ML20236L493
| ML20236L493 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/26/1998 |
| From: | Clint Jones NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Butterfield G NEBRASKA, STATE OF |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236K570 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9807130029 | |
| Download: ML20236L493 (13) | |
Text
.
EF
' U ' Dh b C
O V
E R
FAX S
H E
E T
i TO:
GARY BUTTERFIELD, STATE OF NEBRASKA fax #:
(402)399-4918 PHONE #:
SusJECT:
NRC'S STATEMENTS OF CONSIDERATION FOR I O CFR PART 20, APP B, CONCERNING THE PROTECTIVENESS OF THE PART 20, APPEND!X B CONCENTRATION LIMITS TO CHILDREN AND INFANTS.
DATE:
MAY 26, t 998 PAGES:
3, INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET.
COMMENTS:
ATTACHED PLEASE FIND A COPY OF PAGE 56 FR 23387, DATED MAY 21, l 99 l. WHICH PROVIDES A REFERENCE FOR YOU TO CITE OR QUOTE REGARDING THE PROTECTIVENESS OF APPENDIX B OF I O CFR PART 20 FOR CHILDREN AND INFANTS, A FACTOR OF 2 (SEE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PART 20 " NOTATION" SECTION BEFORE APPENDIX B) WAS INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE AIR CONCENTRATION LIMIT FOR RELEASES TO AIR AND WATER, WHICH IN PART, ACCOUNTED FOR AGE DEPENDENCY.
PLEASE ALSO NOTE THAT THE EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN APP B WERE CALCULATED ASSUMING CONTINUOUS (24-HR/ DAY) OCCUPANCY, AND THAT TYPICALLY CHILDREN ARE IN SCHOOLS &S HRS / DAY, AND THEREFORE WILL NOT BE EXPOSED (EITHER FROM EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN THE STACK OR DRINKING THE EFFLUENT) FCR THE ENTIRE 24-HR PERIOD. WITH THESE THOUGHTS IN MIND, IT CAN BE EASILY SHOWN THAT CHILDREN OCCUPANCY FACTORS WILL BE SO LOW, THAT THEY WILL NOT BE THE CONTROLLING FACTOR WHEN ASSESSING THE AVERAGE MEMBER TO THE CRITICAL GROUP.
- REGARDS, M<
.N YNTHIA G. dONES FROM THE DESK OF.,
CYNTHIA G. JONES SENIOR LEVEL ADVISOR FOR HEALTH PHYSICS OrFicE OF NUCLEAR MATERIALS SAFLW AND SAFEOUARDS U. S.
NUCLEAR REOUuTORY COMMISSION MS T-8-F5 WASHINGTON, DC 20555 (301)415-7853
)
fax: (30I)415-5369 l
9807130029 980630 PDR STPRG ESG pg ENCLOSURE 2
M 9
Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 98 / Tue day, May 21, 1991 / Rules and Regulations 23387
,of Proposed Appendix B (Appendix B to Many of the comments from private radionuclides that willinhtbit such
\\/ {l 20.1001-20.2401-Annual Limits on citizens do not appear to reflect the attempts to increase the precision of the intake (Alls) and Derived Air proposed rule because many of the dose estimates.
Dn Concentrations (DACs) of Radionuclides comments objected to raising the limits Many smaller licensees routinely use for Occupational Exposure; Effluent for radionuclides concentrations concentrations and the appendix B Concentrations; Concentrations for applicable to the general public. As tables in order to demonstrate Release to Sewerage in the Final Rule) noted in the discussion of appendix B in compliance.The use of concentration Generolcomments:Most of the the notice of proposed rulemaking limits for determining compliance is a comments from radiation protection (section XXIX,51 FR 1119-1120), the well-established practice that is professionals favored the adoption of
- concentration limits for members of the economical for many of the smaller 2
the ICRP-26/ICRP-30 annual limits on public were based upon a " reference licensees. Despite the growing intake and the derived air level" dose (now the dose limit for availability of simplified dose concentrations. Comments from private members of the general public) of 0.1 assessment models, the Commission is Ce citizens were against adoption of the rem per year and incorporated an continuing to accept the use of ICRP values because the majority of the additional factor of 2 reduction concentrations to demonstrate values would increase (as stated in (proposed appendix B; 51 FR 1145) for compliance with the dose limits.
y Section XXIX of the proposed rule,51 age-dependency and combined air and Comment:The appendix B tables fail FR 1120).
water intakes. Thus, the concentration to account for the chemical toxicity of Response From an occupations.!
limits for the public reflect a reduction natural and low-enriched uranium. This protection standpoint. the changes that in their basis from a whole-body annual fails to take into account the possible result from adoption of the ICRP risk.
dose of 0.5 rem in part 20 (ll 20.1-kidney (renal) damage associated with based approach lead to higher limiting 20.001) to 0.05 rem in the proposed and the chemical toxicity.
