ML20247H658

Responds to to Rl Bangart Requesting Comments & Recommendations on Whether Alternative Procedures Discussed in Ltr,Permissible Under NRC Regulations.In General,No Statute or Rule Forbids Mixing of Contaminated & Clean Soil

ML20247H658
Person / Time
Issue date:	05/05/1998
From:	Joseph Holonich NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
To:	Mcburney R TEXAS, STATE OF
References
NUDOCS 9805210221
Download: ML20247H658 (8)

Text

_______ _______-_____ _ __

~g%g% UNITED STATES g

j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20066-0001 I

\*****/ May 5, 1998 Ms. Ruth E. McBurney, CHP, Director l Division of Licensing, Registration, and Standards l Buroau of Radiation Control l

Texas Department of Health 1 1100 West 49th St.

Austin, TX 78756-3199

SUBJECT:

RESPONSE TO MARCH 23,1998, LETTER TO THE OFFICE OF STATE l PROGRAMS I l  !

Dear Ms. McBumey:

l l I am responding to your March 23,1998, letter to Richard L. Bangart, Director of the Office of I State Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). In that letter, you requested '

comments and recommendations from the NRC on whether the alternative procedures discussed in the letter are permissible under NRC regulations. The questions in your letter deal with either the mixing of soil contaminated with 11e.(2) byproduct material, or the disposal and l release of materials generated by the operation of in situ leach facilities (ISLs).

In general, there is no statute or NRC rule that forbids mixing of contaminated and clean soils to comply with decommissioning cleanup standards. However, it has been a long-standing NRC l

staff practice to discourage compliance with environmental standards by dilution with I uncontarninated material. Rather, the NRC staff encourages the cleanup of contamination to applicable standards. As such, in the past, NRC has found that removing soils contaminated with 11e.(2) byproduct to levels : at met the applicable cleanup standards, and then disposing of the 11e.(2) byproduct material at a site licented to receive such material was an acceptable way of complying with NRC regulations. If the NRC staff were presented with a proposal to use mixing as a method of complying with applicable cleanup standards, we would treat it as an attemative to the requirements in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, and would require the applicant to show that the economic benefit and equivalent protection requirements specified in the

" Introduction" to 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, have been met. /

Several years ago, the NRC received a proposa! to use disking of windblown contamination at the Wyoming American Nuclear Corporation mill tailings site to meet the radium standard in .

10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, criterion 6(6). Prior to completing its review of the proposal, the NRC requested that the licensee apply tne method to a test plot to evaluate the effectiveness of 7J l

this approach at the site. Because the applicant was unable to comply with the radium standard using this approach, the method was never used.

The answer to your questions conceming the disposal of Ra-226-contaminated soils under

} ,

holding ponds is dependent on the origin of the water placed in the ponds during their  ;

operation. This is also related to your question about what criteria is appropriate for determining the classification of mining waste and 11e.(2) byproduct material. Essentially, any  ;

waste generated primarily as a result of the extraction of uranium from ore is defined as 11e.(2)

]

• Q l

eFgCDPi9 d

~

m -

- n oam . . NBC FRF CmI C,-l./-2X y\

PDR STPRO ESGTX l PDR L _________ - ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ ___ _ ____ ______ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .

R. McBumey byproduct material, and subject to NRC regulation. This definition does not confer regulatory jurisdiction over waste generated from other ISL activities not being conducted primarily for the extraction of uranium.

At ISLs, waste streams originate from either the processes associated primarily with the extraction of uranium, or processes associated with other aspects of facility operation such as ground-water restoration or normal operational support not related to uranium extraction. For that waste generated primarily from the extraction of uranium from the ore, under the Atomic Energy Act, it is by definition 11e.(2) byproduct material, and thus subject to the requirements of Part 40, Appendix / , at NRC-licensed sites. Examples of processes that would fall within this definition include th3 equipment used in the operation of a well field or processing facility.

