ML20214R665

Advises That Everest Exploration,Inc Request for Exemption from 5 Pci/G Ra-226 Soil Contamination Limit Cannot Be Approved in Light of Applicable Regulations.Everest Should Provide Alternative to Meeting Std

ML20214R665
Person / Time
Issue date:	05/19/1987
From:	Rich Smith NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:	Bailey E TEXAS, STATE OF
References
REF-WM-43 NUDOCS 8706080246
Download: ML20214R665 (2)

Text

,

-*/n q,/

r

_+ A

'*W~

j DISTRIBUTION -

Docket file WM.43 PDR/DCS%~

WM-43/RFB/87/04/02/0 c PGonzales LLW Branch, WMLU-URF0 r/f IAAY 191987 URFO:RF8 040WM043110E Edgar D. Bailey, P.E., C.H.P., Director Division of Licensing, Registration and Standards Bureau of Radiation Control Texas Department of Health 1100 West 49th Street 7

Austin, Texas 78756-3189

Dear Mr. Bailey:

We have completed our review of your request for assistance in reviewing the Everest Exploration, Inc., request for exemption from the 5 pCi/g radium-226 soil contamination limit on a 22.78 acre portion of their site which contains an average of 22 pCi/g radium-226. Although we have found the argument posed by Everest to be an interesting one, we do not feel that the request for exemption can be approved in light of applicable regulations.

)

Criterion 6 of Appendix A t'~10 CFR'40~ states that the closure design o

~

requirements of the criterion apply to any portion of a licensed disposal site unless such portion contains a cancentration of radium in land, averaged over areas of 100 square meters, which, as a result of byproduct material does not exceed the background level by more than 5 pCi/g of 4'

Ra-226 in the uppermost 15 centimeters.

The standard therefore would be applicable to the situation described by Everest unless, pursuant to the Introduction to Appendix A, the applicant proposes an alternative to j

these specific requirements.

It is our opinion that the material we j

reviewed does not constitute such a request and would not support one.

i Similarly, we see no justification for a complete exemption from the requirements.

Therefore we recommend that you request Everest to provide i

an alternative to meeting the standard which will achieve a level of stabilization and containment and a level of protection for public health, safety and environment, which is at least equivalent, to the extent practicable, to the requirements of Criterion 6.

OFC :

NAME :

DATE :87/05/20 8706080246 870519 PDR WASTE WM PDR

. j N,,,

. p;p.e:as.s <

e-e :w W-43/RF8/87/04/02/0- :

Should you have any questions regarding this guidance, please contact Harry Pettengill of my staff on (303) 236-2810.

Sincerely, R. Dale Smith, Director Uranium Recovery Field Office Region IV 1

m 0FC

_ _ _ _ _. _U_ R_ F0_

._U_R_F0___.___:.__U URF0

~

NAME :

HPe tengill:

RD i

_ _ _ __. _ RB_ _r_i ch_/_1_ _.* __PGa_rci a

$[_pf_p_7: Qd Qo i

i i

DATE :87/05/20