United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Comments And Response
To Comments
Response to Comments:
Amendment to Radionuclidb
NESHAPs (Part 40 CFR 61),
Subpart H and Subpart I
-------
40 CFR Part 61 EPA 402-R-02-001
National Emissions Standards
For Hazardous Air Pollutants
(Amendment to Incorporate ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999
in Subpart H and Subpart I)
Response to Comments: Amendment to Radionuclide
NESHAPs (Part 40 CFR 61), Subpart H and Subpart I
January 2002
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Radiation and Indoor Air
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
PREFACE
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is promulgating amendments to 40 CFR Part
61, Subpart H and Subpart I, as it Applies to the Standards for Emissions of Radionuclides Other
Than Radon from Department of Energy Facilities (Subpart H) and Standards for Radionuclide
Emissions from Federal Facilities Other Than Nuclear Regulatory Commission Licensees and Not
Covered by Subpart H (Subpart I). This Background Information Document (BID)-Response to
Comments: Amendments to Radionuclide NESHAPs (Part 40 CFR 61), Subpart H and Subpart I
has been prepared in support of the final rulemaking. It contains an introduction and general
comments on EPA's approach, laboratory research and development, including information on
sampling and certification and sampling statistics.
Copies of this BID, in whole or in part, are available to all interested persons. For
additional information, contact Eleanor Thornton-Jones at (202) 564-9773 or write to:
Ms. Robin Anderson, Project Officer
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Radiation and Indoor Air
Radiation Protection Division (6608J)
Center for Waste Management
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
-------
LIST OF PREPARERS
Several staff members from EPA's Office of Radiation and Indoor Air and the Office of
General Counsel contributed to the development and preparation of this BID:
Robin Anderson
Environmental Scientist
Project Officer
Betsy Forinash
Director, Center for Waste
Management
Reviewer
Keith Matthews
Attorney, Office of General
Counsel
Reviewer
Eleanor Thornton-Jones Program Analyst
Reviewer
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. INTRODUCTION 3
2. COMMENTS ON SAMPLING RADIONUCLIDE EMISSIONS
2.1 Clarify Applicable Source 5
2.2 Potential Emissions vs. Actual Emissions 7
2.3 QA Requirements 9
2.4 Use of "Parts" of ANSI N13.1-1999 10
2.5 Pipes and Small Vents vs. Stacks and Large Vents 12
2.6 Justify the Grandfather Clause 13
2.7 Accidental Releases 18
2.8 General Clarification 20
3. COMMENTS REGARDING OTHER ASPECTS OR
PRO VISIONS OF SUBPARTH 22
111
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
On October 31, 1989, EPA promulgated the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act to control radionuclide
emissions to the ambient air from a number of different source categories (54 FR 51654, December
15, 1989 (Docket A-94-60, Item II-A-1)). Subpart H of 40 CFR Part 61 defines facilities owned
and operated by the Department of Energy (DOE) as one of the source categories subject to a
NESHAP DOE administers many facilities, including government-owned, contractor-operated
facilities across the country. Some facilities conduct nuclear energy and weapons research and
development, some enrich uranium and produce plutonium for nuclear weapons and reactors, and
some process, store and dispose of radioactive wastes. As DOE facilities mature and complete
their mission, some facilities are now faced with decontamination and decommissioning.
In general, certain DOE facilities handle significant amounts of radioactive material and can
emit radionuclides into the air. Some of the DOE facilities emitting radionuclides are on large sites
covering hundreds of square miles in remote locations. Some of the smaller sites resemble typical
industrial facilities and are located in suburban areas. DOE facilities emit a wide variety of
radionuclides in various physical and chemical states. The purpose of Subpart H is to limit
radionuclide emissions (not including radon) from the stacks and vents at DOE facilities so that no
member of the public receives an effective dose equivalent of more than 10 millirem per year
(mrem/yr).
Subpart I sets forth the NESHAP for non-DOE federal facilities (excluding NRC
licensees). The facilities in this category can emit a variety of radionuclides. Individual facilities,
however, may emit only one or two radionuclides affecting only one or two pathways. The
purpose of Subpart I is to limit radionuclide emissions, including iodine, from the stacks and vents
at non-DOE federal facilities including Department of Defense (DOD) and other research and
industrial facilities so that no member of the public receives an effective dose equivalent of more
than 10 mrem/year. Also, emissions of iodine shall not exceed an effective dose equivalent of 3
mrem/year to any member of the public.
Both Subparts H and 1 require emissions sampling, monitoring and calculations to identify
compliance with the standard. Subpart H in section 62.93, and Subpart I in section 61.107, require
continuous sampling and monitoring of radionuclide emissions at all release points that have a
potential to discharge radionuclides into the air that could cause an effective dose equivalent in
excess of 1% of the standard. In evaluating the potential of a release point to discharge
radionuclides into the air, the estimated radionuclide release rates shall be based on the discharge
of the effluent stream that would result if all pollution control equipment did not exist, but the
facility's operations were otherwise normal. Subparts H and I currently incorporate by reference
ANSI N13.1-1969, "Guide to Sampling Airborne Radioactive Materials in Nuclear Facilities"
(Docket A-94-60, Item II-D-1).
Page 1
-------
However, in 1999, the American National Standards Institute revised ANSI N13.1-1 1969
to "ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999: Sampling and Monitoring Releases of Airborne Radioactive
Substances from the Stacks and Ducts of Nuclear Facilities" (published as a supplement in the
Health Physics Journal, May 1999) (Docket A-94-60, Item II-D-3).
A proposed amendment to incorporate ANSI/HPS Nl3.1-1999 into Subparts H and I was
published in the May 9, 2000, Federal Register (65 FR 29934) (A-94-60, Item III-A-3). In
developing this proposal, EPA reviewed the ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 standard, conducted
comparative analysis of ANSI/HPS Nl 3.1-1999 with ANSI N13.1-1969 and Subpart H
(Subparts H and I contain essentially the same language), held discussions with DOE and
members of the ANSI work group, and reviewed and analyzed supporting materials. Based
on this analysis, the proposed amendments required ANSI/HPS Nl3.1-1999 to be used for
sampling any newly constructed source and any source undergoing modification, subject to
continuous sampling.
The comment period for this proposed amendment initially lasted 30 days (from May 9,
2000 to June 9, 2000). EPA received a request for a public hearing, which was held on July 12,
2000. The comment period was extended as a result of this public hearing to August 14, 2000,
and subsequently to October 6, 2000, after a request for this extension was made (65 FR 21198)
(A-94-60, Item III-A-3). All comments were received before October 6, 2000, and were
reviewed, analyzed and fully considered in developing the final amendment.
Comments concerning the proposed amendment were received from DOE, the Department
of Defense (DoD), members of the ANSI working group that developed the revised sampling
standard, environmental groups, various State departments of health and environmental protection
and private citizens. The most significant issue raised in the comments was EPA's proposal to
"grandfather" existing sources (i.e., not require upgrades to existing sampling systems). However,
detailed responses to all comments received can be found in this document.
Page 2
-------
2. COMMENTS REGARDING PROPOSED RULE
2.1 Clarify Applicable Source
2.1.1 The proposed rule makes use of the phrase "After October 1, 2000, for any newly
constructed source...". This phrase is difficult to interpret because it is not clear how it applies to
sources already under construction. The phrase could readily be replaced by the phrase "any new
source." The term "new source" is defined at 40 CFR 61, section 61.02 as follows: "New source
means any stationary source, the construction or modification of which is commenced after the
publication in the Federal Register of proposed national emission standards for hazardous air
pollutants which will be applicable to such source." (LLNL, DOE HQ, Los Alamos (docket
numbers A-94-60, II-D-18, Il-D-15 and II-D-13, respectively)
Response: EPA agrees that it is preferable to use defined terms. The regulatory language is
revised to the term new source, taken from section 61.02 as "any stationary source, the
construction or modification of which is commenced after the publication in the FEDERAL
REGISTER of proposed national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants which will
be applicable to such source."
