ML20126M210
| ML20126M210 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/17/1984 |
| From: | Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Cannon J ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20126M127 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-84-709 NUDOCS 8506200259 | |
| Download: ML20126M210 (72) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:* CfD 'E kO(, 7 '~ DISTRIBUTION
- un s/r ( JHoffman i NMS$: r/f AB;ntley l JLambert DBMausshard@
JUL 171984 JSurmeier JGDavis i CANON MKearney ED0 r/f PAltomare WJDircks DMattson J0 Bunting i MJBell
/ Mr. Joseph Cannon LHigginbotham Assistant Administrator for JGreeves Air and Radiation HMiller i U.S. Environmental Protection Agency MKnapp
, Room W937 REBrowning 401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Mr. Cannon:
I appreciate the time and effort you and your staff have been devoting to resolving the issues of concern to EPA and the Nuclear Regulatory Consnission in the regulation of radioactive waste disposal. For your records on these interactions, I am enclosing minutes of the April 13, 1984 meeting between EPA and NRC, prepared by attending NRC staff. I It is my continuing hope that our negotiations will lead to resolution in the
; not too distant future.
Sincerely, GEWE!m J.O:ks William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations
Enclosure:
As Stated Identical letter to Mr. Lee Thomas Assistant Administrator for Waste and Emergency Response ( 8506200259 B50308 PDR FOIA BERICK84-709 PDR -
, 'f i f 0FC : WMPC .) : WMPC : WM g: NMSS : NMSS :
.....:...... {
- NAME : JLambert
/.:..W.MPC
....:............:..... ... : ....... (l
.sb* JJSurmeier : J0 Bunting
- REBr ning : DBMausshardt JGDa :
.....:............:......7...g:............:............:............:...........:...........
' DATE :84/05/09 : f ja p: (g :
'g :
(l\ : 7gp :
. s. ,~.
* ~
4
'- ~'
4 e' MEETING BETWEEN NRC/ EPA REPRESENTATIVES 7 , APRIL 13, 1984 [ i THE FOLLOWING CONCLUSIONS AND AGREEMENTS WERE REACHED: 'I t URAN _I_UM MILL TAILINGS j 1. LEGAL STAFF FROM EPA WILL REVIEW WITH NRC THE BENEFITS AND i l l MEANS OF CHANGING THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF ITS FINAL MILL TAILINGS STANDARDS. NRC BELIEVES IT IS DESIRABLE TO CONFORM l
! ITS REGULATION SO THAT IT IS SELF- SUFFICIENT PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTING AND ENFORCING THE RCRA GROUNDWATER REQUIREMENTS OF THE FINAL EPA' STANDARD. DURING THE PERIOD NRC 15 CONFORMING ITS REGULATION, NRC WILL CONTINUE (AND MODIFY AS 1
NECESSARY) ITS ONGOING GROUNDWATER MONITORING AT EXISTING
, SITES TO DEVELOP DATA TO SUPPORT ITS CONFORMING RULEMAKING AND TO ENSURE CONTINUED PROTECTION OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY AND THE ENVIRONMENT.
-h e e o
\
' ' N.
~ ' , '..' -
^ '
p_ 7.-
/
- 2. EPA WILL WORK WITH NRC TO DEVELOP A MOU WHICH WILL
.I ,
i A. PERMIT NRC TO TAKE SITE SPECIFIC ACTIONS REGARDING i ALTERNATIVE CONCENTRATION LEVELS IN GROUNDWATER WITHOUT[ NEED TO OBTAIN EPA CONCURRENCE. THIS WOULD INVOLVE NRC i USING OF THE SAME BASIS FOR THESE SITE SPECIFIC ACTIONS
}
AS EPA WOULD USE UNDER RCRA AND KEEPING EPA INFORMED OF i [ NRC'S ACTIONS. t
,' B. PROVIDE FOR A TECHNICAL INTERFACE BETWEEN NRC AND EPA SO i
THAT NRC CAN ACCESS EPA EXPERTISE IN THE HAZARDOUS WASTE AREA (E.G., MONITORING, ANALYSES, LINERS, HEALTH EFFECTS, ETC.).
- 3. EPA AND NRC (SJOBLOM AND BROWNING) WILL ORAFT A PROPOSED JOINT EPA /NRC LETTER TO CONGRESSMAN UDALL AND SENATOR SIMPSON
. REGARDING ACTIONS THE TWO AGENCIES ARE TAKING TO ENSURE THERE WILL BE NO DUAL REGULATION OF MILL TAILINGS.
- 4. A LEGISLATIVE CLARIFICATION WILL NOT BE PURSUED AT THIS TIME.
\
\ _
N, _ ~. - -
, s . _. . - _ . . .. _ .. __. _
4 .
*> . .y' 4
4 ! l 1
! MEETING ATTENDEES '
i. 1 EPA NRC i L. THOMAS W. DIRCKS 1 i i ! J. CANNON J. DAVIS . 1 1 G. SJOBLOM W. OLMSTEAD I l ! J. SKINNER R. BROWNING l i l 1 4 B. PETERSON 4 , C. HERMAN t i 1 s.
'w /
I i . 4 s i i i
, l a
J t 1 4 I I
=
< ? l I i J.
~ , . . ~ . - - - - -. _ _ . . , . - _ - . . - - - - . . . . _ _ . , - - , _ . . _ . . , - - - - - - , . _ _
REPORT OF MEETING BETWEEN 21, 1984CHAIRMAN PA AND ADMINISTRATOR RUCKELSHAUS ON MAY PURPOSES 1, DISCUSSION OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY C ' ("NRC" OR " COMMISSION") IMPLEMENTATION O
\ MENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S (" EPA") ENVIRON
\
i STAfiDARDS FOR URANIUM MILL TAILINGSI
\'
- 2. CONSIDERATION OF BETTER COORDINATION BET EPA, INCLUDING ESTABLISHMENT OF PERIODIC MEETINGS TO DISCUSS AREAS OF COMMON CONCERN; AND 5 .
a
- 3. {:j -
,it g , . - . . .
ATTENDEES CHAIRMAN PALLADINO, WILLIAM DIRCKS, JOHN DAVIS, 1, NRC:
- GUY CUNNINGHAM III, ROBERT BROWNING, SHELDON TRUBAT NORMAN HALLER.
' ADMINISTRATOR RUCKELSHAUS, JOSEPH CANNON,
- 2. EPA:
JOHN SKINNER, LEE THOMAS, GLEN SJ0 BLOM, CHARLES C MICHAEL FLEMING.
/
I V( l
o,
.q.
2 2 REPORT
~.s' I
{ THE MEETING FROM 2-3 P.M. WAS HELD AT ADMINISTRAT ' i I l I f CHAIRMAN PALLADINO INITIATED THE DISCUSSION BY SETTING OUT t i HIS VIEWS ON THE NRC'S IMPLEMENTATION OF EPA'S MILL TAILINGS f STANDARDS. [ REFER TO ATTACHED TALKING POINTS.] : i l ADMINISTRATOR RUCKELSHAUS RESPONDED BY NOTING THAT CONGRE GAVE THE NRC AND EPA JOINT AUTHORITY TO REGULATE MILL
?
j TAILINGS AND THAT THE AGENCIES SHOULD WORK TOGETHER TO
- IN HIS DISCHARGE THAT RESPONSIBILITY IN AN ORDERLY FASHION.
' VIEW, THE BEST PROCESS FOR ACCOMPLISHING THAT GOAL WOULD BE TO RELY ON THE AGENCIES' STAFFS TO WORK TOGETHER TO SHARPEN T g S, LEAVlhG ONLY UNRESOLVABLE STAFF DISPUTES TO BE t ESCALATED TO HIGHER MANAGEMENT LEVELS FOR RESOLUTION BY THE TWO AGENCIES.
i t THE DISCUSSION THEN TURNED TO ALTERNATIVES FOR THE NRC'S j
! IMPLEMENTATION OF EPA'S GROUNDWATER STANDARDS FOR MILL ;
~
TAILINGS. ADMlHISTRATOR RUCKELSHAUS STATED THAT TMFAF SHOULD BE NO EPA CONCURRENCE IN NRC'S CASE-BY-CASE DETER-MINATIONS OF ALTERNATIVE CONCENTRATION LIMITS ("ACL" ,
, MR. CANNON SuncF"ED mT IT MinHT BE EN0 UGH FOR EPA TO ,
CONCUR IN AN NRC-DEVELOPED METHODOLOGY OR THAT THE NRC
3 %
)
r
/ ADD METHODOLOGICAL REFINEMENTS TO EPA'S METHODOLOGY AS LONG
! AS THOSE REFINEMENTS WERE CONSISTENT WITH EPA'S METHODOLOGY 3- MR. CANNON STATED THAT SECTION 84C OF THE PROVIDED AN INDEPENDENT BASIS FOR EPA'S FORBEARANCE FROM
( REVIEWING NRC'S CASE-BY-CASE DECISIONS. MR. THOMAS AMPLIFIED THAT EPA COULD REVIEW THE PROCESS DEVELOPED FOR CONSISTENCY WITH EPA'S PROCESS; THE OVERALL { - t MR. SKINNER i STANDARD WOULD BE t!OT DEGRADING PUBLIC HEALTH. THEN SUGGESTED SOME ELEMENTS OF A METHODOLOGY FOR I I)ETERMINING ACLS. THESE WOULD INCLUDE THE EVALUATION OF LEACHATE MIGRATION. A PROJECTION OF POSSIBLE HUMAN USE OF { l l THE CONTAMINATgn wATec. Tuc AVAILABILITY OF WELLS. AND, r MR. SKINNER, [ RESTRICTIONS ON THE PLACEMENT OF WEtiS. r m - ' MR. THOMAS AND MR. SJOBLOM ALSO STATED THAT THERE WOULD BE ( NO EPA REVIEW OF NRC'S CASE-BY-CASE APPLICATION OF THE l j (METHODOLOGYAGREEDONBYNRCANnEPAF09FCTABLISHINGACLS l AT VARIOUS TIME THESE THREE REPRESENTATIVES ALSO STATED THAT flI ANY REMAINING DISAGREEMENT OVER THE DIVISION OF AUTHORITY BETWEEN NRC At1D EPA SHOULD NOT PREVENT THE DEVELOPMENT OF A j MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ("MOU"). j THE CHAIRMAN PROPOSED THAT THE EPA AND NRC STAFFS GET TOGETHER AGAlti TO SEE IF WE CAN BUILD ON MR. TunMAS _ i l THE ADMINISTRATOR QUESTIONED WHETHER BOTH / t, APPROAC_H.
