2858 

ntle 4o-Protectlon of Envlronme!'t 

CHAPTER I-ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTECTION AGENCY 

RULES AND REGULATIONS 

lations on May 29, 1975. Letters were received from a broad cross-section of 

representatives of the general public, the 

mdustry, professional groups, the States, 

SUBCHAPTER F-RADIAnON PROTECTION .and Federal agencies. In addition, 17 

·PROGRAMs parties participated 1n three days of pu'b-

(FRL 659-6) lic. hearings and, in. ma.ny cases, subPART l9D-ENVIRONMENTAl RADIATION mitted extensive additional written testiPROTECTION STANDARDS FOR NU· mohy. In all, the contributed record 

CLEAR POWER OPERATIONS comprises over 3500 pages. Comment letters, a transcript of the public hearing, On May 10, 1974, the Environmental . and all submitted testimony are availProtection Agency <EPA> publlsbed an able for viewing and copying in the 

advance not1ce of in~t to Propose en- Agency's Public Information Reference 

vironmental radiation protection stand- Unit, Room 2922, u.s. Environmental 

ards for the uranium fu~l cycle (39 1"R Protection Agency, 401 M Street sw., 

16906) and invited public participation. Washington, D.C. 20460. The Agency has 

On May 29, 1975, EPA proposed regu- ·considered all of this record in reaching lations setting forth SU?h standards <40 its conclusions !or these final regulations. FR 23420) pursuant to the Atomic En- At the time these standards were proergy Act, as amended, and Reorganiza- posed EPA released a Draft Environtion Plan No. 3 of 19W (35 FR 15623>. ment9.I statement and solicited public Numerous written comments were re- comments. A Final Environmental Stateceived, and a public hearing was held on ment is being made available concur- March 8-10, 1976 (41 FR 1124 and 41 rentlY with the promulgation of these 

FR 5349) •

1 standards. This statement contains -the 

These regulations setting forth envi- comments received on both the proposed ronmental radiation standards are here- standards and the draft statement, and 

by promulgated in final form. The stand- ·EPA's response to these comments. Single -ards SPecify the levels below which copies of the Final Environmental Statenormal operations of the uranium fuel' ment and an additional document con- cycle are determined to be environmen- taining EPA's detailed iesponses to testitaUy acceptable. A number of -changes moey received in connection with the 

have been made in the proP<>sed regu- public hearing are available from. the 

lations in response to comments received. Director, Criteria and Standards Division 

These changes modify and clarify the <AW-460), Office of Radiation Programs, areas of applicabllity of the standards Environmental P r o t e c t i on Agency, and their effective dates, and expand Washington, D.C. 20460. Persons interthe conditions under which variances ested in a summary discussion of the 

may be granted. The numerical levels of background, rationale, interpretation, the standards have been retained as and significance of these stand.ards 

proposed. . should-consult the notice proposing these 

The Agency has benefited from exten- regulations and, for greater deta.ll, the 

sive public participation during the Final Environmental Statement. course or the development of these regu- MA.roa IssuEs RAISED Dtmma REVIEW 

lations. Sixteen comment letters were received in response to the Agency's May 10, 1974,. notice of intent tO propose 

standards, and 82 comment letters following the·pubUcation of proposed regu- · 

Three maJor issues were raised by 

commenters. These were: <1) concern that procedures for implementation of 

the' standards would be unnecessarily conservative or costly,'(2) disagreement over the need for and cost-effectiveness 

of control of environmental releases of 

k:rypton-85 and other long-lived radlonucUdes, and (3) disagreement over the 

form or the relationship between effects on health and radiation dose assumed in 

deriving these standards. 

Agency has made its intent recnrdln!.l' 

realiStic implementation clear, ns, for example, in the dl$cussion or these mntters 

in the Final Environmental Statement 

and will continue to do so l! necessary ns 

implementation proceeds, to a~uro thnt 

unnecessary conservatism <loes not occur. 