Intake values than in appendix B to final rules. The concentration limits for Response:There is a separate limit for ll 20.1-20.001. These increases result individual radionuclides may be higher uranium intake that is based upon the from the increase in the allowable or lower for members of the general chemical toxicity. This limit was B
ceiling for organ doses. The values that public in unrestricted areas in appendix expressed as footnote 3 to appendix B.
served as the balls for calculating the B in 8 5 20.1001. J.2401 than in the page 1193 of the January 9,1986 notice
)
concentration limits used in appendix B former tables because of changes that of proposed rulemaking and also as ir to lI 20.1-20.001 were organ dose limits occurred in the intervening 25 years in i 20.204(i) on page 1131. In the final rule, of 5.15, and 30 rems. The new the metabolic and other parameters it appears as footnote 3 in appendix B to concentration limita in appendix B to used to calculate internal doses. These I! 20.1001-20.2401, but the limit also has il 20.1001-20.2401 are based upen the changes are reflected in ICRP been moved up in the text to the section 31 effective (weighted) organ dose or upon Publication 30 and its supplements and on dose limits and now appears as the nonstochastic limit that forms an amendments. However, these changes
$ 20.1201(e).
- o organ dose ceiling when the stochastic are a result of changes in the scientific Comment: The limits for occupational risk is not limiting. These anges techniques and parameters used in and nonoccupational exposure to radon-increase the limiting annua an doses calculating doses and do not reflect an 222 and its particulate daughters do not (when only one organ is irradis for m in the nii ose limits, appear to be consistent with the those doses that are limited by t E in reality, have been ased airborne concentration limits for other stoci.astic (effective dose)1 5
e amendment to part 20 in this al radionuclides in terms of risk, rems to 20 rems for the gonads,
'n 15 Responser The occupational 3
rems to 32 reme per year for the reast, Comment: NRC should consider concentration limits for redon-222 are g
and from 15 rems to 42 rems for ung.
deleting table 2 frorn appendix B. The based on the existing Federal guidance.
Limiting doses to other orga.ns increas concentration limits in econnh -
which is 4 WIAf 4 Working-Level from the former 15-and 30-rem values to not provide adequate protection of Months) per year (. The annual limit on the 50 rem nonstochastic limit.
children and infants because they do not intake (ALI)is stated as 100 Ci or 4 3
The former ICRP-2 " critical organ" takeinto account age dependencyin a working-level months. The derived air concept based the limiting intake upon proper man.:r. Compliance with the concentration (DAC)in Part 20 for controlling the dose rate to the organ dose limits, rather than with these occupational exposure to redon.222 of 3 3
receiving the highest dose rate (the concentration limits, should be required. x 10-*is equivalent to 0.33 working
" critical organ").The doses to organs Response The use of the effective levels (this equivalence is also given in other than the critical organ did not dose equivalent concept reduces the the appendix B table). The concentration have to be evaluated, even if these importance of ame-deoendnt intake-to-limit for members of the general public 3
doese were close to the estimated dose dose factors. Age dependency is of is a factor of 300 lower and,like the k
to the critical organ. The ICTsP-26/30 primary importance in calculating organ other altborne concentration limits, system evaluates the doses to the major doses. Those organs for which age represents an effective dose of 0.05 rem organs and the six remaining organs that dmendency is important, such as the per year.
re::elve the next highest doses. These thyroid gland, are of le=ser importance Comment: Concentration limits for doses are then multiplied by the because oflower w values (for the tritium omit chemical forms other than e
)
appropriate weighting factors (w ) and thyrcid, for example, w =0.03) used to for tritiated water vapor.
r r
are summed to give a risk-weighted calculate the effective dose. A factor of Response As there is expected to be
- r
" effective dose." The concentration 2 is included in the calculation of no occupationalintake via oral limits that are based upon this ICRP concentration limits for release to air ingestion, and most of the commonly approach reflect the doses to all and water, which, in part, accounts for used organic tritiated compounds are
)
principal organs that are irradiated, not age dependency. In addition, the not volatile, inhalation and transpiration p
just the one organ that receives the Commission believes that there is a lack through the skin are the principal highest dose as was done in ll 20.1-of detailed age-dependent metabolic pathways of exposure. Different intake 20.601.
data for all but the most common limits would apply to hydrogen gas (HT
~
~
~
~~
.20, App.8 Edmorg p Regukdofy Cemit" i groupings (including occupathnal inhalatitn i
equiva.