On the other hand, wasted from ground-water restoration is not generated primarily from the extraction of uranium, and is considered a mine waste subject to state mining regulations at NRC-licensed sites. It is important to note that at the beginning of ground-water restoration, ISLs will still extract some uranium from the restoration water. However, the process itself is being done primarily to restore ground water, not extract uranium. Therefore, it does not meet the definition of 11e.(2) byproduct material.

For the particular issue concerning the cleanup of Ra-226 contaminated soil below holding ponds, the source of the effluent placed in the pond determines the regulatory responsibility. At ISL operations, liquid wastes can be generated from the uranium recovery plant, from the production bleed, and from ground-water restoration activities. Production bleed is ground water extracted from the aquifer during the uranium recovery operation in excess of injected water to maintain a net ground-water inflow into the recovery zone. Effluent produced by the uranium recovery plant and by production bleed is process wastewater, and because it is a waste stream generated as part of the uranium extraction activities it is defined as 11e.(2) byproduct material. Ground-water effluent is produced at the end of a uranium recovery operation, during restoration of ground-water quality in the recovery zone. Effluent produced during ground-water restoration activities is considered to be "mine wastewater," and is not considered to be 11e.(2) oyproduct material. This effluent may be defined as naturally occurring radioactive material or as technologically enhanced naturally occurring radioactive material.

Any residual pond material or contaminated soils below a pond that contained all or some process wastewater would contain 11e.(2) byproduct material. For the case where the holding pond commingled process wastewater and n ne wastewater, the NRC staff has taken the position that it will view all residual material as 11e.(2) byproduct material if the pond held predominantly process wastewater. By doing this, the NRC is working to eliminate a situation where there is a commingled waste with no option for disposal. A second option is for licensees to dispose of all commingled wastes on site under state mining regulations. ihis option would apply to any pond that held commingled wastewater regardless of how much was process wastewater. It would require ISL licensees to show that the attematives provisions of economic benefit and equivalent protection found in Part 40, Appendix A, would be met, and the 11e.(2) byproduct material need not meet the requirements for long-term stabilization in Appendix A. Licensees would also have to address the cost-benefit provision in Criterion 2 of Part 40, Appendix A, conceming the proliferation of small 11e.(2) disposal cells. Finally, the NRC staff would have to consult with the Commission on the need for an exemption of this

I I R. McBumey 1 material from other licensing requirements in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended that become applicable when such an option is proposed. For a holding pond that held solely process wastewater, the residual and soil contamination is by definition solely 11e.(2) byproduct material, and needs to be reclaimed by cleanup and disposal in a mill licensed to take the material or an 11e.(2) disposal cell.

A third area of questioning from your letter raised the issue of disposal of contaminated materials from ISLs, such as concrete, piping, and pumps. As noted above, if this material was used in the uranium extraction process, it is by definition 11e.(2) byproduct material.

Therefore, ISL licensees must comply with 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, criterion (2) which requires the disposal of this material at a mill licensed to dispose of the material or an 11e.(2) disposal site. Altematively, the licensee could decontaminate the material to meet the NRC cleanup criteria for unrestricted release. In making the decision for unrestricted release, the NRC staff notes that the 15 pCi/g Ra-226 and 30 pCi/g natural uranium standard referenced in the question does not apply to this type of material. Those standards relate to the contamination of soil. Rather, the standards contained in Table 1 of NRC Regulatory Guide 8.30, titled " Health Physics Surveys in Uranium Mills," for uranium and associated decay products contamination and the standards contained in Table I of NRC Regulatory Guide 1.86, titled " Termination of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Reactors," for radium, thorium, or other radionuclides are applicable.

Finally, I want to address your question about the reclamation of contaminated well field soils.

