Nuclear Regulation: Action Needed to Control Radioactive Contamination at
Sewage Treatment Plants (Letter Report, 05/18/94, GAO/RCED-94-133).

Radioactive materials are sometimes discharged into municipal sewer
systems by hospitals, decontamination laundries, research facilities,
and manufacturers licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
NRC regulations fall short, however, in controlling low-level
radioactive wastes being discharged into municipal sewer systems,
possibly putting treatment plant workers, plant property, and the
general public at risk. During the past decade, at least nine cases of
radioactive contamination of sewage sludge have occurred at treatment
plants. One of the most recent was the inadvertent discovery by NRC in
1991 of radioactive contamination at the Southerly Sewage Treatment
Plant in Cleveland, Ohio. NRC has concluded that the elevated radiation
levels at the site do not pose health or safety risks to plant workers
or to the public. The facility has already spent more than $1.5 million
for on-site cleanup and a secured fence, and estimates for off-site
disposal range as high as $3 billion.  The full extent of contamination
at other treatment plants nationwide is unknown because (1) NRC has
inspected only 15 of the 1,100 NRC licensees that may discharge
radioactive material to determine if a concentration problem exists, (2)
NRC does not know how many of the estimated 3,000 "agreement state"
licensees may have been inspected, and (3) neither NRC nor the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires treatment plants to test
for the presence of radioactive materials in sewage sludge. Exposure to
treatment plant sludge, ash, and related by-products can occur in a
variety of ways. For example, some of the substances are used for
agricultural and residential purposes, such as lawn fertilizer. NRC and
EPA studies on the health effects of radioactive materials in sewage
sludge and ash have been inconclusive. GAO summarized this report in
testimony before Congress; see: Nuclear Regulation: Action Needed to
Control Radioactive Contamination at Sewage Treatment Plants, by Jim
Wells, Associate Director for Energy and Science Issues, before the
Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs and the Subcommittee on the
Environment, Energy, and Natural Resources, House Committee on
Government Operations. GAO/T-RCED-94-247, June 21, 1994 (15 pages).

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  RCED-94-133
     TITLE:  Nuclear Regulation: Action Needed to Control Radioactive 
             Contamination at Sewage Treatment Plants
      DATE:  05/18/94
   SUBJECT:  Sewage treatment
             Environmental monitoring
             Water pollution control
             Radioactive wastes
             Environmental policies
             Health hazards
             Federal/state relations
             Nuclear waste disposal
             Nuclear waste management
             Safety regulation
IDENTIFIER:  EPA National Industrial Pretreatment Program
             Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District Southerly Sewage 
             Treatment Plant (OH)
             
**************************************************************************
* This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a GAO        *
* report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles,       *
* headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major divisions and subdivisions *
* of the text, such as Chapters, Sections, and Appendixes, are           *
* identified by double and single lines.  The numbers on the right end   *
* of these lines indicate the position of each of the subsections in the *
* document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the page       *
* numbers of the printed product.                                        *
*                                                                        *
* No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although figure    *
* captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but may not resemble     *
* those in the printed version.                                          *
*                                                                        *
* A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO Document    *
* Distribution Facility by calling (202) 512-6000, by faxing your        *
* request to (301) 258-4066, or by writing to P.O. Box 6015,             *
* Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015. We are unable to accept electronic orders *
* for printed documents at this time.                                    *
**************************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Report to Congressional Requesters

May 1994

NUCLEAR REGULATION - ACTION NEEDED
TO CONTROL RADIOACTIVE
CONTAMINATION AT SEWAGE TREATMENT
PLANTS

GAO/RCED-94-133

Radionuclides at Sewage Treatment Plants


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
  GAO - General Accounting Office
  NRC - Nuclear Regulatory Commission
  pCi/g - picocuries per gram
  RCRA - Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
  uR/hr - microroentgens per hour

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-255099

May 18, 1994

The Honorable John Glenn
Chairman, Committee on
 Governmental Affairs
United States Senate

The Honorable Mike Synar
Chairman, Environment, Energy, and
 Natural Resources Subcommittee
Committee on Government Operations
House of Representatives

The Honorable Louis Stokes
House of Representatives

Radioactive materials are sometimes discharged into municipal sewer
systems by facilities such as hospitals, manufacturers, and
decontamination laundries that are licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC).  This letter responds to your request that we
investigate the radioactive contamination of sewage sludge and the
status of cleanup at the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District's
Southerly Sewage Treatment Plant (Southerly) in Cleveland, Ohio. 
According to NRC, the most likely source of radioactive contamination
was one of its licensees discharging radioactive material into the
treatment plant.  In addition, because of your concern that such
contamination might be more widespread than at the Southerly plant,
we agreed to (1) determine whether other sewage treatment plants have
been contaminated by radioactive material, (2) identify what NRC and
others are doing to limit and monitor the amounts of radioactive
materials NRC's licensees discharge that ultimately end up in the
sludge and ash (incinerated sludge) of treatment plants, and (3)
provide information on NRC's actions to determine whether treatment
plant workers and the public are being exposed to radioactively
contaminated sludge and ash. 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

In April 1991, NRC inadvertently discovered radioactive contamination
at the Southerly Sewage Treatment Plant while conducting an aerial
radiological survey of one of its licensee's sites.  According to NRC
officials, the radioactive material (cobalt-60) had concentrated at
elevated levels in the plant's sludge and ash.  Of the 492 soil
samples taken, 133 samples, or 27 percent, exceeded NRC's acceptable
level for radiation in soil.  After surveying the treatment plant and
the surrounding areas for radiation, NRC concluded that the site
poses no health or safety risks to treatment plant workers or to the
public because of a variety of factors, such as limited public access
to the property.  An NRC official told us that the site may need to
be monitored for as long as 50 years, if on-site disposal of the
contaminated soil is permitted.  Southerly officials told us that
they have already spent about $1 million for activities related to an
on-site cleanup and for a security fence.  If NRC or the state of
Ohio does not approve on-site disposal of the contaminated soil, the
cost of off-site disposal could exceed $3 billion. 

The full extent of the radioactive contamination of sewage sludge,
ash, and related by-products nationwide is unknown.  Neither NRC nor
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has conducted or required
testing to determine the extent of the radioactive contamination
occurring at treatment plants that receive radioactive discharges. 
Furthermore, NRC has inspected only 15 of the approximately 1,100 NRC
licensees that discharge radioactive material to treatment plants to
determine if a concentration problem exists.  The sewage treatment
plants we contacted were generally unaware of the problem of
radioactive materials' concentrating in sludge and ash and did not
routinely test for radiation. 

To address the problem of radioactive materials' concentrating in
sludge and ash, NRC has revised its regulation to reduce the
concentration of radioactivity that licensees can discharge to
treatment plants.  However, because of uncertainty about how the
radioactive materials concentrate during the sewage treatment
process, NRC does not know how effective this action will be.  EPA,
the agency responsible for regulating certain aspects of treatment
plants' operations, does not have authority over NRC licensees'
radioactive discharges.  Because of the uncertainty about the
effectiveness of federal oversight, some local sewer districts are
considering actions that impose more stringent limits on the
licensees' discharges.  However, since neither NRC nor EPA has
established acceptable levels for radioactivity in sludge, ash, and
related by-products, local authorities are uncertain about how
effective their actions would be or if they would be enforceable. 

The health implications of the exposure of treatment plant workers
and the public to contaminated sludge, ash, and related by-products
are unknown because neither NRC nor EPA knows (1) how much
radioactive material may be in these products and (2) how these
products might affect people.  Sewage sludge, ash, and related
by-products from treatment plants' operations are used and disposed
of in a variety of ways.  Some of the sludge and ash by-products are
used for agricultural and residential purposes, as fertilizer for
lawns or gardens, for instance.  Sludge and ash can also be disposed
of on-site at the treatment plant or off-site at a landfill. 