Table 2 ALis and Ms. air and watt enlmt con-gne columns 12 Tabla 2 et this cppendi centrations and sewerete) require dem-pd "Efflunts " Air," and " Water,x, ensure onstrating that the most limiting radio-mit for anJ
- applicable to the assessment and control nuchdes in succusin claaees a absent.The e som of grdose to the public, particularly in the im-limit for the unknown mhyre is defined l
plus the i
pusentation of the provisions of $20.1302.
when the presence of one of be listed radio-crgan (not here there fee cocoentration values given in Columns 1 nuclides cannot be definitd/,,teluded either 7
this would and 3 of Table 2 are equivalent to the radio-from knowledge of the radionuc!!de compost-f seclide occoentrations which, if inhaled or tion of the source or from actual measure-htlons 4
) that con.
ggested continuously over the course of a m u ts.
year, would produce a total effective do6e "IYdeDt to does not agoivalent of 0.06 rom (50 millirem or 0.5 7able J "y, ewer Duposal" ad111steverts).
The monthly average concentrations for
) of each le an exter.
Consideration of non-stochastic limits has release to sanitary sewers are applicable to utitn c' %
set been included in deriving the air and the provisions in $20.2003. The concentration j
-(Hsso) an-ester affluent concentration limits because values were derived by taking the most re-I sos-stochastic effects are 1 resumed not to strictive occupational stochastic oral inges-occur at the dose levels established for indl.
tion ALI and dividing by 7.3 x 10$(ml). The C) vdues vidsal members of the puMic. For radio. factor of 7.3 x 10*(ml)is composed of a factor trol chron-soclides, where the non-stochastic limit was of 7.3 x 10$(ml), the annual water intake by hti:nship sworning in deriving the occupational DAC,
" Reference Man," and a factor of 10, such s given by:
the stochastic ALI was used in deriving the that the concentrations, if the sewage re-r working corresponding Airborne effluent limit in leased by the licensee were the only source ml per Table 2. For this reason, the DAC and air.
of water ingested by a reference man during 2408 m; borne effluent limita are not always propor.
A year, would result in a committed effective minute at Monal as was the case in appendix B to dose equivalent of 0.6 rem.
er working g E.1-20.801, The air concentration values listed in LIST OF ELEMENTS g$
Tshle 2, Column 1, were derived by one of two methods. For those radionuclides for
^*"'8 gval:nts n-which the stochastic limit is governing, the g,m, symboi No.
g" ***
occupational stochastic inhalation ALI was based upon divided by 2.4 x 10'ml, relating the inhala-Ac se Ad'*8" -
a semidan-tion ALI to the DAC, as explained above, and
^#
'3 tion and then divided by a factor of 300. The factor of #
t*D-20 includer. the following components: a fac-Anemon 4r is
~
to Cxposure tar of 50 to relate the 6-rem annual occupa-Argon As 33
, but also tional dose limit to the 0.1-rem limit for Arsenic.
As a6 Asianne
-svowth of members of the public, a factor of 3 to adjust se se 88'ksn oed in the for the difference in exposure time and the N 8"
87
- t. Howiver, g, inhalation rate for a worker and that for se parent and P members of the public; and a factor of 2 to er 35 treated by adjust the occupational values (derived for erorrune Cd 48 edults) so that they are applicable to other Cadmium Ca 20
- mixtures, Calcium Cf es ot apply dj, age groups.
Camomium For those radionuclides for which submer.
C e
C*'60" ---
ingests and sfon (external dose) is lim! Ling, the occupa-Cerhan -
Ce 56 indieldual tiont.1 DAC in Table 1, Column 3, was divfied C**'"*
uc110:s by by 219. The factor of 219 is composed of a.so-C e nne h
N Cr 24 both, or for of 50, as described above, and a factor of Chromium Co 27 both inter, 138 relating occupational exposure for 2,000 Conest..
Cu es 1 20.1202).
hours per year to full-time exposure (8,760 Copper Cm 96 Cunum -
radioactive honrs per year). Note that an additional fac.
DY8A'C'*
Dr es ral cf the tot of 2 for age considerations is not war-y s,e, hY"_
.. Class D tanted in the submersion case.
g, g3 e radio The water concentrations were derived by Fm 100 sted as if taking the most nstrictin occupational Fermium Inuclides.
stochastic oralingestion ALI and dividing by Fluor'ne F
e Fr 67 FrancAnn ficatirn of 7.3 x 1(P. The factor of 7.3 x 10' (ml) includes Od e4 is based on the following components: the factors of 50 Gedo6nium Ge 31 Gamum _
d and does and 2 described above and a factor of 7.3 x los 0*
y (ml) which is the annual water intake of 3,
Hf 72
- t. hie a mnce Man.
