ML20211A894

Responds to Health Physics Society Newsletter Article Re Cleanup Stds.Several Statements Made in Article Require Clarification

ML20211A894
Person / Time
Issue date:	09/21/1997
From:	Greeves J NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
To:	Roessler G HEALTH PHYSICS SOCIETY
References
REF-WM-3 NUDOCS 9709240435
Download: ML20211A894 (6)

Text

_ _ - - _ _ _ - - _ _

w. p urg e

UNITED STATES r; '

4 li

_ *j-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'd g

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20065-0001 September 21, 1997 Genevieve S. Roessler. Editor HPS Nevsletter RR1, Box 139H Elysian MN 56028

SUBJECT:

RESPONSE TO HEALTH PHYSICS SOCIETY NEWSLETTER ARTICLE CONCERNING CLEANUP STANDARDS

Dear Ms. Roessl e:

I am res>onding to Mr. Oornsife's article " Concerns Regardino the Current NRC-EPA )ispute Over Cleanup Standards." which was published in the August 1997 edition of the HPS Newsletter. Several statements made in this article require clarification.

The article states, "...the NRC final regulations do not specifically address groundwater protection." The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission's Final Rule.

" Radiological Criteria for License Termination." (62 FR 39058) protects groundwater through-inclusion of the groundwater pathway as part of an all-pathways limit.

Because equivalent doses received through any 3athway of exposure would involve equivalent risks to the person exposed.

4RC concluded that there is no reason from the standpoint of protection of public health and safety to have a separate, lower dose criterion for one of the pathways as long as, when combined, the dose fron all the pathways doesn't exceed the total dose standard.

In addition, an all-pathways standard is a more uniform method of protecting public health and safety than was contained in NRC's proposed rule that set separate requirements using the maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) contained in 40 CFR Part 141. This is because MCL requirements:

(1) do not cover all radionuclides: (2) do not provide for a consistent risk (dose) standard for different radionuclides, e.g., the MCL for Sr-90 corres)onds to a total effective dose equivalent (TEDE) of 0.07 mrem /yr while the MC for TH-232 corresponds to a TEDE of approximately 30 mrem: and (3) are based on a modeling approach that has not been updated to reflect current understandings of the C.ake and doses rasulting from ingestion of radionuclides through drinking water.

To make clear NRC's concern over the importance of protecting groundwater, the rule was modified to include a y%

direct reference to the groundwater pathway in the all-pathways unrestricted d

use dose criterion in 10 CFR 20.1402.

c/7d The article states that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can h

probably not accept NRC's position on the need for a separate groundwater standard "...because under the Safe Drinking Water Act [SDWA) all carcinogens p

-must meet a risk-based standard imoosed by Congress." The MCLs that EPA has \\

m

[:Q proposed for groundwater were promulgated by EPA under the SDWA to apply to O GD drinking water at the tap after it has been processed by a drinking water i

y treatment facility. There has been no technical justification developed to g

support the application of these drinking water criteria to groundwater, i\\\\g In discussing the burden to licensees of a separate drinking water standard.

,, m W

the article states that performance assessment studies have shown that most facilities can meet a 4 mrem /y drinking water pathways constraint.

NRC agrees 5

9709240435 970921".

')

w PDR WASTE 4W l

ll l

qg WM-3 PDR

G. Roessler.

that. ba' sed on-typical operating practices of most nuclear facilities and on-the behavior of radionuclides in the environment for the very large majority of sites, concentrations of radionuclides in the groundwater will be well.

below the dose criterion of-the final rule-and would be either below or marginally above the MCLs. This is not true for all sites, and the exceptions would not be restricted to fuel cycle facilities as stated in the article.

Licensing efficiency. consistency of ap)lication of requirements. and oversight of these facilities can best se achieved by codifying the application of criteria to all facilities rather than requiring licensees to seek an exemptinn as suggested in the article.

