ML20197C534

Submits Commets on SECY-98-084 Re Status of Efforts to Finalize Regulations for Radiological Criteria for License Termination,U Recovery Facilities

ML20197C534
Person / Time
Issue date:	07/02/1998
From:	Mcgaffigan E NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:	Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
Shared Package
ML20197C524	List: ML20197C519 ML20197C534
References
SECY-98-084-C, SECY-98-84-C, NUDOCS 9809140074
Download: ML20197C534 (2)

Text

. -, _ -

.._.m

~ - - * ';

Mp Sf f,\\g I

• L UNITED STATES

['

,.q[g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g.

(. g WASHINGTON. D.C. 20555 9.

E g1**...f CoMMisSloNER 3

t July 2,1998 MEMORANDUM TO:

-John C Hoyle Secretary FROM:

Edward McGaffigan, Jr.

(k

SUBJECT:

SECY-98-084 - STATUS OF EFFORTS TO FINALIZE REGULATIONS FOR RADIOLOGICAL CRITERIA FOR LICENSE TERMINATION: URANIUM RECOVERY FACILITIES l

l 1 have reviewed the subject paper and comment letters from the Environmental Protection Agency and the State ofIllinois (attached), and met with stalTincluding the author of the differing viewpoint attached to the paper (briefing charts attached), and offer the following l

comments.

I approve the staff recommendation to use Alternative 3--the benchmark approach--in developing the final cleanup rule applicable to uranium recovery licensees. This approach will result in the application of a uniform cleanup standard across the site. It will also presumably not be opposed by EPA since it is based on EPA's assertion that the 5/15 radium standard is equivalent to an individual dose of 15 mrem / year. While I join the staffin not agreeing with the EPA calculations, we should not reject consensus where we find it. However, even though by EPA calculations, the benchmark approach will not result in decommissioned sites exceeding the public dose limit, I agree with the staff's proposed safeguard to consult with the Commission in cases where the NRC stafTs calculated benchmark dose (before applying the ALARA principle) exceeds 100 millirem / year to a member of the public and believe that the Commission should explicitly direct the staff via a staff requirements memorandum to seek Commission approval in any such case.

While I generally agree that it is advantageous to apply a single dose-based cleanup standard across the entire licensed site that uses the Part 40 radium standard as the benchmark, I recognize that the use of various modeling codes such as RESRAD, PRESTO, and DandD (currently under final development by the staff) to demonstrate compliance with the standard can result in significantly different calculated doses. These differences are amply evidenced by the data in the tables attached to the paper and EPA's letter. Obviously, the NRC staff, including the author of the differing viewpoint, are perplexed by EPA's assertion that the 5/15 radium standard meets a 15 mrem / year limit in essentially all circumstances. This derives from EPA's use of RESRAD

]

model parameters, such as the fraction of time spent outdoors, which appear to be non-conservative. On the other hand, I am sensitive to the concem that certain DandD parameter 9909140074 990702 PDR cot 9tS NRCC i

t CORRESPONDENCE PD't 5

2 values are more conservative than necessary even for a screening model. In that regard, the Commission has directed the staff via the staff requirements memorandum on the decommissioning rule guidance (SECY-98-051) to continue reviewing the DandD code to identify areas where conservatism can be reduced. I also believe that we need to continue the dialogue with EPA and other agencies through the Interagency Steering Committee on Radiation Standards ~ori how to use the various dose modeling codes available in a consistent manner.

cc:

Chairman Jackson Commissioner Dieus Commissioner Diaz OGC EDO er b

d 4>

==

SE RULE PH 23-+-U O STATE OF ILLTNOIS DEPARTMENT OF NUCLEAR SAFETY 1035 OUTER PARK DRIVE SPRINGFIEl.b,.lLLINOIS 62704 Jim Edgar 217-785-9900 Thomas W. onager Gm emor 2i7 733 6133 (TDD, Direani o

I'R Ch d

October 6,1997 Opr Utir..-

R, E

g 5

Secretary p

.c.,-

by U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission m:*

3 o

Washington, DC 20555-0001

$1 5

Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff Re:

Radiological Criteria for License Termination: Uranium Recovery Facilities.

[62 FR 39093-39095]

Gentlemen:

The Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety (Departmer.t) hereby submits its comments on the above-identified Federal Register notice. This notice requests comment on the setting of specific standards that should be used for cleanup of radionuclides at uranium recovery facilities.

The primary issue discussed in the notice involves the establishment of cleanup standards, either by setting specific concentration limits for radionuclides currently not included in the regulation, or by codifying a dose objecdve for those radionuclides.

Comments were requested, in particular, on the approach of using a dose objective to establish the standards.

The Department has previously commented that rulemaking needs to be rooted in technical considerations involving the relationship between radioactivity and dose to the public. The dose projections should be based on a substantial fraction of the 100 mrem annual public exposure limit. The fraction used by the agency of authority should be one of the allowed variables in the dose projections, as are the other current modeling factors of pathway, population density, land use, etc. While the dose-limit fraction is is not the primary topic of the NRC's current request, it can affect the subject cleanup standards if those standards are based on a " dose-fraction" objective.

