### 2858
ntle4o-Protectlon ofEnvlronme!'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 

### partiesparticipated 1n three

### days ofpu'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 itsconclusions !orthese 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 FR5349) • 1 

### standards. This 

### statement contains -the These regulations setting forth envi- comments received onboth the proposed ronmental radiation standards are here- standards and the draft statement, and by promulgated infinal form. Thestand-

·EPA'sresponse to these comments. Single

- ards SPecify the levels below which copies oftheFinalEnvironmental 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 lationsinresponse to comments received. Director,Criteriaand StandardsDivision These changes modify and clarify the <AW-460), Office ofRadiation 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-consultthe notice proposingthese

The Agency has benefited from exten- regulations and, for greater deta.ll, the sive public participa tion 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 implementtheir announced intent to uso the most realisticmodels avallnble when adequate experimental data exist to per- mit 

### n. prudent and scientl!lc determlnntion. These models are intended for use inimplementing the recentlY-Issued Ap- pendix I 

### to 10CFRPart60, 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· tionsof the uncertainti es 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 

### thesecriteria 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 otAllied-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 publlchearing requested. We wtU, or course; welrome the submission ot additional tactual data on tbe matters concerned as ltbecomes 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 andthestandards,especiallY atsitescon- taining a number of facilities. The au- thority to regulate fuel cycle facilities under

· these ·standards resides in the Nuc lear Regulatory ComJ;Dission <NRCI, or,in

### somecases,theStates,underagreements 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 realisticmodels bythe regulatory

. agency. 

### In**~ditlon,** 

### the' · Anumber 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- propriateregulatory responsefor 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 reasonablemanner.

same commenters expressed the vlow that it was not feasible 

### to**mo~tor** 

### conFEDERAL REGISTER, VOl. 42, NO. 9-nfURSDAY, JANUARY 13, 1 977formanee with these standards through the use of environmental**measuremen~.** TheAgency agreesthatroutinemonitorIngbased exclusively upon environment-

.al measurements would notbe 

### a. reason- 

### able tQeaDS 

### for**~g coDfo~ce**  a.nd the regulations do not contain such 

### a requirement. Environmental obJectives aregenerallybestachieved through con- trols exercised at the source. For thJs reason emuent monitoring Is generally preferablea.nd suchmeasurements, when coinbinedwith 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 existingexperience. However, sincevaryIng degrees of conservatism a.nd uncer- tainty 

## exrst in all environmental models, the**~ency.** believes It wU1 often be ap- propriatetosupplementemuentmonitoringwithconii.rminienvironmentalmea.s- urements, 

## as iS now the regulatory prac- tice. In the case of Ught water reactors, models a.nd monitoring**requlremen~** for

. demonstratmgconformancewithAppen

-

dix I of 10 CFR Part 50 are generally adequatefor demonstrating conformance withthese standards

. Similarmodels 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 shouldnormallybe 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 sourceiScovered.

In situations where members of the public are actually exposed, these standards, in effect. preempt those regulations which

### arebasedupontheFederalRadiation Protection Guides (25 FR 4402> insofar 

### as exposure of the ·public 1s due to operations-defined to be Included in theura.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 donot , however, replace application of the Radiation Protection Guides to the regulation of sources not included withinthescope 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 effectJor implementa- tion of radiation protection guides for otherracUationsources.

Severalcommenters-expressed theview .thata requirementfor control of tbeun- 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> notachievable 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 areachieved to restrictemissionsfrom foreign sources.

The Agency has concluded that Its 'Jurisdiction 1s clear.ReorgnnlzationPlnn 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** theboundaries orUcensecs.

EPA has carefully reexnmiDed the costs of control sYStems for krYPton and has concluded thnt a subsbntlnlportion or the additional costs presented at the pubUc bearings 1s 

### correct. This analysis Is reviewed in the Final Environmental Statement. However , in spiteof 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- tionof thestandardfor th1spUot

### cnse.

Regarding the achie vabiUty of control over the relea.se of krypton-as to theenvironment 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. TheAgency , 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 amountofreprocessing that wU1 

### c>ccur before thnt 

### d.a.te and the present lackoroperatingf!},.-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 1lndthem persua- sive. EPA fully supports the development of international agreements, and 1spres- ently partlcipa.tlng 1nthe 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 kryptonreleases. The Agency supports this trend a.ndhas con

### 2859

eluded 

### that the control of U.S. releases of krs'Pton-85 1s warranted on the basis or reducing its potential worldwide pubUc healthImpact

. Inlnltlatlng

### a. requirement for this control. the United states fulfills its responsibWty- , 

### as the 

### world's largest 

### user or nuclear pawer. to provideleadersh!pinthis

### 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 !orthese materlalsunderway a.nd anticipates tba.t propos:Jl.s for appropriate environmental standards for carbon-14 can be made shortly, with considera tion of proposals for other materials following at a later date. However, theknowledge base4;not yetsufiicienttopermitincorporationinto these standards now

. -

Comments were received reflecting many paints of view onhealth effects Is- sues

. 

