ML20043C188
| ML20043C188 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/11/1989 |
| From: | Curtiss NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20042C963 | List:
|
| References | |
| FRN-53FR49886, RULE-PR-CHP1 NUDOCS 9006040204 | |
| Download: ML20043C188 (4) | |
Text
UEnosTATss We U' O.I.dM.F NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
-r A='
- Qg -
f.. Q ~
p:
AM 11, 1989 casumenton,es. sones.
g d_
A@
Js December
~b f i oc q (-
F Y
oprect of THt commaissionen -
.f. :,, g CS
' dih,
Memorandum Fort Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary O
a.
From:
Commissioner Curtiss M
i SUETECT:
PROPOSED EPA STANDARDS JOR MA4AGEMENT OF 14W-LEVEL RADICACTIVE AND NATURAL".Y 00*?R"G.- ANO.- --
ACCELERATOR-PRODUCED MATERIALS WASTE I have reviewed the two alternative letters forwarded by the
' staff for the Commission's consideration and, for the reasons set forth below, I strongly agree with the staf f's recommendation, subject to certain modifications, to send the letter set forth in of the staff's memorandum of December 6, 1989.
As the staff notes in its December 6, 1989 nemorandum, the proposed EPA low-level waste standards --
"are duplicative of NRC's Part 61 Regulation for licensing land disposal of radioactive waste, are unnecessary to protect public health and safety, and are potentially extremely-disruptive to the LLW site selection and development process being carried out by the States under the Low-Level Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985."
I can hardly imagine-a stronger case for telling OMB that, in our judgment, these standards are wholly-unnecessary from a health and safety standpoint, potentially disruptive of the' delicate comppeting process and, accordingly, should be abandoned by EPA.
It is particularly worth emphasizing -- as the staff does in the letter -- that EPA advised the Congress in 1984 that the EPA' standards -- (1) would be issued in final' form by the end of 1985; (2) would not disrupt the LLW siting process; and (3) would not require NRC to amend its regulations-in 10 CFR Part 61.
Unfortunately, not a single one of EPA's assurances in 1984 about the direction and impact of the proposed standard is true today.
As a consequence, we find ourselves today, half-way through the
' In fact, because of the serious concerns that attend the EPA standard, I would propose that the the Commission, rather than the staff, send the letter to OMB.
This would not only emphasize the gravity of the Commission's concerns about this initiative, but would also be consistent with what I understand was a request from OMB for the Commission's views on this matter.
9006040204 891130 PDR PR
-CHP1 53FR49886 PDC
_ _.. ~
_.. _... _ - _.. _ ___.~
- s jjL
- seven-year transition period and as the states are in the midst of evaluating specific sites, faced with the prospect that the proposed EPA standard, if promulgated, will change the siting rules in-the. middle of the game.
With no finding on EPA's part that the current NRC regulations are inadequate to protect the public' health and safety and, consequently, with no benefit to be gained from a health-and safety perspective by the promulgation
- of.the EPA. standards, I think we should state in strong and j
unequivocal terms that we are opposed to this initiative.
This-is precisely the approach that we took recently -- and with a-considerable degree of success -- on EPA's clean Air Act NESMAPS strindards.and for all the same reasons, as well as for the sake of consisten'cy, it seems to me that it is the logical approach to take here.as well.
Attachment:
as stated cc:
Chairman carr commissioner Roberts Commissioner Rogers commissioner Remick OGC EDO t
~
~ ~ ~ ~,,
u
~
Q' c
/.
sk e ma e
uw TESsTAtas!
v.s f
NUCLEAR R800LAT?RY COMMISSION o.
{
t waamwevon,e,e, asses l
essee x
. J
, Jr.
Okraft A
- "2L,
- .;. e:e, ;;.; h;;ty '.' ';tna:sr 77iL.,,i iniv,.m......
L,.% % y ?'f.L.
Office.of Management and Budget 72517th Street NW, Room 3236 Washington.-DC 20503 s
Dear Mr. MacRae:
ForsometimenowthestaffsoftheOfficeofManagementandBudget.(0M8),the Nuclear Regulatory Consnission (NRC) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) '
have been discussing EPA's draf t standards for disposal of low-level radioactivez waste (LLW) (40 CFR Part 193) and discrete naturally occurring and accelerator-produced radioactive materials (NARM) waste (40 CFR Part 764). Subpart A of, Part 193 deals with radiation exposures during operation, Subpart B deals with-. l exposures due to disposal, and Subpart C deals with groundwater protection. EPA is proposing to issue these standards under its Atomic Ener set generally applicable standards for. radioactive mater'a'gy Act authority s 1st the environment.
tm #esposa h #* 8hl 4 seschva Hnk AlzY Ad of U i
he
.aa" - +- "r Lr L:xt S N r ntx = =: ";;;,, ;,,.. ;f ;;;. 7 F8v'8}.asissued regulations for Itcensing of LLW disposal facilities (,10 CFR tee 4
--.;_ rn :nAthe technical bases for all the States to develop new y
M, densusen d i s po s a l s i t e sJ ^ ^ "*" --"..M ' r '. : <n r" ' " * ^- * ' - "-'
' r :
' ' - - _t -gg, M :.3,C ~.i.;i" ti;r ; " r' " c' '^
i Se
.a
,.o.
.., rec
-w
--i raa een a--.
dTI" U 7sdUs
~
=?;, 2 to 8 health effects 4
I oo.;l ;' ;n'-t'F '^ ":- "didx n ::.v.e. ef ;.... 5: :;:x r ggy,,
e ve over a 10.000 year perio 9
ge, 4,.
thansi't-I'th< s. low leve or rist, r;;.
