Text

PRM-020-022 - 58FR54071 - Petition of the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District
	ML23156A152
Person / Time
Issue date:	10/20/1993
From:	Annette Vietti-Cook; NRC/SECY
To:	;
References
	PRM-020-022, 58FR54071
	Download: ML23156A152 (1)
	v • d • e

ADAMS Template: SECY-067 DOCUMENT DATE: 10/20/1993 TITLE: PRM-020-022 - 58FR54071 - PETITION OF THE NORTHEAST OHIO REGIONAL SEWER DISTRICT CASE

REFERENCE:

PRM-020-022 58FR54071 KEYWORD: RULEMAKING COMMENTS Document Sensitivity: Non-sensitive - SUNSI Review Complete

STATUS OF RULEMAKING PROPOSED RULE: PRM-20-22 OPEN ITEM (Y/N) N RULE NAME: PETITION OF THE NORTHEAST OHIO REGIONAL SEWER DISTRICT PROPOSED RULE FED REG CITE: 58FR54071 PROPOSED RULE PUBLICATION DATE: 10/20/93 NUMBER OF COMMENTS: 12 ORIGINAL DATE FOR COMMENTS: 01/03/94 EXTENSION DATE: I I FINAL RULE FED. REG. CITE: FINAL RULE PUBLICATION DATE: I I NOTES ON PET. WOULD AMEND REGS. TO REQUIRE THAT SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS REC ATUS EIVE 24 HRS. ADVANCE NOTICE BEFORE A RELEASE OF RAD. MATERIAL TO S RULE ANITARY SEWER SYSTEM. SEE ALSO ANPR AT 59FR09164. FILE ON 16-G.

TO FIND THE STAFF CONTACT OR VIEW THE RULEMAKING HISTORY PRESS PAGE DOWN KEY HISTORY OF THE RULE PART AFFECTED: PRM-20-22 RULE TITLE: PETITION OF THE NORTHEAST OHIO REGIONAL SEWER DISTRICT loPOSED RULE PROPOSED RULE DATE PROPOSED RULE SECY PAPER: SRM DATE: I I SIGNED BY SECRETARY: 10/14/93 FINAL RULE FINAL RULE DATE FINAL RULE SECY PAPER: SRM DATE: I I SIGNED BY SECRETARY: I I STAFF CONTACTS ON THE RULE CONTACTl: MICHAEL T. LESAR MAIL STOP: P-223 PHONE: 492-7758 CONTACT2: MAIL STOP: PHONE:

DOCKET NO. PRM-20-22 (58FR54071)

In the Matter of PETITION OF THE NORTHEAST OHIO REGIONAL SEWER DISTRICT DATE *DATE OF TITLE OR DOCKETED DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT

- 08/19/93 08/02/93 PETITION FOR RULEMAKING SUBMITTED BY THE NORTHEAST OHIO REGIONAL SEWER DISTRICT 12/03/93 11/18/93 COMMENT OF AKRON PUBLIC UTILITIES BUREAU (PATRICK D. GSELLMAN) ( 1) 12/06/93 10/14/93 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE - RECEIPT OF PETITION FOR RULEMAKING 12/22/93 12/17 /93 COMMENT OF EARTH DAY COALITION (CHRIS TREPAL) ( 2) 12/27/93 12/22/93 COMMENT OF UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI (VICTORIA MORRIS) ( 3) 12/28/93 12/20/93 COMMENT OF VILLAGE OF NEWBURGH HEIGHTS (KATHLEEN M. EDWARDS) ( 4)

- 01/03/94 12/23/93 COMMENT OF TRTR (WADE J. RICHARDS, CHAIRMAN) ( 5) 01/03/94 12/27/93 COMMENT OF SIERRA CLUB (KIM HILL, CO-CHARI) ( 6) 01/04/94 12/30/93 COMMENT OF PURDUE UNIVERSITY (JAMES F. SCHWEITZER, PHO) ( 7) 01/06/94 12/23/93 COMMENT OF ELI LILLY & COMPANY (DAVID R. MCAVOY) ( 8) 01/10/94 12/28/93 COMMENT OF DEPT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS (THOMAS A. SCHUMACHER, RSO) ( 9) 01/10/94 01/03/94 COMMENT OF UPJOHN LABORATORIES (JEFF W. PASLAY, PHO) ( 10) 01/13/94 01/07/94 COMMENT OF UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME (ROBERT M. ZERR) ( 11) 03/08/94 03/02/94 COMMENT OF CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO (TIMOTHY F. HAGAN, PRESIDENT) ( 12)

,/ aJjos ljaijD~ FM- D~ urP~ -Bi ~ ~11

1

[7590-01-P]

DOCKETED USNRC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION January 21, 2005 (3:25 pm) 10 CFR Part 20 OFFICE OF SECRETARY RULEMAKINGS AND

[Docket No. PRM-20-22] ADJUDICATIONS STAFF Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District; Denial of Petition for Rulemaking AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Denial of petition for rulemaking.

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRG) is denying a petition for rulemaking (dated August 2, 1993, Docket No. PRM-20-22) submitted by the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District (the District or the petitioner). The petitioner requested that NRG amend its regulations to require all licensees to provide no less than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months advance notice to the appropriate sewage treatment plant before releasing radioactive material into a sanitary sewer system, and to exempt radioactive materials that enter the sanitary waste stream from the requirements regarding NRG approval for incineration. NRG is denying the petition because it has been determined that current NRG regulations for discharge of licensed material into sanitary sewer systems are adequate and that current regulations for NRG approval for treatment or disposal bf licensed material by incineration are necessary to ensure the protection of public health and safety and the environment.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the petition for rulemaking, the public comments received, and the NRC's letter to the petitioner may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room, 01 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.

The NRC maintains an Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. These documents may be accessed through the NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at http://www.nrc.gov/readinq-rm/adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, (301) 415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lydia Chang, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-6319, e-mail lwc1@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Petition By letter dated August 2, 1993, the District submitted a petition for rulemaking to amend 10 CFR 20.303 (superceded by 20.2003) and 20.305 (superceded by 20.2004). The petitioner requested that NRC modify its regulations to require that all licensees provide no less than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months advance notice to the appropriate sewage treatment plant before releasing radioactive material into a sanitary sewer system, and to exempt radioactive materials that enter the sanitary waste stream from the requirements regarding NRC approval for incineration. The 2

petitioner stated that their Southerly Wastewater Treatment Center had been contaminated from releases of radioactive material containing cobalt-60 into its sanitary sewer system, resulting in costly characterization and remediation. The petitioner stated that the District was not the first sewage treatment authority to experience radioactive contamination and noted that NRC had documented radioactive contamination problems at other sewage treatment sites.

The petitioner also stated that contamination may exist undetected at other sewage treatment plants and requested that the regulations be amended.

Public Comments on the Petition A notice of receipt of the District's petition was published in the Federal Register (58 FR 54071; October 20, 1993). The public comment period closed on January 3, 1994.

NRC received twelve comment letters in response to the petition prior to the closing date. Ten of the twelve comment letters addressed the District's request for NRC to amend its regulations to require that all licensees provide at least 24 hours2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months advance notice to the appropriate sewage

- treatment plant before releasing radioactive material into a sanitary sewer system. Three commenters supported the District's request for providing a notification to the sewage treatment plant, but one commenter said that licensees and sewage treatment plant staff could agree on the provision of a report without making it a requirement in the Federal regulations. Six commenters did not support the District's request for such an amendment. Several comments said that such a requirement would be an unnecessary burden that would neither increase radiation safety nor reduce radiation exposures. Another commenter noted that it would be difficult to schedule "batch" releases because radioactive materials are used in continuous drug research and development processes, and, as such, discharges into the sanitary sewer are 3

continuous as well. One commenter believed that no radioactive waste should be deposited in any sewer system by any licensee for any reason.

Eight of the twelve letters commented on the District's request to exempt radioactive materials that entered the sanitary waste stream from the requirements regarding NRC approval for incineration. Two commenters were supportive of this part of the petition. Four commenters were opposed to this request because they believed that it was another attempt to declare radioactive materials entering sanitary sewer systems as being "Below Regulatory Concern," as the exemption would only increase contamination as in the already documented cases , and it would pose a serious threat to the health and safety of populations surrounding facilities that incinerate radioactive materials. Two commenters cited the need for additional NRC review/guidance on this issue in order to clarify at what point radioactive material is no longer under regulatory control.

NRC published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) in the Federal Register(59 FR 9146; February 25, 1994) to determine whether an amendment to its regulations governing the release of radioactive material from licensed facilities into sanitary

- sewer systems was needed, based on current sewage treatment technologies . The ANPR noted receipt of the petition for rulemaking submitted by the District (PRM-20-22) and specifically requested comments on the two issues raised in the petition.

Twenty-one letters received in response to the ANPR included comments on the District's request for the NRC to amend its regulations to require that all licensees provide at least 24 hours2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months advance notice to the appropriate sewage treatment plant before releasing radioactive material into a sanitary sewer system. Six of the twenty-one commenters supported a requirement for licensees to provide the sewage treatment plant with some type of reporting on the radioactive materials released into the sanitary sewer system. These commenters supported a wide range of reporting requirements - from the petitioner's request for a 24-hour 4

advance notification before licensees release radioactive material, to monthly or annual discharge reports, to reports of releases that could be a threat to the publicly-owned treatment works (POTW) workers or the environment, to notification of large accidental releases.

Fifteen of the twenty-one commenters did not support such a requirement for licensees to provide at least 24-hour advance notice to the appropriate sewage treatment plant before releasing radioactive material into a sanitary sewer system. Several commenters said that a 24-hour advance notification would result in an unnecessary regulatory burden, with no additional radiation safety protection nor dose reduction. These commenters indicated that the existing regulations for discharges of licensed material maintain doses at or below the existing dose limits for members of the public and if licensees meet the "as low as reasonably achievable" (ALARA) goals, the 24-hour advance notification would be unnecessary. Several commenters noted that such notification would be impractical because most releases are continuous and involve very small quantities of radioactive material. For example, discharges from hospitals and medical facilities would change daily depending on the number of patients treated and types of treatment used.

Several commenters also noted that potentially there would be large cost implications and regulatory burdens associated with such notification. In addition, commenters were concerned about having these reports received and interpreted by sewage treatment plant personnel, rather than radiation safety specialists, resulting in potential misinterpretation of the data. Several commenters offered that such an NRC requirement for licensees to provide a 24-hour advance notification was unnecessary because local municipalities have authority over their local sewer district, already have requirements to follow the Clean Water Act, and may establish a pretreatment program for wastewater acceptance. One commenter noted that the usefulness of a 24-hour advance notification should be assessed after the new limits for sewer discharges are in place.

5

Six comment letters received in response to the ANPR included comments on the District's request that the NRC exempt materials that enter the sanitary waste stream from requirements for NRC approval prior to treatment or disposal of licensed material by incineration. Four commenters supported such an amendment because, given the radioisotopes and activities involved, the pathways for human exposure from radioactive wastes seem no more or less significant if the wastes are dispersed into water or air. If release into a sanitary sewer system is to be considered disposal, these commenters indicated, the limits should be set so that no further regulation of the radioactive material is needed after release into a sanitary sewer. One commenter did not support such an amendment because it would only serve to provide an open-ended system for radioactive material to pass into the environment and to the public without limitations or characterization. Another commenter supported sole use of concentration limits for measuring a licensee's limits for disposal of radioactive material into sanitary sewer systems.

Discussion Regulatory Framework Relevant to the Petition NRC regulations governing the discharge of licensed material by release into sanitary sewer systems and the treatment or disposal of licensed material by incineration can be found in 10 CFR 20.2003 and 20.2004, respectively. These regulations were published in the Federal Register (56 FR 23360; May 21, 1991) as part of an overall revision of NRC's standards for protection against radiation. The licensees were required to implement these regulations by January 1, 1993. Although the District filed its petition after the implementation date of the 1991 revision of 10 CFR Part 20 regulations, the sewage sludge and ash from the District's 6

Southerly Wastewater Treatment Center were contaminated prior to the implementation date.

As part of the 1991 revision of 10 CFR Part 20 regulations, NRC examined several instances where radioactive material was detected in sewage treatment systems. The results of this examination led to modifications of the requirements for disposal of licensed material by release into sanitary sewer systems in 10 CFR 20.2003. Specifically, NRC removed the broad provision that allowed the disposal of dispersible materials into sanitary sewer system. The disposal of non-biological insoluble materials is no longer permitted because of potential reconcentration of these materials in the sanitary sewer system, sewage treatment plants, and sewage sludge. The current NRC regulations require that any licensed material discharged into a sanitary sewer system must be readily soluble (or is readily dispersible biological material) in water. In addition, the concentration limits for radionuclides released into a sanitary sewer system were reduced by a factor of 10 as part of an overall reduction in effluent release limits.

The concentration limits were reduced because of past contamination incidents involving cobalt-60 and americium-241. The revised concentration limits, listed in Table 3 of the Appendix B to Part 20, were an effort to reduce the public's exposure to radionuclides released

- into the sanitary sewer system. In addition, NRC recommends that licensees should set ALARA goals for effluents at a modest fraction (10 to 20 percent) of their allowable limits as stated in NRC Regulatory Guide 8.37, "ALARA Levels for Effluents from Materials Facilities,"

dated July 1993. NRC also conducts periodic inspections to ensure that licensees are in compliance with NRC regulations.

A number of comments, received during the 1991 revision of 10 CFR Part 20, questioned the need for the requirements that incineration of radioactive material requires specific prior NRC approval. After these comments were analyzed and considered in developing the final rule, NRC did not revise the provision regarding Commission approval for 7

treatment or disposal by incineration except for waste oil. In the "Statements of Consideration" for the final rule, NRC stated:

Relaxation of the prior approval requirement for incineration was considered in connection with the amendments to part 20 of this final rule . The requirements for prior NRC approval of incineration remains in the amendments to part 20 in this final rule because the acceptability of incineration as a disposal option, except for exempted quantities of radioactive materials, must be determined on a site-specific basis considering: (1) incinerator design, (2) the variable isotopic composition and activity of the material to be burned, and (3) potential human exposure to effluents, which may require special calculational methods because of complex meteorologic conditions and other factors.