   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

NRC issues licenses under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended,
to individuals and entities such as hospitals, research facilities,
decontamination laundries, and manufacturers of smoke detectors and
other devices and materials.  A license permits them to possess, use,
and transfer licensed radioactive materials under controlled
conditions that limit the public's exposure to radiation.  NRC
regulates approximately 8,000 licensees in 21 states.\1

NRC also provides the regulatory basis for 29 "agreement" states to
regulate approximately 16,000 licensees.\2 NRC has established
standards to protect the public health and safety.  These standards
are intended to minimize the risk of incurring fatal cancers and
genetic effects from exposure to radiation.  Among other things,
these standards, set forth in 10 C.F.R.  part 20, set effluent limits
that licensees are not to exceed for various radionuclides that NRC
is responsible for regulating under the Atomic Energy Act. 

NRC and EPA have a regulatory interest in the radioactive materials
discharged into sewage treatment plants and the subsequent use and
disposal of sewage sludge, ash, and related by-products.  NRC is
responsible for the low-level radioactive materials discharged by its
licensees and for protecting both the workers employed by its
licensees and the general public from exposure to these materials. 
EPA regulates certain aspects of the sewage treatment plants'
operations, such as discharges to the plants and to navigable waters,
and the disposal of sewage sludge and ash.  EPA also has the
authority to set generally applicable environmental standards to
protect the environment from radioactive materials.  The states and
localities may impose additional regulations. 


--------------------
\1 NRC-regulated states are Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii,
Idaho, Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri,
Montana, New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota,
Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. 

\2 Agreement states are the states that, through agreements with NRC,
have assumed the role of NRC in monitoring and regulating the
radioactive materials covered under the agreements. 


   RADIOACTIVE CONTAMINATION
   REPORTED AT SEVERAL TREATMENT
   PLANTS, BUT FULL EXTENT OF THE
   PROBLEM IS UNKNOWN
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

Over the last 10 years, at least nine cases have been reported of
radioactive contamination at treatment plants resulting from
discharges by NRC's and agreement states' licensees into municipal
sewage systems.  The facilities are located in Cleveland, Ohio;
Tonawanda, New York; Grand Island, New York; Oak Ridge, Tennessee;
Royersford, Pennsylvania; Erwin, Tennessee; Washington, D.C.;
Portland, Oregon; and Ann Arbor, Michigan.  With the exception of the
Cleveland case, these cases were identified as a result of a state's
or NRC's investigations of the licensees and treatment plants. 

The full extent of the problem of radionuclides' concentrating at the
treatment plants, however, is unknown.  EPA and NRC studied this
issue in 1986 and 1992, respectively.  EPA's study did not provide
any conclusions for determining health problems from the reuse and
disposal of sewage sludge.\3 NRC's study indicated that some
radiation exposure from sewage sludge and ash can occur and suggested
that further review is needed.\4

Furthermore, NRC has inspected only 15 of the approximately 1,100 NRC
licensees that may discharge radioactive material to treatment plants
to determine if a problem exists with concentrations of radioactive
materials.  An NRC official did not know at the time of our review
how many of the estimated 2,000 agreement state licensees may have
been inspected.  The treatment plants we contacted were generally
unaware of the potential problem of radionuclides' concentrating in
sludge and ash and did not routinely test these by-products for
radiation. 


--------------------
\3 Radioactivity of Municipal Sludge, Environmental Protection
Agency, Apr.  1986. 

\4 Evaluation of Exposure Pathways to Man From Disposal of
Radioactive Materials Into Sanitary Sewer Systems, Pacific Northwest
Laboratory, May 1992. 


      ELEVATED LEVELS OF
      RADIOACTIVE CONTAMINATION
      DISCOVERED AT NORTHEAST OHIO
      PLANT
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1

One of the more recent and significant examples of radioactive
contamination at treatment facilities was discovered inadvertently by
NRC while conducting an aerial radiological survey of a licensee's
site.  In April 1991, NRC discovered elevated levels of radiological
contamination (cobalt-60) at the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer
District's Southerly plant.  According to NRC's documentation, the
most likely source of the radioactive material found was an NRC
licensee that discharged waste into the sewer lines that are
connected to the treatment plant.  This material (used in teletherapy
equipment as a radiation source for treating cancer patients)
subsequently concentrated at elevated levels in the ash that was left
over when the plant incinerated its sludge. 

After NRC's 1991 aerial radiological survey detected elevated levels
of radiation at Southerly, a subsequent preliminary radiation survey
by NRC at the plant identified the radiation levels in some soil
samples at 20 times the background level.\5 An August 1992
characterization of the site by an NRC contractor showed that
elevated concentrations of cobalt-60 were present in samples obtained
from all areas surveyed.  Of the 492 soil samples taken, 133 samples,
or 27 percent, exceeded NRC's acceptable level for radiation in soil. 
For example, the cobalt-60 concentrations ranged from less than 0.1
to about 31,200 picocuries per gram\6 (pCi/g) for soil samples--a
single sample was measured at 3 million pCi/g--and from less than 0.2
to about 75 pCi/g for sediment samples.  NRC's criterion for levels
that are as low as reasonably achievable\7 and for unrestricted use
(no need for future regulatory control by NRC) is 8 pCi/g for
cobalt-60.  A threat to public health and safety may not always exist
if NRC's criterion for unrestricted use is exceeded, but according to
a former NRC Commissioner, exceeding the criterion is a public health
and safety concern. 

NRC officials maintain that the site poses no imminent health or
safety risk to the plant's workers or to the public and that removing
the contaminated sludge and ash off-site could be costly.  A
Southerly official said that as of February 1994, the district had
spent about $900,000 on site remediation activities and $120,000 to
erect a security fence around the contaminated areas to prevent
general public access.  In addition, NRC spent about $370,000 on a
dose assessment, soil samplings and analysis, and radiological site
and facility surveys.  An NRC official told us that the site may need
to be monitored for as long as 50 years if on-site disposal is
permitted.  However, if NRC or the state of Ohio does not approve
on-site disposal of the contaminated soil, the cost of off-site
disposal could be about $3 billion, according to Southerly officials. 
(For more information about the Southerly plant, see app.  I.)


--------------------
\5 The radiation in the natural environment, including cosmic rays
and radiation from naturally occurring radioactive elements. 

\6 A picocurie is one-trillionth of a curie, which is a measure of
the rate of radioactive decay. 

\7 As low as reasonably achievable means as low as is reasonably
achievable taking into account the state of technology and the
economics of improvements in relation to the benefits to the public
health and safety, other societal and socioeconomic considerations,
and the utilization of atomic energy in the public interest. 


      RADIATION CONTAMINATION
      DISCOVERED AT OTHER
      TREATMENT PLANTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2

In addition to the Southerly case, at least eight other cases of
radioactive contamination at sewage treatment plants have been
reported (see app.  II for the details of these cases).  The levels
of radioactive materials discovered at these plants and the cost to
resolve the problem varied significantly. 

To determine whether the levels of radiation found at these sites
posed a health or safety risk to the public, NRC in 1991 sponsored a
study involving five of the eight treatment plants.  The study
concluded that the levels "may not be trivial" and were high enough
to justify further study.  According to the Director, Office of
Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, the study indicated that, in
some scenarios, the concentration of radionuclides could produce
doses that are substantial fractions of NRC's 100-millirem per year
limit on public exposure to radiation.\8 According to information
from NRC, for sites at Grand Island, New York, and Oak Ridge,
Tennessee, each state required the licensee to reduce its release
limits for discharges of the radioactive materials. 


