ML20216D052
| ML20216D052 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/21/1989 |
| From: | Hawkins E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | Mcburney R TEXAS, STATE OF |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20216D030 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9804150162 | |
| Download: ML20216D052 (2) | |
Text
na UNITED STATES
~['q*'k NUCLEAR RENULATORY COMMISSION RE21UN IV URANIUM RECoVE FIELD OFFICE DENVER, COLORADO 9022s
'M tmR 21 Pit 11 05 p 2I m
,.'n?.t.u 0F URFO:GRK
> 2 1r. 4 4 W M 0's SIS 43 Texas Department of Health ATTN:
Ruth E. McGurney Bureau of Radiation Control 1100 West 49th Street i
Dear Ms. McBurney:
Our office is in receipt of your December 16, 1988 letter discussing the i
contaminated soil at the Bruni Texas in-situ mine, operated by Westinghouse Electric Corporation. As a portion of our review, Mr. Mancuso and Mr. Ritner of Westinghouse met with our staff on January 12, 1989.
During the meeting, several topics were discussed which resulted in the January 20, 1989 Westinghouse submittal. delineating the locations of the soil samples as well as 1
(
radium-226 laboratory results.
The staff has performed a review of y6ur correspondence as well as thi! various Westinghouse submittals.
That exercise indicates that background-radium-226, based upon samples PM-1, PM-2, PM-3 and PM-4, averages about 0.8 pCi/gm.
Considering this background and 10 CFR 40, Appendix A, Criteria 6, the cleanup standard would be 5.8 pCi/gm in the upper 5 cm of soil.
The Westinghouse proposal is to remove contaminated soil, blend it with noncontaminated soil te achieve a concentration not to exceed 15 pCi/gm and 30 pCi/gm for radium-226 and natural uranium, respectively.
Following this, the blended mixture would be placed on site in a reclaimed evaporation pond and covered with 1 meter of noncontaminated soil. This disposal option, due primarily to the rather small quantity of material, probably represents a proliferation of disposal sites as discussed in 10 CFR 40, Appendix A, Criterion 2.
Furthermore, if such a disposal option should be pursued, the byproduct materials would need to provide control of radiological hazards for 1000 years, to the extent reasonably achievable, and, in any case, for at least 200 years.(Criterion 6 of Appendix A). Additionally, Astinghouse would need to provide $250,000 (1978 dollars) to cover the cost: n/ long-term surveillance as well as deed the property over to the State of Teus at the option, or to the U.S. Department of Energy.
Other disposal options are available to Westinghouse, although they are somewhat limited. Considering the minimal environmental impacts associated with transporting the wastes to a large disposal site, as well as the 9804150162 980403 PDR STPRG ESGTX PDR
-/
2
}gg 21 1989
~
prc,1iferation issue, it is our recommendation that it is reasonable to dispose i
ef the wastes in a tailings impoundment or licensed disposal site.
We hope that our observations will be beneficial to you in your deliberations on Westinghouse's proposal.
Should you have any questions or wish to discuss this issue further, please call me or Gary Konwinski at (303) 236-2805.
Sincerely, Edward F. Hawkins, Branch Chief Uranium Recovery Field Office Region IV
(
0 6
9
- h~0"e t,f V? $h,$i
,,atstg UNITED STATES
~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Q,r. p_.,,,,,,,
L
'8
)
REolONIV
)
URANIUM RECOV FIELD OFFICE DENVER. COLORADO 0055 e
i i
SEP l 3 l989 h
URFO:GRK' M AU OF SIS 43 RADIATION CONT Texas Department of Health ATTN:
David K. Lacker, Chief Bureau of Radiation Control
)
1100 West 49th Street
)
$.1
Dear li. Lacker:
1 Our office is in receipt of your August 15, 1989 letter discussing waste.
disposal options available to Texas in-sita uranium recovery facilities in the process of decommissioning.
soil mixing, cleaning and burying materials, as well as soil blendin It is the NRC position that elevated levels of radionuclides, in this case.
radium-226, represent byproduct materials.
