ML20043C189
| ML20043C189 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/22/1989 |
| From: | Carr K NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20042C963 | List:
|
| References | |
| FRN-53FR49886, RULE-PR-CHP1 NUDOCS 9006040205 | |
| Download: ML20043C189 (4) | |
Text
.
- p.n.,\\"
.. -. e g _
NUCLEAR REGULATORY C@FN^M ~
UNITED STATES "f
C
' '?, b 8
riff d Q
!{
wasMmorow, o. c.
y,,,,,,g
-p
=j+
December ?r,7ve g
CHAlflMAN C U*
- M
~.
q
,A C.n... )$27f MEMORANDUM FOR: Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary
- - - -- - J FROM:
Xenneth M. Carr
~~l u
SUBJECT:
CONSECY 89-5; RESPONSE TO OMB ON EPA'S STANDARDS FOR MANAGEMENT OF LLW AND DISCRETE NARM WASTE
~ I have reviewed staff's two alternative letters to OMB providing cossnents on EPA's standards for the management of low-level radioactive and naturally-t.
occurring and_ accelerator-produced material wastes. Although I agree with Comissioners Curtiss, Roberts, and Remick that alternative 2~ is the appropriate letter, I do not concur with all of Comissioner Curtiss' revisions to this letter for the reasons described below, h
The staff has done a comendable job in working to resolve the Comission's L
concerns with EPA's draft standards. Staff's alternative 2 (Enclosure 2 in l;
Taylor's December 6,1989, memorandum to the Commission) accurately depicts 0
the progress and status of this effort. The letter clearly states the l'
Comission's opposition to proposal of new EPA LLW standards. The letter-
- fairly characterizes what I believe the Comission's position on EPA's NARM
.. aste disposal standards should'be, namely that NRC will not object to these w
standards as long as EPA provides the flexibility for disposal in a non-AEA facility and does not require States to dispose of the material. Such an t
I approach enhances protection of-the public health and safety from the hazards associated with NARM wastes without unraveling the delicate compromises struck-in developing the Low-Level-Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985.
In addition, the letter accomodates the view that NARM waste disposal may be compatible with LLW disposal under 10 CFR Part 61.
In light of these observations, the Commission should not interfere with the l
intent of States and EPA to ensure the safety of NARM waste disposal.
Further, it is important for the Commission not to undermine the efforts of the staff in its negotiations with EPA and OMB on the standards, as long as these efforts are consistent with the will of the Comission. The position i
captured in the alternative 2 letter accurately conveys the Comission's opposition to the proposal of new EPA LLW standards because they do not provide for a substantial and justifiable increase in the protection of the public health and safety or the environment.
Sending the letter from the staff-to OMB is consistent with past efforts to resolve issues on the EPA standards. We have every indication that the Comission's oppositior to the EPA standards will be duly considered by OMB, regaroless of whether it is transmitted at the Staff or Comission level.
4 9006040205 891130
$ $$FR49886 PDC
s
, 5...'
'A.-
4
?.
5
'b Samuel J.! Chilk 2-Although a-common thread of duplicative regulation exists. I-believe our concerns with EPA's LLW standards differ from our concerns'with-the Clean Air-Act (CAA) standards for radionuclide effluents.= Further,~. concerns about the standards have not~been actively-voiced by the broad base of affected States and industry groups that aligned with the Canaission on the CAA
. standards.. Transmitting the letter at the staff level at this time would.
reserve Commission intervention for future escalation of our. concerns, if i
necessary.
Therefore, I approve of staff's second alternative letter with the minor modifications in the enclosed mark-up, which-are appropriate to clarify the agency's position on the standards. A significant modification is my addition that the Commission has reviewed and approved the staff's position.
._._t h,b w Kenneth M. Carr-cc: Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Curtiss l'
Commissioner-Remick OGC i
EDO 1
I l
2
,, - +
.v.
eu l
UNITED STATES i
[
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g@
n-I x
.... c.
m.
~
.....l'
\\)t(LSICh,.
James B. MacRae, Jr.
Acting Administrator and Deputy Administrator Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Office of Management-and Budget 725 17th Street NW, Room 3236 Washington, DC 20503
Dear Mr. MacRae:
For some-time now the staffs of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have been discussing EPA's draft standards for disposal of low-level radioactive waste (LLW) (40 CFR Part 193) and discrete naturally occurrin produced radioactive materials (NARM) waste (40 CFR Part 764)g and accelerator-Subpart A of Fart 193 deals with radiation exposures during operation, Subpart B deals with exposures due to disposal, and Subpart C deals with groundwater protection. EPA is proposing to issue these standards under its Atomic Energy Act authority to-set generally. applicable standards for radioactive materials in the environmentw Mel tout'er i4a Tortc Lbskee Qs N AcreoAar& & e&.rpeuntqM44l% aCg/g_.
s The NRC, in response to the Low-Level Radioactivo Waste Policy Act of 1980,)-
issued regulations'for licensing of LLW disposal facilities-(10 CFR Part 61 y
December 1982 thatM technical bases for all the States to develop new cisposai-sisus.