--------------------
\8 NRC uses the 100-millirem per year limit as the standard for the
maximum amount of radiation exposure allowed per individual that it
considers acceptable from a public health perspective.  This limit is
based on a recommendation by the International Commission on
Radiological Protection. 


      THE FULL EXTENT OF
      RADIOACTIVE CONTAMINATION AT
      TREATMENT PLANTS IS UNKNOWN
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.3

NRC estimated that before January 1, 1994, out of 8,000 NRC-regulated
licensees, 1,100 licensees had the potential to discharge into sewers
radioactive materials that could concentrate at treatment plants in
the 21 NRC-regulated states.  NRC periodically inspects its licensees
to ensure compliance with the requirements for discharges of
radioactive effluents.  During the inspections, NRC reviews the
licensee's records to ensure that the discharges are in accordance
with the authorized limits.  The inspections generally do not include
a survey of the sewer lines connecting the licensee to a treatment
plant or of the treatment plant itself. 

For the 29 agreement states, NRC estimated that 2,000 of the 16,000
agreement state licensees discharge radioactive materials into
sewers.  Inspection of the agreement state licensees is the
responsibility of the agreement states and not NRC.  An NRC official
did not know at the time of our review how many of an estimated 2,000
agreement state licensees that discharge radioactive materials to
treatment plants may have been inspected for concentrations of
radionuclides. 

In November 1984, NRC issued a temporary instruction to regional
offices requiring them to inspect certain licensees to determine if a
problem existed with radioactive materials' concentrating in sludge
at sewage treatment plants; to the extent that a problem was
identified, they were instructed to take sludge samples from the
treatment plants that received the licensees' discharges.  In
response to this temporary instruction, NRC inspected 11 licensees
and subsequently identified contaminated sludge at two treatment
plants--Erwin, Tennessee, and Royersford, Pennsylvania.  In addition
to the temporary instruction sent to its regional offices, NRC also
notified a number of its licensees as well as the radiation program
offices in agreement states about the potential for the radioactive
materials to concentrate at treatment plants.  However, NRC did not
require the licensees and the program offices to take any specific
actions to address the problem. 

The problem of radionuclides' concentrating in sludge and ash
continued to get NRC's attention as a result of the states' and NRC's
inspections at licensees and treatment plants between 1984 and 1986. 
Responding to the ongoing concern, NRC issued a second temporary
instruction in 1987 and inspected four licensees.  NRC identified
these licensees because the types and amounts of radionuclides they
discharged could concentrate in sewage treatment plants.  Included on
NRC's 1984 and 1987 lists was a licensee that discharged
radionuclides to the Southerly plant.  Unlike the 1984 notice that
directed NRC's regional staff to take only liquid waste samples from
the licensees, this notice specifically directed the staff to take
sludge samples from the treatment plants as well.  NRC, however,
found no significant concentrations of radioactive materials present
in the sludge samples from these treatment plants. 

NRC has inspected only 15 of the approximately 1,100 NRC licensees
that may discharge radioactive material to treatment plants to
determine if a concentration problem exists.  Furthermore, NRC,
despite its two inspections, did not identify the problem with
radioactive sludge and ash at Southerly.  In 1985, NRC regional
officials and a contractor took a sample of sludge from the sewer
line of a licensee that was alleged to have discharged excess amounts
of cobalt-60 to Southerly.  The inspection found some radiation in
the licensee's sewer drain, but no tests were made of the sludge or
ash at Southerly.  In 1987, an NRC inspector was once again sent out
to investigate whether the same licensee was contaminating the
treatment plant.  The inspector obtained dried sludge samples from
one of the Northeast Ohio Sewer District's four treatment facilities,
but he did not obtain ash samples from the Southerly plant.  Ash
samples were not taken because the inspector was unfamiliar with
Southerly's treatment process or unaware that incineration could
concentrate radioactive material in ash. 

The treatment plants that we contacted were generally unaware of the
potential problem of radioactive materials' concentrating in sludge
and ash and did not routinely test these by-products for radiation. 
NRC did not send its 1984 and 1987 notices about this problem to the
treatment plants.  We spoke with officials from 21 treatment plants
to determine whether they were aware of the potential problem of the
concentration of radioactive materials in sludge and ash and whether
they tested for radiation.  In each of the 21 NRC-regulated states,
we selected a treatment plant that, according to NRC officials, is
most likely to be receiving low-level radioactive waste from NRC's
licensees.  We found that only 5 of 21 treatment plants were aware of
the problem of radioactive materials concentrating in sludge and ash. 
In addition, only 5 of the 21 treatment plants have tested for
radiation in their sludge and ash, but none are testing on a regular
basis, and some had not tested recently.  For example, one treatment
plant official stated that a one-time test of sludge for radioactive
materials was conducted about a year ago.  On the basis of the
results of this one test, the official stated that it would be a good
idea to test the treatment plant's sludge for radiation. 

We also contacted two national associations that represent sewer
district and treatment plant officials to determine if NRC had
notified them about the problem.  The director of the Association of
Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies, which represents about 150 members
with at least 400 treatment plants, was not aware of any NRC
notification to the association about the problem of radioactive
materials' concentrating at treatment plants.  Similarly, we were
told by the director of Public Affairs for the Water Environment
Federation, which represents some 40,000 members who are typically
chief engineers from smaller treatment plants, that his association
was also not notified by NRC about the problem. 


   RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS AT
   TREATMENT FACILITIES MAY NOT BE
   ADEQUATELY REGULATED
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

NRC and EPA have a regulatory interest in the discharges of
radioactive materials to treatment plants and the radioactive
materials' subsequent disposal.  NRC has taken regulatory action to
limit the amount of radioactivity that its licensees can discharge to
treatment plants, but it does not know how effective this action will
be.  EPA is the agency most knowledgeable and closely associated with
treatment plants, but EPA does not directly regulate the NRC
licensees' discharges of regulated radioactive materials into sewage
treatment plants.\9 EPA regulates the treatment plants' discharges to
navigable waters and any discharges to a treatment plant that may
pass through or interfere with the treatment system.  EPA also
regulates the disposal of sewage sludge and ash. 

The full extent of radioactive contamination in sewage sludge, ash,
and related by-products nationwide is unknown.  Neither NRC nor EPA
has required widespread testing to determine the extent of the
radioactive contamination occurring at treatment plants receiving
radioactive discharges from the NRC licensees and agreement state
licensees.  As a result, no assurance exists that other treatment
plants are not experiencing problems with radioactive materials'
concentration.  To address the potential problem, some local sewer
districts are considering actions that impose more stringent limits
on the licensees' discharges.  However, without further guidance from
NRC and EPA on what levels of radiation are acceptable in sludge and
ash, they do not know if their actions will be effective or
enforceable. 


--------------------
\9 EPA does have the authority to establish generally applicable
environmental standards for these materials but has not exercised
this authority in the context addressed by this report.  EPA may also
regulate naturally occurring radioactive materials, such as radium,
under the Clean Water Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act. 


      IMPACT OF REGULATORY ACTIONS
      TO LIMIT RADIOACTIVE
      DISCHARGES FROM LICENSEES IS
      UNKNOWN
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1

While both NRC and EPA can affect the discharges into sewage plants,
only NRC regulates its licensees' radioactive discharges into sewers
served by treatment plants.  In 1991, NRC revised its regulation 10
C.F.R.  part 20.303, which controls its licensees' discharges to
sewer systems.  The revised regulation 10 C.F.R.  part 20.2003, which
became effective for all licensees on January 1, 1994, limits certain
types of licensees' discharges and reduces the concentration levels
of the radioactive materials that can be discharged into a sewer
system.  For example, insoluble discharges, such as the form of
cobalt-60 that was found at the Southerly plant, will no longer be
allowed for NRC licensees because these discharges concentrate in
sludge and ash. 

