P. 1



# OAR Box 1103 Prepped byRyanDugan



### Document

Number: 

# 83 ) ll-C- 1 Docket Number: 

# A-83-4 1

Printed 4/11/20081:50:51 PM

Sheet 83 of 174P. 2

" • \ UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENCY 

# ym-c-yL

JU L2. 5 J99

4

Eri c S . Beckjord , Directo r Offic e o f Nuclea r Regulator yResearc h U.S . Nuclea r Regulator yCommissio n Washington, ^ D C 2055 5 Dea r Mr . Beckjord : 

## EL' .

Than k yo u fo r you r lette r o f Jul y15 , 1994 , whic hprovide d. th e Nuclea r Regulator yCommission' s (NRC ) respons e t o ou r Novembe r 12 , 1993 , reques t fo r comment s o nth e Environmenta l Protectio nAgency' s (EPA ) draf t recommendation s t o th e Presiden t o nFedera l Radiatio nProtectio nGuidanc e fo r th e Genera l Public . You r lette r identifie d fou r significan t area s o f comment : 1 ) Recommendatio n1 shoul d mor e clearl yidentif yth e type s o f action s a Federa l agenc ycarrie s ou t t o justif ya nactivity . W e agree , an d th e point s raise d i nyou r comment s hav e bee n incorporate dint o th e text . 2 ) Clarificatio no f th e circumstance s unde r whic h' truncatio n(unde r Recommendatio n2 ) i s appropriat e i s needed . W e agre e wit hth e NR C understandin g o f thi s issue , whic hcorrectl y reflect s th e origina l intent . Th e tex t ha s bee namende dt o clarif ythis . 3 ) NR C agree s wit hth e propose d numerica l valu e fo r th e Radiatio nProtectio nGuid e i nRecommendatio n3 (10 0 mrem/y) , bu t additiona l clarificatio no f th e rational e fo r th e choic e o f thi s numerica l valu e woul db e desirable . W e hav e provide dadditiona l clarification , includin g som e o f th e suggeste dlanguage . (Se e th e enclose d respons e t o commen t 1.4. ) 4 ) Recommendatio n4 coul d b e misinterprete dt o requir e prescriptiv e apportionmen t o f dose s t o th e public . W e agre e tha t thi s i s no t th e intent , an dth e tex t ha s bee namende dt o mak e i t clea r tha t i t i s not . (See , also , th e enclose drespons e t o commen t II.1. ) Base do nth e abov e resolutio no f NRC' s significan t area s o f comment , w e appreciat e you r suppor t fo r publicatio no f thes e propose ddraf t recommendation s fo r publi c comment . 

# TtKt CONCURRENCe S SYMBO L SURNAM E } OAT E 

## • te>°

3-S 

## !tJk?.?2Z.

•*•••••••• ' #•«••*••«•««•*••• < •••#••«•••••••••• • E f * Fom i 1320-1 A(1/90 ) Printed on Reacted

Paper OFFICIA L FIL E COP Y <rU.S

. QPO : 1983—717-06 5P. 3 UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENCY



### JU L2. 5 J994

Eri c S . Beckjord , Directo r Offic e o f Nuclea r Regulator yResearc h. U.S . Nuclea r Regulator yCommissio n Washington , D C 20555 Dea r Mr . Beckjord : Than k yo u fo r you r lette r o f Jul y15 , 1994 , whic hprovide d th e Nuclea r Regulator yCommission' s (NRC ) respons e t o ou r Novembe r 12 , 1993 , reques t fo r comment s o nth e Environmenta l Protectio nAgency' s (EPA ) draf t recommendation s t o th e Presiden t o nFedera l Radiatio nProtectio nGuidanc e fo r th e Genera l Public . You r lette r identifie dfou r significan t area s o f comment : 1 ) Recommendatio n1 shoul d mor e clearl yidentif yth e type s o f action s a Federa l agenc ycarrie s ou t t o justif ya nactivity . W e agree , an dth e point s raise di nyou r comment s hav e bee n incorporate dint o th e text . 2 ) Clarificatio no f th e circumstance s unde r whic h truncatio n(unde r Recommendatio n2 ) i s appropriat e i s needed . W e agre e wit hth e NR C understandin g o f thi s issue , whic hcorrectl y reflect s th e origina l intent . Th e tex t ha s bee namende dt o clarif ythis . 3 ) NR C agree s wit hth e propose d numerica l valu e fo r th e Radiatio nProtectio nGuid e i nRecommendatio n3 (10 0 mrem/y) , bu t additiona l clarificatio no f th e rational e fo r th e choic e o f thi s numerica l valu e woul d b e desirable . W e hav e provide dadditiona l clarification , includin g som e o f th e suggeste dlanguage . (Se e th e enclose drespons e t o commen t 1.4. ) 4 ) Recommendatio n4 coul d b e misinterprete dt o requir e prescriptiv e apportionmen t o f dose s t o th e public . W e agre e tha t thi s i s no t th e intent , an d th e tex t ha s bee namende dt o mak e i t clea r tha t i t i s not . (See , also , th e enclose drespons e t o commen t II.l. ) Base d o nth e abov e resolutio no f NRC' s significan t area s o f comment , w e appreciat e you r suppor t fo r publicatio no f thes e propose ddraf t recommendation s fo r publi c comment . 