2.1.2 A definition for "new source" should be added under section 61.91. For example, "a new
source is a source for which physical construction begins after October 1, 2000." (Oak Ridge,
docket number A-94-60, II-D-17)
Response: The definition for "new source" currently exist in section 61.02 as "any
stationary source, the construction or modification of which is commenced after the
publication in the FEDERAL REGISTER of proposed national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants which will be applicable to such source." EPA will retain the
existing definition for new source.
2.1.3 The amendment applies to modifications resulting in an "effective dose equivalent to be
greater than 1% of the standard." However, the application of this language to new sources is not
as clear. In particular, please clarify whether this language applies to any newly constructed source
or only to a newly constructed source "resulting in the effective dose equivalent to be greater than
1% of the standard." (Los Alamos, DOE HQ, docket numbers A-94-60, II-D-13 and II-D-15,
respectively)
Response: The final rules apply to newly constructed sources "resulting in the effective dose
equivalent to be greater than 1% of the standard. Refer to section 61.93(e) and section
Page 3
-------
61.107(e) : "Radionuclide emission measurements in conformance with the requirements of
paragraph (b) or (c) of this section shall be made at all release points which have a potential
to discharge radionuclides into the air in quantities which could cause an effective dose
equivalent in excess of 1% of the standard."
2.1.4 Sections 61.93(b)(l)(ii) and 61.93(b)(2)(ii) now states "for any newly constructed source
and any source undergoing modification resulting in the effective dose equivalent to be greater
than 1% of the standard as prescribed in Sec 61.92" should be changed to state "for any newly
constructed source with new ventilation or sampling systems and any source undergoing
modification to the ventilation or sampling systems resulting in an effective dose equivalent in
excess of 1% of the standard as prescribed in 61.92" (Oak Ridge, docket number A-94-60,
II-D-17)
Response: The amendment language in section 61.93(c) is consistent with the language in
section 61.93(b) and section 61.107(b). These sections do not specify which part of the
sampling system is being modified. Any source undergoing modification, whether to the
process or the ventilation, resulting in the effective dose equivalent to be greater than 1% of
the standard (as prescribed in section 61.92) is required to meet the ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999
standard.
2.1.5 We suggest that ANSI N13.1-1969 be allowed on a case-by-case basis for certain sources of
short duration such as cleanup of old tanks, buildings, and other types of remediation. Most of
these projects are of short duration and do not lend themselves to the method of sampling
prescribed by the proposed standard. Also for some of our decontamination and decommissioning
activities, which are short term, we suggest implementation of the new standard only where there
are significant modifications to the stack configuration. (DOE HQ, Oak Ridge, docket number A-
94-60, II-D-15 and II-D-17)
Response: Subparts H and I do not differentiate between sampling methodologies for short
term and long term sources. The comments have not explained why or how ANSI/HPS
N13.1-1999 is unsuitable for projects of short duration. Further, our review has not
identified technical or economic hurdles that necessarily would preclude the use of
ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 overall for short term sources. EPA does recognize, however, that in
some situations, it may be impractical to use required sampling systems. Therefore, the
existing rule language, at section 61.93(d), allows the use of "alternative effluent flow rate
measurement procedures or site selection and sample extraction procedures..." provided
they are appropriately documented and approved in advance by EPA. To obtain such
approval, DOE would need to justify why the ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 requirements are
impractical and that the use of ANSI N13.1-1969 clearly will not significantly underestimate
Page 4
-------
emissions. Thus, the existing rule (section 61.93(d)) already provides monitoring flexibility
on a case by case basis as requested.
2.1.6 The criteria for a significant modification (any modification resulting in an EDE > 0.1
mrem/yr) does not give a means of determining what would constitute a significant modification
for major sources (whose emissions already result in an EDE > 0.1 mrem/yr). (Oak Ridge, DOE
HQ, Brookhaven, docket numbers A-94-60, II-D-17, II-D-15 and II-D-14, respectively)
Response: EPA has not defined a "significant" modification. If after modification, a source
becomes or continues to be a major source (i.e., release points which have a potential to
discharge radionuclides into the air in quantities which could cause an effective dose
equivalent in excess of 1% of the standard), then the requirements of section 61.93(c) and
thus ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 will apply. EPA does recognize that certain routine activities do
not constitute modifications. In cases where modifications are not expected to affect
releases, ventilation, or sampling systems, DOE may choose to request that another
sampling system be allowed under section 61.93(d). See also Response to Comment 2.1.4.
2.1.7 If the proposed revision stands, a flow chart or table would make identifying the applicable
requirements for an existing or newly constructed or modified stack more efficient. (DOE HQ,
docket number A-94-60, II-F-2)
Response: The rule language has been modified from the proposed rule to clarify what
requirements apply to existing and to new or modified stacks. For new stacks, the
requirements of ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 will apply to sampling (section 61.93(c)). For
existing stacks, the previous sampling methods - based on Appendix A and ANSI N13.1-
1969 - remain acceptable; the use of ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 is also allowed for existing
sources (section 61.93(b)).
2.1.8 The annual NESHAPs reported an effective dose equivalent of 0.13 mrem/yr to the public
for 1999, and therefore, BNL is at/close to the threshold limit (0.10 mrem/yr) below which only
periodic sampling is required for NESHAPs compliance. However, BNL has implemented
continuous stack sampling and monitoring at the present time to protect the public and the
environment as BNL is just above the threshold limit (without rounding the significant figures).
Any new or modification to ventilation and/or stack system in the future must be evaluated for
NESHAPs compliance. (Brookhaven, docket number A-94-60, II-D-14)
Response: Any new or modified sources with potential to emit greater than 1% of the
standard must be upgraded to meet ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 for NESHAPs compliance. The
application of any of the provisions in the final rule is based on potential to emit, not actual
emissions.
Page 5
-------
2.2 Potential Emissions vs. Actual Emissions
2.2.1 The wording of the fourth paragraph of Regulatory History and the introductory sentences of
61.93 (b)(l)(ii) and 61.93 (b)(2)(ii) leave the impression that of the new sources, only those with
actual emissions exceeding 1% of the standard would have to meet the regulation for continuous
sampling or monitoring. This would contradict what is said elsewhere in the regulation where the
criterion for continuous sampling/monitoring was based on potential unabated emissions. Better
wording is needed to clarify the intent. (ANSI committee, DOE HQ, Los Alamos, Washington
State Department of Health, docket numbers A-94-60, II-D-12, II-d_15, II-D-13 and IV-D-23,
respectively)
Response: The final amendment has been clarified and is consistent with the original
standard. For example, in Subpart H, section 61.93(1) states: "To determine whether a
release point is subject to the emission measurement requirements of paragraph (b) or (c) of
this section, it is necessary to evaluate the potential for radionuclide emissions for that
release point. In evaluating the potential of a release point to discharge radionuclides into
the air for the purposes of this section, the estimated radionuclide release rates shall be
based on the discharge of the effluent stream that would result, if all pollution control
equipment did not exist, but the facilities operations were otherwise normal.
2.2.2 The proposed rule makes use of the phrase "any source undergoing modification resulting in
the effective dose equivalent to be greater than 1% of the standard as prescribed in section 61.92."
This phrase is very difficult to interpret. The reference to section 61.92 is a reference to the
overall dose standard of 10 mrem/y, which is a calculated value that includes emission controls.
However, section 61.93(b)(4)(i) and section 61.93(b)(4)(ii) state emissions measurements shall be
made of discharges that would cause a dose in excess of 1% of the standard and that the effluent
stream should be evaluated as if all pollution control equipment did not exist. It is unclear how
modified source emissions are to be evaluated, with or without controls.