In the-dirtussion of exceptions. Mr. Dornsife suggests that the acceptable level-of risk for wastes containing naturally-occurring radioactive material (NORM) should be higher than the risk associated with residual contamination ct NRC-licensed facilities. NORM wastes contain some of the same elements (i.e.. uranium, thorium, radium, and their daughters) that are regulated by NRC under the Atomic Energy Act (AEA). The only difference is that NORM waste is created by. industrial processes that concentrate these unwanted radioactive

-elements-in waste streams while comparable AEA waste is usually created by dilution of more highly concentrated material.

Because the radionuclides are in many cases identical for NORM and AEA wastes, it is not clear why the public should not be offered equal levels of protection from identical radioactive elements.

If you have any questions concerning these comments, please call me at

'(301) 415-7437 or Mr. Robert Nelson of my staff at (301) 415-7298.

Sincerely.

[0riginal signed by]

John T. Greeves. Director Division of Waste Management Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards cc:

Mr. William Dornsife TICKET: DWM-185 DISTRIBlFION: Central File:

LLDP r/f

'DWM r/f NMSS r/f PUBLIC CPaperiello WKane CJones JGreeves MFederline CTrottier o SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE Path & File Name: 5.1/S:\\DWM\\LLDP\\RAN\\DORNSIFE.LTR OFC LLDP*

LLDP* -

RES*

g 7 NAME RNelson JHick'ey CTrottier di[reev#es DA1E-

'8/21/97 8/21/97 8/21/97 1 N /97 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY

'ACNW: YES X

N0' Category:

Proprietary or CF Only 1G : YES N0 X

-LSS': YES N0 X

Delete file after distribution: Yes No X

l I,

G. Rnessler.

that, ba' sed on typical operating practices of most nuclear faci itie and on the behavior of radionuclides in the environment for the very arge lajority of sites, concentrations of radionuclides in the groundwater ill well below the dose criterion of the final rule and would be eit r be w or marginally above the MCLs.

This is not true for all sites and le exceptions would not be restricted to fuel cycle facilities as state in t e article.

Licensing efficiency, consistency of ap)lication of requ eme

s. and oversight of these facilities can best )e achieved ty c dify' g the application of criteria to all facilities rather than equi ng licensees to seek an exemption as suggested in the article.

In the discussion of exceptions. Mr. Dornsife sugg ts t at the accepti:ble level of risk for wastes containing naturally-occ rin radioactive material (NORM) should be higher than the risk associated ith esidual contamination at NRC-licensed facilities.

NORM wastes contai som of the same elements (i.e.. uranium, thorium, radium, and their dat htere that are regulated by NRC under the Atomic Energy Act (AEA). The y d'~ference is that NORM waste is created by industrial processes that con ntra e these unwanted radioactive elements in waste streams while comparable EA w ste is usually created by dilution of more highly concentrated mate 1al.

ecause the radionuclides are in many cases identical for NORM and AE wast it is not clear why the public should not be offered equal lev s of rotection from identical radioactive elements.

If you have any questions concernin thes comments, please call me at (301) 415-7437 or Mr. Robert Nelso of m-staff at (301) 415-7298.

Si erely.

[

iginal signed by]

hn T. Greeves. Director 1 vision of Waste Management Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards cc:

Mr. William Dornsife TICKETU CWM4185 DISTRIBUTION: Central File LDP r f DWM r/f NMSS r/f PUBLIC RJohnson CPaperiello WKane CJon JGreeves MFederline CTrottier DWM t/f EE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE Path & F11e Name: 5.1/S:\\DWM LDP\\

\\DORNSIFE.LTR OFC LLDP*f h LLDP/

/ RES*

DWM NAME RNelsI Mickey /

CTrottier DATE 8/21/97

[8/21/d7 8/21/97

/ /97 0FFJCIAL CORD COPY ACNW: YES X

NO 1 Category:

Proprietary or CF Only M'?-

IG : YES NO X

LSS YES N

X Delete file after distribution:

Yes No X

-W Dornsife.

of'the u,ptake and doses resulting from_ ingestion of-radionuclides trough drinking water.

