ML20155F743
| ML20155F743 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/08/1988 |
| From: | Lohaus P NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Volpe J KENTUCKY, COMMONWEALTH OF |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20155F725 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-88-418 NUDOCS 8810130377 | |
| Download: ML20155F743 (1) | |
Text
MD/SHEFFIELD/MAXEYFLATS 1
John Volpe, Ph.D. Jgy c 3 1998 Radiation Control Cabinet for Human Resources 275 E. Main Street Frankfurt, KY 40621
Dear Dr. Volpe:
In answer to your request for information on federal regulations pertaining to the closure of low-level radioactive waste disposal facilities, we are enclosing a draft staff memorandum that discusses closure issues pertaining to the Sheffield Low. Level Waste Disposal Site located in Illinois. The enclosures to tnis memorandum discuss the applicability of closure requirements of 10 CFR Part 61 to Sheffield, a site licensed before the promulgation of 10 CFR Part 61. Sheffield does not exhibit the problems that are present at the Maxey Flats facility in Kentucky. Careful analyses of the points made in the enclosure and of 10 CFR Part 61 itself will be necessary to identify which requirements are truly appropriate and relevant to Maxey Flats. We do not hold 10 CFR Part 61 or the points made in the enclosures to be the applicable requirements for Maxey Flats. The points made in the enclosures could be viewed as a sample of appropriate and relevant federal standards to the extent that they are demonstrated to be so.
We have also enclosed a copy of our draft Technical Position Paper on Environmental Monitoring of Low-level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facilities.
Sincerely, Paul H. Lohaus, Chief Operations Branch Division of Low. level Waste Management and Decorsnissioning
Enclosures:
As stated DISTRIBUTION:
Central File HMSS r/f -tt08 rff MDunkelman, LLOB SBahadur, LLOB PLohaus, LLOB JSurmeier, LLTB HBell, LLRB JGreeves, LLWK MKnapp, LLWM RBangart, LLWM DMussbaumer, SLITP
& m M MA
.I... .?.........[...............[. .. ......[. h ...
NAME:MD kelman /dfw :SBahadur :PLohau\ :
sii? 5)"is""""""?"J"is""""""f }fis"""""?"E f/9f" 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY got 7 000907 l0 NESTER 00-410 pen
CA31 NET FOR HUMAN RESEURCES COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY FRANKFORT 40621421 DEPARTMENT FOR HEALTH SERVICES June 15, 1988 Paul H. Lohaus, Chief Operations Branch Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decommissioning U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
Dear Mr. Lohaus:
On June 8, 1988, you provided Dr. John Volpe, Chief Chemist, Kentucky Radiation Control Branch, with draft information on federal regulations pertaining to the closure of low-level radioactive waste disposal facilities. The enclosures you provided discussed the applicability of closure requirements of 10 CPR Part 61 and how they applied to the Sheffield, Illinois site.
We fully understand that various issues discussed in the draft may or may not apply to the Maxey Plats site. However, Dr.
Volpe has responded to the information you provided and I have enclosed his response dated June 15, 1988. '
Therefore, the purpose of this letter is to provide your agency with information which shows how we view 10 CFR Part 61 and the interpretation of appropriate and relevant standards in their possible application to Maxey Plats.
in erely,/
f?f #
/
Donald R. Hughes, Sr., Manager Radiation Control Branch Division of Radiation & Product Safety DRH/ns Attachment (1) cc: John Volpe, Ph.D.
Maxey Plats file
-8806210GG6-680615 PDR WASTE WM-3 5 DCD 'S C /. b "An Equet Opportunrty Etnpioyst WFM' k7M-3 [JbY/
? CA81 NET F@R HUMAN RESSU2CES COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY FRANKFORT 40621-0001 DEPARTMENT FoR HEALTH SERVICES MEMORANDUM TO: DON HUGHES, MANAGER RADIATION CONTROL BRANCH FROM: JOHN A. VOLPE, Ph.D.
CHIEF CHEMIST MF RADIATION CONTROL BRANCH
SUBJECT:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Comments and Information on Closure of Low-Level Waste Disposal Facilities. .
DATE: JUNE 15,1988 The attached information on closure of low-level radioactive waste disposal facilities was provided to me by Paul H. Lohaus, Chief of Operations Branch, Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decommissioning. This information relates mainly to the Sheffield site and may not be appropriate for closure at Maxey Flats, it is my opinion that the cleanup standards for releases at the site boundary set for Sheffield are extremely liberal and out of step with present thinking on protection of public health and safety. The use of 10 CFR Part 20 as standards for such releases must be questioned since the establishment of these regulations is based on data from the late 1950's and early 1960's (Handbook 69, etc.). More recent evaluations by International Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP 26) suggest more stringent protection than indicated in 10 CFR
- 20. In addition, ICRP 30 clearly sets a new tone of radiation protection for occupational health and safety. Furthermore, Nuclear Regulatory Commission guides established in 10 CFR Part 61 are more stringent with respect to protection of public health and safety.
