ML20035B737
| ML20035B737 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/22/1993 |
| From: | Harvey M NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Weber M NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| References | |
| REF-WM-3 NUDOCS 9304050054 | |
| Download: ML20035B737 (9) | |
Text
._
o UNITED STATES g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e
o WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%,.* /
FEB 22 E i
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Michael F. Weber, Section Leader Regulatory Issues Section Decommissioning and Regulatory Issues Branch FROM:
Meg Harvey, Environmental Scientist l
Regulatory Issues Section
.j Decomissioning and Regulatory Issues Branch
SUBJECT:
TRIP REPORT FOR: (1) REGION III INSPECTION AT UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN (UM); (2) MEETING WITH MICHIGAN STATE AGENCIES CONCERNING UM INCINERATION PROGRAM; (3) MICHIGAN AIR POLLUTION CONTROL COMMISSION MEETING; AND (4) EPA PUBLIC HEARING ON SUBPART I.
This trip report covers my activities with NRC Region III, the University of Michigan (UM), and the State of Michigan Departments of Natural Resources (DNR) and Public Health (DPH) regarding State regulation of radionuclide air e
emissions. NRC Headquarters became involved in these activities at the 1
request of Region III when the State of Michigan raised policy and regulatory questions regarding State, NRC and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) jurisdiction over radionuclide air emissions.
I became involved because of my current interaction with EPA on regulation of radionuclide air emissions under i
the Clean Air Act (CAA). Another aspect of the issue relevant to the EPA interface was that Region III was investigating allegations made by a citizen group regarding UM violations of NRC regulations. This same citizen-group had asked EPA to hold a public hearing on EPA's proposal to rescind the CAA emissions standards for NRC and Agreement State licensees other than nuclear power reactors.
EPA had informed NRC that it anticipated the citizens group would voice strong opposition to EPA's proposed rescission.
Reaion III Inspection at the University of Michioan On January 11 and 12, I was in Ann Arbor, Michigan to observe a Region III
+
team inspection (unannounced) of the UM broad scope license. The inspection was conducted by two subteams; one team focused on operational aspects and the j
other focused on waste programs.
I observed the waste program inspection.
One of the goals of the inspection was to investigate allegations regarding UM violations of NRC regulations.
The allegations focus on UM's incineration program and were made by a local citizen group whose members reside in.an UM family housing complex located less than 1000 feet from UM's North Campus (NC) incinerator.
l T
UM has 2 incinerators licensed by the NRC and permitted by the Michigan i
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to burn radioactive waste. These are the NC pathological incinerator and the Hospital incinerator (sometimes i
referred to as Med-Sci 1). However, UM reported that they currently do not g
burn radioactive material at the hospital incinerator. All radioactive waste is held for decay and surveyed prior to burning at the hospital incinerator to ensure that radioactivity is not distinguishable from background. As part of 9304050054 930222 h
k/
PDR WASTE fr j
WM-3 PDR ww W
FEB 32 h i the inspection, Region III will assess the appropriateness of authorizing UM to burn radioactive material at the hospital incinerator if UM is not using that authority.
Region III has not yet completed the' inspection report.
The NC incinerator is permitted by DNR to burn only pathological radioactive waste (NRC's license does not include this res' riction). The NC incinerator has a continuous exhaust stack sampler (isokinetic) for radiciodines and particulates. The NC incinerator stack has no pollution control _ devices.
In 1991, 14,190 lbs of radioactive pathological waste was burned during 60 burn-days. UM stores incinerator ash in 55-gallon drums at an interim storage facility off-campus. UM generates approximately 4-5 drums of incinerator ash per year and plans to store all ash at the interim storage facility until the State of Michigan gains access to a LLW disposal facility.
Under current NRC license, UM is authorized to apply a 198x dilution factor to incineration air effluents based on a 28 ft. restricted area extending diagonally from the top of the 18 ft. stack to the edges of the building housing the incinerator.
