p. 1 

# PICK-UPDATE : 3/15/200 7 BO X O F 

# 5 0 Step2 : FO RASR C INTERNA

L US E ONL Y 

## (PART_B_of_B_ )



# EP ADOCKE TID : _J02RQ-RN

_ 41 ) 102RQ-RN-6-L 1 43 ) 102RQ-RN-6-L 3 45 ) 102RQ-RN-1-3- 7 47 ) 102RQ-RN-1-4- 1 49 ) 102RQ-RN-1-4- 3 51 ) 102RQ-RN-1-4- 5 53 ) 102RQ-RN-1-4- 7 55 ) 102RQ-RN-1-4- 9 57 ) 102RQ-RN-1-4-1 1 59 ) 102RQ-RN-1-4-1 3 61 ) 102RQ-RN-1-4-1 5 63 ) 102RQ-RN-1-4-1 7 65 ) 102RQ-RN-1-4-1 9 67 ) 102RQ-RN-1-4-2 1 69 ) 102RQ-RN-1-4-2 3 71 ) 102RQ-RN-1-4-2 5 73 ) 102RQ-RN-1-4-L 3 75 ) 102RQ-RN-1-5- 1 77) 102RQ-RN-1-5- 3 79 ) 102RQ-RN-1-5- 5 Ste p 3 : FO R ASR C INTERNA LUS E ONL Y CD : OA : / 

# 42 ) 102RQ-RN-6-L 2 44){102RQ-RN-7-T ^ 46 ) 102RQ-RN-1-3- 8 48 ) 102RQ-RN-1-4- 2 50 ) 102RQ-RN-1-4- 4 52 ) 102RQ-RN-1-4- 6 54 ) 102RQ-RN-1-4- 8 56 ) 102RQ-RN-1-4-1 0 58 ) 102RQ-RN-1-4-1 2 60 ) 102RQ-RN-1-4-1 4 62 ) 102RQ-RN-1-4-1 6 64 ) 102RQ-RN-1-4-1 8 66 ) 102RQ-RN-1-4-2 0 68 ) 102RQ-RN-1-4-2 2 70 ) 102RQ-RN-1-4-2 4 72 ) 102RQ-RN-1-4-2 6 74 ) 102RQ-RN-1-4-L 4 76 ) 102RQ-RN-1-5- 2 78 ) 102RQ-RN-1-5- 4 80 ) 102RQ-RN-1-5- 6

Ste p 1 : FO R ASR

C INTERNA LUS E ONL Y Ar e ther e more documents fo rthi s Docke t i n anothe rbox ? *YE S //N O *Fil l ou t Continuatio n Shee t an d go t o Ste p 2 Interna l SFUN D Bo

xNumbe r_36

_O F _283

_ Initials/Date : LD S / 3-15-200 7P. 2 

# /OMa-M-?-/

RESPONSE S T O COMMENT S

ONTH E NOTIC E O F PROPOSE D RULEMAKIN G ONTH E ADJUSTMENT O F REPORTABL E QUANTITIE S FOR RADIONUCLIDE S

ARepor t t o the

Emergenc yRespons e Divisio n Offic e o f Emergencyan d Remedia l Respons e U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y

Marc h198 9

Prepare d by : IC F Incorporate d an d C- E Environmenta l EP AContrac t 68-03-345 2P. 3

TABL E O F CONTENT S Pag e COMMENT S O

N POLIC YISSUE S Comment s o n CERCLAAuthorit yP- 1 Comment s o n Exemptions/Exclusion s P-l l Comment s o n Federall yPermitte d Release s P-2 5 Comment s o n Duplicativ e Reporting P-4 6 Comment s o n RegulatoryBurde n P-6 2

COMMENT S O

N TECHNICA

L ISSUE S Comment s o n R Q Adjustmen t Option s T- l Comment s o n Mode l Assumption s T-1 7 Comment s o n Radioactiv e DecayT-4 7 Comment s o n Specifi c RQ s T-5 2 Comment s o n th e Inhalatio n PathwayMode l T-6 7 Comment s o n th e Ingestio n PathwayModel s T-7 9 Comment s o n th e Direc t Exposur e PathwayModel s T-8 2 Comment s o n Remainin g Radionuclide s T-8 7 Comment s o n Alternativ e Methodologie s T-8 8 Comment s o n th e Mixtur e Rul e T-9 6 Comment s o n Concentratio n Cutoff s T-10 1P. 4

Commente r Number : Pag e : Commente r Name : John A . Eure , Chie f Burea u o f Environmenta l Healt h Departmen t o f Publi c Healt h Stat e o f Iowa Respons e Number : 1

Issue : Comment : CERCLAAuthorit y

I t woul d appea r tha t thi s propose d rule , i f passed , wil l significantl y increas e the workloa d o f State s respondin g t o spill s o f radioactiv e material . I t seem s tha t EPAha s no t considere d thi s becaus e n o funding provision s wer e stated . W e woul d sugges t tha t State s b e considere d i n the process . I f EPA want s o r expect s u s t o respond , i t shoul d mak e funding assistanc e availabl e t o the States . Response : Th e rul e concern s onl ythe requirement s fo r reporting radionuclid e release s a t level s equallin g o r exceedin g the reportabl e quantit y(RQ) . Th e rul e doe s no t requir e respons e actions . A s note d i n the rule' s preamble , a hazardou s substanc e releas e notificatio n i s merel ya trigge r fo r informing the governmen t o f a releas e s o tha t th e appropriat e governmen t personne l ca n evaluat e the nee d fo r remova l o r remedia l actio n an d undertak e an

ynecessary actio n i n a timel yfashion . Governmen t personne l wil l evaluat e al l reporte d releases , bu t wil l no t necessaril yinitiat e a remova l o r remedia l actio n i n respons e t o al l reporte d releases , becaus e the releas e o f a n R Q wil l no t necessaril ypos e a hazar d t o publi c healt ho r welfar e o r the environmen t i n al l circumstances . Governmen t personne l wil l asses s eac hreporte d releas e o n a case-by-cas e basi s t o determin e the appropriat e action . Thus , concern s abou t the effor t neede d t o respon d t o radionuclid e releas e report s ar e no t relevan t directl yt o thi s rulemaking . Whil e release s o f a n R Q o r mor e o f radionuclide s woul d trigge r a repor t no t onl yt o the Nationa l Respons e Cente r unde r CERCLA , bu t als o t o local , an d possibl ystate , emergenc yplannin g committee s unde r SAR Asectio n 304 , n o respons e action s ar e mandate d unde r tha t progra meither . Additionally , unde r the authorit yo f CERCL Asectio n 104(c)(3)(C) , i f the federa l governmen t determine s tha t remedia l actio n fo r a releas e shoul d b e pursued , the stat e i n whic hthe remedia l actio n i s t o tak e plac e mus t ente r int o a contrac t o r cooperativ e agreemen t wit hEPA . Thi s contrac t o r agreemen t commit s the stat e t o payo r assur e paymen t o f 1 0 percen t o f the cost s o f the remedia l action , o r 5 0 percen t (or mor e i f EP Adeem s i t appropriate ) o f the cost s i f the state , o r a politica l subdivisio n o f it , operate d the facilit ya t whic hthe releas e occurre d a t the time tha t hazardou s substance s wer e dispose d there . Thus , unde r thes e circumstances , EP Awoul d mak e funding assistanc e availabl e t o state s fo r the remainde r o f the cost s o f remedia l action s fo r radionuclid e release s i f the release s ar e responde d t o unde r thi s authority .



### P- lP. 5

Commente r Number : 3 Respons e Number : 2 Page : 1- 3 Commente r Name : D.L . Farra r Nuclea r Licensin g Directo r Commonwealt hEdiso n Issue : CERCLAAuthorit y Comment : Edison , fo r th e following reasons , believe s tha t th e propose d amendment s t o th e curren t reportin g requirements , and the curren t reportin g requirement s themselves , ar e unnecessar ya s a matte r o f lawan d policy . Curren t reportin g requirement s b

ythe NR C adequatel yprotec t the publi c healt hand safet yand th e environmen t froman ythrea t resulting fromth e releas e o f radionuclides . Thes e NR C reportin g requirement s ar e unnecessaril yduplicate d byEPA' s overbroa d interpretatio n o f it s authorit yunde r CERCLA . I n some instances , NR C reporting requirement s ar e exceede d byEPA' s requiremen t fo r immediat e reporting , eve n thoughth e NR C ha s alread ydetermine d tha t suc himmediat e report s ar e unnecessary . Therefore , ther e i s n o basi s fo r exposin g NR C licensee s t o significan t penaltie s and crimina l sanction s fo r failin g t o repor t release s "immediately. " Rather- , EPAshoul d impos e n o separat e reporting requirement s bu t shoul d rel yo n NRC-licensees ' report s t o th e NR C a s satisfying an

yreportin g requiremen t unde r CERCLA . EPAbelieve s tha t CERCLAapplie s t o the releas e o f an yradionuclide s because , i n EPA' s view , al l radionuclide s ar e hazardou s substance s fo r th e purpose s o f CERCLA . EPAarrive s a t it s vie wa s follows : (1 ) sectio n 101(14 ) o f CERCL

Adefine s hazardou s substance s t o includ e hazardou s ai r pollutant s liste d unde r sectio n 11 2 o f the Clea n Ai r Act ; (2 ) EPAha s genericall y designate d radionuclide s t o b e hazardou s ai r pollutant s fo r the purpose s o f sectio n 11 2 o f th e Clea n Ai r Act ; (3 ) CERCLAapplie s t o release s o f hazardou s substance s t o al l media , no t jus t air ; therefore , (4 ) CERCLAapplie s t o release s o f radionuclide s t o al l media . Thi s logi c i s incomplete . Radionuclide s ar e hazardou s substance s fo r CERCLAonl yt o the exten t tha t radionuclide s ar e hazardou s ai r pollutant s unde r the Clea n Ai r Act . Th e fac t tha t CERCL Aapplie s t o release s o f hazardou s substance s t o al l medi a doe s no t expand the definitio n o f wha t constitute s a hazardou s substance , e.g. , CERCL Adoe s no t conver t a hazardou s ai r pollutan t int o a hazardou s wast e pollutant . Thus , whil e CERCLAapplie s t o release s o f hazardou s substance s i n al l media , the releas e o f an ysubstanc e int o an ymediu mmus t firs t b e show n t o constitut e a releas e o f a hazardou s substanc e int o tha t mediu mbefor e tha t releas e i s subjec t t o CERCLA . No t havin g mad e tha t showing fo r eac hliste d radionuclid e but , instead , havin g liste d themal l base d o n fault ylogic , EP Aha s exceede d it s authorit yunde r CERCLA . Therefore , EP Amus t firs t establis hit s jurisdictio n b ydeterminin g the identitie s an

d quantitie s o f radionuclide s whic har e hazardou s whe n release d int o the variou s environmenta l media .

P- 2P. 6

Respons e Number : 2 (continued ) Response : [Se e "CERCL

AAuthorit y- Respons e 5" , wit hthe following additiona l text ] EPAals o disagree s tha t a hazardou s ai r pollutan t unde r th e Clea n Ai r Ac t i s onl ya CERCLAhazardou s substanc e i f i t i s release d int o th e air . Ther e i s n o suppor t i n the languag e o f CERCLAfo r the commenter' s notio n tha t anythin g designate d a s a CERCLAhazardou s substanc e du e t o it s listing b yon e o r mor e o f th e environmenta l statute s reference d i n CERCLAsectio n 101(14 ) i s s o desijgnate

d onl yfo r release s occurrin g i n th e same mediu maddresse d i n th e reference d statute . I n additio n t o th e absenc e o f an ystatutorylanguag e explicitl ysupportin g th e commenter' s position , severa l CERCLAprovision s indicat e tha t th e statute' s hazardou s substanc e provision s appl yt o al l media . Th e CERCLAreleas e reportin g requiremen t i n sectio n 102(a) , a s wel l a s th e definitio n o f "release " i n sectio n 101(22) , bot hconcer n hazardou s substance s release d int o th e "environment" , whic hi s define d i n sectio n 101(8 ) t o constitut e al l media . Furthermore , sectio n 102(a ) als o state s tha t EPAmay se t on e R Q fo r an

yhazardou s substance , "regardles s o f the mediu mint o whic h the hazardou s substanc e i s released. " Thi s indicate s tha t Congres s di d no t intend fo r hazardou s substance s t o b e designate d o n a media-specifi c basis .

P- 3P. 7

Commente r Number : Page : Commente r Name :

Issue : Comment : 7 1 Respons e Number :

R.L . Arscott , Directo r Health , Environmen t an d Los s Protectio n Chevro n Corporatio n CERCLAAuthorit y

Th e firs t [concern ] deal s wit hth e premis e tha t the simpl e presenc e o f a radionuclid e i n a n emergenc ysituatio n implie s hazard . Th e creatio n o f a hazard , a s illustrate d i n the figur e tha t follow s thi s page , implie s a chai n o f circumstance s involving failur e o f controls ; promotio n o f releas e and entrainmen t mechanisms ; transpor t phenomena ; dispersion , removal , modificatio n and settlement ; exposure ; uptake ; retention ; and excretion . Th e releas e o f a n R Q doe s no t insur e tha t al l thes e step s hav e take n place . Thi s i s no t intende d t o impl ytha t release s o f significan t radionuclide s t o th e environmen t shoul d b e permitte d no r tha t i f .suc hreleas e occurs , promp t remediatio n shoul d no t b e initiated . W e sugges t tha t the Agenc yspecif yi n the fina l rul e tha t the exceedanc e o f a n R Q doe s no t necessaril ymea n tha t a hazar d exists . Response : EPAagree s tha t the releas e o f a radionuclid e doe s no t necessaril yimpl y tha t a hazar d exists . Thi s positio n wa s note d i n the preambl e t o th e propose d rul e whe n i t state d tha t a hazardou s substanc e releas e notificatio n i s merel y a trigge r fo r informing the governmen t o f a releas e s o tha t the appropriat e governmen t personne l ca n evaluat e th e nee d fo r remova l o r remedia l actio n an d undertak e an

ynecessaryactio n i n a timel yfashion . Governmen t personne l wil l evaluat e al l reporte d releases , bu t wil l no t necessaril yinitiat e a remova l o r remedia l actio n i n respons e t o al l reporte d releases , becaus e the releas e o f a n R Q wil l no t necessaril ypos e a hazar d t o publi c healt ho r welfar e o r the environmen t i n al l circumstances . Governmen t personne l wil l asses s eac h reporte d releas e o n a case-by-cas e basi s t o determin e the appropriat e action . Thi s positio n als o i s restate d i n the preambl e t o the fina l rule .



# 1 1 fl P- 4P. 8

Commente r Number : Page : Commente r Name :

Issue : Comment : 1 3 4 Mar k J . Wetterhahn Conno r & Wetterhahn , P.C . CERCLAAuthorit y Respons e Number :

Th e requiremen t fo r dua l notificatio n i s als o contraryt o th e provision s o f th e Federa l Radiologica l Emergenc yRespons e Pla n (FRERP ) (4 9 Federa l Registe r 3589 6 (Septembe r 12 , 1984) ) fo r license d nuclea r powe r station s whic h identifie s the NR C a s th e Cognizan t Federa l Agenc yresponsibl e fo r notificatio n o f th e Federa l Emergenc yManagemen t Agenc yand othe r federa l agencies . Response : [Se e "CERCL

AAuthorit y- Respons e 5 " and "Duplicativ e Reportin g - Respons e 11" ]

P- 5P. 9

Commente r Number : 1 6 Respons e Number : 5 Page : 1 Commente r Name : D.W . Edward s Directo r o f IndustryAffair s Yanke e Atomi c Electri c Compan y Issue : CERCLAAuthorit y Comment : W e agre e wit hEPAtha t th e unit s o f measuremen t use d t o determin e th e reportabilit ythreshol d fo r release s o f radionuclide s shoul d b e change d t o bette r reflec t th e potentia l threa t t o th e publi c an d the environmen t froman y suc hreleases . However , w e d o no t agre e tha t th e additiona l reportin g requirement s tha t wil l apparentl yb e impose d o n NRC-license d powe r plant s b y thi s propose d rul e ar e necessary . Response : Th e statutorylanguag e o f CERCLA(sectio n 103(a) ) require s tha t a facility' s owne r o r operato r immediatel yrepor t t o th e Nationa l Respons e Cente r release s fromth e facilit ytha t equa l o r excee d a n RQ . Th e statut e provide s n o exception s fo r situation s i n whic hothe r governmen t agencie s als o mus t b e informe d o f release s pursuan t t o th e directive s o f othe r statute s o r regulations . Notificatio n requirement s unde r CERCLA , however , ar e no t intende d t o superced e o r supplan t notificatio n t o Stat e an d loca l authoritie s i n the even t o f a release . CERCLAimpose s upo n th e facilit yowne r o r operato r the responsibilit yt o directl ynotif ythe Nationa l Respons e Cente r and impose s upo n th e Nationa l Respons e Cente r th e responsibilit yt o conve ythi s notificatio n t o othe r appropriat e governmen t agencies . Indirec t reportin g b ythe facilit yowne r o r operato r throughanothe r governmen t agenc yt o the Nationa l Respons e Cente r doe s no t satisf ythe statutoryrequirement . Becaus e o f thi s statutory requirement , EP

Adoe s no t hav e the flexibilit yt o preven t duplicativ e reporting . Whil e EPAunderstand s tha t some additiona l burde n woul d b e impose d upo n facilit yowner s and operator s wh o woul d nee d t o fil e report s wit hmor e tha n on e governmen t agency , on e purpos e o f alertin g the Nationa l Respons e Cente r i s t o ensur e a coordinate d federal , state , an d loca l respons e t o the release . Additionally , a s note d i n the Economi c Impac t Analysi s accompanyin g thi s rule , EP

Aexpect s tha t onl y5 9 additiona l episodi c releas e notification s wil l resul t annuall yfromthe R Q adjustments . Unde r the federally-permitte d releas e provision s o f sectio n 101(10)(K) , licensee s o f nuclea r powe r plant s woul d b e exclude d fromCERCLAreleas e reportin g requirement s excep t i n the cas e o f release s tha t excee d Nuclea r RegulatoryCommissio n permitte d limit s b y a t leas t a n RQ . Thus , th e incidenc e o f duplicativ e reporting du e t o thi s rul e i s relativel ysmall .

P- 6P.1 0

Commente r Number : 2 4 (CARC ) Respons e Number : 6 Page : 2- 5 Commente r Name : Duan e A . Sile r Patton , Bogg s and Blo w Issue : CERCLAAuthorit y Comment : Radionuclide s ar e uniqu e among CERCLAhazardou s substance s i n tha t they emi t energ

ythrougha proces s o f decay . I t i s therefor e importan t t o distinguis hbetwee n th e emissio n o f radiatio n fromthes e material s and the "release " o f th e material s themselves . Presumably , th e Agenc ydoe s no t intend t o characteriz e th e mer e emissio n o f radiatio n a s a releas e unde r sectio n 103 . Otherwise , ordinaryindustria l situation s involving containe d o r confine d accumulation s o f ra wmaterial s o r product s whic hhappe n t o contai n radionuclide s woul d b e considere d "releases. " Thi s woul d lea d t o absur d and , w e believe , unauthorize d results . Fo r example , ther e ar e manytype s o f ra wmaterial s whic hcontai n radionuclide s (terme d "naturall yoccurrin g radioactiv e material") . Thes e ma y include , among others , lignit e coal , phosphat e rock , othe r ores , and crud e petroleum . Suc hmaterial s ar e typicall ystore d i n tank s o r pile s a t mines , electri c generatin g plants , refineries , smelter s and simila r processin g facilitie s befor e theyar e use d a s rawmaterial s o r energysources . Similarly , man

yproduct s whic har e derive d fromthes e material s contai n radionuclides , e.g. . phosphat e fertilizers , metals , o r refine d petroleum . Thes e product s ar e typicall yaccumulate d i n container s o r pile s prio r t o o r during distribution . I f radioactivit ype r s e wer e considere d a "release, " the n countles s suc hfacilitie s woul d b e require d t o repor t a "release " every time a quantit yo f materia l wit ha n activit yleve l whic hexceed s th e R Q i s place d i n a pil e o r tank , notwithstandin g tha t the radionuclid e material s themselve s ar e no t released. 1 Indeed , an yfreigh t trai n haulin g larg e quantitie s o f suc hra wmaterial s o r product s would , unde r thi s interpretation , constitut e a facilit yfro mwhic hther e wa s a reportabl e release . Suc ha n interpretatio n woul d b e contraryt o the Act . Sectio n 101(22 ) define s releas e as :

An yspilling , leaking , pumping , pouring , emitting , emptying , discharging , injecting , escaping , leaching , dumping , o r disposin g int o the environmen t (including the abandonmen t o r dischargin g o f barrels , containers , and othe r close d receptacle s containin g an yhazardou s substanc e o r pollutan t o r contaminan t .. .

1 Presumably , unde r thi s approach , the petroleu mexclusio n i n sectio n 101(14 ) o f the Ac t woul d no t appl yt o store d crud e o r refine d petroleum , sinc e the reportabl e releas e woul d b e a releas e o f radiation , no t o f the petroleu m itself . P- 7P.1 1

Respons e Number : 6 (continued ) Sectio n 103(a ) require s reportin g o f "an yreleas e .. . o f a hazardou s substanc e .. . i n quantitie s equa l t o o r greate r than " the applicabl e RQ . Readin g thes e two section s together , i t i s clea r tha t a reportabl e releas e occur s onl ywhe n a hazardou s substanc e i s physicall yhandle d i n an yo f the way s liste d i n sectio n 101(22) . Th e hazardou s substanc e a t issu e her e i s radionuclide s - - no t th e radiatio n theyemit. 2 Thus , sectio n 103(a ) require s notificatio n whe n a reportabl e quantit yo f a radionuclid e materia l i s spilled , dumped , dispose d of , etc . I t doe s no t requir e th e reportin g o f th e emissio n o f a give n quantit yo f radioactiv e energ yi n th e absenc e o f a releas e o f th e radionuclid e sourc e itself .

Thi s raise s th e questio n o f whethe r the temporaryplacemen t o f raw material s o r product s containin g radionuclide s i n tank s o r pile s a t a manufacturin g facility , byitself , constitute s a "release. " Temporaril y holdin g material s o r product s i s no t spilling , leaking , dumping , o r disposin g themint o th e environmen t becaus e thi s i s a n intentiona l metho d o f managin g th e substance s and becaus e the substance s wil l b e used . Areleas e occur s onl y t o th e exten t tha t materia l froma tan k o r pil e migrate s int o th e ai r o r wate r o r otherwis e remain s i n th e surrounding environment . T o avoi d confusio n o n thi s score , EPAshoul d stat e i n th e fina l rulemakin g tha t temporaryaccumulatio n o f rawmaterials , intermediate s o r product s whic har e o r contai n radionuclide s i s no t a release . Onl yt o the exten t tha t suc hmaterial s migrat e fro ma pil e o r containe r and ar e therefor e no t retrieve d fo r use , ar e theyproperl ydeeme d "released. " Suc hrelease s woul d b e evaluate d unde r the applicabl e R Q t o determin e whethe r reportin g wa s required . Response : EPAagree s tha t the emissio n o f radiatio n fromradionuclides , apar t fro m an yreleas e o f th e radionuclide s themselves , doe s no t constitut e a releas e unde r CERCLA . Thi s interpretatio n ha s bee n state d i n the preambl e t o the fina l rule . However , the Agenc yconsider s an yactivit ytha t involve s the pouring , discharging , etc . o f a hazardou s substanc e int o an ycontainmen t structur e tha t i s no t completel yenclose d t o th e environmen t t o constitut e a release . Thus , becaus e th e stockpilin g o f radionuclide-containin g material s outsid e a buildin g involves , a t a minimum , the "pouring " o f a hazardou s substanc e int o a pil e expose d t o the air , thi s woul d constitut e a reportabl e releas e unde r sectio n 103 . Thi s same rul e applie s t o the placemen t o f materia l containin g radionuclide s i n tank s o r othe r containmen t structure s outsid e a building . I f

2 Significantly , unde r sectio n 11 2 o f the Clea n Ai r Act , EP Aregulate s emission s o f radionuclid e particulate s - - no t radiatio n therefrom . See , e.g . 4 0 CFR sectio n 61.12 2 (standar d fo r emission s o f polonium-21 0 fro melementa l phosphorou s plants) . P- 8P.1 2

Respons e Number : 6 (continued )
th e tank o r containmen t structur e i s no t totall yenclose d t o the environment , th e placemen t constitute s a reportabl e release . Furthermore , whethe r th e materia l stockpile d o r place d i n a tank o r othe r containmen t structur e i s intende d fo r us e i n a n industria l proces s i s irrelevan t t o whethe r tha t placemen t constitute s a reportabl e release . Unde r CERCLA , whethe r the hazardou s substance s ar e use d afte r a releas e i s no t relevan t fo r reportin g purposes , thoughi t migh t b e highl yrelevan t i n the evaluatio n o f whethe r a governmen t respons e wil l b e take n t o th e release . Th e purpos e o f the CERCLAreportin g requirement s unde r sectio n 10 3 i s t o infor m governmen t agencie s o f th e releas e s o tha t theyma yevaluat e whethe r a governmenta l respons e i s appropriat e and s o tha t theyca n asses s the respons e measure s take n b

yother s (5 0 FR 13459 , Apri l 4 , 1985) .



### P- 9P.13 _

Commente r Number : Page : Commente r Name : L 2 3- 4 Ro yW . Brown , Manage r RegulatoryComplianc e Mallinckrodt , Inc . Respons e Number :

Issue : Comment : CERCLAAuthorit y

I n summary , th e adjustmen t fromon e R Q i n pound s fo r al l radionuclides , t o specifi c curi e quantitie s fo r eac hnuclid e i s a majo r improvement . However , some o f th e ultr a conservativ e technique s employe d byEPAi n th e calculatio n o f thes e RQ s i s clearl yno t justified . Th e timetabl e o n th e comment s fo r thi s propose d rul e wa s suc htha t a thoroughrevie wo f the backgroun d informatio n wa s no t possible . W e woul d implor e EPAt o conside r additiona l comment s tha t mayb e submitte d afte r th e clos e o f the commen t period . Response : EPAbelieve s tha t the two month s provide d fo r th e publi c t o submi t thei r comment s no t onl yconform s t o lega l requirements , bu t als o wa s adequat e t o permi t a thoroughrevie wo f the propose d rul e an d it s background information . EP Anote s tha t n o othe r commenter s indicate d tha t theywer e hampere d i n thei r consideratio n o f th e rul e b ythe time allotte d fo r comments . However , wher e appropriate , EPAha s considere d i n thi s rulemakin g thos e comment s receive d afte r the officia l en d o f the commen t period . Furthermore , EP

Adoe s no t believ e tha t i t employe d "ultr a conservative " technique s i n the calculatio n o f the RQs . O n the contrary , EP Abelieve s tha t it s technique s wer e reasonabl e an d resulte d i n fina l RQ adjustment s tha t ar e protectiv e o f publi c healt han d welfar e an

d the environment , bu t whic har e no t overl yburdensome . Th e RegulatoryImpac t Analysi s supporting thi s rul e project s tha t onl y5 9 additiona l episodi c radionuclid e release s wil l b e reporte d annuall yt o the Nationa l Respons e Cente r a s a resul t o f thi s rule .

P-1 0P.1 4

Commente r Number : 5 Respons e Number : 1 Page : 1- 2 Commente r Name : Denni s B . Naf f Radiatio n Safet yOffice r Mobi l Minin g and Mineral s Compan y Issue : Exemptions/Exclusions : NARM s Comment : Mobi l Minin g an

d Mineral s Company , a Divisio n o f Mobi l Diversifie d Business , own s and operate s thre e phosphat e roc k mine s i n centra l Florid a and fertilize r productio n facilitie s i n Pasadena , Texa s and DePue , Illinois . Th e phosphat e roc k mine d i n Florid a a s wel l a s the ammoniu mphosphat e fertilize r and by-produc t phosphogypsu mproduce d fromth e phosphat e roc k contai n ver y smal l level s o f uranium-23 8 and it s natura l decayproducts . Du e t o th e presenc e o f thes e naturall yoccurrin g radioactiv e materials , rado n i s emitte d fromth e phosphat e roc k and by-produc t phosphogypsum , and t o a lesse r extent , fromth e produc t fertilizer . Base d o n th e availabl e data , calculation s sho w tha t th e rado n emission s fromth e thre e phosphogypsu mstorag e area s i n Pasaden a and on e storag e pil e i n DePu e wil l al l excee d th e reportabl e quantit y fo r rado n and s o mus t b e reporte d dail ya s a release . Mobi l feel s tha t th e propose d rul e wa s no t intende d t o cove r thi s typ e o f continuou s release . Thes e phosphogypsu mpile s ar e constructe d bya dail y additio n o f ne wmaterial s a s par t o f th e productio n proces s and ar e al l locate d i n area s remove d fromth e genera l public . Base d o n th e inten t o f th e rule , Mobi l request s tha t a n exemptio n b e grante d fo r al l phosphat e roc k mine s and fertilize r facilities , includin g phosphogypsu

mstorag e areas . Thi s wil l eliminat e man yunnecessaryreport s t o th e Nationa l Respons e Center . I t wil l als o recogniz e tha t thes e continuou s release s "presen t littl e o r n o immediat e dange r t o th e publi c health. " Response : Pursuan t t o the comment s received , the Agenc ycomplete d a revie wo f availabl e informatio n o n rado n emission s fromphosphat e roc k mines , beneficiatio n plants , and dryin g and grinding facilities , a s wel l a s we t proces s phosphat e fertilize r plants , (including gypsu mpile s and phosphat e roc k calciner s a t thos e facilities) . EPAals o reviewe d availabl e dat a o n th e radionuclid e concentratio n o f certai n larg e volum e wast e stream s generate d a t thes e differen t type s o f facilities . Mos t o f wha t informatio n i s currentl yavailabl e o n radionuclid e emission s and concentration s i n waste s fromthes e source s i s found i n background document s supporting EPA 1 s determinatio n no t t o regulat e thes e emission s unde r th e existin g Nationa l Emissio n Standard s fo r Hazardou s Ai r Pollutant s (NESHAPs) . However , th e informatio n offere d t o suppor t a determinatio n no t t o regulat e unde r NESHAP s doe s no t necessaril ysuppor t a determinatio n no t t o requir e reportin g under . CERCLAsectio n 103 , sinc e th e tw o program s involv e ver ydifferen t considerations . Th e NESHAP s information , P-l lP.1 5

Respons e Number : 1 (continued ) whic hi s aime d towar d determining whethe r radionuclid e emission s warran t th e impositio n o f regulatorycontrols , doe s no t represen t a determinatio n tha t emission s fromthes e source s shoul d neve r b e reporte d t o an ygovernmen t agenc y fo r consideratio n o f whethe r a respons e actio n migh t b e taken . Thus , n o administrativ e exemption s hav e bee n authorize d fo r thes e particula r sources , althoughth e Agenc ywil l conside r i n th e futur e additiona l exemption s from CERCLAnotificatio n requirement s i f EP Ao r othe r governmen t agencie s provid e a basi s fo r finding tha t response s t o suc hrelease s woul d neve r b e warranted . Specificall ywit hrespec t t o phosphogypsu mpiles , EPA' s Offic e o f Radiatio n Program s i s stil l i n th e proces s o f evaluatin g thi s sourc e category fo r possibl e regulatio n unde r NESHAP s (e.g. , se e 4 9 FR 43914 , Octobe r 31 , 1984) . Base d o n dat a i n the NESHAP s background document s and othe r sources , i t appear s tha t phosphogypsu mma ycontai n elevate d level s o f certai n naturall y occurring radionuclide s (radiu mi n particular) . Also , al l o f the radionuclid e NESHAP s ar e bein g re-evaluate d a s a resul t o f a voluntar yremand . I n ligh t o f thes e observations , EP Adoe s no t believ e tha t a sufficien t justificatio n currentl yexist s t o exemp t administrativel yal l release s o f phosphogypsu mfrom th e CERCLAnotificatio n requirements . EP Aha s als o reache d th e same basi c conclusio n fo r phosphat e ore , phosphat e roc k tailing s and overburden , and othe r larg e volum e wast e stream s generate d a t phosphat e roc k processin g plants . T o th e exten t tha t accumulation s o f thes e material s d o resul t i n release s o f a t leas t a n R Q o f radionuclides , repeate d reportin g o f suc h release s mos t probabl yca n b e avoide d throughus e o f th e continuou s releas e provisio n i n CERCLAsectio n 103(f)(2) . Thi s provisio n provide s fo r reduce d reporting o f release s tha t ar e "continuous " and "stabl e i n quantit yand rate. " EP Aha s publishe d a Notic e o f Propose d Rulemakin g (5 3 FR 12868 , Apri l 19 , 1988 ) detailing th e reduce d reporting requirement s fo r continuou s releases . Continuou s accumulation s o f material s tha t resul t i n release s o f a n R Q o r mor e o f radionuclide s outsid e a facilit yma yb e abl e t o us e thi s reduce d reportin g requirement . Furthermore , the Agenc ywishe s t o clarif ytha t i f phosphogypsu m pile s and othe r source s o f airborn e emission s fromphosphat e roc k mines / processin g plant s ar e eventuall yregulate d unde r NESHAPs , release s i n complianc e wit hth e NESHAP s woul d b e considere d federall ypermitte d unde r CERCL Asectio n 101(10(H) . Therefore , suc hrelease s woul d no t b e subjec t t o CERCLA' s reportin g requirements .

P-1 2Commente r Number : 7 Respons e Number : 2

Page : 3- 8 'Commente r Name : R.L . Arscott , Directo r Health , Environmen t and Los s Protectio n Chevro n Corporatio n Issue : Exemptions/Exclusions : NAR M Comment : Chevron' s thir d concer n wit hthe establishmen t o f activity-base d reportabl e quantitie s o f radionuclide s i s the potentia l fo r unnecessar yan d distractin g reporting . Thi s coul d aris e fro mth e tendenc yo f certai n extractive , manufacturing , an d minin g operation s t o releas e larg e volume s o f materia l containin g lowlevel s o f naturall yoccurrin g radioactiv e material s t o th e environment , particularl yRado n 222 . Chevro n i s als o concerne d abou t overloadin g the reporting systemwhe n larg e quantitie s o f lowspecifi c activit yradionuclide s ar e release d during th e combustio n o f fossi l fuels . W e sugges t tha t yo u strongl yconside r the consequence s o f overloadin g the reportin g systema s show n highl yprobabl e i n th e example s tha t follow . Response : [Se e "Exemptions/Exclusion s - Respons e 1 " and "Exemptions/Exclusion s - Respons e 6 , wit hth e following additiona l text ] I n respons e t o thi s an d othe r simila r comments , EP Aconducte d a revie w o f availabl e informatio n o n the hazard s associate d wit hrelease s o f rado n an d othe r naturall yoccurring radionuclide s fro ma variet yo f industria l sources . Specifi c source s examine d include d phosphat e roc k mines , beneficiatio n plants , and dryin g and grinding facilities ; we t proces s phosphat e fertilize r plants ; coa l an d coa l as hpile s a t coal-fire d boile r stations ; operation s t o produc e crud e oil , natura l gas , an d geotherma l energy ; an d meta l an

d nonmeta l extractio n industrie s (including lead , copper , zinc , an d aluminu

m extraction/processin g facilities) . Th e purpos e o f thi s revie wwa s t o determin e whethe r a sufficien t technica l basi s exist s t o administrativel y exemp t radionuclid e release s fro mthes e source s fro mCERCLA' s notificatio n requirements . Mos t o f the informatio n currentl yavailabl e o n radiologica l hazard s associate d wit heac hsourc e examine d i s foun d i n background document s supportin g EPA' s determinatio n no t t o regulat e thes e source s unde r th e existin g Nationa l Emissio n Standard s fo r Hazardou s Ai r Pollutant s (NESHAPs) . EPAha s decide d tha t the NESHAP s informatio n doe s no t suppor t a n administrativ e exemptio n fro mCERCLA' s notificatio n requirement s fo r tw o mai n reasons . First , al l o f the existing radionuclid e NESHAP s ar e bein g re evaluate d a s a resul t o f a voluntaryremand . EP Abelieves , therefore , tha t i t woul d b e prematur e t o bas e a n administrativ e exemptio n o n the NESHAP s background informatio n befor e al l relate d issue s hav e bee n resolve d fully . Second , EP

Abelieve s tha t a determinatio n no t t o regulat e unde r NESHAP s doe s no t necessaril ysuppor t a determinatio n no t t o requir e reporting unde r CERCLA sectio n 103 , becaus e the tw o program s involve verydifferen t considerations .

P-1 3 

# I

IP.1 7

Respons e Number : 2 (continued )

Th e NESHAP s information , whic hi s aime d towar d determinin g whethe r radionuclid e emission s fromthe abov e source s warran t the impositio n o f regulatorycontrols , doe s no t represen t a determinatio n tha t emission s from thes e source s shoul d neve r b e reporte d t o an ygovernmen t agenc yfo r consideratio n o f whethe r a respons e actio n migh t b e taken . Additiona l backgroun d informatio n wa s available , however , t o suppor t furthe r evaluatio n o f th e radiologica l hazard s associate d wit hon e o f th e sourc e categorie s note d abov e - - coa l and coa l as hpile s a t coal-fire d boile r sites . Thi s additiona l backgroun d informatio n wa s derive d fromtwo primar y sources : (1 ) background informatio n develope d i n suppor t o f a forthcomin g EPA rulemakin g o n NARM wastes ; and (2 ) informatio n submitte d b ycommenter s o n th e radionuclid e R Q adjustmen t NPRM . Th e informatio n submitte d b ycommenter s concernin g the radiologica l hazard s o f coa l and coa l as hwa s muc hmor e extensiv e and mor e detaile d tha n simila r informatio n submitte d fo r othe r potentia l releas e sources . Usin g thi s additiona l background information , EPA' s Offic e o f Radiatio n Program s (ORP ) conducte d a separat e analysi s o f th e radiologica l hazard s associate d wit hcoa l and coa l as ha t utilit yand industria l boilers . OR P use d reasonabl yconservativ e model s t o estimat e th e radiatio n dose s and resultin g healt hrisk s t o nearb yresident s and t o workers . I n particula r fo r nearb y residents , OR P estimate d dose s and risk s vi a th e following potentia l exposur e pathways : (1 ) direc t radiation ; (2 ) variou s pathway s o f exposur e t o particulate s release d t o th e air , including inhalation , immersio n i n a n airborn e plume , direc t radiatio n fromparticulate s deposite d o n the ground , and ingestio n o f crop s contaminate d b yairborn e deposition ; (3 ) inhalatio n o f radon ; (4 ) ingestio n o f contaminate d ground water , a s wel l a s ingestio n o f crop s and livestoc k assume d t o b e contaminate d bythe ground water ; an d (5 ) ingestio n o f contaminate d surfac e water , a s wel l a s ingestio n o f crop s and livestoc k assume d t o b e contaminate d b ythe surfac e water . Th e critica l exposur e pathway(i.e. , the on e yieldin g the highes t dos e an d ris k estimates ) wa s found t o b e the inhalatio n o f radon , wit hthe lifetime ris k o f fata l cance r cause d b

ythi s exposur e estimate d t o b e roughl y2 x IO" 5

. Fo r workers , EP

Aestimate d radiatio n dose s an d resulting healt hrisk s vi a four potentia l exposur e pathways : (1 ) direc t radiatio n whe n standin g nex t t o (i.e. , 1 0 meter s from ) a coa l o r as hpile ; (2 ) direc t radiatio n whe n standin g o n a coa l o r as hpile ; (3 ) variou s pathway s o f exposur e t o airborn e particulates , including inhalation , immersio n i n an airborn e plume , an d direc t radiatio n fro

mparticulate s deposite d o n th e ground ; an d (4 ) inhalatio n o f radon . Th e critica l exposur e pathwayfo r worker s wa s foun d t o b e direc t radiation , especiall ywhe n standing o n a coa l o r coa l as hpile . Th e maximu m lifetime ris k o f fata l cance r cause d b ydirec t radiatio n wa s estimate d t o b e roughl y1 x 10" A ; the lifetime cance r risk s t o worker s du e t o exposure s vi a the othe r pathway s wer e estimate d t o b e 5 x IO" 6 o r less . Se e EPA' s fina l

P-1 4P.1 8

Respons e Number : 2 (continued ) report 3 documentin g thi s analysi s fo r mor e detail s o n th e analysis , methods , and results . Give n thes e results , and recognizin g th e reasonabl yconservativ e natur e o f th e model s use d t o deriv e th e results , EP Aha s decide d t o administrativel y exemp t from

CERCLAnotificatio n requirement s th e dumping o f coa l and coa l ash , and radionuclid e release s t o al l medi a fromcoa l and coa l as hpiles , a t utilit yand industria l facilitie s wit hcoal-fire d boilers . Accordin g t o th e analysi s complete d byORP , th e estimate d healt hrisk s pose d byth e radiatio n release s fromcoa l and coa l as hpile s ar e withi n the rang e generall y acceptabl e unde r th e Superfund program . Th e estimate d healt hris k pose d t o nearb yresident s and t o worker s ar e al l withi n th e genera l rang e o f 10" * t o IO" 7 individua l lifetim e exces s cance r risk . I n addition , th e Agenc ybelieve s tha t th e submissio n o f individua l report s fromeac hindustria l and utilit yfacilit ywit hcoa l and coa l as hpile s ma yno t b e consisten t wit hth e purpose s o f th e sectio n 10 3 reportin g requirement . I n th e cas e o f radiatio n release s fromcoa l and coa l as hpiles , th e amoun t and rat e o f radiatio n release d i s extremel ysimila r acros s al l industria l and utilit yfacilitie s wit hcoal-fire d boilers . Fo r example , al l coa l and coa l as hpile s wil l contai n th e same radionuclide s i n roughl yth e same lo wconcentrations . Th e radiatio n emitte d fromthes e piles , therefore , wil l alway s b e emitte d continuousl ya t lo wlevel s sprea d ove r larg e area s - - i t neve r wil l b e emitte d a t a hig hrat e o r i n a n unusuall ylarg e amoun t a s the resul t o f a sudden , episodi c release . EP Ai s alread yawar e o f th e amoun t and concentratio n o f thes e radiatio n releases . Becaus e o f thes e two factors , submissio n o f individua l notification s o f thes e release s i s no t necessar yfo r th e governmen t t o asses s whethe r a respons e actio n i s neede d unde r CERCLA . Perhap s mor e importantly , however , a respons e actio n (i.e. , remova l o r remedia l action ) unde r CERCLAdoe s no t appea r t o b e the mos t appropriat e federa l regulatoryresopns e t o radiatio n release s tha t ar e (1 ) simila r i n amoun t and concentratio n acros s a n entir e secto r o f industry ; (2 ) pos e acceptabl e exposur e risks ; and (3 ) dispers e quickl yi n th e environmen t suc h tha t a respons e i s no t necessaryt o cleanu p the accumulatio n o f wha t ha s alread ybee n released . Wherea s CERCLAi s designe d t o enabl e th e governmen t t o respond o n a case-by-cas e basi s wher e eac hsit e o r releas e pose s differen t hazard s and require s a differen t typ e o f response , othe r federa l regulatory program s and mechanism s ar e mor e appropriatel ydesigne d t o addres s th e hazard s o f release s tha t uniforml yoccu r acros s a n entir e industry . Amor e appropriat e respons e t o th e radiatio n release s fromcoa l and coa l as hpile s ma yb e th e impositio n o f radiatio n emissio n limitation s applicabl e t o al l industria l and utilit yfacilitie s housin g coa l and coa l as hpiles .

3 U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , "Technica l Background Supplemen t i n Suppor t o f Rulemakin g Adjustmen t Activitie s fo r Reportabl e Quantitie s o f Radionuclides, " Offic e o f Radiatio n Programs , 1989 . P-1 5P.1 9



# I I Commente r Number : 8 Respons e Number : 3

Page : 2, 3 Commente r Name : Mar k Doruf f Radiatio n Safet yOffice r AmershamCorporatio n Issue : Exemption/Exclusions : Typ e B Containmen t Comment : Sinc e th e majo r purpos e o f th e propose d rul e i s t o provid e guideline s fo r notificatio n whe n materia l i s release d t o the environment , ther e mus t b e exemption s note d whe n materia l i s no t considere d a potentia l hazard . Simila r t o specia l for mmaterial s describe d above , radioactiv e material s package d i n Typ e B shippin g container s ar e als o designe d t o preven t los s o r dispersa l o f thei r contents . Container s mus t pas s th e test s specifie d throughou t 1 0 CF R Par t 71 , and mus t b e approve d an d registere d b

yth e Nuclea r Regulator yCommissio n - - Transportatio n Branch . Material s i n thes e container s ca n b e eithe r specia l o r norma l form , and wil l no t b e release d fromthei r container s unde r acciden t conditions . Fo r thes e reasons , material s store d o r transporte d i n approve d Typ e B shipping container s shoul d b e exemp t fromth e propose d RQs . Response : RQs , and the reportin g requirement s tha t theytrigger , ar e relevan t onl y i f hazardou s substance s ar e release d int o the environment . I f onl yth e containe r carryin g a hazardou s substanc e i s expose d t o the environment , bu t no t it s contents , n o repor t unde r CERCLAi s necessaryunles s the containe r i s lost , disposed , o r abandoned . Thus , i f durin g a transportatio n accident , a containe r wit hradionuclide s insid e fall s ou t o f it s transpor t vehicl e an d i s recovered , bu t doe s no t releas e a n R Q o r mor e o f radionuclides , n o repor t i s require d unde r CERCLA . Therefore , i f certai n container s neve r releas e thei r content s an

d the container s ar e no t los t o r abandoned , CERCLAreport s wil l neve r b e a n issue .

P-1 6P.2 0

Commente r Number : Page : Commente r Name :

Issue : Comment : Respons e Number :

Mar k Doruf f Radiatio n Safet yOffice r AmershamCorporatio n Exemptions/Exclusions : Specia l For m

Radioactiv e materia l i s commonl ydivide d int o two categorie s "norma l form " and "specia l form. " Whil e norma l for mmateria l i s easil ydispersed , specia l form , bydefinition , i s not . Materia l tha t i s classifie d a s specia l for mmus t pas s al l o f th e test s specifie d i n 4 9 CF R Par t 173.469 , an d i s usuall yregistere d wit ha Competen t Authority . Specia l for mmaterial s ar e easil yidentified , and alread ymee t th e inten t t o preven t los s o r dispersa l t o th e environment . A t the ver yleast , highe r RQ s shoul d b e establishe d fo r thes e materials , o r theyshoul d b e exempte d fromal l reporting . Response : Th e formfromwhic ha releas e o f a n R Q o r mor e o f a radionuclid e occur s i s irrelevan t fo r purpose s o f the CERCLAnotificatio n requirements . Th e radionuclid e RQ s ar e applicabl e t o al l chemica l and physica l form s i n whic h radionuclide s mayexis t and thu s th e same R Q fo r a give n radionuclid e wil l appl yregardles s o f whethe r th e radionuclid e exist s i n a specia l for mo r a norma l form . Th e objectiv e i n setting RQ s i s no t t o differentiat e betwee n the likelihoo d o r severit yo f release s occurrin g fromvaryin g form s o f containment , bu t rathe r t o trigge r report s t o th e governmen t o f actua l release s s o tha t the nee d fo r governmen t interventio n ca n b e assessed .

