Text

Responds to Re Whether NRC Believes That Two Waste Streams Resulting from Remediation of Steel Mill in Tn Suitable for Disposal in Hazardous Waste Disposal Facility
	ML20147G419
Person / Time
Issue date:	03/21/1997
From:	Dennise Orlando; NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
To:	Stern C; External (Affiliation Not Assigned)
References
	REF-WM-3 NUDOCS 9703280117
	Download: ML20147G419 (27)
	v • d • e

{{#Wiki_filter:_. _ _ _ _ _ _ s cu ay} p-UNITED STATES g ,j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 't WASHINGTON. D.C. 20555-0001 5

- - - - ,o March 21, 1997 Carlos Stern. Ph.D.

Carlos Stern Associates. Inc. 1406 N. Johnson St. Arlington VA 22201 aar Dr. Stern: I am writing in response to your letter, dated November 22. 1996. regarding whether the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission believes that two waste streams resulting from the remediation of a steel mill in Tennessee are suitable for disposal in a hazardous waste disposal facility. In your letter you described these two waste streams as remediation debris containing less than 2 picocuries per gram (pCi/g) of 13'Cs and " surface material" (i.e., soil,3plag and gravel) containing less than 5 pCi/g of 23'Cs. You also stated that Cs at these levels meet the levels specified in the remediation contractor's State of Tennessee radioactive materials license for material that is suitable 'for release for unrestricted use. Before discussing the NRC's view of the suitability of the waste material for disposal in a hazardous waste disposal facility, it is im)ortant to recognize that if either the surface material or the remediation dearis were managed in a State where NRC has relinquished authority for the regulation of source, special nuclear. or byproduct material to the State (i.e.. an Agreement State), the regulations and license conditions of the Agreement State would apply in lieu of the NRC's regulations. Therefore, if the material is generated disposed of or managed in an Agreement State, it is important to obtain approval for the management of the material from the appropriate State regulatory authority. In those States where NRC has not relinquished regulatory authority for the regulation of source. special nuclear, or byproduct material, the NRC's regulations would apply. 37 NRC's recently developed Technical Position on the disposition of Cs contaminated electric arc furnace dust states (quoting from a letter dated May

25. 1993. to William Guerry from NRC's Executive Director for Operations.

1 James M. Taylor). "NRC's 3reliminary determination is that 3'Cs levels in i baghouse dust can reasona)1y be attributed to fallout from past nuclear weapons testing, if concentrations are less than about 2 pCi/g (0.074 Bq/g)." As discussed in the Technical Position it is limited to " incident-related material" and states that the term " incident-related material" refers to the " total spectrum of 3'Cs contaminated materials resulting from an inadvertent melting event." It appears that most of the material discussed in your letter would qualify as " incident-related material" as it is material that has resulted from an ![L inadvertent melting event. As such. NRC would consider the material l 37 37 containing less than 2 pCi/g of Cs to be material with Cs levels that could reasonably be attributed to global fallout. NRC would not consider 23'Cs concentrations in excess of 2 pCi/g of 23'Cs to be attributable to global 1 ll' Sb M; D Q% y *M * "k ~ NRC RLE CENTER COPYg

O. Stern. fallout and, if this material were managed in a State where NRC retainep37 regulatory authority for radioactive material, the material containing Cs 3 in excess of 2 pCi/g would have to be managed in accordance with the Technical Position. I hope this answers your question and, if you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me at (301) 415-6749. Sincerely. Dominick A. Orlando. Project Manager Low-Level Waste and Regulatory Issues Section Low-Level Waste and Decommissioning Projects Branch Division of Waste Management Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

Enclosure:

Disposition of Cesium-137 Contaminated Emmission Control Dust and Other Incident-Related Material cc: Mike Mobley Dir.. Div. of Radiological Health. TN Don Bunn. Supervising HP. CA Radiologic Health Branch IICKETrLLDP-194C QlSTRIBUTION: Central File LLDP r/f NMSS r/f PUBLIC JSurmeier To receive a copy of this document in samtl box on "0FC:" line enter: "C" " Copy without attachment / enclosure; "E" " Copy with ) cttachment/ enclosure; "N" = No copy i Path & File Name: S:\\DWM\\LLDP\\DA0\\LLDP194

See previous concurrence 0FC-LLDP LLDP OGC OSP LL[

NAME D0rlando/bg* RNelson* RFonner* RBangart* Jdkey DATE 1/14/97 1/15/97 1/21/97 1/30/97 8 / 2 /97 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY ACNW: YES x NO Category: Proprietary or CF Only IG YES NO x LSS YES NO x Delete file after distribution: Yes No x i

b 4 4l* C.Ste$n ' . fallout and, if this material were managed in a State where NRC retainef7 regulatory authority for radioactive material, the material containing Cs i in excess of 2 pCi/g would have to be managed in accordance with the Technical j Position. ,i' j j I hope this answers your question and, if you have any further questions, please feel fiee to contact me at (301) 415-6749. I Sincerely, i 4 1 i 4 Dominick A. 'Orlando, Project Manager i Low-Level Waste and Regulatory i [ . Issues Section. i Low-Level Waste and Decommissioning Projects Branch. Division of Waste Management j ' Office of Nuclear Material Safety i and Safeguards i TICKET: LLDP-194 DISTRIBUTION: Central File LLDP r/f NMSS r/f PUBLIC i JSurmeier 73 receive a capr of this deciment in asett han en a0FC:" line enter: "C" " Copy without ettechment/ enclosure; "E" " copy with attachment /enciesure; 4" " to espy Path & File Name: S:\\DWM\\LLDP\\DA0\\LLDP194 J 4) 0FC LLDP P / 'LLDP/[/[I NC OSP[W LLDP NAME D0rlado/bg-Jdd RNe1[o$ /bN6[ RBanaYt JHickey DATE 1/ /'//97 [1/'/97k 1/I/97 1/#/97 160/97 1/ /97 0FFLCIAL RECORD COPY ACNW: YES .X_ NO Category: Proprietary or CF Only-IG : YES NO _x_ LSS': YES NO _X. Delete file after distribution: Yes No.X_ e t o 4 i l

C. Ste'rn - fallout and, if this material were managed in a State where NRC retained regulatory authority for radioactive material. the material containing '37Cs in excess of 2 pCi/g would have to be managed in accordance with the Technical Position. I hope this answers your question and, if you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me at (301) 415-6749. Sincerely. W ./ w Dominick A. Orlando. Project Manager Low-Level Waste and Regulatory Issues Section Low-Level Waste and Decommissioning Projects Branch Division of Waste Management Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

Enclosure:

Disposition of Cesium-137 Contaminated Emmission Control Dust and Other Incident-Related Material cc: Mike Mobley, Dir.. Div. of Radiological Health. TN Don Bunn. Supervising HP CA Radiologic Health Branch i

~.,

~

j 13176 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 1997 / Notices appointment to the ACRS. The purpose foundries that has been contaminate 1 clean-up materials or recycle process i of this meeting is to gather information, with cesium-137 (8"Cs). The streams) contaminated with "7Cs 8 are analyze relevant issues and facts, and to contamination results from the currently being stored as mixed formulate proposed positions and inadvertent melting of a "7Cs source radioactive and hazardous waste at actions, as appropriate, for deliberation that: (1) Has been improperly disposed several steel company sites acros., the by the full Committee. of by an NRC or Agreement State country. At any single site, this material Oral statements may be presented by licensee;(2) has been commingled with typically contains a total mCs quantity members of the public with the the steel scrap supply:(3) has not been ranging downward from a little more ' concurrence of the Subcommittee detected as it progresses to the steel-than 1 curie (Ci) or 37 gigabecquerels Chairman; written statements will be producing process; and (4)is volatilized (GBq) of activity, distributed within accepted ud made available to the in the produc*lon promss and thereby several hundreil to a few thousand tons Committee. Electronic recordings will can and has contaminated large volumes of iron / zinc-rich dust, as well as within be permitted only during those portions of emission control dust and the much smaller quantities of clean-up or of the meeting that are open to the emission control systems at steel-dust-recycle, process-stream materials, public, and questions may be asked only producing facilities. In current situations, most, but not all, by members of the Subcommittee,its The position, which has been of this material would be classified as consultants, and staff. Persons desiring coordinated with the U.S. mixed waste and this technical position to make oral statements should notif) Environmental Protection Agency is intended as a potential disposition the cognizant ACRS staff person named (EPA), provides the possibility of a alternative for this incident-related below five days prior to the meeting. if public health protective-material.2 possible, so that appropriate environmentally sound, and cost-2 arrangenents can be made. effective alternative for the disposal of Typically, the radioactivity is not Further information regarding topics a large part of this moed waste, much evenly distributed among the mcident-related matenals. Rather, a small to be discussed, the scheduling of et which contains "7Cs in sessions open to the public, whether the concemrations similar to values that fraction (e.g., one tenth) of the material meeting has been cancelled or frequently occur in the environment. contains most (e.g.,95 percent) of the rescheduled the Chairman's ruling on The position provides the bases that, radioactivity. Most of the matenal requests for the opportunity to present with the approval of appropriate contains a small quantity of oral statements, and the time allotted regulatory authorities te.g, State. radioactivity at low concentrations and therefor can be obtained by contacting permitting agencies) and others le g., makes up most of the mjxed waste, incident related matenal volume. This the cognizant ACRS staff person, Dr. disposal site operators), and with material is classified as hazardous waste j John T. Larkins (telephone: 301/415-possible public input, could be used to under RCRA because it contains lead, 7360) between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. allow disposal of stabilized waste at (EST). Persons planning to attend this Subtitle C, RCRA-permitted, hazardous cadmium, and chromimn which are meeting are urged to contact the above waste disposal facilities. NRC believes common to the recycle metal supply. l named individual one or two working that disposalander the provisions of ThemCs contamination of this days prior to the meeting to be advised the position or other acceptable hazardous waste resuhs from a series of of any changes in schedule, etc., that alternatives, is preferable to allowing three principal events: (1) The loss of 2 may have occurred. this namd waste to remain indefinitely control of a radioactive source by an Date March t3,1997. at steel company sites. NRC or an Agreement State licensee;(2) The position has been developed the inclusion of the source withm the j %1 F DudneI' through an open public process in recycle metal scrap supply used by the Acting Chief, Nuclear fleoctors Branch. which working draft documents have steel producers; and (3) the inability 1o IFR Doc. 97-6880 Filed 3-t8-97; 8 45 aml heen routinely shared with EPA, and screen out the radioactive source as it also placed in NRC's Public Document progresses along the typical scrap Room to allow interested party access. collection-to-melt pathway (including NRC published the proposed position in radiation detectors used at most W8PoeWon of CesWN the Federal Register for comment (61 furnaces, foundries and many ferrous Contaminated Emission Control Dust FR 1608, dated January 22,19%). NRC metal recycling facilities). and Other incident-Related Material; is now publishing the entire final Consequently, irrespective of the FinalStaff Technical Position position, together with its responses to quantity or concentration of the 1 AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory the comments received. radioactivity, most of the current Commission. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: material is subject to joint regulation as ACTION: Notice: final staff technical Dominick A.Orlando Division of Waste mixed waste under RCRA and the position. Management. Office of Nuclear Material Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. Safety and Safeguards, Mail Stop TWFN or the equivalent law of an Agreement

SUMMARY

The U.S. M clear Regulatory 8F-37, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory State.

j Commission is issuing guidance,in the Commisslor,, Washington, DC 20555, form of a technical position, that may be Telephone (301) 415-6749. iThe byproduct material mca does not include used, in case-by-case requests, by the

Ca. from global fallout that exists in the SUPPL.EMENT ARY INFORMATION:

envimnment from the testing of nuclear explosive appropriate licensees, to dispose of a specific incident-related mixed waste. Disposition of Cesium 137 d'$l g), n[il,*n',f,,i,,,4 m,,,,,

i.,,

Mixed waste is a waste that not only is Contaminated Emission Control Dust t,equenity u,ed in this position to refer to the ioi+ radioactive, but also is classified as and Other Incident Related Materials; spectrum of *cs<ontaminated materials resuhine hazardous under the Resource Branch Technical Position from an inadvertent meltins event. Because of its "idesPread use in radioactive devices and us Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). wh{n *lb i d tje ing A. Intmduction vola The specific mixed waste addressed in this position is emission control dust Emission control (baghouse) dust and incident-reisted materials involvins this from electric arc furnaces (EAFs) or other incident-related materials (e.g., radioinoiope.

I ~ Federd Register / Vol. 62, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 1997 / Notict s 13177 i Tha disposa. ptions nor these 11 should be noted that additional producers, la cases where the i mat: rials, specifically the large volumes acceptance requirements, beyond those radionuclide is naturally occumn,t. or is of m:terial with the lower covered in this NRC position for already present in the environment as a concentrations of *Cs, have been disposal of 887Cs-contaminated result of global fallout, the inadvertent limited because of their " mixed-waste" incident-related waste at a Subtitle C melting of a radioactive source could c1:ssification and the costs associated RCRA permitted disposal facility, may increase the contaminant concentration with the disposition oflarge volumes of be established by:(1) An Agreement above that caused by these background mixed or reoloactive waste. Long-term State;(2) the permit conditions or environmental levels.2 solutions addressing the control and policies of the DCRA-permitted disposal Although many of the steel producers ) accountability oflicensed radioactive facility; (3) the regulatory requirements have installed equipment to detect sources are being considered by NRC of the RCRA disposal facility's incoming radioactivity, this equipment and Agreement States. Solutions permitting agency: or (4) other cannot provide absolute protection addressing the disposition of mixed authorized parties, including State and because of the shielding of radioactive w:stes are being considered by various local governments. These requirements emissions that may be provided by Federal and State regulatory authortties may be more stringent than those uncontaminated scrap metal or the end the U.S. Department of Energy. covered in the guidance described in d.ielded "pf " that contains the b Nevertheless, the Commission believes this technical position. The licensed radioactive source. Of special concern, that, pending decisions on improved entity transferring the mCo-because of the nature and magnitude of licensee accountability and the ultimate contaminated incident related materials the involved rsdioactivity, are NRC-or disposition of mixed waste, appropriate must consult with these panies, and Agreement State-licensed sources l disposal of the existing incident-related, obtain all necessary approvals, in containing 887Cs. mixed-weste material is preferable to addition to those of NRC and/or When O'Cs sources are inadvestently indefinite onsite storage. appropriate Agreement States, for the melted with a load of scrap metal, a As a result, this technical position transfers defined in this technical significant amount of the mCs activity d: fines the bases that the NRC staff position. Nothing in this position shall contaminates the metal-rich dust that is would find acceptable for:(1) be or is intended to be construed as a collected in the highly efficient Authorizing a licensee, possessing waiver of any RCRA permit condition or emission control systems that steel mills