Hakuum Ho e7
. W, and Y e 2 of this appendix provides smupings Holnvum -
H 1
ived radio-of radionuclides which are applicable to un-Hydrogen in de haum known mixtures of radionuclides. These 319 1m m
kh 5
~
y, y y4 ^.
1
..i
,.u.
4
='
w@
wah y4 r ws
,3: 4-m
- a u,r
.7 s as m. w w p w,%.
... ~
Mr. J:y D. Ringenberg.
LLRW Progrzm M:n gir Departm:nt of Envirenmintal Quility P.O. Box 98922 Lincoln, NE 68509
Dear Mr. Ringenberg:
This letter is in reply to your May 13,1998 request for technical assis ance pertaining to performance objectives outlined in Subpart C of 10 CFR Part 61. A nference call was held May 26,1998 between NRC staff and your technical team membe The minutes from this meeting are enclosed (Enclosure 1).
NRC staff advised the State of Nebraska that:
30 dose methodology with a 100 mrem /yr dose l'y regulations incorpo 10 CFR Part 20 and compatible Agreement State 4.
it. No existing U.S. Federal or l
State Guidance adopts ICRP 60.
5.
10 CFR Part 20 Appendix B values were adju ed by a factor of two to adjust for different age groups. Since calculations use by the commentor in calculating child doses appeared to assume adult intake actors, this approach would lead to I
unrealistically high doses to children.
6.
The commentor's approach to calculating t e Chlorine-36 component of the inventory was incorrect.
As promised, I have enclosed a copy of the May 26,19 8 fax from Cynthia G, Jones to Gary j
Butterfield (Enclosure 2) which includes sections of 56 R 23387 for your information.
If you have any other questions on this matter, pleas contact me, or Lance Rakovan of my staff at (301) 251-2589, LJR2@NRC. GOV.
Sincerely, Paul H. Lohaus, Deputy Director Office of State Programs
Enclosures:
As stated cc:
Gerald Allen, NE Distnbution-DlR RF DCD (SP08)
SDroggitis PDR (YESj_, NO
)
Nebraska File DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\LJR\\PART61T4.WPD Ta receive a com of this tiocument. Indicate in the im"d mICopy attachment / enclosure "E" a Copy w6th attachment / enclosure "N" s No copy OFFICE OSP lF OSR Q A NMSS/DWM l NMSS/IMNS l OGC l
OSP:D l NAME LRakovan:kk/gd PHLoht as K/AcConnell CGJones7 Df FXCameron RLBangart DATE 06/9/98 06IJ/98
/
06/ /98 06/m/98 06/ /98 06/ /98 OSP FILE CODE: SP-AG-16 ilV {pA d
ch
e.
s.,
purr l
p 1
UNITED STATES j
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 30666 4001 A.,...../
Mr. Jay D. Ringenberg LLRW Program Manager Department of Environmental Quality P.O. Box 98922 Lincoln, NE 68509
Dear Mr. Ringenberg:
This letter is in reply to your May 13,1998 request for technical assistance pertaining to performance objectives outlined in Subpart C of 10 CFR Part 61. A conference call was held May 26,1998 between NRC staff and your technical team members. The minutes from this
'c.
meeting are enclosed (Enclosure 1).
p/
z> A NRC staff advised the State of Nebraska that:/ gv 1.
10 CFR Part 20 and compatible Agreement State re lations incorporate ICRP 30 dose methodology with a[100 mre dose limit / No existing U.S. Federal or State Guidance adopts ICRP 60.
pg 2.
10 CFR Part 20 Appendix B values were adjusted by a factor of two to adjust for different age groups. Since calculations used by the commentor in calculating child doses appeared to assume adult intake factors, this approach would lead to unrealistically high doses to children.
/
3.
The commentor's approach to calculating the Chlorine-36 component of the p# !
inventory was incorrect.
pf 6'f p
As promised, I have enclosed a copy of the May 26,1998]d3387 for your inform fax from Cynthia G. Jones Gary Y
Butterfield (Enclosure 2) which includes sections of 56 FR
~ if you have any other questions on this matter, please contact me, or Lance Rakovan of my L
staff at (301) 251-2589, LJR2@NRC. GOV.
Sincerely, 1
Paul H Lohaus, Deputy Director Office of State Programs l
Enclosures:
1.'