P-1 7P.2 1

Commente r Number : Page : Commente r Name :

Issue : Comment : 1 1 3 GaryD . Myers , Presiden t Th e Fertilize r Institut e Exemptions/Exclusions : NARM Respons e Number :

Severa l example s fromth e extraction , beneficiation , and processin g o f phosphat e roc k t o produc e phosphat e fertilizer s illustrat e the necessit yo f establishin g a concentratio n cut-of f t o eliminat e unnecessar yan d excessiv e reporting . Becaus e naturall yoccurrin g radionuclide s ar e found i n associatio n wit hphosphat e rock , the extraction , beneficiatio n and processin g o f phosphat e roc k inevitabl yinvolve s th e "release " o f radionuclides . Thes e release s includ e naturall yoccurring radionuclide s i n sand and claytailing s produce d durin g th e beneficiatio n o f phosphat e roc k and phosphogypsu mproduce d i n th e processin g o f phosphat e roc k t o produc e phosphat e fertilize r materials . I n thes e and othe r situation s involving the extraction , beneficiatio n and processin g o f phosphat e rock , the "releases " o f radionuclide s involv e material s whic har e quit e dilut e and presen t n o immediat e dange r t o publi c health . I n addition , thes e situation s hav e bee n studie d extensivel ybyEPA unde r RCRAand/o r othe r environmenta l statutes . Fo r example , phosphat e roc k beneficiatio n tailing s wer e studie d extensivel yb yEPApursuan t t o section s 8002(f ) and (p ) o f RCRA . Asimila r stud yo f phosphogypsu

mi s almos t complet e and ha s include d a censu s and inventoryo f al l o f th e operating and close d phosphogypsu

mhandlin g facilitie s i n the Unite d States. 1 Give n the dilut e natur e o f the material s involve d and the extensiv e knowledg e o f thei r locatio n an d circumstance s alread ypossesse d b

yEPA , routin e reportin g o f thes e material s woul d no t serv e the "majo r purpose " o f the CERCLAreporting requirements , i.e. . "t o aler t the appropriat e governmen t official s t o release s o f hazardou s substance s tha t mayrequir e a federa l respons e ..." . 5 2 Federa l Registe r 8172 . Thus , routin e reporting o f thes e situation s woul d constitut e the "unnecessaryan d excessiv e reporting " whic h bot hthe statut e an d previou s EP

ACERCL Areportin g regulation s hav e sough t t o avoid . Response : [Se e "Exemptions/Exclusion s - Respons e 1" , wit hthe following additiona l text ] Additionally , EP

Abelieve s tha t the adoptio n o f a concentratio n cutof f throughthi s rulemakin g woul d b e inappropriat e a t thi s time . Currently , ther e i s n o on e correc t cutof f leve l tha t woul d establis hwha t radionuclid e concentratio n i s belo wregulatoryconcer n (i.e. , a leve l belo wwhic hther e

1 A s a resul t o f the complete d studie s of , inte r alia , phosphat e beneficiatio n tailings , EP Aha s determine d tha t regulatio n o f thes e tailing s a s a hazardou s wast e i s unnecessary . 5 1 Federa l Registe r 3623 3 (Octobe r 9 , 1986) . P-1 8P.2 2

Respons e Number : 5 (continued )
woul d b e n o benefi t i n requirin g report s o f release s o f radioactiv e material s i n suc hlo wconcentrations) . Fo r example , th e Departmen t o f Transportatio n (DOT ) cutof f suggeste d fo r discussio n purpose s i n th e propose d rul e wa s selecte d no t necessaril yo n th e basi s o f risk , bu t rathe r o n wha t leve l woul d avoi d regulatio n o f natura l object s fo r whic hthe applicatio n o f transportatio n regulation s governin g radioactiv e material s wa s no t intended . Additionally , th e Nuclea r Regulator yCommissio n ha s establishe d releas e limit s tha t coul d b e interprete d a s denotin g wha t i s belo wregulatoryconcern , and thes e limit s ar e eve n lowe r tha n th e DO T cutoff . Althoug hth e Agenc yrealize s tha t ther e i s some concentratio n o f radionuclide s belo wwhic hth e hazard s ar e s o lo wtha t a governmen t respons e i s unnecessary, , determinatio n o f tha t precis e leve l i s a comple x task . EPAdoe s no t hav e a sufficien t basi s a t thi s time fo r determinin g the appropriat e concentratio n cutof f leve l and , furthermore , doe s no t believ e tha t a n R Q adjustmen t regulatio n i s a n appropriat e foru mi n whic ht o mak e suc ha determination . Th e Agenc ybelieve s tha t a rulemakin g designe d t o limi t publi c healt hrisk s cause d byradiatio n exposure , rathe r tha n a rul e tha t simpl y establishe s releas e reportin g requirements , i s a mor e appropriat e forum . Th e Agenc yi s currentl ydevelopin g tw o rule s relate d t o d e minimis/exemption/belo w regulatoryconcer n level s and residua l radioactivit ycriteri a tha t ma yhav e a bearin g o n thi s issue . Furthermore , the Nuclea r RegulatoryCommissio n i s considerin g a generi c rulemakin g fo r designatin g a radioactiv e wast e belo w regulatoryconcern . I f thes e rulemaking s provid e sufficien t informatio n i n the futur e t o enabl e th e Agenc yt o mak e a finding tha t a certai n radionuclid e concentratio n woul d pos e a hazar d onl yrarel yan d unde r circumstance s tha t woul d no t likel yresul t i n an yactio n bein g take n t o respond t o the hazard , the n th e Agenc ywil l conside r a concentratio n cutof f a t tha t time .

P-1 9

# I

Commente r Number : 1 7 Respons e Number : 6

Page : 2/ 3 Commente r Name : Walte r R . Quanstrom Genera l Manage r and Vic e Presiden t Amoc o Corporatio n Issue : Exemptions/Exclusions : NARM Comment : W e ar e concerne d that , eve n wit ha concentratio n cutoff , man yrelease s o f naturall yoccurrin g radioactiv e material s tha t pos e n o significan t ris k wil l b e reported . Suc hrelease s migh t occu r whe n natura l material s containin g smal l amount s o f naturall yoccurrin g radiatio n ar e move d o r disturbe d i n place , o r eve n fromstructure s constructe d fromsuc hmaterials . Mos t often , th e typ e and amount s o f radiatio n presen t ar e unknown an d man yne wmeasuremen t technique s woul d hav e t o b e employe d befor e i t wa s known whethe r o r no t a reportabl e releas e ha d occurred . Thi s naturall yoccurrin g radioactiv e materia l doe s no t pos e th e same typ e o f hazar d a s radioactiv e materia l tha t ha s bee n purposel yconcentrate d and processe d fo r some use . Therefore , w e believ e tha t a n exclusio n shoul d b e grante d fo r release s o f naturall y occurrin g radioactiv e materials . Th e us e o f a n exclusio n appear s t o b e consisten t wit hothe r provision s o f CERCLA , a s amende d byth e Superfund Amendment s and Reauthorizatio n Ac t (SARA ) o f 1986 . SAR Acontain s a n exclusio n fromremedia l o r remova l action s fo r a releas e o f " a naturall yoccurrin g substanc e i n it s unaltere d form , o r altere d solel ythroughnaturall yoccurrin g processe s o r phenomena , froma locatio n wher e i t i s naturall yfound " (sectio n 104(c)). . Th e situatio n i s somewha t differen t fo r releases , whic hwoul d no t necessaril yoccu r fromth e precis e locatio n wher e the materia l i s naturall y found . However , a n exclusio n fo r naturall yoccurrin g radioactiv e materia l release d i n th e vicinit yo f it s natura l occurrenc e woul d exclud e mos t non-threatenin g release s and woul d stil l allo wfo r reporting o f release s from transportatio n o f the materia l awayfro mit s location , wher e risk s migh t b e increased . W e believ e tha t the condition s unde r whic hrelease s o f naturall y occurrin g radioactiv e material s ar e release d nea r wher e theyar e foun d diffe r markedl yfro

mthos e assume d b

ythe Agenc yi n developin g the RQs . A re-evaluatio n o f radionuclid e releas e experienc e i s neede d an d shoul d lead t o the developmen t o f a mor e practica l reporting regimen . A s a n alternativ e t o a n exclusion , a separat e reporting clas s wit ha highe r R Q an

d concentratio n cutof f tha t woul d differentiat e thes e release s fromrelease s o f concentrate d radioactiv e material s coul d b e developed . Appendi x B no winclude s the individua l radionuclide s plu s a n RQ fo r th e clas s "Radionuclides. " Thi s tabl e coul d b e expande d t o includ e a secon d class , "Naturall yOccurrin g Radioactiv e Materials. " W e strongl yurg e the Agenc yt o re-evaluat e the nee d fo r regulatio n o f naturall yoccurring radioactiv e material s unde r situation s wher e the releas e o f thes e material s i s unlikel yt o pos e a threa t t o huma n healt ho r the environment .

P-2 0P.2 4

Respons e Number : 6 (continued ) Response : Th e Agenc yha s decide d t o exemp t fromCERCLAnotificatio n requirement s release s o f naturall yoccurrin g radionuclide s fromlarge , generall y undisturbe d land holdings , suc ha s gol f course s and parks , along wit hthos e activitie s tha t involv e th e disturbanc e (e.g. , tilling o r excavation ) o f lan d fo r purpose s othe r tha n mining , suc ha s farming o r buildin g construction . A s note d byth e commenter , i t i s possibl e tha t larg e undisturbe d land holdings , a s wel l a s th e disturbanc e o f larg e area s o f land , coul d caus e th e releas e o f a n R Q o r mor e o f some naturall yoccurring radionuclide s (rado n i n particular) , thoughth e concentratio n o f the release d radionuclide s woul d b e low . Th e Agenc yconclude d tha t release s fromsuc hlan d holding s an

d activitie s rarel y woul d pos e a hazar d t o publi c healt ho r welfar e o r th e environmen t becaus e release s woul d b e disperse d widel yi n the atmospher e a t level s no t muc h(i f a t all ) abov e natura l background . Furthermore , th e Agenc ydoe s no t believ e tha t an yactio n realisticall ycoul d b e take n t o respond t o suc hreleases . I n thi s sense , report s o f radionuclid e release s fromgenerall yundisturbe d land holding s an

d land disturbanc e activitie s coul d diver t Nationa l Respons e Cente r resource s unnecessarily , preventin g timel yresponse s t o thos e release s tha t trul ywarran t a response . I n addition , th e Agenc yha s decide d t o exemp t fromCERCLAnotificatio n requirement s th e dumping o f coa l and coa l ash , and radionuclid e release s t o al l medi a fromcoa l and coa l as hpiles , a t utilit yan d industria l facilitie s wit hcoal-fire d boilers . Se e "Exemptions/Exclusion s - Respons e 2 " fo r mor e detail .

P-2 1P.2 5

Commente r Number : Page : Commente r Name :

Issue : Comment : 2 0 1 Respons e Number :

Steve n M . Swanson , Directo r Healt han

d Environmenta l Affair s Departmen t America n Petroleu

mInstitut e Exemptions/Exclusions : NARM

AP I believe s EPAshoul d conside r excluding fromreporting o r a t a minimu mmodif yth e reportin g mechanis mfo r naturall yoccurring radioactiv e materials . Suc ha n exclusio n mayb e particularl yappropriat e fo r naturall y occurrin g materia l release d i n th e vicinit yo f it s natura l occurrence . Response : [Se e "Exemptions/Exclusion s - Respons e 6" ]

P-2 2P.2 6

Commente r Number : Page : Commente r Name :

Issue : Comment : 2 4 1- 2 Respons e Number :

Pau l J . Merger , Chie f Burea u o f Energyan d Radiatio n Ne wYor k Stat e Dept . o f Environmenta l Conservatio n Exemptions/Exclusions : NARM s

Th e releas e o f on e Curi e o f radium-22 6 i s give n th e same significanc e a s th e releas e o f 0. 1 C i o f radon-222 . Thi s doe s no t seemlogica l sinc e th e radiu mwil l produc e the equivalen t o f on e C i o f rado n ove r hundred s o f year s a s compare d t o rado n whic hwil l decaywithi n 3 8 day s t o les s tha n one-on e thousandt ho f it s origina l value . Also , the rado n i s a n iner t ga s and b y itsel f i s no t a long ter mproble m(les s tha n on e day ) i f discharge d t o wate r o r air . Radiu

mo n the othe r han d wil l deposi t ou t o f surfac e wate r and wil l settl e ou t o f ai r causing long ter mproblems . Th e lowvalu e fo r rado n ma yals o mea n tha t facilitie s migh t hav e t o b e surveye d fo r continuou s release s o f radon . Iro n or e tailing s and ven t shaft s o n mine s ar e example s o f item s tha t migh t b e covered . I t i s recommende d tha t al l naturall yoccurrin g radioactivit yRQ s b e re-evaluate d o n the basi s o f the abilit yt o produc e rado n gas . Als o i t i s recommende d tha t onl ythos e facilitie s whic hspecificall yhandl e o r stor e uranium , thorium , an d radiu mfo r some usefu l purpose , pas t o r present , b e included . Th e inten t shoul d b e t o eliminat e natura l radioactivit ya s a "facility " excep t wher e ma n ha s concentrate d uranium , thoriu mo r radiu

mi n sufficien t amount s an d i n a chemica l for mtha t represent s a hazard . Response : [Se e "Exemptions/Exclusion s - Response s 1 , 2 , an d 6 " an d "Specifi c RQ s Respons e 5" ]

P-2 3P.2 7

Commente r Number : Page : Commente r Name :

Issue : Comment : 2 5 2 Respons e Number :

Gret a J . Dicus , Directo r Divisio n o f Radiatio n Contro l an d Emergenc yManagemen t Arkansa s Departmen t o f Healt h Exemptions/Exclusions : Seale d Source s

W e fee l ver ystrongl ytha t th e issu e o f seale d source s shoul d b e clarified . Fromth e definitio n o f "release " (par t II.B. , pag e 8174) , i t woul d appea r tha t a los t sourc e woul d no t b e considere d a releas e - - ye t a 200-curi e Cobalt-6 0 sourc e ca n b e acutel ylif e threatening , whil e some o f the quantitie s liste d i n Appendi x B woul d no t b e acutel ylif e threatening . Ther e woul d seem t o b e inconsistenc ybetwee n part s o f th e propose d rul e agai n versu s actua l o r perceive d risk . Response : EPAwishe s t o clarif ytha t a los t seale d sourc e containin g radionuclide s i n a n amoun t equa l t o o r abov e a n R Q constitute s a releas e tha t mus t b e reporte d t o th e Nationa l Respons e Center . Th e reporting requirement s triggere d byth e releas e o f a n R Q ar e relevan t i f a hazardou s substanc e i s release d int o th e environment . Unde r th e CERCLAdefinition , radionuclide s ar e release d whe n theyar e expose d t o the environmen t o r whe n theyar e enclose d i n barrels , containers , o r othe r close d receptacle s tha t ar e discarded , lost , o r abandoned . Thus , i f onl ythe container s ar e expose d t o the environment , bu t no t th e radionuclide s tha t theycontain , n o repor t unde r CERCLAi s necessary , unles s thos e container s hav e bee n discarde d o r abandoned . I f release s d o no t occu r fromshipping container s o r othe r close d receptacles , an d thos e container s o r receptacle s hav e no t bee n discarde d o r abandoned , the n the sectio n 10 3 reportin g requirement s ar e inapplicable .

P-2 4P.2 8

Commente r Number : 3 Respons e Number : 1 Page : 3- 4 Commente r Name : D.L . Farra r Nuclea r Licensin g Directo r Commonwealt hEdiso n Issue : Federall yPermitte d Release s Comment : EPAha s determine d tha t release s i n complianc e wit hlicense s an d permit s issue d byAgreemen t State s ar e federall ypermitte d releases . Ediso n agree s wit hEPA' s conclusion , bu t no t wit hit s reasoning . EPAbelieve s tha t a n Agreemen t Stat e regulate s radiation-relate d activitie s b yvirtu e o f the NRC' s relinquishmen t o f authorit yt o the Agreemen t State . Thi s theorywoul d mak e a n Agreemen t Stat e a delege e o f the NRC's . Thi s i s incorrect . Agreemen t State s regulat e radiation-relate d activitie s b ythe exercis e o f thei r ow n polic e powers ; polic e power s whic har e allowe d t o come int o playonl yafte r the NRC , throughit s agreemen t wit ha n Agreemen t State , recede s fromit s plenary authorit yunde r the pre-emptio n provide d b ythe Atomi c EnergyAct . Thus , a n Agreemen t Stat e i s no t a delege e o f the NRC , but , instea d exercise s it s ow n independen t authority . However , becaus e a n Agreemen t Stat e ca n exercis e it s authorit yonl yb

yvirtu e o f a n Agreemen t whic hth e Atomi c EnergyAc t let s th e NR C ente r into , th e state' s exercis e o f authorit yca n b e considere d t o b e "pursuant " t o th e Atomi c EnergyAc t fo r th e purpose s o f CERCLA . EPAwoul d no t conside r release s t o b e "federall ypermitted " i f the release s come fromfacilitie s no t subjec t t o specifi c NR C licensing requirements . EPAdescribe s suc hfacilitie s a s "exempt " fromNR C regulation . Thi s i s incorrect . Thos e facilitie s hav e bee n grante d genera l license s b ythe NRC . The yar e no t exemp t fromNR C regulation . Accordingly , an yrelease s fro

m thes e facilitie s mus t b e federall ypermitte d and , thus , no t subjec t t o CERCLA' s reportin g requirements . Response : EPA' s us e o f the wor d "relinquished" , whe n referrin g t o ho wstate s may obtai n the authorit yt o regulat e radiation-relate d activitie s througha n agreemen t wit hthe Nuclea r RegulatoryCommission , doe s no t mea n t o impl ytha t an Agreemen t Stat e wa s therefor e a delege e o f the Nuclea r Regulatory Commission . EPAagree s tha t Agreemen t State s ar e exercisin g thei r polic e powe r afte r the Nuclea r RegulatoryCommissio n ha s recede d fromit s plenary authorit yunde r the pre-emptio n provide d b ythe Atomi c Energ yAc t (AEA) . Also , EPAwishe s t o clarif ytha t onl ycertai n radionuclid e release s from Agreemen t Stat e licensee s ar e considere d federall ypermitted . Specifically , an yreleas e o f source , byproduct , o r specia l nuclea r materia l i n complianc e wit hAgreemen t Stat e license s i s federall ypermitte d unde r sectio n 101(10)(K ) o f CERCLA . Release s o f naturall yoccurring an d accelerator-produce d radioactiv e materia l (NARM ) t o the ai r i n complianc e wit happlicabl e NESHAP s ar e considere d federall ypermitte d unde r sectio n 101(10)(H) . However , an y NAR M releas e fro

ma n Agreemen t Stat e license e t o a mediu mothe r tha n ai r i s P-2 5P.2 9

Respons e Number : 1 (continued )

no t federall ypermitte d unde r CERCLA . Althoug hAgreemen t State s mayregulat e thes e NARM releases , thei r authorit yt o regulat e NARM i s no t federall yderive d becaus e th e onl yauthorit ytha t ca n b e relinquishe d t o state s b ythe Nuclea r Regulator yCommissio n i s th e authorit yunde r the AE At o licens e source , byproduct , and specia l nuclea r material . Th e facilitie s tha t EPAreferre d t o a s bein g specificall yexempte d from Nuclea r Regulator yCommissio n licensing , permitting , and regulatory requirement s wer e facilitie s operate d unde r Nuclea r Regulator yCommissio n contracts ; transpor t carrier s o f source , byproduct , o r specia l nuclea r material ; thos e usin g "unimportan t quantities " o f sourc e material ; an d certai n productio n and utilizatio n facilitie s operate d byo r fo r the Departmen t o f Defens e and Departmen t o f Energ y(DOE) . Arevie wo f Nuclea r Regulatory Commissio n regulation s confirm s tha t thi s statemen t i s accurate . Ther e ar e othe r facilitie s tha t ar e grante d genera l license s b yth e Nuclea r Regulatory Commission , and thu s an yo f thei r release s tha t ar e i n complianc e wit hth e regulation s issue d b ythe Nuclea r RegulatoryCommissio n woul d no t b e reportabl e unde r CERCLA . However , th e facilitie s exempte d fromNuclea r Regulator yCommissio n regulation s ar e separat e fromfacilitie s grante d genera l licenses , and release s fromthe forme r tha t equa l o r excee d a n R Q woul d b e subjec t t o CERCLAreportin g requirements , wit hth e fewexception s note d below . T o th e exten t release s o f source , byproduct , and specia l nuclea r materia l ar e i n accordanc e wit hlicenses , permits , orders , o r regulation s issue d unde r th e AE Athroughprovision s no t administere d b ythe Nuclea r Regulator yCommissio n o r it s Agreemen t States , theyals o woul d b e considere d federall ypermitte d releases . Fo r example , DO E govern s it s radiatio n protectio n activitie s unde r the AE Ab ya serie s o f interna l orders . Whe n suc h order s ar e issue d unde r DOE' s AE Aauthorit yan d release s o f source , byproduct , o r specia l nuclea r materia l ar e i n complianc e wit hthe applicabl e order(s) , thes e release s ar e federall ypermitte d unde r sectio n 101(10)(K) . Th e Departmen t o f Defens e issue s regulation s unde r the AE Agoverning weapon s an d reactor s withi n it s jurisdictio n an d EP Aha s issue d regulation s unde r the AE A fo r certai n operation s involving radioactiv e materia l (e.g. , 4 0 CFR Part s 190 , 191 , an d 192) ; release s o f source , byproduct , o r specia l nuclea r materia l i n complianc e wit hthes e regulation s ar e als o federall ypermitte d unde r sectio n 101(10)(K) . An

yreleas e tha t i s an R Q o r mor e abov e an yo f thes e federall y permitte d levels , however , woul d b e subjec t t o the CERCL Anotificatio n requirements . Mor e detaile d discussio n o n thi s issu e i s presente d i n a NPRM o n Federall yPermitte d Release s (5 3 FR 27268 , Jul y19 , 1988) .

P-2 6P.3 0

Commente r Number : 4 Respons e Number : 2 Page : 1 Commente r Name : B.H . Webster , Manage r Radiologica l and Chemica l Suppor t Issue : Federall yPermitte d Release s Comment : I t i s ou r understandin g tha t commercia l nuclea r reactor s ar e exemp t from the reporting , requirement s becaus e theyar e "federall ypermitte d releases " covere d unde r plant-specifi c technica l specifications . Response : Release s froma commercia l nuclea r reacto r exceedin g th e Nuclea r RegulatoryCommission' s releas e limit s bya n R Q o r mor e mus t b e reporte d t o the Nationa l Respons e Cente r unde r CERCLA ; otherwise , release s fromthes e facilitie s d o no t nee d t o b e reported . Release s tha t excee d th e Commission' s limits , bu t tha t ar e les s tha n a n R Q abov e thos e limits , ar e no t federall y permitte d release s bu t d o no t nee d t o b e reporte d t o th e Nationa l Respons e Center . I n additio n t o thi s federall ypermitte d releas e exemption , release s o f nuclea r materia l froma nuclea r inciden t subjec t t o the requirement s (unde r sectio n 17 0 o f th e Atomi c EnergyAct ) o f th e Nuclea r RegulatoryCommissio n fo r financia l protectio n ar e exclude d fromth e CERCLAdefinitio n o f release s b y CERCLAsectio n 101(22)(C) . Sectio n ll(q ) o f the Atomi c Energ yAc t states : Th e ter m"nuclea r incident " mean s an yoccurrence , including a n extraordinarynuclea r occurrence , withi n the Unite d States , causing withi n o r outsid e the Unite d States , bodil yinjury , sickness , disease , o r death , o r los s o f o r damag e t o property , o r los s o f us e o f property , arising ou t o f o r resultin g fro mthe radioactive , toxic , explosive , o r othe r hazardou s propertie s o f source , specia l nuclear , o r byproduc t materia l ... . Therefore , EPAdoe s no t hav e the lega l authorit yt o requir e report s o f thes e particula r releases . Thus , release s fro mnuclea r incident s subjec t t o the Nuclea r RegulatoryCommission' s financia l protectio n requirement s unde r sectio n 17 0 o f the Atomi c Energ yAc t woul d no t hav e t o b e reporte d t o the Nationa l Respons e Center , regardles s o f the quantit yreleased .

P-2 7P.3 1

Commente r Number : 1 3 Respons e Number : 3 Page : 2- 3 Commente r Name : Mar k J . Wetterhahn Conne r & Wetterhahn , P.C . Issue : Federall yPermitte d Release s Comment : Th e rul e shoul d b e clarifie d t o not e th e existenc e o f particula r situation s whic har e no t covere d b yth e specifi c exclusion s fromthe definitio n o f releas e i n CERCLAand th e thre e type s o f statutoryexemption s fromth e notificatio n requirement s se t forth , supra . I t i s ou r positio n that , a s discusse d below , thes e exemption s cove r substantiall yal l possibl e reportin g situation s fo r operator s o f nuclea r powe r plants . Thi s shoul d b e explicitl yrecognize d i n the rule . Th e releas e o f effluent s fromnuclea r powe r plant s air e controlle d b

y comprehensiv e Technica l Specification s issue d b yth e NRC , i n conjunctio n wit h th e issuanc e o f a n operating license , which , i n tur n ar e develope d i n conformanc e with , inte r alia . 1 0 CF R Par t 20 , Standard s fo r Protectio n Agains t Radiation . Anyrelease s withi n Technica l Specificatio n limit s are , b y definition , federall ypermitte d and woul d fal l withi n th e statutoryexemptio n fromnotificatio n requirement s fo r release s o f hazardou s substances . Moreover , an

yreleas e i n exces s o f the permitte d value s shoul d b e recognize d a s a nuclea r inciden t raisin g th e potentia l fo r liabilit yunde r sectio n 17 0 o f the Atomi c EnergyAct . Suc ha releas e woul d thereb yfal l withi n specifi c exclusio n fromth e definitio n o f releas e i n CERCLAsectio n 101(22) . Suc hinterpretatio n woul d b e consisten t wit hthe generall y recognize d interpretatio n a s t o the scop e an d coverag e o f the NR C financia l protectio n requirement s unde r sectio n 17 0 o f the Atomi c Energ yAc t ("AEA"). * Response : [Se e "Federall yPermitte d Release s - Respons e 2" , wit hthe following additiona l text ] Also , EP

Awishe s t o clarif ytha t an yrelease s fro

ma nuclea r powe r plan t i n exces s o f permitte d level s doe s no t automaticall ymee t the definitio n o f a "nuclea r incident. " A s define d i n sectio n 11(q ) o f the Atomi c Energ yAct , a

Arguably , on e ca n hypothesiz e a releas e a t a nuclea r powe r plan t exceedin g technica l specificatio n limit s whic haffect s location s beyond the protecte d are a bu t no t offsit e areas . Theoretically , suc ha releas e migh t no t fal l withi n the coverag e o f sectio n 17 0 o f the AEA . Nevertheless , thi s situatio n i s improbabl e an d would , a s discusse d infra . b e reporte d t o the NR C Operation s Center .

P-2 8P.3 2

Respons e Number : 3 (continued )
nuclea r inciden t cause s "bodil yinjury , sickness , disease , o r death , o r los s o f o r damag e t o property , o r los s o f us e o f property. " Clearly , some release s abov e th e Nuclea r RegulatoryCommissio n limit s wil l caus e advers e effect s shor t o f thos e define d fo r a nuclea r incident . Accordingly , an yreleas e a t leas t a n R Q abov e permitte d level s bu t shor t o f a nuclea r inciden t wil l b e reportabl e unde r CERCLA .

P-2 9P.3 3

Commente r Number : 1 4 Respons e Number : 4 Page : 4/ 5 Commente r Name : John J . Kearney , Jr . Senio r Vic e Presiden t Ediso n Electri c Institut e Issue : Federall yPermitte d Releases/Continuou s Release s Comment : Finally , w e not e tha t th e propose d rule s ar e no t intende d t o defin e the natur e and scop e o f the CERCLAexemption s fo r federall ypermitte d release s and continuou s releases . Thes e issue s wil l b e resolve d i n futur e rulemakin g proceedings . Pending th e outcome o f thos e rulemakings , w e interpre t the federall ypermitte d releas e exemptio n a s applyin g t o th e releas e o f radionuclide s tha t ar e subjec t t o particulat e matte r regulatio n unde r the Clea n Ai r Act . Th e reportabl e quantit yregulation s fo r radionuclide s wil l no t typicall y b e applicabl e t o release s fromelectri c utilit ypowe r plants . Fo r example , fo r the reason s discusse d below , airborn e radionuclid e release s fromfossi l fue l combustio n source s tha t ar e subjec t t o particulat e matte r regulatio n unde r th e Clea n Ai r Ac t ar e "federall ypermitte d releases " an d ar e exemp t from th e CERCLAnotificatio n requirements . Moreover , wher e suc hrelease s ar e no t subjec t t o a Clea n Ai r Ac t contro l regulation , theywoul d b e governe d b yth e reduce d reportin g requirement s o f th e "continuou s release " provision s o f sectio n 103(f ) o f CERCLA . Response : Th e definitio n o f "federall ypermitte d releases " unde r CERCLAsectio n 101(10 ) i s addresse d i n a separat e Notic e o f Propose d Rulemakin g (5 3 F R 27268 , Jul y19 , 1988) . EP Aagree s tha t wher e suc hrelease s ar e no t subjec t t o a Clea n Ai r Ac t (CAA ) contro l regulation , o r excee d permitte d level s b ya n R Q o r more , the facilit yowne r o r operato r coul d see k t o compl ywit hthe reduce d reportin g requirement s o f the continuou s releas e provision s o f CERCLAsectio n 103(f)(2) . EPAha s publishe d a Notic e o f Propose d Rulemakin g (5 3 F R 12868 , Apri l 19 , 1988 ) detailing the reduce d reportin g requirement s fo r continuou s releases . CERCLAsectio n 101(10)(H ) define s federall ypermitte d release s t o includ e "an

yemissio n int o the ai r subjec t t o a permi t o r contro l regulatio n unde r .. . sectio n 11 2 .. . o f the Clea n Ai r Act. " Pursuan t t o sectio n 11 2 o f the CAA , EP

Aha s issue d fina l standard s fo r radionuclid e emission s t o the ai r a s par t o f the Nationa l Emissio n Standard s fo r Hazardou s Ai r Pollutant s (NESHAPs) . Thes e standard s currentl yappl yt o the following sourc e categories : (1 ) Departmen t o f Energ y(DOE ) facilities ; (2 ) Nuclea r Regulatory Commission-license d facilitie s an d non-DO E federa l facilitie s (including facilitie s license d b yAgreemen t States) ; (3 ) elementa l phosphoru s plants ; (4 ) underground uraniu

mmines ; an

d (5 ) license d uraniu mmil l tailings . An y releas e o f a radionuclid e t o th e ai r fro mthes e sources , i f the releas e i s i n complianc e wit hNESHAPs , i s "federall ypermitted " unde r sectio n 101(10)(H ) an d P-3 0P.3 4

• ^

Respons e Number : 4 (continued )
thu s exemp t fromCERCLAreporting . I t i s importan t t o clarif ytha t existin g NESHAP s appl yt o the emissio n o f onl ycertai n (no t all ) radionuclides . Specifically , the NESHAP s presentl yd o no t appl yt o emission s o f radon-220 , radon-222 , and th e respectiv e decayproduct s fromth e firs t two sourc e categorie s note d above ; and appl yt o onl yemission s o f polonium-21 0 from elementa l phosphoru s plants. 1 A n airborn e releas e o f radionuclide s no t covere d unde r NESHAP s i s no t considere d federall ypermitte d unde r sectio n 101(10)(H) . Furthermore , severa l sourc e categorie s presentl yar e exempte d fromregulatio n unde r NESHAP s (e.g. , lo wenergyaccelerator s no t operate d by DOE,

- coal-fire d boilers , an d minera l extractio n industries) . Radionuclid e emission s fromthes e facilitie s exempte d unde r NESHAP s als o ar e no t considere d federall ypermitte d unde r sectio n 101(10)(H) . Thi s issu e mayb e relevan t t o th e Agency' s NPRM o n federally-permitte d releases . Th e Agenc ycurrentl yi s revisin g the radionuclid e NESHAP s pursuan t t o a voluntar yremand . Unti l thes e ne wstandard s ar e finalized , the existin g radionuclid e NESHAP s a s describe d abov e shoul d b e use d i n determinin g whethe r airborn e emission s ar e federall ypermitte d unde r CERCLAsectio n 101(10)(H) .

1 Th e NESHAP s fo r underground uraniu mmine s an

d license d uraniu

mmil l tailing s do no t specif yemissio n limits , bu t rathe r establis hwor k practice s t o limi t the emissio n o f radon-22 2 fro mthos e type s o f facilities . P-3 1P.3 5

Commente r Number : 1 4 Respons e Number : 5 Page : 12/39-4 0 Commente r Name : Kearne ye t al . Ediso n Electri c Institut e Issue : Federall yPermitted/Continuou s Release s Comment : EP Ashoul d expressl yconfirmtha t uniformemission s o f rado n and othe r naturall yoccurrin g radionuclide s fromcoa l as hsite s and simila r large-acreag e facilitie s ar e exemp t fromCERCLAsectio n 10 3 reportin g unde r th e "continuous " releas e exemptio n o f CERCLAsectio n 103(f) . A s discusse d below , suc hrelease s ar e precisel yth e typ e o f releas e tha t th e continuou s releas e exemptio n i s intende d t o cover . CERCLAprovide s tha t continuou s release s "onl ynee d t o b e reporte d annuall yo r whe n ther e i s a statisticall ysignifican t increas e i n th e quantit y o f th e hazardou s substanc e released . Th e Agenc yha s decide d t o defe r rulemakin g o n th e continuou s releas e exemption . However , w e urg e EPA , whe n i t addresse s thi s matte r i n tha t rulemaking , t o recogniz e tha t radionuclid e emission s froma fossi l fue l fire d powe r plan t and froman yas hstorag e o r disposa l sit e ar e withi n th e scop e o f th e continuou s releas e provision s sinc e thos e emission s occu r o n a n uninterrupte d basi s and ar e "stabl e i n quantit y and rate. " Thus , eve n i f radionuclid e release s t o th e ambien t ai r from utilit ypowe r plant s wer e no t federall ypermitte d release s and therefor e exemp t fromCERCLA' s reportin g requirements , theywoul d b e subjec t onl yt o th e limite d reporting requirement s applicabl e t o "continuous " release s unde r sectio n 103(f ) o f CERCLA . Response : [Se e "Exemptions/Exclusion s - - Respons e 2 " and "Federall yPermitte d Release s - Respons e 4, " wit hth e following additiona l text ] I t i s importan t t o not e tha t th e provision s o f sectio n 103(f)(2 ) o f CERCLAd o no t exemp t releases , bu t d o provid e fo r reduce d reportin g o f hazardou s substanc e release s equa l t o o r exceedin g a n R Q tha t ar e "continuous " and "stabl e i n quantit yand rate. "

P-3 2P.3 6

Commente r Number : 1 4 Respons e Number : 6 Page : 16-1 7 Commente r Name : Kearne ye t al . Ediso n Electri c Institut e

. Issue : Federall yPermitte d Release s Comment : Nuclea r powe r plant s mayreleas e smal l quantitie s o f radionuclide s t o th e ambien t air . Thes e release s ar e compose d o f "source , byproduct , o r specia l nuclea r material " a s define d b ysectio n 1 1 o f th e Atomi c EnergyAct . A s the propose d rul e recognizes , release s o f thes e substance s tha t resul t from a nuclea r inciden t ar e specificall yexclude d fromCERCLA' s definitio n o f "release, " an

d therefor e ar e exemp t fromthe reporting requirements . Othe r release s o f thes e substance s ar e exemp t fromCERCLAreportin g requirement s a s "federall ypermitted " release s unde r CERCLAsectio n 101(10)(K) . A s i t di d i n the propose d rule , EPAshoul d confirmi n th e fina l rul e th e exemp t statu s o f thes e releases . A s EP Arecognizes , th e Nuclea r Regulatory Commissio n (NRC ) "control s th e handlin g o f source , byproduct , and specia l nuclea r material s througha n extensiv e licensing an d regulatoryprogram, " including "severa l differen t requirement s fo r responsibl e partie s t o repor t release s o f radionuclide s immediately. " Indeed , impositio n o f CERCLA reporting o n nuclea r plant s woul d b e inconsisten t wit hth e NRC/EP AMemorandu m o f Understandin g o n Regulatio n o f Radionuclid e Emissions , whic hplace s primar y responsibilit yfo r enforcing radionuclid e emissio n standard s fromnuclea r plant s wit hthe NRC . Furthermore , sinc e NR C regulation s requir e the reportin g o f radionuclid e release s base d o n off-sit e dos e effect s (measure d i n millirem) , applicatio n o f the propose d reportabl e quantitie s t o license d nuclea r powe r plant s coul d resul t i n impositio n o f two differen t reportin g requirements , usin g tw o differen t an

d potentiall yconflictin g quantit y criteria . Fo r the foregoing reasons , EP Ashoul d give ful l effec t t o the exemption s fo r radionuclid e release s fro mnuclea r powe r plant s se t fort hi n section s 101(22)(C ) an d 101(10)(K ) o f CERCLA . Response : EP Arestate s i n the fina l rul e the applicabilit yo f the reporting exemption s fo r the type s o f release s describe d i n CERCLAsection s 101(22)(C ) an d 101(10)(K) . However , release s fro mnuclea r powe r plant s no t covere d b y thes e exemption s o r exceeding a Nuclea r RegulatoryCommissio n licens e leve l b y a n R Q o r mor e (bu t shor t o f a "nuclea r incident" ) mus t b e reporte d immediatel y unde r CERCL

At o the Nationa l Respons e Center . Th e statutorylanguag e o f CERCL A(sectio n 103(a) ) require s tha t a facility' s owne r o r operato r immediatel yrepor t release s fro mthe facilit ytha t equa l o r excee d a n R Q t o the Nationa l Respons e Center . Th e statut e provide s n o exception s fo r situation s i n whic hothe r governmen t agencie s als o mus t b e informe d o f release s pursuan t t o othe r statutes ' o r regulations ' directives . Notificatio n requirement s unde r CERCLA , however , ar e no t intende d t o superced e o r supplan t notificatio n t o Stat e an d loca l authoritie s i n the even t o f a release . CERCLA impose s upo n the facilit yowne r o r operato r the responsibilit yt o notif y P-3 3P.3 7

Respons e Number : 6 (continued ) directl ythe Nationa l Respons e Cente r an d impose s upo n th e Nationa l Respons e Cente r the responsibilit yt o conve ythi s notificatio n t o othe r appropriat e governmen t agencies . Indirec t reporting b ythe facilit yowne r o r operato r throughanothe r governmen t agenc yt o the Nationa l Respons e Cente r doe s no t satisf ythe statutoryrequirement . Becaus e o f thi s statutoryrequirement , EP Adoe s no t hav e th e flexibilit y t o preven t duplicativ e reporting . Whil e EP Aunderstand s tha t some additiona l burde n woul d b e impose d upo n facilit yowner s an d operator s wh o woul d nee d t o fil e report s wit hmor e than on e governmen t agency , on e purpos e o f alertin g th e Nationa l Respons e Cente r i s t o ensur e a coordinate d federal , state , and loca l respons e t o the release . Additionally , a s note d i n the Economi c Impac t Analysi s accompanyin g thi s rule , EPAexpect s tha t onl y5 9 additiona l episodi c releas e notification s wil l resul t annuall yfro mthe R Q adjustments . Thus , th e incidenc e o f duplicativ e reportin g du e t o thi s rul e i s relativel ysmall . Additionally , the Memorandu mo f Understandin g (MOU ) t o whic hth e commente r refer s i s inapplicabl e t o regulatoryeffort s undertake n pursuan t t o CERCLA . Th e MO Uwa s develope d t o coordinat e EPAregulatio n o f airborn e radionuclid e emission s unde r the Clea n Ai r Ac t wit hNuclea r Regulatory Commissio n regulatio n o f it s nuclear-licensees . Nothin g i n the MO Upertain s t o coordinatin g EPAaction s unde r CERCLA , whic hha d no t eve n bee n enacte d a t the time o f th e MOU' s signing , wit hthe Nuclea r RegulatoryCommission' s efforts .

P-3 4P.3 8

Commente r Number : 1 4 Respons e Number : 7 Page : 30/3 9 Commen t Name : Kearne ye t al . Ediso n Electri c Institut e Issue : Federall yPermitte d Release s Comment : I n short , particulat e matte r emission s - - including emission s o f radionuclide s tha t occu r a s component s o f particulat e matte r - - fro mpowe r plant s are , a s EP

Aha s recognized , subjec t t o extensiv e regulatorycontrol s unde r the Clea n Ai r Act . I n it s radionuclid e proceedin g unde r sectio n 11 2 o f the Act , EPAha s recognize d tha t particulat e matte r emissio n contro l program s unde r section s 108-11 0 an d sectio n 11 1 o f th e Ac t resul t i n contro l o f trac e emission s tha t occu r a s particulat e matter . Th e CERCLAsectio n 101(10)(H ) exemptio n fo r emission s subjec t t o "contro l regulation " unde r the Clea n Ai r Ac t mus t b e rea d agains t thi s background . [Se e origina l commen t pp . 19-3 8 fo r supporting arguments. ] CERCLA' s languag e an d it s legislativ e histor ymak e clea r tha t atmospheri c emission s o f particulat e matte r fromburnin g fossi l fuel s a t stationarysources , including emission s o f radionuclid e particle s and particle s containin g othe r hazardou s substances , ar e exemp t fromCERCLA' s notificatio n requirement s wher e th e particulat e matte r emission s ar e subjec t t o Clea n Ai r Ac t contro l regulation . Publi c polic yconsideration s - - including th e absenc e o f an yfactua l basi s fo r applyin g CERCLAnotificatio n requirement s t o particulat e matte r constituent s - - suppor t the conclusio n tha t radionuclid e emission s fro mfossi l fue l combustio n ar e exemp t fromth e requirement s o f CERCLA . Response : Th e issu e o f whethe r airborn e radionuclid e release s fro mfossi l fue l combustio n source s tha t ar e subjec t t o particulat e matte r regulatio n unde r the Clea n Ai r Ac t ar e federall ypermitte d releases , an d thu s ar e exemp t fro mthe CERCL Areporting requirement s a s long a s the release s do no t excee d the permitte d leve l b

ya n R Q o r more , i s addresse d i n a Notic e o f Propose d Rulemakin g o n federall ypermitte d release s (5 3 F R 27268 , Jul y19 , 1988) .

P-3 5P.3 9

Commente r Number : Page : Commente r Name :

Issue : Comment : 1 5 1 D.R . Wind Senio r Environmenta l Enginee r Monsant o Corporatio n Federall yPermitte d Release s Respons e Number : 8

Sectio n II . Th e handlin g o f federall ypermitte d release s need s t o b e clarifie d i n thi s rulemaking . Adefinitio n o f wha t constitute s "continuou s an d gradual " i s needed . Response : Whil e the ter

m"gradual " appear s nowher e i n the rul e o r i n CERCLA concernin g continuou s releases , al l o f the relevan t languag e an d issue s regarding continuou s an d federall ypermitte d release s wil l b e deal t wit hi n futur e rulemaking s o n thes e subjects . EPAha s publishe d a Notic e o f Propose d Rulemakin g (5 3 FR 12868 , Apri l 19 , 1988 ) detailin g the reduce d reportin g requirement s fo r continuou s releases , an d ha s publishe d anothe r Notic e o f Propose d Rulemakin g (5 3 FR 27268 , Jul y19 , 1988 ) definin g federall ypermitte d releases .

P-3 6P.4 0

Commente r Number : Page : Commente r Name :

Issue : Comment : 1 6 1 D.W . Edward s Directo r o f IndustryAffair s Yanke e Atomi c Electri c Compan y Federall yPermitte d Release s Respons e Number :

Base d o n ou r evaluatio n o f th e federa l exemption s cite d i n the EPA notice , w e conclud e tha t licensee s o f nuclea r powe r plant s woul d b e exclude d fromthe propose d reportin g requirement s excep t i n the cas e o f release s tha t excee d existing , federall yimpose d limit s b yon e reportabl e quantity . Suc h reporting i s unnecessaril yduplicativ e t o existing dua l reporting requirements . Response : [Se e "CERCL

AAuthorit y Respons e 2" ] Respons e 5 " an d "Federall yPermitte d Release s

P-3 7P.4 1

Commente r Number : Page : Commente r Name :

Issue : Comment : 1 9 2 Respons e Number : 1 0

Joe l D . Patterson , Manage r Environmenta l Affair s Middl e Sout hUtilitie s System s Services , Inc . Federall yPermitte d Release s

Th e MS USystemrequest s a clarificatio n i n th e definitio n o f federall y permitte d releases . Wher e notificatio n requirement s currentl yexis t i n othe r regulation s governin g exceedance s o f allowabl e emissions , w e reques t tha t the definitio n stat e tha t thos e emission s ar e exempte d fromCERCLAnotificatio n requirements . Response : [Se e "CERCLAAuthorit y- Respons e 5" , wit hthe following additiona l text ] I n addition , th e definitio n o f "federall ypermitte d releases " unde r CERCLAsectio n 101(10 ) i s addresse d i n a recen t Notic e o f Propose d Rulemakin g (5 3 FR 27268 , Jul y19 , 1988) . Th e commente r i s encourage d t o us e tha t rulemakin g t o expres s it s preference s o n thi s subject .

P-3 8P.4 2

Commente r Number : 2 1 Respons e Number : 1 1 Page : 2/ 6 Commente r Name : J.F . McKenzie , Directo r Environmenta l Service s Departmen t Pacifi c Ga s an

d Electri c Compan

y Issue : Federall yPermitte d Release s Comment : PG& E als o wishe s t o emphasiz e it s suppor t fo r the EE I argumen t fo r the adoptio n o f clarifyin g languag e tha t radionuclid e release s fromfederall y permitte d nuclea r powe r plant s ar e exemp t fromthes e reportin g requirements . I n developin g definition s o f federall ypermitte d releases , continuou s releases , an

d statisticall ysignifican t increases , EPAshoul d ensur e tha t fossi l fuele d powerplant s - - operating i n ful l accordanc e wit hal l applicabl e Clea n Ai r Ac t Stat e Implementatio n Pla n provision s - - woul d b e exemp t from SAR Areportabl e quantit yreports , eve n i f the amoun t o f fue l use , o r the proportio n o f fuel s used , varied . PG& E operate s a numbe r o f powerplant s whic har e permitte d b ythe loca l ai r pollutio n contro l districts , i n ful l accor d wit hal l applicable , federall y approved , Clea n Ai r Ac t Stat e Implementatio n Pla n provisions , t o operat e o n eithe r natura l ga s o r lo wsulfu r fuel . Durin g 1970-1985 , fue l us e b ythes e plant s average d 76. 2 percen t natura l ga s an d 23. 8 percen t lowsulfu r fue l oil . Durin g the same period , the averag e annua l capacit yfacto r fo r al l o f thes e plant s wa s 44. 2 percent . However , during thi s period , the amoun t o f oi l fue l bein g utilize d b

yeac hplan t frequentl yvaried . Sinc e heav ymetal s ar e presen t i n fue l oil s bu t no t i n natura l gas , emissio n rate s wil l var ywit hthe amoun t o f suc hfuel s consumed . Suc hvariation s coul d easil yb e note d throughannua l report s o f tota l fue l consumption . Bu t ther e woul d b e n o rea l benefi t i n requirin g report s everytim

e enoughfue l oi l i s consume d t o caus e the emissio n o f a reportabl e quantity , i f the emission s ha d alway s bee n withi n permitte d levels . PG& E recognize s tha t EP Aha s state d tha t the definition s o f federall y permitte d releases , continuou s releases , an d statisticall ysignifican t variation s wil l b e the subjec t o f a futur e rulemaking . Thi s commen t i s merel y intende d t o brin g thi s concer n t o you r attention , an d t o expand upo n simila r comment s submitte d b yEEI , e t al. , o n behal f o f u s an d others . Mor e detaile d comment s wil l b e submitte d afte r specifi c definition s ar e proposed .

P-3 9P.4 3

Respons e Number : 1 1 (continued ) Response : EPAha s state d i n it s rule , and restate s here , tha t a releas e o f a quantit yo f radionuclide s tha t doe s no t excee d federall ypermitte d level s b y a n R Q o r mor e doe s no t hav e t o b e reporte d unde r CERCLA . Also , al l o f th e relevan t languag e and issue s regardin g continuou s an d federall ypermitte d release s wil l b e deal t wit hi n futur e rulemaking s o n thes e subjects . EPAha s publishe d a Notic e o f Propose d Rulemakin g (5 3 FR 12868 , Apri l 19 , 1988 ) detailin g th e reduce d reporting requirement s fo r continuou s release s and ha s publishe d anothe r Notic e o f Propose d Rulemakin g (5 3 FR 27268 , Jul y19 , 1988 ) definin g federall ypermitte d releases .

