ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

January 24,

1985

IN THE MATTER OF:

)

TITLE 35:

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

)

R82—2

SUBTITLE

I:

ATOMIC RADIATION

CHAPTER

I:

POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

PART 1000:

RADIATION HAZARDS

)

PROPOSED RULE.

FIRST NOTICE.

PROPOSED OPINION AND ORDER

OF

THE BOARD

(by J.

D.

Dumelle):

This matter comes before the Board upon the January 27,

1982, petition to adopt regulations concerning radiation hazards

filed on behalf of the Department of Nuclear Safety

(DNS) by the

Attorney General’s Office.

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 (EcIS) 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.

The DNS proposal, Subtitle

I,

Part 1000, would establish

standards and limitations governing radiological air pollution

from NRC—licensed facilities and materials which substantially

duplicate portions of current regulations of the United States

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC).

(See

10 C.F.R.

20 and 45

Fed. Reg. 65521ff, October

3,

1980).

Under Ill. Rev. Stat. ch.

127, par.

63617 the DNS is the executive agency responsible for

enforcing and implementing radiological air pollution regulations

promulgated pursuant to Section 25(b) of the Environmental

Protection Act (Act).

DNS will assure compliance with the

requirements of Subtitle I by means of the monitoring, testing,

record—keeping, and reporting provisions.

While

DNS presently regulates non—NRC—licensed materials and

facilities under statutes other than the Act, neither DNS nor any

other Illinois agency regulates NRC—licensed materials and

facilities for radiation protection purposes.

The effect .of

proposed Subtitle

I 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.

62-445

---

2

History of Atomic Radiation Regulations

In 1971 the Attorney General’s Office submitted a proposal

to the Board

(R7l-9)

pursuant to Section 25(a)

of the Act to

develop radiation protection standards for nuclear power plants

jfl Illinois is subject to regulation and licensing by the NRC under

the Atomic Energy Act.

However,

Section 25(a)

now

Section

25(b)

was subsequently declared unconstitutional by an Illinois

appellate court which found that regulation of the radiation

hazards of nuclear power plants

is preempted by the Atomic Energy

Act.

Commonwealth Edison Co. v.

Pollution Control Board,

5

Ill.

App.3d 800,

284

N.E-.2d

432

(3d Dist.

1972), citing Northern

States Power Co

V.

Etate of Minnesota,

447 F.2d 1143

(6th Cir.

1971),

sum.aff’d 405

~

1035

(1972),

No further act±~~

was taken on R71—9 until the Attorney

General moved the Boa:d in 1980 to institute hearings on the

Board’s powers under ~3ection25(a)

in light of new developments

in federal

law.

The Board docketed the State’s motion as R80—l,

consolidated R80—l with R71—9, and, after a motion by Commonwealth

Edison Company to dismiss the consolidated proceedings, considered

briefs on the question of the Board’s authority to regulate

airborne radiation hazards following the federal Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1977.

In an Opinion and Order of August

7,

1980

(39 PCB 307) the Board determined that it has jurisdiction under

Section 25(a) to regulate airborne radiation hazards from materials

and activities licensed by the NRC.

R7l—9 and R80—1 were, however, dismissed by that same order

since the original proposal was nine years old by that time and

the Board felt that it was outdated,

The petition filed in this

matter contains the first subsequent proposal filed which addresses

atomic radiation issues.

Board Authority

The Board’s authority to promulgate these regulations has

again been called into question.

In

a comment filed on May

14,

1982,

Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation requests the Board to

reconsider whether the adoption of the proposed rules

is preempted

“by the federal government through the regulatory,

licensing and

enforcement authority of the NRC”

(KM Comment,

p.

21).

The Board has considered Kerr—McGee’s arguments, but finds

in them no reason to depart from the holding or reasoning of its

August

7, 1980 Opinion and Order in R7l-9, R80-1 consolidated.

The Board notes in this regard that its position has been strongly

supported by John-Mark Stensvaag who states, after lengthy analysis,

that “the power of individual

states to regulate radioactive air

emissions from NRC licensed facilities is indisputable”

Stensvaag,

“State Regulations of Nuclear Generating Plants Under the Clean

Air Act Amendments of 1977,”

55

S.

Cal. L.Rev. 511,

536

(March,

1982).

82-446

---

3

!!1~.

929S

DNS has proposed rules which would regulate radiological air

pollutants emitted from NRC regulated facilities.

They establish

permissible levels of radiation exposure to persons in unrestricted

areas

(areas in which access is not controlled by the NRC licensee);

maximum concentrations of radiological air emissions; record

keeping and environmental monitoring requirements; and notification

requirements.

The provisions are very similar to those found

in

existing federal regulations.

The proposed regulations also establish permissible levels

of radiation exposure to individuals in unrestricted areas which

are the same in current NRC regulations

(10 CFR 20.105): 500

millirems in any one year,

100 millirems in any seven consecutive

days, and

2 millirems

in any one hour,

They also limit annual

exposure in unrestricted areas from commercial power reactor

operations and nuclear fuel reprocessing to 75 millirems to the

thyroid and 25 millirems to the whole body and other organs.

These limitations are identical to U.S. EPA regulation 40 CFR

190.10.

Limits on radioactive air emissions to unrestricted areas,

set forth in Appendix A of the proposal, are identical to the

limits in Appendix B of 10 CFR 20.

The record keeping requirements set forth in the proposal

are the same as those

in existing NRC regulations.

However, the

proposal also allows DNS to require reports in addition to those

provided the NRC, and requires all licensees to maintain such

environmental monitoring equipment as may be required.

tINS has

not yet established any such requirements.

Finally,

the proposed rules require NRC licensees to notify

DNS “of incidents or conditions arising from the use or possession

of

NRC—

licensed materials or facilities which may have caused

or threaten to cause

emissions of radiation

levels

in

excess of

those allowed” under the proposal

(8/26/82 proposal,

p.

14).

The

notification requirement is the same as

in existing NRC regulations.

Need

For

The

Proposed

Regulations

The

proposed

rules

are

intended

to

provide

a

legal

basis

for

DNS

enforcement

authority

under

the

Act,

Dr.

John

W.

Cooper,

a

radiation

biologist

and

Assistant to

the

Director

of

DNS,

who

was

previously

employed

by

the NRC, testified

regarding

the

necessity

for

the

proposed

rules.

He

explained that

the

NRC

lacks

independent

environmental monitoring and, therefore, must rely on licensee

data for information about licensee performance.

Dr. Cooper

concluded that NRC’s limited resources for monitoring and its

non—environmental focus result in a limited ability to assess

licensee performance and enforce air emission standards.

62-447

---

4

Dr. Cooper described the DNS program as one which

is designed

to independently evaluate licensee

emissions and radiation levels in unrestricted

areas.

The program is heavily oriented toward

environmental monitoring and includes primarily

equipment designed to measure levels in the en-

vironmental area (5/11

R. l8).*

Dr. Cooper contrasted the NRC’s environmental effort, which

is “primarily involved with auditing licensee performance”,

to

DNS’s, which is “prir~rilyinvolved with direct field measure-

ments of licensee petormance”

(5/11

R.

20 and 5/14 R.

11).

Dr.

Cooper stated that

:L~ the area of environmental surveillance

DNS has the higher car~city,”with its staff of five health

physicists,

three

nuc~~ar

engineers,

a radiochemist, a radiation

biologist, and an in~wtria1hygienist, most of whom are involved

with environmental ra~iation exposure and environmental measure-

ments

(5/11

R.

20).

Dr. Cooper further testified that independent assessment of

licensee environmental performance

is valuable

in protecting the

public from airborne radioactive materials (5/14

R. 18), and that

the major benefit of the proposed rules

is to focus attention on

licensee environmental performance rather than on reactor design

and operation and to give DNS the power to make efficient use of

its independently obtained environmental data

(5/14

R.

22—23).

Dr. Cooper further indicated that if DNS’s monitoring teams

detected a radiation safety hazard and reported the situation to

NRC, NRC would take such report “as information only” and would

do an independent assessment before proceeding to any enforcement

action

(5/11

R.

25—26).

The testimony of

Commonwealth

Edison’s

witnesses corroborated

Dr. Cooper’s

testimony

regarding

the absence of independent NRC

environmental assessment.

John Golden described Commonwealth

Edison’s activities and its reporting to NRC and indicated that

there is nearly no independent monitoring by NRC, nor does NRC

sample air, gases released from the stack, and liquids, and it

does not perform any remote monitoring

of site releases.

(See

5/11

R.

195—208).

In sum, DNS demonstrated that the proposed rules do not

duplicate the NRC’s regulatory efforts but,

rather, complement

them.

