Text

Notice of OMB Review of Info Collection & Solicitation of Public Comment Re Joint Nrc/Epa Survey of Sewage Sludge/Ash
	ML20202D251
Person / Time
Issue date:	11/24/1997
From:	Shelton B; NRC
To:	;
References
	NUDOCS 9712040208
	Download: ML20202D251 (23)
	v • d • e

_ -.

l

. ~. - - -

~^~~^^"

t

+

l

[7590-01-P]

U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0tNISSION Agency Inforretion Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review: Comment i

Request.

f AGENCY:

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) l ACTION:

Notice of the OMB review of information collection and solicitation of public coment.

i

SUMMARY

The NRC has recently submitted to OMB for review the following proposal for the collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an agency may not conduct t

or sponsor, and that a person is not required to respond to, a t

collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB l

control number.

1.

Type of submission, new revision, or extension: New 2.

The title of the information collection: Joint NRC/ EPA-Survey of Sewage Sludge / Ash h'

The form number if applicable: None

c. w g y @ E' l

M*m" M.

it 15p5*5555E

+

ffW 1

s.

c c

"~

t 4.

How ofter the collection is required: This is a one-time collection.

5.

Who will be required or asked to report: Selected Dublicly owned treatment works (POTWs), and Agreement States.

6.

An estimate 01 the number of responses: 600 POTWs for the questionnaire and 300 POTWs for sample collection, plus 30 Agreemcat States for reporting of licensees associated with Zip Codes.

7 An estimate of the total number of hours needed annually to complete the requiretrent or request: An average of 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months per respondent for questionnaire and 6 hours6.944444e-5 days 0.00167 hours 9.920635e-6 weeks 2.283e-6 months each for selected respondents for collecting samples, plus 8 hours9.259259e-5 days 0.00222 hours 1.322751e-5 weeks 3.044e-6 months each for 30 Agreement States. The total burden is 2.640 hours0.00741 days 0.178 hours 0.00106 weeks 2.4352e-4 months .

8.

An indication of whether Section 3507(d). Pub. L.104-13 applies: Not applicable.

9.

Abstract: TM survey will obtain national estimates of high probability occurrences of elevated levels of radioactive materials in sludge and ash at POTWs. estimate the extent to which radioactive contamination comes from either NRC/ Agreement State licensees or from naturally-occurring radioactivity, and support possible rulemaking decisions by

^

NRC and EPA. NRC and EPA will send questionnaires to selected POTWs. Based on the results of that survey. NRC and EPA will identify approximately 300 POTWs from W.iich samples of sewage sludge / ash will be taken and analyzed.

Results of the fulI survey will be published for use by Federal agencies States POTWs, local POTW officials and other interested parties.

A copy of the draft supporting statement may be viewed free of charge at the NRC Public Documant Room. 2120 L Street NW (lower level). Washington. DC. OMB clearance packages are available at the NRC worldwide web site (http://www.nrc. gov) under ;he FedWorld collection link on the home page tool bar. The document will be available on the NRC home page site for 60 days after the signature date of this notice.

Comments and questions should be directed to the OMB reviewer by (insert date 30 days after publication in the Federal Realster):

Norma Gonzales Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (3150-

)

NE0B-10202 Office of Management and Budget Washington, DC 20503 D

4

, y,re6V

,aW*i'

.gwe*'

Comments can also be submitted b y telephor,e at (202) 395-3087 The NRC Clearance Officer is B renda Jo Shelton, (301) 415-7233.

Dated at Rockville Maryland

, this f // 4 day of(N,<m/<r 1997 Mr the Nuclear Regulatory Commissi on Afdnda 4,f 0

/

eit,o@ Clear 6nce Of ficer

PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your egency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the colleation instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement, and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102,72517th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503

1. Agency /Suteegency originating request

2. OMB control number a.

3150-X b.None U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

3. Type of information collection Icheck onel

4. Type of review requested Icheck onel X

a. New colyction X

a. Regular submission

c. Delegated

b. fievision of a currently approv9d collection

b. Emergency. Approval requested by (date):

c. Extension of a currently approved collection

5. Will this information collection have a a.Yes significant economic impact on a

d. Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved substantial number of small entities?

X b.No collection for which approv91 has expired

e. Reinstatement, with change, r>f a previously approved X a. Thrse years from approval Jate collection for which approval nas expired Requested

f. Existing col'oction in use wrthout an OMB control nurrber

$ expiratioa date

b. Other (Specify):

7. Title Joint NRC/ EPA Survey of Sewage Sludge / Ash

8. Agency form number (s) (if applicable)

NA

9. Keywords Radioactive, Material, Studge l'). Abstract The survey will obtain national estimates of high probability occurrences of elevated levels of radioactive materials in sludge and ash at publicly owned treatment works, estimate the extent to which racioactive contamination come from nither NRC/ Agreement States licensees or from naturally-occurring radioactivity, and support possible rulemaking decisions by NRC and EPA.

11. Affected public fAdat prenay with "P{amt se others inst WW wirn *x J

12. Obligation to respond fr&t prowwy wirn "P' amt a# er%srs FAer argW wtrA X'1

b. Business or other for-profit

d. Forms P

a. Voluntary

e. Indonduals or households

c. Not-for-profitinstitutions e, Federal Govemment

b. Required to obtain or retam tenefits P

f. State. Local, or Tnbal Government

c. Mandatory r

13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden

14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden #n thousemre e ab#sst a, Number of respondents 600

s. Total annualized capital /startup costs

b. Total annuse responses 930

b. Total annual costs (O&Mi

1. Percentage of these responses

c. Total annualized cost requested O

cot!ected electrorucally 0

d. Current OMB inventory

c. Total annual houer requested 2.640

e. Difference O

d. Current oMB inventory O

f. Explanation of difference

e. Difference 2.640

1. Program change

f. E.xplanation of different.e

2. Adpstment

1. Program change 2.640

2. Adiustment 11 Purpose of information collection le Frequency of recordkeeping or reportm rCheck s# thof app 41 (Mark penmery wiri *p' and a# others ther sopty with *X'1

a. Recordkeeping

b. Third-party disclosure

4. Application fo* h*nefits 7

e. Program planmng or management X

c. Reportmg

~

2. Weekly

3. Ntonthly

b. Program evaluation

f. Research

t. On accesson

c. General purpose statisttes

g. Regulatory or ccmpliance

4. Quanerty

5. sem* annually

6. Annually

d. Audit

7. Biennially X

8. other (desenbei One-time survey

17. Statsticat methods Agency contau rperson who con best ensur psens repareg the j g' conterst of tha suamnsion)

Does true intormation collection omrloy statistical mothe Name:

Phyllis A. Sobel X Yee No Phone.

(301) 415-6714 OMBa3 10/95

19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, I certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with 5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE:

The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provision: of 5 CFR 1320.F(b)(3), appear at the end of the instructlons. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as setforth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of ti.e topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:

(a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions; (b)

It avoids urnecessary duplication; (c) It reduces burden on small entities; (d)

It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents; (e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reponing and recordkeeping practices; (f)

It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements; (g)

It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8(b)(3):

(i) Why the information is being collected; (ii)

Use of information; (iii) Burden estimate; (iv)

Nature of response (voluntary, required for a benent, or mandatory);

(v)

Nature and extent of confidentiality; and (vi)

Need to display currently valid OMB csatrol number; (h)

It was developed by an ofnce that has planned and allocated resources for the efncient and effective management and use of the informatien to be collected (see note in Item 19 of the instructions).

(i)

It uses effective and efDcient statistical survey methodology; and (j)

It makes appropriate use of information technology.

If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in item 18 of the Supporting Statement.

Signature of Senior Official of designee Date (k.,1 S LW94M

/llu/h OMB83 g

'V 10!95

. ~. ~. _

~~

a t

SUPPORTING STATEMENT

^

FOR JOINT NRC/ EPA SURVEY OF SEWAGI SLUDGE / ASH Descriotion of the Information Collection The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are sponsoring a joint effort to characterize radioactive materials in sewage sludge and ash from publicly owned treatment works (POTWs). Sanitary sewer disposal of radioactive material and sludge

' reconcentration became issues in the 1930s with the discovery of elevated levels in sewage sludge or incinerator ash at several POTMs. Although the NRC expected that compliance with revisions in its sewer disposal criteria would prevent future reconcentration problems. NRC and EPA have continued to work together to ensure a coordinated regulatory review effort concerning sewage treatment with respect to radioactive material. EPA had planned to include analysis of radioactivity in sewage sludge and incinerator ash in its seconc National Sewage Sludge Survey during 1996-97.

(The 'irst national survey conducted in the late 1980: did no; include analysis of radioactive material.)

Based _on the current budget situation. EPA did not move forward with a second national survey. As a result. NRC and EPA will perform a joint survey of radioactivity in sewage sludge and ash at POTWs.

Because existing information is not adequate. NRC is requesting Office of Management and Budget (0MB) approval to conduct the survey to obtain this information. The survey will sample radioactive materials in sewage sludge and ash at POTWs in all regions of the country. For the planned NRC/ EPA s

survey, we will send questionnaires to the POTWs associated with types of NRC licensees that have the highest potential to discharge radioactive material to the sewer system and POTWs in all geographic areas of the United States.

Using the information from the questionnaires. NRC and EPA will identify approximately 300 POTWs to oe sampled. NRC and EPA tested the survey methods and procedures on nine POTWs. The results of the full survey will be oublished as a icint NRC/ EPA report for use by Federal agencies. States.

20TWs. local P0iW officials, and other interested parties.

A.

--JUSTIFICATION 1.

Need for and Practical Utility of the Collection of Information The objectives of this joint NRC/ EPA sewage sludge / incinerator ash survey are to (1) obtain national estimates of high probability occurrences of elevated levels of radioactive materials in sludge and ash at POTMs. (2) estimate the extent to which radioactive contamination comes from either NRC/Agreemant State licensees or naturally occurring radioactivity. and (3) support rulemaking decisions.-by NRC and EPA.

Specific amounts and concentrations of radioactive material are legally authorized to be dis)osed into the sanitary sewer system by Federal or State law.

In 1994 4RC revised its sewer disposal criteria partially in response to evidence that certain radioactive materials were reconcentrating in sewage sludge or incinerator ash. Regulationc in 10 CFR 20.2003 currently permit disposal into a sanitary sewer of _ specific cuantities of soluble material. The EPA standard for the use and cisposal of sewage sludge. in 40 CFR Part 503 does not include radionuclides.

-.. -. ~

l This survey also responds to a recommendation in the General Accounting Office (GAO) report. " Actions Needed to Control Radioactive Contamination at Sewage Treatment Plants." published in May 1994 That report recommended that NRC determine the extent of elevated levels of radionuclides at POTWs and establish acceptable limits for radioactive materials in sewage sludge and ash.

2.

Aaency Use of Information This is a new collection of information.

The information could lead to additional NRC rulemaking for licensees disposing material into sanitary sewer systems or to EPA rulemaking for the use or disposal of sewage sludge. EPA will determine, based on the results of this survey, whether additional random sampling will be necessary to support its own rulemaking. if oarranted.

This information will be used in developing joint NRC/ EPA guidance for POTWs. This cuidcnce would provide information to help POTW operators determine sources of radioactive materials at POTWs. describe sampling and analysis procedures, and advise whether a response is needed to the presence of radioactive material in sludge. POTWs. local sewer district officials and EPA have requested this guidance.

3.

Reduction of Burden throuah Information Technglogy POTWs will respond to a short questionnaire and send sewage samples to an NRC or EPA lab for analysis. There will not be an electronic collection of information because the information will be collected on a one-time-basi s. Two letters co-signed by NRC and EPA will be mailed to each POTW - the first letter with the questionnalre and the second with the sample collection package. The questionnaire is attached.

4.

Effort to Identify Duolication and Use Similar Information There is no similar information available. The only previous national sewage survey, the 1988-1989 National Sewage Sludge Survey, did not include analysis of radionuclides.

Recently, the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies (AMSA) condacted a voluntary survey of radionuclide concentrations in some of its members' POW sewage sludge and ash. However, the AMSA survey did not identify the facilities tested, and thus it is not oossible to assess regional background levels of radionuclides or t1e effects of licensees thdt dispose of radioactive material into sanitary sewers.

(See further dire.ussion of the AMSA survey in item 8.)

5.

Effort to Reduce Small Business Burden This survey does no'. directly involve small entities. However, because the information needs are the same for both large and small POTWs. it is not possible to reduce the burden on small entities.

6.

Consecuences to Federal Program or Policy Activities if the Collection 15 Not Conducted or is Conducted Less Frecuentiv I

If the collection is not conducted at all. NRC and EPA will not be responsive to the recommendation in the GAO report to determine the extent of elevated levels of radionuclides at POTWs. NRC and EPA will also not be able t:. obtain information providing a basis for developing potential future rulemakings and quantitative guidance for the proposed joint NRC/ EPA guidance for POTWs. This is a one-time collection.

There are no technical or legal obstacles to conducting this data collection.

7.

Circumstances Which Justify variation from OMB Guidelines There is no variation from OMB guidelines. The POTWs will have 30 days to respond.

8.

Consultations Outside the NRC In an October 11. 1994 letter. NRC and EPA notified the water and radiological ofiicials of all States of the potential for reconcentration of radioisotopes in sanitary sewer systems. This letter mentioned the planned EPA national survey and the guidance document.

On March 6.1996. EPA and NRC staf f were briefed by AMSA and the Water Environment Federation (WEF) on the preliminary results of a voluntary (but anonymous) AMSA survey of radionuclide concentrations in sewage sludge and ash at POTWs (see also discussion in Item 4). To date.

Sewage sludge and ash samples from 55 wastewater plants in 17 states have been analyzed. These plants were distributed across the country and range in size from small to among the largest POTMs in the United States. Because of limitations in the AMSA survey including the fact that the POTWs were anonymous, the possibility of a more extensive NRC/ EPA Jointly funded survey of sludge and ash to assess the need for NRC rulemaking was considered. The industry representatives statcd their continued interest in a joint NRC/ EPA guidance document addressing reconcentration of radioactive material at POTWs. NRC and EPA have met with the WEF Radioactivity Task Force to discuss the st v.us of the NRC/ EPA survey and the contents of the joint guidance. During the survey. NRC and EPA will continue to meet with representatives of industry.

The sewage s'udge/ ash survey is being coordinated by a subcommittee of the Interagency Steering Committee on Radiation Standards (ISCORS).

ISCORS was formed in 1995 to coordinate resolution of interagency issues. The ISCORS Sewage Subcommittee is assisting NRC and EPA in the development of the survey. including sample collection and analysis procedures and the selection of facilities to sample.

