ML20127G931
| ML20127G931 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/09/1978 |
| From: | Stoiber C NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Asselstine J SENATE, ENVIRONMENT & PUBLIC WORKS |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20127A611 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-84-709 NUDOCS 8506260139 | |
| Download: ML20127G931 (125) | |
Text
- *
- i
(
- 7 UNITED STATES
,(ft%seg#% NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 v**em/*** August 9, 1978 Mr. James K. Asselstine Minority Counsel y Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation Committee on the Environment and Public Works United States Senate '
Washington, D. C. 20510 Ss -
Dear Mr. Ass stine:
As I promised this afternoon, I have attached the following two documents relating to the agreement reached between the Environmental Protection Agency and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission'on the division of responsibility between the two agencies for the continuing regulation of mill tailings:
(1) S,tatutory language '(modeled on provisions of the Udall
, and Dingell bills in the House) describing the division --
of responsibilities.
(2) A short statement of how NRC believes the responsi-bilities of the agencies should be discharged, in practice.
This approach was agreed upon by EPA and NRC staff members and ratified in telephone conversations between EPA !
Administrator Costle and NRC Chairman Hendrie yesterday.
As you know, however, the Commission would prefer that the EFA have a consultative, rather than concurring role in the development of NRC's Solid Waste Disposal'Act' requirements.
If you have further questions, do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely, f
M Carlton R. Stoiber Assistant General Counsel Attachments as stated 8506260139 050416 NIC -709 PDR l
.- g ( :
A "Sec
. 84. Authorities of Commission Respecting Certain Byproduct Material.-- l.
, "a. The Commission shall insure that the management of any byproduct material as defined in section 11 e. (2) is carried out in such manner as--
"(1) the Commission deems appropriate to protect the public health and safety and the environment;
"(2) conforms with applicable standards promul-gated by the Administrator of.the Environmental Protection Agency under section 275 of the Act; and
"(3) conforms to general requirements, established by the Commission with the concurrence of the Adminis- ~r trator, which'are to the maximum extent practicable con-sistent with requirements applicable to the possession, j tra,nsfer, and disposal of similar hazardous material regulated by the Administrator under the Solid Waste Disposal Act. ;
"b. In carrying out its authority under this section, the Commission is authorized to:
"(1) by rule, regulation, or order require persons, ,
i officers, or instrumentalities exempted from licensing under section 81 of this Act to conduct monitoring, perform remedial work, and to comply with such other measures as it may deem necessary or desirable to
'l '
i i 2-l protect hehlth or to minimize danger to life or property; and
"(2) make'such studies and inspections and to conduct such monitoring as may be necessary.
"Any violation by any person other than the United States or any officer or employee of the United States of any rule or order of the Commission established under this section shall be subject to a civil penalty in the same manner and in the same amount as violations subject to a civil penalty under section 23'4. Nothing in this section affects any authority of the Commission under any other provision of this Act.".
(b) The tableoof contents for such chapter 8 is amended -- -
by inserting the following new item after the item relating to section 83:
"Sec. J4. Authorities of Commission respecting certain byproduct material.".
- Authority of EPA Respecting Certain Byproduct Material Section 206.. Chapter 19 of the Atomic' Energy Act of 1954 is amended by inserting after section 274 the following new section:
"Sec. 275. Health and Environmental Standards for Uranium Mill Tailings.--
"(a)(1) As soon as practicable, but not later than one year after the date of enactment of this section, the 5
e
- - , - - - ---,---.---.--,_-,,,,,wr- . - -- -- -- , - - - - . - - - - -
' 1
, ( ,
( j 3-Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (here-inafter referred to in this section as the ' Administrator')
shall, by rule, promulgate standards of general application for the protection of,the public health, safety, and the environment from radiological and non-radiological hazards associated with residua 1' radioactive materials (as defined in section 101 of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978) located at inactive uranium mill tailings sites and depository sites for such materials selected by the Sec~retary of Energy, pursuant to title I of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978. I i
" (2) As soon as practicable,'but not later than eighteen -
j months after the enactment of this section, the Administrator shall, by rule, promulgate. generally applicable standards i
for the protection of the public health, safety, and the j environment from radiological and non-radiological hazards associated with the processing and with the possession and transfer of byproduct material, as defined'in section 11 e.
(2) of the Act at sites at which ores are processed primarily for their source material content, or which are used for the disposal of such byproduct material.
" (3) The Administrator may from time to time amend, modify, or change any standard promulgated under this section, except that any amendment, modification, or change in a e emeng <, **e..+. . .ae.-
w- + - , , - , - , , - - - - - - ,---
m ,,. , _ , , ..,7 ,.. - - - - - -
I v .
. 1 standard promulgated pursuant to subsection b, shall only be applied by the Commission to any person holding a license )
issued by the Commission for byproduct material, as defined in section 11 e. (2).of this Act, prior to such promulgation 1
upon renewal of.such license. 1
)
S her_.,
- 9 4
e I
O e
4 i
e
(
o Uranium Mill Tailings Control Act of 1978 Under Title II of the proposed legislation, EPA would,be responsible for establishing generally applicable standards and criteria for the~ protection of the general environment, considering radiological and non-radiological aspects outside .
the boundaries of the tailings sites. '
The EPA standards and criteria would be developed to limit the exposure-(or potential exposure)'of.the public and to protect the general environment from either radiological or non-radiological substances to acceptable levels through such means as allowable concentrations in air or water, .
quantities of.the substances released over a p'eriod of time,orbyspecifyingmaximumallowabledos.esohlevels, ,
to individuals in-the general population. Generally appli-cable environmental standards would-not incorporate specific technology, engineering methods, or procedures to be employed to achieve the desired level of controls for limiting public l .
i exposure and protecting the general environment. For example, i the standards and criteria should not be of a nature that would specify exclusion area restrictions on site boundaries, surveillance requirements, detailed engineering methods (such as linings for tailings ponds, depth, and type of tailings cover), population limitations, or institutional
... . .a
arrangements such as financial surety requirements or site security measures. The EPA standards and criteria would ;
not incorporate any requirements for permits or licenses ;
i to avoid duplication of NRC regulatory authority over the ;
tailings sites. The NRC would be responsible for implementing these* EPA standards and criteria. .
Through its regulations and licensing process, NRC must assure that the technology, engineering, methods, operational !
controls,. surveillance requirements and institutional arrange-ments employed at the sites provide the necessary barriers i and controls to limit public expo.sure and protect the _
environment from radiological and toxic non-radiological substances associated with mill. tailings materials. With , ,
respect to non-radiological matters, the NRC, through its j environmental review under NEPA mandate, has the authority to impose controls on toxic non-radiological materials.
Title'II of the bill would clarify the rel,ation of NRC and EPA authority'in this area, by providing that NRC would develop and apply general requirements for mill tailings which, to the maximum extent possible, are consistent with those adopted by EPA for similar substances under the Solid Waste Disposal Act. EPA would have a concurrence [NRC prefers consultation) role in the NRC's development of such require-ments, which could include engineering methods, management a
q
,., _, m -
.s.
g . *
- 1 a -
2
. -3, ;
.< p s
practices and other institutional arrangements. ..NRC Agreement States would' be expected to estsblish comparable controls on. toxic non-radiolotrical materials in tailings through their required environmental analyses.'
. ,./
h 4
.# q l
F
,4 l l'
'\
f ;
i Wheenm J
r' .
f.
e i
5 e
0
- 1 i e
4 I
4
, * '7s
,, .)
e 10 1
Senator Domenici. In the Hart-Domenici pronosal as to l'
( 2 ' the mill tailings that would he reculched. The federal guide-3 1ines would preempt in the sense that they become the mininal
( 4 standards but n state can nonetheless agree to take over the 5 enforcement and the regulation and regulatory maintenance.
6~ They can agree to take it cver, b'It it is under the minimal 7 guidelines established by the federal statute.
O Senator Eurdick. When you say proempt, it means the states, t
9 could make a stronger standard?
10 Senator Domenici. They could make them strenner but could 11 not make them neaker.
12 Senator Burdick. I see. -
33 Senator Domenici. They can't get by with savino that we I
(- t 14 ' ave something tha t is comestible. Compatibility would be -
t 15 measured against the minimal standard, is that correct, as seen 16 by NRC?
17 Senator Culver. I want to direct a question to the staff.
18 It is my understanding that this amendmant does - have-an impact .
- 9 upon the Resource Conservation and Recoverv Act; conservation, 20 which, of course, is under the jurisdiction of the Resource 21 Protection Subcommittee. And I wonder just what the extent of 22 the coordination is, what the extent of the coordination is here t' 23 between EPA and URC in this area, an6 what has been the extent 24 and the cubstance of any discussions on this subjuct between L i
- 12 two agenciec to date?
25 l
i
f q
, l.
1 Er. Onlings . There have bl.cn e:ttensive 6incussions in the 2 last few weeks both betwaan the acency in question and with 3 cc:T_v.ittee staff on bhis ccrnittec and the committee in the l 4 House which is concidering a comparable legislation.
5 I think that the description of the coordination is one 6 which is now both acceptable to the agencies involved and 7 preserving of the basic authority in subtitle e of the Solid 8 Waste Act. Since the proposal, the authority which EPA has in 9 t51e process of exercising over hazardous wastes, including 10 particular uranium mill tailings, would be precerved.
11 In additio:.. they would be given specific authority to 12 set general radiation standards for t siteeffecthwhich
( 13 is comparable to thsir existina authoritv. EPA's existina 14 authority. Those standards would be applied, however, as part 15 of the NRC licensing procedures, so there s.T>uld he only one 16 license applicable.
17 Senator Culver. Just for offsite standards?
13 Mr. Cummings. Offsito radiological standards and non-19 radiological standards, generally.
20 Senator McClure. Doesn't FPA have authority over the mill 21 tailings after the milling operation ceases?
Yes.
( 22 Mr. Cummings.
2,3 S2nator McClure. They have that aurhority now, it is not 2el -just olfsite radiological?
25 Sonator Culver. That is the question.
I i
. 12 o
I S2nator McClurs. I'think there is a very real percibility 2 that that will affect this amendment. It may not be undesira-3 bla but one of.the consecuencec ray be in effect to expressly
( 4 delegate away. So axisting authority -- it is my understanding 5 ' that the RCEA excludes now from its authcrity byproduct 6 xaterials.
7 'Mr. Cummingc. That is right.
8 Sanator Culver.' 4hich are under the z.uthority of the 9 Atomic Energy Act. But since this coinmittee amendnent would 10 define uranium tailings as a byproduct regulation affectino 11 this material vould then, as Senator McClure inferred, may be 12 pcssed from the NCRA.
( 13 I think the proposal has specific language to make sure 14 ~ that not all of the authority does pass to the NRC and to ensure
(
15 thtt the authority is exercised in a timely way and in a way 10 that allows the simalest licem-N r--~- #"v.n, a unified f j
17 licensing procedure for uranium mill tailinas that is integrated 18 with their licensing authority for the mill operations, NRC's 19 existing authority, and constitutes an effcctive exercise of 20 the EPA authority.
21 Senator IItrd. It seems to me this whole question should 22 Le which agency is best equipped to properly monitor and enforce 23 and reculate this activity. This problem here ic that the foxes l 24 rre guarding the chickens; consequently, it ic a self-serving gg interest. I think it is somethinc that we cucht to be exaniningl
. . 13 1 in ts.rms of arna length assessment and evaluation.
( 2. 3.anctcr McClure. Could I ask this question in conjunction 3 uith that? Because I juct want to make certain uhen we get
( 4- done with this that it will be desirable and in the public
- 5. interest. I am not tryinc to protect NRC or protect EPA, I am 6- trying to see that the public is protected.
'~
7 Did we have testimony from URC and from EPP. With regard D to thic overlap or this jurisdictional ares?
O, Mr. Cornell. 'les, we havs had come testimony.
There was 10 a desire on their part to clarify where the authority, 41ere '
11 they were overlapping authority.
12 Sonator Culver. You have some testimony from somebody.
Could you be more specific? Did you git formal testimony from
_( 13
~
14 EPA cnd NRC for thic bill?
15 It. Cornell. 'Ie s .
16 Senator Culver, tray characterize it in a deprecating 17 manner. We have some tectimony from somebody that expressed gg concern about ccordination in this area. Where does that lead
- 9 us? Hou formal, seriouc was - was it substantial testimony?
20 Senator Hart. I don't think it is deprecating. Probably 21 in trying to summarize, give us the details if you can.
22 lb. Cornell. We have hcd formal and written testimony from 23 both in the juricdictional problem witn respect to tne mill y tailings. We also havo a draft bill which is actually to be 25 introduced on the Sonate side frcm the nuclaar Regulatory i
l i
18
, . . h 14 .
1 Commission denling with the uranium mill tailinas 1ssue.
( 2 Senator McClure. Did that draf t bill bear with it a lette::
~
}
3 of tran:mittal that ind1cated from the standpoint of the
( 4 administration itself he cleared and that they desire this 5 legislation?
6 Mr. Corn 111. The bill has not been officially transmitted 7 by the NRC.
8 Senator McClure. So ve don't have legi;;1ation from URC?
9 Mr. Cummings. The problem in this area, Senator, as you 10 knew, there are two separate tracts involved. There is the i
11 tract we are discussina today, the licensing of future sites. !
l 12 There is the r: medial action bill which deals with the 22 or
( 13 some oitos in existence. It is my understanding that the 14 administration's suggested pattern of authority, some of it is 15 the same for both of those. It involves an EPA role in setting 16 national standards which would be applied by the NRC in its 17 licen::ing, in the remedial action case. ~
13 It is more accurately described -- it is implied by DOE 19 in its remedial action plan, but we have had ---
20 Senator McClure. .=e you telling me that DCP has the 21 responsibility to develop the tie-in and EPA has responsibility 22 to monitor it and NRC has responsibility to apply it.
23 fir. Cummings. That it what ue have in the remedial action 24 bill.
L 25 Senctor McClure. I can't imagine, it is almost guaranteed
H
. . 15 1 to maximise the difficulty.
I 2' Senator Hart. I believe it is safe to sav there exists I
3 sore confusion in the r.dninistratien of what proper direction to
( 4 go here. If you look at the rance of agencies who have some 5 interest in the area, you can begin to undarstand why.
G I don't know that this is peculiar to this administration.
7 Ue are talking cbout HEW, EFA, URC, DOF, and half of the 8 federal government.
9 Senator McClure. The Department cf Agriculture, too.
10 Senator Hart. You start with that and begin to understand 11 the problon and the fact that you are dealine with a past 12 , problem and future problems. We are dealing with low-level
. _, ( 13 radiation, high-level radiation, domestic wastes. We are deal-14 ing with military wastes. We are dealing with a mess. That is 15 what ue are dealing with.
16 And you start with a mess and you try to work your way out g7 of it.
13 Senator McClure. I hope you are not saying mesc-in and 19 mess-out.
20 Senator Hart.. Whatever.
21 Let me respond to Sonator Culver, a.t least as one member 22 of the subcommittee and thic committee. My concern is to try to 23 make what many people have perceived, the folks in the past, as 9
"4 the watchdog. This might be a step in uh2 right direction now.
- k. .
25 7. don' t knew that we ought to put the fox in charge of the l
16 I chicken house but we are trying to convert the fo:: into the H ?atchdog.
3 I would ask uhe staff, or Senatcr Culver, to provide his
( 4 staff with as much specific data about the questions that he
$ has asked as possf.ble. The question particularly from EPA, t -
6 l the testimony that he asked and his question. I think that 7
would be helpful to him, to get firsthand the testimony that B we did receive.
t 9 '
It is hard tc condense it right here.
10 Senator Culver. I thank the Senator.
11 Is this amendment somewhat prenature since EPA right now, 12 I understand, is involved in tryino to set these so-called 13 q hard Maste standards and they are still beine promulgated by 14 agencies, co-called subsection c?' Wouldn't this be premature 15 until that is clone?
16 Mr. Cornell. One way of looking at this, the general 17 criteria, standards, which EPA is premulcatine ---
18 Senator Culver. Appear available yet?
19 Mr. Cornell. Right. It will be available within a year 2*0 and c half.
Under current law NRC wouldn't have the authority 21 to enforce those standards. As far as disposal of uranium mill <
22 tailings with the amendment drafted, the a:nendnent as drafted b
23 would give NRC the authority to enforce in its procedure those 24 criteria and standards which are being deva.~ cued by EPA.
L Sanator Culver.
25 Ycu would cr. vision a reavaluation of any
- i. q
11 o
17 I ,,biFC re julations . W:suldn't the EPh regulations be cvailable?
2 Mr. Cornel 2.. los.
3 Mr. Curnings. Senater; those reguictions can bo prepared 4 conter.poraneously cince thene regulations will take some time 5 -
co prepare as well. I don't think it will be quite as long as 6 Kevin sugge::ted for subtitle c reguistions to be prcnulgated.
7 They cught to be preoposed early r.ect year.
8 I think one of 'hec elenents c.f this propocal is to push 9 that along a little bit to assure that with respect to the 10 uraniun mill tailings in particulc.r that occurs in a timely 11 fashion.
12 Senator Culver. Ecw would you evaluate the relative
.( 13 capability of the EPA, en the one hand, and 17RC to carry out thi
, 14 corsission?