As Board Member Goodman suggested, DNS should not have to

depend on the good will of licensees

in order to conduct monitor-

ing activities

(5/11

R.

66).

Further, neither DNS nor the general

public should be obliged to rely on the NRC’s limited capacity to

enforce compliance with its standards,

Because the radiological

*References

tc

the

May 11,

1984, transcript will be cited as

(5/11

R.),

the

Ma~ 14,

1984,

transcript will be cited as

(5/14

R.

),

and the

Feb

ry

.7,

1984, transcript will be cited as

(2/17

R.

).

62-448

---

5

air

pollutants

associated with NRC

licensees

present

dangers

to

public health and safety,

licensees should be treated like other

air pollution sources in Illinois and be made subject to Board

regulation under the Act,

The NRC regulates and licenses possession and use of certain

materials

and

facilities

under the Atomic Energy Act:

(1)

source

material

(the

naturally

occurring

radioactive

elements,

uranium

and

thorium,

from

which nuclear

fuel

is

made),

(2)

special

nuclear

material

(nuclear fuel or fissionable material),

(3)

byproduct

material

(material produced by fission or irradiated during

fission, and uranium and thorium mill tailings),

(4) production

facilities

(facilities for producing nuclear fuel),

(5) utilization

facilities (facilities which utilize nuclear fuel——i.e.,

reactors,

both commercial and research)

(42 U.S.C.

2092,

2111,

2073,

2131, and 2201),

Under some circumstances the NRC holds a public

adjudicatory hearing

in

connection with the granting of licenses

and permits.

On applications for permits to construct a utiliza-

tion or production

facility,

the

NRC

must

hold

a

hearing;

on

applications

for

licenses

to operate

a

utilization

or

production

facility

and

on

other

license

applications,

the NRC must hold a

hearing

only

if one is

requested

(42

U.S.C.

2239).

In

either

case,

a

person

may

be

admitted

as

a

party

to

a

hearing

only

if

he

can

put

forward

at

least

one

contention

which

the

NRC

determines

to

be

sufficiently

specific

and

supported

10

C.F.R.

2.714(a)(b).

When a final order is entered following the hearing, an appeal

may be taken to the Circuit Court of Appeals

(28 U.S.C. 2341).

Under the NRC’s procedural

rules, one may bring a complaint

against a licensee on~yby requesting the NRC to institute a

“show—cause” proceeding

(10 C,F,R,

2.202,

2.206), which will not

be instituted unless the NRC determines that circumstances so

warrant.

DNS contends that no court has ever reversed an NRC

decision refusing to institute a show—cause proceeding and that

the NRC very rarely grants such proceedings.

Further a com-

plainant before the NRC

is entitled to judicial review under the

“abuse

of

discretion”

standard

as

opposed to Illinois’

“manifest

weight

of

the evidence” standard,

Thus,

the

ability

of

States

or

private

citizens to enforce federal radiation standards is limited.

Economic Impact

Study

Commonwealth Edison stated

in

its

March

26,

1984,

comments

that:

The proposed regulation

is unnecessary.

An

effective state and federal regulatory~scheme

already exists which accomplishes all of the

objectives of the proposed regulation.

Moreover,

the Illinois Department of Energy and Natural

Resources~statutorily mandated study of the

economic impact of R82—2 shows that its cost

to

the

State,

the regulated

industry

and

the

public would outweigh any benefits

it may

provide.

62-449

---

6

Also, near

the

close of hearings, counsel

for

Illinois

Power

stated

that

he

believed

this

to

be

“the

one

regulatory

proposal

he

had

ever

seen

that is unwarranted,

on

the

sole

basis

of

economics”

(2/17

R.

169),

The

DNS,

unsurprisingly,

disagrees

with

both

of

these

assessments,

The Economic Impact Study

(EcIs), which was filed as Exhibit

No.

8 in this proceeding on February

17, 1984, reached the following

conclusions:

1.

Administrative

costs

would increase $135,000 annually;

2.

Increased

litigation and plant shutdowns would cost

zero

to $3~375 million annually;

and

3.

Reducing nuclear power plant emissions by 10

would

cost

$l30~OtO

annually but

would

re~sult in

a health

benefit ot $12,600 per year.

The first component of increased administrative costs

is

$60,000 per year to the DNS resulting from hiring two additional em-

ployees to inspect DNS—monitoring devices, collect samples of air,

water,

and vegetation, and process reports from NRC licensees.

An

additional component is equipment costs resulting from installation

of radiation monitoring devices around major NRC licensees in the

state,

considered to be

negligible

by DNS.

The final component

is added management supervision and overhead costs related to the

employment of two additional nuclear engineers,

estimated by DNS

at $75,000 per year

(EcIS, pp.

37—38).

During the May 11 and

14,

1982 hearings, representatives

of Commonwealth Edison and Illinois Power indicated concern about

the potential effect of the regulation on the amount of litigation

for the companies and on the frequency of shutdown of their nuclear

facilities.

The law firm of Martin, Craig, Chester and Sonnenschein

investigated and commented on the potential for increased litigation

as an appendix to the EcIS~ The cost

estimate

appears

to

be

based

solely upon the 1982 costs

to

Commonwealth

Edison in connection with

a

lawsuit

concerning

its LaSalle

County

nuclear power plant which

totalled $639,380

(EcIS,

pp.

45—46).

While admitting that “the

estimate of the costs resulting from increased litigation and fre-

quency of nuclear power plant shutdowns due to R82-2 is difficult

to make because of the many uncertainties involved,” the authors of

the EcIS estimate a range of zero to $1.0 million per year

(EcIS,

p.

49).

The authors go on to

explain

that “the latter estimate re-

flects a substantial

increase in litigation for the industry and was

chosen in order to represent an upper bound on the increased litigation

expenses.

This estimate exceeds the costs associated with the legal

action connected with the LaSalle County facility since this previous

legal action was only presented for illustrative purposes and con-

sequently does not necessarily represent an upper bound on increased

litigation for the nuclear power industry due to R82—2”

(EcIS,

pp.

49—50).

62-450

---

7

The

increase

in the average frequency of nuclear power plant

shutdowns

is estimated to range between zero to 5 days per year

based upon the fact that the previously—discussed legal action

against the LaSalle County facility resulted in a delay in the

start—up of 17 days, which,

if such a shutdown

is presumed to

occur every three years results

in an average annual increase

in shutdowns of approximately 5 days, which,

in turn, translates

into an increase in costs for the utility industry of $l.725 mil-

lion to $2,375 million annually (EcIS, p.

50).

In considering the costs to the nuclear industry of reduc-

ing emissions, the authors of the EelS conclude that “the range

of estimates for the annual costs associated with increased direct

litigation costs along with the resulting greater frequency of plant

shutdowns

is zero to $3~375million”

(EelS,

p.

50).

The authors of the EcIS indicated that:

increases

in equipment,

personnel,

and other

costs

for

nuclear

power

plant

operators re-

sulting from 1(82-2 would be relatively minor

or nonexistent insofar as the utilities’s

representatives understood the manner in

which

R82-2 would be implemented.

For

example,

it was indicated that no changes

in

equipment

or

design

of

Commonwealth

Edison’s

nuclear

power

plants

would

result

from

R82-2.

In

addition,

reporting

require-

ments

were

not

expected

to

increase

since

all

emission reports currently filed with

the

NRC

are

sent

to

DNS

as

a

courtesy.

The

major

reason

for

concluding

that

R82—2

will

not

result in increases in

equipment,

person-

nel,

and operating expenses

is that the R82—2

requirements are very similar

to

those

in NRC

regulations,

with which the

utilities

are

currently

complying

(EelS,

p.

39).

Despite

those findings,

the authors of

the

study

proceeded

to calculate the cost to nuclear power

plants

to

reduce emissions

10

percent,

that cost being $130,000 per year (EelS, pp.

40—42).

The

only

potential beneficial

effect

noted

by

the

authors

of

the study is the public health benefit

of

reducing

emissions

10

percent

(EelS,

pp. 66—72),

The summary of beneficial effects

states that there would be a very slight reduction in death rate

as cancer fatalities are reduced by roughly one every 100 years.

This benefit results from a 10 percent reduction in emissions of

radiological air pollutants from major NRC licensees in Illinois.

The monetary value associated with the reduction in death rate

was estimated to be $12,600 per year,

This estimate is based: on

studies

of

people’s willingness to pay for

measures

affecting

safety and survival.