'm ..
,. /
.~
14 m \
. 8 I
GENCIES MAY BE OPENING THEMSELVES UP TO LAWSUITS, BUT IT I , i WAS FELT THAT EPA AND NRC SHOULD STATE THAT, IN THEIR VIEWS, , EPA'S CONCURRENCE AUTHORITY IS SATISFIED BY THE NRC'S l U P EPA'S METHODOLOGY FOR DETERMINING ACLS.
/
l
,/ MR. BROWNING SUGGESTED THAT THE STAFFS OF THE NRC A f
l SHOULD WORK THROUGH A TEST CASE TO DETERMINE HOW A GENE METHODOLOGY COULD LEAD TO ACLS. ADMINISTRATOR RUCKELSHAUS Ih AND MESSRS. CANNON AND THOMAS AGREED THAT SUCH A TRIAL RU
,l Y<? : WAS A GOOD IDEA. MR. DAVIS SUGGESTED THAT THE NRC SHOULD f, PROPOSE A GENERIC APPROACH AND APPLY IT TO THE TEST CASE, BUT EPA STAFF BELIEVED IT MAY TAKE 6-12 MONTHS TO DO THE f
GENERIC METHODOLOGY. I [ CHAIRMAN PALLADINO CONCLUDED THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO GET A COMMON PIECE OF PAPER TO SHARE WITH THE COMMISSIONERS, THEN
, l FOLLOW UP WITH A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE. THIS WOULD BE DEVELOPED 8 THROUGH FURTHER WORK BETWEEN EPA AND NRC STAFFS, BUT HOPEFULLY IN LESS THAN 6-12 MONTHS. -
q f
TALKING POINTS FOR 5/21 MEETING WITH RUCKELSHAUS
# -- 1 APPRECIATE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO MEET WITH YOU.
l r
-- SINCE I SENT YOU A LETTER ON JANUARY 16 SETTING FORTH SOME GENERAL POLICY ISSUES to ItTHOUGHT c ran WE NEEDED TO ABOUT, OUR STAFFS HAVE BEEN WORKING GETTING READY FOR I A .
THIS MEETING. WOULD LIKE TO START WITH URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, A
- l. --
SUBJECT OF SIGNIFICANT CONCERN TO NRC AND THE CONGRESS.
/*
~~
h, l I r b
- 4
i
- E
^
^
I ' URANIUM MILL TAILINGS
-- IN THE NRC'S AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FY 1982-83, THE
- URANIUM MILL TAILING RADIATION CONTROL ACT (UMTRCA AMENDED.
EPA WAS TO ISSUE FINAL STANDARDS BY OCTOBER 1, ! 1983 OR LOSE JURISDICTION T,O THE NRC. 1 l M89
-- IN h 1983, NRC COMMENTED ON EPA PROPOSED STANDARDS.
A MAJOR THRUST OF OUR COMMENTS WAS THAT THE STANDARDS APPEARED TO PUT EPA INTO SITE-BY-SITE PERMITTING WHICH j WE BELIEVE IS CONTRARY TO UMTRCA.EPA DID NOT ACCEPT t THESE COMMENTS. \;
-- EPA'S. STANDARDS WERE ISSUED BY OCTOBER 1 AND THE N
' 79 W
! TO IMPLEMENT BY APRIL 1, 1984.
- a. '
i
-- DUE TO TH,E PROBLEMS WE HAVE WITH SOME PARTS OF THE STANDARDS, WE HAVE NOT YET ISSUED CONFORMING RULES. ,I THE MOST SEVERE PROBLEM IS THE REQUIREMENT FOR ZERO DEGRADATION OF GROUNDWATER, A STANDARD THAT !T MAY NOT (AFFECTS CONCENTRATION BE POSSIBLE TO MEET IN PRACTICE.
/
- LIMITS AS WELL AS LINER REQUIREMENTS.)
l t y' -
- ~ __
e ..-
,.' s-3 s
[
-- A SECOND PROBLEM IS COMPLEXITY OF A_NALYSIS TECHN! QUES
\
FOR MONITORING OVER 300 HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS, MANY OF
! WHICH CANNOT OCCUR AT MILL TAILINGS SITES.
-- WE BELIEVE THE LAW REQUIRES NRC AND AGREEMENT STATES TO l
IMPLEMENT AND ENFORCE THE EPA STANDARDS THOUGH OUR RUL i, ARE NOT IN PLACE. : h .
-- E WANTED TO WORK OUT SOME ARRANGEMENTS WITH TH nAFF TO COVER THE TIME FRAME IT WILL TAKE TO GET OUR WE ESTIMATE THAT RULESRELATEb'TOGROUNDWATERINPLACE.
WILL TAKE ABOUT 3 YEARS. WE ALSO NEED TO WORK'0UT LONG TERM ARRANGEMENTS WITH EPA. UOUR OBJEC,IVES, T BOTH FOR THE NE1R-TERM AND LONG-TERM, MUST RECOGN!ZE EPA gm NRC RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER THE 1 LAW. SPECIFICALLY, WE BELIEVE: l THERE SHOULD BE A SINGLE COMP.REHENSIVE SET OF REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE PROTECTION OF WATER UNDER URANIUM MILL TAILINGS ISSUED BY NRC AN CONOURRED IN BY THE EPA USING A FRAMEWORK TO BE ESTABLISHEDJ AND
\
f-
~
*- 84
~
THERE SHOULD BE A SINGLE REGULATORY AGENCY CONTACT THAT AGENCY SHOULD FOR APPLICANTS AND LICENSEES. , BE THE NRC OR APPROPRIATE AGENCY IN AN NRC
/
/ AGREEMENT STATE WITH AUTHORITY TO REGULATE URAN!
MILL TAILINGS.
-- AS FIRST OPTION, OUR STAFFS WORKED TOGETHER TO SEE IF THERE WOULD BE SOME ADMINISTRATIVE MEANS TO EXTEND THIS WAS OUR EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE EPA STANDARDS.
PREFERRED APPROACH, BUT EPA STAFF FELT THAT IT COULD NOT l 4 AGREE TO EXTEND THE EFFECTIVE DATE. 4 i
-- AS PART OF THIS OPTION, WE ALSO TRIED TO AVOID DUAL CASE.BY-CASE REGULATION BY HAVING EPA AGREE TH AUTHORIZATION UNDER SECTION 84C OF ATOMIC ENERGY A MEANS WE CAN APPROVE SITE SPECIFIC ALTERNATIVES j '~ '
WITH THEREaWAS b s m !
' EPA CONCURRENCE. (SEE ENCLOSURE 1A).
IMPASSE ON THIS CONCEPT; EPA STAFF DOES NOT AGREI THAT
- 'g
[ NRC CAN APPROVE ALTERNATIVES WITHOUT EPA CONCURRENCE. _ AS A SECOND OPTION, WE TRIED TO REACH AGREEMENT WITH EPA A-i THAT CUR IMPLEMENTATION COULD PROCEED IN A STEPPED MANNER THAT WOULD HAVE TWO PROVISIONS: UNTIL NRC RULES ARE IN PLACE, OUR STAFFS WOULD . AGREE TO DEVELOP AN INTERIM GROUNDWATER PROGRAM f 1 .
. g m
/
UTILIZING TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT POSSIBLE EXISTING
/
NRC REQUIRED MONITORING PROGRAMS. \,
\
, EPA WOULD AGREE THAT, UNDER 84C, WE CAN APPROVE j.
} SITE SPECIFIC ALTERNATIVES WITHOUT EPA CONCURRE '
i SO LONG AS WE USE AN EPA DEVELOPED GENERIC : i anw l METHODOLOGY {THATDOESNOTREMOVENRC'S84C
< !, FLEXIBILITY [.
I .
- e !
- -- OUR STAFFS SEEM TO HAVE REACHED SOME UNDERSTANDING ON
! THE FIRST PART, ALTHOUGH IT IS NOT CLEAR THAT EPA WOULD I
SIGN AN AGREEMENT TO THAT EFFECT.
-- TH.ERE STILL MAY BE AN IMPASSE ON 84C, A'.THOUGH SOME LAST 2
44 A Y MINUTE NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN OUR STAFFS GOOLD HAVE HOWEVER, NRC STAFF, AND 1, DO NOT FEEL ) HELPED. i COMFORTABLE WE E PA DEVELOPING GENERIC METH0 OLOG l , BECAUSE IT MAY REMOVE OUR 84C FLEXIBILITY. j {
' WITH NO EPA AGREEMENT ON
-- WEALSOHAhEONEMOREOPTION.