~ e' the proposed EPA standards would impose Worst M an additional 4 mres/yr limit on doses to individuals at the site boundary A
Myh
- through the groundwatera way only.
k O n x r r' ;';? in hi ; "; ns yM
- r - ?
- M n d, C;,
posed limit conflicts with the 10 CFR Part 61 'l p
i pies, limit of a 25 mrte/yr dose to the whole body from all environmenta l pay cisk
=^...i :n pn;x;'. :" id;r-- f. :0Re;ssa!"' "tluplicative o
'*i J
3y) re ulations,
' -- - : Si;r- '*
ry to protect puenc nea sun er j
sa ety, and potendally extremely d sruptive to the site selection and
' development process the States are conducting under rigorous schedules set by-
- 'l the Low. Level Waste Policy Amendments Act-(LLWPAA) of L985.
e5 s.
s,\\
4g p, Director of NRC's Division of Low-Level Dr. Malcolm Knap(LLnM) wrote to Ms. Neile Miller of OMB m #Co' On November 17, 1988, a*4 to # M' Waste Management and Decomunissioning documenting NRC's concerns with the draft standards.. Between November 1988'and 1
A>ril 1989, the staffs of NRC and EPA set several times to attempt to resolve:
1 t )ese concerns, %. e'; without success.;;. ^M nn ^'; ^r". ' rn, On April)4,1989, Mr. John Greeves, Acting Director of NRC's Division of LLim i
g r
en and on April 25, 1989, Mr. Richard Guimond, Director of EPA's Office of Radiation !
4 Programs, wrote to Dr. Arthur Fraas of OMB to inform him that the two agencies had rea ched an impa sse. - - ' ^' "^ - '^ '--"""
Of$on n'tNs treftned regvlkHen L
. m..
s
-4
A t nef
&&g
- James 8. MacRae, Jr.
2 Mr fhewd methAfs
('-
AA d
L
EPA and NR[taff met again o November 9,1989, to discuss the unresolved issues.
{
-...._ijeu.y.~~^
^ ^ ^
0., the NRC's major concerf6with the draft LLW r
- ndard nresolved. NRC's principal and overriding concern is that s
F,4 LLW standards " !:i;: = "...;
- ' '^ !" "' ' g" are supt cative of NRC's requirements for licensing of land disposal of coesiercial LLW agg P ; r-te'-
- - rn t..
7;;,.;..
.n ;' !:t;:=t ! :n nr.;n:n, ene 4 hee f;7 l-M ; :nnt;: ;' ;_; M; t;.'.;t..:. n'ny 12 n;:-f '- "*! r t;;;n :.0 '^- -
'fr x: f ':;; n ? ' LLU n : : :': "'. n --'
!";;.;^. '-.. T- ' ; 7;;. '..,:...;,
en M e-1;; ;;.;, n= "- ^= :n ' ':n, C;;M Will be extremely pyysiv of Mdisruptive to the development of new LLW disposal sites by states and Compact. I
l
_ ereues onder the LLWPAA of 1985h nge that in 1984, Jernearings tiefore tne 8
l An senate iud < ciary consnittee xx'f: ' athe Rocky Mountain LLW Compact. EPA pp ice testified that development of their standard would not be disruptive to the.
e' I
siting and development of new gtggQat Part 61 was adequate for selecting new sites and woul4[_ _.:_ _.....^
publie
- r Aa. (.lsemissa shn EPA is under To statutory or court gordered mandate to issue these standards 7
("9 Therefore, A..reconsnendt that ^"" :1?n :.-'. = ;;i!! = ;c., ".;;..;. ;.;.: :
.7u.a q
<. e 4 u. 4.,...---..,..g
- ,,;.;.- 34 ;n EPA w-y Ldiscontinueplanstoissuegt
" ',in any form. f in the November 9,1989 meeting, NRC and EPMscussed :!t:n't... n,..,
M:;'.x,. ;1f -- '"-
'"f'
"'t the NARM and below regulatory concern (BRC) portions of the standardt.y ?- t' nn ^'.1A"".,1^^ ^_;}=^ ".g.
i g -<.... -..
.....,...a 7
- ,;. n - ge g;; y;-as p
-,o.,u.
m, o
h
+^':'
4ii+4
' r d ' M -- t '.? -".. "; ;;;- : !;;
42-..,f:-,E"" _;:
't*-f fic;^'.i'. m'
....., f...:.
.. m a m...e :- 2, =. = : y,
'a ' t xn;;. ?;;;? -..%.n, r ; ' : ;/ rnr. h '^ "". : ^ 700.
_;n?.;;,
In the matter of 'below regulatory concern" wastes EPA expressed the willingness not to proceed with issuing this portion of 40 CFR Part 193. The NRC agrees tFai the BRC standard should not be issued.
W
,,u.
.,....a H.S: T: 5, 'ef:9 e F W ' @ '" E ; E i', "."I': e n :... #
1
......u..
y,,, 7 6.m.
... ; 7 7,,
Sincerely, A le Se.
awW reMrt WF 4isuck[ermee, ffkm,W be difrettd o f m L
- ^' *( **'t " tenuldts leer-level ps%s 4 m t H, " C;e r r 4% cogy E -' "# -----."---er fuilht"helv/t, pg.htmitftl
'"' 5,^, "-.I E
" I Ci;i 45t*5d Accord M h E/A, s
- ~ - ~
Jiyosd ihhas N4tM, 4 A frAcb I mder,p cMeyeftnoN or likely L
W onl3 As met. Most milable
,%es g, t,w gue s#th b d' " be**nt sWe licensiy,iremenF t+<& Nse. (etstihes oue(F Amendmed hek ufressly prekshih og ruge o cpt 60.%, t#c ofP psM e, o ker % U.M dep%t) u d u fropo%\\.
l
.-