ML20245C541

Submits Followup to & Response to Ltrs from C Woodhead & D Hirsh Re EPA Regulatory Problems Concerning Transfer of Neutron Activated Lead Remaining at Reactor Facility to Univ License for Future Use as Shield Matl

ML20245C541
Person / Time
Site:	05000142
Issue date:	04/12/1989
From:	Mclaughlin J CALIFORNIA, UNIV. OF, LOS ANGELES, CA
To:	Alexander Adams Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8904270204
Download: ML20245C541 (4)

Text

. .

' UNI \'EllSITY OF CAL IFOllNIA, LOS - ANGELES UCLA-

e. >

g ben Etit t> Avis tamt tu. ANott16 nnin%IDE SANIHLGO b4N FRANClhCO  !. '. S ANT 4 B ARBARA $ANTACRUZ COMMUNITY SAFETY / RADIATION SAFETY 2195, WEST CAMPUS MEDICAL DUILDING 10833 LE CONTE AVENUE LOS ANCELES, CALIFORNIA 90024-1705 Mr. Alexander Adams, Project Manager Standardization and Non-Power Reactor Project Directorate Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV, V and Special Projects

'U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

. Washington, D.C. 20555 Docket No. 50-142

Dear Mr. Adams:

This is a follow-up to my letter of January 26, 1989 and also responds to the letters from NRC Counsel Colleen Woodhead and intervenor repre3entative Daniel Hirsch which asked for an explanation of the EPA regulatory problems in connection with the transfer of neutron activated lead remaining at the reactor facility to the University's California Radioactive Material License for future use as shield material. I The lead consists of approximately 1000 pounds of lead bricks and 4000 pounds of lead _ shot which were formerly part of the reactor assembly. You  ;

will recall that we previously transferred about 9 tons or 80% of the lead from our reactor facility to another licensee outside California.

Section 2.6 of the Settlement Agreement gives standards to distinguish I radioactive material from material which is below regulatory concern. Our lead does not pass this test.

1 The lead shot dose rates outside and within 1 meter of the 30 gallon drums  ;

ranges up to 0.26 mR/h. The standard is less than 5 microrem per hour above normal background at a 1 meter distance. The lead bricks vary considerably and the dose rate ranges from about 0.04 to 0.16 mR per hour. l The gamma-emitting isotopes determined by spectrometric measurements are Co-60, Ag-108m, Ag-110 and Sb-125.

1 The removable contamination standard iri Secthn 2.6 does not apply to the l

" shot", but the radioactivity concentration ranges up to about 100 pCi per gram. The lead brick concentration ranges from 24 to 400 pCi per gram.

The concentration data also indicate that the lead shot must be securely ,

packaged before it is incorporated into a shield to control contamination. ]

Of course, the lead bricks and shot would normally have to be appropriately j packaged before transport to a qualified organization outside the l

University.  !

I e t\e 1 L__ __ -

t J

Our realistic options from Section 2.5 are to either dispose of the lead l (as radioactive - waste) ' or transfer it to another qualified licensee (as useful material). If the waste option is used, then recent EPA regulations on hazardous waste come into play, because our lead is termed mixed waste, i.e., both toxic and radioactive. This means the receiving organization must be both a NRC/ Agreement State licensee and an EPA permittee. These recent regulations affect the University in this matter directly. The recent Federal Register notices (blFR 24504, July 1986, and 53 FR 37045, September, 1988) were intended to clarify EPA regulations on hazardous waste and mi'xed waste. But questions raised on who is qualified to handle hazardous (mixed) waste resulted in the September, 1988 requirement. Owners and operators of facilities that treat, store, and' dispose of mixed waste must satisfy the EPA hazardous waste requirements.

As a result although the University is prepared to transfer its remaining lead to a qualified organization, we have been unable to locate one that is legally able to accept our lead, despite many inquiries and calls to known potential organizations. This confusion on the EPA requirements arose after the Settlement Agreement was signed.

If we try to transfer the lead to another licensse for his useful purpose the practical situation is that we must identify such a licensee and reach an appropriate agreement. This must be done for either option (the disposal or transfer of the lead through a qualified organization) Very soon, if we are to ensure continued progress on the decommission process.

The simplest alternative that would serve us all by expediting the decommissioning process would be to modify the Settlement Agreement to except the remaining lead from material that must be sent off the campus to conform to the Settlement Agreement.

Had we been abl9 to anticipate triese EPA complications at the time the agreement was negotiated we would have required that the lead be excepted from phase one decommissioning along with tue other reactor components identified in Section 2.5.

The lead would be retained on the campus as non-waste, as explained in the January 26 letter or included with items to be disposed as part of the second pnase of the plan. Although the lead contains moderately long-lived activation products, the ultimate disposition of the lead may be simplified due to the additional decay time and time needed for the EPA regulations be clarified.

Accordingly, we are requesting that an appropriate amendment of the Settlement Agreement be prepared and hope that both the NHC and CBG agree that such an amendment will greatly expedite the process.

i l

.'s

'If,11nstead, either the NRC or CBG can identify a qualified organization who will agree within the next few weeks to accept. transfer of the lead, we will carry out the original plan and dispose of the lead to the designated organization.

In any event, we are anxious to proceed with the decommissioning and would appreciate your early response in this matter.

Sincerely, 4

7

f. r' y A/n mes E. McLaughlin Director,' Radiation Safety oc: Service List l

l l

l 1

UniYersity of California Docket No. 50-142 -!

l

,, . Los Angeles ec: Department of Justice Roger Kohn, Esq.

Office of Attorney General 524 lith Street' P.O. Box 944255 Manhattan Beach, CA 60266 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 -

l California Department of Health Services Robert M. Meyers Attn Chief, Environmental City Attorney Radiation Control Unit Lynn Naliboff .

Radiological Health Section' Deputy City Attorney 714 P Street, Room 498 1685 Main St., Room 310 i Sacramento, Ca 95814 Santa Monica, CA 90401 i Mr. Daniel Hirsch Roger Holt, Esq.

c/o Federation of American Scientists Office of City Attorney 307. Massachusetts Avenue, NE 200 North Main St.

Washington, DC 20002 City Hall East, Room 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Dr. Haymond G. Schultze Administrative Vice Chancellor Univeristy-of California U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 405 Hilgard Avenue Region V Los Angeles, CA 90024 Office of Inspection & Enforcement 1450 Maria Lanec Suite 210 Walnut Creek, CA 94596-5368 Christine Helwick, Esq. William E. Kastenberg, Professor Glen R. Woocs, Esq. School of Engineering Office of General Counsel and Applied Science 590 University Hall 5532 J Boelter Hall 2200 University. Avenue University of California Berkeley, CA 94720 Los Angeles, CA 90024-1597 Dean Hansell Richard Sessions, Executive Officer 302 South Mansfield Ave. School of Engineering Los Angeles, CA 90036 and Applied Science 7256 Boelter Hall I

University of California Committee To Bridge The Gap .Los Angeles, CA 90024-1600 1637 Butler Avenue #203 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Mr. Neil C. Ostrander, Consultant Nuclear Engineering Laboratory Mr. John Bay School of Engineering and 1022 Peralta Street Applied Science Albany, CA 94706 University of California at Los Angeles Mr. James R. Heelan Los Angeles, CA 90024 Director, Society Services American Nuclear Society William H. Cormier 555 N. Kensington Avenue Director Capital Programs La Grange Park, IL 00525 University of California 405 Hilgard Avenue Rev. Feb. 23, 1989 Los Angeles CA 90024

_ _ - _ - _ _ _