15 Mr. Cummings. There are three differen'c matters. One 16 is the nonradiological and one is the rsdiological, and the 17 othcr it the enforcement capacity. The nonradiological, NRC 13 has no capability whatscaver in my opinion. EPA is charged to 19 develop that. They have a substar.tial effcrt goina into that.
20 The radiologict.1, EPA is responsible under the law for T
21 general environmental radiological standarde, oft'ite standards 22 That authority has been criticized, and EPA told us in earlie 23 hearings, told the subcommittee that the'r intended to upgrade 24 that hnetion. '? hat is sorely no.eded in the area cf permitting u
enfcrc mant. And FRC has an enforcenant c" stem in place for
1 l1 y
18 1 this.
1
( 2l EPA will ba creating cae which thev rill integrate with O ather enforcemant prcgrcnc, such cf :he Unter Act discharge
( 4 permit program and so forth. _
There are adninistrative effi-5 ciencias in having URC do permitting and enforcement.
G Senator Hart. Let me ask the staff a question that may 7 help with what ue are tryino to de here, which is somewhat C analogous.
9 What happens on licensing and regulations of nuclear power 10 plants? In a sense, as the staff previously suggested, NRC 11 operates inside the catom =-> FPA outside the gates.
12 Mr. Cornell. It probably can be with that. In recards
( 13 to the nuclear pcuer plants, ZPA cete general criteria standards 14 which are onforced :3y the Nuclear Reculatory Commission for 15 me power plants. And the same type of relationship is con-16 templated in this case.
17 Senator Dcmenici. Could I ask a clarifying question now, 18 E731D?
- 9 Uith reference to remedial activities, the entent that we 20 cre involved in in
- his bill is to make the final stabilisation 21 prcgra;a subject to ::agulation by the NRC on remedial; is that 22 correct?
23 Mr. Coenell. Tes.
> 24 Panator Doraanici. And that merely acuns that if we ge't a u5 nation:.1 bill to .stabiline the existina sites thnt when they are 1
i; I J
3 h d4
' E.% , Ti ( \ ~l cd ( i 5 8
~
uin cross. re?uestel RORA - Addards TABLE OF CONTENTS 40 CFR 192 HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STANDARDS FOR URANIUM AND THORIUM MILL TAILINGS
.. Subpart 0, " Standards for Management of Uraniur:.
Byproduct Materials Pursuant to Section 84 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as Amended 9192.30 Applicability I .
?
$192.31 Definitions 'and Cross-reference ~
2 Title II, Sec. 201~, UMTRCA 3
6192.32 Standards
-par 192.32(a) Standards for application during processing 3 operations and prior to the end of the closure
- ' . period.
par 192.32(a)(1) Surface impoundments 3 2 1264.221 Design and operating requirmnents
- 3 a
- $264.228 Closure and post"-closure care 3 pa'r 192.32(a)(2) Ground-water pr'otection 5
~
6264.92 Ground-water protection. standard- 5 5
5264.93 Hazardous constituents . -
Appendix VIII, Part 261, Hazardous ' constituents 5
- 13 1264.94 Concentration limits Table I 13 6264.98 Detection monitoring system 15 6264.97 General ground-water monitoring requirements 15 6264.99 Compliance monitoring program 18
!264.100 Corrective action program 22 6264.95 Point of compliance 24 9264.96 Period of compliance 24 par 192.32(a)(3) Environmental and effluent standards 2a 40 CFR 190, Environmental Radiation Protection Standards 25 for Nuclear Power Operations 40 CFR 440, Ore Mining and Dressing Point Source Category': 28 Effluent Limitations, Guidelines, and'New Source Performance Standards; Subpart C, Uranium, Radium, and Yanadium Ores subcategory.
p par 192.32(a)(4) Radon emissions as low as practicable 31
~
- ?* .
par 192.32(b) Standards for application after the closure 32 period.
1264.111 Closure performance standard 32 6192.33 Corrective Action Programs 33 33 (192.34 Effective Date
~ '
Subpart E Standards for Management of Thorium Byproduct Mater'ials Pursuant to Section 84 of the Atomic Energy Act of.1954, as Amended
. .c . .
(192.40 Applicability 34 /.
34 04
$192.41 Provisions 34 '4 (192.42 Substitute Provisions 34 6192.43 Effective Date e,
l'
.. m.o. e=ne-++m +cm am *~~
\
e PART 15 +fEALTH ANO ENYlRONMENTAL PROTECTION STANDARDS POR URANIUM AND THORtUM MILL TAIUNGS Sutpert D-Standards for Menegement of Urandurn Byproduct Metectais Pursuant to Section 84 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as "
Amended .
s c.
1suo Applicability.
tout Deftruneos and Cr6me.afervoces.
192.22 Standania.
10u3 Comcuve Action Programs.
taud f.flacuve Dese.
Sedoert 5-standards ter .
Maneyement of Thorium Byprodact -
. Meternate Pureimnt to secean s4 of the .
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as Amended 1er.40 Applicability.
153.41 Pnyvtstona.
teLat Subetttute Provisioen.
ter.as rRective Dets.
Amtberity: Sec 275 of the Atomic Energy .
Act of 1964. 42 USC. 2nt2. se added by the Uraniuss MI!!Tallines Radianoo Control Act of ters. Pub. I. sHo4. as ameeded.
-i
. J Sulpport N for -
^^
.d, of Ureneurn 0,WM Motortete Pursuant to Section 84 of the Atomic EnerWy Act of 1964, as Amended I tot.30 am.
Die subpart applies to the management of uranium byproduct matenals under Section se of the Atonde Energy Act of 1964 (henceforth .
designated "the Act"), as amended.
during and followtas processing of' uranium orea, and to restoration of coposal altee following any use of such sites under Sectico 83(b)(1)(B) of the Act.
1
I 19L3t Deeremons and C.m .. - r R:ferences in this subpart to other parts of the Code of Federal Regulanone re to those parts as codified on January 1983.
(a) Unless otherwise indicated *
- in &
TITLE II-URANIUM MILL TAILINGS LICENS-N. Ntld$fY.'Ureraum ING AND REGULATION DEFINITION MalTadinss Redlanco Control Act of 1973. Labpar*s A and B of this part. or SrA 201. Section 11e. of the Atomic Energy Act of parts tsa, aso.2st. and mos of & 1954,in amended to read as follows:
chapter. For the purposes of h "e. The term ' byproduct material' means (1) any radio-subpart. the terms " waste."-hazardous active material (except special nuclear material) yielded wxta" and related tarma, as used in in or made radioactive by exposure to the radiation in-Parts 2mo. 2al. and 264 of & chapter cident to the process of producing or utilizing special shall apply to bypeoduct matarial.
nuc) car material, and (2) the tailings or wastes produced (b) uranium bypmduct material means the tainnse or wastes produced by the extraction or concentration of uranium or thorium t il
,"J" *f from an M', ',"w** *,*,*y,'",",',',",'",ial content.y ore pmcessed primarily for its source ma er a content.
primarily for its source mater Ore bodies depleted by uranium solution extraction operetions and which remain underground do not constitute " byproduct material" for the purpose of this Subpart.
(c) Contmt means any action to '
stabshna. Inhibit future misuse of. or reduce emissions or effluents from ii{ J uranium byproductmeterials. h 1 (d) Licensed sise means the area
-t i Wh\ Qeimno45 contained within the boundary of a location under the control of persoH* hh mM k i.M 4 senerating or storing uranium byproduct
= Pan =d la under a ucense issued (\ h,a c.deU t;
, ' j sessmentasSeamusesaf es AskJisr perpesos of this subpert.heite*
b aguivalent to "togulated unit" in Seshpart F et PanEB4 efIbis abapter, .
le) Dispose / aise means a site selected ~
pursuant to Section as of the Act.
(f)Dispoentarea means the region wih the perimater of animpoundment or pile containing uranium by product materials to which the poet. closure requirements of i 192.32(b)(1) of this sul part apply.
Is) }tegulotory oserucy meane the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
(h) Closure period means the period of time begmmag with the cessation, with respect to a waste impoundment. of uranium ore processing operations and ending with completion of regturements specified under a closure plan.
(i) Closure plan 'means the plan required under i 264.112 of this chaptar.
(j) Esisting portion means thetland surface area of an existing eurface s impoundment on which significant quantities of uranism byproduct materiale have been placed prior to promulgation of this standard.
. 2
- ~ - - - + - - - - - , - - - n- w- - e ,-----,---m,-aw .n,~- - - - , - - m --,- -o-2w
. . .. I
~
- . o 1ItL22 Seurteriin.
' 1 Standards for opplication during ssittg operations andprtor to the lthe closureperiod,(1) Surface layoundments (except for an exisung portion) subbet to ttus subpart must be designed, constructed. and installed in such manner es to conform to the -
requirements of I 284.221 of this chapter.
cac:pt that at sites where the annual precipitation fa!!ang on th,e impoundment and cny drainage area contnbuting surface runoff to the impoundment is IIss than the annualevaporation from the imp:undment, the requirements of .
I 2H.228(a)(2)[ nil (El referenced in i 2M.2*1 do not apply 126 W 1 Des 4n and operating reoarements.
(a) A surface impoundment (except for an axisting portion of a surface impoundment) must have a linerthat is
, designed. constnteted. and insta!!ed to-prevent any migration of wastes out of
. theimpoundment to the adjacent subsurface sod or ground watar or surface weter at any time durms the active life (including the closure period) of the impoundment.The liner may be' constructed of materials that may allow wastes to migrate into the liner (but not
- lato the adiacent subsurface seu or ground water or surface watar) during 3 esensusMostdesW pseedded i estteimpeemessent m desea m -
eeoordenen with 6 284.23e(s)(t).For W that wdl be einsedin -
~~'
==wdanos with 3 2st22s(a)(2), the - .
liner must be consnucted of materials that can prevent wastes from migrating $ 28422s h and posth m into the liner during the active life' of the . (a) At closure. the owner or operator facility.The liner must be must (IIConstructed of taaterials that have (1) Remove or decontaminate all appropriate chamical properties and waste residues. contaminated sufEcient strength and thickness to containment system components (liners.
I prevent failure due to pressure gradients
- etc.). contaminated subsoils, and (inc! static head and external . strucmres and equipment contaminated j hydrogeo ogic forces), physical contact . wtth waste and leachste, and manage
- .with the waste or laschate to which they them as hazardous waste unless are exposed. c!!matic conditions. the I 2st.3(d) of this chapter applies
- or strees ofInstallation and the stnss of (2)(1) Wminate free liquids by daily operetton: . removmg !! quid westes or solidifying the (2) Placed upon a foundation or base- remaining wastes and waste residues:
capable of providing support to the liner (II) Stab (11:e remaining wastes to a and resistance to pressure gradients beanng capedty suScient to support above and below the liner to prevent final cover: and failure of t!.a 11aer due to settlement. (til) Cover the surface impoundment compression, ornplift: and - with a final cover designed and (3) Installed to cover all surrounding
- "' *"*** *d I" (A) Provide long. term miarmh= tion of earth IIkaly to be in contact with the the enigmtion ofliquids through the westa orlaschate. -
closed impoundment (B) Fanc: ion with minimum main'ana arm-
- (C) Promote drainage and minimha erosion or abrasion of the !!nal cover:
(D) Accommodate settling and subsidence so that the cover's integrity is maintained: and (E) Have a permeability less than or
- 3 equal to the permeability of any bottom liner system or natural subsolls present.
~
. - - - . - _ J- . ?~ . - - _ - - _ - . - - .
___ L ,. . _ - _ - . - -
& i
$ W{,29/
(b) The owner or operator will be ,
exempted hem the requirements of paragraph (a)of this secdonif the
~ ReWocal Adminisrator Ends, based en a cismonstranon by the owner or operator. that alternate design and opersang pracdcas, together with location characteristics. wil1~ prevent the migration of any hazardous constituants *
(see 12MJ3)into the ground water or .
. surface water at any futurv time. In - t.
t deciding whether to grant an examption.
the Regional Administrator will consider.* .
(1)The na'ture and quantity of tha. '
westes: .-
(2)ne proposed alternate'desih and, operation: -
(3) The hydrogeologic setung of the- .
facility. including the attenuative capedty and thickness of the !!ners and soils present,between the impoundment and ground water or surface watar. and.
(4) A!! ather factors which would .
Inanence the quality and mobility of the teachate produced and the potential for it to migrata to ground water or.- surface wetar.
{s) A stuface impoundment must be
- g a ny.a - set
' operased te prowest eversoppias ,
resultlag from normal or abnormal operouses everimies wtad andwow .
emes.: m ,. w - i m .r- ,
level controllers, alarma, and other equipmene and human error.
(d) A surface 4mpoundment must h'avs.
dikes that are designed, constructed.
and maintainedwith suf5cient e structuralintegrity to prevent massive
- failure of the dikes.In ensuring structuralintegrity.it must not be ,
presumed that the liner system will function without leakage during the aceve life of the unit. .
(elne Reponal Administrator will specify in the permit all design and . .
' operating przedcas that are necessary to ensure that the requirements of this .
section are satis 6ed: ,
~- .
e f
. e 4..
3 .
h D.32. b do<d5
. 121 Uratuum bypr'oduct matenals shall be managed so as to conform to the i waier protectwn standard in -
J2 of this chapter. except that for I m.32 cre = cprotocoon j tr. purposes of this subpart; '""**'**
(t) To the het of hazardous De owner or operator amst comply l c nststuents referenced in i 264.93 of with conditions speci5ed in the faelity this chapter are added the chemical pamdt that are designed to ensure that ciements molybdenum and uranium, hazardous constituents under i 284.23 (ii) To the concentration limits enterms the ground water from a pr:vid:d in Table 1 of l 264.94 of this refulated unit do not exceed b.
chiot:r are added the radioactivity concentration limits under i 264 94 in 1:mits in Tab!* A of this subpart. the uppermost aquiferimderfying the lii!) Detection monitoring prontams wasts management area beyond the r: quired under i 2M.98 Io estabissn the poznt of compifance under i 284.95 standards reoutred under i 264W shall ourms the compl!ance pened undar -
be c:mpacted winhm one (1) ye.r of I 284.95. The Reiponal Adamistrator
- promulsa t:Jn. wiD establish this ground-water *
(iv) Tne regulatory aerney may protection standard in & facility permit est:bbsh alternate coricentratinn limits when hazardous constituents have (t2 be s tisfied at the point of enfared the ground water from a c mphance specified i:nder 5 264.95) regulated anit.' .
under the critena of l 264.94(bl.
provided that. after consitienn2 pract!c ble *:orrective actions. these $ 264.82; Hesseeous eeneistuenen.
1:mits ere as low as reasonably (a)De Regional Administratar will cchievcble. and that. it: any cate. the specify in the facility permit the st:ndarts of i 264.94ta) are satisited at hazartions constituents to which the cil points at a greater distance than 500 ground-water protection.atandard of m:t:rs from the edge of the disposal i 284.22 applies.' Hazardous constituenta crea and/or outside the site boundary, are constituents identiSedia Appendix - .*
cr:d VIII of Part 281 of this chaptar that ha arous'~~A7rororrVIH HAZARDOUS N (v) The functices and responsil:thties been detected in ground waterin the.ve ConsttrUntra deusnated an part 2N of shas chaoser as appenness agnifer underlylag a Aseamaitrue (Et.hanemartien D t' f he **pand Admannsstrator" -
SiguhtedmikandAmtase sensameWy Assessmensmemammene.Hanswas I spect to -lacihty permats' shad empsesed to be la er dessved front weste. 84888#* * * *nF M *FD +
- b. . ried out by the regrulatory agency. costnined in a regulated unit. unless the %,y, eseept that vivemptsens of henardous Reglemal Adunimisesear has anstuded MF8"*J'*""*de y,,,o g.,iy conentments under i 2se.s3 (b) and (c) of then sunder pareysph (b) of this seeden. Assert enseesee annenert enneesses this chapter and alternate concentration (b)De Regional Administrator will 1 Amtyi.2.thloures (Acetamide. N.(amin-hmits estabhshed under i 264.94 (b) and exninde an Appendix VIII consutnant 3,,M'[2.'
o nall '
ic)(f this chapter (except as otherwise frein the list of hazardons constituents Acrylamide (2.Propenamide) provid:d in i 192.32f a)(2)(iv)) shall not specified in the facility permit if he finds Aerylonittlle (2.Propenenitrilel be effective until EPA has concurred that the constituentis not capable of . Anateatna .
th: tan. g a substantial present or potential Aldren (1.2.3.4.H.NEexachiom 1.4.4 a.5.8.s a.8tp.he x ahyd ro-endo.ezo-to human heaM or 6e 1.418.Dimethanonsphthalene) environment. ln~ deciding whether to Ariy alcohoi:2. Propen.1.oli grant an exemption, the Regional Aluminum phosphide Administratot will considerthe .
4.Aminobichenyl([1.1 Blphenyll.4. amine)
- 6. Amino. l.l a.2.8.8 a.8 b.he z ahydro.8 foDo N ( h ydro s ymethyl kaa.me tho x y.$. methyl.
cartramate attrinot t'.3':3.41pyrrotot t.2 (1) Potantial adverse effects on elindole.4.1 dione, testers (Mitomycin C1 3round weter quality, consider =g: (Asirinot2T;2.41pyrrolo(1.2 mundole-4.1 (i) h physical and chemical dione. s. amino.s.tacamino.
charactenstics of the waste in the r ' .nyliony>methyll l.:a.2.8.sa.sh.
regulated tait. including its potential for be As)dro Sarriethony.$.methy.)