C3-contaminated emission control term, of any State or local statute or have installed to comply with air

{ dust cnd other incident-related regulation. or of any Federal RCRA Pollution regulations. Because of mitirirls (o.g., the steel company or its regulation. The position applies to both hazardous constituentrr-4pecifically. servica contractor), to transfer treated hazardous and non-hazardous incident. lead, cadmium, and chromium-EAF mCs-contaminated material, below related waste as specifically defined. In emission control dust is a listed waste, 1;vels specified in this position, to a addition, the condi' ions established in KO61, which is subject to regulation Subtito C, RCRA-permitted hazardous this position pertain to NRC staff and under RCRA. If this dust becomes wIsti disposal facility; and (2) not licensee actions. Therefore, in those contaminated with mCs, the resulting lic;nsing the possession and disposal of instances where an Agreement State is material is classified as a mixed waste. these incident-related materials by the the sole regulatory authority for the Emission control dust, generated 1 RCRA-permitted disposal facility. The radioactive material, the Agreement immediately after the melting of a WCs position does not address disposal at a State has the option of using this source with the scrap metal, can contain Subtitli D facility. Because of its guidance in reviewing requests for the cesium concentrations in the range of ridioativity (i.e., mCa concentration disposal of the material, hundreds or thousands of picocuries per 1:vsts), some of the incident-related ham (pCi/g) or a few to a few tens of mat: rill may not be suitaMe for disposal B. Discussion uerels (Bq) per gram of dust, abon at a Subtitle C, RCRA-permitted Over the past decade, there has been typicallevels in dust caused by mC disposal facility. This material may be an increasing number of instances in the environment (e.g.,2 pCilg or 0.0/ 4 disposed of either:(a) at a licensed low. which radioactive material has been Bq/g). Several thousand cubic feet 1; val radioactive waste disposal facility inadvertently commingled with scrap (several tens of cubic meters) of dust cit:r appropriate treatment ofits metal that subsequently has entered the could be contaminated at these levels. hrardrus constituents: or (b) at a steel-recycle production process. If this mixed. waste disposal facility, if radioactive material is not removed Dust generated days or weeks after a cpplicable acceptance criteria are met. before the melting process,it could melt of a source (containin8 undreds of h millicuries or a few curies of mCs (-37 Th3 regulatory basis for the action is contaminate the finished metal product, GBq)) will contain reduced found ct 10 CFR 20.2001(a)(1) and associated dust-recycle process streams, 20.2002. The first paragraph authorizes equipment (principally air effluent concentrations, typically less than 100 pC1/g (3.7 Bq/g), a lic:nsee to dispose oflicensed tmatment systems), and the dust Even after extensive decontamination m:teri 1 as provided in the regulations generated durin8 the process. Some of in 10 CFR Parts 30,40. 60,61,70, or 72. the contaminant radioactivity is a result and remediation activities, newly Paragr:ph 30,41(b) states the conditions of naturally occurring radionuclides that generated dust may still contain under which licensees are allowed to are deposited in oil and gas concentrations greater than 2 pC1/g (0.074 Bq/g) background levels, but transfer byproduct material. Paragraph transmission piping. Other radioactivity generally less than to pCi/g (0.37 Bq/g). 30.41(b)(7) of Part 30 specifically may be associated with radioactive When the melting of a source is not provides that licensees may transfer sources that are contained in industrial byproduct material if authorized by the or medical devices. In this latter case, immediately detected, materials related Commission, in writing. In the case of the commingling of the radioactive sin a 1.u.r to wmiam cumy, Jr. from NRC's the Cs-contaminated material, the source with metal destined for recycling Executiv: Director for Operations. James M. Taylor. Lic:nsing action under 10 CFR 20.2002 can occur if the reg :!storily required dad Mar 25 1993. NRC made a liminary would constitute the written accountability of these sources falls and df""MyY,',2,joTno,,Dy tuthorization required by paragraph a radioactive source is included within nucl.ar mapons i tins. it concentnuons an i 30.41(b)(7). the metal scrap supply used by the steel than atmut a pci/s (0 e*/4 B /s)- 9

l 13178 Fed:rd Regist:r / Vol. 62, No. 53, Wednesday, March 19, 1997 / Notices , to downstream processes have also been or 10 microsievert ( Sv) per year (i.e., protection rogram. The licensee is aim contaminated with relativelv low one-hundredth of iho dose limit for responsibi for compliance with other concentrations of 527Cs (e.gl,10 pCi/g individual rnembers of the public as regulatory requirements (e g., those of (0.37 Bq/g)). In addition, materials used defined at to CFR 20.1301(A)(1)), above the Occupational Safety and Health during decontamination may also be natural background levels:5:(2) Administration and RCRA Treatment contaminated with dust containing members of the general public in the Permitting requirements). n7Cs concentrations at similar levels vicinity of storage or disposal facilities above background. shuld not receive exposures and no Provisions for Disposal at a Subtitle C. As the result of past inadvortent individual member of the public should RCRA-Permitted, Disposag Facility meltings of mCs sources, a number of be likely to receive a dose greater than Once the decontamination / steel producers possess a total of about 1 mrem (10 pSv) per year above remediation and collection / treatment / 10,000 tons (9000 metric tons) of background as a result of any and all packaging activities have been incident related materials, most of transfers and disposals of contaminated completed, one of two paths may be which contains mCs concentrations of materials: (3) handling or processing of followed for the disposal of the le.s than 100 pCi/g (3.7 Bq/g) This the contaminatec materials, undenaken incident related materials, dependent material is typically being stornd onsite as a result ofits radioactivity, should on mCs-concentration levels and because of tne Nck of disposd options not ccmpromise the effectiveness of whether the finalland disposal that are considered cost-effectn o by the permitted hazardous waste disposal operation involves the burial of steel companies

It is the disposition of operations; (4) treatment of Packaged or unpackaged materials.

material at these concentration levels contaminated materials must be. that is the subject of this technical accomplished by persons operating J. Packaged Disposal of Treated Waste f position. under a licensee's radiation protection On this disposal path, contaminated i C. Regulatory Position program (note that the licensee can be materials must be treated through the steel facilit or the entity that treats stabilization to comply with all EPA General the incident-re ted material, either on. and/or State waste treatment Because of the " incident-related" or offsite); and (5) transportation of requirements for land disposal of origin of the urcs-contaminated contaminated materials will be subject regulated hazardous vace.* The 4 materials, the Commission has approved to U.S. Department of Transpodation treatment operstbne must be i a course of action that includes:(1) (DOT) regulations and, as applicable, undertaken b; echer:(i) The owner / j Exploration of approaches to improve transportation of contaminated, operator of the EAF or foundry (licensed ) licensee control and accountability to hazardous materiale must be performed by NRC or appropriate Agreement State reduce the likelihood of sealed sources by hazardous material employees, as to possess, treat, and transfer urcs-entering the scrap metal supply;(2) defined in DOT regulations (49 CFR Part contammated, incident-related i cooperation with the steet 172, Subpart Hl. matenals); or (ii) an NRC-or Agreement ) manufacturers and other appropriate Definition of Contaminated Materials (o ra g e the o f te) Based organizations to identify the magnitude and initialincident Response on the radiol 08 cal impact assessment and charactor of the problem (with i particular emphasis on improving the A melting event generally necessitates Provided in Appendix A, the licensee capability to detect sealed sources cuensive decontamination and could be authonzed by NRCor an 4 before their inadvertent melting); and remediation operations at the EAF or Agreement State to transfer the treated (3) development of interim guidelines f undry (e.g., replacing refractory bricks incident related matenals to a Subtitle for the disposal of n'Cs contaminated and duct work). Subsequent operations C. RCRA-permitted, disposal facility, dust and other incident related include the proper interim handling and provided that all the following materials (the subject of this technical management (e g., accumulation and conditions are met: osition)' containment) of emission contml dust (a) The "7Cs-contaminated emission and other incident-related contaminated control dust and other incident-related Specific materials. Based on a review of several materials are the result of an inadvertent Bases for Allowing Transfer and recent incidents, the dust may contain melting of a sealed source or device; Possession of O'Cs-Contaminated, "7Cs concentrations up to hundreds or (b) Tne emission control dust and incident Related Material thousands of pCi/g (a few to a few tens other incident-related mat dats Mw The bases for allowing transfer and of Bq/g), whereas the other generally been stabilized to meet r e atwats it i possession of "7Cs-contaminated limited-volume, incident related land disposal of RCRAs d.ted e emission control dust and other materials typically contain lower and have been stored i : W: und incident-related materials, under the concentrations. As a result,the initial transferred in complir o w S' rovisions of existing regulations, are as clean-up and collection / treatment / radiation protection r 4

e llows:(1) An person at a Subtitle C, packaging of the contaminated emission specified at to CFR ', M '.

2 control dast and other materials at the (c) The total $27Cs acta o' y, cct. ained RCRA-rmitte disposal facility involv with the receipt, movement EAF or foundry must be performed by in emission control dust and othe storage, or disposal of contammated ' an NRC or Agreement State licensee incident-related materials to be materials should not receive an operating under an approved radiation transferred to a Subtitle C. RCRA-permitted, disposal facility, has been exposure greater thar ' millirem (mrem) sThe use of i mrem /yr tio nsvryr) has no specifically approved by NRC or the sisn neance or precedential value as a health and appropriate Agreement State (s) and does

In April 199s, Envirocare of titah. Inc., an safety goal. It was selected only for the purpose of not exceed the total activity associated operator of a mixed. waste disposal site, remived analysis of the levels at which the referenced authorization from the State of Utah and initiated materials could be partitioned 'o allow the bulk of with the inadvertent melting incident.

operations to treet and dispoon of WCo-the material to be transferred to unlicensed persons contaminated incident.related tmixed-waste) It does not represent an NRC position on the generic

For non-hazardous mate-ist covered by this maiorials at concentrations not exceeding 560 axeptability of dose levels Such levels are position, stabilization equivalent to that provided pCDg (20 7 Bq/g).

estabhshed only by rule. for hazardous waste would be necessary.

Federd Registrr / Vol. 62, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 1997 / Notices 13179 M'oreover,'NRC or the appropriate (h) The dose rate at 128 feet (1 meter) transferred to a Subtitle C, RCRA-Agreemant State will maintain a public from the surface of any package permitted, disposal facility, has been record of the totalincident-related *Cs containing stabilized waste does not specifically approved by NRC or the activity, received by the facility over its exceed 20 rem per hour or 0.20 pSv per appropriate Agreement State (s) and does t operating life, to ensuns that the total hour, above backgroundM not exceed the total activity associated disposed of mCs activity does not Note that,in defining the pretreatment with the inadvertent melting incident. 7 527Cs-concentraHon vak.i stated in Moreover, NRC or the appropriate exceed 1 curie (37 GBq);l facility paragraph (1)(g), a factor of 1.5 has been Agreement State will maintain a public (d)'the RCRA disposa operator has been notified in writing of included as a regulatory margin. This record of the totalincident-related i"Cs the impending transfer of the incident-factor adds further assurance to the activity, received by the facility over its i related materials and has agreed in certainty in protection provided by the operating life, to ensure that the total writing to receive and dispose of the licensee's: (1) Sampling of $27Cs disposed of "7Cs t.ctivity does not packaged materials;' conocitrations in contaminated exceed 1 curie (37 GBq);l facility 82 (e) The licensee providing the materials; (2) measurements of dose rate (d) The RCRA disposa radiation protection program required in external to the dispaal(and operator has been notified in writing of paragraph (b), notifies, in writing, the transportation) packagings; and (3) other the impending transfer of the incident-Commission or Agreement State (s)in assumptions included in the related materiais and ha agreed in which the transferor and transferee are radiological impacts assessment. writing to receive and dispose of these materials; 8) located, of the impending transfer, at least 30 days before the transfer;

2. Disposol of Unpockoged b..e., Bulk 1 (e) The licensee providing the (f) The stabilized material has been Treofed Woste radiation protection program required in packaged for transportation and.

On this disposal path, contaminated paragraph (b) notifies, in writing, the disposal in non-bulk steel packagmgs as materials must also be treated through Commission or Agreement State (s)in defined in DOT regulations at 49 CFR stabilization to comply with all EPA and which the transferor and transferee are 173.213. (Note that this is a condition State waste treatment requirements for located, of the impending transfer, at established under this techmcal land disposal of RCRA-regulated least 30 days before the transfer; and position and is not a DOT requirement. hazardous waste." The treatment (0 The emission control dust and other incident-related materials, that Under DOT regulations matenal with operations must be undertaken by either concentrations of less than 2000 pCi/g (i) the owner / operator of the EAF or have been stabilized as defined in (b) l (74 Bq/g)is not considered radioactive); foundry (licensed to possess, treat, and above, contain pretreatment average (g) In any pckage, the emission transfer '"Cs-conteminated, incident-concentrations of 827Cs that did not control dust and other incident-related related materials). oc (ii) a licensed exceed 100 pCl/;;(3.7 Bq/g) of y materials, that have been stabilized and service contractor. Based on the material." 4 Note that, in defining the pretreatment packaged as defined in (b) and (f) above* radiological impact assessment '"Cs-concentration value in paragraph contain pretreatment average provided in the appendix, the licensee (2)(f), a factor of 2 has been included as concentrations of mCs that did not exceed 130 pCi/g (4.8 Bq/g) of material,., could be authorized to transfer the stabilized incident related materials to a a regulatory margin. The factor adds and Subtitle C. RCRA-permitted, disposal further assurance to the certainty of facility, provided ths.t all the following Protection provided by the licenset's: re$atl N*NuNu*nNng" $t vYiI, associated conditions are met. [ Note that (1) Sampling of H7Cs concentrations in with several iocidents, that could be transferred to conditions (a) through (e) are identical "S" fatno's L an RCRApamitted facility under the pmvisions of to those applicable to packaged disposal "The NRC staff believes the contract between the this position. It also represents a quantity that of treated waste). licensed facility and the RCRA facility operator is would be less 6an the activity disposed of over the operating iife of the RCRA-permitted facility if the (a) The H7Cs-contamm.ated emission an appropriate vehicle for complying with this facility routinely disposed of non incident-related control dust and other incident-related provision. provided that the contraci specifies the ? emission control dust containing background materials are the result of an inadvertent volume of wate. the radionuclide and its average concenusuon in the wnte in picocuries per gram concentrations of 88'Cs. melting of a scaled source or device; or becquerels per gram, else 60:21 ggreged amount aThe NRC staff believes the contract between the (b) The emission control dust and of radioactive material in the shipment, the I licensed facility and the RCRA facility operator is other incident-related materials have hazardous waste code of the w:iste and the EPA an appropriate vehicle for complying with this provision, provided that the contract specihes the been stabilized to meet requirements for identification number of the RCRA disposal facilit) receiving the waste. The NRC staff will evaluate volume of waste, the radionuclide and its average land disEosal of RCRA re8ulated waste, requwts for license amendments to transfer concentration in the waste in picucuries per gram and have been stored (if applicable), and incidentolated material based upon the licensee or becquerels per gram, the total aggregatad amount transferred in comphance with a demonstrating that the RCRA disposal facility of radioactive materialin the shipment, the operator has agreed to the trar.sfer and has made hazardous waste code of the waste, and the EPA radiation protection program as Provisions to retain the information about the identification number of the RCRA disposal facility sPecified at 10 CFR 20.1101., radioactive matertal in the waste along with the receiving the waste. The NRC staff will evaluate (c) The total 8"Cs activity, contained information that is required to be retained by the requests for license amendments to transfer in f, mission control dust and other RCRA facility operator under 40 CFR 2e3.22. a incident.related material based upon the hcensee demonstrating that the RCRA disposal facility incident-related materials to be "The 100 pCi/g (33 Bq/g) value is the concontration, based on the analysis in the operator has agreed to the transfer and has made appendix and including a regulatory margin of 2. provisions to retain the information about the well as direct rad.iation le.els entornal to ti e that would result in a calculated potential exposure radiosctive materialir the waste.along with the Package. Notwithstandmg the redundant ,g g g gg information that is required to be retained by the e ure incident.related mat.J.at in unpackaged (bulkl form 8P ens cm an RCRA facility operator under 40 CFR 263.22. dictates that compliance with this position would 'The 130 pC1/g (4.s Sq/g) value is the included in determining the acceptable measurables be demonstrated through measurement of D'Cs concentration, based on the analysis in the defined in the position. concentrations. Without the redundant approar h to appendia and including a regulatory margin of I S,