In May 1991, UM instituted a policy.to discontinue burning radioiodines at the NC incinerator because of pressure from local residents. As part of the inspection, Region III will assess the appropriateness of the 198x dilution factor and whether the NC incinerator exceeded emissions limits listed in Part R0, Appendix B for radioiodines or any other radionuclide.
In November 1992, UM submitted a permit application to DNR to burn radioactive waste in a third incinerator, the Med-Sci 2 incinerator, and a proposal to modify the NC incinerator to enhance the dispersion characteristics. This proposal includes installing a fan to extend the exhaust plume to reduce building wake effect and emission levels at the air intake, located adjacent to the stack.
Region III received a copy of the package from DNR but has not yet received a license application from UM. UM intends to use Med-Sci 2 as the primary radioactive waste incinerator and the NC incinerator as a back-up facility.
Meetina with Michioan State Officials On January 13, 1993, I traveled to Lansing, Michigan, to attend a meeting with staff from the Michigan Department of Public Health (DPH), DNR, and NRC Region III. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss: (1) NRC's process for licensing incinerators, (2) the status of DNR staff's review of the UM Med-Sci 2 and NC incinerator applications; (3) the status of.the response to the citizen group's allegations regarding UM's incineration program; and (4) issues of regulatory jurisdiction over UM's program for radioactive waste incineration.
Mike McCann, RIII gave a brief overview of NRC's licensing and inspection process for incinerators. He also informed the group that an NRC inspection was currently in progress at UM and the allegations were being investigated by NRC as part of the inspection.
DNR staff provided a status report on UM's pending applications. As part of the application review process, DNR evaluated 1989 and 1990 emissions from the NC incinerator.
Results indicate that emissions are in compliance with the
i FEB 2 2 m3
- risk limits for toxic air pollutants in Michigan's regulation. Michigan's Air Pollution Act includes radionuclides as toxic air pollutants. Michigan Rule i
230 limits toxic air pollutapts to levels not exceeding a li[etime excess fatal cancer risk of 1 x 10' for a single source and 1 x 10' for a facility.
DNR treats the NC incinerator as a facility (i.e. NC incinerator emissions are i
not combined with emissions from other sources at UM). DNR's calculations assumed the following: (1) all activity entering the incinerator is emitted through the stack; (2) exposure occurs at a constant rate over a 70-year lifetime; (3) emissions are continuous for 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> per day; and (4) exposure is only through the inhalation pathway.
It is important to note two other Michigan rules that are relevant to this issue. Michigan Rule 285(p) provides that radioactive air emissions specifically authorized pursuant to an NRC license are exempt from the Michigan permitting system.
Rule 901 states that notwithstanding the provisions of any other rule, a person shall not cause or permit the emission of an air contaminant in quantities that cause: (1) injurious effects to human health or safety, animal life, plant life of significant economic value, or property; and (2) unreasonable interference with the comfortable enjoyment of life and property. Although Rule 901 does not reference Rule 230 DNR staff intends to implement Rule 901 using the Rule 230 risk range (10^5,to 10 ).
4 According to DNR staff, there is some question about whether Michigan's regulations permit DNR to defer to NRC on the issue of radionuclide air emissions. DNR is currently proceeding with review of the UM permit applications as if Rule 230 applies. However, DNR and DPH staff stated that they are sensitive to the problems associated with dual regulation and expressed a desire to defer the issue to NRC if allowable by State regulation.
This exchange led to a discussion of broader issues of regulatory jurisdiction over radionuclide air emissions.
I provided an overview of: (1) EPA's NESHAPS for radionuclides under the Clean Air Act; (2) the status of EPA efforts to rescind the NESHAPS for NRC-and Agreement State-licensed facilities; and (3)
States' rights under the Clean Air Act to promulgate emission standards in the absence of EPA standards or that are more stringent than EPA's standards. DNR and DPH staff asked several insightful questions regarding the regulation of naturally occurring and accelerator-produced material (NARM) air emissions.
They questioned whether NARM emissions were covered by EPA's NESHAPS and if so, whether NARM would remain regulated under the CAA at NRC and Agreement State facilities after EPA rescinds the NESHAPS. DNR and DPH staff noted that UM currently burns some NARM in the NC incinerator. They also asked about NRC's policy regarding compliance if a portion of the dose is contributed by NARM, material not regulated by NRC.
