific 

topics; however, members of the public 

are welcome to comment on other 

aspects related to the nuclear fuel cycle 

that they believe EPA should consider. 

If the Agency decides to revise the 

existing standards, then the Agency 

would follow the procedures outlined in 

the AEA and the Administrative 

Procedure Act (APA) and publish a 

proposed rule in the Federal Register. 

Comments received on the ANPR will 

inform the development of a proposed 

rule and be used by the Agency to 

provide a clearer understanding of 

science, technology and other concerns 

and perspectives of stakeholders. The 

Agency will not respond directly to 

comments submitted on this ANPR. 

However, the public would have the 

opportunity to submit written 

comments on any proposed rule that 

might be developed. 

D. How can the public comment on the 

ANPR and get additional information? 

The Agency welcomes comments on 

this ANPR as it reviews the existing 

standards. EPA has set up a Web site for 

the public to access the most up-to-date 

information regarding our review of 

these standards. This site contains 

detailed information related to this rule 

and any potential revision, including: a 

copy of the existing standards, copies of 

the Final Environmental Statements and 

the Supplemental Environmental 

Statement on which the existing 

standards are based, as well as related 

fact sheets. 

EPA plans to conduct public webinars 

to discuss specific issues on which the 

Agency is seeking comment. Dates, 

times and presentation materials for the 

webinars will be available on the Web 

site at: www.epa.gov/radiation/laws/

190. 

II. Issues for Public Comment 

A. Issue 1—Consideration of a Risk 

Limit To Protect Individuals. Should the 

Agency express its limits for the purpose 

of this regulation in terms of radiation 

risk or radiation dose? 

1. Why is this issue important? 

The purpose of the 40 CFR part 190 

environmental standards is to protect 

human health and the environment. 

Although the current compliance metric 

for worldwide radiation standards is, 

and traditionally has been, either 

radiation dose or some measurable 

concentration or activity level, the 

Agency desires feedback to determine 

the feasibility of expressing its limits for 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6514 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 23 / Tuesday, February 4, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

2A different NAS committee expressed similar 

views in a 2002 report, The Disposition Dilemma, 

pp. 33–34. 

3For example, the estimated risk of fatal cancer 

per rem of exposure increased in each of our three 

rulemakings for high-level radioactive waste (1985, 

1993, 2001). 

the purpose of this regulation in terms 

of radiation risk. 

Conformance with regulatory public 

dose limits has traditionally been 

demonstrated through modeling 

calculations and subsequent personal, 

environmental or emissions monitoring. 

Compliance with a risk-based standard 

would be accomplished in a similar 

manner and the limits would be 

expressed as the maximum risk that 

could be allowed to the receptor from 

radiation exposures at any given facility 

under regulatory control. 

2. What concepts are important to 

understanding this issue? 

The primary concern from radiation 

exposure at the levels relevant for nonemergency situations is the increased 

risk of cancer. Two forms of radiation 

exposure, internal and external 

exposure, can occur depending upon 

the location of the source relative to the 

receptor. Internal exposures occur when 

a person inhales or ingests 

contaminated air, food, water or soil. 

External exposures occur because a 

person is near sources of radioactivity 

which are emitting penetrating 

radiation, such as x-rays, gamma rays, 

beta particles or neutrons. It should be 

noted that since the rule limits itself to 

the uranium fuel cycle, sources of 

radiation from machines, such as x-ray 

units and particle accelerators, are not 

covered by EPA standards. The term 

‘‘radiation dose,’’ as used in dose 

standards, is a risk-weighted measure 

derived from the physical quantity of 

absorbed dose to an organ or tissue. As 

defined in this ANPR, ‘‘radiation risk’’ 

is the probability of an individual 

incurring a particular health effect per 

dose of radiation. Both dose and risk are 

commonly expressed over a lifetime or 

annualized depending on regulatory 

implementation. 

3. What does 40 CFR part 190 say and 

what is basis of the existing standards? 

The existing standards have two 

components limiting exposures to the 

public. The first is a dose limit to 

members of the public, while the second 

is a limit on the quantity released of 

certain radionuclides or forms of 

radioactivity into the environment. The 

provision specified in 40 CFR 190.10(a) 

limits the annual dose to any member of 

the public from exposures to planned 

releases from uranium fuel cycle 

facilities to 25 mrem to the whole body, 

75 mrem to the thyroid and 25 mrem to 

any other organ. The provision specified 

in 40 CFR 190.10(b) limits the total 

quantity of radioactive material releases 

for the entire uranium fuel cycle, per 

gigawatt-year of electrical energy 

produced, to less than 50,000 curies of 

krypton-85, 5 millicuries of iodine-129 

and 0.5 millicuries combined of 

plutonium-239 and other alpha-emitting 

transuranic radionuclides with halflives greater than one year. Though 

views of risks have changed since 1977, 

the limits in 40 CFR 190.10(a) and (b) 

have as a basis a consideration of 

acceptable risk which served as a guide 

in developing the limits. 

4. What Agency and national policies 

and approaches could be relevant? 

EPA considers risk in establishing 

standards and requirements across 

programs and environmental media. 

Consistent with this practice, the 

Agency has stated radiation-specific 

standards for protection of individuals 

in terms of dose, based on the 

underlying risk level. 

If the Agency should decide to retain 

a dose standard in 40 CFR part 190, that 

standard would be related to a level of 

health risk. In some cases, standards are 

expressed in terms of environmental 

flux (release rate) or concentration of 

radionuclides in the environment, but 

are also related to health impacts. 

EPA has heard from some 

stakeholders that a standard expressed 

as a level of risk could be more 

understandable for those less familiar 

with radiation science, as it would more 

clearly state the health outcome that the 

Agency views as acceptable. EPA 

believes it would also assist commenters 

in evaluating the merits of a risk 

standard if the Agency referred to the 

reasoning employed by the National 

Research Council/National Academy of 

Sciences (the NAS committee) in its 

1995 report, Technical Bases for Yucca 

Mountain Standards. The NAS 

committee recommended that EPA 

adopt a standard expressed as risk for 

two reasons. First, a risk standard is 

advantageous relative to a dose-based 

standard because it represents a societal 

judgment regarding health impacts and 

therefore ‘‘would not have to be revised 

in subsequent rulemakings if advances 

in scientific knowledge reveal that the 

dose-response relationship is different 

from that envisaged today.’’ Second, a 

standard in the form of risk more readily 

enables the public to comprehend and 

compare the standard with humanhealth risks from other sources 

(Technical Bases for Yucca Mountain 

Standards, 1995, 64–65).2

5. How would a risk standard compare 

to a dose standard? 

Planned or routine releases of 

radionuclides from nuclear fuel cycle 

facilities represent low-level ionizing 

radiation exposures to the public. As 

such, these non-emergency releases 

represent a potential increased risk of 

cancer to the public. Once an acceptable 

level of protection is identified, it may 

be translated to a release rate, as 

radionuclide concentrations in specific 

media, or another measurable unit, 

which can then serve as a regulatory 

limit expressed over time. Alternatively, 

site-specific modeling may be 

employed, based on measured releases, 

to calculate a dose or risk for 

comparison to the regulatory standard. 

This general approach to 

implementation would be used whether 

the standard is expressed in terms of 

risk or dose. As noted earlier, the 

compliance metric for radiation 

standards has more traditionally been 

either radiation dose or some 

measurable concentration or activity 

level. 

Both calculated doses and risks from 

radiation exposure differ depending on 

the specific radionuclides involved, as 

well as the pathways of exposure. The 

same activity level received by an 

exposed individual from different 

radionuclides or through different 

pathways leads to a different dose and 

carries different risks. If someone is 

exposed to multiple radionuclides, the 

risk of adverse health effects is 

determined by summing the risks from 

each radionuclide involved in the 

exposure. The primary technical 

difference between a risk standard and 

a dose standard is that the relationship 

between risk and dose has varied over 

time.3 Should this trend continue, there 

is the potential for a dose standard to 

diverge over time from its original 

underlying risk level. In contrast, a risk 

standard represents a constant level of 

risk, regardless of the type of facility, 

mix of radionuclides or changes in the 

underlying science involved in 

estimating the risk. Because it directly 

states the expectation for health 

outcome rather than relying on an 

overall correlation, it would typically 

not require an update, unless there are 

changes in what society deems an 

acceptable risk. If the standard were 

implemented by rule using measurable 

quantities such as effluent limits, 

however, these criteria would need to be 

updated, as they would be if a dose 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 23 / Tuesday, February 4, 2014 / Proposed Rules 6515 

standard changes. We are interested in 

stakeholder views on how this updating 

process might differ for a risk or dose 

standard. 

Although our experience is that the 

risk per unit dose has generally 

increased over the years, the possibility 

also exists that further research may 

show that cancer risks are overestimated 

for a given dose or for certain 

radionuclides or exposure pathways. 

Another aspect to consider when 

assessing whether a risk standard would 

be appropriate is whether cancer 

morbidity (incidence) or cancer 

mortality (fatality) should be used as the 

basis for establishing any risk standard. 

While EPA often relies upon morbidity 

information for chemical carcinogens, 

the Agency has used mortality data as 

the basis of both its standards for 

disposal of transuranic and high-level 

radioactive wastes (40 CFR part 191) 

and the Yucca Mountain standards (40 

CFR part 197). One factor to consider is 

that there appears to be increasing 

divergence between morbidity and 

mortality; in other words, estimates of 

cancer incidence from exposure to 

radiation continue to increase, but 

cancer fatality has grown at a slower 

rate or been reduced (EPA Radiogenic 

Cancer Risk Models and Projections for 

the U.S. Population, 2011). As a result, 

the Agency will take comment on 

whether morbidity data or mortality 

data, or a combination, would be more 

appropriate for the establishment of a 

potential risk standard. 

Although a risk standard, like a dose 

standard, would generally be 

implemented through modeling and the 

derivation of measurable quantities, the 

Agency is also aware that there may be 

some challenges specific to a risk 

standard, especially given that the 

regulatory system is based on dose, 

which is far more familiar to the 

radiation protection community and 

industry practice. If a standard were 

developed in the form of a risk level that 

was not to be exceeded, then any 

meaningful discussion on 

implementation would need to address 

how the risk would be translated into 

measurable quantities such as an 

effluent release rate into the 

environment, a concentration in 

environmental media, an intake by an 

individual or external radiation 

exposure at specific locations or to 

specific persons. As is the case with the 

current dose standard, proof of 

compliance would most likely rely 

heavily on the use of modeling results 

coupled with effluent data. Any 

accepted modeling use would need to 

be either detailed within the standard, 

or detailed by the implementing federal 

agency, possibly through development 

of subsequent regulations. 

As discussed earlier, the Agency 

recognizes that different radionuclides 

contribute to potential exposures. EPA 

further recognizes that different 

radionuclides are predominant at the 

different types of facilities within the 

nuclear fuel cycle. If the Agency were to 

move toward a risk standard, the 

Agency would conduct an analysis of 

the dose-risk relationship at the 

different types of facilities. What issues 

would the Agency need to consider with 

the implementation of a risk standard at 

the different facilities? For example, 

would the radionuclides of most 

concern for a given fuel cycle facility 

have different risk implications for 

different fuel cycle facilities? Could 

NRC implement a risk standard by 

establishing a corresponding dose limit 

that it determines would keep risks 

under the risk standard? 

While the Agency has not determined 

whether the technical merits or costs 

associated with developing a risk 

standard warrant a change from the 

traditional dose limits, the Agency 

believes it is reasonable to take 

comment at this time on how a potential 

risk limit may be implemented. Such a 

discussion could also inform the 

consideration of costs of implementing 

a risk standard. 

EPA also notes that both national and 

international radiation protection 

guidelines developed by bodies of nongovernmental radiation experts, such as 

the ICRP and the National Council on 

Radiation Protection and Measurements 

(NCRP), generally recommend that 

radiation standards be established in 

terms of dose. National and 

international radiation standards, 

including the individual protection 

requirements in 40 CFR part 191, 

‘‘Environmental Radiation Protection 

Standards for Management and Disposal 

of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level and 

Transuranic Radioactive Waste’’, are 

established almost solely in terms of 

dose or concentration, not risk. 