At this exposur, a'e, zur the exposure period ensure compliance with the exposure cnterion that would result in a calculated potential exposure of less than t rnrem (to pSd The disposal of as defined in the ap >endix. total exposure would inherent with the packaged-disposal approach (see not exceed i mrem,10 pSvl with a regulatory footnote a), the regulatory margin, included in incidentalated matenals in padaged form allows compliance with this position to be demonstrated margin of 1.5.

determining the acceptable measurables defined in " See footnote 6. the position. has been increased to 2.0 through measurement of WCs concentrations, as d 3 l

4 13180, Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 1997 / Notices constituent of the emission control contaminated materials; and (2) other position. The sampling program must assumptions included in 'ho provide assurance that the quantity of Ibaghouse) dust. Nonnal background *Cs concentrations in dust have been measured ai radiological impacts assessment. is'Cs in any package (see footnote 15) e 024 to 2 U does not exceed the product of the {iQ,P r t ,g Treatment, Storage, and Transfer of applicable concentration critenon tiir,es (Bq/g). This concentration is consistent with Emission Contro/ Dust or Other !he net weight of contammated material the general range of backgmund levels Incidenf-Related Materials with 8"Cs an a Packa8e. masured in soils within the United States Concentrations IndMinguishable From whereas concentrations of to pCi/g (0.37 Dq/ Background Irvels #, , 2 pCi/g (0.074 Appendix A-Asseument of Radiological 6J are relatively common in drainage areas 2 Bq/gl or less) Impact of Disposalof 8"CsContaminated As a result of this information, the U.S. Emission Contml Dust and Other Incident. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has The EAF or foundry licensed to Related Materials at a Subtitle C RCRA. uetermined that mCs concentrations in possess and transfer 857Cs-contaminated Permitted Disposal Facility emission control dust below 2 pCi/g (0.074 emission control d'tst, or a licensed Bq/g) can be attributed to fallout from past service contractor, is authorized to J. Background weapons testing.s transfer emission control dust and other In the normal process of producing incident-related materials as if they recvcled steel, scrap steel is subjected to a 1 Statement offroblem meiting process. In this process, most The inadvertent melting of a licensed 8"Cs wem not radioactive, provided that the impurities in the scrap steel are removed and sealed source with scrap steel at an electric 8"Cs concentration within the emission gene ally wntai ed withm process-generated are furnace (EAF) or foundry typically results control dust and other incident-related 'I s '8 ' h in the contamination of the steel producer's materials is 2 pC1/g (0.074 Bq/g) of iu t that can ir$n n z c her emissi n control system and the generation material or less. The foundry or licensed with certain heavy metals, through an f[tentially large quantities (e.g., of the service contractor must determine the emission control system to a "baghouse.., 8"Cs concentration using the sampling where the dust is captured in " bag-type" 73,Cs t ina d em s on cont dust. filters. Hazardou:, onstituents within the Facility cleanup operations will produce an program discussed below, u ""Evir nmental additional quantity of contaminated material Aggregation of 8"Cs-Contaminated fh P[ c a ase the t F and, depending on the effecti.oness of i Emission Contiel Dust and Other Protection Agency (FPA) to designate the cleanup operations, furtbr generation of Incident Related Materials dust as a hazardous waste, under the [, [ fp ",[g fg, a io an ve ct If applicable, aggregation of 8"Cs-he { (nse accurrence f the melting event is not contaminated emission control dust and Ty;;cally, when the scrap consists largely immediately detected, contammation can other incident-related matenal, before of junk automobiles, the dust contains a high unknowingly be carried forward with the stabilization treatment, is acceptable if percentage (greater than 20 percent) of zinc, dust into zinc-recovery rocess streams. In performed in compliance with a which can be a valuable recovery product. n case, fw exam le, t is has led to 8"Cs Moreover, the zinc recovery process C "' c ch a'h radiation protection program, as described at 10 CFR 20.1101, and produces slag and other bypmducts that have d e d e am recycle potential. If economic (e.g., low zmc material. In the incidents to date, total provided that: contenti or process considerations preclude quantities of these contaminated materials (1) Aggregation involves the same these recycle options, the dust may be treated have not esceeded 2000 tons (1800 metric characteristic or listed hazardous waste and the wastes must be amenable to and

[,d d','QN;hp'N*,*,',dy'd t ent t ns) Per event. The *vCs concentration in p

all these materials can vary, but in typical undergo the same appropriate treatment standards for the various hazardous Past events, much of the meterialis for land-disposal restricted waste; constituents of the dust in 40 CFR 268.40. contaminated et levels ranging imm 2 pCi/g (2) Aggregation does not increase the Solidification is the tientment process (0.074 Bq/g) to a few hundred pCi/g (moi,t too g or 3 7 8q/gt overall total volume not the rpically used to meet these standards. On e other hand, dust fmm steel production at

8P,P g, $

radioactivity of the incident related basic oxygen furnaca and open hearth og g, g,Polume) have included p,, waste; and furnaces is excluded imm regulation as concentrations at nanocurielgram levels (3) Materials, when aggregated, ar, hazardous waste (40 CFR 261.4(b)(7)(rviill. (thousands of pC1/g or a few tens of Bq/g). subjected to a sampling protocol that the poten*ial radiologicaysis is to The intent of eis anal fsYpr i[y lim demonstrates compliance with 8"Cs-ad on of n ture r im cts associated concentration,critena on a package-and ferromanganese), very low levels of with the alternative options or disposal of averageu bests, radioactivity, ubiquitous in the environment. SUCs-contaminated emission control dust a e inv lved in the roduction process. One and other incident-related materials at a Determination of 8"Cs Concentrutions and Radiation Measurements I *[,"d ,[t Subtitle C, RCRA permitted facility. Because i 7' g g RCRA hazardous wates mmt WW to 8"Ce concentrations may be result of global fellout from past weapons-d determined by the licensee by direct or testing programs. *s'Cs has a 30-year half-life C "h"I* *ET,"[Y" k'[o g, indirect (e.g., external radiation) (i.e., e quantity of this radionuclide and its rediologicalimpacts associated w th associated radioactivity will decrease by half treatment procesan required consideration. measurements, through an NRC or every 30 yeen). The decay of $vCs and its To protect against these radiological irnpacts. Agreement State-approved sampling very sh rt lived daughter produces emissions the position includes the provision that program. The sampling program must be Ibeta Particles and gamme rays. treatment of *"Cs<:entaminated emission cxmtr idust and therincident-related sufficient to ensure that 8"Ce contamination in the stabilizeo pNies a 1 rea wh t enters emission control dust and in other the human body. The principal hazard from gg'" [""[d* C"$',"d incident-related materials, on a packege-the gamma rays is as en external source of ,,,y average basis, is consistent with the penetrating radiation almilar to the type of p seconds or 1/n of a becquerel. Concentration criteria in this technical exposure received from an x-ray. Because of ,t. iter to waitiarn taha, uS. Nuclear Regulatory its volatility in the very high-temperature Commission, from Andrew Wallo W,(LS. ItyP cally 3000 degrees fahrenheit or -1650 Department of Energy. dated May 20, t993. i i tatter from James M. Taylor, NRC, to William The term packagr as used here, refers to degrees celsius) steel-making process, UCs Guerry, Jr., Collier. Shannon, Kitt and Scott. dated packages used by the e mee to transfer the is volatilized and transported in the furnace material to the dispoon. 'lity, irrespect6ve of whether this package Se disposal container. off-gas and, as it condenses, becomes a May 25,1991

i i Federd Register / Vol. 62, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 19, 1997 / Notices 13181 materials be performed by an NRC or Differences m mCs concentrations:(2) Agreement State licensee. The liceosce ,would operate, either on or offsite, under an variations in the physicalbemical These additises (typically presumed to add ) approved radiation protection program, as properties of the matertals disposed of; and 30 parts by weight to 100 parts of dust or 3 well as any required RCRA treatment permit. (3) changes in worker time integrated contaminated material) would result in a l Such controls are necessary because of the interactmns with contaminated materials. solidified product that would contain mCs wide range of contammated materials and The three key variables above are concentrations at about 77 percent of initial particularly important in the development of cont entrations (e.g,77 pCi/g (2.84 Bq/g)) their physical forms, together with the this technical position. Of significance to all Because of allowable variations in the variability in EPA-approved treatment processes. Under this decision, the Subtitle three variables, the approach defined in the solidification prucesses (e g., fmm the C, HCRA-permitted disposal facility would be position calls for treatment (stabilization) of prod iction of granularized aggregate to j 3 solidified monoliths), the bulk density of the incident related materials (to comply with solidified material can range from about 1.4 receiting the emission contmi dust and other requirements for land disposal of restricted to 2.5 g/cm 8 A representative dose fratel incident-related materials after their waste) to take place "under license," at the conversion factor

under these conditions treatment to stabilize the incident related location w here the material was generated, or (calculated at a density of 1.5 g/cm5) wou material. This stabilized rnaterial would be.

at the site of a service contractor who has typically be less than 49 microem/ hour or would be equivalent to, the fonn necessary been permitted for stabilization treatment of (nrem/hr) or 0 to stabilize the RCRA-hazardous constituents (specifically, lead, cadmium, and chromium): the material either on or off the steel br), at a distance of 3.28 feet (1 meter) from company site Complying with the the surface of a hypothetical semi-infinite that is, a non-dispersible.' solid (e g., cement- " Treatment Standards for Hazardous volume of the solidified material.' type) form. As a result, the potential radiological hazard from the " treated" Wastes," defined at 40 CFR 268.40, will Because the quantities of treated dust and (stabilized) material during disposal result in a solid wasto form from which other incident.related materials are not semi-operations is associated with its exposure rates will be smaller than those infinite in volume, the actual dose rate / originating fmm the hazardous waste form characteristic as an external source of (e.g., dust) before treatment. More distance relationships from finite volumes of radiation. contaminated materials will be less. The importantly, treatment of the contaminated reduction can be calculated for various After disposal, 8"Cs could only become a materials. under license, will obviate the volumetric sources through the use of shape hazard through water pathways if a sufficient need to specifically address potential factors. Shape factors have been calculated ' s quantity and concentration of WCs were to: treatment related radiological exposures at for several configurations that are likely to (1) Become available, (2) be leached from its unlicensed. RCRA-permitted, treatment occur during operations from the time the solid form. (M be released from the disposal facility, and (4) enter a drinking water facilities. Thus, under the approach of this supply. No significant radiological hazard technical positio L any mimmal exposure to contaminated treated materialis received at workers who have not been trained in the RCRA-permitted disposal facility through would be expected to result from inadvertent radiation safety would be limited to disposal determ its disposal. The shape factors can be intrusion into the disposed of weste after operations. 4 facility closure. Notwithstanding the hazard Furthermore, because the origm of the various distances between a specific source to the intruder from the hazardous waste

Cs contaminated matenals is the result of configuration and an exposed individual.

constituents, or other hazardous wastes. . neiting mcident. upper-bound values can Ty pically, at a distance of 3.28 feet (1 meter), constraints placed on the total mCs activity be established for the volume, weight. these factors range from about. 03 to 0.5 and concentration, and the waste form, can ensure that radiological exposures would not radioactive material concentration, and total (Figures 1 through 5), and have been exceed those that would be received from activity of the contaminated material, ou an calculated without accounting for the limited residing over commonly measured incident baus. The base case analysis in this Aielding provided by any packaging. As the i background mCs concentrations in the appendix presumes that the contaminated dictance from the contaminated materials United States (see discussion under " Intruder material involves a volume of 40.000 cubic increases to 9.84 feet (3 meters), the shape Considerations") feet (1132 cubic meters) a weight of 2000 factors for these similar geometries becoma The following nalyses will therefore be tons (1800 m. tric tonst. and a total activity smaller, ranging from about 0.004 to 0 2. The i directed at an evaluation of the potential f.untent of less than a 1 curie (Ci) or '7 GBq largest,likely dose rate potentially direct, water pathway, and intruder hazards of "'Cs. The e values are generall" experienced by an individual involved in the and will provide a perspective on their consistent with the particulars from the disposal process, measured at 3.28 feet (1 incidents that have occurred to date. meter), would be from the sides oflar60 significance. Within these constraints, the starting point containers or shipments of contaminated

3. Grect bposur' in the direct esposure calculation is to materials, and would be expected to range estimate the radiation dose rate at a distance from about 10 to less than 14 prem/ hour (0.14 After the inadvertent melting of a mCs sealed source at an EAF or foundry, the of 3 28 feet (1 ucter) from the surface of a Sv/hr) above background (typically 8 to relatwely volatile *Cs will lease the furnace semi. infinite volume (i e.. infinite in areal 12 rem /hr (0.08 to o.12 pSv/hr).50 From an i

as an offgas and be commingled with the extent and depth from the point of exposure) open trench (Figure 4), filled with i 4 normal emission control dust. of solidified coataminated material.' The concentrations of WCs contam, As a result. calculations assume that the initial mCs mvolve other RCRAepproved stabilir.ation ed in this dust (and other materials associated with furnace contamination in all untreated dust is 100 technologies, that reduce the teachability of "Ts, clean-up operations or subsequent dust pCi/g (33 Bq/g). Direct exposure results scale although the radiological impacts analysis indicates j. recycle process streams) will increase. Thus. linearly for other contentration levels, if the that such processes are not necessary to protect public health and safety, and the environment. the rate of radiological exposure from this waste t.onfigurat on is unchanged.