As part of the 1991 revision of 10 GFR Part 20, it was authorized that a licensee may treat or dispose of licensed material contained in certain waste oil by incineration without prior NRG approval. In making this regulatory change, the NRC staff analyzed the type of radionuclides and their potential concentrations in waste oil, performed atmospheric dispersion modeling to characterize potential hazards from incineration, and evaluated the potential environmental impact. The regulatory basis for requirements in obtaining NRG approval prior to incineration is to ensure that NRG may evaluate the potential impact to the public health and safety and the environment on a case-by-case and site-specific basis. Hazards associated with incineration of sewage sludge will highly depend on the specific characteristic of the sludge such as the presence of radioactive materials, which could potentially have a broad spectrum of radionuclides and a wide range of concentration levels. The petitioner's request to incinerate sewage sludge without prior NRC approval is not supported by any detailed data, and has the 8

potential to be inconsistent with the petitioner's basis for requesting an amendment to 10 CFR 20.2003. If petitioner is concerned with potential contamination of radioactive _material in the sewage sludge, incineration of such sewage sludge without prior NRC approval would potentially not be protective to the public health and safety and the environment.

Surveys, Studies, and Reports Relevant to the Petition In May 1992, the NRC issued the results of a scoping study in NUREG/CR-5814, "Evaluation of Exposure Pathways to Man from Disposal of Radioactive Materials into Sanitary Sewer Systems," which evaluated the potential radiological doses to POTW workers and members of the public from exposure to radionuclides in sewage sludge. The first part of the analysis estimated the potential doses to workers for five known cases in which radioactive materials were detected at POTWs (Tonawanda, NY; Grand Island, NY; Royersford, PA; Oak Ridge, TN; and Washington, DC). Doses from the case studies were estimated to range from less than 1O microsieverts per year (µSv/yr) (1 millirem per year (mrem/yr)) to 930 µSv/yr (93 mrem/yr) for members of the public, using a deterministic scenario analysis and the reported radionuclide concentrations and/or discharges. The second part of the study estimated the maximum radiation exposures to POTW workers and others who could be affected by low levels of man-made radioactivity in wastewater. The quantities of radionuclides released into the sewer systems were assumed to be the maximum allowed under NRC regulations at the time. Estimates of the hypothetical, maximum exposures to workers ranged from zero to a dose roughly equal to natural background.

In May 1994, the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO, now U.S. Government Accountability Office) issued a report, GAO/RCED-94-133, "Nuclear Regulation: Action Needed to Control Radioactive Contamination at Sewage Treatment Plants," that described nine cases, including the District, where contamination was found in sewage sludge or ash or in wastewater 9

collection systems. On the basis of the limited information available on radiation levels in sewage sludge and ash across the country, GAO concluded that the full extent of contamination nationwide is unknown. The GAO also concluded that the "problem of radioactive contamination of sludge and ash in the reported cases was the result, in large part, of NRC's regulation, which was incorrectly based on the assumption that radioactive materials would flow through treatment systems and not concentrate." The GAO report did note that to address the problem of radioactive materials' concentrating in sludge and ash, the NRG has revised its regulation to reduce the concentration levels of the radioactive materials that licensees can discharge into sanitary sewer systems although the GAO report also pointed out that "NRC does not know how effective this action will be." The GAO report stated that health implications of the exposure of treatment plant workers and the public to contaminated sludge, ash, and related by-products are unknown because neither the NRG nor the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) knows (1) how much radioactive material may be in these products and (2) how these products might affect people.

In June 1994, a joint U.S. House of Representatives and Senate hearing (June 21, 1994; S. Hrg. 103-1034) was held to officially release and address questions raised in the GAO report. These hearings were prompted by concerns associated with elevated levels of radioactivity in incinerator ash at the Cleveland treatment plant referenced in the District's petition. The testimony presented by both NRC and EPA during the hearing noted that there was no indication of a widespread problem, and that the District's incident appeared to be an isolated event. However, at the hearing, NRC and EPA committed to jointly develop guidance for POTWs and to collect more data on the concentration of radioactive materials in samples of sewage sludge and ash from POTWs nationwide.

Between 1994 and 1997, Federal, State, and industry studies were conducted to assess reconcentration of radioactive materials that are released into sanitary sewer systems. In 10

December 1994, the NRC published NUREG/CR-6289, "Reconcentration of Radioactive Material Released to Sanitary Sewers in Accordance with 10 CFR Part 20." The objectives of this study were to: (1) assess whether radioactive materials that are released into sanitary sewer systems undergo significant reconcentration within the wastewater treatment plant, and (2) determine the physical and/or chemical processes that may result in their reconcentration within the wastewater treatment plant. A review of the literature clearly demonstrated that some radioactive materials discharged into sanitary sewer systems are reconcentrated in sludge produced as a result of wastewater treatment. However, the report concluded that the available data were not sufficient to assess the adequacy of the requirements in 10 CFR 20.2003 in preventing occurrences of radionuclide concentrations in sewage sludge at levels which present undue risk to the public; nor is the available data sufficient to suggest strategies for changing that requirements.

In 1996, the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies (AMSA) conducted a limited survey of concentrations of radioactivity in sewage sludge and ash samples from some of its member POTW s. Samples were obtained from 55 wastewater treatment plants in 17 States. The most significant sources of radioactivity were potassium and radium isotopes, which are naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORM).

In December 1997, the Washington State Department of Health issued a report WDOH/320-013, "The Presence of Radionuclides in Sewage Sludge and Their Effect on Human Health," that was based on sludge samples taken at six POTWs in the State. The report concluded that doses from radionuclides in sewage sludge are extremely low compared to background or to generally accepted regulatory dose limits, and that there is no indication that radioactive material in biosolids in the State of Washington poses a health risk.

The lnteragency Steering Committee on Radiation Standards (ISCORS) was formed in 1995 to address inconsistencies, gaps, and overlaps in current radiation protection standards.

11

In 1996, the Sewage Sludge Subcommittee of ISCORS was formed to coordinate efforts to address the recommendations in the 1994 GAO Report. Between 1998 and 2000, the EPA and NRC (through the ISCORS) jointly conducted a voluntary survey of POTW sewage sludge and ash to help assess the potential need for NRC and/or EPA regulatory decisions. Sludge and ash samples were analyzed from 313 POTWs, some of which had greater potential to receive releases of radionuclides from NRC and Agreement State licensees, and some of which were located in areas of the country with higher concentrations of NORM. Although the survey and sampling were biased towards facilities with greater potential for the presence of licensed material and NORM, ISCORS did not make a conclusion about the bias of the results. In November 2003, the results of the survey were published in a final report, NUREG-1775 "ISCORS Assessment of Radioactivity in Sewage Sludge: Radiological Survey Results and Analysis." No widespread or nationwide public health concern was identified by the survey and no excessive concentrations of radioactivity were observed in sludge or ash. The results indicated that the majority of samples with elevated radioactivity were attributable to NORM, such as radium, rather than man-made sources. With the exception of NORM, most of the other samples were at or near the limit of detection. The results of this survey are consistent with the AMSA survey noted above.

The Sewage Sludge Subcommittee is in the process of finalizing a draft report, NUREG-1783, "ISCORS Assessment of Radioactivity in Sewage Sludge: Modeling to Assess Radiation Doses." This report contains computer modeling information, seven different sewage sludge management scenarios, and doses calculated by using modeling process that converts known activity concentrations in sludge to potential doses to individuals. Using survey results with the dose modeling, the calculated doses showed that no widespread concern to public health and safety from potential radiation exposures associated with the handling, beneficial use, and disposal of sewage sludge containing radioactive materials, including NORM.

12

The Sewage Sludge Subcommittee is also in the process of finalizing a draft final report, EPA 832-R-03-002B, "ISCORS Assessment of Radioactivity in Sewage Sludge:

Recommendations on Management of Radioactive Materials in Sewage Sludge and Ash at Publicly Owned Treatment Works," November 2003. This report provides guidance to: (1) alert POTW operators, and State and Federal regulators to the possibility of radioactive materials concentrating in sewage sludge and incinerator ash; (2) inform them how to determine whether there are elevated levels of radioactive materials in their sludge or ash; and (3) assist them in identifying actions for reducing potential radiation exposure from sewage and ash.

Reasons for Denial NRC is denying the petition because it has been determined that current NRC regulations in 10 CFR 20.2003 and 20.2004 adequately ensure the protection of public health and safety and the environment.

With regard to the petitioner's request to amend 10 CFR 20.2003, NRC has reviewed the petitioner's rationale, the public comments on the petition and on the ANPR, and a number of relevant activities, surveys, and reports to determine whether there was a health and safety issue due to the reconcentration of radioactive materials in sewage sludge and ash, and if so, was the requested amendment for 24 hours2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months advance notifications necessary to help prevent excessive exposures to workers and the public.

The current requirements in 10 CFR 20.2003 were not fully implemented at the time of contamination at the District's Southerly Wastewater Treatment Center. The NRC significantly decreased the concentration limits for radionuclides discharged into sanitary sewer systems as part of the 1991 revision of 10 CFR Part 20, and licensees were required to comply with the 13

regulatory changes as of 1993. In addition to lowering the concentration limits, the disposal of non-biological insoluble materials was prohibited because of potential reconcentration of these materials in sanitary sewer systems, treatment plants, and sludge. NRG also has issued guidance to further reduce the effluent limits through use of ALARA goals. In addition, NRG conducts periodic inspections to ensure that licensees are in compliance with NRG regulations.

Under this current regulatory framework, NRG expects that doses from release of licensed material into a sanitary sewer system are within regulatory limits.

The available data do not support the District's assertion that health and safety protection would be enhanced by advance notification from all licensees to the appropriate sewage treatment plant. The ISGORS final survey report shows that NORM constitutes the most significant levels of radioactive materials in POTWs, and therefore any notification requirement imposed on licensees will not effectively reduce the level of radioactive materials in POTW facilities. Effluent levels from NRG-licensed activities are established in order to maintain doses to the public at or below a pre-determined protective level. The ISGORS draft dose modeling report shows that calculated doses to POTW workers and the public are sufficiently low from discharge of the licensed material into sanitary sewer systems, based on radionuclide concentrations in the sewage sludge and the associated sewage sludge management practices.

NRG has determined that a requirement for an advance notification would impose an unnecessary regulatory burden on licensees, without a commensurate health and safety protection of the public. Such a requirement for advance notification would also be considered as an information request burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U .S.G. 3501 et seq.). This burden is broadly defined, and any method of notification imposed by an Agreement State or the NRC, including telephonic or electronic, is applicable. The regulatory burden proposed by the District is large, due to the large number of licensees that discharge to 14

sanitary sewer systems. In addition, there is no justification on how the notification would be used at the wastewater treatment plant to affect treatment operations in response to a discharge of licensed material to ensure protection of health and safety.

Finally, several commenters stated that it would be impractical, if not impossible, for all licensees to provide advance notices to the appropriate sewage treatment plant because of the nature of the process involved. Very small quantities of radioactive materials are continuously used at certain licensed facilities, such as drug research and development companies, and these radioactive materials are continuously discharged into sanitary sewer systems.

Discharges from clinics and hospitals would have many fluctuations depending on the number of patients treated and the types of treatment used. It would be unreasonable to expect licensees to notify the sewage treatment facility prior to each discharge. It would also be equally unreasonable, in some cases, to expect licensees to collect discharges in order to schedule for a batched discharge.

In summary, NRC has concluded that the public comments, data, analyses, reports, and petitioner's rationale do not justify the petitioner's request for a rulemaking to amend the regulations in 10 CFR 20.2003 to require that all licensees provide no less than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months advance notification to the appropriate sewage treatment plant before releasing radioactive material into a sanitary sewer system. Such a rulemaking would impose unnecessary regulatory burden on licensees and does not appear to be warranted for the adequate protection of public health and safety and the common defense and security. Therefore, NRC is denying the petitioner's request to amend 10 CFR 20.2003.

With respect to the petitioner's request to amend 10 CFR 20.2004, NRC has reviewed the petitioner's rationale, the public comments on the petition, and the regulatory history on the requirements for NRC approval for incineration. NRC regulations in 10 CFR 20.2004 apply to either an NRC or an Agreement State licensee and generally do not apply to a POTW or its 15

operations. POTWs are not required to obtain NRC approval for incineration of their sewage sludge, unless they possess an NRC or Agreement State license for possession of licensed radioactive material in the sewage sludge. Studies, surveys, and modeling efforts conducted to date indicate that releases of radioactive material from licensed facilities in accordance with 10 CFR 20.2003 generally do not reconstitute in sewage sludge in sufficient concentrations to pose a risk to public health and safety and thus it is unlikely that a POTW will be required to possess an NRC license for its sludge. Therefore, a change to 10 CFR 20.2004 regulations is not needed.

If a licensee incinerates licensed material, the staff continues to believe that the NRC approval requirements are necessary to have reasonable assurance that the public health and safety are adequately protected. Hazards associated with incinerating licensed material will highly depend on the specific characteristic of the matrix containing the licensed material. If a licensee incinerates the licensed material contained in the sewage sludge, many factors would have to be considered because the sewage sludge could potentially have a broad spectrum of radionuclides from various sources and a wide range of concentration levels. The potential hazards also highly depend on the case-specific incinerator design and site-specific exposure to the public and the environment. Even though the discharge requirements for 10 CFR 20.2003 were set to adequately protect public health and safety and the environment, different human exposure scenarios apply to the disposal of licensed material by incineration, even if those materials are discharged in compliance with another section of the regulations. NRC found that the acceptability of incineration as a disposal option, except for exempted quantities of radioactive materials, must be determined on a facility- and site-specific basis. NRC continues to believe that prior NRC approval for incineration is necessary to have reasonable assurance that the public health and safety are adequately protected. Therefore, NRC is also denying the petitioner's request to amend 10 CFR 20.2004 to explicitly exempt radioactive 16

materials that enter the sanitary waste stream under 10 CFR 20.2003 from the requirements regarding NRC approval for incineration.