-In discussing the burden-to-_ licensees of__a separate drinking w er st ndard,_.

you state that performance assessment studies have nown that.ost c'11 ties can meet a 4 mrem /y drinking water pathways constraint, NR agree that.-

based on typical operating practices of most nuclear facil ies a d on the behavior of rad'r::uclides in the environment for the very arge ajority of sites, concentra ions of radionuclides in the groundwat will e well below the dose criterica of the final rule and would be eith belo or marginally above the MCLs.

This is not true for all sites and t e exc tions would not be restricted to fuel cycle facilities as stated in >our a icle, Licensing efficiency, consistency of application of requirem ts, a d oversight of these facilities can best be achieved by codifying the pplic ion of criteria to all facilities rather than requiring licensees seek n exemption as suggested in your article.

In your discussion of exceptions, you sugge. that he acceptable level of risk for wastes containing naturally occur ng ra ioactive material (NORM) should be higher than the risk associate with r sidual contamination at NRC-licensed facilities.

NORM wastes conta. some f the same elements (i.e.,

i uranium, thorium, radium, and their da hters that are regulated by NRC under the Atomic Energy Act (AEA), -The on1 diff ence is that NORM waste is created by industrial processes tha conce rate these unwanted radioactive elements in waste streams while co arabl AEA waste is usually created by di'ution of more highly concentr ed ma rial.

Because the radionuclides are in many cases identical for NO and A wastes, it is not clear why the public should not be offered e al le els of protection from identical radioactive elements.

If-you have any questions ncer 'ng these comments, please call me at (301) 415-7437 or Mr. Rob rt Ne on of my staff at (301) 415-7298, Sincerely,

[0riginal signed by)

John T. Greeves, Director Division of Waste Management Office of Nuclear Material Safety

Enclosure:

As s ted cc: Editor He-th Ph sfcs Society News 1 ter

TICKET:-DWM-185.

DISTRIBUTION w/en.:

entral File LLDP r/f DWM r/f

-NMSS r/f PUBLIC w/o encl:

CPa riell WKane JGreeves MFederline CTrottier

• SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE

. Path & File Na 5.1

\\DWM\\LLDP\\RAN\\DORNSIFE.LTR OFC LLD O /

LLh L

REMI/i DWM NAME

/kN M JMckey-'

CTrdbeM DATE 8/2//97

(' /,7//97 9/)Ll/97

/ /97

/

OFFICIAL RECORD CO)Y g

ACNW: YES A

NO Cotegory:

Proprietary or CF Oaly pa-IG : YES NO X

LSS : YE N0' X Delete file after distribution:

Yes No X

-W. Dornsife.

standard, the Commission has concluded that there is no reason from the standpoint of protection of public health and safet dose criterion for one of the pathways as long as, y to have a separate, lower' when combined, the dope' from all pathways doesn't exceed the total dose standard established f f the rule.

Your article does not refute this point.

In discussing the burden to licensees of a separate drinking wa r tandard, you state that performance assessment studies have shown that s facilities can meet a 4 mrem /y drinking water pathways constraint.

NR agr es that.

based on typical operating practices of most nuclear faci) tie and on the behavior of radionuclides in the environment for the verf lar e majority of g

sites, concentrations of radionuclides in the groundw fer w' be well below the dose criterion of the final rule and would be e' her ow or marginally above the MCLs.

This is not true for all sites a the ceptions would not be restr4cted to fuel cycle facilities as stated in yo article.

Licensing efficiency. consistency of application of re fremente, and oversight of these facilities can best be achieved by codifyin the ap ication of criteria to all facilities rather than requiring lice ees to sek an exemption as suggested in your article.

In your discussion of exceptions, yo suggest at the acceptable level of risk for wastes containing naturall -occurri. radioactive material (NORM) shouldbehigherthantheriskasp6ciated th residual contamination at NRC-licensed facilities.

NORM wast e contain ome of the same elements (i.e.,

uranium, thorium, radium, anu heir dau ters) that are regulated by NRC under the Atomic Energy Act (AEA).

he only ifference is that NORM waste is created by industr E procer es that oncentrate these unwanted radioactive elements in waste streams ile com rable AEA waste is usually created by dilution of more highly goncentra d material.