In this regard, the NRC hns recentlY 

issued a revised set or reeutntory culdes 

!or light-water-cooled reactors which 

implement their announced intent to uso the most realistic models avallnble when 

adequate experimental data exist to per- mit n. prudent and scientl!lc determlnntion. These models are intended for use in implementing the recentlY-Issued Ap- pendix I to 10 CFR Part 60, which defines 

design and operating criteria !or slnelo 

reactor units. EPA has examined Ap- pendix I and the accompanying recula• tory guides and agrees that they provide the basts for realistic implementation or these standards for single renctor units. 

The existence of these requirements, coupled with the realization that most 

existing reactor licenses are for no more than one or two units on a site, makes tt 

unnecessary, in. the .Agency's Judcment, 

to reexamine the license conditions or these licensees tor compatibility wlth 

these standards, unless tho nenrest 

neighboring site covered by this stand- ard fs within ten mnes. In these latter cases small adJustments may be neces- sary. However, in the vast majority or situations, the sum or nil rensonnbly postulable contributions from sources other than the immediate ·slte wlll bo 

small compared to these standards nnd 

should be Ignored in assessing compll- ance. It would not be reasonable to attempt to incorporate Into compllnnco 

assessment doses which are small frac· 

tions of the uncertainties n.ssoclatcd with 

the determination or doses !rom the primary source of exposure. The Aconcy 

has also concluded thnt, except under 

hJghly improbable circumstances, con- formance to these criteria should provldo reasonable assurance or compUance wltb 

these standards for up to flve units on n site. Thls conclusion Js based, amonc other considerations, upon realistic con• slderatlon of anticipated site sizes nnd 

the relative location of lncUvldunl units, as well as the stochastic nature of 

eflluent releases. . 

· • In this ·connection the Agenoy received 

requests on behatr ot Allied-General Nuclear 

Services (AGNS) on October 4 and December 2, 1976, tor a-supplemental hearing on certain aspects or this rulemaklng, on ttre 

gtounds that the Agency Is, 1n part, relying 

upon Information acquired subseq11ent to 

the public hcarlng which, 1n the View or AGNS, would be an essential basis !or the 

rulemaklng bUt 1s etroneous. 'l'be Agency has 

revlcvted tho materials submttted tn support or this request and concluded that they would not provide a sutnclent basts !or alter- • lng Its conclusions. A response to new matters addressed by tbls material has been 

appended to the AgencY's commentary on testimony received 1n connection with tbe 

public hearing on these standards. In addition tt Is noted tbnt the Agency has previ- ously (40 FR. 23420) made publlc its intent 

" • • • to maintnin a contlnulDg review or the appropriateness or these environmental standards • • • and to revise them, U 

necessary, on the basis ot lntormat1on that 

develops in the intervnl." In view or the 

above, the Agency bas concluded that lt Is 

neither necessary nor appropriate to grant • now tbe addtttonal publlc hearing requested. 

We wtU, or course; welrome the submission 

ot additional tactual data on tbe matters 

concerned as lt becomes avaUal:lle. 

A large number o.f commenters ex- pressed the view that implementation would lead to more restrictive control of 

eflluents than intended due to the use of 

unnecessarily conservative models for source terms, control capability, and ·environmental tranSPort, and due to re- quirements for unreasonablY large mar- gins between normal operating levels 

and the standards, especiallY at sites con- taining a number of facilities. The au- thority to regulate fuel cycle facilities 

under ·these ·standards resides in the 

Nuclear Regulatory ComJ;Dission <NRCI, 

or, in some cases, the States, under agreements with NRC. The standards have 

been expressed in terms of the dose to 

members of the public, rather th!Ul to 

hypothetical receptors, in order to en- coura.ge the use or realistic models by the 

regulatory. agency. In ~ditlon, the' 

· A number of commenters,lncludtne tho 

NRC. also noted that shutdown of nu- clear facUlties for minor deviations from 

the standards would not be rcasonnblc. 