I responded that NARM emissions are covered under the CAA. However, NARM air emissions from NRC and Agreement State facilities will not be regulated under the CAA if EPA rescinds the NESHAPS (this is a regulatory gap). Regarding NRC's policy,.I stated that as a practical matter, when NRC assesses whether UM's incinerator is in compliance with its license and NRC's regulatory program, NRC will not subtract the portion of dose contributed by NARM. Another concern expressed by DNR and DPH staff was the effect of combined radioactive air effluents.
Mike McCann responded that under NRC's regulatory program, a licensee must demonstrate compliance with the public dose limit, which includes consideration of exposures from multiple sources at the facility.
}
FEB 2 ': n
. Meetino of the Michican Air Pollution Control Commission On January 19, 1993, I attended a meeting of the Michigan Air Pollution Control Commission (APCC). The APCC is an 11-member body comprised of 3 state officials, and 8 private citizens representing industry, local government, organized labor, and the general public. The APCC is responsible for the permitting of air pollution sources in Michigan. Region III staff also attended (Mike McCann and Roland Lickus, Regional State Liaison Officer). DNR staff presented a status report on its review of pending UM permits for the NC and Med-Sci 2 incinerators. DNR staff informed the APCC that the evaluation of 1989 and 1990 emissions from the NC incinerator were in compliance with the toxic air pollutants risk level in Rule 230. DNR staff stated that its review of the permit applications would be complete by March or April 1993. At such time the DNR staff will present its conclusions and recommendations to the APCC.
The APCC did not address whether the UM incinerators were exempt from Michigan's permitting process. Although the chairman of the APCC (a bureau chief at the DPH) did not address this subject directly, he appeared to be amenable to the possibility of deferring to NRC's authority. He stated that he was aware of the burdens of dual regulation and was interested in working closely with NRC to minimize these burdens.
Region III (Mike McCann) then informed the APCC that an NRC inspection at UM was in progress and the citizen group's allegations were being investigated by l
NRC as part of that inspection. He also noted that NRC had not yet received a license application from UM for the Med-Sci 2 incinerator or for modifications to the NC incinerator. Mr. McCann also apprised the APCC of NRC's ongoing cooperation with EPA towards rescission of EPA's NESHAPS for radionuclides as applied to NRC-and Agreement State-licensed facilities.
l The meeting was then opened to public comment reluted to DNR's review of pending permit applications for UM's incinerators. Several members of Citizens for Safe Waste Disposal (CFSWD) voiced strong opposition to the NC incinerator.
CFSWD is a citizen group based in Ann Arbor, Michigan which organized about two years ago in response to local residents' concerns about UN's NC incinerator. CFSWD presented a staternt very similar to the testimony they presented at EPA's January 14, 1993 public hearing on Subpart I, described below. CFSWD claimed that the incinerator is currently in violation of EPA's NESHAPS, NRC's regulations, and DNR's permit.
To support their contention, the group cited results from runs of EPA's COMPLY code-performed by DNR, and two consultants hired by UM at the request of CFSWD.
CFSWD claimed that several of the COMPLY runs performed by DNR had failed by large margins.
Based on an initial review of these data, I believe that CFSWD incorrectly interpreted the results of COMPLY runs performed by the DNR.
Specifically, several of the runs did fail at levels 1, 2 or 3.
However, the runs at level 4 passed. CFSWD also indicated that results of a dose assessment performed by a consultant (NUS Corporation) showed a dose of 12 mrem / year from radiciodines. CFSWD did not provide any details about this assessment. Also discussed by the citizens group were results from the other assessment performed by Marvin Resnikoff, Waste Management Associates. This study estimated a dose of 66 mrem / year to the thyroid. Based on a review of the rather sketchy details provided by CFSWD,.I believe that the study has potentially significant flaws.
First, wind rose data from Dayton, Ohio was used, rather than data from a nearby airport.