We believe that the dose that triggers the implementation of the new ANSI standard should be
calculated including emission controls. The alternative interpretation would require all existing
monitored facilities to upgrade to the new standard upon any modification. We suggest the
following wording for section 61.93(b)(l)(ii) and at section 61.93(b)(2)(ii): "For any source
undergoing modification resulting in the effective dose equivalent greater than 1% of the standard
prescribed in section 61.92 as determined including all reductions provided by pollution control
equipment, or for any new source." (LLNL, DOE HQ, Los Alamos, docket numbers A-94-60, II-
D-18, II-D-15 and II-D-13, respectively)
Response: The intent of these amendments is to be consistent with the current standards.
Page 6
-------
The current standards, Subparts H and I, require evaluating estimated radionuclide release
rate as if all pollution control equipment did not exist (refer to section 61.93(f) and section
61.107(f). Therefore, the dose that triggers the implementation of the new ANSI standard
for new or modified sources (modifications resulting in the effective dose equivalent to be
greater than 1% of the standard as prescribed in section 61.92) is calculated assuming no
emission controls.
2.3 QA Requirements
2.3.1 40 CFR 61.93(b)(2)(i)(D) and (ii)(D). These paragraphs require two different QA
programs, one for existing sources and one for new or modified sources. We suggest that only
one set, Appendix B, Method 114, apply. It provides an outline of a quality assurance plan, and
would also enable facilities with compliant QA programs to continue operating. The ANSI quality
assurance specification seems to have the elements of the Method 114 outline but more detail.
(DOE HQ, Los Alamos, docket numbers A-94-60, II-D-15 and II-D-13)
Response: The QA requirements must be consistent with the respective ANSI standard. For
ANSI N13.1-1969, the QA requirements of Appendix B Method 114 are used. For
ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999, the QA requirements found in this standard are used. We believe
this is appropriate to ensure full compliance with the applicable ANSI methodology.
2.3.2 Section 61.93 (b)(l) (i and ii) ( C and D) - The distinction between paragraphs C and D is
unclear. Consequently, the differing requirements are confusing. These two paragraphs would be
clearer if combined. Also, Method 114 cites the old version of the standard and could result in
some misunderstanding. (ANSI committee, docket number A-94-60, II-D-12)
Response: section 61.93 (b)(l)(i) or (ii) does not contain a part D and Appendix B, Method
114, Section 2.1, has been updated to cite ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 in Section 2.1.
2.3.3 The importance of performing the maintenance and inspections set forth in ANSI/HPS
N13.1-1999, clause 7.5, Maintenance and inspection requirements, cannot be overstated (Why
would EPA grandfather an out-of-date standard that does not require inspections and maintenance
that would help insure that quality data are being collected?). (Washington State Department of
Health and ANSI committee, docket numbers A-94-60, IV-D-23 and IV-D-3 respectively)
Response: EPA agrees that the inspection requirements in ANSI 13.1-1999 provide for
greater assurance that monitoring systems are operating as intended. As suggested by
several comments, such assurances are important regardless of the sampling methodology
Page 7
-------
being used. In response to the comments, the final rule makes more rigorous inspection
requirements applicable to all sources by including updated requirements in the QA sections
of Appendix B, Method 114 that are substantially similar to the criteria found in Table 5 -
"Summary of Maintenance, Calibration, and Field Check Requirements" of ANSI/HPS
N13.1-1999.
2.4 Use of "Parts" of ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999
2.4.1 Many methods within ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 could be useful to facilities attempting to
comply with 40 CFR 61. However, the proposed language provides disincentives for facilities to
utilize these methods. If the EPA wishes to facilitate the use of the various technologies,
techniques and procedures identified in the ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 methodology, more flexibility
is necessary. As written, facilities that are unable to comply with all of the requirements of
ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 for unavoidable reasons, such as stack configuration, will be forced not to
adopt those sections of ANSI/HPS Nl 3.1-1999 with which they can comply. (Los Alamos) Also,
there are existing sampling systems that meet the revised standard. (ANSI committee, docket
number A-94-60, II-D-13)
Response: EPA would like to encourage use of ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 techniques for
existing stacks. Therefore, ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 is approved in full as an alternate
methodology. We recognize there may be situations where some portions of ANSI/HPS
N13.1-1999 can be applied appropriately to existing stacks without complete conversion.
However, it is difficult to predict the situations, so specific provisions are not made in the
final amendment. Instead, a facility may use a part of ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 on existing
sources with prior approval from the appropriate EPA region. This would be treated as an
alternative methodology under section 61.93(d).
2.4.2 "A. Justification of Proposal." In the referenced November 1994 letter from Nichols, EPA,
to DOE a number of conditions are set forth for the use of the shrouded probe that are not
included in the ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999. EPA should make clear in the amended regulation that
for all single point sampling systems installed in DOE facilities after the effective date, only
ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 will apply. (DOE HQ, docket number A-94-60, II-D-15)
Response: The November 1994 memo from EPA to DOE outlines the requirements for the
use of the shrouded probe as a tool for single point representative samples. These are the
same criteria outlined in ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999. Nevertheless, for all single point sampling
systems installed in DOE facilities after the effective date, only ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 will
apply.
PageS
-------
2.4.3 The proposed language is still not clear on what sections of ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 are to
be applied. This is critical because many aspects of ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 go well beyond just
the incorporation/utilization of single point sampling.
Does the EPA intend that DOE facilities comply with the many additional requirements of the
ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 guidance, such as
Installing in-line, real time monitoring with alarms for some sources (4.3.1),
-Designing sampling or monitoring systems so that "accidental or off-normal conditions can
be sampled or detected" (4.3.2) and
-Ensuring sources with PEDE > 0.001 mrem (i.e., PIC I, II, and III) meet "all requirements
for sample extraction location, instrument calibration and maintenance, sample handling..." (4.4).
If so, this seems to far exceed the EPA's intent for adoption of this ANSI standard. Most
notably, when discussing the purpose of the ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 standard (see section B of the
Preamble), only the use of single point sampling is specifically identified as a significant
improvement in the standard. (Los Alamos, docket number A-94-60," II-D-13)
Response: It is our intent with the amendment of Subparts H and I to include all of
ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 where outlined in the final amendment.
In addition to single point sampling, other principal features of ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 are:
(1) Suitability of a sampling location based on specification of the uniformity of the velocity
and contaminant concentration profiles (2) An acceptable level of flow swirl (3) A
maximum relative level of contaminant at any location across the cross section of the stack
or duct (4) Performance criteria for an acceptable probe (5) A numerical criterion on the
minimum fraction of aerosol particles that penetrate the sampling system from the stack gas
to the collector or analyzer (6) A statement that the number of bends in the sample
transport line shall be minimal (7) Periodic checks and maintenance must be performed and
(8) A quality assurance program that covers personnel, equipment, and data handling.
EPA's standards establish a threshold (>1% of the standard) above which ANSI/HPS
N13.1-1999 must be applied. For lower levels, application of ANSI is not required by EPA
but may be desirable. See also Response to Comments 2.4.4.
2.4.4 At some point there needs to be guidance on what parts of the standard are to be used, such
as the PIC categories vs. the old "major/minor" categorization. (Oak Ridge, docket number A-94-
60, II-D-17)
Page 9
-------
Response: All of ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 is to be used where required. Concerning Table 2
of the PIC categories in ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999, it is stated in ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 that
"There is no one graded approach that would be appropriate for all facilities. The fractions
of allowable dose limits proposed in table 2 are illustrative, and therefore shall be considered
superseded by regulatory requirements. They exemplify how a dose limit standard can be
associated with a graded approach to planning for sampling..." The EPA requirement to
calculate the dose based on potential to discharge remains unchanged, and the criteria for
continuous monitoring is unchanged.