For the reasons cited in this document, NRC denies this petition.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this _ _;:2.=\.....~ = - > - - - day o f ~ , 2005.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

~~V:1.=-Cad---J Annette Vietti-Cook Secretary of the Commission .

17

COLNTYOF CUYAHOGA *94 MAR - 8 P2 :30 Marc h 2, 199q: V r f Mr. Samuel Chilk Commissioner Secretary Timothy F. Hagan U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing and Service RE: 10 CFR 2. 802 Petition for Rulemaking from Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District (August 2, 1993)

Dear Secretary Chilk:

I am writing to you about the Petition for Rulemaking recently filed by the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District (NEORSD) dated August 2, 1993. As President of the Board of County Commissioners for Cuyahoga County (Cleveland and surrounding suburbs), I would like to register my opposition to this proposal.

The Petition for Rulemaking seeks an exemption from NRC rules which would permit the Sewer District to incinerate radioactive materials which enter the santiary sewer system. I believe that this exemption would pose a serious threat to the health and safety of millions of Cuyahoga County residents. While I am sympathetic to the plight of the Sewer District -- which receives these materials through no fault of its own -- I do not believe that an exemption is the right way to proceed.

In fact, I believe that the granting of this exemption by the NRC would constitute a blatant admission by the agency that it has failed in its duty to protect the public from dangerous radioactive materials. Instead of simply accepting this failure, the NRC should concentrate on improving its regulatory capabi l ities in orr:ter to prevent the dumping of dangerous materials into our sewers.

For the health and safety of the residents of Cuyahoga County, Ohio, I urge you to deny this Petition for Rulemaking, and to pursue more effective method~ regulating radioactive materials.

I r ncerely, l~ ~ g~ Presi; ent Board of County Commissioners MAY 1 o 1994 Acknowledg bycacd .. ,_IMMIM........,.

County Administration Building 121 9 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 441 1 3 216/443-7178

.s 0 CTIO ARY IS 10, 3 Jt-//q'-1 I

3

~

/...eS~tr YL:F~aa:-

Pt:i I1 -, 1 ;~*" ~ _1_ _ .2

._.(2- 1).,

{5'91= R ~t./07!) ~ *

. :~,-J ~*:_ \ :_0 ti~) Ni~C RISK MANAGEMENT AND SAFETY PHONE 219/631-5037

'9Lf xJA\il9;\6J 1 - s&\J :11 A

UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME 122 CAMPUS SECURITY BUILDING

. P-!L

Ju CK

N ,

NOTRE DAME, INDIANA 46556-5675 January 7, 1994 Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory commission Washington, D.C. 20555 attn: Docketing and Service Branch

Dear Sir:

As a Broad Material Licensee, the University of Notre Dame is writing in opposition to the request by the Northwest Ohio Regional Sewer District that the NRC amend 10 CFR 20.303 and 10 CFR 20.2003 to require not less than 24 hour2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months advance notice to the appropriate sewage treatment plant before releasing radioactive material to the sanitary sewer system.

The regulations currently contained in 10 CFR 20.303 and 10 CFR 20.2003 set maximum permissible concentrations of radionuclides in sewage that should preclude contamination of any part of a sewage system. The University of Notre Dame currently disposes of approximately 456 gallons of aqueous radioactive waste per year.

This waste is released over approximately 75 different disposals per year into our sewage system and each disposal is then diluted by our average daily sewage amount of 1,211,612 gallons. The diluted waste then goes to our local city sewage treatment plant.

Wipe tests regularly performed on the drain area used for disposal of radioactive waste has never indicated contamination from any of the radionuclides disposed at that point (which is well before the waste mixes with the remainder of the sewage flow, and therefore receives the full benefit of dilution.)

With limited personnel, time to release aqueous waste is not something scheduled or routinely done. Whenever personnel have time and when we have waste that is ready for disposal (after sufficient decay of short half-life materials), we release our aqueous waste into the sewer system. Notifying the sewage treatment plant prior to waste disposal would not only be extremely inconvenient to the licensee, but in our opinion would serve no useful benefit to the treatment plant as there would be no practical means to treat the aqueous radioactive waste beyond the dilution that occurs before leaving the generator's facility.

1 Acknowledged by carcl~y 1 0 1994"

Lr:f.Fl ~~- 1-~ . . COMMISSION ooc* *_ ! ;: ~

s~:T10N

(;;=; !(; * ,.- : l'AiW

Secretary of The Commission January 7, 1994 Page 2 For these reasons, we strongly oppose the requested amendments to 10 CFR 20.303 and 10 CFR 20.2003.

Sincerely, RJ.~m-~

Robert M. Zerr Director/Radiation Safety Officer Risk Management and Safety RMZ/mlm

OOC !', L i i.. U USNHC THE UPJOHN COMPANY NRC License No. 21-00182-03 7000 Portage Road Kalamazoo, Ml 49001-0199 UPJOHN LABORATORIES JeffW. Paslay, Ph.D.

Chairman, Upjohn Radiation Safety Committee Director, Chemical & Biological Screening 7295-126-201 Telephone No. (616) 385-7965 Fax No. (616) 385-7373 January 3, 1994 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attn: Docketing and Service Branch Re: Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District: Petition for Rulemaking - Docket No.

PRM-20-22

Dear Secretary Chilk:

This letter is in response to the Notice in the Federal Register Vol. 58, No. 201, dated October 20, 1993, regarding the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District's request to require NRC licensees to provide 24 hours2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months ' advance notice to sewage treatment plants before releasing radioactive materials to them.

Industry has an obligation to limit potential pollution. To this end, it is essential to the effective treatment of wastewater that industries inform the operators of treatment

- facilities of the types and quantities of wastes (including radioisotopes) being released.

The Upjohn Company releases radioactive material to a wastewater treatment facility operated by the City of Kalamazoo, Michigan, in accordance with 10CFR20.2003. We maintain a close working relationship with the management of the Kalamazoo Water Reclamation Plant and we cooperate to monitor and reduce potential pollutants.

Consequently, treatment-plant management is aware of the type and volume of our radioactive releases.

Information contained in your Notice suggests that all licensees discharge radioactive materials to sanitary sewers in a "batch" mode. We use radioactive materials in continuous drug research and development processes and as such, our discharges of radioactive materials to the sanitary sewer tend to be continuous as well. It would be difficult, if not impossible, for The Upjohn Company to schedule radioactive releases on a "batch" basis .

MAY 1 0 1994 1 Acknowledged by card "*-11**1tt1Mmm11w

. . !JUCL iY COMMISSION DOC E SECTION OF RETARY SION Dcc*.*1 nt Statistics

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Page 2 January 3, 1994 When it is known to all affected parties that a discharge is continuous, both the benefit and the practicality of 24-hour notification are questionable. As worded, the proposal implies that daily notification, even for a continuous discharge, would be necessary. This would be an unproductive burden on us as a licensee, and we believe, a nuisance to the treatment facility operator as well. Assuming that the intent of the proposal is to ensure that radioactive waste streams are accurately characterized, in the case of continuous releases this can be accomplished more effectively in other ways.

In Upjohn's case, for example, providing the treatment facility with a historical perspective on the use and discharge of radioisotopes, along with an annual plan for future releases, should enable facility management to adequately protect both the environment and the treatment system. Upjohn suggests adoption of a regulation requiring continuous dischargers of low-level radioactive waste to file an annual report 9 describing anticipated releases.

We ask that you reject the proposal as written, at least as it affects licensees who are continuous dischargers, and that you consider requiring a prospective evaluation and an annual notification. Additionally, any revision of the regulation should not prevent a licensee from releasing on a continuous basis as long as the limits of 10CRF20.2003 are not exceeded.

Should you have any questions regarding our position, please contact me.

Sincerely, THE UPJOHN COMPANY

~!~~

cc: Bruce Minsley, Kalamazoo Utilities Department

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFA IRS Richard L. Roudebush Medical Center Indianapolis, IN 46202-2884

94 JAN 10 Pl .* -t.6 December 28, 1993 In Reply Refer To: 583/0025 L,'

Secretary of the Commission UL,l\t *'I J

~

r-i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 THRU: Docketing and Service Branch SUBJ: Docket No. PRM-20-22; Petition for Rulemaking - Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District 1 . We would like to log our concerns with this petition for rulemaking. The following points should be emphasized regarding aqueous radioactive waste disposal into sanitary sewage systems:

a) Although the incident described in the Petition is regrettable, it is not indicative of a larger transgression by NRC licensees as a whole. This contamination occurred due to one or some other small number of individual licensee's circumvention of existing rules. Why penalize the vast majority of radioactive material users who operate in a responsible, appropriate manner?

b) Imposing the requested restrictions would severely limit our ability to safely conduct routine clinical and research radioactive material activities at our medical center. Clinical studies involving patient excreta are often done on an emergency basis. Twenty-four hours of notice would be practically impossible in these cases.

c) This rule would require us to pool and store radioactive liquid waste for intermittent, infrequent disposal. An unnecessary increase in personal radiation dose to workers, patients, and visitors would result. The probability of local contamination would increase, along with its attendant internal human contamination.

d) What about human waste contaminated with short half-life radioactive materials? This material is always filled with dangerous pathogens, and collecting and handling it would be very biologically hazardous to personnel.

e) Many patients leave our facility immediately after ingestion or injection of radiopharmaceuticals. They are no longer under our control after this. Will they be exempt from notification before visiting their toilet at home?

f) What about naturally occurring and accelerator-produced radioactive materials?

Presumably, these would be handled according to existing regulations. Will sewage districts be required (or be able to) sort out these components from public effluents?

MAY 1 O 1994-Acknowledged by card ..."..".........- ...-,...,.

g) The newly-revised 10 CFR Part 20 contains restrictions on sewer disposal or non-biological, insoluble materials. This appears to have been the culprit in the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer Districts contamination. Adherence to the new regulations would help prevent future similar occurrences. Enacting a wide-ranging rule such as the one proposed would be unnecessarily oppressive.

2. We sincerely hope you take these and similar concerns of the licensee community into account in your upcoming rulemaking.

~Ma~~

Thomas A. Schumacher Radiation Safety Officer

Eli Lilly and Company

94 JAN -6 ,19 :14 Lill y Corporate Center Indianapolis, Indiana 46285 (317) 276-2000 December 23, 1993 CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch Comments on the Petition for Rulemaking Presented by Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District as Published in the October 20, 1993, Federal Register

Dear Secretary of the Commission:

In 58 Fed. Reg. 54071 (October 20, 1993), the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District's Southerly wastewater treatment plant ("Southerly) petitioned the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC) for a rulemaking, which it is allowed to do under the Administrative Procedures Act ("APA") and 10 C.F.R. 2.802.

Specifically, Southerly requested that existing NRC regulations be revised:

1. to require 24-hour advance notice to the local wastewater treatment plant from all NRC licensees prior to discharging radioactive waste or materials containing radioactive waste into a sanitary sewer system; and

2. to exempt incineration of sanitary waste streams from NRC's current ban against incinerating radioactive waste without first obtaining NRC approval (i.e., a license).

Eli Lilly and Company ("Lilly") is responding to the NRC request for comments on the appropriateness of Southerly's petition. Lilly's comments pertain only to Southerly's request for 24-hour required notice prior to disposal of radioactive wastestreams, which we believe should be denied.

Implicit in Southerly's argument for rulemaking is that advance notice to wastewater treatment plants is necessary to protect the public and to ensure proper functioning of such plants. Southerly provides as support for this position its own experience of not knowing until recently that its wastewater treatment plant had been contaminated by years of exposure to accumulated industrial discharges containing Cobalt-60. As further support, Southerly cites a few plants elsewhere in the United States which may be experiencing similar problems. See 58 Fed. Reg. at 54071.

MAY 1 o 1994 Acknowledged by card ....................,,..,Mt..,...

S. t~ CLEAR PEGULATC:lY CO 1MISSION oor: , *r:'. G " s::i=w1c:: SECTION 0, :=:,,C::: r.F ,i*.i.: Sc.1; RcTARY Of fP.E CG,. , liSSlON

Secretary of the Commission Page 2 December 23, 1993 Lilly believes that Southerly's petition is nothing more than a veiled attempt to get the NRC to fix a problem that Southerly by law was supposed to previously investigate and guard against and which Southerly could have corrected and still can correct on its own through existing regulatory authority regardless of whether NRC denies Southerly's request for additional rulemaking. Lilly's position derives from the following arguments: the Clean Water Act requires (and has always required) Southerly to prohibit discharges of radioactive waste that cause environmental problems, meaning Southerly not only has the means currently to prevent or limit further discharges of Cobalt-60 but that Southerly's problem was caused by Southerly's failure to follow Clean Water Act requirements and not because the NRC's rules do not require advance notice of radioactive discharges; in any event, the Clean Vv ater Act already requires industrial discharges to provide notice to wastewater treatment plants upon discovery of potential problems or excessive discharges; the discharges which Southerly wants notice concerning are made only pursuant to NRC licenses containing limits that protect public health; and Southerly's petition, if granted, would result in a national rulemaking as a solution to a local problem that should be corrected instead through case-by-case licensing. Furthermore, Southerly's petition, if granted, would impose unnecessary yet significant burdens on those industrial dischargers and wastewater treatment plants which, through compliance with existing Clean Water Act and NRC regulations, are not experiencing the problems which Southerly and, at most, a few other plants have endured.

A. Implications for Southerly's Petition Created by the Clean Water Act

1. Pretreatment Programs Under 40 C.F .R. Part 403, wastewater treatment plants must implement EPA's national pretreatment standards in a way to control pollutants that are discharged by industrial users of a sanitary sewer system from adversely affecting these plants' treatment processes. Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. 403.5, under any circumstance, "a user may not introduce into a

[wastewater treatment plant] any pollutants which cause pass through or interference" or which might contaminate the plant or the sewage sludge that is generated. Each plant, such as Southerly, which handles a total design flow of greater than 5 million gallons/day 1 and which receives from industrial users pollutants that might cause interference is required by the Clean Water Act to establish a pretreatment program. 40 C.F.R. 403.B(a).

