ML003759914

Army Corps of Engineers Answers to Questions from July 25, 2000, Senate Environment and Public Works Low-Level Waste Hearing

ML003759914
Person / Time
Issue date:	10/12/2000
From:	Rathbun D Office of Congressional Affairs
To:	Commissioners NRC/OCM
Combs, Tom
References
Download: ML003759914 (19)

Text

41

• I

• 4 UNITED STATES IN=ALAR RE LJAT'RYBGOMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 1a22ts October 12, 2000 MEMORANDUM TO:

FROM:

SUBJECT:

Chairman Meserve Commissioner Dicus Commissioner Diaz Commissioner McGaffigan Commissioner Merrifield Dennis K. Rathbun, Director Office of Congressional Affairs (C.

ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS FROM JULY 25, 2000, SENATE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS LOW LEVEL WASTE HEARING Attached is a copy of the Army Corps of Engineers responses to questions for the record of the July 25, 2000, hearing before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works on the management and disposal of low-activity radioactive waste.

Attachment:

As stated cc: OEDO OGC OGC (Cyr)

NMSS RES NRR OPA SECY OIG ACNW OCIO OCFO OCAA

Contact:

Tom Combs, 415-1776

Q.,

_TIO

_-FROM LARMM4T41

1. Please describe in more detail the process utilized by the Corps and/or the disposal contractor to ensure that FUSRAP materials do not exceed the disposal facility's acceptance criteria.

Answer. The process that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers uses to ensure that FUSRAP materials do not exceed the disposal facility's acceptance criteria begins with the initial radiological survey to determine the existence of contamination at the site which exceeds standards, and ends with the collection and analysis of samples required by the disposal contractor. During this process, depending on the size and complexity of the site, thousands of samples will be analyzed. Together with an understanding of the site history, these samples provide a complete and accurate picture of contamination there, including radionuclides, activity levels, and nature of dispersion in the contaminated medium. Additional sampling along with other site characterization data is used to design and direct remedial activities and to determine disposal options. The data will determine the following: worker, public health, and environmental protections required during remedial activities; and whether the material can be cost effectively separated into more than one waste stream for more efficient disposal; whether contamination is evenly distributed throughout the medium which is contaminated. All sampling is done in accordance with standard protocols to ensure a high level of confidence in the characterization.

This process can be illustrated by the characterization of the Linde Building 30, at the Linde Site, Tonawanda, New York. The initial survey to determine the existence of contamination which exceeds standards in Building 30 and the materials stored there was performed in the late 1970's.

It involved close to 700 samples, including, for example, over 320 total gross alpha and total gross beta/gamma measurements using approximately a 6-meter grid over the entire floor. In 1981 a follow-up survey was done with fewer samples to confirm the results of the first survey.

Between 1988 and 1992 additional more extensive surveys were conducted to support remedial design engineering. These surveys involved close to 10,000 samples, including, for example, over 3,600 total gross alpha and total gross beta/gamma measurements on building floors, using approximately a 2-meter grid in areas identified as having elevated activity or a 5 meter grid for areas without elevated activity. Based on these surveys, the Corps determined that the material could be cost effectively separated into several waste streams for disposal at different kinds of facilities. In 1998 the Corps carried out a survey in accordance with the requirements established by the disposal facility.

At each FUSRAP site, the Corps requires its contractor to develop a specific plan outlining the process to be used for transportation and disposal of material from the site. The Corps reviews this plan to ensure compliance with all applicable Federal, state, and local requirements. The plan specifies the radiological, chemical, and physical/geotechnical testing that will be performed to adequately characterize and profile each waste stream to be disposed. Distinct waste streams may be segregated based on site history, process knowledge, physical/chemical characteristics, or the results of previous site investigations. The Corps-approved waste profile is provided to potential disposal facilities for review. After a disposal facility indicates that it may accept a specific waste stream, additional samples may be collected at the site and provided to the facility

-to.ow tie foeility to-ondcc'uc-s,wvtrmaiyieatesting. Aftef vonrupleiiun of-ihe waste profiie concentrations to expect in a specific waste stream. The Corps ensures that the selected disposal facility's regulator has approved any material for disposal prior to shipping. The Environmental Protection Agency is also notified to ensure compliance with the off-site rule in 40 CFR 300.440.

After receiving regulator approval, the material is prepared for transportation. At FUSRAP sites, this generally involves excavation of contaminated soil and placement into bulk containers such as railcars. An additional waste sampling regime is initiated at this time to ensure that the excavated material that is being placed in each container complies with the waste profile and with applicable Department of Transportation (DOT) requirements. The number and type of samples and/or radiological surveys required is based on a number of factors, including the homogeneity of the waste stream and the disposal facility's requirements. The number and type of samples/surveys may also depend on any potential regulatory requirements. After sampling is accomplished, the appropriate shipping documents are prepared by the contractor and submitted to the Corps for review. Material is not transported off-site until an appropriately trained Corps representative has approved of the shipment. The material is tracked from the time it leaves the FUSRAP site until it reaches the disposal facility. The disposal facility may take samples of the material prior to receipt and acceptance of the material for disposal.

2. Please clarify the difficulties involved in removing the FUSRAP wastes from the Safety Kleen facility near Buttonwillow, California. Has the placement of this material created a more dangerous condition? Could you explain?

Answer. The placement of FUSRAP materials at the Safety-Kleen facility has not created a more dangerous situation. Safety-Kleen is a hazardous waste disposal facility permitted by the California under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), also permitted to accept low activity radioactive material not regulated under the Atomic Energy Act. Safety-Kleen routinely accepts radioactive materials from the oil industry which have the same radionuclides as FUSRAP material and comparable levels of activity. Furthermore, after an extensive review, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control and Department of Health Services both acknowledged in a letter to State Assemblyman Dean Florez, dated August 25, 1999, that there are no known safety or health risks to the community as a result of this disposal.