Ine NRC-regulations are consistent in their level'of health hs protection with current EPA standards for the nuclear fuel cycle (40 CFR Part Q
190) and with Subparts A and B of 40 CFR Part 193. EPA estimates that with the level of protection in Part 61, only 2 to'8 health effects are predicted to occur over a 10,000 year period due to disposal of LLW.
In spite of this' low level of risk, Subpart C of the proposed EPA standards would impose an additional 4 mrem /yr limit on doses to individuals at the site boundary through the groundwater pathway only.
In that no meaningful health effects appear to be saved, that proposed limit 10 CFR Part 61 1imu a#_: ?!
_ fyr en ' C:.t'. A--e, Ti m., 411 anvi ror-M 7%
NRCseestheproposalofSubpartsAandkBbyEPAasduplicativeofitsexisting regulations, and considers Subpart C ungecessary to protect public health and safetygnd potentially extremely disruptive to the site selection and development process the States are conduicting under rigorous schedules set by the Low-Level Waste Policy Amendments Act (LLWPAA) of 1985.
On November 17, 1988 Dr. Malcolm Knap(p Director of NRC's Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decommissioning documenting NRC's concerns with the dr f t s)tandards.WM) wrote to Ms. Neile Miller of 'OM g
Between November 1988 and April 1989,;the staffs of NRC and EP met several times to attempt to resolve these concerns, largely without suc ss on the more significant issues. On April 4,1989, Mr. John Greeves, A ingDirectorofNRC'sDivisionofLLWWJ.
and on April 25, 1989, Mr. Richa Guimond, Director of EPA's Office of Radiation Programs, wrote to Dr. Arthur aas of OMB to inform him that the two agencies had reached an impasse on t of the major issues.
l paa ha'55J%pWlwy~*'
v
r j
i James B. ' MacRae, Jr.
g g
EPA and NRC staff met gain on November 9,1989, to discuss the unresolved issues.
While some progress mas made, the NRC's major concern with the draft LLW standard'is unreso ned. NRC's principal and overriding concern is that EPA's LLW standards in Subparts A and 8 of 40 CFR Part 193 are duplicative of NRC's requirements for licensing of land disposal of commercial LLW, and that the groundwaterbrotection requirements of Subpart C:are unnecessary for protection of ppblic health and safety with regard to NRC or Agreement State licensed dispogal of LLW and are si If promulgated *r "-- " *
- gnificantly different from NRC's regulations.-
1., Subpart C will be extremely disruptive to "the development of new LLW disposal sites by States and Compact groups under the LLWPAA of 1985.
I note that.in 1984, in hearings before the Senate Judiciary Cosmittee considering the Rocky Mountain LLW Compact,. EPA.
testified that nevelopment of their standard would not be disruptive to the siting and development of new LLW sites, and that Part 61-was adequate for selecting new sites and would not need to be changed as a result of the
- publication of the EPA LLW Standard.
EPA is under no statutory or court-ordered mandate to issue these standards.
Therefore. I reconsnend that OMB allow EPA to publish only Subparts A and B applicable to facilities not regulated by NRC, and to d ct CPA to d
n gngo ugpart C in any form. 7M m u s s/ o t d e a #1f4+ M In the November 9. 1989 meeting, NRC and EPA discussed alternatives that, if adopted,(would resolve NRC's concerns with the NARM and below regulatory concern BRC) portior.s of the standards.
In the case of NARM, NRC suggested modification of the definition of a " regulated low-level waste disposa facility" to include EPA permitted disposal facilities for discrete NARM.
-permitting disposal-of commercial discrete NARM wastes at sites other than Atomic Energy I
Act licensed low-level waste sites, our primary concern with 40 FR Part 764 is retnived.
In the matter of "below regulatory concern" wastes, EPA expressed the i
willingness not to proceed with issuing this portion of 40 CFR Part 193. The L
NRC agrees tFa~t the BRC standard,should not be issued.
NRC would be pleased to meet with you if you desire.
Please contact me (492-3552) or Richard Bangart (492-3340)pDirector of NRC's Division of s
'LLWM, if you have questicas or to arrange a meeting.
g Sincerely, G b6cavSe Yht SWW'WE#
reGyrtC JAbl& fo p!.4.t Robert M. Bernero, Director
/a //hd I'i
/
Office of Nuclear Material Safety n
and Safeguards
.