The Agency agrees, and notes that tho use of such an extreme mensure is not 

required under present complJance pro- cedures for licenses issued pursuant to 

the Atomic Energy Act, nnd that theso 

regulations do not add such o. require· 

ment. A graded scale of nctlon is an ap- propriate regulatory response for achievIng conformance. This may Include, for 

example, requirements for corrective no- tions, appropriate penalties, and, in ex- treme cases, cessation of operations. Tho 

Agency 1s confident that the NRC wlll 

implement these standards In such n 

reasonable manner. same commenters expressed the vlow 

that it was not feasible to mo~tor conFEDERAL REGISTER, VOl. 42, NO. 9-nfURSDAY, JANUARY 13, 1977 
formanee with these standards through the use of environmental measuremen~. 

The Agency agrees that routine monitorIng based exclusively upon environment- .al measurements would not be a. reason- able tQeaDS for ~g coDfo~ce 

a.nd the regulations do not contain such a requirement. Environmental obJectives are generally best achieved through con- trols exercised at the source. For thJs reason emuent monitoring Is generally 

preferable a.nd such measurements, when 

coinbined with regulatory models for en- vironmental transport. would provide quite adequate demonstration of con- formance with the standards for the 

vast majority of situations, based upon 

existing experience. However, since varyIng degrees of conservatism a.nd uncer- tainty exrst in all environmental models, 

the ~ency. believes It wU1 often be ap- propriate to supplement emuent monitoring with conii.rmini environmental mea.s- urements, as iS now the r egulatory prac- tice. In the case of Ught water reactors, 

models a.nd monitoring requlremen~ for . demonstratmg conformance with Appen- dix I of 10 CFR Part 50 are generally adequate for demonstrating conformance 

with these standards. Similar models a.nd 

measurements would, In general. be ap- propriate for most other types of facmtles. 

In the special case of possible windblown etjluen~ from mlll tanlngs, the 

existence of operational measures <e.g., 

temporary or perma.nent stabWzatlonl 

should normally be the criterion used for · verifying complla.nce, 1n lieu of ellluent 

a.nd environmental monitoring, because 

of the difflculj;y associated with such 

measurements. It should be noted that 

doses resulting from exposure to radon 

a.nd its daughters, which are discharged from a mill site <or result from material 

which has been diScharged>, are excluded/but that gamma radiation cross- ing site boundaries from any on-site source iS covered. 

In situations where members of the 

public are actually exposed, these standards, in effect. preempt those regulations which are based upon the Federal Radiation Protection Guides (25 FR 4402> insofar as exposure of the · public 1s due 

to operations-defined to be Included in 

the ura.nlum fuel cycle. For example. the 

dose limits In 10 CFR Pitrt 20 would not 

be the Umltlng coilslderatlon regardlnk 

exposure of members of the public as a. 

result of uranium fuel cycle operations. 

These standards do not, however, replace application of the Radiation Protection 

Guides to the regulation of sources not 

included within the scope of the uranium 

fuel cycle. Flnally, the graded scale of 

actions established in 1961 (26 FR. 9057> 

for use in implementing- the Radiation Pro~tlon Guides do not apply to implementation of these standards, but 

woUld remain 1n effect Jor implementa- tion of radiation protection guides for 

other racUation sources. 

Several commenters-expressed the view 

.that a requirement for control of tbe un- restricted release of kiypton to tbe en- vironment !roDi fuel cycle operations 

....._ RULES AND REGULATIONS 

was: <a> beyond the Jurisdiction of EPA, 

Cb) unreasonably costly, <c> not achievable by 1983, the proposed Implementation date Cor, 1n the view ot some com- menters, was achievable prior to 1983>, 

or <d> not o. r~onable requlrement or 

domestic Industry untn lnternntlonnl 

agreements are achieved to restrict emissions from foreign sources. The Agency has concluded that Its 

'Jurisdiction 1s clear. Reorgnnlzation Plnn 

No.3 of 1970 spec11lcallY transrerred to 

EPA from the Atomic Enersy Comrnls"-

slon the authority to establlsh standards 

for .... • • quantities of radioactive m.aterials in the environment • • •" a.nd 

attaches no condiUpns to this authority 

except a requirement that the standards 

apply ou~lde the boundaries or Ucensecs. 

