ML20140F799

Forwards Responses to Questions Raised in Meeting on 930919 on Issues Re Reconcentration of Radionuclides in Sewer Sys

ML20140F799
Person / Time
Issue date:	10/01/1993
From:	Blaha J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To:	Olson P GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
Shared Package
ML20140F780	List: ML20140F774 ML20140F799
References
FOIA-97-66 NUDOCS 9705050350
Download: ML20140F799 (23)

Text

.

L' CDC c.+

5 October 1, 1993 Mr. Philip Olson -

U.S. General Accounting Office l c/o DOE, Room E-172 19901 Germantown Road Germantown, MD 20874 l

Dear Mr. Olson:

The NRC staff has prepared responses to your questions raised in our meeting of September 19, 1993, on issues concerning reconcentration of radionuclides in sewer systems. A copy of the staff's answers are enclosed. ,

1 One of the questions requires solicitation of information from outside the NRC. When an answer to this question is received from the State of '

California, the infonnation will be forwarded to you. Should you have any additional questions please feel free to contact me at 504-1703.

Sincerely,

/s/

James L. Blaha, Assistant for Operations Office of the Executive Director for Operations As stated ,

Distribution: [GAO) l DACool/RPHEB rf I Cir/Chron ESBeckjord RBernero, MSS /D0 OWFN 6E6 CJHeltemes JBlaha, EDO OWFN 17G21 BMorris FCostanzi CTrottier A

Offe: RPH l 1 MSS Asst:EDO Name: CTrottier:rg ord L_.4Be e JBlaha Date: 9/2V93 9 93 9/193fcf$3 9/ /93 FFICIAL RECORD COPY l '

i

~

g 50 g o 97o425 PATEL97-66 PDR -

h l

i a

INDEX

1. Responses to GA0 questions

a. Is the NRC responsible for preventing and regulating exposure of  ;

radiation from sewerage sludge / ash? Which other agencies--Federal, State, or local have jurisdiction over radionuclides in sewerage sludge / ash?

b. When did NRC become aware that radionuclides were reconcentrating in sewerage sludge / ash? Was thi.s a problem that State / local officials uncovered or was NRC already aware of the problem?

! c. Is NRC aware of any more recent surveys of reports besides NUREG/CR- l l 5816 (Evaluation of Exposure Pathways to Man From Disposal of 1 Radioactive Materials Into Sanitary Sewer Systems) that were done to l

i determine the potential health and safety impacts from radionuclides l reconcentrating in Publicly Owned Treatment Works (P0TWs) sewerage I l sludge?

l l d. Since NRC knows that radionuclides are present in some sludge / ash l but might no know the extent of all radionuclides at all POTWs how l does NRC ensure itself that all sludge / ash which is disposed of or l sold to the public does not pose a realth and safety threat, l

! problem, or concern? '

e. Excluding Southerly and the cases mentioned in NUREG/CR-5814, now

, many other sewerage systems has NRC identified that are contaminated l with reconcentrated radionuclides?

l

f. Does NRC consider radionuclides in sludge and/or ash used in fertilizer and compost sold to the public, landfills, roads, l agriculture land, cinder blocks, and baseball diamonds to pose a real or potential public health and safety problem or concern to the public health and/or POTW workers?

g. Has NRC performed any analysis to determine if the sludge used by j the City of Milwaukee to produce fertilizer (Milorganite-sold to '

l public) and soil conditioners (Agrilife) contains radionuclides. If so, please provide documentation on what NRC's analysis found and i the levels of concentration of radionuclides in the sludge. If l analyses have been performed, has NRC contacted the City of l Milwaukee's POTW which provides.the sludge?

l

h. Has NRC performed any analysis to determine if the sludge used by the Kellogg Supply, Inc. to produce compost and fertilizer contains radionuclides. If so, provide documentation on the concentrations of radionuclides found. If analysis have been performed, has NRC contacted the POTW in Los Angles that provides the sludge te Kellogg Supply, Inc.?  ;

i

NRC ACTIONS TO RESOLVE RECONCENTRATION OF RADIONUCLIDES IN SLUDGE AND ASH

i. According to a February 25, 1993, NRC memo from the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, to the Director, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, a request was made to assign a high priority to resolving reconcentration of sewerage sludge and develop an overall strategy for addressing both short and long-term actions by June 1993.

1 What was the impetus of this letter? Is this issue also a high priority with NRC's research group? Yes or no, and why? If yes, what is the status of the short and long-term strategies for )

resolving this problem?

l

j. Will the elimination of 10 CFR Part 20.303 and the adoption of the new 10 CFR 20.2003 now prevent reconcentration of radionuclides in  !

sludge or ash? Why or why not? Did any soluble or readily l dispersible materials reconcentrate in sewerage sludge? If so, at which POTWs did this occur?

k. When did NRC begin a rulemaking on changing 10 CFR Part 20.303?