EITHER OF THE ABOVE TWO OPTIONS, THE NRC COULD SIMPLY j d ISSUE ORDERS TO ITS LICENSEES TO COMPLY WITH EPA l UNDER THIS l l STANDARDS UNTIL OUR RULES ARE IN PLACE. ! i APPROACH, WE COULD TAKE A HARD LINE OR A MORE REASONABLE f POSTURE: y l s N n __ - _ _ _ _ . _ __
g
.. HARD-LINE WOULD MEAN WE WOULD ENFORCE TO LETTER
/
LAW, AND SEEK EPA CONCURRENCE ON ALL ALTERNATIVES; THIS COULD BE AT VARIANCE WITH OUR 84C AUTHORITY l AND MAY ELICIT A STORM OF PROTEST IF EPA INSISTS ON ZERO DEGRADATION.
.. A MORE REASONABLE POSTURE WOULD BE TO GO AHEAD W NRC DECISIONS ON ALTERNATIVES WITHOUT SEEKIN >
CONCURRENCE, USING 84C AS THE BASIS, BUT KEEP EPA INFORMED. _.REGARDING THE ABOVE OPTIONS, IT MAY BE THAT W DEVELOP SOME WORD CHANGES TO A CONCEPTUAL APPROACH THAT MAY THEN BE A OUR S.TAFFS.HAVE BEEN WORKING ON. UC Mlb BASIS FOR POSSIBLE AGREEMENT THAT I COULD TAKE BACK T MY COMMISSION FOR REVIEW. (SEE ENCLOSURE IB)
-- IN BRINGING THIS MATTER BACK TO THE COMMISSION, HOWEVER, THERE ARE OTHER THINGS NRC NEEDS TO DECIDE AS WELL:
WE ALSO HAVE TO RESPOND TO THE CONGRESS TELLING v~~ g be. y % t . 4"+ THEM WHAT APPROACH WE ARE TAKING; THIS MAY LEAD T0 SOME MEMBERS CALLING HEARINGS OR SEEKING NEW LEGISLATION.
' I
.. WE ALSO WILL HAVE TO GIVE FURTHER CONSIDERATION TO OTHER LEGAL AVENUES THAT SOME ELEMENTS OF THE COMMISSION MAY WISH TO PURSUE.
NOW I WOULD LIKE TO GET YOUR VIEWS ON THIS ENTIRE
\ --
i SUBJECT. 1 i .- 4 1 M 9' s me l i 9 4 l! Oh I i-l' 4
~}
/'
I 2 5
-~
, r-wry ps +a a e4
.* e 3 -
e4,Jr n.. i . 4 9 M J-o/
%c)s
( M
; OQca, e, l --
hst usebnf l w s , i ,/ ,+ . ,i a , - - , + pg a s s< esw i ykv3 e / &PA e ed twSA ' Q,jzq c L 2~ DY y3 0a-62A~ s, rp/r?+ * - (,.1,,J L 90 llacIna/l'kf"[-/m/syj ca.. s ochcul
/ 3 a
{ l e
% occ f(E by
%d LambeVfb
~ . - -
'x fl
_i
O O h DVI o 84/04/25 RUCKELSHAUS MEETING OUTLINE FOR MEETING WITH RUCKELSHAUS I. PREAMBLE The Atomic Energy A'ct (AEA', tne Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), anc the Clean Air Act (CAA) have resulted in cual regulation of NRC licensed activities by both NRC and EPA. Cotn agencies are sensitive to the regulatory problems created by nis situation. They have agreed to work together to develop a regulatory approach which acccmmodates tne mancates of the AEA, At the same RCRA anc CAA anc which minimizes dual regulation. time both agencies are committed to assuring that these activities are regulated in a manner which adeouately protects the public health ano safety. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the be sour:as of regulatory overlap and to* agree on steps that must aken to resolve the resulting problems. N m N
- . ISSUES FOR DISCUSS 10'4 AhD DESIRED C'JTCOMES
\
Achieving better svnchronization of EPA and NRC actions for; 4 shared areas of responsibility.
* %q f 6
n
1 o ' DRAFT 84/04/25 RUCKELSHAUS MEETING ' f I
~
- 1. Examples of schedule problems involving past regulatory i action. :
t I
,i i f
NRC Final Rule EPA Standards-Action
- Final 9/83 .i
- a. UMT 10/80 )
k f l' ,
- i. :.
y t 1 4 4 e t
,' p} 7 h ,\n i
. . .. . , ... .. .. . ............ ....- . . ..... . . ~ .,.. . .
.y i
e .s l l 4. l 84/04/25 RUCKELSHAUS MEETING ... . .~-.~. 7 \ Jurisdictional Overlap / Dual Regulation !O
/8. . . . . . . . . .
L. . . . o I i I I t e.m-,. Required EPA concurrence on NRC RCRA I c. UMTRCA f relatec rules. . N. _ - . .
'N- . ' ~ ~ ~ ' ~
(
- 2. Resulting Areas of Dual Regulatios'~ ~ -
j
\i I a. Existing 1 .
i i
- 1) Licensed Mill Tailings Disposal - RCRA I' stancards.
I, -~ f f} o 3RA:T
%3
' DRIh I 84/04/25 RUCKELSHAUS MEETING 8-C. Specific Uranium Mill Tailings Issues
^s 3
- 1. Problems
- a. NRC neecs time to develop rule addressing implementation of complex RCRA requirements.
b. Need to work out arrangement whereby we can , overcome cual regulation requirements of EPA standards which specifically requires EPA l l concurrence to change: Y 1) List of Hazardous Constitutents. f i
- 2) Alternate concentration levels. .
- 2. Status:
NRC and EPA Senior Staffs believe that there ,is a way in which EPA could grant NRC more time to implement the EPA standard; and that protocols can be ceveloped between staffs to enable EPA to concur on the methodology to delfst ,Hazarcous Constituents or approve alternate concentration levels without site by site review. Plan to accomplish this outlined . in proposed craft Interagency Programmatic. Agreement.
~
(
\ .. '
~
I
*/ , ;
On RUCKELSHAUS MEETING f\ 84/04/25 4 Ns Notes of April 13, 1964 EPA /NRC SEE ENCLOSURE 2: f \, meeting. ,
- 3. Desired Outcome d
- a. EPA Aoministrator/NRC Chairman endorse staff approach as outlined in Conceptual Interagency i
j Programmatic Agreement under the umbrella EPA /NRC MOU. SEE ENCLOSURE 6: Conceptual Interagency Programmatic Agreement. { I I l, b. Administrator / Chairman sign your memo to staffs '
! for directing Interagency Programmatic Agreement
}
i' Regulation of Mill Tailings be drafted to incorporate staff apprcach outlined in the Conceptual Progrannatic Agreement discussed above. f SEE ENCLOSURE 7: Memo to respective staffs to develop l Procedural Agreement. i s, -
~ .-
./
, -m - -
g? f I l I.
- O'
, m..
id, 6"' 84/04/25 RUCKELSHAUS MEETING x
\,
' \
/ c. EPA Administrator agrees to issue NRC relief to enforce RCRA Standards for (all/ existing mills)
/
i i [ Strike one] until NRC publishes Rule. (3-?? yrs), s s i
- ! Minimum exemption requirements of NRC, ,
! SEE ENCLOSURE 8:
NRC actions of enforcing remaining EPA l f standards, resources required to
' uncertake actvities.
.I
! o. EP A Administrator agrees to cosign a joint NRC/ EPA response to Congress (Udall, Simpson, Domenici) l outlining:
l I
- 1) Plan to resolve UMT issues. '
- 2) Commitment and approach to achieve coordinatec EPA /NRC actions on matters of shared regulatory responsibilities.
I
\
SEE ENCLOSURE 9: Oraft letter for signature between ,
~ Chairman anc Administrator. ,
~. 0 l
m l
.o
)
)
RUCKELSHAUS MEETING D A-, * . 84/04/25 1 ENCLOSURES &
~
I il f I. notes of April 13, 1984 EPA /NRC meeting. ENCLOSURE 2: i ENCLO5URE 6: Conceptual Interagency Programmatic Agreement. I ENCLOSURE 7: Memo to respective staffs to develop Proceoural Agreement, i Min'imum exemption requirements of NRC, NRC
- ENCLOSURE 8:
actions of enforcing remaining EPA standards,
' resources required to undertake actvities.
. /
/
ENCLOSURE 9: Draft letter for signature between Chairman and Administrator. DRAr,
- s .
6
- e 6 W
-74 syf .
f'7_d';W g
'- h*En fh-;f _
'*f %+g e
O O e 9
I
, MEETING BETWEEN NRC/ EPA REPRESENTATIVES l
f
/ afrit 13. 1984 I
I
} EEMENTS wERE REACHED:
i g':~ =ct_0 WING v__.NC,og.aNS s '~ AND AGR l l I t I TA:'.'NGS_ i URAN 8.M M_L i
, l ;. _ EGAL STAF: FROM E:A diL. REVIEW WITH NRC T iTS FINAL MILL MEANS OF CHANGING THE EF ECTIVE DATE OF TA LINGS $7ANDAR05.
NRC BELIEVES 17 15 OESIRABLE TO CONFOR
. IT .55 SELF- SUFFICIENT DRIOR TO .
tTS REGULATICN $O THAT O ATER REQUIREMENTS
- MPLEMENTING AND ENFORCING THE RCRA GRCUN W CURING ~"E DERIOD NRC IS OF THE SINAL EDA STANDARD.