62-451

---

8

DNS takes the position that DENR should have declared “that

the

economic

impact of R82—2 is so difficult

to

measure

that

a

formal

study would not generate useful

information, or that the

cost of making a formal study outweighs its value in determining

economic

impact”

(DNS Memo,,

3/26/84,

p.

2),

Since that did not

occur,

however,

DNS

presented

testimony

demonstrating

that

“the

EelS

has

limited usefulness,

providing

at

most

a

rough

guide

to

some

of

the

economic

issues raised by

regulation

of

radiological

pollutants”

(ibid,

p.

2),

DNS’

major

concern is that the EelS does not identify all of

the

costs

and

benefits of R82-2 and does not

explain

its

methodology.

DNS

states

that the EcIS did not address the social and institutional

benefits

of

reduced uncertainty about licensee

performance

which

would result from authorized independent state monitoring and

enforcement capability ~ and it failed to consider the suffering

and sickness associated with nonfatal cancers and the medical and

disability costs.

DNS also points out that the authors of the

EelS made a number of arbitrary choices of cost and benefit

estimates which it continually failed to acknowledge

(ibid,

p.

4).

More

specifically,

DNS finds it hard

to

understand why

potential

litigation

was considered in the economic impact. All

Board regulations can lead to litigation and,

if industry is

fully

in compliance with the federal limitations, enforcement

actions are unlikely;

if it is not, enforcement may well be

necessary.

Thus, DNS concludes that litigation costs to industry

are directly associated with health and other benefits due to

reduced radiation exposure.

DNS noted at the February 17, 1984,

hearing,

that the authors relied on a “sample of one” in determining

litigation costs,

and the EelS does not even indicate whether the

expenditures are typical of expected

expenditures.

The same

considerations

apply to the analysis of Board

ordered

shutdowns.

The

Board

accepts the uncontested administrative cost figure

of

$135,000

as

reasonable, but has serious

reservations

about

the

other

cost

figures,

As DNS pointed out, there is nearly no

indication

in

the EelS whether the costs would more likely be

near

the

low end of the range

(zero)

or the high end

($3.5

mil-

lion).

Furthermore, there

is the barest support for the high end

figures,

and

several important considerations have been ignored.

A

particular

issue was made about

enforcement

against

“threatened”

releases.

Section

9(a)

of the Act

prohibits

causing or

threatening

air pollution; and concern was expressed that any citizen could

file a judicial complaint asserting on hypothetical grounds that

an accident or release in excess of applicable standards may

occur which will result in air pollution

(5/il R. 130—131).

The

Board

sees no reason to believe that claims of threatened ra-

diation pollution, whether characterized as

a statutory violation

under Section

9(a)

or a prospective common law nuisance,

will be

treated by the Board or the courts any differently than other

62-452

---

9

claims

of

threatened pollution.

The mere

hypothetical possibility

of

pollution

is insufficient to

warrant

injunctive

relief.

There

must rather

be

a

“definite danger” or

“very

definite

danger”

A1laertRende~jn9~

v.

Pollution Control Board,

91

Ill.

App.3d,

46 Ill,Dec.

608, 414 N.E.2d 492

(3d Dist.

1980); Rocke

v. Pollution

Control

Board,

78 Ill.App.3d,

33 Ill.Dec. 717,

397,

~

For a prospective nuisance, an

activity will not be enjoined unless it is “highly probable” that

it will result

in a nuisance (Vill~geof Wilsonville

v.

SCA

Services,

Inc.,

86 Ill.2d

1,

55 Ill,Dec, 499,

426 N.E.2d, 824

(1981).

commonwealth Edison also expressed concern that the enforce-

ment power which would result from the proposed regulations would

enable people with anti~nuclearsentiments to harrass the company

through a “flood of litigation”

(5/li

R.

94—95).

Counsel stated

his concern that “in a statutory system” any citizen can file a

complaint and that “we are at the mercy of the most radical and

obdurate of our opponents”

(5/Il

R. 101), implying that the

enforcement mechanism will result in a great deal of factually

baseless litigation.

Hcwever, the possibility that some citizens

will file complaints which are found to be factually baseless

should be of little concern,

as should its fear of multiple

lawsuits in different forums,

Under Section 31(b)

of the Act the

Board can not allow enforcement actions to proceed if they are

frivolous

(without a legal or factual basis) or duplicitous

(already

filed

before the Board or some

other forum).

Further,

citizen

suits

have been available

under the Act since its in-

ception

and

there

has never been a “flood of litigation” despite

recurring

concerns that there would be,

The Board believes that consideration

of the costs and

benefits of potential litigation is not appropriate in reaching a

decision in this regulatory proceeding,

The cost of litigation

in enforcing fair and reasonable substantive

regulations promul-

gated to

protect

the public interest and welfare must be presumed

justified.

Indeed, that proposition goes to the heart of our

legal system.

The Board, therefore, finds no net cost of litigation.

The Board notes that the Economic Technical Advisory Committee

which reviewed the EelS also questioned the inclusion of litigation

costs

(Ex,

8,

ETAC Opinion,

p.

2).

Similarly, the Board seriously questions the cost associated

with potential shutdowns,

Industry expressed concern during the

hearings that an increase of reactor shutdowns can be expected as

a result of

state

enforcement power.

However, the proposed

regulations

are no different than the

Board’s other regulations,

except that

DNS rather than the Agency

will

be

the

implementing

agency.

The

Board presumes that DNS will

exercise its prosecutional

discretion

in

a

manner much like the

Agency’s.

Furthermore, the

Board

will

certainly be aware of the cost of

a

shutdown when it

considers

whether such an order should be entered,

and if it

finds

that

the cost of a shutdown outweighs

the

public health

62-453

---

10

benefit,

no

shutdown

will be

ordered

•

The

Board,

therefore,

finds no net cost of

shutdowns.

The

Board

finds

the

cost

of

reducing

emissions

by

10

percent

and

the

related

health

benefits

interesting,

but

not particularly

useful.

Industry

indicates

that

it

is

presently

in

substantial

compliance

with

the

proposed

limitations,

indicating

that

the

cost

of

compliance

is

little

or

nothing.

The

proposed regul-

ations

would

not

require

a

10

percent

reduction,

or

any

reduction

at

all

•

There

is, in

fact,

no

evidence

in

the

record

to

suggest

that

such

a

reduction

would

result

from

the

proposed

regulation.

Therefore,

the

Board

finds

compliance

costs

to

be

negligible,

as

well

as

the

health

benefits

associated

with

them.

Based

on

the

ECIS,

then,

the

Board

is

led

to

the

conclusion

that

the

cost

of

thet proposed

regulation

is

about

$135,000

annually

with

no

associated

health

benefits.

However,

this

ignores

the

possibility

that

the

proposed

regulations

will

result

in

greater

oversight

of

the

nuclear

industry

and

that

potential,

or

real,

problems

may

be

uncovered

and

remedied

which

would

not

be

absent

the

regulations.

That

such

benefits

are

expected

to

follow

from

these

regulations

is

demonstrated

by

Governor

Thompson’ s

amendatory

veto

statement

issued

September

18,

1980,

regarding

the

creation

of

DES

•

The

Governor

stated

that

DES’

regulatory

function

insures

greater

accountability

to

the

State

and

safer

operation

and

handling

of

radiological

facilities

and

materials.

This

legislation

represents

an

enormous

step

forward

for

Illinois

nuclear

safety...

In

addition,

the

(DES

will

par—

tic

ipate

with

the

federal

government

both

on

the

regulatory

and

legislative

levels

to

en-

sure

state

input

into

the

questions

which

so

significantly

affect

us...

This

state,

which

is

more

dependent

on

nuclear

power

than

any

other

state

in

the

nation,

must

be

first in nuclear safety as well.

The

hearing

record

demonstrates

that

the

proposed

regulations

should

help

fulfill

the

expectations

that

state

oversight

of

nuc-

lear

materials

and

facilities

can

and

should

complement

federal

oversight, and the

Board

fipds

that

the

$135,000

cost

of

adminis-

tration

is

a

reasonable

expense

for

the

added

protection

which

will

result

from

these

regulations.

General

Provisions

and

Definitions

The

Board

proposes to adopt

proposed

Sections 1000

•

101,

1000.102, 1000.103 and 1000.201 (Authority, Purpose and Policy,

Scope and Definitions, respectively)

as

proposed

with

minor

changes and proposes to delete proposed Section 1000.104 (Duties

of the

Department)

as

unnecessary.

Since

DES’

enabling

act

sets

out

these

duties,

the

Board

finds

no

reason

to

set

them

out

here.