What was the impetus for making this change?

1. According to 10 CFR 20.2003, "The disposal of nonbiological soluble i material is no longer permitted because of potential for I reconcentration of these materials in the sanitary sewer system, sewerage treatment plants, and sewage sludge."

m. According to 10 CFR 20.2003, "The concentration limits for radionuclides released to sanitary systems have been reduced by a factor of 10 from the former rule. The rationale for the reduction in the limits for sewer disposal are not explained." Whey were the limits reduced and why wasn't the reduction in the limits explained?

n. According to 10 CFR 20.2003, "the reduction did not appear to take into account the dilution afforded from multiple users of the sewer system." Whey wasn't dilution from multiple users taken into account and please provide a description and explanation of

" dilution assumption" used in original Part 20. Is the assumption of dilution of multiple users outdated?

o. According to 10 CFR 10.2003, "The purpose of the revision is to modify NRC;s radiation protection standards to reflect developments that have occurred since Part 20 was originally issued more than 30 years ago."

When was the regulation originally issued and what developments occurred that made it necessary to revise 10 CFR 20.303? What was the impetus for changing 10 CFR 20.3037 Are there any case histories of problems with radionuclides reconcentrating in sewerage sludge? Was the Southerly POTW the reason for the change?

.,,ss __.u-...a ,=.- - u - wu- - m..w-- u

+ - - - -- +- ._

a How will the changes to Part 20.303, now Part 20.2003, ensure adequate protection of public health and safety / How will NRC;s 4 current inspection system assure that licensees' discharges comply with the revised regulation?

OTHER MATTERS

p. Is NRC aware of EPA;s April 1986 study " Radioactivity of Municipal Sludge"? Was NRC asked to provide any input into the study?

4

q. Is NRC aware of " EPA;s standards for the use or disposal of sewage

sludge" issued on February 19, 1993, in the Federal Reaister? Does

, NRC have any concern with the standards EPA has established on how J

sewage sludge can be used and disposed recognizing that the standards do not address the issue of radionuclides concentrating in sludge?

I r. Does NRC know of any other studies and/or efforts for evaluating radionuclides in sewerage sludge / ash?

s. What is NRC's authority to force unlicensed sewerage treatment >

j plants to cleanup materials discharged by NRC licensees? Does NRC plan to issue the District a license for the materials?

2. Chairman Backup Question providing status of Northeast Ohio Regional

Sewer District / Southerly, dated 2/07/94 4

) 3. Discussion of contaminated sanitary sewer treatment facilities

! (Interstate Nuclear Services, University of Michigan, NFS Irwin, NE Ohio i Regional Sewer District), dated June 2,1992.  ;

l 4. Correspondence regarding GA0 identification of Vermont Yankee Sanitary Sewer 20.302 Disposal, December 1993

, 5. Questions regarding sewer releases from power reactor licensus i

i s

4 i

i

- - . _ ~ - _ _ - - _ _ - _ . - - . - - - . . . . - . . - _ . . - . . - . . _ - - -

l i

l RESPONSES TO GA0 QUESTIONS l POTENTIAL HEALTH AND SAFETY IMPACTS Q1 - Is NRC responsible for preventing and regulating exposure of radiation from sewerage sludge / ash? Which other agencies--Federal, State, or local--

have jurisdiction over radionuclides in sewerage sludge / ash?

Answer: The Commission has not formally considered this question and determined NRC's responsibility for preventing and regulating exposure of radiation from sewage sludge / ash. However, the staff interpretation is as  ;

follows. NRC and its Agreement States have this responsibility and their  !

regulations, address the discharge of certain radioactive materials effluent into sanitary sewer systems, as well as certain emissions from incinerators, by licensees. In particular, the NRC regulations focus on radioactive materials licensed under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and on regulating licensees' activities involving those materials, to protect both J radiation workers and the public outside of their facilities. It should be pointed out that NRC does not regulate naturally-occurring or accelerator ]

produced material (NARM) which could also contribute to radionuclide buildup in sewer systems. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates certain L radioactive effluents from NARN materials through several statutes. State and local agencies may have jurisdiction over these materials, as well, and may regulate Atomic Energy Act materials if they have entered into agreements with the Commission for that purpose.

i

~

1

i~

Q2 - When did NRC become aware that radionuclides were reconcentrating in j l sewerage sludge / ash? Was this a problem that State / local officials' uncovered or was NRC already aware of the problem?

l Answer: Several events occurred which prompted the NRC to issue an Information Notice (IN 84-94) in 1984 which addressed reconcentration of radionuclides in sewer systems. An occurrence of potential reconcentration of Am-241 was discovered in sewer lines and treatment plant ash in a facility in l

Tonawanda, New York where smoke detectors had been manufactured was being decommissioned in 1983 by the State of New York, which is an Agreement State.