EPA has carefully reexnmiDed the 

costs of control sYStems for krYPton and 

has concluded thnt a subsbntlnl portion or the additional costs presented at the 

pubUc bearings 1s correct. This analysis 

Is reviewed in the Final Environmental 

Statement. However, in spite of these increased costs, the 1nst3llatton of con- trols for krypton-as 1s believed to be 

JustUied by the pubUc henlth benefits 

a.chlevable. In today's doUm:s, the cost 

per unit radiation dose reduction at future reprocessing fa.cWtles will bo $50-

$'15 per man-rem for whole body doses. 

and considerably 1~ than th1s for doses 

to other organs. These values are more than an order of mngnltude lower than 

Umltlng costs now specl.fled 1n resuia~ 

tlons governing the licensing or Jndlv:ldual nuclear pawer reacto1'3. It 1s recog- nlzed that the cost of retrotltting one facllity which 1s e."tJ)eeted to be 1n oP.emtion before 1983 wU1 involve greater 

costs, and the reguln.tory agency 1s en- couraged to e.'Q)lore means to mtntmtze 

costs to this facllity in Its Implementa- tion of the standard for th1s pUot cnse. 

Regarding the achievabiUty of control over the relea.se of krypton-as to the environment by 1983, It Is noted that this or slmJlar control technology Is nlre3dy 

being offered commercln1ly for nuclear 

reactors and fuel reprocessing fac1Ut1es, 

and Is currently being !nsto.lled. or Is on order, at several U.S. re3Ctors and at a foreign fuel reprocesslng fncWty b3' U.S. 

suppUers. The Agency, therefore, beUeves 

that 1983 1s an achlevo.ble Implementa- tion date. However, a more accelerated 

schedule 1s not considered Justifled, 1n 

view of the small amount of reprocessing that wU1 c>ccur before thnt d.a.te and the 

present lack or operating f!},.-perfence with 

krypton controls. 

Flnally, we hn.\'e examined arguments concerning the need for international 

agreement prior to the establishment of 

sta.ndards a.nd do not 1lnd them persua- sive. EPA fully supports the development of international agreements, and 1s pres- ently partlcipa.tlng 1n the development of 

International guidance .tor control or radiOactive emuents from the fuel cycle under the auspices or the International 

Atomic Energy Agency. A number of 

countries are already committed to or are 1n the process of committing themselves to control of krypton releases. The 

Agency supports this trend a.nd has con2859 

eluded that the control of U.S. releases 

of krs'Pton-85 1s warranted on the basis or reducing its potential worldwide pubUc health Impact. In lnltlatlng a. requirement for this control. the United states 

fulfills its responsibWty-, as the world's 

largest user or nuclear pawer. to provide leadersh!p in this matter. 

A number of commenters suggested tbn.t the proposed regulations should be 

amended to 1nclude standards for carbon-14 and, in some cases, other long- lived radionuclliles. The Agency has 

studies or sources and controls !or these 

materlals underway a.nd anticipates tba.t 

propos:Jl.s for appropriate environmental 

standards for carbon-14 can be made 

shortly, with consideration of proposals for other materials following at a later 

date. However, the knowledge base 4; not 

yet sufiicient to permit incorporation into 

these standards now. - Comments were received reflecting 

many paints of view on health effects Is- sues. one group agreed with the Agency's primary reliance on risk estimates pro- vided by the recent report to EPA of the 