---

II

Kerr—McGee

was

the

only

participant to attack these proposed

sections

(KM Comment, pp~3~4)~It points out that proposed

section 1000.102(b), adapted from 10 C.F.R. 20.1(c), contains two

significant changes:

the word “should” in the NRC’S regulation

which states that affec~ed persons “should” make every reasonable

effort to maintain radi~ionexposures to unrestricted areas as

low as

is reasonably achievable, has been changed “shall,” and

the definition of

“as low as is reasonably achievable” has been

changed to delete the word “reasonably.”

It believes that these

changes limit the Board~sdiscretion and result in “significantly

more stringent standards

at significantly greater cost

——

than

the NRC” standards

(KM Coooent, p~4),

DNS

responds

that t~:o~

words

“should”

and

“shall”

are

equally

mandatory.

It further

stw:~os

that

it

deleted

the

word

“reason-

ably”

from

the

definitig~.of uALARA~*

because

it

is

“surplussage”

used to define itself in~

federal

definition

(DNS

8/26/82

Memo.,

p.

4).

While the Board agrees with the changes made by DNS and the

reasons for those changes, the Board will propose the federal

language rather than the DNS language simply to avoid any possible

arguments that the changes

result

in substantive differences.

Standards and Limitations

No one has commented adversely on Sections 1000.301, 1000.302

or 1000.303

(Permissible Levels of Radiation in Unrestricted

Areas, Radioactive Emissions to Unrestricted Areas, and Additional

Requirements, respectively)

in

their present form, and the Board

will propose

Sections

l000~30land 1000,302 as requested by DNS.

The

Board

will

not,

however,

propose

Section 1000.303 as requested.

As proposed by DNS,

that

section

simply

incorporates

40

CFR

90

by

reference.

Since Part

90

is

only

two pages long, the Board sees

no

reason

not

to

set

forth

those

provisions rather than incorporate

by

reference,

and the

Board

will

do so

as

Subpart

D

and

the

originally

proposed

Subpart

D

will

be

redesignated

as

Subpart

E.

Also, the Board will not propose the

sections

on

variances

or

the

effective date provisions contained in Part 90.

The latter are

unnecessary and the

former

are

being

deleted for the same reasons

as Section

l000~304~as

discussed

below.

These rules reflect the

federal rules with which

affected

facilities

must

already

comply

and

with

which

those facilities are

apparently

in

compliance.

The

Board

will

not, however,

propose

Section

1000.304

regarding

variances.

That

section

includes

information

that

the

Board

“shall consider” in reviewing variance petitions under Subtitle

I.

*The term

“as

low al

reasonably

achievable”

(ALARA)

means

as

low as

is

~n!~l

achievable

taking into account the state of

technology, and the

economics

of

improvement...(lO C.F.R.

20.3)

82~455

---

Kerr-McGee

objects

that

while

the

Board is only required to

consider

that

information,

the

NRC

must

grant

the

variance

if

all

the

listed

conditions

are

satisfied~

See

10

C.F.R.

20.106(b).

DNS

states that the

reason

Section

1000.304

differs

from

the

federal rule

is that the Board~svariance authority is circum-

scribed by the Act which allows the Board to grant variance only

upon “presentation of adequate proof that compliance with any

rule or regulation, request or order of the Board would impose an

arbitrary or unreasonable hardship~’~(See Section 35 of the

Act).

Thus,

satisfaction of the Section 1000.304 factors will

not necessarily be sufficient to obtain a variance.

The Board

agrees

with

DNS

that

it

cannot adopt the federal

language~ Absent superceding statutory authority, the Board’s

power to grant variances must be constrained by Section 35 of the

Act.

Further,

in accordance with that section the Board has

adopted procedures fcE obtaining variance relief at 35

Ill. Adm.

Code 104.

The Board has found those provisions to be adequate

for all other variances,

and there is nothing

in this record that

convinces the Board that different procedures are necessary under

these proposed rules~

The information which would be required

under DNS’ proposal

is information which would be expected to be

supplied to the Board by a variance petitioner under the current

rules*.

Therefore,

the

Board

will

delete Section 1000.304 from

its first

proposaL

*The

proposed

rule

is

as

follows:

Section

l000~3O4: Variances From Limitations of Appendix A

(a)

(1)

In reviewing petitions

for

variances

from

the

limi-

tations

specified in Appendix A, the

Board

shall

consider

generally:

(A)

The petitioner’s efforts to minimize the radioactivity

contained

in releases to unrestricted

areas;

and

(B)

The possibility that radioactive material

released

might result

in the exposure of an individual to concen-

trations of radioactive material

in air exceeding the limits

specified

in Appendix A of this Part,

(2)

In

reviewing

petitions

for

variances from the limi-

tations specified

in Appendix A,

the

Board

shall

consider

specifically:

(A)

Information as to flow

rates,

total quantity of re-

leases, peak concentration of each radionuclide

in the

releases

averaged

over

a

period

of

one year at the point

where

the

emission

leaves

a

stack,

tube, pipe, or similar

conduit

(B)

The properties of the releases,

including:

(continued on

next

page)

62-456

---

and

Other

Re

irements

Subpart

0

of

the

DNS

proposal

establishes requirements for the

submission

of records,

monitoring,

and

notification

of

incidents,

It

also

establishes

procedures

under

which

the

DNS

can adopt rules

requiring additional

records

to

be

submitted and to establish

monitoring requirements.

The

only

information

in this record

adverse to the. proposal

of these

rules

is that included in

Commonwealth

Edisonts

March

26,

1984,

comments~ Edison argues

that

the

proposed

rules

give

the

DNS the

authority

to impose equipment requirements and standards

on

regulated

facilities without limitation:

a redelegation of

authority

which the Act gives to the Board,

Section 1e:O~O.403(a)(l)

of the proposed regulation states that

“all

persons

su~bj~ectto

this

Part

shall

maintain such environmental

monitoring:

instruments

as

may

be

required in procedures adopted

by

the

Department.”

Those

procedural requirements involve

minimal

public comment and no provis-

ion

for required hearings.

DNS could point to nothing in~the pro-

posed rules

or

the

record

guiding

DNS~

ability

to~req~ire

equipment

(2/17

R.

92)~.

(i)

Chemical

composition;

(ii)

Physical

characteris—

tics and nature of the gas

or aerosol; and

(iii)

The size range

of

par—

ticulates in releases

in

air.

(C)

The anticipated

human

occupan-

cy

in

the

unrestricted

area

where

the

highest

concentration

of

radio-

active

material

from

the

releases

is

expected,

(D)

Information as to

the

highest

concentration of each radionuclide

in an unrestricted area at any

point of human occupancy including

anticipated concentrations averaged

over a period of one year,

(E)

The environmental monitoring

equipment and procedures and ca1c~u—

lations to determine

concentrations

of radionuclides in the unrestricted

area and possible reconcentrations

of radionuclides.

(F)

The waste treatment facilities

and procedures used to reduce the

concentration of radionuclides

prior

to

their

release.

---

14

When

the

state

I

~

~u

created

the DNS,

it gave the DNS

the authority

to

~ex~uu

~dminister,

and enforce all rights,

powers

and

duties

“eF~

r

l~i~

Environmental

Protection

Agency”

under

Section

4

of

the

I

this

section

does

not

give

DNS

any

authority

to adopt

Stct

~

~r

requirements

for monitoring

equipment

at regulat ~

~

On

the contrary, as Com-

monwealth

Edison per

it~

the Act

places exclusive respon-

sibility

for

the de

.~,

f

such

regulations with the Board

under Section

10(a)

o~ ~ie

~‘t

which

states that the Board may

prescribe

“requiremunt~

an

~tandards

for equipment and procedures

for monitoring

contami;ctizt

discharges at their sources,

the

collection of

samples

~$ ~

~ ‘ollection,

reporting and retention

of data resulting

fr

r

nicl

~oritoring.”

The adoption of such

regulations involve~s

~ci. c

procedures to insure a fully developed

record.

(See Section~‘6

2

of

the

Act),

Thus,

commonweal4

1o

~in

argues that the legislature obviously

intended

the

Board

to

:

a’s

this

aspect

of

its

pollution

control

program,

and

~r~n

~hc

legislature

delegates authority to

an agency,

that

agenc~

d~ee

words

in

the Act sanctioning such

horizontal

redelegat~oi~ a;~,

~iot

redelegate,

since redeleqation

of a discretionary

po~v~

~y

an

administrative

agency

to

another

agency

is void~

Comoor

~n

?ddBofl

Co. v.

Pollution

Control

Board,

25 Ill.

App.

3d

271,

Z8~

~‘

~t

0ist~

1974),

rev’d

on

other

grounds,

62

Ill.