Soils contaminated from spills and leaks of process wastewater or a mixture of process and mine wastewater are by definition 11e.(2) byproduct material, and would be subject to the cleanup requiremeras of Part 40, Appendix A, at NRC-licensed sites. Soil contaminated by spills and leaks of only mine wastewater do not have to meet the requirements of Part 40, Appendix A, because this waste is viewed as a mine waste by NRC, and subject to state mining regulation. However, it is the opinion of NRC staff that well field soils are most likely to become contaminated from processing fluids as opposed to mine wastewater.

Similarly, contaminated plant equipment that was only used in the restoration of the well fields is not considered to be subject to NRC regulation. Plant equipment that was used as part of uranium extraction operations, or for both uranium extraction and ground-water restoration, is considered to be subject to NRC regulation because it is 11e.(2) byproduct material. These distinctions again flow from the definition of 11e.(2) byproduct material given in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the fact that the Act excludes mining from regulation by NRC. As noted above, ground-water restoration is not being conducted primarily for the extraction of uranium, and, therefore, any wastes generated solely from that process is not defined as 11e.(2) byproduct material.

It is import nt to note that the National Mining Association recently submitted a white paper requesting a review by the Commission of these issues. The results of this review has the potential to change the information presented here.

i m___________.___ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . . .

1 R. McBurney l Should you have any questions on this letter, please contact William Ford at (301) 415-6630, or for specific health physics and decommissioning questions, please contact Duane Schmidt at (301) 415-6919, or Elaine Brummett at (301) 415-6606.

1 Sincerely,

[0riginal signed by Joseph J. Holonich, Ch]ief Uranium Recovery Branch Division of Waste Management Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards l

l TICKET: N9800162 DISTRIBUTION File Center NMSS r/f URB r/f PUBLIC RBangart\OSP ARimirez CNWRA CAbrams MLayton JGreeves MFederline l CPoland CPaperiello DOCUMENT NAME: S:\DWM\ URB \WHF\ t043098a.whf

• See Previous Concurrence OFC URB OGC URS\)

NAME WFord* RFonner ich i DATE 4/30/98 5/4/98 5/@f98 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY i

I l

i l

l

F R. McBumey Should you have any questions on this letter, please contact William Ford at (301) 415-6630, or for specific health physics and decommissioning questions, please contact Duane Schmidt at (301) 415-6919, or Elaine Brummett at (301) 415-6606.

j Sincerely,

. c=~ - }

/ ,~J s l Joseph J. Holonich, Chief Uranium Recovery Branch i Division of Waste Management i Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards i

1 l

l l

l l

l l

I

[ >

L___________-____________________.__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _. . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _

F

,' R. McBurnsy -

~

'* Should you have any questions on this letter, please contact William Ford at (301) 415-6630, or for specific health physics and decommissioning questions, please contact Duane Schmidt at (301) 415-6919, or Elaine Brummett at (301) 415-6606.

Sincerely, 4 ph J./Holonich, Chief Jose Uranium Recovery Branch Division of Waste Management Office of Nuclear Material Safety x and Safeguards

'N NN

'N N\ l N l N

s

'NN

'NN TICKET: N9800162 $r DOCUMENT NAME: S:\DWM\URBWyiF1 9 a.whf

• See Previous Concurrence l OFC URB , Q[ h UR$ . h NAME WForh b' Jhrfch[

DATE 4/P/98 h/0 /98  ! 5/fgh98 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY Letter to Ms. Ruth E. McBurney dated April ,1998.

DOCUMENT NAME: S:\DWM\ URB \WHF\t043098a.whf TICKET: N9800162

E1ETRIBUTION (w/ encl)

File Center NMSS r/f URB r/f PUBLIC RBangart\OSP l ARamirez CNWRA CAbrams MLayton JGreeves MFederline l CPoland CPaperiello l