P-4 0P.4 4

Commente r Number : 2 2 Respons e Number : 1 2 Page : 2/ 3 Commente r Name : G.C . Sorenson , Manage r RegulatoryProgram s Washingto n Publi c Powe r Suppl ySystem Issue : Federall yPermitte d Release s Comment : Th e Suppl ySystembelieve s i t i s th e inten t o f Congres s i n sectio n 101(22 ) o f CERCLA , and th e inten t o f EP Ai n th e propose d rule , t o exclud e NRC-license d nuclea r powe r plant s suc ha s WNP- 2 fromth e reportin g requirement . NR C independentl yrequire s tha t release s fromthes e facilitie s b e immediatel yreporte d t o th e NR C and othe r offsit e authorities , and require s detaile d licensee , Stat e and loca l governmen t emergenc yrespons e plans. 1 However , th e languag e o f th e propose d rul e ma yno t achiev e thi s objective . Whil e WNP- 2 i s subjec t t o th e financia l protectio n requirement s o f sectio n 17 0 o f th e Atomi c EnergyAct , al l release s o f radionuclide s i n exces s o f th e R Q ma yno t b e froma "nuclea r incident " a s tha t termi s define d i n th e Act . Sectio n ll(q ) o f th e Atomi c EnergyAc t states :

Th e term"nuclea r incident " mean s an yoccurrence , including a n extraordinarynuclea r occurrence , withi n th e Unite d States , causin g withi n o r outsid e th e Unite d States , bodil yinjury , sickness , disease , o r death , o r los s o f o r damag e t o property , o r los s o f us e o f property , arising ou t o f o r resultin g fromth e radioactive , toxic , explosive , o r othe r hazardou s propertie s o f source , specia l nuclear , o r byproduc t materia l .. . No t al l abnorma l release s o f radionuclide s froma powe r plan t wil l caus e bodil yinjury , los s o f o r damag e t o property , o r los s o f us e o f property . A n off-norma l releas e froma powe r plan t fa r froma populate d area , o r on e i n whic hth e releas e i s carrie d byth e win d awayfromperson s o r property , ma y no t caus e injuryo r damag e and therefor e ma yno t constitut e a "nuclea r incident " a s tha t ter mi s defined . Readin g th e propose d regulatio n literally , a n NR C license e woul d b e require d t o repor t suc ha releas e t o th e Nationa l Respons e Cente r eve n thoughth e releas e woul d almos t certainl yb e reportabl e t o the NR C unde r th e condition s o f th e licens e and the requirement s o f 1 0 CF R 50.72 . O n th e othe r hand , a mor e seriou s releas e tha t woul d ris e t o th e leve l o f a "nuclea r incident " would , a s Congres s clearl yintended , b e exclude d from

1 See , fo r example , th e emergenc yreportin g requirement s o f 1 0 CF R sectio n 50.7 2 an d 1 0 CF R Par t 50 , Appendi x E , sectio n IV.D.3 . NR C regulation s als o requir e othe r periodi c non-emergenc yeffluent s reports . See , fo r example , 1 0 CF R sectio n 50.36 a and Par t 50 , Appendi x I , sectio n IV.A . Finally , a licensee' s technica l specification s (par t o f th e NR C license ) ma y requir e tha t offsit e radiatio n dose s fromnorma l plan t operatio n b e reporte d annually , i n orde r t o demonstrat e complianc e wit hbot hAppendi x I and 4 0 CF R Par t 190 . P-4 1P.4 5

Respons e Number : 1 2 (continued )
th e EP Areporting requirement . Give n th e allocatio n o f responsibilitie s fo r radiologica l healt hand safet yamong federa l agencies , w e d o no t believ e Congres s intende d t o requir e reporting t o EP Ao f lesse r release s (whil e excluding mor e significan t releases) . Therefore , EP Ashoul d redefin e th e scop e o f th e CERCLAexclusio n i n term s o f an yreleas e fromth e nuclea r powe r plan t subjec t t o NR C reporting requirements . I n summary , becaus e significan t release s fromnuclea r powe r plants , whethe r o r no t theyconstitut e "nuclea r incidents, " mus t b e reporte d t o th e NRC , w e believ e tha t EPAshoul d draf t it s fina l rul e implementin g thi s aspec t o f CERCLAt o expressl yexclud e fromth e reportin g requiremen t al l release s fromnuclea r powe r plant s license d byth e NR C unde r eithe r sectio n 10 3 o r sectio n 10 4 o f th e Atomi c Energ yAct . Response : [Se e "CERCL

AAuthorit y- Respons e 5" , wit hth e following additiona l text ] A s note d byth e commenter , unde r CERCLAsectio n 101(22)(C) , a releas e a s define d b

yCERCI Aexclude s release s o f source , byproduct , o r specia l nuclea r materia l froma nuclea r incident , i f th e release s ar e subjec t t o th e financia l protectio n requirement s o f sectio n 17 0 o f th e Atomi c EnergyAct . Therefore , EP Adoe s no t hav e th e lega l authorit yt o requir e report s o f thes e particula r releases . Thus , suc hrelease s woul d no t hav e t o b e reporte d t o th e Nationa l Respons e Center , regardles s o f the quantit yreleased . O n th e othe r hand , release s o f radionuclide s fro mnuclea r powe r plant s tha t d o no t constitut e nuclea r incident s woul d b e subjec t t o CERCLAnotificatio n requirements , i f th e releas e i s a n R Q o r mor e abov e federall ypermitte d levels . Becaus e th e magnitud e o f th e ris k fromsuc hrelease s i s no t known , EP Adoe s no t believ e tha t theyshoul d b e exempte d unde r a broa d exemptio n o f al l release s from nuclea r powe r plant s license d b yth e Nuclea r RegulatoryCommission .

P-4 2P.4 6

Commente r Number : Page : Commente r Name :

Issue : Comment : 2 3 3 Respons e Number : 1 3

C O . Wood

y Grou p Vic e Presiden t Nuclea r Energ

y Florid a Powe r and Ligh t Compan y Federall yPermitte d Release s

Du e t o th e dua l jurisdictio n o f EP Aand NR C ove r radioactiv e materials , a Memorandu

mo f Understandin g o n th e Regulatio n o f Radionuclid e Emission s wa s signe d b

yEPAan

d the NR C (4 5 Federa l Registe r 72980 , Novembe r 3 , 1980) . Thi s documen t state s tha t th e NR C ha s th e primar yresponsibilit yfo r enforcin g radionuclid e emissio n standard s a t nuclea r reactors . Requirin g nuclea r plan t releas e notification s coul d b e considere d t o b e contraryt o the inten t o f thi s agreement . I n conclusion , FP L believe s tha t EPAshoul d clarif yunde r the specifi c exclusion s o r statutoryexemption s tha t license d commercia l nuclea r reactor s ar e exemp t fromthe provision s o f Par t 30 2 notificatio n fo r radionuclides . Response : [Se e "CERCL

AAuthorit y- Respons e 5" , wit hthe following additiona l text ] Additionally , the Memorandu mo f Understandin g (MOU ) t o whic hthe commente r refer s i s inapplicabl e t o regulatoryeffort s undertake n pursuan t t o CERCLA . Th e MO Uwa s develope d t o coordinat e EPAregulatio n o f airborn e radionuclid e emission s unde r the Clea n Ai r Ac t wit hNuclea r Regulatory Commissio n regulatio n o f it s nuclea r licensees . Nothin g i n the MOUpertain s t o coordinatin g EPAaction s unde r CERCLA , whic hha d no t eve n bee n enacte d a t the time o f the MOU' s signing , wit hthe Nuclea r RegulatoryCommission' s efforts .

P-4 3P.4 7

Commente r Number : L 3 Respons e Number : 1 4 Page : 1 Commente r Name : Jame s E . Fairoben t Offic e o f Environmenta l Guidanc e an d Complianc e U.S . Departmen t o f Energy Issue : Federall yPermitte d Release s Comment : Th e Notic e o f Propose d Rulemakin g (NPRM ) include s a determinatio n tha t release s o f radioactivit yfro mDO E facilitie s i n complianc e wit hDO E Order s issue d unde r the authorit yo f the Atomi c Energ yAc t woul d b e considere d federall ypermitte d releases . Also , "an yradionuclid e releas e subjec t t o a specifi c emissio n limitatio n o r contro l regulatio n establishe d unde r sectio n 11 2 o f the Clea n Ai r Ac t [e.g. , 4 0 CF R 61 , Subpar t H ] woul d b e exemp t a s federall ypermitted , i f the releas e wer e [sic ] i n complianc e wit hth e applicabl e Clea n Ai r Ac t Limit. " Th e Offic e o f Environmenta l Guidanc e and Compliance , DOE , support s thes e determination s o f federall ypermitte d releases . DO E i s als o ver yintereste d i n "EP Aplan s t o clarif ythe provision s o f CERCLAsectio n 101(10 ) i n a futur e rulemaking " (pag e 8174 ) regardin g federall ypermitte d release s o f radioactiv e material , a s wel l a s "Agenc yplan s t o clarif ythe languag e an d the notificatio n requirement s fo r continuou s release s i n a futur e rulemaking " (pag e 8175) . Thes e importan t relate d rulemakin g activitie s shoul d b e considere d concurrentl ywit hth e NPRM o n reportabl e quantitie s (RQs ) fo r radionuclides . Clarificatio n i s als o neede d regardin g whethe r DO E facilitie s whic hhandl e source , byproduct , o r specia l nuclea r materia l ar e exemp t fro mthes e reporting requirements . Response : EPAacknowledge s the commenter' s suppor t fo r EPA' s determination s o f federall ypermitte d release s an d the commenter' s interes t i n futur e rulemaking s o n federall ypermitte d an d continuou s releases . However , EP A wishe s t o clarif ytha t release s o f naturall yoccurring an d accelerator

produce d radioactiv e materia l (NARM ) fro mDepartmen t o f Energ y(DOE ) facilitie s ar e no t considere d federall ypermitte d unde r CERCLAunles s the NAR M release s ar e t o the ai r an d i n complianc e wit hthe applicabl e Nationa l Emissio n Standard s fo r Hazardou s Ai r Pollutant s (NESHAPs) . Th e Atomi c Energ y Ac t give s DO E broa d authorit yt o contro l it s radiation-relate d activitie s an d t o protec t publi c healt han d safet yan

d the environment . Thi s authorit y applie s t o activitie s involving NARM , a s wel l a s activitie s involving source , byproduct , an

d specia l nuclea r material . However , becaus e sectio n 101(10)(K ) refer s onl yt o release s o f source , byproduct , an d specia l nuclea r material , the onl ybasi s fo r exempting DOE' s NAR M release s fro

mCERCLA' s reportin g an d liabilit yprovision s i s sectio n 101(10)(H) , whic hi s limite d t o onl yairborn e emission s i n complianc e wit hthe regulation s pursuan t t o the Clea n Ai r Act . Whil e the preparatio n fo r thes e othe r rulemaking s i s proceedin g a s expeditiousl ya s possible , give n thei r complexit yan d the numbe r o f issue s

P-4 4P.4 8

Respons e Number : 1 4 (continued )
tha t theyinvolve , th e importanc e o f adjustin g th e RQ s fo r radionuclide s di d no t enabl e EPAt o procee d wit hthi s rulemakin g concurrentl ywit hth e federall y permitte d an

d continuou s releas e rulemakings . EPAha s publishe d a Notic e o f Propose d Rulemakin g (5 3 FR 12868 , Apri l 19 , 1988 ) detailin g the reduce d reportin g requirement s fo r continuou s release s and ha s publishe d anothe r Notic e o f Propose d Rulemakin g (5 3 FR 27268 , Jul y19 , 1988 ) o n federall y permitte d releases .

P-4 5P.4 9

Commente r Number : 4 Respons e Number : 1 Page : 1 Commente r Name : B.H . Webster , Manage r Radiologica l and Chemica l Suppor t Issue : Duplicativ e Reportin g Comment : W e ar e uncertai n abou t reporting requirement s t o EPAi n th e unlikel y even t a releas e shoul d excee d the "federall ypermitte d releases " covere d b y technica l specifications . I n an yevent , exceeding a technica l specificatio n limi t require s a repor t b e mad e t o the NR C a s se t fort hi n 1 0 CF R 50.72 , "Immediat e Notification s Requirement s fo r Operatin g Nuclea r Powe r Plants. " W e d o no t believ e tha t addin g anothe r reportin g requiremen t i s appropriate . Response : Th e statutorylanguag e o f CERCLA(sectio n 103(a) ) require s tha t a facility' s owne r o r operato r immediatel yrepor t t o the Nationa l Respons e Cente r release s fromthe facilit ytha t equa l o r excee d a n RQ . Th e statut e provide s n o exception s fo r situation s i n whic hothe r governmen t agencie s als o mus t b e informe d o f release s pursuan t t o th e directive s o f othe r statute s o r regulations . CERCLAimpose s upo n the facilit yowne r o r operato r th e responsibilit yt o directl ynotif yth e Nationa l Respons e Cente r and impose s upo n the Nationa l Respons e Cente r the responsibilit yt o conve ythi s notificatio n t o othe r appropriat e governmen t agencies . Indirec t reportin g b y th e facilit yowne r o r operato r throughanothe r governmen t agenc yt o the Nationa l Respons e Cente r doe s no t satisf ythi s statutoryrequirement . Becaus e o f thi s statutoryrequirement , EP Adoe s no t hav e the flexibilit yt o preven t duplicativ e reporting . I t i s importan t t o clarif ytha t CERCLAnotificatio n requirement s ar e no t intende d t o superced e o r supplan t notificatio n t o Stat e an d loca l authoritie s i n the even t o f a release . Thes e notification s mayoccu r a s theyhav e i n the past ; the requiremen t t o repor t immediatel yt o the Nationa l Respons e Cente r mayb e interprete d o n a case-by-cas e basis , depending o n the exigencie s o f the situation . Additionally , a s note d i n the Economi c Impac t Analysi s accompanyin g thi s rule , EP

Aexpect s tha t onl y5 9 additiona l episodi c releas e notification s wil l resul t annuall yfro mthe R Q adjustments . Thus , the incidenc e o f duplicativ e reporting du e t o thi s rul e i s relativel ysmall . Furthermore , facilitie s tha t ar e operating unde r license s grante d b ythe Nuclea r RegulatoryCommissio n woul d no t hav e t o repor t release s t o the Nationa l Respons e Cente r tha t ar e i n complianc e wit hthei r licenses . Suc hrelease s ar e subjec t t o the federall y permitte d releas e exemptio n describe d i n CERCLAsection s 103(a ) an d (b ) an

d 101(10)(K) . Onl yrelease s o f an RQ o r mor e abov e thes e federall ypermitte d level s mus t b e reporte d t o th e Nationa l Respons e Center . EP Aunderstand s tha t some additiona l burde n woul d b e impose d upo n facilit yowner s an

d operator s wh o woul d nee d t o repor t t o mor e than on e P-4 6P.5 0

Respons e Number : 1 (continued )

governmen t agency . However , on e purpos e o f alertin g the Nationa l Respons e Cente r i s t o ensur e a coordinate d federal , state , an d loca l respons e t o the release . Generally , radiologica l respons e activitie s ar e outline d i n th e Federa l Radiologica l Emergenc yRespons e Pla n (FRERP) . EP Aacknowledge s tha t a coordinate d federal , state , an d loca l respons e t o a radiologica l emergenc yi s extremel yimportant . However , an ychange s o r modification s i n respons e responsibilitie s ar e addresse d mor e appropriatel ythroughthe FRER P and eac h agency' s individua l respons e plan , rathe r tha n throughthi s R Q adjustmen t rulemaking . Thi s rulemakin g onl yconcern s wha t radionuclid e release s nee d t o b e reporte d t o the Nationa l Respons e Center , no t what , i f any , respons e may resul t fro

m the notification .

P-4 7P.5 1

Commente r Number : Page : Commente r Name :

Issue : Comment : Respons e Number :

W.B . Smalley , Sr . ProgramManager , Environmenta l Protectio n Genera l Electri c Duplicativ e Reportin g

W e hav e a concer n wit hth e potentia l fo r confusio n a s t o "who i s i n charge " tha t coul d inadvertentl yoccu r among Federa l agencie s a s a resul t o f the dua l reportin g requirement s impose d b ythe propose d rule . Th e processin g o f specia l nuclea r materials , specificall yuranium , a t thi s fue l cycl e facilit yi s conducte d unde r a licens e grante d b ythe U.S . Nuclea r RegulatoryCommission . Releas e informatio n i s alread yreporte d t o themi n accordanc e wit happlicabl e regulation s wit htiming requirement s ranging fro

msemi-annuall yo n throughvariou s step s t o includ e tha t o f immediat e notification . W e woul d sugges t tha t the potentia l fo r inadverten t confusio n coul d b e avoide d b

ydoing on e o f the following : (1 ) Ad d a fift hdefinitio n t o th e type s o f release s specificall yexclude d fromthe definitio n o f releas e i n CERCLAsectio n 101(22 ) a s follows : (5 ) Release s o f source , byproduct , o r specia l nuclea r materia l hav e bee n reporte d t o a Federa l Agenc yo r Commissio n i n accordanc e wit happlicabl e regulation s o r licenses. " (2 ) Develo p a memorandu mo f understandin g betwee n potentiall yinvolve d agencie s tha t clearl yspecifie s "who wil l b e i n charge " fo r eac ho f the conceivabl e categorie s o f incidents . Response : [Se e "Duplicativ e Reportin g - Respons e 1" , wit hthe following additiona l text ; Additionally , becaus e the commenter' s suggeste d exemptio n fo r release s tha t hav e alread

ybee n reporte d t o a federa l agencyinvolve s a chang e i n the CERCL Astatute , rathe r than i n regulations , onl yCongress , an d no t EPA , ha s the authorit yt o mak e suc ha change .

P-4 £P.5 2

Commente r Number : 1 3 Respons e Number : 3 Page : 1/3- 4 Commente r Name : Mar k J . Wetterhahn Conno r an

d Wetterhahn , P.C . Issue : Duplicativ e Reportin g Comment : Th e propose d rule , a s applie d t o nuclea r powe r plants , require s clarificatio n i n orde r t o provid e guidanc e t o Nuclea r RegulatoryCommissio n ("NRC" ) nuclea r powe r plan t licensee s i n fulfilling thei r reportin g requirements . I n addition , requiring immediat e notificatio n t o EP Awhic hi s duplicativ e t o tha t provide d b ydirec t dedicate d telephon e communicatio n t o the NR C an

d cognizan t Stat e and loca l authoritie s maylead t o delay s i n responding an

d thu s b e contraryt o the inten t o f EPA' s legislativ e authority , applicabl e statutes , regulation s an d existin g plannin g efforts , and possibl y detrimenta l t o th e publi c healt han d safety . Comment s regardin g specifi c provision s o f the propose d rul e ar e provided . An yreleas e i n exces s o f permitte d value s woul d b e require d t o b e immediatel yreporte d t o the NR C pursuan t t o the provision s o f 1 0 CF R sectio n 50.7 2 a s a matte r whic hwoul d involv e th e declaratio n o f a n emergenc yclas s specifie d i n th e licensee' s approve d emergenc yplan . Inasmuc ha s th e NR C woul d b e notifie d o f an ysuc hrelease , th e NR C Operation s Cente r coul d notif y EPAan d thu s fulfil l the NR C reporting requirement s o f CERCLA . Th e NR C Operation s Cente r i s require d t o b e kep t currentl yinforme d o f the progres s an d respons e t o an

yreleas e and i s the logica l interfac e wit hthe nuclea r powe r plan t license e an d the logica l condui t fo r report s mad e t o the EPA . I t i s manne d o n a 24-hou r basi s an d i t ha s o n hand o r o n cal l withi n a shor t time specifi c expertis e relating t o release s fro ma nuclea r powe r station . Th e NR C emergenc ynotificatio n requirement s requir e tha t a license e hav e the capabilit yt o notif yresponsibl e Stat e an d loca l governmenta l agencie s withi n 1 5 minute s afte r declaring an emergency . (Se e 1 0 CF R Par t 50 , Appendi x E , IV , sectio n D.3) . Thi s requiremen t ha s bee n recognize d a s extremel y difficul t t o achiev e becaus e o f the numbe r o f agencie s t o b e notifie d an d the exten t o f the informatio n whic hi s require d t o b e conveyed . An additiona l requiremen t tha t the EP Ab e notifie d immediatel ywoul d lengthe n the time necessaryfo r stat e an d loca l official s t o respon d t o th e emergenc yan

d thu s b e contraryt o the regulation s implementing the AE Aan d CERCLA . Response : [Se e "Duplicativ e Reporting - Respons e 1 " an d "Federall yPermitte d Release s - Respons e 3 " wit hthe following additiona l text. ] Additionally , whil e CERCL Asectio n 103(a ) require s "immediate " notificatio n t o the Nationa l Respons e Center , EP Aha s state d i n the preambl e t o the fina l radionuclid e RQ rul e tha t the requiremen t t o repor t immediatel y ma yb e interprete d o n a case-by-cas e basis , depending o n the exigencie s o f the situation . P-4 9P.5 3

Commente r Number : Page : Commente r Name :

Issue : Comment : 1 3 5 Mar k J . Wetterhahn Conno r & Wetterhahn , P.C . Duplicativ e Reportin g Respons e Number :

EPAshoul d clarif yit s propose d regulation s s o a s no t t o requir e direc t EPAnotificatio n byreacto r licensee s o f an yreleases . Becaus e o f th e comprehensiv e notificatio n and respons e requirement s whic har e i n plac e fo r nuclea r reactors , th e inten t o f th e statut e woul d stil l b e fulfille d whil e streamlining th e emergenc yrespons e and meetin g the requirement s o f othe r applicabl e statutes , regulations , an d plans . Response : [Se e "Duplicativ e Reportin g - Respons e 1" , wit hthe following additiona l text ] Additionally , nuclea r reacto r licensee s shoul d understand that , unde r CERCLAsectio n 101(22)(C) , a releas e a s define d b yCERCL Aexclude s release s o f source , byproduct , o r specia l nuclea r materia l froma nuclea r incident , i f the release s ar e subjec t t o the financia l protectio n requirement s o f sectio n 17 0 o f th e Atomi c EnergyAct . Therefore , EPAdoe s no t hav e the lega l authorit yt o requir e report s o f thes e particula r releases . Thus , suc hrelease s woul d no t hav e t o b e reporte d t o the Nationa l Respons e Center , regardles s o f the quantit yreleased .

P-5 0P.5 4

Commente r Number : Page : Commente r Name :

Issue : Comment : 1 6 1- 2 D.W . Edward s Directo r o f IndustryAffair s Yanke e Atomi c Electri c Compan y Duplicativ e Reportin g Respons e Number :

NR C alread

yrequire s reportin g o f radionuclid e release s a t lower , mor e conservativ e level s (specifi c i n 1 0 CF R Par t 20 ) s o tha t appropriat e action s ca n b e take n t o preclud e additiona l release s o r release s o f highe r activity . Furthermore , base d o n NRC' s concep t o f defens e i n depth , eac hlicense e i s als o require d t o maintai n a n NRC/FEMA-approve d emergenc ypreparednes s and plannin g program . A s par t o f suc ha program , licensee s immediatel ynotif ycertai n Federal , State , and loca l agencie s o f al l radionuclid e release s significan t enoughtha t releas e limit s specifie d i n emergenc yactio n level s hav e bee n reached . Thes e additiona l reporting requirement s ar e base d o n EPA 520/1-75-001 , "Manua l o f Protectiv e Actio n Guide s and Protectiv e Action s fo r Nuclea r Incidents. " Th e EPAlimit s recommende d i n thi s manua l ar e sufficientl yconservativ e t o ensur e tha t th e agencie s whic hnee d t o tak e actio n a s a resul t o f suc hrelease s ar e provide d enoughtime t o complet e thos e action s necessaryt o ensur e the healt hand safet yo f the publi c and environment . I n conclusion , w e urg e EP At o exemp t commercia l nuclea r powe r plan t licensee s fro

mthe propose d reporting requirements . Response : [Se e "Duplicativ e Reportin g - Respons e 4" ]

P-5 1P.5 5

Commente r Number : 1 8 Respons e Number : 6 Page : 1- 2 Commente r Name : J.R . Thorpe , Directo r Licensin g an

d RegulatoryAffair s GP UNuclea r Issue : Duplicativ e Reportin g Comment : GP UNuclea r Corporatio n understand s the underlyin g purpos e o f th e propose d rule , i.e. , reporting o f radionuclid e emission s i n exces s o f establishe d standards . However , w e fee l thi s purpos e i s serve d fo r Nuclea r Productio n and Utilizatio n Facilitie s license d unde r 1 0 CF R Par t 5 0 b yth e NRC' s Emergenc yPlannin g regulations . Therefore , th e propose d rul e shoul d explicitl ystat e tha t complianc e wit hNR C Emergenc yPlanning regulation s constitute s complianc e wit hthe propose d notificatio n requirements . Suc ha statemen t woul d b e consisten t wit hthe NRC/EP AMemorandu mo f Understandin g o n Regulatio n o f Radionuclide s Emission s date d Novembe r 3 , 1980 , whic hstates , i n part , that : NRC , usin g it s own regulatoryprogramand statutoryand

regulatoryauthorities , shal l hav e the primaryrol e i n implementing an

d enforcing EPA' s Clea n Ai r Ac t radionuclid e standard s fo r source s and facilitie s license d byNRC . I t shoul d b e note d tha t NR C guidanc e require s notificatio n base d o n off-sit e dos e effect s rathe r tha n the quantit yo f a radionuclid e releas e a s propose d b

ythe U.S . EPA . Thus , promulgatio n o f the propose d rul e woul d impos e dua l reportin g requirements , usin g two (2 ) separat e criteria . Th e resultan t requirement s woul d b e cumbersome t o administe r an d seemingl y contradict s the inten t o f the NRC/EPAMemorandu mo f Understanding . Response : [Se e "Duplicativ e Reportin g - Respons e 1" , wit hthe following additiona l text ] Additionally , the Memorandu mo f Understandin g (MOU ) t o whic hthe commente r refer s i s inapplicabl e t o regulatoryeffort s undertake n pursuan t t o CERCLA . Th e MOUwa s develope d t o coordinat e EP Aregulatio n o f airborn e radionuclid e emission s unde r the Clea n Ai r Ac t wit hNuclea r Regulatory Commissio n regulatio n o f it s nuclea r licensees . Nothin g i n the MO Upertain s t o coordinatin g EP

Aaction s unde r CERCLA , whic hha d no t eve n bee n enacte d a t the tim e o f the MOU' s signing , wit hthe Nuclea r RegulatoryCommission' s efforts . Th e Agenc yagree s tha t the reporting requirement s under " CERCLAus e differen t criteri a tha n Nuclea r RegulatoryCommissio n guidanc e t o determin e whethe r a releas e mus t b e reported . EP Abelieves , however , that , asid e from nuclea r powe r plants , fewothe r individual s an d organization s tha t handl e radionuclide s hav e the capabilit yt o us e site-specifi c dat a t o calculat e off

P-5 2P.5 6

Respons e Number : 6 (continued ) sit e dos e effects . Additionally , becaus e o f the complexit yo f estimatin g doses , RQ s i n term s o f a dose-equivalen t woul d requir e a significan t amoun t o f judgmen t o n th e par t o f th e release r t o determin e whe n a releas e mus t b e reported . Th e Agenc ybelieve s tha t i t i s th e government' s prope r role , an d no t tha t o f a privat e party , t o evaluat e th e releas e t o determin e whethe r governmen t interventio n i s required . Th e Agenc yals o believe s tha t developmen t o f a specia l rul e t o cove r release s fromnuclea r powe r plant s woul d serv e n o usefu l purpos e and woul d b e mor e confusin g and difficul t t o implement . Furthermore , unlik e a dose-equivalen t RQ , a n R Q i n curie s coul d b e estimate d irrespectiv e o f th e exposur e circumstance s surroundin g the releas e an d i n a mor e timel ymanner . Byestablishin g the adjuste d RQ s i n unit s o f curies , the Agenc yha s minimize d the numbe r o f assumption s tha t woul d b e require d t o b e mad e b yreleaser s t o determin e i f the releas e equal s o r exceed s a n RQ . EPAbelieve s tha t i t wil l b e assure d o f mor e timel yreportin g i f th e reportin g trigge r i s unambiguou s an d no t ope n t o judgment .

P-5 3P.5 7

Commente r Number : Page : Commente r Name :

Issue : Comment : 1 9 2 Respons e Number :

Joe l D . Patterson , Manage r Environmenta l Affair s Middl e Sout hUtilitie s SystemServices , Inc . Duplicativ e Reportin g

Th e MS USystembelieve s that :

Th e notificatio n requirement s alread yestablishe d i n 1 0 CF R 2 0 ar e adequatel yprotectiv e o f huma n healt hand the environmen t t o exemp t thes e release s fromth e CERCLA reportin g requirements . I f a reportin g limi t ha s alread ybee n establishe d unde r anothe r regulation , tha t reportin g limi t shoul d b e the onl yreportin g requiremen t fo r tha t releas e (i.e. , i t shoul d b e exemp t fro mCERCI Areportin g requirements) . I n summary , th e MS USystembelieve s tha t radioactiv e emission s from nuclea r powe r plant s ar e currentl yregulate d i n a manne r protectiv e o f huma n healt hand the environment . Notificatio n requirement s hav e bee n establishe d i n th e even t tha t allowabl e emissio n limit s ar e exceeded . W e believ e tha t the curren t notificatio n requirement s ar e adequate , an d tha t additiona l notificatio n requirement s unde r CERCLAwoul d no t provid e significantl ygreate r protectio n fo r huma n healt ho r the environment . Response : [Se e "Duplicativ e Reportin g - Respons e 4" ]

P-5 4P.5 8

Commente r Number : 2 3 Respons e Number : 8 Page : 2- 3 Commente r Name : CO . Wood y Grou p Vic e Presiden t Nuclea r Energ

y Florid a Powe r and Ligh t Compan y Issue : Duplicativ e Reportin g Comment : A s state d i n th e introductio n t o th e propose d rule , the mai n purpos e o f CERCLAnotificatio n requirement s i s t o infor mthe appropriat e governmen t official s t o hazardou s substanc e release s tha t mayrequir e a federa l response . Thi s i s clearl yidentifie d i n the Federa l Registe r notice , whic hstates :

EPAemphasize s tha t a hazardou s substanc e releas e notificatio n i s merel ya trigge r fo r informing th e governmen t o f a releas e s o tha t th e appropriat e federa l personne l ca n evaluat e the nee d fo r a federa l remova l o r remedia l actio n and undertak e an ynecessaryactio n i n a timel yfashion . (5 2 Federa l Registe r 8172. ) Whil e ther e mayexis t a nee d fo r thi s typ e o f notificatio n requiremen t fo r some licensee s o f nuclea r materials , thi s i s a n unnecessaryand redundan t requiremen t fo r powe r reacto r licensees . Al l U.S . nuclea r powe r reactor s mus t hav e a n approve d Emergenc yRespons e Pla n i n orde r t o obtai n an operating licens e (1 0 CFR 50.47 ) fro mth e Nuclea r Regulator yCommissio n (NRC) . A s describe d i n Appendi x E o f 1 0 CF R Par t 50 , a reacto r license' s emergenc yplan s mus t demonstrat e the organizatio n fo r copin g wit hradiologica l emergencies , assessmen t action , activatio n o f emergenc y organization , notificatio n procedures , emergenc yfacilitie s an d equipment , training , maintainin g emergenc ypreparedness , an d recovery . Eac hplan t sit e mus t annuall yexercis e it s emergenc ypla n fo r training purposes . Unde r it s regulation , the NR C ha s designate d four emergenc yclasse s t o cove r the entir e spectru mo f emergenc yconditions . Upo n declaratio n o f an yo f thes e four classes , ther e exist s a requiremen t t o rapidl ynotif ylocal , state , an d federa l agencie s o f the emergency . Emergenc ypla n initiating event s involv e bot hactua l an d potentia l release s o f radioactiv e materials . I f a n acciden t doe s no t mee t the criteri a fo r on e o f the fou r emergenc y classes , a reacto r license e maystil l b e require d t o repor t a releas e t o the NRC . Th e regulation s (1 0 CFR 50.72(b) ) requir e a reacto r license e t o notif y the NR C withi n on e hou r o f an yairborn e o r liqui d effluen t radioactiv e releas e tha t exceed s prescribe d limits . Therefore , ther e currentl yexist s a regulatorymechanis mfo r the reportin g o f radioactiv e release s t o the appropriat e State , loca l an d federa l agencies . Nuclea r reacto r licensee s ar e reporting unplanne d radioactiv e release s t o the NR C a s require d unde r thei r licenses . P-5 5P.5 9

Respons e Number : 8 (continued ) FP L believe s tha t the objectiv e o f CERCLAnotificatio n fo r radionuclide s b yreacto r licensee s i s bein g full yachieve d throughthe Emergenc yRespons e Pla n programrequire d unde r NR C regulations . Response : [Se e "Duplicativ e Reportin g - Respons e 4" ]

P-5 6P.6 0

Commente r Number : 2 3 Respons e Number : 9 Page : 3 Commente r Name : CO . Wood y Grou p Vic e Presiden t Nuclea r Energ

y Florid a Powe r an

d Ligh t Compan

y Issue : Duplicativ e Reportin g Comment : CERCLAspecificall yexclude s the

- reportin g notificatio n o f release s subjec t t o financia l protectio n unde r the Atomi c EnergyAct . Thes e type s o f release s ar e considere d t o hav e th e potentia l fo r causin g sufficien t har mtha t liabilit yclaim s mayb e generated . Th e rul e i s contraryt o publi c safet ysinc e i t ignore s informing a federa l agenc yo f a n inciden t tha t ha s a hig hlikelihoo d o f harmin g the public . Rather , the goa l shoul d b e t o repor t al l unplanne d releases . However , th e propose d rul e shoul d b e modifie d t o exclud e notificatio n o f al l release s fromnuclea r powe r plant s t o th e EPA . A s explaine d above , ther e currentl yexist s a regulatorymechanis mfo r ensurin g federa l notificatio n o f al l release s t o on e federa l agency . Havin g al l release s reporte d t o the NR C ensure s complet e and timel ynotification . Response : [Se e "Duplicativ e Reportin g - Respons e 1" , wit hthe following additiona l text ] A s note d b

ythe commenter , unde r CERCLAsectio n 101(22)(C) , a releas e a s define d b

yCERCLAexclude s release s o f source , byproduct , o r specia l nuclea r materia l froma nuclea r incident , i f the release s ar e subjec t t o the financia l protectio n requirement s o f sectio n 17 0 o f the Atomi c Energ yAct . Therefore , EP Adoe s no t hav e the lega l authorit yt o requir e report s o f thes e particula r releases . Thus , suc hrelease s woul d no t hav e t o b e reporte d t o the Nationa l Respons e Center , regardles s o f the quantit yreleased . O n the othe r hand , release s o f radionuclide s fro mnuclea r powe r plant s tha t do no t constitut e nuclea r incident s woul d b e subjec t t o CERCL Anotificatio n requirements , i f the releas e i s an R Q o r mor e abov e Federall ypermitte d levels . Becaus e the magnitud e o f the ris k fro msuc hrelease s i s no t known , EP Adoe s no t believ e tha t theyshoul d b e exempte d unde r a broa d exemptio n o f al l release s from nuclea r powe r plant s license d b ythe Nuclea r RegulatoryCommission .

P-5 7P.6 1

Commente r Number : 2 5 Respons e Number : 1 0 Page : 1 Commente r Name : Gret a J . Dicus , Directo r Divisio n o f Radiatio n Contro l an d Emergenc yManagemen t Arkansa s Departmen t o f Healt h Issue : Duplicativ e Reporting Comment : M ystaf f an

d I appreciat e you r lette r o f Jun e 5 , 198 7 i n whic ha n explanatio n o f the applicabilit yo f radionuclid e R Q notificatio n requirement s t o ou r licensee s i s provided . W e understand tha t routin e regulatoryrelease s woul d no t b e reportable . However , the propose d rul e strongl yimplie s tha t accidenta l release s abov e regulatorylimit s woul d b e reportable . I f thi s interpretatio n i s correct , i t ha s definit e impac t upo n our licensee s who , sinc e theyar e require d t o repor t t o u s a s th e cognizan t radiatio n contro l authority , woul d hav e dua l reporting requirements . Pleas e clarif ywhethe r o r not , unde r an

ycircumstances , a n inciden t involving accidenta l releas e o f license d materia l woul d resul t i n the license e havin g t o notif ybot hthe Arkansa s Departmen t o f Healt han d the U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency . W e als o nee d t o kno wwhethe r o r no t i t ca n b e assume d tha t wher e ou r Stat e regulation s allo wfo r certai n release s whic hdiffe r fromthe propose d rule , th e EPArul e doe s no t apply . Response : [Se e "Duplicativ e Reportin g - Respons e 1" , wit hthe following additiona l text ] CERCLAsectio n 101(10 ) define s thos e release s tha t ar e federall y permitted . Fo r example , sectio n 101(10)(H ) stipulate s tha t release s regulate d o r controlle d unde r section s 11 1 an d 11 2 o f the Clea n Ai r Ac t an d unde r Stat e Implementatio n Plan s (an d tha t ar e i n complianc e wit hthos e regulation s an d contro l limitations ) ar e federall ypermitted . An yreleas e o f a radionuclid e t o the ai r i n complianc e wit hthe Nationa l Emissio n Standard s fo r Hazardou s Ai r Pollutant s (NESHAPs ) i s "federall ypermitted " unde r sectio n 101(10)(H ) an d thu s exemp t fro

mCERCL Areporting . Also , an yreleas e o f source , byproduct , o r specia l nuclea r materia l fro man Agreemen t Stat e license e i n complianc e wit h applicabl e limit s i s federall ypermitte d unde r sectio n 101(10)(K ) an d exemp t fromCERCLAreporting . However , an yreleas e fro

man Agreemen t Stat e license e tha t i s a n RQ o r mor e abov e the releas e limit s note d abov e i s subjec t t o CERCLA' s reporting requirement s and mus t b e reporte d t o th e Nationa l Respons e Center . EPArecognize s that , i n thes e situations , releaser s wil l b e require d t o repor t twice--onc e t o the "cognizan t radiatio n contro l authority " an d onc e t o the Nationa l Respons e Cente r (no t t o EP Aa s suggeste d i n the comment) .

?-5iCommente r Number : 2 5 Respons e Number : 1 1

Page : 1 Commente r Name : Gret a J . Dicus , Directo r Divisio n o f Radiatio n Contro l an d Emergenc yManagemen t Arkansa s Departmen t o f Healt h Issue : Duplicativ e Reportin g Comment : Th e propose d rul e state s tha t a majo r purpos e o f the sectio n 103(a ) and (b ) notificatio n requiremen t i s t o aler t the appropriat e governmen t official s t o release s o f hazardou s substance s tha t mayrequir e a federa l response... . And furthe r state s tha t respons e activitie s ar e t o b e take n i n accordanc e wit h the Nationa l Contingenc yPla n (NCP)... . Ho wdoe s thi s relat e t o the Federa l Radiologica l Emergenc yRespons e Pla n (FRERP ) insofa r a s release s o f radionuclide s ar e concerned ? Response : Th e requiremen t tha t release s o f a n R Q o r mor e o f radionuclide s mus t b e reporte d t o the Nationa l Respons e Cente r i s consisten t wit hthe FRERP . Th e FRER P i s concerne d primaril ywit hfedera l suppor t t o stat e an d loca l government s fo r activitie s beyond the immediat e sit e o f peacetim e radiologica l emergencies . However , a s the FRER P itsel f notes , " [notwithstandin g th e primac yo f th e Stat e fo r protectin g publi c healt han d safet yof f site , some Federa l agencie s hav e statutoryo r othe r authoritie s fo r responding t o certai n situation s affecting publi c healt han d safet ywithou t a Stat e request . .. . [th e FRERP ] provide s a framewor k fo r coordinatin g Federa l action s withi n thes e authorities ; i t doe s no t creat e an yne wauthorities. " (4 9 FR 35898 , Septembe r 12, , 1984 ) On e suc hcontrollin g statutoryauthorit yi s CERCLA , wit hit s requiremen t fo r th e reporting o f release s t o the Nationa l Respons e Center . Asid e fro

mthe statutoryrequiremen t fo r suc hnotification , the FRER P itsel f als o expressl yallow s facilit yowner s o r operator s t o contac t directl y a n appropriat e federa l agency , i n thi s cas e the Nationa l Respons e Center , fo r assistanc e (4 9 F

R 35899 , Septembe r 12 , 1984) . Th e FRER P indicate s tha t the federa l agenc ycontacted , however , shoul d infor mthes e othe r relevan t agencie s o f the reques t fo r assistanc e an d al l o f thes e agencie s woul d the n coordinat e thei r activitie s t o respond t o the notification . Thus , CERCLA' s requiremen t o f the immediat e reporting o f release s t o the Nationa l Respons e Cente r an d the subsequen t coordinatio n o f an ynecessaryfederal , state , an d loca l respons e i s consisten t wit hthe FRERP . Therefore , thi s rul e ha s n o direc t bearin g o n the FRERP . Th e framewor k fo r coordinatin g federa l action s establishe d b ythe FRER P remain s completel y i n place ; the report s require d b ythi s rul e simpl ywil l provid e adde d information . Thi s rulemaking onl yconcern s wha t radionuclid e release s nee d t o b e reporte d t o th

e Nationa l Respons e Center , no t what , i f any , respons e may resul t fro

mthe notification . I t i s importan t t o not e tha t EP Aha s adde d languag e t o the preambl e o f th e fina l radionuclid e RQ rul e t o hel p avoi d conflict s wit hexisting reporting requirement s o f the FRERP . Th e releas e o f P-5 9P.6 3

Respons e Number : 1 1 (continued )

a n R Q mus t b e reporte d "immediately " according t o CERCL Asectio n 103(a) , bu t th e Agenc yrecognize s tha t th e time necessaryt o mak e suc ha repor t ma y prohibi t timel ynotificatio n i n accordanc e wit hreporting requirement s o f the FRERP . Therefore , the fina l radionuclid e R Q adjustmen t rul e state s tha t th e requiremen t t o repor t "immediately " mayb e interprete d o n a case-by-cas e basis , dependin g o n the exigencie s o f th e situation .

P-6 0P.6 4

Commente r Number : Page : Commente r Name : 2 5 2 Respons e Number : 1 2

Gret a J . Dicus , Directo r Divisio n o f Radiatio n Contro l an d Emergenc yManagemen t Arkansa s Departmen t o f Healt h Issue : Duplicativ e Reportin g Comment : Becaus e release s o f radioactiv e material s ar e alread yregulate d an

d concentratio n limit s hav e bee n establishe d b yth e U.S . Nuclea r Regulatory Commissio n an

d the Agreemen t States , i t i s difficul t t o understand wh ythe EPA i s no wgetting involved . T o avoi d two set s o f regulation s whic hmayb e incompatible , i t woul d seemt o b e mor e operationall yefficien t an d mor e cos t effectiv e i f EPAwer e t o rewrit e the propose d rul e t o allo wthe NR C an d Agreemen t State s t o requir e reportin g t o themA S TH E REGULATORY (LICENSING ) AUTHORITIE S wit hthe licensing authoritie s perhap s i n tur n reporting t o the EPAa s necessitate d b yth e leve l o f seriousnes s o f the event . Response : [Se e "Duplicativ e Reportin g - Respons e 1" ]

P-6 1P.6 5

Commente r Number : 2 4 (CARC ) Respons e Number : 1 Page : 7 Commente r Name : Duan e A . Sile r Patton , Bogg s & Blo w Issue : RegulatoryBurde n Comment : Finally , w e woul d not e that , unles s EP Aclarifie s the definitio n o f releas e a s applie d t o radionuclides , a s discusse d above , and adopt s a concentration-base d limi t lik e DOT's , the n th e Agenc yshoul d prepar e furthe r analyse s o f the economi c and paperwor k burde n o f thi s regulatio n o n th e public . Accordin g t o the preamble , EPAha s assume d tha t onl yapproximatel y4 3 additiona l notification s woul d b e require d annuall yunde r the propose d rule . If , fo r the reason s discusse d above , the mer e storag e o f rawmaterial s o r product s whic hcontai n radionuclide s i s considere d a release , the n ten s o f thousand s o f additiona l notification s woul d b e require d everyyear . Th e burde n associate d wit ha reporting programo f thi s magnitude , including th e cos t t o smal l entities , woul d hav e t o b e carefull yassessed .

_i Response : Th e Economi c Impac t Analysi s supporting th e fina l R Q adjustment s ha s bee n rewritte n t o furthe r analyz e thi s rule' s economi c an d paperwor k burde n i n ligh t o f th e requiremen t o n the par t o f facilit yowner s o r operator s t o repor t release s o f a n R Q o r mor e o f radionuclide s fromstore d (bu t no t full y contained ) materials . T o the exten t tha t accumulation s o f thes e material s do resul t i n release s o f a t leas t a n R Q o f radionuclides , repeate d reportin g o f suc hrelease s mos t probabl yca n b e avoide d throughus e o f the continuou s releas e provisio n i n CERCLAsectio n 103(f)(2) . Thi s provisio n provide s fo r reduce d reporting o f release s tha t ar e "continuous " an d "stabl e i n quantit y an d rate. " EP

Aha s publishe d a Notic e o f Propose d Rulemakin g (5 3 F R 12868 , Apri l 19 , 1988 ) detailing the reduce d reporting requirement s fo r continuou s releases . Continuou s accumulation s o f material s tha t resul t i n release s o f a n R Q o r mor e o f radionuclide s outsid e a facilit ymayb e abl e t o us e thi s reduce d reportin g requirement . EP Aestimate s tha t approximatel y1,00 0 facilitie s wil l submi t annua l releas e notification s i n accordanc e wit hCERCLA' s reduce d reporting provisions . [Whil e ther e ar e ove r 50,00 0 coal-fire d boile r facilitie s tha t coul d hav e bee n require d t o annuall yrepor t radionuclid e release s fro

mlarg e coa l an

d coa l as hpiles , thes e release s hav e bee n exempte d fromthe reporting requiremen t - - se e "Exemptions/Exclusion s - - Respons e 2." ] Thes e annua l report s ar e no t burdensome , an d wil l provid e EP

Awit husefu l informatio n abou t radionuclid e releases . Additionally , the Agency' s curren t estimat e i s tha t onl y5 9 additiona l episodi c releas e notification s wil l resul t annuall yfro

mthes e R Q adjustments . Thus , the additiona l reportin g b yan y particula r owne r o r operato r shoul d no t b e burdensome .

P-6 2Commente r Number : 2 Respons e Number : 1

Page : 1 Commente r Name : John A . Eure , Chie f Burea u o f Environmenta l Healt h Departmen t o f Publi c Healt h Stat e o f Iow a Issue : Option s Comment : I t appear s tha t the U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y(EPA ) ha s no t give n ful l consideratio n t o th e reportabl e quantit ylimit s se t fort hi n Appendi x B - - Radionuclides . Th e R Q i n some case s seem s extremel yhigh , and i n some extremel ylow . Acas e i n poin t i s the R Q fo r Radiu m22 6 whic hi s on e curie . Becaus e o f the natur e an d propert yo f Radium , th e on e curi e i s to o larg e whe n consideratio n i s give n t o impac t o n publi c healt han d safety . Base d o n ou r revie wo f the numbers , i t appear s tha t ther e i s reall yn o scientifi c reaso n behind an yo f th e R Q (Ci ) numbers . W e woul d sugges t tha t seriou s consideratio n b e give n t o allotting appropriat e time and usin g Option s 2 , 3 , o r 4 o r a combinatio n thereo f t o develop R Q factor s i f theyar e reall y necessary . Response : Th e RQ s calculate d fo r th e 75 7 radionuclide s ar e base d upo n carefu l consideratio n o f possibl e exposur e pathway s an d reasonabl e models . Generally , four exposur e scenario s ar e evaluate d fo r eac hradionuclide : inhalation , direc t exposure , ingestio n o f ground water , an d ingestio n o f vegetables . Eac h exposur e mode l derive s the amoun t (i n curies ) o f a radionuclid e tha t ca n b e release d unde r a conservativ e se t o f assumption s an d tha t coul d resul t i n a n individua l locate d 3 0 meter s awa yreceiving a dose-equivalen t o f 50 0 millirem . Eac ho f the 75 7 radionuclide s liste d i n ICR P Publicatio n 3 0 (fo r whic hther e i s healt hand huma n intak e dat a available ) i s analyze d individually ; the mos t critica l pathwayi s use d t o establis hthe RQ fo r eac hradionuclide . Fo r a mor e detaile d explanatio n o f eac ho f the releas e scenario s an d the overal l methodology , refe r t o the "Technica l Background Documen t i n Suppor t o f the Fina l Rul e Adjustin g the Reportabl e Quantitie s fo r Radionuclides. " Th e RQ fo r radium-22 6 ha s bee n se t usin g the same methodolog ya s tha t use d t o calculat e the RQ s fo r the remaining 75 6 radionuclides . Th e fina l RQ fo r radium-22 6 (alone , no t i n equilibriu mwit hit s daughters ) i s 0. 1 curie , whic hi s a n orde r o f magnitud e lowe r than the propose d RQ o f 1 curie . Lowerin g o f the R Q wa s base d o n a re-evaluatio n o f the vegetabl e ingestio n pathway , whic hi s no wthe mos t critica l exposur e pathwayfo r radium-226 . Th e 0. 1 curi e R Q fo r radium-22 6 doe s no t mea n tha t EPAconsider s tha t a releas e belo wtha t leve l wil l no t b e harmful , no r doe s i t indicat e tha t the Agenc y believe s tha t a releas e a t o r abov e tha t leve l wil l b e harmfu l t o the publi c healt ho r welfar e o r the environment . An RQ i s simpl ya mechanis mfo r insuring tha t the governmen t i s informe d o f a releas e s o tha t an evaluatio n b y the governmen t ca n b e mad e t o determin e it s potentia l fo r harm .