The NRC contractor. the U.S. Department of Energy's Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (0 RISE). in Oak Ridge. Tennessee c.id EPA's National Air and Radiation Environmental Laboratory (NAREL) in Montgomery, Alabama will analyze the sewage sludge and ash samples.

These labs have also provided input on the survey design. For example.

~-, -

4-ORISE and NAREL collaborated to ensure that the analytical laboratory procedures and quality assurance programs that both labs will use will produce consistent, accurate, and reliable measurements.

An opportunity to comment on the information collection requirements in this survey was provided in the January 6,1997 faderal Reaister notice on this clearance request. NRC received comments from five members of the public. The only change to the survey that resulted from the public comments was that one question was added to the questionnaire to determine if a previous analysis of radioactive materials was cerformed.

If there is a question about the survey results at a specific 20TW and an earlier analysis is available. we may compare the earlier analysis to the survey results. There were no changes in the cost or hourly burden as a result of the public comments.

Some of tne public comments did not address the survey, and therefore, their resolution will have no impact on it. For example some comenters asked the NRC to survey and sample its licensees, not POTWs.

Several commenters noted the nearly complete absence of data in the NRC's possession regarding the licensees' discharges to the sewers.

Some commenters also asked what the NRC would do for POTWs if they are found to have a contamination problem.

Some of the commenters objected to the survey. All the comments have been analyzed, and an analysis of tne comme..ts is attached.

9.

Payment or Gift to Resocndents The POTWs will not receive payments or gifts: however, they will receive the results of the NRC/ EPA analysis of sewage sludge and ash samples from their POTWs. Assuming an average of two samples analyzed per POTW. the analysis for each P6fW is worth 3 bout two thousand dollars. The results will be provided to the POTWs in a joint NRC/ EPA report.

10. Confidentiality of the Information Each POTW will be assigned a code number to ensure confidentiality.

Only NRC individuals with a need to know will be given access to the identity cf a POTW if an NRC or Agreement State licensee is likely respons1ble for elevaled levels of radioactive materials at a POTW and follow-up testing becomes desirable. At the conclusion of the survey.

an industry organization such as AMSA will receive the code book with the identity of the POTW code numbers.

11. Justification for_ Sensitive Outstions There will be no survey questions of a sensitive nature.

12. Estimated Burden and Burden Hour Cost About 600 POTWs will be asked to complete the survey questionnaire.

Because the survey is voluntary (and thus not all POTWs will respond to the questionnaire). additional POTWs may have to he surveyed to find enough appropriate facilities to be sent sample collection packages.

., ~

The estimated time to complete the questionnaire is 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months . For 600 POTWs, the estimated burden would be 600 hours0.00694 days 0.167 hours 9.920635e-4 weeks 2.283e-4 months .

The survey was tested at nine POTWs to assess the questionnaire and sampling and analysis procedures. The test cases also gave a better basis for estimating the actual burden cost. Most of the POTW test cases took 20 minutes or less to complete the questionnaire: larger facilities required two hours to develop a list of zip codes for their i

collection system. Our original estimate of the time needed to cumplete the questionnaire was 2 hour2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months s: however, based on the results of the

^

test cases, the revised estimated time to complete the questionnaire is 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months . For 600 POTWs. the estimated burden to respond to the questionnaire is 600 hours0.00694 days 0.167 hours 9.920635e-4 weeks 2.283e-4 months .

The questionnaire to the POTWs will ask for the zip codes for its collection system so that we can identify the licensees associated with each POTW. NRC will request from each Agreement State (depending on its information retrieval capabilities) (a) a list of licensees by zip code or (2) the list of all licensees (so that NRC can determine the 3

licensees in the zip codes for the POTW collection systems). For 30 Agreement States at 8 hours9.259259e-5 days 0.00222 hours 1.322751e-5 weeks 3.044e-6 months per State, the estimated burden would be 240 hours0.00278 days 0.0667 hours 3.968254e-4 weeks 9.132e-5 months .

Based on the method discussed in Items B.1 and B.2. about 300 POTWs will be sent sample collection packages. Each POTW will collect an average of two samples (one for each disposal practice). The estimated time for each FOTW to collect and return the two samples is 6 hours6.944444e-5 days 0.00167 hours 9.920635e-6 weeks 2.283e-6 months For 300 POTWs. the estimated burden is 1800 hours0.0208 days 0.5 hours 0.00298 weeks 6.849e-4 months .

Total estimated burden - 600 + 240 + 1800 hours0.0208 days 0.5 hours 0.00298 weeks 6.849e-4 months = 2640 hours0.0306 days 0.733 hours 0.00437 weeks 0.001 months Estimated cost - 2640 hours0.0306 days 0.733 hours 0.00437 weeks 0.001 months x $120/ hour = $316,800

13. Estimate of Other Additional Costs There will be no additional cost burdens (beyond the cost of the hour burden discussed above) to the POTWs. There is no need to purchase additional equipment or laboratory support. For respondents to this survey. it is most likely that purchases of equipment and services were made (1) prior to October 1. 1995. (2) to achieve regulatory compliance with requirements not associated with the information collection. (3) for reasons other than to provide information or keep records for the government. or (4) as part of customary and usual business or private practices.

14. Estimated Cost to the Federal and State Governments The cost to tt.e Federal Government for this one-time-only survey incluG s costs for contractor support for the radioanalytical analysis, NRC and EPA Headquarters staffs, and Agreement State support.

Cost for Radicanalytical Suonort Radicanalytical support will be provided by NRC's contractor. ORISE and EPA's NAREL. ORISE will assemble and distribute sample collection

Y**t',

9'.w%y*-

}

.MMMM er M-y4 yn74 e.

,N,j i,

packages to about 300 POTWs. ORISE and NAREL will each analyze half the samples to determine the activity of radionuclides. No purchase of computers, software, or monitoring or testing equipment is needed.

Monthly letter reports will be prepared containing the results of the analysis.

Tasks ORISE Cost EPA /NAREL Cost l Assist NRC and EPA in development 50.000 12.000 of the survey. including test cases Phone calls to POTWs. mailing 25.500 0

sample collection packages, and l

providing return postage Analyze samoles 146.400 110.550 Report preparation 16.100 9.750 Sample disposition 0

5.000 Subtotal 238.000 137.300 Federal Government Cost NRC Headquarters staf f will coordinate the development of the survey and analyze the survey results. NRC. EPA. ORISE, and NAREL staff will write and publish the results as a joint NRC/ EDA report. There will also be costs incurred by NRC and EPA for contract management and general oversight of the work scope.

2 FTE x 2080 hours0.0241 days 0.578 hours 0.00344 weeks 7.9144e-4 months x $120/ hour - $499.200 The cost for a statistical consultant to support the analysis is about

$100.000.

Total estimated survey cost for the Federal covernment Lab costs + Federal costs + statistical consultant =

$238.000 + $137.300 + $499.200 + $100.000 = $974.500 Aareement State Cost See Item 12. Estimated Burden and Curden Hour Cost, above.

15. Reasons for Chances in Burden or Cost Th M is a new collection. There are no changes in burden or cost

16. Publication for Statistical Use NRC. EPA ORISE. and NAREL will jointly write a report summarizing the survey results. The database in the report will include. at a minimum.

l w

_]

lists of radionuclide concentrations for each POTW (coded to disguise the names of the facilities), geographic region, and disposal practice.

The project is to be completed within two years of approval by OMB.

Questionnaires will be sent to the POTWs within two months of OMB approval, sample collection wili take place over a one-year period, from 6 to 18 months after OMB approval. and the final report will be published two years after OMB approval.

17. Reason for Not Disolavino the Exoiration Date Not applicabie. The expiration date will be displayed.

18. fareotions to the Certification Statement There are no exceptiens, B.

COLLECTIONS OF INFORMATION EMPLOYING STATISTICAL METHODS Th desire is to provide a national survey of high probability occurrences of elevated levels of radioactive materials in eewage sludge and ash. Even though this is a voluntary survey and may lack the number of samples needed to generate a comprehensive national profile, the survey will sample POTWs in all regions of +.he country and for a variety of NRC/ Agreement State licensees. The collection of information wili employ statistical methods.

1.

There are approximately 11,000 POTWs in the United States that use at least secondacy waste water treatment and are not simple pond treatment systems with only periodic solids cleanout. For the 1980s national survey, EPA developed categories based on flow rate and sewage sludge use and disposal practice. For the planned NRC/ EPA survey.

questionnaires will be sent to (1) POTWs associated with types of NRC licensees that have the highest potential to discharge radioactive material into the sewer system. (2) many of the POTWs with incinerators (these will be more heavily sampled because concentrations of radioactive material are expected to be higher in ash than in sludge),

(3) POTWs in all geographic areas of the contiguous United States, and (4) POTWs requested by States and ISCORS agencies.

The survey questicnnaire will ask the POTW operator to list the zip codes served by its collection system. Using this information NRC will identify those licensees associated with each POTW that have the potential to dispose of radioactive material into its collection system.

There are currently approximately 7.000 NRC licensees and 15,000 Agreement State licensees in the United States (including Alaska and Hawaii, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico). About half of these facilities use radioactive materials in the form of sealed sources (i.e.

contained within a metal or other material casing): radioactive material in sealed sources cannot be disposed into the sewer system.

Facilities that use material in unsealed form are predominantly hospitals, clinics, radiopharmacies, research and academic facilities, fuel cycle facilities, and research reactors. Nuclear power plants are not allowed to Cischarge to sewer systems.

2.

The selection of the 300 POTWs to sample will be based on the results of the questionnaire survey. The questionnaire responses will be grouped into several categories and c random sample will be selected from each category. The categories we expect are Types of NRC licensees (e.g., industrial, academic, medical) e Geographic area especially areas of high background radioactive e

material Sludge use or disposal practice (e.g., incinerator ash, landfill) e Potential problems include a low response rate because the survey is voluntary and difficulty in finding sufficient sample respondents for each category.

3.

The following actions should lead to improved response rates:

A short and easy to complete questionnaire e

A cover letter clearly stating the objectives of the data e

collection effort Deveicpnent of a program to fol.ow up on non-respondents e

4 A pilot survey of nine 9TWs was executed to test the questionnaire and the sampling and laboratory analysis procedures. As a result of the pilot survey, several changes were inade to the questionnaire. For example, a question was added on whether the POTW had previously sampled for radioactive material.

If there is a question about the survey results at a specific POTW. and an earlier analysis is available it may be advisable to compare the two analyses.

As a result of the pilot survey, several changes were made to the sample analysis. For example. the list of radionuclides to be analyzed sas refined, and the need for analysis of some samples by both labs was dropped due to the similarity of the test site results at the two labs.

5.

Statistician consulted for the statistical aspects of the survey design:

Lee Abramson U S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301-415-6180

SEWAGE SLUDGE OfJESTIONNAIRE 1.

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS 1.1 Introduction The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) request your participation in a joint national survey of the concentrations of radioactive material in sewage sludge (biosolids),

ash and related byproducts.

NRC regulations in 10 CFR 20.2003 currently permit licensee disposal of certain specific quantities of soluble radioactive material into a sanitary sewer system. The EPA regulation that addresses the use or disposal of sewage sludge (40 CFR Part 503) currently does not address radionuclides.

This survey will help determine the adequacy of the present NRC regulations addressing the discharge of radioactive material to the sanitary sewer system.

it will also respond to a recommendation from the General Accounting Office (GAO) to determine the extent to which radioactive contamination in sewage sludge, ash, and related byproducts is occurring (GAO report. " Actions Needed to Control Radioactive Centamination at Sewage Treatment Plants." May 1994).

1.2 When and Where to File Please return the completed questionnaire within 30 days at date of receipt to the address below; Phyllis Sobel Mail Stop T-7F27 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 1.3 Reporting Period Please report information for the last 12 months or the last calendar year.

1.4 ~Further Information If you require assistance in completina this questionnaire, call Robert Bastian, EPA at 202-260-7378, or Phyllis Sobel. NRC, at 1-800-368-5642-extension 6714, weekdays, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m.

EST.

Attachment

l 2.

GLOSSARY OF TERHS Ena-products are the materials that leave the treatment facility or are disposed of onsite after all processing is completed (e.g.. ash from incineration. digested liquid or dewatered cake, dried pellets, compost).

Incineration is the combustion of matter in sewage sludge by high temperatures in an enclosed device.

Land application is the application of sewage sludge to land to either condition the soil or fertilize crops or other vegetation.

Nonofills are landfills where only sewage sludge is disposed. Monofills include trenches and area fills.

Municipal solid waste landfill is a landfill that receives household waste, and that is not a land application unit. n.cface impoundment injection well, or waste pile. Such a landfill may be publicly or privately cmed.

Sewage sludge is solid, semi-solid, or liquid residue generated during the treatment of domestic sewage in a treatment works. Sewage sludge includes.

but is not limited to: domestic septage: scum or solids removed in primary.

secondary, or advanced wastewater treatment processes; and material derived from sewage sludge. Sewage sludge does not includa ash generated during the incineration of sewage sludge or grit and screenings generated during preliminary treatment of domestic sewage in a treatment works.

Surface disposal is the placement of sewage sludge on an area of land for final aisposal.

It includes monofills. surface impoundments, lagoons. waste piles, and dedicated disposal sites.

It does not include treatment and storage of sewage sludge. although placenent on land for longer than 2 years is considered surface disposal unless the site osner/ operator retains written records demonstrating that the operation constitutes a treatment or temporary storage site.

Treatment works is either a Federally owned, publicly owned, or privately owned device or system used to treat (including recycle and reclaim) either domestic sewage or a combination of domestic sewage and industrial waste of a liquid nature.

Use or disposal includes: land application of bulk sewage sludge, land application of sewage sludge sold or given away in a bag or other container, surface disposal, disposal in a municipal solid waste landfill unit.

incineration, or any other use or disposal practice (e.g., vitrification, use in asphalt or brick production. etc.).

2

=*1slPa'NM%*

4 r*eN.W-W*'

9Wwmt$P eraa

'"*'T7'

PT 4

MP "' #

-fPW=

SECTION 1.

TREATMENT WORKS IDENTIFICATION INFORMATION Mailing Label Name of the treatment works and physical location (which may dif fer from the mailing address):

Mailing address of the treatment works (if different):

Name, title, and telephone number of the person who should be contacted regarding information on this questiorinaire:

Name, title, address, and telephone number of the person who should be sent the sample collection package:

3

SECTION 11. GENERAL TREATMENT WORKS INFORMATION 1.

Indicate below the level (s) of wastewater treatment achieved by this treatment works.

(Mark X for all that apply.)

O Primary treatment a.

b.

O Secondary treatment O

Advanced treatment c.

2.

Provide the annual average daily total flow rate for the last 12 months or the last calendar year (the total volume of wastewater treated by the treatment works in one year dilided by 365). Use Gallons per Day (GPD) if your total daily flow rate is less than 10,000 GPD, or use Million Gallons per Day (MGD), but not both.