A done conversion factor represents a value ihat material will be similar in type, but different Stabilization treatment
conducted under allows a radionuclide contamination level to be in magnitude, than that received from the a licensed radiation protection program, is converted to an estimated exposure rate.

typical background levels of mCs. Any achieved by rnising moist dust with additives 'The dose rates in this appendix have been change in magnitude of the exposures to (e.g., liquid reagent to adjust oxidation calculated through use of the Microshield computer g workers at 'he dtsposal facility from this potential and portland cement / fly ash) : Pgam nfm" be "8 " ' 9 or pre contammated material when compared to the exposu.c remived from typical emission 5 This assessment is generally consistent with the 0 77 of the 62 9 value shown on Figure 1. control dust would depend on (1) ,pproach employed in " Risk Assessment of Options .*The t vo-thirds loading of the 30-cubic yard bos for fhaposition of EAF Dusi Following a Meltdown ,3 r, lated to the typical maximum payload weight intident of a Radioactive Cesium Snurce m k. rap that can be transported by truck without an

In the context used, the term "non-dispersdale" scel." SELA-93nt. Stanlev E t.ogan. April 1993 overweight perrmi. If the boxes referred to in Figures 1 and 2 were full, the dose rate would means that any radiologicalimpacts fmm ain the contest of the positiorc stabdized f

resuspended material are inconwquential in treatment does not include either onsite or offsite increase by less than a tactor of 1.5. Similarly. if she companson to the emputs from direct external high temperature metals reucimg processas assumed additive weight percent (i.e. 30 perrent) exposures resulting frorn the emission of gamma

This treatment may mclude the addmon of is vaned over a reasonable range from 20 to 40 radiation in the mCs decay process.

special statahaahon regents, such as clays. or percent, the resulting dose rate would change 6n an inversely praportional manner.

~ - 13187 Federal Register / Vol. 02. No. 53 / Weunesday, March 19. 1997 / Notices contaminated materials, the calculated dose sample would be no greater than about 10 3 a facility in which the amount of water rate would also be somewhat less than 13 pCi(370 Bq). The dose rate from such a infiltration is minimized, any 82'Cs removal prem/hr 10.13 Sv/hr) measured directly over sample would be less than 0.I prem/hr (0 001 from its final disposal location would be the trent.h at a 3.28 feet (1 meter) distance. pSWhr) at a distam e of 1 foot (0.3 metersl. limited while these conditions remain in Agam. these values represent 0.77 of the To place the significance of this calculation effect. The chemistry of any water interacting respective values mdicated on the figures into perspective an estimate can be made of with the solidified. "'Cs-contaminated waste mcause of solidificatmn additivet Figures fi worker exposure from the presumed would also be expected to limit the leachinst and 7. *espectively, show the variation in handhng, treatment, and disposal of normal dose rate with the width of the trench and emission mntrol Just (i e, dust that has not F# N" # environments). because of the cimtrolled depth of the waste, Figure 8 is provided to been contam nated with 8 "Cs from a melted show the change m dose rate versus the souro E This dust would wntain background nature f the Subtitle C. RCRA-permitted h mal W and de ype and natum M, distance offset from the side of the trailer-leccis of o'Cs (approximately 1 pCi/ (0.037 P 8 type container considered in Figure 3. Itq/g)). Therefore. a worker interacting with no liquids!of the wastes accepted for i A typical disposal rate at a trench within this material at an effective distance of 3.28 disposal. Any water that leached o'Cs from an RCRA-perm tted facility would generally feet (l meter) ov ti about 300 s-hour shifts (a the waste would normally be collected in a exceed 500 tons (450 metric tons) per shift.o little more ti,an a workin, fear) would leochatc collection system at volumetric Assuming this disposal rate of 500 tons (450 receive a total maximum exposure of about concentrations expected to be far less than 4 metric tons) per shift applies to the disposal 0.5 mrem (5 pSv). The magnitude of this those existing in the treated waste. The of treated.n'Cs-contaminated, incident-exposure is in the same range as the exposure chemistry of the fill materials used et the related material (approximately 20 to 25 calculated for the disposal of the disposal site could also provide a sorbing' trudicads in 8 hours). it would require contaminated materials from a single melting medium if any '"Cs leached from the approximately 4 times this period of time to event. Moreover, the potential exposure from solidified was'te. Finally, the location of dispose of 2000 tons (1800 metric tons). the " melting event" was estimated under the Subtitle C. RCRA-permitted disposal sites is (Note that the rate of arriving material would extremely conservative assumption that all such that the source of any water supply likely be dictated by transportation materials wese contaminated at levels of 100 would typically be some distance from the arrangements. so that the 32 hours required pCi/g (3 7 Dq/g). disposal site. to dispose of the contami iated material The imposition of a 1-Ci (3748q) These chemistry and distante factors are could be spread m er seseral dan or weeks ' c riterion on the total iniident related activity also likely to be major factors in delaymg the Facility workers, tnerefore, woiild, on that rould be disp <> sed of at any one Subtitle" arrival of o'Cs at a receptor well because ot dverage, only be exposed to finite volumes of C. RCRA ficdity (see fodo, wing discussion on retardation effects. This retardation. in terms I rontaminated matenal for a maximum penod wwr-pathway conoderanons) should of 32 worker hours. Applymg the highest further ensore ihat worker nposures froin of its effect on the time required. under a worst-case scen. ario, for the '"Cs to re ".er supply,is such that significant.ach a likely dose rate (app...ximately 13 prern/hr ts-contaminated emission control dust i (013 pSv!hr) from the side of a trailer ains other incident-related materials wid not I containing the contaminated rnatrriah). and w eed 1 mrem /> ear (10 pSvaear) integnited radioactive decay of the O'Cs inventory is l presuming exposure at a 3 20ft ll meter} over the lifetime of the faahtv. likely (the radioactive half-life of n'Cs is lo I distance for the entire 32 hour period, a

4. Water pathway Considerations pan Mm me "O mW puhe worker would receive a dose of less than 0.5 The proposed approach to manage "'Cs.

reach the water supply., mrem (5 pSv) above background contammated emission control dust and Although qualitative m nature. and based Qualitatively descriptive time and motion other incident-related materials presumes on considerations that can vary among l-data gathered from three RCRA permitted ik enser treatment of these materials to Subtitle C. RCRA-permitted disposal sites, s disposal facilities mdit ate th.it the above. ' omph nith requirements for land disposal the previous discussion has focused on the Lalculated do%e is ConserVatne for two HI oSIrltted waste rhus. the ra hological, factors that are hkely to present any principal reasons: (I) The workers having the and potentiall) hazardous i.hemical significant water-pathway hazard. The most significant exposure to materials from constituents of tbse materials, will be following, more quantitative assessment, is l. receipt 'o disposal are effectnely at greater incorporated into a stable solid (e g., cement-provided to conservatively bound any water. distances than 3 28 feet (1 meterl. and (2) ts pel form, similar to that required for pathway hazard that could potentially occur their exposure, at this distance. is m er time routine KCR A-permitted disposal of emission under extremely unlikely conditions. periods significantiv less than the assumed control dust. As a rtsult.the possibility of The leachabihty of 07Cs from arn solid receipt through disposal time period of 32 "'Cs presenting a hazard through a water waste form that comphes with the land hours. As a result, actual exposures are pathway requires consideration of. (1) the disposal restrictions for the waste's non-expected to be significantly less than 0.5 quantity of o'Cs availabic. (2) the degree to radmlogical hazardous constituents is hkelv mrem (5 pSv). w hich the o'C8 could be leached from its to be extremely limited after initial waste This conservative estimate of potential waste matrix. and (31 the extent that any placernent. After the end of operations and a exposure is based on the aforementioned leached o'Cs could migrate into a water post-closure care period of 30 years, a worst-time-distance assumptums and is expected to supply. case scenario presumes that processes take bound reasonable interactions of disposal The disposal of n Cs in treated emission place to degrade the site so that infiltrating 4 facihty workers with the stabilized incident. control dust and other incident related water from the surSce passes unimpeded related materials. For exampic, incident. materials would be constramed by this poh.cy through the containinated waste. In related material could be stored at the to a total activity of 1 Ci (37 CBq). In the predicting tha dissolution of on under J disposal site or samples of the treated previous referenre basis analysis, an effective these conditions. a critical process is the material could be subjected to sampling concentration,in the treated waste.of 77 pCi/ activities. In the first case,if a 90-day storage g(2.84 Bq/g) was evaluated -the originally partitioning of the u'Cs that takes place between the waste. soil, and infiltrating period ts presumed, the average exposure assumed contaminated material distance over the entire period needed to concentration reduced by 30 percent as a water. Conservatively assuming that the ensure a dose less than the position's result of the added mass associated with g g g gg exposum criteria would be on the order of Io treatment. Both the quantity and position. to 20 meters (see Figures 1 through 3. which defined concentratsun values place bounds soil to water. an estimate can be made of the illustrate the decrease in dose rate as a on any potential water pathway hazard. In amount of I"Cs that can teach into the function of distance from the source) In the the actual wastes that are sobbct to potential mWanng wate second case, the typical activity in a loag dnpocal under the prmisions of this The most important parameter,n i positmn. the com entratmn of '"Cs averaged estimating this transfer. as well as the 'Nnte that if treatment at an RCR A [wrmnied mer all the treated waste would typically be subsequent movement of the "'Cs in facihty were aquired the bmitmg operahonal significanth less than the define 1 groundwater. is the distribution ctef fiuent handhng raie for the treated materials may be concentration critetta. "Ka." This parameter expresses the ratm at hmited to 100 to 200 tons p30 to 180 metric tonst Fur -ore le me the o'Cs is equilibrium of "'Cs sorbed onto a gwen per shift. containeil in a sohd matrix aml buried within weight of sod particles to the amount

Fed 2ral Regisirr / Vol. 62. No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 1997 / Notices 13183 remaining in a given volume of water. The higher the,value of the distribution Subtitle C. RCRA-permitted facihty, from a single steel company site, to a few tens of perspective by evaluating the potential coefficient, the greater the concentration of millicuries (a few GBqUs Material at higher dust at a Subtitle C. RCRA permitted facihty. normal disposal of EAF emission control mCa remaining in the soil. The 4 value can be affected by factors such as soil texture, pH, concentrations would require disposal at if this dust includes a backgmund "'Cs either a mixed-waste disposal facility or a competing cation effects, soil porewater licensed low-level waste disposal site. Thus, concentration of 1 pCi/g (0 037 Sq/g), and the facility can treat 200 tons (180 metric tons) concentration, and soil organic matter content." For the non acidic, sand / clay / soil for the potential disposals at the Subtitle C, of dust per day, the total quantity of mCs RCRA-permitted site to approach the 1-Ci environments presumed to represent the (37-CBq) incident related material constraint disposed of annually would be about 50 mci RCRA-permitted disposal facilities. a N in this position, dispo als of materials from (1.85 CBq). Thus, over a facility operating value of 270 milliliter (rnll/g was selected several incidents would have to occur. The period of about 20 years, the total quantity from the Footnote 12 reference as being total volume of material, in this case. would of mCs disposed of could equal the 1Ci('37 appropriate for the subsequent bounding. still represent only a small fraction of an GBq) incident-related material activity conservative analysis. constraint. RCRA p#tted facihty's disposal capacity. To model the patential groundwater Repeating the RESRAD analysis discussed

5. Intruder Considemtions impacts, the RESRAD ocode was used. For above under these assumptions, but the representative case, the imunding 40.000 respectively considering lower L values in in the development ofits licensing cubic feet (ft 8) or 1132 cubic meters (m') of the contaminated, unsaturated, and saturated requirements for land disposal of radioactive treated material were presumed to be waste in 10 CFR Part 61, NRC considered disposed of in a volume measuring 100-ft zones, would still result in drinking water protection for individuals who might (30.4-m) length x 20-ft (6.09-m) width m 20-doses of less than 1 mrem (to pSv) per year inadvertently intrude into the disposal site.