### T- lP.6 7

Respons e Number : 1 (continued )

Additionally , th e R Q fo r radium-22 6 i n equilibriu mwit hit s daughters , a commo n radionuclid e mixture , ha s bee n calculate d t o b e 0.05 3 curie , approximatel yhal f the valu e fo r radium-22 6 itself . Wheneve r radiu mi s found i n secula r equilibriu mwit hit s daughter s o r approachin g thi s state , th e R Q wil l b e les s tha n 0. 1 curie .

T- 2P.6 8

Commente r Number : 8 Respons e Number : 2 Page : 1/ 3 Commente r Name : Mar k Doruf f Radiatio n Safet yOffice r AmershamCorporatio n Issue : Optio n 1 : One-Pound R Q Comment : Overall , Amershamagree s tha t the on e pound R Q fo r radionuclide s i s inappropriate , ye t th e propose d RQ s stil l nee d t o b e reassessed . Unti l the propose d change s t o RQ s fo r radionuclide s ar e accepted , the on e pound R Q wil l b e i n effec t beginnin g Jul y1987 . Some guidanc e i s neede d o n ho wt o calculat e on e pound fo r radionuclides ; eithe r us e specifi c activity , weigh t o f material , o r weigh t o f entir e storage/shippin g containe r plu s contents . Response : CERCLArequire s tha t th e releas e o f a hazardou s substanc e b e reporte d t o the Nationa l Respons e Cente r whe n on e R Q o r mor e o f a hazardou s substanc e i s released . Th e one-pound R Q fo r radionuclide s ha s bee n i n effec t sinc e CERCLA wa s enacte d i n 1980 . Th e R Q o f on e pound applie s t o on e pound o f th e radionuclid e released . Pound s release d ar e unit s o f weigh t o f th e hazardou s substance ; i t doe s no t includ e th e weigh t o f an ystorag e o r shipping container . Th e adjuste d RQ s fo r radionuclide s ar e i n unit s o f curie s (or becquerels) , whic har e unit s o f radioactivity . Eac hR Q i n thes e units , however , ca n b e converte d t o a uni t o f weigh t (e.g. , gram s o r pounds ) fo r eac h radionuclid e usin g the radionuclide' s specifi c activit y(i.e. , the numbe r o f curie s pe r uni t o f weigh t fo r eac hradionuclide , whic hdepend s o n the nuclide' s half-life , atomi c mass , an d othe r factors) . Whethe r releaser s us e the RQ s i n unit s o f curie s o r some uni t o f weight , the adjuste d RQ s appl yt o onl ythe amoun t o f radionuclide s released ; theydo no t appl yt o nonradioactiv e content s o f shipping container s o r t o shipping container s themselves .

T- 3P.6 9

Commente r Number : Page : Commente r Name:' '

Issue : Comment : 1 0 1 M.S . Whittake r Corporat e Healt hPhysicis t Chem-Nuclea r Systems , Inc . Optio n 1 : One-Pound R Q Respons e Number :

You r decisio n t o rejec t Optio n 1 i s applauded . Response : Th e Agenc ybelieve s tha t th e one-pound R Q fo r radionuclide s i s inappropriat e becaus e pound s i s no t a commonl yuse d measur e i n radiatio n protection , and a one-pound R Q doe s no t assur e timel yreportin g fo r man y radionuclides . Th e Agenc yappreciate s the suppor t o f the regulate d communit y o n it s rejectio n o f thi s option .

T- 4P.7 0

Commente r Number : Page : Commente r Name :

Issue : Comment : 1 7 1 Respons e Number :
Walte r R . Quanstro m Genera l Manage r and Vic e Presiden t Amoc o Corporatio n Optio n 1 : One-Pound R Q

A s indicate d i n the preambl e t o th e propose d rule , th e statutoryR Q o f on e pound fo r radionuclide s i s no t th e mos t appropriat e trigge r fo r notification . I n fact , a n R Q expresse d i n pounds , whic hi s use d fo r al l othe r hazardou s substances , i s no t appropriat e fo r radionuclides . Asingl e valu e fo r al l radionuclide s woul d encompas s a wid e rang e o f potentia l hazard s unde r thi s approach . Moreover , radionuclide s ar e no t commonl ymeasure d i n term s o f mass . I n additio n t o aiding the Agenc yi n it s releas e evaluatio n process , th e R Q adjustment s ar e designe d t o bette r protec t the publi c healt han d the environmen t and t o reduc e the burden s o f reporting o n the regulate d community . Neithe r o f thes e purpose s woul d b e serve d bythe on e pound , o r an yothe r mass-based , R Q fo r radionuclides . I n earlie r rulemaking s o n RQs , the Agenc y state d tha t the reporting requirement s wer e no t designe d t o impos e additiona l testing o r monitorin g cost s o n th e regulate d community . Suc hcost s woul d b e inevitabl e i f th e RQ s fo r radionuclide s wer e expresse d i n term s o f pounds , sinc e norma l measurement s ar e no t take n i n tha t manner . Therefore , w e suppor t th e Agency' s proposa l t o bas e th e R Q o n activit yan d t o designat e differen t RQ s fo r differen t substances . Response : Se e "Option s - Respons e 3. "

T- 5P.7 1

Commente r Number : Page : Commente r Name :

Issue : Comment : 2 0 1 Respons e Number :

Steve n Swanson , Directo r Healt han

d Environmenta l Affair s Dept . America n Petroleu

mInstitut e Optio n 1 : One-Pound R Q

AP I support s EPA' s proposa l t o adjus t the statutoryreportabl e quantit y (RQ ) o f one-pound fo r radionuclide s t o mor e accuratel yreflec t th e potentia l hazar d and th e nee d t o evaluat e suc hreleases . Accordingly , AP I agree s wit h EPA' s decisio n t o establis ha n R Q fo r radionuclide s i n term s o f activit yfo r individua l radionuclide s rathe r tha n o n a mas s basis . Response : Se e "Option s - Respons e 3. "

T- 6P.7 2

Commente r Number : Page : Commente r Name :

Issue : Comment : 1 0 1 M.S . Whittake r Corporat e Healt hPhysicis t Chem-Nuclea r Systems , Inc . Optio n 2 : Dose-Equivalen t RQ s Respons e Number :

Whil e rejectin g Optio n 2 i s understandabl e du e t o the difficult yi n demonstratin g complianc e especiall yi n quickl yestimatin g dos e during a n actua l release , suc ha s a transportatio n accident , you r objection s relativ e t o the potentia l variabilit yar e equall yapplicabl e t o th e Selecte d Approach . Response : EPAdisagree s tha t it s objection s t o Optio n 2 "relativ e t o the potentia l variabilit yar e equall yapplicabl e t o th e Selecte d Approach. " Th e curi e i s a clearl ydefine d numbe r fo r an ygive n radionuclide . Unlik e a dose-equivalen t RQ , wher e determinatio n o f whethe r a n R Q ha s bee n release d woul d b e base d o n th e exposur e circumstance s surroundin g th e release , a n R Q i n curie s coul d b e measure d o r estimate d irrespectiv e o f th e exposur e conditions . An activity

leve l R Q minimize s the discretio n and judgmen t require d bythe facilit yowne r o r operato r i n determinin g whethe r a n R Q o r mor e o f a radionuclid e ha s bee n released . Fo r thi s reason , EPAbelieve s tha t a n activity-leve l R Q i s subjec t t o les s potentia l variabilit ytha n a n R Q i n term s o f dos e equivalent . Furthermore , EPAbelieve s tha t i n mos t circumstances , the determinatio n o f the actua l quantit yrelease d (i n unit s o f curies ) wil l b e a n easie r procedur e an d thu s resul t i n mor e timel yreporting . Also , se e Respons e Numbe r 7 concernin g "Options " (specificall yconcernin g Optio n 2 : Dose-Equivalen t RQs ) fo r additiona l discussio n relating t o thi s comment .

T- 7P.7 3

Commente r Number : 1 0 Respons e Number : 7 Page : 2 Commente r Name : M.S . Whittake r Corporat e Healt hPhysicis t Chem-Nuclea r Systems , Inc . Issue : Optio n 2 : Dose-Equivalen t RQ s Comment : Th e Selecte d Approac hi s fundamentall yidentica l wit hOptio n 2 ; th e calculatio n i s jus t reversed . I n the Selecte d Approach , yo u se t a dos e limit , mak e assumption s abou t the recepto r and th e environmenta l conditions , an d the n bac k calculat e t o the releas e level . However , the objectio n t o Optio n 2 , yo u stat e i n 5 2 FR 8172 , "Becaus e o f al l the judgment s an d assumption s require d t o estimat e dos e equivalents , the estimate d dos e equivalent s fo r two differen t release s wit hth e same leve l o f activit yo f the same radionuclid e mayvar y drasticall yunde r differen t assumptions, " ar e jus t a s critica l t o th e Selecte d Approach . Response : Se e Respons e Numbe r 6 concerning "Options " (specificall yconcernin g Optio n 2 : Dose-Equivalen t RQs) . Th e following respons e als o applie s t o thi s comment . Optio n 2 i s no t identica l t o the selecte d approac hfo r tw o mai n reasons . Th e mos t importan t differenc e i s tha t Optio n 2 onl yset s a dose-equivalen t level , allowin g the individua l i n charg e o f a facilit yo r vesse l t o determin e the appropriat e model s an d parameter s tha t shoul d b e use d t o ascertai n whethe r a n individua l ha s bee n actuall yo r wil l b e potentiall yexposed . I n the selecte d approach , althougha dose-equivalen t leve l i s chosen , model s incorporating conservativ e parameter s ar e develope d an d use d b

yEPAt o deriv e RQ s i n activit ylevel s tha t ar e mor e quickl yan d easil ymeasured . Therefore , the selecte d approac henable s th e Agenc yt o defin e clearl yfo r the release r the quantit yo f materia l that , i f released , mus t b e reporte d immediatel yt o the Nationa l Respons e Center . Th e governmen t the n ha s the opportunit yt o evaluat e the releas e an d t o determine , base d upo n the circumstance s surroundin g the release , i f a respons e actio n i s necessary . Usin g a dose

equivalen t leve l a s an R Q woul d requir e th e release r t o evaluat e the circumstance s surroundin g a releas e an d t o determin e whethe r o r no t a repor t shoul d b e made . Thi s i s contraryt o the inten t o f CERCLA . Anothe r importan t difference , whic hi s relate d t o the on e note d above , i s the likelihoo d fo r consisten t an d timel yreport s fo r the tw o options . EPA believe s tha t the determinatio n o f the quantit yrelease d (i n unit s o f curies ) wil l b e mor e straightforwar d than the estimatio n o f a dos e cause d b ythe released . Accordingly , the selecte d optio n i s muc hmor e likel yt o resul t i n mor e consisten t an d timel yreporting than Optio n 2 .

T- 8P.7 4

Commente r Number : Page : Commente r Name : 1 4 1 8 Kearne ye t al . Ediso n Electri c Institut e Respons e Number : 8

Issue : Comment : Optio n 2 : Dose-Equivalen t RQ s

T o th e exten t tha t an yCERCL Areporting requirement s wer e applie d t o radionuclid e release s fromnuclea r powe r plants , however , suc ha requiremen t shoul d permi t the facilit yt o appl ya dose-equivalen t leve l tha t i s consisten t wit hNR C reporting requirements . Dose-equivalen t level s woul d permi t utilit y facilitie s t o appl ysite-specifi c methodologie s fo r determinin g publi c dose s tha t compl ywit hNR C reporting requirements . Facilitie s usin g thes e methodolqgie s ca n rapidl ydetermin e the publi c dos e resulting fro ma release . Moreover, : an

ydose-equivalen t R Q value s tha t ar e applie d t o nuclea r powe r plant s shoul d b e consisten t wit hEPA' s 500-milliremR Q adjustmen t criterion . Th e approac hdescribe d abov e woul d permi t EPA , t o th e exten t the Agenc y applie d reportin g requirement s t o nuclea r powe r plan t releases , t o allo w appropriat e adjustment s fo r site-specifi c application . Thi s approac hwoul d b e i n orde r sinc e nuclea r powe r plant s hav e extensiv e site-specifi c dat a tha t coul d b e use d t o compl ywit hth e reportin g requirements . Similarly , i f applie d t o nuclea r powe r plants , RQ s shoul d b e liste d fo r eac ho f th e exposur e pathway s (inhalation , ingestion , and direc t exposure) ; the R Q fo r the appropriat e pathway(a s indicate d b yth e facility' s releas e and exposur e data ) woul d b e applied . Response : Releas e o f source , byproduct , o r specia l nuclea r materia l froma nuclea r inciden t subjec t t o the financia l protectio n provision s unde r sectio n 17 0 o f the Atomi c Energ

yAc t (generall yknown a s th e "Pric e Anderso n Act" ) ar e exemp t fro mreporting unde r CERCLA . Furthermore , an yreleas e o f source , byproduct , o r specia l nuclea r materia l i n complianc e wit hNuclea r RegulatoryCommissio n regulations , licenses , o r othe r control s ar e considere d "Federall ypermitted " unde r CERCLAsectio n 101(10)(K ) and ar e exemp t fro mthe RQ reporting requirements . However , some release s fro mnuclea r powe r plant s mayno t fal l unde r the exemption s provide d b yCERCLA . Specifically , an yreleas e o f an RQ tha t i s no t federall ypermitte d bu t doe s no t mee t the definitio n o f a "nuclea r incident " (a

n occurre'nc e causing bodil yinjury , sickness , disease , death , los s o r damag e t o property , o r los s o f us e o f property ) mus t b e reporte d immediatel yt o the Nationa l Respons e Center . Th e governmen t ma ywan t t o kno w o f suc hrelease s shor t o f a nuclea r inciden t i n orde r t o determin e whethe r a respons e i s necessary . Th e Agenc yagree s tha t personne l a t nuclea r powe r plant s ar e likel yt o b e abl e t o us e site-specifi c dat a t o calculat e potentia l exposure s fo r a releas e i n dose-equivalents . Th e Agenc ydoe s no t believe , however , tha t thi s capabilit ynecessaril yexist s among al l individual s o r organization s tha t handl e radionuclides . Th e Agenc yals o believe s tha t developmen t o f a specia l rul e t o cove r release s fro mnuclea r powe r plant s woul d serve n o usefu l purpos e

T- 9P.7 5

Respons e Number : 8 (continued )

an d would'b e difficul t t o implement . Fo r thi s reason , th e fina l radionuclid e R Q adjustmen t regulatio n applie s equall yt o the entir e regulate d community . CERCLAallow s th e EPAAdministrato r t o establis ha singl e R Q fo r a hazardou s substance . Whil e the Agenc yha s evaluate d variou s exposur e pathway s i n the adjustmen t o f radionuclid e RQs , the Agenc yha s issue d onl yon e fina l R Q fo r eac hradionuclid e base d o n the mos t critica l exposur e pathway . Thes e singl e RQs , whic hshoul d assur e timel yreporting i n mos t circumstances , wil l b e easie r t o implemen t tha n multipl e RQ s fo r eac hradionuclid e fo r the differen t exposur e pathways .

T-1 0P.7 6

Commente r Number : 1 5 Respons e Number : 9 Page : 2 Commente r Name : D.R . Wind Senio r Environmenta l Enginee r Monsant o Corporatio n Issue : Optio n 2 : Dose-Equivalen t RQ s Comment : BI D sectio n o n ingestion . Wit hthe assumption s made , the argumen t tha t ther e i s insufficien t time fo r o n sit e evaluatio n o f dosimetryi s n o longe r valid . Unde r th e propose d scenario , ther e i s mor e tha n ampl e time t o evaluat e a releas e i n term s o f potential , i f no t actual , dos e received . Response : I t i s tru e tha t radionuclid e transpor t i n ground wate r i s slo wrelativ e t o the direc t exposur e an d inhalatio n pathways , an d tha t extensiv e evaluation s o f individua l release s generall ycoul d b e mad e befor e a membe r o f th e publi c coul d b e expose d vi a thi s pathway . Unde r CERCLA , however , the governmen t mus t b e informe d immediatel yo f release s tha t maypos e a hazar d t o huma n healt ho r welfar e o r th e environment . Th e purpos e o f the RQ s i s t o allo wthe governmen t sufficien t opportunit yt o evaluat e release s tha t mayrequir e governmen t intervention , whil e no t burdenin g the governmen t wit hreport s o f release s tha t ar e no t likel yt o requir e a federal , state , o r loca l response . Th e scenario s use d wer e develope d fo r purpose s o f establishin g RQs , no t fo r purpose s o f evaluatin g a releas e t o determin e a n appropriat e response . Th e "respons e determination " i s mad e b ythe On-Scen e Coordinato r afte r h e receive s notificatio n fro mthe Nationa l Respons e Cente r tha t ther e ha s bee n a release . Th e Agenc ydoe s no t believ e tha t establishin g a dose-equivalen t leve l a s the radionuclid e RQ i s an acceptabl e option . Estimating dose-equivalen t level s i s a comple x procedur e tha t relie s substantiall yo n individua l judgment . Dose-equivalen t mayvaryconsiderabl yfo r differen t release s eve n i f the same quantit yo f radionuclide s i s involved . Estimating dose-equivalen t level s require s makin g numerou s assumptions , an d the leve l o f dos e ma yvary drasticall yunde r differen t assumptions . A n RQ define d i n terms o f dose

equivalent , therefore , woul d leave a significan t amoun t o f judgmen t t o the perso n i n charg e o f the facilit yo r vessel . Thi s woul d mea n tha t i t woul d b e difficul t to : (1 ) assur e tha t the governmen t woul d b e notifie d o f al l radionuclid e release s tha t i t deem s necessary ; an d (2 ) enforc e a n RQ i n dose

equivalen t units . Further , establishin g RQ s o n the basi s o f dose-equivalent s mean s tha t someon e othe r tha n the federa l governmen t wil l b e determining whethe r ther e i s actua l o r potentia l publi c exposure . Th e Agenc ybelieve s tha t CERCLA' s RQ requirement s wer e intende d t o ensur e tha t the federa l governmen t i s notifie d o f al l release s tha t "ma ypos e a threa t t o huma n health , welfare , an d the environment. " 

### T-l lP.7 7

Commente r Number : Page : Commente r Name :

Issue : Comment : 1 0 2 M.S . Whittake r Corporat e Healt hPhysicis t Chem-Nuclea r Systems , Inc . Optio n 3 : Singl e Activity-Leve l R Q Respons e Number : 1 0

Curie s and becquerel s ar e unit s o f radioactivit yno t radiatio n measurement . Also , activit yrelease d ma yo r mayno t b e eas yt o measur e dependin g o n th e radionuclid e released . However , selecting a singl e activit y leve l fo r al l radionuclide s woul d be , a s yo u state , inappropriate . Response : Curie s and becquerel s ar e indee d unit s o f activit yan d no t radiatio n measurement . Th e preambl e ha s bee n correcte d accordingly . Activit yrelease d i s relativel yeas yt o measure , whe n compare d t o measurin g the potentia l fo r delivering a specifi c dose-equivalen t t o a membe r o f the public . Asignifican t amoun t o f judgmen t o n the par t o f the facilit y owne r o r operato r i s require d i n the cas e o f the latter . Additionally , peopl e tha t handl e radionuclide s generall yar e awar e o f the quantitie s theyar e handling , i n term s o f curie s o r becquerels , and , i n the even t o f a release , woul d b e abl e t o estimat e th e siz e o f the releas e i n a mor e timel ymanner .

T-1 2P.7 8

Commente r Number : Page : Commente r Name :

Issue : Comment : Respons e Number : 1 1
Denni s B . Naf f Radiatio n Safet yOffice r Mobi l Minin g and Mineral s Compan y Selecte d Option : Activit yLeve l RQ s

I n summary , Mobi l support s th e rational e fo r specifyin g radionuclid e quantitie s i n activit yunit s rathe r tha n b yweight . Response : EPAappreciate s the suppor t b yMobi l i n th e Agency' s decisio n t o specif y RQ s fo r radionuclide s i n activit yunit s rathe r tha n b yweight .

T-1 3P.7 9

Commente r Number : Page : Commente r Name : 6 2 Respons e Number : 1 2

Mar c Bowma n Environmenta l Engineerin g Superviso r FM C Corporatio n Issue : Selecte d Option : Activit yLeve l RQ s Comment : Th e obviou s inten t o f CERCLAreportin g requirement s unde r Section s 103(a ) and 103(b ) i s t o mak e EPAand the State s awar e o f release s t o the environmen t whic htrul ypos e a threa t t o huma n healt hand the environment . FMC agree s tha t adjustment s t o some reportabl e quantitie s (RQ ) ar e neede d t o allo wEPAt o focu s it s resource s o n th e mos t seriou s release s an d t o protec t publi c healt h and welfar e and th e environmen t mor e effectively . Th e subjec t propose d rulemakin g doe s this . FMC support s thi s effor t t o adjus t th e R Q fo r radionuclide s t o a n activit ylimi t instea d o f a weigh t limit . Thi s i s a fa r mor e sensibl e approac hfo r radionuclides . Response : EPAdisagree s wit hthe commente r i n the sens e tha t th e inten t o f CERCLA reportin g requirement s unde r section s 103(a ) an d 103(b ) i s t o mak e the governmen t awar e o f release s t o th e environmen t tha t maypos e a threa t t o huma n healt ho r th e environment , no t release s tha t trul ypos e a threat . RQ s d o no t hav e t o b e quantitie s tha t wil l necessaril ycaus e harm . Thi s wa s a poin t raise d durin g the Senat e debat e o n CERCL A(se e 12 6 Cong . Rec . S14965 , Dail yEditio n Novembe r 24 , 198 0 (Statemen t b ySenato r Randolph)) . EPAha s decide d t o relat e radionuclid e RQ s t o the inheren t radiotoxicit yo f a chemical . I t shoul d b e stressed , however , tha t a n R Q leve l doe s no t equa l the ris k pose d b

yth e releas e o f the hazardou s substance . Th e R Q represent s a determinatio n onl yo f possibl e o r potentia l harm . Th e actua l risk s fro ma releas e wil l varywit hthe circumstance s o f the releas e an d canno t b e determine d ahea d o f time .

T-1 4P.8 0

Commente r Number : 1 7 Page : 3 Commente r Name : Respons e Number : 1 3
Walte r R . Quanstro m Genera l Manage r and Vic e Presiden t . Amoc o Corporatio n Issue : Selecte d Option : Activit yLeve l RQ s Comment : I n conclusion , Amoc o support s th e Agency' s proposa l fo r activity-base d RQ s fo r individua l radionuclides . Response : EPAappreciate s the suppor t o f Amoc o Corporatio n i n the Agency' s decisio n t o specif yRQ s fo r radionuclide s i n activit yunit s rathe r tha n b yweight .

T-1 5P.8 1

Commente r Number : Page : Commente r Name : L 2 1 Ro yW . Brown , Manage r RegulatoryComplianc e Mallinckrod t Inc . Respons e Number : 1 4

Issue : Comment : Selecte d Option : Activit yLeve l RQ s

Mallinckrod t full ysupport s EPA' s proposa l t o lis t th e RQ s fo r radionuclide s i n term s o f curies . A s the CERCLAlis t appear s now , ther e i s some confusio n o n ho wyo u determin e th e weigh t o f radioactivit yi n solution . A s yo u state d i n th e propose d rule , the concentratio n o f radionuclide s ca n var ya grea t deal . Th e us e o f RQ s i n curie s wil l resul t i n a mor e logica l and definitiv e standar d fo r protectin g th e publi c i n th e unlikel yeven t o f a n accident . Response : EP Aappreciate s the suppor t o f Mallinckrod t Inc . i n th e Agency' s decisio n t o specif yRQ s fo r radionuclide s i n activit yunit s rathe r tha n b yweight .

T-1 6P.8 2

Commente r Number : Page : Commente r Name : W.B . Smalley , Sr . ProgramManage r Environmenta l Protectio n Genera l Electri c Respons e Number :

Issue : Comment : Mode l Assumptions : Al l

W e judg e th e model s use d b yEPAt o deriv e a n R Q fo r eac hradionuclid e t o b e appropriat e fo r th e purpos e - - t o se t a trigge r leve l fo r reporting s o tha t th e governmen t mayevaluat e the nee d fo r cleanu p and countermeasures . I t i s note d tha t th e model s an d assumption s ar e conservativ e (i.e. , 3 0 mdispersio n distance , 2 4 hrs/dayexposure , 5 0 y r dos e commitment) . Further , the model s ar e conservativ e enoughtha t i t i s no t likel ytha t a membe r o f th e publi c woul d b e expose d t o mor e tha n 50 0 mrem s befor e countermeasure s coul d b e taken . I n mos t actua l exposur e situations , actua l dose s receive d ar e likel yt o b e muc hless . Response : EPAappreciate s the suppor t o f General'Electri c i n the Agency' s us e o f th e specifi c mode l assumption s use d t o deriv e th e RQ s fo r radionuclides . EP A agree s tha t th e model s an d assumption s use d i n the adjustmen t o f fina l RQ s ar e conservativ e and that , i n mos t actua l exposur e situations , expose d individual s likel ywil l receiv e les s tha n 50 0 mrems .

T-1 7P.8 3

Commente r Number : 1 4 Respons e Number : 2 Page : 9 Commente r Name : John J . Kearney , Jr . Senio r Vic e Presiden t Ediso n Electri c Institut e Issue : Mode l Assumptions : Al l Comment : EPA' s exposur e assumptions , whil e arguabl yjustifiabl e fo r release s from some sources , ar e wholl yunrealisti c i n th e cas e o f (1 ) ambien t ai r release s fromfossi l fue l fire d electri c generatin g plant s and (2 ) th e extremel ysmal l amount s o f radionuclid e release s fromcoa l as hstore d o r dispose d o f followin g combustio n a t suc hplants . Response : Base d o n a n analysi s o f airborn e emission s fromcoal-fire d boiler s (EP A 520/1-84-022-2) , mos t smokestac k release s ove r a 24-hou r perio d fromfossi l fue l fire d electri c generatin g plant s woul d b e les s tha n a n R Q and thu s woul d no t b e subjec t t o CERCI Areportin g requirements . Radionuclid e release s (i n particula r release s o f radon ) fromlarg e coa l and as hpiles , however , wil l likel yexcee d th e R Q i n a 24-hou r period . Release s tha t equa l o r excee d a n R Q i n a 24-hou r perio d mus t b e reporte d immediatel yt o th e Nationa l Respons e Center . However , i f thos e release s occu r i n a manne r tha t i s "continuous " and "stabl e i n quantit yand rate, " and i f th e facilit yowne r o r operato r report s suc hrelease s unde r CERCLAsectio n 103(a ) fo r a perio d sufficien t t o establis h th e continuity , quantity , and regularit yo f th e release , the n CERCLAsectio n 103(f)(2 ) ma yb e applicabl e and affor d some reportin g relief . Th e Agenc yha s define d the term s i n sectio n 103(f)(2 ) o f CERCLArelate d t o continuou s release s i n a separat e propose d rulemakin g (se e 5 3 F R 12868 , Apri l 19 , 1988) . Wit hrespec t t o th e applicabilit yo f th e mode l assumption s t o release s fromsmokestack s and are a source s (whic har e th e typ e o f release s expecte d fromelectri c generatin g plant s and coa l as hpiles) , se e "Inhalatio n Pathway- Respons e 1 " and "Inhalatio n Pathway- Respons e 3. " Also , i t i s importan t t o not e that , i n respons e t o request s fromth e public , EPAha s exempte d from CERCLAnotificatio n requirement s radionuclid e release s resultin g fromth e dumpin g o f coa l and coa l ash , and radionuclid e release s t o al l medi a fromcoa l and coa l as hpiles , a t utilit yand industria l facilitie s wit hcoal-fire d boiler s (se e "Exemptions/Exclusions--Respons e 2") .

T-1 8P.8 4

Commente r Number : L I Respons e Numbe r 3 Page : 7- 8 Commente r Name : John J . Kearne y Senio r Vic e Presiden t Ediso n Electri c Institut e Issue : Mode l Assumptions : Al l Comment : Conservativ e assumption s ar e reasonabl e technique s t o us e whe n considerin g a n obviousl ybroa d rang e o f potentia l exposur e scenarios . I n othe r cases , th e rang e o f potentia l exposure s i s s o broa d tha t a singl e assume d conditio n i s adopte d t o cove r al l circumstances . However , fo r some scenarios , thi s ca n resul t i n overl yconservativ e values . I n addition , althoughbuildin g a conservativ e facto r o f 2 o r 3 int o the calculatio n b y itsel f mayno t significantl yaffec t the fina l answer , the produc t o f severa l suc hindependen t conservativ e factor s ca n resul t i n maximu mreleas e value s arbitraril ylowere d b ya n orde r o f magnitud e o r more . Response : Th e Agenc ydoe s no t agre e tha t th e mode l assumption s ar e overl y conservative ; th e assumption s ar e conservativ e t o allo wfo r timel yreporting , bu t ar e no t unreasonable . Fo r example , a 50 0 millire mdose-equivalen t i s use d i n the models ; th e Agenc ycoul d hav e use d a muc hlowe r dose-equivalent . Th e 50 0 millire mleve l i s accepte d b ythe Internationa l Commissio n o n Radiologica l Protectio n an

d th e Nationa l Commissio n o n Radiatio n Protectio n a s the maximu m dose-equivalen t leve l fo r exposur e t o the genera l public . Similarly , the model s us e a 30-mete r distanc e betwee n the poin t o f releas e an d poin t o f exposure ; us e o f a 1-mete r distanc e wa s rejecte d b ythe Agenc ya s bein g overl y conservative . Th e Agenc yreceive d fewcomment s stating tha t the RQ s wer e to o low(a s woul d b e reflecte d i n overly-conservativ e assumptions) . I n addition , radioactiv e decayha s bee n adde d t o the model s i n the fina l regulation , resultin g i n eve n highe r RQ s an d a decreas e i n conservatism . Finally , i n certai n case s wher e mor e than a n RQ woul d b e release d o n a dail ybasi s (such a s release s o f naturall yoccurring radionuclide s fro mlarg e undisturbe d lan d holdings , lan

d disturbanc e activities , an d larg e coa l an

d coa l as hpiles ) the Agenc yha s grante d administrativ e exemption s t o the reporting requiremen t (se e "Exemptions/Exclusion s - - Respons e 2 an d 6") . Fo r al l thes e reasons , EP A believe s tha t the fina l RQ s ar e no t "to o low " o r "overl yconservative. "

T-1 9P.8 5

Commente r Number : L 3 Respons e Number : 4 Page : 2/ 4 Commente r Name : Jame s E . Fairoben t Offic e o f Environmenta l Guidanc e an d Complianc e U.S . Departmen t o f Energ y Issue : Mode l Assumptions : Al l Comment : Th e leve l o f conservatis mo f the propose d RQ s i s excessive... . Example s o f unnecessaril yconservativ e assumption s include : a releas e fractio n o f one ; a recepto r locate d 3 0 meter s fro mthe source ; invarian t atmospheri c dispersio n condition s fo r the inhalatio n an d direc t exposur e pathways ; n o consideratio n o f initia l concentratio n o f the radionuclid e a t the releas e poin t i n liqui d release s fo r ingestio n calculations ; and , n o consideratio n o f radioactiv e decay . Consideratio n o f a shorte r distanc e t o a recepto r (e.g. , 1 meter ) i s clearl yunwarrante d give n al l o f the othe r conservatism s involve d i n th e selectio n o f th e RQs . Th e pathway-base d methodologyi s acceptable ; however , the assumption s use d i n the curren t rulemaking ar e extremel yconservative . Mor e conservativ e assumption s ar e no t warranted , an d conservatis mca n an d shoul d b e reduced . Response : Se e "Mode l Assumption s - Respons e 3, " "Mode l Assumption s - Respons e 15, " and "Direc t Exposur e Pathway- Respons e 1. " Also , i n specifi c respons e t o thi s comment , the fina l RQs :

o Ar e base d o n airborn e releas e fraction s tha t rang e fro m 0.00 1 t o 1 ; an

d
o Hav e bee n calculate d usin g equation s tha t incorporat e the effect s o f radioactiv e decay , wher e appropriate . I n addition , releas e value s fo r the inhalatio n pathwaywer e calculate d independentl yo f the period s o f releas e an d exposur e becaus e bound s o n thes e period s i n an

ygive n releas e situatio n canno t b e established . Therefore , th e inhalatio n RV s ar e applicabl e t o al l releas e an d exposur e durations , including veryshor t ones , an d i t i s no t unreasonabl e t o assume tha t atmospheri c dispersio n condition s ove r shor t period s wil l remai n constant . Finally , calculation s fo r th e ground-wate r ingestio n pathwayconside r the tota l quantit yo f radionuclid e released , bu t no t the initia l concentratio n a t the releas e point . Whil e th e Agenc yrecognize s tha t change s i n initia l concentration s i n the calculation s woul d giv e differen t releas e value s fo r thi s pathway , the concentratio n o f radionuclid e release d coul d varywidel yi n actua l releas e situation s an d the Agenc yha s n o basi s fo r assumin g a singl e concentratio n o r rang e o f concentration s fo r calculationa l purposes . Therefore , the Agenc ybelieve s tha t i t wa s justifie d in using a conservativ e calculationa l approac htha t consider s poin t sourc e release s int o ground wate r irrespectiv e o f th

e concentratio n released . T-2 0P.8 6

Commente r Number : 1 Respons e Number : 5 Page : 1 Commente r Name : Garri s D . Parker , Jr . Departmen t Hea d Radiatio n Protectio n Departmen t Th e Wellcom e Researc hLaboratorie s Burrough s Wellcome Co . Issue : Mode l Assumptions : Dose-Equivalen t Comment : Sinc e thi s actio n regard s "substantia l dange r t o th e publi c o r threat s t o th e environment, " the choic e o f a dos e equivalen t shoul d b e mad e ver y carefully . Th e chose n 50 0 milliremmayno t b e th e mos t appropriate . Accordin g t o BEIR-II I (NA S BEIR-III , 1980) , a dos e equivalen t o f thi s magnitud e woul d resul t i n a n increas e i n fata l cance r ris k o f approximatel y IO- 5 t o IO- 4

. I n the genera l safet yfield , a n industrywit han averag e annua l mortalit y du e t o occupationa l hazard s o f IO- 4 i s considere d t o b e "safe. " Therefore , i n orde r t o remai n withi n the definitio n o f "substantia l danger, " w e propos e a dos e equivalen t o f greate r tha n 5 rem . Ados e equivalen t o f approximatel y2 5 remmayb e mos t appropriat e sinc e on e woul d begi n t o se e clinica l indication s o f th e exposure . Response : Th e phras e "substantia l dange r t o the publi c healt ho r welfar e o r the environmen t ... " appear s i n sectio n 102(a ) o f CERCL Aan d refer s t o the designatio n o f additiona l hazardou s substance s b ythe Administrator . Thi s statemen t canno t b e construe d t o mea n tha t RQ s fo r individua l hazardou s substance s mus t b e se t a t suc ha leve l tha t report s shoul d b e receive d onl y whe n ther e i s a substantia l dange r t o the publi c healt ho r welfar e o r the environment . Indeed , sectio n 104(a)(1 ) o f CERCL Aauthorize s federa l actio n whe n ther e i s "imminen t an d substantia l dange r t o th e publi c healt ho r welfar e

.... " RQ s ar e simpl ya trigge r tha t allow s federa l authoritie s t o evaluat e a releas e i n orde r t o determin e if , depending upo n the circumstance s surroundin g the release , ther e i s a nee d fo r federal , state , an d loca l action . RQ s ar e reporting trigger s an d ar e no t designe d t o limi t the healt hrisk s associate d wit hradionuclid e releases . Nevertheless , i t i s apparen t tha t 2 5 remwoul d no t b e an appropriat e basi s fo r a reporting trigge r because , a s the commente r acknowledges , clinica l indication s o f exposur e ar e apparen t alread y a t tha t level . A

n RQ base d on a 2 5 re mdose-equivalent , therefore , ma yno t allo wfo r timel ygovernmen t responses .

T-2 1Commente r Number :

Page : Commente r Name :

Issue : Comment : Respons e Number : 6

W.B . Smalley , Sr . ProgramManage r Environmenta l Protectio n Genera l Electri c Mode l Assumptions : Dose-Equivalen t

W e encourag e EP At o us e 50 0 mrem s effectiv e dos e equivalen t a s the basi s fo r calculatin g RQs . Th e valu e i s consisten t wit hthe lowes t dos e leve l recommende d b

ythe ICR P fo r countermeasure s i n the even t o f a majo r radiatio n acciden t (ICRP 40 , p.20-21) . W e understand an d concu r wit hthe nee d t o expres s RQ s i n a mor e directl ymeasurabl e quantit ysuc ha s activit yi n curies . Activit yrelease d i s unambiguou s an d ca n b e determine d mor e quickl ytha n estimate s o f dos e equivalent . W e encourag e EPAno t t o lowe r the 50 0 mre mbasi s fo r RQs . Suc hactio n woul d increas e cost s withou t a correspondin g improvemen t i n publi c healt han d safety . Adequat e conservatis mi s buil t int o the models . Th e lowering t o the valu e i n othe r standard s suc ha s 2 5 mrem s i n 4 0 CF R 19 0 i s no t appropriate . Th e purpos e o f a n R Q i s t o b e a reportin g leve l triggering countermeasures . Lowerin g th e R Q basi s woul d impos e unnecessarydua l conservatis mand woul d trigge r federa l respons e whe n i t i s no t needed , thu s wastin g mone yan d resources . I t i s no t reasonabl e t o unnecessaril yplac e requirement s o n U.S . industrytha t ar e l/5t ht o l/20t ho f the lowes t internationa l standard . Response : EP Abelieve s that , fo r the tim e being , basin g RQ s fo r radionuclide s upo n a 50 0 milliremdose-equivalen t i s sufficientl yconservativ e t o provid e the governmen t wit hreport s o f release s i n a timel ymanner . A t the same time , a 50 0 milliremdose-equivalen t i s no t overl yconservativ e an d i s no t expecte d t o lead t o a larg e numbe r o f report s t o whic hthe governmen t wil l no t respond . However , i f the Federa l Radiatio n Protectio n Guidanc e recommendatio n fo r exposur e limit s fo r the genera l publi c change s fro m50 0 milliremt o 10 0 millirem , o r an

yothe r level , the Agenc ywil l conside r adjusting the radionuclid e RQ s accordingl yi n a futur e technica l update . I n respons e t o the commen t tha t th e ".. . purpos e o f an RQ i s t o b e a reporting leve l triggerin g countermeasures, " th e Agenc ywishe s t o clarif ythe purpose s o f RQs . RQ s ar e trigger s fo r federa l notificatio n o f a release , no t trigger s fo r federa l response . Th e goa l o f developing RQ s i s t o deriv e a leve l a t whic hthe federa l governmen t woul d wan t t o b e notifie d o f a releas e s o a determinatio n ca n b e mad e whethe r o r no t t o respon d t o the release . Response s mayrang e frommakin g telephon e call s t o th e releaser , contactin g stat e o r loca l respons e personne l t o ensur e appropriat e actio n i s bein g take n t o mitigat e an

ythreat s pose d b

yth e release , evacuatio n o f nearb yresidences , an d actua l cleanu

p o f contaminate d areas .

T-2 2P.8 8

Respons e Number : 6 (continued )

RQ s mus t b e sensitiv e enought o cove r release s froma wid e variet yo f source s unde r varyin g circumstances . R Q level s ar e no t establishe d fo r th e purpose s o f setting permi t limit s o r othe r regulatorystandards . Othe r Agenc y program s ar e charge d wit hdeveloping standard s o r sourc e permits . Fo r example , the Nationa l Emission s Standard s fo r Hazardou s Ai r Pollutant s (NESHAPs) , implemente d unde r th e Clea n Ai r Act , establis hemissio n limit s fo r radionuclide s release d t o the air . State s authorizin g the developmen t an d promulgatio n o f standard s o r permi t limit s mayrequir e consideratio n o f actua l o r potentia l risk s and costs . I n contrast , RQ s ar e no t require d t o b e base d o n healt ho r scientifi c informatio n bu t mayb e develope d base d o n administrativ e ease . Indeed , the legislativ e histor yo f CERCL Astate s tha t "Administrativ e feasibilit yand practicalit yshoul d b e primaryfactors " i n determinin g reportabl e quantitie s (Senat e Repor t No . 90-848 , t o accompan yS.1680 , 96t hCong . 2n d Sess. , 1980) . Th e Agency , i n developin g the R Q adjustmen t methodologyfo r bot hth e chemica l hazardou s substance s an d radionuclides , ha s structure d a rankin g systemtha t reflect s the relativ e hazar d pose d b yhazardou s substances . Th e Agenc y believe s tha t thi s relativ e ranking methodologyserve s the purpos e o f th e R Q reporting trigger .

T-2 3P.8 9

Commente r Number : Page : Commente r Name : 1 4 3/7- 9 John J . Kearney , Jr . Senio r Vic e Presiden t Ediso n Electri c Institut e Respons e Number :

Issue : Comment : Mode l Assumptions : Dose-Equivalen t

O n th e whole , the propose d rul e appear s t o achiev e EPA' s goal s o f identifyin g release s tha t pos e the mos t seriou s potentia l dange r t o th e publi c healt ho r welfar e o r th e environment , whil e minimizin g the reporting burden s impose d o n th e public . Specifically , w e endors e EPA' s proposal s t o us e 50 0 millire ma s the dos e equivalen t valu e fo r calculatin g RQs . T o establis hreportabl e quantitie s fo r radionuclides , EPAha s use d a n annua l dos e equivalen t leve l o f 50 0 millirem , whic hi s one-tent ho f th e occupationa l dos e equivalen t limi t o f 5 rempe r year . A s a consequence , EPA ha s use d one-tent ho f the curi e leve l se t b yth e Internationa l Commissio n o n Radiatio n Protectio n fo r th e Annua l Limit s o f Intak e fo r occupationa l exposure . A s EPArecognizes , the Federa l Radiatio n Protectio n Guidanc e establishe s 50 0 millire ma s th e leve l tha t provide s adequat e protectio n t o individua l member s o f th e public . Althoug hEPAmayrecommend lowering the 50 0 millire mlimi t i n the Radiatio n Protectio n Guidance , the Agenc yshoul d retai n tha t leve l fo r purpose s o f calculatin g reportabl e quantitie s fo r radionuclides . Tha t leve l i s a n appropriat e measuremen t fo r emergency , episodi c release s tha t threate n publi c healt ho r welfar e - - the kind o f releas e a t whic hCERCLA' s notificatio n requirement s ar e aimed . Particularl ygive n the ver yconservativ e assumption s use d i n EPA' s reportabl e quantit yadjustmen t methodology- - e.g. , the failur e t o conside r radioactiv e decayo f short-live d radionuclide s an d the 30-mete r distanc e assumptio n fo r exposur e t o release s -- a decisio n t o readjus t reportabl e quantitie s base d o n a lowe r dos e equivalen t leve l woul d resul t i n a n unnecessar yan

d burdensom e increas e i n CERCL Areporting obligations . Suc h a decisio n als o woul d frustrat e the Agency' s goa l o f "concentrat[ing ] it s attentio n an

d resource s o n the release s tha t potentiall yar e mos t threatenin g t o publi c healt ho r welfar e o r the environment. " Response : Se e "Mode l Assumption s - Respons e 6. "

T-2 4P.9 0

Commente r Number : 1 5 Respons e Number : 8 Page : 1 Commente r Name : D.R . Wind Senio r Environmenta l Enginee r Monsant o Corporatio n Issue : Mode l Assumptions : Dose-Equivalen t Comment : Sectio n IV.B: , pag e 8178 , 1s t column . A n emergenc yrespons e a t a leve l o f 2 5 t o 10 0 mre mwoul d appea r t o b e inappropriat e i n vie wo f TSCA ' s reportin g requirement s fo r incident s presentin g "substantia l ris k o f injuryt o healt ho r the environment " o r the CERCI Arequiremen t t o repor t release s o f "thos e substance s which , whe n release d int o th e environment , ma ypresen t substantia l dange r t o the publi c healt ho r welfar e o r the environment. " Curren t federa l radiatio n protectio n guidanc e fo r occupationa l exposure , i n it s discussio n o f ALAR Aprograms , refer s t o referenc e level s a s indication s o f nee d fo r suc h actions , a s recording , investigation , an d intervention . Referenc e level s i n the propose d revise d 1 0 CF R Par t 2 0 ar e derive d fromexposure s whic hwoul d produc e a n effectiv e dos e equivalen t o f 10 0 mrem . I t woul d b e illogica l fo r thes e same referenc e level s t o als o trigge r notificatio n o f the Emergenc y Respons e Center . Emergenc yrespons e shoul d b e reserve d fo r rea l threats . W e sugges t a notificatio n leve l o f 1 5 rem . Response : Se e "Mode l Assumption s - Respons e 5 " and "Mode l Assumption s - Respons e 6. " Also , EPAwishe s t o clarif ythe relationshi p betwee n RQ s an d the Nuclea r RegulatoryCommission' s "referenc e levels " i n the propose d revisio n t o 1 0 CF R Par t 20 . I n tha t propose d rule , the Commissio n propose d a dos e limi t fo r member s o f the genera l publi c o f 50 0 millirempe r year , whic hi s consisten t wit hthe Federa l Radiatio n Protectio n Guidanc e an d the same dos e leve l o n whic hthe fina l RQ s ar e based . However , the Commissio n states-tha t (se e 5 1 F R 1112 , January9,.1986 ) :

Dos e limit s ar e intende d t o appl yt o rea l dose s t o person s actuall yexposed . However , i t i s impossibl e t o accuratel y determin e suc hdose s becaus e o f incomplet e informatio n abou t persona l food intak e an d habits , individua l metabolism , spatia l an

d tempora l considerations , an d othe r confoundin g factors . T o compensat e fo r thi s lac k o f information , i t i s necessaryfo r licensee s t o assume value s fo r thes e factor s tha t ar e conservativ e (i.e. , tending t o overestimat e the dose) . Complianc e wit hthe dos e limit s ca n the n generall y b e establishe d i n a practica l manne r b yevaluatin g exposure s agains t a referenc e leve l tha t i s a smal l fractio n o f the annua l dos e limit . Thi s assume s tha t th e annua l dos e t o the maximall yexpose d rea l perso n i s no t likel yt o excee d a factio n o f the limits , an d almos t certainl ywil l no t

T-2 5P.9 1

Respons e Number : 8 (continued )

excee d the limit s eve n i f ther e ar e othe r license d and unlicense d radiatio n source s i n the vicinity . Fo r thes e reasons , th e Commissio n propose d a dose-equivalen t referenc e leve l o f 10 0 millire mpe r yea r fo r individua l member s o f the public . Licensee s operatin g withi n thi s referenc e leve l woul d b e confiden t tha t n o membe r o f the publi c woul d receiv e a n unacceptabl yhig hdose . I f a license e ha s reaso n t o believ e tha t a membe r o f th e genera l publi c i s likel yt o receiv e mor e tha n 10 0 millire mi n a year , the license e woul d b e require d to : (1 ) repor t thi s t o the Nuclea r RegulatoryCommission ; (2 ) provid e evidenc e tha t th e 50 0 millire m limi t wil l no t b e exceeded ; (3 ) describ e step s take n t o kee p the dos e a s lo w a s reasonabl yachievable ; and (4 ) explai n wh ythe estimate d dos e exceed s 10 0 millire mpe r year . Fromth e abov e discussion , i t i s clea r tha t th e referenc e dos e i s no t a dos e limit , bu t rathe r i s a mechanis mt o kee p annua l dose s a s lo wa s reasonabl yachievabl e and belo wth e 50 0 millire mlimi t i f a t al l possible . Accordingly , EPAsee s n o reaso n a t thi s time t o bas e the RQ s o n 10 0 millirem , th e referenc e level . Furthermore , EPAbelieve s tha t th e RQ s ar e completel y consisten t wit hthe referenc e leve l approach ; theyar e base d o n a dos e limi t o f 50 0 millire mand ar e calculate d i n a conservativ e manne r tha t assure s tha t th e releas e o f a n R Q wil l likel yresul t i n actua l dose s tha t ar e onl ya fractio n o f 50 0 millirem . However , EP Anote s tha t i f the Federa l Radiatio n Protectio n Guidanc e recommendatio n fo r exposur e limit s fo r the genera l publi c change s from50 0 millire mt o 10 0 millirem , o r an yothe r level , the Agenc ywil l conside r adjusting the radionuclid e RQ s accordingl yi n a futur e technica l update .