In response to this event, the State of New York surveyed a sewer treatment plant in Grand Island, New York where another manufacturer of smoke detectors had made releases of Am-241. Again, contaminated sludge was found. Reports of these incidents were prepared by the New York State Department of Health (Rimawi 1984)'. Another event occurred when Oak Ridge Associated Universities (ORAU) found Co-60 in the sludge-of the sewer treatment facility at Oak Ridge, Tennessee during a routine survey. Tennessee is also an Agreement State. The Tennessee Department of Public Health investigated this case of sewage system contamination and prepared a report (Halsey 1986)2 . In addition to the Information Notice, the NRC also issued temporary instructions to the regional offices in 1984. These instructions directed the regions to be sensitive to the potential for reconcentration of radionuclides in sewerage

' Rimawi, K. 1984. Americium-241 Contamination in Tonawanda and Grand l

l Island, New York. State of New York, Department of Health, Bureau of Environmental Radiation Protection, Albany, New York.

2 Halsey, R. 1986. Investigation of Sewage System Contamination Incidents in Tennessee. State of Tennessee, Department of Public Health,

, Division of Radiological Health, Nashville, Tennessee.

2 l

l l

_ _ . . . _ . _ _ ~ . _ _ . _ _ . . . . . . .. _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ . . ____ _._,

! i t' l 1

a j systems. In addition, specific licensees were identified where the potential j for reconcentration was believed to be high. As a result of these j inspections, the NRC identified two additional cases where radioactive j material was found in sewer systems. One was from a nuclear laundry in i

l Royserford, PA and the other was from an NRC-licensed fuel facility in' Erwin, 4 TN. A second temporary instruction was issued in 1987 which expanded the list I

l_ of licensees to include fuel cycle licensees after the contamination in Erwin, l

1 TN was identified. As a result of these cases, NRC's Office of Research initiated a contract with Pacific Northwest Laboratories to investigate the potential for exposures resulting from radionuclide reconcentration in sewer

{ systems, and evaluate the potential public health and safety impacts. The 1 i

report analyzed various scenarios where individual members of the public could be exposed to the radioactive material present in each case and demonstrated that in none of the cases would the public dose limit of 100 mres (TEDE) in the revised Part 20 be exceeded.  !

Q3 - Is NRC aware of any more recent surveys of reports besides NUREG/CR-5814 (Evaluation of Exposure Pathways to Man From Disposal of Radioactive Materials Into Sanitary Sewer Systems) that were done to determine the potential health and safety impacts from radionuclides reconcentrating in Publicly Owned Treatment Works (P0TWs) sewerage sludge?

i Answer: The Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education conducted surveys of the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District (NE0RSD) site during September 1991 and March 1992. The results were published in August 1992 in a final report, " Radiological Characterization Survey for Selected Outdoor Areas -

3

i

(

Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District Southerly Wastewater Treatment Plant -

Cleveland Ohio." In addition, further surveys were conducted during the summer of 1993 by NE0RSO during lagoon cleaning. This information is expected to be available to NRC in the near future. Otherwise, there are no other j published reports that we are aware of since the May 1992 publishing of the PNL report. We have, however, identified a 1986 report on " Radioactivity in Municipal Sludge" by the EPA. l l

Q4 - Since NRC knows that radionuclides are present in some sludge / ash but might not know the extent of all radionuclides at all POTW's, how does NRC -

ensure itself that all sludge / ash which is disposed of or sold to the public does not pose a health and safety threat, problem, or concern?

Answer: As noted in the question, the NRC does not have direct information However, we have examined the about radionuclide concentrations at all POTWs.

data included in NUREG/CR-5814, the cases cited in response to Question 5 below and the results of an EPA survey of " Radioactivity in Municipal Sludge,"

published in 1986. In addition, as indicated earlier, after the initial l events in 1984, the NRC issued several temporary instructions te specifically look for radioactive material in sewer systems which could have been released by NRC licensees. Based on our assessment of the information available today, we do not consider these to be a threat to public health and safety but it is possible that additional risk minimization may be feasible and practical. We will finalize our assessment of the NE Ohio situation upon receipt of the forthcoming report on a Survey of the Sewer District lagoons. All the cases  !

l identified to date, appear to have involved concentration of particulate 4

i i

P 4

matter. Under revised 10 CFR Part 20 (which has been voluntarily implemented by some licensee and will be mandatory for remaining licensees on January 1, 1994), only soluble and readily dispersible biological byproduct material can be released by NRC licensees. We believe this will significantly reduce the i potential for future occurrences similar to the experiences noted above.