Quoting from the Final Environmental impact Statement for 10 CFR 61 'It is the Commission's intent that the provisions of Part 20 will apply to all aspects of radiation protection during operation except for releases of radioactivity from the site which will be governed by the more stringent requirements of 61.41.* In both the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statement for Part 61 it is indicated the requirements of 61.41 are also for protection of long term health and safety. Finally it is important to note in Appendix B (page B-3) and I quote ' Applicability of the rule to existing sites is a complex issue.
The application of the requirements in the rule to existing sites was intended to be a case-by-case determination." Based on availabe An saim opponunity Emsey.r ueFu-
I Memo to Don Hughes .
Page 2 June 15,1988 data from Maxey Flats and since the Radiation Control Branch has incorporated Part 61 into our Kentucky Administrative Regulations, these more stringent requirements should be use to set closure standards and for daily operation of Maxey Flats where relevant.
I am of the opinion that 401 KAR 5:301 (Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Surface Water Standards) which deals with water quality criteria and specifically sets numerical standards for radionuclides in surface waters is inappropriate and should not be used at Maxey Flats. This section of the Kentucky Administrative Regulations sets numerical standards for all streams including ephemeral channels which are prevalent around Maxey Flats. In addition, to the washes which are not perennial, the major streams such as Drip Springs on the west, No-Name on the east and Rock l_ick which drains the valley are dry for a good portion of the year and thus should not be considered perennial streams. Furthermore, no designated use criteria is established for these streams in the Maxey Flats area, .therefore, it is my opinion that these standards are not relevant to this area.
In conclusion, I feel based on analysis of the information closure standards should be set at or below 25 mrem per year for residents at the site boundary and 4 mrem per year at the nearest public drinking water standards.
6
P.3/5
. o J UNiei "th5e[5648e43 NA? A23 CAS 1eg CamL H, taAp WALbace G. Wuseu
, seawm ownw l
CouwowwsAuw as Mantuesy i4mrvaAL ReSoUAC8s AND ENVWloNMsNfah Pnefetilem CAstNs?
oarmmMthy pon ENY1RONMeN1ak PP0f8CTieN PmANuaoRf O* Pics PAmu it Met.LY MeAo PAANKPoRf. KaNfUCNY deco 1 i
July 11, 1988 patrisk N. febla, Director ,
Waste management Division U.S. Envirossental Psotection Agency Region 17 345 Courtland street Atlanta, Georgia 30345 -
. 23: ARAa's for Namey flats Ramediaties "i Bear Mr. Tobias condustingAsan youR!know,/FSthe at the Nasey Flats Masey steering Flats Cassittee Dispessl Bite. is outrently The i' technisal stati of the Natural Resourses and Environmental protection Cabinet, Divit!on of Waste Management, and the Cabinet for numan Resources, Divisies et Radiation and product safety, have been reviewing the work of the steerine censittee as the
- RZ/78 hos progressed. We wish to alert you to an issue of eritical importance for de cleanup of the site, EPA s !ateria AAAA geldense identifies Wree types of ARAR's, 'ineleding chasiaal semelfia er "leat requirements which i
' set health es sist-based seneentratten units sa ranges in various environmental media for speetfie sentaminants.' la red.
. Reg. 33e 464 . 37, 1907). In reviewine potential ARAnis fer the Nasero
- Waspc and CER nave identitled sever le ._ tea cleanupbaits p eere wkten fasta11y appear 40 be ambi R13 1 4 el Seestem 7) p gearai s
ito Aar#standards s. 10 CFh 30 105 applicable te (903 variet .
feel 11 ties eta',te the annual whole body doee(~ '
f to 509 asse. seatly, was, te Aa the presses of leverint this requirement to, ares to refleet no limit set fern in Icar
- 38. 10 CFR 91.41 applia esble to Lee leven(903 RAR 100.033, radteastive vasteseetles disposen it) utanda$4s feellities,11aite the sassal dose from such facilities to 35 asse to the whole body, 75 ares to the thyroid, and SS ares ether orgaa.