As stated cc:
Gerald Allen, NE 3
1 9
MINUTES FOR THE MAY 26,1998 TELECONFERENCE l
SUBJECT:
Assistance to the State of Nebraska on Their Independent Performance Assessment Accompanying the Draft Safety Evaluation Report for the Proposed Low-level Waste Disposal Facility i
On May 26,1998, a telephone conference was held between NRC staff and representatives
- from the State of Nebraska in response to the May 13,1998 written request from Jay D.
l Ringenberg to Paul H. Lohaus, Deputy Director, Office of State Programs.
Attendees on the call were:
NRC: NMSS - Joe DeCicco (IMNS); Cynthia Jones (IMNS); Tim McCartin (DWM); Keith l
McConnell (DWM); Chris McKenney (DWM); OSP - Lance Rakovan.
State of Nebraska: Gerry Allen (NDEQ); Dick Arnold (HGR);; Dan Bullen (lowa State);
Barry Butterfield (HGR); John Fasseill (NDEQ).
i Dick Arnold noted that the purpose of the call was to assist the State in responding to several issues that were raised during a public hearing in February related to the State's Disposal Safety Evaluation Report (DSER) for its low-level waste (LLW) disposal facility.
The first issue was related to whether ICRP 30 or ICRP 60 should be used for dose assessments and. in addition. whether the comoliance calculation should use doses for a 5 vear old child rather than an adult.
NRC Response: Existing Presidential Federal Guidance to doses to members of the general public references the ICRP 2 dose methodology with a 500 mrem /yr dose limit.10 CFR Part 20 and compatible Agreement State regulations incorporate ICRP 30 d mrem /yr dose limit. No existing U.S. Federal or State Guidance adopts ICRP 60.f C,, e a )
Representatives from the State noted the existence of a draft Federal Guidance /13 report on ealth Risks from Low-Level Environmental Exposure to Radionuclides. NRCsesponded that it yhabet with EPpA'ificadvisory boardend notedthe absence of a sound techn
~
Y for-the appro~abh in the draft, referenced Hugh Thompson's letters to EPA Acting Administrator
'"p^'
Wilson dated February 4 and 6,1998, (that outlined NRC's five major technical concems) and b =t stated that it was the Commission's recommendation that the draft should not be issued as
- hw Federal Guidance Report. NRC also noted that its views and a copy of these concerns had {^ %
been sent to Agreement States on April 22,1998 in All Agreement States Letter SP-98-033.
.. j For the consideration of children in the compliance calculation, NRC staff indicated that 10 CFR Part 20 and Nebraska's equivalent regulations already incorporate a dose reduction factor of 2 to assure that the regulations adequately protect children as well as adults. Specifically, Part 20 references that the 10 CFR Part 20 Appendix B values were adjusted by a factor of two to adjust for different age groups. Cynthia Jones provided the Statement of Considerations sections for Part 20 that relate to this approach to the State of Nebraska A final observation by NRC was that calculations used by the commentor in calculating child doses appeared to ma i
-assume adult intake factors, an approach that would lead to unrealistically high doses' to children._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
Sc% fhia
$ wee FdmL 644pf M EAer.~rt A
-ENCLOSURE 1 L
A concluding recommendation by NRC staff was that the State should note the consistency of l
the State's approach and the use of ICRP 30 with 10 CFR Part 20.
The second issue was related to the inventerv oftChlorine-36 and a commentor's statements that the inventories of Chlorine-36 should be calculated usina a ratio of Cl-36 to Cs-137.
The State noted that the ratio used by the commentor did not appear to be a valid way to calculate inventories because the UK's NIREX fuel process was unlike that in the U.S. NRC noted that in the draft Branch Technical Position (BTP) on Performance Assessment for LLW Disposal Facilities, the inventory was based on material disposed at the Richland, Washington facility, and that Chlorine-36 was primarily derived from industrial sources and not from nuclear t
reactors as the commentor had suggested. Several hundred mci of Chlorine-36 was disposed of in the Richland facility. Dan Bullen (lowa State) also indicated that the commentor's reference to the NIREX report as a reference for the contribution of nuclear reactors to the Chlorine-36 inventory was inappropriate because of the differences in approach to the U.S. fuel manufacturing process. In addition, Bullen noted that the Manifest information Management l
System showed no Chlorine-36 being disposed of in the years from 1986-1994 for the Central Compact. The bottom line from this discussion was that the State believed they had a strong argument that the commentor's approach to calculating the Chlorine-36 component of the inventory was incorrect, and that little to no Chlorine-36 was likely to be disposed of in the Nebraska facility.