Inagraham .
'e f.Wnomethyll.3.lsonasolol 43(2H kiso s a.:
,.. A en*. 34aminomet (illm hydrogeological . , en e4.pyridinamine,hylH 4.Aminopyrl.
characterisocs of the facility and amlis ote alts.t.2.4.Trtasol.34minen gyggggading land
- Ae.eline IBenzenaminel (111)De quantity of 3rtmnd water and ","I 'k*u l d 2 Wh3 the directioIs of ground water Oowl g g e 3.1.dtmethylethyllphenomyJ.l.
- (lv)The proximity and withdrawal ne t hylethyl esters rslas of ground-water neers Aew nic and compounds. N.OA' (v) De cupent and future noes of . h
$,$$ "#',nt de n8 n!e Ioside) grossad water la the ares: 4,,.ng, g rloside ( Arsente t!!D oxide)
(vi) De existing quality of ground . Aus enine (Bensenemine. 4,4 .
weter. a_ 8.*d'M ether sources of m e.onlmidoylbistN.N. Dimethyl mono, contaaninados d M cudhe 3 erine, dissoscetate testerl) isspect on the ground weter quality; liae been and compounds. N.OA' sistima eranide lien *lelacrtdine 43.4.Bensacridinet
- .5 >> .*>anihracene (i.2 sensaaihrseenei Ilm enetCyclohesatrienel
_-- . - _ . ._,_________-_q.__-_ - , - - _ _ . . . . - - . , - -
e I
N)DI% _
(vi0 m potential for health riska nn, cncersonle acid (Arsonic acid. phenyM I caused by h1unan expoeurg to weste flatevne, dichloromethyl-(Ben 2Al chloride)
It.-o rnethlot tThiophenol) consutuents: '
(vi!O ne potential damage to wildlife. ',[,"' ' gbIllu r
'" ' 4 enet).2- f oranth.
crops vegetation. and pnysical , , . ,
structures caused by exposure to waste ti.ei .ntJ]flucranthene (2.8 Benzofluoranth.
- es i constituents: flese*Jilalpyrene 43.4 Benzopyrene)
(fxj De perg{ stance andpermaneDCe s I*. ntAquinone (1.4.Cyclohexadienedione) of the potential adverse efects: and n,. ,, trichloride (Benzene, trichloromethyl.
(2) Potential adverse afects on i hydraulically-connected sudace weter %I chlorlde (Benzene. (chloromethylk) flee villum and compounds. N.OE.*
quality, considg 1t+ .2 chloroethoxy) methane (Ethane.1.1*.
(0 & volume and physical and is..-e hyienebistoxyllbis!2 chloro-1) chemical Cr.atistenstics of the wasta h1 tw chloroethyll ether (Ethane. 1.1*.
the regulated Itnit:- *-. bist2 chloro 1) it!I IList2 chloroethyl) 2 naphthylamine
. 00 D hydrogeological characteristcs of the fac:1!!y and- H hlor ropyl) ether (Propane. 2.2%
surrounding M
- ses> bist2 chloro-])
(Methane, (111) m quantity and quality of it. *rliloromethyl) ether ground. water. and the direction of a :3 bistchloro 1) l**2 ethythexyl) phthalate (1.2 ground water Sow. '
" "l *
- Or) ne patterns of r=Inf=ff in the $3,' ster [
- F'810A* Its inoacetone (2 Propanone. l bromo 1 (v) De proximity of the regulated unit l*s e..omethane (Methyl bromide) to surface waters;.
4 l n.mophenyt phe.1yl ether (Benzene.1
"** h (vi)De mnt and future uses of ,
g.,',,.[(Nryc"hr 10-one.2.3 dimethony.
surface waters in the area and any i water quality standards established for ? I*"s anone peroxide (Methyl ethyl ketone, those surface waters:
"*-**=ld')
. (wi0 De existing qualityof surface '*?.T,,,n,,iY,[,,ig, NYutyl'pheny$
water. Including other sources of . . -t* hyl ester) contamination and the cumulative *
- incpact on surface wat'ar quality; . I he abbreviation N.OE. (not otherwise (viii) he potential for health riska rl -4 fled) signifies those members of the smased by humaan exposars lo waste . rme rgl class not specifically listed by narme 6
- 6 .
'" P M P*'**8*I S*"*8' 38 2,ese setyl.4.s.mnhesehenol iDNSPI crope. vegetation andphysiasi m nel seressures emused by anspeemse Se gemene e,. 2.4-d'. nitro e-(t.methyt.oropylki
=crsama- chromote asw e yl. oat somsetuament and - (Chromic seld, estelum (x)h persistence and permanence saiu of the poteartialadverse efecta. C CaN dE uYliIe Carbon bisultiden (c) In making any determination under Carbon oxylluoride (Carbonyl fluoride) paragraph (b) of this section about the Chloral Acetaldehyde.trichloro use of ground weter in the area around Chlorambucil Butanole acid. 4.Ibtst 2 the facility, t5e Regional Administrator th3*'th F3 8*ml"' 3 b'"*'"'* 8
** " I"ID
- 8"****'"'"'*
willtonsider any identi$ cation of Methanoindan ""1.2.4.5.8.2.8.8 octachlor o-underground sources of drtaking water 3.4,5,g a. tetrahydro-) talpha and Immma and exempted sqiiters snade under . ChYoEted benzenes. N.OE.*
{ W3 of this chapter. Chlorinated ethane. N.OE.*
Chlorinated flesorocarbons. N.OE.*
Chlorinated naphthalene. N.OS.'
Chlorinated phenol.N.O.S.*
Chloroacetaldehyde ( Acetaldehyde, chloro-)
chlorealkyl ethers. N.OE.'
p-Chloroantline (Benzenamine. 4 chloro-)
Chlorobenzene (Benzene, chloro-)
Chlorobenzllate (Benzenescetic acid. 4 chloro-alpha t4 chlorophenylkalpha.
hydroxy ethyl esterl
. p-Chloro m-cresol (Phenol. 4-chloro-2 methyl) ,
- 1. Chloro 2.2 epoxypropane IOxtrane, 2 (chloromethylb) 2 Chloroethyl vinyl ether (Ethene. (2 chlor.
sethoxyH Chloroform (Methane, trichloro-)
Chloromethane (Methyl chloride)
Chloromethyl methyl ether (Methane.
chloromethoxy.)
' 2-Chloronaphthalene (Naphthalene, beta.
ehtoro.) .
2 Chlorophenol tPhenol.0 chloro 1 .
1-(e-Chlorophenyllthieurea (Thlourea. (2 chlorophenylH
'3-Chlorooropionitrile (Propanenttrile. 2
~ ~ '
6
__._..__--...e,
+
- ===~
MAD #
- Chroretum and compounds. N.OA' Chrysene (1.2-Benzohenanthrene)
Citrus red No. 2 (2 Naphthol. 1 -(( 2.5-dimethoxyphenyllazol-)
Coal tars Copper cyanide
- Creosote (Creosote, wood)
Cresols (Cresylle acid)(Phenol, methyl.)
Crotonaldehyde (2 Butenal)
Cyanides (soluble salts and complexes).
N.O A*
Cyanogen (Ethanedinittlle)
Cyanogen bromide (Bromine cyanide)
Cyanosen chloride (Chlorine cyanide)
Cycasin (beta D-Olucopyranoside. (methyl.
ONN azoxy) methyl.)
2-Cyclohexyl-4.6 dinitrophenol (Phenol. 2-cyclohenyl-4.8-dinitro-)
Cyclophosphamide (2H 1,2.2. Oxazaphos-phortne. this(2 chloroethyllatninol-tetta.
hydro ,2-calde) .
Daunumycin ($.12 Naphthacenedione. (85-els>8 ac,tei.io. 42-amino 2.2.s.iiid.oie>.
alph a-1,1ys o-h enopy ranosyl ma y ).7.8.8.10- --
Letrahydro-8.8.11 trihydrony.1 methoxy-)
DDD (Dichlorod i p hen yld ic hloroe th ane l (Eth ane. 1.1 dtchloro 2,2 bts(p chloro.
phenylb)
DDE (Ethylene.1.1 dichloro 2.2 bis (4<hlor.
ophenylb)
DDT ( Dichlorod!p he n yttrichloroethane l (Ethane, 1.1.1 trichloro 2.2 bis (p-chloro.
phenylb)
Diallate (E-(2.2 dichloroallyl) dilsopropytthiocarbamate)
Dibenzta.hlacridine (l.2.S.0 Dlbentacrldine)
Dibenzta.Jlacridine (1.2.1.8 Dibenzacrldine)
Dibensta.hlanthracene (1.2.5.8 Dibenaaryth.
racene)
TH Dibenzote.81 carbazole (3.4.5,8 Dibenscar.
basole)
Dibenzota elpyrene (1.2.4.5 Dibenzpyrene) m aw_ p f '
'm aw us e w m.m>
1.2-hS chlerSpf9pate (PfGpaR4,1.2*
dibromo 2<hlore 1
- hh (Memplene ehrouddel .
Detromemethane (Methylene bromide)
DI-n butyl phthalate (1.2 Benzenedicarboxylle acid, dlbutyl ester) e Dichlorobensene tBensene.1.2 dichloro-)
m Dichlorobenzene(Benzene 1.2<lichloro-)
p Dichlorobenzene (Benzene.1.4 dichloro-)
Dichlorobenzene. N.OA' (Benzene, dichloro . N.O A')
25.Dichlorobentidine (!!.1* Blphenyll 4.4'.
diamine 2J-dichloro-)
1.4 Dichloro 2 butene (2 Butene. 1.4-dich.
noro-) .
Dichlorodifluoromethane (Methane, dich.
lorodifluoro 1 1.1 Dichloroethane (Ethylldene dichloride) 1.2 Dichloroethane (Ethylene dichloride) trans 1.2 Dichloroethene (1.2 Dichloroethy.
lene)
Dichloroethylene. N.OA' (Ethene, dich-loro . N.OA')
2.1 Dichloroethylene (Ethene.1.1 dlehtoro-)
Dichloromethane (Methylene chloride) 2.4 Dichlorophenol(Phenol. 2.4 dichloro-)
2.0 Dichlorophenol(Phenol. 2.8 dichloro-)
- 2,4 Dichlorophenomyacetic acid (2.4 D), salta and esters (Acetic acid. 2,4 dichlorophen.
Oxy., salts and esters)
Dichlorophenylarsine (Phenyl dichloroar. '
sine) ,
Dichloropropane. N.OA* (Propane, dich- j loro . N.OA*1 1,2 Dichloropropane (Propylene dichloride) {
Dichloropropanol. N.OA' (Propanol, dich.
loro. N.O A')
s Dichloropropene. N.OA' (Propene, dich.
loro . N.O.S.') .
)
1.3-Dichloropropene (1 Propene. 1.2 dich- .
loro-) ,
Dieldrin (1.2.2.4.10.10 hexachloro 8.1 epoxy-
- 1.4.4a.5.8,7.8.Sa octa hydro endo.ezo.
-
- 1.4:S.8-Dimethanonsphthalene) *
- *1.2:2.4 Dieposybutane (2J.Bloaltane)
- Diethylarsine ( Arstne, diethyl-)
. ~ . _ - _-
hMDl%. h N.N.Diethylhydrazine (Ilydrazine. 1.2 -
diethyll O.O.Diethyl S-methyl estrr of phosphoro-dithlete acid (Phosphorodithiole acid.
O.0 diethyl S methyl ester .
O.O.Diethylphosphoric acid. 04-nitro-phenyl ester (Pnosphoric acid. diethyl p-nitrophenyt ester) i Diethyl phthalate (1.2 Denzenedicarboxylle acid, diethyl ester) 0.0 Diethyl 0 2 prrazinyt phosphoroth-loate (Phosphorothnole acid. O 0-diethyl 0 pyrazinyt ester Diethylstilbesterol (4.4* Stilbenedlot, alpha. alpha dlethyl. blsidthydrogen phon.
~
- phate. (Eb)
Dihydrostfrole (Benzene. 1,2 methylene.
dioxy 4 propyl-)
3.4 Dihydroxy alpha 4methylamino) methyl benzyl alcohol (1.2 Benzenedlot. 4-(1 hy.
droxy 24methylaminolethyll.)
Dilsopropylfluorophosphate (DFP) (Phos.
phorofluorldic acid. bist! methylethyll ester)
Dimethoate (Phosphorod!Lhlote acid. O.O.
dimethyl S-(2-(methylamino) 2 osoethyll ester 3.3* Dimethoxybenzidine ((1,1* Blphenyll-4.4'dlamine. 3 3' dimethoxy-)
p-Dimethylaminoazobenzene (Benzenamine.
N.N dimethyl-4-(phenylazo)-)
7,12 Dimethylbenz[alanthracene (1,2 Ben.
santhracene.7.12 dimethyl.)
3.3'.Dimethylbensidine ((1.1. Blphenyll 4.4*.
diamine. 3.3*. dimethyl-)
D!methylcarbamoyl chloride (Carbamoyl chloride, dimethyl-)
1.1 Dimethylhydrazine (Hydrazine, 1.1 di-methyl-)
1.2 Dimethylhydrazine (Hydrazine. 1.2 dl.
methyl-)
3.3 Dimethyl 1-(methytthleb2 butanone. O-
) -
samusasessnes asesupuumans anna-1mmt l alpha alaha Disseethylphessethylasedne (Eth-anamine.1.1 dismethyl 2 phenyl.)
14-DhmettipWheutel (Phast.144sneshpH Dineethyl phthalate (1.5-Bennenedicarbonylle acid, dimethyl ester)
Dimethyl sulfate (Sulfuric acid dimethyl ester)
Dinitrobenzene. N.0 5.* (Bensene, dinitro .
N.O.8 *)
4.6-Dinitro-o-cresol and salts (Phenol. 2,4 dinitro 6-methyl . and salts) 2.4 Dinitrophenol (Phenol. 2.4 dinitto )
2.4 Dinitrotoluene (Benzene. 1 methyl 2.4
- dinitro-)
2.8 Dinitrotoluene (Benzene.1 methyl 2,4 dinitro-) -
DI n octyi phthalate (1.2-Benzenedicarboxylle acid, dioctyt ester) 1.4 Dionane (1.4 Diethylene oxide)
. Diphenylamine (Benzenamine. N phenyl-)
1,2 Diphenythydrazine . (Kydrazine. 1,2 dl-phenyl-)
l.1 et l*0pylnitrosamine (N Nitroso di-n. pro-3.il*mine) 1 +..II Inn IO.0-diethyl 5 12 se 'nellbloselhyll phosphorodithiostel
? I 8.ithlobturet (Thioimidodicarbonic dia-e..'e*n i .. I willan (S Norbornene. 2.3 dimethanol.
4 4 f 1,7,7.hesachloro ,cycIlc sulfite)
I ei si*e and metabelltes (1.2.3.4.10.10-hem.
- p. t.l..ro 4.1 epoxy l.4.4a,$ 8.1.8.8a.
se es .leystro endo. endo 1,4;$.8-e4.v thnnonsphthalene. and metabolites)
.r~ l'Ile t rarbamate (Urethan) (Carbamic acid.
e t hn i ester) 1:lhe l eyanide (propanenitr!!e) 1:11eil.sebisdithlocarbamic' acid. salta and e *8ee s (1.2 EthanedlylDiscarbamedithlole, pel l. salls and esters
!J bt lenelmine (Aziridinel
> tierlane ontde (Ostranet
- 8 I obilenethiourea (2 Imidazolldinethlone)
File l methacrylate (2 Pyopenote acid 2 ee ethyl . ethyl ester)
9
%,ar
'~lletl methanesulfonate (Methanesulfonic
- . bl. et hyl ester) .
I in- s anthene (Benzo!J.k1 fluorene) efes6ne At 1.peroacetamide ( Acetamide. 2 fluoro-)
81ss s eacetic acid. sodium salt (Acetic acid, isenero . sodium salt) em
. I'..e ensidehyde (Methylene oxide)
F..s.eiec acid (Methanoic acid)
A 313. blylaldehyde (I Propanol 2.3-epoxy)
Il-s miethane. N.O.8 *
- II-t tschlor (4.1 Methano 1H indene.
I.e.5.6.7.8.8 heptachloro-34.4.7.7a-
- 8. s e nhydro-)
le.3 e.schlor epoxide (alpha, beta, and r .e.ima lsomers) (4.7.Methano-lH indene.,
l.l.S.4.7.8.8 heptschloro 2,3 epoxy 3a.4.7.1 I.leshydro alpha beta, and samma iso-see rst loro-)
flatachlorobenzene lla .achlorobutadiene(Benzene, (1.3hexachsdier.e.
Bu l.I.2.3.4.4 hezachloro-)
II.1achlorocyclohexane (all isomers) (1Ja.
shne and 1somers)
II. -schlorocyclopentadlene (1.3-Cyclopen.
t-.hene.1.2.3.4.5.5 henschloro 1 licenchloroethane (Ethane. 1.1.1.2.2.2-hes.
n-bloro 3 1.2.3.t.10.10 Hexachloro 1.4.4a $ 8.86-bezahydro-l.4 5.4-endo. endo.
el sisethanonaphthalene e l ics achlorohen thydro-endo. endo-elimel hanonsphthalene)
- 81. achlorophene (2.2".Methylenebts(3.4.0-e e Irlilotophenol))
Ilr eachloropropene (1 Propene. 1.1.2.3.3.3-leas achloro-)
lleuethyl tetrachosphate (Tetraphes.