In order to fulfill this obligation, the wastewater treatment plant "shall" develop local water permit limits for the appropriate industrial dischargers or users of the sanitary sewers. If the plant, in working with the local permitting agency, does not impose such limits then it is required to demonstrate that such limits are unnecessary. 40 C.F.R. 403.8ft4). Each 1The Southerly treatment plant is designed to handle 175 million gallons/day of wastewater.

Secretary of the Commission Page3 December 23, 1993 wastewater treatment plant required to develop a pretreatment program "shall .. . enforce specific limits to implement the prohibition against interference." 40 C.F.R. 403.5(c)(l). In fact, the wastewater treatment plant is required to continue developing local industrial water permit limits and to provide for more effective enforcement "as necessary." Id. Thus, plants not creating and enforcing such pretreatment programs contravene Clean Water Act requirements and subject those plants to administrative or judicial action by EPA for penalties and/or an injunction. fulli 33 U.S.C.

§1317(b) and (d); §1319.

The fact that Southerly has a Cobalt-60 problem is probably due to Southerly's failure to create a sufficient pretreatment program. If Southerly had an effective program and had done sufficient research into the waste streams of its industrial users, or required those users to provide the necessary data, then the Cobalt-60 contamination should never have occurred. Thus, it appears Southerly is trying to get the NRC to adopt nationwide procedures that Southerly should have already instituted on a local level under the Clean Water Act.

Regardless of why the Cobalt-60 problem exists, it is clear that Southerly under 40 C.F.R Part 403 possesses sufficient legal authority to require its users to provide advance notice. In fact, this authority is broader--

Southerly can (and probably should) impose appropriate limits on Cobalt-60 discharges and check to see whether those disposing it are licensed by the NRC. 2 Thus, there is no need for Southerly's petition for rulemaking.

2. Notice Sufficient requirements for notice to wastewater treatment plants are currently contained in EPA's Clean Water Act rules, which is yet another reason Southerly's request for an NRC rulemaking is unnecessary. EPA requires "immediate" notice to the local wastewater treatment plant when an industrial user suspects (not knows of) an ongoing or immediate violation of its water permit. See 40 C.F.R. 403.12f (users "shall notify the

[wastewater treatment plant] immediately of all questions that could cause problems to the [plant], including any slug loadings"). Furthermore, EPA requires industrial users who learn of a previous violation to contact the wastewater treatment plant within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months of becoming aware of such violation. 40 C.F.R. 403.12g(2).

Thus, Southerly should be receiving sufficient notices to address its Cobalt-60 problem. As seen above, it can certainly require these notices if they have not been forthcoming.

2If these industrial users do not possess appropriate NRC licenses, then Southerly (and the NRC) under existing law can enforce against these users. No new rulemaking would be needed from the NRC to accomplish this.

Secretary of the Commission Page4 December 23, 1993 The only notices that Southerly needs are those already required by EPA:

EPA requires industrial users to alert their treatment plants to possible problems immediately and to report all violations. There is no general need 3 to require advance notice of discharges that otherwise comply with both the user's water permit effiuent limits and the user's NRC license.

These permits are required to have limits that are safe. If the wastewater treatment plant is concerned about discharges complying with these limits, it ought to reopen the permit and establish new limits rather than impose a notice requirement on every industrial discharger in the United States.

B. Implications for Southerly's Petition Presented by NRC Rules The NRC is required by its enabling legislation to regulate generators and disposers of radioactive materials and wastes such that public health and the environment are adequately safeguarded. ~ ' ~ ' 58 Fed. Re~. at 54071 (NRC admits it is charged with establishing standards for protection against ionizing radiation resulting from the activities conducted by [NRC]

licensees.") In 10 C.F.R. 20.303 and 10 C.F.R. 20.2003, the NRC imposes extremely stringent requirements on those who would discharge radioactive wastes into a sanitary sewer system (i.e., one year total may not exceed one curie per pollutant). These limits even account for a source's daily, monthly, and yearly sewer flows. And before these discharges can be made, the source must obtain prior approval from the NRC in the form of a license.

Clearly, Southerly's petition requests advance notice of only licensed discharges; unlicensed discharges of radioactive waste are not allowed by the NRC (or EPA) and no one would argue that the legal means to prevent such discharges does not already exist. Given that only licensed discharges are focused on by Southerly, there is no need for advance notice for discharges that meet the conditions of the NRC license. Through public notice and comment, that license with all of its conditions was legally issued for the source and it represents a safe allowable loading_ In fact, there is no real benefit from requiring advance notice of discharges that comply with the source's license . The local wastewater treatment plant operators are not likely to possess the expertise to evaluate the risk of a source's radioactive discharge. Undoubtedly, they would defer to what the NRC said is safe in the source's license.

Furthermore, the NRC overprotects public health and the environment when it issues licenses to sources disposing of radioactive materials. For 3The only time advance notice would be appropriate would be if the wastewater treatment plant, in order to adequately handle certain radioactive discharges, needs to take precautionary measures or alter its normal treatment processes. Southerly's request is not limited in this regard. Even if these facts did exist for Southerly, it would be due to a local problem not justifying a national rulemaking.

Secretary of the Commission Page5 December 23, 1993 example, in NRC Re~latory Guide 8.37 "ALARA Levels for Effluents from Materials Facilities" (July 1993), the NRC sets as a goal that sources discharge no more than 10-20 percent of their otherwise allowable limits.

These ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable) goals are often included as enforceable conditions in NRC licenses.

Consequently, the only notice needed by Southerly is notice of a violation or imminent violation of a NRC license or water permit, and this notice is already required under the Clean Water Act.

C. Implications for Southerly's Petition Due to Application of General Administrative Legal Principles In denying Southerly's petition for rulemaking, nothing in the APA or NRC's own regulations would require the NRC to act further. Courts do not, except in unusual circumstances, such as an agency being arbitrary and capricious, question an agency's denial of rulemaking. S,e_e_ ~ '

Arkansas Power & Light Co. v. ICC, 725 F.2d 716 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (stated that courts will compel agencies to institute rulemakings only in an "extremely rare instance"). As long as the NRC in denying Southerly's petition explains the facts and policy the denial relies upon and shows that the facts have some basis in the record, courts will defer to the NRC's decision. See also Heckler v. Chaney. 4 70 U.S. 821 (1985) (Supreme Court refused to reopen the FDA's decision not to enforce against a potential violator).

More importantly, courts are clear that it is inappropriate to convert a local problem into the need for a national rulemaking and that an agency will always be justified in denying a petition to do so. In Arkansas Power &

Light, the ICC denied such a petition and was upheld by the court. The court stated that the "case for deference to the agency's decision not to undertake rulemaking is made even stronger where the alternative is not maintenance of the status quo but the formulation of standards via case-by-case adjudication." 725 F.2d at 723. Thus, rulemaking should be initiated, and, even in those rare cases where an agency ignored its responsibilities, will only be required when a national issue is presented which necessitates uniform, widespread and binding enforcement.

Southerly may argue that its petition does not involve case-by-case considerations and that notice should always be required. But, to the contrary, Southerly's petition is merely a mask for what is a localized problem affecting that plant. 4 Southerly does state that in seven other locales wastewater treatment plants have encountered problems similar to 4Jn fact, Southerly's problem is with the discharge of a single pollutant not generally generated by most NRC licensees: Cobalt -60. This is further reason not to engage in a national rulemaking for all pollutants and all industrial users.

Secretary of the Commission Page6 December 23, 1993 its own. 58 Efill. ~ . at 54071. However, Southerly fails to point out that the hundreds of other wastewater treatment plants in the United States do not experience this problem of contamination. There are significant burdens associated with requiring advance notice as desired by Southerly.

The overwhelming majority of wastewater treatment plants (and their industrial users) who have effective pretreatment programs should not be forced to incur additional time-consuming responsibilities in order to provide federal assistance to a minority of plants who have failed to establish effective pretreatment programs. The Arkansas Power & Lig:ht court, in part, upheld the ICC's denial of rulemaking because of this concern. 725 F .2d at 722 ("development of a nationwide database [here] is unnecessarily cumbersome because it would require numerous railroads, operating: both efficiently and inefficiently. to provide data that might never be used.") (emphasis added)

Just as in Arkansas Power & Lig:ht, Southerly's petition for rulemaking would result in sources reorganizing their business to provide notices to wastewater treatment plants that will not provide meaningful information; the notices will only inform the plants that a discharge in compliance with the source's water permit and NRC license is forthcoming. Some of the burdens and consequences associated with this unnecessary rule include the following:

1. the wastewater treatment plant will have to devote resources to process and review notices that are submitted;

2. the industrial user will no longer be able to sewer directly in compliance with its permit but will instead need to take steps to collect and store the radioactive material until 24 hours2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months have passed;

3. storage and handling will be time-consuming and expensive (Lilly would need to hire one more full time employee and spend over

$30,000 for storage containers);

4. requiring the industrial user to collect its effiuent containing radioactive material prior to discharge will serve to concentrate the radiation involved and expose more people to the material than would otherwise be exposed if direct sewering had occurred; and

5. if in order to avoid dealing with a mandatory notice requirement, the wastewater treatment plant decides to prohibit all discharges of radioactive waste, Lilly estimates it would incur $425,000/year more in disposal fees and would have to hire and train two new employees in order to convert the liquid waste into absorbed solids placed in disposable drums.

Secretary of the Commission Page 7 December 23, 1993 Finally, EPA has been clear that the details of any problems associated with industrial users' interference or pass through of pollutants at wastewater treatment plants should not be dealt with through a national rulemaking.

Instead, EPA requires states and wastewater treatment plants to develop local pretreatment limits and conditions on an individualized basis. See,~' 55 Fed.

Reg. 30082, 30105 (July 24, 1990) ("EPA's experience in developing and overseeing the pretreatment program has led it to believe that individual control mechanisms are the best way to ensure compliance with applicable pretreatment standards, requirements [and prohibitions].")

Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the NRC should deny the Southerly petition for a rulemaking that would require all wastewater treatment plants to impose an obligation on industrial users to provide 24-hour advance notice of discharge of radioactive materials to sanitary sewer systems. If the NRC nonetheless decides to initiate rulemaking, even though the Clean Water Act already provides the legal protection Southerly says it needs, then the rule finally adopted by the NRC should only allow (not require) wastewater treatment plants to obtain advance notice if, in their discretion, a local situation justifies it.

Lilly would be pleased to discuss these comments at the Secretary of the Commission's convenience. Please contact the undersigned at (317) 276-3753 with any questions.

Sincerely, ELI LILLY AND COMPANY

~~ {:z, r0::Ave7 David R. McAvoy Attorney kj

P~ ! ! d~i ' * -e:-'-'----:e'---. 2 2_

(f PURDUE UNIVERSITY 6)

94 JAN -4 p 3 :46

,-, !L~ ,~ ; i if,1*

uc;-;L ,,~ ,. *, v'/f.f DEPARTMENT OF i t~N RADIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT December 30, 1993 Secretary of the Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATIN: Docketing and Service Branch Gentlemen:

We would like to take this opportunity to comment on a petition for rulemaking filed by the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District. We disagree with the request for 24 hour2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months prior notification to the appropriate sewage treatment plant prior to release of radioactive materials to the sanitary sewer system. However, we agree materials should be specifically exempted from regulation when incinerated as a part of the treatment process.

Disposal via the sanitary sewer system has been an integral part of the disposal process by a large number of licensees for some time. The absolute quantities of licensed materials disposed in this manner are small and are typically a small fraction of the Maximum Permissible Concentration for licensees. However, the volumes of this readily dispersible or aqueous waste can be quite large (several hundred to several thousand gallons per year). Disposal by other techniques such as adsorbing the aqueous waste and land disposal would not be cost effective.

This request does not mention prohibition of sewer disposal, and we believe it should not address this issue. We feel that Federal regulations addressing this activity should take precedence over any local or regional ordinances. If the current Maximum Permissible Concentrations or Release to Sewer Concentrations do not adequately protect the health and safety of the public (including sewage plant employees) the concentrations should be adjusted. The concentrations should also reflect any tendency of certain metals or chemical forms to concentrate in piping or in the sludge.

A framework that would require 24 hour2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months notification does not seem to serve any useful purpose in our opinion and would be a burden to most licensees. Failure to notify could lead to violations that have little or no bearing on health or safety since typical concentrations of radioactive material in sewage are not at levels that would have the potential for any harm to the sewage system or the workers. The contamination that CIVIL ENGINEERING BUILDING, 8173

WEST LAFAYETTE , IN 47907 MAY 1 A k led

0 1994 c now ged by card ......................... ...,

f*. f*'.I IC' 'i°.i'l i"'t:GlJ 1_.ATORY COMMISSION f *. ** 1 * (- f. ~,*.:t~VICE SECTION U, * . ,* , *., ~~ cCRETARY C:- T,*.E cG:.':\i!'3SION

occurred in the Northeast Sewer District was probably a result of years of activity and could not be linked to a single event, something this notification process does not address. Perhaps a single notification to the treatment plant of the intent to release radioactivity to the sewer system is the most appropriate way to approach this issue.

As a NRC licensee we continue to support health and safety based regulations that protect the public and radiation workers from unnecessary exposure to radiation. In this case we do not feel that the 24 hour2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months notification provision of this petition would benefit the public or radiation workers.

~j~

James F. Schweitzer, Ph.D., CHP Radiation Safety Officer

SIERRA CLUB Northeast Ohio Group

Cleve~~ driicr PJ :

39 December 27, 1993 Mr. Samuel Chilk, Secretary US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attn: Docketing and SeNice Re: 10 CFR 2.802 Petition for Rulemaking/

Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District (NEORSD 8-2-93)

Dear Secretary Chilk,

I am writing to you concerning the Petition for Rulemaking submitted to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regarding 10 CFR 20.305 (and 10 CFR 20.2004) which prohibit incineration of radioactive waste without NRC 11 approval and requests revision from the NEORSD to explicitly exempt materials that enter the sanitary waste stream under 10 CFR 20.303 (and 10 CFR 20.2003). 11 In our opinion, this Petition for Rulemaking does not accomplish the NEORSD's stated goal, and can be interpreted as an attempt to further deregulate 11 Low-Level 11 Radioactive Waste (LLRW) and declare the radioactive wastes entering sanitary sewer systems as 11 Below Regulatory Concern." If radioactive waste is, in fact, entering the sanitary sewer system and contaminating our public sewers at current permissible levels, new regulations must be drafted to properly treat, store and dispose of this radioactive waste, and not merely provide an exemption.