D A W 8

,,,&aa om

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 2 October 6,1997 In the establishment of either concentration limits or dose-objective standards, NRC should not lose sight of the primary consideration which has historically driven the establishment of exposure limits and cleanup criteria, i.e., the potential hazard to human health ~. Consistency between NRC and EPA is not a reasonable motivation if the proposed ~ standards are not technically-based and defensible.

~

Dose-objective projections have always been of primary import in the evaluation of proposed site clean-ups. All agencies ofjurisdiction use dose objectives as a major part of setting site clean-up concentration limits. If a dose objective can be sr,tisfied by

~

cleaning 'up to concentration limits higher that those specified in regulations, procedure allows for the approval of the higher concentrations. Although EPA typical practice is to specify a concentration limit as the regulatory standard, its acceptance of the concept 2

of higher alternate concentration limits (ACLs) essentially validates dose-objective standards. It is incumbent upon the licensee and agency ofjurisdiction to demonstrate that the facility, after cleanup, will not pose a substantial potential hazard to human health. EPA obviously has considered site-specific, dose-based criteria as an acceptable method of controlling risk.

For dose projections to be effective in establishing residual concentration and 1

cleanup criteria on a site-by-site basis, the NRC needs to be very clear and comprehensive with the guidance documents it provides licensees and Agreement States s

regarding acceptable projection methodologies and virtually every factor used in the modeling. If a dose-objective standard is established by regulation, rather than a concentration limit, then acceptable dose projection methodologies should be clearly defined to assure rearonable, fairly consistent results. When defining acceptable dose-objective standards, methodologies, and guidance on dose-objective compliance, the

' NRC should take care not to inadvertently introduce ambiguous terms, factors or i

methods. -

. While methodologies for evaluating compliance with dose-objective standards should be somewhat standardized, future refinement of projection methods and factors should not be inadvertently discouraged. Additionally, the Department reiterates its position that, in the establishn mt of dose-objective criteria, the Agreement States currently have the authority to establish stricter standards than the NRC; no authority needs to be " granted" by the NRC. The Agreement States, therefore, also retain l

- authority to utilize more stringent projection methodology and factors than any NRC-l

- proposed modeling.

. NRC has proposed the use of the current radium cleanup concentration limit as a

. benchmark". for establishing dose-objective standards for other radionuclides. If, as J:

.I

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 3 October 6,1997 L

stated in 62 FR 39093, cleanup of radium to NRC concentration standards "would generally result in doses higher than the 0.25 mSv/yr (25 mrem /yr) unrestricted use dose criterion of the final cleanup rule", then it would seem clear that every effected i

site must be subjected to dose-projection modeling. Even if the same concentration i

limit is used to clean up different sites, the variability in site characteristics and i

pathways produce different annual dose potentials. A site cleanup should always be primarily based upon projected dose, not upon specified concentration limits. Rather i

than setting new limits for radionuclides currently not included in regulations, the i

establishment of dose-objective standards is more appropriate and effective in the l

assurance of public health. A specified concentration limit should never be the ultimate i

test of an adequate cleanup. Every remediation plan, on a case-by-case basis, should j

include projections of future dose (i.e., hazard,) accounting for all radionuclides of j

concern. For previous and current cleanup sites, regardless of the concentration limits specified by regulations, dose projections have been, and are being performed.

i l

In general, the Department encourages the use of dose-objective standards because they provide to the regulatory community the greatest freedom and flexibility in fulfilling our obligation to protect public health. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this issue. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at (217) 785-9947.

Sincerely, k

x.

Steven C. Collins, Chief Division of Radioactive Materials SCC:DSP cc:

Richard L. Bangart, Office of State Programs, NRC James Lynch, State Agreements Officer

?"%

(.#h~9 I

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

./

i 71 OCT 17 All '46

~

October 6,1997 OFRCE 0; SECRciARt RULEMMOHC.:t AniD ADJUDICAUONaffASF AIR AND RADATON Frank Cardile Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research DOCKET NUMBER U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission PROPOSED RULE N 10 M O Washington, DC 20555-0001 g gcfge7

Dear Mr. Cardile:

This letter is in response to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) request for additional comment on the Radiological Criteria for License Termination: Uranium Recover Facilities EPA has comments on the relationship between radium concentration levels and corresponding dose levels. Specifically, EPA believes that surface wind blown contamination of radium at 5 pCilg would result in doses consistent with the minimally acceptable dose limit of 15 mremlyr EDE under a residential exposure scenario for radium 226, radium-228, and thorium.

232. and is much more stringent for thorium-230. For land uses other than residential (e.g,

commercial /mdustrial, recreational) the UMTRCA cleanup standards are more stnngent for all four radionuclides (see attachment analysis Reassessment ofRadium and Thorium Soil Concentrations and Annual Dose Rates, July 22,1996). EPA will be providing more detailed comments on this issue and related issues in the next week. We are currently coordinatmg comments internally within the agency.

. If we can be of any additional assistance, please call me at (202) 233-9280.

Sincerely, i

&N.%

John M. Karhnak, irector Center for Cleanup and Reuse

~

40waaw r

pp:=..-..,.r_==~

.y