National Academy. of Sciences c•'The 

E1Iects on PopUlations of Expo~ to !ow Levels o! Ion.lzation,,. Report of the Advisory Committee on the Biological EO:ects O[ Ionizing Radiation. NAS-NRC, 

1972> • These estimates are primarily b:l.sed upon n. Unear interpolation between e.-.Isting data. on huma.n populations and the assumption of no etrects at zero dose. fo.nother group believed this 

model Js not sumclentJ.v conservative to 

adectuatel.Y protect public health. based 

upon several investigators• hypotheses collcernlng the shape of the dose-etrect 

relationship at low doses. A third group 

beUeved these estimates to be too conservative at low doses and low dose-rates. 

Frequent reterence was made by the 

third group to a rePOrt of the National 

Council on Radiation Protection and 

M03SU.relnents <Report No. 43> which 

implies thnt radiation standards shoUld 

not be based upon numerical estimates 

of health e1Iects, and a recent report of 

the Nuclear Regulatory Commlsslon 

<NUREG-'15/014> which presents, fn 

addition to risk estimates based upon the 

National Academy ot Sciences report, some lower risk estimates based upon a belief that dcr~-rate dependent phenom- ena. e.-dst for low Unear energy transfer 

radiation <gamma. rays a.nd beta. particles> which reduce the carclnogenlc e1Iect of radiation to levels lower than 

those predicted by the Unear modeL 'l'he 

.Asency has examined the evidence for 

each of the above views a.nd concluded 

that, whDe each may- have Validity under 

various assumptions or for ~ous spe-· 

eWe situations, the weight of .currently avn.llable scientlflc evidence supports the 

continued use ot a llnear. nonthreshold 

model for deriving standards to protect pubUc health. 

Changes Made in the Pr®osed. Regu.-

latians . 

A number ot cha.nges have been made 

in response to comments received on th~ 

proposed ret:Ulatlons. The following describes and provides the reasons !or each 

of these changes: · 

fEDERAl. REGISTER, VOL 42, NO. 9-THURSDAY, JANUARY' 13, 1977 
2860 RULES AND REGULATIONS 

·1. Paragraph 190.02<1>> has been standards would occur in such cases to the Agency and NRC thnt a. !our-ycnr 

changed to delete transportation as ~ a degree that the added risk to the gen- implementation period Is required nt 

operation covered by these standards a.nd era.l public Is sma.ll and the environ- mills, ra.ther than the three years proto specifically exclude waste disposal mental 4ect is acceptable in comparison vided for all other fuel cycle operations. 

sites, which were previorisiy not men., to the e6onom1c penalty that would be 7. Section 190.12(b) hns been chnngcd 

tloned. The Agency is addressing the de- B$$0Ciated wltb. ,Ce$Satlon of operation to clarify the Agency's oriclnnl intent 

velopment of criteria and standards for or the anticipated public health and en- that the stnndarcls specified ln para• 

mimagement of rndloactive wastes as a vlronmental impact of available alternn- graph 190.10(b) apply to rndioactlvo mn- separate matter, .as mentioned ln the no- -tlve sources of power. For this reason,· terials produced after the e.!Ieotlve date. 

tlco proposing these standards. the variance provision has been broad- The Agency anticipates that promul• 

A number of conunenters,lncludlng the ened so that the regulatory igency ,may,. gation of these standards will servo, 1n 

NRC and the Department ·or Trans- if it, deems it to be ln the Public Interest, addition to providing for necessarY pro· , portation, pointed out the d.!.mculty or grant a. variance in such situations. It tectlon of public health, to alleviate some · implementing these standards for tra.ns- should be noted, however, that the vari- or the uncertnlntles associated with tho 

portatlon· activities, particularly noting ance provision applies only tp temporary design of environmental controls for fuel 

the problems near nuclear facllit1es. and unusual situations. It is expected. cycle faclllties, and the consequent ceo- In such cases an apportionment of that continued operation. under the vari- nomic penalties, through stnbllizlng and 

the dose llmlts ~ould appear to be neces- ance provision will be predicated upon providing direction to the process or do· sanr in order to avoid unreasonably ex- an apPn>ved plan to achieve compliance velopment of stnndards and regulntions. 