Under NRC's former regulation, 10 C.F.R.  part 20.303, which governed
licensees' discharges of radioactive materials, NRC permitted its
licensees to discharge small quantities of radioactive materials into
treatment plants.  The discharges had to be made within certain
specified limits, provided that the materials were "readily soluble
or dispersible in water." NRC assumed that the radioactive materials
discharged into a sewer system would remain in solution or would
readily disperse in the large volumes of water discharged by the
treatment plants and would become almost undetectable.  NRC further
assumed that the radioactive materials would pass through the
treatment facilities' systems to streams and rivers and not settle
out in the sludge.  However, the materials discharged by some
licensees that were initially thought to be readily dispersible
precipitated out of the wastewater and concentrated.  For example, in
the Southerly case the cobalt-60 in oxide form, which was originally
thought to be readily dispersible, concentrated during the sludge
treatment process and accumulated in higher concentrations after it
was incinerated. 

NRC's current regulation reduces the concentrations of radioactive
materials that can be discharged compared to what was allowed under
the previous regulation, but it retained the 1-curie per year limit
for radioactive discharges.  For example, NRC's licensees now have to
reduce the concentrations in their discharges containing
americium-241 and uranium-235 by a factor of 300 over what was
required by the former regulation.  The concentrations of cesium-137
discharges have to be reduced by a factor of 40, while the
concentrations of cobalt-60 discharges have to be reduced by a factor
of 30.  NRC officials believe that the reductions will address much
of the problem of concentration but may not solve it entirely,
because even soluble materials that are allowed to be discharged
could still concentrate as the result of chemical changes that could
occur during the wastewater treatment process.  NRC officials were
unable to determine to what extent this kind of concentration may
occur. 

Recognizing that the current regulation could fall short of fully
addressing the problem, NRC in September 1993 contracted for a study
to examine the impact of the current regulation on preventing the
recurrence of significant incidents of concentration.  NRC officials
informed us that the study would not require any testing at treatment
plants but would rely on the existing data from prior case studies of
contamination at treatment plants.  If it is determined that
additional control measures are needed, NRC will examine the possible
strategies for changing its current requirements for discharges to
sewers.  The study is scheduled to be completed in September 1994. 
NRC also issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking on February
25, 1994, seeking information to determine whether its regulations
governing the release of radionuclides from licensed nuclear
facilities to sanitary sewer systems may need to be further amended. 

EPA is responsible for administering the National Pretreatment
Program under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, commonly
called the Clean Water Act.  Industrial dischargers must comply with
the national pretreatment standards that limit their discharges to
sewage treatment plants in order to protect receiving waters,
treatment plant workers, the plant, and sewage sludge from
pollutants.  The states and treatment plants may further restrict
discharges to treatment plants in order to meet local objectives. 
EPA also regulates the disposal and use of sewage sludge under this
act.  Ash is regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) of 1976, as amended.  However, according to EPA's
Principal Deputy General Counsel, EPA has no authority under the
Clean Water Act or RCRA to directly regulate those radioactive
materials covered under the Atomic Energy Act.  He noted that it has
been the agency's long-standing position, affirmed by the U.S. 
Supreme Court, that EPA has no authority under the Clean Water Act to
regulate the radioactive materials subject to the Atomic Energy
Act.\10 The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act also specifically
exempts these types of materials. 


--------------------
\10 Train v.  Colorado Public Interest Research Group, 426 U.S.  1
(1976). 


      AGENCIES HAVE NOT REQUIRED
      WIDESPREAD TESTING AT SEWAGE
      TREATMENT PLANTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2

Neither NRC nor EPA requires treatment plants receiving radioactive
discharges from NRC's licensees to test for radioactive materials in
their sludge and ash.  NRC has the authority to promulgate rules and
issue such orders as it may deem necessary to protect the public
health and safety from regulated radioactive materials.  According to
NRC's Deputy General Counsel for Licensing and Regulation, this
authority may be applied to unlicensed persons or entities, such as a
treatment plant, if necessary to protect the health or safety of the
public.  However, generally NRC would not issue an order to require
testing at a treatment plant unless some prior evidence of a problem
existed. 

EPA's Principal Deputy General Counsel informed us that EPA does not
have the authority to directly regulate the concentration of
radioactive materials subject to the Atomic Energy Act that may be
found in treatment plants' sewage sludge and ash.  The official also
informed us that EPA does have the authority under the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954, as amended, and the Reorganization Plan No.  3 of 1970
to establish generally applicable environmental standards for the
protection of the general environment from radioactive materials. 
However, EPA has not determined whether this authority would allow it
to conduct testing at those treatment plants most likely to be
affected by the discharges from NRC's licensees. 

Even though, according to EPA's Principal Deputy General Counsel, EPA
does not have the authority to directly regulate the concentration of
radioactive materials subject to the Atomic Energy Act, EPA does have
the authority to regulate air emissions from incinerated sewage
sludge that may contain radionuclides.  Radionuclides are included on
the list of hazardous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. 
According to the Director of EPA's Criteria and Standards Division,
Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, EPA could determine if sewage
treatment plant incinerators need to be regulated for radioactive
emissions on the basis of the reported cases of radioactive
contamination of sludge and ash at treatment plants.  In addition,
EPA is required under the Clean Air Act to issue National Emissions
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for treatment plants no later
than November 15, 1995.  According to EPA's Principal Deputy General
Counsel, the measures required to control the emissions of hazardous
air pollutants from treatment plants may indirectly affect the
concentrations of radionuclides in sewage sludge and ash. 

Although EPA officials have not concluded that the radioactive
contamination at treatment plants poses a serious health or safety
problem, they informed us that they would be willing to work with NRC
to assess the extent to which it is a problem.  NRC and EPA discuss
matters of mutual concern at a senior level on an ongoing basis.  The
framework for this coordination was formulated under a memorandum of
understanding signed on March 16, 1992. 

As a result of the number of reported incidents of radioactive
materials' concentrating at treatment plants and concerns about
potential liability, some localities are attempting to address the
problem on their own (see app.  III).  However, these localities
still need guidance from NRC and EPA on what level of radiation in
sludge and ash is acceptable and on their authority to regulate
radioactive materials. 


   TREATMENT PLANT WORKERS AND THE
   PUBLIC MAY BE EXPOSED TO
   RADIOACTIVE SLUDGE AND ASH, BUT
   HEALTH IMPACT IS UNKNOWN
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

Since treatment plant workers and the public may come in contact with
radioactively contaminated sewage sludge and ash and related
by-products, they may be exposed to radiation.  However, the threat
to public health and safety is unknown because studies conducted to
determine the impact on workers and the public of radioactive
materials in sewage sludge and ash have been inconclusive. 

Sewage sludge, ash, and related by-products from treatment plants'
operations are used and disposed of in a variety of ways.  Some of
the sludge and ash by-products are used for agricultural and
residential purposes, as fertilizer for lawns or gardens, for
instance.  Sludge and ash can also be disposed of on-site at the
treatment plant or off-site at a landfill.  For example, discussions
with officials from the 21 treatment plants indicated that many
disposed of sludge and ash off-site, in some cases using more than
one disposal method.  Thirteen treatment plants used a public
landfill to dispose of their sludge and ash.  Seven treatment plants
disposed of at least some of their sludge for agricultural purposes. 
Two treatment plants sold sludge to landscapers, nurseries, or retail
stores as compost.  One treatment plant used ash as a surface
material on baseball diamonds because it absorbs water well.  Another
treatment plant is exploring the possibility of using ash to make
bricks and blocks or to pave streets. 