However, we are proceeding to conduct a study of the potential for i reconcentration of soluble materials in sewerage sludge / ash, and will develop an ANPR to solicit comments on several policy issues associated with release i

of radioactive material via sewers.

QS - Excluding Southerly and the cases mentioned in NUREG/CR-5814, how many other sewerage systems has NRC identified that are contaminated with reconcentrated radionuclides?

Answer: The NRC is aware of several other cases outside of the those identified in NUREG/CR-5814 or discussed previously in this letter -- these are: University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Interstate Nuclear Services, Springfield, Massachusetts; & Precision Cast Parts Corp., Portland, Oregon.

Q6 - Does MRC consider radionuclides in sludge and/or ash used in fertilizer and compost sold to the public, landfills, roads, agriculture land, cinder blocks, and baseball diamonds to pose a real or potential public health and safety oroblem or concprn to the public health and/or POTW workers?

5

What other applications of sludge / ash is NRC aware of? If NRC has performed any analysis of any of the applications to determine the level of radioactivity involved, please provide the results.

Answer: Only the applications of sludge / ash described in NUREG/CR-5814 have been evaluated. These are the applications which were believed to be typical 4

of the types of uses made of sludge / ash. The radiological impacts estimated

! in this report do not show any health and safety problems.

Q7 - Has NRC performed any analysis to determine if the sludge used by the City of Milwaukee to produce fertilizer (Milorganite-sold to pubitc) and soil If so, please provide

~

conditioner (Agrilife) contains radionuclides.

i documentation on what NRC's analysis found and the levels of concentration of radionuclides in the sludge. If analyses have been performed, has NRC contacted the City of Milwaukee's POTW which provides the sludge?

l 1

Answer: NRC has not performed any analysis to determine if the sludge used by the City of Milwaukee to produce fertilizer and soil conditioners contains radionuclides. Moreover, we are not aware of any problem with this material

which would have prompted us to take any action. The NRC would respond to information indicating that this is an area of concern and that the material should be analyzed.

4 Q8 - Has NRC performed any analysis to determine if the sludge used by the Kellogg Supply, Inc. to produce compost and fertilizer contains radionuclides.

If If so, provide documentation on the concentrations of radionuclides found.

I

6

J 4

. 1

\

analysis have been performed, has NRC contacted the POTW in Los Angles that i 1

. provides the sludge to Kellogg Supply, Inc.? l l

l Answer: NRC has not performed any analysis to determine if the sludge used by )

Kellogg Supply, Inc. to produce compost and fertilizer contains radionuclides. 1 Moreover, we are not aware of any problem with this material which would have l l

prompted us to take any action. According to information provided by GAO, Kellogg Supply, Inc., is located in the State of California which is an Agreement State. This question has been referred to the State of California.

Information received from the State will be forwarded to you under separate cover.

, 7

9 NRC ACTIONS TO RESOLVE RECONCENTRATION OF RADIONUCLIDES IN SLUDGE AND ASH i

Q1 - According to a February 25, 1993, NRC memo from the Director, Office of l Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, to the Director, Office of Nuclear l

Regulatory Research, a request was made to assign a high priority to resolving reconcentration of sewerage sludge and develop an overall strategy for addressing both short and long-term actions by June 1993.

What was the impetus of this letter? Is this issue also a high priority with NRC's research group? Yes or no, and why? If yes, what is the status of the short and long-term strategies for resolving this problem?

Answer: The letter states that the occurrence of Co-60 contamination in the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District (NE0RSD) in Cleveland, OH was the impetus for requesting RES to address reconcentr. tion of radionuclides in sewer sludge. Since the letter was received by RES, the staff has collected information on cases of radioactivity in sewer sludge, reviewed EPA documents associated with radioactivity in sewer sludge and determined that there does not appear to be an immediate health and safety problem associattM with reconcentration of radionuclides in sewer sludge. This is based, in part, on the results of the PNL study published in May 1992, NUREG/CR-5814 which analyzed potential doses due to five reported cases of concentration of radioactive P;terial in sewer sludge. In reviewing these results and the results of other cases identified, the NRC staff believes that the 1991 l revision of Part 20 should significantly reduce the likelihood of radiological impacts of any future occurrences of reconcentration of radionuclides i

8

discharged to the sewers by NRC or Agreement State licensees. That revision eliminated the provision which allowed particulate matter to be released to i

the sewers. Furthermore, the staff has issued a Statement of Work (S0W) to obtain additional information on possible mechanisms whereby radioactive material, i.e., soluble and readily dispersible biological material, released from NRC-licensed facilities, in accordance with the limits listed in 10 CFR 20.2003, could reconcentrate in sewer sludge and result in public doses in

excess of the NRC public dose limits of 100 mrem TEDE per year. The RES staff

, is also developing an ANPR to address policy questions associated with the issue of reconcentration of radionuclides in sewer sludge in excess of NRC regulatory limits. Completion of the contract is anticipated to take approximately 1 year. The ANPR should be forwarded to the Commission for J

review within 30 days. Following an evaluation of responses to the ANPR and completion of the contract, the NRC staff will consider whether any further rule change is required to address reconcentration of radionuclides in sewer 4

sludge.