1

! R. McBurnsy ,/ determination hinges on the definition of processing and mine water. At in situ leach facilities, liquid waste streams originate from the uranium recovery plant, from the production bleed, and from ground water restoration activities. Production bleed is ground water extracted from the aquifer during the uranium recovery operation in excess of injected water to maintain a net ground water inflow into the recovery zone. Effluent produced by the uranium recovery plant and by production bleed is defined as " process waste water" ar,d is considered to be 11e.(2) byproduct materialsGround water effluent is produced at the end of a uranium recovery operation, during restoration of ground water quality in the recovery zone. Effluent produced during ground water restoration activities is considered to be "mine wastewater," and as defined in 40 CFR Part 440, is notponsidered to be 11e.(2) byproduct material. This effluent is defined as naturally occurring radioactive material or technologically enhanced naturally occurring radioactive material. Therefor'e, while the NRC may evaluate the environmentalimpact associated mine waste water effluent disposal, it does not license this material.

\

Specific criteria applicable to effluenttisposal of process waste water, mine waste water, and a mixture of the two waters is containedln sAppendix D of the Draft Standard Review Plan for Uranium Extraction License Applications,'NUREG-1569. A final version of Appendix D will be sent to you when the final review plan is published this spring or early summer. However, Appendix D does not directly address the issu'es raised in your letter of well-field soil and equipment disposal. For contaminated well-field' soils, it is the opinion of NRC staff that this material is subject to NRC regulation, because while it is possible that the contamination could have occurred from mine (restoration) water, it is more likely to have occurred from processing water or a mixture of process and mine waters. Soils contaminated by the processing plant or by spills and leaks from ponds that held pmcess water or'a smixture of process and mine water are subject to NRC regulation. However, soc contaminated by spills and leaks from ponds that held only mine water are not subject to NRC regulation. Contaminated plant equipment that was only used in the restoration of the well fields is not considered sto be subject to NRC regulation, but plant equipment that was used as part to the processing circuit, or for both processing and ground water, restoration is considered to be subject to NRC regulation.

Should you have any questions on this letter, please contact William Ford at (301) 415-6630, or for specific health physics and decommissioning questions, please contact Duane Schmidt at (301) 415-6919, or Elaine Brummett at (301) 415-6606.

Sincerely, Joseph J. Holonich, Chief Uranium Recovery Branch Division of Waste Management Office of Nuclear Material Safety i and Safeguards TICKET: N9800162 DOCUMENT NAME: S:tDWMtURBtWHft t0413Mbvhf OFC URB _ kh h URB NAME WFord D RF JHolonich DATE 4/2 7/98 4/f//98 4/ /98 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY I

l TICKET DATE RECEIVED: 04/07/98 ORIGINAL DUE DT: 04/17/98 CONTROL NO: 9800162 DIVISION DATE: 04/17/98 DOC DT: 04/03/98 FROM: TIME:  : COMP DT: //

Richard Bangart Director, OSP

'TO:

Paperiello FOR SIGNATURE OF : ** BLUE ** SECY NO:  !

l ASSIGNED TO: CONTACT:

n;\'b DWM Holonich DESC: ROUTING:

i RESPONSE TO TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Paperiello Kane Linehan Poland l

l l SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS: ,

AC?iiOit I _

Due to DWf.1 ^.;

Dkc:!da Offi:o: f//f/9T '

I I CC '*

f* N i

l i

ki L a )

,. p reg

! ;. g 1 UNITED STATES L/ [ t j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20066-4001

/

,,,,,# April 3, 1998 l

MEMORANDUM TO: Carl J. Paperiello, Director Office of Nuclear Materia! Safety and Safeguards FROM: Richard L. Bangart, Director Office of State Programs 8[(il

( k. rt it

SUBJECT:

RESPONSE TO TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Based on my earlier coordination with the Division of Waste Management, I request that l NMSS respond directly to the attached March 23,1998, letter from Ruth McBurney, Director, l . Division of Licensing, Registration, and Standards, Texas Bureau of Radiation Control. The letter requests guidance on vertical mixing of soils at in situ uranium recovery sites. Previous L correspondence to Texas on this subject was issued by the Uranium Recovery Field Office or NMSS. I recommend that OGC concur on your response and request that OSP receive a

!. distribution copy.