"0NT:NUE (AND M00lFY AS CONFCRMING i TS REGU LAT ION , NRC dio_
NECESSARY) iTS ONGotNG GROUNCWATER 40N.~0R!NG AT E ITS CONFORMING RULEMAKING SITES TO DEVELOP OATA TO SUPFORT C MEALTH AND AND TO ENSURE CONTINUE 0 PROTECTION OF SUBL: SAFETY AND THE ENVIRONMENT
/
x
%w- ,
f 1 l
*= . _ _
7 j i
!2 EPA WILL WORK WITH NRC TO DEVELOP A! MOU W ;
i
; RDING l AKE SITE SPECIFIC ACTIONS REGA i
! A. PERMIT NRC TO
; IN GROUNOWATER WITHOUT I ALTERNATIVE CONCENTRATION LEVELS
. THl$ WOULO INVOLVENRCf i NEED TO : STAIN E:A CONCURRENCE. i
, E SITE SPECIFIC ACTIONS '
I ; SING OF "E SAME BASIS FOR THES INFORMED OFl, a5 E:A aCUL; ;SE UNDER RCRA AND KEEclNG ECA . f ; NRC'S ACT :35. j , f I i ECHNICAL .NTERFACE BETWEEN NRC AND EPA 50 l 3. : ROV:E :CR A wAT NRC CAN ACCESS EPA EXPERTISE IN THE HAZARDOUS WASTE ANALYSES, LINERS, HEALTH AREA 'E.G. 'iONiTCR NG. r EF:ECTS. E C.). i I NG'; a: -. ORAFT A DROPOSED i 3 EPA AND NRC ($JOBLOM AND BROWN t JOAL'. AND 5ENATOR SIMPSCN , JOINT ECA,NRC LETTER TO CONGRESSMAN l ERE l
' REGARDING ACTIONS THE TWO AGENC ES AR I
./
WILL BE NO QUAL REGULATION OF MILL TAILINGS. l S i d1L. NOT BE CURSUED AT THIS' TIME. i *. A LEGI S LAT I S E C LAR I F i C AT I ON i /
/
\
\g /
~.
{ l MEE?tNG AMENDEES i NEO EcA
- OiRCKS HCMAS i
p
. Av'S
! ,, CANNCN
- a. ;.MS~EAD 3 5.OSLOM l
; SROWNING
, 54 NNER
= . . oc.-:R:bb
- . -ERMAN s
I e 1 i i i i l i f
Y
- I G g I gs O
t S S
~ ,} .-
*w # *- :
s:m . Je
-fj-Ir b. 1
.: . z cm*
Y Ym7 e a 9 9 I 1
=
% 3 /dM h Y [CVh3 CONCEPTS FOR INTERAGENCY PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AND THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ON URANIUM MILL TAILINGS REGULATION A major goal of NRC's conforming rulemaking will be to develop regulations that can be implemented by NRC or Agreement States, as applicable, without involving EPA in any NRC or Agreement State regulatory decisions on mill' tailings disposal.
Based on negotiations to date, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency , f (EPA) believe it is appropria'te to pursue a programmatic l agreement to define interagency responsibilities associated 1 with implementation of the Solid Waste Otsposal Act (SWDA), as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act This (RCRA), in the regulation of mill tailings disposal. programmatic agreement will establish the following l 19' F" h lU 1 I th cle M 6 0 ! 1
. .. k g3 m
hl g\M" l principles for interagency coordination on mill tailings regulation:
- 1. For those uranium mills currently under NRC license, EPA will defer the effective date in 40 CFR 192 Subpart D, as it relates to the groundwater portions of its requirements, This until NRC completes its conforming rulemaking.
rulemaking will establish at NRC-licensed mill tailings rites the NRC regulations required by statute for those hazardous materials normally subject to EPA jurisdiction under the
- Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended. Consistent with the requirement of Section 84a.(3) that NRC regulations be "to the maximum extent practicable, at least comparable" to EPA" regulations in this area, this deferral for mill tafitngs sites currently under NRC license is to be no more than the minimum necessary as determined by EPA in consultation with NRC. If no other options are available for postponing the effectiveness of those RCRA-related portions of its mill tailings standards whose implementation is to be delayed for existing sites, EPA agrees to pursue a rulemaking to accomplish this purpose.
l _ _ . - - , g. I
- l
. . i jMP
, so 3
(2) NRC agrees that the final conforming rule will incorporate provisions for protection of groundwater that l least comparable l are, to the maximum extent practicable, at to SWOA requirements. NRC's final rule incorporating groundwater protection provisions will be subject to EPA concurrence as required by law. Available implementing documents such as Regulatory Guides, will be given to EPA for review and corrdination in conjuction with its concurrence. (3) During the interim while NRC is conforming its ^ regulation, NRC will enforce,at existing NRC-licensed mill tailings sites those portions of the EPA standards whose
' effective date has not been deferred pending completion of -
the NRC rulemaking. NRC also agrees to continue to enforce (and modify as necessary) its ongoing groundwater monitoring , ' and mitigation requirements at existing mill tailings sites to ensure protection of public health and safety and the environment. Also during this interim, NRC agrees to enforce in full EPA standards'in 40 CFR 192 for groundwater protection at any new uranium recovery facilities not currently under license, l
., Il t -
(4) EPA agrees to participate with NRC during this interim period in the development of a data base for hazardous constituents at mill tailings sites as part of the technical EPA basis for NRC's conforming rule and EPA's concurrence. agrees to provide technical consultation and services to NRC for the development of the necessary technical support for the conforming rule. NRC agrees to reimburse EPA for all necessary anc reasonable costs arising f rom such consultation and services as mutually established by the two agencies. (5) EPA and NRC agree that, in order to eliminate dual regulation, NRC should be able to approve alternate ' regulatory requirements submitted by applicants under Section 84c. of,the Atomic Energy Act, as amended, without any site-related specific EPA concurrence. Such alternate regulatory requirements could include, among other things, alternate concentration limits for of f-site contamination by hazardous materials, . alternate lists of hazardous materials, and alternate types of liners. NRC agrees that EPA will concur in the methodology NRC would expect to use in making decisions on such alternate regulatory requirements. Appropriate protocols defining the methodology will be
DRUT developed and jointly approved by EPA and MRC as an integral part of NRC's rulemaking. State implementation of EPA (6) EPA agrees that Agreement standards at mill tailings sites may take place pursuant to the same unoerstandings and agreements applicable to NRC licensing and regulation. (7) At least until the conclusion of the NRC conforming rulemaking, the Commission Chairman and EPA Administrator agree to meet at lesst annually to approve coordinated regulatory plans and discuss any issues arising from ' implementation of any of the matters agreed to under this programmatic agreement. 3 RAFT i
4 I 6 O
+
Ny 9
.5'yhT - ~ ( .,.
g _ .e I*
. a+a g g
. .;, -p4r .5v
o l
.n j 4C6. 3 i /4)(1l5//CYi)T
~
DRAFT MEMORANDUM FOR: William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations FROM: Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman 9
SUBJECT:
IMPLEMENTATION OF INTERAGENCY PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT WITH THE U.S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ON MILL TAILINGS REGULATION ~ Please be advised that all appropriate NRC staff should be ins?.ructed to begin preparing an interagency programmatic agreement conforming to the attached conceptual paper, which contains the principles agreed to at my recent meeting with EPA Mr. Ruckelshaus is issuing these Administrator Ruckelshaus. . instructions to his staff concurrently. Nunzio J. Palladino
Attachment:
Conceptual EPA-NRC Agreement N x_ m. 1
...I fuksa 7
4
- g g
a e 1 0 e 9 9
-u _ "h_ r
= gr e . < . --
f* 5 '
... ,e~,e ,':4:.
- 5 $
!' & ' %. ;1 .
l e i'i (
. . k.
ENCLOSURE 8 - Minimum Exaction Requirments of NRC . To be forthcoming G 9 l
e ~4 m b
\ I e
0 e 4 a M I _y a, ._N **..v, PT h,* i 1 sse- -+- 6
'+jJg t d,t.
*Yr + 3 was' 9
L
-f /C . / / /1 LU j't
' '/ ' .y l
' \
The Honorable Morris K. Udall, Chairman t Subcommittee on Energy and Environment f
, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs i
/
United States House.of P.epresentatives J I j
)
t Washington 0.C. 20515 / i
Dear lir. Chairman:
' As you and other Congressional observers have recently emphasized,
' there have been grounds for growing concern in the past several i months for the coordination of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission \ (NRC) and U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency(EPA)regulationofj $ Responding to that concern N."C and EPA l uranium mill tailings. ! staff have been discussing ways to clarify our respective responsibilities and improve our cocrdination. Capping the first l milestone in that prccess, we recently met with each other to approve the enclosed conceptual agreement, which sets forth a number of interagency commitments in the develtpment of our Among respective regulatory actions in the mill tatl'ngs area. i other things, this agreement provides that:
- 1. For those uranium mills currently under NRC license, EPA 4
will defer the effective date in 40 CFR 192 Subpart C, as it relates to the groundwater-relatec portions of its
/
g requirements, until NRC completes a conforming rulemaking.
\
\
\
'~~ DRA = 6n c/ow,-c. 9
o
- 6 n
F4 > Yitrh ;
/R tailings
,' This rulemaking will establish at NRC-licensed mill
( sites the NRC regulations required by statute for those to EPA jurisdiction hazardous materials normally subject We expect j uncer the Solid Waste Cisposal Act, as amenced. i I three years. the Commission rulemaking to take about
- 2. Consistent with the reouirement of Section 84a.(3) that NRC regulat1crs be "to the maximum extent practicable, at least ecmparable" tc EPA regulations in this area, this deferral for mill tailings sites currently under NRC license .
is to be ne more than the minimum necessary, as determined by During the interim, NRC will { l EPA in consultation with NRC. i f enforce at existing NRC-licensed'm111 tailings sites those : portions of the EPA stancards wnose effective date has not ,; k
; been deferrec. NRC will also enforce in full the EPA ,
standards in 40 CFR Part 192 for groundwater protection at any new uranium recovery facilities not currently under NRC license.