GPD E MGD (Circle one) over the last 12 months E last calendar year (circle one) 3.

L1st the zip codes served by the collection system for this treatment works. This information is needed so NRC can identify licensees that can potentially discharge to your collection system. A list of these licensees will be sent to you in return for providing this information.

4

4.

Identify the sew 3ge sludge treatmerit process (es) used at your treatment works.

(Mark X for all that apply.)

O Treatment works did not process sewage sludge in the last 12 a.

months or the last calendar year.

Explain:

b.

O Thickening O

Mechanical dewatering by c.

(Please fill in process (es) used.)

d.

O Heat treatment / wet air oxidation O

Aerobic digestion e.

f.

O Anaerobic digestion O

Composting 9

h.

C Lime stabilization (Class B) 1.

O Alkaline Stabilization (Class A) j.

O Air drying beds k.

O Heat dryirig/ Pelletizing 1.

O sewage sludge treatment / storage lagoon (s)

O sewage sludge storage bins or piles m.

O Incineration n.

5 l

i i

O Other sewage sludge treatment processes (Please specify.)

o.

5 Check the boxes below to indicate the sewage sludge use or disposal practice employed at your facility or by others using/ disposing of your sewage sludge or ash. Also describe the product as one of the following: liquid. sludge, cake (dewatered sludge), compost, dried pellets. incinerator ash, or other. Note if the product is stored onsite before ultimately being disposed offsite: and if the product is stored onsite, the time stored onsite.

C Land application. Product description:

a.

b.

O surface disposal (permanent piles, lagoons, sludge or ash monofills). Product description: _,

O Disposal in municipal solia waste landfill.

Product c.

description:

d.

O Transfer of your sewage sledge c ash to another facility for use or disposal. Product description:

Identify the facility (type, location):

O Other use or disposal practice.

Product description:

e.

Describe practice:

6

4 6.

What are the primary sources of drinking water for your coanunity?

Check more than one. if applicable.

O Municipal water supply from surface water source (s) a.

b.

O Municipal water supply from groundwater well(s)

O Private wells c.

d.

O Private water supply from surface water source (s) 7.

Does your wastewater collection system receive discharges of drinking water treatment residuals?

O no U

Yes 8.

Does your wastewater collection system include combined sanitary and storm water sewers?

O so O

yes 9.

Do you receive sludge from other wastewater treatment facilities for procesting at your facility?

O no O

yes 10.

Do you receive septage for processing at your facility?

O no O

yes 11.

What percentage of the annual average daily total flow rate (response to question 3) is industrial flow?

Percent 7

ONNW.41,4-g.:s 4Y MpM

't 1.-M-

$%% W/ M*N Y?

O'N #.NY 4 M*

N*-Sr b

12.

-- Have you ever tested for radioactive materials in your sewage sludge?

- Yes No

- 13.

Do you have more than one final sewage sludge. production facility location?

- O yes No 4

8 f

4 1

mm

.a

.e-e-n v

m w

e -w e,

a +

y

---w--

e,--r----

-.~.- - -..~.

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON JANUARY 6, 1997 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE ON JOINT NRC/ EPA SEWAGE SURVEY 1.

Bill Payne. Westinghous< 3avannah River Company 2.

David Van Fleet. Government Affairs Co-Chairman of the Ohio Water Environment Association. Ohio Water Environment Association 3.

Erwin Odeal. Executive Director. Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District 4.

Mark Miller, Roy F. Weston S.

Ronald F. Scott. Department of Public Utilities. Columbus. Ohio 4

~.-..._

e from:

< bill payne@sts gav >

To:

TwDI.TWP$ibjsli Date:

3'5/97 2:06pm Sut$ect:

%TSTINGHOUSE SRC COMMENTS JOINT NRC/ EPA SLUDGE SURVEY Westmghouw Sasannah River Company (WSRf -ould hke m take the opportunity to thank )ou fn.oowing us to make the followmg comments about the ymt NRC/ EPA Survey of Sewage Sludge / Ash. WSRC is a r.ime comractor for the Department of

(

Energy nuclear complex in Aiken South Carolma the Savannah River Site (SRS).

j We have wme experience with the analysis of radionuchdes m s

age sludge and will N very mteresed m reading the resulta of your Survey.

We understand that Survey participanu will be determmed at random. however, we would like to volunteer to complete the questionnaire and provide samples for analysis Comments Sectica 2 Glossary of Terms - Defin< an of " Treatment Works" We recommend that you melude a separate definition for each of the treatment works specified m your general definition At first gl.'nce, this ma) seem trisial; however, the regulatory definitions for cash of these types of treatment impact what rules they must follow. For example. for a plant to be classified as a Federally Owned Treatment Works (FOTWL as dermed in the Federal Facility Comphanse Act (FFC Acts, the majority of s

I its militent must be domestic sewage. The defmition in the propowd Survey contradicts this regulatory dermiuon Some Responders may not be able to accurately answer question number one of Sntion !! *ithout this clarification.

I Section 2 - Question #13 Other Uwful Questions It may be uwful to ask the Responder to provide historie.at radiological analyses on their sludge, if any is available.

General Comment #1 We feel that thirty (30) days is adequate time to respond to the simple questionnaire; however, we recommend that those who are requested to submit samples be provided sixty 160) days to do so, it possible.

g General Comment r2 Facihtees d t receive ::. tium m their influent may find c mderably less of this isotope m their dewatered sledge than m their liquid sludge smce it will remain m the hquid phase; therefore, facilities that land apply hquid sludge willlikely apply much more tritium than those that land apply dewatered sludge. NRC/ EPA should take this into consideration when determmmg what type of sampling to request and while Mrformmg dose calculations.

Agam. thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments. If you hase questions about them please contact Bill Payne at:

Westinghouse Savannah River Company Buildtng 742 A Aiken. SC 29808 E mail: bill payne@srs. gov Ptmne: (1303) 725 3465 s

From:

Dave A. Van Fleet <74531.3720compuserve.com>

To:

Brenda Shelton <BJSl@nrc. gov >

Date:

3/7/97 9:24am

Subject:

62 FR 771, NRC survey & Sampling of POTWs March 7, 1997 Brenda Jo Shelton US Nuclear Regulatory Commission T-6 F33 Washington, D. C. 20555-0001 SUBJ:

Federal Register Notice, 62 FR 77), 01-06-97 Agency Information Collection Activities s

Dear Ms Shelton:

The view and comments that follow are mine alone. However, I am the Government Affairs Co-Chairman of the Ohio Water Environment Association, OWEA.

The 0WEA has over 2,100 members in tre water environment field. Our membership includes treatment plant operators, managers and analysts, consultants, manufactures, and regulatory agencies. The 0WEA is a member association of the Water Environment Federation, Alexandria Virginia.

I offer the following responses to the questions posed in the subject Federal Regi* tor Notice, l.Is the proposed collection of information necessary for he NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the information have practical utility?

DO NOT KNOW. Why does the NRC need to survey and sample Public Owned Treatment Works, POTWs? We do not hold NRC licenses. The NRC should be surveying and s aplino its licensees, not POTW's. What is the NRC going to do for POTWs when, in the NRC's opinion, they have a contamination problem?.

The practical utility will be for the NRC to take enforcement action against POTWs that are found to have a regulatory difficulty.

2.

Is the burden est).nate accurate?

Yes.

3.

Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.

YES.

If you want to encourage POTW participation, you need to indemnify the POTWs from NRC enforcement action. Also, I assume you would assist any POTW with any remediation costs through enforcement action on the NRC licensees.

4 How can the burden of the information collection be minimized, including the use of automated cgilection techniques or other forms of information technology?

o &-

~Ul 0V

-~

Some of our OWEA members participated in the voluntary radiological sampling g

efforts of the Association of Metropolitun Sewerage Association, AMSA,.

I understand 55 POTWs in 18 states were in this AMSA effort.

I applaud the OWEA members that participated with AMSA and believe this to be a representative sampling of POTWs. This was a good faith effort by AMSA and the POTW community in helping NRC quantify its enforcement needs.

A 1994 United States General Accounting Office Report, GA0/RCED-94-133 " Action Needed to Control Radioactive Contamination at Sewage Treatment Plants" provides data from 9 POTWs that have current radiological issues due to NRC licensees discharges. The AMSA voluntary survey of 55 POTWs greatly expanded the radiological information the GA0 report found lacking. You have a good base of information.

Surveying and sampling POTWs is after the fact. For the past several years, OWEA member POTWs have implemented USEPA mandated industrial pretreatment programs that regulat. pollutants at their :.ource. Why should NRC licensees, and their discharges be regulated differently, if the NRC is the regulatory authority, then they should be sampling and enforcing their licensees, not the POTWs.

In summary, will you guarantee to bring enforcement actions against the NRC licensees? Will the NRC licensees pay all remediation costs for a potentially contaminated P0TW? Without some indemnification of the POTWs from NRC enforcement action, how can I encourage 0WEA members to participate? These questions trouble me since they are not " environmentally responsible" and the 0WEA is commited to protecting and enhancing the water enviroenment. However, I cannot justify the possible transfer of contamination liability from a NRC licensee to an OWEA member POTW and their customers.

Should you have questions, contact me on 614-645-3833.

Very truly yours, Dave Van Fleet OWEA

-chairman Gover.uent Af f airs Committee DVF:dvf xc:

Paul Novak, 0WEA co-chair GAC Jim Greener, 0WEA President Nancy Mergel, OWEA Ex. Adm.

Tim Williams, WEF CC:

Nancy Mergel <NMerge1518@aol.com>

iiiEF Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District w%fwM%%%A=s%%=fw%Ad=*==h=#*=#&=& ~

\\.

3826 Euclid Avenue

Cleveland, OH 44115-2504 * (216) 081-6600

FAX: (216) 881-4407 N! arch 6,1997 N1s. !!renda lo Shelton Clearance Orlicer U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission T-6 F33 Washington. D C-20555-0001 Re: Joim NRC EPA Sursey of Sewage Studge'Asl.

Dear Nis. Shelton:

Ihe Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District ("NEORSD"> has been actisely insehed in issues related to radionuclides in sewage treatment systems and in residual solids since the discoscry of Cobalt 60 at its Southerly Wastewater Treatment Center in 1991. NEORSD has spent approximately $2.000.000 addressing these issues, of which 51,250,000 will be recos cred from the suspected source of this Cobalt-60 pursuant to a negotiated settlement of a legal action initiated by NEORSD. To protect its system from any future radioactise contamination as the result of NRC licensed actnit). NEORSD has integrated the regulation of radioactive discharges to the sewer sy stem into its pretreatment program.

NEORSD is not the only publicly owned treatment works l"POTW") that has experience with radionuclides At least tweh e other POTWs have experienced contamination as the result of discharges into their systems. In ses eral cases, the remediation tab was over a million dollars.

It is import?~ to note, howeu,. tha' in all of these cases the applicable regulatory agencies determined the situation did not post a signiticant heahn and safety threat. N1ost of these cases have been documented by the General Accounting Oftice.

POTWs other than NEORSD hase also undertaken local regulation of radionuclides as part of their pretreatment programs. Certain questions remain, however, regarding the extent to which the Atomic Energy Act may preempt local authority.

Even if authority of a POTW to regulate radioactive material becomes clearly established in the future, there are well over 10,000 POTWs in the United States, very few of which have the specialized knowledge necessary to regulate radioactive material. Therefore, the local POT'i is not the appropriate agency to become the prime regulatory autnwity for radioactise d;sposal

'PMy yon CM Wola 9asaned' JP41 bZ. r6+M i f-f

Ms. Brenda Jo Shelton March 6,1977 Page 2 The proposed national survey of POTW solids for radionuclides, which was armounced in the January 6,1997 Federal Register, is for the stated purpose of gathering information to detennine whether current Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") and Environmental Protection Agency (" EPA") regulatory efforts are adequate to avoid inappropriate levels of radionuclides from accumulati g at POTWs. The NRC and EPA roles in regulating radionuclides are very different m this regard ar.d are separately addressed below.

The EPA is the prime regulatory agency for naturally occurring radioactive material

(" NORM"). Many of these radionuclides, such as Potassium 40 ("K 40"), Radium-226 ("Ra.

226"), and Beryllium 7 ("Be 7', are present throughout the environment. Virtually any sample of soil. v<ater, rock, or animal t;ssue will contain measurable levels of NORM. Sewage solids are no exception. The survey of POTW solids that was conducted by the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies ("AMSA")in 1995-1996 confirmed that many radionuclides are present in POTW solids.

The AMSA sun ey also provioed overwhelming evidence that the level of NORM in these solids was within the normal range of background concentrations of NORM in the environment. For comparison purposes, samples of cow manure, soil, and commercial lawn and garden fertilizers were included in the AMS A survey. The NORM activity in the POTW solids was generally well below that of the cow manure and the fertilints and compared favorable with the soil. Any reasonable analysis of the AMSA survey results for NORM would conclude that concentration of NORM in POTW solids is not a problem.

The supporting statement for the Federal Register notice criticizes the AMSA survey on several grounds. First, it states that the AMSA survey had limited geographical coverage. While the proposed survey may be more comprehensive, it is not accurate to state the AMSA survey had "limitei geographic coverage" The AMSA surey covered 55 different treatment plants in 17 states. States from es ery region in the country were included.

The Federal Register supporting statement also claims the AMSA survey involved only large urban areas. Not so. AMSA made an effort to address this very concern by soliciting a number of small communities to participate in the study. As a result of this effort,10 of the 55 plants surveyed (18%) have a treatment capacity of less than 10 million gallons per day

("MGD"). Ar.other 20 plants were medium-sized plants (36%)in the 11-50 MGD size range.

Therefore, a inajority of the samples came from other than the largest plants.

Another criticism of the AMSA resuhs in the Federal Register supporting statement is the failure to analyze for the entire universe of radionuclides. This decision was based in part on cost, but also on the fact that the two radionuclides of greatest concern, K-10 and Ra-226 are or v

e-

1

. -. ~

Nis. Brenda Jo Shelton March 6,1977 iage 3 readily analyzed using the less expensive gamma spectroscopy method. A few plants did analyze for the full spectrum of radionuclides. These analyses had the unsurprising result of conHrming that other NORh1 was present, but at levels well below that of the two radionuclides of prime concern.

A final criticism of the ANISA survey in the Federal Register supporting statement is that the results do not identify the speci0c plants from which samples were obtained. However, many of the states from which samples were obtained are in regions with higher than average background NORN1. In addition,20 of the plants :ampled receive Dow that is more than 25%

well water in origin. This fact was believed signincant since well water may contain much h6,her levels of radium that surface water. Given the comprehensiveness of the ANISA survey and the lack of apparent problems, the failure to identify the specine plants from which the samples were collected does not warrant the criticism of the ANISA survey found in the Federal Register supporting statement.