T-2 6P.9 2

Commente r Number : 2 5 Respons e Number : 9 Page : 1- 2 Commente r Name : Gret a J . Dicus , Directo r Divisio n o f Radiatio n Contro l and Emergenc yManagemen t Arkansa s Departmen t o f Healt h Issue : Mode l Assumptions : Dos e Equivalen t Comment : Th e (draft ) EP AProtectiv e Actio n Guide s (PAGs ) fo r powe r generatin g facilit yaccident s us e dos e limit s o f 1- 5 rem . Thi s propose d rul e discusse s level s o f 500 , 100 , o r 2 5 millirem . Wh ysuc hhig hlimit s fo r on e typ e o f acciden t an

d suc hlo wlimit s fo r othe r type s o f accident s o r situation s involving release s o f radiation ? Th e reference d PAG s fo r powe r plant s hav e a rational e whic hcontain s a n extensiv e statemen t regarding ris k versu s cos t versu s justificatio n whic hi s use d a s a rational e fo r the PA G limits . Th e propose d rul e seem s t o ignor e thes e factor s an d utiliz e a magnifie d perceive d ris k rathe r tha n a mor e realisti c actua l risk . 50 0 millire mi s a n establishe d limi t t o whic hi t i s nearl yimpossibl e t o assig n a biologica l risk . However , i f dos e limit s mus t b e lowered , i t woul d certainl yb e preferabl e fo r al l regulatoryagencie s t o agre e o n on e limi t rathe r tha n havin g severa l differen t limit s t o dea l with . Response : EPA' s Protectiv e Actio n Guide s (PAGs ) wer e prepare d i n conformanc e wit ha Federa l Registe r notic e o f interagenc yresponsibilitie s fo r nuclea r inciden t respons e plannin g date d Januar y17 , 1973 . Accordin g t o thi s notice , EPAi s responsibl e fo r (1 ) establishmen t o f protectiv e actio n guidelines , (2 ) recommendation s a s t o appropriat e protectiv e actions , (3 ) assistanc e t o Stat e agencie s i n th e developmen t o f emergenc yrespons e plans , an d (4 ) establishmen t o f radiatio n detectio n and measuremen t systems . Th e PAG s ar e no t intende d t o b e "dos e limits, " a s suggeste d b ythe commente r and , i n fact , a manual ^ o n the PAG s state s tha t "[a ] Protectiv e Actio n Guid e unde r n o circumstance s implie s a n acceptabl e dose. " Rather , the PAG s ar e expresse d i n term s o f projecte d dose s t o individual s tha t migh t warran t protectiv e actio n b yresponsibl e officials . EP Arecommend s tha t protectiv e action s shoul d b e considere d whe n i t i s possibl e fo r member s o f the genera l publi c t o receiv e a whol e bod ydos e i n the rang e o f 1 t o 5 rem . Protectiv e action s mayb e considere d optional , t o b e take n i f readil y feasible , i f peopl e mayreceiv e a dos e o f 1 rem . I f a t al l feasible , however , protectiv e action s ar e highl yrecommende d i f peopl e ma yreceiv e 5 rems .

1 / U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Offic e o f Radiatio n Programs , "Manua l o f Protectiv e Actio n Guide s an d Protectiv e Action s fo r Nuclea r Incidents, " Septembe r 197 5 (Revise d Jun e 1980) .

T-2 7P.9 3

Respons e Number : 9 (continued )

I n contrast , the radionuclid e RQ s ar e quantitie s tha t trigge r notificatio n o f the Nationa l Respons e Cente r whe n theyar e release d int o the environment . Thi s notificatio n i s intende d t o giv e the governmen t th e opportunit yt o evaluat e whethe r a respons e i s needed . Th e Agenc ybelieve s ther e ar e thre e goo d reason s fo r basin g th e RQ s o n 0. 5 remrathe r tha n th e PAG s (i.e. , 1- 5 rem) . First , the PAG s an d RQ s diffe r i n thei r basi c purpose . Th e PAG s ar e projecte d dos e level s tha t migh t warran t protectiv e action , whil e th e RQ s ar e simpl yreportin g trigger s designe d t o giv e th e governmen t the opportunit yt o evaluat e th e releas e and moun t a respons e i f necessary . Give n thes e differen t purposes , EPAsee s n o reaso n wh yth e PAG s and RQ s shoul d b e base d o n the same dos e level . Second , whil e th e RQ s wer e calculate d base d o n a dos e o f 0. 5 rem , th e releas e o f a n R Q i n th e rea l worl d wil l no t necessaril y resul t i n dose s o f 0. 5 rem . Althoughconsidere d unlikely , the releas e o f a n R Q coul d caus e dose s muc hhighe r tha n 0. 5 rem , perhap s eve n 5 rem . T o accoun t fo r thi s uncertainty , EPAbase d the RQ s o n a reasonabl ylo wdos e tha t woul d assur e timel yreportin g fo r mos t circumstances . Finally , th e "protectiv e actions " tha t appea r t o b e contemplate d b yth e PAG s ar e generall ylarge-scal e actions , suc ha s emergenc yrespons e plannin g and evacuatio n o n a community

wid e level . Th e government , however , maywis ht o tak e smaller-scal e action s i n respons e t o a radionuclid e release , suc ha s makin g telephon e call s t o appropriat e personne l o r cleaning u p a release . Th e 0. 5 remleve l use d t o calculat e th e RQ s i s considere d lowenought o giv e the governmen t the opportunit yt o carryou t thes e small-scal e responses , a s wel l a s an ylarge

scal e response s tha t migh t b e necessary .

T-2 8P.9 4

Commente r Number : Page : Commente r Name :

Issue : Comment : L 2 2- 3 Ro yW . Brown , Manage r RegulatoryComplianc e Mai1inckrodt , Ine . Mode l Assumptions : Dose-Equivalen t Respons e Number : 1 0

Th e propose d adjustment s t o the R Q value s fo r radionuclide s ar e base d o n a dos e o f 50 0 mrem . Ther e i s a discussio n o f reducin g th e RQ s fo r radionuclide s eve n lowe r base d o n a dos e lowe r tha n 50 0 mrem . Thi s reductio n belo w50 0 mre mi s unsupporte d an d i s contraryt o internationa l and nationa l recommendations . Th e Internationa l Commissio n o n Radiologica l Protectio n (ICRP ) i n Publicatio n No . 2 6 recommend s a n annua l dos e limi t o f 50 0 mremt o individua l member s o f th e public . Th e ICR P state s thi s dos e limi t "ha s bee n found t o provid e [a n acceptable ] degre e o f safet yan d the commissio n recommend s it s continue d use..." . Th e Nationa l Counci l o n Radiatio n Protectio n and Measuremen t (NCRP ) als o recommende d a dos e limi t t o th e publi c o f 50 0 mre mpe r yea r i n Repor t No . 43 . Bot hthe ICR P an d NCR P recommendation s ar e base d o n norma l exposure . Th e subjec t o f th e EPA' s propose d rul e deal s wit haccidenta l o r unplanne d exposures . Proposin g tha t th e standar d b e base d o n th e same limi t o f 50 0 mremexposur e fo r a n acciden t i s clearl yto o conservative . Thi s result s i n a standar d tha t i s undul yrestrictiv e withou t adequat e justification . An ydiscussio n o f lowering the standar d t o achiev e a n exposur e les s tha n 50 0 mrem , i s eve n mor e absurd . Response : Se e "Mode l Assumption s - Respons e 6. "

T-2 9P.9 5

Commente r Number : L 3 Respons e Number : 1 1 Page : 1- 2 Commente r Name : Jame s E . Fairoben t Offic e o f Environmenta l Guidanc e an d Complianc e U.S . Departmen t o f Energy Issue : Mode l Assumptions : Dose-Equivalen t Comment : Th e propose d RQ s fo r radionuclide s shoul d remai n base d o n a dos e limi t o f 50 0 mrem . Th e NPRM contain s discussion s whic hindicat e tha t the dos e limi t ma yb e lowere d t o 10 0 mre mo r below . Suc hreduction s woul d b e base d eithe r o n possibl e revision s o f curren t radiatio n protectio n standard s fo r the public , whic har e presentl ycontaine d i n guidanc e develope d b ythe Federa l Radiatio n Council , o r o n curren t dos e limit s i n environmenta l radiatio n standard s develope d b

ythe EPAfo r man

yspecifi c practices . Reduction s i n the dos e limi t o n whic hth e RQ s ar e base d ar e no t warrante d becaus e bot hthe Internationa l Commissio n o n Radiologica l Protectio n (ICRP ) an d the Nationa l Counci l o n Radiatio n Protectio n and Measurement s (NCRP ) recommend tha t 50 0 mre mi s a n appropriat e radiatio n protectio n standar d fo r member s o f the publi c fo r short-termexposures , whic har e the onl yexposure s o f interes t i n developin g the RQ s fo r radionuclides . Ados e limi t o f 10 0 mre mi s believe d b y the majo r scientifi c organization s t o b e necessaryfo r protectio n o f publi c healt hand safet yonl yfo r prolonge d o r continuou s exposures . Alimi t o f 2 5 mrem , obtaine d fromenvironmenta l radiatio n standard s fo r specifi c practices , i s inappropriat e fo r establishin g th e RQ s fo r radionuclide s becaus e thi s dos e limi t i s base d o n applicatio n o f the "a s lowa s reasonabl yachievable " (ALARA ) principl e t o standar d setting , an d i s no t necessaryfo r protectio n o f publi c healt hand safet yfro mshort-termexposures . Also , a n additiona l degre e o f conservatis mi n establishin g the dos e limi t o n whic hthe RQ s ar e base d i s unwarrante d give n the conservativ e natur e o f the model s use d t o estimat e dos e fo r the differen t pathways . Response : Th e respons e t o "Mode l Assumption s - 6 " i s als o applicabl e t o thi s comment . Also , wit hon e exception , EP Aagree s wit hthe point s mad e i n thi s comment . Specifically , EP Aagree s that , a t thi s time , a dos e o f 50 0 mremi s an appropriat e leve l o n whic ht o bas e the fina l RQs . Thi s dos e leve l pose s a ris k o f cance r o f approximatel yIxlO" 5 , whic hi s i n the rang e o f ris k pose d b y release s o f a n RQ o f potentia l chemica l carcinogen s (whe n the chemica l carcinoge n RQ s ar e evaluate d usin g the same pathwaymodel s use d i n the adjustmen t o f radionuclid e RQs) . However , i t shoul d b e note d tha t i f the Federa l Radiatio n Protectio n Guidanc e recommendatio n fo r exposur e limit s fo r member s o f the genera l publi c change s fro m50 0 mremt o 10 0 mrem , o r an yothe r level , the Agenc ywil l conside r adjusting the radionuclid e RQ s i n a technica l update . EPAals o agree s tha t i t woul d b e inappropriat e t o bas e th e RQ s o n a dos e limi t o f 2 5 mrem , whic hi s use d i n severa l environmenta l radiatio n standard s fo r specifi c practice s (e.g. , 4 0 CFR Par t 190 , whic hestablishe s environmenta l radiatio n standard s fo r the nuclea r fue l cycle) . Thi s dos e limi t ha s bee n T-3 0P.9 6

Respons e Number : 1 1 (continued )

establishe d i n severa l standard s becaus e i t i s a s lo wa s reasonabl y achieveabl e (ALARA) , no t becaus e i t i s clearl ynecessaryfo r the protectio n o f publi c healt hand safety . Becaus e o f the numerou s conservativ e assumption s use d t o calculat e th e fina l RQs , EPAbelieve s tha t th e releas e o f a n R Q wil l likel ycaus e a dos e o f les s tha n 50 0 mre mand tha t i t woul d b e unnecessar yt o increas e th e degre e o f conservatis mb yusin g a dos e o f 2 5 mre mi n the fina l R Q calculations . EPAdisagree s tha t "the onl yexposure s o f interes t i n developin g th e RQ s fo r radionuclides " ar e short-termexposures . I t i s importan t t o clarif ytha t CERCLAsectio n 10 3 als o require s reporting o f continuou s releases , whic hcoul d resul t i n exposure s tha t ar e no t necessaril yshort-term .

T-3 1P.9 7

Commente r Number : 1 0 Respons e Number : 1 2 Page : 2 Commente r Name : M.S . Whittake r Corporat e Healt hPhysicis t Chem-Nuclea r Systems , Inc . Issue : Mode l Assumptions : ALI s Comment : Whil e yo u hav e relie d upo n some o f the wor k o f the ICRP , i.e. , determinatio n o f ALIs , thes e ALI s hav e bee n misapplie d t o a n environmenta l releas e and th e ICR P guidanc e o n environmenta l release s ha s bee n ignore d a s i s detaile d i n the comment s below . I t i s state d tha t fo r the Selecte d Approach , ALI s develope d b ythe ICR P wer e adjuste d t o reflec t the differenc e betwee n the intak e level s (ALIs ) and releas e levels , an d a lowe r dos e equivalen t (50 0 millirem) . First , the ALI s publishe d byth e ICR P ar e i n becquerel s no t curie s ( a mino r poin t bu t i t i s state d incorrectl yi n 5 2 FR 8172) . Second , th e ICR P publishe d ALI s ar e intende d a s a systemo f dos e limitatio n fo r workers , no t environmenta l releases . Th e ICRP , i n Publicatio n 29 , "Radionuclid e Releas e i n the Environmenta l Assessmen t o f Dose s t o Man, " mad e recommendation s fo r environmenta l assessment s o f radioactivity . Th e recommendation s ar e no t incorporate d int o the propose d rule . Response : ALI s publishe d b

ythe ICR P i n Publicatio n 3 0 are , indeed , i n becquerel s an d th e reference d statemen t ha s bee n change d accordingl yi n the fina l rule . Becquerels , however , ar e easil yconverte d t o curie s throughmultiplicatio n o f the numbe r o f becquerel s b y2.70 3 x 10" 11

. I n the fina l rul e establishin g the adjuste d RQs , the fina l radionuclid e RQ s ar e presente d i n unit s o f curie s an d becquerels . Th e ICR P i n Publicatio n 29 , "Radionuclid e Releas e int o the Environment : Assessmen t o f Dose s t o Man, " describe s a genera l methodologyfo r setting limit s o n deliberat e release s o f radioactiv e material s int o the environmen t and fo r plannin g intervention s afte r accidenta l releases . I t i s importan t t o clarif ytha t the methodologyspelle d ou t i n Publicatio n 2 9 i s a conceptua l on e rathe r tha n a detaile d methodologyspecifying procedure s an d value s t o us e i n dos e calculations . Amon g othe r things , the ICR P suggests :

o Us e o f dose-equivalen t a s a measur e o f th e likel y consequence s o f th e distributio n o f radioactiv e materia l (th e publicatio n doe s not , however , sugges t a particula r dose-equivalen t level) ; o Us e o f mathematica l model s using realisticall y conservativ e assumption s i n orde r t o characteriz e th e radioactiv e material s released , the transpor t media ,

T-3 2P.9 8

Respons e Number : 1 2 (continued )

the exposur e pathways , an d man' s intak e and metabolis m(the ICR P suggest s tha t "the mode l mus t accoun t fo r th e biogeochemica l cycling an d geophysica l disseminatio n o f radionuclide s i n bot hterrestria l and aquati c environments") ; an d
o Us e o f the gaussia n plume formul a fo r calculatio n o f downwind concentration s o f radionuclid e subsequen t t o a release . Th e author s o f ICR P Publicatio n 2 9 assume tha t release s ar e froma fixe d "nuclea r facility " and , a s a result , us e a poin t o f releas e t o poin t o f exposur e distanc e tha t migh t exis t a t a fixe d facilit ywit ha relativel ylarg e buffe r are a (100 0 meters) . Th e ICR P als o suggest s modification s t o the basi c methodologyoutline d abov e t o tak e int o accoun t site-specifi c conditions , emphasize s the valu e o f monitorin g i n dos e assessment , and suggest s othe r dos e assessmen t procedure s tha t mayb e appropriat e fo r individua l facilities . Contraryt o the statemen t o f the commente r indicating tha t th e ICR P recommendation s wer e no t incorporate d int o th e propose d rule , i t i s clea r from th e foregoing that , wher e applicable , ICRP' s methodologywa s incorporated :

o Adose-equivalen t leve l wa s chose n a s a measur e o f the effec t o f ionizing radiatio n o n the public ; o Mathematica l model s wer e chose n usin g conservativ e assumption s fo r release , transport , an d exposure ; o Biologica l parameter s implici t i n the us e o f ALI s wer e applie d t o individua l radionuclide s an d geochemica l (e.g. , retardation ) factor s an d geophysica l (e.g. , meteorological ) factor s wer e applie d wher e appropriate ; an d
o Agaussia n plume mode l wa s use d fo r atmospheri c release s incorporating stabl e meteorologica l condition s an d a groun d leve l release . Th e releas e an

d exposur e scenario s evaluate d i n the adjustmen t o f RQ s wer e intende d t o b e applicabl e broadly , yieldin g RQ s tha t woul d (t o the exten t possible ) ensur e timel yreporting fo r release s fro mlarg e fixe d facilities , a s wel l a s fro

msmal l facilitie s withou t larg e buffe r zones . Th e Agenc y believes , therefore , tha t a distanc e shorte r tha n 100 0 meter s i s mor e appropriat e fo r th e adjustmen t o f RQs . Additionally , considerin g the generi c natur e o f the scenario s analyzed , i t wa s no t possibl e t o incorporat e site

specifi c factor s or monitorin g data . Site-specifi c factor s an d monitorin g data , along wit hothe r factor s relate d t o the release , woul d b e evaluate d b y the appropriat e governmen t authorit yi n determinin g wha t respons e (i f any ) shoul d b e taken . T-3 3P.9 9

Commente r Number : 1 0 Respons e Number : 1 3 Page : 3 Commente r Name : M.S . Whittake r Corporat e Healt hPhysicis t Chem-Nuclea r Systems , Inc . Issue : Mode l Assumptions : ALI s Comment : I n addition , ICR P Publicatio n 42 , "Majo r Concept s an d Quantitie s i n Us e b yICRP, " state s "The prope r procedur e i s t o carryou t suc hevaluation s t o deriv e value s o f committe d dos e equivalen t pe r uni t intak e fo r populatio n group s markedl ydifferen t fro madults , particularl yinfant s an d children , usin g the same principle s a s Committe e 2 use d t o calculat e the value s fo r workers , bu t applying the appropriat e biologica l parameter s an d taking accoun t o f th e physio-chemica l form s o f radionuclide s likel yt o b e encountere d i n th e publi c environment. " Thes e cautionarystatement s nee d t o b e incorporate d int o the designatio n o f th e criticall yexpose d individual . Response : EPAdoe s no t believ e that i t i s appropriat e t o bas e a reportabl e quantit y rul e fo r radionuclide s o n the criticall yexpose d individual . Thi s approach , i n general , woul d lead t o lowe r RQ s an d a n increas e i n report s o f release s t o whic hthe governmen t woul d no t b e likel yt o respond . Fo r example , the Agenc y a t on e time considere d dividin g the ALI s b y2 in . orde r "t o adjus t the occupationa l values , whic hwer e derive d fo r adults , s o tha t theyar e applicabl e t o othe r ag e groups. " the Agenc yconsidere d bu t rejecte d thi s approac hbecaus e i t add s anothe r laye r o f conservatis mt o alread yconservativ e models . RQ s ar e reporting trigger s only ; a n evaluatio n o f th e actua l ris k o f exposur e i s performe d o n a case-by-cas e basi s b ythe appropriat e governmen t authorit yi n orde r t o determin e the nee d fo r respons e actions . I n addition , the Agenc yrejecte d the approac ho f using specifi c physio

chemica l form s o f radionuclide s t o deriv e the RQs . Tha t approac hwoul d hav e le d t o multipl e RQ s fo r eac hradionuclid e and. , therefore , woul d be mor e complicate d t o administer . I n developing th e RQs , the Agenc yselecte d the mos t conservativ e AL I fo r eac hradionuclid e an d lef t i t t o the appropriat e governmen t personne l t o evaluat e the nee d fo r a respons e (based , i n part , o n the physio-chemica l for mactuall yreleased) .

T-3 4P.10 0

Commente r Number : Page : Commente r Name :

Issue : Comment : L 3 4 Respons e Number : 1 4

Jame s E . Fairoben t Offic e o f Environmenta l Guidanc e an d Complianc e U.S . Departmen t o f Energy Mode l Assumptions : ALI s

Th e definitio n o f ALI s (a t the beginnin g a t the bottomo f the thir d colum n o n pag e 8177 ) i s incorrect , particularl ythe us e o f the ter m"whol e body " wit hthe ter m"committe d effectiv e dos e equivalent. " Th e firs t definitio n o f AL I shoul d rea d ".. . a committe d effectiv e dos e equivalen t o f 5 rem(stochasti c ALI). " Th e purpos e o f the effectiv e dos e equivalen t i s t o replac e the dos e t o whol e body , whic hi s no t a meaningfu l concep t fo r nonuniformirradiation s o f the bod yfrominterna l emitters . Th e ter m"whol e body " shoul d no t b e use d i n conjunctio n wit h"effectiv e dos e equivalent. " Response : Th e definitio n o f AL I referre d t o b ythe commente r i s the definitio n use d b yth e Nuclea r RegulatoryCommissio n i n 5 1 FR 109 2 (Januar y9 , 1986) . EPA believe s thi s definitio n i s correct .

T-3 5p. 1

Commente r Number : 1 0 Respons e Number : 1 5 Page : 3 Commente r Name : M.S . Whittake r Corporat e Healt hPhysicis t Chem-Nuclea r Systems , Inc . Issue : Mode l Assumptions : 3 0 Meter s Comment : Th e curren t selectio n o f modifier s t o th e AL I value s seem s arbitrary , e.g. , the selectio n o f a n exposur e poin t a s 3 0 mdownwind . Whil e cordon s around a releas e o f a chemicall yhazardou s substanc e ma yb e generall y3 0 m fromth e release , radionuclide s ar e seldominvolve d i n release s o f hazardou s chemicals . Befor e a releas e quantit ytha t wil l resul t i n a n establishe d dos e ca n b e determined , th e potentia l recepto r and the environmenta l condition s mus t b e ver ycarefull ydefined . Response : Th e Agenc ydoe s no t agre e tha t th e 3 0 mete r distanc e downwind i s a n arbitraryparamete r fo r incorporatio n int o the exposur e models . Furthermore , the Agenc ydi d no t mea n t o impl ytha t radionuclide s ar e likel yt o b e involve d i n chemica l hazardou s substanc e releases . Th e Agenc yha s develope d releas e scenario s tha t ar e believe d t o b e conservativ e bu t reasonabl e representation s o f potentia l releas e events . Thirt ymeter s wa s selecte d a s the assume d distanc e fro mthe poin t o f releas e t o th e poin t o f exposure . Alonge r o r shorte r distance , i n reality , coul d b e relevant . Mos t nuclea r powe r plant s hav e restricte d area s around a facilit y muc hgreate r tha n 3 0 meters ; man yfacilitie s suc ha s hospitals , hav e n o restricte d are a an d 3 0 meter s arguabl ycoul d b e to o far . I n developin g RQs , the Agenc yi s establishin g reporting trigger s tha t wil l b e sufficientl y protectiv e bu t no t overl yburdensom e t o industryo r the government . Afte r a releas e o f an RQ o r mor e i s reporte d t o the Nationa l Respons e Center , appropriat e governmen t personne l wil l evaluat e the releas e condition s (including the actua l distanc e fro mthe poin t o f releas e t o the receptor ) t o determin e the nee d fo r a federal , state , o r loca l response .

T-3 6P. 2

Commente r Number : 1 3 Respons e Number : 1 6 Page : 4/ 5 Commente r Name : Mar k J . Wetterhahn Conno r & Wetterhahn , P.C . Issue : Mode l Assumptions : 3 0 Meter s Comment : Th e choic e o f 3 0 meter s fo r the contaminate d drinking wate r pathwayi s unrealisti c fo r an yfacility . Th e likelihoo d o f suc ha wel l locatio n i s extremel yremot e fo r a nuclea r powe r facility . Th e reaso n give n fo r thi s selection , "fo r consistenc ywit hth e atmospheri c model, " i s withou t a rationa l basis . Ther e i s n o scientifi c basi s fo r suc h"consistency. " Direc t exposur e calculate d a t 3 0 meter s i s inappropriat e fo r a nuclea r powe r facility . EPAshoul d loo k a t sit e dat a fo r license d nuclea r powe r plan t facilitie s t o determin e appropriat e values . Th e Atmospheri c Relativ e Concentratio n Valu e (X/Q ) use d fo r calculatio n o f the Inhalatio n R Q i s base d o n a n assume d distanc e betwee n the releas e poin t and th e unrestricte d are a o f 3 0 meters . Thi s distanc e i s inappropriatel ylow fo r nuclea r powe r facilities . Th e 3 0 mete r distanc e i s to o conservative . Certainl yon e mete r woul d correspond t o a work-plac e environment , no t a n exposur e t o the public . Response : Th e Agenc ydoe s no t agre e tha t the incorporatio n o f a 3 0 mete r distanc e i n the drinkin g wate r exposur e pathwayi s withou t a rationa l basis . I t i s possibl e tha t a releas e o f a radionuclid e int o the groun d coul d migrat e an d contaminat e a drinking wate r wel l 3 0 meter s away . Furthermore , i t i s importan t t o emphasiz e tha t the RQ s wer e no t specificall ydevelope d fo r nuclea r powe r facilit yreleases , bu t rathe r wer e develope d t o b e broadl y applicabl e fo r al l radionuclid e releases . Th e radionuclid e releas e scenarios , therefore , represen t potentia l releas e condition s fo r al l type s o f facilitie s an d vessel s tha t potentiall ycoul d releas e radionuclide s a t level s equa l t o o r exceedin g a n RQ . Th e scenario s ar e conservativ e s o tha t the Nationa l Respons e Cente r wil l receiv e notificatio n o f mos t release s fo r whic ha governmen t respons e mayb e warranted . Becaus e the model s deriv e RQ s applicabl e t o release s fro

ma wid e variet yo f facilities , EP Aacknowledge s tha t the model s d o no t represen t al l potentia l releas e event s accurately . However , du e t o the administrativ e complexit yinvolve d i n developing differen t RQ s fo r differen t type s o f facilities , the Agenc yrelie d o n conservativ e model s fo r the inhalation , ingestio n (vegetabl e an d drinking water) , an d direc t exposur e pathway s t o determin e the reporting trigge r (i.e. , the RQs) , an d the n relie s o n the appropriat e governmen t officia l t o evaluat e the nee d fo r a respons e (base d o n the actua l releas e conditions ) onc e notificatio n occurs . Als o se e "Mode l Assumption s - Respons e 15. "

T-3 7P. 3

Commente r Number : 1 4 Respons e Number : 1 7 Page : 4 Commente r Name : Kearne ye t al . Ediso n Electri c Institut e Issue : Mode l Assumptions : 3 0 Meter s Comment : However , w e believ e tha t EPA' s propose d reportabl e quantit yrule s fo r radionuclide s ca n b e improve d i n severa l respects . First , EP Ashoul d recogniz e tha t som e o f it s exposur e assumption s - - including (1 ) th e assumptio n o f a 30-mete r distanc e betwee n the poin t o f releas e and exposure , and (2 ) th e uniformassumptio n o f a poin t sourc e o f releas e - - ar e highl y unrealisti c fo r manykind s o f releases . Th e 30-mete r distanc e assumptio n i s simpl yinapplicabl e i n th e cas e o f release s fro melevate d sources , a s i s th e poin t sourc e releas e assumptio n i n th e cas e o f emission s fromlarge , uniform area s suc ha s coa l as hsites . Th e Agenc yshoul d therefor e revis e it s assumption s fo r suc hreleases . Response : A s explaine d i n "Mode l Assumption s - 16, " th e Agenc ydoe s no t believ e tha t a n assumptio n o f 3 0 meter s betwee n th e poin t o f releas e and th e poin t o f exposur e i s unreasonable . Ther e ar e facilitie s tha t potentiall ycoul d releas e radionuclide s tha t d o no t hav e restricte d area s and s o coul d expos e a n individua l locate d 3 0 meter s awayt o a radiatio n dos e (e.g. , medica l facilities , clinics) . Th e Agenc yacknowledge s tha t it s exposur e scenario s ar e no t appropriat e fo r al l releas e situation s a t al l facilitie s tha t potentiall y coul d releas e radionuclides . Th e Agenc ymad e conservativ e assumption s s o tha t th e governmen t woul d b e notifie d i n a timel ymanne r o f mos t release s tha t ma y warran t a response . Th e Agenc yals o acknowledge s tha t ther e ar e certai n release s ove r a n R Q t o whic hth e governmen t woul d neve r respond and , therefore , tha t shoul d no t nee d t o b e reporte d t o th e Nationa l Respons e Center . I n particular , release s o f naturall yoccurrin g radionuclide s (radon , i n particular ) fromlarge , generall yundisturbe d land holding s (e.g. , gol f course s and parks) , activitie s tha t involv e th e disturbanc e o f land fo r purpose s othe r tha n minin g (e.g. , tilling o r excavatio n associate d wit hfarming an d construction) , and coa l and coa l as hpile s fal l int o thi s category . Thes e release s hav e bee n grante d a n administrativ e exemptio n fromCERCLA' s notificatio n requirement s (se e "Exemptions/Exclusion s - - Response s 2 and 6") . Se e als o "Inhalatio n Pathway- Respons e 1 " an d "Inhalatio n Pathway- Respons e 3" .

T-3 8P. 4

Commente r Number : Page : Commente r Name :

Issue : Comment : 1 5 2 D.R . Win d Senio r Environmenta l Enginee r Monsant o Corporatio n Mode l Assumptions : 3 0 Meter s Respons e Number : 1 8

Pag e 8180 , 3r d column , top . W e ar e no t convince d tha t a distanc e o f thirt ymeter s i s necessaryt o protec t th e public . O n the othe r hand , a n exposur e distanc e o f on e mete r i s unrealistic . Response : Se e "Mode l Assumption s - Respons e 16. "

T-3 9P. 5

Commente r Number : Page : Commente r Name :

Issue : Comment : 2 3 3 C O . Wood

y Grou p Vic e Presiden t Nuclea r Energy Florid a Powe r an

d Ligh t Compan

y Mode l Assumptions : 3 0 Meter s Respons e Number : 1 9

FP L i s i n disagreemen t wit hth e propose d assumptio n and us e o f thirt y meter s i n determinin g th e releas e values . A t a nuclea r powe r plant , the actua l distanc e betwee n a releas e sourc e an d the neares t recepto r mayb e man y time s tha t distance . Consequently , FP L woul d propos e tha t an yreportabl e quantit yb e adjustabl e t o accoun t fo r realisti c condition s rathe r tha n excessivel yconservativ e assumptions . Response : Se e "Mode l Assumption s - Respons e 16. "

T-4 0P. 6

Commente r Number : L 2 Respons e Number : 2 0 Page : 1/ 2 Commente r Name : Ro yW . Brown , Manage r RegulatoryComplianc e Mallinckrod t Inc . Issue : Mode l Assumptions : 3 0 Meter s Comment : Yo u indicat e i n the propose d rul e tha t a distanc e o f 3 0 meter s wa s use d a s a conservativ e distanc e whic hwoul d b e cordone d of f i n a n acciden t situation . Thi s distanc e i s no t consisten t wit hmos t guideline s tha t ar e use d i n th e field . Th e Departmen t o f Transportatio n ha s develope d a n Emergenc y Respons e Guideboo k (DOT-P5800.2 ) tha t wa s distribute d t o ove r 500,00 0 law enforcemen t and emergenc yrespons e personne l acros s th e country . Thi s guidebook , o r ERG , i s als o use d b yCHEMTREC , th e Chemica l Manufacturer s Associatio n emergenc yrespons e assistanc e program . Th e ER G suggest s movin g peopl e t o 15 0 ft . froman yspil l i n a n upwind direction . Considerin g th e widesprea d distributio n and us e o f the ERG , EPA' s us e o f 3 0 meter s fromthe acciden t i n a downwind direction , rathe r tha n th e suggeste d 15 0 ft . upwind , i s inappropriate . Th e R Q value s shoul d b e recalculate d t o reflec t thi s mor e realisti c value . Eve n assumin g tha t the guideline s wer e no t followe d immediately , i t i s saf e t o assume tha t a s soo n a s the firs t emergenc y responde r arrive d o n the scene , the guideline s i n th e ER G woul d b e followed . Response : EPAacknowledge s tha t the DO T Emergenc yRespons e Guideboo k recommend s tha t unnecessarypeopl e b e kep t a t leas t 15 0 fee t (4 5 meters ) upwind from release s o f 3 categorie s o f nuclea r material . However , fo r 1 1 othe r categorie s o f nuclea r material , the Guideboo k doe s no t specif ya singl e evacuatio n o r isolatio n distance ; i t simpl yrecommend s tha t unnecessarypeopl e b e kep t "away, " tha t the hazar d are a b e isolated , an d tha t entryt o the are a b e denied . Furthermore , a distanc e o f 3 0 meter s i s wel l withi n the rang e o f isolatio n distance s recommende d i n the Guideboo k fo r release s o f hazardou s chemical s (no t radionuclides) . Fo r smal l leak s o f hazardou s chemicals , fo r example , the recommende d initia l isolatio n distance s rang e fro m9 meter s t o 18 0 meters , an

d fo r larg e spills , the recommende d initia l isolatio n distance s rang e fro

m2 0 meter s t o 38 0 meters . Approximatel y4 4 percen t o f the initia l isolatio n distance s recommende d fo r release s o f hazardou s chemical s i s i n the 0-3 0 mete r range . Therefore , the 30-mete r distanc e i s no t a s conflictin g wit h the DO T Guideboo k an d no t a s unrealisti c a s the commente r suggests . Also , the RQ s wer e develope d assuming n o respons e ha s occurred . Withou t notification , ther e i s n o guarante e evacuatio n woul d tak e place . Se e als o "Mode l Assumption s - Respons e 16. "

T-4 1P. 7

Commente r Number : 1 0 Respons e Number : 2 1 Page : 3 Commente r Name : M.S . Whittake r Corporat e Healt hPhysicis t Chem-Nuclea r Systems , Inc . Issue : Mode l Assumptions : 2 4 Hou r Exposur e Comment : Th e inhalatio n releas e valu e seem s t o assume bot hcontinuou s releas e and continuou s exposure . Fixe d facilitie s usin g radioactiv e material s wil l hav e a n allowabl e effluen t releas e limi t (1 0 CFR 2 0 o r equivalent ) that , a s a federall ypermitte d release , i s exemp t fro mCERCLA . An

ycontinuou s releas e woul d b e require d t o b e les s tha n th e 1 0 CFR 2 0 allowabl e limit . Th e R Q value s shoul d b e calculate d fo r accidenta l release s (i.e. , shor t duration) . Exposur e time s shoul d als o tak e int o accoun t evacuatio n especiall ya t 3 0 m fromth e source . Inhalatio n dose s ar e dependen t no t onl yo n the ai r concentration , bu t als o o n the duratio n o f the exposure . Response : Whil e th e Agenc yagree s tha t inhalatio n dose s ar e dependen t o n th e duratio n o f the exposure , inhalatio n releas e value s ar e totall yindependen t o f th e duratio n o f exposure . Th e amoun t o f materia l necessaryt o produc e a dose

equivalen t o f 50 0 millire mcoul d b e inhale d i n a matte r o f second s o r ove r 2 4 hours . Accordingly , the inhalatio n exposur e pathwaymode l doe s no t includ e a ter mfo r th e exposur e perio d and , a s a result , take s int o accoun t sudde n episodi c release s a s wel l a s slowe r release s ove r a perio d u p t o 2 4 hours . Ther e i s a 2 4 hou r limi t because , fo r a releas e o f a n R Q o r mor e t o b e reportable , the releas e mus t occu r withi n a 2 4 hou r period . I t i s usefu l t o clarify , however , tha t thi s 24-hou r limi t applie s t o the implementatio n o f RQs , no t t o the developmen t o f inhalatio n releas e values . Thi s poin t i s clarifie d i n the fina l rule . RQ s pertai n t o bot hcontinuou s release s an d episodi c releases . No t al l radionuclid e release s ar e limite d b y1 0 CFR Par t 20 . Fo r example , the Nuclea r Regulator yCommissio n doe s no t regulat e Naturall yOccurrin g an d Accelerator

Produce d Radioactiv e Materia l (NARM ) and , therefore , release s o f NAR M fro m Commissio n licensee s coul d b e eithe r continuou s o r episodic , bu t ar e no t federall ypermitted . RQ s ar e develope d t o cove r a variet yo f facilitie s an d a variet yo f releas e events . Evacuatio n i n the vicinit yo f a releas e mayoccu r onl yi f a notificatio n o f the releas e i s made . RQ s ar e designe d t o ensur e tha t the governmen t i s notifie d tha t a releas e ha s occurre d an d t o giv e the governmen t the opportunit yt o decid e whethe r o r no t a respons e i s necessary . On e possibl e respons e t o suc ha releas e migh t b e evacuation , bu t notificatio n mus t b e mad e befor e thi s o r an

yothe r respons e ca n b e pu t int o effec t b ythe government .

T-4 2P. 8

Commente r Number : Page : Commente r Name :

Issue : Comment : 1 3 5 Mar k J . Wetterhahn Conno r and Wetterhahn , P.C . Mode l Assumptions : 2 4 Hou r Exposur e Respons e Number : 2 2

Th e assumptio n o f exposur e perio d shoul d b e tie d t o a n assumptio n o f releas e period . Th e time interva l associate d wit hth e R Q doe s no t appea r t o b e specifie d i n th e propose d rule . Fo r instance , allowabl e nuclea r plan t releases ' ove r a si x mont hoperatio n perio d woul d b e expecte d t o excee d th e R Q fo r certai n radionuclides . * Response : I n orde r t o b e reportable , a n R Q o r mor e o f a hazardou s substanc e mus t b e release d i n a 24-hou r period . Thi s time interval , whic hwa s state d i n the propose d radionuclid e R Q rule , als o i s state d clearl yi n th e fina l rulemaking . Areleas e ove r a longe r perio d tha t equal s o r exceed s a n R Q nee d no t b e reporte d unles s a n R Q o r mor e wa s release d durin g an y2 4 hour s withi n tha t longe r period . Fo r furthe r discussio n o f "Determinatio n o f Whe n a Reportabl e Quantit yHa s Bee n Released, " se e 5 0 FR 1346 3 (Apri l 4 , 1985) .

T-4 3P. 9

Commente r Number : Page : Commente r Name : 1 4 4/13-1 4 Kearne ye t al . Ediso n Electri c Institut e Respons e Number : 2 3

Issue : Comment : Mode l Assumptions : 2 4 Hou r Exposur e

EPAshoul d mak e clea r tha t the establishe d 24-hou r releas e perio d remain s applicabl e fo r RQ s establishe d unde r thi s rule . I n discussin g th e exposur e perio d use d i n EPA' s direc t exposur e assumption s fo r setting reportabl e quantities , EPAcomment s tha t "an assumptio n o f si x month s o r on e yea r o f exposur e mayb e mor e appropriat e tha n a 24-hou r exposur e period. " Thi s statemen t presumabl ydoe s no t indicat e tha t th e Agenc yi s contemplatin g a releas e perio d o f longe r tha n 2 4 hour s fo r radionuclide s sinc e suc ha perio d woul d b e incompatibl e wit hthe 24-hou r perio d establishe d i n the regulation s (4 0 CFR Sectio n 302.6(a)) , whic hEPA doe s no t propos e t o amend . I n an yevent , i f EPAwer e t o extend the releas e perio d use d fo r the RQs , i t woul d hav e t o rais e the numerica l leve l o f the RQ s t o avoi d excessiv e an d unnecessaril yburdensom e reporting requirement s and t o ensur e tha t the CERCLArequirement s ar e no t applie d t o release s tha t presen t n o healt ho r safet yconcerns . Furthermore , the 24-hou r perio d i s consisten t wit hthe exposur e assumption s tha t EPAuse s i n thi s rulemaking . Th e Agenc yha s found tha t "i t i s unlikel ytha t exposur e [t o a radionuclid e release ] wil l occu r ove r mor e tha n a 24-hou r perio d withou t a perso n movin g outsid e o f the radiatio n range. " EP Aconclude d i n ligh t o f thi s finding tha t it s 24-hou r exposur e assumptio n "i s conservative " an d "allow s fo r a maximu mexposur e time fo r a release. " Response : Se e "Mode l Assumption s - Respons e 22. " Th e following respons e als o applie s t o thi s comment . EPAagree s tha t the 24-hou r perio d o f exposur e i s appropriat e fo r calculatio n o f releas e value s i n thos e model s tha t d o no t mandat e some othe r perio d o f tim

e (e.g. , ingestio n o f wel l water) . I t i s importan t t o not e tha t ther e i s a differenc e betwee n the perio d o f exposur e an d th e perio d o f release . Al l release s mus t b e measure d ove r a 24-hou r perio d t o determin e i f the RQ ha s bee n exceeded . Exposure , however , can occu r ove r a longe r period , reflectin g the fac t tha t som e release s ca n pos e a potentia l hazar d wel l beyond the releas e period . Fo r example , some"radionuclide s release d t o ground wate r coul d tak e ove r a yea r t o reac han d pas s a wel l 3 0 meter s awa yfro mthe poin t o f release . Similarly , radionuclide s deposite d (released ) o n vegetable s coul d b e consume d ove r a perio d longe r than 2 4 hours . Th e perio d o f exposur e an d the perio d o f release , therefore , ar e no t identica l necessarily .

T-4 4P.1 0

Commente r Number : Page : Commente r Name :

Issue : Comment : 1 5 3 Respons e Number : 2 4

D.R . Wind Senio r Environmenta l Enginee r Monsant o Corporatio n Mode l Assumptions : 2 4 Hou r Exposur e

Pag e 8180 , 3rd column , middle . Sinc e reduce d reportin g requirement s ar e availabl e fo r release s tha t ar e "continuous " o r "stabl e i n quantit yan d rate, " i t woul d b e inappropriat e t o us e 6 month s o r a year . I n fe wcase s coul d 2 4 hour s b e justified . Response : Se e "Mode l Assumption s Respons e 23. " Respons e 22, " an d "Mode l Assumption s -

T-4 5P.1 1

Commente r Number : Page : Commente r Name : L 2 2 RoyW . Brown , Manage r RegulatoryComplianc e Mallinckrod t Ine . Respons e Number : 2 5

Issue : Comment : Mode l Assumptions : 2 4 Hou r Exposur e

Th e EPAexposur e model s us e a duratio n o f 2 4 hours . I t i s unreasonabl e t o assume tha t the exposur e t o a radioactiv e material s acciden t [would ] continu e unabate d fo r a perio d o f 2 4 hours . A t a fixe d facility , step s woul d b e taken , i n al l bu t the mos t sever e accidents , t o terminat e the releas e o f material s wel l befor e 2 4 hours . Mos t majo r facilitie s hav e wel l rehearse d radiologica l contingenc yplan s t o dea l wit hthi s situation . Mos t accidenta l release s woul d b e terminate d shortl yafte r thei r occurrence . I n the cas e o f a transportatio n accident , i t i s no t realisti c t o assume tha t member s o f publi c wil l stand i n clos e proximit yt o the accident , i n the downwind directio n fo r 2 4 hours . Amor e realisti c time o f perhap s on e hou r o r les s woul d b e mor e appropriate . Response : Se e "Mode l Assumption s - Respons e 23. " Also , the releas e scenario s ar e conservativ e t o ensur e tha t timel y reportin g occurs . Withou t suc hreports , the acciden t migh t continu e unabated . Becaus e a wid e variet yo f facilitie s coul d releas e radionuclide s unde r very differen t circumstances , the Agenc yha s develope d model s fo r the inhalation , ingestio n (vegetabl e an d drinking water) , an d direc t exposur e pathways . Thes e model s ar e conservativ e an d ar e use d t o deriv e reporting trigger s s o tha t timel yreport s wil l b e receive d b ythe Nationa l Respons e Cente r abou t radionuclid e release s fro mfacilitie s o r vessel s tha t coul d requir e a governmen t response .

T-4 6P.1 2

Commente r Number : 1 Respons e Number : 1 Page : 1- 2 Commente r Name : Garri s D . Parker , Jr . Departmen t Head , Radiatio n Protectio n Departmen t Th e Wellcom e Researc hLaboratorie s Burrough s Wellcom e Co . Issue : Radioactiv e Decay Comment : Th e modellin g fo r inhalation , ingestio n an d direc t exposur e i s a goo d approach . I n orde r t o mak e i t mor e realistic , however , w e sugges t tha t . effectiv e half-live s (physica l an d biological ) b e incorporate d int o the model s fo r inhalatio n an

d ingestion . W e realiz e thi s wil l significantl yincreas e th e complexit yo f the models , bu t wil l lead t o mor e realisti c results . W e agre e wit hyou r choic e o f the annua l limit s o f intake s (ALIs ) a s presente d b

yICRP . Thes e ar e saf e values . Response : Th e Agenc yagree s wit hthe commente r tha t ignoring radioactiv e decayi n th e calculatio n o f RQ s maylead t o result s tha t ar e overl yconservativ e fo r some radionuclides . Fo r thi s reason , radioactiv e decayha s bee n incorporated , wher e appropriate , int o the calculation s use d t o determin e fina l RQ s fo r th e 75 7 radionuclides . Fo r the inhalatio n pathwaymode l an d the pathwaymode l fo r direc t exposur e du e t o submersio n i n a n airborn e cloud , the Agenc yha s decide d t o continu e t o ignor e the effect s o f radioactiv e decay . Bot ho f thes e pathway model s conside r exposure s t o a n airborn e plume o f radionuclide ; however , the perio d o f releas e an d exposur e - - an

d henc e the exten t o f radioactiv e decay ove r thes e period s - - canno t b e defined . Fo r example , a short-live d radionuclid e coul d underg o significan t deca yi f the releas e an d exposur e period s wer e on e day , bu t deca ywoul d b e muc hles s i f a tim e perio d o f on e hou r o r on e minut e wa s considered . Becaus e i t i s no t possibl e t o establis h bound s o hthe rang e o f releas e an d exposur e periods , the Agenc yassume s conservativel ytha t n o deca yoccur s ove r thes e periods . EP Aals o ignore s deca yove r the perio d o f radionuclid e transpor t t o the poin t o f inhalatio n o r submersio n i n a cloud . Thi s approac hi s adopte d becaus e transpor t t o a locatio n 3 0 meter s fro mth e poin t o f releas e occur s i n a matte r o f seconds , an d decaywoul d b e negligibl e fo r al l bu t a handfu l o f radionuclides . Biologica l half-life , th e tim e require d fo r norma l biologica l processes , suc ha s excretion , t o reduc e th e quantit yo f radionuclid e presen t i n the expose d individua l b yhalf , i s conservativel yaccounte d fo r i n the inhalatio n pathwayb

ybasin g the calculatio n upo n the mos t conservativ e AL I give n i n term s o f eliminatio n rates , i.e. , D (days) , W (weeks) , o r Y (years) . Fo r the direc t exposur e pathway , biologica l half-lif e i s no t applicabl e becaus e the radionuclid e i s neithe r ingeste d no r inhaled . I n th e cas e o f ingestion ,

T-4 7P.1 3

Respons e Number : 1 (continued )

biologica l half-lif e i s highl ydependen t upo n the physica l and chemica l natur e o f the radionuclide . Th e assumptio n implici t i n the calculation s i s tha t th e chemica l and physica l for mwit hthe longes t biologica l half-lif e i s ingested . Thi s conservativ e approac hassure s tha t the R Q i s se t lo wenought o requir e a repor t fo r a n even t tha t migh t hav e seriou s healt ho r environmenta l consequence s becaus e o f a relativ e long biologica l half-life .