2.4.5 Section 61.93 (b)(2)(i)(A) (first sentence) - The method used for selecting flow measuring
sites does not have to be the same as that used for selecting sample withdrawal points. There are
existing stacks that meet ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999. It would be better to recognize this by allowing
a choice of using either the "8 and 2" rule of Method 1 or the preferred ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999.
Of course, we feel that the "2.5 and 0.5" alternative rule of Method 1 should be avoided, unless
good mixing is demonstrated as defined in ANSI/HPS Nl3.1 -1999. (ANSI committee, docket
number A-94-60, II-D-12)
Response: If existing stacks would like to use other methods not cited in the regulation, then
in accordance with section 61.93(d), a facility owner or operator may use alternative effluent
flow rate measurement procedures or site selection and sample extraction procedures
provided that prior approval is received from EPA.
2.5 Pipes and Small Vents vs. Stacks and Large Vents
40 CFR 61.93(b)(l)(i)(A)and (B). Since the sources treated in these two paragraphs are
independent of each other, the flow measurement methodologies for pipes and small vents should
not be based on the methodology used for stacks and large vents. We recommend rewording 40
CFR 61.93 (b)(l)(i)(B) for pipes and small vents as follows:
"Reference Method 2 A to Part 60 of this chapter or ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 "Sampling and
Monitoring Releases of Airborne Radioactive Substances from Stacks and Ducts of Nuclear
Facilities" (incorporated by reference see section 61.18) shall be used to determine velocity and
volumetric flow rates for pipes and small vents." (DOE HQ, Los Alamos, docket number A-94-
60, II-D-15 and II-D-13, respectively)
Response: The current regulation, Subpart H, section 61.93(b)(l)(i) and (ii) state:
"Reference Method 2 of appendix A to part 60 shall be used to determine velocity and
volumetric flow rates for stacks and large vents. Reference Method 2A of appendix A to
part 60 shall be used to measure flow rates through pipes and small vents." The amendment
Page 10
-------
of Subpart H keeps this same consistency for existing sources: Use Reference Method 2 of
appendix A to part 60 for stacks and large vents and use Reference Method 2A of appendix
A for pipes and small vents. The amendment of Subpart H simply includes the requirement
for using ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 for new and modified sources to determine velocity and
volumetric flow rates for stacks, large vents, pipes and small vents. If a facility feels that it is
impractical to measure the effluent flow rate with the stated references, then in accordance
with section 61.93(d), a facility may request to use alternative effluent flow rate
measurement procedures.
2.6 Justify The Grandfather Clause
2.6.1 The proposed blank exception (exclude all existing systems from a requirement to upgrade)
is unnecessary and unacceptable. The current stack monitoring systems are now known to be
deficient in monitoring the very category of radioactive effluent emissions capable of causing the
greatest public doses if left undetected. It is interesting that the only supporting documentation
offered in the Preamble is DOE correspondence regarding its own position, rather than an
externally developed and peer reviewed assessment. Furthermore, it is unacceptable for EPA to
consider grandfathering all existing ANSI N13.1-1969 systems because of cost when the cost of
grandfathering is minuscule compared with the DOE budget and small even by other standards.
Evidence is needed to support upgrading is costly. One of EPA's role is to protect public health
and welfare. Therefore, it is necessary to explain how EPA factored in those costs when it decided
to grandfather existing systems because of cost considerations.
A better option is to apply the exception to site-specific, stack specific issues where explicit
consideration of technical complexities, cost, or a concrete timetable for the total elimination of the
source through D&D, replacement or retirement is justified in a detailed proposal to the
appropriate regional EPA office. This option would eliminate the proposed combined
requirements of ANSI N13.1-1969 and ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999. Also note that it has been
possible to carry out an upgrade without complete removal of systems, without extensive
retrofitting of monitoring devices and lines in existing stacks, without in-situ tests and flow
measurements, and without rework of the stacks. It was accomplished by utilizing an ingenious
add-on generic mixer design in which the entire requirement for aerosol mixing, single point
sampling, and extraction to a sample collection filter is met in a single add-on mixer/sampling unit
designed, tested, and built in a shop without touching the facility systems, and then attached as an
extension to existing stack without disturbing any of the internal, potentially contaminated
components. Perhaps the generic mixer/monitor technology demonstrated by Texas A&M
University will not apply in every case, but it can be applied, in one form or another, to an
astoundingly large number of existing stacks where the more invasive approach is impractical.
Nevertheless, in keeping with the ANSI N13.1-1969 standard, it is therefore incumbent on
EPA to justify the inherent risk of avoidable public exposure in excess of the 10 mrem/yr limit that
follows from their blanket exemption of existing stacks. ANSI N13.1-1969 contains only
recommendations, preferences, and guidance. The lack of clear requirements was one motive for
Page 11
-------
revising the standard. (ANSI Committee, Washington State Department of Health, docket numbers
A-94-60, II-D-12, IV-D-3 and IV-D-23)
Response: The following outlines the incorporation of the new ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999
standard into Subparts H and I:
1. Radionuclide emission rates from existing point sources, where the potential to
emit exceeds 0.1 mrem/yr, will be measured in accordance with the procedure set forth in
ANSI N13.1-1969 or other procedure for which EPA has granted prior approval. Existing
sources are allowed the option of upgrading sampling systems to meet the requirements of
ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999.
2. Radionuclide emission rates from new point sources as defined in Subpart A
(including modified sources) where the potential to emit exceeds 0.1 mrem/yr will be
measured using the procedure set forth in ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 or other procedure for
which EPA has granted prior approval.
3. To ensure optimum operation of all sampling systems, Appendix B, Method 114
will be updated to provide more specific and more rigorous inspection requirements.
In addition, EPA plans to pursue an MOU with DOE which would provide a mechanism for
EPA and DOE to work together to identify and retrofit existing sources where they may be
significantly improved by the use of the ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 standard.
EPA chose this approach after conducting an extensive research and investigative
effort to ensure proper and adequate incorporation of the ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 standard.
This effort included an independent analysis of ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999, solicitation of
analysis from all interested parties, examination of current effective dose equivalent (EDE)
to the maximally exposed individual (MEI) for major sources and consideration of cost to
upgrade existing sources.
EPA is not aware of any data that indicate that the compliance status of any source is
likely to be changed by the adoption of the requirement of ANSI/HPS N 13.1-1999. EPA's
analysis included an effort to solicit field data pertaining to the performance of ANSI/HPS
N13.1-1999. Despite multiple requests to experts in this area (including commentators), we
did not find such data available and so did not discuss it in the proposed rule. Comments
on the proposal, including claims that regulatory violations or health threats might result
from not upgrading existing stacks, emphasized the potential value of field data in assessing
the real world implications of changes to sampling systems. However, of all those solicited,
only DOE provided data allowing a direct comparison of ANSI N13.1-1969 and ANSI/HPS
N13.1-1999. The DOE sent data from Los Alamos National Laboratory, Savannah River
Site and Rocky Flats which indicated that for stacks retrofitted with a shrouded probe, the
Page 12
-------
representativeness of the sample did not change with the use of the multiple nozzle rake
compared to the shrouded probe. In particular, the Savannah River Site (SRS) has installed
single point sampling systems on over 40 radionuclide air emission sources since 1996:
"A shrouded probe was installed on these sources as part of
upgrades done for operational purposes. Both the ANSI/HPS
N13.1-1999 suggested inventory method and the Appendix D to
40 CFR 61 method have been used to evaluate the potential to
emit radionuclide (PEDE). Therefore, they allow for direct
comparison of results using the ANSI N13.1-1969 and
ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 methodologies. The actual measured
emissions both before and after the upgrade to single point
sampling are on the order of 0.00001 mrem/yr. These sources
are considered major sources which represent a wide range
and number of DOE sources across its facilities. Based on
these 41 sources, during normal operations, there is no
noticeable difference in the before and after alpha and
beta/gamma data. Therefore, the installation of the single
point sampling systems did not significantly affect the sample
results and would not significantly affect compliance with
Subpart H."(Docket Number A-94-60, IV-D-22)
Additional information affecting the language of the final amendment to Subparts H
and I was the evaluation of recent reported effective dose equivalent (EDE) to the
maximally exposed individual (MEI) at DOE facilities. Twenty seven DOE facilities
submitted Subpart H reports to EPA headquarters before June 30"' for the year 2000. No
facilities were out of compliance. Four of these facilities (15%) reported an EDE to the
nearest MEI to be greater than 1% of the 10 mrem/year standard while 23 facilities (85%)
reported a total EDE to the nearest MEI to be less than 10% of the 10 mrem/year standard.
