ML20247L991
| ML20247L991 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/23/1998 |
| From: | Jim Hickey NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Lohaus P NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20247L957 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9805260134 | |
| Download: ML20247L991 (3) | |
Text
y
+
PNL 4
%. gmm sgs I'
UNITED STATES h '
]y'
~j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f
o, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20666-4001
%,*****f April 23, 1998 MEMORANDUM TO: Paul H. Lohaus, Deputy Director l
Office of State Programs FROM:
John W. N. Hickey, Chief Low-Level Waste and Dodommissioning Projects Branch Division of Waste Management Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
SUBJECT:
REVIEW OF TEXAS INCIDENT-RELATED MATERIAL DISPOSAL REGULATIONS Per your request, dated April 20,1998, we have reviewed the subject draft regulations and have concluded that they are not completely consistent with the staffs Final Technice!
Position on the disposal of cesium-137 contaminated emission control dust and other incident-related material. Our specific comments are attached. We would be happy to meet with you or your staff to discuss our comments after you have reviewed them.
Attachment:
As stated
%o
Contact:
Nick Orlando, DWM/NMSS S$
0 301-415-6749 w:c I
W IS h
1 9805260134 980518 i
PDR STPRO ESGT
)
COMMENTS ON PROPOSED TEXAS' REGULATIONS REGARDING THE D:SPOSAL OF EMISSION CONTROL DUST
- 1. The preamble indicates that this regulation would allow the " exemption" of cesium-137 contaminated emission control dust and other incident-related material from certain disposal requirements, if specific handling requirements were satisfied. 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 refering 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 dispr%l should be made in accordance with these regulations. Suggest that the r0gulations 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 government 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: OSP staff may wish to 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 are furnaces such as KO61 listed hazardous waste or otherlisted hazardous waste contaminated as a result of an inadvertent melting of a cesium source"(italics addrd). The NRC BTP restricts I
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 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. 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 transfer the incident-related material to treat the material without specifically being licensed to treat the material. Suggest revising paragraph (i) of this.section to read "the owner / operator of the electric are fumace or foundry licensed to possess and treat cesium-137 contaminated incident-related material." Also, paragraph (ii) of this subsection should indicate that the l
I ATTACHMENT l
1
. 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.
- 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 total incident-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
l l
1
>