T-4 8P.1 4

Commente r Number : Page : Commente r Name : L I 7 John J . Kearne y Senio r Vic e Presiden t Ediso n Electri c Institut e Respons e Number : 2

Issue : Comment : Radioactiv e Decay

Th e EPAmethodologywa s discusse d i n th e propose d rul e and ha s bee n describe d i n detai l elsewher e (6) . Critica l t o th e applica t io n o f the metho d ar e the condition s an d assumption s use d t o deriv e th e maximu mreleas e value s fromestablishe d intak e values . I n al l thre e pathwayscenarios , the radioactiv e decayo f a specifi c radionuclid e wa s no t explicitl yconsidere d i n the equation . I f the transi t time along the pathwayi s equa l t o o r greate r tha n the half-life , activit ylevel s wer e overestimate d (conservative) . Response : Th e Agenc yagree s wit hthe commente r tha t ignoring radioactiv e decayi n the calculatio n o f RQ s maylea d t o result s tha t ar e overl yconservativ e fo r some radionuclides . Th e Agenc yno wha s incorporate d radioactiv e decayint o th e exposur e model s wheneve r appropriate . Fo r furthe r details , se e the Technica l Background Documen t supportin g the fina l rul e an

d "Radioactiv e Decay- Respons e 1. "

T-4 9P.1 5

Commente r Number : Page : Commente r Name :

Issue : Comment : L 2 3 Ro yW . Brown , Manage r RegulatoryComplianc e Mallinckrod t Inc . Radioactiv e Decay Respons e Number : 3

Radiopharmaceutical s typicall yhav e half-live s rangin g fromsevera l hour s t o a fe wdays . Non e o f the calculation s performe d i n the adjustment s o f the RQ s containe d a correctio n fo r radioactiv e decayove r th e exposur e period . Whe n lookin g a t some o f the radioisotope s suc ha s 1-12 3 an d Tc-99m , a significan t erro r ca n b e introduce d whe n th e half-lif e correctio n i s neglected . I f th e half-lif e correctio n wer e used , th e R Q fo r 1-12 3 woul d b e 2 time s higher . Th e Tc-99 mR Q woul d b e 4 time s higher . Thi s significan t erro r i n th e calculatio n i s no t justifie d sinc e the calculatio n itsel f i s eas yt o perform . EPAshoul d g o bac k an d adjus t the isotope s wher e the half-lif e correctio n significantl yimpact s the R Q value . Response : Th e Agenc yagree s wit hth e commente r tha t ignoring radioactiv e decayi n th e calculatio n o f RQ s maylead t o result s tha t ar e overl yconservativ e fo r some radionuclides . Th e fina l RQs , therefore , hav e bee n recalculate d incorporatin g the effect s o f radioactiv e decay , wher e appropriate . Fo r furthe r detail , se e "Radioactiv e Decay- Respons e 1. "

T-5 0P.1 6

Commente r Number : L 3 Respons e Number : 4 Page : 3- 4 Commente r Name : Jame s E . Fairoben t Offic e o f Environmenta l Guidanc e and Complianc e U.S . Departmen t o f Energy Issue : Radioactiv e Decay Comment : Radioactiv e decayi s no t considere d i n the dose-assessmen t model s use d t o obtai n th e RQ s fromth e give n dos e limit . Thi s i s no t a n unreasonabl e approac hjL

f the R Q i s determine d b yth e dos e fromth e inhalatio n pathway becaus e o f the shor t time delaybetwee n releas e and exposur e and becaus e o f the relativel ymino r importanc e fo r inhalatio n dos e o f short-live d daughte r product s whic hmigh t buil d u p ove r tha t time . (Thi s conclusio n doe s no t appl y t o rado n daughte r products. ) However , radioactiv e decaycoul d b e importan t fo r externa l exposur e and ingestio n pathways . Fo r externa l exposure , the dos e fro ma give n radionuclid e ofte n i s determine d primaril yb ythe decayo f short

live d daughte r products , s o the ingrowt hand decayo f suc hdaughter s shoul d b e considere d i n the dos e calculations . Calculatio n o f dos e fo r the ingestio n pathwayshoul d conside r the time delaybetwee n releas e an d ingestio n du e t o migratio n throughgroundwater , storag e o f foodstuffs , etc. , following a n assume d releas e t o groundwater . Fo r drinkin g wate r pathway , th e transi t time o f wate r fromthe releas e poin t t o the wel l ca n b e significant , and appreciabl e decrease s i n radionuclid e concentration s ca n occu r during thi s tim e i f th e half-lif e i s comparabl e t o o r les s tha n the radionuclid e trave l tim e t o the well . Thus , the effect s o f radioactiv e decayo n the RQ s shoul d b e examine d fo r thos e radionuclide s wher e the RQ i s determine d b ythe externa l exposur e o r ingestio n pathways . Including radioactiv e decayi n the pathway model s i s no t a majo r effort , an d probabl yshoul d b e include d fo r al l pathway analyses . Th e propose d rul e als o comment s tha t ignoring radioactiv e decay provide s a conservativ e approac hi n estimatin g RQs , i.e. , including decay woul d increas e the RQ s fo r some short-liv e radionuclides . However , consideratio n o f radioactiv e decaymaydecreas e RQ s fo r some radionuclides , particularl ylong-live d member s o f the comple x deca ychain s o f the actinide s an d thei r daughte r products . Response : The Agenc yagree s wit hthe commente r tha t ignoring radioactiv e deca yi n th e calculatio n o f RQ s ma ylead t o result s tha t ar e overl yconservativ e fo r som e radionuclides . Th e fina l RQs , therefore , hav e bee n recalculate d t o incorporat e the effect s o f radioactiv e decayint o the relevan t exposur e pathwaymodels . Fo r furthe r detail , se e "Radioactiv e Decay- Respons e 1. " Additionally , radioactiv e daughter s o f short-live d radionuclide s (including rado n daughters ) ar e accounte d fo r i n the ALI s use d i n the calculation s fo r the determinatio n o f RQ s base d o n inhalatio n an d ingestion .

T-5 1P.1 7

Commente r Number : 7 Respons e Number : 1 Page : 3 Commente r Name : R.L . Arscott , Directo r Health , Environmen t an d Los s Protectio n Chevro n Corporatio n Issue : Specifi c RQs : Thoriu m Comment : Ou r second concer n i s wit hthe inabilit yo f the Nationa l Emergenc y Respons e Cente r t o gaug e the magnitud e o f the inciden t and th e leve l o f respons e neede d fromth e reportin g o f th e releas e o f on e o r mor e reportabl e quantities . W e recogniz e tha t a n uncontrolle d releas e o f larg e quantitie s o f hig hspecifi c activit ynaturall yoccurring radioactiv e material s coul d represen t a n even t o f majo r importanc e requiring a n immediat e maximu meffort . Chevro n als o feel s tha t the Agenc yshoul d recogniz e tha t the releas e o f a simila r quantit yo f lo wspecifi c activit ymateria l present s a muc hlowe r leve l o f immediat e hazard , bu t tha t bot hsituation s mayrequir e immediate , lengthy , an d expensiv e remediation . Fo r example , conside r the releas e o f on e R Q o f thoriu mi n a soli d matrix . Th e R Q fo r thorium , 0.00 1 curie , i s among the mos t restrictiv e containe d i n the propose d rul e du e t o retentio n i n the lung . A t concentration s occasionall yencountere d i n th e energ yindustry , 100 0 pCi/gm , on e R Q represent s 1. 1 ton s o f material . Dus t fro mthi s materia l woul d hav e t o approac h2 mg/m 3 , a visibl ydust ycondition , suc ha s i s see n i n the mi d an d southwes t t o equa l the limi t se t b ythe USNR C fo r releas e int o "unrestricte d areas. "1 / I t i s obviou s tha t the respons e t o ou r exampl e shoul d b e significantl y les s drasti c fro

mtha t following the releas e o f a matri x containin g 10,00 0 pCi/g mo r 100,00 0 pCi/g mint o the ai r environment . Response : An R Q fo r an

yindividua l substance , whethe r i t b e a chemica l hazar d o r a radiologica l hazard , i s se t suc htha t the governmen t wil l b e informe d o f a releas e i n a timel yfashio n an d hav e th

e opportunit yt o evaluat e the circumstance s surrounding the releas e i n orde r t o determin e i f a respons e i s necessary . EP

Arecognize s tha t some release s ma yb e mor e seriou s than other s an d tha t judgmen t i s require d t o asses s the seriousnes s o f an yrelease . Th e Agenc ywishe s t o clarif ytha t i t i s the On-Scen e Coordinato r fo r the geographica l are a i n whic hthe releas e occurs , no t th e Nationa l Respons e Center , wh o determine s the seriousnes s o f the releas e an d whethe r a federa l respons e actio n shoul d b e taken . Th e commente r describe s severa l releas e scenario s fo r thorium , som e mor e seriou s than others . I n eac hcase , whe n a n

1 Cod e o f Federa l Regulations , Titl e 10 , Par t 20 , Appendi x B , Tabl e 2 Colum n 1 . T-5 2P.1 8

Respons e Number : 1 (continued )

R Q fo r thoriu

mi s reache d and a repor t made , the governmen t wil l hav e the opportunit yt o evaluat e th e seriousnes s o f the releas e and determin e the leve l o f respons e tha t mayb e required . Also , becaus e i t appear s unlikel ytha t 1. 1 ton s o f materia l containin g thoriu mo r th e R Q fo r thoriu mwoul d b e release d i n a 2 4 hou r period , the R Q wil l no t presen t a reporting burden .

T-5 3P.1 9

Commente r Number : 9 Respons e Number : 2 Page : 2- 3 Commente r Name : W.B . Smalley , Sr . Progra mManage r Environmenta l Protectio n Genera l Electri c Issue : Specifi c RQs : Uraniu mCompound s Comment : I n respons e t o you r reques t fo r commen t o n the methodology , w e d o no t agre e wit hth e concep t o f setting a singl e R Q fo r eac hradionuclide . Differin g chemica l compound s containing the same radionuclid e hav e vastl y differen t radiotoxicitie s an d fate s i n the environment . Fo r example , uraniu m dioxid e i s a n insolubl e compound an d woul d hav e almos t n o effec t o n groundwate r compare d wit hurany l nitrate . Ye t bot hcompound s contai n uranium . Further , the radiotoxicit yo f uraniu mtake n int o the bod ydepend s drasticall y o n the chemica l for mand rout e o f intake . Fo r example , conside r U-234 , th e limiting isotop e found i n commercia l nuclea r fue l fabricatio n plants . Th e Annua l Limi t o f Intak e (ALI ) define d an d compute d b

ythe Internationa l Commissio n o n Radiologica l Protectio n (ICRP ) i n report s 2 6 an d 3 0 i s a goo d inde x o f relativ e hazar d fo r materia l take n int o the body . Th e AL I fo r ingestio n o f U 3 0 8 , a relativel yinsolubl e form , i s 7xl0 6 becquerels . AL I fo r inhalatio n o f the same compound i s IxlO 3 Bq . Thus , th e relativ e radiotoxicit y fo r uraniu

mcompound s take n int o the bod yha s a rang e o f a facto r o f 7000 . Th e ALI s fo r ingestio n o r inhalatio n o f solubl e form s o f uraniu mar e intermediat e t o the extreme s fo r insolubl e uraniu mcompound s characterize d b y 

### u 3 

### o 8 

### . W e sugges t the EP Aestablis hsevera l RQ s fo r uraniu mcompound s --.on e RQ fo r uraniu

mcompound s release d int o the air , anothe r R Q fo r surfac e wate r release s an

d a thir d R Q fo r spill s o f uraniu mcompounds . Thi s specia l reques t i s mad e fo r uraniu

mcompound s o n the following basis : 1 . Th e genera l radiotoxicit yfo r uraniu mcompound s (i n broa d categories ) i s thoroughl ydevelope d b ythe ICRP . 2 . Uraniu

mcompound s ar e o n the larges t scal e (b yweight ) o f radioisotope s use d i n the U.S . industries . 3 . Uraniu

mfue l cycl e facilitie s hav e experience d ongoing environmenta l monitorin g program s an d woul d b e abl e t o differentiat e airborn e releases , surfac e wate r releases , an d groundwater-release s t o a high degre e o f reliability . 4 . Uraniu

mfue l fabricatio n i s an importan t par t o f the domesti c U.S . nuclea r electricit ygeneratio n program . Th e fabricatio n o f suc hfue l i s taking plac e unde r a highl ycompetitiv e internationa l market . Unnecessaryo r over-regulation , including undul ylowRQs , wil l reduc e the competitivenes s o f U.S . industrie s i n the worl d fue l market s an d coul d lead t o thei r extinction . T-5 4P.2 0

Respons e Number : 2 (continued )

5 . Th e rang e o f radiotoxicit yo f uraniu mcompound s an

d the rang e o f thei r inheren t mobilit yi n environmenta l medi a (i.e. , air , surfac e water , an

d groundwater ) ar e no t congruen t wit ha singl e R Q methodologyfo r triggering CERCL Areporting . Ou r concer n i s tha t wit ha singl e RQ , EPAan d othe r governmen t agencie s woul d spend a larg e fractio n o f thei r time investigating reporte d release s whic h hav e minimu

mpossibilitie s o f affecting huma n healt hwhil e dilutin g thei r resource s fo r promptl yinvestigating the fe wrelease s whic h migh t warran t interventio n t o protec t publi c health . Response : Sectio n 102(a ) o f CERCL Astates , i n part , tha t "The Administrato r may determin e tha t on e singl e quantit yshal l b e the reportabl e quantit yfo r an y hazardou s substance , regardles s o f the mediu mint o whic hthe hazardou s substanc e i s released. " Th e us e o f a singl e R Q fo r individua l substance s regardles s o f the medi a int o whic hthe releas e occur s wa s adopte d t o provid e a relativel ysimpl e reporting systemtha t doe s no t undul yburde n eithe r EPAo r the regulate d community . Fo r a furthe r discussio n o f thi s concept , se e 5 0 F R 1346 6 (Apri l 4 , 1985) . I n th e cas e o f al l uraniu misotope s (an

d the remainde r o f the 75 7 radionuclides ) releas e value s wer e calculate d fo r severa l medi a suc ha s ai r an d ground water , and the lowes t releas e valu e wa s chose n a s the basi s fo r th e RQ . Thi s approac hassure s tha t the mos t critica l exposur e pathwayexamine d b y the Agenc ybecome s the basi s fo r the RQ . Finally , EP

Arecognize s tha t uraniu mfue l fabricatio n facilitie s ar e subjec t t o the limitation s i n 1 0 CFR Part s 2 0 an d 70 , a s wel l a s othe r regulation s implemente d b ythe Nuclea r RegulatoryCommission . Afacilit ytha t i s license d b

ythe Nuclea r RegulatoryCommissio n o r a n Agreemen t State , an d release s source , byproduct , an d specia l nuclea r materia l i n complianc e wit h it s licens e o r a t level s tha t ar e les s than an RQ abov e the license d level , ar e exemp t fro

mreporting unde r CERCL Asectio n 101(10)(K) . Also , airborn e release s o f radionuclide s i n complianc e wit hth e relevan t Nationa l Emissio n Standard s fo r Hazardou s Ai r Pollutant s (NESHAPs ) ar e exemp t fro mreporting unde r CERCL

Asectio n 101(10)(H) . Thes e facilitie s ar e no t expecte d t o b e burdene d b

ythe reporting requirement s an d RQ adjustment s establishe d i n thi s rulemaking . Mor e detaile d discussio n o n thi s issu e i s presente d i n a Notic e o f Propose d Rulemakin g o n Federall yPermitte d Release s (5 3 FR 27268 , Jul y19 , 1988 .

T-5 5P.2 1

Commente r Number : Page : Commente r Name :

Issue : Comment : 1 0 4 M.S . Whittake r Corporat e Healt hPhysicis t Chem-Nuclea r Systems , Inc . Specifi c RQ s Respons e Number :

I t i s no t clea r ho wplacin g eac hradionuclid e i n on e o f seve n group s instea d o f assignin g a n R Q equa l t o the smalles t releas e valu e simplifie s anything . I n meetin g the objectiv e o f the triggering o f appropriat e notificatio n i f a releas e occurs , whethe r a grou p o f radionuclide s ha s the same R Q o r i f eac hradionuclid e ha s a differen t R Q wil l no t matter . Afte r expendin g the effor t t o calculat e releas e value s fo r 75 7 radionuclides , listing th e result s o f the calculatio n rathe r tha n a n arbitraril yrounde d of f valu e seem s appropriate . Response : Th e Agenc ydoe s no t agre e tha t roundin g dow n the releas e value s fo r eac h radionuclid e i s arbitrary . Th e Agenc ybelieve s tha t seve n differen t RQ s fo r 75 7 radionuclide s ar e administrativel ysimple r tha n 75 7 RQ s fo r 75 7 radionuclides . Additionally , calculation s base d o n model s ar e onl y approximate , and setting individua l RQ s fo r eac hradionuclid e implie s a leve l o f precisio n no t justifie d bythe calculations . Roundin g dow n t o the neares t decad e i s believe d b ythe Agenc yt o b e conservativ e an d t o produc e reasonabl e RQs .

T-5 6P.2 2

Commente r Number : 1 4 Respons e Number : 4 Page : 11-1 2 Commente r Name : Kearne ye t al . Ediso n Electri c Institut e Issue : Specifi c RQs : Rado n Comment : Some utilit yfacilitie s i n whic has hfromth e combustio n o f coa l i n powe r plant s i s store d o r dispose d o f emi t ver ysmal l amount s o f naturall yoccurrin g radionuclide s suc ha s radon-222 . Thes e landfil l o r impoundmen t site s typicall yrang e i n siz e fro m5 t o upwar d o f 10 0 acres . I n particular , larg e coa l as hdisposa l site s coul d b e considere d t o emi t radon-22 2 (i n gaseou s form ) i n amount s greate r than th e applicabl e propose d R Q (0. 1 curies) . Thes e amount s ar e comparabl e t o naturall yoccurrin g emission s froman ylarge-acreag e facilit ysuc ha s a gol f cours e o r cattl e ranch . EPA' s methodologyfo r establishing th e propose d R Q fo r radon-22 2 appear s t o b e base d o n exposur e assumption s tha t fai l t o tak e int o consideratio n the extremel ylo wleve l o f emission s o f radionuclide s ove r large , uniformareas . Thus , us e o f EPA' s methodologyresult s i n R Q value s tha t ar e excessivel yconservative . Clearly , i t woul d b e inappropriat e and excessivel yburdensom e t o requir e facilitie s wit hlarg e acreage s tha t emi t smal l amount s o f rado n o r othe r radionuclide s int o th e ambien t air , including utilitie s wit hcoa l as hdisposa l sites , t o repeatedl ynotif yEPAunde r CERCLASectio n 10 3 o f release s o f radionuclide s fromthei r sites . Response : EPArecognize s tha t the mode l assumption s fo r airborn e release s use d i n th e calculatio n o f fina l RQ s (i.e. , a ground leve l poin t sourc e release ) d o no t adequatel yrepresen t release s ove r large , uniformareas . Se e "Inhalatio n Pathway- Respons e 1 " an d "Inhalatio n Pathway- Respons e 3 " fo r a detaile d respons e wit hrespec t t o thi s issue . Furthermore , EPArecognize s tha t ther e mayb e some radionuclid e release s fo r whic hreport s t o the Nationa l Respons e Cente r woul d serv e n o usefu l purpose . Accordingly , i n respons e t o request s fromth e public , EP Aha s exempte d fromCERCLAnotificatio n requirement s th e releas e o f radionuclide s resulting fromth e dumping o f coa l and coa l ash , and radionuclid e release s t o al l medi a fromcoa l an d coa l as hpiles , a t utilit yand industria l facilitie s wit hcoal-fire d boiler s (se e "Exemptions/Exclusion s - Respons e 2") . EP Aals o ha s exempte d fromCERCL Anotificatio n requirement s the releas e o f radionuclide s fromlarg e undisturbe d lan d holding s an

d fromland disturbanc e activitie s (se e "Exemptions/Exclusion s - Respons e 6") .

T-5 7P.2 3

Commente r Number : 2 4 Respons e Number : 5 Pag e 1 Commente r Name : Pau l J . Merges , Ph.D . Chief , Burea u o f Energ yan d Radiatio n Ne wYor k Stat e Departmen t o f Environmenta l Conservatio n Issue : Specifi c RQs : Radium-22 6 an d Radon-22 2 Comment : Th e releas e o f on e curi e o f radium-22 6 i s give n the same significanc e a s th e releas e o f 0. 1 C i o f radon-222 . Thi s doe s no t seemlogica l sinc e the radiu mwil l produc e th e equivalen t o f on e C i o f rado n ove r hundred s o f year s a s compare d t o rado n whic hwil l decaywithi n 3 8 day s t o les s tha n one-on e thousandt ho f it s origina l value . Also , the rado n i s a n iner t ga s and b y itsel f i s no t a long ter mproble m(les s tha n one day ) i f discharge d t o wate r o r air . Radium , o n th e othe r hand , wil l deposi t ou t fo r surfac e wate r an d wil l settl e ou t o f ai r causing lon g ter mproblems . Th e lo wvalu e fo r rado n mayals o mea n tha t facilitie s migh t hav e t o b e surveye d fo r continuou s release s o f radon . Iro n or e tailing s an d ven t shaft s o n mine s ar e example s o f item s tha t migh t b e covered . Response : Whil e i t i s tru e tha t on e curi e o f radium-22 6 wil l produc e on e curi e o f radon-22 2 give n sufficien t time (thousand s o f years) , thi s rado n wil l b e produce d slowl yand , assumin g tha t th e radium-22 6 i s uncontained , the rado n wil l b e presen t i n onl yver ylowconcentration s a t an ygive n time . Aris k compariso n o f radium-22 6 an d it s decayt o radon-22 2 ove r thousand s o f year s o n the basi s o f the RQs , therefore , i s no t valid . Furthermore , the fina l R Q fo r radium-22 6 i s 0. 1 C i a s mentione d i n the respons e t o "Specifi c RQs-7. " EP Arecognize s tha t the fina l RQ fo r rado n i s lowenoughtha t some sources , suc ha s iro n or e tailing s pile s an d ven t shaft s o n mines , wil l probabl yemi t mor e tha n a n RQ o f rado n withi n 2 4 hours . I n respons e t o thi s concern , EP

Aexamine d background informatio n collecte d unde r the Nationa l Emissio n Standard s fo r Hazardou s Ai r Pollutant s (NESHAPs ) progra mt o se e i f i t provide d a sufficien t justificatio n fo r administrativel yexempting rado n release s fro

mminera l extractio n industrie s fro mth e RQ reporting requirements . EP

Aha s conclude d tha t the NESHAP s background informatio n doe s no t suppor t suc ha n exemptio n a t thi s tim e becaus e (1 ) the radionuclid e NESHAP s ar e bein g reevaluate d a s par t o f a voluntaryremand ; an d (2 ) the NESHAP s programan d CERCLAnotificatio n requirement s hav e differen t purpose s an d objective s (se e "Exemptions/Exclusion s - Respons e 2 " fo r mor e discussio n o n administrativ e exemptions) . However , EP Abelieve s tha t rado n emission s fro miro n or e tailing s pile s an d min e ven t shaft s woul d probabl yqualif ya s "continuous " an

d "stabl e i n quantit yan d rate. " Accordingly , thes e release s woul d probabl yqualif yfo r the reduce d reporting requirement s unde r sectio n 103(f)(2 ) o f CERCIA .

T-5 *P.2 4

Commente r Number : Page : Commente r Name : L I 13-1 5 Joh n J . Kearne y Senio r Vic e Presiden t Ediso n Electri c Institut e Respons e Number : 6

Issue : Comment : Specifi c RQs : Uranium-23 8 and it s DecayProduct s

Th e EPAdetermine d releas e valu e fo r radioisotope s fromthe uranium-23 8 series . Fo r al l bu t Pb-214 , the critica l releas e pathwayi s inhalation . Thre e isotope s hav e particularl ylo wR Q values : Th-230 , Ra-226 , and Rn-222 . I n coa l fl yash , concentration s o f radionuclide s o f th e U-23 8 serie s rang e fro

mapproximatel y1. 4 t o 9 pCi/ g fl yash . Bottomas hvalue s rang e fro m 1. 8 t o 10. 6 pCi/g . Fo r leachat e solutions , suc ha s as hpond s and slime water s contactin g coa l as hdeposits , measure d concentration s o f U-23 8 serie s radionuclide s ar e usuall yles s than 1 0 pCi/L , typicall yles s tha n 5 pCi/L . I f on e conservativel yassume s tha t secula r equilibriu mwa s maintaine d through Ra-226 , the n the activitie s o f the decaymember s shoul d b e o f the same numerica l value . I f the activit yo f Th-23 0 i s se t a t 5 pCi/ g o f fl yash , the n th e propose d R Q valu e (0.0 1 Ci ) woul d appl yt o release s o f fl yas ho f mor e tha n 200 0 metri c tonne s pe r da

y[(0.0 1 Ci)/( 6 pCi/g ) = 2 billio n g/da y= 200 0 metri c tonnes/day] . Thi s amoun t exceed s an yexpecte d fl yas hlos s tha t coul d reasonabl yoccu r froma n as hsit e an d therefor e the propose d R Q fo r Th-23 0 shoul d no t affec t thes e as hsites . Likewise , 1 billio n liter s pe r da yo f leachat e solution s containing 1 0 pCi/ L o f Th-23 0 woul d hav e t o b e release d i n orde r t o excee d the R Q valu e fo r Th-230 . Fo r Ra-226 , the propose d R Q leve l ( 1 Ci ) woul d appl yt o release s o f mor e than 2 millio n metri c tonne s o f as hpe r day . I f secula r equilibriu mo f Ra-22 6 an d it s deca

yproduct s i s assumed , the EP Aha s se t the R Q valu e o f the mixtur e a t 0.4 3 curie . Assumin g secula r equilibrium , 8 6 millio n g/da y(86,00 0 metri c tonnes/day ) o f fl yas hwoul d hav e t o b e release d t o excee d the RQ valu e o f 0.4 3 curie . Releas e o f leachat e solution s containin g 1 0 pCi/ L o f Ra-22 6 (i n equilibriu

mwit hit s deca

yproducts ) woul d hav e t o consis t o f 4 3 billio n liter s pe r da

yt o excee d the RQ valu e (0.4 3 curie) . Again , release s fro ma fl yas hsit e woul d no t b e expecte d t o approac hthe propose d RQ value s an d therefor e the RQ valu e fo r Ra-22 6 shoul d no t affec t as hsites . Littl e fiel d informatio n i s availabl e o n rado n emissio n fro mfl yash . Estimate s fromlab measurement s rang e fro m0. 1 t o 6 pCi/m2/sec . Thes e ca n b e compare d t o a calculate d averag e rado n emissio n rat e fro mvariou s U.S . soil s o f 0. 7 pCi/m2/sec . Indeed , i n it s rulemakin g o n radionuclide s pursuan t t o Paragraph11 2 o f the Clea n Ai r Act , the EPAindicate d tha t th e radon-22 2 "exhalatio n rate " fo r coa l storag e an d wast e pile s a t utilit yboile r site s i s les s than the exhalatio n rat e fo r soil .

T-5 9P.2 5

Respons e Number : 6 (continued )

T o bes t illustrat e the effec t th e propose d R Q valu e woul d have , conside r th e averag e soi l radon-22 2 emissio n rat e (0. 7 pCi/m2/sec) . Base d o n the R Q value , and assumin g tha t the CERCLAreleas e reporting requirement s applie d t o th e soil , an

yfacilit ycontaining mor e tha n 41 0 acre s o f land emittin g rado n a t th e averag e soi l rat e woul d excee d the releas e limi t eac hday . I t woul d appea r tha t federa l an d stat e parks , privat e cattl e ranches , gol f courses , recreationa l areas , an d othe r larg e lan

d operation s coul d excee d th e propose d . R Q valu e fo r radon-222 . Regardin g a n as hsite , the tota l releas e o f Rn-22 2 froma n as h impoundmen t int o th e atmospher e depend s o n the are a o f the sit e (i n additio n t o compensatio n density , wate r content , etc.) . Usin g the propose d R Q valu e fo r radon-22 2 (0. 1 curie ) an d a conservativ e assumptio n o f 5 pCi/m2/se c radon-22 2 emissio n rate , an yas himpoundmen t large r tha n 231,00 0 m 2 (5 7 acres ) woul d emi t radon-22 2 o n a dail ybasi s i n exces s o f the propose d R Q valu e fo r radon-22 2 (0. 1 curie) . Thi s resul t occur s becaus e the EPAcalculate d the R Q valu e usin g a n unrealisticall yconservativ e mode l fo r uniformradioactiv e emissio n froma larg e surfac e area . Ye t the actua l expecte d exposur e from thes e site s t o a referenc e ma n woul d b e order s o f magnitud e les s tha n the level s use d i n th e model . Th e proble marise s fro mapplying a n inappropriat e inhalatio n mode l t o larg e land-base d sites , suc ha s as hsites , t o calculat e the R Q valu e fo r radon-222 . On e solutio n woul d b e t o re-evaluat e the rado n releas e valu e fo r the inhalatio n pathwaygive n a larg e horizonta l plan e sourc e (a s discusse d i n a n earlie r section) . Model s incorporating horizonta l plan e source s ar e availabl e i n the literature . Anothe r approac hmigh t b e t o conside r tha t coa l as hdeposit s cove r radon-emittin g soil . Therefore , the soi l rado n emissio n rat e shoul d b e subtracte d fro

mthe as hemissio n rat e fo r an equivalen t as harea . Wher e the rado n emissio n rat e fro mthe as hi s les s than the soi l emissio n rate , a ne t reductio n i n the rado n emissio n woul d occur . Response : EPAagree s tha t the dispersio n calculation s performe d fo r the inhalatio n pathwaymode l ar e no t vali d fo r larg e land-base d sites , suc ha s as hsites . Se e "Inhalatio n Pathway- - Respons e 1 " an d "Inhalatio n Pathway- - Respons e 3 " fo r a detaile d respons e concerning the appropriatenes s o f the inhalatio n pathwaymodel . A s discusse d i n thes e responses , EP Achos e no t t o us e a differen t modelin g approac hfo r larg e acreag e release s because : (1 ) usin g multipl e modelin g approache s fo r differen t releas e configuration s woul d resul t i n multipl e RQ s fo r eac hradionuclide , whic hwoul d ad d significan t complication s t o the implementatio n o f thi s rule ; an d (2 ) eve n i f a n area sourc e mode l wer e used , on e coul d alway s argu e tha t th e mode l use d wa s no t directl yapplicabl e t o thei r particula r releas e situation . Therefore , the agenc ychos e t o us e one , broadl yapplicabl e inhalatio n mode l ( a mode l tha t

T-6 0P.2 6

Respons e Number : 6 (continued )

assume s a point-sourc e release ) tha t yield s RQ s tha t wil l assur e timel y reportin g fo r mos t conceivabl e releas e situations . Also , i n respons e t o thi s an d simila r comments , EPAnote s tha t release s o f naturall yoccurrin g radionuclide s (e.g. , radon ) fromlarge , generall y undisturbe d land holding s (e.g. , parks , ranches , and gol f courses ) hav e bee n exempte d I administrativel yfromth e CERCLAnotificatio n requirement s (se e "Exemptions/Exclusion s - Respons e 6") . Also , EPAha s exempte d fromCERCI A notificatio n requirement s th e releas e o f radionuclide s resulting fro mthe dumping o f coa l an d coa l ash , and radionuclid e release s t o al l medi a fromcoa l an d coa l as hpiles , a t utilit yan d industria l facilitie s wit hcoal-fire d boiler s (se e "Exemptions/Exclusion s - Respons e 2") . Althoug hth e commente r state s tha t th e propose d R Q fo r radium-22 6 (eithe r b yitsel f o r i n secula r equilibriu mwit hit s daughters ) shoul d no t affec t fl y as hsites , EPAwishe s t o poin t ou t th e fina l R Q fo r radiu mi s lowe r tha n th e propose d RQ . Specifically , th e fina l R Q fo r radium-22 6 alon e i s 0. 1 C i (rathe r tha n 1 Ci , th e propose d RQ ) and th e fina l R Q fo r radium-22 6 i n secula r equilibriu

mwit hit s dauther s i s 0.05 3 C i (rathe r tha n 0.4 3 Ci , th e propose d RQ) . Thi s lowering wa s th e resul t o f a re-evaluatio n o f the vegetabl e ingestio n pathwaycalculations .

T-6 1P.2 7

Commente r Number : L 3 Respons e Number : 7 Page : 2 Commente r Name : Jame s E . Fairoben t Offic e o f Environmenta l Guidanc e an d Complianc e U.S . Departmen t o f Energ y Issue : Specifi c RQ s Comment : Some o f th e RQ s appea r inconsistent . Example s o f inconsistencie s are : th e RQ s fo r Cs-13 1 (100 0 Ci ) an d Cs-13 2 (1 0 Ci) , a differenc e o f a facto r o f 100 , whe n th e annua l limit s o f intak e (ALIs ) fo r thes e isotope s diffe r b yonl y a facto r o f 10 ; the R Q fo r Kr-8 5 (10 0 Ci ) mayno t b e consisten t wit hth e EPA standar d o f 50,00 0 Ci/GWatt-yr fo r thi s isotope ; an d DO E site s wit hlarg e controlle d area s mayroutinel yreleas e radionuclide s wel l i n exces s o f the RQs . Th e validit yo f the difference s betwee n RQ s fo r Ra-22 6 ( 1 Ci ) and Rn-22 2 and Rn-22 0 (0. 1 Ci ) ar e als o questionabl e becaus e th e RQ s fo r th e radon s woul d seemt o b e mor e logicall yse t a t on e o r two order s o f magnitud e larger . Als o o f concer n ar e possibl e inconsistencie s i n the RQ s fo r the following radionuclides : Kr-85 , Kr-85m , and Xe-133 , 10 0 C i instea d o f 100 0 Ci ; and Rn-22 0 and Rn-222 , 0. 1 C i instead o f 1 Ci . Response : Th e Agenc ybelieve s tha t the RQ s fo r al l 75 7 radionuclide s ar e consisten t wit hthe model s use d t o calculat e them . Th e value s recovere d fro mthe model s depend upo n the assumption s use d withi n the model s and , further , the RQ s depend upo n whic hmodel , unde r the give n circumstances , produce s the lowes t releas e value . I n the cas e o f the fina l RQ s fo r Cesium-13 1 (100 0 Ci ) and Cs-13 2 (1 0 Ci) , the RQ s ar e base d upo n inhalatio n an d direc t exposure , respectively . Cesium

13 1 doe s no t produc e a gamm a ra yupo n deca

yand , therefore , i t i s no t possibl e t o calculat e a direc t exposur e releas e value . Th e inhalatio n releas e valu e fo r Cs-131 , an

d therefor e the RQ , i s relate d directl yt o the AL I fo r inhalatio n fo r thi s radionuclide . Cesium-13 2 doe s produc e a gamm a ra yupo n deca yan d the relativel ylowRQ i s base d upo n thi s fact ; the RQ i s unrelate d t o the inhalatio n ALI . Wit hrespec t t o emission s o f Kr-8 5 relativ e t o the EP Astandar d an

d emission s fro

mlarg e controlle d area s a t DO E facilities , the Agenc yemphasize s tha t onl yrelease s o f a n RQ o r mor e abov e federall ypermitte d level s ar e reportable . Th e Agenc yha s determine d tha t release s o f source , byproduct , an d specia l nuclea r materia l fro mDO E facilitie s i n complianc e wit hDO E order s ar e federall ypermitte d unde r CERCLA' s sectio n 101(10)(K) . Furthermore , release s o f an yradionuclid e fromDO E i n complianc e wit hthe Nationa l Emissio n Standard s fo r Hazardou s Ai r Pollutant s ar e federall ypermitte d unde r sectio n 101(10)(H) . Therefore , the RQ s wil l no t conflic t wit hfederall ypermitte d releas e limit s an

d wil l no t creat e a reporting burde n fo r release s i n complianc e wit hthos e limits .

T-6 2P.2 8

Respons e Number : 7 (continued )

Th e fina l R Q fo r Ra-22 6 i s 0. 1 C i and i s base d o n the vegetabl e ingestio n pathway ; i t wa s lowere d a n orde r o f magnitud e fromthe propose d R Q base d o n a re-evaluatio n o f the vegetabl e ingestio n pathwaycalculations . Th e fina l RQ s fo r bot hRn-22 0 an d Rn-22 2 ar e als o 0. 1 Ci , bu t ar e base d o n the inhalatio n pathway . Th e Agenc ybelieve s tha t RQ s accuratel yreflec t th e relativ e hazard s o f thes e nuclide s give n th e modelin g assumption s fo r the differen t exposur e pathways .

T-6 3P.2 9

Commente r Number : L 3 Respons e Number : 8 Page : 2 Commente r Name : Jame s E . Fairoben t Offic e o f Environmenta l Guidanc e and Complianc e U.S . Departmen t o f Energy Issue : Specifi c RQ s Comment : Th e tabl e i n Appendi x B shoul d includ e a colum n indicating the pathwayo f concer n fo r eac hradionuclide . Suc hinformatio n would-facilitat e mor e refine d analysi s o f potentia l dose s t o expose d individual s and hel p focu s furthe r revision s t o the RQs . Response : Table s o f hazardou s substance s publishe d i n the Federa l Registe r ordinaril yd o no t contai n informatio n concernin g the basi s upo n whic hthe R Q wa s se t (e.g. , se e Tabl e 302.4 , 5 0 FR 13475 , Apri l 4 , 1985) . Thi s informatio n fo r radionuclide s coul d b e found , however , i n the "Technica l Background Documen t t o Suppor t Propose d Rulemakin g Pursuan t t o Sectio n 10 2 o f the Comprehensiv e Environmenta l Response , Compensation , and Liabilit yAct : Radionuclides. " Thi s documen t wa s availabl e fo r inspectio n i n RoomLG-100 , U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , 40 1 M Street , SW , Washington , D C 20460 . Th e Agenc ybelieve s tha t th e availabilit yo f thi s documen t provide d ampl e opportunit yfo r analysi s o f potentia l dose s associate d wit hthe propose d RQs . ATechnica l Background Documen t supportin g the fina l R Q adjustment s als o i s availabl e i n the Superfund docke t room(Roo mLG-100 ) an

d contain s the background dat a o n the pathway s use d t o develop eac hfina l RQ . I t i s importan t t o stres s tha t th e R Q assigne d t o a substanc e i s no t media-specific . Sectio n 102(a ) o f CERCL Astate s tha t "The Administrato r may determin e tha t on e singl e quantit yshal l b e the reportabl e quantit yfo r an y hazardou s substance , regardles s o f the mediu mint o whic hthe hazardou s substanc e i s released. " Accordingly , EP Aevaluate d five exposur e scenario s (eac hinvolving differen t exposur e pathway s an d environmenta l media ) fo r eac h radionuclid e an

d selecte d the mos t critica l scenari o a s th e basi s fo r the RQ fo r tha t radionuclide . Again , fo r mor e detai l o n thes e variou s exposur e pathways , refe r t o the supporting Technica l Background Document .

T-6 4P.3 0

Commente r Number : L 3 Respons e Number : 9 Page : 3 Commente r Name : Jame s E . Fairoben t Offic e o f Environmenta l Guidanc e and Complianc e U.S . Departmen t o f Energy Issue : Specifi c RQ s Comment : Sectio n II. Ao f the propose d rul e discusse s consideration s o f chemica l toxicity , rathe r tha n radiatio n dose , i n establishin g fina l adjuste d RQ s fo r long-live d isotope s o f uranium , particularl yU-238 . Fo r a numbe r o f ver y long-live d radionuclide s liste d i n Appendi x B o f the propose d rule , exposure s probabl yshoul d b e limite d b ypreventio n o f chemica l toxicit yrathe r tha n b y radiatio n dose , i.e. , th e propose d R Q base d o n radiatio n dos e probabl yi s inadequat e t o preven t deleteriou s chemica l effects . Fo r example , th e propose d R Q fo r Cd-11 3 base d o n radiatio n dos e i s on e curie , bu t the half-lif e o f thi s isotop e i s s o long tha t the chemica l effect s o f thi s highl ytoxi c elemen t probabl yar e muc hmor e importan t tha n radiatio n dos e a t the level s o f exposur e use d t o defin e the RQ . Othe r example s o f radioisotope s fo r whic hchemica l effect s migh t b e mor e importan t tha n radiatio n dos e includ e Be-10 , Cl-36 , In
115 , an d Pb-205 . EPAshoul d carefull yconside r chemica l toxicit yvis-a-vi s radiatio n dos e fo r long-live d isotope s o f element s tha t ar e known t o b e toxi c a t hig hdoses . Fo r compound s o f uranium , calculation s sugges t tha t RQ s o f on e an d 100 0 pound s fo r urany l nitrat e an d urany l acetate , respectively , woul d b e consisten t wit hRQ s tha t the EP Aha s se t fo r othe r hazardou s chemicals . Response : EPAagree s tha t fo r some relativel ylong-live d an d naturall yoccurrin g radioactiv e materials , the chemica l toxicit ymayexcee d the radiotoxicity . Tw o RQ s mayappl yt o the releas e o f a substanc e containing radionuclide s - - on e R Q bein g base d o n chemica l toxicit yand the othe r bein g base d o n radiotoxicity . I n suc hsituations , the lowes t applicabl e RQ fo r a substanc e govern s whe n the owne r o r operato r mus t repor t the releas e t o the Nationa l Respons e Center . I n thi s way , the RQ s reflec t the relativ e chemica l toxicit y an d radiatio n hazar d o f a substance . Fo r example , naturall yoccurring cadmiu mconsist s o f roughl y1 2 percen t cadmium-113 , a radioactiv e isotope , an d severa l othe r isotope s o f cadmiu mtha t ar e no t radioactive . Th e R Q fo r cadmiu mha s bee n finalize d a t 1 0 pound s an d the R Q fo r cadmium-113 , jus t on e componen t o f naturall yoccurrin g cadmium , i s 0. 1 Ci . Arelease r o f cadmiu mmeta l i s require d t o repor t i f eithe r 1 0 pound s o f the meta l (i f the diameter s o f the particle s o f the release d meta l ar e les s tha n o r equa l t o 10 0 micrometers ) o r 0. 1 C i o f cadmium-11 3 (regardles s o f the particl e siz e o f the cadmium-113 ) i s released . I n thi s case , the R Q base d o n chemica l toxicit yi s muc hmor e limiting tha n the R Q base d o n radiotoxicit y( a releas e o f 1 0 pound s o f cadmiu mmeta l o r 1 0 pound s o f cadmium-11 3 constitute s fa r les s than 0. 1 Ci) . Fo r othe r materials , however , the RQ base d o n radiotoxicit yi s mor e limiting than the on e base d o n chemica l toxicity . I n bot hsituations , the lowes t RQ applicabl e t o th e substanc e release d woul d b e the reporting trigger . T-6 5P.3 1

Respons e Number : 9 (continued )

Urany l acetat e an

d urany l nitrat e ar e additiona l example s o f substance s wit htwo applicabl e RQs , on e base d o n chemica l toxicit yan d th e othe r base d o n radiatio n hazard . Bot hsubstance s ar e specificall yliste d a s CERCLAhazardou s substance s becaus e theyar e include d unde r sectio n 31 1 o f the CWA ; however , theybot hconsis t o f abou t 6 0 percen t uranium-238 , a radionuclide . Base d o n thei r chemica l toxicity , urany l acetat e an d urany l nitrat e hav e a fina l adjuste d R Q o f 10 0 pound s (5 1 FR 34534 , Septembe r 29 , 1986) . Th e fina l R Q fo r uranium-238 , base d upo n radiologica l hazard , i s 0. 1 Ci , whic hi s equivalen t t o roughl y66 0 pound s o f uranium-238 . Bot hthe 0. 1 C i RQ fo r uranium-23 8 an d the 10 0 pound R Q ar e applicabl e t o release s o f urany l acetat e an d uranl ynitrate , bu t the 100-pound R Q wil l alway s trigge r reporting firs t becaus e i t i s the lower , mor e protectiv e level . Th e R Q o f 10 0 pound s wil l assur e timel y reportin g o f release s o f urany l acetat e an d urany l nitrat e frombot ha radiologica l hazar d and chemica l toxicit ystandpoint .

T-6 6P.3 2

Commente r Number : 5 Respons e Number : 1 Page : 1/ 2 Commente r Name : Denni s Naf f Radiatio n Safet yOffice r Mobi l Minin g an

d Mineral s Compan

y Issue : Inhalatio n Pathwa y Comment : Mobi l Minin g an

d Mineral s Company , a Divisio n o f Mobi l Diversifie d Busines s own s an

d operate s thre e phosphat e roc k mine s i n centra l Florid a and fertilize r productio n facilitie s i n Pasadena , Texa s an d DePue , Illinois . Th e phosphat e roc k mine d i n Florid a a s wel l a s the ammoniu mphosphat e fertilize r and by-produc t phosphogypsu mproduce d fromth e phosphat e roc k contai n ver y smal l level s o f uranium-23 8 an d it s natura l decayproducts . Du e t o th e presenc e o f thes e naturall yoccurring radioactiv e materials , rado n i s emitte d fromthe phosphat e roc k an d by-produc t phosphogypsum , and t o a lesse r extent , fromthe produc t fertilizer . Base d o n the availabl e data , calculation s sho w tha t the rado n emission s fro mthe thre e phosphogypsu mstorag e area s i n Pasaden a an

d on e storag e pil e i n DePu e wil l al l excee d the reportabl e quantit y fo r rado n an

d s o mus t b e reporte d dail ya s a release . Als o o f concer n i s the metho d use d t o determin e exposure . I t appear s tha t EPAuse d a n averag e Gaussia n plume mode l base d o n a ground leve l releas e fo r a n are a source . Sinc e Mobil' s gypsu mpiles , lik e mos t i n the industry , averag e 10 0 fee t i n height , the vas t majorit yo f rado n emission s woul d occu r a t elevation s tha t allo wsignifican t dilution , an d therefore , minimiz e downwind exposur e t o the genera l public . O n the basi s o f thi s information , the 0. 1 C l reportabl e quantit yfo r rado n i s no t a n appropriat e metho d o f determinin g i f a releas e ha s occurre d fro man yo f the facilitie s discusse d above . Response : [Se e "Exemptions/Exclusion s - Respons e 1, " wit hthe following additiona l text. ] I f a radionuclid e releas e exceed s th e RQ o n a dail ybasis , a s migh t b e the cas e fo r rado n release s fro mphosphogypsu

mpiles , the releas e woul d no t necessaril yhav e t o be reporte d eac hday . I n accordanc e wit hCERCLAsectio n 103(f)(2) , dail yreport s o f release s tha t excee d the RQ ar e no t require d a s long a s the release s ar e continuou s an d stabl e i n quantit yan d rate . Rado n release s fro

mth e facilitie s describe d b ythe commente r conceivabl ycoul d qualif yfo r the reduce d reporting provision s unde r CERCL Asectio n 103(f)(2) . Owner s o r operator s o f suc hfacilities , therefore , migh t hav e t o repor t the rado n release s onl yannuall yo r wheneve r ther e i s a statisticall ysignifican t increas e i n the release . Wit hrespec t t o the commen t o n the applicabilit yo f the Gaussia n plume model , EP

Aagree s tha t the dispersio n calculation s performe d fo r thi s inhalatio n pathwa

ymode l ar e no t vali d fo r a larg e storag e pile . Th e Agenc y T-6 7P.3 3

Respons e Number : 1 (continued )

emphasizes , however , tha t an ysingl e dispersio n mode l wil l no t b e applicabl e t o al l possibl e releas e scenarios . Fo r thi s reason , th e Agenc yselecte d relativel yconservativ e model s t o simulat e releas e event s an d t o calculat e RQ s tha t ar e applicabl e broadly . Model s involving above-ground release s (sucha s fromgypsu

mpiles ) wer e considere d earl yi n the radionuclid e R Q adjustmen t process , bu t wer e rejecte d a s no t bein g sufficientl yconservativ e fo r man y releases . EPAbelieve s tha t the complication s adde d b yhavin g multipl e RQ s fo r differen t releas e configuration s woul d outweighthe benefit s t o b e gaine d b ysuc ha n approach . EPArecognize s tha t ther e mayb e some radionuclid e release s fo r whic h report s t o the Nationa l Respons e Cente r woul d serve n o usefu l purpose . Accordingly , i n respons e t o request s fro mthe public , EPAha s decide d t o exemp t fromthe CERCLAnotificatio n requirement s radionuclid e release s from thre e source s (se e "Exemptions/Exclusion s - Respons e 2 an d 6") . I t shoul d b e noted , however , tha t some o f the administrativ e exemption s suggeste d b

ycommenter s bu t no t grante d ar e unnecessary . Fo r example , smokestac k release s fromcoal-fire d boiler s hav e bee n evaluate d b yEPA . Th e quantit yo f radionuclide s release d frommode l facilitie s i n a 24-hou r perio d i s fa r les s tha n a n RQ , thu s negatin g an ynee d generall yfo r the boile r operator s t o repor t releases , an d negatin g the nee d fo r an yadministrativ e exemptio n fo r suc hreleases . Additionally , radionuclid e release s tha t equa l o r excee d a n R Q bu t ar e "continuous " an d "stabl e i n quantit yan d rate " may qualif yfo r the reduce d reporting requirement s unde r sectio n 103(f)(2 ) o f CERCLA .