At this point the discussion ended. Nebraska indicated that they were satisfied with NRC's assistance and thanked the staff.
g g.(
+'C#*
Y po
,Y Ujkb}
g[P^
d
'] y?. O '1b ' #, s'"b /
a l
l
Mr. Jay D. Ringsnberg
- 1.LRW Program Manag:r Departmsnt of Environmental Quality P.O. Box 98922 Lincoln, NE 68509
Dear Mr. Ringenberg:
This letter is in reply to your May 13,1998 request for technica}1. A conference call was he assistance pertaining to performance objectives outlined in Subpart C of 10 CFR Part l
May 26,1998 between NRC staff and your technical team me bers. The minutes from this meeting are enclosed (Enclosure 1).
NRC staff advised the State of Nebraska that:
4.
10 CFR Part 20 and compatible Agreement tate regulations incorporate ICRP 30 dose methodology with a 100 mrem /yr ' se limit. No existing U.S. Federal or State Guidance adopts ICRP 60.
5.
10 CFR Part 20 Appendix B values were djusted by a factor of two to adjust for different age groups. Since calculations sed by the commentor in calculating child doses appeared to assume adult i ake factors, this approach would lead to unrealistically high doses to children.
6.
The commentor's approach to calcula ng the Chlorine-36 component of the inventory was incorrect.
As promised, I have enclosed a copy of the May 2,1998 fax from Cynthia G. Jones to Gary Butterfield (Enclosure 2) which includes sections 56 FR 23387 for yourinformation.
If you have any other questions on this matter, pl ase contact me, or Lance Rakovan of my staff at (301) 251-2589, LJR2@NRC. GOV.
Sincerely, Paul H. Lohaus, Deputy Director Office of State Programs
Enclosures:
As stated cc:
Gerald Allen, NE Distribution:
DIR RF DCD (SP08)
SDroggitis PDR (YES f NO
)
Nebraska File DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\LJR\\PART61T To recelo a con of this document, indicate in the bog "d $.WPD Copy wi attachmenvenclosure "gr's Copy with attachment / enclosure "N" a No copy a
OFFICE OSP E
OSRd4){
NMSS/DWM NMSS/IMNS OGCCfg OSP:D l NAME LRakovan:kk/gd PHLot ps KMcConnell CGJones FXCamd)W-RLBangart DATE 06/9/98 06$/98 06/ /98 06/ /98 06/ %'98 06/ /98 OSP FILE CODE: SP-AG-16
/
/
s' 4.1,= s ROUTING AND TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE: JUNE 10,1998 l
l P_ARALLEL CONCURRENCE REQUESTED INITIALS DATE L
F. CAMERON, OGC 6/ l98 l
l C. JONES, IMNS 6/ 198
[K.' McCONNELL, DWM '
(pokyh(n.g dh 6/N98
\\
00 +
j l
LETTER TO:
JAY D. RINGENBERG LLRW PROGRAM MANAGER DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRON ENTAL QUALITY FROM:
PAUL H. LOHAUS, DEPUTY IRECTOR l
OFFICE OF STATE PROG S
SUBJECT:
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE ERTAINING TO PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES OUTLINES IN SUBPART C OF 10 CFR PART 61 l
l l
y_QQR COMMENTS / CONCURRENCE ARE RE UESTED BY C.O.B. JUNE 24.1998.
OSP CONTACT:
LANCE RAKOVAN (415 589) i=
2:
]
O
- /)
- U G
~.1 PLEASE CALL KATHALEEN KERR (415-3 40) FOR PICK UP.
E
4 o us y
[
k UNITED STATES j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20666-0001 1
p<* * * * *,/
l Mr. Jay D. Ringenberg LLRW Program Manager Department of Environmental Quality P.O. Box 98922 Lincoln, NE 68509
Dear Mr. Ringenberg:
l This letter is in reply to your May 13,1998 request for technical assistance pertaining to performance objectives outlined in Subpart C of 10 CFR Part 61. A conference call was held May 26,1998 between NRC staff and your technical team members. The minutes from this meeting are enclosed (Enclosure 1).
NRC staff advised the State of Nebraska that:
1.
10 CFR Part 20 and compatible Agreement State regulations incorporate ICRP 30 dose methodology with a 100 mrem /yr dose limit. No existing U.S. Federal or State Guidance adopts ICRP 60.
2.
10 CFR Part 20 Appendix B values were adjusted by a factor of two to adjust for l
different age groups. Sauce c, calculations used by the commentor in calculating child doses appeared to assume adult intake factors, this approach would lead to unrealistically high doses to children.
%/%
3.