Therefore, a risk standard would not 

allow a convenient comparison with the 

numerous existing dose guidelines and 

standards, nor with other sources of 

radiation exposure, but it would more 

readily allow comparisons to other EPA 

risk management decisions for 

chemicals. 

Lastly, it is important to note the 

potential costs that could be associated 

with moving from a dose standard to a 

risk standard. At the time of publication 

of this ANPR, the Agency has no 

information regarding potential costs to 

the regulated community. The Agency is 

seeking any data that are available on 

these potential costs. 

6. Questions for Public Comment 

As the Agency considers the issue of 

establishing a standard expressed in 

terms of risk, we believe it to be 

appropriate to better understand the 

merits of this approach. The industry 

currently uses a dose limit, and the 

Agency is seeking information on how 

the industry would be affected by this 

change. 

Consequently, the Agency is seeking 

input on the following questions: 

a. Should the Agency express its limit 

for the purpose of this regulation in 

terms of radiation risk or radiation 

dose? 

b. Should the Agency base any risk 

standard on cancer morbidity or cancer 

mortality? What would be the 

advantages or disadvantages of each? 

c. How might implementation of a risk 

limit be carried out? How might a risk 

standard affect other federal regulations 

and guidance? 

B. Issue 2—Updated Dose Methodology 

(Dosimetry). How should the Agency 

update the radiation dosimetry 

methodology incorporated in the 

standard? 

1. Why is this issue important? 

The dosimetry used for the existing 

standards is outdated. Since the 

development of the existing dose 

standard, the methodology to calculate 

radiation exposure has changed with 

scientific progress. The existing 

standard has separate limits for 

exposure of the whole body and 

exposure of specific organs. More recent 

dosimetry accounts for both types of 

exposures in a single numerical value 

that provides more consistency and 

allows easier comparison of radiation 

exposures, regardless of whether they 

are internal or external, or whether they 

are likely to affect single or multiple 

organs. Newer dosimetry approaches 

also reflect a better understanding of the 

different sensitivity of various organs 

and allow more sophisticated 

calculations of the impacts to 

individuals and even to specialized 

groups (i.e., children, sensitive 

subpopulations). 

2. What does the existing standard say? 

What is the technical basis? 

The standard in 40 CFR 190.10(a) 

states: ‘‘The annual dose equivalent 

[must] not exceed 25 millirems to the 

whole body, 75 millirems to the thyroid, 

and 25 millirems to any other organ of 

any member of the public as the result 

of exposures to planned discharges of 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6516 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 23 / Tuesday, February 4, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

4 In the interim between publication of the 

proposed rule and publication of the final 40 CFR 

part 190 standards, ICRP 26 was finalized (adopted 

Jan 17, 1977). However sufficient time was not 

available to incorporate the ICRP 26 findings, and 

the Agency went forth with finalization of the 

proposed rule which was based on ICRP 2. 

5 In actuality, the weighting factors used to 

calculate effective dose equivalent are not 

sufficiently precise to equate risks for a given dose. 

The ‘‘true’’ risk is best calculated using 

radionuclide-specific, pathway-specific analyses 

and absorbed dose to an organ or whole body. 

6Subpart I established standards for air emissions 

from NRC licensees, including uranium fuel cycle 

facilities, and non-DOE federal facilities not 

licensed by NRC. Subpart I was later rescinded 

based on the Administrator’s conclusion that NRC’s 

regulatory implementation protected public health 

with ‘‘an ample margin of safety’’ (60 FR 46206, 

September 5, 1995, and 61 FR 68972, December 30, 

1996). Subpart I established standards for the air 

pathway of 10 mrem/year EDE, with no more than 

3 mrem/year EDE from radioiodine. 

radioactive materials, radon and its 

daughters excepted, to the general 

environment from uranium fuel cycle 

operations and to radiation from these 

operations.’’ These limits were based on 

the Federal Radiation Protection 

Guidance in existence at that time (26 

FR 4402, May 18, 1960 and 26 FR 9057, 

September 26, 1961). 

The federal guidance documents, in 

turn, were based on recommendations 

of the ICRP, which provides expert 

guidance on dose limits in view of the 

current understanding of dose-response 

relationships for exposure to ionizing 

radiation. Many international standards 

and national regulations addressing 

radiological protection are based on or 

take into account the ICRP’s 

recommendations. The guidance in 

effect during the development of the 

proposed 4 standards—ICRP Publication 

2 (1959)—recommended dose limits 

aimed at avoiding deterministic effects 

and limiting stochastic effects, 

including leukemia and other cancers, 

as well as genetic effects. The dose 

limitation system at that time was based 

on the concept of the critical organ, 

defined as the organ or tissue most 

susceptible to damage from radiation. 

Separate dose limits were set for 

different groups of tissues, taking into 

account the potential for different types 

of radiation to cause greater damage 

depending on the mode of exposure. For 

example, alpha radiation poses less risk 

for external—or whole body—exposure 

because it is easily shielded even by the 

skin, but can cause greater damage to 

critical organs than other types of 

radiation when inhaled or ingested. 

These concepts, underlying the ICRP 

recommendations at the time, served as 

the basis of the existing dose limits to 

members of the public in 40 CFR part 

190. 

3. What has changed and how are those 

changes important? 

Since the publication of the existing 

regulation, advancements have been 

made in understanding radiation 

dosimetry. The ICRP updated its 

recommendations to reflect a better 

understanding of the different 

sensitivity of various organs and of the 

risks from different types of radiation. 

Of primary importance is that the 

critical organ concept was abandoned in 

favor of a new concept referred to as the 

effective dose equivalent (ICRP 

Publication 26, 1977). This new 

concept, later renamed effective dose 

(ICRP Publication 60, 1991), provides a 

single dose indicator that accommodates 

different types of radiation as well as 

different modes of exposure. The use of 

a unified dose facilitates understanding 

and comparison of the radiation 

exposures, regardless of whether they 

are internal or external, or whether they 

are likely to affect single or multiple 

organs. Further studies since the 1977 

rule have also reinforced that some 

populations, such as pregnant women 

and children, are more sensitive to 

radiation and have allowed more 

specific calculations of risks to such 

groups. Such information is not 

reflected in the dose limits—or their 

form—in the existing uranium fuel cycle 

standards, which are based on the older 

‘‘critical organ’’ system. Beyond the fact 

that the existing standards do not reflect 

the most recent scientific 

understanding, the use of an outmoded 

system also poses some compliance 

challenges. The models and methods to 

predict the dispersion of radionuclides, 

the modes of exposure, and the 

movement of radionuclides through the 

body (biokinetics) are more advanced 

today than in the past. However, the 

most sophisticated models are tailored 

to work with the more recent dosimetry 

systems and are not always compatible 

to assess compliance with limits 

expressed in the older systems. At the 

same time, the older models are less and 

less supported. This means that 

compliance assessments for the existing 

dose limit cannot take advantage of the 

best implementation tools. Thus, for 

reasons both scientific and practical, we 

believe it is worthwhile to consider how 

to update the dose methodology if the 

rule is revised. 

4. What policies and approaches are 

relevant? 

As noted above, EPA’s dose limits 

take into account recommendations of 

the ICRP, which has updated its 

guidance documents several times since 

40 CFR part 190 was issued. ICRP 

Publication 26 (1977) abandoned the 

critical organ concept of ICRP 

Publication 2 in favor of a new concept 

referred to as the effective dose 

equivalent (now called effective dose). 

The effective dose is a weighted sum of 

tissue doses intended to represent the 

same cancer risk from a non-uniform 

irradiation of the body as that from 

uniform whole body irradiation.5 The 

effective dose concept has been used in 

all subsequent ICRP publications to 

date. 

The ICRP guidance was updated 

beyond ICRP 26 and expanded with 

ICRP Publication 60 (1991), based on 

additional information on the sensitivity 

of different tissues and organs in the 

body. ICRP 60 also made it possible to 

develop age- and gender-specific dose 

estimates. ICRP 60 has been widely 

implemented worldwide and serves as 

the basis for EPA radiation dose 

standards, notably the amended Yucca 

Mountain standards issued in 2008. 

The Agency has explained its 

adoption of the effective dose concept in 

previous rulemakings. In the Agency’s 

1989 Clean Air Act (CAA) rulemaking 

establishing National Emissions 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

(NESHAPs) in 40 CFR part 61, Subpart 

I,6 EPA said the following about 

effective dose equivalent (54 FR 51662, 

December 15, 1989): 

Since 1985, when EPA proposed dose 

standards regulating NRC licensees and DOE 

facilities, a different methodology for 

calculating dose has come into widespread 

use, the effective dose equivalent (EDE). In 

1987, EPA, in recommending to the President 

new guidance for workers occupationally 

exposed to radiation, accepted this 

methodology for the regulation of risks from 

radiation. This method, which was originally 

developed by the International Commission 

on Radiological Protection, will be used by 

EPA in all the dose standards promulgated in 

this ANPR. In the past, EPA dose standards 

were specified in terms of limits for specific 

organ doses and the ‘whole body dose’, a 

methodology which is no longer consistent 

with current practices of radiation protection. 

The EDE is simple, is more closely related 

to risk, and is recommended by the leading 

national and international advisory bodies. 

By changing to this new methodology, EPA 

will be converting to the commonly accepted 

international method for calculating dose. 

This will make it easier for the regulated 

community to understand and comply with 

our standards. 

The EDE is the weighted sum of the doses 

to individual organs of the body. The dose to 

each organ is weighted according to the risk 

that dose represents. These organ doses are 

then added together, and that total is the 

effective dose equivalent. In this manner, the 

risk from different sources of radiation can be 

controlled by a single standard. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 23 / Tuesday, February 4, 2014 / Proposed Rules 6517 

7See OSWER Directive 9200.4–18, EPA’s Yucca 

Mountain standards at 40 CFR part 197, and the 

preamble to the 1993 revision of the 40 CFR part 

191 standards [58 FR 66411, December 20, 1993]. 

8The Agency’s ‘‘Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk 

Assessment’’ (2005) provide age-specific 

adjustments for carcinogens with a mutagenic mode 

of action for chemical carcinogens. Regulatory 

applications for radioactive compounds have not 

been determined. 

This rulemaking (54 FR 51662) also 

noted that the EPA Science Advisory 

Board (SAB) commented that ‘‘EPA 

should use the effective dose equivalent 

concept for regulations protecting 

people from exposure to radiation.’’ 

The latest update, in ICRP Publication 

103 (2007), provided updated radiation 

protection guidance, including new 

tissue weighting (i.e., sensitivity) 

factors, but left the primary radiation 

protection guidance from 1991 virtually 

unchanged. ICRP 103 is the most recent 

guidance but, as discussed in more 

detail below, has not been applied in 

EPA regulations to date. 

Other EPA policies are also relevant 

because, while the Agency takes into 

account ICRP guidance, regulatory 

limits must reflect additional factors. 

The ICRP recommended—in both 

Publication 60 and Publication 103— 

that public exposures be limited to 100 

mrem (0.001 Sv) per year. However, this 

applies in principle to all man-made 

sources of radiation. In setting 

regulatory limits, we allow only a 

fraction of 100 mrem from a single 

source, such as a uranium fuel cycle 

facility. As discussed further in section 

II.A of this ANPR (‘‘Consideration of a 

Risk Limit to Protect Individuals’’), the 

dose limits used in our radiation 

regulations are based on an assessment 

of the associated risks. In the past, based 

on ICRP 26, EPA radiation policies and 

regulations have used 15 mrem/year as 

a dose limit that aligns with the 

Agency’s goals and corresponds to a 

limit of 25 mrem to the whole body and 

75 mrem to any organ under the 

obsolete dose methodology for certain 

regulatory applications.7 The 

corresponding dose under ICRP 103 has 

not been established. EPA is reviewing 

the implications of ICRP 103 for our 

revised dose and risk estimates. EPA 

will address the issue in a rulemaking 

if one is pursued. 