- 3. During the interim bef ore final NRC rules are in place, i
i
' NRC and EPA will work together to develop a sound technic;l basis for regulation that will permit EPA to concur in the !
conforming NRC rule as reoutreo under Section 84a.(3). l t 1 / Q J URA ,.
. . o
-r DI .
</ 3
- 4. Providing that there is a sound technical basis for the NRC regulation, EPA concurrence in that regulation will further EPA concurrence, permit NRC to approve, without alternatives to specific regulatory requirements at specific i
sites, as provicea under Section 84c. of the Atomic Energy Act, as amended. Such alternate regulatory requirements 1 coulc include, among other things, alternate concentration 4 , limits for of'-site contamination by hazarocus material, e alternate lists of ha:arcous materials, and alternate types of liners.
- 5. EPA will concur in the methocology NRC would j
apply in making any such case-by-case determinations on f specific alternative reouirements. Appropriate protocols , i cefining the methodology will be developed and jointly
~
approvec by EPA and NRC as an integral part of NRC's
- rulemaking. RCRA, which provides for the regulation of hazardous materials under the Solta 'aaste Disposal Act, would thus be implemented at NRC-licenseo mill tailings sites entirely by NRC, pursuant to the rules and regulatory methodology in which EPA had concurred. :
- 6. EPA agrees that Agreement State implementation of the EPA:
mill tallings standares may take place under the same uncerstandings and agreements applicable to NRC licensing anc , regulation.
,)
U DRAF ,
a I fs ,4,
- 7. Until the completion of NRC rulemaking, cognizant senior f.
NRC and EPA managenient staf f will meet at least quarterly to , f coordinate plans for mill tailings-related regulatory action, i ! j' including the development of coordinated rulemaking and I standard-setting schedules spec 1fically providing for each : i I otner's comments or concurrence, as appropriate. ! i,
- 8. Uritil the completion of NRC rulemaking, the Commission Chairnan and the Agency Administrator will meet at least ( \
annually to approve coordinated schedules and take appropriate action on issues identified in the discussions of their respective staffs. i. I II I
~-~~*-*--*
*-*-~a . .
~-n.. .
C While we recognize that the differences in NRC and EPA statutory [ res,ensibilities 7 may transcend our ability to cope with them by l acministrative means, we believe it is in t9 bsst interest of the I, nation as a whole to begin accressing these differences in a way that, runs least risk of disrupting the plarning of the states, I incustries, and other parties involved. We hope that the
\ \ ~
\ : RAFT
- - ^
a i ANh*I
^
,. , .. . 2 ents we have outlined here will enable both
- eir respective statutory responsibilities e arther legislative action.
Sincerely, Nun:io J. Palladino, Chairman / 1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory I I Commission I 5 3 W 1111 arr y k ckelshaus, Acetnistrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency l I . t h l .URA-T
h Drur+2_.k% >
.. - i!
.y, riela 4
bfy TALKING POINTS _ _ I; NRC/ EPA MEETI.NG l i
-RCRA - LLW - MILL TAILINGS O!SCUSSION AREAS - !
i DTRODUCTION i l l taken any major objections to the generally-applicable NRC has not
- f standards issued for radiation by EPA as they pertain to mill i NRC's principal concerns are with tailings and low level waste. ,'
nonradiological standards issued in response to UMTRCA and the [ Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended (Resource Conservation and I Recovery Act [ RCRA]).
- A. RCRA ISSUES
;l Statutory Basis for Applying. RCRA to Mill Tailings and LLW 1.
NRC staff have concluded that EPA was within its statutory 'I mandates in applying nonradiological standards to mill tailings and low lev'el waste based on the following: 1 For mill tailings: Section 84 of'AEA (UMTRCA) {
- a. /
I
.- em
) ,
?
T ORAFT
$4/04/12 ,
, L l
TALKING POINTS .. l i
/' i l
t ,I I l I I
!l l
1 l - B. SPECIFIC MILL TAILINGS ISSUES
,,g i
- 1. Rulemaking NRC was unable to conform the mill tailing regulation to the EPA stafjards within its legislatively mandated timeframe
. (April 1984). NRC staff proposed a two step rulemaking to ,
meet at least part of the April mandate and to provide a Rulemaking 1 clean-up basis for Fuel Cycle remedial actions. -
,to conform to RCRA portion of the EPA mill tailings standard l Some of.
will take much longer due to technical complexities.
~..
DRAFT 84/04/12
- =
1 . g 6 a TALKING POINTS ~ issues that must be addressed in the rulemaking the tech-ical are: Mill tailings standard incorporated by reference entire ; I
- a. that portions of EPA's RCRA regulations (Part 264) among other requirements effectively specify " synthetic liners."
f NRC would establish a monitoring program to determine b. the nature and extent of the hazardous constituents in mill tailings to establish a basis for our rulemaking. 1 j EPA would participate in the development of the
.f monitoring program and the analysis if the data to facilitate their concurrence on our regulation as , l required under UMTRCA.
Existina Sites
- 2. Problems with Enforcina EPA Standard at i
j a. EPA's synthetic liners may be unwarranted for existing l NRC has no descretion. l licensees in some situations. l J i b. Technical problems of synthetic liners for extension of l I the " existing portion" of mill sites,
- c. NRC doesn't have any leeway regarding hazardous '
f constituents on the extent and scope of monitoring at
/
f licensed sites.
.I m
DRAFT 84/04/12
L t [^ ! TALKING POINTS - 4- . . l
.l f
I EPA's standards reouire EPA's conncurrence on the j
- d. l establishment of any alternate concentration levels or
- t This would impact ! i i
l' delisting of hazardous constituents. f l
)
on NRC's approval of clean-up proposals by mills or of 6 4 f modified monitoring programs. I t t4 I t 3. Recommended Course of Action s I 8 s a. Based on perceived political considerations we should i l L not pursue legislative clarification at this time. , l l f
- b. NRC should proceed with a two step rulemaking. ',
>r
! c.
NRC would seek relief from EPA implementing ground water stancard. I d. NRC and EPA would pursue technical program to assess i non-radiological hazardous constituents in mill i' tailings. w.;. ~.'W- '
.-T e . :;; . ; m ; .. ,
- 2, .3 r . , j yy
. , n ::c , ,- 07>
, s e .
..r3
~ .. ;g s..
p p$
.jf
,' ,t 1 , - - ^,.y
, x%
a '- _ ;;n. L '[ .
}g x
.7 .- ';. -~ /,;, 4
,;s no;'w.>,,e
; l% ~L mm . k un ,w w
~- ,;c . ., .
wv 7 .- Wmk
.,n,i.e.L+Y
- , ; ~g-+llg:u%gg nW&:Tu;L 4%.;:n.pe. /s ., .,,Gu M.
~
.p.
' - + ,.m, w%:la;lpp,gp...
, r
+:g> .5 y .
a
" DRAFT l
. L ;
SUMMARY
OF ISSUES FOR MEETING WITH EPA l + l l THE ISSUES WHICH ARE CREATING INTERFACE PROBLEMS FOR EPA AND NRC l 1 l CAN BE GROUPED INTO THREE MAJOR CATEGORIES: DUAL REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS; AGENCY JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES; AND SCHEDULING AND TIMING OF EPA STANDARDS AND NRC REGULATIONS. THE ATTACHED PAPERS t
} DISCUSS HOW THESE ISSUES IMPACT ON THE MAIN SUBJECT AREAS REQUIRING EPA /NRC INTERFACE. THIS
SUMMARY
HIGHLIGHTS THE ISSUES DISCUSSED IN THESE PAPERS. m-
"Y I
f
/
3 L
~
l t r p: - A- - ~ ' ' IURANIUM RECOVERY ISSUES I l
,i i
NRC AND EPA DEVELOPED THEIR MILL TAILINGS REGULATlONS WITHOUT f FULLY COORDINATING THEIR EFFORTS. WHEREAS BOTH AGENCIES ARE ! I ' MANDATED TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY, EPA HAS THE i I ADDITIONAL RESPON.SIRILITY FOR PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT, AND THROUGH RCRA, RESOURCE CONSERVATlGN. IN WORKING TO CONFORM TO EPA f STANDARDS, NRC STAFF HAS FOUND THE APPLICATION OF RCRA , f REQUIREMENTS FOR SYNTHETIC LINERS FOR TAILINGS IMPOUNDMENTS AS i l WELL AS OTHER REQUIREMENTS FOR GROUND WATER PROTECTION MAY BE UNWARRANTED FOR EXISTING LICENSES IN SOME SITUATIONS IT IS ALSO.. 3 i POSSIBLE THAT SOME LICENSEES, WHO ARE UNABLE TO COMPLY WITH THE l EPA REGULATIONS', MAY BE FORCED TO SHUT DOWN THEIR OPERATIONS. I ANOTHER PROBLEM FOR NRC IN USING EPA'S PRESCRIPTIVE STANDARDS IS ; l 1 THAT EPA WOULD HAVE TO CONCUR IN ANY DEVIATIONS FROM ITS f l l PROVISIONS FOR NON-DEGRADATION OF GROUND WATER. NRC STAFF l BELIEVES THAT APPLICATION OF RCRA TO OUR EXISTING LICENSEES MAY ! I IMPAIR OUR ABILITY TO PERFORM OUR LICENSING FUNCTION INATIMELYf
\ !
g MANNER. l :: i
,o n
1
, ..s URANIUM RECOVERY ISSUES I
DESCRIPTION OF THE ISSUE ALTHOUGH THERE ARE A NUMBER OF ISSUES RELATING TO URANIUM RECOVERY, THE TWO MOST SIGNIFICANT ARE THOSE OF SCHEDULING OF EPA STANDARDS /NRC REGULATIONS, AND THE INCLUSION OF ENTIRE PROVISIONS OF PART 264 OF THE RCRA REGULATIONS BY REFERENCE IN THE MILL IMPOSED ON NRC TAILINGS STANDARD AND THE RESULTING INFLEXIBILITY AND NRC LICENSEES.