There are, however, several difficulties which would be involved in removing the FUSRAP wastes from the Safety-Kleen facility, just as there would be in attempting to remove any other identified waste stream material from an approved engineered disposal site. Any action to disturb a managed waste cell would require both the permission of the owner, and the approval of the State regulator. These cells are designed to receive hazardous waste for permanent disposal, and not to be reopened after the materials are placed. The owner could be expected to demand that the United States guarantee the integrity of their waste cell, including the liner, in case of any damage caused by the excavation. The demand would extend not just to any immediate and obvious damage, but also to any long-term damage that could cause releases in the environment into the future.

The, eprinrcipal-difftiw'lf-isl' tl~t w-LRAF-nrateriai is now mixed with hazardous wastesThe variety of hazardous wastes regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the California statutory equivalent. The materials from Linde were disposed of legally at the Safety-Kleen facility over a period of several months, and over eighteen months have passed since those shipments were completed. Safety-Kleen has managed and disposed of other materials in the same area of the facility since the Linde shipments. Daily fill, hazardous wastes, debris and other solid waste from various sources have all been commingled with the Linde debris. The area could contain low activity radioactive material, such as oil field waste, as well as PCBs, asbestos, metals, solvents, or a wide variety of other regulated hazardous wastes.

No material could be removed until it had been characterized, an elaborate effort for hazardous waste from a variety of different generators. This would be required both for worker protection, and to determine the ultimate disposal facility for the materials. The receiving facility would have to have a RCRA permit covering all the listed and characteristic waste and constituents that turn out to be present, and, in addition, to provide for the acceptance of radioactive materials at the activity of whatever material is removed.

3. If RCRA Subtitle C facilities were no longer able to accept FUSRAP material, how many competitive options would remain? What would be the effect on cost for disposal of this material? Is there historical evidence available to support the cost impact - (i.e. what was the cost when RCRA facilities were not an option?)?

Answer. There are currently only two facilities with NRC licenses that are actively competing for FUSRAP disposal business. One is Envirocare of Utah, an NRC-licensed disposal facility, and the second is the International Uranium Corporation, an NRC-licensed uranium milling facility which has accepted some FUSRAP material as alternative feed stock under an amendment to its NRC license. Not all FUSRAP materials are suitable for use as alternative feed stock. There are two other facilities, one in New Mexico and one in Washington, licensed to accept 1 l e(2) materials, including the pre-1978 ore processing residuals which constitute a majority of FUSRAP materials. Both of these facilities have indicated that they currently have no interest in FUSRAP material. In addition to these four facilities which are licensed to accept 1 le(2) ore processing residuals, there are also two facilities which operate under agreement state licenses and accept low-level radioactive wastes (LLRW). Both would require state approval to also accept pre-1978 ore processing residuals. Neither of these facilities has shown much interest in competing for Corps FUSRAP disposal contracts. There is also an agreement state licensed mill that has shown some interest in FUSRAP materials as alternative feed stock.

The Corps believes that if RCRA Subtitle C facilities were no longer able to accept FUSRAP material, its primary options would be limited to Envirocare of Utah and International Uranium Corporation. The latter, however, would only be available for material which could be used as alternative feed stock. The Corps has realized a 30% reduction in the cost it pays to Envirocare for the disposal of that material through its competitive bidding process. Based on this evidence, the Corps believes that disposal costs would substantially increase if RCRA Subtitle C facilities could no longer compete for the disposal of low activity FUSRAP materials.

4. -hat-studies--ri-ewswere pleted'by-the-Corps-tu *sure safe disposai of FUSRAP at Answer. Because the Corps does not regulate disposal facilities, it has not performed any independent study of the appropriateness of disposal of radioactive materials at RCRA hazardous waste facilities. The Corps looks to the regulators of RCRA-permitted and NRC-licensed disposal facilities to set the parameters for the disposal of radioactive materials at a particular facility, based upon its location, design, and operational plans. However, from a worker protection standpoint, the Corps has reviewed existing radiation protection programs at targeted facilities. It has also reviewed facility-prepared dose modeling results at RCRA facilities and verified that the radiation dose to facility workers from their handling of low activity FUSRAP materials is estimated to be less than 1 millirem per year.

The Corps also evaluates the qualifications of its contractors prior to award of a contract.

Among the factors that the Corps evaluates are the contractor's performance record, adequacy of equipment and facilities, operational controls, including safety programs applicable to the work to be performed, and possession of the proper licenses and/or permits to execute the contract.

For disposal of radioactive FUSRAP materials, the Corps will only use RCRA facilities, that have permits that specifically address allowable radioactive isotopes and/or allowable levels of radioactivity.

Following finalization in 1999 of the Corps multiple award disposal contract, the Corps assembled a team of technical experts, mostly from its Hazardous, Toxic and Radiological Waste Center of Expertise in Omaha, to visit the facilities which received an award under this contract.

Reviews were conducted of facility permits and licenses, compliance audits, safety and health programs, and inspection records. These teams also met with regulatory agencies for each of the facilities to ensure clarity regarding the nature of the FUSRAP materials the Corps proposed to dispose of at these facilities under the 1999 contract.

Based on the facility'permits, site visits, and meetings with regulators, the Corps believes that disposal of some low-activity FUSRAP materials at RCRA Subtitle C facilities with permits authorizing the disposal of radioactive material is protective of public health and the environment.