It should be noted that the Agency 

does not have established policies or 

guidance on the application of age- and 

gender-specific dose calculations to 

determine compliance with a dose 

standard.8 However, we are considering 

the application of age- and genderspecific dose calculations to determine 

compliance with the dose standard. 

Whether expressed in terms of risk or 

dose, the standard must identify the 

person(s) against whom compliance will 

be assessed. The standards at 40 CFR 

part 190 currently specify that the dose 

standard applies to ‘‘any member of the 

public.’’ We have several other ‘‘any 

member of the public’’ standards that 

specify the use of ICRP 26 dosimetry 

and an associated concept, the 

‘‘reference man.’’ Concerns have been 

raised that the ‘‘reference man’’ concept, 

combined with the fact that neither the 

ICRP 26 dosimetry nor the ICRP 2 

methodology can provide age- and 

gender-specific calculations, does not 

assure that children or other vulnerable 

population segments are protected or 

adequately considered. The models 

beginning with ICRP 60 are able to 

address different age and gender 

cohorts, which allows the differing 

impact of radiation exposures to be 

evaluated. More specifically, ICRP 

Publication 89 (2002) provides 

anatomical and physiological data for 

males and females at ages newborn, 1 

year, 5 years, 10 years, 15 years and 

adult that allow for age- and genderspecific estimates of dose to be 

calculated for these reference 

individuals. We note that, while the 

current standard is presented as an 

annual dose, it is established at a level 

that provides protection for an 

individual over a lifetime (i.e., at all 

ages). Nevertheless, we are examining 

the issue to confirm the protectiveness 

of our standards as written for all 

segments of the population. 

Specifically, we are modifying the 

computer model CAP–88 PC, which is 

used to determine compliance with 

Clean Air Act radionuclide emission 

standards, to evaluate the relationship 

between radionuclide intake and dose 

for different age groups. This technical 

study will inform our review of our 

radiation protection policies, and we 

will make our findings available to the 

public. We anticipate that this question 

will be addressed broadly within the 

Agency to identify the most appropriate 

approach to resolving the issue as a 

whole, rather than for each individual 

rule. However, comments on the use of 

reference man or the appropriateness of 

specifying age- and gender-specific dose 

calculations are welcome. Such 

comments will be considered both in 

the context of this rule and as part of the 

overall Agency discussion on the topic. 

5. What aspects of this issue are most 

important and what options might be 

considered to address this issue in any 

revised standards? 

The Agency intends to review this 

portion of the regulation to ensure its 

continued protectiveness in light of 

these technological advances. We 

acknowledge that the dose methodology 

on which the existing standard is based 

is now outmoded, and compliance with 

the existing standard poses some 

implementation challenges. These 

challenges are proving compliance with 

an organ-specific dose limit and with 

the current suite of compliance models 

using an effective dose methodology. As 

an example, most health physicists 

conducting compliance at nuclear 

power plant facilities are trained in the 

calculation and use of effective dose. 

Requiring compliance with an organspecific dose necessitates the use of a 

different calculating technique, and 

potentially requires additional training. 

If the rule is revised, there would be 

little justification for retaining outdated 

science as the basis for dose limits. 

Therefore, the primary question is how 

the Agency would reflect more recent 

dose methodology. There are arguments 

to be made for using either ICRP 60 or 

ICRP 103, or for providing flexibility 

without specifying the ICRP basis. 

As noted earlier, there is considerable 

experience worldwide in implementing 

the recommendations of ICRP 60. The 

EPA has issued guidance documents to 

allow detailed dose calculations for 

specific exposure situations, such as 

would be needed to determine 

compliance at a nuclear fuel cycle 

facility. A basis for calculating risks to 

more sensitive populations has also 

been developed, though (as noted 

earlier) there is not clear guidance on 

how, if at all, such information should 

be used in regulations. 

The nuclear industry is familiar with 

the guidance and has experience in 

using compliance and assessment tools 

that are compatible with the ICRP 60 

risk basis. Relying on ICRP 60 as the 

basis for a revised rule would eliminate 

any reference to an outdated individual 

organ calculation. The methodology is 

biologically and physically robust in its 

approach and has been properly peerreviewed, implemented and supported 

by the publication of important federal 

guidance. This approach would provide 

a well-established methodology and 

compliance tools using science that is 

considerably more advanced than that 

used currently in 40 CFR part 190—but 

not the absolute most recent science. 

Using the most recent science— 

which, in principle, is the preferred 

approach—would imply that ICRP 103 

should be adopted as the basis for any 

revised rule. Unfortunately, ICRP 103 

has not been widely utilized because the 

ICRP has yet to provide the detailed 

information needed for full 

implementation of the most recent dose 

coefficients for specific radionuclides 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6518 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 23 / Tuesday, February 4, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

9We provided similar discretion to NRC in our 

amendments to the Yucca Mountain standards. 

While we specified that the Department of Energy 

(DOE) must use ICRP 60 methodologies to project 

doses in its long-term performance assessment, we 

stated that NRC could permit the use of future 

dosimetric systems, as long as they were issued by 

consensus organizations, adopted by EPA into 

Federal Guidance, and consistent with the effective 

dose equivalent methodology first established in 

ICRP 26 and continued in ICRP 60. See 40 CFR part 

197, Appendix A. 

and organs. Factors and biokinetic 

models to support such calculations are 

anticipated in future ICRP publications 

but have not yet been released, so there 

is a lack of appropriate modeling and 

compliance tools now available. 

Furthermore, in order to provide the 

complete set of tools for calculating 

dose to different population age groups 

under ICRP 103, the Agency would need 

to update Federal Guidance Report No. 

13, Cancer Risk Coefficients for 

Environmental Exposure to 

Radionuclides. However, the Federal 

Guidance Technical Report Working 

Group under the Interagency Steering 

Committee on Radiation Standards has 

convened to update these reports and 

the first draft could be available by the 

end of 2014. As such, these data could 

be available prior to any proposal of a 

revised standard. Thus, the analysis that 

relies on the most recent science (ICRP 

103) could be conducted in a timely 

manner consistent with the time 

necessary for a rulemaking. 

A third option would be to establish 

a dose limit but not to specify the ICRP 

basis for implementation. Under this 

approach, the details of implementation 

would be left to the NRC. NRC is 

beginning a comprehensive review of its 

regulations with the long-term view of 

adopting ICRP 103, which is likely to 

take a number of years. During this 

transition period, it may be appropriate 

to allow NRC to determine which 

method of calculation should be used, 

taking into account the views of the 

public. This could also anticipate the 

use of future ICRP recommendations 

beyond ICRP 103. An example of this 

approach is EPA’s standards for the 

proposed Yucca Mountain disposal 

facility.9 The advantage of this approach 

is that it allows the flexibility to use 

updated ICRP information as soon as 

(but not before) it can reasonably be 

implemented on a large-scale. A 

drawback of this approach is that it 

leaves some uncertainty as to what risk 

level is represented by the dose limit. 

That is, a dose of 15 mrem can represent 

a slightly different level of risk 

depending on the specific 

radionuclides, exposure situation and 

dose-risk factors. Therefore, a dose of 15 

mrem could, in the future, represent a 

different level of risk than originally 

expected. The difference would likely 

be small unless there are major changes 

in our understanding of radiation risks. 

Recent scientific advances have 

primarily influenced the understanding 

of risks from specific radionuclides to 

specific organs and to sensitive 

subpopulations—but have reinforced 

the overall dose-risk factors that serve as 

the major basis for most of EPA’s 

radiation regulations and policies. 

Finally, it is important that the 

economic impacts of any change in the 

dose methodology be carefully 

considered and acknowledged. The NRC 

staff has considered cost-benefit 

considerations in providing its 

recommendation to the NRC 

Commissioners for Options to Revise 

Radiation Protection Regulations and 

Guidance with Respect to the 2007 

Recommendations of the ICRP (Dec 18, 

2008). This paper identifies the 

inefficiencies with industry meeting the 

requirements using two different 

methods (40 CFR part 190 requirements 

are incorporated into 10 CFR part 50 

Appendix I design objectives). This 

being the case, any change from the 

ICRP 2 approach to more contemporary 

dosimetry methodologies could yield a 

cost savings for the industry. The 

Agency is interested in receiving any 

data that are available on these potential 

cost savings. 

In summary, the Agency is seeking 

input from the public on options that 

should be considered to update the 

radiation dosimetry for the standard. 

The range of options identified for 

consideration are: (1) Revise the dose 

limits to an ‘‘effective dose’’ standard 

using ICRP 60 methodology; (2) Revise 

the dose limits to an ‘‘effective dose’’ 

standard using ICRP 103 methodology; 

and (3) Specify a dose limit and leave 

the decision regarding methodology to 

NRC. We welcome comments on these 

options, on additional options that we 

have not identified, and on factors that 

should be considered in selecting and 

implementing a dose methodology. 

6. Questions for Public Comment 

With the aforementioned as 

background, the Agency is seeking input 

on the following questions: 

a. If a dose standard is desired, how 

should the Agency take account of 

updated scientific information and 

methods related to radiation dose—such 

as the concept of committed effective 

dose? 

b. In updating the dose standard, 

should the methodology in ICRP 60 or 

ICRP 103 be adopted, or should 

implementation allow some flexibility? 

What are the relative advantages or 

disadvantages of not specifying which 

ICRP method be used for the dose 

assessment? 

C. Issue 3—Radionuclide Release 

Limits. The Agency has established 

individual limits for release of specific 

radionuclides of concern. Based on a 

concept known as collective dose, these 

standards limit the total discharge of 

these radionuclides to the environment. 

The Agency is seeking input on: Should 

the Agency retain the radionuclide 

release limits in an updated rule and, if 

so, what should the Agency use as the 

basis for any release limits? 

1. Why is this issue important? 

The radionuclide specific release 

standards established in 40 CFR 

190.10(b) set a limit on the total 

discharge of long-lived radionuclides 

released to the environment. These 

limits ensure that the environmental 

impacts of these radionuclides on the 

human population have a limited effect 

throughout the duration of their 

existence in the biosphere. 

2. What do the existing standards say on 

this issue? 

The standards at 40 CFR 190.10(b) 

specify: ‘‘The total quantity of 

radioactive materials entering the 

general environment from the entire 

uranium fuel cycle, per gigawatt-year of 

electrical energy produced by the fuel 

cycle, contains less than 50,000 curies 

of krypton-85, 5 millicuries of iodine129, and 0.5 millicuries combined of 

plutonium-239 and other alpha-emitting 

transuranic radionuclides with halflives greater than one year.’’ 

Excerpts from the 1976 FES (Final 

Environmental Statement, 1976, Vol. 1, 

p. 5), indicate the Agency’s rationale 

and the regulatory facilities of concern 

in mandating this second set of 

environmental standards: ‘‘Finally, 

although fuel reprocessing plants are 

few in number, they represent the 

largest single potential source of 

environmental contamination in the fuel 

cycle, since it is at this point that the 

fuel cladding is broken up and all 

remaining fission and activation 

products become available for potential 

release to the environment.’’ Other parts 

of the nuclear fuel cycle emit much less 

of the radionuclides subject to 40 CFR 

190.10(b) because the releases to the 

environment come after the fission 

process. Thus reprocessing facilities 

and, to a lesser extent, nuclear power 

plants are the focus of 40 CFR 190.10(b). 

The Agency developed this portion of 

the standard specifically to address the 

potential environmental burden 

associated with the resulting long-lived 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 23 / Tuesday, February 4, 2014 / Proposed Rules 6519 

10Fuel fabrication facilities for mixed uraniumplutonium fuel (MOX fuel) could have some 

plutonium releases, but these would not be 

anticipated to approach the current limit. 

radionuclides and to ensure that the risk 

associated with any long-term 

environmental burden is incurred only 

in return for a beneficial product: 

electrical power. Furthermore, the 

Agency stated that ‘‘attention to 

individual exposure alone can result in 

inadequate control of releases of longlived radionuclides, which may give 

rise to substantial long-term impacts 

over the lifetime of the radionuclide.’’ 