1

Attachment:

l As stated i i

! cc: J. Holonich, DWM/NMSS l

l l-Afoy15044V \ P .  ;

0 .

/ T__D_H_ ,

i Texas Department of Health William R. Archer III. M.D. t100 West 49th Street Patti J. Panerson. M.D., M.P.H.

Commissioner Austin, Texas 78756-3199 Executive Deputy Commissioner o 12) 458-7111 Radiation Control ol2) 8M4688 g ca 5

n N

March 23,1998 o

", .n v

l 1

. 1 Richard L. Bangan, Director 5 Office of State Programs m U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission "

Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Mr. Bangart:

Texas has a number of in situ uranium recovery facilities which are in the process of I decommissioning. For a number of reasons, licensees have approached our agency with requests I to use altemative procedures. For example, there is no tailings impoundment or licensed disposal site available in Texas for disposal of byproduct material from these facilities. Also, the costs of  !

removing and transposing contaminated soils and other materials to an out-of-state disposal facility j may be prohibitive to some licensees. Many well field soils have only low levels of contamination. i We would appreciate expeditious comments and recommendations from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory l Commission (NRC) on whether the attemative procedures discussed in items 1-5 below are  !

permissible under NRC regulations.

1. Vertical mixing of soils in well fields has been proposed as a means to reduce radionuclides l concentrations to levels below the limits for release for unrestricted use. For example, disc-plowing and " roto mixing" of well fields to a depth of 12 and 18 inches, respectively, has been proposed as l a method to attain concentrations averaged over 100 square meters ofless than 5 pCi/g above background for Ra-226 in the top 15 cm,15 pCi/g for Ra-226 in succeeding 15-cm layers, and 30 pCi/g for natural uranium in any layer.

2. Venical mixing of soils has also been proposed, by Everest Exploration, Inc., for areas in which liquid byproduct material (production bleed stream) has been applied by spray-irrigation. Such mixing has been proposed as a means to reduce radiuni concentrations in the irrigated soil to levels below the limits for release for unrestricted use.

http //www.tdh. state.tx.us hWOY SG, An Equal Enployment Opportunity Engloyer

>- " Richard t.. Bangart March 23,1998 Page 2 ef 3 4

It should be pointed out that in the case of Everest, the original disposition of the bleed stream was to be down a deep disposal well. Instead, Everest chose to test land application (irrigation) of the bleed fluid. A 22-acre irrigation test plot was chosen in 1983 and millions of gallons of fluid, with Ra-226 concentrations as high as 8000 pCi/1, was sprayed onto the plot. Correspondence with NRC in October 1987 (copy enclosed) indicated that soil mixing (dilution into uncontaminated soil) would not be acceptable, and Everest was informed then that cleanup of the contamination on the 22 acres would be a~~~y. Everest Exploration reports indicate that contaminated soil has been removed to a concentration of 30 pCi/g or less. Everest now requests that the concept of vertical mixing be approved as a method to achieve an unrestricted use designation.

3. We also question whether similar vertical mixing, stratification or burial of soils is permissible in other areas of uranium facilities, such as the soils _un_ der holding ponds or the process. plant. This request has been made by another licensee for one site. At this site, concentrations have been reported as less than 30pCi/g Ra-226.

4. Contaminated materials, such as concrete, piping, and pumps, also present a disposal problem.

A licensee has proposed to decontaminate concrete, analyze core samples, and bury onsite any concrete which has less than 15 pCi/g Ra-226 and 30 pCi/g natural uranium. Similar on-site burial could be proposed for any materials in which radionuclides concentrations do not exceed the soil contamination limits for unrestricted use.

