ML20055D376
| ML20055D376 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/22/1985 |
| From: | Nussbaumer D NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| To: | COLORADO, STATE OF, NEW MEXICO, STATE OF, TEXAS, STATE OF, WASHINGTON, STATE OF |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20055D365 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-TUYL90-36 NUDOCS 9007060243 | |
| Download: ML20055D376 (3) | |
Text
I
(
g.
Ref:
SA/ DAN WAR 2 21985 COLORADO NEW HEX 100 TEXAS WASHINGTON Recently two questions have arisen in connection with regulating uranium milling activities in Agreement States. The first question concerns enforcement of the EPA regulations in 40 CFR 192. We believc the Agreement. States regulating uranium milling and mill tailings hee the Urtot.. Fini,ailings Radiation Control Act)gy Act (as amended by i.he responsibility directly f rom the Atomic Ener to enforce the EPA r%ulations in 40 CFR 192, as does the NRC (Section 275d of the Atomic r.nergy Act). Thus, it is not necessery to wait for NRC to modify its regulations to confonn them to the EPA standards or to revise State regulations. This is importent where a State has received a licensee's reclamation plan for review. Our view is that the EPA t-cgulations may be applied directly to such a review.
The second question relates to what standards the NRC will use in reviewing a States action to teminate a fim's Agreement State license for uranium milling and mill tailings. As a general rule, at the tresent time, the NRC will review such requests utilizing the EPA re.pulations(40CTR192)andtheState'sregulations,exceptinthose casi.? where the State standards are less restrictive than those of EPA or NRL, in which case the latter will be used. The NRC's Uranium Recovery F1t-id Office (URFO) has been assigned the responsibility for reviewing and taking action on license terminations pursuant to Section 150.15a of 10 CFR 150. We encourage you to comunicate with URF0 carly in the process of reviewing licensees' reclamation plans.
If you have any questions regarding these matters, please contact either John Kendig or myself.
h
' ~' ~ d W
- u. 4 :' W'#
D. WSS n$
E' Donald A. Nussbaumer 8e Assistant Director for
- ?
State Agreements Program Office of State Programs hp rg cc: R. Dale Smith, URF0 oH Distribution:
omz SA R/F
@@s Uranium Mill file (fc) dir R/F R.Fonner, ELD RDoda,.RIV y
JKendig RBrowning, NKSS JHornor, RV t
OANussbaumer DSmith. URF0 o
.S..A.........
Sff..SA
......E.L..D.. f...
... N.M. S S
.j
- g....
" " " > DA,,,,s,sba,ume.Ubh,,, @nd,,g...RE0 finer.........
...RB r 7
...D 1
, co/,8s 3/.,f85..
, afff as,,
, 3fp f,g,,,,,
3
.... 3/.s / 8 5,,,,
..,f
..,.c f"1 (
'y g i
j I
%d.;'
[1N ITIJ - ST \\Tl'..' f,\\ \\ ll:(IN \\ll'.NT \\ 1, I'l:1 iTI.i !! It # N \\t. ! N i '.
'\\
u v il;\\.lti\\,l u. 2 4,o -
, i, 4
c j
o OCT 2 31985 orene w David K. Lacker, Chief Aim or.,*rn.
J Bureau of Radiation Control Department of. Health 1100 West 49th Street Austin, Texas 78756-3189
Dear Mr. Lacker:
Standards issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for tailings at uraniurn mills licensed by r.he Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and its Agreement States became effective on December 6, 1983. This rule (40 CFR'192) placed a number of requirements on the uranium milling l
industry to be implemented I,y the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Agreement States.
I, Although EPA has carried out the requirement of the Uranium Mill
)
Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA) to establish standards, the Agency's overall' responsibilities have not ended. We are maintaining an awareness of the implementation carried out by the NRC and their Agreement States to find out whether the standards are achieving their intended purpose, and whether they are practical to implement.
Through this followup, EPA will determine whether modifications are necessary to assure the intent'of the standards and UMTRCA is carried out.
It is now almost two years since the standards became effective, and
- considerable experience has developed in planning and carrying out the various actions required to implement them. The NRC has recently briefet e on the status of its implementation for 'its licensees.- I am now writing o ask you for similar information for your licensees.
1 i
Specifically, we would like to learn the status, for each of your licensees, of compliance with each of the general provisions of the standards. We wish to minimize the burden of responding to this resquest.
While we need site-specific information, detailed monitoring data or inspec-I tion reports are not needed. Rather, a ahort sununary in narrative and tabular form of the overall status of impica nting the individual general provisions of the standard would be most useful to us.
In addition to general provisions of the standards, there are certain areas In which we are pasticularly interested.
'Ihe standards specify s
e
7.
1 j
9, i
2 detection monitoring programs for hazardous constituents in groundwater, to be completed within one year of promulgation (40 CFR 192.32(a)(2) (iii)).
This involves identification of background levels, specification'of compliance points, monitoring wells, and semi-annual sampling. We would appreciate learning the status of each of your licensees with respect to this provisien, including the specific potential contaminas.ts being monitored, and whether the data indicate any contamination of groundwater.
In this regard, have you received any recuents for alternate concentration limits under the provisions of 40 CFR 192.32W)(2)(iv)? Have you decided how to evaluate any such requests? Finally, in casas where groundwater is contiminated, please describe the status, nature, and anticipated schedule of any corrective actio.n programs under 40 CFR 192.33.
We are ateo interested in learning the status of planning for disposal of completed (whether filled or merely not to be used again) tailings piles. While the standards specify no limit on the time that a completed tailings pile can be left uncovered, EPA. advised, in the notice promulgating
- these standards, that _ "...the regulatory agsney should require, once a pile is allowed to begin to dry out, that disposal proceeds in an expeditious fashion...." 'In this regard, are any of your licensees
- tailings piles
" completed?" Have you received any disposal plans from your licensees?
Have you approved any? Please describe the essential features of any such plans (e.g., cover thickness and composition, slope specification, and j'
whether piles will be significantly recor. figured.)
The standards also require that there be a synthetic liner or suitable alternative on any new tailings disposal area (40 CFR 192.32(a) (1)).
I assume that this requi'rement has not been a pressing issue because of the economically depressed condition of the uranium industry. However, I would appreciate knowing of any experieuce you have had in implementing this requirement.
I have described those items in which we are particularly interested.
t.
Please take this opportunity, however, to advise us of any other aspects of implementing the standards that you think we should know about. Your experience is an invaluable resource; we look forward to bearing from you.
Sincerely yours, Original signed by g
l David E. Janes L
Sheldon Meyers, Acting Director ffice of Radiation Programs (ANR-458) cc: Donald A. Nussbaumer, NRC/
l l'
1 1'
.