MAM-B - Regulations/Licensing Woodrow Wilson B 10:00 - 11:30
|
| Chair(s): Alan Fellman
|
| |
MAM-B.1
10:00 Program Overview And Explanation Of Policies For The Turn-In Of Defense-Owned Radioactive Items Found In The Public Domain CE Turner*, Department of Defense
Abstract: The Department of Defense (DoD) Instruction 4715.27, Section 3.4, describes the DoD policy for the turn-in of defense-owned radioactive items outside of DoD possession and control (in the public domain). The DoD will review each circumstance on a case-by-case basis to determine if there is proper information to support the turn-in. The intent of this presentation is to inform members of the public, especially those in the Health Physics community, on the rules, guidance, direction, and instruction that DoD follows when a turn-in is requested for defense-owned radioactive items found in the public domain.
|
MAM-B.2
10:15 Design Basis Accident Dose Criteria History and Perspectives JG Parillo*, U.S Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Abstract: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC’s) design basis accident (DBA) dose criteria and the resulting design of accident mitigation systems emphasize protection of the control room operator over protection of the public. The control room criterion restricts the calculated 30-day accident dose to the annual occupational limit of five rem while the off-site dose criteria allows for a calculated dose of 25 rem in two hours. DBA dose criteria should not be viewed as representing actual doses received by individuals but rather as figures of merit which have a direct impact on the design of structures, systems and components (SSCs) important to safety. The off-site dose criteria were derived from the siting practices of the earliest reactors and are not reflective of current health physics knowledge or modern plant construction. As a result, the design of accident mitigation systems may not be optimized in the best interest of NRC’s mission of protecting public health and safety. The control room accident dose criterion has proven to be challenging to demonstrate with many plants having very little margin to the regulation. This paper identifies concerns with current DBA dose criteria and recommends revisions to the accident dose acceptance criteria that will; (1) be reflective of modern health physics recommendations and modern plant designs, (2) provide a better balance between protection of the control room operator and protection of the public, and (3) relieve the unnecessary regulatory burden associated with meeting the current control room dose criterion.
|
MAM-B.3
10:30 TENORM Regulation in the United States of America post-West Virginia v. EPA WS Lynn*, University of Alabama at Birmingham
; EA Caffrey, University of Alabama at Birmingham; CA Wilson, University of Alabama at Birmingham
Abstract: The regulation of technologically enhanced naturally occurring radioactive materials (TENORM) in the United States of America consists of fragmentary rules split between the federal government and the states. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has recognized the complex nature of TENORM regulation but has not issued explicit TENORM rules at the federal level. Some states have enacted their own TENORM statutes and regulations to fill this gap while others claim the authority to regulate TENORM under their general radiation protection statues. The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruling in West Virginia v. EPA created a new lens through which any new environmental regulation should be viewed and has direct implications for the regulation of TENORM. This paper presents an overview of West Virginia v. EPA, the major questions doctrine on which SCOTUS based its opinion, and how it might apply to TENORM regulations at the federal and state levels. A review of relevant federal laws used by the EPA to justify congressional authority in crafting radiation regulation was conducted, and the laws on which TENORM regulations would rest are summarized. Two states, one with explicit TENORM regulations and another with only general radiation protection statutes, are considered in the context of a hypothetical legal challenge to TENORM regulations. The outcome of this analysis demonstrates that any proposed regulation of TENORM would likely be immediately challenged in a state or federal court, and that West Virginia v. EPA creates a situation in which new federal and state laws may be needed to establish a robust regulatory system for TENORM.
|
MAM-B.4
10:45 Policy Surveillance Methods as Applied to TENORM Regulation in the Gulf States WS Lynn*, University of Alabama at Birmingham
; EA Caffrey, University of Alabama at Birmingham; CA Wilson, University of Alabama at Birmingham
Abstract: The regulation of technologically enhanced naturally occurring radioactive material (TENORM) in the United States of America varies significantly from state to state with some jurisdictions having explicit TENORM regulations for certain industries, others citing the authority to regulate TENORM under general radiation statutes, and others having no explicit TENORM regulations at all. The fragmentary nature of the TENORM regulatory system at the state level creates an environment where industries operating within a short distance of each other but separated by state lines are subject to radically different rules for the handling of TENORM. The emergence of Policy Surveillance Methods, databases, and software have introduced a robust methodology for monitoring the status of public health laws and assessing their efficacy. This project applies Policy Surveillance Methods to state TENORM regulations in the gulf states of the United States of America to identify similarities and differences in how TENORM regulation varies between these states. Additionally, this project aims to establish a blueprint for future datasets to be used by public health professionals that include all states and territories and radiation regulations other than TENORM.
|
MAM-B.5
11:00 The Impact of LNT on Litigation AL Fellman*, NV5 Dade Moeller
Abstract: Dating back to the 1950s, the practice of radiation safety and the regulations covering radioactive materials and machine-produced radiation have been based on the Linear Non-Threshold hypothesis. Efforts to change this approach have consistently been resisted by regulators, most recently the Nuclear Regulatory Commission when ruling against three petitioners who had proposed that a non-LNT based approach would better serve society. The adherence to the Linear Non-Threshold hypothesis encourages members of the public to be afraid of radiation. Undue radiation phobia negatively impacts society in many ways, one being encouragement to file lawsuits against radioactive materials licensees, x-ray machine registrants, and companies involved in Manhattan Engineering District work, alleging that any of a number of health effects are the result of low or even non-existent radiation doses. Several cases involving frivolous claims will be described. Examples of junk science offered by Plaintiff’s expert witnesses and the challenges of countering such arguments will be examined.
|