T-6 8P.3 4

Commente r Number : Page : Commente r Name :

Issue : Comment : 8 1 Mar k A . Doruf f Radiatio n Safet yOffice r AmershamCorporatio n Inhalatio n Pathway Respons e Number : 2

Shoul d th e calculatio n o f inhalatio n releas e value s b e include d i n th e metho d o f determinin g R Q value s fo r radionuclides , the n the AL I selecte d fo r thi s calculatio n shoul d no t b e a constan t base d o n the lowes t valu e availabl e fo r multiple-AL I nuclide s liste d i n the ICR P 30 . Eithe r multipl e R Q value s shoul d b e liste d fo r thes e nuclides , o r ther e shoul d b e a provisio n i n the regulation s t o allo wa n adjustmen t t o b e mad e t o the R Q valu e base d upo n the specifi c chemica l form , and the n inhalatio n clas s using a differen t ALI , fo r th e specifi c nuclid e handle d o r transported . Althoug hi t ma yb e difficul t t o adjus t meterologica l condition s o r othe r factor s include d i n th e calculation s whic hhav e bee n mad e conservativel y constant , selectio n o f the mos t appropriat e AL I fo r the appropriat e inhalatio n clas s fo r a specifi c nuclid e woul d introduc e a mean s fo r determinin g mor e reasonabl e RQ s fo r thes e nuclides . Response : Fo r man yradionuclides , severa l ALI s ar e give n correspondin g t o differen t pulmonaryclearanc e classe s (D , W , and Y) , o r occasionally , fo r stochasti c an d non-stochasti c effects . Th e Agenc yha s use d the lowes t AL I valu e t o calculat e a releas e valu e an d t o determin e a n RQ . Th e RQ , then , i s base d o n the mos t hazardou s chemica l for mfo r everyradionuclide . EP Abelieve s tha t thi s approach , whil e conservative , i s consisten t wit hthe purpos e o f RQs . Namely , i t provide s a singl e reporting trigge r tha t shoul d assur e timel yreportin g i n mos t circumstances . Th e specifi c circumstance s surrounding a releas e wil l b e take n int o consideratio n b ythe governmen t i n it s determinatio n o f the nee d fo r response , an

d the chemica l for mo f the radionuclid e wil l the n b e considere d i n mor e detail . Th e Agenc yha s mad e an administrativ e decisio n t o hav e a singl e RQ fo r eac hradionuclide ; multipl e RQ s coul d b e confusin g an d coul d lead t o reporting delays .

T-6 9P.3 5

Commente r Number : 1 4 Page : Commente r Name :

Issue : Comment : 9-1 1 John J . Kearne y Senio r Vic e Presiden t Ediso n Electri c Institut e Inhalatio n Pathway Respons e Number : 3

Fo r inhalatio n exposure , the Agenc yuse s a n "atmospheri c relativ e concentration " tha t "correspond s t o a ground-leve l relativ e concentratio n 3 0 meter s downwind fro ma ground-leve l releas e unde r stabl e meteorologica l conditions . Fossi l fue l fire d electri c generating plant s release , a s a resul t o f the combustio n process , ver ysmal l amount s o f radionuclide s t o the ambien t ai r a t elevation s wel l abov e ground level . Indeed , the smokestac k fo r a 500-megawat t boile r wil l typicall yb e mor e than 10 0 meter s i n height , and th e effectiv e poin t o f releas e fo r exposur e modelin g purpose s coul d b e 10 0 meter s o r mor e abov e stac k top give n the buoyan t plume ris e associate d wit hsuc h emissions . Give n the elevate d poin t a t whic hthe releas e occur s an d the siz e o f the typica l powe r plant , i t i s als o unrealisti c t o assume tha t th e closes t poin t o f huma n inhalatio n i s onl y3 0 meter s fro mthe poin t o f release . Indeed , i n it s radionuclid e rulemakin g unde r Sectio n 11 2 o f the Clea n Ai r Act , EPA conservativel yassume d tha t the mos t expose d individua l woul d b e locate d n o close r tha n 75 0 meter s fromthe plant . Th e Agenc ycoul d addres s thi s proble meithe r b ycalculatin g separat e reportabl e quantitie s fo r ambien t ai r emission s fro mfossi l fue l fire d powe r plant s (an

d perhap s fo r ambien t ai r release s fro mothe r elevate d sources ) o r b ymakin g clea r i n it s subsequen t rulemaking o n federall ypermitte d release s tha t release s o f radionuclide s fro mpowe r plan t stack s ar e exemp t from CERCLA' s notificatio n requirement s a s federall ypermitte d releases . Response : A s state d previousl y(se e respons e "Inhalatio n Pathway- 1") , EP A realize s tha t an

ysingl e atmospheri c dispersio n model , including the mode l use d i n the calculatio n of-th e RQs , wil l no t b e applicabl e t o al l possibl e releas e scenarios . Th e Agenc ybelieves , however , tha t multipl e RQ s fo r differen t releas e configuration s woul d caus e significan t complication s an d woul d b e unnecessarygive n the purpos e o f RQs . Moreover , eve n i f the Agenc y use d man

ydifferen t model s t o develop RQ s fo r differen t releas e scenarios , ther e woul d stil l b e countles s othe r scenario s fo r whic hthe model s woul d no t b e full yapplicable . Fo r thes e reasons , the Agenc yselecte d relativel y conservativ e model s t o simulat e releas e event s an d t o calculat e RQ s tha t ar e broadl yapplicabl e (i.e. , tha t woul d assur e timel yreporting i n mos t circumstances) . Model s involving above-ground releases , suc ha s fro m smokestacks , wer e considere d earl yi n the RQ adjustmen t proces s bu t wer e rejecte d a s no t bein g sufficientl yconservativ e t o lead t o timel yreportin g fo r man yreleases .
T-7 0P.3 6

Respons e Number : 3 (continued )

Muc ho f the abov e rational e als o applie s t o the issu e o f whethe r 3 0 meter s i s a n appropriat e distanc e t o assume i n the calculatio n o f RQs . EPA recognize s tha t potentia l receptor s ofte n wil l b e locate d farthe r awayfrom releas e points . I n some circumstances , however , potentiall yexpose d individual s ma yb e locate d 3 0 meter s from , and eve n close r to , th e poin t o f releas e (e.g. , transportation-relate d release s and release s frommedica l facilitie s and researc hinstitutions) . Furthermore , RQ s als o ar e intende d t o assur e timel yreportin g i n th e even t o f significan t environmenta l impacts , and environmenta l entitie s (i.e. , plants , wildlife , an d othe r natura l resources ) withi n 3 0 meter s ca n b e expose d regardles s o f the presenc e o r absenc e o f people . Fo r thes e reasons , th e Agenc ybelieve s tha t the assume d distanc e o f 30 . meter s i s appropriat e fo r the developmen t o f RQs . Finally , th e Agenc yha s clarifie d i n the preambl e t o the fina l rul e adjustin g radionuclid e RQ s tha t radionuclid e emission s tha t ar e i n complianc e wit hlimitation s establishe d unde r the Clea n Ai r Ac t ar e federall ypermitte d release s unde r sectio n 101(10)(H ) o f CERCLAand , therefore , exemp t from reportin g unde r CERCLA . Thi s poin t als o i s mad e i n a recen t Notic e o f Propose d Rulemakin g (5 3 F R 27268 , Jul y19 , 1988 ) o n federall ypermitte d releases . NESHAP s Background Documents 1 als o indicat e tha t mode l utilit y boile r smokestac k emission s ar e a t level s belo wthe radionuclid e R Q and s o reportin g o f thes e release s generall ywil l no t b e require d unde r CERCLA . I n • addition , i n respons e t o thi s commen t an d othe r comment s lik e it , EPAha s decide d t o exemp t fro mthe CERCLAnotificatio n requirement s radionuclid e release s fromthre e source s (se e "Exemptions/Exclusion s - Respons e 2 and 6") .

1 EPA , 1980 . Radiologica l Impac t Cause d b yEmission s o f Radionuclide s int o Ai r i n the Unite d State s - - PreliminaryReport . EP A520/7-79-006 . EPA , 1984 . Radionuclide s - - Background Informatio n Documen t fo r Fina l Rules , Volum e II . EP A520/1-84-022-2 .

T-7 1P.3 7

Commente r Number : 1 4 Page : 1 3 Respons e Number : 4

Kearne ye t al . Ediso n Electri c Institut e Inhalatio n Pathway Commente r Name :

Issue : Comment : EPAshoul d revis e it s exposur e mode l specificall yt o tak e int o accoun t emission s fromlarg e areas . Fo r example , EPAshoul d chang e the poin t sourc e releas e assumptio n i n th e cas e o f larg e are a sources . I n addition , EPAshoul d adop t a correctio n facto r t o b e applie d t o the propose d R Q fo r uniform emission s ove r larg e areas . Implementatio n o f thes e recommendation s woul d hel p ensur e tha t the CERCLASectio n 10 3 reportin g requirement s ar e no t inappropriatel yapplie d t o coa l as hsite s and large-acreag e facilitie s emittin g smal l amount s o f naturall yoccurring radionuclides . Response : A s discusse d i n "Inhalatio n Pathway- Respons e 1 " an d "Inhalatio n Pathway

- Respons e 3, " EPAbelieve s tha t the complication s adde d b yhavin g multipl e RQ s (o r correctio n factors ) fo r differen t releas e configuration s woul d outweighthe benefit s t o b e gaine d b ysuc ha n approach . CERCI Aallow s fo r the adoptio n o f a singl e R Q fo r eac hdesignate d hazardou s substanc e and , accordingly , th e Agenc yselecte d relativel yconservativ e model s t o calculat e a singl e R Q fo r eac hradionuclid e tha t woul d assur e timel yreporting i n mos t releas e situations .

T-7 2P.3 8

Commente r Number : 1 5 Respons e Number : 5 Page : 2 Commente r Name : D.R . Wind Senio r Environmenta l Enginee r Monsant o Corporatio n Issue : Inhalatio n Pathway Comment : BI D sectio n o n inhalation . EPAha d considere d setting RQ s b ydividin g annua l limitation s o f intak e fo r inhalatio n (ALIs ) b ya constant , bu t rejecte d th e approach . Whe n thei r adopte d approac hi s examined , the RQ s ar e se t by dividin g the AL I b ya constan t time s the releas e factor , whic hwa s develope d fo r uraniu

mfue l cycl e facilitie s an d i s thu s o f questionabl e applicability . Th e constan t come s fromoversimplifie d assumption s mad e i n the Ch i ove r Q evaluation . Th e dispersio n coefficient s hav e bee n extrapolate d beyond th e rang e appearin g i n an yo f th e standar d reference s o n the subject , whic hmake s themhighl ysuspect . Sinc e theyhav e assume d the wors t cas e conditio n o f ground release , theyshoul d hav e a t leas t allowe d fo r vertica l dispersio n t o a breathin g zon e heigh t o f abou t 1. 5 meters , whic hwoul d increas e th e R Q by abou t 2. 5 times . N o decay , plume washou t o r ground depositio n wa s allowe d either , no r hav e ground effect s o n dispersio n bee n included , whic hnormall y hav e pronounce d effect s o n ground leve l releases . Th e approac hi s overl y conservative , sinc e i t multiplie s s o man yconservativ e assumption s together . Response : Thi s commen t raise s severa l differen t issues . First , wit hrespec t t o the applicabilit yo f the releas e fractions , the releas e fraction s use d i n the adjustmen t o f RQ s (take n fro mthe Nuclea r RegulatoryCommission' s NUREG-1140 ) wer e no t develope d strictl yfo r uraniu mfue l cycl e facilities . The ywer e develope d fo r fue l cycl e facilitie s plu s byproduc t materia l licenses , including radiopharmaceutica l manufacturers , radiopharmacies , seale d sourc e manufacturers , an

d researc hlaboratories . Whil e the Agenc yrecognize s tha t thes e releas e fraction s d o hav e some shortcoming s fo r the purpos e o f RQs , they represen t the onl yknown attemp t t o quantif yairborn e releas e fraction s fo r numerou s radionuclide s i n a consisten t manner . Shor t o f adoptin g a uniform releas e fractio n o f one , therefore , EP Ai s unawar e o f an yothe r scientificall y defensibl e guidanc e o n whic ht o bas e releas e fraction s fo r us e i n calculatin g RQs . Furthermore , the Agenc ywishe s t o stres s tha t the model s use d i n thi s analysi s ar e no t wors t cas e models , rathe r theyreflec t conservativ e assumption s tha t the Agenc yconsider s reasonabl e an d protectiv e o f huma n healt han

d welfar e an

d the environment . Th e Agenc yagree s tha t the dispersio n coefficient s use d i n the R Q calculation s hav e bee n extrapolate d beyond the rang e appearing i n an yo f the standar d reference s o n the subject , whic hintroduce s a possibl e erro r i n the results . Th e resulting dispersio n coefficients , however , appea r reasonabl e whe n compare d t o documente d value s fo r distance s o f 10 0 meter s o r more . I n general , the Agenc ybelieve s tha t ther e ar e overriding reason s t o bas e the RQ s

T-7 3P.3 9

Respons e Number : 5 (continued )

o n a 30-mete r distanc e and tha t the possibl e erro r introduce d b ythe dispersio n coefficient s estimate d fo r thi s distanc e doe s no t significantl y undermin e the RQs . Finally , wit hrespec t t o the physica l processe s considere d i n the inhalatio n pathwaymodel , th e mode l doe s tak e int o accoun t plume dispersio n i n two direction s (vertica l and horizontal) , bu t doe s no t accoun t fo r dispersio n i n th e directio n o f flow . Dispersio n i n thi s directio n i s ver ymuc hles s tha n tha t provide d b

ya on e mete r pe r second win d velocit yand , unde r thes e circumstances , ca n b e ignore d safel yi n th e model . Plume washou t and ground depositio n als o wer e ignore d i n the calculatio n o f inhalatio n releas e value s and thu s man

yRQ s ar e lowe r tha n theywoul d b e i f thes e factor s ha d bee n included . Th e mode l assume s tha t the radionuclid e i n the plume i s o f respirabl e diamete r (1 0 micron s o r less ) and incorporate s a releas e fractio n t o accoun t fo r th e percentag e o f a releas e tha t woul d b e o f thi s size . Particle s o r aerosol s o f thi s siz e generall yar e nea r neutra l buoyanc yand woul d no t b e expecte d t o plat e ou t o n the ground significantl yi n th e shor t distanc e o f 3 0 meter s t o th e receptor . Plume washou t wa s no t considere d because , i n the Unite d State s a s a whole , day s withou t rai n outnumbe r day s wit hrai n an

d plum e washou t i s a n unpredictabl e factor . Radioactiv e decay als o wa s no t considere d i n th e inhalatio n pathwaymode l fo r tw o reasons . First , becaus e i t i s no t possibl e t o establis hbound s o n the rang e o f releas e and exposur e periods , th e Agenc yassume d tha t n o decayoccurs . Althoug hthi s i s a conservativ e assumption , i t reflect s the inabilit yo f model s t o accuratel ydetermin e the exten t o f deca yove r a n unknow

n perio d o f time . Second , the Agenc yignore d decaytha t mayoccu r ove r the perio d betwee n releas e an

d inhalatio n o r submersio n i n a cloud becaus e deca yduring airborn e transpor t t o a recepto r 3 0 meter s awa ywoul d b e negligibl e fo r mos t radionuclides . Wheneve r a mode l i s use d t o represen t a wid e variet yo f potentia l releas e situations , judgment s mus t b e mad e t o establis hthe mode l parameters . Th e Agenc ydevelope d model s tha t wer e conservativ e s o tha t i t coul d b e assure d o f timel yreporting . Specifi c detail s tha t surround a releas e even t wil l b e evaluate d b

yOn-Scen e Coordinator s afte r the Nationa l Respons e Cente r i s notifie d o f the release . Regiona l On-Scen e Coordinator s wil l conduc t hazar d assessment s t o determin e advers e impact s t o huma n health , welfare , an d the environmen t base d o n specifi c informatio n o n the release .

T-7 4P.4 0

Commente r Number : Page : Commente r Name : L I 2 John J . Kearne y Senio r Vic e Presiden t Ediso n Electri c Institut e Respons e Number :

Issue : Comment : Inhalatio n Pathway

Th e referenc e conditions , assumptions , an d methodologie s wer e chose n suc h tha t the / fina l R Q valu e fo r eac hradionuclid e wa s a conservativ e value . However , fo r th e inhalatio n pathway , th e mode l assume d a poin t sourc e o f release , whic hi s inappropriat e fo r release s fromcoa l as hsites . Thi s assumptio n unreasonabl yoverestimate d (b yapproximatel ythre e order s o f magnitude ) the fractio n o f a radionuclid e releas e ove r a larg e are a tha t contribute d t o the exposur e t o a referenc e individual . Fo r coa l as hsites , radionuclid e release s throughth e differen t pathway s ar e substantiall yles s tha n the propose d R Q values , excep t fo r radon-22 2 emission , int o ambien t air . I f estimate s o f radon-22 2 release s excee d the R Q valu e it | i s becaus e o f the assumptio n o f a poin t sourc e release . Fo r example , assumin g tha t rado n emissio n occur s continuousl yfromground surface s t o th e atmospher e a t a n averag e rat e o f 0. 7 pCi/m2/sec , nationa l parks , gol f courses , cattl e ranches , an

d an yfacilit ycontainin g mor e tha n 41 0 acre s o f land , coul d excee d th e propose d R Q valu e fo r radon-222 . Response : Se e "Exemptions/Exclusion s - Respons e 2 an d 6 " an d "Inhalatio n Pathway- Response s 1 , 3 , an d 5 " fo r a detaile d respons e t o the issue s rase d b ythi s comment . I n summary :

o Th e existing inhalatio n pathwaymodel , although no t necessaril yrepresentativ e o f release s fro m larg e are a sources , i s considere d the bes t singl e mode l fo r purpose s o f developin g RQs ; o Release s fro

mlarg e are a source s probabl yar e continuou s an

d stabl e i n quantit yan d rat e an

d thu s probabl ycoul d qualif yfo r th e reduce d reporting provision s o f CERCL Asectio n 103(f)(2) ; an d

o EP Aha s exempte d administrativel yrelease s o f naturall yoccurring radionuclide s fro mlarge , generall yundisturbe d lan d holdings , lan

d disturbanc e activities , an d coa l an

d coa l as h pile s fro

mthe reporting requirement s unde r CERCLA .

T-7 5P.4 1

Commente r Number : Page : Commente r Name : L I 8-1 0 John J . Kearne y Senio r Vic e Presiden t Ediso n Electri c Institut e Respons e Number : 7

Issue : Comment : Inhalatio n Pathway

Usin g the mode l wit ha continuou s poin t sourc e release , atmospheri c dilutio n o f th e release d materia l occur s b ylatera l and-vertica l diffusio n alon g th e pathway(3 0 m) . Th e us e o f a poin t releas e int o th e ai r i n the model , however , i s a n overl yconservativ e wayt o describ e a radionuclid e releas e ove r a larg e horizonta l are a t o a referenc e ma n 3 0 meter s away . Realistically , a referenc e individua l 3 0 meter s fromthe edg e o f a larg e are a uniforml yreleasing a radionuclid e int o the ai r woul d b e expose d t o th e radionuclid e equivalentl yrelease d along a narro wstri p directl yupwind . Radionuclid e diffusio n ou t o f thi s stri p along the 3 0 mpathwaywoul d b e counterbalance d b

ycorrespondin g radionuclid e diffusio n int o the stri p from adjacen t strips . Radionuclid e releas e fro marea s furthe r awaytha n thes e few strip s woul d contribut e a n insignifican t fractio n t o the tota l radionuclid e exposur e t o th e referenc e individual . Furthermore , onl yth e firs t 10 0 meter s o r s o along the centra l stri p significantl ycontribut e t o the radionuclid e exposur e t o the individual . Radionuclid e release s beyond 10 0 meter s ar e increasingl ydilute d b ydiffusio n along the extr a pat hlength . Fo r the releas e o f smal l amount s o f radioactivit yfro mlarg e surfac e areas , mor e exac t model s fo r a horizonta l plan e sourc e shoul d b e used . Th e resultin g calculation s fro mthes e model s woul d hav e the effec t o f reducin g the fractio n o f release d materia l subjec t t o inhalatio n b ya referenc e individual . Th e smalle r releas e fraction , i n turn , woul d increas e the inhalatio n releas e valu e fo r the specifi c radionuclide . Th e approximat e increas e i n a mor e reasonabl e inhalatio n releas e valu e can'b e estimate d b ysetting the widt ho f the cente r stri p t o 3 time s th e horizonta l dispersio n coefficien t fo r 3 0 meter s use d b ythe EP

A( 3 x 2. 6 m= 7. 8 m) . Th e fractio n o f release d radionuclide s woul d b e decrease d b yth e rati o o f the stri p are a (7. 8 mx 10 0 m ) t o the tota l releas e are a (i n m 2 ) . Th e invers e o f thi s rati o i s the relativ e increas e i n the inhalatio n releas e valu e (IRV) :

IR V (adjusted)/IR

V (unadjusted ) = Tota l Releas e Are a (i n m 2 )/78 0 Fo r site s wit hreleas e area s o f 800,00 0 m 2 (20 0 acres) , the maximu m allowabl e inhalatio n releas e valu e woul d increas e b ya facto r o f 1,000 .

T-7 6P.4 2

Respons e Number : 7 (continued )

Alternately , a metho d describe d b yTurne r coul d b e employe d tha t treat s a squar e are a sourc e a s a cross-wind lin e sourc e wit ha norma l distribution . On e the n derive s a virtua l distanc e t o be . adde d t o the pat hlength . Thi s metho d als o result s i n a relativ e increas e i n the inhalatio n releas e valu e b y a facto r o f approximatel y1000 . Fo r a 40 0 acr e site , the relativ e increas e i n the releas e valu e i s approximatel y2000 , i n clos e agreemen t wit hth e correspondin g valu e fromth e "stri p method " equatio n describe d above . Changin g the poin t o f exposur e fromground leve l t o betwee n 1 an d 2 meter s t o tak e accoun t o f the person' s heigh t woul d resul t i n dilutin g the radionuclid e concentratio n i n air , bu t onl yb yles s tha n a facto r o f 2 . Furthermore , assumin g natura l atmospheri c condition s i s likel yt o resul t i n a n increase d exposur e estimate . I f win d change s ar e considered , increasing wind velocit ywoul d ten d t o lowe r the release d concentratio n a t the poin t o f exposure . Assumin g tha t th e wind i s blowin g i n the opposit e directio n 5 0 percen t o f the time woul d decreas e th e exposur e leve l b yhalf . Response : A s state d previously , the Agenc yrecognize s tha t the poin t sourc e releas e mode l use d i n the calculatio n o f inhalatio n releas e value s i s no t representativ e o f release s fromare a sources . Th e Agenc yals o acknowledge s tha t the alternativ e releas e model s suggeste d b ythe commente r probabl ywoul d yiel d mor e accurat e result s fo r are a releas e sources . T o adop t eithe r o f thes e models , however , woul d requir e assumption s abou t the siz e o f the are a source , a s wel l a s value s fo r severa l othe r parameters . A t present , the Agenc yha s n o dat a t o judg e ho wrepresentativ e a n are a o f 20 0 o r 40 0 acre s woul d b e fo r are a source s acros s the nation . Also , regardles s o f the area(s ) selecte d fo r the calculatio n o f RQs , on e alway s coul d argu e tha t thei r sit e i s actuall ysmalle r o r large r and , therefore , i s no t bein g considere d fairly . Therefore , rathe r than attemp t t o tailo r the RQ s t o differen t releas e situation s an

d en d u p wit hmultipl e RQ s fo r eac hradionuclid e ( a mor e complicate d an

d confusing reporting trigger) , the Agenc yha s selecte d a singl e mode l tha t wil l hel p assur e timel yreporting i n mos t situation s including releas e fro

mpoin t sources . I t als o i s importan t t o ad d tha t release s fro m are a source s probabl ycoul d compl ywit hthe reporting requirement s unde r CERCLAsectio n 103(f)(2) , makin g the reporting burde n relativel ysmall . Release s o f naturall yoccurring radionuclide s fro mcertai n are a source s hav e bee n administrativel yexempte d fro mthe R Q reporting requirement s (se e "Exemptions/Exclusion s - Respons e 2 an d 6") . Fo r mor e discussio n o f thes e issue s se e "Inhalatio n Pathway- Respons e 6. "

T-7 7P.4 3

Commente r Number : Page : Commente r Name : L I 1 6 John J . Kearne y Senio r Vic e Presiden t Ediso n Electri c Institut e Respons e Number : 8

Issue : Comment : Inhalatio n Pathway

Th e referenc e conditions , assumption s an d methodologie s wer e chose n s o tha t the fina l RQ valu e fo r eac hradionuclid e wa s a conservativ e value . Whil e some o f thes e assumption s mayb e appropriat e i n certai n situations , the assumptio n o f a poin t sourc e releas e fo r the inhalatio n pathwayunreasonabl y overestimate d (b

yapproximatel ythre e order s o f magnitude ) the fractio n o f a radionuclid e releas e ove r a larg e are a tha t contribute s t o the exposur e t o a referenc e individual . Fo r coa l as hsites , radionuclid e release s throughthe differen t pathway s ar e substantiall yles s than the propose d R Q values , wit hthe possibl e exceptio n o f radon-22 2 emissio n int o ambien t ai r du e t o imprope r modelin g assumption s use d t o establis hth e R Q value . I n fact , give n the imprope r modelin g assumptions , fo r a n averag e soi l releas e rat e o f 0. 7 pCi/m2/se c fo r radon-222 , nationa l parks , gol f courses , cattl e ranches , an d an yfacilit y containin g mor e tha n 41 0 acres , coul d excee d the propose d R Q valu e o f radon-222 . Amor e appropriat e mode l fo r the inhalatio n pathway(or a correctio n facto r fo r uniformrelease s ove r larg e areas ) shoul d b e established . Tw o technique s whic hprovid e approximat e correction s wer e discussed ; bot hgiv e simila r results . Response : Se e "Inhalatio n Pathwa y Response s 2 an

d 6. " Response s 6 , 7, " an d "Exemptions/Exclusion s

T-7 iP.4 4

Commente r Number : 1 5 Respons e Number : 1 Page : 2 Commente r Name : D.R . Wind Senio r Environmenta l Enginee r Monsant o Corporatio n Issue : Ingestio n Pathway Comment : Ground wate r flow s ar e s o slo wtha t radioactiv e decaycorrection s shoul d b e made . Th e flowrat e adopte d i s outsid e o f the rang e o f value s reporte d i n the literature . Whe n combine d wit hthe selectio n o f sorptio n coefficients , estimate d plum e siz e an d time t o contact , the impossibl e situatio n o f havin g radionuclide s "swim " upstreama distanc e o f 1 3 meter s agains t a 0. 5 meter/day curren t results . Response : Radioactiv e deca

yha s bee n incorporate d int o the drinking wate r pathway model . Th e Agenc ydisagree s tha t th e ground-wate r velocit yuse d i n thi s mode l (0. 5 m/day ) i s outsid e the rang e o f value s reporte d i n the literature . Fo r example , Codel l an d Duguid 1 documen t a rang e o f measure d ground-wate r velocitie s o f 0. 2 m/dayt o 1,38 2 m/day . Also , Geraght yan d Miller 2 examine d hydrogeologi c studie s fo r 6 7 site s distribute d throughou t variou s hydrogeologi c region s o f th e U.S . Thes e site s wer e estimate d t o hav e horizonta l ground-wate r velocitie s generall ybetwee n 0.00 3 m/dayan d 7 0 m/day , wit hroughl y6 0 percen t o f the site s havin g velocitie s les s tha n o r equa l t o 0. 3 m/day . Thes e result s serve d a s the basi s fo r the rang e o f ground-wate r velocitie s (0.00 3 m/dayt o 3 0 m/day ) use d i n EPA' s Line r Locatio n Ris k and Cos t Analysi s Model, 3 a mode l commonl yuse d b yEPAi n assessment s o f hazardou s wast e sites. vFinally , EP Aagree s tha t i t i s impossibl e fo r radionuclide s t o "swim " upstreaman

d therefor e ha s onl yconsidere d possibl e exposure s a t a downgradien t location .

1 C6dell , R. , an

d Duguid , J. , "Transpor t o f Radionuclide s i n Groundwater, " Chapte r 4 , Radiologica l Assessment , Till , J. , an d Meyer , H. , eds. , U.S . Nuclea r RegulatoryCommission , Septembe r 1983 .

2 Geraght yan

d Mille r Incorporated , Line r Locatio n Ris k an d Cos t Analysi s Model , Phas e I Report , Appendi x B , January1985 .

3 EPA , Line r Locatio n Ris k an d Cos t Analysi s Model . Draf t Phas e I I Report , Offic e o f Soli d Waste , 1986 .

T-7 9P.4 5

Commente r Number : Page : Commente r Name : L I 11-1 2 John J . Kearne y Ediso n Electri c Institut e Respons e Number : 2

Issue : Comment : Ingestio n Pathway

I n calculatin g the ingestio n releas e value s base d o n ICRP Annua l Limit s o f Intake , the EPAlimite d th e radionuclid e plume contac t tim e a t the wel l positio n t o 36 5 day s (corresponding t o Kd = 4 cm 3 /g ) o r less . Fo r radionuclide s wit hKd value s greate r than 4 cm 3 /g , thi s woul d resul t i n a n increasingl yconservativ e releas e limitation , b yarbitraril yforcing the radionuclid e t o pas s the wel l positio n withi n 1 yea r rathe r than muc hlater . Again , a s wit hth e conservativ e model , th e us e o f a poin t sourc e releas e i s a n overl yconservativ e approximatio n t o the releas e o f a radionuclid e ove r a larg e are a int o a n aquifer . Calculatin g the affec t o f using a poin t sourc e releas e o n th e dilutio n facto r (a s wel l a s o n th e plum e contac t time ) i s mor e difficult , however , becaus e o f the probabl e distortio n o f the actua l plum e shape . First , wit ha releas e t o a n aquife r coverin g a larg e are a (hundred s o f acres ) o r wit ha t leas t severa l releas e point s throughou t a larg e area , th e assumptio n o f a homogeneou s an d isotropi c aquife r woul d b e muc hles s realisti c fo r a radionuclide . Secondly , the actua l pathlengt hfo r mos t o f the radionuclide s release d withi n a larg e are a sit e wil l likel yb e mor e tha n 3 0 meters . A s a result , the thre e dispersio n coefficient s (alon g eac hdimensiona l axis) , wil l increase ; the dilutio n facto r wil l decrease ; an d consequently , the ingestio n releas e valu e wil l increase . A s state d earlier , the presenc e o f the conservativ e factor s resulting fro ma poin t sourc e releas e fo r the abov e condition s coul d resul t i n order s o f magnitud e o f underestimatio n i n determining RQ values . Response : I n calculatin g releas e value s fo r th e ingestio n pathway , EP Adi d limi t the radionuclid e plume contac t time t o 36 5 day s fo r nuclide s wit hK d value s o f 4 cm 3 / g o r more . Contraryt o wha t the commente r states , however , thi s limitatio n doe s no t resul t i n mor e conservativ e (i.e. , lower ) RQ s b yforcing the radionuclid e t o pas s the wel l withi n 1 year . Th e limitatio n implie s tha t an individua l wil l inges t contaminate d ground wate r fo r onl ya year , eve n i f i t woul d tak e severa l year s fo r a contaminan t plume t o pass . Th e limitation , therefore , result s i n les s conservativ e RQs . Thi s i s demonstrate d b ythe equatio n use d t o calculat e releas e value s fo r the drinking wate r pathway . Th e contac t tim

e (CT ) i s i n the denominator , suc htha t value s greate r than 36 5 day s woul d lead t o mor e conservativ e releas e value s than currentl ycalculated . EP Abelieve s i t i s appropriat e t o limi t the contac t tim e t o 36 5 day s becaus e th e ALIs , o n whic hth e RQ s ar e based , ar e annua l limit s o f intake .

T-8 0P.4 6

Respons e Number : 2 (continued )

EP Aagree s tha t the poin t sourc e releas e mode l use d i n the drinkin g wate r pathwaymode l i s no t representativ e o f a n are a sourc e an d yield s lowe r releas e value s tha n woul d b e calculate d i f a n are a (i.e. , plane ) sourc e ha d bee n assumed . Simila r t o the response s t o comment s o n the inhalatio n pathway model , however , EPAwant s t o us e a singl e ground-wate r dispersio n mode l t o calculat e RQ s tha t woul d assur e timel yreporting i n mos t releas e situations . EPAbelieve s tha t the complication s adde d b yhavin g multipl e RQ s fo r differen t releas e configuration s woul d outweighthe benefit s t o b e gaine d b ysuc ha n approach . Aplan e sourc e mode l wa s considere d earl yi n the RQ adjustmen t proces s bu t wa s rejecte d becaus e i t woul d yiel d RQ s tha t ar e to o larg e i n man y case s an

d becaus e a plan e sourc e mostl ywoul d represen t continuou s release s froma surfac e impoundment , landfill , o r storag e are a - - no t sudden , episodi c release s o r spill s tha t shoul d b e reporte d quickly .

T-8 1P.4 7

Commente r Number : Page : Commente r Name :

Issue : Comment : 1 0 4 M.S . Whittake r Corporat e Healt hPhysicis t Chem-Nuclea r Systems , Inc . Direc t Exposur e Pathway Respons e Number : 1

Th e direc t exposur e releas e value s fo r submersio n i n a cloud o f radioactiv e nobe l ga s assum e tha t th e nobe l ga s concentratio n a t a poin t 3 0 m fromth e sourc e remain s constan t fo r 2 4 hours , and th e expose d individua l remain s i n tha t positio n fo r 2 4 hours . Bot ho f thes e assumption s ar e highl y improbable . Response : EPAagree s tha t bot ho f thes e assumption s wil l no t likel yoccu r wit h grea t frequency . However , RQ s ar e base d o n release s occurring ove r n o mor e tha n on e day , suc htha t the maximu mperio d o f exposur e b ysubmersio n i n a cloud i s als o on e dayfo r the purpos e o f R Q adjustments . Therefore , eve n thougha 24-hou r exposur e perio d mayno t occu r frequently , EPAcoul d no t conclud e tha t thi s maximu mperio d wa s impossible . I n addition , EPAha s selecte d conservativ e model s t o assur e tha t the Nationa l Respons e Cente r wil l b e notifie d o f an

yreleas e even t fo r whic hthe governmen t maywan t t o respond . Upo n notification , the even t situatio n wil l b e evaluate d o n a case-by-cas e basi s t o determin e the nee d fo r a federal , state , o r loca l response . EPA prefer s t o us e conservativ e model s tha t mayproduc e lowe r RQ s (an d some additiona l reporting burden ) rathe r tha n ris k havin g RQ s tha t ar e to o hig han d d o no t allo wfo r prope r evaluatio n o f releas e event s o f concern .

T-8 2P.4 8

Commente r Number : Page : Commente r Name :

Issue : Comment : 1 3 5 Mar k J . Wetterhahn Conno r & Wetterhahn , P.C . Direc t Exposur e Pathway Respons e Number :

I n the calculatio n o f direc t exposure , correctl ycalculate d gamma ray constant s shoul d b e use d fo r al l gamm a emittin g nuclides . Response : Th e direc t exposur e pathwayequatio n incorporate s the following accepte d equatio n fo r gamm

a rayconstants : I = 0.15 6 n E (10 5 Ua ) where , I = gamm a rayconstan t (millirem/hr a t 1 mete r pe r millicurie )

n = gamm

a quant a pe r disintegratio n E = energyo f gamma quant a (MeV ) U a = energ

yabsorptio n coefficien t for. . gamm a i n ai r (a t standar d temperatur e and pressure) , i n cm EPAbelieve s tha t thi s equatio n i s applie d correctl yi n the determinatio n o f direc t exposur e releas e value s fo r al l gamm a emittin g radionuclides .

T-8 3P.4 9

Commente r Number : 1 5 Respons e Number : 3 Page : 2 Commente r Name : D.R . Wind Senio r Environmenta l Enginee r Monsant o Corporatio n Issue : Direc t Exposur e Pathway Comment : BI D sectio n o f direc t exposure . Ther e ar e a numbe r o f problem s wit hth e equations . Th e par t o f th e equatio n representing attenuatio n correctio n require s a coefficien t wit hunit s o f reciproca l meters , no t reciproca l centimeter s a s shown . Also , linea r attenuatio n coefficient s shoul d b e use d instea d o f linea r absorptio n coefficients , a s i t i s the exposur e a t the targe t tha t w e ar e intereste d in , no t the absorbe d dos e t o th e intervening air . Th e othe r erro r concern s the us e o f distances . Th e firs t par t o f th e equatio n give s exposur e t o 1 meter , thu s the invers e squar e lawcorrectio n shoul d b e applie d t o the remaining 2 9 meters , no t 30 . Th e author s apparentl yfaile d t o realiz e tha t the firs t par t o f the equatio n alread yha s attenuatio n and invers e squar e correction s buil t in . Response : Thi s commen t raise s thre e separat e issues . First , the linea r energy absorptio n coefficien t (u a ) i n th e direc t exposur e pathwaymode l mus t b e i n unit s o f reciproca l centimeter s according t o equation s presente d i n Th e Healt h Physic s and Radiologica l Healt hHandbook. 1 Thes e equation s wer e use d t o deriv e th e direc t exposur e pathwaymode l a s presente d i n Appendi x D o f the Technica l Background Documen t supporting the fina l RQs . EPAbelieve s tha t the pathwaymode l ha s bee n derive d correctl yusing the availabl e equation s and tha t correc t unit s hav e bee n use d fo r al l the inpu t variables . Second , wit hrespec t t o the us e o f absorptio n versu s attenuatio n coefficients , the equation s use d t o deriv e the direc t exposur e pathwaymode l cal l fo r the us e o f energ yabsorptio n coefficient s fo r gamm a ray s i n ai r (se e the Healt hPhysic s an d Radiologica l Healt hHandbook) . Again , EP Abelieve s tha t thes e equation s hav e bee n adapte d correctl yfo r the calculatio n o f RQs . Finally , EP

Aagree s tha t "the firs t par t o f the equatio n give s exposur e t o 1 meter. " However , EP Aha s re-analyze d th e equatio n an

d believe s tha t it s earlie r decisio n t o us e a distanc e o f 3 0 meter s (no t 2 9 meters ) i n th e calculatio n o f releas e value s i s correct .

1 Nucleo n Lecter n Associates , Th e Healt hPhysic s an d Radiologica l Healt h Handbook . Olney , Maryland , 1984 , page s 4 1 an d 45 .

T-8 4P.5 0

Commente r Number : Page : Commente r Name :

Issue : Comment : 1 5 2 D.R . Wind Senio r Environmenta l Enginee r Monsant o Corporatio n Direc t Exposur e Pathway Respons e Number : 4

Pag e 8179 , 3r d column , 1s t paragraph . Th e us e o f gamma rayconstant s instea d o f th e equatio n i n colum n 2 woul d yiel d a fa r bette r result , assumin g reasonabl e correction s fo r attenuatio n and distance . Response : Se e "Direc t Exposur e Pathway- Respons e 2. "

T-8 5P.5 1

Commente r Number : Page : Commente r Name : L I 1 3 John J . Kearne y Senio r Vic e Presiden t Ediso n Electri c Institut e Respons e Number : 5

Issue : Comment : Direc t Exposur e Pathway

A s wit hthe inhalatio n releas e valu e discusse d above , gamma-emittin g radionuclide s uniforml ysprea d ove r a large r are a presen t les s exposur e t o a referenc e individua l 3 0 meter s fromthe boundaryo f th e are a tha n radionuclide s containe d a t a poin t source . No t onl yi s the distanc e greater , bu t the gamm a ray s ar e attenuate d by the air . Th e adsorptio n varie s wit hthe gamm a energy , bu t ove r the typica l energ yrange , the intensit yo f the gamm a ray s decrease d b

yone-hal f fo r every 20 0 meter s o f ai r along the path . Attenuatio n through3 0 meter s o f ai r i s approximatel y1 0 percent . Standar d model s correctin g fo r gamm a ra yemissio n ove r a larg e are a ca n b e use d i n thi s case . Response : A s note d i n respons e t o comment s o n the inhalatio n an d drinkin g wate r pathwaymodels , EPAagree s tha t a poin t sourc e releas e mode l i s no t representativ e o f are a sources , an d tha t releas e value s base d o n a poin t sourc e mayb e lowfo r are a sources . EPAprefer s no t t o develop multipl e RQ s (or correctio n factors ) t o tak e int o accoun t man ydifferen t releas e configuration s - - EPAbelieve s tha t suc ha n approac hwoul d ad d mor e complication s tha n benefits . Instead , EP Aha s adopte d a singl e reasonabl y conservativ e mode l t o calculat e direc t exposur e releas e value s tha t ar e applicabl e broadl y(i.e. , tha t wil l assur e timel yreportin g i n mos t releas e situations) . Adirec t exposur e pathwaymode l assuming a n are a sourc e woul d no t b e sufficientl yconservativ e t o lead t o timel yreporting fo r man y releases .

T-8 6P.5 2

Commente r Number : Page : Commente r Name :

Issue : Comment : 1 5 3 D.R . Win d Senio r Environmenta l Enginee r Monsant o Corporatio n Remainin g Radionuclide s Respons e Number : 1

Pag e 8181 , middl e column , middle . I n th e absenc e o f meaningfu l data , EPAshoul d adher e t o th e " 1 pound " R Q rule . Monsant o encourage s EPAt o gathe r mor e informatio n prio r t o an yfurthe r tightenin g o f th e propose d R Q o f 1 curie . Response : EPAha s rejecte d th e optio n o f establishin g radionuclid e RQ s i n term s o f pounds . Usin g on e pound a s the R Q fo r radionuclide s no t liste d i n ICR P Publicatio n 3 0 migh t b e usefu l t o ensur e reporting o f ver ylarg e release s o f radionuclide s bu t i s no t appropriat e t o trigge r timel yreporting o f release s o f man yradionuclide s becaus e release s o f radionuclide s tha t ar e severa l order s o f magnitud e smalle r tha n on e pound mayrepresen t a seriou s healt hand environmenta l threat . I n addition , a one-pound R Q doe s no t conformt o commonl yaccepte d unit s o f measuremen t fo r radionuclides .

T-8 7P.5 3 

# I i Commente r Number : 8 Respons e Number : 1

Page : 1- 2 Commente r Name : Mar k A . Doruf f Radiatio n Safet yOffice r AmershamCorporatio n Issue : Alternativ e Methodologie s Comment : I t appear s tha t the inten t o f thes e propose d rule s i s t o provid e federa l personne l the opportunit yt o evaluat e th e nee d fo r remedia l actio n followin g notificatio n o f a releas e o f radionuclide s (or othe r hazardou s material ) t o the environmen t abov e certai n R Q values . Suc hregulation s hav e alread ybee n place d upo n certai n facilitie s unde r USNR C rul e i n a simila r fashio n a s a resul t o f NR C NUREG-0767 . Facilitie s possessin g radionuclide s i n quantitie s abov e EPAProtectiv e Actio n Guideline s (PAGs) , a s determine d b yEPA-520-/1-75-0O1 , mus t fil e Radiologica l Contingenc y Plan s wit hNR C i n a forma t presente d i n NR C NUREG-0762 . Plan s o f thi s typ e hav e provide d pertinen t NR C licensee s th e obligatio n t o repor t incident s involving release s o f radioactiv e material s t o a variet yo f federa l and loca l authorities . Th e notificatio n requirement , a s a par t o f the requiremen t t o maintai n a contingenc yplan , i s base d o n PAG s develope d b yEPAwhic hwoul d resul t i n a n off-sit e dos e t o a membe r o f the publi c o f 1 remt o the whol e body , 5 rem s t o the thyroi d and 3 rem s t o an yothe r critica l organ . I t seem s sensibl e t o adjus t the PA

G value s alread

ydetermine d b

yEP Ai n EPA-5201/1-75-00 1 t o RQ s whic hwoul d resul t i n a n off-sit e dos e equivalen t o f 50 0 millirem . Thi s coul d initiall yb e don e b ymultiplyin g PAG s b y0. 5 t o obtai n RQ s fo r the purpos e o f thes e propose d rules . An yothe r multiplicatio n facto r coul d b e applie d late r b yEP At o proportionall ylowe r the R Q valu e t o mee t a mor e restrictiv e dos e commitmen t value . Thi s metho d o f determining RQ value s woul d b e consisten t wit hthe progra mwhic hha s bee n successfull yimplemente d an d familia r wit ha larg e numbe r o f licensee s an d regulatorypersonnel . Thi s metho d woul d utiliz e a systemwhic hha s take n int o accoun t variable s tha t the propose d accepte d metho d woul d replac e wit hconservativ e constants . Furthermore , w e se e n o rea l benefi t i n reinventin g the wheel . Response : Protectiv e Actio n Guide s (PAGs ) ar e publishe d i n the "Manua l o f Protectiv e Actio n Guide s an d Protectiv e Action s fo r Nuclea r Incidents " (EPA

520/1-75-001 ) an

d ar e designe d t o provid e practica l guidanc e t o state , local , an d othe r official s o n criteri a t o us e i n plannin g protectiv e action s fo r radiologica l emergencie s tha t coul d presen t a hazar d t o publi c health . Th e Manua l doe s no t dea l wit hspecifi c radionuclide s no r doe s i t calculat e o r provid e guidanc e fo r the calculatio n o f specifi c quantitie s o f radionuclide s tha t woul d equa l o r excee d the guides . T-8 8P.5 4

Respons e Number : 1 (continued )

Th e Nuclea r RegulatoryCommission , i n NUREG-0767 , make s us e o f the PAG s i n developin g Limitin g Possessio n Limit s (LPLs ) fo r radionuclides . I f a license e i s authorize d t o posses s mor e tha n the quantitie s o f radionuclide s tha t defin e th e LPLs , th e license e i s require d t o submi t a Radiologica l Contingenc yPla n t o th e Nuclea r RegulatoryCommission . Recently , i n 5 1 FR 109 2 (January9 , 1986) , the Nuclea r RegulatoryCommissio n ha s propose d revisio n t o 1 0 CF R Par t 2 0 t o accoun t fo r "improvemen t i n radiatio n protectio n standard s b

yreflectin g development s i n the principle s tha t underli e radiatio n protectio n and advance s i n relate d science s tha t hav e occurre d sinc e the promulgatio n o f 1 0 CF R Par t 2 0 nearl ythirt yyear s ago. " Thes e improve d standard s propose d b yth e Nuclea r RegulatoryCommissio n ar e base d upo n Annua l Limit s o f Intak e (ALIs ) develope d b ythe Internationa l Commissio n o n Radiatio n Protectio n (ICRP ) and publishe d i n ICR P Publicatio n 30 ; ALI s als o ar e the basi s fo r th e RQs . Fo r thes e reasons , the Agenc ybelieve s tha t it s us e o f ALI s fo r calculatio n o f RQ s no t onl yreflect s the mos t recen t thinking i n the are a o f radiatio n protection , bu t als o follow s the newes t and mos t moder n internationa l an

d federa l guideline s i n applyin g thes e principles . Also , se e "Mode l Assumption s - Respons e 9 " fo r additiona l discussio n relevan t t o thi s issue . 