5. Another proposal is to blend contaminated soils from well fields with uncontaminated soils in order to reduce radionuclides concentrations below soil contamination limits and then to bury the l blended soils onsite in a reclaimed pond. 1 l

l We received comments from NRC letters in March 1989 and September 1989 (copies enclosed) ]

l which did not support these aforementioned proposals. Such on site disposal was thought to  !

i represent a proliferation ofdisposal sites, as discussed in 10 CFR 40, Appendix A, and would have l to comply with requirements of Appendix A. Is this the current NRC policy? Are there situations in which soil mixing in well fields, either by land farming, or mixing in the vertical or horizontal plane, could be permitted and then result in release for unrestricted use? A June 1996 NRC letter (copy enclosed) appears consistent with these 1987-1989 letters and quoting from the letter, "is in keeping with NRC's long held policy that a specific licensee may not separate or dilute licensed radioactive material into exempt quantities or concentrations, and treat the material as unlicensed l

or dispose of the material without regard to its radioactivity."  !

l The final subject of this letter is to seek your comments on what criteria is most appropriate in detemiining the classification of mining wastes or byproduct wastes at different stages in the in situ l mining cycle.

)

I i

httyt/fwww.tdb. state.tx.us An EqualEmployment Opportunity Eagployer

5- Richard L. Bangart "g "

March 23,1998

. . Page 3 cf 3

, .t We would appreciate receiving your comments at your earliest convenience. Our licensees are very anxious to close out these uranium sites; we value your response to these questions as they are integral to the decision-making process. If you have questions about these issues or would like to discuss them further, do not hesitate to contact me at 512-834-6689.

Sincerely,

h. t.

Ruth E. McBurney, CHP, Director Division of Licensir.g, Registration, and Standards Bureau of Radiation Control Enclosures c: Joseph J. Holonich,NRC, DWM/ URB Carl J. Paperiello,NRC,NMSS/OD 1

1 l

l bt tpt //ennr. tdb.sta te. tx. us i An Egwll Enqploynsent &portwdty Ernployer L____________________--_-________-_

7 ., .

yj I* .[resy UNITED sTATis I

j. t NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I

of b I REGloN IV URAN!uM RECoVE FIELo OFFICE tlU.,llEclui 6 a ihus.

• • • • DENVER. COLoAADO B022s ,

T f.Td 'l PH 3 11 URFO:GRK N!Mc.!'cf Docket No. WM-43 . ;q,'.):,'N 00llT ROL 0400WM043130E Warren D. Snell, Chief Uranium and Nuclear Waste Management Program .

Division of Licensing, Registration and Standards

.o. Bureau of Radiation Control i

" ') 1100 West 49th Street Austin, Texas 78756-3189

Dear Mr. Snell:

Our office is in receipt of your October 8,1987 correspondence transmitting a partial copy of the Caithness Mining Corporation reclamation plan. Due to the plan being divided into three sections, our comments will be directed at each of these areas.

Surface Irrication Site -

Our experience at in situ sites has indicated that surface water disposal sites always have elevated levels of radium-226 in the soil. Because these residues represent byproduct materials, any soil with radium concentrations found to be 5 pCi/g above background in the first 5 cm must be removed and deposited in an approved disposal area. In this respect, the licensee should be prepared to justify their background radium-226 concentrations.

Please also note that only soil radium conc.entrations may be utilized as justification for release to unrestricted use. It appears from the reclamation plan that the licensee intends to utilize gamma surveys as well as radium analysis.

W 3 11 Field It is our practice to allow well abandonment consistent with appropriate State standards. The gridded radiometric soil survey, as presented in e

17/iM &3GT- W -

e-l.- -

2- OCT 301987 l '.

! the reclamation plan, may be utilized 'to determine soil radium l concentrations. Please note that all contaminated soils must be

, excavated or disposed of in a' licensed site. No cultivation or soil l mixing of any type is permitted under the regulations.

Plant Area It is our understanding that the caliche pad, an unutilized process pond, as well as some structures, will be turned over the land owner. In this l respect, all earthen structures will need verification of soil radium -

levels. Other structures, such as buildings, will need verification of alpha contamination levels consistent with unrestricted release limits.