5. Please explain how FUSRAP wastes are sampled and levels of activity are determined prior to shipment to disposal facilities.

Answer. A FUSRAP site investigation and remediation involves multiple surveys and analytical sampling events prior to material being sent off-site for disposal. The analysis of historical information and all collected survey data is used by the Corps to develop and refine a conceptual site model that characterizes the nature and extent of the radiological contamination at the site.

Each survey is designed to satisfy specific objectives and the analytical methods and data quality are chosen to ensure the objectives, will be met. Initially, a scoping survey is performed to determine the presence or absence of contamination within an area of the site. Scoping surveys are generally performed with hand-held radiation survey instruments and limited analytical

• ~aps

,,"c'ccs-o*xleted. --W',nan-aIr-ta-is *focind boeoa~ad,*ddlitixrdl cirdracterlzation Characterization surveys may involve the collection of a significant number of samples from various media within the contaminated area. For those areas requiring cleanup, surveys are performed to guide the remedial activities. Remediation support surveys are used by the Corps to ensure that the cleanup is complete. Data from these in-situ characterization and remediation surveys is often used to develop the waste profile that is provided to potential disposal facilities.

Once the material has been removed, an additional waste sampling regime is initiated to ensure consistency with the waste profile and compliance with applicable Department of Transportation (DOT) requirements. Because each subsequent survey is not entirely independent of previous surveys, the characterization data may be used to supplement the ex-situ sampling. The number and type of samples and/or radiological surveys required after the material is excavated is based on a number of factors, including the homogeneity of the waste stream and the disposal facility's requirements. The number and type of samples/surveys may also depend on any potential regulatory requirements. For example, the range of specific activity in many FUSRAP waste streams will not approach the 2000 pCi/g DOT definition of Class 7 radioactive material.

However, for those wastes whose range includes this level, additional sampling may be required.

After sampling is accomplished, the appropriate shipping documents are prepared by the contractor and submitted to the Corps for review prior to the shipment being released from the site.

QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BOXER

1. In your oral testimony, you stated that "we believe that Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, RCRA, Subtitle C, Hazardous Waste Disposal facilities, do provide for the safe and protective disposal of some FUSRAP material." As you know, FUSRAP material is radioactive and RCRA does not provide for the regulation of radioactive materials. Please provide the environmental and public health studies that form the foundation for the Corps' view that RCRA facilities are protective.

Answer. Although radionuclides are not a listed or characteristic hazardous waste under RCRA, states can, and most do, regulate the disposal of radioactive materials not regulated under the Atomic Energy Act. This regulation is often done in conjunction with the state RCRA program.

Some states have chosen to prohibit or greatly restrict the disposal of radioactive materials at RCRA facilities. Other states, however, have examined the location, design, and operations of certain RCRA facilities and have authorized those facilities to accept radioactive materials up to a designated activity limit.

The Corps does not regulate these waste disposal facilities. The Corps looks to the regulators of RCRA-permitted disposal facilities, as well as NRC-licensed disposal facilities, to set the parameters of disposal of radioactive materials. The regulators of each facility are in the best position to know whether disposal of low-activity radioactive waste is appropriate at a particular facility, and whether such disposal is acceptable to the local community.

The Corps does, however, evaluate the qualifications of its contractors prior to award of a contract. The Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) require that the government make an affirmative determination that a contractor is responsible prior to award of a contract. Among the factors that the Corps reviews in order to determine whether a contractor is qualified to perform a contract are the contractor's performance record, financial resources (including bonds and other resources that secure financial obligations), adequacy of equipment and facilities, operational controls (including safety programs applicable to the work to be performed), and possession of the proper licenses and/or permits to execute the contract.

The Corps' decision to utilize certain RCRA permitted facilities as a disposal option for some low activity FUSRAP materials included an evaluation of RCRA worker radiation safety. The Corps, for its own information, reviewed existing radiation protection programs at targeted facilities. The Corps also reviewed facility prepared dose modeling results at RCRA facilities and verified that the radiation dose to facility workers from their handling of low activity FUSRAP materials is estimated to be less than 1 millirem per year.

For disposal of radioactive FUSRAP materials, the Corps is only using RCRA facilities, that have permits that specifically address allowable radioactive isotopes and/or allowable levels of radioactivity.

2. -Ir, y-our

-'estianon; you~

't'te

• FUJSRAcF sites-wereft' cleaned up according to1,946

• ~

st*,a

,,,darp.dfds. Yu the.n i rpcy -t

-- *DE -,lA~m *'d--~~'IT*'-AD-'

rern

,ih,..,*c

.i.. :

hc*.

high levels of contamination. You then state that "we continue now to continue to clean up what is remaining there and what is remaining, I assume, is the 1 le(2) byproduct. Some of that material would be classified under that label."

Please reconcile this statement with the statement earlier in your testimony that only 20% of the FUSRAP waste the Corps has disposed of under the program has been sent to RCRA facilities, with the remaining 80% going to NRC licensed facilities.

Answer. A principal reason why only 20% of FUSRAP materials are going to RCRA Subtitle C disposal facilities is the low activity level acceptance criteria of the RCRA facilities. The Safety Kleen facility near Buttonwillow, California, is permitted to accept material with an average activity level less than 2,000 picoCuries per gram (pCi/g). Envirosafe of Idaho and Waste Control Specialists of Texas are permitted to accept some materials with an average activity level up to 355 pCi/g. However, there are mulitple factors involved in determining the best disposal option for FUSRAP materials in addition to activity levels, these include, quantities, disposal permits and licenses, regulatory acceptance, transportation options, contracting options, and site and loading logistics.

2.1. Please provide documentation for your statement that only 20% of the waste the Corps has disposed of under FUSRAP has been sent to RCRA facilities.