The Agency based the limits for 

plutonium-239 and other alpha-emitters 

on emissions levels that could be 

achieved with best available control 

technologies. The limits for krypton-85 

and iodine-129 relied on control 

technologies demonstrated on a 

laboratory scale, but not yet in actual 

use by 1975. Other long-lived 

radionuclides considered for regulation 

under this portion of the standard (i.e., 

tritium and carbon-14) ultimately were 

not included because appropriate 

control technologies were either not 

feasible or unavailable. 

3. What has changed and how are those 

changes relevant? 

The Agency developed the existing 

standard under the assumption that U.S. 

commercial reprocessing would be 

available. However, for policy and 

economic reasons, reprocessing never 

achieved the expected scale, and no 

commercial reprocessing plants are 

currently operating in the U.S. As of the 

drafting of this ANPR, however, there is 

renewed interest in Congress and the 

industry regarding the possibility of 

reprocessing as evidenced by testimony 

during hearings of the President’s Blue 

Ribbon Commission on America’s 

Nuclear Future. The broader nuclear 

industry is anticipating growth, with 

applications for new nuclear power 

plants submitted to the NRC and the 

start of construction at two power plant 

sites. Additionally, if the nation chooses 

to control carbon emissions from power 

generators, the number of nuclear power 

plants operating in the U.S. may 

increase further. 

4. What policies and approaches are 

relevant? 

The release limits were defined to 

limit exposures to populations wider 

than those in the immediate vicinity of 

a facility. Over the intervening decades, 

protection standards for individuals 

have become preferred, with collective 

dose considered less useful for assessing 

the risks of a given activity. Particularly 

in cases where extremely small doses 

combine with extremely large 

populations, collective dose can give a 

misleading view of the overall impact of 

an activity (and impact on individuals), 

based on statistical estimates of the 

number of future health effects. 

Collective dose should thus be used 

with caution. For example, it can be 

used to provide meaningful 

comparisons of alternatives for a 

proposed action (e.g., in facility design). 

Since the development of the release 

limits was motivated largely by 

concerns about emissions from 

reprocessing facilities, prospects of 

spent nuclear fuel reprocessing 

conducted both nationally and 

internationally may have a bearing on 

reconsideration of this issue. 

There have been active reprocessing 

facilities in 15 countries, including the 

U.S., although some of these facilities 

were more research-oriented as opposed 

to commercial reprocessing facilities. Of 

the current operating facilities, the most 

widely known are the facilities at 

Sellafield (United Kingdom) and La 

Hague (France), which constitute the 

first and second leading producers 

globally for krypton-85. Both facilities 

discharge krypton-85 directly to the 

environment. Efforts at these plants are 

made to control the releases of iodine129, and tracking the levels of this 

radionuclide over the years has shown 

decreasing emissions relative to 

reprocessing production quantities. 

It is also useful to examine the 

experience of implementing the release 

limits in practice. While EPA sets the 

part 190 standards, the NRC has the 

responsibility to implement and enforce 

them for its licensees. Its requirements 

for licensees are found in 10 CFR part 

20, ‘‘Standards for Protection Against 

Radiation,’’ specifically: 10 CFR 

20.1301(e), which requires compliance 

with 40 CFR part 190, and 10 CFR 

20.2203(a)(4), which further requires 

reporting of radiation levels or releases 

in excess of the standards in 40 CFR 

part 190. However, neither provision 

describes how to demonstrate 

compliance with 40 CFR part 190, 

although NRC has issued guidance to 

licensees for light water reactors in 

Generic Letters (GL) 79–041, GL79–070 

and NUREG–0543 (ADAMS Accession 

No. ML081360410). 

In anticipation that spent nuclear fuel 

reprocessing may again be pursued in 

the U.S., the NRC directed its former 

technical advisory committee, the 

Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste 

and Materials (ACNW&M), to define the 

issues most important to the NRC 

concerning fuel reprocessing facilities. 

The ACNW&M published the results of 

their effort in NUREG–1909, 

‘‘Background, Status, and Issues Related 

to the Regulation of Advanced Spent 

Nuclear Fuel Recycle Facilities.’’ The 

following excerpt from NUREG–1909 

summarizes the ACNW&M’s finding 

regarding 40 CFR part 190: ‘‘Of 

particular relevance to fuel recycle is 40 

CFR 190.10(b) which limits the release 

of krypton-85 and iodine-129 from 

normal operations of the uranium fuel 

cycle. Because fuel reprocessing is the 

only step of the nuclear fuel cycle that 

could release significant amounts of 

these radionuclides during normal 

operations, these limits are effectively 

release limits for the fuel reprocessing 

gaseous effluent.’’ (NUREG–1909, p.134) 

Other issues identified by the ACNW 

were: (1) Meeting the standard with 

available technologies may not be 

feasible; (2) limits on releases of carbon14 and tritium may need to be 

considered; (3) the cost-benefit analysis 

for collective dose in 40 CFR 190.10(b) 

should be reconsidered; and (4) their 

belief that the existing regulation does 

not include fabrication of fuels enriched 

with plutonium or actinides other than 

uranium. 

5. What compliance history exists for 

the current standards? 

The Agency has reviewed compliance 

issues for these standards and has found 

challenges with determining and 

enforcing compliance. Without the 

operation of a reprocessing plant(s), 

there is little likelihood of exceeding the 

existing standards for the fission 

products krypton-85 and iodine-129. 

The basis for this statement is that both 

of these radionuclides are fission 

products (the result of the fission 

reaction occurring in the nuclear 

reactor) contained within the fuel rods 

at the nuclear power plants, and the 

fission products cannot escape unless 

the metal cladding around the fuel 

pellets ruptures during use or storage 

after removal from the reactor. During 

normal operations, the failure rate of 

cladding is insignificantly small. 

Uranium mining and milling, uranium 

conversion, uranium enrichment and 

fuel fabrication facilities do not generate 

these radionuclides since no fission 

reaction occurs during these 

processes.10 Thus, only nuclear power 

plants and potential reprocessing 

facilities need to be considered when 

determining compliance with krypton85 and iodine-129 limits. 

NRC implements 40 CFR 190.10(b) 

through its oversight and inspection 

authorities for its licensees found in 

both 10 CFR part 20 and 10 CFR part 50. 

Specifically, 10 CFR part 20 includes 

the requirement that licensees comply 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6520 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 23 / Tuesday, February 4, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

11NRC Letter from Margie Kotzalas, MOX Branch 

Chief to Ron Fowler; Subj: Response to Concerns 

Regarding Ensuring Compliance with 40 CFR part 

190. Sept. 24, 2008. 

12U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 

Leaks and Spills of Tritium at U.S. Commercial 

Nuclear Power Plants, Revision 6 (Washington, DC: 

2010). 

13U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). Nuclear 

Waste Cleanup, DOE’s Paducah Plan Faces 

Uncertainties and Excludes Costly Cleanup 

Activities. GAO/RCED–00–96. (Washington, DC: 

2010). 

14U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 

Environmental Assessment for the Renewal of U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission License No. SNM– 

1227 for AREVA NP, Inc. Richland Fuel Fabrication 

Facility. (Washington, DC: 2009). 

with 40 CFR part 190. Technical 

specifications for commercial nuclear 

power plants are found in Appendix I 

of 10 CFR part 50, ‘‘Domestic Licensing 

of Production and Utilization 

Facilities.’’ These specifications provide 

annual dose objectives for nuclear 

power plants that are considered ‘‘As 

Low As [is] Reasonably Achievable’’ 

(ALARA). The ALARA objectives are 3 

mrem/year for liquid effluents and 5 

mrem/year for gaseous effluents. The 

NRC has stated that, ‘‘. . . it was 

feasible for a licensee to inherently 

show compliance of 40 CFR part 190 

limits by meeting the dose objectives in 

10 CFR part 50 Appendix I.’’ 11 The NRC 

staff has reviewed a sampling of effluent 

reports from 1981 to 2005, to assess the 

levels of krypton-85, iodine-129 and 

plutonium-239 and other transuranic 

alpha emitters released from operating 

nuclear power plants. Their findings 

were that these levels, on an annual unit 

of gigawatt-year of electrical energy 

produced, were significantly less than 

the limits in 40 CFR part 190. The 

standards apply to the industry’s release 

of certain radionuclides proportional to 

the amount of electricity generated. 

Thus compliance relies on annual 

nationwide emissions for all applicable 

uranium fuel cycle facilities. If there 

were a case (such as multiple 

reprocessing plants) where the 

implementing agency considered that 

overall emissions were exceeding the 

standard, then the regulator may find it 

necessary to apportion or divide the 

standard to make it applicable to 

individual facilities. Further guidance 

may be necessary in order to detail a 

method for apportioning this standard. 

This uncertainty, and the difficulty in 

making and enforcing regulatory 

decisions about which facilities must 

undergo upgrades to meet the standards, 

makes implementing the standards 

extremely difficult at best if the 

situation arises where the entire 

uranium fuel cycle emissions are 

approaching the regulatory limit. EPA’s 

goal in any revision of the standards is 

to ensure adequate public health 

protections, while providing 

appropriate flexibility to implementing 

agencies. 

6. What aspects of the issue are most 

important and what options are 

available to address this issue in revised 

standards? 

The Agency determined in the 

development of 40 CFR part 190 that 

these standards would be important in 

reducing the environmental dose 

commitments for persistent radiological 

contaminants, and still considers this a 

desirable goal. The radionuclides 

specified in these standards were 

identified as those that could potentially 

disperse and deliver doses to 

widespread populations as they migrate 

through the biosphere. However, the 

current form of the standards appears to 

be impractical to implement. 

Furthermore, few consider collective 

dose appropriate for risk calculations or 

for use as a regulatory basis because 

‘‘the summation of trivial average risks 

over very large populations or time 

periods . . . [produces] a distorted 

image of risk, completely out of 

perspective with risks accepted every 

day.’’ (NCRP, 1995) In more recent 

radiation regulations, we have relied 

instead on individual dose limits to 

limit exposures to the public, combined 

with effluent or concentration limits to 

protect specific environmental resources 

(e.g., 40 CFR part 197). 

There are several options under 

consideration for this portion of the 

regulation: 

(a) Eliminate this portion of the 

regulation and rely on other limits to 

provide protection of public health and 

the environment. 

(b) Use the concept from the existing 

standards of limiting the environmental 

burden of long-lived radionuclides in 

the biosphere as a guide, and calculate 

equivalent standards that could apply 

outside individual facilities (e.g., 

reprocessing plants). 

(c) Use risk or dose to a designated 

receptor to develop radionuclide 

specific standards that would apply 

outside a given individual facility. 

(d) Any additional options considered 

technically sound and developed by 

other stakeholders. 

7. Questions for Public Comment 

a. Should the Agency retain the 

concept of radionuclide-specific release 

limits to prevent the environmental 

build-up of long-lived radionuclides? 

What should be the basis of these limits? 

b. Is it justifiable to apply limits on an 

industry-wide basis and, if so, can this 

be reasonably implemented? Would 

facility limits be more practicable? 

c. If release limits are used, are the 

radionuclides for which limits have 

been established in the existing 

standard still appropriate and, if not, 

which ones should be added or 

subtracted? 

D. Issue 4—Water Resource Protection. 

How should a revised rule protect water 

resources? 

1. Why is this issue important? 

Ground water and surface water are 

valuable resources necessary to 

maintain human life and healthy 

ecosystems now and in the future. 

Uranium fuel cycle facilities have the 

potential to release radioactive materials 

and contaminants that can get into 

surface water or ground water. EPA 

believes it better to take measures that 

prevent water contamination than to 

subsequently have to clean up the 

contamination. 

