P.1 

OAR Box 1103 

Prepped by Ryan Dugan 

Document Number: 

48) II-D-1 

Docket Number: 

A-83-41 

Printed 4/11/2008 1:50:49 PM Sheet 48 of 174 
P.2 

Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. AIR $*-

Box 538 OBA M JJV*TC " 

Allentown, PA 18105 rTCVE/Vw9 

Telephone (215) 481-4911 

1 Jul y 1986 « c c t,., t u 

iNVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGEMf.y 

Docket A-83-41 JUL 1 0 1986 

Central Docket Section (A-l30) P-PM-CAI ^ ^ 

401 N Street, S.H. SCTSSP ^ 

Washington, D.C. 20460 OCUMON 

Gentlemen: 

A1r Products and Chemicals, Inc. provides herewith comments on the 

advanced notice of proposed rulemaking which appeared at 51 FR 22264 on 

18 June 1986, 1n regard to radiation protection criteria for cleanup of 

contaminated sites. 

We are gratified that the Agency has stated Its Intentions to determine 

the criteria for these cleanups before the cleanups are begun. We have 

observed the Agency 1n the past few years attempt to establish RCRA rules 

without having established a measurement of what 1s hazardous, or what 1s not 

hazardous, and we have observed the Agency attempting to prepare consent 

agreements and contracts for cleanup of Superfund sites when It again had not 

decided how clean 1s clean and did not know when to stop the cleanup. Neither 

the public nor the Agency needs to go through this learning process again. 

Therefore, our first comment 1s to urge you to establish a complete and 

precise set of definitions before you begin your process. 

In particular, 1t will be necessary for you to start at the beginning and 

define the words "contaminated with radioactivity" 1f that 1s the condition 

which you are going to contend with. You will need to prepare more than one 

definition because this term will have to be applied to various media, such as 

soils, surfaces, solids, liquids, and so on. These definitions should clearly 

establish when Items are and are not considered contaminated. As the Notice 

discusses 1n some places, 1t 1s not only the level of radioactivity but the 

type of radiation, and the type of radlonucllds that are Involved which will 

be Important to establishing this definition. Of particular Interest will be 

the definition of a contaminated radioactive solid waste. Neither current NRC 

nor RCRA regulations now define this class of material. Any Inconsistency 1n 

these definitions from existing NRC guidance or regulations should be clearly 

explained. In addition, 1f the definitions Involve testing, the test methods 

must be clearly defined, also. Here, also, any Inconsistencies with the 

current NRC methods need a clear explanation. The basis of this definition 

should be a scientifically sound, peer-reviewed risk assessment. 
P.3 

Docket A-83-41 -2- 1 July 1986 

We recommend that EPA develop formal standards for this program rather 

than guidelines. These standards should be developed through the full process 

of the Administrative Procedures Act, and 1f necessary, judicial challenge. 

We find that guidelines are subject to varying Interpretations and do not have 

a consistently applied legal position. Therefore, the Agency should work 

toward the development of a full set of standards. 

In response to the question on Institutional controls, we can see where 

they would be times when these controls may be the most appropriate and 

effective use of society's resources. For example, 1f there are only 

short-lived radiation sources present 1t may be most effective to simply bar 

public contact with the area until these have been reduced below a level of 

concern. It 1s assumed that there 1s no public access to the contaminated 

area before the cleanup, and therefore, nothing 1s lost by continuing to bar 

public access until the area becomes safe, 1f 1t will do so simply from 

natural decay processes. As the Notice states on page 22265, costs, and more 

Importantly potential exposures to the cleanup person, may be avoided by 

waiting some reasonable period of time, which might be a generation or two or 

three, until the radioactivity has declined. 

We support the suggestion that there should be an optimum amount of 

recyle of equipment, material, and facilities. It would be quite wasteful of 

our resources to abandon and destroy, or otherwise render non useful, any 

equipment or facilities which can be recycled at a cost less than replacement. 

We hope that the Agency will bear 1n mind Executive Order 12,291 and Its 

requirement that the cure be less damaging than the Illness. In every case we 

hope that the Agency will allow for procedures which do not expose workers to 

more potential harm than 1s necessary or than 1s avoided by the public 1n 

general. There 1s little need to try to save the public from a minor amount 

of radiation by exposing a few workers to a significant amount, 1f there are 

simple means to protect the public. Neither 1s there any need to attempt to 

return an area to unimpeded public access 1f the value of that access to the 

public 1s less than the cost of making 1t available. 

Finally, we urge the Agency to consider the fact that we should not be 

attempting to second guess Mother Nature. It should be made clear 1n these 

standards that there 1s no need to clean up a site to a lower background that 

1t was before 1t became "contaminated". There undoubtedly will be some sites 

which naturally have higher background radiation than do others. There may be 

the tendency to establish one generic definition of clean. That should not be 

done, because 1f one site had a higher natural background radiation than 

another before 1t was used for the purpose which caused 1t to become further 

contaminated, there 1s no justification for spending public money to reduce 1t 

to a lesser contamination at the end of the period. Clean should not be the 

cleanest, but 1t should be an acceptable level. Therefore, 1n this point and 

1n many others, 1t will be necessary for the Agency to provide a great deal of 

flexibility 1n the standards. 
P.4 

I • J ' 

Docket A-83-41 -3- 1 July 1986 

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this rulemaking, and we will 

be pleased to discuss any of these points 1n further detail should that be 

desirable. 

Very truly yourlT 

John T/Nsarr, Manager 

Regtrratory Response 

JTB:pbr 

1005c