Answer. The table below shows that only 61,000 cubic yards out of a total of 347,000 cubic yards and 2,800 tons out of a total of 4,500 tons were disposed of at RCRA Subtitle C facilities.

The RCRA hazardous waste disposal facilities on the table below are Safety-Kleen, Envirosafe of Idaho, and WCS (Waste Control Specialists of Texas).

Site Material Disposed Disposed Disposal Facility Location CY Tons Ashland 1, Soil 78,249 International Uranium Utah Tonawanda, NY Corporation Ashland 2, Soil 45,500 International Uranium Utah Tonawanda, NY Corporation Bliss & Laughlin, Metal Shavings &

60 Envirocare Utah Buffalo, NY Miscellaneous Debris

Linde, Soil 3,700 Envirocare Utah Tonawanda, NY Soil, steel, metal debris &

1,283 Envirocare Utah miscellaneous decon waste Bldg. 30 wood, masonry, &

2,165 Safety Kleen California interior asbestos Non-rad. scrap steel IlI Lewis Levin New York Bldg. 30 North Bay non-rad.

25 Integrated Waste New York bldg. debris

,I.

i a 17i~kv~~° ooy a, 1"vn-,riabie, nun-rad.

LakeviewLand Tilt Pennsylvania So

~~Asbestos tI' Painesville, OH Soil 1,326 Envirocare Utah St. Louis, MO Soil 71,000 Envirocare Utah sites__

Soil 381 Envirosafe Idaho Colonie, NY Soil (Mixed Waste) 952 Envirocare Utah Mixed Waste drums (55 gal),

27EA Envirocare Utah stabilized waste/debris LLRW - 125 tons metal 125 GTS Duratek Tennessee debris LLRW - Dry activated waste 27 GTS Duratek Tennessee Unimportant Source Material 3,000 Envirosafe Idaho Quantity Non-contaminated Wood 75 Ft Edwards Chip Clean Scrap Metal for 40 New York Recycle at local dealer W.R. Grace, Soil (Containerized rubble) 150 WCS Texas Baltimore, MD DuPont Structural Steel 536 WCS Texas Deepwater Plant, NJ Drums Mixed Waste (55 Gal) 9 PermaFix Florida Bagged PPE 7

WCS Texas Maywood, NJ Soil 45,355 Envirocare Utah Wayne, NJ Soil 40,000 Envirocare Utah Middlesex, NJ Soil 57,600 Envirosafe Idaho Structural Steel 137 Envirosafe Idaho PROGRAM 347,289 4,541 TOTAL.

2.2. Please provide documentation that DOE performed work at each of the remaining FUSRAP sites to remove high levels of radioactive materials.

Answer. The table below contains general information about earlier cleanups of FUSRAP sites, prior to the creation FUSRAP, which was provided to the Corps by the DOE. Typically earlier cleanups were designed to meet standards in effect at the time, in the 1940's, 1950's or 1960's when Manhattan Engineer District (MED) and early Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) work was completed at these sites. The table also shows which sites became contaminated because they were utilized for storage or disposal of FUSRAP materials during this earlier cleanup. The Corps does not have detailed information regarding earlier cleanups, cleanup criteria used at that time of the location of all previous on-or offsite disposal areas. The Corps is doing document searches in conjunction with potentially responsible party (PRP) investigations at several of these sites. In all likelihood these investigations will provide the Corps with more documentation with

-respe-ct tr Am-& eartim r-leartups.

Name of Site Previous Cleanup Madison, IL Mallinckrodt Chemical Company was responsible for removing remaining uranium and cleaning up facilities following uranium metal extrusion operations and uranium rod straightening performed for Mallinckrodt by the Dow Chemical Company at Dow's Madison facility during the late 1950's and early 1960's.

St. Louis Downtown Residuals from processing uranium ores from 1942-1957 were disposed of at Site, St. Louis, MO the St. Louis Airport. Mallinckrodt Chemical Company decontaminated Plants 1 and 2 from 1948 through 1950 to meet the Atomic Energy Commission standards in effect at the time and AEC released these plants for use without radiological restrictions in 1951. AEC managed decontamination of Plants 10, 7, and 6E to meet AEC criteria in effect at the time and returned the plants to Mallinckrodt in 1962 for use without radiological restrictions.

St. Louis Airport, St.

Disposal site for processing residuals from Mallinckrodt Chemical Co., 1946.

Louis, MO St. Louis Airport, Vicinity properties were contaminated during shipment of Mallinckrodt Vicinity Properties, materials to the Airport site or migrated from the Airport site to adjoining areas.

St. Louis, MO Latty Avenue, St.

Materials stored at the Airport site were sold for extraction of any remaining Louis, MO radioactive materials and moved to Latty site in 1966-7. Contamination results from storage of FUSRAP materials at site while awaiting processing.

Bliss and Laughlin, Following completion of work performed for the AEC in 1952, the owner Buffalo, NY conducted a radiological survey and replaced some equipment because it was contaminated.

Linde Air Products, Residuals from processing uranium ores during the early to mid-1940's were Tonawanda, NY disposed of at the Ashland 1, Tonawanda, NY site.

Ashland 1, Disposal site for processing residuals from Linde site, 1944-1946.

Tonawanda, NY Ashland 2, Ashland I materials were moved by the site owner to Ashland 2, 1974-1982.

Tonawanda, NY Seaway Industrial Some Ashland I materials were also placed in the Seaway landfill, 1974-1982.

Park, Tonawanda, NY Niagara Falls Storage DOE created on-site waste containment structure.