2. What does 40 CFR part 190 say? What 

is the technical basis? 

The existing standard for nuclear 

power operations does not include a 

separate provision for protection of 

water resources at or geographically 

near these facilities. The FES (Final 

Environmental Statement, 1976, Vol. 1, 

p. 66) cites the rationale for not 

including water-specific standards: 

‘‘. . . liquid pathway releases from 

these facilities result in much smaller 

potential doses than do noble gas 

releases [air releases]. Detailed studies 

of several specific facilities have 

revealed no actual dose to any 

individual from this pathway as great as 

1 mrem per year.’’ Thus, the Agency 

determined at that time that ground 

water contamination at these facilities 

was not likely to be a pervasive 

problem. 

3. What has changed and how are those 

changes important? 

Ground water contamination has 

occurred at a number of nuclear power 

plants 12 and other uranium fuel cycle 

facilities.13 14. The primary radionuclide 

responsible for ground water 

contamination at power plants is 

tritium, for which the Agency has 

established a Maximum Contaminant 

Level (MCL) of 20,000 picocuries/liter 

(pCi/L) for drinking water. Tritium is a 

radioactive isotope of hydrogen that can 

replace one of the stable hydrogen 

atoms in the water molecule, thus 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 23 / Tuesday, February 4, 2014 / Proposed Rules 6521 

15The EPA national primary drinking water 

standards under the Safe Drinking Water Act 

(SDWA) set limits on radionuclide concentrations— 

Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs)—in 

community drinking water systems (40 CFR 

141.66). These SDWA regulations do not apply 

directly to ground water not used as drinking 

waters. MCLs generally only apply to finished 

drinking water after treatment. 

producing tritiated water. In the 

environment, tritiated water behaves 

very similarly to ordinary water. 

Tritium levels as high as 3.2 million 

pCi/L have been reported to the NRC in 

the ground water at some nuclear power 

plants. These elevated levels of tritium 

in ground water at these plants have 

prompted the NRC to create two 

specialized task forces to examine the 

issue. The task forces did not identify 

any instances where the public’s health 

was impacted but did nevertheless 

recommend modifications to a number 

of regulatory documents. 

Because of these releases to ground 

water at these sites, and related 

investigations, the Agency considers it 

prudent to re-examine its initial 

assumption in 1977 that the water 

pathway is not a pathway of concern. At 

this time the Agency has not developed 

formal options for this issue. Ground 

water monitoring is currently conducted 

at all facilities subject to NRC 

requirements established in 10 CFR 

parts 20 and 50, so the economic impact 

of potential provisions for ground water 

protection is largely undefined at this 

time, and the Agency is interested in 

estimates of potential costs. If the 

Agency proceeds with proposing 

options for either surface or ground 

water protection, then it would conduct 

a cost-benefit analysis for this issue. 

4. What policies and approaches are 

relevant? 

When considering water resources, 

the Agency must determine whether 

there is a need to protect the resource 

and what protection is appropriate. The 

Agency has numerous authorities to 

protect ground water and surface water 

from contamination, and an 

examination of the applicability of these 

authorities is appropriate. 

Ground water. In the years after 1977 

when 40 CFR part 190 was issued, EPA 

increased its efforts to address ground 

water contamination including 

implementing new statutory authorities 

such as Superfund, hazardous waste 

programs, protection of underground 

storage tanks and protection of sources 

of drinking water. In recognition of the 

growing importance of ground water 

and increasing threats of contamination, 

EPA first outlined a comprehensive 

approach to ground water protection in 

its 1984 Ground Water Protection 

Strategy. EPA, with review by many 

federal agencies through the 

Administration’s review procedures, 

replaced that strategy in July 1991, with 

another one titled Protecting the 

Nation’s Ground Water: EPA’s Strategy 

for the 1990s—The Final Report of the 

EPA Ground-Water Task Force. That 

strategy is still in effect. 

Consistent with part D of the July 

1991 strategy, EPA implements a policy 

that ‘‘the Agency will use maximum 

concentration limits (MCLs) under the 

Safe Drinking Water Act 15 as ‘‘reference 

points’’ for water resource protection 

efforts when the ground water in 

question is a potential source of 

drinking water. Water quality standards, 

under the Clean Water Act, will be used 

as reference points when ground water 

is hydrologically connected to surface 

water ecological systems. Where MCLs 

are not available, EPA Health Advisory 

numbers or other approved health-based 

levels are recommended as points of 

reference. If such numbers are not 

available, reference points may be 

derived from the health-effects literature 

where appropriate. The strategy also 

notes that ‘‘[r]eaching the MCL or other 

appropriate reference point would be 

considered a failure of pollution 

prevention.’’ 

Site clean-up and other remedial 

actions generally use the MCLs as a 

cleanup goal and also take other factors 

into account. In some cases, EPA 

institutes the level of protection by 

directly incorporating the numerical 

limits from the Safe Drinking Water Act 

(SDWA) MCLs into other regulations. 

The 1991 strategy states relative to 

cleanup that ‘‘[r]emediation will 

generally attempt to achieve a total 

lifetime cancer risk level in the range of 

10¥4 to 10¥6 and exposures to noncarcinogens below appropriate reference 

doses.’’ 

EPA considered the issue of ground 

water standards for radionuclides most 

recently in the development of 

‘‘Environmental Protection Standards 

for Yucca Mountain’’ (66 FR 32074, June 

13, 2001). In this regulation the Agency 

states that ‘‘Ground water is one of our 

nation’s most precious resources 

because of its many potential uses . . . 

When that water is radioactively 

contaminated, each of those uses 

completes a radiation exposure pathway 

for people. Ground water contamination 

is also of concern to us because of 

potential adverse impacts upon 

ecosystems, particularly sensitive or 

endangered ecosystems. For these 

reasons, we believe it is a resource that 

needs protection.’’ (66 FR 32106) In this 

regulation, consistent with the Agency’s 

Ground Water Protection Strategy, EPA 

adopted levels consistent with the 

drinking water MCLs as a basis for 

protecting the ground water resource. It 

may be noted that the ground water 

protection standards were applied 

prospectively at Yucca Mountain, in the 

sense that potential contamination of 

ground water in the accessible 

environment would not be expected for 

many hundreds to thousands of years. 

As such, the radionuclides of most 

concern for geologic disposal would not 

necessarily be the same as for operating 

fuel cycle facilities. 

EPA has the authority under the 

Atomic Energy Act to promulgate 

generally applicable environmental 

standards to limit radioactive materials 

in the general environment outside the 

facility. Thus, any ground water 

standard that would be promulgated as 

part of a revision of 40 CFR part 190 

would be limited to application of these 

limits outside the facility boundary. The 

NRC’s 2010 Groundwater Task Force 

identified contamination in the aquifers 

beneath several nuclear power plants, 

but found that most of the 

contamination had not left the 

boundaries of the facility. While the 

Agency would hope that no 

contamination is emitted from nuclear 

fuel cycle facilities, we realize that this 

statement is a goal and may not reflect 

actual operating facilities. However, the 

Agency believes that it would be 

prudent to include limits to protect 

against migration of the contamination 

outside the fence line. Including a 

ground water standard would also bring 

the regulation more in line with other 

Agency regulations and policy goals. 

Surface water. Industrial wastewater 

discharges to surface waters are 

generally prohibited under Section 301 

of the Federal Water Pollution Control 

Act (known as the ‘‘Clean Water Act’’ or 

‘‘CWA’’). Under Section 402 of the Act, 

however, a point source may be 

authorized to discharge pollutants into 

waters of the United States by obtaining 

a permit. These permits, which are 

issued by the EPA or a state that has an 

EPA-approved permit program generally 

provide two types of controls: (1) 

Technology-based limitations (based on 

the technological and economic 

achievability); and (2) water qualitybased limitations (to achieve 

compliance with water quality 

standards). For most major industries, 

including the Primary Industrial 

Categories listed in 40 CFR part 122, 

Appendix A, the Agency has developed 

Effluent Limitations Guidelines (ELGs), 

pursuant to sections 301(b) and 304 of 

the CWA, which set the technologyVerDate Mar<15>2010 20:17 Feb 03, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04FEP1.SGM 04FEP1

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6522 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 23 / Tuesday, February 4, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

based limits for discharges from such 

industrial categories. Any CWA Section 

402 permit for a facility with applicable 

ELGs would be required to include 

limits prescribed by those regulations. 

With the exception of discharges from 

the ‘‘Uranium, Radium and Vanadium 

Ores’’ subcategory of the ‘‘Ore Mining 

and Dressing Point Source’’ category (40 

CFR part 440, Subpart C), technologybased limitations for radionuclides 

associated with industrial discharges 

have not been established in the existing 

ELGs. The ‘‘Steam Electric Power 

Generating ELGs’’ (40 CFR part 423) 

apply to wastewater discharges from 

plants primarily engaged in the 

generation of electricity for distribution 

and sale which results primarily from 

the use of nuclear or fossil fuels in 

conjunction with a steam-water 

thermodynamic cycle. Those ELGs do 

not include limitations for 

radionuclides. However, where an ELG 

does not apply to certain waste streams 

or pollutants discharged by an 

industrial discharger, the permitting 

authority must establish technologybased effluent limits on a case-by-case, 

best professional judgment basis. (40 

CFR 125.3 (c)(3)). 

CWA Section 303 directs states to 

adopt standards for the protection of 

water quality, including human health 

and aquatic life uses. In most cases 

where states have adopted water quality 

criteria for radionuclides, those criteria 

are intended to protect human health 

uses such as drinking water. Several 

states have also adopted radionuclide 

standards for livestock watering and 

narrative radionuclide standards for 

protection of wildlife and aquatic life. 

When a discharge is found to have a 

reasonable potential to cause or 

contribute to an exceedance of a state 

water quality criterion established 

under their standards, CWA Section 402 

permits must include limitations 

intended to protect that standard (see 40 

CFR 122.44(d)(1)). 

The NRC’s regulations governing the 

design of effluent control systems at 

nuclear power plants are provided in 

General Design Criterion 60, ‘‘Control of 

Releases of Radioactive Materials to the 

Environment’’ of Appendix A, ‘‘General 

Design Criteria for Nuclear Power 

Plants’’ in 10 CFR part 50. The criterion 

is to provide a ‘‘means to control 

suitably the release of radioactive 

materials’’ to the environment. NRC 

regulations in 10 CFR part 50, Appendix 

I provide numerical guidance that limit 

releases of radioactive material to ‘‘As 

Low As [is] Reasonably Achievable’’ 

(ALARA) and meet the criteria to 

control releases suitably. These 

Appendix I guides become requirements 

that are incorporated in the nuclear 

power plant operating licenses, and are 

consistent with EPA standards at 40 

CFR part 190. 

During nuclear power plant 

operations, 10 CFR 20.1406, 

‘‘Minimization of Contamination’’ 

requires that all licensees, to the extent 

practical, conduct operations to 

minimize the introduction of residual 

radioactivity into the site, including the 

subsurface. Also, 10 CFR 20.1501, 

‘‘general’’ (radiological surveys) require 

licensees to perform subsurface surveys 

(i.e., soil and ground water surveys) to 

identify residual radioactivity. For 

decommissioning and license 

termination requirements, NRC 

establishes cleanup criteria in Subpart E 

of 10 CFR part 20, ‘‘Radiological Criteria 

for License Termination’’ that are 

consistent with EPA standards at 40 

CFR part 190. 

5. Questions for Public Comment 

The Agency is seeking input on the 

following aspects of this issue: 

a. If a ground water protection 

standard is established in the general 

environment outside the boundaries of 

nuclear fuel cycle facilities, what should 

the basis be and how should it be 

implemented? 

b. Are additional standards aimed at 

limiting surface water contamination 

needed? 

6. Technical support documents and 

background information 

Several of the issues surrounding the 

establishment of ground water 

protection standards for radionuclides 

have been discussed and addressed by 

the Agency in previous rulemaking 

efforts, as well as in guidance 

documents published or available from 

the Agency. The notable citations have 

been included in the references for this 

document. See reference numbers 9, 10, 

13,14,15,16, 29 and 30. 