In addition to the AN1SA data on NORA1 in POTW solids, there is also data available from state agencies in Tennessee and Florida, which have conducted similar surveys within their states. Once again, NORht in POTW solids appears to be within the range of background.

Based on all the data that has been reviewed by NEORSD, there does not appear to be a need for EPA to conduct a survey for NORht as there is no evidence of any health or safety problem. All the evidence tuggests that NORN1 levels of POTW solids are within the range of background. The application of these solids to soils should therefore not result in any increase of the NORhi level of the soil to which it applies.

Although NEORSD does not believe ; hat the proposed survey is necessary, the study may have value in that it should provide significant additional data further confirming that NOlui in POTW solids is not. '. dh and safety problem.

The apparent intent of the NRC in proposing this survey is unrelated to that of the EPA.

The NRC's interest in this survey is to determine the impact of sanitary disposal of radioactive material used by NRC licensees and regulated by the NRC under the Atomic Energy Act.

Material in this category has contaminated at least 13 POTWs and, while not causing health and safety problem, has millions of dollars in associated costs.

In the Federal Register Notice, the NRC specifically requests comments as to whether this survey is needed "for the NRC to properly perform its function" The answer to this j

question is an emphatic nq Furthermore, for rer.scas stated below, this survey will be of very W

his lirenda Jo Shelton hiarch 6,1977 Page 4 limited use to the NRC in properly performing its function.

I The very fact that 13 POT Ws have experienced sarying degrees of contamination as the result of NRC licensed activities r.hould be suf0cient evidence that the NRC has not been properly performing its function.

Although none of these incidents resulted in harm to individuals, the POTWs involved incurred sipi9 cant costs and also oRen faced a public and employee relation nightmare.

Radiat on, perhaps mort :.an any other substar.ce that may be discharged to the invironment.

results in undue public concern due to a lack of understanding. The POTW on the receiving end of NRC licensee discharges bears the brunt of Wese concerns and is forced into a program of explaming how insigni6 cant the radioactivity from the discharged radionuclides is when compared to natural background radiation. Niost POlWs are not in a position to carry out this public information project. The public perception problem is compounded by the fact that millions of dell:s are being spent where no health and safety problem exists.

It is therefore imperatn e that the NRC, as the agency with primary authority to regulate radioactive waste disposal, have a monitoring program in place that generates public conGdence for the present as well as for the future. T his program is needed regardless of whether there is any actual public health and safety concern associated whh the discharges from its licensees.

The NRC currently lacks any semblance of such a program.

it is fully expected that the prcposed survey will further confirm that radionuclides in POTW solids, whether NORhi or from radioactive waste discharges, do not pose a health and safety probita. Ileyond that, however, the surs ey will provide little additional useful infonnation to the NRC. The primary reason for the lack of utility of this data to the NRC is the nearly complete absence of data in H NRC's possessior regarding what its licensees are dischar;ing to the sewers. In fact, nearly a decade after the MRC become aware that sanitary disposal of radioactive material can resuh in problems at the receiving POTW, the NRC still cannot even hientify which ofits licensees actually discharge.

A recent draf NRC repon states that a review of the nks of 6,700 NRC licensees shows that 1,984 of them (almost 30%) indicated an intent to utilize sanitary disposal for et least a portion of their radioactive waste. A review of NRC inspection reports oflicensed facilities, however, included a reference to sanitary disposal in connection with only 449 licensees.

htoreover, in some case, the latter were not licensees that had previonsly indicated an intent to disposal. The report indicates that the Gles do not contain information regarding the quantity or even the identity of the specine radionuclides that hase been discharged. The report also does not discuss whether the 1,535 discrepancy between the numbers of dischargers is due to the fact

l Ms. Ilrenda Jo Shelton March 6,1977 i

Page5 the licensee changed their plans regarding waste disposal or to the fact the NRC has simply never I

inspected the licensees regarding sanitary disposal practices.

Tbc NRC's problem with a lack of data on sanitary disposal could be corrected with a simple reporting requirement. Although industrial u.ers discharging to a POTW are generally required to file monthly discharge reports on metals with the POTW or the EPA, users of radioactive materials are never required to report any discharges to the NRC. Even an annual seporting requirement would give the NRC a vast amount ofinformation on sanitary disposal that is now lacking.

Such information would also be available to POTWs pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act request. Currently,if a POTW re.ncst;inibnnation on discharges within its service area, the NRC's response is that there are no documents respon..se to the request.

NEORSD tiled a petition Ihr rulemaking with the NRC on August 2.1993 in which NEORSD requested that the NRC res ise its sanitary disposal regulations to require that licensees report discharges to the sewer to both the NRC and to the receiving POTW. The NRC has not taken n. tion on this petition.

Es en when the NRC has intbrmation regarding discharge activities of a licensee, it is extremely reluctant to act upon that information, in the Cleveland situation, the NRC maintains its official position that it cannot detemnine the source o the Cobalt-60 that has contaminated the r

NEORSD's facilities. The isP.C continues to take this posi' ion despite a large volume of evidence as to the source, and equally persuasive evidence as to the lack of attemative sources.

To the best of NEORSD knowledge, this NRC pasition has not changed subsequent to the agreement by AMS to pay NEORSD $1.250.000 in settlement of claims related to the contamination ine. dent.

The NRC has also failed to act on a petition filad by NEOR3D on March 3,1993 requesting that the NRC requite AMS to assume responibility for the NEORSD site. On multiple occasions, then NRC chairman i 'an Selin publicly stated that in such a situation the PO77 was fully responsible for addressity the contamination and the NRC would take na action against the discharger, even if they could identify the source. Mr. Selin further stated that the only recourse available to the POTW would be to take legst action against the source. On at least one c:casion. NEORSD was informed by NRC legal counsel that NRC personnel may be prohibited from testifying in any such legal action, None of these NRC positions have e'.anged since Mr, Selin was replaced.

In addition to being a urther indication of the lack of a sanitary disposal monitoring and r

l

_~,

e,

~ ~

-4

.~m Ms. Ilrenda Jo Shelton March 6.1977 Page 6 enforcement program, the performance of the NRC in the Cleveland contamination situation should be a cause for concern for any PO fW that discovers a radionuclide contamination situation in the future.

Given the above-described lack of NRC knowledge regarding the activities ofits licensees, even if the proposed survey takes place, the WRC will still lack any data regarding the radionuclides in the influent to the POTW.1.acking such basic information, the NRC will not be able to use the data from the proposed survey to make r.ny analysis as to the fate of radionuclides in the wastewater treatment process. That is, iflicensed material is found at a POTW, the NRC will still have no idea w hat percentage of radioactis e material that entered the plant went i do the solids or what percentage remained with the liquid strearr and exited the plant in the plant's treated efiluent.

Based on the Cleveland experience. the NRC will also efficia4ly have no idea as to the source of the material. T he utility of the data to be gathered could be greatly enhanced by first gathering relevant data on discharges from NRC licensees.

It should be noted that NRC regulations in 10 CFR Part 20 would allow the discharge of many times the radioactise material that it appears is actually discharged. Based on NEORSD experience, in w hich over 4.000.000 cubic feet of incinerator ash were contaminated by less than one Curie of Cobalt 60, if every NRC licensee in the NEORSD service area discharged up to the NP.C regulatory limit of I Curie per year each, there would without question be problems at the treatment plants.

Another major problem with the structure of the proposed suney with regard to use by the NRC L the one time nature of the sampling Effectively, the survey will take a snapshot of the conditions of the POTWs on the date of the sampling. Unfortunately, the type of NRC licensee most likely to discharge radionuclides of a type and quantity to create an interference with POTW operations is a batch discharger of waste. Unless the sample of POTW solids

- happens to correspond to the time during which such a batch discharge has entered the treatment plant, the sun cy will produce na information on its effect. Therefore, while the survey should provide further confirmation that radionuclides are not in general a problem in POTW solids, the proposed survey will do little or nothing to prevent the types ofisolated incidents that have led to the interferencu with the operations of the 13 POTWs Despite these inadequacies in the NRC's sanitary disposal monitoring and enforcement programs, the survey should confirm that problems with radionuclides in POTW solids reraain very isolated and infrequent occurrences Even when these incidents have occurred, the levels of

.-n c -,,,,,-,

Ms. firenda Jo Shelton March 6,1977 Page 7 radioactisity present in the solids hase resulted oni in regulatory problems in reusing or f

disposing of the solids in the POTu"s nonna! manner.

While public perception of health and safety issues has been a problem, the radiation dose rates have been insignificant. For example, within the radiological restricted area at the NEORSD facility, the muimum exposure that an individual climbing the fence could obtain from direct radiation is only on the order of 50 microRem per hour. To put this number in perspectise, an individual would need to sit in cirect contact with the material 24 hours2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months a day for 17 days to accumulate a dose equivalent (20-25 inilliRems) to that which an individual receises from a dental x ray. The hntal pray of 20 25 millirems in turn represents only a small fraction of the 200 400 millirems of radiation that each American receises annually from primarily natural sources such as the sun. soil, rocks, and bricks.

l'ortunately. NEORSD experience has also shown that most users of radioactive materials are generally responsible entities that will take appropriate actions regardless of NRC regulations or activities. Licensees in the NEORSD sersice area only discharge a tiny fraction of the radioactivity that the NRC would allow. In part, this is due to the fact they simply do not generate that much radioactis e waste. In addition, howeser, a number of NRC licensees within the NEORSD service area and from across the country hase informally advised NEORSD that they have ceased all radioactis e discharges to the sanitary sewer after learning that it is possible for them to concentrate in PO I W solids in suflicient concentrations to cause regulatoty problems. One would hase to assume that publicity regarding the NEORSD $1,250,000 settlement with a discharger would further this self-policing trend among NRC licensees.

In summary, NEORSD believes that the poposed survey will provide data which should confirm that NORAl is simply not a problem in POTW solids. The results should also confirm Wat the discharge of mtC licensed material is a problem only in infrequent and isolated cases.

The results will not, noweser, prove that NRC regulation ofits licensees is adequate. In fact,if the survey happens to find one of those isolated incidents such as occurred in Cleveland, the survey will prove just the opposite. Unles s the NRC changes its stated policy, the unfortunate POTW will then be held responsible, Deveopment of a creditable monitoring and enforcement progran by the NRC, one similar in nature to e POTW pretreatment program, would be the appropriate approach to the isolated problems created by sanitary disposal of radionuclides.

t I'

Ms. lirenda Jo Shelton March 6. I977 Page 8 O

NI:ORSD appreciates the opportunity to provide input on this issue. Questions or comments regarding this comment letter should be directed to either Thornas E. Lenhart or Lawre:,cc K. English at 216-8816600.

Sincerely,

?,b A a' 1 rwini Odeal 1.secutive Director I?)O'll L/

cc:

W.11. Schatz

1. E. I enhart L. K. linglish s

e,

i From:

Miller, Mark <MILLERM@abgpost.rfweston.com>

To:

Phyllis.Sobel < PAS @nrc. gov >

Date:

3/12/97 10:39pm i

Subject:

FW: Comments on NRC/ EPA Sewer Survey Stuff From: Miller, Mark To: Phyllis Sobel Cc: ' daily'; Miller, Mark

Subject:

Comments on NRC/ EPA Sewer Survey Stuff Date: Wednesday, March 12, 1997 9:49AM

Phyllis, To the Sewage Sludge Questionnaire, I suggest that you add one more question

(#167) that reads something like:

"What is the final use or disposition of treated wastewater at your trettment facility?

a: Discharge to surface stream (please provide the approximate effluent / receiving stream dilution factor). b.

beneficial re-use as t

irrigation water c.

discharge to standing water body (ocean or lake).

This information is "no-cost" to obtain and may ultimately be very useful with regards to better understanding if there is a NEED for any revised

' i regulation to require or allow for case-by-case pathway analyses to justify discharge limits.

l Comments on " Supporting Statement for Joint NRC/ EPA Survey of Sewage Sludge / Ash' l

l Under A.l(2)...first paragraph..." contamination comes from oither NRC/ Agreement State Licensees, DOE FACILITIES, or naturally occurring....."

... add DOE facilities (and others?)

... add..(5) determine th: tehhnical basis or usefulness for in:1uding a-requirement for discharges to be "readily soluble".

As I suggested on the phone the other day, the REAL issue may not be

)

solubility at all, but rather the facility specific pathway analyses that may most appropriately be performed on a case-by-case basis, tipon further study, we MAY discover that even though a radioisotope is soluble at point of discharge into the sewer' system,' chemistry changes in transit and during treatment at the POTW may completely alter its original solubility. My guess-is that virtually ANY metal / heavy metal radioisotope.will be percipitated out into the solids during treatment at the POTW, regardless of their solubility-state upon discharge.

in essence, that's EXACTLY HOW POTWs tre supposed to t

function...get the solids out.

.Under A.8,- second paragraph, you' mention meetings with Ar4SA and WEF to

~

discuss the detail; of the NRC/ EPA survey.....The Annual WEFTEC conference is i

to be held in October 18 ~This would be an excellent place to i

4 update /infc,rm folks.

l'have been accepted to present a paper at that meeting, and will ' plug" the survey if you wish.

I

'2^ -[

In paragraph A.12, you discuss how POTWs will be asked to supply zip codes for their respective service areas, and NRC/ Agreement States will be asked for zip codes of their licensees so the two can be cross referenced. This is an excellent strategy. However, you should be sure to get NRC/ Agreement State respo-der.ts ALSO to indicate the " class" of licensee they list.

In particular, MANY of the licensee's possess only scaled sources which have N0 potential for discharge.

Instead, only the medical /research/ production facilities that are potential dischargers are really of concern, and the effort to identify POTENTIAL dischargers during this survey should be made, since THIS information will be of most value to the POTWs for "information"

purposes, if this data base becomes available following the survey, I would like to obtain it.

I'm on a crusade to " enlighten" POTWs regarding potential radioactive material discharges into their systems, and being able to provide them with a nice concise.ist of " potential dischargers would be very helpful. They could then use this list to work cooperatively the NRC/ Agreement State regulator to ensure that the P0lW was kept apprised of any potential problems.

One of the middle paragraphs of A.12 says that each POTW will collect an average of two samples.

I would suggest that in some cases (maybe all) THREE samples be collected. The third would be a GRAB sample of the treated effluent just prior to discharge. This information could shed some very interesting light on the behavior of " soluble" discharges that mysteriously became " insoluble" during the treatment proc 3ss and ended up in the biosolids instead of carrying right thru the treatment process in their " soluble" state.