If the rartium-226 concentrations in i
soil exceeds 5 pCi/g in the first 15 centimeters above background the material is to be removed and placed in an approved disposal facility.
The NRC does not consider it appropriate for the 5 pCi/g to be used as a soil mixing or soil blending criteria, with the purpose of allowing the byproduct material to remain in place.
Similarly, your second and third points involve soil mixing j
and fail to include disposal in an approved facility; therefore, they cannot be j
considered as appropriate disposal methods of byproduct materials.
l i
It is our understanding that cultivation practices are utilized in waste water (byproduct material) disposal areas.
Further, we understand that sufficient design has taken place in the form of barium chloride treatment to reduce Ra-226 levels to avoid soil loading in excess of the prescribed standards throughout the design life of the disposal area. Therefore, cultivation practices are of agronomic value rather than radiologically significant.
If the site allows Ra-226 loading to exceed the standards, then it is improperly designed and in need of design adjustments to prevent unacceptable levels of Ra-226.
In addition soil that has excess Ra-226 should be removed and disposed of in an app, roved disposal facility.
Contaminated materials include all items related to uranium recovery operations that do not meet decontamination limits for unrestricted use as specified in
" Acceptable Surface Contamination Levels," as attached to a source material license.
If materials are decontaminated to these levels, then they may be released for unrestricted use.
However, contamination exceeding these levels L
_q4636ccHS-
~.
2 SEP 13155 will identify the materials as contaminated, resulting in their being treated as byproduct materials.
In this case, appropriate disposal methods will be required.
The soil blending that has been proposed does not represent an acceptable disposal option.
As has been previously discussed, well field and other soils with elevated levels of radium-226 represent byproduct materials and must be appropriately disposed.. However, if no viable disposal option exists, a licensee may apply.for onsite disposal of byproduct materials. Such an application would be require 1 to meet the siting criteria, radon exhalation rates and long-term stability requirements stated in'10 CFR 40, Appendix A.
Similarly, land title to the appropriate government including $250,000 (in 1978 dollars) would be required for long-term maintenance and surveillance of the
-site.
This would mean that the disposal site would have to be licensed by the State, at its option, or the U.S. Government.
Please note that Criterion 2 of 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, discusses avoiding the proliferation of small waste
.3 disposal sites.
Therefore, the establishment of onsite disposal sites at each solution mining facility would not appear to be in compliance with Criterion 2.
We understand that disposal of contaminated materials and byproduct materials, associated with solution mining, is becoming an increasingly difficult problem.
However, as shown above, solutions do exist.
If we can be of further assistance, please contact our office.
Sincerely,
\\
Ramon E 1
Director cc:
R. J. Doda, RIV l
4
}
+.
vcn h
ki
!p j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION UNITED STATES
- y" WASHINGTON, D.C. Sce4H001 June 12, 1996 Barbara Hamrick, Health Physicist Los Angeles County Department of Health Services Office of Radiation Management 550 South Vemont - Rm 300 Los Angeles, CA 90020
Dear Ms. Hamrick:
I am responding to your letter dated May 13, 1996 to Shirley A. Jackson, Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, reg,arding clarification of requiremen.ts for disposal of exempt items.
3 I
In your letter, you note that 10 CFR Part 30 provides exemptions from the requirements for a license for receipt and possession of certain items identified in Part 30.
exempts " persons' rather than the products.It is significant to recognize that the discusses that the regulations in that part, which include requirementsYou a{
Parts 39 through 36, etc.concerning waste disposal, only apply to persons licen Your letter further indicates your understanding that smoke detectors, which have been manufactured and distributed as ex items in accordance with a specific license issued pursuant to 10 CFR 32.26
(.
can be disposed without regard to their radioactivity.