Q2 - Will the elimination of 10 CFR Part 20.303 and the adoption of the new 10 CFR 20.2003 now prevent reconcentration of radionuclides in sludge or ash?

i Why or why not? Did any soluble or readily dispersible materials

reconcentrate in sewerage sludge? If so, at which POTWs did this occur?

Answer: The 1991 revision to 10 CFR Part 20 accomplished two things with regard to releases of radioactive material to sewers. First, the revised Part 20 lowers average monthly concentration limits for releases of radioactive materials to sewers. NRC licensees must ensure that sewer 9

releases averaged over a month do not exceed the concentration limits specified in Appendix B, Table 3. For example, these new limits reduced the releasable concentration by factors of 300 for Am-241 and U-235, 40 for Cs-137 and 30 for Co-60. These reductions were part of an overall reduction in both occupational and public dose limits adopted to incorporate new international and national dose standards.

The second change to the sewer disposal limits was done to specifically address the issue of possible radionuclide reconcentration in sewers. This was to remove the provision allowing release of "readily dispersible material (other than biological)" from the regulation. The revised rule permits only soluble material, or readily dispersible biological material to be dispersed.

The proposed rule did not contain the provision to permit biological material to.be disposed of in sewers. A number of comenters requested that the term be added to permit research laboratories and others to continue the practice of disposing of animal carcasses by grinding a A flushing, similar to sanitary sewage. The final rule adopted a provision to permit continued disposal of biological material, since it is an unlikely source of insoluble radioactive material.

i Q3 - When did MtC begin a rulemaking on changing 10 CFR Part 20.3037 What was the impetus for making this change?

Answer: The 1991 revision to Part 20 was in development for many years, l

starting shortly after publication of ICRP 26 in 1977, with the primary purpose of upgrading NRC's radiation protection standards to incorporate l

10 f

l l-t

1 I

current scientific information regarding potential health risks from ionizing radiation. This involved new information on radiotoxicity of certain isotopes and a new basis for dose limitation using the concept of " total effective dose equivalent." The revisions also included explicit dose limits for members of the public. Details are given in the FRN for the proposed rule which was published in early 1986, and is attached.

Q4 - According to 10 CFR 20.2003, "The disposal of nonbiological soluble material is no longer permitted because of potential for reconcentration of these materials in the sanitary sewer system, sewage treatment plants, and sewage sludge."

l How did NRC conclude that nonbiological soluble material resulted in  ;

f  !

reconcentration and why was language "readily dispersible" dropped from 10 CFR  !

20.303.

l i 4

Answer: Note: 10 CFR 20.2003 does not permit the disposal of nonbiological j l

insoluble material. Soluble material is permitted under these requirements.

In reviewing the cases available in 1984-5, the NRC concluded that the presence of radioactive material in sewage could be traced to disposal of j material that was thought to be "readily dispersible" but in fact was l '

i reconcentrated in sewer systems. The term "readily dispersible" was removed from the regulation (other than in application to biological material) to reduce the likelihood that such materials would be released into sewer systems l

! with a potential for combining with other materials and reconcentrating i i

i downstream.

l 11 l

[

i

i

05 - According to 10 CFR 20.2003, "The concentration limits for radionuclides released to sanitary systems have been reduced by a factor of 10 from the former rule. The rationale for the reduction in the limits for sewer disposal l are not explained."

4 Why were the limits reduced and why wasn't the reduction in the limits

! explained?

i Answer: This is explained in the answer to Q3. The Federal Register Notice (51 FR 1116) for the proposed rule explains that the basis for the reduction

) was based on occupational oral ingestion values adjusted by a factor of 10 to correspond to a 0.5 rem limit for the general population. This was done to l

agree with the other values in Appendix B established to implement ICRP 26 recossendations.

Q6 - According to 10 CFR 20.2003, "The reduction did not appear to take into account the dilution afforded from multiple users of the sewer system."

Why wasn't dilution from multiple users taken into account and please provide a description and explanation of " dilution assumption" used in o.iginal Part 20. Is the assumption of dilution of multiple users outdated?