Site, NY Luckey, OH In 1959, under contract to the AEC, the processing facility was decontaminated and processing wastes were consolidated in a dike-enclosed landfill on site.

Painesville, OH No evidence of any previous cleanup.

Colonie, NY National Lead Industry records show that radioactive materials were disposed of or stored at a designated area on site under an AEC license in 1961.

CE, Windsor, CT Site records show remediation in Building 3 and some outdoor areas during and after the AEC contract work, directed by either AEC or the Navy to comply with cleanup standards of the day. Soil from some outdoor areas was removed.

Building 3 was cleaned in 1959/1960, 1962 and then in 1963/64.

Shpack Landfill, FUSRAP material disposed of in this domestic and industrial landfill.

Norton, MA Maywood, NJ Stepan Company cleaned up the site from 1961-1968 of residual wastes from thorium extraction operations carried out by the Maywood Chemical Corporation until 1958. Material from cleanup operations is stored at NRC licensed pits.

"-W-,

• Ni 1 W.R. Or-z'e-partiaiiy decontaminated'the site in 1974. in"975, storage license for radioactive materials was terminated byhthe.4RCfllcnidtWr, decommissioning and the site was released without radiological restriction.

Middlesex, NJ Structures on the site were decontaminated in 1967 and the site was certified by the AEC for unrestricted use, in accordance with guidelines in effect at the time, and returned to the General Services Administration.

Dupont Chamber In 1948-1949 the AEC performed radiological surveys and decontamination of Works, Deepwater, buildings at DuPont in accordance with guidelines in effect at the time. In 1949 NJ the AEC released the buildings back to DuPont. In 1996, DOE completed decontamination of interior surfaces of Building 845 in preparation for demolition of the building by DuPont. In 1997 DuPont completed some chemical remediation of a portion of the central drainage ditch under RCRA.

ORNL subsequently verified to DOE that DuPont's RCRA remediation had also successfully remediated this area for radiological contamination W.R. Grace, In 1993, W.R. Grace decontaminated one of the buildings contaminated as a Baltimore, MD result of the early AEC activities at the site. There has been no other remediation of contamination resulting from early AEC activities. That work was completed in 1958.

2.3. Please provide documentation underpinning your assumption that the materials the Corps is only disposing of 1 le(2) byproduct material in the FUSRAP.

Answer. The Corps is not disposing only of 1 le(2) byproduct material in FUSRAP. In addition to the pre-1978 ore processing residuals, which constitute the largest single category of FUSRAP materials, the Corps has also identified lesser percentages of Low-Level Radioactive Waste (LLRW), Mixed Wastes, Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material (NORM), Hazardous Waste, and Special Nuclear Materials. Since not all FUSRAP sites have been fully characterized it is possible that additional categories will be identified.

3. In discussing the Buttonwillow case, you stated in your oral testimony that the radioactive waste transported to California "met very stringent DOT regulations for the transporting of those materials." What do those regulations require?

Answer. Department of Transportation (DOT) hazardous materials regulations in 49 CFR Parts 172 and 173 specify marking, labeling, placarding, packaging, and shipping paper requirements for FUSRAP wastes meeting a specific DOT hazard class. They also specify training and certification requirements for employees dealing with hazardous materials. The hazard class most likely to apply to FUSRAP wastes is either Hazard Class 7 or Hazard Class 9. Hazard Class 7, Radioactive Material, applies to shipments with a specific activity greater than 0.002 microcuries (2000 picoCuries) per gram. Material covered by Hazard Class 7 requires special packaging, labeling, marking, and placarding. Marking, package labeling, and placarding requirements are found in 49 CFR Part 172. Packaging and transport requirements, including exceptions, for certain types of radioactive materials are found in 49 CFR Part 173. Hazard Class 9, Miscellaneous Hazardous Material, applies to shipments which include a hazardous substance under CERCLA or a hazardous waste under RCRA. The Corps requires that its contractors comply with the applicable provisions of 49 CFR Parts 172 and 173. In addition, the Corps tracks all its shipments through a change of custody form.

A L~~dr

~

D~oi~i 11~, vscoe0-.-Ym -statedm-oa~eiiniit 4~sii radioactive waste shipped to Safety-Kleen averaged 2,000 picocuries/gram or less it met the requirements of the permit. ("But again, we are talking about averages, so they average 2,000 with one peaking above 2,000. The Buttonwillow facility is permitted to accept an average of 2,000. So it can accept some material that may have peaked higher, but on the average it can't be higher than 2,000.")

As you know, the validity of that permit term has been contested by the California Department of Health Services. That notwithstanding, nothing in the permit specifically allows the use of averaging to meet this permit condition. The use of averaging, depending upon how it is done, could render even the 2,000 picocurie/gram limit meaningless since it would enable the Corps to ship radioactive materials significantly higher than 2,000 picocuries by diluting the radioactive content with non-radioactive material.

On this issue, Senator Bennett posed a question to Dr. Paperiello that Dr. Paperiello could not answer. Senator Bennett asked what would happen if a shipment received at the facility was as hot as 4,700 picocuries but the average fell below 2,000 picocuries. In particular, Senator Bennett asked whether the 4,700 picocurie material would have to be separated from the remaining material or whether it could, in effect, be diluted by less radioactive material and thereby averaged to meet the permit condition. Dr. Paperiello "[I]n terms of how you deal with heterogeneous distribution, which is quite common, it would depend and awful lot on how the receiving facility was permitted... I just don't know when a facility is permitted to receive material up to 2,000 picocuries per gram... I don't know how they deal with heterogeneity."

4.1.

Please provide any written documents indicating whether and how averaging was applied by the Corps in this case (e.g., did the Corps take the average per container, per rail car, per entire shipment?).