! GIVEN EPA'S FAILURE TO PROMULGATE ITS URANIUM RECOVEftY STANDARDS IN A TIMELY FASHION, AS MANDATED BY THE URANIUM MILL TAILINGS l
RADIATION CONTROL ACT (UMTRCA), NRC HAD TO CHOOSE BETWEEN l j PROMULGATING ITS REGULATIONS WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF EPA I NRC CHOSE THE FORMER WHICH COORDINATION OR MISSING ITS DEADLINE. RESULTED iN CON 5RESSIONAL HEARINGS AND LAWSUITS FI LED BY THE INDUSTRY, CLAIMING THAT THE REGULATIONS WERE IMPRACTICABLE, TOO COSTLY AND UNTIMELY IN THAT THEY WERE ISSUED PRIOR TO EPA'S 1 SUBSEQUENTLY, PROMULGATION OF ITS FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS. FOLLOWING CONGRESSIONAL ACTION, PORTIONS OF THE NRC REGULATIONS WERE SUSPENDED FOLLOWING EPA PUBLICATION OF ITS PROPOSED I STANDARDS. UNDER A CONGRESSIONAL MANDATE TO PUBLISH ITS URANIUM RECOVERY
\,
STANDARDS BY SEPTEMBER 30, 1983 OR LOSE ITS STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO I j NRC, EPA ON THE LAST DAY, PROMULGATED iTS FINAL STANDARD. l
/
?
/ WHILE CONSIDERABLE EFFORTS WILL BE REQUIRED FOR THE NRC TO CONF ITS REGULATIONS TO THE EPA STANDARDS IN THESE AREAS, THE MAJOR IMPACT OF THE EPA STANDARD 15 RELATED TO EPA'S IMPLEMENTATION OF RCRA FOR MILL TAILINGS IN THE AREA OF GROUND WATER PROTECTION.
I EPA'S 40 CFR PART 264 RCRA STANDARDS ARE BASED ON NON-DEGRADATION t ' OF GROUND WATER USING A SYNTHETIC LINER WITH LITTLE, IF ANY, , IN CONTRAST, NRC'S DEGREE OF FREEDOM FOR ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES. 10 CFR PART 40 APPENDlX A APPROACH WAS CENTERED AROUND NO OFF-SIT DEGRADATION OF GROUND WATER BEYOND AQUlFER USE CATEGORY. FURTHERMORE, EPA STANDARDS ARE VERY PRESCRIPTIVE. IF NRC 1 CONSIDERS ANY DEVIATION FROM THE EPA NON-DEGRADATION GROUNDWATER , PROVISION OUTSIDE THE 500 METER LINE, THE DEVIATION MUST BE CONCURRED IN BY EPA ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS. 3 . 1 IMPACT OF THE ISSUE 1 AS WE UNDERSTAND IT, THE INDUSTRY HAS FILED A LAWSUIT AGAINST EPA l MEANWHILE, NRC IS UNABLE TO OVER THE MILL TAILINGS STANDARDS. I PROMULGATE A CONFORMED APPENDIX A WITHIN ITS LEGISLATIVELY l
/ l MANDATED TIMEFRAME. NRC STAFF HAS DEVELOPED AND PROPOSED l
AMENDMENTS TO APPENDIX A TO CONFORM ITS REGULATIONS TO EPA AN STANDARDS FOR AREAS NOT RELATED TO GROUND WATER PROTECTION. ADVANCE NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING (ANPRM) HAS BEEN PREPARED WHICH OUTLINES PLANS FOR FURTHER AMENDMENTS TO 10 CFR PART 40 TO 1 INCORPORATE THE GROUNDWATER PROVISIONS IMPOSED BY THE EPA
\
STANDARD. i e
;..s w ,
W
$ i I THE PROBLEM ARISING FROM THE EPA'S REFERENCE TO RCRA IS ; THREE-FOLD: (1) THE EPA HAS IMPOSED REQUIREMENTS SUCH AS ! SYNTHETIC LINERS AND MONITORING FOR ALL THE SUBSTANCES ON THE I
HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS LIST THAT NRC STAFF BELIEVE TO BE UNWARRANTED GIVEN THE REMOTE LOCATIONS OF MOST OF THE TAILINGS SITES AND THE RELATIVELY POOR QUALITY OF THE AFFECTED AQUlFERS; FOR (2) NRC STAFF MAY NOT BE ABLE TO PROVIDE NEPA JUSTIFICATION ! ALL EPA SPECIFIED REQUIREMENTS (MONITORING FOR PCB'S, DIOXIN, ETC., AND (3) THE POSSIBLE SHUT DOWN OF OPERATING URANIUM MILLS THAT ARE UNABLE TO COMPLY WITH THE EPA STANDARD EVEN THOUGH NRC I j STAFF JUDGES THAT CURRENT PRACTICES AT THESE SITES ADEQUATELY ' L PROTECT THE HEALTH AND SAFETY AND THE ENVIRONMENT. STATUS OF THE ISSUE PREVIOUS DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN THE NRC AND EPA INDICATE THAT BOTH TO DATE, SIDES ARE SENSITIVE TO THE ISSUES RAISED IN THIS PAPER. HOWEVER, LITTLE HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED IN RESOLVING THESE ISSUES. THE NRC HAS ESTABLISHED COORDINATION WITH EPA I N DEV ELOP I NG iTS THE NRC STAFF RCRA-RELATED URANIUM MI LL TAI LINGS REGULATIONS . INTENDS TO MAINTAIN THESE CONTdCTS SO AS TO IDENTIFY AND RESOLVE AT THIS ANY .NCOMPATIBILITIES IN THE EARLY STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT. WRITING, A PAPER WITH PROPOSED CHANGES TO APPENDIX A AND AN ANPR . ON NRC CONFORMANCE TO EPA STANDARDS HAS BEEN FORWARDED FOR COMMISSION APPROVAL.
. ~ ,,Y 3
go, - .
/
POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS SECTION 84(C) OF THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1954, AS AMENDED,
\
1 (1)
! RELATING TO URANIUM MILL TAILINGS AUTHORITY PROVIDES THAT A LICENSEE MAY PROPOSE ALTERNATIVES TO SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS IT MAY BE POSSIBLE TO UTILIZE AND ENFORCED BY THE COMMISSION.
i THIS PROVISION TO PROVIDE SOME FLEXIBILITY TO NRC LICENSING ACTIVITIES EVEN THOUGH THIS PROVISION PROVIDES THAT THE ALTERNATIVES WILL BE " EQUIVALENT TO, TO THE EXTENT PRACTICABLE, OR MORE STRINGENT THAN" ANY FINAL STANDARDS PROMULGATED BY THE EP IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES NATURAL LINERS SUCH AS CLAY MAY BE ABLE MEET THE STATUTORY TEST. IT REMAINS TO BE SEEN WHETHER THIS APPROACH WILL WORK IN PRACTICE BUT NRC STAFF 15 EXPLORING THIS POSSIBILITY. (2) ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE THAT NRC STAFF BELIEVES MIGHT HAVE MERIT WOULD BE FOR CONGRESS TO IMPOSE A MORATORIUM OF SEVERAL YEARS THERCRARELATEDPORTIONSOFTHEEPASTANDARDTOGIVETHENRC TO FINALIZE ITS CONFORMING CHANGES. (NOTE: THIS IS NOT A SOLUTION i BUT IT WOULD SERVE TO BUY US TIME.)
)
e
a i e t l l e 73 i THE URANIUM MILL TAILINGS RADIATION CONTROL ACT OF 1978 j
}*
; (UMTRCA) REQUIRES NRC TO INSURE THAT BYPRODUCT MATERIAL IS MANAGED TO CONFORM TO EPA STANDARDS AND " GENERAL REQUIREMENTS ESTABLISHED BY THE COMMISSION, WITH THE I
1 CONCURRENCE OF THE [ EPA) ADMINISTRATOR," WHICH ARE, "TO ,t THE MAXIMU.M EXTENT PRACTICABLE, AT LEAST COMPARABLE To" { i'
, , EPA REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO HAZARDOUS WASTES UNDER
' THE SOLID WASTE' DISPOSAL ACT, AS AMENDED BY RCRA. EPA'S MILL TAILINGS STANDARDS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1983
) i l
A. y .
J s *T
.s
= ,
e INCORPORATE RCRA STANDARDS FOR NON-RADIOACTIVE
- o WASTES BY REFERENCE. i b
l 6 f n i i
.I
;1 11
?l 5i L
1 [ T n 11 s,
2,,,,,
- s. _ y - ,
\
l y sli e4 % ) l MEETING WITH MR. RUCKELSHAUS i 1-
\
\
s i INDEX N , 1.
- 2. ---
DRAFT TALKING POINT PAPER FOR EPA /NRC MEETING
- 3.
SUMMARY
OF ISSUES FOR MEETING WITH EPA
-m , ._. .
4. f-5 j i
- 6. I 7.
8. s URANIUM RECOVERY ISSUES i i
- 10. lSTATUTOR[8 ASIS FOR OVERLAPPING JURISDICTION OF EPA STANDARDS m
O i T g & W $$W w
,, a IN:L4 b e
k
f
- g i*
e* 6 e em p r . -% . L.~ {.- f'Y ]
.6- g .