Answer: The use of'the values selected for sewer releases has the same basis as the effluent release limits in Table 2, Appendix B which is that the " user" is at the outfall of the release and consumes the released liquid as his principal source of drinking water. This has always been used as an assumption by NRC for estimating dose to the " maximum individual" as a 12

_- . .-- - =- - - - _ .. . -- --- . -. ._ .-

conservative basis for establishing standards which protect the public health and safety. There is a greater margin of safety in using an assumption where  ;

there would be no dilution from other contributors to the waste stream. l l \

t l

l Q7 - According to 10 CFR 20.2003, "The purpose of the revision is to modify i

! NRC's radiation protection standards to reflect developments that have occurred since Part 20 was originally issued more than 30 years ago."

When was the regulation originally issued and what developments occurred that made it necessary to revise 10 CFR 20.3037 j l

l What was the impetus for changing 10 CFR 20.303? Are there any case histories of problems with radionuclides reconcentrating in sewerage sludge? Was the Southerly POTW the reason for the change?

How will the changes to Part 20.303, now Part 20.2003, ensure adequate protection of public health and safety? How will NRC's current inspection system assure that licensees' discharges comply with the revised regulation?

Answer: Part 20 was first issued in 1960. The basis for the 1991 revision is explained in the answer to Q3. As mentioned previously, a number of the cases described in NUREG/CR-5814 were the impetus for the change in Part 20.2003 which no longer pemits "readily dispersible" but insoluble nonbiological material from being released. There is no significant data available to date

to indicate that the current NRC limits are not adequate to protect public health and safety. To provide the Commission with added assurance that these i

i 13

i new limits are adequate the staff will issue a contract to further study possible processes whereby radioactive material could reconcentrate in sewer systems above current established limits and will develop an ANPR to solicit comments on several policy issues associated with release of radioactive material via sewers.

I NRC inspectors review records of sewer releases during routine inspection of ,

I licensees. In 10 CFR 20.2108, licensees are required to maintain records of all disposal made under i 20.2003, and are required to maintain thest. records I

until the Commission terminates the license. This requirement was not new with the 1991 revision to Part 20. Records of disposal made under 20.303 were also required to be maintained until the license was terminated.

I

\

i 14

! OTHER MATTERS Q1 - Is NRC aware of EPA's April 1986 study " Radioactivity of Municipal Sludge"? Was NRC asked to provide any input into the' study?

j  !

I Answer: Yes, NRC individuals are listed as interviewees. The discussion in EPA's report reflects information about two cases, one in New York State and a second in Tennessee, which was provided by NRC staff and the New York and 4

Tennessee Agreement State regulatory agencies to the EPA. The NRC will use the information in EPA's report in the activities underway to determine what  ;

i i

if any revisions to 10 CFR Part 20 are needed to further reduce the potential for expos'res resulting from releases to sewers.

Q2 - Is NRC aware of " EPA's standards for the use or disposal of sewage sludge" issued on February 19, 1993, in the Federal Reaister? Does NRC have any concern with the standards EPA has established on how sewage sludge can be used and disposed recognizing that the standards do not address the issue of radionuclides concentrating in sludge?

Answer - Based on the knowledge available at this time, there does not appear to be a problem with the EPA standards. From NRC staff communication with the EPA, it was understood that the EPA considered the results of the April 1986 study, " Radioactivity in Municipal Sludge" in promulgating standards for sewage sludge.

Q3 - Does NRC know of any other studies and/or efforts for evaluating radionuclides in sewerage sludge / ash?

15

E Answer: No l

Q4 - What is NRC's authority to force unlicensed sewerage treatment plants to cleanup materials discharged by NRC licensees? Does NRC plan to issue the l

! District a license for the material?

Answer: NRC has broad authority under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, to take such actions as may be necessary to protect public health and safety from the hazards associated with source, byproduct and special nuclear material. Ihe NRC may proceed by order or by rulemaking, depending on the l

particular circumstances involved. In the case of a person who may be in possession of nonexempted quantities of radioactive materials covered by the Atomic Energy Act, the NRC would likely consider a range of options including seeking voluntary action without licensing, or issuing an order. The course of action selected would generally reflect the kinds and quantities of material involved, the potential hazards to public health and safety, and the particular circumstances of the person in possession of the material. As of this time, the NRC has no plans to require a license for the possession of the Cobalt 60 at the Southerly Plant. The NE0RSD is cooperating in tantainment of the material, the site is not open to the public, and the district appears to be aware of the radiation hazards and is taking appropriate steps regarding safety.

l l

i f

16

L. .

. cMsco kYY\

y- g ,

T '< i I ' 9' !E UNITED STATES i'\ '

! NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

/ WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001

%,.'.O ...

NOV 0 91993 Martin J. Fitzgerald, Esq.