unless the Kavalues in all zones approach ft (6.09-m) depth. All this material was single-digit values. Even in these cases (e g.. occupy the site, and contact the waste. In the assumed to contain a mCs concentration of 4 equal to 2.71, separation of the context of this position, this possibility has 77 pCilg (2.84 Bq/g) Notwithstanding the hypothesized well location fmm the disposed been considered although the greater risk to actual layouts of Subtitle C, RCRA permitted material by about 328 feet (100 meters) the intruder would likely result from the facilities, a well was presumed to be located would reduce dose rates below 1 mrem (to non-radiohigiud hazardous constituents at and cente.ed at the downgredient edge of this pSv] per year because cf the decay of O'Cs the site. specific volume of waste. To maximize the brought about by the increased retardation in the intruder scenarios applied in the hazard as calculated by the TGSRAD modeh times development of NRC's LLW standards, '* an the hydraulic gradient was considered to be The concentration constramts in this inadvertent intruder was assumed to dig a parallel to the length of the disposed volume of material. Infiltration representaine of a position. coupled with the limited number of 3.m (9.9-ft) deep foundation hole for humid site was presumed and a minimal inadvertent melting situations to which this construction of a house. The top 2 m (6.6 ft) position could be applicable, and the case-of the foundation were assumed to be trench unsaturate 4 zone thirkness of 3.28 ft (1 m) by-case NRC or Agreement State approval of cover material and the lxittom 1 m (3.28 ft! was assumed to separate the contaminated the proposed material transfers, are believed was assumed to be waste. Based on the zone from the saturated zone. The value to provide a sufficient basis to ensure details of the scenarios, which included these assigned to Ka in the unsaturated zone was protection of public health and safety, and and other considerations, the intruder 270 ml/g. Assessments beyond this the envimnment from water-pathway interacted with material whose concentration representative case evaluation are subsequently discussed. considerations. Nevertheless, to provide had been reduced from the waste further protection, should a singse Subtitle C. concentration by a factor of 10. Presuming The results from this bounding analysis RCRA-permitted disposal facility accept s milar scenario's and assuming intrusion indicate that drinking water dose rate would incident-related material from more than one occurs imreediately after a post. closure care he inn nificat.t (e g.. far less than a microrem mcident the position includes a tot ' period of 30 years, the intruder would be (to 2pSv) per yeath This result is not inndent.related mCs activity constraint of 1 exposed to a 137Cs concentration of about.i surpnsing because the retardation.provided. even in the 3.28-ft (1 m) deep unsaturated Ci(J7 GBq). The magnitude of this constraint pCi/g (0.15 Bq/g); that is. 77 pCi/g (2.84 zone and the saturated zone. is sufficient to is based on the typical bounding activity Bq/g) reduced by the factor of to and an preclude drinking water doses for almost 700 assmiated with an inadvertent melting of additional factor of 2 to account for '"Cs sources that have ou.urred to date at radioactive decay). Even for this worst-case years. During this period, the activity of mCs would decay (i.e., t>e reduced by radioactise EAFs or foundries in large measure, it has situation in which all the incident-related decay) by a factor of atxaut 10 milhon. been mcluded to provide assurance that the waste was presumed to have initial 137Cs position is only directed.. the ultimate concentrations of 77 pCilg (2.84 Bq/g) the Note that. although it is considered an disposition of radioactive material that exists projected intruder exposure would range unreahstic scenario. the drinking of the in the environment e a result of specific from 0 8 to 3.8 mrem (8 to 38 pSv/ year)? As teachate directly from the disposal trench madvertent melting incidents. liowever, it noted above. the average concentrations over after a penod of 30 pars would only result also provides a constraint on the extent of large volumes ofincident related material in a talculated exposure of about 7 mrem / solumetric contammation as a function of would be expected to be far less thara 77 year (70 gSvlyear) u To consider the effects of a range of concentration. The prar tical effect, as pCi/g(2 84 Bq/g)' previously alluded to, is to limit the disposal 6 Conclusions parameters, including other Ka values, on the volumes of incident-related contaminated results of this bounding analysis, the materials to a small frac' ion of totaldisposal These bounding analyses mdicate that following analyses are presented Based on site capacity for hazardous waste. As a result some significant volume of mCs-the typical existing volumes and Ws of this volumetric limi'. he constraint would contaminated emission control dust and concentrations ofincident related materials, further ensure that any esposures oct utring other incident related materials from an the imposition of a constraint on 'PCs offsite over the operating life of the Subtitle madvertent melting of a sealed source can tw concentration effectively bounds the total C. RCRA permitted facility would be equal to disposed of at a Subtitle C. RCRA-permitted activity that could be disposed of at a or len than 1 mrem / year Ito pSva carl. if integrated over thn faciDty's operatirig life .asee NURErana2. Vol 4. Drafi Ermrnnmentai u" Default soil Solid /t.iquid Partitine Again the activity constramt and the water g g ,, g g g g..u m m Coefficants. Kas. for Four Major Sud Typen A pathway considerations e an be plaud m Rgirements for L.and Disposal of Radioactive Compendium," M Sheppard and D 1hibault. waun." September 1981. Henith Physrs. Vol 59. No. 4, October 19*0.PP " For enample. t he total artiuty contamed in to dose conversion values in NUREU-1500, These estimates are based on the concentration 471-482. "RESR AD. Verstori 5 0, Argonne National 2000 tons ( t a00 metns tons) of matcoal. " Working Draft Regulatory Guide on Release I.aboratory. Seplemter 1993 contammated al a level on 77 pCug (2 64 liqlgl. Critena for Detummisamnmg NRC Staffs Drafi for a This dose estimate is based on romparmit would tw abnut 014 turies (% 2 Gilql. It w<mld be irai. hate co.u entrations with the water efflueni innhkelv that au the mait r.M trom a particular Comment." August t 994. Appropnate adjustments of the tabulated information were made to reflect modent would be at the ma wrum ium entration 4 onteruraoon in 10 (TR Part 2n. Appenda 14 dehned m the in hnma! ; meu n the occupanc y and shieldmg usumptmns made m M tREG-07n2 Isee Footnote 161 l

j -l i 13184 Federal Register / Vol. 62. No. 53 ' Wednesday. March 19, 1997 / Nottces facility with negligible impacts to publit and a worker health and safety and the environment. This method for disposal if implemented accordmg to the limitations stipulated in this position is very unlikely to cause worst-rase exposures that eureed 1 mrrm (10 pSv) to any worker at the disposal faality or to any member of the publit. m the in mity of thu faality. The deugn. operatnins. and post closure activities that take pl.u e at Subtitle C. RCRA pernutted facilities will ensure that radiological impacts from 8"Cs will also be negligible in future timeframes. Proper disposal of these j materials would protet.t public health and j i - safety. and the environment to a greater j degree than the alternatlee of indefinitely storing these materials at a steel company I facility. The calculated public health and i safety and environmental impacts of disposition of speafied incident related J materials at a Subtitle C. RCRA permitted facility can also be used to determine an i optimum course f< r disposal, if disposition j alternatives cuest SALUNO CODE TSso-oi4 I i e 1 4 l i i I l i 1 i 4 I I j i i 1 2 4 + I

Federd Registu, Vol. 62. No. 53 / Weanesday, March 19, 1997 / Notices 13185 = I--- 7_.... 7

9. j..j l j.7..

. 7-

7_

r 7.3. . j 7...._p. 7. 7. 7 7... p v .. _.7-- ...._. 1 .3.. ggg ...a L i e. .a w' ! gi,,tq_y_ ..... 1 i t i iI T! I i r !w~I

i j f 'i oo rse rram mem.m

,T._. - -.2 I !Ii, u. ,,, f. 1E! l l ll!'lI.. E - ~ + - - - - - + - oo r m nom. m eranos J, flo,,,I t-- ?- -- f j I I!'fl I I n 4. t m.y ,a m m =i i. i I I I l1 g .i 12 00 f 4 1 i 'E top l l l i l 3 i 10-g' ~ R i i x r-: h /0.8 m --N f ^ \\ 1 i i t li i l ll N K ! !!i ~ / 2.1 m [ f,i \\ I X ]_.i t / o.1 m l \\,s (!, j-~' side [~~~~' t ,--*-i l + 1 i iii ! l 4 20 cubic yard box, 2/3 full of baghouse. b]- \\1',.4. k dust contaminated to 100 pCi/g Cs-137 \\ \\ 1, .i i i ,i.i ; i i ! i 0.1 1 10 Distance From Waste, meters Figure 1. Shape Factor Plct for 20 Cubic Yard Container G d 1 4

1 13186 ' ederal Register / Vol. 62, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 1997 / Notices

100,

!...+ _ _ j.. L 1._i. ! !.+..;.< gg ..___t .i . i_.i J J... !..l. ! .i _ - L 1 - j }_ p..J ._1... !_.._ i... p r.-k :; ;..I..r..f !.pl ~- -. wf j.,.1.L,.Qyf.. 1.

' 14.4 t-4.

\\. t - >+ -ll' l l .4- .g.......... -e.... +... ] Dose rate vroen whee saan ,l.- ..........f.... l l ,I ii i.._L....4... { 4 6 ? ! I ! I l k i f f I ' / Dose tale frorn top surface f E oo r no,n.m.or a " - +. - + - + - Er g h i .i - l l } l b l 17.20 ; ! i i i ) I .$2 ( 6 top [ 10_- h _,,.__.,_Lg_; L }n _e / !\\ ...... _ 4. -

4. -

44_4.

- ]' 2_4 a... ._t ir r\\! t - / 1.1 m i ,. ' ~ .!.... I _ p......L.y......,..!..I.. +.. rT . _1 i .i.. / 2.1 m ..i.. . l._.i....! / 7.3 m l l '. l[ ll i side {- i j 1-*T i i, t t i 30 cubic yard box. PJ3 full of baghouse i dust contaminated to 100 pCi/g Cs-137 ~~~ " "t {\\ 4 i i i

ii I

i \\. 1 i 0.1 1 10 Distance From Waste, meters l Ficare 2. Shape Factor Plot for 30 Cubic Yard Container i

l',** Fed rcl Register / Vol. 62, N;. 53 / Wednesda). March 19. 1997 / Notices 1318; 4.. A.__4_ ;.......

i 4._-.4 _;_

i_.;_4...;... !_. _.L 4 1. 1... 4 t l J_.....!... g, j ...L..j... i.. i j ...f L d J l J. ,f;. ;_. q:.. f.* *:." * * **.*g--d.*.! ? u c t i I i i lji}l ] Does rate horn WD1Ae alsb i. I f f 1 f .._..... f. f .l.....; s f f f f... E' l Does rate kom top surface 6 I r g oo,,,,,s .q.g.39 f r ! pi..j_. Y \\ \\ I"' \\ o j + g t I 10-A L op +s x rc-x rt r r-1.1 m ~1, x }v I t 4 fJ. u l . f. -.i-- i }'.i_. ll / 2.4 m j hl. 8.5 m l (lg-l l - - '-h side ~ i.: t t t Trailer-type container full of baghouse dust _4._.._5 l j contaminated to 100 pCi/g Cs-137 i i i i iii;i i i \\ 1, i 0.1 1 10 Distance From Waste, meters 4 i Figure 3. Shape Factor Plot for Trailer-Type Container f o I. N j 4 l 4 4 i

.-.. -. - ~ _ - .g i I 13188 Federal Register / Vol. 62. No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 1997 / Notices 4 100 j.. .e. {. }... j-f...} 4-.i. -j.- -

j...y L l.

, yy 7 7 7p..7 7-< -$9e agrangg ~7 - - 1. ***.*7?*O**.*,.g*t.**qtet.:t-nsum, I I f 1 ! ' r- --....... l.... 1...;.).i. ;.. _ Dose rate from Mnes slah ~ !l lll l' i ! e. --==.-

d..

-.....,...f......,....9...,,,.f ) j i j 1 i i ?? t i ._e......... _.4.. ..a .. 7. 4.... _ s r ]. 1 ...............t...%..$ ...a,..........;._ i J i...- l>. 4 !. / as7 -- L l t w 1 'E L-E e j b i 'i i o te. u..un=. i .9 ss_ f. G 10 -... N - 1.4 L.. g p w ,e i. f, l \\ rd, ! [ 4_ m - 1m A -. r.- CC l L% ~+ - - +I ! i 4. -- i . 4 -- i i +-+ - j 1c m I I - i f ..J. i_ .i._ 4 i Ii ~ t \\ \\,N i! + Open Trench,16 x 1 m by infinne depth filled with h baghouse dust contaminated to 100 pCi/g Cs-137 10 1 1 0.1 Distanco From Waste, meters Figure 4. Shape Factor Plot for Reference Open Trench i I 1 4 j I

j . s Feder:1 Regist:r / Vol. 62. No. 53 / Wednesday. March 19. 1997 / Notices 13189 100 _... _. ~. -. - -. ..........,_.._........._...._t... 4...spespneasynaapamps r 7 - - X7. i i _ p,,,pg 4- ...p , 4 4 ,- ' 4.,. ..t.. .......!..m'. X 3 .,,t,...:..+:......t..... i J ..t-- t ......9,, ,.J.,...,... 7 ( 5 h...{....... ..,............7,.7...,......s , p ( i l 6, j 10: :

=-_.==: :

= :=m:=:::,====< .r==i =.==c n z: .=..,.....q.-'-,...,....4.....,..".... 6 .'.'.*.**"."*.p*..*.*...., .,....,'..,"'.'.'..'.9,..

- +J
  - - - ^'****t

+ * * - - * * %........+..,.... .4... (g77 4. .g........ t.. 4... i t ...p ..y).. '....;i..%...+i. 7 0 N ..i., Does raes kom ekse at eum w to 3 2R$ cm red l l l l l l E 1;... ..., 185 W r ei ,..._.....v.4.. 1._ _4.=....,..p l.,....,... , zo gr--j 9..... $......j 1 l Q.. a.9..4. ..99 + 7.. ....4,.. e ...... _....................i..... ..i 1.. 1 y gy g w ...g... $ldQ "...;.. k .. + i i 5 i i i }. ! I,' t O.1==. h rate kom Wm 'I.. _.::. _%..- :=: := +- .+.... .,....v..... 2......t....i__.;... 1.._ 55 gallon drum filled with baghouse dust i W-I : [ contaminated to 100 pCl/g Cs-137 j """'T 0.01 i 0.1 1 10 Distance From Waste, meters Figure 5. Shape Factor Plot for Standard 55 Gal. Drum 4 4 1

e s

19. 1997 / Notices Federal Register / Vol. fi2. No. 53 / Wednesday. March

,.as.wiv.e.sse.. 5tsams.m C- -* S*W: '13190' . ~ .. -. - ~ -,. _ ~ -.. -. _.. _ -

m 4w..5 ;+Ta++==~wverte

,,ns. w t. ~ ~ c ~~ "-4-'* 4. 100 ....,..,--Dose rsie fromir1Nnite sish .,...f..........,... .,i.....4...g..... _...&.... a.. ;... a... J. ....a.. -d..~t?**4?~ = c. ;* - -....=.t2:b:.==*- ?f.*= ~ ?=~..=.7,h.?: n.k5*- ...1........i..4.4.. i. ~..LS2 .. n. ..s.....5......s-.... A ......,,..x................,...,....w.. I i i l ... - i -.L.

a....

.6. Dose rate at 1 m from surface j j }.. 1, 4..l.......... 4. .. e j ....i.....j...'...+ s. i 3 j h. I 4 i ; t 3 i i -.4... ...........!.4...y...

4... j...

e i. i + 1837 [ j d f, g I -Q d n / (oo pow ex.d at "-i...' jQ_ ... ~..., 1 m above surface W J.....

7. 9 g

16 m i

.. ~.. } l '~T~ ~ ~ Open Trench,16 x 'W' meters by effectively infinite l depth, contaminated to 100 pCi/g Cs-137 . i i i i i.. I t t i,,.. 10 1 1 0.1 Width of Waste,"w," metem i Dose Rate as a Function of Trench Width Figure 6.