-- These comments are directed to areas where we think some care should be

"?-@ exercised by the licensee, as you have already noted in some of our previous discussions. In summary, we have every confidence that the Bureau of Radiation Control will maintain sufficient control over the

licensee to assure that appropriate release standards are met.

Should you have any questions concerning this correspondence, please contact Gary Konwinski of my staff at (303) 236-2819.

Sincerely, l

Edward F. Hawk) , hie ,

l Licensing Branch 1 .

1 Uranium Recovery Field Office Region IV cc: Robert J. Doda, Region IV e

6

l -

' ' ta ' . UNITEo STATES

~

~'

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

{- REGloN IV 8" " * * * * '**

4 URANIUM RECOVERY FIELD OFFICE

f. *** DENVER, L Do 00225 *

, 'M M.R 21 Pli 4 05 M 2I E , ,, ......,

f. : . . 0,r URFO:GRK # E O 'M M L SIS 43 l

Texas Department of Health '

ATTN: Ruth E. McBurney Bureau of Radiation Control 1100 West 49th Street '

Austin, Texas 78756-3180

Dear Ms. McBurney:

Our office is in receipt of your December 16, 1988 letter discussing the 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 f radium-226 laboratory results. l 1

The staff has performed a review of y6ur correspondence as well as the various j Westinghouse submittals. That exercise indicates that background radium-226, I 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 .

I 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 to 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 i proliferation of disposal sites as discussed in 10 CFR 40, Appendix A, l Criterion 2. Furthermore, if such a disposal option should be pursued, the i 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 i

. 200 years (Criterion 6 of Appendix A). Additionally, Westinghouse would need to provide $250,000 (1978 dollars) to cover the costs of long-term surveillance as well as deed the property over to the State of Texas at the option, or to the U.S. Department of Energy. .

Other disposal options are available to Westinghouse, although they are I somewhat limited. Considering the minimal environmental impacts associated with transporting the wastes to a large disposal site, as well as the etPOV/.io/ 61 W.

.; .s .

~

2 tyR 2l 1983 proliferation issue, it is our recommendation that it is reasonable to dispose of 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 -

(

O e

.l.. l k m i k !+,h

. potss3 UNITED STATES

,.. f, h, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I$ E Up,3, . j

'[ REGION IV

[ URANIUM RECOV FIELD OFFICE DENVER. COLORADO 80235 .

3, M: 05 URFO:GRK SIS 43 RADljfION D OFCON Texas Department of Health ATTN: David K. Lacker, Chief Bureau of Radiation Control 1100 West 49th Street Austin, Texas 78756-3189 5.-

Dear Mr. Lacker:

Our office is in receipt of your August 15, 1989 letter discussing waste disposal options available to Texas in-situ uranium recovery facilities in the process of decommissioning.

soil mixing, cleaning and burying materials, as well as soil blending It is the NRC position thet elevated levels of radionuclides, in this case radium-226, represent byproduct materials.

If the radium-226 concentrations in 2 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 i blending remain in criteria, place. with the purpose of allowing the byproduct material to i Similarly, your second and third points involve soil mixing and fail to ir.clude disposal in an approved facility; therefore, they cannot be considered as appropriate disposal methods of byproduct materials.

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 impr perly designed Ra-226.

and in need of design adjustments to prevent unacceptable leve s of disposed In ofaddition in an app,soilroved that has excess disposal Ra-226 should be removed and 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 h Y _ - _ - _ - _ _ _ _ . . .

~;.

l..

. 2 SEP 1315E3 i

I will identify the materials as contaminated, resulti'ng 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 required to meet the siting criteria, radon exhalation rates and long-term stability requirements stated in'10 CFR 40, Appendix A.  !