We have urged the NEORSD to withdraw this Petition and, instead, work with federal, state and local regulators to create regulations that would prohibit using public sewers as radioactive waste disposal facilities for licensees. Sanitary sewer system disposal of radioactive waste (at any concentration) has demonstrated a failure to protect public health and safety per the Southerly Cobalt-60 contamination and contamination of other plants around the country.

Please keep us informed of any further action on this important issue.

Sincerely, Kim Hill, Co-Chair Northeast Ohio Sierra Club 5004 Oakland Cleveland, Ohio 44124 Acknowleclgea by*** ~~,} o 1994 117 ,. . , .

To preseroe, protect, and enjoy our natural heritage.

.,G~'.M!SSION ECTION

-rARY

TRTR NATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF TEST, RESEARCH, AND TRAINING REACTORS Wade J. Richards, Chairman .

.~ :**

~i:* C 1993-94 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 11 V

Chief, Nuclear Licensing and Operations John A. Bernard, Massachusetts Institute of Technology SM-ALC/TI-1 5335 Price Avenue

94 J~N - 3 P3 :5Mark Moore, Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute Arthur G. Johnson, Oregon State University McClellan AFB CA 95652-2504 Richard E. Malenfant, Los Alamos National Laboratory/Chairman-elect (916) 643-1024 FAX: (916) 643-0176 *JF~ !V .~:,.~~ ~ ;t, . ir f J. Charles McKibben, University of Missour-Columbia 1

E-Mail: DdCK *: *, i't ..;

Tawfik M. Raby, National Institute of Standards and Technology

. ! \ .~°' I RICHARDS.WADE@SMUMC.MCCLELLAN.AF.MIL Junaid Razvi, General Atomics Marcus H. Voth, Pennsylvania State University William G. Vernetson, University of Florida Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555 Subj: Federal Register, Volume 58, Number 201, Wednesday, October 30, 1993, Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District; Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking Gentlemen The following comments are submitted in response to the referenced petition for rulemaking:

24-Hour Notice Prior to Release of Radioactive Materials to the Sanitary Sewer The petitioner requests that all licensees notify the appropriate sewage treatment plant not less than 24-hours prior to release of radioactive materials to the sanitary sewer. This requirement is quite reasonable, but can be agreed upon between licensees and sewage treatment plants without making it a requirement in the Code of Federal Regulations. Under current regulations, sewage treatment plants are not required to process waste containing radioactive materials any differently from waste that does not contain radioactive materials.

Incineration of Radioactive Waste Without NRC Permission 10 CFR 30.14 provides specific exemption from having a license to receive, possess, use, transfer, own, or acquire radioactive materials provided the concentrations are not in excess of those listed in 10 CFR 30.70. While not specifically stated, we believe that "use" can be interpreted to mean incinerate at a sewage treatment plant . The difficulty with that interpretation is that incineration concentrates sewage treatment plant residue which also concentrates the radioactive nuclides present.

Experience in Ann Arbor, Michigan, associated with discharges to the sewer from the University of Michigan's Ford Nuclear Reactor and from local hospitals was that incineration of sewage residue did concentrate the nuclides present and that MAY 1 O 1994

Acknowledged by card ............................. _

J,S. 1*:*1CJ*.' l, .;,_*;,,;!.AT°JRY COMMISSION

[<-,* . * *.' ., -'* :")i: W ! C , : SECTION

(.) I ;. .: ' :: r: '*= '~ECnETARY GF :":~::: C(.:Ai1.1ICSION

Ill

f ...

the radioactive nuclides were measurable, but that the concentrations were well below the concentrations listed in 10 CFR 30.70.

However, a more practical problem arose in Ann Arbor. The Ann Arbor city land fill reached it's capacity and was closed. The City of Ann Arbor trucked it's waste, including incinerated sewage residue, to a private land fill operated by Browning Ferris Industries (BFI) . BFI had a portal monitor for trucks to detect radioactive materials. While the concentrations of radioactive nuclides were low in ash from incinerated Ann Arbor sewage residue, each truck contained approximately 20 cubic yards, and the total radioactivity was sufficient to set off the BFI portal monitors. BFI would not accept the residue for the following reason: While the concentrations were below 10 CFR 30.70 values, BFI felt that the regulations could be made more restrictive at some time in the future, forcing them to recover the buried waste at great cost.

The solution to the problem was a temporary reopening of the Ann Arbor city l andfill to dispose of the radioactive residue on hand. In addition, the Ford Nuclear Reactor started a program of demineralizing waste water and recycling it as make-up to the reactor pool. Many facilities do not have that option, particularly non-reactor facilities such as hospitals. They have no option except discharge directly to the sewer.

10 CFR 20.305 (2004) prohibits incineration of licensed material by a licensee.

These requirements do not apply to sewage treatment plants that incinerate radioactive materials in concentrations below 10 CFR 30.70 values because sewage treatment plants are not licensees and because sewage is not licensed material.

However, we feel that the question of concentration of radioactive nuclides at sewage treatment plants, whether by filtration, precipitation, incineration, or any other means, should be addressed by the Commission. In particular, even if incineration increases the sewage residue to levels above 10 CFR 30.70 values, the material should remain exempt. In addition, some sort of "grandfather" statement should be provided in the regulations for the benefit of land fills, so that, it the 10 CFR 30 . 70 values are decreased in the future, the land fills will never be required to recover previously buried waste.

Sincerely,

/1Lt~~

~ADE J. I DS, Chairman TRTR

DOCKET NO. PRM-20-22 (58FR54071)

In the Matter of PETITION OF THE NORTHEAST OHIO REGIONAL SEWER DISTRICT DATE DATE OF TITLE OR DOCKETED DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT

- 08/19/93 12/03/93 08/02/93 11/18/93 PETITION FOR RULEMAKING SUBMITTED BY THE NORTHEAST OHIO REGIONAL SEWER DISTRICT COMMENT OF AKRON PUBLIC UTILITIES BUREAU (PATRICK D. GSELLMAN) ( 1) 12/06/93 10/14/93 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE - RECEIPT OF PETITION FOR RULEMAKING 12/22/93 12/17/93 COMMENT OF EARTH DAY COALITION (CHRIS TREPAL) ( 2) 12/27/93 12/22/93 COMMENT OF UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI (VICTORIA MORRIS) ( 3) 12/28/93 12/20/93 COMMENT OF VILLAGE OF NEWBURGH HEIGHTS (KATHLEEN M. EDWARDS) ( 4)

VlLlAGE OF NE\VBURGH HEIGHTS

-4000 \Vashinglon Park Boulevard, Nev,*burgh Heights, Ohio 44105 Phone: 216/641--4650 Fax: 216/641-27 l 3

93 DEC 28 P1 :56

' .irL i!_:~ ,<~ L,r 0)

December 20, 1993 uiJCl'\t ,f-H, J ,, Vlr

(~.J Mr. Samuel Chilk, Secretary United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

-Washington D. C. 20555 RE: 10 CFR 2.802 Petition for Rulemaking from Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District (August 2, 1993)

Dear Secretary Chilk,

It has come to my attention that the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District (NEORSD) filed a two part Petition for Ruling regarding licensees giving twenty four hours notice prior to releasing radioactive waste into the sewer system as well as exempting sewer plants from regulation regarding incineration of radioactive waste. First, as a Mayor of a member community of the NEORSD, I believe that NO RADIOACTIVE WASTE SHOULD BE DEPOSITED IN ANY SEWER BY ANY LICENSEE FOR ANY REASON. Secondly, my community is "downwind" of the NEORSD' s esoutherly facility, where Cobalt 60 was inadvertently incinerated.

In fact, had it not been for the NRC's commissioned flyover, attempting to locate depleted uranium at the Bert Avenue Dump site in my community, the contamination at Southerly would never have been detected. Therefor I am APPOSED TO ANY SEWER TREATMENT FACILITY INCINERATING RADIOACTIVE WASTE.

I shudder to think of the long range effects to the employees in the sewer plant, who were working when the Cobalt 6 0 was incinerated, as well as the effects to neighbors of the plant. It is my belief that no one should be subjected to EXPOSURE to radioactive materials without their consent. It is my belief that the NRC must revise its rules to PREVENT FURTHER CONTAMINATION OF ANY SEWER SYSTEM BY PROHIBITING ANY AND ALL RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS TO BE DEPOSITED IN ANY SEWER SYSTEM BY ANY AND ALL LICENSEES.

Recently, the NEORSD contacted our engineers regarding a sludge line coming through my Village. It is my belief that the Village of Newburgh Heights must have assurance that RADIOACTIVE WASTE will NEVER again contaminate our soil or most importantly, our residents. The only way we will have this assurance is if the NRC prohibits their licensees from disposing of radioactive wastes into our sewer system.

MAY 1 o 1994 Acknowledged by card ........._ ..,..,__.::::;

MISSION ION y

i 1.J--/;2..3 /qJ I -

fur}~- ~

As a child, I learned that "two wrongs do not make a right *** " While it is wrong that the taxpayers of the NEORSD should have to bare the cost of cleaning up the problems resulting from this particular travesty, exempting future sewer districts from regulation is not the solution. Nor, is requiring licensees to give twenty four hours notice prior to dumping radioactive materials into the system a solution.

The solution lies in the prohibition of ANY AND ALL LICENSEES FROM DUMPING RADIOACTIVE WASTE (no *matter how "small" the contamination),

into any sewer system. I respectfully request that the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission take immediate steps to prohibit all licensees from dumping any and all rtadioactive materials into a sewer system in the future.

Yours truly,

~~. ~

Kathleen M. Edwards cc: Chairman Ivan Sellin, United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission The Honorable Howard Metzenbaum, U.S. Senate The Honorable John Glenn, U.S. Senate The Honorable Martin Hoke, U.S. House of Representatives The Honorable Barbara Pringle, Ohio House of Representatives The Honorable Anthony Sinagera, Ohio Senate The Honorable Thomas Longo, Chairman NEORSD The Honorable Louis Bacci, Mayor, Cuyahoga Heights, Ohio The Honorable James Petro, Cuyahoga County Commissioner The Honrable Mary Boyle, Cuyahoga County Commissioner The Honorable Timothy Hagan, Cuyahoga County Commissioner The Honorable Thomas Neff, Cuyahoga County Engineer The Cuyahoga County Mayors and Managers Association Barry Koh, Ph.D., Consultant NEORSD William Schatz, General Counsel NEORSD Richard Acton, Executive Secretary A.F.L. C.I.O.

John Lyall, Regional Director, Ohio Council 8, A.F.S.C.M.E.

Chris Trepal, Co Director, Earth Day Coalition

u1UGKt: r NUMBER

~ETITION RULE PRM ~...o - 2 1.

CSS-F-R 5Lfo-1!) ~

University of Cincinnati University of Cincinnati Radiation Safety Office Radiation Safety Lab

'93 DEC 27 P2 :39 231 Bethesda Avenue Cincinnati, Ohio 45267-0591

'Ji-'- i ! (,:

Phone: (513) 558-4110 LJILf'.l ,r;:;. Fax: (513) 558-9905

!\n ~*

Secretary of the Commission December 22, 1993 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attn: Docketing and Service Branch

Subject:

Comment/Federal Register Vol 58, No. 201 Sir/Madam:

The University of Cincinnati provides the following comments on the "Petition for Rulemaking: Notice of Receipt" published in the Federal Register, Vol 58, No. 201, Wednesday October 21, 1993. The petition made two points in regards to the disposal of radioactive materials via the sanitary sewer system: point one, licensees should be required to provide 24 hours2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months advance notification to the appropriate sewage treatment plant; and point two, waste which has entered the sanitary waste stream should be exempt for 10 CFR 20.303 and 10 CFR 20.2003.

It is the opinion of the University of Cincinnati that requiring licensees to contact the appropriate sewage treatment plant prior to dispos a l of radioact i ve mater ials i nto the sani tar y sewer system places an unnecessary burden on the licensee and does not increase safety or reduce radiation exposure to the personnel, the public or the environment. The petition as published does not list minimum.

quantities for this notification and there is no indication that persons receiving radioactive materials for medical treatment would be exempt from the rule. 10 CFR 20 was written to provide overall radiation protection for personnel and the public. In addition, 10 CFR 20.1101 specifically requires that licensees use procedures to maintain doses to personnel and the public as low as is reasonably achievable. It should also be noted that local sewer authorities already have the ability to individually place this or any more restrictive requirement on any licensee. It is the opinion of the University of Cincinnati that this type of requirement should be initiated by the local sewer authority and not the NRC. It is also the opinion of the University of Cincinnati the NRC should provide guidance to local sewer authorities to ensure that the local sewer authorities rules are developed from scientific data and not from fear.

It is the opinion of the University of Cincinnati that the NRC needs to review its regulation and determine at what point in time Acknowledged by card .. ~~.!. ~. .~;~.........

Patient Care

Education

Research

Community Service An affirmative action/equal opportunity institution

radioactive material is no longer under regulatory control.

Regulatory conflict, especially in regards to waste disposal, continues to cause problems for licensees and the public. Medical licensees already face the problem where persons receiving radioactive materials are exempt from licensee control, but items contaminated with their blood or other body fluids (and likewise contaminated with radioactive material) are not exempt from the rules for disposal of radioactive materials. Point two is just another example where material approved by the NRC as being released from licensee control (in this case disposed of by the licensee to the sanitary sewer) but disposal or treatment performed on the material farther down the processing chain violates other portion of NRC regulations (in this case incineration of radioactive material regulations) . The University of Cincinnati suggest that the NRC exempt from regulatory control all radioactive material which has been disposed of or released from licensee control in accordance NRC rules and/or regulation.