Moreover, it appears that the
- FEB 22 h annual inventory of radionuclides incinerated by UM may have been greatly overestimated.
CFSWD ended their presentation with a demand that the APCC take an immediate e
vote to shut down the NC incinerator until the risks to nearby residents are appropriately assessed.
The APCC responded that without evidence of an immediate health threat, it would be inappropriate to take such an action.
The remainder of the meeting was devoted to discussion and public comment on a petition to place a moratorium on all incineration in the State of Mich'.gan.
Individuals representing roughly 10 environmental groups were oresent to voice their support for such an action.
No action was taken by the APCC on this issue.
Environmental Protection Aaency Hearina on Suboart I On January 14, 1993, EPA held a hearing in Washington D.C. to hear public comment on its proposed rule (57 8 56877, December 1, 1992) to rescind the i
NESHAPS for NRC-and Agreement State-licensed facilities other than nuclear power reactors (40 CFR Part 61, Subpart I).
I attended the public hearing and presented testimony (see enclosure) on behalf of NRC staff. NRC's testimony expressed support for EPA's proposed decision to rescind Subpart I and encouraged EPA to take final action to rescind by March 31, 1993. No followup questions were asked.
i Testimony was also provided by individuals representing the American College of Nuclear Physicians (ACNP), NUMARC, and CFSWD.
In addition, one private citizen, James Hardin, expressed his opposition to the proposed rescission on
'r the basis that NRC's program provides a much lower level of protection of public health than EPA's program. NUMARC and ACNP were supportive of EPA's proposed rescission and the cooperation between NRC and EPA to eliminate dual regulation.
As mentioned above, CFSWD voiced strong opposition to EPA's proposal to rescind and claimed that the incinerator is currently in noncompliance with Subpart I.
EPA intends to finalize the proposal to rescind Subpart I by March 31, 1993.
Origiral Sicned By Meg Harvey, Environmental Scientist Regulatory Issues Section Decommissioning and Regulatory Issues Branch Division of Low-level Waste Management and Decommissioning
Enclosure:
NRC staff testimony Mark Small?B6keslin Condurre'nde*BlncFto:05 fi n e !Di stElbbflon" Copy? Pr'sfere ridF?
InWall' Box on '0FCi" lirie~~entsrf C - Cover"E = Cover WEnclosure N = No Copy
^
In small Box on "DATE:" line enter: M = E-Mail Distribution Copy H = Hard Copy 0FC NMSS M E
E NMSS:LLDR NAME MHarvey MWeber k I
M S/h/93 0
/ /93
/ /93
/ /93 DATE 2 /tt/93 Path & File N ee:c:\\ autos \\wp51\\mitrpl. rep 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY PDR : YES V NO
/ Category:
Proprietary or CF Only, ACNW: YES NO Delete file after distribution Yes # No IG: YES NO /
SUBJECT:
TRIP REPORT FOR MTGS REGARDING UNIV. OF MI INCINERA ION PROGRAM AND EPA PUBLIC J
HEARING ON CAA STANDARDS RESCISSION $ M #cd f i W WA C y"g [M TCJohnson LBell RBangart WBrach JSurmeier t
DISTRIBUTION: ' JAustin j
MLopez-Otin SSchwartz STreby NKStablein DCool CJones
]
i e
STATEMENT OF THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION STAFF l
AT THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[
PUBLIC HEARING ON NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS PROPOSED RULE TO RESCIND 40 CFR PART 61, SUBPART I 1
AS APPLIED TO NRC AND NRC AGREEMENT STATE LICENSEES i
OTHER THAN NUCLEAR POWER REACTORS l
January 14, 1993 Good morning Mr. Colli and members of the Environmental Protection
[
Agency (EPA) Panel.