+ g Federal Register / Vol. 62. No. 53 / Wednesday. March 19. 1997 / Notices 13191 e --me-- I -.w.---e+--- ---*.-=-~--e.=~ - - - - = = - -. = = - - - - - - - 1 i ,1 ) ? I i + I 95- --.--.-h-- s o

- --- r r~~T~~~ T ~~'~"~

l 4 i l 6 e t CO i .O ...!............7~-- 6~*.""-- g -~ q i p r t i .g i j I t i y 85-l , oose point fixed O j ( at 1 meter above surface so-- 16 m ,e u I 1m s a. 75-i g l l 70- ! Thickness, varies l _4....... i i t 60 i i i i e i i 0.1 1 Thickness of Slab, meters Figure 7. 00se Rate (Expressed as a Percentage of an Infinite Slab Dose Rate) as a Function of Trench Thickness 1 ) i l

e e Federal Register / Vol. 62. No. 53 i Wednesday. March 19, 1997 / Notices 13192 18 17-I i 5 16- \\ Of-15 2 9 '$14-ds==*a y **cem,,3, ; I

I 13-l

/12.4 m l .-( f x *tance med at 1 m 12-4.............................................. > l /, ' f***** v ***** 11-j l l x e.cson 10 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 y Axis Distance From Centerline, cm Figure 8. Dose Rates as a Function of Vertical Distance Offset from Center Point of Trailer-Type Container 84 LUNG CODE 7536-01-C

Federal Register Vol. 62. No. 53 / We%esday. March 19. lW7 / Notices 13193 Analysis of and Response to Comments on waste disposal. One State and the mixed-position's disposition alteri.ato e (One State Staff Technical Position " Disposition of waste daposal faulity operator noted that the commenter stated that it should be made Cesium-137 Contaminated Emission Control time, effort, and resources ex pended to effect dear that an environmental assessment, Dust and Other Incident Related Material" mixed-waste dnposal at the existing facility under the National Environmental Policy On January 22,1996. the Nuolear wm be undermined by the precedent twing Act, would le required for rai h disposal) Regulatory Lommission pubbshed a ntabhshed m the position. The disposal The sigmlicance of any cost ddlerential proposed technical position on the fatihty op rator also beheved that the could be judged by appropriate regulatory disposition of Cesium 137 (mCs) position relied on unsub,tantiated economic authorities, in their selectmn of the most contaminated emission control dust and assumy ims and assertions, which NRC had reasonable and proper disposal alternative other incident-related materials m the fuepted at fa<e salue without any (e g., whether saving a few r.ents per ton of Federal Register (61 FR 1608) Comments mdependent investigation., and that the steel is in the pubhc interest). were sohcited and,in respmse 22 comment justification had changed with p)sition In its decision to pursue what, the ktters were received These comment letters development fmm a pubhc health to a cost. Comrmssion believes,is a health $rotective mcluded. six from State nuclear safety, eMective rationale. This commenter also and environmentally sound disposition human resources, environmemal stated the belief that the position was riot in alternative, the Commission also consideied conrervation, and health offices; Ove from the public's mterest boca,ce of pawntial the ongd of the radioactive source melting the steel industry (thrn fmm industry expmums to transportati m workers, problem (a problem being addressed under a associations); four imm hazardous waste membe s of the public, and Subtitle C facility separate NRC program) and the significant disposal facility operetn s; one from a mixed-w rhet One of the environmental group efforts <af the steelindustry to detect waste disposal facility oprator; two from commenters stated that saving a few cents incoming radioactive material. In the other industry asviciaticus; two from fest mtemsts.er t n of steel may not be in the public's Commission's view, these factors provided environmental groups; one from a member of further justification for its ongoing actions. the public; and one from a memlwr of d NeSPonse: Because the subrect Thus, although the Commission is aware of Congress. These letters raised a number of disposition option was being proposed in the the substantial efforts, time, and resources issues ranging from policy and legal concerns form M a "permissi# tecnscc.! position expended by all parties involved in the to specific comments on the conservatisms in (i e, an option, hkely requiring multiple hceming of the mixed-waste disposal the position's supporting vadiokwical approvals, that would be imtiated by a facihty, the Commission's primary focus is to assessments The responses to these request frorn an NRC or Agreement State achieve ultimate disposition of the incident-submitted comments have been grouped int. laensee on a case by<asr basis) and not a related material. The Commission beheves the following c.ategories: 11) Position rule, the broad policy lustifii.ation, stated in that the real or imagmed cost differentials. 'ustification, precedence. and relationship to the Federal Register notice f61 FR 1609. from lack of campetition or other causes, may "below regulatory concern" (BRC) policy column 1) was as follows "NRC believes that be resolved through issuance of the position, considerations and constraints;(2) regulatory disposal, under the provimns of the position and lead to a resolution of the disposal approach (i e.. rulemaking versus technical or other acceptable alternatives temphasis problem. The Commission has omrd nated position) and the implementation pro < est (3) added. is preferable to allowmg this maed its actions wi h the (LS. Environmer 'l legal considerations; (4) related health, waste to remain indefimtely at steel company Protection Agency (EPA)and beheses it has j safety, and environmental concerns; (5) sites." Another acceptable alternative the support of EPA in the position, at this technical considerstmns; (6) other issues; and referred to in the Federal Register notice (61 proposal stage, j

17) clarifications.

FR 1610, column 3)is the mixed waste The potential exposures to workers and i t /usts[icotson. Precedence, and Relationsh2P disposal facility operated by Envirocare of members of the public are addressed in the to BRC Utah As the footnote indicated, this facility responses to comments 3.a. and 4.f. received authorization to accept the subject

b. Comment: Two State commenters, the

a. Comment:The comments on the waste at concentranons not eueeding 560 mixed-waste disposal facility operator, the justification issue were intertwined with pa.orunes 4Cillgram (g)(20 7 becquerel environmental group commenters, and the j

several other issues. Basically, however. the (Dq)/g) during April 1995. after the work on member of the public raised concerns about comments from the steel and other industries the ter.hnical position was initiated. With the the precedent setting nature of the technical l 4 (associations), three States, the Subtitle C, availabihty of this facility. the NRC staff position. By establishing a " default" value hazardous waste facihty operators, and the beheves its aforementioned pubhc health for *Cs in incident-related material, it was Congressman supported the disposal justification het ame enmeshed with cost questioned why a similar argument could not concept, proposed in the position, an a considerations, as dascribed below, be made for mCs in soil, or some other necessary adjunct to a regulatory program Notwithstanding the availability of the radionuclide in another medium. It was that should improve licensee control of the mixed-waste disposal facihty option, w hich further pointed out that the cumulative effect devices, whose inadvertent meltings have has been used by several steel facilities with of similar actions would need to be caused the problem They beheve that the "Ts-contaminated. incident-related addressed. An envimnmental group position is safe, environmentally sound, and material, other steel companies did not commenter opposed the creation of cost effective, and a reasonable alternative to consider this option cost effective. Contrary exemptions that could be used by others, disposal at the existmg mixed-waste disposal to the commenter's statement. NRC staff did specifically the Department of Energy, as facility (available smce April 1995 for contact the industry, as well as the mised-applicable or relevant and appropriate disposal of the subject waste) These waste and Subtitle C disposal facility requirements, in settings for which the commenters, plus those from the disposal operators, to comprehend the possible cost drafters of the lpositioni did not ir. tend or facility operators, expressed the view that differentials of the /isposal alternatives. anticipate. The member of the public claimed there was a serious lack of competition in the Although contrar tual privacy and market a possible relationship to issues involving business of disposing of mixed waste, considerations prevented exact disposals from the U.S. Enrichment resulting in unacceptably high disposal costs determination. NRC etaff concluded that the Corporation. Several of these commenters, including one differential costs between the mixed-wante Commer,ters from the steel and other State, suggested that the disposal costs could and Subtitle C disposal options could tw industry assonations supported the position affect the fmancial viability of certain significant. In fact, the commerit letters from as a proper precedent, and suggested that facilities. the mixed-waste disposal fackhty operator other circumstances could justify similar Comments from two of the States, the and the Subtitle C facihty operators appear actions. It was pomted out, for example, that environmental groups, the member of the to mnfirm this assessment But wheever the although Basic oxygen Furnaces (BOFs) also pubhc, and the mixed-waste disposal facihty actual mst differences may tm for specita. process scrap and are subiect to the same operator stated that the justificatmn ior situations, the pro (ess. as enusioned in the kinds of incidents as Electric Arc Furnaces, combined justification and regulatory potential use of the pmitmn. would identify BOF dust may be neither a hsted hazardous approach) for the position was weak. with the mst differentials if any,in the waste nor a characteristic hazardous waste. It most emphasizing the conflict with the enurunmental assessment that would was suggested that the position be clarified current pohty on, and approach to. mixed. support any deusion to implement the regardmg its apphcabihty to the potential

s Federal Register / Vol fi2, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 1997 / Notices 43194 disposal of 8"Cs contaminated itOF material efforts to identify mixed wastes that may be material in a timely manner, the Commise

~ directed that the staff should work with I.PA and mcident-related material that may not be regulated es low-level radioactive waste to develop interim guidelines and associated dasufied as mixed waste. Another industry (LLRWl. outside of Resource Cimscrvation tm hnical bases. This is the process that has commenter questioned whether the position and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulatioas. The been followed to date. The guidehnes would apply to a steel pmducer who is not response to comment 2 is aho pertmet to proposed in the technical position would be the question of developing a 1.tr.ader in effect until this rutemaking is finalized an NRC or Agreement State licensee. This inhmal position. The staff han had no To addn.ss the concern of the State l same commenter questioned what approach would be used for meltings involving other interactions with U.S. Ennchment commentemarding a broader review radamuchdes, and wh. ' r the position Corporation issues that affected development process, the staff haeot only worked with could not be broadened to other industries of tha position. EPA. but has made eary versions of the

c. Comment Several commenters either position available direc* ly to a number ut that have large volumes of mixed waste. In requested clarificatmn un the relationship of affected parties and States. The a broader sense. a few of these commenters this position to BRC pohcy or stated their Commission's intentions were openly applauded NRC and EPA efforts to minimize belief that the pos Nn a ontravenes publicdiscussed and the early versions of the dua! regulation on mixed waste.

position, together with early exchanges of

b. Response: The Commission strongly law.

c. Ifcsponse:In 1992, in response to the views. were placed in NRC's public beheves that broad based exemptions, or Commission's publication of a ItRC policy document room. The staff published the creation of specific positions outside of statement in 1990. Congress, in Pubhc Law proposed technical position in its entirety m established policies. should be implemented 10N86. Energy Policy Act of 1992, statej the Federal Register to obtain the broader through the rulemaking prm ess. In fact.

that the (BRCl polity shall have no effect. review that the commenter suggests. efforts to provide the technical analyses to The BRC puh(y bask ally stated the bases Furthermore, contrary to interpretation of support a broad recycle rulemaking, that that the Commission would apply to one commenter, NRC is not asserting the would include consideration of incident-determine if broad practices should in adoption of the technical position as a matter related material, are underway. liowever, considered for exemption from regv',atory of Agreement State compatabilty. In fact. under its specific regulations. cited in the control. The NRC staif does not beheve that recognizing the likely involvement of many techmcal position, the Commission can, and the subicct technical position is a BRC policy parties,if the position s alternative is j has, in case-by case determmatmns. for the following rewins- (1) The in hnu al implemented, the staff's intent was that

os approved actmns that at beheves ate m the bes,t mterests of pubhc health and safety and position is a "pernussis e" guidance

"" * *dmg and protectmn of the environment. In the case of statement, basically stating Commission in gaining general r. rstan f tt uerits of the pmr et this "permissae" technu al position. NRC is wws on safe implenientation of existing aueptance puttmg forward a disposition option. whose n.gulatmns on inensed matenal dispmal in fgn a i a ap li o to e' implementation and approval can be 10 UR Part 20. (21 the positon specifically,, g considered by appik able regulatory " directs ' the disposal to a regulated dispus. the position's disposal approach will dl ' + l l authonties and othert The advantages and entity. and mcludes approval. notification, necessary even with the final technical l disadvantages of alternatives would be and tot il activity proviuons that, the staff position in place. j addressed in appropnate environmental beheves, are inconsistent with the concept of assessments that would accompany license BRC (3) the position is narrow in scope li e., 3 legalConsiderations

a. Comment:In several comment letters amendment requests and the r hoice would directed at specific material, caused by from the States and a Subtitle C disposal require acceptance by various regulatory specific circumstances); and (4)if implemented. the actions under the position facility operator, and in staff discussions authorities and others. and would be are mnmtent with >ther case-by-r as" with other Subtitle C disposal facility wntmgent on State laws and permit deternunatioc< made by the Commisuon-representatives.it was pointed out that the licability of the technical poutson -

conditions. legal ahalternative,in specific States, could The Commission beheves the precedent being suggested, in thin case, is reasonable gP{A APgroach and the j il' a dispos s be determined by how the incident-related and proper based on the circumstances and Comment: Although related to the BRC material is defined. If the waste were definN the justification, as descnbed in 1.a above. issue discussed above, a State commenter as LLRW, requiring disposal as specified m The disposition option. however, applies questioned why,if the proposalis sound in the low-level Waste Policy Amendments only to disposals at Subtitle C facilities; only protectmg pubbc health and safety, the described in the position could be precluil-! Act of 1985, the disposal alternative to treated Istabdizedl '"Cs-contaminated, regulatory approach is a technical position, absent an appropriate change to State law or incident-related matenal(inclusive of a, apposed to a rulemaking-the latter material that may not be classified as mixed providmg a broader review process. Another regulations,or permit conditions One State waste)that constitutes the greatest part of the siete comn.-nter believed NRC should define commenter stated that,if the treated problem: and only to companies, or their the "hfe expectancy" of the guidelines in the incident-related material is considered service contractors, that wdi treat the technical position. Industry comments contaminated ash,it would be subject to incident related matenal,under NRC or gencrully supported the technical position as permit and manifesting requirements. disposal requirements that would apply if the the approach needed to address a real Another State commenter pointed out th.o Agreement State license, to meet the land State LLRW regulations require problem in a timely manner. as opposed to demonstration that design, operation. and matenal contained harardous constituents. a rulemaking that would be very time-closure of any class of LLRW facihty ensure This last provision was considered necessary consuming They believe the steelcompanies prote to avoid the difficult task of generic. ally should not be put m the middle of a political provide for an institutional c defining bounds on the potential radiological tug of-war over appropriate administrative There was concern about States being open l j exposures that could occur during treatment pnx edures to follow, given that the position or disposal, and could involve consideration has been made available for public scrutiny to lawsuits if the incident-related marenal of inhalation and ingestion, as well as direct in a manner similar to a proposed rule were considered Lt.RW and if the aforementioned provisions were not 17esponse As referred to in 1.b. above. NRC exposure pathways. addressed. The mixed waste disposal fat ihD With regard to o...u possible situations for staff intends to re-address the Subtitle C-which this position may be considered a disposal option. proposed n the technical operator pointed out that Subtitle C f.n.iht e precedent, such as the disposal of BOF puution in con # unction with a broad recycle are not required to have ra programs. Another State commenter matenal. the Commission believes these rulemaking At that 'ime the need to broadly ntuat ons should be judged on their omn addreu dmposal optioris will be revisited. questioned the differences that would e between the Subtitle C and mixed waste merit. Any tr<teractions among combined Howeber. IFCause this rulemaking is in an disposal facihty requirements at.d thmr ditions Would require con &iderStion, as one carh development stage, with finahzation rationale, in the context of the position of the State commenters pointed out. The unhkely m the next couple of years.and

a. flesponse:In the " Regulatory positw.