E. Issue 5: Spent Nuclear Fuel and HighLevel Radioactive Waste Storage. How, 

if at all, should a revised rule explicitly 

address storage of spent nuclear fuel 

and high-level radioactive waste? 

1. Why is this issue important? 

When the existing rule was issued, 

storage of radioactive materials at 

nuclear fuel cycle facilities was not 

explicitly identified as an activity 

covered by the standards. Some storage 

was expected as part of operations, but 

the issue did not seem to merit 

particular attention. Greater attention 

has been given to storage in recent 

years, particularly for spent nuclear fuel 

at power plant sites. In the 1970s, 

extensive reprocessing of spent nuclear 

fuel was envisioned, and disposal 

capacity was expected to be available, 

precluding the need to store spent 

nuclear fuel or other wastes at power 

plant sites for extended periods of time. 

However, interim storage of spent 

nuclear fuel, especially on site at 

nuclear power plants, has become the 

norm and for longer time periods than 

originally expected. We are now 

considering whether the prospect of 

extended storage warrants additional 

provisions to clarify how the standards 

would be implemented over the 

extended storage period. 

In addition, in reviewing the 

requirements in 40 CFR part 190 as they 

apply to spent nuclear fuel storage, we 

have realized that the applicability of 

the standards is not clear with respect 

to its relationship with 40 CFR part 191, 

which also contains provisions that 

address spent nuclear fuel storage. 

Given the greater interest in spent 

nuclear fuel storage, we are considering 

whether it is useful and appropriate to 

clarify, especially with respect to 40 

CFR part 191, the applicability of 40 

CFR part 190 to spent nuclear fuel 

storage operations at facilities in the 

uranium fuel cycle and to dedicated 

spent nuclear fuel storage facilities. 

2. What does 40 CFR part 190 say? What 

was the technical basis? 

The regulation at 40 CFR part 190 did 

not directly address storage activities at 

nuclear fuel cycle facilities. At that 

time, some storage of radioactive 

materials was occurring at various 

nuclear fuel cycle facilities as part of 

their normal operations. It was assumed 

that the spent nuclear fuel was to be 

stored in pools for cooling for about 18 

months, following which it would be 

collected and transported to 

reprocessing plants to be recycled for 

additional energy generation (Draft 

Environmental Statement, 1975). A 

reprocessing facility would necessarily 

require some storage for both the input 

and output of its processes (e.g., spent 

nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive 

waste) to ensure efficient industrial 

operation. Given these conditions, and 

the fact that storage was not excluded 

from coverage in the current standard— 

whereas several other activities were 

exempted, including mining, 

transportation and disposal—we believe 

it is reasonable that any storage 

incidental to operations at a nuclear fuel 

cycle facility should be covered by 40 

CFR part 190. 

Similar ambiguity exists regarding 

whether dedicated storage facilities are 

covered by 40 CFR part 190. Whether or 

not such storage facilities fall within 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 23 / Tuesday, February 4, 2014 / Proposed Rules 6523 

this category is not addressed in the rule 

and long-term storage of spent nuclear 

fuel was not analyzed during the rule 

development. 

3. What has changed and how are those 

changes important? 

Some waste storage practices now in 

place were not anticipated when 40 CFR 

part 190 was first issued. The most 

significant of these involve spent 

nuclear fuel. With no nuclear fuel 

reprocessing occurring and no disposal 

facility opened, spent nuclear fuel is 

being kept at nuclear power plants—in 

steel-lined, concrete pools or basins 

filled with water (spent nuclear fuel 

pools) or in massive, airtight steel or 

concrete-and-steel canisters, casks and 

vaults (spent nuclear fuel storage casks 

or dry cask storage)—awaiting national 

policy decisions and programs on 

reprocessing and ultimate disposal. 

The President’s Blue Ribbon 

Commission on America’s Nuclear 

Future summarizes the current storage 

situation succinctly: ‘‘Storage [of spent 

nuclear fuel (SNF) at power plants] is 

not only playing a more prominent and 

protracted role in the nuclear fuel cycle 

than once expected, it is the only 

element of the back end of the fuel cycle 

that is currently being deployed on an 

operational scale in the United States. In 

fact, much larger quantities of spent 

nuclear fuel are being stored for much 

longer periods of time than 

policymakers envisioned. . . .’’ (BRC 

Final Report, January 2012, p.33). The 

Commission’s final report also 

recommends the development of one or 

more consolidated interim storage 

facilities for spent nuclear fuel (see BRC 

Final Report, January 2012, p. 32), 

which would join a number of existing 

independent spent nuclear fuel storage 

installations (ISFSIs) primarily at 

existing and decommissioned nuclear 

power plants. The Administration’s 

Strategy for the Management and 

Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and 

High-Level Radioactive Waste (January 

2013) is for the Administration, with the 

appropriate authorizations from 

Congress and with enactment of 

required legislation, to implement a 

program over the next 10 years that: 

• Sites, designs and licenses, 

constructs and begins operations of a 

pilot interim storage facility by 

2021with an initial focus on accepting 

used nuclear fuel from shut-down 

reactor sites. 

• Advances toward the siting and 

licensing of a larger interim storage 

facility to be available by 2025 that will 

have sufficient capacity to provide 

flexibility in the waste management 

system and allows for acceptance of 

enough used nuclear fuel to reduce 

expected government liabilities. 

(Department of Energy ‘‘Strategy for the 

Management and Disposal of Used 

Nuclear Fuel and High-Level 

Radioactive Wastes’’, 2013, p. 2). Thus, 

the foreseeable future holds the 

potential for storage of significant 

quantities of spent nuclear fuel—more 

than envisioned in 1977—at power 

plants and perhaps at consolidated 

facilities designed and devoted to that 

purpose. 

Currently, the NRC is updating its 

‘‘Waste Confidence’’ rule to address 

feasibility of continued storage until a 

repository is available. Since storage has 

become a more prominent part of 

nuclear power plant operations in 

recent years and a topic of greater 

concern to the public, the Agency 

believes it is worthwhile to consider 

whether a revised rule should address 

the topic more directly. 

4. What policies and approaches are 

relevant? 

Some storage activities—at a 

minimum, storage of spent nuclear fuel 

and high-level radioactive waste at 

disposal facilities—are quite clearly 

covered under EPA’s requirements in 40 

CFR part 191, ‘‘Environmental Radiation 

Protection Standards for Management 

and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel, 

High-Level and Transuranic Radioactive 

Wastes.’’ However, the applicability is 

described quite broadly: Those 

standards address ‘‘management . . . 

and storage of spent nuclear fuel . . . at 

any facility regulated by the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission or by 

Agreement States, to the extent that 

such management and storage 

operations are not subject to the 

provisions of part 190 of title 40.’’ (40 

CFR 191.01) The statement could be 

construed to apply to facilities beyond 

disposal facilities, including at nuclear 

power plants. 

In practice, therefore, the language 

ensures full coverage of spent nuclear 

fuel storage—regardless of which 

activities are deemed to fall under 

which rule—since any activity not 

covered under the uranium fuel cycle 

should be covered under 40 CFR part 

191. Further, the dose limits in 40 CFR 

part 191 apply to combined doses from 

storage activities covered under both 

rules (40 CFR 191.03(a)). The applicable 

NRC regulations also take into account 

multiple co-located or nearby sources 

and activities, and apply dose limits for 

the public that are consistent with both 

40 CFR part 190 and the storage 

provisions of 40 CFR part 191. NRC 

storage requirements apply to spent 

nuclear fuel, high-level radioactive 

waste and certain reactor-related lowlevel radioactive waste at stand-alone 

facilities as well as some on-site storage 

at power plants (10 CFR part 72). 

5. What aspects of the issue are most 

important and what options might be 

considered to address this issue in 

revised standards? 

The evaluation and licensing of spent 

nuclear fuel storage—on site at nuclear 

power plants and at other storage 

facilities—has been implemented by the 

NRC. The NRC has taken steps to 

improve the security and safety of 

storage in recent years and is further 

evaluating what improvements can be 

made in light of the events in 

Fukushima. (See BRC’s Final Report, p. 

46) However, we recognize that the 

volume of spent nuclear fuel now being 

stored—and expected to be stored in 

coming decades—is much greater than 

what was expected to be entailed in the 

operation of nuclear power plants and 

perhaps also at other facilities. If the 

Agency decides to revise 40 CFR part 

190, it is reasonable to ask whether such 

storage operations should be considered 

part of the fuel cycle under these 

standards (instead of 40 CFR part 191), 

as well as whether additional technical 

provisions are needed to protect the 

public from potential exposures from 

such activities. 

We believe that the simplest approach 

would be to clarify that the nuclear fuel 

cycle standards cover storage operations 

at nuclear fuel cycle facilities—likely 

including interim storage facilities— 

under 40 CFR part 190. In essence, it 

would specify that the ‘‘fuel cycle’’ ends 

only when the spent nuclear fuel 

reaches a permanent disposal facility. 

Clarifying coverage under 40 CFR part 

190 would also ensure that updated 

dosimetry and science in any revised 

rule would be applied to storage 

operations not conducted at disposal 

facilities, especially if 40 CFR part 191 

is not revised within a comparable time 

frame. 

If a revised nuclear fuel cycle rule 

were to explicitly cover storage, an 

additional question is whether further 

requirements need to be instituted to 

address the long-term aspects of storage 

now envisioned. It is important to note 

that the existing EPA and NRC 

regulations discussed in this section are 

aimed at management and storage 

operations. With extended storage (60 

years or more beyond the licensed 

operating period), there is the 

possibility that future degradation of dry 

casks or repackaging could result in 

additional exposures or even releases of 

radioactive material. A clarification 

regarding the coverage of EPA’s nuclear 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6524 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 23 / Tuesday, February 4, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

16Advanced Light-water Reactor Designs are 

light-water reactor concepts with formal designs 

either approved or under review by the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission. 

17Fuel Reprocessing Designs are designs for 

reprocessing spent nuclear fuel using various 

chemical and mechanical reduction techniques. 

18 In the context of this table, Advanced Reactor 

Concepts are designs where the concept is 

available, but no U.S. designs have been approved 

for commercialization purposes. 

19Thorium fuels have been used in the past both 

in small scale reactors in the U.S. (Fort St. Vrain 

and Peach Bottom), and overseas. Several countries 

are renewing efforts to use thorium as the base fuel 

for new reactors with India making new thorium 

reactors a major goal of its nuclear program. 

fuel cycle regulations would provide 

additional incentive to monitor storage 

operations to take the necessary 

measures to ensure continuing 

compliance. We believe that such a 

clarification would not require 

assessment of future storage 

performance, nor would it inform policy 

decisions on whether long-term storage 

should be pursued. We believe that any 

storage operation would need to meet 

the same regulatory requirements 

whether it be during licensing, or at the 

end of its post-closure life, so that 

additional technical requirements 

should not be necessary. In this case, 

actual changes to 40 CFR part 190 text 

could be limited to applicability and/or 

in the definitions. 

6. Questions for Public Comment 

a. How, if at all, should a revised rule 

explicitly address on-site storage 

operations for spent nuclear fuel? 

b. Is it necessary to clarify the 

applicability of 40 CFR part 190 versus 

40 CFR part 191 to storage operations? 

Should the Agency clarify the scope of 

40 CFR part 190 to also cover operations 

at separate facilities (off-site) dedicated 

to storage of spent nuclear fuel (i.e., 

should we clarify the definition of the 

‘‘nuclear fuel cycle’’ to include all 

management of spent nuclear fuel up 

until the point of transportation to a 

permanent disposal site)? 

F. Issue 6: New Nuclear Technologies— 

What new technologies and practices 

have developed since 40 CFR part 190 

was issued, and how should any revised 

rule address these advances and 

changes? 