The health implications for treatment plant workers and the public
are unknown because studies conducted to determine the impact of
radioactive materials in sewage sludge and ash on workers and the
public have been inconclusive.  For example, NRC's 1992 study
concluded that the radiation levels at some treatment plants, while
not an immediate health and safety risk, were not trivial and
required further study.  A 1986 EPA survey of the radioactivity in
sewage sludge, on the other hand, merely documented instances of
radioactive contamination in treatment plants' sludge and did not
come to any conclusion. 

On the basis of a 1986 review by NRC's Region I of eight licensees
that discharged to sewage treatment plants, the chief of the region's
Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards Branch recommended that NRC
conduct a nationwide review of the concentrations of radioactive
materials at treatment plants.  His concern was that the public could
be exposed to radioactive materials through sewage sludge applied to
farmlands or to private lawns and gardens.  This official suggested
to NRC headquarters that the review focus on all decontamination
laundries and any other licensees of NRC or agreement states whose
discharges could result in radioactive materials' concentrating at a
treatment plant. 

The treatment plants that have experienced incidents of radioactive
contamination have attempted to assess the possible health effects on
the workers exposed to the concentrated radioactive materials in
sludge and ash.  For example, when Southerly officials became aware
of the elevated levels of cobalt-60 in the plant's sludge and ash,
they had the workers with the greatest exposure risk tested for
radiation.  Eleven workers received whole-body radiation counts to
detect the presence of cobalt-60.  Although none of the workers were
found to have detectable levels of cobalt-60, a Southerly official
told us that it may not be possible to guarantee that no damage was
done.  The body naturally rids itself of cobalt-60 in a relatively
short amount of time, and tests cannot be done for prior exposure to
radiation.  In addition, an NRC senior radiation specialist, who was
present when the workers were tested, stated that cobalt-60 has a
half-life of about 5 years, and NRC believes that the exposure of the
Southerly workers occurred about 10 years ago.  Therefore, the
whole-body counts performed on the workers likely would not show any
signs of cobalt-60 exposure. 


   CONCLUSIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

While several cases of radioactive contamination have occurred at
sewage treatment plants, the full extent of this contamination
nationwide is unknown.  In addition, some treatment plants may use
and dispose of their sludge and ash in a variety of ways that could
expose plant workers and the general public to elevated levels of
radioactivity.  Although NRC believes that no imminent health risk
exists for the treatment plant workers and the general public, on the
basis of NRC's 1992 report on radioactive materials' concentrating at
five sewage treatment plants, both NRC and EPA officials agreed that
further study is needed.  Furthermore, where elevated levels of
radiation have been detected in sludge and ash, the treatment plants
are faced with concerns about the disposal and/or monitoring of the
contaminated material and the prospect of incurring future cleanup
costs. 

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. 
NRC officials do not know why the radionuclides are being filtered
out, and NRC has sponsored a study to determine the impact that its
revised regulation will have on limiting the concentration of
radioactive materials in sludge and ash.  If it is determined that
additional measures are needed, NRC will examine possible strategies
for changing its current sewage disposal requirements.  Until the
study is completed, treatment plant officials may need more
information about the concentration problem so that they can take
whatever action they deem appropriate.  The treatment plants and
local sewer district officials have requested guidance from NRC and
EPA on what levels of radiation are acceptable in their sludge and
ash and on their authority to regulate radioactive materials. 

Given that NRC is responsible for minimizing the exposure of the
general public to radiation and that EPA could establish generally
acceptable environmental standards for ensuring that sludge, ash, and
related by-products do not harm the environment, both agencies have
an interest in addressing the problem of radioactive contamination at
treatment plants.  It is important for the federal government to take
prompt and necessary actions to assure the public that the sludge and
ash by-products that they may come in contact with are free from
harmful levels of radiation.  Even though NRC has issued an advance
notice of proposed rulemaking on the problem of radionuclides'
concentrating at some treatment plants, the treatment plants
receiving radioactive materials from NRC's licensees may still not be
aware of the problem.  Since the concentration of radionuclides is of
interest to EPA, EPA officials told us that they would be willing to
assist NRC in identifying the treatment plants receiving radioactive
materials from NRC's licensees and offered EPA's expertise on
treatment plants' operations. 


   RECOMMENDATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7

To determine what actions may be needed to better control the spread
of radioactively contaminated sludge, ash, and related by-products
from sewage treatment plants that receive radioactive materials from
NRC's licensees, we recommend that the Chairman, NRC,

  determine the extent to which radioactive contamination of sewage
     sludge, ash, and related by-products is occurring;

  directly notify the treatment plants that receive discharges from
     NRC's and the agreement states' licensees of the potential for
     radioactive contamination because of radioactive materials'
     concentrating and of the possibility that they may need to test
     or monitor their sludge for radioactive content; and

  establish acceptable limits for radioactivity in sludge, ash, and
     related by-products that should not be exceeded in order to
     ensure the health and safety of treatment workers and the
     public. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :8

We discussed the facts presented in this report with the Deputy
Executive Director for Nuclear Materials Safety, Safeguards, and
Operations Support and other NRC officials at headquarters, and the
Director, Criteria and Standards Division, Office of Radiation and
Indoor Air, and other officials at EPA headquarters.  Both NRC and
EPA officials generally agreed with the facts in this report but
offered some technical clarifications that were incorporated where
appropriate.  Because of NRC's five reported cases of radioactive
materials' concentrating at treatment plants, both NRC and EPA agreed
that further study is needed to determine the potential risk to
public health and safety.  As requested, we did not obtain written
agency comments on this report.  We conducted our review from August
1993 through February 1994 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards.  Appendix IV contains more information
on our scope and methodology. 


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :8.1

Unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further
distribution of this report until 30 days after the date of this
letter.  At that time, we will send copies to appropriate
congressional committees; the Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission; the Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency; and
the Director, Office of Management and Budget. 

We will also make copies available to others upon request.  This
report was prepared under the direction of Victor S.  Rezendes,
Director, Energy and Science Issues, who may be reached at (202)
512-3841.  Other major contributors to this report are listed in
appendix V. 

Keith O.  Fultz
Assistant Comptroller General


SUMMARY OF THE NORTHEAST OHIO
REGIONAL SEWER DISTRICT'S
SOUTHERLY SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
=========================================================== Appendix I

In 1972, the district was established as a regional sewer district in
Ohio.  At that time, the district assumed control over the Easterly,
Southerly, and Westerly sewage treatment plants; the sludge force
main; the interceptor sewers flowing into the plants; and all land,
facilities, equipment, and working capital that were part of
Cleveland, Ohio's sewage treatment and disposal system.  Today, the
district owns and operates four sewage treatment plants (Easterly,
Southerly, Strongville, and Westerly).  The four plants serve 52
suburban communities and the city of Cleveland. 

The Southerly plant uses a primary and secondary process to treat
sewage.  The plant can completely treat up to 175 million gallons of
wastewater per day during dry weather.  In 1992, Southerly treated an
average of 121.2 million gallons of wastewater per day, processed
about 103,000 wet tons of filter cake, incinerated about 97,000 wet
tons, and hauled about 5,200 wet tons off-site.  The Southerly plant
employs 225 persons and serves over 500,000 residents.  It is one of
the largest activated sludge treatment plants in the nation. 

The Southerly plant receives all of the sludge generated by the
district's sewage treatment plants with the exception of the Westerly
plant's sludge.  After the sludge is incinerated, the ash is pumped
in slurry form into three settlement/evaporation ponds (referred to
as the A, B, and C ponds).  The ponds reach capacity in about 3
years, at which time the ash has to be removed and placed in various
on-site locations as fill.  Southerly officials told us that none of
the ash has ever been taken off-site for disposal.  The sludge that
is not incinerated is transported off-site to private landfills. 
Southerly uses several companies to haul its sludge off-site.  The
companies are required to use district-approved landfills. 