I.am* rte acid. hematthyl ester)
Ils.la azine (Diamine)
IIpiracymale acid (Hydrogen cyanide) lit elrofluoric acid (Hydroeen fluoride) lit eleasen sealdade (Saaliter 1sydridel 4 / 6 ' 1astte fCheedyHe
( setes needested t.2.3=edayyeesee (1.lN 1J.
posesnyteeneAyyeenel__
3eennesthane (88ethyTledtdel trese destran (Ferrte destran) laecyanic acid methyl ester (Methyl las-cyanate)
Isobutyl alcohot t t Propanol. 2 methyl-)
loonstrole (Bensen6 1.2 methylenedlesy 4 allyl-)
Kepone (Decachturooctahydro 1.3.4 Meth-ano-2H cyclobutatedipentalen 2 onel Laslocarpine (2 Butenoic acid. 2 methyl .1
((2.2-dihydroxy.241 methosyethylb3 methyl 1 omobutosy) methyl) 2.2.5.Ta. ,
tetrahrdro 1H pyrrottain.t yl ester)
= tand and compounds. N.O.S.*
1ead acetate ( Acetic acid. lead salt) 1And phosphate (Phosphoric acid. lead salt) lead subacetate (lead, btst acetato-Oltetrahydrosytri.)
Maleic anhydride (2.5 Purandlone)
Maleic hydraaide (1.2 Dihydro 3.5 pyridaatn.
edlonel Malononitrile (Propanedinitrile)
Melphalan (Atanine. 3tp-ble(3 chloroethyllaminolphenyl 1,5 Mercury fulminate (741minic acid, mercury salt) . .
- Merewry and compounds. N.OJ5.'
Methacrytonitrile (2 Propenenitrile. 3
, enethyl.) 8 e Nethanethlot tThiomethanol) i
- Methapyrtlene (Pyridine. 3-((3-dimethylaminolethyll 2 thenylamined Metholmyl (Acetimidic acid, N.
. (tmethyltarbamoyl)onylthlo . methyl i ester s= Methosychlor (Ethane.1.1.1 trichlore 2.3'.
ble(p methonyphenylk) 2 Methytasiridine (l.2 Propylenimine) 3.Methylcholanthrene (Bena(jlaceanthrylene. 1.241thydro 3-methyl-)
...u ,e....% -
/* -
, MDIN
' Methyl chlorocarbonate (Carbonochloridic acid. methyl ester) 4.4 Methylenebist2 chloronni!!ne) (Benzen-amine. 4.4" methylenebis-(2 chloro-)
f Methyl ethyl ketone (MEK)(2 Butanonel Methyl hydrazine (Hydrazine. methyl-)
2 Methyllactonitrile (Propanenttrile. 2 hy-droxy 2-methyl-)
Methyl methacrylate (2 Propenoic acid. 2 inethyl , methyl ester)
Methyl methanesulfonate (Methanesulfonic acid. methyl ester) 2 Methyl 2 tmethylthlomropionaldehyde-o-(methylcarbonyl) ontme (Propanal. 2 methyl 2 tmethytthlok. O-Ilmethylamino)carbonylloxime)
N Methyl N" nitro N nitrosoguanidine iOuanidine. N nitroso-N methyl N' nitro-)
Methyl parathlon (0.0-dimethyl 0-(4 nitro-phenyl) phosphorothloate)
Methylthlouracil (4 lH Pyrimidinone. 2.2-dit.pdro-4-methyl 2 thloso-)
Mustard gas tSulfide.bist2<hloroethylb)
Naphthalene 1.4 Naphthoquinone (1.4 Naphthalene-dione) 1 NaphthylamineIalpha Nachthylamine) 2-Naphthylamine (beta Naphthylamine) 1 Naphthyl 2 thloures (Thloures,1 nachth.
alenyl-)
Nickel and compounds. N O S
- Nickel carbonyl (Nickel tetracarbonyl)
Nickel cyanide (Nickel till cyanide)
Nicotine and salts (Pyridine. (Sh2 II.
methyl 2 pyrrolidinylb, and salta)
Nitric oxide (Nitrogen (III calde) p-Nittoaniline tBenzenamine. 4 nitro-),
Nitroben Ine iBensene, nitro-)
Nitrosen dioxide (Nitrosen (IV) oxide)
Nitrosen mustard and hydrochloride salt tEthansmine. 2 chloro . N t2 chloroethylh N-methyl . and hydrochloride salt)
)
- h suumed M M N I
\ '
100e eMeeeethythMimm asethyls 'handh.'D45.I hyeroe%)o.
rus salu
. Nlteestreseine IL2.pPropenetetet, trtud-teste) 4 Nitrophenol (Phenol.4 nitro 3 4 ttitroquinoline.1 oside (Quinoline. 4 nitro-1 omide-)
Nitrosamine. N.O.5.*
N Nitrosodl-n butylamine (1 Butanamine.
N butyl.N nitroso4 N Nitrosodlethanolamine-*(Ethanol.
2.2".
Inftrosolmino) bis-)
N Nitrosodlethylamine ** (Ethanamide.' N-ethyl N nitroso.)
N Nitrosodimethylamine (Dimethylnitrona.
mine)
N Nitroso N ethylures (Carbamide. N ethyl.
N-nitroso-)
N N!trosomethylethylamine (Ethansmine.
N methyl N nitroso.)
N Nitroso N methylurea (Carbamide. N-methyf-N nitroso-)
N Nitroso.N methylurethane iCarbamic acid methytnitroso , ethyl ester)
N Nitrosomethylvinylamine (Ethenamine.
N methyl N nitroso-)
N Nitrosomorpholine (Morpholine, N ni-troso-) g N Nitrosonornicotine (Nornleotine, N.
, nitenso-)
. N Nitrosopiperidine (Pyridine hexahydro,e N nitroso-)
Nitrosopyrrolidine (Pyrrole, tetrahydro N.
nitroso4 N Nitrososarcosine tsarcosine. N nitrosed
[ 6-Nitro o toluidine tBensenamine 2 methyl.
' S-nitrod Octamethylpyrophosphoramide (Diphoe-phoramide, octamethyl 4 .
Osmium tetroxide tOsmium (Vill) ontdel 1 Osabicyclo(2.2.llheptane.2.2 dlearbonylle acid (Endothal)
Paraldehyde (1.2.5 Trionane. 2.4.8-tri.
10 methyl 4
- p. . ...
hgo M Parathlon (Phosphorothloie acid. 0.0 diethyl 0-(p nttrophenyl) ester Pentachlorobensene (Benzene, pentachloro-
)
Pentschloroethane (Ethane. pentachloro-)
Pentachloronitrocensene (PCNB) (Benzene.
. pentachloronitro-)
Pentachlorophenol (Phenol, pent & chloro-)
Phenacetin (Acetamide. N-(4 ethoxy-phenyl)-)
Phenol (Benzene. hydroxy.)
Phenylenediamine (Benzenediamine)
Phenylmercury acetate (Mercury, acetato.
phenyl-)
N Phenylthlourea (Thloures. phenyl-)
Phossene (Carbonyl chloride)
Phosphine (Hydrogen phosph! del Phosphorod!Lhloie acid. 0.0-diethyl 8-(tethylthlo) methyl) ester (Phorste)
Phosphorothiole acid. O,0 dimethyl O lp.
((dimethylaminonsulfonyDohenyl) ester (Famphur)
$ Phthalic acid esters. N.0 8.' (Bensene 1.2-dicarboxylle acid, esters. N.OA')
Phthalle anhydride (1.2 Bensenedicarboxylle acid anhydride) 2 Picollne (Pyridine. 2 methyl-)
Polychlorinated biphenyt. N.OA*
Potassium cyanide Potasalum slieer cyanide (Argentate(13. di.
cyano , potasalum)
Pronamide (2.5 Dichloro N 41.1 dimethyl 2 propynyl)hensamide) 1.2 Propane sultene (1.2 Oxathlolane, 2.2 dioalde) n Propylamine (1 Propanamine)
Propytthlouracil (Undecamethylenedlamine. N.N'-bis (2-chlorobensyD . dihydrochloride) 2 Propyn Lp*l (Proparsyl alcohou Pyridine Reseepine (Yohlmban-184arboxylle acid.
- 11.37 dinnethomy.18-((2.0-3 /
I r'f'* "messeelssel n *
.6 e
Sessharin and salta (1.2-Dennelsethlanotta 3 ans,2.1 dlealde, and aall.a)
Safeele(Semmene. N eMy8-)
. Selentous acid (Selentum dioxide) er Selenium and compounds. N.O A*
Selenium sulfide (Sulfur selenide)
- Selenoures (Carbamimidoselenote acid)
- n. Silver and compounds. N.OA' 811ver eyanide Sodit.am cyanide Streptosotocin (D Olucopyranose. 2 deoxy.
2 43-methyl 3 nitrocoureldo)-)
Strontium sulfide
> 8trychnine and salts (8trychnidin 10-ont, and salts) 1.2.4.5-Tetrachlorobenzene (Benzene.
1.2.4 5 tetrachloro 1 3.3.7.8 Tetrachlorodtbenzo p dioxin (TCDD)
(D6benso p<lloxin. 2.2.7.8 tetrachloro-)
Tetrachloroethane. N.OA* (Ethane. te.
trochloro . N.OA')
e.l.I.2 Tetrachlorelhane (Ethane.1.1.1,2 te.
teachloro 3 1.p.7.2. Tetrachlorethane (Ethane.1.1.2.2 te*
e e Prhlor0-)
's. es arbloroethane (Ethene 1.1.2,2 tetrach.
4 .e e-)
1.senchloromethane (Carbon tetrachloride)
- ..* t.s Tetrachlorophenol (Phenol. 2.2.4.6 I-t rachlored
'tr(sacthyldithiopyrophosphate (Dithiopyr.
erhosphorie acid, tetreethyl ester!
1 t a nel hyl lead ( Plumbane, tetreethyl4 1.esnethylpyrophosphate (Pyrophosphoric
{,
pride, lettatthyl esteri
- 1. e e anstromethane ( Metnane. Lettanitro.) .
's 8.silleem and compounds. N.01' 11esille ontde (Thallium (llH ontde) 11embleum (H acetate (Atetic acid. thallium
- H aalt) 1 hnHeum (I) earbonate (Carbonte acid, d!Lh-
- (( a Hlum (Il salt) 1 htlitum (!) ehtoride ,
L,, p.
bemix virr- -
1eenllaum (D nitrate (Nitric acid, thallium '
s I a salt)
.- *llestlium selenite
- 1 leallium (Il sulf ate (Sulf uric acid thallium til salt)
- lleloacetamide (Ethanethloamide)
'I 1.losemicarbazide eilydtazinecarbothloamide)
'I taloures (Carbamide thlo-)
'l lituram (B1sidimethylthlocarbamoyl) di-mulfide)
Taluene(Benzene methyl-)
Tuluenedismine (Dimminotoluene) e Toluidine hydrochloride (Benzenamine. 2-methyl . hydrochlorldel -
Tntylene dilsocyanate (Benzene 1.34f!!ao-ryanatomethyl-)
= Tnsaphene (Camphene. octachloro-)
I'tIbromomethane (Bromolorm) 1.2.4 Trichlorobentene (Benzene.1.2.4 trich-foro-)
1.l.1 Trichloroethane (Methyl chloroform) 1.1.2 Trichloroethane (Ethane, 1.1.24tich.
foro-)
Trichloroethene (Trichloroethylene)
"I rirliloromethanethiol (Methanethloi, trichloro-)
'l trichloromonofluoromethane (Methane, trichlorofluoro-)
2.4.5 Trichlorophenol (Phenol. 2.4.5-trich-toro.)
2.4.6 Trichlorophenol (Phenol. 2.4.5-trich-Iorol
- .4.5 Trtehtorophenomyseetic acid (2.4.5 T) t Acetic acid 2.4.5 trichlorophenoxy )
2.4.5.Trichlorophenoxyproplonic acid (2.4.5-TP) (Silves) (Proplonoic acid 242.4.5-trichlorophenomy)-)
Trichloropropane. N.OA' (Propane, trich-loro ,N O A*)
1.2.3 Trichloropropane (Propane,1.2.2 trich-here-)
?
odheesesense -seisspeessessisonne sans-pherettstete este.O.OAMetstetyt esteri sym-Trinitrobensene (Bensene. 1.3.84rtnt-
.tse-)
Trtst1 eartelnyl) pheophine sulfide (Pless-
- phine sulfide, trist t attridinyl-)
Trist2.3 dtbromopropyl) phosphate (1 Pre-panel. 2.3 dibromo . phosphate)
Trypan blue (2.1 Naphthalenedisulfo de .
acid. 3.3' l(3.2' dimethyl (1,1* biphenyl)-
4.4'dlyl)btstazollblst5 amino-4 hydroxy tetrasodlum salt)
Urmell rnustard (Uracil S-lbist 2-thloroethyl)aminol-)
' Vanadic acid, ammonium salt (ammonium vanadate)
- Vanadium pentoxide (Vanadium (V) ontdel Vinyl chlorlde (Ethene chloro 1 Zlne eyanide Zinc phosphide 146 FR 21477. May 20,1981: 48 FR 29708 June 3.19011 h kP. WO M Own win 6
S 12
I 2s4.s4 conewrtranen nata.
(a) De Reponal Adminisentor will specfy in the faclity per:mt
.concenestion limits in the g:ound water for hazardous constituents established under 1264.ss.ne concaceston of a hazarcous consc:uenc (1) Most not exceed the background level of that consdruent in the ground water at the time that !!mit is speci5ed
. In the permit or (2) For any of the constituents listed in
. Table L must not exceed the respective
~
.value given in that Table if the. .
backgroundlevelof the constituentis below the value givenin Tabla 1: or (3l Mast not exceed an altemate limit established by ths Regional Administrator undar paragraph (b) of this sec:fon.
(b) De Regional A+ Warator will establish an alternate concantration limit for a hazardous consdtnent if he-Ands that the constituent will not pone a substantial present or potential hazard in human health or the hvument as -
long as the alternate concentration limit is not exceeded. !n establishing alternats concentration limits. the R'esional Adamistrator will ccasider the following factors: .
. (1)Potendaladverse efects on ground-water quality, considenng:
TAas.s 1. ""& Conecswimmose cwr Cose-3 , , smuunnis aun passes-
^N .
. .
- SImmumme . . - ---
Asse==
, amtsu tal SJ . , *
- Casumme set .
C.--
tag am
.em .
tacusy tag semese est Suse aM tusse (tJ.a4 var - _. _ _ !J. mummy.
SA,ana&7JJo.emenpos.es % esus. ,
88888 i
^
. 1.3.t_ _ **e passamm.
- a, Tamwee st2- en-c4 ferrume nuevumme
- ***'"'L
. s,T.a
- 3,4J.TP h E4J.T_
-Y aime set a n me .e ==. l (cedtncb Tabidd*QQG [ phi l .-
h4 tedw* -8 4 l
d1o$5 a%(ta-]adIclo> \6 c.-buibg l ewe.a., ding sak k amowiivini ,,,
- . ~ ~.. .
- I (I)De physical and chemical . . .
i characteristics of the weete in the j
regulated unit. Inc!nding its potendal for
- migredoet .
ii)ne hydroseological '
ch(aracteristics of the faci!!ty and surrounding land:
(111) The quantity of ground wetar and the dirvedon of ground water flow:
____ _- _ ___ l .'I . _ _ . _ _ _
1 l
6avey ;
(iv)De proxtmity and wsthdrawal I rates of ground water users:
(v) The current and future uses of ground water to the ana:
(vt) The exasung quality of ground water. including otner sources of contaminadon and the:r c::=ulante impact on the grou:d water quality:
(vii)The potential for healta risas caused o' y numan exposure :o waste comantuents:
(vill) The potential damage to wildlife, cropa, vegetation. and physical strucmres caused by exposure to waste consotuents (ix)The persistence and permaneneg.,
of the potendr.1 adverse e5ects and (2) Potential adverse effects on hydraulically-connected surface-water quality, considerms:
(I)The volume and physical and chemical characteristics of the wasta in the regulated unit -
(ii)The hydrogeological characteristics of the facility and surrounding land:
(iii)The quan and quality of ground water, the direction of ground.wstar Bow:
(iv) The patterns of rainfallin the region:
(v) The proxhnity of the regulated unit to surface waters
. (vi)The curnst and furare uses of surface waters in the area and any
>0_, *WierWagendesdsesenhiishedh .,
i 1hese emesse=mmer.
' (vElThe ensens quakty of surface weems.insindias essesamens af -
-ames and the sumsalateve -
latpact on surface water quality:
(v111) ne potential for health riska caused by human exposure to waste - -
constituents (1x) The potendal damage to wild!!fe, cropa, vegetation, and physical structures caused by exposure to waste .
constituents: and -
(x) The persistence and permanaam of the potential adverse e5ects. -
(c) la maldag any determination under paragraph (b) of th:s section about the see of ground water ta the area around the faculty the Regional Administratar will consider anyideon5 cation of und ., i sources of drinking weter and exempted aquifers made under
- I 122.35 of this chapter.
e F . .