I am Meg Harvey from the Office of Nuclear Material f
Safety and Safeguards of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
I would like to thank you for this opportunity to share NRC staff's views on EPA's Proposed Rule to rescind 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart I for NRC and Agreement State j
licensees other than nuclear power reactors, t
l NRC is presenting this statement today to demonstrate our commitment to pursuing the cooperative efforts that EPA has already initiated in proposing 4
i to rescind Subpart I for NRC-and Agreement State-licensed facilities other than power reactors. The cooperative efforts that have resulted in EPA's l
proposal foster the continuing partnership between NRC and EPA in protecting
{
the public and the environment.
EPA's efforts to rescind Subpart I have been i
constructive and consistent with the March 1992 General Memorandum of j
Understanding (M00) between EPA and NRC and the September 1992 MOU between the 1,
i agencies regarding cooperation related to rescission of Subpart I.
NRC agrees i
with EPA's tentative conclusion. that NRC's regulatory program protects the i
public health with an ample margin of safety from radionuclide emissions to
{
air from licensed nuclear facilities.
i
(!1c]Otwo e I
i
~
NRC believes that dual regulation of NRC-licensed facilities is l
l unnecessary from a health and safety or environmental standpoint and is undesirable as a matter of policy. Over the last several years NRC has been working with EPA to avoid dual regulation under the Clean Air Act and the I
Atomic Energy Act of radionuclide air emissions from nuclear facilities licensed by NRC or its Agreement States.
l.
NRC fully supports EPA's proposal to rescind 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart I ~
i and encourages EPA to take final action to rescind Subpart I by M> tch 31, 1993. Moreover, NRC supports the cooperative efforts and commhments related to rescinding Subpart I.
When coupled with NRC's existing regulatory program, these efforts collectively provide the basis for EPA to determine with confidence that NRC's regulatory program will continue to provide an ample margin of safety in protecting the public health from radionuclide air emissions. NRC generally endorses the results of EPA's survey of emissions from NRC and Agreement State licensees and fully supports EPA's conclusion, based on the survey results, that NRC's current regulatory program protects the public with an ample margin of safety.
In accordance with commitments in the September 1992 Memorandum of Understanding (M00) between EPA and NRC staffs (Attachment 1), NRC puolished a draft Regulatory Guide in October 1992 on effluents from licensed materials facilities (Attachment-2). The Regulatory Guide describes an acceptable-approach for designing and implementing radiation protection programs that ensure that doses resulting from effluents from licensed facilities will remain as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA). NRC intends to finalize i b
l J
l the Regulatory Guide based on comments received from members of the public by April 1993. NRC believes that the Regulatory Guide, coupled with its other commitments in the MOV, NRC's existing regulatory program, and EPA's survey results, provide a compelling basis for rescinding Subpart I.
I t
In response to EPA's specific request for comments on its proposed rulemaking, NRC would like to address final action on the proposal to rescind Subpart I.
NRC strongly encourages EPA to take final action to rescind I
t Subpart I by March 31, 1993. NRC believes that timely EPA action to finalize the rescission will help minimize burdens on NRC, Agreement State regulatory
{
agencies, and licensees resulting from the Subpart I standards becoming effective on November 16, 1992.
In addition, in the interim-prior to rescinding Subpart I for licensed facilities, NRC suggests that EPA consider i
suspending compliance with the construction or modification and other requirements in Subpart A of 40 CFR Part 61 for licensed facilities. Such an' action appears appropriate and consistent with the results of EPA's survey and tentative conclusion that NRC's regulatory program already provides protection i
with an ample margin of safety in accordance with section 112(d)(9) of the Clean Air Act, as amended.
I l
r i
l -
i I
t In closing, I would like to reemphasize that NRC fully supports EPA's I
proposed rescission of Subpart I and welcomes continued interagency cooperation in finalizing the rescission. NRC also looks forward to continued
-l l
cooperation with EPA in efforts to eliminate unnecessary duplicative regulation under Subparts T and W of 40 CFR Part 61 and in other programs.
I l
will remain available to answer any questions you may have.
l I
Thank you.
Attachments:
i 1.
September 1992 Memorandum of Understanding between EPA and NRC on Subpart I, 40 CFR 61 I
2.
Draft Regulatory Guide DG-8013 i
i i
i i
t n
i i
I
,r.
e
,.