An aerial radiological survey conducted in April 1991 over Newburgh
Heights, Ohio, detected elevated levels of radiation at the Southerly
plant (see fig.  I.1).  The survey was done at the request of the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to measure the radiation in the
environment around the former Chemetron (an NRC licensee)
manufacturing plant and the surrounding disposal site.  The survey
results showed the evidence of radioactive material in the form of
cobalt-60. 

   Figure I.1:  Southerly Sewage
   Treatment Plant--Areas of
   Elevated Levels of Radiation

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Source:  Northeast Ohio
   Regional Sewer District.

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

According to NRC's documentation, the most likely source of the
radioactive material found was an NRC licensee that discharged waste
into the sewer lines that are connected to the treatment plant.  NRC
inspected the manufacturer's radioactive liquid waste disposal into
the sanitary sewer, including a review of the disposal records, and
concluded that the disposal did not exceed NRC's allowable limits. 
The manufacturer's records documented that a total of about .2 curies
of cobalt-60 was discharged into the sanitary sewers from May 1980 to
May 1989. 

On May 15, 1991, an NRC radiation specialist and two Ohio Department
of Health officials visited the Southerly plant to conduct radiation
surveys to confirm the location of the ground contamination.  The
officials used radiation detectors to locate the ground
contamination, and both NRC and state officials collected soil
samples for subsequent analysis.  The officials primarily found
elevated radioactive readings around the northeast and southeast
sections of the Southerly property.  According to the NRC inspection
report, the northeast section of the property was previously a marsh
and had been filled with ash from the ponds some time in the late
1970s or early 1980s.  The southeast section of the property included
the three settling ponds. 

The background readings from both sections of the property were about
10-12 microroentgens per hour (uR/hr).  The radiation readings around
the northeast section were at about 20 times the background level. 
No radiation levels were above background at any of the three
settling ponds.  The highest radiation levels in the northeast
section were found in animal dens.  Radiation readings up to 200
uR/hr were obtained when a detection instrument was placed just below
the ground surface in several dens.  Two samples collected from the
dens and an eroded bank measured 27 to 79 picocuries per gram (pCi/g)
for cobalt-60, 0.59 to 1.29 pCi/g for radium-226, and 0.13 to 0.14
pCi/g for cesium-137.  According to NRC, the concentrations of
radium-226 and cesium-137 were in the normal range of naturally
occurring and fallout radioactivity found in soil.  The only area
exhibiting elevated radioactive readings at the southeast section of
the property was associated with fill (about 8 feet thick) located in
a diked area near two of the settling ponds.  The maximum reading was
about 30 uR/hr.  No soil samples were collected from the southeast
section.  At this time, the district received verbal notice from NRC
that it suspected some very-low-level radiation contamination was
present at Southerly. 

On June 19, 1991, NRC confirmed its suspicion in the form of a
written "preliminary notification" that cobalt-60 contamination was
indeed present at Southerly.  On August 27, 1991, an NRC inspector
and an Ohio Department of Health inspector surveyed the district's
Easterly plant for possible cobalt-60 contamination because sludge
from the manufacturer of the radioactive sources first goes to the
Easterly plant before it is pumped to Southerly for incineration. 
The results of the survey were negative.  All measured radiation
levels in and around the Easterly plant were within normal radiation
background levels of the immediate area, except inside the plant. 
Inside the plant, radiation levels were as high as 45 uR/hr and were
attributable to building materials which were believed to have
contained small quantities of naturally occurring uranium and thorium
and their associated decay products. 

NRC contracted with Oak Ridge Associated Universities to perform a
detailed assessment of the Southerly plant site.  This included
developing a comprehensive characterization of the radioactive
contamination and appropriate recommendations for remediation of the
site.  The university conducted a radiological characterization
survey of selected outdoor areas at the Southerly plant during the
periods September 16-25, 1991, and March 16-26, 1992.  The university
surveyed an area totaling over 168,000 square meters (approximately
the size of 32 football fields) around Southerly's fill areas,
sanitary ponds, steam plant, and a storage tank.  The survey
identified 111 locations with elevated levels of direct radiation
ranging from 15 to 580 uR/hr in an area of about 9,200 square meters
(about the size of 2 football fields). 

NRC is using an 8-pCi/g criterion for cobalt-60 to release the areas
for unrestricted use.  The maximum concentration found in a surface
soil sample was 3 million pCi/g, and it was obtained from the pond
area.  However, the university did not consider this sample to be
representative of the soil concentrations present.  The maximum
concentration in subsurface samples taken from depths of about 1/2
foot to 11 feet was 31,200 pCi/g for the south fill area.  According
to NRC, while the survey indicated the presence of cobalt-60
contamination in various concentrations, there was no indication of
significant radiation exposure to the public because of the isolated
and secured location of the contamination.  In August 1992, the
university issued its final report on the survey. 

Although district, state, and NRC officials agree that the
contamination around Southerly does not pose a public health threat,
an estimate as to the amount of cobalt-60 that entered the plant is
not expected until early June 1994.  According to NRC, this
information is needed to determine, among other things, how much
radiation the plant workers were exposed to when the material passed
through the plant. 

On April 15, 1992, in an attempt to measure the approximate amount of
radioactive materials either inhaled or ingested into the body, 11
district employees participated in whole-body radiation measurements
at the Perry Nuclear Power Plant.  On the basis of interviews with
management, a union steward, and the employees themselves, eight
employees were originally chosen as having the highest risk of
exposure because they were involved in some way with the incinerated
ash.  Later, the district added three employees to the group to be
examined.  None of the employees examined showed detectable levels of
radiation. 

According to information provided by district officials to its
employees, any detectable radioactive materials in the employees may
have already disappeared.  Within 2 to 3 years following the
inhalation or ingestion of cobalt-60, the body will have eliminated
the great majority of the material.  Moreover, cobalt-60 decays at
the rate of 1/2 times the total cobalt present in about 5 years. 
Finally, with the combination of the body's ability to eliminate
cobalt-60 and the rapid decay of cobalt-60, an NRC senior radiation
specialist said that it is very unlikely that a whole-body radiation
measurement will yield any useful information about what may have
happened years ago. 

The district plans to perform its own study that would be more
representative of the actual pattern of exposure that its employees
received.  Initially, NRC planned to conduct this study, but after
the district reviewed the scope of NRC's proposed survey, the
district decided to fund its own more comprehensive study and
analysis.  On April 8, 1993, the Mayor of Cleveland requested that
NRC provide a written opinion as to whether the activities conducted
by the manufacturer did at any time, past or present, pose any risk
to the public health and welfare of the citizens of the city of
Cleveland.  On May 24-28, 1993, NRC conducted a survey of the
neighborhood near the manufacturer's facility.  NRC employees,
accompanied by district, state, and local officials, completed a
comprehensive radiological survey in and around the facility.  As
part of this survey, they checked the grounds of Mark Tromba Park,
located on Mandalay Avenue near the facility, including a baseball
field, a playground, and a swimming pool.  No cobalt-60 was found in
any of the soil samples in the public areas.  NRC held a public
meeting on May 28, 1993, to discuss the survey results and respond to
any public concerns. 

At the request of the Mayor of Cuyahoga Heights, Ohio, NRC and the
Cuyahoga County Board of Health on June 24-25, 1993, conducted a
special inspection to assess radiation levels and ensure that no
radioactive materials had migrated off-site from the Southerly plant
into nearby residential areas.  The inspection included eight
residential yards along East 49th Street and all of the front yards
of the homes along Willowbrook Drive in Cuyahoga Heights.  The
inspection showed that no radiation levels above normal ambient
background levels were identified and that no radioactive materials
had migrated from the Southerly plant into these areas.  The results
were discussed with the Mayor of Cuyahoga Heights on July 7, 1993. 