-. 14
r-I 2s4.98L
- Detec" cort enervtorbs progr3m.
An owner or operator required to. .
astablish a detec: inn monitoring program under this subpart must at a
' minumna. discharge the foDowi=g rerpon.sibilities:
(a)Da owner nr operator must man'. tor for indicator parameters (e.g spedSc conductance, total organic carbon or total organic habgen). waste constituents. or reacdon products that provide a rettahl, indication of the presence of hazardous consutuentiin ground water. De Regit mal ' ,
Adamistrator will specfy the paramaters or consutuants to be comtorediu the faclity per: nit. afur considering the followingfactors (1) ne types. quantitiss and
- concentracons or constf.tucts in wastas managed at the regulated unit ,
(2) The mobility, awhil!ry, and persistanca of waste consutnents or their reaction products in the ncsansrated zone beneath the, waste management area: .
(3) The detectability ofindicator parameters, waste consernents, and rsaction products in ground water: and (4) The coacantrations or valass and coef5cients of variadon of proposed monitadng parameters or constituents in the ground-water background. I 2s4.sr General grour+= ster eneratorbs (b) The owner or operstot must' install roguarwnensa.
a ground-water monitoring system at the ne owner or operator must comply
- i. , emagnames peesus spen 6edander . emesh she anlisuudes assusammassierany t i as u s. D e W senesesress , J, a. ,-.h , p.,
- eysase must -- Ty 4th 12e4Jr(s)(2). .dsveloped to settafy i 2aus, I asus.
(bl.and (e). m.1asuant .
(el ne aweer er operstermeet a(s).The ground weTer maaltarias estabitsh a be4.. ' valsa for each system must consist of a sufBelast monitoring parameter or constituent number of wells. InstaDed at appropriate speciSed in tho' permit p trsuant to. - c . .,- loc.aSens and depths to ytald ground w.-
paragraph (a) of this seccon. The permit -
water samples from the uppermost --
will specify the background values for aquifer thac .
each parameter or specify the (1) Represent the quality of Th to be used to calenlace the bsckground water that has not been backgroundrvalues. affected by leakage from a regulated (1) The owner or operstor must . unit: and
- comply with 1264.srts)in developing (2) Represent the quality of ground the data base used to determme water passisqthe point of compliance.
background values. (b) If a faciitty contains more than one (2) The owner or operator must regulated unit. separate ground-water express background values in a for:n .taanitoting systams are not required for necessary for the determinaden of each regulated unit provided that statistiethy sign 1 Scant increases under provisions for sampling the ground 1284.97(h). water in the uppermost aquifer will (3)In taking sam fes used in the enable detection and measurement at determination of background values. the de compliaace point of hazardous -
owner or operator must use a ground-consatuents from de ngulaud anits water mor' tort:tg system that c=mplits triat han entend the ground wated with 1:84.27ta)(1) ib), and (c). D' P"* *' ' 9"iI
(d) ne ownar or operstor must' I "" ""I * ""' ***'
determine grund watar quality at each - *"***" I *
- I"'
monitoring wen a t me compliance point- "' "" * * * #' " I casing must be screened or perforated '
atleast semi annually darms the active
'[- - life.of a regulated unit (Including the
- E**
- 3#'"k*#****
- necessary, to enaale codecnon of s closure patriod) and the post closure care - greur.d.weter samolesMe annular
. period.The owner or operatormust . ,p,c,4.no space ostwem de bore exprsse es. ground water quality at *
.eech monitoring weH in a form hole and well casms) above the
', aampling depth must be sealed to necessary for the determination of ,
-prevent contamination of samples and statistically signiScant increases under me ground waar.
I 284s7(h). . . .
_15 _ __
- l. ..
t.,.
%.qg 6 x/A7
)ne owner or operator must use f th followmg statisdcal procedure in 60 The owner or operstor must express background values in a form de e iai a whetherbackground values necessary for the determination of or concentrationlimits have been .
statistically signincant increases under g i 2sw(b) and . (1)11,in a detection monitoring 010 In taking samples used in the p,, gram, the level of a consetuent at the detersunadon of bau d values, the compliance point is to be compared to owner or operator must use a ground. the constituent's bas e .. .4 value and water monitoring system that complies ht background value has a sample
- with I 2sw(a)(1) (b), and(c) he coeincient of vadation less than.1.0tk (4) Within 90 days. submit to t (Q The owner or operster must take et.
Regional Administrator an applicad,on least four pordons ' rom a sample t' for a per=it modiacation to estabusa a each well at the compliance p' + M.
compuance monitorsag program moeung deter =ine whether the difference the recpurements of 1234.99.The between the mean of the consttuent at application must include the following uch wou (using an peruons taken) and.
informadom b background value for the consutuant.
(O Anidentincation of the is sigmacant at the Oas level uses the ,
concentrationof any AppendixVIH Cochran's Approxunstion to the -
consdtzents found in the ground water Behrene. Fisher Student's t.est as at each monitoring well at the dncribedin Appendix 1V of this past.If comp!!ance point the test indicates that the difference is (H) Any proposed changes to the .i daat, the owner oc operatormust
. water monitonns system at the repear the same procedure (with at leser ty necasary to meet the the ame numbar of persons as nadin.
i c.hr nts of I 284. set the Srst test) with a fresh sample from (iii) Any proposed changes to the the monitodng wen.lf this second road monitoring frequency, sampling and of analysee indicates that the differesca analysis procedures or methods. or is sigat the owneror operator -
statiencal i,. d es used at the facultF must conclude that a statisacally
- necessary to meet the requirements of signiscant change has -. 4 or i 284.se:
(u)The owner or operatormay use an (tv) For each hazardous constituent equivalent stattsdcal procedure for .
found at the compliance potat,a - whether a statisdcally y de g, g, 34 34343Ntler1st.1ersguessifimammt -
g ,,,,
sesM such to seek a vernames under I ast.se(bk and a proceduseis the IneGinypesudtIf b gIlWIIbislasdays sahanttathe . Anda shaube aligadve precedero Adadmise ten hiptensmessibeysshahany.f:
AR data necessary to justify any gage gyg esagfytaga d"f variance sought under i 2st.s4(b) and
" 00 An engmeering feasibintyplan fading to for-
- aregulated identify con *=='a=dat unit
<a- - and the a corrective action program necessary *o regulated unitin a manner thatis -
meet the requirements of I 234.100. comparable to that of the stattsdcal unless: procedure desenbodin paragrsph, (A) ARhasardous constituents (h)(1)(0 of this secdon.
IdentiSed under paragraph (h)(2) of this (2)In an other sitandens in a
~ detecdon monitoring program and in e section are listed in TableTol l 284.94 ' compliance monitonna program, the and their concentrations do not exceed owner or operator suust use a stadsdcal the resoeceve values pven in that Table: or A providing reasonable
- . (3)The owner or operator has sought conddance that the migration of a variance under i 234.94(b) for every hazardous constienents from a regulatec hazardous constituent identified under unitinto and through the aquifer wi3 be paragsph (h)(21 of this sec: ion, todicated.The Reponal Administrator (1) u the owner or operator ,
win speafy a stauscical proceours in th determanes. pursuant to paragrapa'(3) of faality permit that he !!nds!
- this secdon. that there is a statisacaliY (i)Is appropriate for the distribution
"'-ai"~at increase of parameters or of the data used to estabush backgroun oossientants ed pursuant to vaines or concensranon imais ana paragraph (a) this section at anF . .. (E) Providae a reasonable balance ,
moattestag we!! at the compliance point. between the probabuity of falsely he may demonstrate that a source other idendfying a non. contaminating than a regulated unit amened the ' regulated unit and the probability of increase or that the lasreese resulted, fading to identifpcontaddnating hos errorin saapung, analysis er ,,gni.ied unit 7 - '
evalanden. Whue the owner or operster may enake a demonstration under this i ~ -
paragraph in addiuon to.= lalieu of. '
~
submisdag a permit mediacation -
application under paragraph (h)(4) of.
9
- _ ___. 16 .
O
,s'
~
4.Nf,9%
i ~'
~
s 6DV(.97 (e) The owner or erator must - (d) The ground. water monitarms detamine the gro water flow rate and direction in the uppermost aquifer program must.inc,ude consistent atleast annually, sampling an/. analysis procedures that are designed to ensure mocitoring (f) De owneror operator must use , results that provide a reliable indication procedures and mahds for samplint of ground-water quality below the weste and analysis that meet the requirements management area. At a minimum the of I 264.97 (d) and (e). program mustinclude procedures and (g)The owner or operstar must tecamques for:
detecnine wasther there is a .
- (1) Sample couecdom statisticaDy significant increase over (2) Sample preservation and ahipment background values for any parameter or (3) Analyticalprw J-.s and .
1 consatuent speciSed in the permit (4) Chain of custody control.
pursuant to paragraph (e) of this section (e) The ground water monitodng each time he determines ground. water , orogram mustinclude samplhg and quality at the compliance point under
~
{
j analytical methods that arrssppropriate
. paragraph (d) of this secdon. ; for ground. water sampling and that (1)In determining whether a. 1 accurately measure hazarcous statistically =8-amaat increase has ,
consstuents m ground-water sacaples.
occurred. the owner or operator must (f) ne ground. water menitoring compara the ground-water quality at program must include a determination of each monitorids we2 at tha compliance the ground. water surface elevation each point for each parameter or constituent time ground water is sempled. .
to the background value for that (3) Where appropriate. the ground.
parameter or constituent, according to water monitor =g program must the statisticalprocedure spec 15'ed in the establish background ground.weter permit under i 284.97(h).
- quality for each of the hazardous (2) De owner or operator must constituents or monitoring parameters or detamine whether there has been a consutuents spee!5 edin the permit.
statistically signi?. cant increase at each (1)In the detection monitoring monitoring weH at the compliance point program under i 264.98, background within a reasonable eme period after ground water quality for a monitoring completion of sampling. The Regional parameter or constituent must be tused Administrator will specify that time on data from quartarly sampling of wells
..Juanodin the facalitypennit, after eggsadissthms abe trasse -ara-'
tr. .mssennes m.-gg myinha s-ame peer.
( sentisdsal test and the availahuity of , (2)In the complianos meestering
. laboratory facGities to perform the program ander i 284.99,bak d amatyeis af ,_ ' . _ _ samuples .
__ genlity' Tor a hazardous (k)If the owner or operator a esasetment must be based en data from determines, pursuant to paragraph (g) of / upgradient wells that:
~ ~~ . this secdon. that therois 4 statisucally .r u . ..~(i).Is available before the n. ais mw.
sign *=at increase for parameters or - - ~ -issued: ' " " - "
~
constituents specified pursuant to 1 (11) Accounts formeasurement errors
-paragraph (a) of this secdon at any in sampling and analysis: and (iii) Accounts, to the extent f===ihla momtoring weR se the compliance point. -
for -==aa=1 Suetuations in ba4. d .
he muse .
ground. water quality if such fluctuations (1) Notify the Regional Administrator are expected to affect the concentration of this Anaingin writing withm seven of the hazardous constituent.
days.The non5 cation must indicate ~. (3) Background quality may be based
.wnst parameters or ucnstituents have on sampling of wens that are not shown statistically signiacant increases
- upgradient from the waste management (2)Immediately sample the ground area where *
, water in all momtoring weila and '
deter =me the cancentradon of all (1) **A.p logic conditions do not
"" . cansatuents identified in Appenciix VIII aHow the. owner or operator to ,,
of part 281 of this chapter that are - determine what weils are upgracaent or present in ground weter: (II) Sampling at other weds wtil (3) Establish a background value for provide an indication of background each Appendbc VIII constituent that has 3round. water quality thatis as
' " been found at the compliance point .
representative or more representative under paragraph (h)(2) of this section, as than that provided by the upgradient
' foBows: weils. .
(1)The owner or operator must comply (4)In develocing the data base _ sed
^
with 5 284.97(g) la developing the data to detacame a baw value for
, base used to determine bad d each parameteror constituent, the
!i values: owner or operatormust take a nummum.
t of one sample from each wen and a
. unmmam of four samples from the entire ,
,, system used to determine background
< 1 ~
ground-water quality, each time the ,
system is sempted.
/
L7 -
W this section he is not relieved of the 12 sus comonance memtonag program.
requirement to submit a permit ^^'""""C modification application within the ti:ne establish a comp?.erator itance =omtor=grequ: red to speciSed in paragraph (h)(4) of this - program under this subpart must at a
- section unless the descastration made ^'~"- discharge the fonowing under this panpaph successfuDy shows responsibilities:
that a source otner than a regulated unit (a) The owner er operator =ust caused the ineense or that the measse m,omtor the ground water to deter =me resulted from error in sampling. wnether regutaten u=ts are in analysis, or evaluation.In -=bng a ce=pdance with the ground. water demonstration under this paragraph. the protection standard under i 2SL92.The owner or operator must Regional Administrator will specify the (1) Notfy the Regional Ad=inistrator ground-water protection standard in the in wnting within seven days of facility per=ft. Including:
deter i*-e a statisticaDy sig-t im t 8
inesase at the compliance point that he (1) Alist of the hazardous constituents identi5ed under i 284.93, intends to make a demonstration under this paragraph: (2) Concentration limits under i 2S4.94
- (2) Within 90 days, submit a report to for each of those hasardous the Regional Admmistrator which const2tnents:
demonstrates that a source cther than a (3)ne compliance point under regulated unit caused the incease. or i 254.95: and that the incesse resulted from error in (4)The complianne period under sampling. analysts, or evaluatiom i 254 K (3) Within 90 days, submit to the e owner u opuntu mustinstall Regional Adamistrator an app'lication a smmd-water monitor =g system at the ,
for a permit modi 5 cation to make any compliance point as speci5ed under i
' appropriate changes to the detection i 2S4.95.De ground water monitoring and system must comply with 1254.S7(a)(2).
monitoring program at the facility: dance (4) Continue to monitorin accor (b), and (c). ,
with the detection monitoring program '
(c) Where a concentration!!mit established under'this section. established under paragraph (a)(2) of l (J)If the owner or operator determines this section is based on background that the detection monitoring program ground-water guality, the Regional no longer satisSes the reil ufrements of Aamunistrator will specify the
' - Dessuussa.no seus,weehissedess, samenswasosEssittstepsenstas submit en ., " ; $ars portait 3838
- 8: -
s modi 5 cation so make any appropriate '
changue toJhs peopam. [1) N there Is a hl ._
(k) The owneror operstar must assere carrelottos .
that monitoring and corrective action '- point comespara measures necessary to achieve
- hazardous constitutents the owner or
- ~ ~'
compliance with the ground. water u.6. r . s spestocinay establish,the. __,. .__
7 *.' protection standard under i 264.92 are -- -- concentration limit through sa=pling sta ....,
taken during the term of the permit. upgradient wells each time ground wateris sampled at the compliance point.The Regional Administrator will
- specify the procedures used for demiMag the concentration 11=1t in this manner in the permit. In all other cases, the concentration limit will be the tnean of the pooled data on the concentration of the hazardous
-' constituent.-
I .. (2)If a hazardous constituentis identined on Table 1 under i 254.94 and the difference between the respective
~ concentration li=it in Table 1 and the background value of that constituent
.,_ under ! 284.97(g) is not statistically si-aihaat, the owner orcperator must use the background value of the
- l. constituent as the concentration limit. In determining whether this difference is i
statistically significant, the owner or operator must use a statistical procedure
, ,e . providing reasonable con 5dence that a real difference will be indicated. The
(
.?- .
statistical procedure muse . ..
I 1 .
18
~
6 3 /97
^
(1) Be appropriate for the distnbution
- of the data used to establish background values: and ~
(LI) Provide a reasonable balades between the probability of falsely identifymg a signdicant diference and the probability of fa!Hng to identify a sig=ificant differenca.
(3) The owner or operster anse (1) Campiy with 1 54.27(3) in developing the data base nsed to *
.- determine ba4J values:
(ii) Express background values in a form necessary for the detar ination cf statisticaDy si="Ma=at increases nadar 5.254.87thk and .
(111) Use a ground-watermanitoring system that complies with I 284.97(a)(1).
(bl.and tek -
(d)'Ibe owner or operator must .
datermine the concentration of hazardous constituents in groundwater at each monitoring well at the compliance point stleast quarterly . '
dunng the compIlance period.The -
owner or operatormust express the ,
concentration at each monitoring weH !n a form necessary for the determination
. of statistically ai-ama--+ increases under s zouT(h). . ..
(e)The owner or operator must
> determme the ground water flow rate and direction in the uppermost aquifer at least annually. '
/ ^W ,
i analyse nerpiestrostatenemories wells at the -W= point jer an amuseamsmes semes m ed '- P - ' Y EI of Part 2s1 of this chapter atIsent ,
- annuaDy to det-mine whethes.
additionalhazardous constienents are present in the uppermost aquifer.T.he~
i i. ~ ~ ~ " - -
owner oroperator f!nds Appendix VIII '
constirnents in the ground water that are-not identified in the permit as haitardous constitnants, the owner or operator must
- report the concen'trations of the'se .i
, additional constituenta to the Regional l
l
. Administrator within seven days after-completion of the analysis. -
- (g)The owner or operstarmust use procedures and methods for sampling and analysis that meet the requirements of i 2s4.s7(d) and (e).