This understanding is based on a NRC memorandum dated February 11, 1985, and Health Physics Position 150 (HPP05-150) published in NUREG/CR-5569. However you believe that HPPOS-190 may contradict these findings. Finally, you po, int out that a provides disposal instructions with its NRC authorized prod your letter, you raise four questions or points concerning disposal of exempt In closing items.
As indicated, Sections 30.14 through 30.20 of 10 CFR Part 30 (Enclosure 1) provide that persons who receive and possess the materia introduction by the NRC, are exempt from the requirements for a license.
(Note that either NRC or an Agreement State may authorize the introduction of exempt concentrations (10 CFR 30.14) into a product.)
You are correct that I
i i
I
~%ggg/0 7CrkW
.;.,.(
r Ms. Barbara Hamrick 2
June 12, 1996 i
10 CFR 20.1002 indicates that P1rt 20 only applies to licensed individuals and therefore, the waste disposal requirements specified in Part 20 do affect the non-licensed individuals who possess products pursuant to 10 CFR 30.14 through 30.20.
that Sections 30.15, 30.16, 30.19However, we would like to call to your attentior states that, "non-licensed persons, and 30.20 of 10 CFR Part 30 explicitly W
are also exempt from Part 20 requirements.
Therefore, in response to your four questions or points, all items, p or materials (including smoke detectors) which have been manufactu
. ;:g distributed to exempt persons, as authorized in accordance with an 3:2 (or for products containing exempt concentrations - an Agreement State license however,,)that manufacturers and/or initial distribut may be disposed without regard to their radioactivity.
Note
?'g g;;.
comercial distributors) must dispose of undistributed items in accordance with 10 CFR Part 20.
.h:.,<
~- Y5; With respect to HPP05-190, this position does not contradict the pos 7Mi provided in HPPOS-150 or the previously stated positions concernin 8M 2 *.i of exempt products.
In fact, HPP05-190 addresses a different situation.
Since 10 CFR 30.18 provides for both comercial and non-comercial tr b
of material containing limited quantities of certain byproduct isotope a company wishes to comercially distribute exempt quantities, such as check NRC issued pursuant to Section 32.18 of 10 CFR Part 32 s However,10 CFR 30.18 also allows licensees to infrequen(Enclosure 2).
non-comercial basis, the lim tly transfer, on a
?,g;,
Schedule B, to other persons.ited quantities identified in 10 CFR 30.71, A typical example would be a hospital
- .3.o.y%
occasionally transferring a tissue sample from a patient who undergoes m 7f treatment using radioactive materials to an unlicensed pathology lab 6 },
In accordance with 10 CFR 30.18, those recipients are exempt from the
?. -
requirements for a license to possess the limited quantities.
.y 5
disposal which HPPOS-190 articulates is HRC's long term understan The position on this provision of 10 CFR 30.18 does not authorize such transfers fo 4
1 of disposal as opposed to possession."
~
Such a position is in keeping with HRC's long held policy that a specific licensee m treat the material as unlicensed or dispose of the material without reg its radioactivity. NRC has also taken the position
[.
specific licensee receives limited quantities pursuan(Enclosure 3) that if a provision in 10 CFR 30.18, the licensee remains subject to Part 20t to the non-c requirements for disposal of these limited quantities, despite the licen m
gj status of the quantities.
g N,':~*:),
323.3 l
- a::j.
..y.,
- t. 'f j
F:
k
w l
'f o -
June 12, 1996 3
Ms. Barbara Hamrick
~
Enclosed are copies of a number of background memoranda relating to HPP05-150 and 190 and to distribution of exempt prodtets for your informatio (Enclosure 4).
discuss the Part 30 exemptions or exempt distribution licensing, please contact Bruce Carrico of this staff at (301) 415-7826.
Sincerely, Carl J. Paperiello, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
Enclosures:
1.
10 CFR Part 32 3..
Memo dtd 10/14/93 4.
Various memos /1trs l
l' i
4 t
.