Answer. The averaging was applied to the entire shipment of contaminated wood and masonry debris from the Linde, Building 30 demolition, to the Safety-Kleen disposal facility near Buttonwillow, California. The averaging was based on the 26 samples that were obtained in accordance with requirements established by Safety-Kleen. Prior to this sampling, the interior of Building 30 was decontaminated by vacuuming and pressure washing to reduce the amount of contaminated dust and other loose materials. Wood and masonry surfaces were then scanned for radioactivity. Based on scan results, the following samples were collected: three wood and three masonry samples were collected from areas exhibiting the highest radiation levels; three wood and three masonry samples were collected from areas exhibiting low radiation levels; and seven wood and seven masonry samples were collected from random locations. The average total activity for all 26 of these samples was determined to be 335 pCi/g, well below the 2000 pCi/g acceptance criteria of the Buttonwillow facility. This average was consistent with the more than 10 thousand samples taken during the site investigation phases of the remediation process.

4.2 Please provide any written authorizations or legal authority from the State of California which permits such averaging.

California, which defines permitted levels of activity in terms of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations, specifically 49 CFR 173.403(y). "The Permitee shall not accept the following wastes and materials at the Facility: a. Radioactive materials which either require special placarding because they exceed 2,000 picocuries/gram of activity as reference in 49 CFR 173.403(y) or are defined as "NRC regulated source materials." DOT regulations provide for averaging.

4.3. Your staff person Julie Peterson referred to a "general rule of thumb" being the "three times rule" in her response to the Committee on this issue. What is the authority for that "rule," how does that rule apply (e.g., per shipment, per drum, etc), how is it enforced on a facility-by-facility basis, and what is the scientific underpinning of that rule?

Answer. The three times multiplier has been used since 1974 when the NRC's Regulatory Guide 1.86, Termination of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Reactors, was published. It has provided guidance for acceptable surface contamination levels that have been used during reactor and other decommissioning activities. Its maximum acceptable values listed in the document are a factor of three times the average acceptable levels. The Department of Energy (DOE) (DOE Order 5400.5, Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment) and the Department of Army (Department of Army Army Regulation 11-9, The Army Radiation Safety Program) have also used these average and maximum criteria.

The more specific basis for use of the three times rule as an upper limit in conjunction with averaging is guidance issued by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) together with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. In accordance with NUREG-1608/RAMREG-003, which references International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) advisory material on qualitatively and quantitatively defining the non-homogeneity in a package containing low-specific activity (LSA) materials, a material may be considered essentially uniformly distributed when the calculated or measured specific activity difference between equal volumes does not vary by more than a factor of three.

This guidance was intended to clarify the definition of "radioactive material" provided by DOT for its regulatory purposes. In accordance with DOT regulation 49 CFR 173, a material is radioactive if it has a specific activity greater than 2,000 pCi/g. The specific activity of a material in which the radionuclide is essentially uniformly distributed is the activity per unit mass of the material.

The concept of essentially uniformly distributed material within each shipping container has been incorporated into the FUSRAP waste acceptance criteria for Envirosafe Services of Idaho, Inc. Additionally, the use of upper action levels that are three times the allowable average soil concentration have been incorporated in Envirosafe's permit. At the Waste Control Specialists, LLP (WCS) facility in Texas, based on meetings between the Corps and state regulators, averaging over the volume of the container is generally acceptable for soil contamination.

Though it is not specified in the WCS permit, State of Texas regulators have indicated that they might even allow elevated areas up to ten times the average activity in a container.

4.4 "Ms. Peterson also stated that"it is [the use of averagingi negotiated with the facility's

• eg~1~t~y ~ n

.... " P=p vt s-rrc"trng rihw-tissue was negotiated with the State of California and Safety-Kleen prior to the shipment of the Buttonwillow waste.

Answer. Although the Corps did not negotiate with the State of California regarding the use of averaging prior to the shipment of Building 30 materials to Safety-Kleen, the Corps has since then established a practice of meeting with state regulators of disposal facilities which have contract for the disposal of FUSRAP materials. A team of technical experts from the Corps Hazardous, Toxic and Radiological Waste Center of Expertise in Omaha was assembled to visit the facilities which received an award under its 1999 multiple site disposal contract. The team discussed averaging and the three times rule with the facilities and state regulators to establish the position of the regulators on these issues which may not be expressly addressed in permits or regulations.

The Corps does not know whether state regulators were aware that Safety-Kleen was utilizing averaging in evaluating whether material met the facilities waste acceptance criteria. However, pursuant to their permit, Safety-Kleen was and is required to implement the Waste Analysis Plan (WAP) that was approved by the State of California. That plan contains the facility waste acceptance criteria and a description of the waste analyses that the permittee is required to obtain before waste acceptance. No additional surveys or samples were requested by either the California Department of Toxic Substances Control and the Department of Health Services, the averaging method to be employed was not questioned, and no state-imposed averaging protocols were specified. Safety-Kleen then determined that they had complied with their approved WAP and could accept the Building 30 material.

5. The Corps is required to conduct FUSRAP response actions under CERCLA in accordance with the regulations developed by EPA (the NCP). However, at the Linde FUSRAP site, it appears that the Corps was in disagreement with EPA over what would constitute appropriate cleanup levels for the radioactive contaminants (radium, thorium, uranium) at the site. Since EPA has issued guidance on interpreting the NCP (Use of Soil Cleanup Criteria in Subpart B of 40 CFR 192 as Remediation Goals for CERCLA Sites (February 12, 1998) which specifies a cleanup level of 5 pico curies per gram for the sum of radium or thorium, what is the basis for the Corps selecting higher cleanup levels for these radionuclides? Also, EPA has recently issued guidance that addresses uranium cleanup levels (Remediation Goals for Radioactively Contaminated CERCLA Sites Using the Benchmark Dose Cleanup Criteria in 10 CFR Part 40 Appendix A, I, Criterion 6(6) (April 11, 2000). How did the Corps select the cleanup levels it used at Linde for uranium, and in the future does the Corps intend to use EPA's previously mentioned guidance documents? If the Corps does not use EPA's guidance documents for establishing cleanup levels, how does the Corps intend on attaining consistency across the FUSRAP program on how cleanup levels are decided?