(h)The owner or operator must
. determme whether thers is a statistically signif! cant increase over the i
concentra: ion limits for any hazardous
' - constituents specified in the permit ,
. pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section each time he determines the concentration of hazardous constituents l In3round weter at the compliancs point. -
-(1)!n determfams whether a '
l
- statistically significant increase has occurred, the owner or operator must
. compare the ground-water quality tt -.
each monitor:ng well at the compliance ,' ~
- point for each hazardous, constituent te 19
6xM9
' the concencudon limit for that
- consetnant according to the statisdcal procedures spec 5 edin the pc=tt uder i 2s4.W(h). ,
(2)The owner or operator must determme whether there has been a
. statistically sid" emet increase at each
- monitori=g well at the ce=plianca point, within a reasonable time veriod after completion of sa=pi.ing. ':'t.e Regional
< Administrator will spec!y that tima periodin the faci!!ty permit, a'ter "Adn= the complexity of the statisdcal test and the availability of laboratory-facilities to perform the analysia of ground-watar samples. -
(I)If the owner or operator d'a reas, pursuant to paragraph (h) of this section. that the ground-water protection standard is being exceeded at anymonitoring well at the point of
- - =hes he must: .
(1) Notify the Regional Administrator -
. of thia Anding.in wridng within seven days.h notification mustindicate what canr=~tration limits have been-exceeded. . . .
(2) Sebmit to the Regional
- Adadaistrator an application for a perant modification to establish a corrective action program meeting the M ents of I 2S4.100 within 180 days, or within 90 days if an engineering l
I feasibility study has been previously suandtted to the Regional Administrator andar j .anue(hMs).& applicadon
.I i .
-at==d=h==== tushutetoestauses kdosumsthme' (I) A dotaded desaipdom of corsecties J I
eenses thatwele 1sttkthe -_ _ ' =tse protection - . ;
l standard specified in the pe mit under j i paragraph.(s) of this.sectiert and n .m.-.. m,..
)
T~ ~~ . .
( (ii) A plan.for a ground-water- -- --- - -
( monitoring program that will
- . d-trate the efectiveness of the <
corrective action. Such a ground-water
' monitormg program may be based on a .*
compliance monitoring prograar -
developed to meet the requir-m-ata
- ~
of I this section. .
(D If the owcer or operator determines. pursuant to paragraph (h) of i
- this secdon, that the ground water.
protection stant'ard is being e:r. .eeded at any monitoring well at the point of compliance, he may demonstrate that a.
source other than a regulated ur.it
~ * '~ esased the increase or that the increase
- _ - resultad from error in sampling, analysis - I orevaluation.While the owner or operator may make a demonstradon .
' under this paragraph.in addition to, or in lies of submitting a permit madfMe= don '
l
- *- application under paragraph (t)(2) of this secdon.he is not relieved of the
^ - requirunnent to submit a permit i
' ma,Me= tion spplication within.the time specified in paragraph (I)(2) of this
-- .._..s.-
I -
- 20 l
t
- w - - - - w,-._ t'-- 'T ---mmr ---- * - . .
,. g.
kh . i secdon unlesa the descastration madel
~
under this paragraph successh:Hy shows that a source othat dan a rest.!ated unit caused the increase or that de increase resulted from error in sampling.
l analyuls, or evaluation.Inmahng a l demonstration under dis paragraph the :
owner or operator must (1) Notify the Regional.ad-%: rater in wating within seven days that he intands to make a demonstration unde .
this paragrapie (2) Within.90 days, submit a report to -
the Regional Administratarwidch dame.strates that a source other than a-regulated unit caused the standard to be
.azemeded or that the apparent. -
noncomplir.nce with the standards
'resulted from errorin sampling. "
analysia.or evaluatiern (1)Within 90 days, submit to the Regional Adminlitrator an app!! cation
'T5r a permit modification to make any appropriata changes to the compliance monitoring program at the facility;4nd (4) Continue to monitor in accor the compliance monitoring program establishedinder this section. *
(k)If the owner or operator determines thatte compliance ,
monitoring program no longer satis 5es the requirements of this secdon.he mast, within 90 days, submit an-apiplication for a permit mod!5 cation to.
,anske any appropnate changes to the
- p. -
)i . _p(O The awestur operseursustueuse estmooltoring and correcdee asson~
ammameemammesaryto esWave -
emmpummes w6th the j --tar ,
protection standard under i 264.31 are takendaring the term of the permit. .
6 9
e o
e W
e e - N de go g
- 21
I .
3 2S4.100 Correcthre secon program.
~
' An owner or operaterrequired to estabush a correcdvs acdcs propam, under this subpart must at a mini =u=.
discharge the foHowtug responsibilities:
- (a)na owner or operator must take correcdve sedon to ensure that regulated units are in compHance w(th the ground. water protecton standard under i 264.92.De Regional .
. Administrator win specify the ground-water protecdon standard Ir. 6s facility - '
permit.Includingt (1) Alistof thehazardous constituents identi5ed under i *S433:
(2) Concentrados limits u=ner
- i 264.94 for each of those hazardous consttuants: *
(3)ne compliance point under I 264.95: and .
(4)ne compliance pened undel i 268.98. ~
(b) The owner or operator must i=plement a correenve aedon program that prevents hazardous consetnents from exceeding theirrespeedve concentranon limits at the ccmpliance point by removing the hazardous waste constituents or treating them in place.
De permit will specify the specific measures that will be taken.
(c)De owner or operator must begm
~
correcdve acnon within a reasonabae d=e period after the pound-water protection stanca.-d as exceeded. The M MMb
' lane periodin1he feellityW Ea t.
facdity persait lachsoes a soarecove andampeyamin =ddm= as a y-- nsonitoring program, the permit win specify when tha corrective medon win begin and such a requirement will operate in lieu of 1254J9(i)(2).
(d)In conjunctionwith a corrective
- action program, the owner or operator must estabush and implement a ground-water monitoring program to l
d==trate the efec:iveness of the .
corrective action program. Such a
! monitoring pregram may be based un the requirements for a complianca monitoring program under i 254.99 and must be as efective as that program in
- determining compliance with the i
l ground-water protecdon standard under i 26432 and in deta i-N the success of a corrective action program under paragraph (e) of this sec: ion, where appropriate.
(e)In addition to the other c
1 equirements of this secdon. the owner '
or operator must condue: a correcdve
. . r+ acdon program to remove or treatin
- place any hazardous constituents under 5 254.93 that exceed concentration limits l '
undet i 2S434 in ground water between l
. the compliance point under i 2S435 and the downgrsdient facility property boundary.%o permit will specify,the measures to be taken. , ;-
22 ,
' w v.- , - . _ _ . _ _ . , _ _ _ . . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _
6cWf',/CD (1) Correedve sedon msnsures under this paragraph must be initiated and completed within a reasonable pened of time considerms the extent of contamination.
(2) Correedve acden measures under this paragraph =ay be terminated once the concentrados of haraMous constituents smder I :$4.93 is reduced to levels below theirrespeedve concentratics !!mits under i 264.94.
(f) he owner or operator must continue correceva action measures during the compliance period to the extent necessary to ensure that the ground water protecdon standard'is not exceeded.lf the owner or operator is conduedng correedve action at the end of the compliance period.he must continue that correedve action for as long as necessary to achieve compliance with the ground. water protection standa.-d.The owner or operator may terminate corrective action measures taken beyond the period equal to the acuve life of the waste management area (including the closure period) if he can demonstrate. based on data f:em the ground-water monitormg program under paragraph (d) of this secdon. that the ground water protection standard of i 254.92 has not been exceeded for a period of three consee:tive years.
(g) ne owner or operator must report in writing to the Regicoal Adtmmstrator as the effectiveness of the comedve 3
- assinegungumm.1hesusuursrepasmaar
- must sutedt base reporta semi-ausmaBy.
tu prehe marer psenser
-* w= that the correcove menos -
program mo longer satisfles tho' sw.aats of this section. he must, within 90 days, submit an application for a permit modification to make any .
appropriate changes to the program.
1*
=
.h.-
- O W
( -
. 23
s p 2stss Point et _..-; u -
(a)h Regional Ad=inistretar wi!]
-specfy in the facility per. it the point of compliance at which the grocad. water
" protection standard of 3 264.92 applies and at which monitarms must be esaducted.The point of compliance is a vertical surface located at the hydraulically downgredient !!mit of the waste management area that extends
'downinto the uppermost acuifer underlying the regulated umts.
(b)The weste management ares is the limit projected in the honzental plane of the area on which waste willbe placed dunng the aceva life of a regulated umt.
(1)The waste management area
!=:!udes honzental space taken up by any liner dike. or other barner designed
- to contain waste m a requiated umt.
[2)If the facility contatna more than one regulated unit. h waste management area is descrbd by an '
imagmary line circumscribing the several regulated units.
I asAss Con 9aanse pwtod.
(a)b Regional AMmatrator wi!!
specify in the facility permit the cotrpliance pened during which the ground-water protection standard of-J Ja&st applies.The consph=" Pened 3 ' '
.nstsanssherstyeess egmalso h ~
aseve leis of the waste management area n i. na- any waste managessent asavttyyeler to perustettag. and the
- clease peded.) .
~
(b)h compilance period begina .
when the owner or operator initistas a compilance monitoring program meeting the regturements of i 28099. .
(c) u the owner or operatoris engaged in a corrective action program at the and of the compliance penod specified in paragraph (a) of this section, the ,
compliance pened is extended until the '
owner or operator can demonstrate that the ground-watar protection standard of I:54.92 has not been exceeded for a pened of three consecutive years.
gg.w o
O O
e 6
wh e ee e g.
2f+
- - - + - - - . - - --o .
- ~e
st%.32 % uas -
~
ranium byproduct materials shall PART 190-ENVIRONMENTAL RADI-
- t. .naged so as to conferm to the ATION PROTECTION STANDARDS prsvisi:ns of: FOR NUCLEAR POWER C. E R -
(c) Part 190 of this chapter. . ATIONS
-Environmental Radiation Protecnon Standards for Nuclear Power s.bp.,e A c ...,.: r ,. ,s.;
Operati:ns" and g ib) Part 440 cf this chapter. " Ore 3,,,,g 3,,g ,
M ning and Dressmg Point Source 190.02 Definluons.
Category: Effluent Limitanons Gwfelines and New Source subp.et s--tavi,.n..ne.i se..d.,d. f., eh.
1 P2rf:rm nce Standa-ds. Subpart C. u,..;wm Fv.ICycl.
Ur:ntum. Radium and vanadium Ores 190.10 Standards for normal operauons.
Subestegor), '190.11 Variances for unusual operauons.
190.12 Effective date. '
AtrTNoaIT1r. Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended: Reorganization Plan No. 3. of 1970.
Soonce 42 FR 2860. Jan.13.1977, unless otherwise noted.
~
. Subpart A-General Provisic.is j E 150.01 Applicability. -
, The provisforts of this part apply to radiation doses received by members of the public in the general environ-ment and to radioactive materials in-troduced into the general environment '
as the result of operations which are
- apartata hJess! s9l ale.
( 3m mm da) " Nuclear. Juel cycle" ananas the ~
operations deftrted to be associated -
7 with the production of electrical power for public use by any fuel cycle through utilization of nuclear energy.
( " Uranium fuel cycle" means the o tions of milling of uranium ore, -
chemical conversion of uranium, isoto-
. pic enrichment of uranium, fabrica-tion of uranium fuel, generation of
- . electricity by a light-water-cooled nu - . . .
I clear power plant using uranium fuel.
! and reprocessing of spent uranium
{
fuel, to the extent that these directly "
support the production of electrical l power for public use utilizing nuclear ~
energy, but excludes minine ener.
ations, opunt!- -' - -='* diSDoaal _
sites. transportation of any radioactlye materisl In support of these oper-it!OMC and the reuse of recovered non-uranium special nuclear and by-prod ./
uct. materials from the cycle.
~~ (c) " General environment" means
~'
the total terrestrial. atmospheric and .
. . aquatic environment.s outside sites .*
upon which any operation which is _T part of a nuclear fuel . cycle is
~
conducted. . . . . . . - ,
' \
. 25
= -
3 ,, .
OGRRo
) g e o.os (d) " Site" means the area contained within the boundary of a location under the control of persons possess .,
ing or using radioactive material on .
which is conducted one or more oper-adons covered by this Part.
4 (e) " Radiation" means any or all of the following: Alpha, beta, samma, or X rays: neutrons; and high-energy electrons, protons, or other atomic particles; but not sound or radio
, waves, nor visible, infrared, or ultra-violet light.
(f) " Radioactive material" means
, any material which spontaneously emits radiat.lon.
(g) " Curie" (Cl) means that quantity of radioactive material producing 37 i billion nuclear transformations per i second. (One millicurie (mC1)=0.001 C1.) ,
, (h) " Dose equivalent" means the
, product of absorbed dose and appro- l priate factors to account for differ- I
, ences in biological effectiveness due to l the quality of radiation and its spatial i distribution in the body. The unit of l dose equivalent is the " rem." (One mil-lirem (mrem)= 0.001 rem.)
(i) " Organ" means any human organ exclusive of the dermis, the epidermis, or the cornes.
(J) "Gigawatbyear". refers to the h*
i
. m ar h * =1 a nessy pred w at the busbar of a genermung stauen.
A gigawatt is equal to one billion watts. A sisawatt year is equiva3ent to s.
the amount of energy output repre- "
. sented by an average electric power level of one gigawatt sustained for one year.
(Ir,) " Member of the public" means any individual that can receive a radi-atJon dose in the general environment.
l~ whether he may.or may not also be ex- .
posed to radiation in an occupation as- '
sociated with a nuclear fuel cycle.
However, an individual is not consid-
~ ~
ered 'a Eember of the public du'~ing r any period in'which he is engaged in carrying out any operation which is part of a nuclear fuel cycle.
(1) " Regulatory agency" means the government agency responsible for is. -
- l. suing regulations governing the use of.
l sources of radiation or radioactive ma-terials or emissions therefrom and car.
rying out inspection and enforcement
- b -
. activities to assure compliance with ' .
such regulations. _
~
4 *g=
e
- *g 4
?
e m
_ 26 -
= = = = . . .-. . ___. _ _ . ; - . _ - -
MC dAa /90 Subport B-Environmental Stonderds for,the Uranium Fuel Cycle
$ 150.10 Standards' for normal operations.
Operations covered by this Subpart shall be conducted in such a manner as to provide reasonable assursace The annual dose equivalent does n exceed 25 millirems to the whole body, *l5 millirems to the thyroid, and 25 millirems to any other organ of any member of the oublic as the result of yasur = tn nis nned ruer += g.= nf rg dioactive materials. radon and itz daughters exceDted to the general en-vironrnent from uranium fuel cycle op-erations and to radiation from these operations.
@The total quantity of radioactive materials entering the general envi- .
ronment from the entire uranium fuel cycle, per gigawatt-year of electrical energy produced by the fuel cycle, contains less than 50 non J:uries of g'4 krvnton-85. 5 mf11teuries af indin,-M9, and 0.5 millicuries combined of pluto- -
nium-239 and other alpha-emitting transuranic radionuclides with half.
_ lives greater than one year. ~
_s
. - J2EM Masimamos der ", *
'h'standares 1rpeetfled in 1190.1D he exceeded it:
' 'I3te regulatory agenCF has grant- , .
~
variance based upon its detarmi- * , . , ,
nation that a temporary and unusual ~
operating condition exists and contin- -
ued operation is in the public interest, and Informat'lon is promptly made a r of public record delineating the nature of unusual operating condi- -
tions, the degree to which this oper-ation is expected to result in levels in i
excess of the standards, the basis of the variance, and the schedule for achieving conformance with the stand.
ards. -
I 190.12 Effective date.
(a) The standards in i 190.10(a) shall be effective December 1,1979, except -
that for doses arising from operations i
associated with the milling of uranium ~
ore the effective date shall be Decem -
ber 1,1980.
i (b) The standards in i 190.10(b) shall '
1 be effective December 1,1979, except
' that the standards for krypton-85 and lodine-129 shall be effective January 1 -
1983, for any such radioactive materi-l' als generated by the fission process af ter these dates. . . .
i
. . . 27 --
e--- w == vem'**m ' * * * * * " ~ ' ' ' " "
. ^
4 Subpart C-Uranium. Radium and
, Yanadium Ores Subcategory f 440.30 aWmty:descripuon of the uranium, redsum and vanaewn ores stecategory.
De provisions of this Subpart C are i
applicable to discharges from (a) mines l either open-pit or underground. from which uranium, radium and vanadium ores are produced: and (b) mills using the acid leach. =1h=line leach, or combined acid and alkaline leach process for the extraction of uranium, radium and vanadium. Only vanadium byproduct production from uranium ores j
is covered under this subpart.
I 44a.31 [Reservedl I 440.32 Etnuent amitations ., . .; .ii tne degree of emuent reducean attmanswe by the appaceman of the best prececaue
' eentrol technoiegy surrentry avanswe (sPT).
Except as provided in Subpart L of this Part and 40 CFR 125.30-125.32, any ,
' existing point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable l
after application of the best practicable Wenshmeisy%sausub.le .
- s
' (a)ne concentration of po!!utants ancher' god in adme druimage from mines.
- either spee9dt er underground, frons which uranium radium and vanadium ores are produced excluding mines using in-situ leech methods shall not exceed. -
.e.