If cost of adding this third sample is too burdensome for the project, perhaps you could SELECT key POTWs from which to sample this ligt effluent grab sample. The data obtained from the NRC/ Agreement State questionnaire, if IT is provided in a fashion.that indicates the isotopes / characteristics of potentially discharged materials. For example, if the information says that a few licensees might discharge " soluble" Pu-239 or Co-60, these P0lWs would be good candidates for BOTH sludge AND treated effluent sampling, lhts would be in contrast to the MAJORITY of POTWs that will routinely be receiving medical isotopes, whose short half-lives make the issue of solubility essentially moot, w.th respect to pathway analyses and potential exposure of public/ workers / environment.

There is scarcely any data on partitioning into liquid / solid fractions.

The most recent was work done the Oak Ridge, TN, POTW. However, the study was necessarily limited in scope. Hopefully, obtaining this information from a national survey could SIGNIFICANTLY improve our understanding of radionuclide liquid / solid partitioning at the POTW.

To paragraph B, add the following to the end of the first sentence:

sludge and ash...."and their partitioning in liquid / solid fractions of sewage effluent."

In B.1, second paragraph, you mention that a cross-referenced database of POTW/ licensee by zip code will be constructed.

I wnuld like to oatain this whenever it is completed, in B.2, add an ADDITIONAL bullet...." Disposition /use of treated wastewater."

In the arid west, treated wastewater is a very valuable commodity, useful for irrigation.

It may not be so useful in the east where irrigation is not so

.x.

4 necessary and irrigation water is widely available.

This information will play into the pathway analyses that may ultimately be a key feature of regulation discharges.

Regarding the notice that was published in thefederal Register:

Item seven... add DOE facilities (others?) to the list of facilities or licensees that could potentially discharge into sewers. ALSO, add 'and pre-release treated wastewater" immediately after ' sewer sludge / ash' in that same paragraph.

In response to the questions themselves posed in the Notice:

1.

Is necessary....?

Answer:

Yes. Because of a few isolateo incidents (Cleveland is a notable example), the effe:tiveness of NRC oversight / enforcement of this issue nas been questioned. The data obtained will have practical utility since it could provide useful " scoping information" to (1) reassure the public that there really is NO GENERIC t

PROBLEM out there, in spite of the few isolated problems encountered, and (2) the infornetion will be critical to fine-tune the current regulation (if it needs adjustments at all).

2.

Is the burden estimate accurate?

Answer: Yes.

It think it is reasonable.- The sample analytical costs appeared to be on the conservative /high end, but not unreasonable when you consider various overhead / delay / contingency costs.

3.

-1s there a way to enhance quality....?

Answer: Yes.

If possible, attempt to cr' lect samples in a fashion that will provide useful information on liquid / solid partitioning of various radionuclides (isotopes / elements) in the waste stream.

If possible, use " potential discharge elements" information from the NRC/ Agreement State questionnaires to target certain POTWs-for solid / liquid samples that may include Co-60, Pu-239, etc.... metals.

4.

How can the be 'an be minimized? Answer:

It chould be relatively simple NOW, if not in the near futuro, to use email or internet forums to upload / post sample results from any and all participants. This, in turn, would speed the development of the knowledge base needed for problem identification and solving and development of technically sound / robust regulations.

How these thoughts are useful. 'l look forward to talking / corresponding with you more as this issue unfolds.

Mark Miller millerm(e bqpost.rfdeston.com l

505-837-6572 a

I f

r

--s

.---,.--.,-.-iw.

~.---3-w

,.y

..,,e w + -

,w.,

-g- - >, -,

.r w

8*$8 %,..

Department of Public Utilities 4

h,r s.-,, e u. e E o.x, w

e O

rg 9

March 5.1997 j

t Ms. Brenda Jo Shelton US Nuclear Regulatory Commission T6F33 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 RE: Federal Register Notice 62 FR 771,01-06-97 Agency information Collection Activities

Dear Ms. Shelton:

The City of Columbus operates two advance wastewater treatment plants in serving a population of over 800.000 oeople in Central Ohio. I offer the following responses to the Questiona posed in the subject Federal Register Notice.

1.

Is the propcsed collection ofinformation necessary for the NRC to property perform its functions? Does the infomsation have practical utthty?

No. The NRC should be surveying and sampling its licensees not POTWs. This is in effect, closing the bam door after the horse has escaped. The only practical utility wi!I be for the NRC to take eiiforcement action against POTWs that are found to have a regulatory difficulty.

2.

Is the burden estimate accurate?

Yes.

t 3.

Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected?

Yes. Indemnify the NTWs from NRC enforcement action. This would encouraga

- participation in both the proposed survey and follow up sampling.

4.

How can the burden of the information collection be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology?.

The NRC/ EPA all ready has radiological data from 55 POTWs from 18 states voluntarily provided by the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Association (AMSA), This included both large facilities and small facilities with less than 10 million gallons per day flow, I believe this to be a representat.ve sampling of POTWs. It would appear that further sampling would only serve NRC enbreement purposes and not substantially improve the data base.

Uumuse cesnpies 9 to Dublin Itood Coeumtve, oheo 43215 Deta Derester's ostre 614 > 645-4141 F Aa 614/645 4019 700 414s64: 8.54 Siestesey Owessen Sie / 645-8371 F AX $14/645 5414 TDD 414/645 '444 towerees and 0resrege o

- 6tei645J175 8 At 414i645 sect too 814t645 6338 Weser Desessen 4141645 7023 F Ay 614t645 8177 T00 tier 645 7188 The City of Columeus is an Eaue oppo%nity Employe*

Q

Ms. Brenda Jo Shelton March 5,1997 Page 2 in summary, this data collection is questionable. Without some indemnificauon of the POTWs from NRC enforcement action, why would they partic:pate? A 1994 United States General Accounting Office Report, GAO/RCED 94133 " Action Needed to Control Radioactive Contamination at Sewage Treatment Plants' provides data from 9 POTWs that have current radiologicalissues due to NRC licensees discharges. The AMSA voluntary survey of 55 POTWs greatly expanded the radiologicalinformation the GAO report found lacking. You have the information.

Surveying and samphng POTWs is after the fact For the past several years, POTWs have implemented USEPA manuated industrial prettsatment programs that regulate pollutan'.s at their source Why should NRC heensees, and their discharges be regulated diffarently? If the NRC is not the regulatory authonty, then they should be sampling and enforcing the hcenses they issue, not the POTWs.

Should you have any questions. contact me at (614) 645-7429.

Very truly yours.

DIVISION OF SEWERAGE AND DRAINAGE

?

&utb I

Ronald F. Scott Assistant Administrator RFS DVF.nr pc:

Director Joyce, Dept. of Pubhc Utahties Administrator Erickson, DOSD File RF

' l ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC COMMENTS ON JANUARY 6. 1997 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE ON JOINT NRC/ EPA SEWAGE SURVEY Commenter: Bill Payne, Westinghouse Savannah River Company (WSRC)

CommenLJ: We would like to volunteer to complete the questionnaire and-provide samples for analysis.

fksponSe:. e will send WSRC a questionnaire. Publicly owned treatment works W

(P0lWs) will be chosen for sampling based on an analysis of the questionnaire responses.

CounL2:

In the Glossary of Terms, we recommend that you include a separate definition for each of the treatrrent works soecified in your general definition. At first glarie, this may seem trivial; however, the regulatory definitions for each of these types of treatment impact what rules they must follow. For example. for a plant to be classified as a Federally Owned TreatmentWorks.asdefinedintheFederalFacilityComglianceAct(FrCAct).

the majority of 1ts Influent must be domestic sewage.

proposed Survey contradicts this regulatory definition.. he definition in the Some Responders ma, not be able to accurately answer question number one of Section II without this clarification.

Response: Question 1 has been dropped because only publicly owned treatment works will De sampled. Thus definitions of publicly, privately. and i

federally-owned treatment works will no longer be needed in the glossary.

Comment 3:

In Section 2. Question #13. it may be useful to ask the responder to provide historical radiological analyses on their sludge. if any is available.

Response: We plan to distribute the f1nal survey report to the participating POTWs so they can compare the survey rt.sults to analyses at their POTW.

Although a review of former radiological analyses at the POTWs is outside the scope of the survey, we have added a question to determine if previous analysis of radio 6ctive materials was yrformed.

If there is a question about the survey results at a specific POTW and an earlier analysis is available, we may compare the earlier analysis to the survey results.

rnmment 4: We feel that thirty (30) days is adequate time to respond to the 9simpequestionnaire: however. we recommend that those who are requested to submit samples be provided sixty (60) days to do so. if possible.

Response: The samples need to be returned to the labs as soon as possible to ensure an even flow of samples into the laboratories.

Attachmer; 2 9

f g

mu-nr 7,,,e

+-y.igi

-seg i.--, --

ese-ymwm

-wg, g-esme.m-ea ye-,-,-rep 4e.-ygyis.awmm.y-gr g.*a-.4e

--sp - vy g.-1,

4 Comment 5: Facilities that receive tritium in their influent ray find considerably less of this 1sotope in their dewatered sludge than in their liquid sludge since it will remain in the liculd pn3se; therefore, facilities that land apply liquid sludge will likely apply much more tritium than those that land apply dewatered sludge.

NRC/ EPA should take this into consideration when determining what type of sampljng to request and while performing dose CalCLlations.

Response: We plan to incluoe 11guld samples. If that is the form of the disposed material. The dose calculations will be performed for both liquiri and solid sewage.

Commenter: Dave A. Van Fleet. Government Affairs Co Chairman of the Ohio Water Environment Association (0WEA)

Comment 1:

I do not know if the proposed collection of Information is necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions or if the information has practical utility. Why does the NRC need to survey and sam 71e POTWs? We do not hold NRC licenses. The NRC should be surveying and sampling its licensees, not POTWs. What is the NRC going to do for POTWs when. In the NRC's opinion they have a Contamination problem? The practic]l utility will be for the NRC to take enforcement action against POTWs that are found to have a regulatory difficulty.

Will you guarantee to bring enforcement actions against the NRC licensees?

W11) the NRC licensees pay all remediation costs for a potentially contaminated POTW? Without some indemnification Of the POTWs from NRC enforcement action, how can 1 encourage 0WEA members to participate?

There is a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected if you want to encourage POTW participation, you need to indemnify the POTWs from NRC enforcement action. Also, I assume you would assist any POTW with any remediation costs through enforcement action on the NRC licensees.

Pesponse: As stated in the OMB Supporting Statement. this survey responds to a recommend 3 tion in the General Accounting Of fice (GAO) report. " Actions Needed to Control s11oactive Contaminat13n at Sewage Treatnant Plants."

published May 1994.

That report recomended that NRC determine the extent of radionuclides at POTWs.

The objectives of this joint NRC/ EPA sewage survey are to (1) obtain national estimates of high probability occurrences of elevated levels of radioactive materials in sludge and ash at POTWs.

(2) estimate the extent to which radioactive contamination comes from either NRC/ Agreement State licensees or naturally occurring radioactivity. and (3) support rulemaking decisions by NRC and EPA.

POTWs should participate in the survey because NRC plans to use the survey information in assessing whether to apply further restrictions to the licensed radioactive material that is being discharged to the sewer systei11. Also EPA plans to use the survey results to evaluate the need to include radionuclides in l'iosolids standardst such standards wca'd give the POTW operators a 2

^

j i

l' scient1fic basis to restrict discharges of radioactive materials to the sewer system.

There is a small risk that contamination may be found at a POTW.

l However this information is being cellected to support NRC and EPA rule and policy making activities. The survey is not designed for enforcement

[

purposes.

NRC does bring enforcement actiori against NRC licensees. However. there are no widespread aroblems of compliance in this area. Most POTW contamination problems t. hat nave been encountered were not the result of licensee i

noncompliance. but rather due to the unexpected behavior of discharged material during processing at the POTWs. which led to chances in the NRC regulations in tae early 1990's.

.1e cegulations require licensees to demonstrate compliance with an upper limit, out do not require licensees to know exactly how much activity is being discharged.

t Co w nt 2: The Federal Register Notice asked "How can the burden of the Information collecti m be minimized, including the use of automated collection l

techniques or other torirs of information technology?" Some of our OWEA members participated in the voluntary radiological sampling efforts of the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Association (AMSA).

I understand 55 POWS in 18 states were in this AM3A effort.

I applaud the 0WEA merbers that POWS. pated with AMSA and believe this to be a representative sampling of partici This was a good faith effort by AMSA and the POTW community in helping NRC quanti fy its enforcement needs, l

A 1994 United States General Accounting Office Report. GAC RCED-94 133 " Action Needed to Control Radioactive Contamination at Sewage Treatment Plants" provides data from 9 POTWs that have current radiological issues due to NRC licensees discharges. The AMSA voluntary survey of $5 POTWs greatly expanded the radiological information the GA0 report found lacking.

You have a good base of information, Surveying and sampling POTWs is after the fact. For the past severe, yeurs.

0 wet member POTWs have implemented EPA mandated industrial pretreatment programs that regulate pollutants at their source. Why should NRC licensees, and their discharges be regulated differently? If the NRC is the regulatory authority. then they should be sampling and enforcing their licensees. not the POTWs.

MEonE The AMSA survey was considered in the development of the NRC/ EPA t

sewage survey. However. due to the anonymity of the POTWs which participated l

In the AMSA survey we were not able to assess regional background levels of radionuclides or the effects of licensees that dispose of radioactive material l

Into sanitary sewers. The NRC/ EPA survey will sample POTWs across the country L

and POWS associated with NRC or Agreement State licensees with the greatest potential to discharge.

- NRC licensees are subject to EPA's industrial pretreatment programs.

3 i

r 7

Commenter: Erwin J. Odeal. Executive Director. iiortheast Ohio Regional Sewer District Co w nt 1: Thfs comment concerns the EPA role in the survey.

The AMSA survey in 1995-1996 confirmed that the level of naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM) in sea' age solids is within the normal range of background concentrations of NORM in the environment.

The AMSA survey was comprehensive because it is based on samples from 55 POTWs in 17 States and all sizes of POTWs. Based on the AMSA survey. and surveys by state agencies in Tennessee and Florida. there does not appear to be a need for EPA to conduct a survey for NORM and there 1s no evidence of any health or safety problem. The planned study would however. provide significant additional data further confirming this conclusion.

Resoonse: Due to the anonymity of the POTWs which participated in the AMSA 6

survey, we were not able to assess regional background levels of radionuclides. The NRC/2PA survey will samnie hundreds of POTWs across the U S. in ten geographic regions which were chosen on the basis of variations in NORM across the U.S.

In additior., the survey will target POTWs associated with the licensees with the greatest potential to discharge.

Comment 2: This comment concerns the NRC role in the survey. This survey will be of very limited use to the NRC in properly performing its function.