# Ttnt CONCURRENCE S



## iik>lH7...

••••••• •»•••»•••••••• E f * For m 1320-1 A(1/90 ) Printed on Recycled

Paper OFFICIA L FIL E COP Y *U.S . GPO : 1M3—717-06 5P. 4



### W e als o considere deac ho f you r mor e detaile d comments . W e hav e mad e change s t o addres s almos t al l o f them , an dI believ e tha t th e resulting change s wil l improv e th e clarity , completeness , an

d accurac yo f th e supporting tex t fo r thes e propose d recommendations . Enclose d i s a summaryo f ou r response s t o th e NR C comment s an d a copyo f th e revise d notic e o f Propose dRecommendations , Reques t fo r Writte nComments , an dNotic e o f Publi c Hearing , reflecting thes e responses , whic hw e expec t t o publis hi nth e Federa l Registe r shortly . W e appreciat e you r input , whic hha s resulte di nsignifican t improvement s i nthi s proposal . Sincerel y Marg o T.IOg e Director , Offic e o f Radiatio n an dIndoo r Ai r Enclosure s 6602J/bc/arichardson/233-9290/7-22-9 4P. 5

Respons e t o NR C Comment s onth e 10/10/9 3 Draf t Federa l RadiationProtectionGuidanc e

fo r Exposur e o f th e Genera l Publi c Th e response s ar e keye d t o th e correspondin g numbere dcomment s i n th e NR C response . I . PRINCIPLE S 1 ) Th e requeste dadditiona l identificatio no f mean s tha t ar e employe d t o carr you t justificatio nan dclarificatio n regardin g existin g practice s hav e bee nadded . 2 ) Th e possibility , i nrar e cases , o f a nee dfo r "tradeoff s betwee nlarge r dose s t o a fe windividuals...an d man ysmal l dose s t o larg e populations " wa s no t discusse dfurthe r intentionally . Ther e ar e n o generall yagree dupo nbase s fo r makin g suc htradeoffs , an dth e guidanc e leave s thes e judgement s t o th e implementin g agencie s (subject , o f course , t o anystatutor yconstraints) . 3 ) W e agre e wit hth e comment . Truncatio ni s sometime s . appropriat e an djustified . Th e poin t i nth e origina l tex t wa s tha t i t shoul d no t b e invoke darbitrarily , bu t onl ywhe n ther e ha s bee na judgmen t mad e tha t i t wil l no t significantl yaffec t th e outcom e o f th e analysis . Th e tex t ha s bee nclarifie d bylanguag e equivalen t t o tha t suggested . 4 ) Th e requeste d clarificatio n- reflectin g tha t th e poin t applie s t o vicinit ypropertie s - ha s bee nmade . 5 ) Th e tex t o f th e Preambl e ha s bee nexpande dt o provid e additiona l clarificatio no f th e rationale , a s requested . Th e preambl e als o make s th e suggeste dpoin t tha t th e propose d RP Gi s consisten t wit hlevel s use di nth e internationa l community . However , w e hav e no t adopte dth e suggestio ntha t th e linea r non-rthreshol d assumptio ni s simpl ya conservativ e approac h"...fo r consistent comparisons i nth e absenc e o f adequat e information " (emphasi s added) . I t i s th e Agency' s positio ntha t th e ris k estimate s cite di n th e preambl e represen t ou r curren t bes t estimate s o f th e hazard , no t merel ya consisten t basi s fo r comparison . W e als o hav e no t adopte dth e suggestio ntha t compariso nwit h th e ris k fro mbackgroun dradiatio nprovide s a vali dbasi s fo r selectio no f th e RPG , whic happlie s t o contro l o f radiatio nexposur e fro mman-made radiation . Althoug hth e ris k fro m