1. Why is this issue important? 

The existing standard, as well as any 

potential revised standard, applies to 

nuclear power operations. Since the 

promulgation of the existing rule, new 

technologies and processes have been 

developed. 

2. What does 40 CFR part 190 say? What 

was the technical basis? 

The existing rule was developed 

based on aspects of the nuclear energy 

industry that were in existence in the 

early 1970s. The 1976 FES stated: ‘‘In 

the United States the early development 

of technology for the nuclear generation 

of electric power has focused around the 

light-water-cooled nuclear reactor. For 

this reason the proposed standards and 

this statement will consider only the use 

of enriched uranium-235 as fuel for the 

generation of electricity.’’ (Final 

Environmental Statement, 1976, Vol. 1, 

p. 3) Thus, the existing standards apply 

specifically to the uranium fuel cycle. 

The 1976 FES stated: ‘‘The final part 

(of the uranium fuel cycle) consists of 

fuel reprocessing plants, where the fuel 

elements are mechanically and 

chemically broken down to isolate the 

large quantities of high-level radioactive 

wastes produced during fission for 

permanent storage and to recover 

substantial quantities of unused 

uranium and reactor-produced 

plutonium.’’ (Final Environmental 

Statement, 1976. Vol. 1, p. 4) 

The technical basis for the existing 

standard anticipated increases in 

nuclear power generation. The 1975 

Draft Environmental Statement stated 

on p. 4: ‘‘. . . well over 300,000 

megawatts of nuclear electric generating 

capacity based on the use of uranium 

fuel will exist within the next 20 years 

or by 1997. . . . This increase will 

require a parallel growth in a number of 

other activities that must exist in order 

to support uranium-fueled nuclear 

reactors.’’ Furthermore, the DES (p. 5) 

stated: ‘‘This technical analysis assessed 

the potential health effects associated 

with each of the various types of 

planned releases of radioactivity from 

each of the various operations of the 

fuel cycle and the effectiveness and 

costs of the controls available to reduce 

such effluents.’’ 

3. What has changed and how are those 

changes important? 

Although more than 30 years have 

passed since the 1976 FES first 

described the state of the industry for 

which 40 CFR part 190 applies, many of 

the concepts remain the same. However, 

the status of several of the nuclear 

technologies has changed if one 

considers the international experience. 

This section will briefly discuss the 

nuclear technologies currently under 

consideration in the context of whether 

the Agency considers the technology as 

pending, and whether it merits revising 

existing regulations. 

The 1976 FES stated the following: 

‘‘There are, in all, three fuels available 

to commercial nuclear power. These are 

uranium-235, uranium-233 and 

plutonium-239.’’ (Final Environmental 

Statement, 1976, Vol. 1, p.3) However, 

fuels produced from the naturally 

occurring thorium-232 isotope are 

possible and are currently being 

considered internationally for use in 

reactors. When used as a fuel for a 

nuclear reaction, thorium is transmuted 

to uranium-233; however, conventional 

nomenclature has termed this reaction 

as the thorium fuel cycle. Although 

thorium-232 based fuel would be part of 

the nuclear fuel cycle, some in the 

industry may argue that this reaction, 

and the processes considered part of 

this fuel cycle, would not technically be 

covered by the Subpart B provisions in 

40 CFR part 190 for the ‘‘Uranium Fuel 

Cycle,’’ and thus there are no applicable 

limits for the thorium fuel cycle. 

Additionally, for plutonium based fuels 

and their inclusion under 40 CFR part 

190, the FES only stated that some 

commercial use of recycled plutonium 

in light-water cooled reactors is 

proposed for the near future. 

Several new nuclear power processing 

technologies have been licensed by the 

NRC and other technologies are being 

explored. The technologies analyzed by 

the Agency are included in the table 

below. 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF NEW NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGIES

Advanced Light-water Reactor Designs 16 ................................................ AP1000; ABWR; ESBWR; US EPR; US APWR. 

Fuel Reprocessing Designs 17 .................................................................. Aqueous; Electrochemical; OREOX. 

Advanced Reactor Concept 18 .................................................................. MOX-PWR; MOX-BWR; Thorium-PWR; 19 Thorium-BWR; Heavy 

Water; Gas-Cooled; Sodium Fast. 

In the above table, the MOX-PWR, 

MOX-BWR, Thorium-PWR and 

Thorium-BWR are light-water reactors 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 23 / Tuesday, February 4, 2014 / Proposed Rules 6525 

20 In response to major climate change initiatives 

proposed by Congress, the Nuclear Energy Institute 

has stated ‘‘Two major analyses issued in 2009 of 

the House version of the bill (H.R. 2454) make the 

case that significant nuclear energy provisions are 

necessary to achieve U.S. greenhouse gas emission 

reduction goals.’’ The Energy Information 

Administration issued Energy Market and 

Economic Impacts of H.R. 2454, the American 

Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. The 

Environmental Protection Agency released EPA 

Analysis of the American Clean Energy and 

Security Act of 2009 (H.R. 2454). 

(LWRs) that would operate with either 

mixed oxide (i.e., plutonium as well as 

uranium) or thorium fuels. The heavy 

water, gas-cooled, and sodium fast 

reactor concepts do not use light water 

for their moderator and/or coolant: 

heavy-water reactors (HWRs) use 

deuterium oxide (D2O) as the neutron 

flux moderator and can use either heavy 

water or light water as coolant (the 

Canada Deuterium-Uranium reactor 

(CANDU) is probably the most widely 

used heavy water reactor). Gas-cooled 

reactors usually use graphite as their 

moderator, and usually use helium as 

coolant, but can also use carbon 

dioxide. Finally, sodium fast reactors 

differ from LWRs. In a fast reactor, the 

fission chain reaction is sustained by 

fast neutrons, and thus does not need a 

neutron moderator. Also, because water 

acts as a neutron moderator, it is not 

usually used as a coolant in a fast 

reactor; rather, the coolant is a gas or a 

liquid metal, such as sodium or lead. 

Although the list above does include 

some advanced reactor designs that are 

improvements to previous versions of 

LWRs (considered originally in the 

existing standard), these technologies 

may need to be given greater 

consideration in a potential revision to 

40 CFR part 190 as design details 

regarding effluent contaminants are 

developed. 

The regulation at 40 CFR part 190 

specifically indicates it is restricted to 

the uranium fuel cycle for electricity 

production. As mentioned above, the 

use of thorium as a fuel in power 

reactors is being pursued by other 

countries and could also be used in the 

U.S. Thorium-232 is fertile material, 

that is, it cannot be used in the reactor 

directly but needs to be irradiated by 

neutrons in a uranium fuel reactor first 

in order to transmute it to fissile 

uranium-233 that can it be used as fuel 

in a reactor. As such, a thorium fuel 

cycle could also be considered as 

simply a variant of the uranium fuel 

cycle. However, to remove any potential 

ambiguity as to the limit of 40 CFR part 

190, it may be useful to broaden the 

scope of 40 CFR part 190 to include all 

power generation technologies using 

nuclear fission. 

Another new technology class being 

considered for commercialization 

within the U.S. is the Small Modular 

Reactors (SMRs). The term SMR refers 

to the size, or amount of energy 

generated by these reactors. They have 

been defined by the International 

Atomic Energy Agency as nuclear 

reactors generating 300 MW of 

electricity or less. The SMRs under 

development utilize traditional LWR 

designs, but also envision nontraditional water reactor or non-water 

reactor designs, with the common 

feature being that of a smaller reactor. 

These designs would contain smaller 

amounts of fuel, thus posing smaller 

safety and associated hazards than those 

of traditional 1000 MW reactors or 

larger. Some small reactor designs 

envision placing compact reactor 

modules relatively deep underground 

and operating them without refueling 

for the entire plant life. Other countries 

have already begun building floating 

nuclear power plants based on small 

reactors. These plants can be docked at 

remote locations to deliver power to 

ground-based installations on shore. 

These designs could be used for 

generating electricity in isolated areas or 

producing high-temperature process 

heat for industrial purposes. The NRC 

expects to receive applications for staff 

review and approval of some of these 

designs in the near future (see 

www.nrc.gov/reactors/advanced.html). 

As mentioned earlier, this class of 

reactors potentially utilizes varying 

existing technology concepts at a 

smaller scale. The Agency could 

consider how to address this class of 

reactors in the future, in an updated 

rule, because of its projected growth. 

4. What policies and approaches are 

relevant? 

The Agency limited the existing 

standards to the uranium fuel cycle and 

to light-water reactors, based on the 

state of the industry at the time. The 

Agency is considering whether the 

existing standards need to be revised to 

address new nuclear technologies that 

have been developed or may come on 

line in the near future, and, if so, which 

technologies should be considered. 

5. What aspects of the issue are most 

important and what options might be 

considered to address this issue in 

revised standards? 

There are a couple of key 

considerations in determining the 

importance of new nuclear technologies. 

The first consideration is that any 

potential standard revision must 

provide protection from radiation 

emitted from new nuclear technologies. 

The Agency would need to develop 

standards for any new technology being 

commercialized if it is not already 

covered by the existing standards. The 

correction may be as simple as a 

definition change, but even the 

definition change could necessitate an 

analysis to identify if the existing 

standard appropriately protects the 

public from environmental releases 

from the new technology. The analysis 

may also be significantly more complex 

if the new technology to be 

commercialized uses different 

radionuclides as a fuel and produces 

fission products in proportions which 

are different from those typical of LWRs. 

Even in the event that the fission 

products are similar in nature to those 

in the existing standard, the new 

technology could change the effluent 

concentrations of fission products 

significantly. 

An example of this would be the 

commercialization of the thorium fuel 

cycle. Although the thorium is 

transmuted to uranium-233 for fission, 

the resulting fission products are 

projected to have a different 

composition from those generated by 

uranium-235. The fuel requirements for 

the thorium fuel cycle also require 

higher concentrations of enriched 

uranium and/or plutonium and would 

potentially yield larger amounts of lowlevel wastes. The Agency may have to 

conduct a review to determine what, if 

any, analyses would need to be 

conducted for the thorium variant. 

The second consideration is that any 

potential revision must provide clarity 

on environmental requirements for new 

nuclear technologies. This is an 

important factor so that the industry 

will be able to properly plan and 

complete design criteria. The nuclear 

power industry has become more 

efficient, and new technologies have 

been developed for some aspects of the 

uranium industry. Many in the nuclear 

industry have spoken of the significant 

growth that may occur if constraints on 

carbon emissions come into existence.20

Developing applicable radiation 

protection standards for future 

technologies now could provide 

regulatory certainty for the nuclear 

industry. 

We recognize that the technologies 

discussed above, or other concepts 

being researched, may be at different 

stages of development. Some may be 

relatively close to commercialization, 

while the horizon for development and 

adoption of others may be much longer. 

While we believe it is appropriate to be 

forward-looking in gathering 

information to consider as part of a 

rulemaking that could adequately 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6526 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 23 / Tuesday, February 4, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

address future technologies, we 

acknowledge that it may be premature 

to address certain of these technologies 

in a rule before their potential 

implications and impacts are well 

understood. Therefore, the Agency 

could potentially address new 

technologies by using one of several 

approaches. These approaches include: 

a. Review the technologies that are 

available in the U.S. and propose 

potential revisions only if they are not 

addressed by our existing standard. 

b. Review technologies and 

anticipated near-term technologies that 

are available in the U.S. and propose 

revisions if these technologies are not 

addressed by our existing standard. 

Near-term technologies would have to 

be defined, but could be viewed as 

technologies anticipated to be 

commercialized within the next 10–30 

years. 

c. Review internationally available 

and anticipated near-term technologies 

and propose revisions if they are not 

addressed by our existing standard. This 

approach would consider foreign 

technologies that could be adopted in 

the U.S. 