The NRC needs a monitoring program in place tlat generates public confidence for the present as well as for the future. The survey data will not be useful because of the nearly complete absence of data in the NRC's possession regarding what its licensees are discharging to the sewers. The NRC cannot even identify which of its licensees actually discharge. The licensees files do not contain information regarding the quantity or even the identity of the sped fic radionuclides that have been discharged.

The NRC's problem with a lad of data on sanitary disposal could be corrected with a simple reporting requirement.

If the proposed survey takes place. NRC will not be able to use the data to make any analysis as to the fate of radlonuclides in the wastewater trectment process.

(That is, if licensed material is found at a POTW. the NRC will still have no 1 dea what percentage of radioactive material that entered the plant went into the solids or what percentage remained with the liquid stream and exited the plant in the plant's treated effluent.)

Response *

,any licensees discharge to the sewers and are known to be in compliance with NRC regulations. They demonstrate that the maximum possible discharges are below the h mits, although neither they nor the NRC know how much activity they actually discharge. These licensees show compliance with the regulation by assuming that they discharge all the activity they handle in a certain time period and show that this total does not exceed the annual quantity limit and. when diluted by the water flow from the facility, does not exceed the average monthly concentration limit. However, NRC may consider procedural changes as a result of the survey.

The purpose-of the survey is-to determine if there are elevated levels of radioactive materials (both licensed and naturally-occurring) in sewage sludge. NRC has no plans to model the materials from their discharge at the

' licensees tc their eventual fate at the POTW.

4

----.-----.m...-.

e--

wgs--

et

-em+ - - --n

++v'-.*

'--'q g

ca e-+-=p-hye

+

'q*g wp is q

t

---e-g.

--v-

r

. Comment 3: A major problem with the structure of the proposed survey is the one-time nature of the sampling. The survey will produce no information on the effect of licensees who are batch dischargers of waste.

Resoonse: As the commenter states. the survey is a one time snapshot of the conditions at the POTWs and will probably not sample the effects of licensees who are batch dischargers of waste. However, by targeting the survey to include POTWs associated with the licensees with the greatest potential to i

dischatge, we have increased the likelihood of sampling possible reconcentrations of 11censees' discharges.

The survey results will provide i

the POTW operator with background information to evaluate sample analyses at the POT 4.

j Commenter: Mark Miller, Roy F. Weston i

Comment 1: To the Sewage Sludge Questionnaire, I suggest that you add one more question:

"What is the final use or dispos 1 tion of treated wastewater at ycur treatment facility?

a:

Discharge to surface stream (please provide the approximate t.ffluent/recv Ng stream dilution factor) b.

Beneficial re-use as irri s a water c.

Discharge to standing water body (ocean o-lake)

This information is "no cost" to obtain and may ultimately be very useful with regards to better understanding if there is a need for any revised regulation to reauire or allow for case-by-case pathway analyses to justify l

discharge limits.

I Responsg: Past studies hava shown that the largest concentrations of many radionuclides are in the sludge and ash from the incineration of sludge.

For this reason, we have confined the survey to sludge and ash samples.

Comment 2:

In the Supporting Statement, under A.1(2)..first paraoraph..

' contamination comes from either NRC/ Agreement State 1.icensees or naturally-occurring.,

" Add. "10E fac111 ties (and others?)."

Response: Although the survey will sample POTWs associated with 00E f acilities. it is not an overall obJec;.ve of this survey to determine the nationwide extent of radioactive contamination from DOE facilities.

[gment 3 Add "(5) determine the technical basis or usefulness for including a requirement for discharges to be "readily soluble"." The real issue may not be solubility at all, but rather the facility specific pathway analyses. that may most appropriately be performed on a case by-case basis.

Upon further study, we may discover that even though a radioisotope is soluble at point of discharge into the sewer system, chemistry changes in transit and during treatment at the POTW may completely alter its original solubility.

My guess is that virtually any metal / heavy metal radioisotope will be precipitated out into the solids during treatment at the POTW, regardless of their solubility state upon discharge.

In essence, that's exactly how POTWs are supposed to function..get the solids out.

5

~_

[15ponse: NRC plans to use the survey information in assessing whether to apply further restrictions to the licensed iadlocctive material that is being discharged to the sewer system. An Advanced Notice cf Propoted Rulemaking was published in the Ltd.3.r.3]. Peaister on February 25. 1994 to request public ccments on contemplated amendments to the Comission's regulations governing the release of radionuclides from licensed nuclear facilities into sanitary sewer systems. The proposed date for this rulemaking 1s currently undetermined. partly because the NRC is waiting on results from the sewage survey. Your comment will be forwarded to the agency contact for this rulemaking.

[p w nt 4:

Under A.8, second paragraph. you mention meetings with AMSA and WEf to discuss the deta11s of the NRC/ EPA survey.

..The Annual WEFTEC conference is to be held in October 18-22. This would be an excellent place

'o update / inform folks.

Resoonse:

EPA will attend the WEFTEC conference. EPA and NRC also attend meetings of the WEF Radioactivity Task Force (pmmont 5:

In Jaragtaph A.12. you 01scuss how P01Ms will be asked to supply zip codes for t1eir respective service areas. and NRC/ Agreement States will be asked for 21p codes of their licensees so the two can be cross referenced.

This is an excellent strategy. However you should be sure to get NRC/ Agreement State respondents also to indicate the " class" of licensee they list.

In particular, many of tb lictasees possess only sealed sources which have no potential for discharge, Instead. only the medical /research/

production facilities that are potential dischargers are really of concern, and the effort to identify potential dischargers during th.s survey should be made since tnis information will be of most value to tne POTWs for "information" purposes.

If this data base becomes available following the survey. I would like to obtain it.

Pasponse The survey will send some of the geestionnaires to POTWs associated with types of licensees with the greatest potential to discharge.

In determining the licensees associated with each POTW. we will also identify the type of licensees.

We plan to send the POTWs that respond to the questionnaire a list of licensees associat ? with their P0ld. Unfertunately due to the confidentiality of the POTWs in the survey we will not be able to share the database Comment 6: One of the middle paragraphs of A.12 says that each POTW will collect an averagc of two samples.

I would suggest that in some case' maybe all) three samples be collected.

The third would be a grab sample of ae treated effluent just prior to discharge. This informatton could shed some very interesting light on the behaslor of " soluble" discharges that mysteriously became " insoluble" during the treatment process and en d d up in the blosolids instead of carrying right through the treatrent process in their

" soluble" state.

If the cost of adding this third sample is too burdensome for the project. perhaps you could select key POTWs from which to sample this liquid ef fluent grab spole. The data could be obtained from the 6

l

i 4.

-m---

t t

i questionnaire if it is provided in a fashion that indicates the isotopes / characteristics of potentially discharged material;. For example. If a

the information says that a few licensees might discharge " soluble" Pu 239 or Co 60. these P01Ms would be good candidates for both sludge and tr6ated effluent sampling; This would be in ccntrast to tne majority of POTWs that will routinely be receiving medical isotopes, whose short half-lives mde the issue of solubility essentially moot, with respect to pathway analyses and potential exposure of public%rkers/ environment.

There is scarcely any data on partitioning into liquid / solid fractions. The most recent was work done at the Oak Ridge. TN. POTW. However, the study was necessarily limited in scope.

Hopefully, obtaining this information from a national survey could significantly improve our understanding of radionuclide liquid / solid partitioning at the POTW.

ResDonse; lhis objective is outside the scope of the survey.

The number of i

sarples collected at each POTW is based on tae types of sewage sludge uses or disposal practices. O mples are collected as close as possible to the point 1

where the n.aterial leaves the POTW.

Examples of sampling locations would be a digester, filter press or drying bed, lagoon or storage pile.

Comment _Z: To paragraph B. add the following to the end of tne first i

sentence: sludge and ash.,."and tne1r partitioning in liqJid/solld fractions l-of sewage effluent."

Resoonse: This objective is outside the scope of the survey.

Comment 8:

In B.2. add an additional bullet..." Disposition /use of treated wastewater." in the arid west, treated wastewater is a very valuable commodity. useful-for 1rrigation.

It may not be 50 useful in the east where irrigat.an 15 not so necessary and irrigation water is widely available.

l This information will play into the pathway analyses that may ultimately be a l

key feature of regulation discharges.

ResDcug: This survey will be restricted to sludge and ash samples. See response to Comment 1.

Comment 9: Regarding the notice that was published in the Federal Register:

Item seven... add DOE facilities (others?) to the list of facilities or i

licensees that could pot ntially discharge into sewers. Also, add "and pre-releese treated wastewater" immediately after ' sewer sludge / ash' in that t'

same paragraph.

fleipang See responses to Comments 1 and 2.

Comment IN Quality can be enhanced if the survey collected samples in a fashion tnat will provide useful information on-11guid/ solid partitioning of 1.

b various radionuclides (isotopes / elements) in the waste stream.

If possible.

use " potential discharge elements" Information from the quertionnaires to target certain POTWs for solid / liquid nmples that may include Co-60. Pu 239, etc.,. metals.

t 1

Resoonse: This objective.is outside the scope of the survey.

I 7

i P

~ -

g-1" W'WE.

?yMPM*y6 ear *tWrv'-PT'N'um-Pe-*

T P--1ww i' ra-gr-my g-yevy er '_7gy

.g,yrM-'g'ep-7p wwasp :#W',p-Qeupg,gy.-e.-qm.mp

,9*te-e D'1a'r'Mw+"'P-"=v4"frVMFN"-'*=rw'f'P"='

W"# FWD 9

""'T*W'Tl-

.n.,,

)

1

{oment 11: The burden can be minimized.

It should be relatively simple NOW.

t if not in the near future, to use email or internet forums to upload / post i

sample results from any and all participants. This, in turn. would speed the developnent of the knowledge base needed for problem identification and tolving and development of technically sound / robust regulat1ons.

ResDonse: Sample results will not be available electronically because, due to the confidentiality of the POTWs in the survey, we will not be able to share the database.

Commenter: Ronald F. Scott, Deoartment of Public Utilities. Columbus Ohio Comment 1: The NRC should be surveying and sampling its licensees, not POTWs.

1he only practical utility will be for the NRC to take enforcement action against POTWs-that are found to have a regulatory difficulty.

i Minn01g: Many licensees discharge to the sewers and are known to be in compliance with NRC regulations.

They demonstrate-that the maximum pos31ble discharges are below the limits, although neither they nor the NRC Know how i

j much activity they actually discharge.

These licensees show complianCc with the regulation by assuming that they discharge all the activity they handle in l

a-certain time period and show that this total does not exceed the annual quantity limit and, when diluted by the water flow from the facility, does not i

exceed the average monthly concentration limit.

NRC plans to use the survey information in assessing whether to aoply further restrictions to the licensed radioactive material that is being 01scharged to the sewer system.

This information is being collected to support NRC and EPA rule and policy making activities; the survey is not designed for enforcement

purposes, i

i Comment 2:

The AMSA survey is a representative sampling of POTWs. Further i

sampling would only serve NRC enforcement purposes and not substantially improse the data base.

i, ksoonse The AMSA survey was considered in the development of the NRC/ EPA sewage survey. However, due to the anonymity of the POTWs which participated in the AMSA survey, we were not able to assess regional background levels of radionucliues or the effects vf licensees that dispose of radioactive material into sanitary sewers. The NRC/ EPA survey will sample POTWs across the country and POTWs associated with NRC or Agreement State licensees with the greatest potential to discharge.

[

l i

t i

8 j

1 i

.2=

=.-._....w._,z-.-

.-.-.:-~.-=-.-

. ~x

m i

From:

Miller, Mark <MILLERM3abapost.rfweston.com>

To Phyllis Sobel < PAS @nrc. gov) i Date:

3/12/97 10:39pm

Subject:

fW: Comments on NRC/ EPA Sewer Survey Stuff From: Miller, Mark i

To: Phyllis Sobel Cc: ' daily'; Miller, Mark

Subject:

Comments on NRC/ EPA Sewer Survey Stuff Date: Wednesday. March 12, 1997 9:49AM Phyllis.

To the Sewage Sludge Questionnaire, I suggest that you add one more question

(#16?) that reads something like:

"What is the final use or disposition of I

treated wastewater at your treatment facility?

l a: Olscharge to surface stream (please provide the approximate effluent / receiving stream dilution factor), b.

beneficial re-use as irrigation water c.

discharge to standing water body (ocean or lake).

.This information is "no-cost" 40 obtain and may ultimately be very useful with regarda to better understanding if there is a NEED for any revised reculation to require or allow for case-by-case pathway analyses to justify discharge limits.

Comments on " Supporting Statement for Joint NRC/ EPA Survey of Sewage Sludge / Ash" Under A.l(2)...first paragraph..." contamination comes from either NRC/ Agreement State Licensees, DOE FACILITIES, or naturally occurring.....'

... add DOE facilities (and others?)

... add..(5) determine the technical basis or usefelness for including a requirement for discharges to oc "readily :olubiv".

As I suggested on the phone the other day, the REAL issue may not be solubility at all, but rather the facility specific pathway analyses that may most appropriately be performed on a case-tsy-case basis. Upon further study, we MAY discover that even though a radioisotope is soluble at point of discharge into the sewer system, chemistiv changes in transit and during treatment at. the POTW may completely alter its original solubility. - My guess is that virtually ANY' metal / heavy metal radioisotope will be percipitated out into the solids during treatment at the POTW, regardless of their solubility state upon discharge..In essence, that's EXACTLY HOW POTWs are supposed to function...get the solids out.

Under A.8, second paragraph, you mention meetings with AMSA and WEF to discuss the detalla of the-NRC/EFA survey.....The Annual WEFTEC conference is to be_ held in October 18-22, This would be an excellent place to update / inform folks.

I have been accepted to present a paper at that meeting,- and will " plug" the survey if you wish.

%7 l l 2. N O l.E

~

l

f i

?

l i

in paragraph A.12, you discuss how POTWs will be asked to supply zip codes for their respective service areas, and NRC/ Agreement States will be asked for zip codes of their licensees so the two can be cross referenced. This is an excellent strategy. However, you should be sure to get NRC/ Agreement State responden

.,LSO to ""*- t'e "c's s" of licensee they list.

In particular, MANY of the licensee's possess only sealed sources which have NO

- potential for discharge.

Instead, only the medicul/research/ production facilities that are potential dischargers are really of concern, and the effort to identify POTENTIAL dischargers during this survey should be made, since THIS information will be of most value to the P01Ws for "information" purposes.

If this data base becomes available following the survey. I would like to obtain it.

I'ra on a crusade to " enlighten" POTWs regarding potential radioactive material discharges into their systems, and being able to provide them with a nice concise list of " potential dischargers would be very helpful. They could then use this list to work cooperatively the NRC/ Agreement State regulator to ensure that the POTW was kept apprised of any potential problems.

One of the middle paragraphs of A.12 says that each POTW will collect an average of two samples.