tenslve monitoring requirements· for in an expeditious fashion, that is, in as The economic and lnflatlonazy lmpnots 

members of the public. Since studies short a. time as ls reasonably achievable: of these regulations have been evoluatcd 

by both EPA and~ show that most The reqUirement for public documen- in accordance with Executive Order 

transportation-related doses a.re ex- ta.tion of variances has been clarified aiid 11821 and it has been determined that an pected to rema.Jn at small fractions of · extended to apply to this broadened pro- l01lation Impact Statement ls not ro· these stnnda.rds in any case. the im.Ple- vision. EPA will not review lndlvidual quired. <The estimated annual cost of 

mentation dlmculty does not appear to variances or compliance plans, which additional e1Duent controls required by 

warrant their incluslon,in these stand- wm be made public in accordance with these regulations ls ln no co.se greater 

arcls limiting doses to individuals from the provisions of paragraph 190.11Cb), than ten to twenty milUon dollnrs, which 

ura.nlum fuel cycle operations. The but will maintain a general overview ls significantly less than tho one-hun• 

Agency w1U instead address this matter through periodic review of the use of dred mllllon dollar annunl cost cut-o!I 

under Its broad authority Inherited from. this Section. established as the minlmum for which 

the former Federal Radiation councn, . 6. Sectfon 19D.l2(a) has been changed an Inflation Impact Statement Is ro- thr0118'h the development of more gen- to provide that the e.treetlve date for the qulred.) 

eral guidance to all Federal agencies con- standards limiting dooes to individuals Notice is hereby given that pursuant to 

.cernlng radiation exposure arising from. shall be December 1, 1979, for an opera- the Atomic Energy Act of 1054, as nmendthe transportation of all types of radio- tions except the miillng of uranium ore, ed, and Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 

active materials, not. just those from· the for which the e.trecttve da.te sha.ll be 1970 Title 40, Chapter I, of the Codo of 

uranium fuel cycle. December 1, 1980. Federal Regulations Is amended by add· 

2. Paragraph 190.02(d) Is changed to The NRC has carefully examined Its ing a new Subchapter P and Part 100 as 

_ · refiect the deflnltlo~ of "site" lmplled by exlstlng programs for finplementatlon of set forth below. 

Reorganlzatlon Plan No.3 of 1970. . Appepdix I at light-water-cooled reac- · Dated: December 28, 19'76. 

3. ·Paragraph 190.02<f> Is changed by tors and the feasibility of Integrating 

adding the word "spontaneously" to re- Impiementation of· these standards into 

1lect the Agency's oz:iginalintent. that on·going process, as well as, in 

RUSSELL E. 'I'M.m, 

Administrator. 

. A new Subchap~r P, consisting of Pnrt 

190, Is. added to 40 CPR Chapter I 1\8 

follows: 

SUBCHAPTER 1'-RAOIATION PROTECTION 

PROGRAMS 

PART 19G-ENVIRONMENTAL RADIATION 

PROTECTION STANDARDS FOR NU• 

CLEAR POWER OPERATIONS ' 

Subpart A-General PtoYislons 

·- 4. Paragraph 190.02(g) ls deleted a.nd parallel. implementing these standards 

subsequent paragraphs in Section 190.02 at other types or fuel cycle fac11ltles 

are renumbered. This paragraph defined through development and promulgation 

uranium ore as ore contain.lng 0.05% or . of new regulatory guides a.nd individual more ura.nlum by weight. As pointed out license conditions. Pina.Uy, there are 

by one commenter, lt Is not desirable to JDJ!,tfers regarding reactors which will 

exclude ores · containing less tba.n this require generic treatment such as the 

quantity or ura.nlum, since 1 .future conditions reqUired for co~pliance when 

demand for ore may make the use of there are multiple units on single sites. 