Associate General Counsel United States General Accounting Office Washington, D.C. 20548

Dear Mr. Fitzgerald:

In your letter of October G, 1993, addressed to the General Counsel of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, you requested our response to a number of questions regarding the concentration of radioactive materials in publicly owned treatment works. Your questions and our responses are contained in the enclosure to this letter. If you have further questions, please call me at (301) 504-1740, or Robert L. Fonner at (301) 504-14' Sincerely Martin G. Malsch Deputy General Counsel for Licensing and Regulation

Enclosure:

As stated cc: W. Parler R. Bernero

~

1l3l209021.5

$ 1

l .

! 'a l # OUESTION 1. Does the' NRC have the authority to require publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs) to test for concentrations of radioactive materials subject to the jurisdiction of the Atomic Energy Act? If so, under what authority? Would the POTWs be I

responsible for the payment for such tests?

l ANSWER l Sections 161b. and 1611. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, authorize the NRC to promulgate rules and issue such orders as the Commission may deem necessary to protect health and safety with regard to regulated radioactive materials. This authority may be applied to unlicensed persons if necessary (see 10 CFR 2.202). The POTWs would be responsible for the payment for such tests if ordered. The NRC has no appropriated funds to pay i

for licensee or nonlicensee testing. '

ll OUESTION 2. Under what authority and on what conditions does the NRC test for concentrations of radioactive materials subject to regulation under the Atomic Energy Act at POTWs? Who is responsib'le for the payment for such tests? Please explain.

i ANSWEB The NRC may itself conduct sampling and testing under the authority i

i of 161c. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. Such

. - - . .- - .=

~

t 2

sampling and testing may be done as the consequence of an inspection where the NRC inspectors take samples in order to ascertain regulatory compliance or need for regulatory action. The NRC inspectors use standard sampling techniques and normally split samples with the affected person. The stimuli for such inspections or investigations are' varied. They may'be routine, stem from allegations, or result from survey overflights based upon other evidence of contamination in the area being surveyed. The NRC bears the cost of its own testing, unless, in the case of licensees, the underlying inspection is subject to a fee pursuant to 10 CFR Part 170.

OUESTION 3. Does the NRC have the authority to require that the POTWs periodically report to the NRC any buildup of radioactive materials at their facilities? If so, under what authority?

ANSWER The NRC has authority under section 161c. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, to obtain such information as the Commission may deem necessary to assist it in exercising any authority under the Act, enforcement or administration of the act, or any regulation or order issued thereunder. Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.204 a l

Demand For Information may be issued to a licensee or an unlicensed

3 person. If the POTW is a licensee, section 161o. also provides authority to require reports.

QJ2ESTION 4. Does the NRC have any authority to regulate the i

concentration of radioactive materials subject to the Atomic Energy Act at a POTW if the concentration of such materials is not of a licensable amount? Please explain.  !

l ANSWER The NRC has no general regulations establishing dg minimis quantities or concentrations of material not subject to regulation.

However, certain kinds and quantities of radioactive materials have been exempted by rule from regulation when possessed by unlicensed i persons. For example, 10 CFR 40.13 establishes exemptions for source' material when it does not exceed .05% by weight of the compound or mixture in which it is found, in bulk untreated ore, in gas lamp mantles, and certain metallurgical alloys and counterweights. Exempt quantities and concentrations of byproduct material are limited to specific items, such as smoke detectors, which are manufactured or distributed under license. In these cases, the safety of the product in the hands of unlicensed persons has been carefully evaluated. Thus, the concept of " licensable amount" is inappropriate. The circumstances of each situation have to be reviewed against the codified regulations to determine if the regulatory requirements for exemption have been met. If those

i .

4 requirements have not been met, the material remains subject to regulation.

t QUESTION 5.. Does the NRC have the authority to require that its l licensees notify the POTWs prior to the disposal of i

any radioactive materials? If so, under what authority? What are the pros and cons of such a requirement?

ANSWER The NRC has authority under section 161o. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, to require licensees to submit such reports as i

may be necessary to effectuate the purposes of the Act. It is not  !

possible without considerable study of the implications of such a reporting requirement to identify meaningful pros and cons.

However, the agency must comply with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act in establishing the need for such reporting. One example may illustrate the complexity of the issue.

Currently excreta from patients undergoing diagnostic or therapeutic treatment with isotopes (e. g. iodine 131 for certain thyroid conditions) may be flushed to sanitary sewers without restriction. Implementation of a reporting requirement for such occurrences may be difficult to achieve.

i l

l

. 1

~

~

\

5 4 OUESTION 6. What authority, if any, do the POTWs have to refuse to allow NRC licensees to make disposals of l l

radioactive materials into their systems? Please  !

explain.

l ANSWER l A recent letter to the city attorney for Laramie, Wyoming, discusses the issue raised in this question. A copy of the letter is attached. As the letter explains, a POTW may under certain circumstances refuse to allow disposals of radioactive materials l into the treatment system.

i l

OUESTION 7. To address the problem of excessive concentrations l of radioactive materials at POTWs, how should the NRC and the Environmental Protection Agency l coordinate their efforts?