I would suggest that in some cases (maybe all)

THREE samples be collected. The third would be o GRAB sample of the treated effluent just prior to discharge. This intarmation could shed some ver) interesting light on the behavior of " soluble" discharges that mysteriously became " insoluble" during the treatment process and ended up in the biosolids instead of carrying right thru the treatmert process in their " soluble" state.

If cost of adding this third sample is too burdensome for the project, perhaps you could SELECT key POTWs from which to sample this liquid effluent grab sample. The data obtained from the NRC/ Agreement State questionnaire, if IT is provided in a fashion.that indicates the isotopes / characteristics of potentially discharged materials, for example, if the information says that a few licensees might discharge %oluble" Pu-239 or Co-60, these POTWs would be good candidates for BOTH sludge AND treated effluent sampling. This would be in contrast " the MAJORITY cf POTWs that i

will routinely be receiving medical isotopes, wnose short half-lives make the issue of solubility essentially moot, with respect to pathway analyses and j

potential exposure of_ public/ workers / environment.

There is scarcely any data on partitioning into liquid / solid fractions.

The most recent was work done the Oak Ridge. TN, POTW. However, the study was necessarily limited in scope. Hopefully, :btaining this information from a national survey could SIGNIFICANTLY improve our understanding of radionuclide liquid / solid partitioning at the POTW.

-To paragraph 8, add the following to the end of the first sentence:

sludge and as5...."and their partitioning in liquid / solid fractions of sewage effluent."

In B.I. second paragraph, you mention that a cross-referenced database of

.POTW/ licensee by zip code will be constructed.

I would like to obtain this whenever it is completed.

1 in B.2, add an ADDITIONAL bullet.... Disposition /use of-treated wastewater."

In the-arid west, treated wastewater is a very vtluable Ocamodity, useful for irrigation.

It may not be so useful in the east where irrigation is not so l

necesstry and irrigation water is widely available.

This information will play :nto the pathway analyses that may ultimately be a kev feature of regulation discharges.

Ragarriing the notice that was published in thefederal Register:

Item seven... add DOE facDities (others?) to the list of facilities or licensaes that could potentially discharge into sawers. ALSO, tid "and pre-release treated wastewater" immediatG y after ' sewer sludge / ash' in that same paragraph.

In response to the ~uestions themselves posed in the Notice:

1.

Is necessary....?

Answert Yes. Because of a few isolated incidents (Cleveland is a notable example), the effectiveness of NRC oversight / enforcement of this issue has been questioned.

The data obtained will have practical utility since it could provide useful " scoping information" to (1) reassure the public that there really is N0 GENERIC PROBLEM out there, in spite of the few isolated problems encountered, and (2) the infort.:ation will be critical to fine-tune the current regulation (if it needs adjustments at all).

2.

Is the burden estimate accurate?

Answer: Yes.

It think it is reasonable. The samp N analytical costs appeared to.be on the conservative /high end, but not unreasonable waen you consider various overhead / delay / contingency costs.

3.

Is there a way to enhance quality....?

Answer: Yes, if possible, attempt to collect samples in a fashion that will provide useful information on liquid /salid partitioning of various radicnuclides (isotepes/ elements) in the waste stream.

If possible, use " potential discharge elements" information frort the NRC/Agreer:nt State questionnaires to target certain DOTWs for soild/ liquid samples that rcay include Co-60, Pu-239, etc.... met al s.

4.

How can the burden be minimizfd? Answer:

It should be relatively simple NOW, if not in the near future, to use email or internet forums to upload / post sample results from any and all participants. This, in turn, would speed the development of the knowledge base needed for problem identification and solving and development of technically sound / robust regulations.

How these thoughts are useful.

I look forward to talking / corresponding with you more as this issue unfolds.

Mark Miller 505-837-6572 millerm04bqpost.rfweston.com

l From:

Dave A. Van Fleet <74531.372@compuserve.com>

To:

Brenda Shelton <BJSi@nrc. gov >

Date:

3/7/97 9:24am

Subject:

62 FR 771, NRC survey & Sampling of POTWs March 7,1997 Brenda Jo Shelton US Nuclear Regulatory Commission T-6 F33 Washington, D. C. 20555-0001 SUBJ:

Federal Register Notice,62 FR 771,01-0C-97 Agency information Collection Activities

Dear Ms Shelton:

The view and comments that follow are mine alone. However, I am the Government Affairs Co-Chairman of the Ohio Water Environment Association, OVEA. The OWEA has over 2,100 members in the water environment field. Our membership includes treatment plant operators, managers and analysts, consultants, manufactures, and regulatory agencies. The OWEA is a member association of the Water Environment Federation, Alexandria Virginia.

I offer the following responses to the questions posed in the subject Federal Register Notice.

1.ls the proposed collection of information necessary for he NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the information have practical utility?

DO NOT KNOW. Why does the NRC need to survey and samp!e Public Owned Treatment Works, POTWs? We do not hold NRC licenses. The NRC should be surveying and sampling its licensees, not POTWs. What is the NRC going to do for POTWs when, in the NRC's opinion, they have a contamination problem?. The practical utility will be for the NRC to take enforcement action against POTWs that are found to have a regulatory difficulty.

2. Is the burden estimate accurate?

Yes.

3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.

.-QTTUh

~

YES. If you want to encourage POTW participation, you need to indemnify the POTWs from NRC enforcement action. Also, I assume you would assist any POTW with any remediation costs through enforcement action on the NRC licensees.

4. How can the burden of the information collection be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or cther forms of information technology?

e Some of our OWEA members participated in the voluntary radiological sampling efforts of the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Association, AMSA,. I understand 55 POTWs in 18 states were in this AMSA effort. I applaud the OWEA members that participated with AMSA and believe this to be a representative sampling of POTWs.

This was a good faith effort by AMSA and the POTW community in helping NRC quantify its enforcement needs.

A 1994 United States General Accounting Office Report, GAO/RCED94-133 " Action Needed to Control Radioactive Contamination at Sewage Treatment Plants" provides data from 9 POTWs that have current radWgicalissues due to NRC licensees discharges. The AMSA voluntary survey of 55 POTWs greatly expanded the radiologicalinformation the GAO report found lacking. You have a good base of information.

Surveying and sampling POTWs is after the fact. For the past several years, OWEA member POTWs have implemented USEPA mandated industrial pretreatment programs that regulate pollutants at their source. Why should NRC licensees, and their discharges be regulated differently If the NRC is the regulatory authority, then they should be sampling and enforcing their licenseet, not the POTWs.

In summary, will you guarantee to bring enforcement actions against the NRC licensees? Will the NRC licensees pay all remedistion costs for a potentially contaminated POTW? Without Lome indemnification of the POTWs from NRC enforcement action,I;ow can i encourage OWEA members tc participate? These questions trouble me since they are not " environmentally responsible" and the OWEA is commited to protecting and enhancing the water enviroenment. However, I cannot justify the possible transfer of contamination liability from a NRC licensee to an OWEA member POTW and their customers.

Should you have questions, contact me on 614645 3833.

Very truly yours.

l

'I#

?

y,,

Dave Van Fleet OWEA Co-chairman Government Affairs Committee DVF:dvf xc:

Paul Novak, OWEA co-chair GAC Jim Greener, OWEA President Nancy Mergel, OWEA Ex. Adm.

Tim Williams, WEF CC:

Nancy Mergel <NMergel518@aol.com>

C Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District M

3826 Euclid Avenue. Cleveland, OH 44115-2504 * (216) 881-6600. FAX: (216) 881-4407 h1 arch 6.1997 his.11renda Jo Shelton Clearance OfDeer U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission T-6 F33 Washington, D.C. 20555 Or)01 Re: Joint NRC/ EPA Survey of Sewage Sludge / Ash

Dear his. Shelton:

The Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District ("NEORSD") has been actively involved in issues related to radionuclides in sewage treatment systems and in residual solids since the discovery of Cobalt-60 at its Southerly Wastewater Treatment Center in 1991. NEORSD has spent approximately $2,000,000 nddressing these issues, of which $1,250,000 will be recovered from the suspected source of this Cobalt-60 pursuant to a negotiated settlement of a legal action initiated by NEORSD. To protect its system from any future radioactive contamination as the result of NRC licensed activity, NEORSD has integrated the regulation of radioactive discharges to the sewer system into its pretreatment program.

NEORSD is not the only publicly owned treatment works ("POTW") that has experience with radionuclides. At least twelve other POTWs have experienced contamination as the result of discharges into their systems. In several cases, the remediation tab was over a million dollars.

It is important to note, however, that in all of these cases the applicable regulatcry agencies determined the situation did not pose a signi6 cant health and safety threat. hiost of these cases have been documented by the General Accounting Ofnce.

POTWs other than NEORSD have also undertaken local regulation of radionuclides as part of their pretreatment programs. Certain questions remain, however, regarding the extent to which the Atomic Energy Act may preempt local euthority.

Even if authority of a POTW to regulate radioactive material becomes clearly established in the future, there are well over 10.000 POTWs in the United States, very few of which have the specialized knowledge necessary to regultte radioactive material. Therefore, the local POTW is not the appropriate agency to become the prime regulatory authority for tadioactive disposal.

'Ptdodin yat Cloa Wdos kedmwr

-4"TTTL<tUlby ~

1 I

l his lirenda Jo Shelton hiarch 6,1977 Page 2 The proposed national survey of POTW solids for radionuclides, which was announced in the January 6,1997 Federal Register, is for the stated purpose of gathering infonnation to detennine whether current Nuclear Rquiatory Commission ("NRC") and Environmental Protection Agency (" EPA") regulatory efforts are adequate to avoid inappropriate levels of radionuclides from accumulating at POTWs. The NRC and EPA roles in regulating radionuclides are very different ir this regard and are separately addressed below.

The EPA is the prime regulatory agency for naturally occurring radioactive material

("NORht"), hiany of these radionuclides, such as Potassium-40 ("K-40"), Radium-226 ("Ra-226"), and 13eryllium 7 ("Be 7") are present throughout the environment. Virtually any sample of soil, water, rock, or animal tissue will contain measurable levels of NORhi. Sewage solids are no exception. The survey of POTW solids that was conducted by the Association of hietropolitan Sewerage Agencies ("AhtSA")in 1995 1996 confirmed that many radionuclides are present in POTW solids.

The AMSA survey also provided overwhelming evidence that the level of NORhi in these solids was within the normal range of background concentrations of NORh1 in 6e environment. For comparison purposes, samples of cow manure, soil, and commercial lawn and garden fertilizers were in luded in the AhiSA surny. The NORhi activity in the POTW solids was generally well below that of the cow manure and the fertilizers and compared favorable with the soil. Any reasonable analysis of the AhtSA survey results for NORh1 would conclude that concentration of NORhi in POTW solids is not a problem.

The supporting statement for the Federal Register notice criticizes the AhtSA survey on several grounds. Fiist, it states that the Ah1SA survey had limited geograp3! cal coverage. While the proposed survey may be more comprehensive, it is not accurate to state the AhtSA survey had " limited geographic coverage". The AhtSA survey covered 55 dip: rent treatment plants in 17 states. States from every region in the country were included.

The Federal Register supporting statement also claims the AMSA survey involved only large urban areas. Not so. AhtSA made an effort to address this very concern by soliciting a number of small communities to participate in the study. As a result of this effort,10 of the 55 plants surveyed (18%) have a treatment capadty ofless than 10 million gallons per day

(*hiGD"). Another 20 plants were medium sized plants (36%)in the 11-50 htGD size range.

Therefore, a majority of the samples came from other than the largest plants.

Another criticism of the Ah1SA results in the Federal Register supporting statement is the failure to analyze for the entire universe of radionuclides. This decision was based in part on cost, but also on the fact that the two radionuclides of greatest concem, K-40 and Ra 226 are

-- ~

his. litenda Jo Shelton hiarch 6,1977 Page 3 readily analyzed using the less expensive gamma spectroscopy method. A few plants did analyze for the full spectnan of radionuclides. These analyses had the unsurprising result of confinning that other NORM was present, but at levels well below that of the two radionuclides of prime concem.

A final criticism of the AhiSA survey in the Federal Register supporting statement is that the results do not identify the specific plants from which samples were obtained. Ilowever, many of the states from w hich samples were obtained are in regions with higher than average background NORht. In addition,20 of the plants sampled receive flow that is more than 25%

well water in origin. This fact was believed significant since well water may contain much higher levels of radium that surface water. Given the comprehensiveness of the Ah1SA survey and the lack of apparent problems, the failure to identify the specific plants from which the samples were collected does not warrant the criticism of the Ah1SA survey found in the Federal Register supporting statement.

In addition to the AhtSA data on NORh1 in POTW solids, there is also data available from state agencies in Tennessee and Florida, which have conducted similar surveys within their states. Once again, NORhi in POTW solids appears to be within the range of background.

Based on all the data that has been reviewed by NEORSD, there does not appear to be a need for EPA to conduct a survey for NORh1 as there is no evidence of any health or safety problem. All the evidence suggests that NORh1 levels of POTW solids are within the range of background. The application of these solids to soils should therefore not result in any increase of the NORh1 level of the soil to which it applies.

Although NEORSD does not believe that the proposed survey is necessary, the study may have value in that it should provide significant additional data further confirming that NORht in POTW solids is not a health and safety problem.

The apparent intent of the NRC in proposing this survey is unrelated to that of the EFA.

The NRC's interest in this survey is to determine the impact of sanitary disposal of radioactive material used by NRC licensees and regulated by the NRC under the Atomic Energy Act.

hiaterial in this category has contaminated at least 13 POTWs and, while not causing health and safety problem, has millions of dollars in associated costs.

In the Federal Register Notice, the NRC specifically requests comments as to whether this survey is needed "for the NRC to properly perform its function". The answer to this question is an emphatic no. Furthermore, for reasons stated below, this survey will be of very

)

l

+

l l

Ms. Brenda Jo Shelton March 6,1977 Page 4 limited use to ue NRC inproperly performing its function.

The very fact that 13 POTWs have experienced varying degrees of contamination as the result of NRC licensed activities should be sufneient evidence that the NRC has not been properly performing its function.

Although none of these incidents resulted in harm to individuals, the POTWs involved incurred significant costs and also often faced a public and employee relation nightmare.

Radiation, perhaps core than any other substance that may be discharged to the environment, results in undue public concern due to a lack of understanding. The POTW on the rec iving end of NRC licensee discharges bears the brunt of these concems and is forced into a program of explaining how insignincant the radioactivity from the discharged radionuclides is when compared to natural background radiation. Most POTWs are not in a position to carry out this public information project. The public perception problem is compounded by the fact that millions of dollars are being spent where no health and safety problem exists.

