ML20059L892
| ML20059L892 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/25/1993 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| References | |
| FRN-58FR58657, REF-10CFR9.7 AE77-1, AE77-1-028, AE77-1-25, AE77-1-26, AE77-1-27, AE77-1-28, NUDOCS 9311170479 | |
| Download: ML20059L892 (3) | |
Text
_ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _
t a n
~
- s. c p2 ? 2 4
mn.
Z 4
e
/pm Rf Ct%,
UNITED STATES g -
' 3 y } ) y,,
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION :,
{A;g v /j s
g W ASHIN GT ON. D.C. 20555
[g
(.
,,,, [,
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY October 25, 1993 MEMORANDUM FOR:
James M. Taylor 3
Executive Director for O rations FROM:
Samuel J.
Chilk, Secreta SUILTECT:
SECY-93-249 -PROPOSEDRU%:
URANIUM MILL TAILINGS REGUIATIONS; CONFOTMING NRC REQUIREMENTS TO EPA STANDARDS This is to advise you that the Commission (with all Commissicners agreeing) has approved the notice of proposed rulemaking subject to the following revisions in the proposed rule:
1.
The proposed rule should make clear NRC's interpretation of any ambiguous provision of EPA's final rule and include a notification in the Statement of Consideration that the NRC does not view EPA's rule, which includes prescriptive implementation requirements, as establishing any precedent with regard to what constitutes a generally applicable environmental standard; and 2.
Whether this proposed rule is categorized as a Division 2 matter of compatibility appears to be irrelevant to the State of Illinois' special case since it does not regard uranium mill tailings.
It is rather Section 274o tha*
enables Illinois to enact alternative requirements to NRC's current Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 40.
The attached edits clarifying this matter as well as a reordering of the sentences in the response to the State of Illinois' comment (pages 14 and 15 of Enclosure 2) should be incorporated into the FRN.
SECY NOTE:
THIS SRM, SECY-93-249, AND THE VOTE SHEETS OF ALL COMMISSIONERS WILL BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAIIABLE 10 WORKING DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS SRM.
931?!70479 931025 h$
PDR 10CFR I
PT9.7 ppg
o 2 --
a i
l The FRN should be reviewed by the Rule Review and Directives Branch, ADM, and returned for signature and publication.
J (EDO)
(SECY Suspense:
11/22/93) cc:
The Chair 2 nan Commissioner Rogers Ccamissioner Remick Commissioner de Planque OGC OIG i
office Directors & Regions (via e-Mail) 1 1
l j
j l
\\
4
I Resnome. His proposed rule is intended to conform to proposed revisions to 40 CFR part 192, subpart D which only applies to uranium mill tailings, and does not extend to thorium mill tailings. Not extending the additional verification requirements of this proposea mic to thorium byproduct materials does not discount the environmental and radiation and health and safety considerations related to radon releases from thorium byproduct material. In the case of either uranium or thorium byproduct material disposal, the NRC considers the design standard of existing Criterion 6 (paragraph (1) in proposed text) to be of primary importance in the control of radon releases from closed tailings impoundments. The need for a radon cover meeting the design requirements is determined by concentrations of decay products of both uranium and thorium (existing provision appearing at paragraph (6) of the proposed text of Criterion 6). He NRC does not consider it necessary or appropriate to require radon measurement generically for closed I
thorium mill tailings impoundments. Th: facility of concern to this State is unique in that the i
waste is thorium tailings with significant concentrations of radium-226. Under the provisions of section 274o of the Atomic Energy Act, the State may add further requirements in this case to address this unique situation.
A few minor clarifications were also made as a result of State comments.
i Issue of Compatibility with Agreement States The Commission proposes these changes as Division 2 matters of compatibility. Under Division 2, States must adopt the provisions of an NRC rule, but can adopt more stringent provisions. It cannot adopt less stringent ones. This designation (Division 2) is compatible with section 274o of l
the Atomic Energy Act (AEA). [ Delete remainder of paragraph.]
1
. - -