Answer. The Corps used Subpart B of 40 CFR Part 192, which sets standards for residual concentrations of radium-226 in soil at certain former uranium mill sites as a basis for establishing requirements for the Linde site. It states that radium concentrations at those former

miii sites shall not exceed background'by more than b picoturies per gram (pCi/g) in the top 15 c.i..e...-of-ai.

.n 5 -,i.-,. -jar,15 Z

-waa-rbelhe*-p iayci, -rveraged over an area of 100 square meters. Subpart B of 40 CFR Part 192 does not specifically address radionuclides other than radium.

In June-of 1999, NRC amended its regulations at 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A to address radionuclides other than radium at certain uranium mill sites. 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 6(6) requires that residual concentrations of these other radionuclides will not result in a total effective dose equivalent (TEDE) that exceeds a benchmark dose established based on cleanup above background to the radium standards of 5 pCilg in the top 15 centimeters and 15 pCi/g in subsequent 15 centimeter layers below the top layer and must be as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA). This benchmark dose is used to establish allowable soil concentration levels for radionuclides other than radium.

The Corps used the benchmark dose approach of 10 CFR 40, Appendix A to determine the concentration limits for thorium and uranium at the Linde site. The Corps calculated that the comparable concentration limits for thorium-230 were 14 pCi/g in the surface and 44 pC/g in the subsurface. Thorium-230 is the significant contaminant at the Linde site. The concentration limits calculated for total uranium were 554 pCi/g in the surface and 3,021 pCi/g in the subsurface. However, the Corps did not make these limits the cleanup standards for uranium in the cleanup plan it approved for Linde because prior to issuance of the new NRC guidance, in the proposed plan provided for public comment, Corps had proposed a 600 pCi/g maximum for natural uranium. In order to be consistent with the plan released for public review, the Corps retained the 600 pCi/g maximum for natural uranium as the cleanup standard for natural uranium. All soils with total uranium concentrations exceeding 600 pCi/g will be excavated and disposed of off site. However, the Corps estimates, based on the quantities and distribution of uranium in the soil and in comparison to quantities and distribution of thorium in the soil at the Linde site, that after remedial action is completed at Linde, the average residual concentration of uranium remaining on site will be 60.8 pCi/g.

EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response has issued guidance documents at various times during the development of the aforementioned regulations. These documents provide EPA regional staff with guidance on implementation of the NCP in order to achieve some measure of consistency nationwide. The Corps has met with EPA staff to discuss 40 CFR Part 192 and EPA's related guidance and plans to have further discussions with EPA on the applicability of its guidance to the FUSRAP sites. Likewise, the Corps has met with NRC staff regarding 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 6(6). The Corps intends to maintain consistency with regard to cleanup criteria at FUSRAP sites by consistently cleaning up in accordance with applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements.

6. While the Corps does not have to receive EPA approval of the remedies selected at non-NPL FUSRAP sites, the Corps does have to follow the NCP. In particular, EPA's off-site rule, which is part of the NCP, implements the CERCLA requirement that waste removed from a site under the Superfund must be sent to a facility that is in compliance with Federal and State disposal

requirements.

To assure that wastes removed under the NCP are disposed of in a way that protects human health and the environment, the party conducting the cleanup should request a determination of the off-site rule from EPA to assure that the disposal facility meets the requirements of that rule.

Did the Corps request a determination of the off-site rule from EPA prior to shipping the FUSRAP wastes to Buttonwillow?

Answer. Because the Corps prime contractor had audited the Safety-Kleen facility near Buttonwillow, California, and determined that it was not in violation of its permit, the Corps did not request that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regional off-site coordinator determine whether the Safety-Kleen facility was acceptable under the Off-Site Rule. Following the disposal of FUSRAP materials at the Buttonwillow facility, the Corps has discussed the off site rule with EPA staff. Current Corps disposal policy requires compliance with the off-site rule before FUSRAP materials are shipped to a disposal facility.

The value of EPA's off-site rule is to prevent shipments of waste to facilities that have leaks, releases, or relevant permit violations. However, the EPA off-site coordinator does not evaluate whether a facility is authorized to accept a particular type of waste. Only the disposal facility and its specific regulatory agency or agencies can determine whether the facility is authorized to accept FUSRAP materials.

lU WVTTChT rPrA QJhLA TflD V.U.A I J('1 TV A r'D A{J AXK fl.

S A S C'.. Cl = bJA.JA

 A C CZ SAY

£ flSJttJ 0

rCA 2...? SJ isrr What guidance has the Army Corps provided to its contractors, who are disposing of FUSRAP material, for the purposes of testing, monitoring, transportation, and complying with Federal, State and local disposal regulations? Please provide the relevant guidance documents.

Answer. EC 200-1-3 Off-Site Disposal of Materials from the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program is the overarching guidance provided to contractors by the Corps related to off site disposal of radioactively contaminated FUSRAP materials. Its purpose is to help assure: 1) compliance with all applicable laws and regulations, 2) disposal is protective of human health and the environment, and 3) protects the public interest from both the health and fiscal perspectives.