2d 494

(1976)

The Board

agree~

same argument

applies

reporting

requireiren

grants DNS

the

pow~

propose them to

th~

the Board declines tr.

Section 1000.403

~

monitoring” of Sectir

l000.402(a)(6),

whior

Board’s proposaL

F

as Subpart E and

app~

Otherwise, the Board

for first

notice

as

That

Board

not

January

18,

1985,

i~.

governing

certain

~

Department

facilit

e~

Regulatory

Commiss;

opportunity

to

exarri~

Board

will

have

to

-v

regulations

are

no

~:

fore, while

the

Boain.

comment on

the

etfsc~

n

and,

in fact, believes that the

r

adoption

of

the

establishment

of

Nothing

in Section 4 of the Act

ostantive

rules:

it may only

~c

Ins. Board’s

adoption.

Therefore,

~

of

subsection

1000.402(b)

and

~finition of “environmental

~ 4

sill

be

incorporated into

y

place

the

term

is

used

in

the

~ic~e

sections

will be redesignated

renumbered as 1000.501 et

~.

~

the adoption of these sections

‘rh

Street Journal dated Friday,

~

USEPA

has “promulgated regulations

l~w~level

radiation...from

Energy

~

Items

regulated by the Nuclear

~rd

has

not, however, had an

.clations.

It

may

be

that

the

~ posal

to insure that any adopted

—

-~

r:t

that

the USEPA rules.

There—

~ed

to

first notice,

it invites

~s

USEPA

rules on this proceeding.

---

15

ORDER

The Board

hereby proposes for first

notice the following

amendments to:

TITLE

35:

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

SUBTITLE

I:

ATOMIC RADIATION

CHAPTER I:

POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

PART 1000:

RADIATION HAZARDS

SUBPART

A:

GENERAL PROVISIONS

Section

1000.101:

Authority

The

Pollution

Control Board adopts the

rules

and

regulations

contained in this title pursuant to the authority of Title VI—A

of the Illinois Environmen,tal Protection Act.

Section 1000.102:

Purpose and Policy

(a)

The

regulations

in

this

Part

establish standards for

protection against radiological air pollutants associated

with materials and activities under licenses issued

by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended,

and the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974.

(b)

It

is the policy of

the

Pollution Control Board that

persons subject to

this

Part

shall,

in addition to

complying with the requirements of this Part, make

every

reasonable effort to maintain radiation

exposures

in,

and releases of radioactive

materials to,

un-

restricted areas as low as is reasonably achievable.

The

term

~as

low

as

is

reasonably

achievable”

means

as

low as

is

reasonably achievable

taking

into

account

the state of technology, the economics of improvements

in relation

to

benefits to the public health and

safety,

and

other

societal

and socioeconomic consider-

ations,

in

relation

to

the utilization of atomic

energy

in the

public interest.

Persons licensed by

the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission to

operate light-~~water—coolednuclear power reactors

shall be deemed to satisfy the requirements of this

subsection if they achieve the

design objectives and

limiting conditions for operation

set out in 10

C.F.R,

50, Appendix

I.

Section

1000,103:

Scope

The

requirements

of

this

Part apply to all

persons who receive,

possess, use,

or

transfer

material

licensed

pursuant to

Parts

30

through

35,

40,

or

70,

or

who are licensed to operate a production

or utilization facility pursuant to Part 50 of the regulations of

the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission codified in Title

10 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

62-459

---

SUBPART B:

DEFINITIONS

Section

1000.201;

Definitions

As

used

in

this

Part;

“Act”

means the

Illinois Environmental Protection Act, ch.

111-

1/2

Ill,Rev.Stat,,

§SlOOl etj.

“Board”

means

the

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board,

“Department”

means

the Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety.

“Dose” means

the

quantity

of

radiation absorbed, per unit of

mass,

by

the

body

or by any portion of the body.

When these re-

gulations

specify

a

dose

during a period of time, the dose means

the total quantity of

radiation absorbed, per

unit of mass,

by

the body or by any

portion

of the body during such period of

time.

Several

different

units

of

dose

are

in

current

use,

Def-

initions

of

units as used

in these regulations

are

set

forth

in

the definitions of

“Rad” and “Rem” in this Section.

“Individual” means

any human

being.

“Licensed activity~’means any activity engaged in under a gen-

eral or specific

license issued by the NRC.

“Licensed facility” means any facility constructed or operated

under

a

permit

or a general or specific license issued by the

NRC.

“Licensed material” means any material received, possessed,

used, or transferred under a general or specific license issued

by

the

NRC.

“Licensee’s means any person to whom a permit or a general or

specific license has been issued by the NRC.

“NRC”

means

the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

“Rad” means a measure of the dose of any radiation to body tis-

sues

in terms of the energy absorbed per unit mass of the tissue.

One rad is the

dose corresponding to the absorption of

100 ergs

per gram of tissue.

(One millirad

(mrad)

=

0.001 rad),

“Radiation”

means any

or all of the following;

alpha rays,

beta rays, gamma rays,

X—rays, neutrons, highspeed electrons,

high-speed protons,

and

other atomic particles; but not sound or

radio waves, or visible,

infrared, or ultraviolet light.

“Radioactive material” and “radioactive emissions” means any

radioactive

material

in the form of dusts, particulates, fumes,

mists, vapors, or gases.

62-460

---

17

“Rem”

means

a

measure

of

the

dose

of any ionizing radiation to

body tissue in terms of its estimated biological effect relative

to

a dose received from an exposure to one roentgen of X-rays.

(One millirem (mrem)

=

0,001

rem).

The relation of rem to

other dose units depends upon

the

biological

effect under consid-

eration

and upon the condition of irradiation.

For the purpose of

this part,

any of the following

is considered to be equivalent to

a dose of one rem:

(a)

An exposure to one roentgen of

X— or gamma radiation;

(h)

A dose of one rad due to X—,

gamma,

or beta radia-

tion;

(c)

A dose of

0.1

rad

due to neutrons or high energy

protonS

(d)

A dose of 0.05 rad due

to

particles heavier than

protons and

with

sufficient energy to reach the

lens of the

eye.

If

it tS more convenient to

measure

the

neutron

flux,

or

equivalent,

than

to determine the neutron dose in rads~one rem

of neutron radiation may for purposes of this

part be

assumed

to be equivalent to 14 million

neutrons

per

square centimeter incident upon

the body;

or,

if there exists sufficient infor-

mation to estimate with reasonable accuracy

the approximate distribution in energy of neu-

trons, the incident number of neutrons per

square

centimeter equivalent to one rem may be

estimated

from

the following table.

Neutrca~

Theriral

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

0.0001

.

.

.

.

.

.

4

.

0.005

.

.

.

*

*

.

.

4

4

0,02

-

.

,

.

.

S

•

•

4

0.1

.

.

.

.

,

.

.

,

.

S

0

•

•

0

S

S

I

1.0

.

.

.

.

4

S

•

•

•

0

2.5

.

.

.

.

S

4

I

0

S

5.0

..

.

.

.

7,5

0

0

0

4

10.0

.

.

.

.

lOto3O

24x

24x

*

4

5

•

•

•

.

.

.

.

670

•

S

S

S

•

a

S

•

S

5

500

•

S

*

•

•

4

5

.

.

.

570

•

.

.

S

S

S

S

S

S

~

280

•

.

•

.

.

S

S

P

5

,

80

•

.

•

4

•

S

S

S

S

•

30

•

a

0

•

S

S

S

0

0

4

18

•

.

S

S

•

4

5

5

•

•

20

•

.

S

4

5

5

5

S

S

5

18

•

4

S

S

*

S

S

S

S

5

17

•

S

5

5

0

5

5

5

.

•

17

0

5

5

5

0

5

0

5

5

S

•

•

.

10

-

~utron

Flux

1~seEquivalents

Ni~nberof

neutrons

per

square

centineter

equivalent

to

a

Average

flux to

doliver

dose

of

1

100

millirem.J.n

40

hours

970 x

720

x

820 x

400 z

12~0x

43x

26x

29x

26x

•

4

a

•

a

•

0•

•

0

4

•

.

I

•

0

•

•

S

S

•

0

a

•

S

S

•

S

•

•

S

S

0

*

0

0

•

S

S

••

•

S

•

S

S

4•

S

S

S

P

14x

62-461

---

18

“Restricted area” means any

area

access

to

which

is

controlled

by

the

licensee for purposes of

protection of individuals from ex-

posure to radiation and radioactive

materials.

“Restricted area”

shall

not

include

any

areas

used

as

residential

quarters,

although

a separate room or rooms

in a residential building may be set

apart

as

a

restricted

area.