Because the radionuclides are in many cases identical for NORM nd AEA wastes, it is not clear why the public should not be fered e al levels of protection from identical radioactive elements If you have any q stions ncerning these comments, please call me at (301) 415-7437 o Mr. Ro rt Nelson of my staff at (301) 415-7298.

Sincerely.

[0riginal signed by]

John T. Greeves, Director Division of Waste Management Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Enclos e: As ated TICKET: DWM-18 DISTRIBUTION: w/ enc Central File LLDP r/f DWM r/f NMSS r/f PUBLIC w/o encl:

CPap iello WKane JGreeves MFederline CTrottier

• SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE Path & ile )(

5.1/S:\\DWM\\LLDP\\RAN\\DORNSIFE.LTR OFC/

/LDP*

LLDP RES DWM NME /

RNelson JHickey CTrottier dAT[

8/21/97

/

/97

/ /97

/ /97 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY ACNi YES

.X NO Category:

Proprietary or CF Only IG

YES NO X

LSS : YES N0' X

Delete file after distribution:

Yes No X

p,n M

W, DornsifeL 42-p

.v

!st$ndard,theCommissiunhasconcludedthatthereis.noreason-fromthe Lstandpoint.of arotection af public health and safety to have a separa,, lower D

dose criterion for one r# -the pathways as long as, when combined, tt dose

-from all path,4ys doesn't exceed the total dose standard establish for the

= rule.

Your article does not refute this point.

-In; discussing-the burden to licensees-of a separate drinking ter stand d,

.you state that performance assessment studies have:shown tha. most fac ities can meet a 4 mrem /y drinking water pathways constraint. N agrees t at,

-based on typical operating practices-of most nuclear faci ities and n the behavior of radionuclides in the environment for the ve large m.scrity of cites, concentrations of radionuclides in the groundw er will b well t.elow the dose criterion of the final rule and-would be ei er below' r marginally-above the MCLs, This is not true for all sites an the exce ions would not be restricted to fuel cycle facilities as stated 1 your ar cle.

Licensing efficiency, consistency of application of reoni ments, a oversight of these facilities can best be achieved by codifying e applica 'on of criteria to all facilities rather than requiring license to seek 'n exemption as

. suggested in your. article, e

In your discussion of exceptions, you s gest tha the acceptable level of risk for wastes containing naturally-curring r dioactive: material (NORM) should be higher than the risk assoc 4 ted with esidualEcontamination at NRC-licensed facilities. NORM wastes.

ntain s of the same elements (i.e.,

-uranium,-thorium, radium, and the' daughte s) that are regulated by NRC under

-the Atomic Energy Act (AEA), _Tt. only di erence is that NORM Waste is created by-industrial processe that co entrate these unwanted radioactive elements in waste streams'wh' e compar le AEA waste is usually created by dilution of more highly co ntrated aterial.

Becau'se the radionuclides are-in many cases identical f NORM a AEA< wastes, itsis not clear why the public should not offere equal 1 els of protection from identical radioactive elements.

If you have-any:que ions cor erning these comments, please call-me at (301) 415-7437 or

r. Rober Nelson of my staff at (301)-415 7298.

Sincerely,

[ Original signed by]

John-T Greeves, Director Division of Waste Management-Office of Nuclear Material-Safety and-Safeguards Enclos e: As s ted-TICKET: DWM-1

DISTRIBUTIO w/ encl-Central File LLDP r/f DWM r/f NMSS r/f PUBLIC w/o encl:

CPape ello WKane'JGreeves MFederline CTrottier lo receive copy of-s document in taall box on "0FC:* line enter:

"C" = Copy without attachment / enclosure: "E" =

Copy with ttachment losure:~"N" = No copy Path & ile Na

S:\\DWM\\LLDP\\RAN\\DORNSIFE.LTR OF[

Lk[f[/[/

LLDP RES DWM' DAME

/R[eYson-

'JHickey CTrottier DATE /

O N /97

~ / /97

/ /97

/ /97

-0FFICIAL RECORD COPY ACNW: YES X

N0 _.

Category:

Proprietary or CF Only IG : YES N0 X

LSS :-YES NO X

Delete file after distribution:

Yes No X

.-.