It is therefore imperative that the NRC, as the agency with primary authority to regulate radioactive waste disposal, have a monitoring program in place that generates public con 6dence for the present as well as for the future. This program is needed regardless of whether there is any actual public health and safety concern associated with the discharges from its licensees.

The NRC currently lacks sny semblance of such a program.

It is fully expected that the proposed survey will further con 6rm that radionuclides in POTW solids, whether NORM or from radioactive waste discharges, do not pose a health and safety problem. Beyond that, however, the survey will provide little additional useful information to the NRC. The primary reason for the lack of utility of this data to the NRC is the nearly complete absence of data in the NRC's possession regarding what its licensees are discharging to the sewers. In fact, nearly a decade after the NRC become aware that sanitary disposal of radioactive material can result in problems at the receiving POTW, the NRC still cannot even identify which ofits licensees actually discharge.

A recent dran NRC report states that a review of the Bles of 6,700 NRC licensees shows that 1,984 of them (almost 30%) indicated an intent to utilize sanitary disposal for at least a portion of their radioactive waste. A review of NRC inspection reports oflicensed facilities, however, ir.cluded a reference to sanitary disposal in connection with only 449 licensees.

Moreover, in some case, the latter were not licensees that had previously indicated an intent to disposal. The report indicates that the Bles do not contain information regardie i the quantity or even the identity of the specine radionuclides that have been discharged. The report also does not discuss whether the 1,535 discrepancy between the numbers of dischargers is due to the fact l

Ms. Brenda Jo Shiton March 6,1977 Page 5 3

1 the licensee changed Qeir plans ragarding waste disposal or to the fact the NRC has simply never

)

inspected the licensees -agarding sanitary disposal practices.

L 7 NRC's problem with a lack of data on sanitary disposal could be corrected with a simple nyor:ing requirement. A!though industrial users discharging to a POTW are generally required to ble monthly discharge reports on metals with the POTW or the EPA, users of radioactive materials are never required to report any discharges to the NRC. Even an annual reporting requirement would give the NRC a vast amount cfinforma% cn sanitary disposal that is now lacking.

Swh information would also be available to POTWs pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act request. Currently,if a POTW requests infonnation on discharges within its service area, the NRC's response is that there are no documen c responsive to the request.

NEORSD filed a petition for rulemaking with the NRC on August 2,1993 in which NEORSD requested that the NRC revise its sanitary disposal regulations to require that licensees report disc'aarges to the sewer to both the NRC and to the receiving POTW. The NRC has not taken action on this petition.

Evea when the NRC has informat on rc3arding discharge activities of a licensee, it is i

extremel reluctant to act upon that information. In the Cleveland situation, the NRC maintains f

its official position that it cannot determine the source of the Cobalt-50 that has contaminated the NEORSD's facilities. Tiie NRC continues to take tra position despite a large volume of evidence as to the source, and equally persuasive evidence as to the lack of alteman ve sources.

To the best of NEORSD knowledge, this NRC position has not changed subsequent to the agreement by AMS to pay NEORSD $1,250,0% a settlement of claims related to the contamination incident.

i The NRC has also failed to act on a petition filed by NEOR iD o.. March 3,1993 requesting that the NRC require AMS to asnme responsibility foi the NEORSD site. On multiple occasions, then-NRL chairman Ive 1 Selin publicly stated th't in such a situation the POTW was fully responsible for addressing the contamination and the NRC would take no action against the discharger, e.cn if they could identify the source. Mr. Selin further stated that the only recourse available to the POTW would be to take legal action against the source. On at least one occasion, NEORSD was informed by NRC legal counsel that NRC personnel may be prohibitea from testifying in any such legal actin None of these NRC positions have changed since Mr. Selin was replaced.

In addition to being a further indication of the lack of a sanitary disposal monitorin and c

, _ _ _ - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~

~

-~

~'

Ms. Brenda Jo Shelton March 6,1977 Page 6 enforcement program, the performance of thw 9RC in the Cleveland contamination situation should be a cause for concern for any POTW that discovers r radionuclide contamination situetion in the future.

Given the above-described lack of NRC knowledge regarding the activities ofits licensees, even if the pmposed survey takes place, the NRC will still lack any data reg radionuclides in Se influent to the POTW Lacking such basic information, the NRC will not be able to use the data from the proposed survey to make any analysis as to the fate of radionuc in the wastewater treatment process. That is, iflicensed material is found at a POTW, the NRC will still have no idea what percentage of radioactive material that entered the plant went into th solids or what percentage remained with the liquid stream and exited the plant in the plant's treated efDuent.

kW Based on the Cleveland experience, the NRC will also of?cially have no idea as to the source of the material. The utility of the data to be gathered could be greatly enhanced by first gathering relevant data on discharges frem NRC licensees.

It should be noted that NRC regulations in 10 CFR Part 20 would allow the discharge of many times the radioactive material that it appears is actually discharged. Based on NEORSD experience, in which over 4,000,000 cubic feet ofincinerator ash were contantinated by less than one Curie of Cobalt-60, if every NRC licensee in the NEORSD service area discharged up to NRC regulatory limit of I Curie per year each, there would without question be problems at the treatment plants.

Another major problem with the structure of the proposed survey with regard to use by the NRC is c.: one-time nature ef the sampling. Effectively, the survey will take a snapshot the conditions of the POTWs on the date of the sampling. Unfortunately, the type of NRC licensee r. tost likely to discharge radionuclides of a type and quantity to create an interference with PCTW cperations is a batch discharger of waste. Unless the sample of POTW solids happens to correspond to the time during which such a batch discharge has entered the trea plant, the survey will produce no information on its effect. Therefore, while the survey shou provide further confirmation that radionuclides are not in general a problem in POTW solids, the proposed survey will do little or nothing to prevent the types ofisolated incidents that have led to the interference with the operations of the 13 POTWs Despite these inadequacies in the NRC's sanitary dispr *at monitoring end enforcement prc m:.s, the survey should confirm that prob' ems with radionuet. 'es in POTW solids remain very isolated and infrequent occurrences Even when these incidents have occurred, the levels of

~

- - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Ms.13renda Jo Shelton March 6,1977 Page 7 4

radioac.ivity present in the solids has e resulted only in regulatory problems in reusing or disposing of the solids in the POT W's normal manner.

While public perception of health and safety issues has been a problem, the radiation dose rates have been insigniDeant. For example, within the radiological restricted area at the NEORSD facility, t e maximum exposure that an individual climbing the fence could obtain h

fmm direct radiatio.. Is only on the order of 50 microRem per nour. To y " ~mber in perspective, an individual would need to sit in direct contact with the material 24 hours2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months a day for 17 days to accumulate a dose equivalent (20-25 millirems) to that which an individual receives from a dental x-ray. The dental x-ray of 20-25 mi:liRems in turn represents only a small fraction of the 200-400 millireme of radiation that each American receives armually from primarily natural sources such as the sun, soil, rocks, and bricks.

Fortunately, NEORSD experience has also shown that most users of radioactive materials are generally responsible entitics that will take ypropriate actions regardless of NRC regulations or activities. Licensees in the NEORSD service area only discharge a tiny fraction of the radioactivity that the NRC would allow. In part, this is due to the fact they simply do not generate that much radioactive waste. In addition, however, a number of NRC licensees within the NEORSD service area and from across the country have informally advised NEORSD that they have ceased all radioactive discharges to the sanitary sewer after teaming that it is possible for them to concentrate in POTW solids in suflicient concentrations to cause regulatory problems. One would have to assume that publicity regarding the NEORSD $1,250,000 Tettlement with a discharger would further this self policing trend among NRC licensees.

In summary, NEORSD believes that the proposed survey will provide data which should confirm that NORM is simply not a proolem in POTW solids. The results should also confirm

. that the discharge of NRC-licensed material is a problem only in infrequent and isobted cases.

The results will not, however, prove that NRC regidation ofits licensees is adequate. In fact, if the survey happens to find one of those isolated incidents such as occurred in Cleveland, the survey will provejust the apposite. Unless the NRC changes its stated policy, the unfortunate POTW will then be held responsible. Development of a creditable monitoring and enforcement program by the NRC, one similar in nature to a POTW pretreatment program, would be the appropriate approach to the isolated problems created by sanitary dispc sal of radionuclides.

1 I

_____-nam *--" "

d Ms. Brerida Jo Shelton March 6,1977 Page 8 NEORSD appreciates the opportunity to provide input on this issue. Questions or comments regarding this comment letter should be directed to either Thomas E. Lenhart or LawTence K. English at 216-881-6600.

Sincerely, C

Erwin. Odeal Executive Director EJOREL/

cc:

W. B. Schatz T. E. Lenhart L. K. English

- ' U'4.-' * * *Jo,O E%"#,honu,.

Depariment of Public Utilities e

e e

James P. Joyce _ P E., Director "r,%ms) lfy March ? 997 Ms. Brenoa Jo Shelton US Nuclear Regulatury Commission T-6 F33 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 RE: Federal Register gotice 62 FR 771,01-06-97 Agency Information Collection Activities

Dear Ms. Shelton:

The City of Columbus operates two advance wastewater treatment plants in serving a population of over 800,000 people in Central Ohio. I offer the following responses to the questions posed in the subject Federal Register Notice.

1.

Is the proposed collection ofinformation necessary for the NRC to property perform its functions? Does the information have practicalutility?

No. The NRC should be survey!ng and sampling its licensees, nnt PO1Ws. This is in effect, closing the barn door after the horse has escaped. The only practical utility will be for the NRC to take enforcement action against POTWs that are found to have a regulatory difficulty.

2.

Is the burden estimate accurate?

Yes.

3.

Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected?

't es. Indemnify the POTWs from NRC enforcement action. This would encourage pa-ticipation in both the proposed survey and follow up sampling.

4.

How can the burden of the information collection be minimized, including the uso of automated co!!ection techniques or other forms ofinformation technology?

The NRCiEPA all ready has radiological data from 55 POTWs from 18 statos voluntarily provided by the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Association (AMSA). This -

included both large facilities and small facilit.:.s with less than 10 million gallons per day flow. I believe this to be a representative sampling of POTWs. It would appear that further sampling would only serve NRC enforcement purposes and not substantially improve the data base.

Utuities Complex 310 Dublin Road Columbus, ohlo 43215-9060 Director's once 614/645-6141 FAX 614/645 80tg TD0 614t645 6454 DoctricMy DMs6on 614/645 8371 FAX 614/645-5814 T00 614/645 6454 Seweesgo and Dramage DMemn 614/645-7175 FAX. 614e645 3801 700 614/645-6336 Water DMa6on 614/645-7020 FAX. 614 /645-6177 TDO: 614/ 645-7188 The City of Columbus is an Eaual occortunity Smninvec MI+2xfo19 f~

~^

l l

Ms. Brenda Jo Shelton March 5,1997 Page 2 in sumrr.ary, this data collection is questionable. Without some indemnification of the POTWs from NRC enforcement action, why would they participate? A 1994 United States s

General Accounting Office Report, GAO/RCED-94-133 " Action Needed to Control Radioactive Contamination at Sewage Treatment Plants' provides data from 9 POTWs that have current radiologicalissues due to NRC licensees discharges. The AMSA voluntary survey of 55 POTWs greatly expanded the radiological information the GAO report found lacking. You have the infonnation.

Surveying and sampling POTWs is after the fact. For the past several years, POTWs have implemented USEPA mandated industrial pretreatment programs that regulate pollutants at their source, Why should NRC licensees, and their discharges be regulated differently? If the NRC is not the regulatory authonty, then they should be sampling and enforcing the licenses they issue, not the POTWs.

Should you have any questions, contact me at (61/) 645-7429.

Very truly yours, DIVISION OF SEWERAGE AND DRAINAGE 7

[

F Ronald F. Scott Assistant Administrator RFS:DVF:nr pc:

Director Joyce, Dept. of Pub ic Utilities Administrator Erickson, DOSD File - RF

^

- - ~ " - - ~ - ' ~ '

Framt

< bill.payne@srs gov >

Tot TWDI,TWP5(bjst)

Date:

3/5/97 2:06pm i

Subject:

WESTLNGliOUSE SRC COMMENTS JOINT NRC/ EPA SLUDGE SURVEY Westinghouse Savaruun River Company (WSRC) would like to take the opportunity to thank you for allowing us to make the following conunents about the joint NRC/ EPA Survey of !.ewage Sludge / Ash. W5RC is a prirne contractor for the Department of E3ergy nuclear complea in Aiken, South Carolina the Savannah River Site (SRS).

We have f.ome esperience with the analysis of radion41 ides in sewage sludge and wtli be very interesed in readmg the results of your Survey.

We raderstand that Survey participants will be determined at random; howevo, we would like to volunteer to complete th questiormaire and provide mpias for analysis.

Comments Section 2 Glossary of Terms Definition of " Treatment Works' We recommend that you include a separate definition for each of the t

treatment works specified in your general defmition. At first glance, this may seem trivial; however, the regulatory definitions for each of these types of treatment impact what rules they must follow. For example, for a plant to be classified as a Federally Owned Treatment Works (FOTV), as defined in the Federal Facility Compliance Act (FFC Act), the majority of its influent must be domestic sewage. The dermition in the proposed Survey contradicts this regulatory definition. Some Responders may not be able to accurately answer question number one of Section U witnout this clarificauon.

Sec icn 2 - Question #13 Other Useful Questions It may be useful to ask the Responder to provide historical radiological 1

analyses on their sludge, if any is available.

General Comment #1 We feel that thirty (30) days is adequate time to respond to the simple questionnaire; however, we recommend that those who are requested to submit samples be provided sixty (60) days to do n. if possDie.

General Comment #2 Facilities that receive trinum in their influent may find considerably less of this isotope in their dewatered sludge than m their liquid sludge since it will remain in the liquid phase; therefore, facilities that land apply hqui*. sludge will likely apply much more tritium than those that land apply dewatered sludge. NRC/ EPA should take this into consideration when determining what type of sampling to request and while performing dose calculations.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to provide these commen's. If you have questions abo.it them, please contact Bill Payne at:

Westinghouse Savannah River Company Buildmg 742 A A' ken SC 29808 E mail: bill.payne@sts. gov Phone: (803) 725-3465

\\

1

-

ML20202D251

Contents

Text

SUMMARY

Subject:

Dear Ms Shelton:

Dear Nis. Shelton:

Subject:

Subject:

Dear Ms. Shelton:

Subject:

Subject:

Subject:

Dear Ms Shelton:

Dear his. Shelton:

Dear Ms. Shelton:

Subject:

Navigation menu

ML20202D251

Text

SUMMARY

Subject:

Dear Ms Shelton:

Dear Nis. Shelton:

Subject:

Subject:

Dear Ms. Shelton:

Subject:

Subject:

Subject:

Dear Ms Shelton:

Dear his. Shelton:

Dear Ms. Shelton:

Subject:

Navigation menu

Search