“Unrestricted

area”

means

any

area

access

to

which

is

not

con-

trolled

by

the

licensee

for

purposes of protection of individuals

from

exposure

to

radiation

and radioactive materials, and any

area

used

for

residential

quarters.

SUBPART

C~

STANDARDS

AND

LIMITATIONS

Section

i000.301’.~

Permissible

Levels

of

Radiation

in

Unrestricted

Areas

No

person

shall

possess~use, receive, or transfer licensed mater-

ial

or

engage

in

licensed

activities

in

such

manner

as

to

create

in

any

unrestricted

area

(a)

Radiation

1evei~

in

air

such.that any indi-

vidual

would

he

likely,.when

all radioactive

emissions by the

licensee,

are

taken

into

ac-

count,

to

receive

a

dose to the whole body

in excess of 0~5rein~.inany~oneyear;

(:b)

Radiation levels

in~air,

which,

if

an

indivi-

dual

were

continuously

present

in the area,

could~result,

when

all, radioactive emissions

by

the

licensee

are

taken

into

account,

in

his

receivinq

a

dose

in excess of

2 millirems

in any one

hour;

or

(c~

Radiation

1e~i~sin

air

which,

if

an indivi-

dual

were

cor~t~aous1ypresent

in

the

area,

could resui~

when

all

radioactive

emissions

by

ttie

lic

see

are

taken

into

account,

in

his receivinq

a

dose

in

excess of 100 milli—

rems

in

any

seven

consecutive

days.

Section

GOO. 302~ Ra~cactiveEmissions to Unrestricted Areas

(e~

No

person

sh~i... possess,

use, receive, or

~ransfer

.isens.ed

material

or engage

in, 14—

sensed

activ

..L:ics

so

as

to

release to ai~in

anunrestricrad

area

radioactive

material

in

concentrations

which

exceed

the

limits

~speci-

fled

in

Appendix

A

of

this

Part.

For pur—

~0~3CS

of this section concentrations may b~

averaged

over

a

period

not

greater

than

one

year

62-462

---

19

(b)

For

the

purpose

of

this section the concentration

limits

in

Appendix A

of this Part shall apply at the

boundary

of

the restricted

area.

The

concentration of

radioactive material

discharged through a stack, pipe

or similar conduit

may be determined with respect to

the point where the

material leaves the conduit.

If

the conduit discharges

within the restricted area,

the

concentration at the boundary may be determined by

applying established

factors for dilution, dispersion,

or decay betweeen the point of discharge and the boundary.

SUPBART

~

ADDITIONAL

REQUIREMENTS

Section l000~40l: Applicability

The provisions

of

this part apply to radiation doses received by

members of the public

in

the

general environment and to radio-

active materials introduced

into

the

general environment as the

result

of

operations which are

part of a nuclear fuel cycle.

Section 1000.402:

Definitions

As used in this

Subpart:

“Curie”

(Ci)

means

that quantity

of radioactive material

producing

37

billion nuclear transformations

per second•

(One

millicurie (mCi)=0,00l Ci.)

“Dose

equivalent” mean~

the

product

of

absorbed

dose and

appropriate factors to

account

for differencies in biological

effectiveness

due

to

the

quality

of radiation

and

its spatial

distribution

in

the

body.

The unit

of

dose equivalent is the

“rem,”

(One millirem (mrem)=0.0~lremj

“General

environment”

means

the

total

terrestrial,

atmospheric

and

aquatic

environments

outside

sites upon which any operation

which

is

part

of

a

nuclear

fuel

cyc’Ie is conducted.

“Gigawatt~year”

refers to

the quantity

of electrical energy

produced at the

busbar of

a generating station.

A gigawatt is

equal

to one billion

watts.

A gigawatt—year is equivalent to the

amount

of

energy output represented by an

average electric power

level

of

one gigawatt sustained

for one year.

“Member

of the public” means

any individual that can receive a

radiation dose

in

the

general

environment, whether he may or may

not

also be exposed

to

radiation

in

an occupation associated with

a

nuclear fuel cyc1e~ However,

an individual

is not considered a

member

of

the

public

dbring any period

in which he

is engaged in

carrying out any opera’tiofl

which

62.483

---

20

“Nuclear’

fuel

cycle”

means the’ operations defined to be

associated with the production~of

electrical

power

for

public

use

by any fuel cycle’throtigh

utilization of nuclear energy.

“Organ” means any

human

organ

exclusive

of

the

dermis,

the

epidermis,

or

the

cornea.

“Radiation”’

means

any

or all of the following:

Alpha, beta,

gamma, or X—rays;

neutronsi and high-’energy electrons, protons,

or

other

atomic

particles;

but not sound or radio waves, nor

visible,

infrared, or

ultra—violet light.

“Radioactive material”

means any material which spontaneously

emits

radiation.

“Site” means the area contained within the boundary of a

location

under the

control

of

persons possessing or

using

radioactive material

on’which is conducted one or more operations

covered

by

this

part.

“Uranium

fuel

cycle”

means the operations of milling of uranium

ore,

chemical

conversion

of uranium,

isotopic enrichment of

uranium,

fabrication

of uranium fuel, generation of electricity

by

a

light~water~’cooled.nuclear

power plant using uranium fuel,

and

reprocessing

of

spent

uranium fuel, to the extent that these

directly support

the

production of electrical power for public

use

utilizing

nuclear

energy, but excludes mining operations,

operations

at

waste

‘disposal sites, transportation of any

radioactive

material

in

support of these operations, and the

reuse

of

reeove~ed

nonuranium

special nuclear and by—product

materials

from the

cycle.

Section 1000,403:

Environmental

Standards for the Uranium

Fuel

Cycle

Operations covered

by

this

Subpart shall be conducted

in

such

a

manner

as

to

provide

reasonable assurance that:

(a)

Th’e

annual

dose

equivalent does not exceed 25 millirems

to the whole

body’,

75inillirems to the

thyroid,

and 25

millirems

to

any other organ

of any member of the

public

as

the result of exposures to planned discharges

of

radioactive

materials,

radon and its daughters

excepted,

to

the

general

environment

from uranium fuel

cycle operations

and to radiation from these operations.

(b)

The

total

quantity

of radioactive materials entering the

general environment

from the entire uranium fuel cycle,

per

gigawatt~-year

of electrical energy produced by the fuel

cycle, contains

less than 50,000 curies of krypton—85,

5

millicuries

of iodine—129, and 0.5 millicuries combined

of

plutonium-~239

and other alpha—emitting transuranic

radionuclides

82464

---

SUBPART E:

RECORDS

Section

1000.501:

Records

(a)

All persons subject to this Part shall submit

to

the Department, with respect,

to any material

or

facility permitted or licensed by the NRC or

for

which

an

NRC permit or license

is sought:

(1)

Preliminary Safety Analysis Report

and

Final Safety Analysis Report,

as

described

in

10

C.F.R.

50.34

(2)

Appliostion

for Construction Permit

and for

all amendments thereto, in—

cludinc

information required by 10

C.F.R.

50.34a,

50.36, and 51.20

(3)

Environmental

Impact

Appraisal,

Draft

and Final Environmental

Impact

Statement, ~1egativeDe-

claration, or other document

prepared

by the NRC under

10

C.F.R.

51.5.

(4)

Operating

Permit

and

all amend-

ments thereto, including Techni~

cal

Specifications under 10

C.F.R,

(5)

i~plicationfor Amendment to

uperating License

(~)

ru

data, records, and reports

submitted

to the NRC in commec—

t:Lon

with

determining

or pre-

dicting radiation levels in air

in

unrestricted areas or the type

or

amount

of radioactive materials

emitted

into air conducted by or

for such

persons.

(b)

All records,

reports, and data received by

the Oartment pursuant to this Subpart shall

he

av~:’ilable

for public inspection at reason-

Section 1000.502:

Notification of Incidents

All

person

subject

to

this Part shall immediately notify by

telephone

arid

telegraph,

mailgram, or facsimile, the Manager

of the

Office of Nuclear

Facility Safety of the Illinois Depart-

ment of Nuclear Safety,

1035 Outer Park Drive, Springfield,

Illinois

62704~of

any

62-465

---

22

use

or

possession of

licensed materials or facilities or

the

conducting

of

licensed

activities

which

may

have

caused

or

threatens

to

cause

emissions

or

radiation

levels

in

excess

of

those

allowed

under

this

Part.

Section 1000.503:

Other Provisions

(a)

Part 201.102 apply to this Part.

tb)

All persons subject to this Part are sub—

ject

t~

the

requirements and provisions

35

Ill.