The highest EDE came from the Fernald facility at 1 mrem. Fernald is in the process of
decontamination and decommissioning (D&D) and removing material from the Waste Pits
for treatment and disposal.
Upon examination of the Hanford facility (EPA picked Hanford for this particular
discussion because it is one of DOE's largest facilities) year 2000 report, it was noted that
there were 26 major point sources. (A point source is designated as major when its
potential maximum emissions after all treatment controls have been hypothetically
removed can cause the highest potential exposure to receive greater than 0.1 mrem/yr
EDE.) The reported EDE for the MEI ranged from 7.4X10 u to 4.5X102 mrem/yr. These
reported doses support EPA's conclusion reached during the proposal development and
discussed earlier that there is likely no implications from the changes to the past and future
compliance of DOE facilities to go to a performance based standard.
Page 13
-------
Finally, another issue for the upgrade of existing sources to meet the ANSI/HPS
N13.1-1999 standard was the cost associated with such an effort. EPA received cost
estimates from both DOE and the ANSI work group (A-94-60, Docket Numbers IV-D-7
and IV-D-3). These cost estimates to upgrade an existing system ranged from $65,000 to
$2.5 million. Because of the widely divergent cost estimates, EPA sought an independent
opinion from a party with no involvement in these amendments. The EPA contacted
Andersen Instruments, Inc., a well established company responsible for the design,
construction and placement of the shrouded probe for several DOE facilities to determine
the cost for upgrading existing sampling systems to meet the ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999
standard. The following statement was presented to EPA by Andersen Instruments, Inc.:
"Any existing sampling system even though it meets the multi-
point criteria of US EPA Method 1 and Appendix A of
ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 must, at a minimum, conduct the
single-point sampling qualification testing. Andersen
Instruments feels this task can be accomplished at a cost of
$5,000 per stack. Since May 1996, over 45 sources have been
upgraded from the ANSI type isokinetic sample probe to a
single point sampling probe utilizing the shrouded probe
technology. The actual cost for installing a shrouded probe
and a simple sample box with manual flow control was
$100,000 per source. Andersen Instruments feels this cost is
accurate if this cost includes labor, engineering and hardware."
(Docket Number A-94-60, IV-C-2)
As for the generic mixer that the commentator mentioned, one was used at Rocky
Flats. According to the EPA representative for Rocky Flats, it appeared that installing this
generic mixer was not a simple exercise. This generic mixer had to be constructed to suit
the design of the building as well as the selected discharge line. Therefore, this generic
mixer was so large that before it could be hoisted to sit on top of a three story building, the
building itself had to be evaluated for its structural integrity and pads were then added to
support this generic mixer. The time to complete this exercise was well over a year and the
cost was over $100,000. This experience indicates that even the use of an add on mixer may
not reduce the cost of upgrading existing sampling systems. EPA concludes that it is not
feasible to assume that the generic mixer could be used in widespread practice.
These are some of the major factors that were considered when determining how to
implement the ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 standard. ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 was published in
the May 1999 Health Physics Journal and incorporates the advances in sampling and
monitoring methodology over 30 years. To date, EPA knows of no data showing
simultaneous sampling by multiple point rakes and shrouded probes which would lead to
different compliance conclusions. Coupling this lack of field performance data with the
approximate cost to upgrade an existing source of at least $100,000, EPA does not believe it
Page 14
-------
is justifiable - on public health or economic grounds - to require that existing sources be
upgraded to meet ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999.
EPA acknowledges the extensive effort in creating ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999, an
innovative performance based standard for sampling and monitoring stacks and vents and
concurs that a small number of existing sources may benefit from upgrading to meet this
standard. In those instances, EPA encourages DOE to make the necessary changes to
ensure further safety and protection for our health and the natural environment. EPA is
considering pursuing an MOU with DOE which would provide appropriate language
specific to the needs for these existing sources which should be upgraded to meet the
ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 standard.
As noted above, field data has not shown that there is a significant difference in
sampling results between ANSI N13.1-1969 and ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 systems. Similarly,
no data has been provided to support a contention that existing systems in compliance with
ANSI N13.1-1969 consistently underestimate emissions (or falsely show compliance). Data
provided by some commentaries did, however, highlight instances where systems were
discovered to be degraded. Based on these examples, EPA saw a need to ensure that all
sampling systems are functioning as intended and designed. For ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999
systems, such assurance is provided by the inspection requirements in this standard. For
ANSI N13.1-1969 systems, we determined that more stringent inspection requirements
were needed to augment existing QA procedures. Therefore, 40 CFR Part 61 Appendix B
Method 114 - Test Methods for Measuring Radionuclide Emissions from Stationary
Sources shall now include under section 4. Quality Assurance Methods, section 4.7,
requirements for specific components of the sampling system to be checked at least
annually. This section is similar to, and based on, requirements outlined in ANSI/HPS
N13.1-1999.
2.6.2 The amendment is unclear on the disposition of existing sampling systems that are not
compliant with either version of ANSI N13.1, yet there may be significant existing source with
existing systems that will not be evaluated against either version of the standard in a consistent
manner across the country and the DOE complex (ANSI committee, docket number A-94-60, II-
D-12)
Response: According to section 61.93(b), existing systems that have a potential to emit
greater than 1% of the standard must comply with ANSI N13.1-1969. Failure to do
subjects such facilities to enforcement action by EPA. We have included more stringent
inspections requirements to provide assurance that all existing systems function as intended
and remain in compliance with Subpart H. These systems also can be upgraded to meet
the ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 standard since this standard is approved as an alternative
methodology.
Page 15
-------
2.6.3 Where is the evidence that within a year or two DOE will have eliminated all stacks
grandfathered under this proposed rulemaking? A "strong effort" at one facility (e.g., Rocky Flats
Decommissioning) should not be counted in deciding whether existing facility stacks at another
DOE site (which may be kept in operation for decades into the future) are being adequately
monitored without upgrade. (ANSI committee, docket number A-94-60, II-D-12)
Response: There are several sites currently undergoing clean-up that will likely not be
subject to Subpart H in the future after decommissioning. Some of these facilities are the
Weldon Spring Site, Maywood Interim Storage Site, Middlesex Sampling Plant, Niagara
Falls Storage Site, Latty Avenue Properties, Wayne Site and the Colonie Site. In 1989,
when radionuclide NESHAPs was promulgated, there were 40 DOE facilities subject to
Subpart H. At present, there are 32 DOE facilities subject to Subpart H, a reduction since
1989, due to changes in the DOE mission. This trend is likely to continue. Nevertheless, we
considered the commentator's concern that it may not be reasonable to assume that many
stacks will be decommissioned in the future. Based on this concern and others, EPA re-
examined its justification for "grandfathering" existing stacks. Even without considering
the lifetime of a stack, EPA has determined that requiring upgrades of all subject existing
stacks is not justified because of high costs and little demonstrated improvement in real-
world performance.
