ML20024D456

Ack Receipt of Re Proposed Suspension of Portions of 10CFR40.Comments Will Be Considered in Final Decision & Ltr Forwarded to EPA

ML20024D456
Person / Time
Issue date:	07/18/1983
From:	Roberts T NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:	Matheson S UTAH, STATE OF
References
NUDOCS 8308050041
Download: ML20024D456 (1)

Text

.

s

! [

y.

p UNITED STATES'

^' g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g

.e E

WASHINGTON D.C.20555 O

O

1. 4 0

9 9

July 18,1983 CHAIRMAN Y

The Honorable Scott M. Matheson Governor of Utah Salt Lake City, Utah 84114 t

4

Dear Governor Matheson:

On behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Comission, I would like to thank you for your letter dated June 30, 1983 commenting on the Commission's proposed suspension of portions of 10 CFR Part 40.

The concerns you have expressed on behalf of the State of Utah will be considered in arriving at our final suspension. Your comments, like the others received, will be useful in our decisions. Since your comments also addressed the proposed Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards, we have forwarded a copy to EPA ~for their consideration.

Sincerely, Thomas M. Roberts Acting Chairman r

4 4

8308050041 830715 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR i

1 j'.

'\\

Q.

?:[$/

Mu,s., '

STATE OF UTAH Scorr M. LTucso.v orrice or T c ocvensen ocaa~e.

s A LT L Ax e ciTv 84114 June 30,1983 Hon. Nunzio J. Palladino Chairman Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Chairman:

I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the NRC's proposed suspension of a portion of 10 CFR Part 40. 'Ibe articles to be suspended are those the Commission deems to be in conflict with parallel regulations proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency for mill tailings. 'Ihe state of Utah has several concerns regarding the proposed EPA regulations and the proposed NRC regulatory suspension.

Our fundamental position is that it is the responsibility of this ~ generation of decision makers is to ensure that our decisions and actions do not result in the need for remedial action by future generations. 'Ihis position requires that the proposed standards do not, in effect, underregulate uranium mill tailings.

'Ihe following examples illustrate several instances in the l

proposed suspension where such underregulation occurs.

Criterion 1 Ihe NRC proposed regulations in Criterion 1

"... isolating the tailings....for thousands of years....", is ambiguous, but not.

significantly less so than the EPA regulations which maintain, that actions, "...be effective for one thousand years, to the extent seasonably achievable, and, in any case, for at least 2.00 years....".

We think that 200 years is unreasonably short and that the regulations should state that tailings control measures be effective for at least 1,000 years.

We believe that since there is no guarantee that our political and social institutions will survive intact for the required control period of at least 1,000 years, that the control measures for tailings be such as to not require perpetual l

maintenance. We therefore concur with the NRC and discourage planned reliance on active maintenance. We do not belteve that this language should be removed from the NRC regulations.

WW30 70701YL L _

r o

Hon. Nunzio J. Palladino June 30,1983 Page TVo We concur with suspending the word " usable" from the phrase

" usable groundwater sources". We cannot know with certainty what groundwater sources will be usable or not in the future and we should not allow contamination of any groundwater sources.

Criterion 3 We do not concur with the suggested suspension of this criterion. The design objective should-be for "at least 1,000 years" and for virtually all sites, below grade disposal is the only acceptable standard. Since it can be argued, that given enough time, any tailings dam for above grade disposal will fail, the best and most reliable method is below grade disposal. There may be exceptions to this position, but the exceptions from below grade disposal should be allowed only on a case by case basis which proves the exception. The rule should be below grade disposal.

Criterion 4 Since our position is that active maintenance be discouraged, we do not agree with suspending paragraph (a). We agree with the NRC that the Probable Maximum Flood is the appropriate design criteria.

We do not agree with the proposed suspension of the other particulars for Criterion 4.

Since we feel that control should exceed 1,000 years, all these standards should apply. We do, however, recognize that a specific site may be more qualified than others and therefore may require consideration for exemptions of part of Criteria 4.

This must be determined on a case by case basis.

Criterion 5 In paragraph (e), we agree with puspending the word "u'able" s

where it modified " groundwater". The standards should apply to all aquifers.

Criterion 6 In (a), we generally agree with the 20 picoeurie per meter squared per second standard for radon emissions.

The two picocurie standard is difficult or impossible to measure under most conditions.' Since there is a factor of 10 difference between the NRC and EPA standards, we suggest that this standard be modified to act as a performance as well as a design standard.

s

.a Hon. Nunzio J. Palladino June 30,1983 Page b ree (b) Since our position on an effective lifetime standard is at least 1,000 years, we disagree on the EPA standards for synthetic layers in replacing part of the earthen cover over tallings. We agree with NRC and their reservations on the durability of such materials.

Criterion 12 As previously stated, there can be no guarantee that our political and social systems will be preserved in their present form for 1,000 or more years required for active maintenance of tailings sites. % erefore, these sites should be designed so that maintenance is not required. This leads to more stringent regulations concerning other standards, however, if the goal of properly disposing of tallings is to be achieved then stringent standards are necessary.

We are constantly gaining greater insights regarding the effects,

of our nation's nuclear programs.

In many cases these effects have proved adverse to the citizens of Utah. B is is particularly true for uranium mining and milling, perhaps the most dangerous phases of the nuclear fuel cycle.

W e commitment made in recent years to regulate uranium mill tailings has provided us an opportunity, both natic, ally and within the state of Utah, to clean up the mistakes of the past and wisely plan mitigation measures for our future endeavers. To accomplish this we must insist on standards which provide both a safe margin of error for the calculations which our generation is making and disposal methods which will last untti the wastes are safe.

In this way, we can be sure that we do not pass our responsibilities on to future generations.

incer ly,

%pM&

4 Governor SMM:je cc: Docketing and Service Branch e

4

., -