Adm~

Code 201,122,

201,123, 201.124,

201.125, 20Ll26,

201.141, 201.150 and

201

•

151.

62-466

---

23

APPENDIX A—CONCENT~ATIQfl$IN

AIR ABOVE

NATURAL

BACKGROUI~ID

Element (atomic

number)

Isotope1

pc.t/,nl

Actinium

(89).

.....~.

,...,...,.,Ac 227...

..s

8 x

I

Ac 228.....S

3 X 10~

I

6X10~°

Americium

~

241~.....S

2 X

I

4X1012

Am 242iit....S

I

Am 242....S

1 X l0~

Am 243.....S

I

4Xl0~2

Am 244.....S

I

6 X

I

5X109

Sb

124.....S

5

x

I

7XI0~°

Sb

125. ....S

2

x

io8

I

9X10~°

Argon

(~8)..................,..A

37.......Sub2

1

X

10~

A 41.......Sub

4 X io_8

7X108

I

1X108

As 74......S

1

x

io8

I

As 76

4 X 10~

I

As 77......S

2 X

10

3:

82-467

---

24

Astatine

(BS)...........,....,...At 213.....S

2 X 10~°

I

1X109

Barium

(5~).....,...............Ba131.....S

4 X io8

I

1X1O8

Ba 140.....S

4

X

10~

I

1X10~

Berkelium (97).......,.,,,..,...Bk 249....S

3

I

4X109

Bk

250....S

5 X 10~

I

4X108

Berylium t4).,,...........,.,,.~.Be7......S

2 X

I

4X108

Bismuth (83)..,,,,...,,,,,,,,,...Bi 206.....S

I

5X109

Bi 207.....S

6 X 10~

I

Ri 210.....S

I

2X10~°

Bi 212.....S

I

7X109

Bromine (35).....,,,,,,,,.,....,.Br82......S

4 X108

I

2X109

I

Cd L15m....S

1 X l0~

I

1X109

Cd 115.....S

8 X

10~

I

6 X109

Calci~n(~0),.,.,,..,.,,,,..,..,.Ca45......S

1X 10~

i

4 X109

Ca 47......S

6 X

I

6X109

Californium ~

249.....S

5 X io_14

I

3X10~2

Cf

250.....S

2

X

io13

I

3X10~2

Cf

251.....S

6

X 10~

62-468

I

3

~

---

25

~f

252.....S

2

X

io~3

I

1X1012

Cf

253......s

3

x

I

3XlO~

Cf 254.....S

2 X io13

I

2X10~3

Carbon

(6).,,,..,.........~,,.C14.......S

1 X10~7

(C02).....Sub

1 X ~

2X108

I

5X109

Ce

143.....S

9

X

10~

I

7X109

Ce 144...,.S

3 x io~°

I

2X10~0

Cesium (55),....,

~

..,,,..,,.~s131.....S

4

x

10~

I

1X107

Cs

134.m....S

1 x io6

I

2X107

Cs

l34.....S

1 X

I

4X10~0

Cs

13~.....S

2

X

io~8

I

3X109

Cs

136.....S

1

x

I

6X10~9

Cs L37.....S

2 x i0~

I

5Xl0~0

Chlorime fl7)...,.........,,..,,..C3.

36.....S

1 X io~8

I

Cl. 38......S

9 x io8

I

7X10~

Chromium

(ad)..~.

~

.

....,...,.Cr 51....

•

.S

4 X

I

8X108

Cobalt

t27)......,...............Co

57......S

3. X10~

I.

6X109

Co

58m.....S

6

I

3X107

62-489

---

26

Co 58.....S

I

Co 60......S

I

I

I

Cm

243~.

.‘.

~.

~.

S

I

Cm

244,....S

I

Cm 245.....S

I

Cm

2~46.....S

I

Cm 247.,..s

I

Cm

248.....S

I

Cm 249.....s

I

I

Dy

L66.....S

I

253..

..

.5

I

Es

254m....S

I

Es

254,...S

I

Es

255..’.~.S

I

3 X

2

X

l0~~

1 X io~8

3

X

7 x io~

4

x

4 X~io~2

6

X

io~12

2~

x.

3

x

3

x

3 X io12

2

X

4 X

2 .X

4

x

2

X

io13

4 x

2

X

io14

4 x io~

4 x

9

X i08

7 X io~~

B X

7

X

l0~~

3 X

2

X

2 X

2

X

6 ‘X

4

IC

2

.X

1 X

Copp•r

(39)...,..,.,,,.,,,..,..,Cu

64......S

Curii.*m

(96)

.

. .

.

.

•

.

.,...,

,,...

. .

Cm

242.

.

. .

S

Dysprosium

(66)

.

•

.1

• •..•

,

~

.

.Dy

165....

Einat~Lniwnt99).......,..,,.,..Es

82-470

---

27

Erbium

(68)............,..........Er369...,.$

I

Zy

.1

Europium

(63)

..,..

~

~

•

~?~3*9,2

brs)

Eu

152.....S

(T/2.13

yrs)

•

.1

Eu

154....

.S

I

Eu

3.55....

.5

I

Fermium ~

I

TTA2SS.....S

.1

Fm

2S6.,

. .

I

Fluorine

(9)..

...

I

Gadolinium

(64)...~.,........,.....’Gd

2.53.....S

i

-Gd

l59.....S

Galli~im(31)-.....,........,.....,...Ga72......S

I

Germanium (32)_......,..,.,,..,..Ge

7l.......s

I

Gold

(7-9)-.

..

..

- .

-.

•

.-.•-••....

.....~u

396...

....-.s

I

Ma

~3.98..,..S

I

Au 19-9.....S

I

2

IC 10~

1

X io6

2.X

io8

2 X io8

1 X10~

1

IC

io8

4

x

6

IC

1o~~

1. X

2 X

io10

3

X

10~

3

X

2

X

2 X

6 X

.4

X io10

1

x

io10

6 X

2

IC

9

x

io8

8

IC

3 X

2

IC

io~

1 X

8

X

6 X 10~

4 X

io~

2

X

4

IC

2

x

io~8

1

IC

8 x

4

IC

io—B

3

62-471

---

28

hafnium

(73),,....,....,.,......Jf

l8l,~....S

1 X

10~

I

3X10~9

flo$mtu7n

(~7),..•.,,..,..,........Ho166.....S

7 X

I

6X10~9

$fy4go9en

~

2

IC

I

2X107

Sub

4

X 10~

Ir~4jum(49).,....................n

113m....S

3

X

l0~

3:

2X107

In 114m....S

4

IC

l0~

I

7X10~°

In 115m....S

8

IC

.3:

6X108

In L15.....S

9

IC

I

1X10~9

Iodine

(53).......,..............X

25......S

I

I 126......s

9

I

1X108

I 129.,,...S

2

IC

I

2X109

I 133.......S

1

x

I

ixio~

I 132......S

3 X 10~

I

3X10~

I

133......S

4

X

10~

I

7Xl0~~9

I

134......S

6

x

1

.X

I 135.....S

I

x 1O~

I

X10~

Xyidtssrn

(771....,................Ir

190.....S

4

x

I

1X10~

Zr

192..,..S

4

X

I

9X10~0

82-472

---

6_Ot

X

I.

8e0t~t

60t

S

6e0t

X~C

8_0t

S

6

a_at S t

a_at S

C

8~~at

x £

a_at

S

V

a_at

S

£

6_ot * I

a_at

x 4

6_ot

x

S

6_0t S

1.

a_at

S

V

S

V

S

L

0t~ ~

Vt_Ot

5

8

Vt_Ot

S

P

a_at

S

~

8_OtS4

6e0t

S

P

6e0t

*

a_at

S

V

8_Ot

S

V

L_Ot t

£

L_Ottt

6_ot

S V

6_otxs

8_at t

£

8_ot

S £

6_otSc

I

i.e.

•

.ett ci

I

I

8’•••~Pt

q~g.

.~•.~

‘8.8

qfl••••••L.

31

..s

sr° •tce 3*’

I

P.S......

~

I

r.I...SS

N1

I

25

in)

~sd&sg

‘..fl~e

eos~

I

s’~°

‘a

~

atsiqtteii

I

I

SLIt

6

I

r“*tet

Lr••mo..SS...eS.e*0*.(ofl

£aMs*

I

g~e~•sSgç

~(

I

I

g•’~.~~zc

sS...4.su..a.flfls(ct)

sssus6tnta

I

s

•

‘at

~..en...nee.flS...(ft)

WIflfltfl

I

r~°’tn

q4•OCS~~•Sr

.n....*...flflj

PR.1!