We agree with the commentator that existing stacks should be monitored to ensure
they perform as intended and continue to meet applicable ANSI (either 1969 or 1999)
sampling requirements. Therefore, Appendix B Method 114, Quality Assurance Methods,
has been updated to include section 4.7. This section states: "Regular maintenance,
calibration and field checks shall be performed for sampling system in use by satisfying
Table 2: Maintenance, Calibration and Field Check Requirements." Incorporation of this
section into Appendix B Method 114 ensures components of the sampling systems are
inspected at least on an annual basis to prevent clogging and possible misrepresentation of
the sample. This table is based on "Table 5 - Summary of Maintenance, Calibration and
Field Check Requirements" found in ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999.
2.6.4 Where the draft mentions (about the top of page 4) for "new facilities or those being
significantly modified" it reads "The standard describes a low cost, low maintenance measurement
system with superior performance and one that is easy to operate." That isn't necessarily so, even
at new construction projects. The testing and sampling site qualification requirements could (and
probably will) be comparatively expensive. (Oak Ridge, docket number A-94-60, II-D-17)
Where continuous sampling systems do not already exist, we anticipate that the costs to
design and install an ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 compliant system would be comparable to the
costs for a system to meet ANSI N13.1-1969 requirements. The situations thus present an
opportunity to adopt and use more modern, performance-based sampling methods. EPA
has determined that the requirement for new and upgraded stacks to comply with
ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 is therefore reasonable.
Page 16
-------
2.7 Accidental Releases
Low probability, high consequence 'accident' events in DOE nuclear facility stacks are part of the
motivation for the extraordinary efforts of the ANSI N13.1 committee to correct the serious
deficiencies of the old standard's technology and methodology recommendations. EPA has gone
on record as stating that DOE facilities do not have to design their monitoring systems in
anticipation of'accident' conditions. We believe this decision is implicitly reflected in the present
proposed rulemaking that would allow DOE to continue to operate nuclear facility stacks that are
monitored by systems designed against 30-year old standards, now known to be incapable of
providing adequate performance in high risk stacks (Why would EPA not include loss of air
pollution control accidents, which leaves some users with the impression that larger particles are
of no concern? Also, in many conceivable accidents, there could be significant emissions of
particulate matter that would not be sampled by ANSI N13.1-1969 apparatus, so should not EPA
have a requirement to cover such situations?). (ANSI committee, A-94-60, IV-D-3)
Response: The emissions limitations in Subparts H and I apply to all releases, whether
incident to normal operations or accidental. Therefore, EPA examined whether certain
facets of ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 could help prevent or reduce accidental releases of
radioactivity from regulated facilities. Oftentimes, accidental releases bypass control
equipment; as a result, emissions may have particles sizes associated with the aerosol
upstream of the control equipment, rather than that typically encountered downstream of
control equipment. These larger particles can often be sampled more effectively using the
shrouded probes encouraged by ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999. For these reasons, EPA evaluated
the potential effects on accidental releases when using ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999.
To begin, EPA sought to characterize unplanned releases. There were 37 unplanned
releases reported in the Subpart H reports from 1994-1997 and 1999. The average dose
was 0.034 mrem. Only 1 unplanned release resulted in the dose being greater than 10% of
the standard but not exceeding the standard. This was a tritium release that occurred at
the Savannah River Site in 1995. Non-reactive gases such as tritium can be adequately
sampled using either ANSI N13.1-1969 or ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999. Nineteen (51%)
unplanned releases were thought to be a result of human error. Nine (24%) unplanned
releases were considered a result of poor inspections. Two (5%) unplanned releases
occurred outside of the stack and seven (19%) unplanned releases were not sufficiently
described for classification (due to the release of sensitive information).
EPA concluded that utilizing ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 rather than ANSI N13.1-1969
would not have reduced the occurrence of accidental releases due to human error, nor
would it have affected releases outside the stack. Furthermore, doses from unplanned
releases were so low (on average, almost 1000 times lower than the applicable standard)
that even significant increases in sampled emissions, if found, would have minimal public
health impact and be unlikely to affect radionuclide NESHAPs compliance.
Page 17
-------
EPA determined, however, that 24% of unplanned releases may not have occurred
if more stringent inspection requirements, such as those in ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999, were
required by Subparts H and I. Properly functioning sampling systems - as ensured by
regular, rigorous inspections - can provide an early indication of an otherwise unapparent
failure of emissions control equipment or other conditions contributing to unplanned
releases. EPA determined, however, that other aspects of ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 would not
affect these kinds of unplanned releases; therefore, for existing sources, EPA believes it
most reasonable and efficient to replicate only those portions of ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999
affecting inspections. To implement these inspection requirements as part of Subparts H
and I, EPA has amended the Quality Assurance Methods in Appendix B, Method 114 -
Test Methods for Measuring Radionuclides Emissions from Stationary Sources to include a
table that describes when each component of the sampling system must be inspected. This
table is based on a similar table found in ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999.
2.8 General Clarification
2.8.1 Section B of the Background section (Purpose of ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999), paragraph 2,
2nd sentence. This sentence should read: "Our review indicated that the difference between the
two standards that could significantly impact the representativeness of the sample extracted was
the requirement for multiple sampling nozzles and isokinetic sampling cited in ANSI N13.1-
1969." (Oak Ridge, docket number A-94-60, II-D-17)
Response: Yes. The second sentence in the second paragraph in the "Purpose of
ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999" should have stated: "Our review indicated that the difference
between the two standards that could significantly impact the representativeness of the
sample extracted was the requirement for multiple sampling nozzles and isokinetic
sampling cited in ANSI N13.1-1969."
2.8.2 In the actual regulatory amendment section for subpart H, Section 61.93 paragraph
(b)(2)(i)(B), the first sentence ends with the following parenthetical phrase "...(including the
guidance presented in appendix A or ANSI N13.1)..." Since we now have two ANSI standards
cited in this regulation, this should be changed for clarification to the following: "...(including the
guidance presented in appendix A or ANSI N13.1- 1969)..."? (Oak Ridge, docket number A-94-
60, II-D-17)
Page 18
-------
Response: Clarification has been made.
2.8.3 Any document should discuss its purpose. This in particular applies to regulatory
documents. The statement in section A "Justification for the Proposal" is far from adequate. It
does not address the fundamental purpose - the protection of human health.
Also, on page 29934 the proposal quotes from a new ANSI standard. It is unclear
(without further background reading for which time does not permit) whether the new proposal is
to urge the adoption of the new ANSI standard. If the plan is to adopt the new ANSI standard
the proposal should say so, and say it unequivocally. If the proposal differs from the ANSI
standard it should say so, and unequivocally. But it should be said in the form of a
recommendation and not a requirement. I suggest "the use of the latest ANSI standard (and any
revision of it) shall be deemed adequate evidence that the facility meets the requirements of this
section." (R. Wilson, docket number A-94-60, II-D-16)
Response: The purpose of the amendment is to incorporate the ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999
sampling methodology (FR 29934, May 9, 2000). The use of ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 is
allowed but not required for existing sources; it is required for new and modified sources.
Recommending (rather than requiring) ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 for new sources might not
provide adequate incentive to ensure that updated sampling methods are being used at
regulated facilities.