Similarl '

dollars)y,would land title to the appropriate be required government for long-term maintenanceincluding $250,000 of and surveillance (inthe 1978 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 i

. 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, l I

nE al Director cc: R. J. Doda, RIV l

1 9

l' O

[ *t B

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

/'E

'[

WASHINGTON, D.C. 2 046 4001 June 12, 1996 Barbara Hamrick, Health Physicist Los Angales 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, Chaiman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, reg,arding clarification of requiremen.ts for disposal of exempt items.

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 1

Parts 30 through 36, etc.concerning waste disposal, only apply to persons licens Your letter further indicates your understanding that smoke detectors, which have been manufactured and distributed as exem

(. 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, l

Position 150 (HPP05-150) published in NUREG/CR-5569.and However Health Physics you believe that HPPOS-190 may contradict these findings. Finally, you po, int out that a t

State of California licensee, who also has an NRC exempt distribution license, l

provides disposal instructions with its NRC authorized products. In closing 1

your items.letter, you raise four questions or points concerning disposal of exempt As indicated, Sections 30.14 through 30.20 of 10 CFR Part 30 (Enclosure 1) provide that persons who receive and possess the material 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 t

-%er>1eM wp:

l ,t ,

! 4: ,

W.

1 ..

7 :.;?n Ms. Barbara Hamrick 2 June 12, 1996

! #': 10 CFR 20.1002 and therefore the waste disposal requirements specified

,1.; affect 10 CFR the 30.14non,-Itcensed through 30.20. individuals who possess products pursuan

'~ l 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

• f

/. Therefore, in response to your four questions or points, all ite or materials (including smoke detectors) which have been manufactur ,

i 55:k distributed to exempt persons, as authorized in accordance with an N (or for products containing exempt concentrations - an Agreement State license F. may be disposed without regard to their radioactivity. Note g however,,)that manufacturers and/or initial distributo

, 4 c.j. with 10 CFR Part 20.comercial distributors) must dispose of undistributed it

?N5

-l::$-76

' ;';@j With respect to HPP05-190, this position does not contradict the pos

' :W,i-

' provided of in HPPOS-150 or the previously stated positions concerning exempt products.

In fact, HPPOS-190 addresses a different situation.

Since 10 CFR 30.18 provides for both comercial and non-comercial tr i

of material containing limited quantities of certain byproduct isotopes 1

a company wishes to commercially distribute exempt quantities, such as chec NRC issued pursuant to Section 32.18 of 10 CFR Part 32

!' I However,10 non-comercialCFR basis, 30.18 the also lim allows licensees to infrequen(Enclosure tly transfer, on a 2).

Schedule B, to other persons.ited quantities identified in 10 CFR 30.73,

! N'.'$ A typical example would be a hospital

,fTit -d occasionally transferring a tissue sample from a patient who undergoes m treatment using radioactive materials to an unlicensed pathology lab

In accordance with 10 CFR 30.18, those recipients are exempt from the .

, :: requirements for a license to possess the limited quantities. The position on i,

i T

disposal which HPP05-190 articulates is HRC's of disposal as opposed to ' possession."

NRC's long held policy that a specific licensee may not separate o licensed radioactive material into exempt quantities or concentration treat the material as unlicensed or dispose of the material without reg its radioactivity. NRC has also taken the position (Enclosure 3that if a specific licensee receives limited quantities provision in 10 CFR 30.18, the licensee rema'... pursuant to the n s subject to Part 20

' :' =& status of the quantities. requirements for disposal of these limited qu h

e t*

{ 1 s J

,Y5}.

.'.;sn

r .

(( -

June 12, 1996 3

Ms, Barbara Hamrick

• Enclosed are copies of a number of background memoranda relating to HPPOS-15 and 190 and to distribution of exempt prodtcts for your information (Enclosure discuss the4).Part 30 exemptions or exempt distribution licensing, please contact Bruce Carrico of this staff at (301) 415-7826.

Sincerely, Carl J. Paper ello, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

Enclosures:

1. 10 CFR Part 30

2. 10 CFR Part 32

3. Memo dtd 10/14/93

4. Various memos /ltrs

• I O

e l

l L . ..