.

.

...n..~g)

au~gatn

1*

ft

---

30

Neodymitun

(60),..,,,,...,.....Nd144.....S

I

1 x :to~1

Nd 147.

-..S

1

8

Nd 149.....S

6

IC

I

5XJL0~

Neptunium

(91).,,,,,•...,.,......Np 237.....S

1Xl0~”~

I

4

)C

Np 239.....S

3

IC

I

2

IC

:L0~

Nickel

(2~3)...,,.,..,....,.....Ni59......S

I

3X10

Ni 63....,.S

2

IC

i0~

-

-

I

I

1 X 10’

Ni 65......S

3

x io8

I

2X10~

Niobium (Columbiwn)

f41)..,,..•..Nb 9m.....S

4 X

10~’

I

5X10~~~9

Nb

95......s

2

IC

-

~

~

I

~b 97......S

2

IC 1O~

I

2

IC

l0~

Osmiwn

(76).....,,,..,,.,.,...,..0s185.....S

2

I

2Xi0~

Os

191m..

.

.S

6 X 10

-

I

3X10’

Os

193.....S

4

IC

iU~

I

lxi

~

Os

193.....S

1

IC

I

9Xi0~

5X1u

I

3X10~

Pd 109.....S

2x~r~

82-474

---

31

?hosphorgs

(1St,..,..

...,.,..~..,..P

32. . .-...

,S

2

x10~

I

3Xl0~9

Platinum

(71)

,....,.,,..,..,

..,..-..

Pt

3.91.-.-..

.

S

3 X 10

8

I

2X10~

-Pt

393m....S

I

2X10~7

Pt

19~3-.....s

4 x

i

1x1o8

Pt

3.97m..-..S

2

x

I

2X10~7

Pt

3.97$

3

X1O~8

I

2X108

Plutonium

~

238.-.,..S

7

x

ixio~2

-Pu 239.-...-.S

6

IC

io—14

I

lXl0~2

-Pu

240.,......-S

I

IIC10~2

-Pu -2414....S

3X1O~2

I

lx

l0~

Pu

242.....S

6

IC

I

1IC10~

Pu 243....S

6 x

108

I

8X108

-Pu 244.... .5

6

IC

1O~14

I

1Xl0~2

Polonium

1$4),.,,,,~.,.,-,-.,-.,....,..Po

23.0... ,,.S

2

x

7X10~2

potassium

~

42......

.5

7

,X

10~

I

4Xl0~

p~~o4ym~~m

~

142-..

•

..S

7

X

I

Pr

143..,...S

I

62-475

---

32

~ronethiun

(61),,,,...........,..Pm

147.~-.•.S

2~i01~

I

3X10~’

Pm 149... .-.S

1X401

I

8XlO~

P~otoaatinium

(93),•,..,,,.....Pa

230.....S

6 X

3X10~

Pa 231......S

4

IC

1O1~

I

4

IC

Pa

233.....S

2

X

6

x :~o~9

Rac~4um(88).•.,....... .........~.Ra223.....S

6X10~

I

BXIO

12

Ra

I

Ra

226.....s

3

X

lu

I

2X1C)~

Re 228.....S

2

x

i0~12

I

lx

Radon

(B6),,,,......,,....,...,..Rn220.....S

1 Xl0~8

3

Rn

222

~

3X10

9X10~8

I

5X10

Re

106.-....S

2

X

io8

I

8Xl0~

~e

187.....S

3 X

10’

I

2XiO~~

Re

188.~...-.S

1~x10~

I

6Xl0~

3-ICiO~.

I

2X10~4

Rb

105-.....s

3

X

lO~

I

2X10’~

Rubidium

(37)...............,..-.,Rb86......S

1Xl0”~8

I

2X10’~9

Rb 87......S

2’

IC

10~

I

2

IC

10

62-478

---

33

~tuthenium

(44)..,........,,.......Ru97.......$

8X108

I

6X108

Ru

103.....S

2

x

I

3X109

Ru 105..-.. .S

-2

X

I

-2X10”8

Ru 106.....S

3 X

I

2X1010

Samarium

(62)...,...,..,,..,.,..,..$xn 147...-..S

2 X io’12

I

9X10~2

Sm

151.....S

2

X

I

5X109

Sm

L53.....S

2

X

I

1X108

Scandium

(21).,,...,......,........$c

4~......S

B X 10’~

I

8X10~°

Sc

47......S

2

IC

10~

I

2X108

Sc

48......S

6

X

I

5X109

Selenium (34)...,,.,.,,..,.....,..Se 75......S

4

x i0~

I

4X109

Silicon ~

.Si 31..... .5

2 X

I

3X108

Silver

~

105....eS

2

IC

10~

I

3X109

Ag

llOm....S

7

X l0~

I

3X10”10

Ag.

U1.....E

1

X

10~

I

8X109

Sodium (11).........,..,..-........Na 22......S

6

X l0~

-I

3

X

Na 24......S

4 X 10—B

I

5X109

62-477

---

34

Strontium

(3B).,................Sr

85m.....S.

1X

I

1X1O’6

Sr 85......S

8 X 10~

I

4X109

Sr

89......S

3 X 10~

I

1X.0~

Sr 90......S

3

X

I

2X10~0

Sr 93.......S

2 X 10~

I

9X109

Sr

92......S

2 X 10~

I

1X1O”8

~u1fur

(16)..,.,,,,,..,....,.$

35•••••.•$

9

X

10~

I

9X109

Tantalum

~

1X109

I

7X101°

Technetium

(43),..,........,.....Tc96m.....S

3X106

I

1X1O6

Tc 96......S

2 X

10~

I

8X109

Ta 97m.....S

B

IC

I

5X109

Ta

97......S

4

x io~

I

1X10~8

Tc

99m.....S

1 X io6

I

5X10~7

Ta 99......S

7

X

10~

I

2Xl09

Tellurium (52)..,.,,,.,........,.Ts125m....S

lX1O~8

I

4X109

Te .12.7m.,.... .S

5 X 10~

I

1X109

Te 127.....S

6

X l0~

I

3X10’8

Ta l29m....S

3 X 10~

I

1X109

62-478

---

35

Te

129....S

2

X

I

ixio7

Te

l3lin..,.$

1-

X

io8

I

6X10’~

Te

132.....$

7

X 10~

I

4X109

Terbium

(6fl-...~.,

..,.1,.,,.....-,,,..--.-.Tb 160.

. ..

.5

3 X

1O~

I

1X1O9

Thallium

~

~.,.T3.

200.....S

9

I

4X108

TI. 20l.....S

I

3Xi0~

Ti 202.....S

3 X

I

B. X

Ti 204.....S

2-

X~IO~

I

9X101°

Thorium ~

227.....S

I. X

I

6 X io12

Th

228.....s-

3 x

I

2 X

iodl3

Tb 230.....S

I

3X10”13

Tb 231..,...S

5 X

I

4Xi0’~

Th 232.,....S

3.

X

I

1 X 10~

Tb

naturai.S

2

I

2

X

Tb

234.

.

.

•

.

S

2 X

I

1X10~9

Thulium

(69-)--....-..........~......-.

.,.

.

.Tm

170.

.

.

•

.S

1, X 10~

I

1XiO9

Tm 171.....S

4

X10~9

I

BX1O’9

---

36

Tin

(50).....,....,....~........Snl13.,...S

ixio’~

I

2X309

Sn

125......S

4 X l0~

I

3X109

Tungsten

(Wolfram)

(74)..........W

181......s

B

x

I

4X109

w

~

3

-X

I

4Xl0~9

2~Xl08

I

lXlO8

Uranium(92).........---

,.,..,..U230,..,..S

I

U

232......S

3

x

I

9X1013

U

233......S

2

X

I

4Xi0~2

U

234..

~

1~

x-

io~

I

4X1012

U

235....,S4

2

I

4X1012

U

236.....S

2

X

I

4X3.0d12

U 238......S~

3

X

I

5X10~12

U

240.....S

B

X l0~

I

6X109

U-natural.

~4

5

)~lO~

I

Vanadium(23).,..,.,.,............V48,..,..S

6XlO’9

I

2X109

Xenon (54).......,,.,...,.......Xe

131m....-.Sub

4 Xl0~

Xe

133.....Sub

3

X

10

Xe133m....Sub

3X107

Xe 135....Sub

1 X 10

82-480

---

37

Ytterbium

(70).

. . . . • .

.

.

.

.

.

•.

.

.

.

.Yb

175.,

.

.

.

I

Yttrium

(39)

•

• •.

. • ..

. .

.

.