Victoria Morris, M. S. , CHP Radiation Safety Officer University of Cincinnati c: C. Kupferberg R. Millard

DOCKET NUMBER * -~ ~ -~

PETITION RULE PRM ...c.,u-_ , 22 (j) e'ilr.tu COALITION December 17, 1993 cre-F r< sJ.Jo11)

Mr. Samuel Chilk, Secretary US Nuclear Regulatory Commission

93 r 22 r :52 3606 Bridge Avenue Washington; DC 20555 Cleveland, Ohio 44113 Attn: Docketing and Service 216

281

6468 Fax 216

281

5112 RE: 10 CFR 2 .802 Petition for Rulemaking from Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District (August 2, 1993)

Dear Secretary Chilk,

- I am writing to you concerning the two part Petition for TRUSTEES Rulemaking recently filed by the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer Susan Powers, President Speech Language Pathologist District (NEORSD) dated August 2 , 1993. As an environmental A .ichael Javorsky, CPA, Vice President education and advocacy organization serving Northeast Ohio we 9 Clifton, Gunderson and Company are very concerned about this proposed Petition and the impact Jim Sheehan, Secretary Wheels of Change it will have in Cleveland and around the country.

The Earth Day Coalition supports the first part of the Magdalene Szarka, CPA, Treasurer Walthall and Drake, CPA's Petition which calls for a requirement that "all licensees provide not less than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months advance notice to the appropriate sewage S11san Alcorn Finast Supermarkets treatment facility prior to releasing radioactive materials to the Mary Allee Brooks sanitary sewer system." However, we support this requirement Lee-Seville-Miles Citizens Council as an interim *s tep. We believe and hereby request that the Pauline B. Fong Great Lakes Science Center Nuclear Regulatory Commission immediately begin revision of the present proven inadequate, unworkable, and unenforced Kim Hill Sierra Club regulations in order to prohibit the use of sanitary sewer systems David S. Hoffmann, Esq. as de facto treatment, storage and disposal facilities for the McDonald, Hopkins, Burke & Haber radioactive wastes of licensees. It is outrageous that our public C. Milton Kates Solar Universal Technologies, Inc.

sewer systems, financed and maintained by taxpayer dollars, are David J . Martinson used by generators of radioactive waste as their own free private The East Ohio Gas Company radioactive waste dumps. Taxpayers in Cleveland, and probably AndyOptla around the country, are looking at multimillion dollar clean-ups M.A. Hanna Company as a result of the failed existing regulations.

Duane Salls Bradan Productions The second part of the Petition that references 10 CFR Gert Unger 20.305 (and 10 CFR 20.2004) which prohibit the incineration of Environmental Law & Policy Center of the Midwest radioactive waste without NRC approval be "revised to e1i..1)licitly Karen Uthe exempt (radioactive) materials that enter the sanitary waste The Henry Woodwan:f Company system under 10 CFR 20.303 (and 10 CFR 20.2003}", is, in our opinion, another attempt to declare radioactive wastes entering Scott Sanders Co-Director sanitary sewer systems "Below Regulatory Concern." If Chris Trepal radioactive waste is entering the sanitary sewer system it must Co-Director be treated, stored and disposed of as *radioactive waste. To Jeff Bray Administrative Assistant exempt-away these dangerous radioactive wastes is attempting to merely defme away a very real problem. We are adamantly opposed to this portion of the Petition. We have asked the Board of Trustees of the NEORSD to withdraw this portion of the Est.1990 -

Petition (copy enclosed).

The mission of The Earth Day Coalition We feel that if the real intent of this Petition is to "clarify is to build a healthy, safe and that the NRC does not intend to inhibit the operation of over sustainable earth, by developing and promoting a common environmental agenda for the people of Northeast Ohio.

0 MAY 1 0 1994 Recycled Paper Printed with Soy Ink Acknowledged by card ~~...M...,"..., ,..m,...

, NUCLEAR EGUlATORY COMMISSION DCC - r ~ G& ~~VICE SECTION CFff':; _F THE SECRETARY OF THE C0!.1MiSSION

)

page 2 NEORSD Petition for Rulemaking 200 sewage sludge incinerators across the nation due to the discharges of its licensees" this Petition does not accomplish the NEORSD intent.

As you know, the Southerly Plant in Cleveland, Ohio is contaminated with 350,000 cubic yards of Cobalt-60 contaminated waste. This waste is now sitting on-site at the Southerly plant near the banks of the Cuyahoga River in a landfill. The wastes were undetected for a decade or more and were only discovered during a US DOE helicopter flyover attempting to indentify off site contamination related to the Bert Avenue depleted uranium dump in Newburgh Heights, Ohio.

One of the NRC theories on the Southerly plant contamination is that legally permissible concentrations of radioactive waste were discharged into the sanitary sewer system and were re concentrated during the incineration process, leading to the extensive contamination of the Southerly plant and grounds. We feel that sanitary sewer systems that incinerate incoming wastes must be able to prohibit any and all radioactive wastes from entering their systems in order to prevent a re concentration to e inacceptable levels. Present regulations do not address situations like the present catastrophe at the Southerly plant. In the absence of regulations that work, again, we feel that the NRC must create regulations that work to protect our public sewer systems, taxpayer dollars, and the health and safety of those who work and live near these plants. If the NRC does not act, sanitary sewer systems all over the country can look forward to becoming SDMP sites like our Southerly plant.

With the relatively short half life of Cobalt-60 we may never know the true extent of the contamination. We also have no way of assessing the health and safety impacts of the radioactive waste incineration at the Southerly during the past ten or more years for workers at the plant or neighbors around the Southerly, including a school just across Interstate 77. This is unacceptable. The NRC has recently documented demonstrated problems with radioactive waste contamination into sanitary sewer systems in NUREG/CR-5814 PNL-7892. This Petition must be denied because it would only increase contamination like the documented case studies in this NUREG report.

Please keep us informed of any action on this Petition. We would also like to be a-iade aware of any other studies impacting sanitary sewer systems like the proposed

~ RC study of patient excreta. Thank you for your attention to our concerns regarding this Petition.

Sincerely,

~~

Chris Trepal, Co-Director The Earth Day Coalition enc.

cc: Senator Metzenbaum Senator Glenn Congressman Hoke Congressman Stokes Attorney General Lee Fisher

~- -~ rN7 - ~o - ..L2 ie ~ Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District 3826 Euclid Avenue

Cleveland, Ohio 44115-2504 216

881

6600 FAX:216*881 *9709 August 2, 1993

~r. Samuel Chilk Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20S55 Attention: Chief Docketing and Service Branch Re: 10 CFR 2.802 Petition for Rulemak.ing

Dear Secretary Chilk:

The Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District's ("District") Southerly Wastewater Treatment Center has been contaminated by disposal of Cobalt-60 into the sanitary sewer system. The characterization and remediation of this contamination is ongoing and will cost the District, at a minimum, in excess of one million dollars. The remediation costs could rise into the billions of dollars if off-site disposal of the contaminated ash is required.

The District is not the first sewage treatment authority to experience radioactive contamination at a treatment plant. The NRC has previously documented problems at Tonawanda and Grand Island, NY, Lansing, MI, Oak Ridge, TN, Royersford, PA, and Washington, D.C. The NRC has also recently investigated an occurrence in Youngstown, Ohio. This list does not include all contaminated facilities in Agreement states. The possibility also exists that contamination exists undetected at other treatment plants, as it did at Southerly for nearly 10 years.

It is our understanding that the NRC is undertaking a general review of the regulatory scheme as it relates to this problem. Regardless of what other revisions may be made to the sanitary disposal rules, the District hereby petitions the NRC to revise 10 CFR 20.303 (and 10 CFR 20.2003) to require that all licensees provide not less than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months advance notice to the appropriate sewage treatment plant prior to releasing radioactive material to the sanitary sewer system.

The mission of the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District is to enhance public health andwelfare through the effici~nt. cost- ,

effective conveyance and treatment of wastewater. This is accomplished by an organization dedicated to prot~ss,onahsm.

fairness and consistency that anticipates and responds to the changing environmental needs of the commumty.

'~r. Sarnue 1 Ch ilk U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission August 2, 1993 Page Two

/(

The District also requests that 10 CFR 20.305 (and 10 CFR 20.2004), ~

which prohibit the incineration of radioactive waste without NRC approval,~

be revised to explicitly exempt materials that enter the sanitary waste stream under 10 CFR 20.303 (and 10 CFR 20.2003). This revision would clarify that the NRC does not intend to inhibit the operation of over 200 sewage sludge incinerators across the nation due to the discharges of its licensees.

Your prompt response to this petition for rulemak.ing would be appreciated as this is a matter of great concern to the District.

Very w

William B. Schatz General Cotmsel WBS/td cc: Richard Bangart Philip Olson John Martin Ken Kirk Senator Glenn Senator Metzenbaum Representative Hoke Representative Stokes Erwin Odeal Thomas Lenhart Barry Koh (chilk)

- -~

.--.*,' ~

._,..:, **,.\l-:'; ,.',\:~--

/

-~~~< . . *~~/~:*: *_l_i*\,*~: ~ ~,**

p~~~2 .,. *: . .: .: \:/ti}liilii.l{\: :*I::;}:i~+iJ:it:/tif!ii:-:;:t/ *_

Petltlon .for. Rulemaking,.* ~--..,,,.*. *;_ ,. ,. '" .. ~ .... -,:., .,.'." ;~,... :;',iC.,:~ ,,.,::*-* *.,.,:.,t~-1!,,*:.. '.'/.a .. ---~**..*~ -. *:: ::;: *' ,---- \ ~- _.-,.,-;*!: ,_,.;'.* "

.,, *:-.. . . ,,~ ,o.< * * : * .* , :.'::;tH:f:i:

.:,;_: ~/tacililiesf not- into*pubµc:**sewe1\ systtnis/

t;l~J~c$Us{, I~:.:'.:,:t\*:::;:t*t : i~yc@g:ce~ters:-~:.<ir f {I ?t') : * :

cpnsumer..:~~: *:/~:*

\):;:;rtr)-:: ~ /r._' ,*.**1,:

\ .

/::->gooas~*. '~ ~ . .. . . .* *. "*: --:- .- .*::*i,:ri_lf?/}/::.~,~:/*.:,_ *f~J::i:,,;:~)~\/*__.,. .-':\**\ :**"t. ,-:. ~--* "*--'..,, *-

1 would.like :to ask*tha,t yo_ u .consi<;ler**:Wif.b:dttrwing "th¢: .Augusf2 Petiti~ri for Rulemaking and~-instead,' work aggressively.for:regulatory *reform at the federal,

. . state and local level that; would allow the ..D~tri9t.to *.continue-.op~rations and -* *,. .. .,. , ... .

..-*protecfr Northdasf Ohio-\~otk~r*~--, ~1f ntighb& tsift~iii.~tadi6aBil.~e/w.'8t¢;: *.,.<-:~:;;_:; :~'.'.) \ .-\}::;;\-:\ *)*. >'.. ,

-_,., Thank you.for*your :cons1detat1on"'. *. -**:* * \*:,>r--::"-*!;**-,\,:'\ -*-;i.:-;*n:-~.-:* ~,/'!*

. ,1"' ** . ,:, - ' . *. J, ,* ")*, . . . .. . . . . ....: .. ~.*. ,.:-:.\, .... <"\>,t-,~.: ...."'"\.. ~:i.\~.-~-:~,\ .... .. ' ' "-., ... .'.

-/*. *_ * . ,._. -~-.;.* "'-~- -*.*, ::;-:*-* *.

~.~ ~" ,* *.,.~ 1* .,.

~ ......":'~ ;_.;~*-.}1F,i1 t,::. f!:\~g:~\~:;~':Y~\ i~*f.c.;,-'f,~r,..,, *.;~;_(:~~)}"f~:*,'~..f'-)0-;,"?~ *:\":.~~~~~~~*i.., ~~,.-,. 1 1

-~ '",*,.,._, \~~ .(~Jt~..-. ."

.r::..:.-"~**:1~.;/ ... ~.. **r iri~Ci~;;r.:r:,.-.~--f*~(~-,t.r~-;-:*:)~;i.,~~- *

l1lr-~J~~~::-

.i,. , .\ \. ~ *., ,::-~"f:-._:t~'-l~~ ! ):rJilr.. ~--1:~,'t'"' 'i"°'f..--;,:t.*:rr~ 'r

r.ti~,t~~ ~~~<,

~,".

~.s/{ :~l,. ~ ~1-. .:,.- *

~t~1~.--~:~-'l\~* - .. t ~~"'li'.i~,.l~';:-:1~~---: .. .;...f,/~-~;*t'*~-~r . -~t';,'l*.,,,'J-.,~~;i\'*'

. .. . , ...., -

I* **~-- . -~'*~V- t:-.;.- *' "'*. * .. , *. ,, .,. -~-

~-~~;.,,: ..

. *:<I* I ' f* .?;l,:..,r/.,-,*

. ,, ~* .r~~'C.:t. -~---.t~r.:!~~.:*e. ' ....

~f*~-!13/41"*~'~:l.~v~..,:,.nc~,,,~~Tr***e-p '-"*" J * .)'

\a~Wl

~l-...~~t":i~~~:f.'}~--\,t;i:~i\::1:t:: ...~ .- *'k ',~!.~y..J.,;$'~.ij~~

.Y,V.~**':':'" ~~-J~ "!°'.J(.*.WJA* -v,,,:,,.c j'**,.*'*"'~~...,,l-:r:~~..-:..._.

. .~ ~-..~~ _:-,'!'*;.~~ ._., ;,t ---!,~J~~~,~~~:*'l\*

11;2r* "'.\,'*/*.:.*"** ,*?;; *r".'*::-::?'.'."'~~*:~:sttii*\tII%tr*'

'f,;.,:.-.. ~~.,,y','.\

0 ii,.d,_* ,A4* J ' **...- >~*' *~ d4 ,;~~'°W.,:.1J** -~* r-,

)}.~l *J*~ ~ ~t;~-~}A~tt~*fti:~-l:I\1~i~:*;r~ i~F~' ~~-~!i>~~~;*~~tf?3t:r~;t!E~~:~t!};~;~:i~~tf:ij!~1~~ <"--;' *,.~;~;.:,; .~ '\, ~*. -~ *~-~,\:~?~~tt:~ * . . ~~~~'t-*\~tv~~~~lft°'::~t\~ -~:*!