District officials told us that they thought the universities'
initial site characterization work would be adequate for remediation
purposes.  However, because the site characterization was not as
comprehensive as originally thought for remediation purposes, the
district in May 1992 hired its own consultant to finish the site
characterization and develop a remediation plan.  District officials
believe that the universities' site characterization would probably
have been more cost-effective if it had been more comprehensive. 
Instead, the district had to mobilize its staff twice to help with
site characterizations. 

The district hired a consultant to provide professional services for
the completion of the site characterization, pond(s) excavation,
preparation of a site characterization report, and submittal of a
site remediation plan.\1 Efforts to identify the source of
contamination and to develop instrumentation to prevent the future
contamination of the district's waste treatment plants are also
included in the contract.  The total estimated cost to clean and
secure the site will be about $1.2 million.  As of mid-February 1994,
the district has spent about $0.9 million on site remediation
activities and $120,000 to erect a fence around the north and south
fill areas and the holding ponds to prevent public access.  In
January 1993, the district installed thermoluminescent dosimeters at
strategic locations throughout all four treatment plants and the pump
stations.  According to a Southerly official, the thermoluminescent
dosimeters have been read quarterly since January 1993 and have not
detected any radioactivity above background levels.  Also, the
district plans to get recommendations for installing survey equipment
that will alert plant personnel when radioactive material enters the
plant. 

The district's consultant submitted project schedules to NRC on
December 30, 1992, for pond excavation and on January 11, 1993, for a
site operations and radiological control plan.  The project schedules
and the site operations and radiological control plan were reviewed
by NRC and its comments submitted to the district on January 15 and
February 19, 1993, respectively.  The district submitted its site
characterization plan to NRC on April 23, 1993.  From June to
September 1993, material from the three ponds was removed to the
south fill area.  The cleaning of the ponds was necessary because
they were expected to reach their capacity in July 1993.  NRC staff
accelerated their reviews of the district's proposals so that the
ponds could be placed in service without affecting the plant's
operation.  Pond C was placed in operation on July 5, 1993.  Ponds A
and B were placed in operation around October 1993. 

As part of the remediation, about 174,000 cubic yards of contaminated
ash from the ponds were moved to the south fill area, and about 6
inches of soil was placed over the material.  Seven monitoring wells
were also installed in the same area.  The area where the material
was moved covers between 1 and 2 acres.  The district does not want
to move the contaminated material from the north fill area because it
does not want to take a risk of getting the material airborne,
spreading it, and further exposing the workers. 

The district does not expect any problems with its plan to leave the
contaminated material on site.  The district plans to propose to NRC
that any contaminated ash removed from the ponds be combined with
existing contaminated ash in the south fill area and stored in place
pending completion of its final remediation plan.  A district
official told us that the remediation plan will not be submitted to
NRC until late June 1994.  NRC and state officials need to review the
plan to determine if on-site disposal is acceptable.  Both NRC and
state of Ohio officials agree that leaving the material on-site is
probably the most practical disposal option.  District officials told
us that disposal of the material off-site could cost at least $3
billion. 

According to the district, NRC has consistently taken the position
that unless it can prove the manufacturer exceeded the discharge
limits set forth in 10 C.F.R.  part 20.303, there is no action NRC
can take against the manufacturer.  NRC maintains that the district
is responsible for any and all costs associated with the remediation
of the site since the district is in possession of the contamination. 

District officials believe that passing on the costs of the cleanup
to its rate payers is unfair, and they are taking action to keep this
from happening.  The district filed a petition (pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 
part 2.206) on March 3, 1993, requesting that NRC modify the
manufacturer's NRC license to require it to (1) assume all costs
resulting from the release of cobalt-60 that has been deposited at
the Southerly plant and (2) decontaminate the sewer connecting the
manufacturer's facility with the public sewer and continue
decontamination of the sewers downstream as far as necessary.  The
district filed another petition with NRC dated August 2, 1993
(pursuant to 10 C.F.R.  part 2.206) requesting that NRC institute a
proceeding to modify the manufacturer's NRC license to require the
manufacturer to provide adequate financial assurance to cover public
liability pursuant to section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
as amended.  According to the NRC, it is taking appropriate actions
on the two petitions as separate matters.  In April 1993, the
district filed a lawsuit against the manufacturer for damages to its
Southerly plant from the cobalt-60 released into the district's
sanitary sewers. 

The district's August 2, 1993, petition, noted above, raised another
issue separate from its request for action against the manufacturer. 
It also requested at least 24 hours' advance notification to the
district from the NRC licensees in its service areas before they
release radioactive materials into the district's sanitary sewer. 
The district submitted another petition on August 2, 1993.  That
petition for rulemaking requested that the NRC amend its regulations
to (1) require that all licensees provide at least 24 hours' advance
notice to the appropriate sewage treatment plant before releasing
radioactive material to the sanitary system and (2) exempt materials
that enter the sanitary waste stream from the requirements for NRC's
approval for incineration under NRC's current regulations.  NRC
issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking on February 25, 1994,
seeking information to determine the need for an amendment of its
regulations governing the release of radionuclides from licensed
nuclear facilities to sanitary sewer systems.  Comments on the
petition will be considered under this rulemaking. 


--------------------
\1 The remediation plan includes the methods the district intends to
use to dispose of the contamination and ensure protection of workers
and the environment against radiation hazards during the remediation. 


REPORTED CASES OF RADIOACTIVE
CONTAMINATION AT SEWAGE TREATMENT
PLANTS
========================================================== Appendix II

Sewage treatment          Date
plant's location         found  Radionuclides found     Summary
----------------------  ------  ----------------------  ------------------------
Tonawanda, New York       1983  Americium-241           The state of New York
(agreement state\)                                      has paid $2.5 million
                                                        for cleaning up the
                                                        treatment plant and
                                                        sewer lines. The
                                                        Tonawanda landfill needs
                                                        to be cleaned up; the
                                                        estimated cost is $7
                                                        million.

Grand Island, New York    1984  Americium-241,          No cleanup was required
(agreement state)               hydrogen-3,             at the treatment plant.
                                polonium-210

Oak Ridge, Tennessee      1984  Cesium-134,             No cleanup was required
(agreement state)               cesium-137,             at the treatment plant.
                                cobalt-60,
                                manganese-54

Royersford,               1985  Manganese-54,           No cleanup was required
Pennsylvania                    cobalt-58,              at the treatment plant.
                                cobalt-60,
                                strontium-89,
                                zinc-66, plus 11 other
                                radionuclides

Erwin, Tennessee          1986  Americium-241,          One of the treatment
(agreement state)               plutonium-239,          plant's "sludge
                                thorium-232,            digesters" needs to be
                                uranium-234, 235, and   cleaned up; the
                                238                     estimated cost is
                                                        $250,000.

Washington, D.C.          1986  Carbon-14, hydrogen-    No cleanup was required
                                3, phosphorus-32 and    at the treatment plant.
                                33, sodium-22, sulfur-
                                35, plus 21 other
                                radionuclides

Portland, Oregon          1989  Thorium-232             Licensee paid about $2
(agreement state)                                       million for cleaning up
                                                        the sewer lines and
                                                        installing a
                                                        pretreatment system.

Ann Arbor, Michigan       1991  Cobalt-60,              No cleanup was required
                                manganese-54,           at the treatment plant.
                                silver-108m and 110m,
                                zinc-65

Cleveland, Ohio\a         1991  Cobalt-60               The district has spent
                                                        about $900,000 for site
                                                        remediation activities
                                                        and $120,000 for a fence
                                                        to prevent public
                                                        access. Disposal of the
                                                        material off-site could
                                                        exceed $3 billion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The sewage treatment plant is located in the Village of Cuyahoga
Heights, south of Cleveland. 