## one group agreed withtheAgency's primary reliance on risk estimates pro- vided by the recent report toEPA of the National Academy

. of Sciences 

### c•'The E1Iects onPopUlationsof**Expo~** to!o w Levels o! Ion.lzation,,. Report of the Advisory Committee on the Biological EO:ects O[ IonizingRadiation. NAS-NRC, 1972> • These estimates are primarily b:l.sed upon n. Unear interpolation be

### tween e.-.Isting data. on huma.n populations and the assumption ofnoetrects at zero dose

. fo.nother group believed this model Js not sumclentJ.v conservative 

### to adectuatel.Y protect pub lic 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 conservativeatlowdoses andlow 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 riskestimatesbased uponthe National Academy ot S ciences report, some low er risk estimates based upon a belief that**dcr~-rate** dependentphenom- 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 vi ews 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 h ave been made inresponse 

### to comments recei ved on**th~** proposed ret:Ulatlons. The following describes andprovides the reasons !oreach of these changes: ·

fEDERAl. REGISTER, VOL 42, NO. 9-THURSDA Y, JANUAR Y' 1 3, 1977

### 2860 RULES AND REGULATI ONS

· 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•

Anumberof 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 ofpublic 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.underthe vari- nomic penalties, throug h stnbllizlng and the dose 

### llmlts

**~ould** 

### appear tobe 

### 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 ofvarianceshas been clarified aiid 11821 and ithas beendetermined that an pected to rema.Jn at small fractions of · extended to 

### apply to this 

### broadenedpro

- 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.) 

### eralguidance toall

### Federalagencies con- standards limiting 

### dooes to individuals Noticeishereby given thatpursuant to .cernlng radiation 

### exposure arising 

### from. shall be 

### December 1, 1979, for 

### an opera

- 

### theAtomicEnergyActof 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 setforth below. ReorganlzatlonPlanNo.3 of 1970.

. Appepdix I 

### at light-water-cooled 

### reac- · Dated: December28, 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 ofPnrt 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 economicallyfeasible. 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 forthe 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

### notreasonable to pred- implementation has 

### revealed that the 190:10 stnndn.nts 

### tor normn.l opomtlons

. 

### lca.te the Justl1lca.tlon forvariancessolely 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 Eaect tvo 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. onJune 3, 1976 , the NRC pub- SubpartA-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> "Nuclearfuel 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, 1977production of electrical power for public use by any fuel cycle through utw.zatlon ofnuclearenergy.

<b> "Uranium fuel cycle" means· the operations of mllling of uranium ore, chemical conversion of 

### uraniun;1, isotopic enrichment of uranium, fabrication of uraniumfuel, generation of electricityby

· 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-productmaterials

· from the cycle.·. (c) "General environment'' means the total terrestrial, atmospheric and aquatic environments outside sites upon which any operation which ispart of 

### a nuclear

.fuelcycle isconducted.

· Ca> · "Site" means the 

### area contained within the boundary of 

## a: location under the controlofpersonspossessing orusing radioactive material on which is con- ducted one or more operations covered**bythisP~ ~** 

<e> "Radiation" means any or all of thefollowing: -alpha, beta, gamma, orXrays; neutrons: and high-energy electrons, protons, or other atomic particles; but notsound orradio waves, norvisible, infrared, or :lltraviolet light.

(f) "Radioactivematerial" 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 ofabsorbed dose and appropriate factors to_account for differences inbio

### RULES 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 thebusbarofa 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 electricpowerlevel ofone 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- ryingoutinspection andenforcementac- tivities 

### to assure compllo.nce with such re

.

sulations

. Subpart B-Envlronmental Standardsfor the Uranium Fuel Cycle § 190.10 Stnndnrds for normnl opel':!· tions. , Operations covered by this Subpart shallbeconducted 

### 1n such 

### a manner

### nsto providereasonable 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 thepublic as tberesult o! ex- posures to planned discharges of radioactive materials, radon and its daughters excepted,

### tothegeneralenvironment 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 ofkrypton-85, 5 millicuries of fodine-129, and 0.5 mfilicUr:fes combined of plutonium-239 and other alpha-emittingtransuranicradionuclides with half-lives greater than one 

### year. § 190.11 Vnrianccs !or unDSU:ll opera· ·**tio~** ·

Thestandards 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 isIn 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 resultIn levels in excess o! the standards, the basis of thevariance, and the schedule for achieving conformance with the standards. § 190.12 Er£«tive cbte

. Cal The st:mdards ln § 190.10Ca.l shall be eilectiveDecember 1, 1979, except

### that for doses o.r1slng !romoperations 

### associated with the m!ll1ng of uranium 

### ore the etrective date shall be December 1 , 1980.

<b> Thestandards in§ 190.10<b> shan beeilectiveDecember 1, 1979, except

### that thestandards!orkrypton-85 and iodine129 shallbe effective January 1, 1983, for anysuchradioactivematerialsgenerated bythefission process afterthese dates. [PR Doa.'l7-{39:1 Fllec11-12-'n;S:45 am)

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