ML20125C461
| ML20125C461 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/12/1992 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 9212110201 | |
| Download: ML20125C461 (3) | |
Text
.
_ _ - _ - -- --~
t 1
lr RELEASED TO THE PDR l*
/,,,,Ne UNITED STATES "o
e
[N NUCLEAR REGULATORY COPMISSION
.. -fA/7 /9g
($-
-l_
W ASHINGTON, D.C. 20555.-
g<
l t
a i
/
- .co soes............,
)
+...*
i oFricE OF THE ~
Novemb'r 12, 1992 e
l SECRETAH%
l i
MEMORANDUM FOR:
James M. Taylor
{
Executive Director for rations FROM:
Samuel J. Chilk,=Secretd[tb
_ i l
SUBJECT:
SECY-92-238 - FINAL TECJN CAL POSITION ON AT. TERNATE CONCENTRATION L1 HITS FOR TITLE II j
URANIUM MILLS l
The-Commission-(with all Commissioners agreeing) has approved publication.of Enclosure 1 to SECY-92-238 as the staff fir al-technical position on alternate concentiation liialts (ACLs) for; Title II uranium nills, subject to the: incorporation of the-
{-
following comments.
t e
.1.
It is' inappropriate to establish binding standards:in:the t'
context of.a staff technical position document and it'is premature to adopt EPA's ACL risk-guidelines _for_ hazardous waste sites as binding on this agency at this' time.- The i
staff should delete the. lifetime : risk level range of.
l 1--X 10 to -1.X 10 and the -di:;cussion of risks in section 4
}
3.3.2.3.2-and replace it with an approachLin which-an-existing relevant standard e.g. 40 CFR'190,-would be-referenced for. guidance only. 'In making-a required. finding-l~
that a~ proposed ACL does not represent a substantial present j
or future: hazard to human. health when use d groundwater for drinking purposes must.'be considered,.as-well-as.in caking ALARA determinations, such-findings must necessarily be* mode c-i l
on a case-by-case basis due to the abcence of-limits in'.
-regulations. ' Based on 'a risk conversion ' factor bf-5 X 10-
~
l.
per pers;on-rem for doses-to the public'that are within the-i limits of'40 CFR Part'190,-.the maximum annual individual-risk would be -approximately - 20 5 For purposes of the ACL guidance, it should be understood-that this.value (104):
represents the combined:totel. risk fromiradiological and j
non-radic1cgical hazardous. constituents.
i e
L SECY NOTE:
THIS GRM,=SECY-92-238, AND THE VOTE SHEITE OF--ALL COMMISSIONERS WILL BE'MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE.10L f
' WORKING DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS SRM.
O s
9212110201 921112 i
.pDR 10CFR.
-PDR d
PT9.7 I C.
1 l,
2.
EPA should be advised of thE approach being taken in the Technical Position concerning the risk standard, namely that j
the existing relevant requirements in the 40 CFR Part 190-would be used as a reference / guide in evaluating ACL applications.
The staff should make revisions to the i
Technical Position based on this SRM, and transmit a copy of the revised Technical Position to EPA for comment.
The staff should give the EPA 30 days to. comment.
When this period has elapsed, the staff should prepare the final Technical Position taking into cons 1Coration any comments l
received from EUA, and proceed to announce the availability of the Technical Position in the Federal Registet.
At the same time and con 33 stent with the MOU between NRC and l
E PA, the staff should also continue to work with EPA to develop a mutually agreeable approach to risk management and risk assessment methodologies for radionuclides in general, independent of the ACL guidance.
s 3.
On page 28, under section 3.3.2.3.3, the first paragraph i
should be clarified that consultation with the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service is required under the Endangered Species Act if an endangered or threatened species is found on the site or thought to inhabit the site.
l 4.
The possibility exists for ACLs, based on a point of exposure distant from the point of compliance, to block eventual sito transfer to the State or Federal government.
Although the staff guiCance would require " written assurance" of eventual property acceptance, there are pitfalls which the guidance does not address.
These include tha need for binding pre-determination of whether the State or Federal government will be the eventual site custodian, and ths need for an authoritative commitment from that j
party.
Unless such a commitment is. secured by-the i
licensee / applicant. to.the satisfaction of the Commission, ACL applications involving a distant POE should not ce approved.
In some cases, the POE will be located at the
~
edge of the lands that will actual!.y be used for byproduct material disposal as defined in Sectivn 11e.(2) of the AEA, which include those lands necessary to accommodate the design features of the crosion control system and reasonable 4
extensions necessary to luclude site terrain features,
]
perimeter roadways, et cetera.
Under those circumstances, the advance commitment by the State or Federal Government
)
and approval by the Commission is not required.
t
(
'j
~3-cc:
The Chairman l
Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Curtiss Commissioner Remick Commissioner de Planque OGC OCAA OIG i
i -
e a
5 d
s 4
b 3
}
3
=
n
.m
.m --..
r a
m.
u s
6a-.w e w
+
d d' tT99$'
- f4dt h 'd W F Ff'*f'
-