staff is also aware of EPA interests. identified innuse of the oesarabihty of properly text in Section C ttic waste that could tw in its proposed Hazardous Waste disposmg of specific inndent-related Identification Rule, and has encouraged EPA

a Federd Reght:r / Vol. 62 N 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 1997 / Notices 13195 transferred to the Subhfic C dispaal facihty dispmal requirements for the dast's state-of-the-art tadiation deettion was described as incident related material, hazardous coastituents One of these i apabihties at i nsiderable expense, not to and was not teferred to as low level commenters stated that NRC( annot assume meet any regulatory requirement, but to e radioactive waste. In developing the sole jurndictmn for thazardousl waste reduce the likelihood of experiencing the proposed position, this was not a decision treatment,if >iuch creatment were conducted mnsequences of inadvertent-melting events i based on legal considerations, but the at the steel company sites that result in sigmficant shutdown, cleanup. terminology selected to best characterire the b Response:The commenter in correct-and disposal costs, as well as the posubihty waste,in a technical position whose The position calls for wmphance with RCRA of inndent-related exposures & plant principal purpose was to demonstrate, land disposal requireme~ In the situations personnel. Furthermore, these deixtion 4 through a conservative assessment, the being addrened, the NRC gaff believes systems Mave been coupled with i minimal radiological significance of the appropriate RCRA authorities may approve comprehensive scrap inspection pmp uns proposed disposal option. It was recognized. various options for carrying out the treatment

b. Response: Although the pubcy however, that State laws and permit of the incident-related mater al Therefore, provisions may require NRC nr appropriate conditions would need to be satisfied, and only a general statement of compliante was Agreement States to not requite licensmg of that numerous approvals may be required, mduded in the technical position The staff the Subtitle C facility for the redNactive including those of appropriate State acknowledges and agrees with the comment material, the main feature of the policy is tha regulatory bodies and the disposal facihty regarding NRC's jurisdiction over hazardous NRC determination that the incident-related operator-waste tivatment, no matter where conducted. material can be transferred, under existing Amoeg other provuions, implementation This would be an issut ior the State.

regulations D0 CFR 20.2001 and 20.2002), of the disposal option proposed in the permitting agencies or epa to decide. In from a licensed to an unlicensed entity The position:(t) Involves a hcenseen's request and essence, the presumption in the position is position not only prevides r, conservative regulatory approvals on a case-by case basis that the Subtitle C disposal facility would be NRC assessment of the radictogicalimpacts pursuant to 10 CFR 20.2002;(2) includes disp > sing of waste that had been treated of the disposal alternative, but also evaluates notification and disposal-site operator-under applicable RCRA requirements. certain hypothetical situations to previde a approval provisions; and D) includes frame of reference for the calculated impacts accounting of the single ar d total incident. t Related Safety. Health, and E.nnronmental Contrary to the connotation, " regulatory f G ncerns exemption," used by the commenters, NRC related material received at e Subtitle C dispwal site. As a result, the position does

a. Comment An environmental group, a staff does not consider the proposed position not allow a hcensee to dispme of the State tornmenter, and thie enember of the to be an exemption action. but an assessment incident related material as if it were not public suggested that the best approach to that could allow case-by case decisions on radioactive, a concept that applies only to solve the problem is a twtter ac counting of incident-related material disposals under disposal of certam w astes defined in NRC the sources causmg the mcidents, and more current regulations (also see response 1.c.)

regulations at to CFR 20 2mn(at Instead, if nigorous regulation appears warranted The The staff also believes that this policy he the provismns of the position are followed. suggestion was madt that worker exposure at no impat on a steel company's selection of mcludmg the spe(ific provision for disposal the foundoes should ise a prmupal NRC " source" detectmn capabihties. The costs at a Suhtitle C fvlhty. the position provides tontern As indicated in the dm ussmn m associated with shutdown (downtime) and a basin for dispo%mg of mt ident related i omment t a the stee. industry commenteri, < leanup alone can ex< ecd milhons of di 'us material at a site other than one specifically also strongly n quested NRC attmn to far in excess of the costs of effettne detection hoensed for disposal of low level radioactne improve accountabihty. systems and programs. w aste.

a. Response. The Commnnion, in its

c. Comment: The environmental group Furthermore, although not taking a directions to the e,taff on October 18,1994, commenters and the mixed-waste disposal position on what LLW disposal requirements approved several wncurrent courses of facility operator suggested that the pcmtion could be renonably applied to the dispmal action. One of these has led to the could lead the steel companies to cont nue of this inadent related material at a Subtitle development of the proposed position, while eperations after a melting for the purpose of C hazardous 'was'e disposal facihtv the stalf another ha= led to an Agreement State-NRC generating additional contaminated dust in

) did speufu. ally address groundwater and Work ng Group that is developing sufficient volume to meet the position's i intruder cons iderations Croundwater and recommendat'ons to address the concentration criteria. A State commenter intruder assessments were provided to allow accountahdity issue. The Workmg Group has stated that this issue should be addressed. others to judge the signific ance of these held several meetings and a workshop. and The mixed-waste disposal facility operator i scenarios and the need for additional recommendations were sent to the postulated other abuses (e g., the mixing of regulatory provisions (including radiation Commission in late 19% The NRC staff is in other regulated waste with l incident related1 protection training). NRC staff has concluded the pntess r,f evalualmg the NRC/ Agreement material) and asked whether presention that, with the constraints provided in the States Workmg Group's recommendations for measures were being proposed, position, specific regulatory actions (e g., mereased wntrol over, and aucuntability

c. Response:The staff believes that the cost groundwater monitormg for mCs. mtruder for, devices containing radioactive material.

disincentives alone are suffiuent m wns.Jer barriers. institutional controls bevond those Once the NRC staff completes its evaluation. the former suggestion unreasonable. For applicable to Subtitle C disposal facilities) it will submit an action plan to the example, the dilution necessary at one of the directed at these scenarios are not necessary. Commission outlining rueasures to improve facilities with this material, such that all the The NRC staff has also concluded that the control over, and accour.tability for, devices. contaminated material would comply with position's dose criterion, and the Thus, the Commission agrees with the the position's criteria, would be about a conservative assessment of allowable mCs commenter's worker safety and " front end" factor of 5. The costs of disposing of this concentrations, obviates the need for concerns but, recognizing that incident. increased volume at a Subtitle C facility, radiation protection training for thc Subtitle related materal currently exists, and future even with an optimistic estimate of disposal C facility workers. In this regard, the staff incidents may not be prevented with 100 costs, could reach millions of dollars. The would point out that the material defined by percent confidence, believes the "back end" staff would note that its development of this the achnical position would not be of the problem also requires Commis= ion position has been enmeshed with cost-effective considerations because of the real or considered radioactive, for transportation actmn. purposes, under the U.S. Department of

b. Comment A State and an environmental imagmed excessive differential costs of the Transportation's (DUT's) regulations. In fact, group co rmt..ter viewed the pohcy m its disposal alternatives. Furthermore, based on the conmntration criteria in the position are grantmg of a " regulatory esemption" for the the operation of the steel facilitics' emission a factor of about 20 less than the value used inadent related waste, as counterp.oductise control systems, witn their dust-collection by DUT to define radioactive material.

to the desire to improve ietection systems, the staff can not conceive of a b Comment:Two State commenters < apabihties at the steel facihties. 'I hree scenario that would allow real time pointed out that the position does not mdustry commenters, one who responded comprehension of the extent of the address specific permitting provisions directiv to 'he State view, pomted out that contamination or total quantity of "Ts pertaming to dust trtatment to meet land the steel company faolities have mstalled mvolved in an incident.

u 13196 Rderal Register / Vol 62, No. 53 i Wednesday. March 19. 1997 / Notices o With regard to the question of protei tive arteptani e triteria..t the mixed w aste Notwithstanding the dientific contros.- measures, the staff behoves the NRC. facilitvl. If the material witb concentrations regarding the realiiy of these hypothetu 41 Agreement Stee(s), permitting agencies. or below the position's values is disposed of risks the Commission's radiation protection the Subtitle C disposal facility operator umler the position's provisions, the standards are consistent with standards. l could, if warranted, require or strongly commenter asks what would be the recommended by international and national recommend testing requirements to address disposition of Ihe higher concentration advisory bodies. that reflect this hypotheus. any concerns on disposal of unauthorized material and. if it remains onsite. would this In the case of the technical position, a dose radioat.tive oaterial. The NRC staff believes siolate NRC s mtent in promulgating the rate of1 mrent/yr (one-hundredth of the that a licenwe's me.cmrement and samphng pou tion. public dose limit and about one thres~ program as sippros. ,y N RC or.thA la a somewhat related comment, a State hundredth of the avercge expomre rate Agreement State, will be cifhc.ient to eluestionied whether material delisted from received y ar in and year out by the preclude unauthorized radioactive m.sterial har irdous material regulations, and meeting population of the United States) was e hown i disposals. the concentration values in the position. as the regulatory basis, because, in the staffN

d. Comment: An environmental group could be disposed of at a Subtitle D facility.

view, it was suitably conservative and, from commenter stated that the concentntion

e. Response: For incident-related snaterial a practical standpoint, provided a disposition criteria in ti e position appear to be remaining after "paltion ailowed " and solution for most of the incident related inconsistent and less strict than criteria economically feasible blending of material currently exieting at steel company imposed by EPA on mill tailings at 40 CFR contaminated inaterial. the staff is aware of sites. Footnote 5 of the final technical Part 192. The mixed waste disposal facility only one disposition option at this time (see position reflected this view.

comntenter questioned the position's 61 FR 1tittv column 2). That option would With respect to the mixed waste disposal comparisons with environmental mCs involve treatment and delisting of the facility operator's comments on the NRC conceatrations. The member of the public material under hazardous material staffs appreciation of the effects of low lewl claimed the proposal would exempt to times regulations, ami dispmal of the material as radiation and the 1 mrem /yr (10 pSv/yrl the amount of material that would have teen LLW. In two situations where incident-regulatory basis, the staff believes that the exempted under the HRC policy. related material existed or currently exists at conservatisms in its selection of a dose

d. liesponse The staff presumes that steel facilities, about 90 percer,t of the criterion, with appropriate regulatory reference is Seing made to the 5 and 15 activity was a tuned in a few percent of the margins. can be appropriate, if the resulting pCilg or 135 and 405 liq /g remedial action material volume Gas en that. in many cases.

position can lead to resolution of an critenon for raiium=22til" Ral in soil. it may not he fossible to blend the "'Cs in outstandmg incident-related waste These are criteria that would apply to sud this small volume to concentrations disposition problem. Although selection of 4 that could be released for unrestric ted um. acceptaVe at either the nuxed waste or the mrem (40 Sv)/yr could he justified, staf f;. l The concentrations m the position are those subtitle C fauhty (under the provisions of view is that selecting a drinking water tion), treatment anc <! listing of this standard for this positmn, which sta" for material that would be disposed of at a the p' volume may not be onerous. In anyhelieves does not present a drinking water hazardous waste disposal facihty. Because uma radium is about 2.5 times more hazardous event. the staff does not believe the issue, would create more concern and from a direct exposure standpoint than $"Cs, uncmtainty or current feasibility of confusion than the value selected, and its the position's bounding '"Cs values for addressing a small percentage of the problem associated basis. Subtitle C facility disposal are only about 3 affects the merits of the position, especially i Technical Considemtions to 4 times a value that would be found as it relates to the mixed-weste or subtitle C acceptable for unrestncred release. In fact, disposal alternatives.

a. Comment: A State commenter suggested the typical incident-related material at under in response to the State query, the position that the position should specify acceptable 20 pC1/g (540 Bq/gl would be within the does not justify disposal at a Subtitle D methods for averaging the weste within a I

criteria range cited and applicable to wanitary w...a landuit Inu aume the container. u.arestricted release situations. Note also that radiological assessment was based on a

a. Ilesponse: The staff recognizes that the tt.e position contains a total-quantity Subtitle C facility disposal. Any such incident-related materialin a particular j

craterion which is not a part of the 40 CFR disposal. if justified, would have to address container may not be homogeneous in terms Part 192 regulations. the diffennces, if any, between facilities and of $"Cs concentration. However, because the The comparison referred to by the mlmed. their operations. principal radiological hazard being addressect waste disposal facility commenter was

f. Comment: A series of comments from the is rmlated to direct exposure, complying with between "much of the mixed waste" that mixed-waste disposal facdity operator the concentration values, as determined on a :

contains concentrations below 20 pCilg (540 questioned NRC's appreciation of the container average basis, is acceptable. The Dq/g). This concentratmn was being potential effects of exposure to low levels of specifics of the characterization program compared with actual environmentally radiation On the other hand, most other directed at defining treated materialll"Cs measured concentrations of i1 and commenters either considered the regulatory concentrational would be defined when 12 pCi/g (6300 Hq/g) and statistically-basis for the position of 1 mrem (10 approving the licensee's request for transfer predicted concentrations (95 percent value of microsievert (pSv)) per year (yr) to be of the incident-related material. The distribution) up to 19 pCilg (513 Bq/g). The reasonable or very conservative. Among characteristics of the treated material, the reference in footnote 13 of the final techmcal several comments, one commenter suggested decision to pursue packaged or unpackaged position is the source of these values. a modest increase in the position's dose basis disposal, the statistical confidence desired. j l The sta 'i was not certain about the from 1 mrem (to pSv)/yr to 4 mrem the regulatory margins provided in the intended context of the comment from the (40 pSv)/yr, corresponding to the value in position, and the views of the approving member of the public, but has presumed it EPA drinking water standards. parties would need to be considered. The is related to other issues addressed in the

f. flesponse:For a number of years,the response to comment Tc. could also be l

l response to this comment, comment 1.a.,4.e., Commission has used.he linear no-threshold applicable in determining a characterizatius i I or 4.f., hypothesis as providing a reasonable and

program,

e. Comment:The mixed. waste disposal prudent basis to assess the radiological risk

b. Comment:The mixed waste facility facility operator, among others, auggested associated with its actions. In essence, this operator noted that if one considered that the position, if adopted, may have hypothesis involves an extrapolation of the exposure to a plane source of 60 rem to 6 adverse health, safety, and environmental statistically significant health effects that can Sv) per hour for 8 hours per day for our consequences. One issue involved the be attributed to high level, short duration 4 weeks, the result would be a total exposure ;

disposition of higher-activity meterial that exposures le g, the Japanese atomic bomb exceeding EPA's maximum allowable dow. would not be covered by the position's survivors) to levels of exposure at or below An industry association commenter noted criteria. The commenter cites an example what the earth's population receives from that the dose rate limit applied to shipmenh where the i"Cs concentration, if averaged background sources le g., cosmic radiation of radioactive material is a factor 500 timm over all the incident-related material, could and exposure to radiation emanating from higher than the value applied in the positmn. he 551 pCilg(14.900 Bqig)---{below the naturally occurrin,t materials). to packaged disposal