'i. m 4 *
~ ..
=
D S e 9 4 e O i l i l 0 t (
-cp r -
i ..
\
l NRC/ EPA MEETING e DISCUSSION AREAS -- -RCRA - LLW - MILL TAILINGS, CAA, SUPERFUND/TMI i INTRODUCTION NRC HAS NOT TAKEN ANY MAJOR OBJECTIONS TO THE GENERALLY-APPLICABLE l STANDARDS ISSUED FOR RADIATION BY EPA AS THEY PERTAIN TO MILL
! TAILINGS AND LOW LEVEL WASTE. NRC'S PRINCIPAL CONCERNS ARE WITH l NONRADIOLOGICAL STANDARDS ISSUED IN RESPONSE TO UMTRCA AND THE SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ACT, AS AMENDED (RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND i RECOVERY ACT (RCRA]). TVO ADDITIONAL ISSUES ARE COVERED -- CLEAN AIR ACT AND SUPERFUND FOR TMI.
t A. RCRA ISSUES
- 1. STATUTORY BASIS FOR APPLYING RCAA TO MILL TAILINGS AND LLW i
'. NRC STAFF HAVE CONCLUDED THAT EPA WAS WITHIN ITS STATUTORY i MANDATES IN APPLYING NONRADIOLOGICAL STANDARDS TO MILL TAILINGS AND LOW LEVEL WASTE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING: I i
.~.
A. FOR MILL TAILINGS: SECTION 84 OF AEA (UMTRCA)
,j d
f j( r
. .,e
""*'*w .ge, o m n, % _
i i 1 1
\
\
B. SPECIFIC MILL TAILINGS ISSUES
- 1. RULEMAKING i
i NRC WAS UNABLE TO CONFORM THE MILL TAILING REGULATION TO THE
', EPA STANDARDS WITHIN ITS LEGISLATIVELY MANDATED TIMEFRAME
; (APRIL 1984). NRC STAFF PROPOSED A TWO STEP RULEMAKING TO MEET AT LEAST'PART OF THE APRIL MANDATE AND TO PROVIDE A CLEAN-UP BASIS FOR FUEL CYCLE REMEDIAL ACTIONS. RULEMAKING
, TO CONFORM TO RCRA PORTION OF THE EPA MILL TAILINGS STANDARD WILL TAKE MUCH LONGER DUE TO TECHNICAL COMPLEXITIES. SOME OF 2
/
's., i
. ._ ~ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ . . . __ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - -
i i
,~ -
d
/ -~ ~
/ \
i [ i i THE TECHNICAL ISSUES THAT MUST BE ADDRESSED IN THE RULEMAKING ! l ARE: ' 4 b ' j A. l MILL TAILINGS STANDARD INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE ENTIRE ! PORTIONS OF EPA'S RCRA REGULATIONS (PART 264) THAT I AMONG OTHER REQUIREMENTS EFFECTIVELY SPECIFY " SYNTHETIC
- i, LINERS."
-{ h i
j B. NRC WOULD ESTABLISH A MONITORING PROGRAM TO DETERMINE I i l THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS IN ,z MILL TAILINGS TO ESTABLISH A BASIS FOR OUR RULEMAKING. i j EPA WOULD PARTICIPATE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CF MONITORING PROGRAM AND THE ANALYSIS-W THE DATA TO j I FACILITATE THEIR CONCURRENCE ON OUR REGULATION AS l l 4 REQUIRED UNDER UMTRCA, t i 2. PROBLEMS WITH ENFORCING EPA STANDARD AT EXISTING SITES
- j. '
l i A. EPA'S SYNTHETlC LlNERS MAY BE UNWARRANTED FOR EXlSTING ; f LICENSEES IN SOME SITUATIONS. NRC HAS NO DISCRETION. B. TECHNICAL PROBLEMS OF SYNTHETIC LINERS FOR EXTENSION OF i j THE " EXISTING PORTION" OF MILL SITES. C. NRC DOESN'T HAVE ANY LEEWAY REGARDING HAZARDOUS i 4 CONSTITUENTS OR THE EXTENT AND SCOPE OF MONITORING AT ; LICENSED ' SITES. i \
\
i
x 3 ;
I'
\
l 5 i
i l a, s D. SINCE EPA'S STANDARDS REQUIRE EPA'S CONNCURRENCE ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ANY ALTERNATE CONCENTRATION LEVELS OR .< DELISTING OF HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTSj THIS WOULD IMPACT f ON NRC'S APPROVAL OF CLEAN-UP PROPOSALS BY MILLS OR OF MODIFIED MONITORING PROGRAMS. -
- 3. RECOMMENDED COURSE OF ACTION A. BASED ON PERCEIVED POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS WE SHOULD i NOT PURSUE LEGISLATIVE CLARIFICATION AT THIS TIME. ,
I B. NRC SHOULD PROCEED WITH A TWO STEP RULEMAKING. C. NRC WOULD SEEK RELIEF FROM EPA'S IMPLEMENTATION DATE FOR GROUND WATER STANDARD. D. NRC AND EPA WOULD PURSUE TECHNICAL PROGRAM TO ASSESS NON-RADIOLOGICAL HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS IN MILL - TAILINGS TO FORM THE BASIS FOR NRC RULEMAKING AND EPA STATUTORY CONCURRENCE.
-- -- ~
e s p' 8 t _
9 e 6 I ee
. ==
- t-b,6_
~
h e G e
/
SUMMARY
OF ISSUES FOR MEETING WITH EPA THE ISSUES WHICH ARE CREATING INTERFACE PROBLEMS FOR EPA AND NRC CAN BE GROUPED INTO THREE MAJOR CATEGORIES: DUAL REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS; AGENCY JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES; AND SCHEDULING AND TIMING OF EPA STANDARDS AND NRC REGULATIONS. THE ATTACHED PAPERS DISCUSS HOW THESE ISSUES IMPACT ON THE MAIN SUBJECT AREAS REQUIRING EPA /NRC INTERFACE. THIS
SUMMARY
HIGHLIGHTS THE ISSUES DISCUSSED IN THESE PAPERS. h 6 V=-
,--a "a
- t mit c
- s - . _ _
# - . ' ' " =r', 5.,
3 gs de n, o n h'
.v
- f a
. g
\
.. .?.
*)
. . "V
-f;
, . s
..1 y
. 3 ,,- .u
.g - , , ,'_ .
[4;p
* * , e. + b
*y'
~.. a. . ., .
-
- 6 - I '
I i y .
# , ,. 1 J, , . '. I , N
, ? - [s , ,, , a .[ 7 ,. ,; . , e -
* , , 1 e
., 'd . . . , . . , e f.* p ? 1 ' '
3 ( ; 7 , h 2 E s ' s , ' \* . g. ,p %, ,f *
,1*.
,, ' ' ' [4.,. - Q . *- . e
- g. r.
g -g. . -
,3 .
4 , _ . s , ,
~ * '
# *f a e t.., , ,
_e e ,.,' . m.... . o
- j., 8 % .J $'g y'}
~ :, e s ., ..a .
w
,a .
> .. , '- e' N-
- g.
- I$[p h' * . * . . ,' .' , ,
g .[ I , _,, p
, .. + > . . o : .+ c -
"T. .[ g [v
j . ~
* 'e - #
*1-5 a g
+ ,
3
.& .,r* sk. . .s
*,% ., , +
'[..^*P,* l' . ) e' --]. ,d .7,'. g . !, g .; ,f./ , e * .
'%A.
"t', . ,, 3" f ,,j e d . f 5( V
- 3 , * ), 2 ;
?;?S'fb.lff,'\lE j h ' * , Q', l: "f 1p-= : 0'l : ' 3/. f p k?
b [Ws:}__'k u ~g
= *.
..e .,
.u gg r : t Ty a * .s
' ., . ^
.c;
+.,,*4 9a -;; n , 4'
*js+g , w,g s ar
. v. . _
., ' 4 [I ,
*., J '
]
* . ' . j [i. *,* e :
t'+J .,. 2 [ '4.#*,.* 5 .* - ,3., i *"+c' 4.- .w w .t 2.
