The EPAs Nuclear Plant Release-Public Exposure Rulemaking Draws American Nuclear Society Response

September 16, 2014- Public safety from the effects of exposure to radiation from normal nuclear power plant operations, and specifically not pertaining to nuclear accidents, is making news.

The American Nuclear Society (ANS) submitted a response to the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking during the comment period, which ended on August 3, 2014.

Information regarding the ANS response was summarized in a post, "Proposed Revisions to Nuclear Plant Release/Public Exposure Regulations: ANS Response to EPA," by nuclear engineer Jim Hopf.

The EPA did not propose making any changes to current regulations, but rather the agency intended to solicit public input on the so-called 40 CFR 190 regulations, which govern public exposure and release of radioactive materials resulting from normal nuclear power plant operations. The EPA asked if the 10 CFR 90 regulations from 1977 should be revised or updated, to which the ANS responded as follows:

• The EPA should move forward with a comprehensive rewrite of 40 CFR 190, due to the substantial advances that have occurred since 1977 in the understanding of the health effects of ionizing radiation, particularly in the area of low-level exposure.

• They noted that public doses from air travel and medical procedures have increased dramatically since 1977 (with medical procedures alone increasing the average public exposure to ionizing radiation by 200 mrem/year), and no detectable public health impacts have resulted from that increase in exposure.

• Also, the ANS said that as the negative public health and environmental impacts from fossil-fueled power generation have become more clear, there is more of a consensus that nuclear power has significant environmental benefits that may offset any negative impacts from public radiation exposures.

• ANS also stated that while 40 CFR 190 specifically applies to the nuclear power industry, the risk-modeling methodologies that form the bases of any requirements or limits should be consistent with those used to regulate other (non-nuclear-industry) sources of public radiation exposure.

The EPA also asked for the public to respond to the following six issues, each of which is followed by Hopf's summary of the ANS response:

1. Should the 40 CFR 190 public exposure limits be expressed in terms of (individual) dose or health risk?

ANS stated that an individual, total effective dose limit should be applied, as opposed to any kind of health risk limit.


2. If dose limits are used, should the dose calculation methodologies be updated, and if so how?

ANS stated that dosimetry methodologies should be based on "effective dose" and urged the EPA to use standards and methodologies that are consistent with other agencies, such as the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ANS also suggested using the effective dose definition used in ICRP Publication 103 (in its response to Issue 1), that document being one of the methodologies suggested by the EPA in its Issue 2 question.


3. Should release limits for specific isotopes be retained (in addition to public dose limits) and should release limits be applied industry-wide or to individual facilities?

ANS strongly recommended that the EPA revise 40 CFR 190 to discard any radionuclide release limits, as they are “duplicative, unnecessary and inconsistent with international practice.” ANS stated that limits on overall individual dose are sufficient to protect public health.

The reason for the radionuclide release limits currently in 40 CFR 190 was that in 1977, large-scale reprocessing was anticipated and there were concerns about long-term buildup (in the environment) from routine radionuclide releases from reprocessing facilities. This issue is far less significant now, given that the United States has not pursued reprocessing. The limits were also based on an extreme application of the linear no-threshold (LNT) theory, with very small doses to very large populations being used to predict significant health impact—something that is now considered questionable scientific practice by most experts.


4. Should a separate groundwater standard be added?

ANS argued against having any separate regulations or dose criteria for specific public exposure pathways, such as a separate groundwater standard. Instead, limiting total effective dose to an individual, from all pathways, is the best approach for protecting public health.


5. Should specific rules pertaining to spent fuel and waste storage be added?

ANS stated that there should be no specific EPA regulations related to storage of spent fuel and other forms of radioactive waste. Spent fuel and waste storage operations are already rigorously regulated and monitored by the NRC, making EPA involvement unnecessary. Any releases into the environment from storage operations would be covered by limits on overall public exposure (from all nuclear plant operations).

6. Should revised or new standards be added to address new or emerging technologies (such as new reactor types or fuel cycle technologies)?

With respect to potential new reactor and/or fuel cycle technologies, ANS reiterated its position that limits on overall exposure (total effective dose) for individual members of the public is the most rational and effective approach for protecting public health. After all, any health impacts will be a function of dose, regardless of the source of that dose. It is clear than any limits on public exposure should be technology-neutral.

Hopf closes his post with his own personal response to the EPA ANPR, which concurs with many of the same points made by the ANS.

Read Jim Hopf 's full ANSNuclearCafe.org post here.

Carnow Conibear and Associates is a demonstrated leader in the occupational and environmental health professions since 1975. To find out more, click here or call us at (800) 860-4486.