A== usa
- s w o wns=ame ",,
any ,,,,,,
ese esvo we so 30 N
200 100
, in 19 sA ma22e*-- . -
to 3 Aa22e e pung 30 10 u a a M O O eve - a= escua .
'tutmut pu #wys 40 m sa ,
l V
4 I
f i'%
. I 6 a 28
-y
-, . - -+.en my .m ,- ,4-
$o6?actC 110 C 2 MD 4 WC 3 9- l l
\
(b) ne concentrations of po!!utants I discharged from mills using the acid I leach. alkaline leach or combined acid and alkaline teach process for the extraction of uranium. radium and vanadium including mill-mine facilities and mines using in situ leach methods shall not exceed:
eFI%ee bemawe
=- _
3
-ese asys t== so so
- ses .
As ta J 2n A n .-- - ,1AG e
so se maa.ssin sei e see e n, M
.ove.m.a
. . - ,=
. as ear m
- a. sa f 440.as Etnuent amitsuona represenung 3 -i--- 1 brine appeaseensemetest svanense l eseneseer esonesessor seen vemas gnat), I tsempt aspovided in SubpartLaf .
tble Part erd 40 CFR ll 125.30-121.32. l any existing point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following l limitations representing the degree of efDuent' reduction attainable by the application of the best available technology economically achievable ,
(BAT): .
(a)ne concentration of pollutanta
~
discharged in mi.2e drainage from mines. l either open-pit or underground. that produce uranium ore, including mines using in-situ leach methods, shall not exceed.
. e- -
y s w ,-- -e
=en u . 3 ,.
~ . .
e-- .
- se n.
1.00 s 2.n
.s .: - -
,oa s.
o~ u"""*"* i' 'E
. av . . = a= nur tro4 -
(b)[ Reserved] ... ,- -
f .
%9
. - - . - - - . - . - - - - -- t .. . _ , _ _ _ .
b 8PAex. e Ho cp2 Ma
, ue.u n w.e por,-
[ staneares pesrsi.
- Except as provided in Subpart 1.of this Part any new source subject to this subpart must achieve the following ,
NSPS representing the degree of efUnent reduction attainable by the application of the best available demonstrated technology (BADTV (a)The concentration of pollutants discharged in mine drainage from mines.
either open-pit or underground, that produce uranium ore. excluding mines using in situ leech methods, shall not .
exceed, en-
.Au.m.sup af .
sm e_--
my a ey g
mar =.m ne me _
see is con 1A s8
'= 88
^ tea as ' S .
ma as n . mss p.ms . U 42 U
n n e a =
m b" "'.". M 7 s"a". "
(b)(1) Except as provided in paragraph
, . 4hpat hisseenlos, ther= sha!! be no .
i*. W =8g====bem
== w eensweser a alRe me weases acid =tirall== leach or a== ,,
eeld and atinhoeleechposses derthe -* -
extraceos of erenhum er dress mines a83 mills using in situleach methods.De Agencyrecognizes that the elimination of the discharge of pollutants to -
navigable waters may resultin an inavase in discharges of some utants to other media.The Agency considered these impacts and has , - ,
addressedthermintsepreamble
~T. 2_ - - - - - - - - . - .
^
published onDecamber2. tear -
[2)la the eventthat tbs annual precipitation falling on the treat ===t g,cility and the dramage area --
contributing surface runoff to the yestment facility exceeds the annual
,vaporation. a volume of water ,
,quivalent to the difference between sanual precipitation falling on the yestment facility and the drainage area ~-
contnbuting surface runoff to the ~ -
- . gestment facility and annual .
" e evaporation may be discharged subject to the limitations set forth in paragraph (s)of this section. , '
. . ^.,
g A40.35 Etnuent Smitations.-r -
[i sne segree of ofewent reducelon attainatee ^ ' " .
.\ ~~
pf the appecstion of the best a.- -
~
,esutant eenous technonary pct 1 '
ineserveel -- ,%
- ?
=
. 30
j . ,e s.
+ O, b1 r
M .
, The regulatory agency.in confirrnity with Federal Radiation Protection Guidance (FR. May Ia.1960. -
pgs. 4402-31. shall make every effort to
- m:intran radiation doses from radon cmassnins from surface impoundments cf uran:um byproduct materials as far beliw the Federal Radiation Prowtion Guides as is pract:ca:::e at each licensed
- site.
1 e
t m.
O 1
s O
4
- e ,
4 S
O w
9
- L
.r-O
~ 14 9
- 4a_* 4 ee 8 g*
. , p
- e
.t
.~
O O q
- 31
' ' \
a ?lC c G2 \9 2.*.
., on . . , @ w{e ItI tbl Stardards for cap!icc:w.s al:er ti,e Mosur, p,7q,7,,,,,, ,,,,4,,g_
closure pened. At the end of tne c:csure The owner or operator must close
, wrzo . the facility in a manner that-11 Disposal areas shall each comply (a) Minimizes the need for further
.h the cir:sure performance standard maintenpace. and an i 264.111 of this chapter with respect (b) Controls, minimizes or elimi.
so sonradiological hazards and shall be natas. to the extent necessary to pre.
designed 'to provide reasonable tent threats to human health and the cssurance of control of radiological environment. post-closure escape of '
haastds to dous waste. hazardoins waste con.
(i) Be effective for one thousen '. years. sgg .I te. Contaminated rg{n.
to th2 extent reasonsoly achieVJb!e. gg, roducts rnd. an any case. for at least 200 years. to the o d ' g en- the atmosphe.=e. (ii) LJmit releases of radon.r.2 from - uranium byproduct matenals to the c:: osphere so as to not exceed an aerase 8 release rate of 20 picoeuries per scuare meter per secongi(pCi/m:5). , *.
!!! The requirements of Section 192.32fb)(1) shall not apply to ar y pornon of a licensed anti /or disposal site which contains a concentration of radium :26 in land. averased over areas of 100 square meters. which. as a result of uranium byprodiset mate ial. does not .,
cxc:ed the background level by more than: (i) 5 picoeuries pe eram f.pCilg). cveraged over the istst 15 centimeters (cm) beicw the surface, ar.d (ii) 15 pCilg. averased ever 15 cn thick layers more than 15 c= below the
- .aurface. .
-e l
~- - .
I ne si.e dard assi.e. ie des.im. vani or:ne fe.r - I rden :".* afier :ns:4.14t an ilas apprt.priateay
- e+wenec coser ta not seq.areJ. '
8 8TMs everage shau apply to ate er.tt e ver re of n . . cae.despoedi area oser per sde of at sense one year. l hn? snort C.+e= pared to tuu sears. Redon me:S ennte
- i fre= soth uranium bnerertuct nestenals ar.d from I ceser r.g nietenais. Reden er=*ssten
- c:ss cove tr.s sreanals snewld be es*d=4 *.1 as pa== uf Wsti.w -
a 4sm pian fo* eacn s.:.. I*e scanne ed. however. es; es eruy la erts..sieme 'n=t uraa.am byproduct
- snarenals *e *.be atmospre , , _
9 M .e> t O
' 9 .
e" 4 e d 9
%4 a.
.r-~,..
32 . m-- --
e g .* k 6* I 192.33 Cortecteve Action Programs. If the ground wa:er standards (st:blished uncer provis.or.s of Sect:n
- g '2.32(all2) are exceeded at sany rnsed site. a corrective act:on program as specified in 264.100 of this chapter sha!! be put into operation as -
soon as is pracucable. and in no event lat r.than eighteen (18! months after a finding of exceedance. I 192.34 Effective gate, Subpart D shall be effective December 6.1983. 3 9
" e e
4 e en-9 e w
.M
@ u e
l e t; -
. ~
- j
. ^
t ,- ....
,' ~ . *
. 35
. . y. , 4
, e Su% srt E-Standards for ,
.- '*t:nagement of Thcrwm Byprocuct i tenals Pursuant to Section 84 of the
.omic Energy Act of 1954, as .
Am. e.nded
- g te2.ao AopucatwHty. .
This subpct appi:es to the rnnageme .! of ther:::m bgirod:.et
- matenais under Sectinn 64 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. as amended. d;r:ng and follow:na procesi: .e of thon::m ,
cres. ano to restors::.m of disposal sites f:litwine any use of such s tes under Section d3tb:(1)(B)cf the Act. tt. l 192.41 Provisions. 2? - The provisions of Subpart D of this p:rt includi .s Ii 192.11.192.32. a nd 192.33. shail apply to tr.r:rmm bs product
. . c. 3 , .
mat lerial and: fif) Prous.ons applicable.29 the , . . :,, ,e eierpent uranium sha.i.aiso. apply to the? , y .c ,:.;
- n. . ;-
Gierpent thonum: j b) Provis. ens app 1;cabie;:p.radem 00 ~ . sli{dt also apply to radon.rd and ., .,; ,v. .. ::;
!!c) Prosis:ons app!icaole to radium- ....
06?shall a:so apply to rsdrum.03 , ddl Operanens covered under . . .;
- , .; , . 1 5192.3.*,la t .ha!! oe conduct.ed m such a . -- .
jayney'sytp provide reasonab!e . , - -: a. assurance:tnat the annual dose ' .0 .
'e b;*ivalittY oces not awaed.05 m:; Stems
- .to he# 4 dec~.st i.: dy. .~3 m:1!irems to the , , :.r g W tems.s m:c m m wimm edwr
.rgan eGany mem::et of :he pubh: as a ,e ..
Jes it'of,esposures to the planned --- , . .i discharge 1if-radioac Ne matenais. . . . . ..;s - radon.22pahd its c.ushters escepted. to . . . ,;:-, the geogteignvironment., ...; .
.ra .-
(ts2.42se,bstitute provesions. - i.The regulatorv atency inay..e w th the . . ,,,: t th .f.- lco4currence of EPA. substs.tute.[ur any. . .
. ,i n . r,. ,,.:7 -
.;trqvisions of i 192.41,of.this subpart -; r . 0n 3 . & .,.; . -
siternat:ye provisions it deemsecte n. e . , ...c. e
-practical,that will provide atjeest an .. ,,;;; ;,'. pr u 3t n --
4quivalent level of protection for human - . .o.. ..,c v se hmith and the enuron:perst. i1 . . . . .r J;. . . ,s . j h2.43 Ettective date. . ;.c; 1;t. ;; .; . -
! dubpart E sha'.l'oe effective December. . cy r. 3
- H-6.'.983.
.i' ,
t!
' ."I.s
?{$ ) . T
.y '
.# h U { t ~
t* -
. . . ?, -
.g, .
34
.n .. .
L Buitch 6tateff 6 enate MEMORANDUM Jim: I thought you might be interested in the attached documents on the UMTRCA issue that we discussed the other day. The transcript is an excerpt from , the Committee's markup of UMTRCA back in 1978 and includes some valuable references to the ques-tion of EPA's authority to promul-gate general environmental stan-dards. V
. I ANTIt Y J. THO M PSO N IEMOEANDUM
... ., m o.v .m. .. .
w ASHINGTON, D. C. 2 0C06 HAMEL& PARK { ATTORNEY $ AT LAW (202)$35 4040 i
,of NRC Deputy General Counsel re: NRC's Proposed
. . - - - - - - , .~._.
I On February 3,1984, Martin G. Mals&, NRC Deputy General Counsel, submitted a memorandum on the NRC's draft proposed amendments to its uranium mill licensing mgulations. The Deputy General Counsel takes the position that most of the proposed changes cannot be justified as necessary to conform NRC's regulations to EPA's standards because no " clear legal inconsistency" exists. He contends that substantial technical l or policy justifications must be developed before these changes can be proposed or adopted. Accordingly, the Deputy General Counsel recommends that a separate l rulemaking and environmental impact statement be undertaken. Fx the reasons set fxth below, the objections raised by the Deputy General Counsel are without merit. First, the NRC's draft proposed rule is in substantial compliance with Administrative Procedure Act requirements for proposed rules. Second, the Deputy General Counsel's memorandum overstates the Commission's evidentiary burden in promulgating final confwmance regulations. In any event, the NRC has available to it adequate technical and policy information to satisfy even the Deputy General Counsel's evidentiary mquirements. The Deputy Geeral Counsel's memorandum confuses the requirements for issuing a proposed a rule with those for promulgating a final rule. To propose a rule, an agency must give notice of "either the terms or substance of the proposed rule or a description of the subjects and issues involved." 5 U.S.C. S 553(bX3). The notice must be sufficiently descriptive of the " subjects and issues involved" so that interested parties may offer informed criticism and comments. Ethyl Corporation v. EPA,'541 F.2d 1, { 48 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied 426 U.S. 941 (1976). The NRC's draft proposed rule is in substantial compliance with these requirements. It describes the proposed changes and
'. . . i i
I .. MEMORANDUM Response t'o-Memorandum of NRC Deputy General Counsel re: NRC's Proposed "Conformance" Regulations. On February 3,1984, Martin G. Malsch, NRC Deputy General Counsel, submitted a memorandtim on the NliC's draft proposed amendments to its uranium mill licensing mgulations. The Deputy General Counsel takes the position that most of the proposed changes cannot be justified as necessary to conform NRC's regulations to EPA's standards because no " clear legal inconsistency" exists. He contends that substantial technical or policy justifications must be developed before these changes can be proposed or adopted. Accordingly, the Deputy General Counsel recommends that a separate rulemaking and environmental impact statement be undertaken. FT the reasons set forth below, the objections raised by the Deputy General Counsel are without merit. First, the NRC's draft proposed rule is in substantial compliance with Administrative Procedure Act requirements for proposed rules. Second, the Deputy General Counsel's memorandum overstates the Commission's evidentiary burden in promulgating final conformance regulations. In any event, the NRC has available to it adequate technical and policy information to satisfy even the Deputy General Counsel's evidentiary mquirements. The Deputy General Counsel's memorandum confuses the requirements for issuing a proposed a rule with those for promulgating a final rule. To propose a rule, an agency must give notice of "either the terms or substance of the proposed rule or a description of the stbjects and issues involved." 5 U.S.C. S 553(bX3). The notice must be sufficiently descriptive of the " subjects and issues involved" so that interested parties may offer informed criticism and comments. Ethyl Corporation v. EPA,'541 F.2d 1, 48 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied 426 U.S. 941 (1976). The NRC's draft proposed rule is in substantial compliance with these requirements. It describes the proposed changes and the agency's curret thinking as to why such changes are necessary to conform NRC's regulations to EPA's standards.l_/ The Deputy General Counsel's memorandum is directed primarily to the mquirements for promulgating a final rule. As the memorandum notes, a final rule must be stpported by a rulemaking record, which, among other things, contains a reasoned analysis of the bases for the agency's action. The only legal authority cited in the memorandum is the so-called " Air Bags" decision. The question in the Air Bags case was whether a final rule of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (which rescinded a prix final rule) was supported by that agency's decision-making rationale and the rulemaking record. This has little bearing on the requirements for proposing a rule, which is the immediate issue before the Commission. The Deputy Gmeral" Counsel's memorandum is seriously deficient because it fails to address the mquirements for proposing a rule. Although the question is not actually before the Commission at this time, it is l appropriate to ' comment on the Deputy General Counsel's views as to the evidence 1 l necessary to support the promulgation of final conformance regulations. The Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, as amended, requires NRC to conform its uranium mill licensing mgulations to EPA's standards by April 1,1984. For the most part, the NRC's draft proposed rule would accomplish this goal. The Deputy Geeral Counsel's memorandum suggests, somewhat prematurely, that NRC's draft propesed rule would not be upheld on judicial review. The memorandum maches this conclusion by setting up a narrow and arbitrary distinction between changes l based on " clear legal inconsistencies" with EPA standards and those which address "implemmtation matters." According to the memorandum, only NRC regulations that 1/ If any of the changes am based on considerations other than conformance, then i the Commission should briefly explain those considerations with references, where l appropriate, to the basic technical or policy information relied on. l l !
am clearly inconsistent, such as the 2 pCi/m2/sec radon standard, can be changed in this rulemaking; any other &anges must be based on substantial technical or policy discussion and justification and should be handled in a separate rulemaking. The Deputy General Counsel offers no stepwt for his conclusion that the NRC's confrmance rulemaking must be limited to " clear legal inconsistencies". Unlike the Air Bag case where a new rule rescinded, without adequate explanation, an existing agency rule, the Commission is under a Congressional directive to change i its mgulations to confwm them to EPA's standards on w before April 1,1984. This Congressional directive is not limited, as the memorandum suggests, to " clear legal inconsistencies". For example, once certain core requirements of the NRC regulations, such as the 2 pCi/m2/see radon standard and the " thousands of years" longevity standard, are changed to conform to EPA's less-stringent standards, then other licensing criteria that were premised on these core requirements must also be changed. This wondd include the NRC's " minimum" three meter cover requirement, its "below-grade disposal" requirement, and most of the other criteria which the Deputy General Counsel's memorandum places in the category of " implementation matters." These changes do i not requim substantial technical or policy discussion and justification. To the contrary, given the inconsistencies between EPA's standards and the core requirements of NRC's regulations and given the Congressional directive to conform NRC's regulations, most of the criteria proposed fe deletion could not be retained by the Commission without I a substantial showing that they are necessary to achieve compliance with EPA's less-
- stringent standards. In short, the -Deputy General Counsel's memorandum overlooks the importance of the Congressional directive and the signficance of the differences between EPA's standards and the core requirements of NRC's regulations (upon which other licensing criteria were based).