It ales appears that EPA stil seleet the 35 mees to saylimit for its lov level waste disposal standards to be presultated is a few sonthe. I i
Alt I _
u-. f "* "' 'I"If '" ' A" f ' "" "" '"'"" * * * " *""
, u.u trm :44 2e43 NAT Rt.s cAs gl Patrick M. Tobin page Two 4
chemical specifle AAAa for the site. The steering Committee has rejected the 25 area standard in 10 CFR Part 61 as an ambient or ehe:sical specific ARAR because they have ocooluded that it is not health or risk-based, but merely a design or performance standard. They point to the absence of a rist assessment in Part 61 513 or the Federal Register Freashle to then segulations.
The steering Coanittee has conceded only that the 25 area i standard is an action specifie ARAa that would apply if new disposal units were constructedt they argue that the current units were not located, designed, or operated in asserdance with 10 cra Part 6 2. , se these standards weeld not be assrepriate unless new disposal units were eenstausted. NEEPC and'CER staff disagree with the Steering Cessittee's seastusions.
1 Based on a review of 10 CFR part 61 and kalated desements, I WR$PC and CIA staf f have concluded that the il ases limit,is a l health er riskahased standard. The proposed EIS for le CFR Past !
$1 notes that le CFA Part 70 establishes a level of safe foF i esoupationally esposed werkers and for preteetles of the 11e i during operation of a faellity. goes It elatifies that Part beyond that to set a level of safety for lene-ters environmental oreteetion and protesties of the laadvertent intruder. See craft 120, NU356-0783, Volume 2, page 3-3. As the steerlag consittee has pointed of the 25 areaout, limit la the Part 41 EIS er the Federal Regasterthere is preamble to these regulations. Bewever, NBC has slatified that
, the 25 ares limit was derived iros the EPA standard la 40 CFR l Part 190. See Draft 328 30334-0743, Yelume 3 page dall. The Federal Register preashle,to the Part 19g segula,ttens establishes that 574 used a risk / benefit analysis la setting the 25 aree standard. 40 Fed. Reg. 23 420 29, 1975 ical) .effectsIPA See eensidered the findings of a stedy ,se th(May e hieleg of Low levels of laatstag radiation and espressly acted that the il was set a design standard.
4 area Ceasequently it appense that 15 star i standard set forth ta 40 CPS Part 1,90 is neelth er eithin the meaning of the EPA !ateria Uutdance en A3&A' fa prese1 risk-basse lials' gating first the part il standards, identified by Eph WRC selected thig.
and eatended i nd ' .
applisettee te les level radioactive vaste disposal facilities.
l Even if the al ases limit is aos an ambient er ehestsal i
speetite ARAR, we believe that it mest be eensidered a performance based Anna for every remedial alternative for the site. Unguestionably, the 28 ares limit is teshaistily fossible for the remediatient the site surrently asets that limit
\
-._,.--_---- - ..- - - a,-_
l , ,
/ Wid" iiiiN ma NAT RES CAS 3%
l Patrick M. Tobin Page Three ,
i even eith limited stabilisation and maintenance activities. Se
! Part 61 I!8 acknowledGee that the 25 area limit saw be '
1RE115 Mig to esistang s8 tee under eartain ofreussi;4 s, altneug i not located, de signed , or operated is accordance with Part 61. See Final aff, WUmsG-0 949, vol. 3, , Appendia e, B-3,
- 4. We strongly believe that the 35 area standard should be imposed as part of the Nasey Flats remediation.
The espesure standards set forth in 10 cr1 Part le were adopted in the 1950's and de not address leag-ters entirennental preteetion eeneerns at disposal facilities. The il asea standard set forth in 10 CFR Part 61 was adopted in 1981 and is speoitically steed at low level radiotenfve weste disposal facilittee. In the nest few acaths 374 vill atee pressitate sesh a regalation adestine the il area staadese.
letter, WREPC an4 CER strongly helieve that theAs $$settimed ases stan la ,dard -
this i
is the correst ambient er ehemiset specifle ARAR fes the keep plate remediation. In light of the laeressing re11& nee en the.15 i area limit la the more resent W3C and Eph regulatiensi we slee' {
helieve that EPA and the state agenstes wesid face strong public oppositten if the 100 seen limit were adopted fes the Nasey Flate remediation. We will sentinue to work with the Masey Flats Steerlad Committee to attempt to reach a resoluttee of this Bewever, if the issue cannet be resolved by agreement, we 4
issue.
request that EPA clarify that the 25 ares limit is the eerstet aabient er chesteal speelite ha&R.
Staeore17,
/
W $ ~ffd Donald F. Barker, Disector Divisten of Waste Managensat b g/$ht DN6. ' W t 5. afsel IADette Disteter Divisies of andletion and Fredest getety ;
Cahiset for Nunes Baseurses . l ese nebeat cap 14n, seg. ;
Ease 14 Tayles !
j Mark Veisshaar, Esq.
i l
l l
! l 1 l