The commentor's approach to calculating the Ch!orine-36 component of the inventory was incorrect.
gappam4 As promised, I have enclosed a copy of the May 26,1998 fax from Cynthia G. Jones to Gary l
Butterfield (Enclosure 2) which includes sections of 56 FR 23387 for your information.
If you have any other questions on this matter, please contact me, or Lance Rakovan of my staff at (301) 251-2589, LJR2@NRC. GOV.
Sincerely, Paul H. Lohaus, Deputy Director Office of State Programs
Enclosures:
As stated cc:
Gerald Allen, NE l
l f
t
.: :, s l
MINUTES FOR THE MAY 26,1998 TELECONFERENCE l
SUBJECT:
Assistance to the State of Nebraska on Their Independent Performance l
Assessment Accompanying the Draft Safety Evaluation Report for the Proposed Low-level l
Waste Disposal Facility i
On May 26,1998, a telephone conference was held between NRC staff and representatives from the State of Nebraska in response to the May 13,1998 written request from Jay D.
JC l
3 Ringenberg to Paal H. Lohaus, Deputy Director, Office of State Programs.
Attendees on the call were:
NRC: NMSS - Joe DeCicco (IMNS); Cynthia Jones (IMNS); Tim McCartin (DWM); Keith l
McConnell (DWM); Chris McKenney (DWM); OSP - Lance Rakovan.
I 1
State of Nebraska: Gerry Allen (NDEQ); Dick Amold (HGR);> Dan Bullen (lowa State); /
Barry Butterfield (HGR); John Fasselli (NDEO).
]
l l
Dick Amold noted that the purpose of the call was to assist the State in responding to several j
issues that were raised during a public hearing in February related to the State's Disposal l
Safety Evaluation Report (DSER) for its low-level waste (LLW) disposal facility.
j The first issue was related to whether ICRP 30 or ICRP 60 should be used for dose i
l assessments and. In addition. whether the comoliance calculation should use doses for a 5 vaar old child rather than an adult.
l NRC Response: Existing Presidential Federal Guidance to doses to members of the general public references the ICRP 2 dose methodology with a 500 mremlyr dose limit.10 CFR Part 20 and compatible Agreement State regulations incorporate ICRP 30 dose methodology with a 100 mrem /yr dose limit. No existing U.S. Federal or State Guidance adopts ICRP 60.
Representatives from the State noted the existence of a draft Federal Guidance 13 report on Health Risks from Low-Level Environmental Exposure to Radionuclides. NRC responded that it had met with EPA's scientific advisory board and noted the absence of a sound technical basis for the approach in the draft, referenced Hugh Thompson's letters to EPA Acting Administrator Wilson dated February 4 and 6,1998, (that outlined NRC's five major technical concems) and stated that it was the Commission's recommendation that the draft should not be issued as Federal Guidance Report. NRC also noted that its views and a copy of these concems had X
been sent to Agreement States on April 22,1998)ln All Agreement States Letter SP-98-033.
For the consideration of children in the compliance calculation, NRC staff indicated that 10 CFR Part 20 and Nebraska's equivalent regulations already incorporate a dose reduction factor of 2 to assure that the regulations adequately protect children as well as adults. Specifically, Part 20 references that the 10 CFR Part 20 Appendix B values were adjusted by a factor of two to adjust for different age groups. Cynthia Jones provided the Statement of Considerations sections for Part 20 that relate to this approach to the State of Nebraska. A final observation by NRC was that calculations used by the commentor in calculating child doses appeared to assume adult intake factors, an approach that would lead to unrealistically high doses to children.
l ENCLOSURE 1
i
.: :, s A concluding recommendation by NRC staff was that the State should note the consistency of j
the State's approach and the use of ICRP 30 with 10 CFR Part 20.
l The second issue was related to the inventerv of Chlorine-36 and a commentor's statements that the inventories of Chlorine-36 should be calculated usina a ratio of Cl-36 to Cs-137.
The State noted that the ratio used by the commentor did not appear to be a valid way to calculate inventories because the UK's NIREX fuel process was unlike that in the U.S. NRC hat in the# raft Branch Technical Position (BTP) on Performance Assessment for LLW y\\
Disposal Facilities, the inventory was based on material disposed at the Richland, Washington q
facility, and that Chlorine-36 was primarily derived from industrial sources and not from nuclear j
n reactors as the commentor had suggested. Several hundred mci of Chlorine-36 was disposed d$
of in the Richland facility. Dan Bullen (lowa State) also indicated that the commentor's j
reference to the NIREX report as a reference for the contribution of nuclear reactors to the Chlorine-36 inventory was inappropriate because of the differences in approach to the U.S. fuel s
manufacturing process. In addition, Bullen noted that the Manifest Information Management g
System showed no Chlorine-36 being disposed of in the years from 1986-1994 for the Central Compact. The bottom line from this discussion was that the State believed they had a strong argument that the commentor's approach to calculating the Chlorine-36 component of the inventory was incorrect, and that little to no Cr,hrin:-36 was likely to be disposed of in the Nebraska facility.