Sources:  NRC Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
Report, Dose Assessment for Disposal of Radiologically Contaminated
Sludge at Two Landfill Sites:  The Johnson City, TN, and the Carter
County/Elizabethton, TN, April 1993; Oak Ridge Institute for Science
and Education Report, Radiological Characterization Survey for
Selected Outdoor Areas Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District
Southerly Wastewater Treatment Plant Cleveland, Ohio, August 1992;
Pacific Northwest Laboratory Report, Evaluation of Exposure Pathways
to Man From Disposal of Radioactive Materials Into Sanitary Sewer
Systems, May 1992; EG&G Energy Measurements Report, An Aerial
Radiological Survey of the Former Chemetron Factory Site and
Surrounding Area, Newburgh Heights, Ohio, September 1991; and GAO's
interviews with NRC Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research and sewage
treatment plant officials. 


LOCALITIES ADDRESSING THE
RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL CONCENTRATION
PROBLEM
========================================================= Appendix III

The Metropolitan St.  Louis Sewer District passed an ordinance in
August 1991 that limits the aggregate discharge of radioactive
materials into the sewage system.  District officials were concerned
about the potential hazard to treatment plant workers and to the
general public if radioactive materials are concentrating in the
sewer system.  When the ordinance is enforced, all of the NRC
licensees in the district can discharge only a combined total of 1
curie of radioactive material in 1 year, whereas NRC permits each
licensee to discharge up to 1 curie per year.  District officials
believe that more guidance and regulations are needed from NRC and
the Environmental Protection Agency on what levels of radiation in
sludge are permissible and how to best address the problem if it
occurs. 

In Portland, Oregon, the state's health division and the city ordered
a state licensee to install a pretreatment system to control the
discharge of thorium oxide in sewer lines.  The city's sewer workers
now have to wear protective clothing when they work in the sewers
where thorium oxide-bearing sediments exist.  State and local
officials had considered enforcement actions to completely stop the
discharges by this licensee.  However, the City of Portland was
concerned about a lack of clear, scientifically based standards
addressing the discharge and the resulting accumulation of thorium
oxide in the sewers.  Without a clear, defensible standard, the city
was uncertain whether it could require the licensee to eliminate its
thorium oxide discharges, which the licensee estimated would cost $5
million. 

The Royersford, Pennsylvania, treatment plant is having problems
disposing of its radioactive sewage.  According to the plant
supervisor, processed sludge from the plant, which contains small
quantities of radioactive materials, has been spread in a marsh area
within the facility's grounds.  Reeds growing in the marsh have
absorbed much of the radioactive materials from the sludge.  The
facility intended to either mulch the reeds and dispose of the solid
waste in a public landfill or burn the reeds.  NRC did not object to
either disposal method because, in the agency's opinion, the
radioactive level of the reeds was below regulatory concern. 
However, the state environmental protection agency, which has the
regulatory responsibility for solid waste disposal and air quality
standards, has not approved of these disposal options because of
concerns that the environment could be adversely affected.  Without
any agreement between the two agencies as to what disposal method is
acceptable, the plant supervisor stated that the facility may have to
store the reeds on-site for 30 years. 

The city of Laramie, Wyoming, is exploring the implications of
privatizing its sewage treatment system.  The city is concerned about
its possible liability for the disposal of sludge that might contain
radioactive materials.  To obtain information on these issues, the
city asked NRC in a September 1993 letter for its views on the
legality of imposing a municipal regulation that regulates or
prohibits the discharge of radioactive materials.  Specifically, the
city wanted to know if such action would be preempted by the Atomic
Energy Act.  NRC's Deputy General Counsel for Licensing and
Regulation informed the city of Laramie that, in general, if the city
were to have sound reasons, other than radiation protection, to
require the pretreatment of wastes to eliminate or reduce
radioactivity, such pretreatment would not run afoul of the Atomic
Energy Act.  He further stated that the NRC regulations that allow
users of regulated materials to discharge to treatment plants do not
compel a sewage treatment operator to accept these radioactive
materials.  However, a city official indicated that this NRC guidance
was too vague and did not answer the question of whether a
municipality or a treatment plant could lawfully regulate or prohibit
a licensee's discharge of radioactive materials into its sewage
treatment system. 


SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
========================================================== Appendix IV

To determine the extent to which treatment plants were having
problems with radioactive sludge and ash, we examined NRC's, EPA's,
and the states' studies of the occurrences of radioactive
contamination at treatment plants.  We discussed treatment plant
problems with NRC, EPA, and treatment plant association officials. 
We selected a treatment plant in each of the 21 NRC-regulated states,
which according to NRC officials is most likely to be receiving
low-level radioactive waste from NRC's licensees, to determine
whether they (1) were aware of the concentration issue, (2) had
experienced any problems with radioactive materials concentrating in
their sludge or ash, and (3) had tested their sludge or ash for
radioactive materials.  We also conducted a detailed review of the
Southerly treatment plant in northeast Ohio, where NRC recently
discovered elevated levels of radioactive contamination.  As part of
this effort, we visited the site to observe the extent of the
contamination and cleanup activities. 

To determine the extent to which treatment plant workers and the
public may be exposed to radioactively contaminated sludge and ash
and the extent of the related health implications, we reviewed the
Pacific Northwest Laboratory's study sponsored by NRC to determine
the possible health effects that radiological contaminated sludge and
ash could have on treatment plant workers.  We also spoke with
treatment plant officials and reviewed documents to obtain
information on what actions were undertaken to assess the health risk
to treatment plant workers.  We also reviewed NRC's and the
treatments plants' documents to determine the results of the analyses
to assess the health risks to treatment plant workers.  In addition,
we reviewed state information and spoke with treatment plant
officials to determine the potential uses for sludge and ash
by-products. 

To determine what actions NRC and EPA have taken and could take to
limit and monitor the amounts of radiation discharged into sewer
systems by licensees, we reviewed the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended, the Reorganization Plan No.  3 of 1970, the Energy
Reorganization Act of 1974, and the Clean Water Act to determine
NRC's and EPA's authority and responsibility for regulating
radioactive materials in sewage systems.  We also obtained
information from NRC's and EPA's Office of General Counsel and
reviewed NRC's February 25, 1994, advance notice of proposed
rulemaking on the NRC licensees' disposal of radioactive material by
release into sanitary sewer systems.  At NRC, we met with various
staff members, including the Director of NRC's Office of Nuclear
Material Safety and Safeguards, and the Director of NRC's Office of
Regulatory Research to determine what actions have been taken to
limit licensees' discharges in the past. 

At EPA, we met with the Director and staff, Criteria and Standards
Division, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air; the Acting Director and
staff, Office of Science and Technology; the Director and staff,
Health and Ecological Criteria Division; staff from the Office of
General Counsel; staff from the Office of Wastewater Enforcement and
Compliance; and staff from the Office of Water, Sludge Risk
Assessment Branch, to determine EPA's responsibilities for regulating
radioactive materials in sewage systems. 


MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
=========================================================== Appendix V

RESOURCES, COMMUNITY, AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT DIVISION, WASHINGTON,
D.C. 

Jim Wells, Associate Director
Gene Aloise, Assistant Director
Philip A.  Olson, Assignment Manager
Mario Zavala, Staff Evaluator

OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL

Mindi G.  Weisenbloom, Senior Attorney

DETROIT REGIONAL OFFICE

Anthony A.  Krukowski, Regional Management Representative
Odell W.  Bailey, Evaluator-in-Charge
Javier J.  Garza, Staff Evaluator