backgroun d radiatio nha s bee ncite da s a poin t o f reference , t o provid e a perspective o nth e RPG , i t i s th e Agency' s positio ntha t risk s fro mnatura l hazard s d o no t provid e a 'sufficient , or , i nman ycases , eve na n appropriate , basi s fo r th e selectio no f acceptabl e level s o f ris k fro m

man-mad e hazards .P. 6

6 ) Th e recommendation s ar e no t intende dt o requir e specificatio no f numerica l limit s o ncollectiv e dose . Althoug hAgencie s could , conceivably , develo p suc h requirement s i nsom e situations , th e onl yrequiremen t o f th e recommendation s i s fo r th e optimizatio no f dos e reduction . Tha t proces s i s usuall ycarrie d ou t throug hanalyse s o f th e collectiv e dose . However , th e conclusion s o f suc hanalyse s ca nb e expresse da s regulator yrequirement s fo r individua l dose , tota l activit yreleased , installatio nan dus e o f specifi c controls , o r anyothe r specificatio nth e regulator y bod yfind s appropriate . Th e tex t ha s bee nexpande dth e mak e thi s clear . II . IMPLEMENTATIO N 1 ) W e agre e tha t i t i s neithe r appropriat e no r practica l normall yt o plac e th e responsibilit yo nlicensee s t o accoun t fo r radiatio nexposure s o f th e publi c du e t o activitie s outsid e thei r control . Th e recommendation s d o no t creat e suc ha genera l requirement ; tha t responsibilit ynormall y rest s wit hregulator ybodies , and , a s i s pointe dou t i nth e preamble , mus t necessaril yb e base d o nbroad-base d judgments . Th e guidanc e doe s no t specif yho wthes e judgment s shoul db e carrie d ou t becaus e tha t is , w e believe , a matte r bes t lef t t o th e discretio no f th e individua l regulator yagencies . A s note d below , th e propose dguidanc e doe s no t recommen d apportionmen t o f th e RP Gfo r thi s purpose . Finally , technica l specification s ar e clearl yon e exampl e o f criteri a tha t ca nb e use dt o assur e tha t th e objective s o f propose dRecommendatio n4 ar e satisfied , an d thi s exampl e ha s bee nadde dt o th e preamble . Recommendatio n4 i s no t intende d t o requir e apportionmen t o f th e RP Gamon g sources ; thi s woul d no t b e practica l o r eve n desirable. . Th e tex t ha s bee nexpande dt o mak e thi s clear . Wit hrespec t t o th e regulatio no f individua l sources , i t i s ou r understandin g tha t i t i s NRC' s inten t t o tak e int o accoun t th e possibl e contribution s o f othe r source s o f exposur e i nregulatin g individua l licensees , s o a s t o mak e i t unlikel ytha t th e RP Gfo r limitin g individua l dos e woul d b e exceede d du e t o th e contribution s o f an yo f it s licensees . 2 ) W e agree ; i t was . neve r th e inten t o f th e recommendation s t o preclud e th e us e o f conservativ e assumption s t o demonstrat e compliance wit hregulator yrequirements . Th e statement s regardin g critica l groups , an d mor e generally , th e exhortation s fo r realis mi ncalculation s refe r t o th e analyse s carrie d ou t durin g th e establishment o f regulator y requirements . 3 ) Th e requeste dmodificatio no f th e tex t ha s bee nmade , bu t wit hrespec t t o non-occupationa l dose s only .P. 7