1'"1*"'*';.** 'i* ".: ,~,- * ?:*,,"*:, -: ***

-CC. Senator s*.enator-1Glenn ~ lb

,..* :. . ~--"~ ~:

.c -- * ; ' * * *-,,~,,-*,,* * ' .. *'* *,- ,.*\: --~,

,t--~l ./.~-~~-~ ': : '*,, .. ,. .:-** *

, .._;, ! . ,, . "! . *:*. * ~*

v.1etzen aum-** ,. .-. .- ' :::.~_ . * *:,t:, ";,:.._*:;.;~,-?-~) . (:~~ . .

... *.-,--- .-*;F.,

"l.. * ~*.

1

~ ;,~;; * ...

,c,*.'*****, .** - ....

r ' . 1t: 1* -~ ~ . *;* . i~. *;':..

. _... _., ,, ... ~.*

~ ~ :~:.~/!*.,1:~::\;-::~*t.-:**~ **t;'Y:;:tr~--~~i:;,*~f*,_,*.'*"!_~*... :,:~-:-. ::--:*.!":*._;* ~: *--*** ~. *... . *':-. /-:: ;;:,:-:\\'~ .\:

1 1; * -= .:'* - :* :_ * ...

- Representative-MarttnHoke * -*<* *~:~*.-..,..-,,~-}*.*v_.i..,.-**1*"*** *::.,-.:~:~- ..-, .. *,*, ,,._., ...._ *,****:.:-*- 1. *.

. t.::*::r*. 0

! <~_',:__ .,.\.t'J~::i':~.:- :::,::;-;~ -~~.;: .-r *:. *\,.'; ;__*. ',., " *~,: '-~;: .* .:~ *: -.* ' *." ~.~*' *: *.}.' ?*~* :

-..: ;. ~.~. * ,, * ~' 1 -~ *, * * * ; :, , , ; *. Ir _ L ". I~ ., ~ -~ ~- :.; \*_:.._ J *

:c.,.. ,,.~**:.,*;

Representative Lows-Stokes..-,

. **. * : .., ..... - * '* .~~,.* ,;. , ...

..-_._*,. *.,--:*:.. ~---,(:_.,,.1*:'*.::*.),*<';*i,~)--:: *~-"--~----*** -, . -.:. *: -~:* .. i*' .**, *,

h' *,,.<*..t.**~. ,* *~ *-;.* *.,,-*,,. ,~"* .:--:_~*~~ ..f'~ . . ~\,:;. .,. .. _. *: .,,~-~ A,._: , ..*/ ~ - *~ ;, .. ,.,':: ..

.., -.;-,;<:\:"). Attomey -General *Lee,F1s 'er ,.',:,. -:'*. *1,?-,::*:* ,,/:*:;~i'-:,,;-,/,,~~*!.:*;.-i"' >'i ,.:.'\;,'"=;-~_ ... ,*,.:-:.f***~-...: "*. *.**.:- - '

- ?}{(

.***.:~-:-**...

irhoriiaS L.~Fiirt ' '* * ' <//;.*;_::_._.*.-.:.**}*;_;::.~.-:.:_'.5:f{7:zt'f:\\, <i:,,;/}H;** ..;,,

\*.~ ..*"'-4-,; .* ..,-t"~:\>,~ r * ...,.-;'~ ..

. . . ~: .. ' ... '

- -t ,'.t..;\t:*t:.i~> .... *.<~. >-i-~~s7):j *d 1 /u~~. lil~i*v.!J~-:.:.....,.{,.\ .~ *:-f~:~~.~~:_i... :.~t. ~.si~ >~;.£-~ ~t:~:~~._1: 1~*;it1*.:1J~-!:,t~~~\-**~~; ~~; 1/4-~\:~~'/fl;~~~~-!.: ~;;.;_*/j!.?~;;. '(~ ~.,~ "~1rtvt't.*:::r.

-: *..*,4.

~l 1

~ .,>°l" .-...

r--:,J;r.*.

.,:~1~ C: ,;.. * ,: "p\;, j ' = ::l .,,,,,..,*4 ~ ~1 liJ!!i;,... ~.,*rt,-.: ,.' .., ' ~ \,

~~(~~i.;?J.1,- ~ ~~ ~1,;1 :,,*-<t~:~-.;1,~. *r*;, r... ~); \, ....,,, "'t'1.""!t"\'"~ 't .,..; ~-:.\.,,,;.._"I~

,,.f-"1..tf~C:;t.~~>-t~t*.;. .,-~~. . ~, ~.. ;,~"trJ,-.,~;~~;*;.'-~~:.*~=~~~

1-* ~~ ~,l.h -, :t I';. ~ .. , !*,;* .. -u:.. . ,,,., ....~., -

Y.-4_,');,N- -,., .. , * .c,. r-;:* **' *I\*>.,

r,$t'~"~lji... ~~~*;.l--~r,.'

. ' :'\~-,.:,~ Ct/-:*.... ,\ -.'fi!t~"'!:,~..:_Y.J~"kv,~i~~':A. . , ,;..\,"\i

"".)f)*...:-~ ~ '*.*

~~*j>i~* ..: t,:,.,

. * --~~:.. ,l**,:.1~j~., ;.:...:;~;~:*'"":l**~~'-*. *:'\**. Lt.,:. 1':;: -.:_" ~. ; ,,. =~~ ?'-"' "~"., .~:, ~* **: / ~\-:*** ~. ~-~"' -.. * .-.r~~:{t.-1i:,t.>i\::~-*-~1.:. J;~;*"

J

-~~ #; ;~~~:---- *,*.~,\:-t; :'"~!~ _: .~ ~r-* *r:., :-:. ~'>-*~-c;- :~:-~*,-:ti;~-..; ::-; ~J:* ... ,;..::_ .~::~

t" ~-~. .

,,\.~ \: ..

~~<<Ji~* 1 i'tt. ;*~(~t it*.;1.~*~"-r~ :£~,,.~..,1,..:

.c ,.~ -..'f -~ ;,,./JJ

, ... ~~1,.* \ ;;.~ \ .. -~*. *~

-~~::~*~~- ~--~~, .... .,,,.

/ 1

4 ~:;~~~~*-:~,~; * ~ * :..

. ,, *.., .1) ~- -

~t;}ttf:;,.~:~JZ,.!'k;;l{r11 ~~i:.:~ *:t7~J1*~:-.r. -~ .t4*

'ti :~.1 * . . ""'. . . .if******--~ ';!*t:/Jc~ .r:*~* :l!-t,. *., - ~ *1 .. ,1, ,::-.;. ~1. ,t!*~ -,_. V.

ii:--~~r:,t~~~\::t:- .i~ . !-J.::::.?. *:#~-~,~~- ~ ~\\ .tt;t:~.,~~\j;

......... ~~, ' /ri1 *i*; . ...t,,. f --:**1** ... f'~*"'1 ~ I * * ..,., ....

...~;~~-~;1~

""i.tr_it-r * .f4. i, J\}~~~;Jit\~*~tt:.~:J:r;:*?~/!r~;:{\{fa:t~\ft~~t~f>~i~{t~¢fl~-A?l~ttr.~JAi;1t-;.}~~li ~~t-:i t:sr..-:'_~1:t~i;-~~~.::~:~~!f::.t}:~~~fft~{~~~?\:~r i 1

-.-*... * .* *- * .*: ,; *_,;'w::.--, ~-:t;<~:;, *}i;*JJ;:1.,~*.:>.:/}

'.A_; ' ' ..

>,;?/<-1:-_,\1~9/;\~*~0:,

.. ... . ..., ....; f . . , *;...*t-*,N~t'*~~f:-."':.,J:...,1>7,I"-*,),:;

~\~tt~. ~11~t~;. /:f-:}.;-~*:f/r\t'./?

.....~t'.'"tit~.:,.~,~-4,}\'1*.. ;;,, , 1~~r.,;,.-, ..

- ~. -~'.;_. t.,.,,,~,;H,.;: / ;>'.* :<:/:_ *.

t,l-. :,?-Y/(~i~;;/i-?:-'.:*

~-\,e,-.<:..f' ,1 ~\, . .,..... *.*.,,.t** ,); .

\:

tf*.,..,. .. ~r~*. :, ,",""*~

'I~ , .. , f .,,,..~.....*

'i**:,.,.,1~-,;, .. ~. *:r:i ,. -,::.\:1r*,,,,it""**~*-* .:.--'**.. ,: ::r.- .., ..~-2 ~- ._, --~ - ,_. **, ~-:"~ r,-*,... !'~- -:..r. *.-;**

:,...,: ,{., :\ .-*,,_'r'*' ,.,*~.,*; .. ,.::...:,,,I~ '11:.-Y l\ *...* .~* ~*'\i,*yt*:..ot...,.*,

i-1"'1.L~"* :.,: .,.,.**.~* *,\,i_:?,r-*st\,,t;,,.. ,. * '*,,.

-;, * ..,. ..,. .t.. -*-,: .\ 1 *. -~ ,i *. **,:* , {,:., .* .i _:.,q,., *, i; ** , ~ ~ ~~* 1 1*

.~~\t:~i~~iif\itti~;~tt/lt~i~0.Jtit;;ritt;~;~f 1

: : . *.....q :,r--:,. . ' ..~T-rr~' .. ..._"> f.'~ ....~,,; . . ~-.',!><(

!:~~~~f*:~1:,.;1.~;.- *~:"1:f,.:.*:P ~~~ :*1 ,.-=\f~ 1~)~~

Iti$.ti{i11t\i~I!~tt~~tt\tt{~jt1jJl{r;tt~;~*1.

.:~~"\-t(,u.:"1,'P~l**i-',.,"'-,,,.:.*'1~:.~..:'!1* 1;:-, ... ~,'

~~;./.-t..-r...1. s;~~s,~~:/;?~ :. ~

1 .. ~.; :-~1, c -;*;" .'"._: ....:--'-'*"""!,,.;,......_,,_t.:,..,l.;,~,;"'1.:**i,.,*._. 1 *

J: -~;:~:~~:-~\~t,,:~?,f.?f::1:~1:r~t- 1~'

~~ ,~,~ ,, ;:.,~ -~,.\\:!J~:~~{(~~}\;;!:r* ~~ * ~tJ,~,ir:J~~~t:.:t{::-&)1 ~-~~1:-.~:~ *--~t'~; ..~~t;~~f~ ~¥:$._ ,;i':f\~ ~J*~~~ ~

lt~dtt~

, ,.)..l

~~'*. .;;1; 1.~~1 ,}'-~ .* ,,l./'

! l,;;,:,;..~~;-!.J,1l-::t:}:!_;.(~4 .;_.J ~~,J.:r:1;..t*,~

1*

,,.,.:_:. *-~~, ~;,~ ,t: to;=;-,* j:..' .;:,f~*"*:?---i:~!-~ .'* ,;;~

"~ ,!l ,. -~J

-.,i. -~

~ ,.-~ >J1t:-~l, *y-.:~";Y' I' ;._,-'! ~ '},',C*";.*F ... .:;*.,;~. . . H--...t* i- .,~::Ji:*. ,. _

I , I ~~r~i: :,1*;:--i;~ ~)~:~ °'. ~1., ,,/ . ~,tf~~ ~ :::;-_'/1 *-\~i~ ~:..:~;?~*, vL

~' '*.* :h~i;~~~-- ~-~~~~i;~

.***~*- ~ ~-,.;*, **1r.-,

.*tP*t~~:i.r-,-.:._:+-..

