ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
JULY 19 1985
IN THE MATTER OF:
TITLE
35:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
)
R82—2
SUBTITLE
I:
ATOMIC RADIATION
)
CHAPTER
1:
POLLUTION CONTROL HOARD
)
PART 1000:
RADIATION
EIA2ARDS
PROPOSED RULE.
SECOND
NoTIcE.
ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by J~D. Dimelle):
This matter
first came before
the Board upon a January 27,
1982,
petition to adopt regulations at
35
Iii.
Adm.
Code 1000
concerning radiation hazards which was flied on behalf
of the
Department of Nuclear Safety
(DNS).
The DNS submitted a revised
proposal
on March
5,
1982, which codified the proposed rules,
Hearings were held to consider
the proposal on May 11, 1982,
in
Chicago and May 14, 1982,
in Springfield.
The DNS filed
a second
revision
of
the proposed rules on August 26, 1982.
The
Department
of Energy and Natural Resources
(DENR)
filed
its
Economic Impact Study on October
28, 1983.
Hearings were held to
consider that study on January 24, 1984,
and February
17, 1984.
The comment period
closed on March 26,
1984.
A Proposed Rule/First Notice Proposed Opinion and Order was
adopted
by the Board
(5—0)
on January
24,
1985.
The DNS proposed
Subtitle
I, Part 1000 which would regulate radiological air
pollutants
emitted from NRC regulated
facilities,
The rules
would establish permissible
levels of
radiation exposure
to
persons
in areas
to which access
is not controlled
by the NRC
licensee.
The provisions
are very similar
to those
found
in
existing federal
regulations.
The effect
of proposed Subtitle
I,
Part
1000,
is
to provide DNS with
the authority and
the means
to
protect
the public from radiation hazards associated with
the
large number
of NRC—licensed activities
in Illinois.
The
proposed rule was published at
9
Iii. Reg.
6569
(May 10,
1985).
On June
24,
1985, Commonwealth Edison Company filed
a motion
for
a two—day extension of the 45—day comment period scheduled
to
end on that day.
Due
to the fact that
the motion was timely
filed during the comment period
and the granting
of
the motion
would not unduly delay the proceeding,
the motion
is hereby
granted, thereby extending
the comment period
until June
26,
1985.
On June
25, 1985,
t4r, L~0.
Del George
of Commonwealth
Edison filed Public Comment. No.
4
which addressed two technical
aspects of
the proposed rule.
—
2
In Commonwealth Edison’s first comment
it points
out
a
typographical error
in Section 1000.301(a) where
the words “in
any one year” were inadvertently omitted when published
in the
Illinois Register.
These words should follow “0.5 rem”
at the
end
of the subsection as they did in the Board’s First Notice
Order.
The second comment by Commonwealth Edison addresses
the
proposed rule~stwo different definitions
for the term “radio-
active material”.
The definition in Subpart
B,
Section 1000.201
pertains to the entire part while the definition
in Subpart D
Section i000.412
is applicable
to only that subpart.
There
seems
to
be
no reasc~i Lo define the term twice.
Therefore,
only one
definition wii~,re listed
in Subpart B which will encompass the
entire proposea
rule.
As
to
the ~ef±nition itself,
the Board
is uncertain
as
to
the origin of e~therdefinition used in the proposed
rule.
Commonwealth Ed~sonsuggests
in the interest of clarification
that
it would
k:~ preferable
to use
a combination
of the
definitions fro~aSubparts B and
D.
The Board believes that
it
is
reasonable
to u~eonly one definition:
therefore,
the
recommended
comb:Lnation definition will be adopted.
The
definition
for ~radioactive material” will be modified
to
read:
“any dusts,
particulates,
fumes, mists, vapors,
or gases which
spontaneously emit ionizing radiation,”
FuthermOre~the definition
for
“radiation”
in Subpart D,
Section 1000.402 will
be deleted.
A nearly
identical definition
appears
in Subpart
B,
Section 1000.201 which pertains to the
entire proposed rule.
On June 26, 1985,
Mr.
James
R.
Hollis,
of the Illinois Power
Company
(IPC)
filed Public Comment No.
5 which suggests
additional considerations for modifying the proposed rule.
First,
IPC states that sealed sources should be exempt from
the proposed rule since
the potential
radioactive emissions from
radioactive by—product materials are not sufficient
to justify
a
duplication
of the
regulations.
There
is no evidence
in the
record regarding the degree
of hazard
in
the sealed sources so
there
is
no apparent basis
in making the recommended change.
Second,
IPC states that Section 1000.301(a)
is more
restictive than the Radiological Environmental Technical
Specifications (RETS)
set out by the United States Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.
IPC goes on
to explain the difference
between the RETS requirement and the proposed rule1s
requirement.
The proposed rule :eauires
that
the whole body dose
for
all radioactive emissions
be equal
to or less than 0,5 rem
per year.
This language
is substantially identical to the
federal
rules
~ec
out
in
10
CFR
20.
Considering
that
the
Board’s
intent
is
to
~doot
the
federal
rules
on
Radiation
Hazards,
it
appears
thaL
;~
comparison
set out by
Illinois
Power
on
this
3
point
is inappropriate.
IPC’s
third point,
is rather vague
and difficult
to
understand.
It seems that IPC
is arguing that the proposed rule
should
not cover radiation from direct discharges
from the
licensee’s operation.
However,
it appears from 10 CFR 20.105,
that the
federal rules regulate the summation of both sources
of
radiation,
and this is appropriately reflected
in
the proposed
rule.
Point four is also difficult to understand.
IPC states that
Section 1000.501
requires the gaseous effluents section of the
Offsite Dose Calculations Manual
to be included
in the
transmittals
to the DNS which will cause higher costs
for
compliance since
it duplicates existing regulations.
This
requirement apparently comes from Section 1000.501(a)(6).
This
section requires that all data,
records and
reports submitted to
the NRC must
be duplicated and sent to the DNS
as well.
If
in
fact IPC
is concerned with the costs
of duplicating and mailing
the reports to the DNS which
they have to mail
to the NRC
in any
case,
this does not seem unreasonable or unduly burdensome.
As a
final
note,
the Board is correcting a typographical
error
in Subpart E Section l000.501(a)(6).
The word “commection”
will be changed
to its correct spelling of
“connection”.
IT
IS SO ORDERED.
I, Dorothy
M. Gunn,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certif
that the above Order was adopted
on
the /9~tdayof
_______________,
1985, by a vote of ~C.
7~.
./t~
~.
Dorothy
M. dunn,
Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
65-111