Fed:rrJ Register / Vol. ti2 No. 53 / Wdnesday, March 19, 1997 / Notirm 13197

a e

b Hesponse:The staff does not believe this (61 FR 1t>09. column 31 and " Discussion"(fil through which the solid or hazardous waste a calculation is pertinent. Although the staff is FR 1610. columns 2 and 31). This reality is regulats.ry authorities would likely be not certain what maximum allowable dose is why the activity that could be disposed of at apprised of actions to implement the being referred to, the critical point in the the Subtitle C facihty, for the specific events position. In non-Agreement States, NRC calculation is that it presumes contmuous that have taken place to date, is unlikely to would be the initial, but possibly not the exposum at 1 meter (-3 feet) to a plane of exceed 100 mci (31x101 MBq). only, radiokigical approving authonty. In material that is all at the maximum f Comment. A State commenter raised these cases, State permitting authorities may umcentration criterion. As a point of several questions about the groundwater seek the advice and approval of their reference, exposure to " normal" dust could rnodeling and the input parameters. respective State radiological or public health he calculated to cause an exposure that i Hesponse:The commenter noted that organizations. NRCwould work with Aese would be a factor of 65 or lower, or these comments apphed to an earlier version. authorities and others to determine if presuming the possdnlity of greater exposure of the position: however, a few still have implementing the pos ion's disposition a periods associated with the greater volumes relevance to the proposed version. In the alternative is reasonab.e and prudent and of material, equivalent exposure would be context of this posit.on, the staff was faced legally acceptable. i reached over a period of about 5 years. The with the task of boundmg a specific potential

b. Comment:In the comments from one i

need to consider the applicable exposure radiological impact, that staff believed was State, there appeand to be some confusion scenario on which a regulatory position is relegated to a status of insignificance by the on what entity would track the total quantity based is brought out by the h dustry position's defined cona intratior: and quantity constraint (i.e.,1 Cl or 31x10

MBq).

anociation commenter. To make this point, criteria. Nevertheless, the approach taken in b Re8Ponse: Under the position's the staff would note that under similar the position was to perform simple bounding Provisions, the total quantity constraint assumptions, IXYT's allowable exposure rate analyses and comparisons. so as to provide would be tracked by NRC or the appropriate of 10 mrem (0.1 mSv) per hour at 1 meter (-3 a perspective on the specific hazard. For Agreement State, although others could also feet) could be translated into a dose estimate example, in staff's view, a very conservative track this inventory value. of 16 rem (1ti mSv). dose estimate was provided under the

c. Comment:A State commenter queried

c. Comment: An industrial associatmn hypothesis that an individual could and who would confirm that the position's commenter suggested tha' the 1-curie (Cil nr would drmk trench leachate. Ccmtrary to the concentration constraints were being met. An 3 7s10* MBecquerel(MBq) total activity commenters apparent view, staff considers envirorimental group commenter suggested hmit be inuoified ia a per disposal cell basis the very conservatively cah.ulated Umrem that accurate characterization presents a (i e.,if the rell were larger than 100.000 cubic (70- SN dose trom directly drinking tanch considerable challenge.

meters (3.5x10* ft 8)), on the grounds that th" leachate, with a boundmg concentration of C Re8Ponse:In the at Ms view, NRC or the proposed constraint may be too limiting if radioactive matenal, to lm a prima facic appropriate Agreement State would have a one facihty would accept the incident related rationale for claiming that EPA's drmking significant incentive to provide some material from more than a single event. water standards would be met with mdependent venfication of the concentratien

c. Response Although this change could le significant margin, not only at the " tap." but criteria. However, the specifics of this iustified,it has not been accepted for the at any point m the groundwater verification would be addressed when following reasons: ( O The pnx.edural approving the licensee's request to make the difficulties for the NRC or Agreement State 6 Otherlusues transfer of incident.related material under to require a particular disposal constramt at Comment A State commenter suggested the provisions of the position. Other parties, an unlicensed facihty, and (2) the behef that that the position should state whether NRC includmg the Subtitle C facility operator and mdividual incident disposals under the twouldi allow import or export of incident.

the permitting agency, whose approvals are position's provisions are, in most cases, related material for disposal. required, could also dictate a specific unlikely to approach the quantity constraint Response:The position did not address the confirmation process. On this point, the staff (one. tenth is expected to be more typical). import / export issue. To the extent that the would note the inclusion of regulatory

d. Comment: An industrial association position's assumptions remain valid. the margins in the position that, staff believen, cor~nenter suggested th

the area / shape technical hasis could % apphed to export should be considered in developing a tactors used by NRC were overly restnctive However, aisy imports or Puports could reasonable confirmation program.

by a factor of 2. d. involve decisions by responsible parties,

d. Comment: An industry association d Response: NRC Imcame aware of area!

beyond NRC, including non.llS. regulatory commenter requested clarificatmn regardmg shape factor differences tetween different authontic*. To the estent that appropnate the shipment of pretreated incident-related codes. Staff has checked its calculations and ll.S. regulatory authonties agree, and material to offsite licensed treatment does not believe its estimates are in error. determine that they can legally support facilities.

e. Comment A State commenter NRC's siews that the treuted incident related

d. Response: Under the provisions of the questioned whether a discrepancy existed in matenalis not LLRW, the material could be position NRC would have no objection to NRC's source term assumption, in that considered fw disposal under the provisions incident-related material being transferred disiding a 1-Ci(3 7x10* MBql soun e over of the positmn, gav ng < onsideration to its offsite for permitted treatment by an NRC or 2tX10 tons (t a t4 metric tons) of contaminated har.ardous properties, if applicable. The staff Agreement State licensed entity. The position material would result in an average does not believe this nsue needs to tm only addresses the transfer of incident.

roncentration of 551 pCilg (1.49x10' Bq/gl addressed in the context of the position itself. related material that has been properly

e. Response: The commenter's calculation treated, under a Commission or Agreement is correct. However, in actual events. a

7. Clanfrntmns State license, to a Subtitle C disposal facihty.

significant fraction of the activity is generally

a. Comment A State commenter stated that

e. Comment: An industry group commenter contained in a suaall volume of incident-the licensee tranfernng the treated incident-suggested that the position should provide related rnaterial at high concentrations. As related matenal should notify the Agreement allowance for licensed service contractors to discussed in the response to comment 4 e..

State Program or. in tne case where an be brought in to supervise implementation the disposition of this material will hkely Agreement State Program does not exist, the operations. It was further suggested that require treatment of its hazardous properties. appropnate solid or hazardous waste treatment should not le a prior condition to so that the matenal can be delisted and regulatory authontv. transport. dispmPti of at a hcensed LLRW disposal a Reponw The pootion'a provisions are

e. Response. The position, and NRC facihty. Although the position's prosisons miended to e sure *u:h notifications. In the regulations. allow the possibility of servit e do allow blendmg of contaminated mate rial.

i.ase of Agreenies.t States. their approval of ctmtractors operating under the contractiqg NRC staff recognized that providing the the transfer in i alled for m the position's entity's hcense. Treatment is only requird required reduc tvm in average concentiatwn provisions. as n wni+n n. Sfitation from the lefore transport to an unlicensed Subtitle C to meet the possemn's contentration cntena hcensee at lea <t i ..ivs before any actual disposal faulity. See the response to would likely not be practical in all cases transfer The position also calls for disposal comment 7 d. above. Staff believed this was reflected in the fac ihty operator notitiration and acceptance. t Comment An industrial association proposed position (e g, see "Introductmn" m wnting Thus. ther" are two avenues commenter questioned the accuracy of the

- o s.

w 13198 Federal Register / Vol. t.i2, No. 53 / %dnesday, Mah 19, 1997 / Notices .~.. dose ratn asouated with the 55 gallon money orders drawn on U.S. hanks (21 Open time loi queshons and commenN drum. payable to Sandia National laboratories; Tuesday

f. Hesponse The pubbi ation of the f gures no credit cards accepted. Mail ne and Mu.

in the Federal Register 4.aused some hiuiring registration fees to Martha Lucero, 7 e am m 5m pm that has caused the commenter to mamad Sandia National Lahoratories, PO flox registration /information the,mdu.ated dose rate. Comparis4ms with 5H00. MS Ola Albuqunque New 3 g 3.g, the sca'le on the ordmate indwate that the M"sico H71HS-0129. Please mclude introdmorv n nids WRC) < ommenter's figure is high by a far. tor of to mune. g an on, m and pbne a 15 am m d5 am Dated at Rot.kville. \\taryland. this 13th day nmnW M%our regatration fm Presentation by Wolfgang Werner on eM n fee na este n. inWds from PRAs f European nudar of Man h.1997 For the iLS Nudeur Regulatory daily mntinental breakfast, and one power plants' 9-15 am to 10:15 am Commission lunch. Late registration fee ($100) is due Praentahon by Wntinghouse OwnerN 'I' no later than the time of workshop / Group

Chief. Low inel Waste und Decommissmmng meeting registration (cash is accepted 1015 am to 10:30 am Projects Branch. Dwismn of Waste y

599 Y y BREAK Monogement. Office of Nudear Material workshoph 3 9 39,m,,,,;39,, Safety and Safeguards _ Presentation by CE Owner's Group" IFR Doc. 97 4 884 Filed bta-97: 8 45 aml Workshop Agenda P alLUNG CODE r$90-4M Sunday 3 00 pm to 7:00 pm 1:00 pm to 2 00 pm Prnentation by B&W Owner *v Group' Regnaanon Individual Plant Examination Program: 6 00 pm to 9 00 ; m 2:00 pm to 3 00 pm Presentation by BWR Owner's Group

Perspectives on Reactor Safety and Rei eption Plant Performance Volume 1 Part 1 3-00 pm to 315 pm Md"d*.

nRgag and Volume 2 Parts 2-5, Draft 3$,,*,'[lj'f"bw ndim* P AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Lommission. g,,mtration/m formation 3 45 pm to 5 00 pm ACTION: Notice of Workshop Agenda for a no am to a 30 am Op.m Discussion Opetung remarks (NRC stat ~f) sonpm Draft NURECr-1~.fio. - 8 30 nm to a 15 am Adiourn

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory introdus tion. Roadmap for meetmg 5:10 pm to er30 pm Commission has published a draft of (Chapter 1)

IPE Database demonstration. Part 2 8 45 am to 915 am ( Advanced queriet use of ACCESS to " Individual Plant Examination Program: Perspectives on Reactor Safety and Plant Perspet tivn on impat of IPE progr,tm on query the database, program setup and l redor safety * (thapters 2 and 9) discussion) Performance," NUREG-1560. Volumes I Includes time for questions and answers. and 2. Volume 1, Part 1 is a summary ,ho n R ac.or Design * (Chapter 1s t p e report from a review of the Indmdual t to and t o Wednesday Plant Examinations llPE) submitted to to n an to ic 40 am Time M Topic the agency m response to Genenc Letter BREAK H15 am to 3:00 pm 88-20. Volume 2, Part 2-5 provides an to 40 am to I150 am Registranon/information in-depth discussion of the insights and Perspectim on Containment Design. a to a m 0 and 12) findings summarized in Volume 1, Part ,[r 4 L The NRC staff will conduct a pubiic ggggg gg,; g[ registration fee), also key. s.35 am to 9:35 am Presentation by NEl* workshop (April 7,8. 9.1997) to discuss note spenh by loseph Callan. EDO 9:35 am to 10:00 am the contents of the draft NUREC and to 120 pm to 2 00 pm NRC presentation on NRC Potential solicit comments (See FR notices 61 FR Operanonal perspecoves' (Chapters 5 and Regulatory Follow up Activities 58429 and 61 FR 65248). The agenda of 13) 10:00 am to 10:15 am the workshop is listed in this notice. 2 00 pm to 3 o0 pm BREAK Perspntim on IPEs with'reget to risk. WORKSHOP MEETING INFORMATION:A 3-day informed regulation * (Chaprers 6.14 and to 15 am to 11:30 pm Open discussion on NRC Potential worksboIi will be held to address 15) Repdatory Follow-up activities comments and answer questions. 3 o0 pm to 315 pm t I:30 an a 1:00 pm DATES: April 7,8,9,1997. BREA5 LUNCH LOCATION: Austin, Texas. 3.15 pm to 4 00 pm Pnspechvn n IPEs with rnpect to 1:00 pm to 3:00 pm, HOTEL: liyatt Regency. 208 Barton Commission's Safety Goals and impact of Wrap-up Discussion (NRC and publicl on NUREG-1560 covering such issues at S.prings Rd., Aust.in, Texas, 78704' Statmn Blackout nde on CDFs a . Validity and accurac y of NURIE Please make your reservations directly (Chapters 7. It anu 17) information. conclusions and with the Hyatt Regency llotel, phone 4 no pm to S 00 pm observations (512) 477-1234 for 1800 233-1234). Open discussmn . Future NRC activities Mention that you will be attending the 5 00 pm . Future industry activities N5'C-IPE Workshop to receive the Adiourn A 5 30 pm to 6 30 pm 3 00 pm meeting group rate of $113/ night plus IPE Database demonstration. Part i lBanc Ad ourn t tax (single / double). Ilotel reservations Quenn: Basic strudurn ot me user . includes time for questions and answers by March 7,1997 are required in order [,"j" '" " "* "** E " SUPPLEMENT ARY INFORMATION: D(aft to receive the group rate (subject to NUREG-1560 (Volume 1. Part 1 and availability). .Each "prnentation" is compnsed of. Volume 2. Parts 2-5),s available for i j REGISTRATION:The workshop tu NRC presemation ut overview of inspection and copying for a fee at the registration fee is 1100 USD. -rveuves and stafra interpretation of NRC Public Document Room. 2120 L Registration fee is payable by check or , m..ments re eived and stafra response}}

ML20147G419

Contents

Text

Enclosure:

Enclosure:

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

Navigation menu

ML20147G419

Text

Enclosure:

Enclosure:

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

Navigation menu

Search