\1t,,){*:l;. ~\~7;~~t~~i~

.....~** *. { ,~ '.>lt.*. ,_ ,; .,.

~~~~~ :**\~~*c/1<~~

~;t *~ .f'c_.,~~'~J( A.4_*~-**..,_

~.\UJ~~tX:},~

~ ~ ;:,1,* ,.;_~.;. .

~~:,-:~\ ~it-\~~~

.,~~(*:\i,-5~~._ ,~

.~

> ~ .,. .*, *- ,._,. *

~,.;c,; ~

. ._; *;J/;'j.i/'~;~~'...'!.***. J_

/:;:~i?;.;~\~*:*\~. ~,,;.'.;lo. *1*;-Jc*;,-_ **. ,)"*,,~*,A* *.**.'.! U,"->"

t_,.f~>~~;.,:..:_;~* -~:':-'-:":-* ~,~~--

~gi}6:c£.*- ,;_;.\**:?',_

DONALD L. PLUSQUELLIC Mayor LINDA A. SOWA Service Director Novem~~Wft,e*i,18 °1993 DAVID L. CRANDELL, Mgr.

Public Utilities Bureau (216) 375-2627 Secretary of the Commission Fax 375-2072 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 146 South High Street P.O. Box 3665 Washington, DC 20555 Akron, Ohio 44309-3665 Division Managers:

Attention: Docketing and Service Branch WILLIAM C. COPELAND, P.E.

Subject:

Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District Utilitie1 Services Manager

. 6) 375-2200 Petition for Rulemaking

375-2072 Docket No. PRM-20-22 146 South High Street P.O. Box 3665 Akron, Ohio 44309-3665 Gentlemen:

RAY D. FLASCO, P.E.

Water Supply Manager (216) 678-0077 Based on the information provided in the October 20, 1993 Federal Register the City of Fax 678-0927 Akron, Public Utilities Bureau fully supports the petitioner request (PRM-20-22) that the RC amend 1570 Ravenna Road its regulations as follows:

Kent, Ohio 44240 JAMES L. SIX, P.E. 1.) All licensees provide at least 24 hours2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months advance notice to the appropriate sewage Water & Sewer Systems Mgr.

Water Distribution treatment plant before releasing radioactive materials to the sanitary sewer (216) 375-2580 Fax 375-2114 2.) NRC exempt materials that enter the sanitary waste stream from the requirements 565 Johnston Street Akron , Ohio 44311 regarding commission approval for incineration under the NRC's current regulations Sewer Maintenance (216) 375-2585 3.) NRC review the occurance of unwanted radioactive material in sewage treatment 1055 Home Avenue ron , Ohio 44310 plants

ND ALL A. MONTEITH, P.E.

Water Pollution Control Mgr. Detailed information on the City of Akron's concerns are provided on the attached Fact Sheet (216) 928-1164 and Wastewater Discharge Disclosure Declaration.

Fax 928-2285 2460 Akron-Peninsula Road Akron , Ohio 44313 Please provide the writer with the status of the petition. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

CUSTOMER INQUIRIES:

375-2554 Yours truly,

-Po-t.J1>. JI) Jt__

Patrick D. Gsellman Industrial Pretreatment Engineer Utilities Services Division PDG/lag AFTER 5 DAYS, RETURN TO Approval:

CITY OF AKRON PL. d ~

' David Crandell, Manager PU BLIC UTILIT IES BU EAU 146 S. HIGH STREET P.O. BOX 3665 Public Utilities Bureau AKRON, OH IO 44309-3665 Enclosure cc: Erwin J. Odeal, NEORSD L.A. Sowa, D.L. Crandell, W.C. Copeland R.A. Monteith, F.M. DeBellis MAY 1 O 1994 Acknow1ooged by cara ..._,.........IIIMUl.,..

1111

u. .t*'L rw co~~1M1:s10N

(}( i:: $[C1i0.

CP.ETARY r.~--

}_;., . -.

--*- - ---- .------~-- . ..- _ --- ---

I I

~ - - - - -i

City of Akron Public Utilities Bureau, Utilities Services Division INDUSTRIAL PRETREATMENT PROGRAM FACT SHEET RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS Approximately 24,000 facilities nationwide are licensed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) or State Governments to handle radioactive materials. These facilities are permitted by NRC to discharge up to one curie a year of soluble or readily dispersible material into a sanitary sewer. A concern has arisen with the advancement of municipal wastewater treatment (i.e. higher removal rates) of possible reconcentration or accumulation of radioactive materials in the treated sludge. This has the potential to effect the ultimate method of sludge disposal utilized by Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW).

Radioactive discharges to POTW's have caused sludge disposal problems In Ann Arbor, Michigan, from a University Research Reactor; in New York State from a smoke detector manufacturer; In Pennsylvania from a nuclear power plant laundry and In Washington D.C. area from a federal research facility. Also, as a result of the Improper discharge of radioactive material to the sewer system In Cleveland, Ohio, low levels of radioactivity have been detected in the incinerator ash at the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District (NEORSD), Souther1y Facility.

Although the rate of exposure to radioactivity In the Southerly Facility incinerator ash is extremely low, with no threat to the health and safety of the surrounding community or employees (according to NRC), NEORSD has initiated a very proactive action plan of Investigation and monitoring.

The U.S. NRC has the responsibility to regulate and monitor the discharge of radioactive materials. POTW's must rely on the NRC to issue licenses and to prevent dumping of radioactive material.

The City of Akron is currently unaware of any problems in regard to radioactive materials adversely effecting the POTW or solids used in the manufacture of its compost. In order to remain proactive and maintain the integrity and high quality of its compost product and to insure safe Incinerator ash disposal, the City has taken the following steps:

1) Obtained a list of all licenses from NRC in the sewer service area;

2) Initiated a preliminary screening of licensees in regard to licensed materials, uses and disposal practices;

3) Currently investigating the availability, cost and need of various testing devices and instrumentation to monitor radioactivity.

The City's investigation is being conducted by its Industrial Pretreatment Program. The Program's authority is derived from Chapter 50 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Akron, Ohio 1985, as amended in 1991. Section 50.44 (A and C) specifically states that the objectives of the Sewer Use, Industrial Pretreatment Code are as follows:

7o prevent the introduction of pollutants into the city's wastewater system which will interfere with normal operation of the system, safety of the employees or contaminate the resulting municipal sludge;*

7o improve the opportunity to recycle and reclaim wastewater and sludge from the system;*

Also, applicable general discharge prohibitions include section 50.46 parts A, P, Sand T.

Any questions or concerns on this "Fact Sheet" should be forwarded to the City of Akron, Industrial Pretreatment Program, 146 S. High Street, P.O. Box 3665, Akron, Ohio 44309 or call at (216) 375-2232. This fact sheet has been prepared at the request of the Water Pollution Control Division by the Industrial Pretreatment Staff of the Utilities Services Division, Public Utilities Bureau of the City of Akron.

Information Sources:

(1) Sludge Newsletter, September 25, 1991 (pg. 157-158)

(2) NEORSD Pipeline, Vol. 8, No. 3 Special Edition (3) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NRC Licensees, Division of Industrial and Medical Nuclear Safety, February 11, 1993.

INDUSTRIAL PRETREATMENT PROGRAM WASTEWATER DISCHARGE DISCLOSURE DECLARATION (WOOD)

(Radioactive Materials, Short Form)

Please return completed form to:

City of Akron Public Utilities Bureau P.O. Box 3665 146 S. High Street Akron, OH 44309-3665 Attn: Industrial Pretreatment Engineer (216) 375-2232

1. Company Name:

Mailing Address:

Address of Premises:

Person to

Contact:

Title:

Telephone Number:

2. Standard Industrial Classification Cocle(s): _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

3. Description of manufacturing, business or service activity on premises:

4. Does this facility have an active U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) License for the use of radioactive material? D YES D NO If yes, describe the licensed materials, their uses and disposal practices:

Page 1 of 2 CONTINUED ON BACK

5. Does this facility have a license with the State of Ohio, Department of Health In regard to radioactive material (Including NARM materials)? 0 YES O NO If yes, describe the licensed materials, their uses and disposal practices:

6. Does this facility have .miy discharge of radioactive material or waste to the sanitary sewer system?

ves No If yes, describe the material and/or waste being discharged Including characteristics and quantity:

7. Is a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan and/or a Slug Control Plan In effect for radioactive materlal for this facility? D YES D NO

8. Industry Comments:

The Information contained In this appllcatlon Is famlllar to me and to the best of my knowledge and belief, such Information Is true, complete, and accurate.

Name of Signing Official Signature Title Date WDDD-RAD Page 2 of 2 PUB 3/10/93

93 DEC - 6 P6 :36 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 20 , I

[Docket No. PRM-20-22]

Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District; Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; Notice of receipt.

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing for public comment a notice of receipt of a petition for rulemaking, dated August 2, 1993, which was filed with the Commission by Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District. The petition was docketed by the NRC on August 10, 1993, and has been assigned Docket No. PRM-20-22. The petitioner requests that the NRC amend its regulations to require that all licensees provide at least 24 hours2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months advance notice to the appropriate sewage treatment plant before releasing radioactive material to the sanitary sewer system. The petitioner also requests that the NRC exempt materials that enter the sanitary waste stream from the requirements regarding Commission approval for incineration under the NRC's current regulations.

1

1/3/~'f DATE: Submit comments by (75 days after publication in the Federal Register). Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the commission is able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments to the secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Docketing and Service Branch. Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, between 7:45 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays.

For a copy of the petition, write the Rules Review and Directives Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and Publications Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555.

The petition and copies of comments received may be inspected and copied for a fee at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L street, NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael T. Lesar, Chief, Rules Review Section, Rules Review and Directives Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and Publications Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Telephone: 301-492-7758 or Toll Free: 800-368-5642.

2

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The NRC has established standards for protection against ionizing radiation resulting from activities conducted under licensees and has issued these standards in the regulations codified in 10 CFR Part 20. These regulations are intended to control the receipt, possession, use, transfer, and disposal of licensed material by its licensees. Licensed material is any

- source, byproduct, or special nuclear material received, possessed, used, transferred, or disposed of under a general or specific license issued by the NRC.

In particular, the regulations contained in 10 CFR 20.303 and 20.2003 govern the disposal of licensed material or waste containing licensed material by release into sanitary sewerage.

The regulations contained in 10 CFR 20.305 and 20.2004 govern the treatment or disposal of licensed material by incineration. In a petition for rulemaking received by the NRC on August 10, 1993, the Northeast Ohio Regional sewer District (District) requested that the NRC amend these regulations.

The Petition The petitioner states that the District's Southerly Wastewater Treatment Center has been contaminated by disposal of wastes contaminated with Cobalt-60 into the sanitary sewer system from other sources. The petitioner states that the characterization and remediation of this contamination is ongoing 3

and will cost the District, at a minimum, in excess of one million dollars. The petitioner also believes that the remediation costs could rise into the billions of dollars if off-site disposal of the contaminated ash is required.

The petitioner states that the District is not the first sewage treatment authority to experience radioactive contamination at a treatment plant. The petitioner states that the NRC has previously documented problems at Tonawanda and Grand Island, NY; Lansing, MI; Oak Ridge, TN; Royersford, PA; and Washington, D.C. The petitioner also stated that the NRC has recently investigated an occurrence in Youngstown, OH.

The petitioner states that it is possible that contamination currently exists undetected at other sewage treatment plants.

The contamination existed at the District for nearly 10 years before it was detected.

It is the petitioner's understanding that the NRC is reviewing the occurrence of unwanted radioactive material in sewage treatment plants. Regardless of any other changes the NRC may make to its regulations, the petitioner requests the following amendments.

The Suggested Amendments The petitioner requests that the NRC amend 10 CFR 20.303 and 10 CFR 20.2003 to require that all licensees provide not less than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months advance notice to the appropriate sewage treatment plant before releasing radioactive material to the sanitary 4

sewer system. The petitioner also requests that the NRC amend 10 CFR 20.305 and 10 CFR 20.2004, which prohibit the incineration of radioactive waste without NRC approval, to explicitly exempt materials that enter the sanitary waste stream under 10 CFR 20.303 and 10 CFR 20.2003. The petitioner believes that this amendment would clarify that the NRC does not intend to inhibit the operation of more than 200 sewage sludge incinerators nationwide because of the discharges of its licensees.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this \~ 1\ day of October 1993.

clear Regulatory Commission.

Secretary ~ission.

5

DOCKST NUMBER PE ITION RULE PRM..1:t>-2.2-

,,, 59'-F R 5L/07 I arr1 Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District 3826 Euclid Avenue

Cleveland, Ohio 44115-2504 216*881 *6600 FAX: 216

881

9709 August 2, 1993 Mr. Samuel Chilk Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Chief Docketing and Service Branch Re: 10 CFR 2.802 Petition for Rulemak.ing

Dear Secretary Chilk:

The Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District's ("District") Southerly Wastewater Treatment Center has been contaminated by disposal of Cobalt-60 into the sanitary sewer system. The characterization and remediation of this contamination is ongoing and will cost the District, at a minimum, in excess of one million dollars. The remediation costs could rise into the billions of dollars if off-site disposal of the contaminated ash is required.

The District is not the first sewage treatment authority to experience radioactive contamination at a treatment plant. The NRC has previously documented problems at Tonawanda and Grand Island, NY, Lansing, MI, Oak Ridge, 1N, Royersford, PA, and Washington, D.C. The NRC has also recently investigated an occurrence in Youngstown, Ohio. This list does not include all contaminated facilities in Agreement states. The possibility also exists that contamination exists undetected at other treatment plants, as it did at Southerly for nearly 10 years.

It is our understanding that the NRC is undertaking a general review of the regulatory scheme as it relates to this problem. Regardless of what other revisions may be made to the sanitary disposal rules, the District hereby petitions the NRC to revise 10 CFR 20.303 (and 10 CFR 20.2003) to require that all licensees provide not less than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months advance notice to the appropriate sewage treatment plant prior to releasing radioactive material to the sanitary sewer system.

The mission of the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District is to enhance public health and welfare through the efficient, cost-effective conveyance and treatment of wastewater. This is accomplished by an organization dedicated to professionalism, fairness and consistency that anticipates and responds to the changing environmental needs of the community.

ll.S. N1_'C,..::J ..;j-, ,; C(JMMISSIQN O(}~;VE! *:,:, ;., ;:~,.', ~'.E SECTiON er .-*,-::~,.)-: *11-,c.: :'.;FGi'ETARY Cr "!"hE c o;,1idiSGIO[I Postma,k DJ!*~ ___ f:}_ .,_,/,_q _~ - - - -

Copi-ss ~1e.: fr:,* i _ _ _ _1_ _ _ __

Add"I C'o~,c>s R.. ~;,0,.~,d ,c___ _ __

SpeciJI Dist(:bu!ion ~ t ) ..J2_t}/2.,

J Le (,.(.

Mr. Samuel Chilk U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission August 2, 1993 Page Two The District also requests that 10 CFR 20.305 (and 10 CFR 20.2004),

which prohibit the incineration of radioactive waste without NRC approval, be revised to explicitly exempt materials that enter the sanitary waste stream under 10 CFR 20.303 (and 10 CFR 20.2003). This revision would clarify that the NRC does not intend to inhibit the operation of over 200 sewage sludge incinerators across the nation due to the discharges of its licensees.

Your prompt response to this petition for rulemaking would be appreciated as this is a matter of great concern to the District.

Very w

William B. Schatz General Counsel WBS/td cc: Richard Bangart Philip Olson John Martin Ken Kirk Senator Glenn Senator Metzenbaum Representative Hoke Representative Stokes Erwin Odeal Thomas Lenhart Barry Koh (chilk)

ML23156A152

Contents

Text

REFERENCE:

SUMMARY

Dear Secretary Chilk:

Dear Sir:

Dear Secretary Chilk:

Dear Secretary of the Commission:

Dear Secretary Chilk,

Dear Secretary Chilk,

Subject:

Dear Secretary Chilk,

Dear Secretary Chilk:

Subject:

Contact:

SUMMARY

Background

Dear Secretary Chilk:

Navigation menu

ML23156A152

Text

REFERENCE:

SUMMARY

Dear Secretary Chilk:

Dear Sir:

Dear Secretary Chilk:

Dear Secretary of the Commission:

Dear Secretary Chilk,

Dear Secretary Chilk,

Subject:

Dear Secretary Chilk,

Dear Secretary Chilk:

Subject:

Contact:

SUMMARY

Background

Dear Secretary Chilk:

Navigation menu

Search