6. Questions for Public Comment 

The Agency is seeking input on the 

following aspects regarding this issue: 

a. Are there specific new technologies 

or practices with unique characteristics 

that would dictate the need for separate 

or different limits and do these 

differences merit a reconsideration of 

the technical basis for 40 CFR part 190? 

b. Should the Agency develop 

standards that will proactively apply to 

new nuclear technologies developed in 

the future, and if so, how far into the 

future should the Agency look (nearterm, mid-term, etc.)? 

c. In particular, do small modular 

reactors pose unique environmental 

concerns that warrant separate 

standards within 40 CFR part 190? 

G. Other Possible Issues for Comment 

If revised, the Radiation Protection 

Standards for Nuclear Power Operations 

may also address any number of issues 

identified during the public comment 

period. We will consider the comments 

submitted in response to this ANPR as 

we consider revision of the existing 

standards. 

III. What will we do with this 

information? 

This Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking is being published to 

inform stakeholders, including federal 

and state entities, the nuclear industry, 

the public and any interested groups, 

that the Agency is reviewing the 

existing standards to determine how the 

regulation at 40 CFR part 190 should be 

updated and soliciting input on changes 

(if any) that should be made. This action 

is not meant to be construed as an 

advocacy position either for or against 

nuclear power. EPA wants to ensure 

that environmental protection standards 

are adequate for the foreseeable future 

for nuclear fuel cycle facilities. As noted 

earlier, we believe the existing 

standards remain protective of public 

health and the environment; however, 

we believe that the issues mentioned 

above are sufficient to warrant a review 

and collection of public input on 

whether some portions of the standards 

need to be updated. 

If the Agency does revise 40 CFR part 

190, then the Agency would follow 

procedures outlined in the AEA and the 

APA and publish a proposed rule in the 

Federal Register. Comments received on 

this ANPR would be considered in the 

development of a proposed rule and 

would be used by the Agency to provide 

a clearer understanding of science, 

technology, or other concerns and 

perspectives of stakeholders. However, 

the Agency will not respond directly to 

comments submitted to this ANPR. The 

public would have the opportunity to 

submit written comments on any 

proposed rule that might be developed. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866, 

entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review’’ (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), 

this is a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

because the action raises novel legal or 

policy issues. Accordingly, EPA 

submitted this action to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review under Executive Order 12866 

and any changes made in response to 

OMB recommendations have been 

documented in the docket for this 

action. Because this action does not 

propose or impose any requirements, 

and instead seeks comments and 

suggestions for the Agency to consider 

in possibly developing a subsequent 

proposed rule, the various statutes and 

Executive Orders that normally apply to 

rulemaking do not apply in this case. 

Should EPA subsequently determine to 

pursue a rulemaking, EPA will address 

the statutes and Executive Orders as 

applicable to that rulemaking. 

References 

1. Blue Ribbon Commission (BRC). The 

President’s Blue Ribbon Commission on 

America’s Nuclear Future—Draft Report 

to the Secretary of Energy. Washington, 

DC: 2011. 

2. Blue Ribbon Commission (BRC). The 

President’s Blue Ribbon Commission on 

America’s Nuclear Future—Final Report 

to the Secretary of Energy. Washington, 

DC: 2012. 

3. Department of Energy (DOE). Strategy for 

the Management and Disposal of Used 

Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive 

Waste. Washington, DC: 2013. 

4. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

Environmental Radiation Protection 

Requirements for Normal Operation of 

Activities in the Uranium Fuel Cycle, 

Draft Environmental Statement. EPA 

Publication No. 450R75101. Washington, 

DC: 1975. 

5. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

‘‘Environmental Radiation Protection 

Standards for Nuclear Power Operations, 

Proposed Rule.’’ Federal Register 40 (29 

May 1975): 23420. 

6. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

40 CFR 190 Environmental Radiation 

Protection Requirements for Normal 

Operation of Activities in the Uranium 

Fuel Cycle, Final Environmental 

Statement. EPA Publication No. 520/4– 

76–016. Washington, DC: 1976. 

7. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

Environmental Analysis of the Uranium 

Fuel Cycle, Part IV—Supplementary 

Analysis. EPA Publication No. 520/4– 

76–017. Washington DC: 1976. 

8. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

‘‘40 CFR 190, Environmental Radiation 

Protection Standards for Nuclear Power 

Operations—Final Rule.’’ Federal 

Register 42 (13 January 1977): 2860. 

9. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

‘‘40 CFR Part 191, Environmental 

Radiation Protection Standards for 

Management and Disposal of Spent 

Nuclear Fuel, High-Level and 

Transuranic Radioactive Waste.’’ Federal 

Register 50 (19 September 1985): 38084. 

10. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

Protecting the Nation’s Ground Water: 

EPA’s Strategy for the 1990s. 

Washington, DC: 1991. 

11. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

High-Level and Transuranic Radioactive 

Wastes—Response to Comments for 40 

CFR 191. Washington, DC: 1993. 

12. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

‘‘40 CFR Part 194, Criteria for the 

Certification and Re-Certification of the 

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant’s Compliance 

with the 40 CFR Part 191 Disposal 

Regulations—Final Rule.’’ Federal 

Register 61 (9 February 1996): 5235. 

13. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency 

Response. Directive 9200.4–18. 

Washington, DC: 1997. 

14. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency 

Response. Directive 9200.4–23. 

Washington, DC: 1997. 

15. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

‘‘40 CFR Parts 9, 141, and 142, National 

Primary Drinking Water Regulations; 

Radionuclides; Final Rule.’’ Federal 

Register 65 (7 December 2000): 76708. 

16. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

‘‘40 CFR 197, Public Health and 

Environmental Radiation Protection 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 23 / Tuesday, February 4, 2014 / Proposed Rules 6527 

Standards for Yucca Mountain, Nevada, 

Final Rule.’’ Federal Register 66 (13 June 

2001): 32074. 

17. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

EPA Radiogenic Cancer Risk Models and 

Projections for the U.S. Population. EPA 

Publication No. 402–R–11–001. 

Washington, DC: 2011. 

18. Federal Radiation Council (FRC). 

‘‘Radiation Protection Guidance for 

Federal Agencies.’’ Federal Register 26 

(18 May 1960): 4402 

19. Federal Radiation Council (FRC). 

‘‘Radiation Protection Guidance for 

Federal Agencies.’’ Federal Register 26 

(26 September 1961): 9057. 

20. International Commission on 

Radiological Protection (ICRP). 

Recommendations of the International 

Commission on Radiological Protection. 

ICRP Publication 26. Oxford: Pergamon 

Press, 1977. 

21. International Commission on 

Radiological Protection (ICRP). 1990 

Recommendations of the International 

Commission on Radiological Protection. 

ICRP Publication 60. Oxford: Pergamon 

Press, 1991. 

22. International Commission on 

Radiological Protection (ICRP). 

Radiation Protection Recommendations. 

ICRP Publication 103. Oxford: Pergamon 

Press, 2008. 

23. National Research Council. Technical 

Bases for Yucca Mountain Standards. 

Washington DC: National Academy 

Press, 1995. 

24. National Research Council. The 

Disposition Dilemma—Controlling the 

Release of Solid Materials from Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission-Licensed 

Facilities. Washington DC: National 

Academy Press, 2002. 

25. National Council on Radiation Protection 

and Measurements (NCRP). Principles 

and Application of Collective Dose in 

Radiation Protection. NCRP Report No. 

121. Bethesda, MD: 1995. 

26. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 

‘‘10 CFR 50, Domestic Licensing of 

Production and Utilization Facilities.’’ 

Federal Register 21 (19 June 1956): 355. 

27. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 

‘‘10 CFR 20, Standards for Protection 

Against Radiation.’’ Federal Register 56 

(21 May 1991): 23360. 

28. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 

‘‘10 CFR 72, Licensing Requirements for 

the Independent Storage of Spent 

Nuclear Fuel, High-Level Radioactive 

Waste, and Reactor-Related Greater Than 

Class C Waste.’’ Federal Register 53 (19 

August 1988): 31658. 

29. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 

Groundwater Task Force Final Report. 

ADAMS Accession Number 

ML101740509. Washington, DC: 2010. 

30. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 

Tritium, Radiation Protection Limits, 

and Drinking Water Standards. 

Rockville, MD: 2010. 

Dated: January 24, 2014. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2014–02307 Filed 2–3–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 660 

[Docket No. 131203999–4061–01] 

RIN 0648–XD020 

Fisheries Off West Coast States; 

Coastal Pelagic Species Fisheries; 

Annual Specifications 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes to implement 

an annual catch limit (ACL), harvest 

guideline (HG), annual catch target 

(ACT), and associated annual reference 

points for Pacific sardine in the U.S. 

exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off the 

Pacific coast for a one-time interim 

harvest period of January 1, 2014, 

through June 30, 2014, and to set annual 

harvest levels, such as overfishing limit 

(OFL), available biological catch (ABC), 

annual catch limit (ACL), for Pacific 

sardine for the whole calendar year 

2014. This rulemaking is proposed 

according to the Coastal Pelagic Species 

(CPS) Fishery Management Plan (FMP), 

and reflects the proposed change to the 

starting date of the annual Pacific 

sardine fishery from January 1 to July 1 

as published in the Federal Register on 

December 23, 2013. The proposed 2014 

ACT or maximum directed HG is 19,846 

(mt). Based on the seasonal allocation 

framework in the FMP, this equates to 

a first period (January 1 to June 30) 

allocation of 6,946 mt (35% of ACT). 

This rulemaking also proposes an 

adjusted directed non-tribal harvest 

allocation for this period of 5,446 mt. 

This value was reduced from the total 

first period allocation by 1000 mt for 

potential harvest by the Quinault Indian 

Nation as well as 500 mt to be used as 

an incidental set aside for other nontribal commercial fisheries if the 5,446 

mt limit is reached and directed fishing 

for sardine is closed. This rulemaking is 

intended to conserve and manage the 

Pacific sardine stock off the U.S. West 

Coast. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

March 6, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on this document identified by NOAA– 

NMFS–2013–0180 by any of the 

following methods: 

• Electronic Submissions: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to 

www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2013- 

0180, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, 

complete the required fields, and enter 

or attach your comments. 

• Mail: Submit written comments to 

William W. Stelle, Jr., Regional 

Administrator, West Coast Region, 

NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., 

Seattle, WA 98115–0070; Attn: Joshua 

Lindsay. 

• Instructions: Comments sent by any 

other method, to any other address or 

individual, or received after the end of 

the comment period, may not be 

considered by NMFS. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted for public 

viewing on www.regulations.gov 

without change. All personal identifying 

information (e.g., name, address, etc.), 

confidential business information, or 

otherwise sensitive information 

submitted voluntarily by the sender will 

be publicly accessible. NMFS will 

accept anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/ 

A’’ in the required fields if you wish to 

remain anonymous). Attachments to 

electronic comments will be accepted in 

Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF 

file formats only. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joshua Lindsay, West Coast Region, 

NMFS, (562) 980–4034. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: During 

public meetings each year, the estimated 

biomass for Pacific sardine is presented 

to the Pacific Fishery Management 

Council’s (Council) Coastal Pelagic 

Species (CPS) Management Team 

(Team), the Council’s CPS Advisory 

Subpanel (Subpanel) and the Council’s 

Scientific and Statistical Committee 

(SSC), and the biomass and the status of 

the fisheries are reviewed and 

discussed. The biomass estimate is then 

presented to the Council along with the 

calculated overfishing limit (OFL), 

available biological catch (ABC), annual 

catch limit (ACL) and harvest guideline 

(HG), along with recommendations and 

comments from the Team, Subpanel and 

SSC. Following review by the Council 

and after hearing public comment, the 

Council adopts a biomass estimate and 

makes its catch level recommendations 

to the National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS). Each year NMFS then 

implements regulations that set the 

annual quota for the Pacific sardine 

fishing year that currently begins 

January 1 and ends December 31. 

However, on December 23, 2013 

NMFS published a proposed rule (78 FR 

77413) to change the start date of the 12- 

month Pacific sardine fishery from 

January 1 to July 1, thus changing the 

fishing season from one based on the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS