ML20247L954
| ML20247L954 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/18/1998 |
| From: | Lohaus P NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| To: | Ratliff R TEXAS, STATE OF |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20247L957 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9805260126 | |
| Download: ML20247L954 (9) | |
Text
,_
t MAY 181998 Richard A. Ratliff, P.E., LMP, Chief Bureau of Radiation Control Texas Department of Health 1100 West 49th Street Austin, TX 78756-3189
Dear Mr. Ratliff:
As requested, we have reviewed the proposed regulations, Section 289.202 Standards for Protection Against Radiation, that allows exemption of cesium-137 contaminated emission control dust and other incident-related material from certain disposal requirements under specific handling, treatment, transport, and radiation dose conditions. They were sent to us by E-mail on March 26,1998 by Cynthia Cardwell.
We note that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has no regulation equivalent to that proposed in paragraph (2) of Section 289.202. Therefore, we have no compatibility or health and safety.
designation for this regulation.
We conducted a review of the regulation in comparison with the final branch technical position (BTP) on the subject (62 EB 13176). As a result of our review, we have five comments that are enclosed. Our review identified that the provisions Texas adopted differ from those in the final BTP. For example, the scope of the waste contemplated for disposal goes beyond KO61 listed hazardous waste to include "other listed hazardous waste." This is significant in that the analysis used to support the provisions of the BTP would not provide an adequate supporting basis for your proposed expansion to include other listed hazardous waste (see comment No.
3). The agency would have to do its own pathway analysis for the "other listed hazardous wasto" to determine its acceptability for disposal and to support your proposed exemption.
If you have any questions regarding our review, please contact me or Dr. Stephen N. Salomon of my staff at (301) 415-2388, or SNS@NRC. GOV.
Sincerely, gg.gned By:
i PAUt.H.LOHAUS Paul H. Lohaus, Deputy Director Office of State Programs
Enclosure:
As stated
}
.\\
DistributiQD:
DIR RF (8S-96)
DCD (SP08)1 t
SDroggitis g 73 C PDR (YES/)i BUsilton m gfay DOrlando, LLDP yn
,_,; b W 5 e"
Texas File d
- SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE.
DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\SNS\\ TEXAS.SNS j
To recoln a cop t of this document, Indicate in the box: "C" o Cghmt #1 attachment / enclosure
- E" = Cop r with attachment / enclosure *N" = No copy A
OFFICE OSP l
OSF{@(, l 3 LLDP N
OGC OSPp / $ /
NAME SSalomon:nb/gd/nb PHLohdkf9/76)[JHHickey FXCameron RLBangdrW1 D DATE 04/13/98:5/6/98
- 04/14/9P ]
05/11/98*
04/25/98
~
as:c.y\\
UNITED STATES y
i
]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 3DeeHOO1
%*...w May 18, 1998 Richard A. Ratliff, P.E., LMP, Chief Bureau of Radiation Control Texas Department of Health 1100 West 49th Street Austin, TX 78756-3189
Dear Mr. Ratliff:
As requested, we have reviewed the proposed regulations, Section 289.202 Standards, ior i
Protection Against Radiation, that allows exemption of cesium-137 contaminated emission control dust and other incident-related material from certain disposal requirements under specific handling, treatment, transport, and radiation dose conditions. They were sent to us by E-mail on March 26,1998 by Cynthia Cardwell.
We note that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has no regulation equivalent to that proposed in paragraph (2) of Section 289.202. Therefore, we have no compatibility or health and safety designation for this regulation.
We conducted a review of the regulation in comparison with the final branch technical position (BTP) on the subject (62 EB 13176). As a result of our review, we have five comments that are enclosed. Our review identified that the provisions Texas adopted differ from those in the final BTP. For example, the scope of the waste contemplated for disposal goes beyond KO61 listed hazardous waste to include "other listed hazardous waste." This is significant in that the analysis used to support the provisions of the BTP would not provide an adequate supporting basis for your proposed expansion to include other listed hazardous waste (see comment No.
3). The agency would have to do its own pathway analysis for the "other listed hazardous
- waste" to determine its acceptability for disposal and to support your proposed exemption.
l If you have any questions regarding our review, please contact me or Dr. Stephen N. Salomon of my staff at (301) 415-2368, or SNS@NRC. GOV.
- rely,
\\
\\
m
( (W A
Paul H. Lohaus, y
ctor Office of State Programs
Enclosure:
. As stated
9 t
g a
MAY 181998 Richard A. Ratliff, P.E., LMP, Chief Bureau of Radiation Control Texas Departmen: of Health 1100 West 49th Street Austin, TX 78756-3189
Dear Mr. Ratliff:
As requested, we have reviewed the proposed regulations, Section 289.202 Standards for Protection Against Radiation, that allows exemption of cesium-137 contaminated emission control dust and other incident-related material from certain disposal requirements under specific handling, treatment, transport, and radiation dose conditions. They were sent to us by E-mail on March 26,1998 by Cynthia Cardwell.
We note that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has no regulation equivalent to that proposed i
in paragraph (2) of Section 289.202. Therefore, we have no compatibility or health and safety.
designation for this regulation.
We conducted a review of the regulation in comparison with the final branch technical position (BTP) on the subject (62 EB 13176). As a result of our review, we have five comments that are enclosed. Our review identified that the provisions Texas adopted differ from those in the final BTP. For example, the scope of the waste contemplated for disposal goes beyond KO61 listed hazardous waste to include "other listed hazardous waste." This is significant in that the analysis used to support the provisions of the BTP would not provide an adequate supporting basis for your proposed expansion to include other listed hazardous waste (see comment No.
3). The agency would have to do its own pathway analysis for the "other listed hazardous waste" to determine its acceptability for disposal and to support your proposed exemption.
If you have any questions regarding our review, please contact me or Dr. Stephen N. Salomon of my staff at (301) 415-2368, or SNS@NRC. GOV.
Sincerely, Oll0 nalSigned By:
l PAULH.LOHAUS Paul H. Lohaus, Deputy Director Office of State Programs
Enclosure:
As stated Distribution:
DIR RF (8S-96)
DCD (SP08) l-SDroggitis PDR (YES/)
BUsilton i
DOrlando, LLDP Texas File
- SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE.
DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\SNS\\ TEXAS.SNS J
t
- w.. com or m. e eum.ni. m.i. in in. nor c chdi.nenm.nv.nemur. r contn.nenm.nv.nemur. v we copy n
OFFICE OSP l
OSF'Eh(, l 3 [_
LLDP N
OGC l
OSP.9 / $ /
PHLohal sM/7EJHHickey FXCameron RLBangdrtWI 3
b NAME SSalomon:nb/gd/nb l
DATE 04/13/98:5/6/98
- 04/14/9P ~
- 05/11/98*
04/25/98
' ~
t 1
L COMMENTS ON PROPOSED TEXAS' REGULATIONS REGARDING THE DISPOSAL OF EMISSION CONTROL DUST 1.
The preamble indicates that this regulation would allow the " exemption" of cesium-137 l
contaminated emission control dust and other incident-related material from certain disposal requirements, if specific handling requirements were satisfed. The Branch Technical Position (BTP) developed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff in conjunction with the staff of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), specifically avoided referring to disposals under the BTP as " exemptions." Rather, the BTP states that disposals would be done in accordance with NRC's regulations at 10 CFR 20.2002 (i.e.,' under a specific license amendment). If the Texas' regulations contain a section similar to 10 CFR 20.2002, the disposal should be made in accordance with these regulations. We suggest that the regulations avoid referring to disposals as
" exemptions" as this could be misleading, with respect to the actual manner in which the material will be disposed.
2.
The preamble states that there will be no fiscal implications for State or local govemment as a result of enforcing the proposed regulations, nor will there be any economic costs to persons who are required to comply with the regulations. It is unclear how this conclusion was reached, given that the incident-related material must be treated by the owner of the processing facility or its service contractor, prior to disposal.
If not already possessed by these' entities, a license may be required to perform the treatment. Assuming that the request for disposal is handled as envisioned by the BTP (i.e., as a request to amend a radioactive materials license) the State's review could involve the expenditure of significant staff resources (Note: State staff may w!sh to i
contact the Utah Department of Health to ascertain the resources expended in reviewing the Ameristeel disposal request).
3.
Paragraph 2 appears to expand the universe of waste contemplated for disposal under the Texas' regulations from that discussed under the NRC BTP. Paragraph 2 states "Upon agency approval emission control dust and other material from electric arc fumaces such as KO61 listed hazardous waste or otherlisted hazardous waste contaminated as a result of an inadvertent melting of a cesium source"[ italics added).
The NRC BTP restricts material to that which would be considered KO61 waste by EPA and the NRC staff has stated that the material that would be approved for disposal under the BTP must be considered KO61 waste by the regulatory authority with jurisdiction over the hazardous component of the incident-related material. As currently l
written, paragraph 2 would expand the universe of wastes to those not contemplated under the BTP which could invalidate the dose estimates developed to support the BTP.
We suggest that paragraph 2 be revised to state, "Upon agency approval, incident-related material resulting from an inadvertent melting of a cesium-137 source may be transferred...."
4.
Subparagraph A of paragraph 2 appears to allow a facility licensed to possess or l_
transfer the incident-related material to treat the material without specifically being licensed to treat the material. We suggest revising paragraph (1) of this section to read "the owner / operator of the electric arc furnace or foundry licensed to possess and treat ENCLOSURE
h 2
l l
cesium-137 contaminated incident-related material." Also, paragraph (ii) of this subsection should indicate that the service contractor should be licensed to possess and treat the material. As currently written, it is not clear what type of license the service contractor would need to treat the material.
l 5.
The BTP requires that cesium-137 concentrations in incident-related material be determined in accordance with an NRC or Agreement State approved sampling plan.
Suggest that the Texas' regulations be revised to include this requirement. In addition, the BTP allows the amalgamation of incident-related material given that certain conditions are satisfied. As most of the radioactive material tends to be present in a small percentage of the totalincident-related material, the addition of this condition may help in providing a safe, cost effective method to dispose of the total volume of incident-related material.
i i
1 ENCLOSURE
i R! chard A. Ratliff, P.E., LMP, Chief l
Bureau of Radiation Control Texas Department of Health 1100 West 49th Street i
Austin, TX 78756-3189
Dear Mr. Ratliff:
As requested, we have reviewed the proposed regulations, ection 289.202 Standards for Protection Against Radiation, that allows exemption of ces' m-137 contambated emission control dust and other incident-related material from cert disposal requirements under specific handling, treatment, transport, and radiation dos conditions. They were sent to us by E-mail on March 26,1998 by Cynthia Cardwell.
1 We note that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has no regulation equivalent to that proposed in paragraph (2) of Section 289.202. Therefore, we ve no compatibility or health and safety.
j designation for this regulation.
We conducted a review of the regulation in compa son with the final branch technical position (BTP) on the subject (62 EB 13176). As a result f our review, we have five comments that are enclosed. Our review identified that the provisio s Texas adopted differ from those in the final BTP. For example, the scope of the waste con mplated for disposal goes beyond KO61 listed hazardous waste to include "other listed hazar ous waste." This is significant in that the 1
analysis used to support the provisions of the TP would not provide an adequate supporting basis for your proposed expansion to include ther listed hazardous waste (see comment No.
3). The agency would have to do its own p hway analysis for the "other listed hazardous j
waste" to determine its acceptability for dis osal and to support your proposed exemption.
If you have any questions regarding our r view, please contact me or Dr. Stephen N. Salomon of my staff at (301) 415-2368, or SNS@ RC. GOV.
Sincerely, I
Paul H. Lohaus, Deputy Director Office of State Programs
Enclosure:
As stated Distribution:
DIR RF (8S-96)
DCD (SP08)
SDroggitis PDR (YES()
BUsilton DOrlando, LLDP Texas File
- SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE.
DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\SNS\\TE S.SNS j
T* receive n cop ' of this document, ind6cate in t x: "C" = CO gnqpt attachment / enclosure "E" a Copo with attachment / enclosure "N" a No copy OFFICE OSP
/
OSFT h(, l3
$1F tJ OGC l
OSP:D l
NAME SSalomon:nb/gd/nb' PHLohapsVd/MJHHidfy '
i FXCameron RLBangart DATE 04/13/98:5/6/98/
04/14/9P " '
04f # 1/98 04/25/98
E
,/
Richard A. Ratliff, P.E., LMP, Chief Bureau of Radiation Control Texas Department of Health 1100 West 49th Street Austin, TX 78756-3189
Dear Mr. Ratliff:
As requested, we have reviewed the proposed regulations, Section 289.202 Standards for Protection Against Radiation, that allows exemption of cesium-137 contaminated emission control dust and other incident-related material from certsin disposal requirements under specific handling, treatment, transport, and radiation dose conditions. They were sent to us by E-mail on March 26,1998 by Cynthia Cardwell.
We note that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has no regulation equivalent to that proposed in paragraph (2) of Section 289.202. Therefore, we have no compatibility or health and safety designation for this regulation.
' We conducted a review of the regulation in comparison with the final branch technical position (BTP) on the subject (62 EB 13176). Xs a result of our review, we have five comments that are enclosed. Our review of the provisi,or$s Texas cdopted from the final BTP are not similar. For example, the scope of the waste contemplated for disposal goes beyond KO61 listed hazardous waste to include "other listed hazardous waste." Therefore, the use of the analysis in the BTP to support this exparision is not justified and no exemption may be granted. The agency would have to do its,own pathway analysis for the "other listed hazardous waste" to determine its acceptability or disposal.