4 ) Althoug hth e statemen t ma yb e correct , thi s i s a matte r fo r decisio nbetwee nth e educationa l institutio nsponsorin g student s an d th e researc horganizatio ntha t accept s students , no t fo r thi s guidance . III . TECHNICA L CLARIFICATION S . General : Ke yreference s ar e included . 1 ) Th e summlr yi s intende dt o identif yonl yth e mos t importan t provision s o f th e proposal . 2 ) Th e requeste dclarificatio nha s bee nmade . Wit hrespec t t o implementation , th e onl ysignifican t implicatio ni s fo r occupationa l exposur e (femal e member s o f fligh t crew s durin g pregnancy) . Tha t matter , whic hi s unde r consideratio nby th e FAA , i s no t th e subjec t o f thes e recommendations . 3 ) Th e requeste d clarificatio nha s bee nadded . 4 ) Th e commen t i s correc t an dw e wil l attemp t t o mak e th e suggeste d correction . However , thi s commen t wa s receive ds o lat e (July , 1994 ) tha t i t ma yno t b e possibl e t o includ e i t i nth e manuscrip t submitte d fo r publication . 5 ) Th e sentenc e ha s bee nclarified . 6 ) W e disagree . Th e ris k estimate s i nBEI RV appl yt o lo w level s o f radiation , an dth e leve l o f uncertaint yi s reduced , fo r example , a s a resul t o f longe r follow-u p an d th e dos e reconstructio na t Hiroshim a an dNagasaki , whic hha s allowe d th e result s fro mthes e tw o epidemiologica l studie s t o b e combined . 7 ) Th e tex t ha s bee namende d t o reflec t th e origina l intent , whic hwa s t o refe r t o man-mad e uses , o f radiation . 8 ) W e disagree . I t i s EPA' s vie wtha t th e linea r dose-effec t relationshi p i s th e on e mos t likely , o f th e variou s candidates , t o represen t th e actua l situation , an dtha t thi s assumptio ni s therefor e no t simpl ytake na s a pruden t positio nfo r regulator ypurposes . 9 ) Th e citatio ni s correct ; i t refer s t o a previou s note . 10 ) Sinc e th e interagenc ygrou p di dno t addres s thi s issu e (a t leas t no t i nth e sens e o f proposin g languag e t o b e include d i nth e recommendations) , w e hav e responde d t o thi s concer n b yaddin g a questio nrequestin g publi c commen t o nth e nee d fo r a recommendatio naddressin g thi s specifi c issue . 11 ) Th e tex t ha s bee nadjuste dt o addres s thi s concern .P. 8

12 )

13 ) 14 ) 15 )

16 ] 17 ] 18 ] 19 ]

20 ] 21 ] 22 ]

• 23 ] 24 ] 25 ] 26 ] 27 ] 

### 28 ! Althoughth e commen t i s correct , i t i s no t necessaryt o adjus t th e text , becaus e th e cos t o f analysi s ca nb e include d i nth e judgmen t calle d fo r b yRecommendatio n1 . Commen t accepted . Commen t accepted . Th e consideratio no f suc hfactor s i s incorporate dthrough th e proces s o f optimization . Th e factor s note d(socia l an d economic ) ar e specificall yidentifie di nNot e 8 accompanying th e Recommendations . W e hav e no t incorporate dthes e word s int o Recommendatio n2 itsel f becaus e i t i s a ninadequat e characterizatio no f th e factor s tha t mayhav e t o b e considered . Th e commen t i s correct ; th e tex t ha s bee nmodified . Th e referenc e i s t o ICR P 60 . See , however , th e respons e t o commen t III.4 . Questio n7 ha s bee nadde dt o addres s thi s matter . W e believ e tha t th e desirabilit yo f avoiding lifetime risk s tha t ar e greate r tha non e i n10" 3 

### i s sel f evident , anddoe s no t requir e additiona l justification . W e disagree . Muc ho f EPA' s charg e i s attributabl e t o jus t th e poin t mad e b

yth e reference d sentence . Commen t accepted . Th e purpos e o f thes e example s i s t o compare th e propose dand curren t RPGs , whic har e expresse do na nannua l basis . Therefore , th e ris k i s expresse do nth e same time basis . Commen t accepted . . Th e tex t ha s bee nmodifie dt o addres s thi s concern . Commen t accepted . Commen t accepted . W e disagree , fo r th e reasons , among others, , cite d i nth e precedin g sentenc e of t 

### th e preamble . Rulemaking i s clearl yincluded , sinc e thi s i s probabl yth e mos t importan t o f th e decisio nprocesse s referre dt o i nth e text . Cf . citatio no f th e Administrativ e Procedure s Ac t i n th e following sentence . 29 ] Th e tex t ha s bee nmodifie dt o addres s thi s concern .