2.8.4 The standard "requires" or at least alludes to system testing. It needs to be defined exactly
as to when testing is required. Further, the standard calls for tests or "challenges" for gas,
aerosols, and particulates. We can't find where the standard tells exactly how such tests must be
conducted or a reference on how to do them ... something equivalent to the Appendix A Methods
1 through 5; this should also be defined. (Oak Ridge, docket number A-94-60, 1I-D-17)
Response: ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 is a performance based standard rather than one based
on prescriptive rules. For example, the concept of acquiring a representative sample is not
based on rules for sample location and multi-point extraction, but rather on the premise
that at any location where the contaminant concentration and the fluid momentum can
both be demonstrated to meet numerical criteria for acceptable mixing, a representative
sample can be obtained by extraction from a single point in that profile. Thus, the burden
has been shifted from specifying the distance that a sampling location must be from a
disturbance to demonstrating compliance with numerical criteria placed on mixing
performance. For additional information on how to implement ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999,
refer to "Methodology for Sampling Effluent Air From Stacks and Ducts of the Nuclear
Industry" (LA-UR-96-2958) by Dr. Andrew R. McFarland, ESH-4. (Docket number A-94-
60, V-B-18) The purpose of this manual is to present methodologies for achieving and
Page 19
-------
demonstrating compliance with the new approaches to sampling radionuclides from stack
and ducts. This includes means for testing the uniformity of concentration and velocity
profiles; methods for design of effective sampling systems; techniques for measurement of
the flow rate in sampling systems and, through stacks and ducts; and, quality assurance
requirements.
2.8.5 The assertion that the single-point sampling approach is "drastically" different from the
multi-point isokinetic approach of the 1969 version of N13.1 is incorrect and results in part from
a common misunderstanding of the earlier version. On the contrary, the 1969 version states that
single point sampling is justified if contaminant distribution is shown to be uniform. The
recommendation of multi-point sampling was "to further insure that the sample represents the
average composition." ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 finally provides a rationale and methodology to
ensure that single point sampling is justified, and provides certain explicit quantifiable
performance criteria to be met when the method is applied as opposed to the qualitative, "rules of
thumb" characteristic of the old standard. (ANSI committee, docket number A-94-60, II-D-12)
Response: EPA acknowledges that the ANSI N13.1-1969 standard does not necessarily
require multiple point sampling. We appreciate that ANSI N13.1-1969 gives greater
flexibility than is generally acknowledged, which should be helpful to ensure existing
systems can address sampling needs.
Page 20
-------
3. COMMENTS REGARDING AMENDING OTHER PARTS OF SUBPART H
3.1(a) The proposed amendments are limited to stack sampling requirements. Changes should
also be made to other parts of the rule. One significant method of compliance demonstration by
DOE facilities is stated only in the EPA and DOE memorandum of understanding of 1995. It is
the method stated in Appendices D and E of 40 CFR 61. This method of compliance
demonstration should be stated in the regulation. (LLNL and ANSI committee, DOE HQ, docket
numbers A-94-60, II-D-18, II-D-12 and II-D-15, respectively)
3.1(b) An additional comment that addresses more than the stack sampling requirements is our
position regarding the need for lower limits of applicability of the standard. Specifically, we
suggest that any individual source that contributes less than 1X10-6 mrem/y effective dose
equivalent (EDE) to the maximally exposed individual be exempt from the annual compliance
demonstration requirements of NESHAPs. About two-thirds of the EDE from the nearly 200
emissions sources at LLNL range from 1X10-6 to 1X10-19 mrem/y. (LLNL, docket number
A-94-60, II-D-18)
3.1(c) Section 61.93 (b)(l)(i)(A and B) refers only to Method 2 and 2A for measuring effluent
flow. We suggest rewording these paragraphs to also allow the use of either Methods 2, 2A, 2C,
and 2D, as applicable. (ANSI committee, docket number A-94-60, II-D-12)
3.1(d) It is my understanding that, after a lengthy exchange of memoranda, and numerous
meetings, EPA reached agreement that the existing NRC dose rate limit for airborne releases from
organizations licensed to use radioactive materials was acceptable. That dose rate limit
(expressed in terms of effective dose) was 25 mrem/year including the proviso that it be applied in
conjunction with the ALARA criterion. This agreement does not seem to be reflected in this
proposed rule. (R. Wilson, docket number A-94-60, II-D-16)
3.1(e) The new regulation for DOE facilities could well be a dose limit identical to that adopted
by NRC for single facilities - 25 mrem/year- although 10 mrem/year could be a design goal. But
it should be up to DOE to decide how to meet it. The EPA should not make demand on the
particular way of meeting the goal. Any intervention by EPA on the details should be no more
than suggestions. In particular, the demand that emissions from a particular stack be limited so
that the calculated dose be 1 % of 10 mrems per year (0.1 mrems per year) is too draconian. It
does not allow for fluctuations. If there are 100 stacks, it is unlikely that more than 10 stacks (the
square root of 100) will actually be emitting at the high level. Thus the 1% could be replaced by
"l/(square root of the number of emitting stacks)." But it would be better for EPA to say nothing
at all. (R. Wilson, docket number A-94-60, II-D-16)
3.1(f) There is an important and increasing realization that performance based regulation and risk
based regulation are superior to prescriptive regulation. Thus after a regulation to keep doses at
site boundary to less than 10 mrem per year (or better 25 mrems per year) has been promulgated
it should be open to the entity being regulated on how to meet it. Prescription by EPA is
Page 21
-------
unnecessary at best and usually counterproductive. This proposal in particular is mostly
prescriptive regulation and as such is outdated and must be reconsidered. (R. Wilson, docket
number A-94-60, II-D-16)
3.1(g) Specific suggested changes in the proposed rule:
(a) EPA should ensure that the proposed "effective dose equivalent" (10 mrem per year)
discussed at the bottom of FR page 29934 middle column is consistent with NRC policy,
guidelines and regulations AND STATE THAT IT IS CONSISTENT. If it is not consistent, the
proposed EPA rule should be modified.
(b) The method of meeting this requirement should not be mandated. It should be up to DOE to
decide how to meet the criterion, and to provide evidence to EPA that it is being met.
(c) If (6b) is not followed, continuous monitoring of releases mandated on page 29935 middle
column (last paragraph in small print) should be changed to demand continuous monitoring
ONLY for stacks or ducts that are estimated to give an off site radiation dose of greater than 5
mrem per year, and allow estimation for all other stacks or ducts. ( R. Wilson, docket number
A-94-60, II-D-16)
3.1(h) According to reliable estimates from NRC, the nuclear fuel cycle (which includes DOE
facilities) only produces a dose to the average American of 0.05 millirems compared to a total
natural background of 300 millirems equivalent. Natural background is 6000 times as great (on
average) as the radiation that the proposed regulation would address. Any new regulation must
be justified against these simple facts.
Also, there is an unproven postulate that the effects of radiation on people are linear at
low doses. This has led to a recommendation that doses be reduced to a level As Low As
Reasonably Achievable (ALARA). The Nuclear Regulatory Commission in a 2 year long public
hearing discussed what this means in practice and came up with a recommendation that doses be
reduced if they can be done for a sum of $1,000 per man-rem now updated for inflation (and
corrected for political correctness) to $20 per person Sievert. This should be the standard against
which any regulation must be compared. If an entity can (and does) emit radiation or
radionuclides which can be reduced, then a regulation can force him to spend that money.
Conversely, if a regulation demands a higher cost than this it should be changed. (R. Wilson,
docket number A-94-60, II-D-16)
Response to 3.1 (a) - (h): EPA proposed to amend Subparts H and I only to include the
ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 standard. The scope of the amendment did not extend to other
issues. The dose limits are the result of extensive EPA review. EPA believes that sources
have considerable latitude in the methods they use to meet the dose standard.
Page 22
-------
3.2 Section 61.97 states that facilities are to be exempt from the reporting requirements of
40CFR61.10. Does this mean the exemption is extended to non-nuclear sources in a nuclear
facility? (ANSI committee, docket number A-94-60, II-D-12)
Response: Section 61.97, "Exemption from the reporting and testing requirements of 40
CFR 61.10," applies to all sources that are subject to Subpart H.