If you have any questiops regarding our review, please contact me or Dr. Stephen N. Salomon of my staff at (301) 415-2368, or SNS@NRC. GOV.
Sincerely,
'/
Paul H. Lohaus, Deputy Director Office of State Programs Enclosure [
As stated.
l Distri ion:
DIR RF (8S-96)~
DCD (SP08)
SDroggitis PDR (YES()
l BUsilton dOrlando, LLDP i
Texas File l
' *SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE.
DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\SNS\\ TEXAS.SNS l
Tr pecchre a cop ' of this document, indicate in the box: T s Copy without attachment / enclosure "E" a Cop" with attachment / enclosure "N" = No copy l
l LLDP
.OGC l
OSP;D l
)
NAME.
SSalomon:nb/gd PHLohaus JHHickey FXCameron RLBangart l
DATE 04/13/98
- 04/14/98
- 04/
/98 04/25/98
- 05/ /98
-[g p OSP FILE CODE: SP-AG-27 L
i
I
' Rich:rd A. Ratliff, P.E., LMP, Ch'.;f Burru of Radiation C:ntrol Texas Department of Health 1100 West 49th Street Austin, TX 78756-3189
Dear Mr. Ratliff:
As requested, we have reviewed the proposed regulations, Section 9.202 Standards for
{
Protection Against Radiation, that allows exemption of cesium-13 contaminated emission control dust and other incident-related material from certain dis sal requirements under specific handling, treatment, transport, and radiation dose e ditions. They were sent to us by E-mail on March 26,1998 by Cynthia Cardwell.
We note that NRC has no regulation equivalent to th proposed in paragraph (2) of Section 289.202. Therefore, we have no compatibility or alth and safety designation for this regulation.
We conducted a review of the regulation i omparison with the final staff technical position on the subject (62 EB 13176). As a result our review we have no comments. The provisions Texas adopted from the final staff tec ical position are similar and appear reasonable.
If you have any questions regard' g our review, please contact me or Dr. Stephen N. Salomon of my staff at (301) 415-2368, SNS@NRC. GOV.
Sincerely, Paul H. Lohaus, Deputy Director Office of State Programs Distribution:
DIR RF (8S- )
DCD (SP08)
SDroggiti PDR (YES_f_ NO
)
BUsilto DOrlando, LLDP Texas File DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\SNS\\ TEXAS.SNS
- See Previous concurrence.
Ta receive a cop ' of this document, Indicate in the box: "C" m.40pfwqKust attachment / enclosure "E"= Copf with attachment / enclosure "N"a No copy OFFICE OSP,qg l OEp: M l
LLDP OGC l-OSP:D NAME SSalomon:nb PHLot$6s/
JHHickey FXCameron RLBangart DATE 04/13/98 04/f/98 04/
/98 04/24 /98*
04/ /98 OSP FILE CODE: SP-AG-27 i
i Rich:rd A. Ratliff, P.E., LMP, Chtf Bureau of Radiation Control Texas Department of Health 1100 West 49th Street Austin, TX 78756-3189
Dear Mr. Ratliff:
As r3 quested, we have reviewed the proposed regulations, Sec on 289.202 Standards for i
Protection Against Radiation, that allows exemption of cesium-37 contaminated emission control dust and other incident-related material from certain di sal requirements under specific handling, treatment, transport, and radiation dose con itions. They were sent to us by E-mail on March 26,1998 by Cynthia Cardwell.
We note that NRC has no regulation equivalent to that pro ed in paragraph (2) of Section 289.202. Therefore, we have no compatibility or health and afety designation for this regulation.
We conducted a review of the regulation in comparison wi the final staff technical position on the subject (62 EB 13176). As a result of our review we ve no comments. The provisions Texas adopted from the final staff technical position are milar and appear reasonable.
If you have any questions regarding our review, please ntact me or Dr. Stephen N. Salomon of my staff at (301) 415-2368, or SNS@NRC. GOV.
Sincerely, Paul H.
ohaus, Deputy Director Office of State Programs Distribution:
DIR RF (8S-96)
DCD (SP08)
SDroggitis PDR (YES f._, NO
)
BUsilton DOrlando, LLDP Texas File DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\SNS\\ TEXAS.SNS Ta receive a copi of this document indicate in the box: "C" =40pfwit out attachment / nelosure "E" a Cop r with attachmeMrs "N" = No copy OFFICE OSP 9 6 l 05p: M l
/ LLDP
\\Q M l OSP:D l
NAME SSalomon.nb PHLot$rfsf JhHickey FXCWndront RLBangart DATE 04/13/98 04/) /98
/
04/
/98 64/h/98 04/ /98 OSP FILE CODE: SP-AG-27
/