At this point the discussion ended. Nebraska indicated that they were satisfied with NRC's assistance and thanked the staff.
i
Mr. Jay D. Ringsnberg
- LLRW Program Manager Department of Environmental Quality P.O. Box 98922 Lincoln, NE 68509 l
Dear Mr. Ringenbern:
This letter is in reply to your May 13,1998 request for technic' assistance pertaining to performance objectives outhned in Subpart C of 10 CFR Part 1. A conference call was held May 26,1998 between NRC staff and your technical team m mbers. The minutes from this meeting are enclosed (Enclosure 1).
NRC staff advised the State of Nebraska that:
4.
10 CFR Part 20 and compatible Agreemen State regulations incorporate ICRP 30 dose methodology with a ;00 mrem /yr ose limit. No existing U.S. Federal or State Guidance adopts ICRP 60.
5.
10 CFR Part 20 Appendix B values wer adjusted by a factor of two to adjust for different age groups. Since calculation used by the commentor in calculating child doses appeared to assume adult ' take factors, this approach would lead to unrealistically high doses to children.
6.
The commentor's approach to calcul ing the Chlorine-36 component of the inventory was incorrect.
As promised, I have enclosed a copy of the May 2,1998 fax from Cynthia G. Jones to Gary Butterfield (Enclosure 2) which includes sections f 56 FR 23387 for your information.
If you have any other questions on this matter, ease contact me, or Lance Rakovan of my staff at (301) 251-2589, LJR2@NRC. GOV.
Sincerely, Paul H. Lohaus, Deputy Director Office of State Programs
Enclosures:
As stated cc:
Gerald Allen, NE Distribution:
DlR RF DCD (SP08)
SDroggitis PDR (YES,f__ NO
)
Nebraska File DOCUMENT NAME: G:tLJR\\PART61TA.WPD To rec +iw e com of this document, Indicate in the tWd' 5 Copy witNout attachment / enclosure "E" = Copy with attachment / enclosure "W = No copy OFFICE OSP lE OS$dQ/
/NMSS/DWM l NMSS/IMNS l OGC OSP:D l s
NAME LRakovan:kk/gd PHLot was KMcConnell CGJones FXCameron RLBangart DATE 06/9/98 06 6 /98 06/ /98-06/ /98 06/ /98 06/ /98 l
MAY-13-92WED01:36PM NE DEQ FAX N0. 4024714840 P.02 l
STATE OF NEBRASKA DEPARTMfNT oF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIrv d
De Y
Swte 400. The Atnum 1200 N' Street May 13,1998 Po. Bos 98922
\\)
}
!.tncoln Nebeaska 68509-8922 Phone (402) 4712186 E. Densmin Nekon M enor Paul us, Deputy Director ce of State Programs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop 03H2O Washington, D.C. 20555 RE:
Request for technical assistance.
Dear Mr. Lohaus:
l i
This letter is to request a meeting between members ofyour staff and our technical review l
team to discuss performance objectives outlined in Subpart C of 10 CFR Part 61. Specifically, we have questions regarding the basis for the 25 25 mrem annual dose limits discussed at 61.41 During its recent public hearing on the Draft Safety Evaluation Report for the proposed Nebraska low-level radioactive waste (LLRW) disposal facility, the State received a comment questioning the dose assessments in US Ecology's analysis in their Safety Analysis Report and the Nebraska LLRW Program's Independent Performance Assessment. Guidance in the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) Publication 30 was used in determining the dose assessments for both of these analyses rather than the more recent ICRP Publication 60. The commentor proposed that the dose should have been calculated using dose conversion factors from ICRP Publications 60 i
l L
and 67, and that the dose should have been calculated for a five year-old child rather than the j
average member of the critical group. A copy of the subject comment is enclosed.
l l
Ifit is possible, our technical team members, approximately three or four individuals, would like to have the requested meeting with your staff on Friday, May 29,1998. Please advise if this does not work orifyou have any questions.
l Thank you very much for your continual support.
i Sincerely, Jay D. Ringenberg LLRW Program Manager
)MyoO'Gb lf sn rea om:ssmen scw,imn
,,. _ _