, s
~~ '
LE.! ! ,.,,jL, OhL + 5
- k 0t ! .0,h k;:g $ l' 4' ?,- f A . '* '4 ' ' ' % N "lA
- L[
.# ' &. , 4,^, ,
j i n , ;2 !,,,.'r),; .-, ,* ' 4' .], Qhf ' ,
~
i, l
/
l _ URANIUM RECOVERY ISSUES i t i NRC AND EPA DEVELOPED THEIR MILL TAI LINGS REGULATIONS WITHOUT FULLY COORDINATING THE!R EFFORTS. WHEREAS BOTH AGENCIES ARE MANDATED TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY, EPA HAS THE ADDITIONAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT, AND r THROUGH RCRA, RESOURCE CONSERVATION. IN WORKING TO CONFORM TO EPA STANDARDS, NRC STAFF HAS FOUND THE APPLICATION OF RCRA i REQUIREMENTS FOR SYNTHETIC LINERS FOR TAILINGS IMPOUNDMENTS AS WELL AS OTHER REQUIREMENTS FOR GROUND WATER PROTECTION MAY BE UNWARRANTED FOR EXISTING LICENSES IN SCME SITUATIONS. IT IS ALSO POSSIBLE THAT SOME LICENSEES, WHO ARE UNABLE TO COMPLY WITH THE EPA REGULATIONS, MAY BE FORCED TO SHUT DOWN THEIR OPERATIONS. ANOTHER PROBLEM FOR NRC IN USING EPA.'S PRESCRIPTIVE STANDARDS IS THAT EPA WOULD HAVE TO CONCUR IN ANY DEVlATIONS FROM ITS PROVISIONS FOR NON-DEGRADATION OF GROUND WATER. NRC STAFF BELIEVES THAT APPLICATION OF RCRA TO CUR EXISTING LICENSEES MAY IMPAIR'OUR ABILITY TO PERFORM OUR LICENSING FUNCTION IN A TIMELY MANNER. e S
9 6 t
.a 4
Gi> 4 6 0 9 4
- me . ,
e Q. h m ,
. .'b I
e 9 (
I URANIUM RECOVERY ISSUES DESCRIPTION OF THE ISSUE i ALTHOUGH THERE ARE A NUMBER OF ISSUES RELATING TO URANIUM
! RECOVERY, THE TWO MOST SIGNIFICANT ARE THOSE OF SCHEDULING OF EPA STANDARDS /NRC REGULATIONS, AND THE INCLUSION OF ENTIRE PROVISIONS OF PART 264 OF THE RCRA REGULATIONS BY REFERENCE IN THE MILL i
TAILINGS STANDARD AND THE RESULTING INFLEXIBILITY IMPOSED ON NRC l AND NRC LICENSEES. j GIVEN EPA'S FAILURE TO PROMULGATE ITS URANIUM RECOVERY STANDARDS i IN A TIMELY FASHION,'AS MANDATED BY THE URANIUM MILL TAILINGS RADI ATION CONTROL ACT (UMTRCA), NRC HAD TO CHOOSE BETWEEN PROMULGATING ITS REGULATIONS WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF EPA . COORDINATION OR MISSING ITS DEADLINE. NRC CHOSE THE FORMER WHICH RESULTED IN CONGr.SSSIONAL HEARINGS AND LAWSUITS FILED BY THE INDUSTRY, CLAIMING THAT THE REGULATIONS WERE IMPRACTICABLE, TOO COSTLY AND UNTIMELY IN THAT THEY WERE ISSUED PRIOR TO EPA'S PROMULGATION OF ITS FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS. SUBSEQUENTLY, FOLLOWING CONGRESSIONAL ACTION, PORTIONS OF THE NRC REGULATIONS WERE SUSPENDED FOLLOWING EPA PUBLICATION OF ,lTS PROPOSED STANDARDS. UNDER A CONGRESSIONAL MANDATE TO PUBLISH ITS URANIUM RECOVERY STANDARDS BY SEPTEMBER 30, 1983 OR LOSE ITS STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO NRC, EPA ON THE LAST DAY, PROMULGATED ITS FINAL STANDARD. N._..
/
or WHILE CONSIDERABLE EFFORTS WILL BE dEQUIRED FOR THE NRC TO CONFORM ITS REGULATIONS TO THE EPA STANDARDS IN THESE AREAS, THE MAJOR IMPACT OF THE EPA STANDARD IS RELATED TO EPA'S IMPLEMENTATION OF RCRA FOR MILL TAILINGS IN THE AREA OF GROUND WATER PROTECTION. EPA'S 40 CFR PART 264 RCRA STANDARDS ARE BASED ON NON-DEGRADATION OF GROUND VATER USING A SYNTHETIC LINER WITH LITTLE, IF ANY, DEGREE OF FREEDOM FOR ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES. IN CONTRAST, NRC'S , 10 CFR PART 40 APPENDIX A APPROACH WAS CENTERED AROUND NO OFF-SITE DEGRADATION OF GROUND WATER BEYOND AQUlFER USE CATEGORY. FURTHERMORE, EPA STANDARDS ARE VERY PRESCRIPTIVE. IF NRC CONSIDERS ANY DEVIATION FROM THE EPA NON-DEGRADATION GROUNDWATER I I PROVISION OUTSIDE,THE 500 METER LINE, THE DEVIATION MUST BE CONCURRED iN BY EPA ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS.
\
IMPACT OF THE ISSUE AS WE UNDERSTAND IT, THE INDUSTRY HAS FILED A LAWSulT AGAINST EPA OVER THE MILL TAILINGS STANDARDS. MEANWHILE, NRC 15 UNABLE TO PROMULGATE A CONFORMED APPENDIX A WITHIN ITS LEGISLATIVELY MANDATED TIMEFRAME. .NRC STAFF HAS DEVELOPED AND PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO APPENDIX A TO CONFORM ITS REGULATIONS TO EPA STANDARDS FOR AREAS NOT RELATED TO GROUND WATER PROTECTION. AN ADVANCE NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING (ANPRM) HAS BEEN PREPARED WHICH OUTLINES PLANS FOR FURTHER AMENDMENTS TO 10 CFR PART 40 TO INCORPORATE THE GROUNDWATER PROVISIONS IMPOSED BY THE EPA l
, ST NOARD.
\,, /
,/
.. t
,,...a'
,,e ,.-
THE PROBLEM ARISING FROM THE EPA'S REFERENCE TO RCRA IS 7 { THREE-FOLD: (1) THE EPA HAS IMPOSED REQUIREMENTS SUCH AS SYNTHETIC LINERS AND MONITORING FOR ALL THE SUBSTANCES HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS LIST THAT NRC STAFF BELIEVE TO BE UNWARRANTED GIVEN THE REMOTE LOCATIONS OF MOST OF THE SITES AND THE RELATIVELY POOR QUALITY OF THE AFFECTED AQUlFERS; (2) NRC STAFF MAY NOT BE ABLE TO PROVIDE NEPA JUSTIF ALL EPA SPECIFIED REQUIREMENTS (MONITORING FOR PCB'S, DIOXIN, ETC., AND (3) THE POSSIBLE SHUT DOWN OF OPERATING URANIUM MILLS THAT ARE UNABLE TO COMPLY WITH THE EPA STANDARD EVEN TH STAFF JUDGES THAT CURRENT PRACTICES AT THESE SITES ADEQU PROTECT THE HEALTH AND SAFETY AND THE. ENVIRONMENT. '
. r' l . 1 I
STATUS OF THE ISSUE INDICATE THAT BOTH PREVIOUS DISCUS $10NS BETWEEN THE NRC AND EPA TO DATE, - SIDES ARE SENSITIVE TO THE ISSUES RAISED IN THIS PAPER. HOWEVER, LITTLE HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED IN RESOLVING THESE ISSUES. IN DEVELOPING ITS TH$ NRC HAS ESTABLISHED COORDINATION WITH EPA THE NRC STAFF - RCRA-RELATED URANIUM MILL TAILINGS REGULATIONS. INTENDS TO MAINTAIN THESE CONTACTS SO AS TO IDENTIFY AN AT THIS ANY INCOMPATIBILITIES IN THE EARLY STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT. WRITING, A PAPER WITH PROPOSED CHANGES TO APPENDIX A AND AN ANPR ON NRC CONFORMANCE TO EPA STANDARDS HAS BEEN FORWARDED COMMISSION APPROVAL. L
s, 3
..t
- 7. .
POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS ,,
' /
(1) SECTION 84(C) OF THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1954, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO URANIUM MILL TAILINGS AUTHORITY PROVIDES THAT A LICENSEE MAY PROPOSE ALTERNATIVES TO SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS ADOPTED AND ENFORCED BY THE COMMISSION. IT MAY BE POSSIBLE TO UTILIZE THIS PROVISION TO PROVIDE SOME FLEXIBILITY TO NRC LICENSING ACTIVITIES EVEN THOUGH THIS PROVISION PROVIDES THAT THE ALTERNATIVES WILL BE " EQUIVALENT TO, TO THE EXTENT PRACTICABLE, OR MORE STRINGENT THAN" ANY FINAL STANDARDS PROMULGATED BY THE EPA. IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES NATURAL LINERS SUCH AS CLAY MAY BE A8LE TO 3 MEET THE STATUTORY TEST. IT REMAINS TO BE SEEN WHETHER THIS I f APPROACH WILL WORK IN PRACTICE BUT NRC STAFF 15 EXPLORING THIS
- POSSIBILITY.
1 (2) ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE THAT NRC STAFF BELIEVES MIGHT HAVE MERIT WOULD BE FOR CONGRESS TO IMPOSE A MORATORIUM OF SEVERAL YEARS ON THE RCRA RELATED PORTIONS OF THE EPA STANDARD TO GIVE THE NRC TIME TO FINALIZE ITS CONFORMING CHANGES. (NOTE: THIS IS NOT A SOLUTION BUT IT WOULD SERVE TO BUY US TIME.) ,
/ -
4 I D f
t- *t l l
- 9 l
i i i Nl -. -
- THE URANIUM MI LL TAI LINGS RADI ATION CONTROL ACT OF 1978 !
, (UMTRCA) REQUIRES NRC TO INSURE THAT BYPRODUCT MATERIAL
\
, 1S MANAGED TO CONFORM TO EPA STANDARDS AND " GENERAL REQUIREMENTS ESTABLISHED BY THE COMMISSION, VITH THE CONCURRENCE OF THE [ EPA] ADMINISTRATOR," WHICH ARE, "To THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICABLE, AT LEAST COMPARABLE TO" EPA REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO HAZARDOUS WASTES UNDER THE SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ACT, AS AMENDED BY RCRA. EPA'S MILL TAILINGS STANDARDS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1983
\
~-~- , _ __
e
6
,.,5g l
l i INCORPORATE RCRA STANDARDS FOR NON-RADIOACTIVE HAZARDOUS 1 WASTES BY REFERENCE. 1-
-m e- v m --~~-,- ,-._ -, . . _ , _ _ _ _ _
4
? 4 ! , i p
t
+
l r b I L----,.,, , 4 . r l 5 O l 8 4 I 4 i g I J h k Y $
)
f I $
. _ . . _.}}