such ores economically feasible. It Is the conclusion of the NRC, and the 

5. Sectton 190.11 has been broadened Agency concurs, that the orlglnally pro- Sec. 

to permit a grea,ter degree of discretion 'posed two-yea.r imPlementation period 1s 100.o1 Appltcn.biUty • • to the regula.!x>ry ~ency to develop and lnsufilcent.a.nd that three years wiU be 100.02 Den.ntttons. • 

apply conditions for the granting of var- reqUired to complete this process. The Subpart B-Envtionmental Standards for the 

lances. As polnted out by a number of NRC review of these matters regarding . Uranium Fuel Cycle 

commenters, it Is not reasonable to pred- implementation has revealed that the 190:10 stnndn.nts tor normn.l opomtlons. lca.te the Justl1lca.tlon for variances solely case of m.ilis is unique, since better in- 190.11 Vn.rln.nccs tor unusuol opomtlons. on public need for orderly delivery of formation 1s required concernlng a num- 190.12 Eaecttvo dn.to. 

power. For example, a fa.clllty may have ber of alternatives for stabWza.tton of AVI'BoJUTY: Atomtc Enorgy Act ot 10&4, ns 1nstalled a control syStem which, in spite taillngs-both as to their relative merit amended; Reorgn.n.tzailon Ptn.u No. 3, of 10'10. of good, faith performance on the part and the degree of periodic maintenance 

of the supplier and the user, may !ail reqUired. on June 3, 1976, the NRC pub- Subpart A-General Provisions 

to achieve operational ca.pabillty on a Iished (41 FR 22430) a. notice of intent § 190.01 Appllc:nblllty. 

tlm.ely basis, or, o_!lce insta.lled .may ex- to prepare a g~eric environmental The proVisions of this Part apply to ro.- pertence opera.tlonaJ. !allure at some statement on uranium mllliiig opera- dlatlon doses received by members or tho 

time, yet operation of the facWty JDJI,y ·tions. This effort will be completed._ in public in the general environment and to 

not be essential to the "orderly delivery · ~pproximately two Years, and includes radioactive materials Introduced Jnto tho 

of electrical power." In addition, some tleld measurements with participation of general environment ns the result of op- portlons of this s1andard are predicated both EPA and NRC personnel. In add!- eratlons which are part or a nuclear ruol 

u_pon the use of waste trea-tment systems t1on, the NRC Issued proposed new emu- cycle. 

not yet in general commercla.l use. AI- ent reporting reqUirements at mills on thoUgh in no case should operation con- November 17 1975 <40 FR 53230). In § 190.02 Dcfin.itlons. 

tinue if safety is comprom.lsed, it may view of the above cOnsiderations It ls <a> "Nuclear fuel cycle" means tho OP• 

easily be that excurslo~ above these the jolntly agreed upon conclusiOn of eratlons defined to be associated with tho 

·FEDERAl REGISTER, VOL 42, NO. ?-THURSDAY, JA~UARY 13, 1977 
production of electrical power for public use by any fuel cycle through utw.zatlon 

of nuclear energy. <b> "Uranium fuel cycle" means· the 

operations of mllling of uranium ore, 

chemical conversion of uraniun;1, 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 utilizl.ng · nucfear energy, but excludes mining op- erations, -operations at waste 4fsposal 

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.·. 

(c) "General environment'' means the 

total terrestrial, atmospheric and aquatic environments outside sites upon which 

any operation which is part of a nuclear . fuel cycle is conducted. 

· Ca> · "Site" means the area contained 

within the boundary of a: location under 

the control of persons possessing or using 

radioactive material on which is con- ducted one or more operations covered bythisP~ ~ 

<e> "Radiation" means any or all of 

the following: -alpha, beta, gamma, or Xrays; neutrons: and high-energy electrons, protons, or other atomic particles; 

but not sound or radio waves, nor visible, 

infrared, or :lltraviolet light. 