3.3(a) Neutrons - For several of the Department of Energy facilities, the public can receive a
dose from neutrons emitted within the facility. Although neutrons are not "radionuclides" as
prescribed by the regulation, we believe it is important to clarify in the revision to Subpart H how
direct radiation released from the facility is to be addressed with regard to public exposures.
(Regional Association of Concerned Environmentalists (RACE), Nuclear Watch, New Mexico,
Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center, Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety (CCNS), Risk
Assessment Corporation (Dr. Till), Heart of America, Northwest, docket numbers A-94-60, IV-
D-32, IV-D-29, IV-D-30, IV-D-27, IV-D-27, IV-D-35, respectively)
3.3(b) In addition to free neutrons as opposed to radionuclides, it may be worthwhile to add free
alpha particles and free beta particles as well as free gamma radiation and any other sub-atomic
radiation, e.g., muons, pions, etc. as opposed to simply radionuclides. A precedent for including
neutrons is given in 40 CFR 61.190, "National Emission Standards for Radon Emissions from
Department of Energy Facilities" and also in 40 CFR 61.191, Appendix B of "Environmental
Radiation Protection Standards for Management and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level
and Transuranic Radioactive Wastes." The importance of including neutrons, rather than merely
radionuclides, is seen in the possibility of hazardous "concentrations" of neutrons existing away
from a nuclide in such instances as criticalities, both planned as in critical assemblies, and in
unplanned events such as accidental nuclear excursions. (NMED DOE Oversight Bureau, docket
number A-94-60, IV-E-2)
Response for all of 3.3: The scope of the amendment did not extend to issues other than
incorporation of ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999. However, Section 112(b) of the CAA does not
include neutrons as a listed hazardous air pollutant. To date, EPA has not exercised its
authority under Section 112(b)(2) of the CAA to list neutrons as a hazardous air pollutant
nor has it been presented with a petition under Section 112(b)(3) to modify the list of
hazardous air pollutants by adding neutrons. Therefore, neutrons emissions are not
currently regulated under a national emission standard.
3.4 Transient receptors on public areas within Department of Energy Facilities EPA should
clarify whether or not members of the public who use public roads within DOE facilities should be
included in the dose calculation for compliance with 40 CFR 61, Subpart H. It is possible that a
member of the public could be exposed to dose levels above 10 mrem while using public areas as
Page 23
-------
a result of an episodic release of radionuclides at the facility. Most of the DOE sites have roads
that are used by the public for transport across the site. It is also possible (as we described in our
questions submitted to EPA in 1998) that a member of the public could use these roads for biking
or running. Your response to our question previously indicated DOE facilities are to "calculate
the highest effective dose equivalent to any member of the public at any offsite point where there
is a residence, school, business, or office." It is certainly plausible that a member of the public
could use publicly accessible roads and be exposed to greater than the 10 mrem dose limit.
Although this scenario would likely not constitute routine exposures of this magnitude to any
hypothetical individual, it is possible the dose limit could be exceeded in any given year.
Therefore clarification of this issue of exposures to transient receptors would be advisable in the
revision to Subpart H. (Regional Association of Concerned Environmentalists (RACE), Nuclear
Watch, New Mexico, Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center, Concerned Citizens for Nuclear
Safety (CCNS), Risk Assessment Corporation (Dr. Till), Heart of America, Northwest, docket
numbers A-94-60, IV-D-32, IV-D-24,1V-D-30, IV-D-27, IV-D-27, IV-D-35, respectively)
Response: The purpose of amending Subparts H and I is to update the sampling
methodology to include the ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 Standard. The scope of the amendment
did not extend to other issues. EPA has evaluated this comment and responded in a
separate letter. (Docket number A-94-60, IV-C-7)
3.5 Uncertainties in CAP-88 Some statement about how uncertainties are considered by EPA
should be included in the revision to Subpart H. As you are aware, tools now exist for
quantifying uncertainties in estimates of dose and risk. Theoretically, selecting input parameters
that tend to make doses deliberately high (conservative) is one way to bypass the need for a
quantitative uncertainty analysis. If this is EPA's approach to addressing uncertainties within
CAP88, a statement to this effect should be included in the revision to Subpart H. Otherwise,
some other statements should be given that guide facilities in dealing with questions about
uncertainties related to 40 CFR 61 Subpart H. (Regional Association of Concerned
Environmentalists (RACE), Nuclear Watch, New Mexico, Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice
Center, Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety (CCNS), Risk Assessment Corporation (Dr. Till),
Heart of America, Northwest, docket numbers A-94-60, IV-D-32, IV-D-24, IV-D-30, IV-D-27,
IV-D-27, IV-D-35, respectively)
Response: The purpose of amending Subparts H and I is to update the sampling
methodology to include the ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 Standard. The scope of the amendment
did not extend to other issues. EPA has evaluated this comment and responded in a
separate letter. (Docket number A-94-60, IV-C-7)
3.6 Complex terrain - The user manual states that the atmospheric dispersion model incorporated
in CAP-88 is not adequate for DOE sites that have a complex terrain such as Los Alamos. The
Page 24
-------
revision to Subpart H should include some statement about this issue and how the facilities with
complex terrain should model releases of radionuclides to air. One possible solution is to make a
comparison between CAP-88 and a more sophisticated model that addresses complex terrain to
be sure the CAP-88 dispersion model does not underestimate annual average air concentrations.
This issue is probably not of concern at most DOE sites but it is certainly an important matter for
Los Alamos. (Regional Association of Concerned Environmentalists (RACE), Nuclear Watch,
New Mexico, Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center, Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety
(CCNS), Risk Assessment Corporation (Dr. Till), Heart of America, Northwest, docket numbers
A-94-60, IV-D-32, IV-D-24, IV-D-30, IV-D-27, IV-D-27, IV-D-35, respectively)
Response: The purpose of amending Subparts H and I is to update the sampling
methodology to include the ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 Standard. The scope of the amendment
did not extend to other issues. EPA has evaluated this comment and responded in a
separate letter. (Docket number A-94-60, IV-C-7)
3.7 Currently, compliance of radionuclide releases with the 10 mrem/year limit is assessed by
assuming that the releases in a given year are evenly distributed over the year. In many cases, this
assumption is far from reality. In effect, releases from many DOE sites are short-term in nature.
Exposures to specific downwind receptors are likely to be larger if a given release occurs over a
short time period if the receptors happen to be present during such releases. Hence, if this effect
is taken into account, exposures to some members of the public may be severely underestimated.
The CAP-88 user manual clearly states that the model should not be used for short-term releases.
If it is scientifically improper to use CAP-88 for such releases, Subpart H should not demand the
improper use of the model. Instead, proper alternative models should be provided. (Regional
Association of Concerned Environmentalists (RACE), Nuclear Watch, New Mexico, Rocky
Mountain Peace and Justice Center, Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety (CCNS), Risk
Assessment Corporation (Dr. Till), Heart of America, Northwest, docket numbers A-94-60, IV-
D-32, IV-D-24, IV-D-30, IV-D-27, IV-D-27, IV-D-35, respectively)
Response: The purpose of amending Subparts H and I is to update the sampling
methodology to include the ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 Standard. The scope of the amendment
did not extend to other issues. EPA has evaluated this comment and responded in a
separate letter. (Docket number A-94-60, IV-C-7)
3.8 Why would EPA allow remotely located ambient samplers to estimate emissions from stacks
and ducts of the nuclear industry when, ostensibly for good scientific reasons, it does not afford
other industries the same opportunity? (ANSI committee, docket number A-94-60, IV-D-3)
Page 25
-------
Response: The purpose of amending Subparts H and I is to update the sampling
methodology to include the ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 Standard. The scope of the amendment
did not extend to other issues.
Page 26
------- |