# I I

T-8 9P.5 5

Commente r Number : 1 0 Respons e Number : 2 Page : 1/ 4 Commente r Name : M.S . Whittake r Corporat e Healt hPhysicis t Chem-Nuclea r Systems , Inc . Issue : Alternativ e Methodologie s Comment : Sinc e DO T ha s propose d additiona l shipping pape r an d markin g requirement s fo r transpor t o f RQ value s o f hazardou s substances , th e establishmen t o f R Q quantitie s fo r radionuclide s wil l hav e a majo r impac t o n shipper s o f radioactiv e materials . Shipper s currentl yclassif yradioactiv e materia l shipment s usin g radionuclid e specifi c value s publishe d b yDO T tha t ar e base d o n a n assessmen t o f the possibl e exposur e following a n accident , i.e. , th e A. , and A„ , value s define d i n 4 9 CFR 173.433 . Instead o f requiring shipper s t o asses s thei r shipment s wit ha n additiona l se t o f radionuclide s specifi c limits , the DO T A . limit s shoul d b e used . Not e tha t the A „ value s do no t varysignificantl yfromthe propose d RQs . I f the DO T and al l the shipper s o f radioactiv e material s ca n dea l wit h A 1 /A „ value s specifi c fo r eac hradionuclide , surel ythe EPAca n administe r a programwit ha singl e valu e fo r eac hradionuclide . I f the goa l i s simplicity , us e o f the DO T A-/A „ value s i s the bes t alternative . Response : Th e Departmen t o f Transportatio n a t 4 9 CFR 173.43 5 develop s a tabl e o f A- L and A 2 value s tha t defin e conten t limit s fo r typ e Apackage s a s describe d i n 4 9 CFR 173.431 . Thi s sectio n state s tha t "[a ] Typ e Apackag e shal l no t contai n a quantit yo f radioactivit ygreate r tha n Ax(fo r specia l for m radioactiv e material ) o r A 2 (fo r norma l for mradioactiv e material ) a s liste d i n [4 9 CFR ] Sectio n 173.435... " Norma l for man d specia l for

mradioactiv e materia l ar e define d a t 4 9 CFR §173.403 ; the radionuclid e RQ rul e i s concerne d mos t closel ywit hnorma l for mradioactiv e material s an d the A 2 limit s woul d b e mor e applicabl e tha n the Aj . values . Th e explanatio n o f the derivatio n o f the A xan d A 2 value s i s no t describe d full yi n 4 9 CFR Par t 173 , bu t i s explaine d reasonabl ywel l i n a publicatio n o f the Centra l Electricit yGeneratin g Boar d o f Berkele yNuclea r Laboratorie s (Grea t Britain ) calle d "The Q Systemfo r the Calculatio n o f A : an d A 2 value s withi n the IAEA[Internationa l Atomi c Energ yAgency ] Regulation s fo r th e Saf e Transpor t o f Radioactiv e Materials. " Accordin g t o the Berkele yLaboratorie s publication , the A 2 value s includ e the following assumptions :

o "[t]he effectiv e o r committe d effectiv e dos e equivalen t t o a perso n expose d i n the vicinit yo f a transpor t packag e following an acciden t shoul d no t excee d the annua l dos e limi t fo r radiatio n workers , namel y5 0 mS v( 5 rem); " T-9 0P.5 6

Respons e Number : 2 (continued )

o the distanc e fro mpoin t o f releas e t o poin t o f exposur e i s 1 meter ;
o the perio d o f exposur e i s 3 0 minutes ; an d
o "subjectiv e assumption s ar e mad e regarding th e exten t o f packag e damag e an d releas e o f content s

.. . withou t referenc e to„ a median 9 accident. " I t i s assume d tha t betwee n 1 0 an d 1 0 o f the packag e content s ar e release d a s a.respirabl e aeroso l an d tha t somewher e betwee n 1 0 an d 1 0 o f thi s release d materia l i s inhale d b ythe expose d individua l leading t o a combine d uptak e facto r o f 1 0 . Th e Agenc ybelieve s tha t thes e assumption s an d the methodologyuse d fo r calculatin g Axand A 2 value s ar e no t applicabl e t o the calculatio n o f R Q value s and assume s situation s and condition s no t compatibl e wit hthe purpos e o f determinin g the siz e o f releas e tha t shoul d trigge r a notificatio n t o the Nationa l Respons e Center . Th e A 1 /A 2 value s ar e establishe d onl yfo r transportatio n release s an d ar e no t applicabl e fo r release s fromfixe d facilities . Also , Axan d A 2 value s ar e availabl e onl yfo r abou t 25 0 radionuclide s and , b yadopting the A 2 value s fo r purpose s o f the RQs , the Agenc ywoul d fac e the difficul t tas k o f establishing RQ s fo r a larg e numbe r o f radionuclide s tha t do no t hav e A 2 values . Th e Agenc ybelieve s tha t the metho d selecte d fo r establishing RQ s i s reasonabl e becaus e i t i s base d o n the mos t u p t o dat e scientifi c dat a availabl e o n healt han d huma n intak e level s (i.e. , ALIs ) an

d i t use s reasonabl yconservativ e model s t o estimat e releas e quantitie s potentiall yo f concern . Th e A 2 value s serv e bette r t o confir mthe reasonablenes s o f th e radionuclid e RQ s than t o serve a s the basi s fo r establishin g RQs .

T-9 1P.5 7

Commente r Number : Page : Commente r Name :

Issue : Comment : 1 5 3 D.R . Wind Senio r Environmenta l Enginee r Monsant o Corporatio n Alternativ e Methodologie s Respons e Number :

Pag e 8180 , 3rd column , bottom . A"one siz e fit s all " approac hi s an inappropriat e alternativ e t o calculatin g RQs . Also , i n the extreme cas e wher e a perso n ingest s 10 0 percen t o f a release , ther e woul d b e n o environmenta l contaminatio n lef t t o sampl e t o confirmtha t a releas e eve n too k place . Response : Th e Agenc yagree s tha t " a on e siz e fit s all " approac ht o radionuclid e RQ s i s inappropriat e fo r thos e radionuclide s fo r whic hhealt hdat a exis t (i.e. , th e ICR P Publicatio n 3 0 lis t o f 75 7 radionuclides) . Fo r thi s reason , EPAchos e no t t o se t th e R Q fo r thes e radionuclide s a t 1 pound , 1 curie , o r an yothe r singl e leve l bu t instea d chos e t o develop severa l separat e releas e scenario s and t o us e the lates t availabl e healt hdat a fo r calculatin g RQs . A s a result , RQ s i n curie s rang e ove r 7 order s o f magnitud e (0.00 1 t o 100 0 curies ) and mor e tha n 2 0 order s o f magnitud e i n term s o f pounds . Areleas e even t i n whic ha n individua l ingest s the entiret yo f the releas e i s considere d a releas e "int o the environment " b yEP A(se e the definitio n o f releas e i n 5 0 FR 13462 , Apri l 4 , 1985) . Additionally , CERCLA doe s no t requir e "sampling " o r an ytesting t o determin e whe n a releas e mus t b e reported . Areleas e mus t b e reporte d whe n the person-in-charg e ha s knowledg e tha t a n R Q o r mor e o f a hazardou s substanc e ha s bee n release d (5 0 F R 13463 , Apri l 4 , 1985 ) .

T-9 2P.5 8

Commente r Number : L 3 Respons e Number : 4 Page : 2 Commente r Name : Jame s E . Fairoben t Offic e o f Environmenta l Guidanc e an d Complianc e U.S . Departmen t o f Energ y Issue : Alternativ e Methodologie s Comment : Th e discussio n o f EPApolic yregarding the RQ s an d interpretatio n an d us e b ythe regulate d communit yshoul d b e mor e explicit . I n particular , the EPAshoul d addres s accidental , intermittent , an d continuou s releases ; realisti c exposur e scenarios ; an yrelationshi p o f RQ s t o environmenta l standard s fo r bot hradionuclide s and hazardou s chemicals ; an d protectio n o f publi c healt hand the environment . EPAshoul d als o addres s the inheren t difference s i n approache s use d t o se t RQ s fo r hazardou s substance s an d radionuclides , including whethe r th e Agenc yintend s t o adop t a mor e consisten t approac hi n th e future . Response : Th e Agenc yacknowledge s tha t i t ha s take n a differen t approac hi n developin g RQ s fo r radionuclide s a s oppose d t o developin g RQ s fo r othe r hazardou s substances . Fo r example , othe r hazardou s substance s hav e RQ s tha t rang e from1 pound t o 500 0 pounds . Thes e R Q categorie s wer e establishe d originall yunde r the Clea n Wate r Ac t an d wer e deeme d t o b e applicabl e fo r purpose s o f developing RQ s fo r othe r hazardou s substances . Ther e ar e severa l reason s wh ythe metho d o f determinin g hazardou s chemica l RQ s base d o n EPA' s Carcinoge n Assessmen t Group' s (CAG ) methodology woul d no t b e appropriat e fo r the adjustmen t o f radionuclid e RQs . First , becaus e al l radionuclide s produc e ionizing radiatio n an d ionizing radiatio n i s know n t o b e carcinogenic , radionuclide s woul d b e assigne d eithe r a one - o r ten-poun

d RQ according t o the structur e o f the CA G ranking system . Neithe r o f thes e level s ar e appropriat e fo r radionuclid e RQ s becaus e a s littl e a s on e billiont ho f a pound o f certai n radionuclide s migh t pos e a threa t t o huma n health , welfare , o r the environment . Second , the RQ s awarde d b ythe CA

G methodolog

yvaryb

yonl yone orde r o f magnitud e whil e the hazard s associate d wit hradionuclide s can diffe r b yman yorder s o f magnitude . Third , establishing RQ s i n mas s unit s suc ha s pound s i s inappropriat e becaus e mos t radiatio n measurement s an d standard s i n th

e U.S . ar e establishe d i n term s o f curie s o r rem , no t pounds . Th e Agenc ybelieves , therefore , tha t i t i s appropriat e t o develop a completel yne wframewor k an d methodologyfo r the radionuclid e RQs . Th e modelin g effor t wa s facilitate d furthe r becaus e radionuclide s hav e a n internationally-agree d upo n exposur e limi t fo r the genera l publi c o f 50 0 millirem ; thi s same consensu s doe s no t exis t fo r othe r hazardou s substances . I t als o shoul d b e note d tha t the risk s pose d b ythe releas e o f a n RQ o f chemica l carcinogen s an d radionuclide s generall yar e comparable . Fo r example ,

T-9 3P.5 9

Respons e Number : 4 (continued )

th e calculate d risk s associate d wit hthe releas e o f a n R Q o f seve n moderat e t o wea k potentia l chemica l carcinogen s (usin g the same ai r dispersio n mode l use d i n th e fina l radionuclid e R Q rulemaking ) rang e fro m5 x 1 0 t o 8 x 1 0 . B y comparison , th e ris k fro mexposur e o f a 50 0 mre mdose-equivalen t o f ionizing radiation , o n whic hth e radionuclid e RQ s ar e based , i s 8 x 1 0 . Therefore , althoughth e methodologyfo r adjusting RQ s fo r hazardou s chemical s an d radionuclide s i s different , the result s ar e no t inconsisten t i n term s o f relativ e risk s tha t migh t resul t fromthe releas e o f a n RQ .

T-9 4P.6 0

Commente r Number : L 3 Respons e Number : 5 Page : 4 Commente r Name : Jame s E . Fairoben t Offic e o f Environmenta l Guidanc e and Complianc e U.S . Departmen t o f Energy Issue : Alternativ e Methodologie s Comment : Alternativ e Approac h#2 : RQ s shoul d no t b e establishe d a s a multipl e o f th e ALIs . Response :

. EPAha s no t receive d an ycomment s favorabl e t o establishin g RQ s a s a multipl e o f ALI s an d ha s no t adopte d thi s alternative .

T-9 5P.6 1

Commente r Number : Page : Commente r Name :

Issue : Respons e Number :

Mar c Bowma n Environmenta l Engineerin g Superviso r FMC Corporatio n Mixtur e Rul e Comment : Companie s involve d i n minin g operation s frequentl y(depending , o n the or e body ) encounte r naturall yoccurring radionuclide s suc ha s uraniu mand it s decay-chai n daughters . FMC support s the concep t o f establishin g a singl e R Q fo r commo n radionuclid e mixtures . Some clarificatio n i s requested , however , o n th e R Q fo r naturall yoccurring uraniu mwhic hi s se t a t 0. 1 curie . I t i s ou r understandin g fromreading the preamble , tha t fo r a radionuclid e mixtur e o f natura l uraniu

man d it s decay-chai n daughters , th e R Q i s reache d wit hthe releas e o f 0. 1 curi e o f uranium-23 8 whil e al l othe r decayproduct s ar e ignored . I f thi s i s indee d wha t i s intende d b ythe propose d rulemaking , the n FMC ca n suppor t thi s concept . I f thi s i s no t wha t i s intended , the n furthe r clarificatio n i s neede d befor e FMC ca n determin e whethe r o r no t w e suppor t th e concept . Response : Ametho d fo r the determinatio n o f th e R Q fo r mixture s ha s bee n provide d i n the NPRM an

d i n the fina l rule . EP Aagree s that , a s a convenience , the R Q fo r commonl yoccurring mixture s shoul d b e provide d t o the regulate d communit y an d ha d presente d propose d RQ s i n the NPR M fo r radium-22 6 i n equilibriu mwit h it s daughter s (secula r equilibrium ) an d natura l uranium . Th e R Q questione d b y th e commente r i s fo r natura l uranium , meanin g a mixtur e o f uranium-234 , uranium-235 , an

d uranium-23 8 i n thei r natura l abundancie s an d separate d fro

m thei r decaychai n daughters . An R Q fo r natura l uraniu man d thoriu

mwit hal l thei r daughter s presen t als o i s provide d i n the preambl e t o the fina l rule .

T-9 6P.6 2

Commente r Number : 1 4 Respons e Number : 2 Page : 3/14-1 6 Commente r Name : Kearne ye t al . Ediso n Electri c Institut e Issue : Mixtur e Rul e Comment : Specifically , w e endors e EPA' s proposal s t o establis ha 1-curi e R Q fo r radionuclide s o r radionuclid e mixture s wher e the identit yo f the radionuclide , o r o f th e radionuclide s i n a mixture , i s unknown . Fo r radionuclid e "mixtures " i n whic hth e identit yo f on e o r mor e o f the radionuclide s i s unknown , the Agenc ypropose s t o establis ha reportabl e quantit yfo r the mixtur e o f the lowe r o f (1 ) the lowes t reportabl e quantit yo f an yknown radionuclid e i n the mixture , o r (2 ) 1 curie . Thi s approac happear s t o b e generall yreasonabl e an d i s consisten t wit hthe 1-curi e propose d R Q fo r individua l unknown radionuclide s an d fo r radionuclide s fo r whic hinsufficien t dat a ar e available . B ycontrast , however , EPAals o suggest s a possibl e reductio n i n th e reportabl e quantit yfo r "unknow n mixtures " t o 0.00 1 curie , th e lowes t R Q level . Thi s suggestio n i s unreasonable . A0.001-curi e R Q fo r "unknow n mixtures " woul d inundat e the Nationa l Respons e Center , a s wel l a s the recipient s o f emergenc ynotification s unde r Sectio n 30 4 o f the Superfund Amendment s an d Reauthorizatio n Ac t (SARA) , wit h report s o f release s tha t ar e o f littl e o r n o relevanc e t o emergenc yrespons e requirements . Thi s approac hwould , therefore , conflic t wit hEPA' s goal s o f establishin g reportabl e quantitie s a t level s tha t allo wthe Agenc yt o concentrat e it s investigatoryand respons e effort s o n tru e publi c healt han d environmenta l danger s an d t o eliminat e reporting burden s tha t ar e unnecessary t o achievemen t o f the statutoryrequirements . Accordingly , EPAshoul d adop t it s propose d approac h(i.e. , the lowe r o f 1 curi e o r the lowes t RQ fo r a known radionuclide ) fo r thes e mixtures . EPA' s decisio n t o adop t a 1-curi e reportabl e quantit yfo r an yindividua l radionuclid e whos e identit yi s unknow n appears , o n the whole , t o b e reasonable . Thi s decisio n i s als o consisten t wit hthe Agency' s proposa l t o establis ha "generic " 1-curi e reportabl e quantit yfo r radionuclide s fo r whic h insufficien t dat a exis t t o assig n individua l reportabl e quantities . Response : Th e Agenc yagree s tha t a 0.00 1 curi e RQ fo r unknow n mixture s o f radionuclide s i s to o smal l an d woul d lead t o man yreport s o f mino r release s t o whic hthe governmen t woul d no t respond . EP Abelieve s tha t 1 curi e i s an adequat e reportin g leve l fo r unknow n mixture s an

d ha s retaine d thi s leve l i n the fina l rule .

T-9 7P.6 3

Commente r Number : 1 5 Respons e Number : 3 Page : 3 Commente r Name : D.R . Wind Senio r Environmenta l Enginee r Monsant o Corporatio n Issue : Mixtur e Rul e Comment : Pag e 8181 , middl e column , top . Whe n comparin g the R Q o f the unquantifie d isotop e t o the tota l release , the tota l releas e shoul d b e reduce d byth e known (isotop e an d quantity ) releases . Th e remainde r o f the releas e ca n the n b e assume d t o b e the isotop e wit hthe mos t restrictiv e RQ . The n the rul e fo r mixture s o f known compositio n and amoun t ca n b e applied . Ther e als o shoul d b e some d e minimi s applie d t o th e determinatio n tha t a n isotop e "i s known t o b e present, " sinc e eve n "pure " isotopi c source s ofte n hav e trac e quantitie s o f othe r radionuclide s present . Asuggeste d cutof f woul d b e les s tha n 1 percen t b

yactivity . Response : EPAagree s that , i n theory , i t woul d mak e sens e t o separat e the release d quantit yint o tw o parts : (1 ) the known isotope(s ) and quantities ; an d (2 ) the unknown isotope(s ) an d quantities . Froma practica l standpoint , however , EPA believe s tha t th e adoptio n o f suc ha mixtur e rul e woul d ad d a considerabl e complicatio n t o th e determinatio n o f a n R Q and , hence , coul d preven t timel y reporting o f the releas e t o the government . A t the same time , the Agenc ysee s n o rea l benefit s t o b e gaine d b yadoptin g the suggeste d mixtur e rule . I t i s wel l known tha t radioisotope s (an d othe r chemicals ) ofte n contai n trac e amount s o f impurities , bot hradioactiv e and nonradioactive . I f a releas e o f suc ha "mixture " occurs , an d i f i t i s known t o the person-in-charg e tha t the R Q fo r eithe r the majo r componen t o r a contaminan t (eithe r radioactiv e o r nonradioactive ) ha s bee n reache d o r exceeded , or , base d upo n applicatio n o f the mixtur e rule , the R Q fo r the mixtur e ha s bee n reache d o r exceeded , the n the releas e mus t b e reporte d t o the Nationa l Respons e Center . EP Awishe s t o clarif ythe reporting requirement s fo r compound s an d mixture s o f radionuclide s an d othe r hazardou s substances . EP Arecognize s tha t becaus e th

e radionuclid e RQ s ar e applicabl e t o al l chemica l forms , some substance s containin g radionuclide s wil l hav e tw o applicabl e RQs , on e base d o n radiatio n hazar d an d the othe r base d o n chemica l toxicity . Fo r thes e substances , the lowes t applicabl e RQ shoul d serv e a s the reporting trigger . Fo r example , naturall yoccurring cadmiu mconsist s o f roughl y1 2 percen t cadmium-113 , a radioactiv e isotope , an d severa l othe r isotope s o f cadmiu m tha t ar e no t radioactive . Th e RQ fo r cadmiu mha s bee n finalize d a t 1 0 pound s an d the RQ fo r cadmium-113 , jus t on e componen t o f naturall yoccurrin g cadmium , i s 0. 1 Ci . Arelease r o f cadmiu mmeta l i s require d t o repor t i f eithe r 1 0 pound s o f the meta l (i f the diameter s o f the particle s o f the release d meta l ar e les s tha n o r equa l t o 10 0 micrometers ) o r 0. 1 C i o f cadmium-11 3 (regardles s o f the particl e siz e o f th e cadmium-113 ) i s released . I n thi s case , the RQ base d o n T-9 8P.6 4

Respons e Number : 3 (continued )

chemica l toxicit yi s muc hmor e limiting tha n the R Q base d o n radiotoxicit y( a releas e o f 1 0 pound s o f cadmiu mmeta l o r 1 0 pound s o f cadmium-11 3 constituent s fa r les s tha n 0. 1 Ci) . Fo r othe r materials , however , th e R Q base d o n radiotoxicit yi s mor e limiting tha n the on e base d o n chemica l toxicity . I n bot hsituations , the lowes t R Q applicabl e t o the substanc e release d woul d b e th e reporting trigger . Urany l acetat e and urany l nitrat e ar e additiona l example s o f substance s wit htwo applicabl e RQs , on e base d o n chemica l toxicit yand th e othe r base d o n radiatio n hazard . Bot hsubstance s ar e specificall yliste d a s CERCLAhazardou s substance s becaus e theyar e include d unde r sectio n 31 1 o f the CWA ; however , theybot hconsis t o f abou t 6 0 percen t uranium-238 , a radionuclide . Base d o n thei r chemica l toxicity , urany l acetat e and urany l nitrat e hav e a fina l adjuste d R Q o f 10 0 pound s (5 1 FR 34534 , Septembe r 29 , 1986) . Th e fina l R Q fo r uranium-238 , base d upo n radiologica l hazard , i s 0. 1 Ci , whic hi s equivalen t t o roughl y66 0 pound s o f uranium-238 . Bot hthe 0. 1 C i R Q fo r uranium-23 8 and th e 10 0 pound R Q ar e applicabl e t o release s o f urany l acetat e and uranl ynitrate , bu t the 100-pound R Q wil l alway s trigge r reporting firs t becaus e i t i s th e lower , mor e protectiv e level . Th e R Q o f 10 0 pound s wil l assur e timel y reporting o f release s o f urany l acetat e an d urany l nitrat e frombot ha radiologica l hazar d an d chemica l toxicit ystandpoint .

T-9 9P.6 5

Commente r Number : Page : Commente r Name :

Issue : 1 5 3 D.R . Wind Senio r Environmenta l Enginee r Monsant o Corporatio n Mixtur e Rul e Respons e Number : 4

Comment : Pag e 8181 , 3r d column . A n R Q fo r natura l uraniu mo r thoriu

mwit hal l it s daughter s i n equilibriu mwoul d als o b e useful . Response : I n the preambl e t o the fina l rule , a s a convenienc e fo r the regulate d community , a n R Q fo r natura l uraniu mi n secula r equilibriu mwit hit s daughter s and a n R Q fo r thoriu mi n secula r equilibriu mwit hit s daughter s i s provided .

T-10 0P.6 6

Commente r Number : 1 Respons e Number : 1 Page : 2 Commente r Name : Garri s D . Parker , Jr . Departmen t Head , Radiatio n Protectio n Departmen t Th e Wellcom e Researc hLaboratorie s Burrough s Wellcom e Co . Issue : Concentratio n Cutof f Comment : Wit hregar d t o th e propose d concentratio n cutof f o f 0.00 2 microcurie s pe r gram(uCi/g) , w e fee l tha t a mor e lenien t figur e shoul d b e considered . I n 1 0 CF R 20.306 , th e U.S . Nuclea r RegulatoryCommissio n use s 0.0 5 uCi/ g fo r two specifi c isotope s (H- 3 and C-14 ) i n two specifi c wast e stream s (anima l tissu e and scintillatio n media) . W e fee l thi s figur e shoul d b e adopte d fo r additiona l radioisotope s i n additiona l type s o f material . Response : Th e Agenc yrealize s tha t ther e i s some concentratio n o f radionuclide s belo wwhic ha governmen t respons e i s unlikely . Determinatio n o f tha t precis e level , however , i s complicated . Ther e i s n o universall yaccepte d risk-fre e level ; tha t is , a leve l belo wwhic hth e Agenc yi s sur e th e governmen t woul d neve r wan t t o respond . I n fact , larg e volume s o f radionuclide s i n lo w concentration s ca n accumulat e ove r time i n th e environment . EPAcurrentl y doe s no t hav e a sufficien t basi s fo r determinin g th e appropriat e concentratio n cutof f leve l and believe s tha t a n R Q adjustmen t regulatio n i s a n inappropriat e foru mi n whic ht o performth e extensiv e ris k analysi s neede d t o deriv e suc ha concentratio n level . Amor e appropriat e foru mfo r suc ha determinatio n woul d b e a rulemaking specificall ydesigne d t o limi t publi c healt hrisk s from exposur e t o radiation . Th e Agenc ycurrentl yi s developin g two rule s relate d t o d e minimis/exemption/belo wregulatoryconcer n level s and residua l radioactivit ycriteri a tha t ma yhav e a bearin g o n thi s issue . T o addres s some o f th e concern s associate d wit hpotentia l over-reportin g o f release s o f radionuclide s i n lo wconcentrations , th e Agenc ywill , i n respons e t o publi c requests , evaluat e governmen t releas e dat a t o determin e i f certai n release s ca n b e administrativel yexempte d fromth e R Q reportin g requirements . Anyadministrativ e exemption s tha t ar e justifie d wil l b e incorporate d int o th e rul e i n technica l updates . I n respons e t o thi s commen t and othe r simila r comments , EPAha s decide d t o exemp t fromCERCLAnotificatio n requirement s radionuclid e release s from thre e larg e are a source s containin g lo wconcentration s o f radionuclide s (se e "Exemptions/Exclusion s - Response s 2 and 6") .

T-10 1P.6 7

Commente r Number : Page : Commente r Name :

Issue : 4 1 Respons e Number :

B.H . Webster , Manage r Radiologica l an

d Chemica l Suppor t Concentratio n Cutof f Comment : W e woul d encourag e EPAt o adop t a cutof f simila r t o DO T an d woul d furthe r encourag e EPAt o classif yradioactiv e materia l belo w0.00 2 microcurie s pe r gra ma s "BelowRegulatoryConcern. " A t present , the NR C doe s no t hav e a n establishe d cutof f limi t fo r the broa d spectru mo f radionuclides . W e fee l tha t i f EP

Aestablishe d suc ha limit , tha t i t woul d encourag e the NR C t o a t leas t conside r o r adop t a simila r cutof f fo r radionuclides . Response : Se e "Concentratio n Cutof f - Respons e 1. "

T-10 2P.6 8

Commente r Number : Page : Commente r Name :

Issue : Comment : Respons e Number : Denni s Naf f Radiatio n Safet yOffice r Mobi l Minin g an

d Mineral s Compan

y Concentratio n Cutof f

Mobi l als o recognize s the necessit yfo r a concentratio n cutof f fo r larg e volum e lowactivit ymaterial s an d support s the DO T establishe d valu e o f 0.00 2 microcurie s pe r gram . Response : Se e "Concentratio n Cutof f - Respons e 1. "

T-10 3P.6 9

Commente r Number : Page : Commente r Name :

Issue : Respons e Number :

Mar c Bowma n Environmenta l Engineering Superviso r FMC Corporatio n Concentratio n Cutof f Comment : FMC strongl ysupport s the concep t o f a concentratio n cutof f belo wwhic h the RQ s fo r radionuclide s woul d no t apply . Minin g operation s whic hmin e or e whic hi s slightl yabov e background level s o f naturall yoccurrin g uranium , fo r example , coul d easil yexcee d the 0. 1 curi e R Q i n a 24-hou r period . Whil e the 0. 1 curi e R Q mayb e necessaryfo r a mor e concentrate d mixture , FMC believe s tha t th e lo wconcentration s encountere d i n naturall yoccurring ore s coul d neve r pos e the same threa t t o huma n healt han d the environment . FMC als o believe s tha t i t wa s no t the Congressiona l inten t tha t suc hmaterial s b e reporte d whe n place d o n the groun d a s i n a norma l stockpiling operation . Th e 0.00 2 microcuri e pe r gra mvalu e (th

e DO T value ) propose d woul d b e sufficien t t o allo wlarge-scal e minin g operation s t o remov e or e fro mthe min e and plac e i t i n a stockpil e withou t havin g t o repor t unde r CERCLA . Response : Se e "Concentratio n Cutof f - Respons e 1. "

T-10 4P.70 _

Commente r Number : Page : Commente r Name :

Issue : Respons e Number :

R.L . Arscott , Directo r Health , Environmen t and Los s Protectio n Chevro n Corporatio n Concentratio n Cutof f Comment : Chevro n als o recommend s tha t the Agenc ypursu e a modifie d approac ht o reporting usin g a combinatio n o f reportabl e quantit ya s no wstate d couple d wit ha tabulatio n o f specifi c activit ybelo wwhic hn o reporting i s needed . Suggestion s fo r d e minimi s level s fo r release s t o ai r an d wate r ar e presente d i n th e followin g paragraphs . I n determinin g the specifi c activit yleve l fo r airborn e releases , w e recommend usin g th e ai r level s show n i n the propose d change s t o Titl e 10 , Cod e o f Federa l Regulations , Par t 20 , Appendi x B , Tabl e 2 , Colum n 1 , whic har e approximatel ythe same a s thos e o f th e Internationa l Commissio n o n Radiologica l Protectio n (ICRP) , a s uppe r limit s o f exposure, 1 an d calculatin g specifi c activitie s unde r verydust ycondition s (a s tota l dust ) tha t woul d yiel d suc hexposure s fo r material s insolubl e i n bod yfluids . SUGGESTE D SPECIFI C ACTIVITIE S FOR CERTAI NNATURALL Y OCCURRIN

G RADIOISOTOPE S BELOW WHIC H REPORTIN G I S NO T REQUIRE D

Isotop e 1 0 CFR 2 0

Limi t uCi/m 3 Dust y

5 mg/m 3 Conditio n

VeryDust y 1 0 mg/m 3 Extremel yDust y

2 0 mg/m 3

Uraniu m(N ) Thoriu m(N ) Radiu m22 6 Poloniu m21 6 Lead 21 0 Bismut h21 0 9 x 1 0

4 x 1 0 9 9 4 x x 1 0 x 1 0 1 0 4 x 1 0 -1 4 -1 5 -1 3 -1 3 -1 3 1 1 18. 0 pCi/ g

0. 8 pCi/ g 18 0 pCi/ g 18 0 pCi/ g 8 0 pCi/g . 800 0 pCi/ g 9. 0 pCi/ g

0. 4 pCi/ g 9 0 pCi/ g 9 0 pCi/ g 4 0 pCi/g

m 400 0 pCi/ g 4. 5 pCi/ g 0. 2 pCi/ g 4 5 pCi/ g 4 5 pCi/ g 2 0 pCi/ g 200 0 pCi/ g

Fo r releas e int o water , Chevro n recommend s the concentration s liste d i n the newl ypropose d 1 0 CFR 20 , Appendi x B , Tabl e 3 fo r instantaneou s release s an d thos e i n Tabl e 2 , Colum n 2 fo r continuou s release s be use d a s de minimi s levels .

1 Se e 5 1 F

R 1092 , January1 , 1986 , pp.114 7 -1200 . T-10 5P.7 1

Respons e Number : 5 (continued )

Response : Se e "Concentratio n Cutof f - Respons e 1. " I t als o i s importan t t o clarif ytha t the Nuclea r RegulatoryCommissio n discharg e concentratio n limit s i n 1 0 CF R Par t 20 , Appendi x B , Tabl e 2 represen t federall ypermitte d limit s and an yrelease s fromCommissio n licensee s i n complianc e wit hthos e limit s (o r les s tha n a n R Q abov e thos e limits ) woul d no t nee d t o b e reporte d unde r CERCLAt o the Nationa l Respons e Center .

T-10 6P.7 2

Commente r Number : Page : Commente r Name :

Issue : Mar k A . Doruf f Radiatio n Safet yOffice r AmershamCorporatio n Concentratio n Cutof f Respons e Number : 6

Comment : AmershamCorporation,agree s wit hth e propose d concentratio n cut-of f o f 0.00 2 microcurie s pe r gra msinc e activit ythi s dilut e pose s littl e o r n o dange r t o publi c health . Keepin g the numbe r cut-of f constan t betwee n regulatoryagencie s (DOT an d EPA ) i s als o beneficial . Response : Se e "Concentratio n Cutof f - Respons e 1. "

T-10 7P.7 3

Commente r Number : Page : Commente r Name : 1 1 2/3- 4 GaryD . Myers , Presiden t Th e Fertilize r Institut e Respons e Number : 7

Issue : Concentratio n Cutof f Comment : A s EPArecognizes , the propose d radionuclid e RQ s wil l necessaril yrequir e reportin g o f release s o f dilut e material s whic hpresen t littl e o r n o immediat e dange r t o publi c health . I n addition , manyo f thes e release s o f larg e volume s o f dilut e materia l ar e alread ywell-known and understoo d b yEPAa s a resul t o f agenc ystudie s an

d othe r activitie s unde r th e man ystatute s administere d b y th e agency . Therefore , the reporting o f suc hwel l understoo d release s o f larg e volume s o f dilut e materia l woul d no t onl yd o nothin g t o protec t publi c health , i t woul d als o b e unnecessaryt o achiev e the othe r statutorygoa l emphasize d b

yEPA : alertin g the appropriat e governmen t official s o f releases . Unde r thes e circumstances , TF I submit s tha t a concentratio n cut-of f i s essentia l t o eliminat e unnecessaryan d excessiv e reporting tha t woul d no t serv e t o furthe r an yo f the objective s o f the CERCLAreleas e reporting program . Th e establishmen t o f a concentratio n cut-of f belo wwhic hthe RQ s fo r radionuclide s woul d no t appl yi s on e metho d o f addressin g unnecessaryan d excessiv e reportin g i n th e phosphat e industry , a s wel l a s othe r industrie s similarl ysituated . TF I endorse s the concep t o f a concentratio n cut-of f a s discusse d i n the Marc h16 , 198 7 Federa l Registe r notic e (5 2 FR 81821) . TF I als o endorse s the us e o f the DO T cut-of f valu e o f 0.00 2 microcurie s pe r gram . Thi s cut-of f leve l i s sufficien t t o ensur e tha t the reporting requirement s wil l provid e EPAwit hthe promp t notic e necessaryt o addres s whethe r o r no t federa l actio n i s require d t o protec t huma n healt han d the environment . I n addition , the adoptio n o f the DO T valu e wil l promot e regulatoryconsistency , alway s a desirabl e goa l whe n threat s t o huma n healt ho r the environmen t ar e no t involved . Response : Se e "Concentratio n Cutof f - Respons e 1. "

T-10 8P.7 4

Commente r Number : Page : Commente r Name :

Issue : 1 3 4/ 5 Mar k J . Wetterhahn Conno r & Wetterhahn , P.C . Concentratio n Cutof f Respons e Number : 8

Comment : Beyond th e issu e o f applicabilit yo f th e propose d regulatio n t o nuclea r utilities , i t i s clea r tha t reportabl e quantitie s (RQ ) fo r radionuclide s shoul d b e revise d t o reflec t the appropriat e and accepte d unit s o f measuremen t o f radioactivity . Th e RQ s should , a s state d i n th e Summarysectio n o f the propose d rule , b e revise d i n suc ha waya s t o allo wEPA"t o focu s it s resource s o n the mos t seriou s release s and t o protec t publi c healt h.. . and th e environmen t mor e effectively. " However , contraryt o the state d intent , th e propose d regulatio n fail s t o distinguis hbetwee n singl e discret e incident s and long-term , low-leve l releases , bot ho f whic hmayconstitut e release s exceedin g the quantitativ e limit s proposed . Th e concep t providin g fo r a concentratio n (suc ha s 0.00 2 uci/gm ) belo w whic hn o reportin g woul d b e require d i s simila r t o a concep t o f releas e rate , uci/sec , belo wwhic hther e shoul d b e n o concern . I n an yevent , eithe r b

y concentratio n o r b

yrate , the minimu mreleas e t o b e considere d need s t o b e defined . Response : Se e "Concentratio n Cutof f - Respons e 1. "

T-10 9P.7 5

Commente r Number : 1 4 Page : 3/6- 7 Commente r Name : Kearne ye t al . Ediso n Electri c Institut e Respons e Number : 9

Issue : Concentratio n Cutof f Comment : Specifically , w e endors e EPA' s proposal s t o adop t a "concentratio n cutoff " o f 0.00 2 microcurie s pe r gra mt o preven t impositio n o f unnecessar yan d burdensom e reportin g requirements . W e urg e EPAt o adop t a "concentratio n cutoff " t o ensur e tha t release s o f materia l i n whic hradionuclide s ar e presen t i n ver ylowconcentration s nee d no t b e reporte d unde r the CERCLAprogram . A s EPArecognizes , suc hrelease s "presen t littl e o r n o immediat e dange r t o publi c health. " Thus , a concentratio n cutof f i s "appropriat e t o eliminat e unnecessaryan d excessiv e reporting . Adoptio n o f a cutof f woul d advanc e the objective s o f th e reportabl e quantit yprogramb yallowing EPAt o direc t it s limite d resource s t o the release s tha t pos e the greates t dange r t o publi c healt han d welfar e an

d t o "[r]educ e th e burden s o f reportin g o n the regulate d community. " Th e Departmen t o f Transportatio n (DOT ) threshol d o f 0.00 2 microcurie s pe r gra m--a n extremel ylo wleve l o f radioactivit y- - appear s t o b e a conservativel ylowconcentratio n cutoff . Indeed , DO T doe s no t eve n conside r materia l wit ha specifi c activit ylowe r tha n tha t leve l t o b e "radioactive." 1 Thus , n o basi s exist s fo r setting a concentratio n cutof f lowe r tha n 0.00 2 microcurie s pe r gram . Response : Se e "Concentratio n Cutof f - Respons e 1. "

1 Se e 4 9 CF R Sectio n 173.403(7 ) (1986) ; 5 2 Federa l Registe r 8175 , Col . 2 (1987) . A s a result , materia l tha t contain s trac e amount s o f radionuclide s belo wthe leve l o f the DO T concentratio n cutoff , including coa l an d coa l ash , shoul d no t b e considere d radioactive , an d an ynaturall yoccurring radionuclide s release d naturall yfro msuc hsubstance s shoul d no t b e counte d agains t the RQ s establishe d b ythes e rules . Se e als o infra , pp.11-13 . Th e DO T concentratio n cutof f suggeste d b yEP Aclearl yca n b e applie d t o emission s o f radionuclide s containe d i n solids . A s a technica l matter , however , i t mayno t b e feasibl e t o implemen t a mass-base d cutof f i n the cas e o f gaseou s radionuclid e emissions . Thus , the cutof f use d b yEP Afo r gaseou s radionuclid e emission s fro mland-base d coa l as hsite s shoul d b e derive d fro m mode l tha t recognize s thi s importan t technica l consideration .

T-11 0P.7 6

Commente r Number : Page : Commente r Name :

Issue : 1 5 3 D.R . Wind Senio r Environmenta l Enginee r Monsant o Corporatio n Concentratio n Cutof f Respons e Number : 1 0

Comment : Pag e 8182 . W e wholeheartedl yendors e a 2 uCi/ g regulatorycutoff . Simila r quantitie s ar e als o neede d fo r gase s and suspensions . Response : Se e "Concentratio n Cutof f - Respons e 1. " Also , a s state d i n "Concentratio n Cutof f - Respons e 5, " 1 0 CF R Par t 20 , Appendi x B , Tabl e 2 o f th e Nuclea r RegulatoryCommission' s regulation s establis hmaximu mpermissibl e concentration s (MPCs ) fo r release s t o ai r and wate r i n unrestricte d areas . Release s fro

mCommissio n licensee s i n complianc e wit h(or les s tha n a n R Q above ) thes e MPC s ar e considere d federall ypermitte d an d ar e thu s exempte d fromCERCLAreporting requirements . Thes e MPC s therefore , i n effect , serv e a s concentratio n cutoff s fo r gase s and suspensions .

T-ll lP.7 7

Commente r Number : Page : Commente r Name :

Issue : 1 7 2 Respons e Number : 1 1
Walte r R . Quanstrom Genera l Manage r an d Vic e Presiden t Amoc o Corporatio n Concentratio n Cutof f Comment : Eve n .a n activity-base d R Q wil l resul t i n th e reporting o f numerou s release s whic hd o no t requir e Agenc yattention . Specifically , larg e volume , lo wactivit yreleases , whic hthe Agenc yacknowledge s "presen t littl e o r n o immediat e dange r t o publi c health " (p . 8182) , wil l b e reported . A concentratio n cutof f woul d d o muc ht o alleviat e thi s problem . Amoc o support s a concentration-base d approac hfo r radionuclid e reporting . W e believ e tha t a cutof f shoul d b e establishe d fo r eac ho f the radionuclide s liste d i n Appendi x B fo r whic hRQ s hav e bee n developed . However , w e recogniz e tha t thi s coul d b e a rathe r complicate d tas k fo r the Agency , requiring evaluatio n o f muc hdat a o n th e healt heffect s an d exposur e potential s o f th e individua l radionuclides . Th e DO T limi t o f 0.00 2 microcurie s pe r gra mcoul d serv e a s a n interi mcutoff . Response : Se e "Concentratio n Cutof f - Respons e 1. "

T-11 2P.7 8

Commente r Number : Page : Commente r Name :

Issue : 2 0 1 Respons e Number : 1 2

Steve n M . Swanson , Directo r Healt hand Environmenta l Affair s Departmen t America n Petroleu

mInstitut e Concentratio n Cutof f Comment : EPArequest s comment s o n th e appropriatenes s o f establishing a cutof f fo r th e reporting o f release s o f lowconcentrations.

- AP I believe s i t i s necessary t o limi t reporting fo r thos e instance s wher e a releas e i s o f lo wconcentratio n s o tha t "larg e volume s o f dilut e material , whic hpresen t littl e o r n o immediat e dange r t o publi c health, " do no t overwhel mthe reporting network . Response : Se e "Concentratio n Cutof f - Respons e 1. "

T-11 3P.7 9

Commente r Number : 2 4 (CARC ) 1- 2 Respons e Number : 1 3

Commente r Name :

Issue : Duan e A . Sile r Patton , Bogg s & Blo w Concentratio n Cutof f Comment : I n addition , the R Q fo r radionuclide s shoul d b e state d i n term s o f a concentratio n base d activit ylevel . Ideally , EPAshoul d adop t the 0.00 2 microcurie s pe r gra mlimi t currentl yutilize d b ythe Departmen t o f Transportatio n t o regulat e transportatio n o f radionuclides . Us e o f absolut e activity-base d limit s wil l lead t o the unnecessaryreporting o f release s o f hig hvolume , lowleve l materia l whic hdo no t presen t the kind s o f exposur e hazard s o n whic hthe propose d RQ s purportedl yar e based . Response : EPAdoe s no t believ e tha t RQ s fo r radionuclide s shoul d b e state d i n term s o f a concentratio n base d activit ylevel . Th e potentia l fo r a radionuclid e t o caus e harmt o huma n healt hand welfar e and the environmen t i s no t relate d t o the concentratio n o f a radionuclide , bu t t o the quantit yo f radionuclid e inhaled , ingested , o r t o whic ha perso n i s exposed . Quantitie s o f radionuclide s generall yar e measure d i n curie s an d the Agenc yha s followe d thi s precedent . Als o se e "Concentratio n Cutof f - Respons e 1. "

T-11 4P.8 0

Commente r Number : 2 4 (CARC ) 5- 6 Respons e Number : 1 4

Commente r Name :

Issue : Duan e A . Sile r Patton , Bogg s & Blo w Concentratio n Cutof f Comment : I n addition , the Agenc yshoul d adop t a concentration-base d R Q fo r radionuclides . Ther e appear s t o b e n o reasonabl e basi s t o depar t fromtha t alread yadopte d b

yDOT , i.e. . 0.00 2 microcurie s pe r gram . DO T ha s determine d tha t materia l havin g a specifi c activit ybelo wthi s leve l ca n safel yb e transported , i n an

yvolume , throughan ycommunit yo r neighborhoo d i n th e countrywithou t the specia l precaution s otherwis e require d fo r transportatio n o f hazardou s radioactiv e material . I t make s littl e sens e t o trea t a releas e o f similarl yinnocuou s materia l t o the environment , possibl yi n remot e location s wit hn o potentia l fo r huma n exposure , a s a mor e seriou s environmenta l hazar d requiring notificatio n o f the Nationa l Respons e center . A s a practica l matter , failur e t o adop t thi s concentratio n cutof f wil l resul t i n overreporting . Th e propose d rul e acknowledge s tha t "release s o f larg e volume s o f dilut e material , whic hpresen t littl e o r n o immediat e dange r t o publi c health , coul d b e reportable " i f the propose d activit ylevel s ar e adopted . Thi s is , o f course , becaus e larg e volume s o f onl yslightl y radioactiv e materia l coul d hav e a tota l activit yleve l exceeding the propose d R Q fo r tha t material . I n establishin g activity-base d RQs , EPAha s estimate d the smalles t numbe r o f curie s which , i f release d t o the environment , would , unde r certai n generi c assumptions , likel yresul t i n a perso n bein g expose d t o a dos e equivalen t o f 50 0 millirem s vi a the inhalation , ingestion , o r exposur e routes . Th e Agenc y apparentl yassume s tha t the volum e o f materia l hypotheticall yrelease d doe s no t affec t the resulting risk . Tha t is , a releas e o f 1 cubi c foo t o f materia l coul d b e equate d t o a releas e o f 100,00 0 cubi c fee t o f material , s o long a s bot hrelease s have , i n total , equa l activit ylevels . Thi s appear s t o b e contraryt o an

yreasonabl e mode l o f pollutan t fat e an d transpor t vi a ai r o r water . I t woul d b e fa r mor e reasonabl e fo r EP Asimpl yt o adop t it s siste r agency' s concentration-base d regulatorythreshold . Response : Se e "Concentratio n Cutof f - Respons e 1. "

T-11 5P.8 1

Commente r Number : Page : Commente r Name :

Issue : L 3 4 Respons e Number : 1 5

Jame s E . Fairoben t Offic e o f Environmenta l Guidanc e an d Complianc e U.S . Departmen t o f Energ y Concentratio n Cutof f Comment : Th e us e o f a concentratio n cutof f belo wwhic hthe RQ s fo r radionuclide s woul d no t apply , i s bot happropriat e an d desirabl e t o avoi d regulatio n o f release s o f larg e volume s o f dilut e materials . Aconcentratio n cutof f o f 0.00 2 micr o Ci/ g a s discusse d i n the propose d rul e i s no t unreasonable ; however , an

ysingl e cutof f valu e shoul d b e recognize d t o b e inadequat e fo r al l situations , analogou s t o the situatio n tha t a singl e R Q valu e i n curie s i s no t adequat e fo r al l radionuclides . Determinatio n o f concentratio n cutoff s shoul d b e o n a radionuclide-specifi c basi s usin g a pathway s analysi s simila r t o tha t use d i n determinin g th e RQ s an d a criterio n fo r negligibl e dos e (e.g. , 1 , 5 , o r 1 0 mrem) . Response : Se e "Concentratio n Cutof f - Respons e 1. "

T-11 6