ANSWER -l The NRC and the EPA have established a coordinating committee of senior officials to discuss matters of mutual concern on an ongoing basis. A Memorandum of Understanding between the agencies, dated March 16, 1992, establishes the basic charter for cooperation between the agencies. A copy of the MOU is attached. This matter has not been the subject of discussions by the coordinating committee and there is no reason to believe that lack of coordination has contributed to the type of problem suggested.

^

P e

6 Nontheless, both NRC and EPA have a regulatory interest in waste water treatment sludges and incinerator ash and this matter will be i

placed on the committee's agenda.

l l

l l

l l

i i

i l

l l

[

l i

i i

l l

\

l - _

. r o ,

4

! Question 17. Are there any other (Federal) requirements for dischargers of liquid effluent to the sanitary sewer in terms of pre-

treatment release notifications, or pretesting /pretreatment of non-radioactive material (i.e., hazardous material)? Are any permits required? If so, by who?

Answer.

• Yes. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), or the States, regulate the release of material to sanitary sewer systems under the authority of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (more comonly known as the Clean Water Act (CWA)).

= Industrial facilities are required to comply with pretreatment

• requirements prior to discharg%g effluents to sanitary sewer systems in accordance with 40 CFR 403. Pretreatment includes reduction in the

' amount of pollutants and alteration of the nature of pollutant properties in wastewater prior to introducing such pollutants to a publicly owner treatment works (POTW).

= In order for a State or local Pretreatment Program to be approved by EPA, it must includt the legal authori'y to enforce the Pretreatment Standards through orders, permits, ordinances, or other forms of authorization. Pretreatment standards prohibit discharges of certain materials and require performance levels for specific categories of industrial users.

. Industrial users are required under 40 CFR 403 to:

- - Provide the POTW prior to commencement of the discharge with a report identifying, among other things, the types and amounts of pollutants that will be discharged to the POTW.

- Submit biennially (June and December) a report to the POTW 4

identifying the nature and concentration of pollutants limited by the categorical ' standard and the estimated average and maximum flow rate of the pollutants into the POTW for the reporting period.

- Imediately inform the POTW if they discharge any material to the POTW that could cause problems to the POTW.

• NRC staff understands from discussions with EPA staff that EPA exclud radioactive materials regulated under the Atomic Energy Act from the i definition of pollutants [cf. 40 CFR 122.2] controlled under the pretreatment requirements.

4 Chairman /Glenn/0WM/DA0 6/10/94 I

l

/

Question 18. Can the States require NRC or Agreement-State licensees to )

have stricter regulations than those of NRC's(sic)? [see l Laramie, WY from OGC].

Answer.

In order to avoid the economic regulatory burden associated with possession of regulated materials, a state may place restriction on the contents of discharges to sanitary sewer systems; for example, by requiring pretreatment. In states where the NRC licenses and regulates the state may not impose a regulatory restriction on radiation protection grounds. The Atomic Energy Act occupies the field for radiation protection where the NRC regulates.

In Agreement States, the states regulate also for radiation protection in the possession and use of nuclear materials, and may enact standards that differ from those of NRC as long as those differing standards remain compatible with the  !

fundamental rules of the NRC promulgated for radiation protection. l l

i Chairman /Glenn/0GC 06/14/94

4 s a. --m, A 4 A: s--, 4 +- da - m4 n s,- & A> - --m.. 5-- - e ,-na.-,, e 4 _.- .s. 6 a

Question 23. In layman's terms, what does solubility mean?

Answer.

! o Webster's defines " solubility" as the amount of a substance that will i dissolve in a given amount of other substance. A practical example would be sugar is soluble (or has high solubility) in water because it .

' can be dissolved in water and never settles out. Whereas in muddy water, silt eventually settles out so silt is generally insoluble. ,

4

$ Backaround/ Additional Information.

? o When a material such as a solid dissolves in water, the material breaks

. down into particles that are the size of atoms or molecules, and these

- disperse into the water. The particles do not, however, interact l chemically with the water. They also will not settle. The dissolved solid will come out of solution only by applying certain physical

! processes such as evaporating the water, or if a chemical is added that j will combine with the dissolved solid to form an insoluble compound, j which will then come out of solution as soon as the chemical reaction l occurs. Solids that are not dissolved are said to be suspended in the i water. These suspended particles are much larger than atoms or molecules, but may still be small enough to be invisible to the naked eye. '

i l

)

l 1

l Chairman /Glenn/NMSS 06/14/94