(f) "Radioactive material" mea!IS any 

~~D.. which. spontaneously emits 

(g) "Curie" CCi> means that quantity of n;t.dioactive material produ~lng 37 bUlion nuclear transformations per second. 

<One millicurie <men =0.001 Ci.> 

<h> "Dose equivalent" mea.Ds the 

product of absorbed dose and appropriate factors to _account for differences in bioRULES AND REGULATIONS 

logical effectiveness due to the quality of radiation and lts spatlnl distribution 

in the body. The unit of dose eQulvnlent 

is the "rem." <One m1111rem <mrcm> = 0.001 rem.> 

m "Organ" meaDS DDY buma.n orsuu 

exclusive of the dermis, the epidermis, or the comen. 

<J> "Gigawatt-year" re!ers to tbc 

quantity of electrieo.l energy produced at 

the busbarof a senero.Ung station. A ctgawatt-is equal to one blllion watts. A ctsawatt-year is equivalent to the amount 

of enera output represented by o.n average electric power level of one gigawatt sustained tor one yenr. 

<k> "Member of the public" means any ·individual that can reeelve a radiation dose in the general environment, 

whether he mny or may not also be eKposed to radiation in an occupation nssoclated with a nuclear fuel cycle. However, an individual is not considered a 

member' of the public during any period 

1n which he 1s engaged in carrying out 

any operation whlch is part of a nuclear 

fuel cycle. 

• (1) "Regulatory nsency" means the 

the government asency responsible for 

.lssulng regulations governing the use of sources of radiatlon or rnd1onct1ve ma- terlals or emissions there!rom and car- rying out inspection and enforcement ac- tivities to assure compllo.nce with such re.sulations. 

Subpart B-Envlronmental Standards for 

the Uranium Fuel Cycle 

§ 190.10 Stnndnrds for normnl opel':!· 

tions., 

Operations covered by this Subpart 

shall be conducted 1n such a manner ns to 

provide reasonable assurance that: 

<a> The annual dose equivalent does 

not exceed 25 mlllircms to the whole 

body, 75 milllrems to the thyroid, and 25 

mlllirems to any other organ of any 

2861 

member of the public as tbe result o! ex- posures to planned discharges of radioactive materials, radon and its daughters excepted, to the general environment 

from uranium fuel eycle operations and 

to radiation from these operations. <b) The ioial quanUt;y 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 fodine-129, and 0.5 mfilicUr:fes 

combined of plutonium-239 and other 

alpha-emitting transuranic radionuclides 

with half-lives greater than one year. 

§ 190.11 Vnrianccs !or unDSU:ll opera· · tio~ · 

The standards specUled ln § 190.10 may 

be exceeded 1!: 

Cal Theregulatoryageneyhasgranted ~ 

a variance'based uPon lts determination 

that a temporary and unusual operating condition exists and continued operation 

is In the public Interest, and 

<b> Information is promptlY made a matt~ o! pubUc record delineating the 

nature of unusual operating conditions, 

the degree to which this operation 1s ex- pected to result In levels in excess o! the 

standards, the basis of the variance, and 

the schedule for achieving conformance 

with the standards. 

§ 190.12 Er£«tive cbte. 

Cal The st:mdards ln § 190.10Ca.l shall 

be eilective December 1, 1979, except that 

for doses o.r1slng !rom operations associated with the m!ll1ng of uranium ore the 

etrective date shall be December 1, 1980. 

<b> The standards in§ 190.10<b> shan 

be eilective December 1, 1979, except that 

the standards !or krypton-85 and iodine129 shall be effective January 1, 1983, for 

any such radioactive materials generated by the fission process after these dates. 

[PR Doa.'l7-{39:1 Fllec11-12-'n;S:45 am) 

fEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 42, NO. 9-THURSDAY: JANUARY 13, 1977