Each solicitation for FUSRAP work, including on-site remediation, transportation, and disposal provides contract requirements with which contractors must comply. One such requirement is the Permits and Responsibilities Clause, FAR 52.236-7, which states that "[t]he Contractor shall be responsible for obtaining any necessary licenses and permits, and for complying with any Federal, State, and municipal laws, codes, and regulations applicable to the performance of the work."

A listing of statutes/regulations and guidance with which the contractor must comply, as applicable, follows below. In addition, at each of our sites the contractor is required to develop a site/waste specific Transportation and Disposal Plan which incorporates guidance documents and other Corps requirements and how to comply with that guidance, including how material will be handled, shipped, and disposed of. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) reviews these plans to assure compliance with the contract requirements, applicable federal, state, and local regulations, and to assure the technical adequacy of the plans. Federal and state regulators may additionally review this plan.

USACE health physicists and other technical staff oversee and coordinate with the contractors on implementation of the Transportation and Disposal Plan. As a part of this coordination, the contractor and USACE determine Department of Transportation, Environmental Protection Agency and Nuclear Regulatory Commission requirements (see listing below for potentially applicable regulations) for transport of the material to the disposal facility. The USACE, the contractor, and the disposal facility determine sampling protocols per container based upon the disposal facilities Waste Acceptance Criteria and other factors, such as DOT hazardous material transportation hazard class definitions.

USACE GUIDANCE Offsite Disposal of Materials from FUSRAP, USACE, EC-200-1-3.

Radiation Protection Regulation and Manual, USACE, ER/EM 385-1-80.

Safety and Health Requirements Manual, USACE, EM 385-1-1.

OTHER GUIDANCE

Guidelines -for Decontamination of Facilities and Equipmentl'rior to'R ease ofol nrestricted Jt, XT]D.,"

1.,7, Standard Operating Safety Guidelines, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),

Environmental Response Branch, Hazardous Response Support Division, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response.

Occupational Safety and Health Guidance Manual for Hazardous Waste Site Activities, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment, Department of Energy, DOE Order 5400.5, February 1990.

Radioactive Waste Management, Department of Energy, DOE Order 435.1, 1999.

Disposal sites also have specific data/information needs based on their permits/license and we insure that these data/information are collected.

STATUTES AND REGULATIONS

• Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended (CERCLA), 42 USC 9601-9675 (in particular 42 USC 9621 (d)(3)).

Atomic Energy Act (AEA) of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2011-2296.

Hazardous Materials Regulations, 49 CFR Parts 171 through 179, as applicable, U.S.

Department of Transportation.

Standards for Protection Against Radiation, 10 CFR Part 20, Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

Safety and Health Standard, 29 CFR Part 1910 (General Industry), U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

29 CFR 1910.120, Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response, U.S.

Department of Labor, OSHA.

29 CFR 1910.1096 Ionizing Radiation, U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA.

Safety and Health Regulations for Construction, 29 CFR Part 1926, U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA.

Health and Environmental Protection Standards for Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings, 40 CFR Part 192, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities, 40 CFR Part 264, EPA.

Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities, 40 CFR Part 265, EPA.

• Land Disposal Restrictions, 40 CFR Part 268, EPA.

• Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste, 40 CFR Part 261, EPA.

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, 40 CFR Part 61, EPA.

National Primary Drinking Water Regulations, Maximum Contaminant Levels, 40 CFR 141.11-141.16, EPA.

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, 40 CFR 300, EPA Accident Prevention, Federal Acquisition Regulations Clause 52.236-13.

Applicable requirements of the states in which the radiological contaminated soil is being disposed.

_UT IVTfvbT TFPCOM. SEQ,, TOP

n. N.-M

- A N I understand the Army Corps has calculated cleanup levels at the Linde site for uranium surface contamination at 554 pico curies per gram and subsurface contamination at 3,021 pico curies per gram - with an expectation that average post-cleanup uranium levels will be 60.8 pCi/g. What assurances has the Corps made to ensure that this expected cleanup standard will be achieved and will be protective of public health and safety?

Answer. Based on cleanup goals presented in the Proposed Plan and Record of Decision for the Linde site, the Corps is committed to ensuring that no concentration of total uranium exceeding 600 pCi/g above background will remain at the site, with an expected average concentration for total uranium not to exceed 60.8 pCi/g above background. A post remedial risk assessment will be conducted to assure that the site falls within the acceptable CERCLA risk range, 104 to 10 increased risk. If risk associated with the Linde site does not fall within the acceptable CERCLA risk range after remediation, additional site soils will be excavated until the risk associated with the site falls within the acceptable range. As it has done at other sites in the Buffalo area, the Corps will coordinate the post-remedial action site assessment with state regulatory agencies to obtain their concurrence that the cleanup required by the Record of Decision (ROD) was achieved The Corps calculated a cleanup level of 554 pCi/g surface and 3,021 piC/g subsurface based on NRC regulations issued in July 1999, which are relevant and appropriate cleanup requirements at the Linde site. Prior to issuance of this new requirement, in the proposed plan provided for public comment, the Corps had proposed a 600 pCi/g maximum for natural uranium. In order to meet the commitment to the public which was implicit in the plan released for their review, the Corps retained the 600 pCi/g maximum for natural uranium as the cleanup standard for natural uranium in the plan approved by the ROD. All soils with total uranium concentrations exceeding 600 pCi/g will be excavated and disposed of off-site. Based on the quantities and distribution of uranium in the soil and the cleanup criteria for other radioisotopes in the soil at the Linde site, however, the Corps estimates that the average residual concentration of uranium remaining on site will be 60.8 pCi/g after remedial action is completed at Linde.