9 The Deputy Gene'ral Counsel's memorandum contains a number of other statements which should be clarified. The memorandum states that no new technical documentation
~_ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ - . _ _-__- _ _
has been provided to support the proposed rule. Such support could easily be provided. 4 Assuming arguendo that EPA's mcord and environmental impact statement support EPA's standards, then they would also support changes adopted by NRC to conform its
- regulations to EPA's standards. In addition, NRC's task force on mill licensing regulations, in the course of evaluating NRC's mill licensing criteria and preparing comments on EPA's active site standards, developed substantial technical and policy i
infemation mgarding mill tailings stabilization and management. For example, the recommendations of the task grow were based, in part, on an extensive NRC-sponsored study of tailings stabilization and management by Colorado State University.2_/ The information generated by EPA, NRC's task force, and Colorado State University, infamation submitted in public comments, and other infTmation available to NRC will i enable the Commission to develop culemaking record to support whatever changes in the regulations are ultimately adopted. Thus, the technical information that the Deputy General Counsel believes is necessary will be available to the Commission. There is no need to conduct a separate rulemaking or pmpam a new environmental impact statement.3_/ Finally, issue must be taken with the repeated statements in the Deputy General i Counsel's memorandum that EPA standards do not address " implementation matters." As shown in detail in many comments on EPA's proposed active site standards, EPA l l l ~2/ This infTmation, if relied tpon, should be included in the rulemaking record. The
- notice and comment provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act have been
! interpreted to require that the basic data upon which an agency relies in formulating a reguladon be made available for public comment. Portland Cement Association v. I Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 375, 393 (D.C. Cir.1973); B.F. Goodrich Company v. Department of Transportation, 541 F.2d 1178,1184 (6th Cir.1976). 3/ Some of the " implementation matters" referred to in the Deputy General Counsel's inemorandum may be determined on a site-specific basis. Support for such site-specific determinations will be generated in individuallicensing proceedings and in environmental i impact statements prepared in connection with such proceedings. Therefore, extensive discussion of site-specific " implementation matters" is not necessary in this proceeding, which involves the conformance of NRC's generally applicable regulations.
has infringed on NRC's authority to establish on-site control strategies. For example, EPA's radon standard effectively mandates the placement of a thick earthen cover; its detailed ground water protection standards will necessitate the installation of synthetic liners. Indeed, EPA itself has repeatedly stated that its standards are " design" standards ard that, for example, its radon standard was intended primarily to assure the installation of a thick earthen cover. Under tliese circumstances, the Deputy General Counsel's statements are unfounded. EPA has infringed on NRC's authority to develop practicable, cost-effective control measures on a site-specific basis. l
0% 0 STATUTORY BASIS FOR OVERLAPPING JURISDICTION OF EPA STANDARDS AND NRC REGULATIONS SIGNIFICANT EVENTS REORGANIZATION PLAN NO. 3 0F 1970 EPA-NRC MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (1973) / ASH MEMORANDUM (JULY 7, 1973) RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT OF 1976 (RCRA) CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1977 URANIUM MILL IAILINGS RADIATION CONTROL ACT OF 1978 b F
a i REORGANIZATION PLAN NO. 3 OF 1970 i 0 PRESIDENT nix 0N CREATED EPA WITH AUTHORITY TO SET " GENERALLY APPLICABLE ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS" TO PROTECT THE " GENERAL ENVIRONMENT" FROM r RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS.
,s O THESE STANDARDS WERE TO APPLY "OUTSIDE THE BOUNDARIES OF LOCATIONS UNDER s ,
THE CONTROL OF PERSONS POSSESSING OR USING RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS $." INCLUDING x AEC LICENSEES. j . .
~
i ~ O NRC WAS TO REGULATE ITS LICENSEES TO IMPLEMENT EPA'S AMBIENT STANDARDS.
~
l f i 1
(1973) / ASH MEMORANDUM (July 7. 1973) EPA-NRC MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING O EPA-NRC JURISDICTIONS WERE SET FORTH IN MOU. O EPA-NRC JURISDICTIONS FURTHER CLARIFIED IN MEMO BY ROY L. ASH, DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET (OMB). O THESE TWO DOCUMEN'IS LIMITED EPA REGULATORY JURISDICTION TO OUTSIDE THE BOUNDARIES OF SITES LICENSED PURSUANT TO THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT. l l
RESOURCF CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY __ACT OF 1976 (RCRA) O ENACTED BY CONGRESS "TO PROMOTE THE' PROTECTION OF HEALTH AND THE EN AND TO CONSERVE VALUABLE MATERIAL AND ENERGY RESOURCES". 0 RCRA REQUIRED EPA TO IDENTIFY AND DEVELOP REGULATORY STANDARDS FOR THE TREATMENT, STORAGE, TRANSPORTATION, AND DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS WASTES.
-(
O IHE ACT EXEMPTS SOURCE, SPECIAL NUCLEAR, OR BYPRODUCT MATERIAL '% AS-DEFINED , -- BY THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1954, AS AMENDED.
,, !. .~
O EPA STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE APPLY TO COMMINGLED !!ON-RADIOACTIV
~
CHEMICAL,WASTESANpNARMTHATARENOTUNDERATOMICENERGYACTREpULATION-BUTAREROUTINELYD[SPOSED,0FWITHLOW-LEVELRADI0ACTIVEWASTESAND/OR (. * ' URANIUM, MILL TAILINGS AT SITES LICENSED UNDER THE AEA.
); h wr,rga,va a 8 0 s W h RGt A. .
u
CLEAN AIR AcT AMENDMENTS OF 1977 O REQUIRES EPA TO PROMULGATE STANDARDS FOR EMISSIONS INCLUDING RADIOACT STATES MAY IMPOSE MORE STRINGENT MATERIAL FROM NRC-LICENSED FACILITIES. LIMITS. O EPA OR STATE MAY ENFORCE THESE STANDARDS WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES LICENSED SITES. 0 OELD HOLDS THAT THE CLEAN AIR ACT DOES NOT EMPOWER EPA TO DESIGNATE A FEDERAL AGENCY AS THE EPA ADMINISTRATOR'S REPRESENTATIVE FOR INSPEC ENFORCEMENT.
URANIUM MIi i TAllINGs RADIATION CONTROL ACT OF 1978 0 REQUIRES NRC TO INSURE THAT BYPRODUCT MATERIAL-IS MANAGED TO CONFORM TO EPA STANDARDS AND " GENERAL REQUIREMENTS ESTABLISHED BY THE COMMISSION, WITH THE CONCURRENCE OF THE (EPA) ADMINISTRATOR". O MUST BE "TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICABLE, AT LEAST COMPARABLE T0" EPA REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO HAZARDOUS WASTES UNDER THE SOLID WASTE DISPOS ACT AS AMENDED BY RCRA. O EPA'S MILL TAILINGS STANDARDS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1983 INCORPORATE RCRA STANDARDS FOR NON-RADIOACTIVE HAZARDOUS WASTES BY REFERENCE.
SUMMARY
( ALL OF THESE STATUTES EFFECTIVELY SUPERSEDE THE ORIGINAL DIVISION OF EPA AND COMMISSION JURISDICTION BASED ON THE BOUNDARIES OF LICENSED SITES. UNDER THESE LAWS, CONGRESS HAS EXTENDED EPA REGULATION TO COVER HAZARDS AT THEIR SOURCE, IRRESPECTIVE OF SITE BOUNDARIES. IT SHOULD ALSO BE KEPT IN MIND THAT RCRA AND THE CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1977 PROVIDE FOR EPA DELEGATION OF ITS RESPONSIBILITIES TO STATES WITH QUALIFYING REGULATORY PROGRAMS BUT NOT TO ANOTHER FEDERAL AGENCY. i l
,t
- s 3
10 1 Sanctor Domenic- - ne Hart-Domenici n_ron.osal as to 2 the mill tailings that would he reculated. The federal guide-3 lines would preempu in the sense that they become the mininal , ( 4 standards but a state can nonetheless agree to take over the 5 enforcement and the regulation and regulatcry maintenance. i 6' They can agree to take'it cver, b'It it is under the minimal 4 7 guidelines established by the federal statute. 8 Senator Eurdick. I&.en you say proempt, it means the states! l 9 could make a stronger standard? t 10 Senator Donenici. They could mnke them strenner but could ! i i 11 not make them neaker. ' I 12 Senator Burdick. I see. i l t r n.' m*tr Dmanhi; 5:ey can't Set by .with sayine that we t 14 have something thet is compatible. Compatibility would be 15 measured against the minimal standard, is that correct, as seen 1G by NRC? 17 Sanator Culver. I want to direct a questien to the staff. 18 It is my understanding that this amencMrdces have anepp_ct - gg upon the Resource Conservation and Recoverv Act; conservation, 20 which, of- course, is under the jurisdiction of the Resource 21 Protection Subconnittee. And I wonder just what the extent of 22 the coordination is, what the extent of the coordination is here
.- 23 between EPA and NR'C in this area, and what has been the extent ,
24 and the cubstance of any discussions on this subject between ( the two agencies to date? 25 I-
\ U
_ - - - - o
~ . .. . . _ _
u!1 ?
- v. . .'.
p ,, i I Fr. Curmings. Th re have bien e::t2nsive discussions in the 2 last few weeks bcth between the arency in question and with 3 con.v.ittes staff on this comnittee and the committee in the 4 House which is considering a comparable legislation. 5 I think that the description of the coordination is one 6 which is now both acceptable to the agencies involved and 7 preserving of the basic authority in subtitle c of the Solid 8 Waste Act. Since the proposal, the authority which EPA has in 9 the process of exercising over hazardous wastes, including 10 particular uranium mill tailings, would be precerved. 11 In addition, they would be given specific authority to r 12 set general radiation standards for the ofysite s effects, which
' 13 " is comearable to th-ir existine untherid. T.?A% existi-m 14 authority. Those standards would be applied, however, as part 15 of the NRC licensing procedures, so there would he only one 16 license applicable.
17 Senator Culver. Just for offsite standards?
- te Mr. Cummings. Offsite radiological standards and non-19 radiological standards, generally.
20 Senator McClure. Doesn't FPA have authoritv over the mill l 21 tailings after the milling operation ceases? 22 Mr. Cummings. Yes. 23 Sanator McClure. They have that aurhority now, it is not 24 just offsite radiological? N 25 Senator Culver. That is the question. d . - - - - - - - _ - _
12 1 S2nator McClt: 2. I think there is a very real possibility 2 that that will nffect this amendment. It may not be undesira-3 blo, bst one of.the consecuences may be in effect to expressly 4 delegate away. So axisting authority -- it is my understanding 5 ' that the RCRA excludes now from its authority hyproduct 6 materials. 7 Mr. Cummings. That is right. 8 Sanator Culver. Which are under the authority of the 9 Atomic Energy Act. But since this ccmmittee amendnent would 10 define uranium tailings as a byproduct regulation affectine 11 this material would then, as Sanator McClure inferred, may be 12 passed from the NCRA. [ 1:: l T t21 ink the preposal has specific 2.ancuage to make m e I 14' that not all of the authority does~ pass to the NRC and to ensure 15 that the authority is exarcised in a timely way and in a way 1G that allows the simplest licen
- precc'" a, a unified 17 licensing procedure for uranium mill tailings that is integrated 78 with their licensing authority for the nill operations, NRC's
), 19 existing authority, and constitutes an effective exercise of 20 the EPA authority. 21 Sanator Hard. It seems to me this whole question should 22 be which agency is best equipped to properly monitor and enforce 23 and regulate this activity. This problem here is that the foxes 24 cre guarding the chickens; consequently, it is a self-serving 2 interest. I think it is somethine that we oucht to 'ne exanining
it ;
}
13 1 in tirms of urna length assessment and svaluation. ( 2. 3anctcr McClure. Could I ask this cuestien in conjunction 3 with that? Because I just want to make certain when we get (, 4- done with this that it will be desirable and in the public
- 5. interest. I am not tryine to protect MRC cr protect EPA, I am 6' trfing to see that the public is protectsd.
7 Did we have testimony from NRC and.from EPP. with regard 8 to thic overlap or this jurisdictional area? O Mr. Cornell. Yes, we havs had some testir.ony. There was 10 a desire on their part to clarify where the authority, Maere .- 11 they were overlapping authority. ja Sanctor Culver. You have some testimony from somebody. g.;l N M d. 3 0. 2 2 ..z cc a _z: = - 4 # 4 e ? Idd Ton..dh c'*w1 Aestimony.drom J - g - EPA c.nd IT?C for this bill? ' 15 Mr. Cornell. les. 16 Sonator Culver. Why characterize it in a deprecating 17 manner. We have soms testimony from somebcdy that expressed ja concern about ccordination in this area. Where does that lead o
'9 us? How formal serious was -- was it substantial testimony?
20 , Senator Hart. I don't think it is deprecating. Probably 21 in trying to summarize, give us the details if you can. 22 Mr. Cornell. We have had formal and w2-itten testimony from 23 both in the jurisdictional problem witn respect to the mill 1 ~ y tailings. We also have a draft bill which is actually to be 25 introdt cod on the Senate side frcm the nuclear Regulatory 1 1 1
-. .A - _ . _ - - _ _ _ _ - - _ _ . - . - - - . . - - _ _ . _ - - - - - - - - _ _ _ . - - - a
Li t 14 1 Commission dealing with the uranium mill tailings issue. 2 Senator McClure. Did thut draft bill bear uith it a lette: 3 of tran:mittal that indicatsd from the standpoint of the ( 4 administration itself be cleared and that they desire this f 5 legislation? ' 6 Mr. Cornill. The bill has not been officially transmitted: i 7 i by the URC. i 8 Senator McClure. So ve don't have legislation from NRC? 9 Mr. Cummings. The problem in this area, Senator, as you I 10 know, there are two separate tracts involved. There is the l 11 tract we are discussina today, the licensing'of future sites. l-t 12 ' There is the r?. medial action bill which deals with the 22 or ( u sona ' sites-ivexistenne. It -is M t:nSerstanding 'that the ( ( < 14 administration's suggested pattern of authority, some of it is 15 the same for both of those. It involves an EPA role in setting 16 , pational standards which would be applied by the NRC in its 17 licensing, in the remedial action case. ~ 13 It is more accurately described -- it is implied by DOE 19 in its.ramedial action plan, but we have had ---
,f 20 Senator McClure. Are you telling me that DCF has the r .i 21 responsibility to develop the tie-in and EPA has responsibility
/
22 to monitor it and NRC has responsibility to apply it. 23 fir. Cummings. That it what ne have in the remedial action 24 Dill-25 Senator McClure. I can't imagine, it is almost guaranteed g - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - -- .
. e.
. 4
~
15 1 to maximize the dif2icul cy, s 2 ' Senator Hart. I believe it is safe to sav there exists 3 some confusion in the r.dministraticn of what proper direction to ( 4 go here. If you lcok at the rance of agencies who have some 5 interest in the aren, you can begin to understand why.
.G I don't know that this is peculiar to this administration.
7 Ue are talking chou: EZW, EFA, NRC, DOF. and half of the S federal government. 9 Senator McClure. The Department cf Agriculture, too. 10 Senator Mart. You start with that and begin to understand 11 g the probium and the fact that you are dealine with a past 12 . f problem and future problems. We are dealing with low-level o f 12 } TadiYdtm, high-level adiatics, domestic wastes. W are decl-f. 14 ing with military wastes. We are asaling with a r.ess. That is 15 what ue are decling uith. 16 And you start with a mess and you try to work ycur way out 17 O-n a*--. i I
- m. . Senator McC1tre. I hope-you are not sayinc mess-in and 19 mess-out.
20 Senator Hart. Uhatever. 21 Let me respond to Senator Culver, ,t least as one member
~
22 of the subcommittee and this committee. My concern is to try to
~
23 make uhat many people have perceived, the folks in the past, as 24 the watchdog. This might be a step in the right direction now. 25 I don't knew that we ought to put the fox in charge of the 1 J .
.s E
16 1 chicksn house but ue are trying to convert the fen into the 2'! ?.atchdeg. 3 I I would ask :he staff, or Senatcr Culver, to provide his ( 4 staff with as much specific data about the questions that he 3 has asked as possible. Ths question particularly from EPA, 6 I the testimony that he~ asked and his question. I think that 7 would be helpful to him, to get firsthand the testimony that 0 I we did receive. 9 g It is hard tc condense it right hero. 10 Senator Culver. I thank the Senator. 11 Is this a7.endment somawhat pre:;ature since EPA right now, 12 I understand, is involved in tryino to set these so-called 7 y dNete stMm3s and zheyme .still:heine v wnulgated % i 14 agencies, so-et11aI S subsection c?' W uldn't this be premature 15 until that is done?
-~
16 Mr. Cornell. One way of looking at this, the general 17 criteria, standards, which EPA is prcmulcatine --- 18 Senator Culver. Appear available yet? 19 Mr. Cornell. Right. It will be available within a year 20 and a half. Under current law NRC wouldn't have the authority 21 to enforce those standards. As far as disposal of uranium mill ' 22 tailings with the amendment drafted, the amendnent as drafted (_ .' 23 would give NRC the authority to enforce in its procedure those 24 criteria and standards which are being deva.~cped by EPA. l. 25 Sanator Culver. You would envision a reevaluation of any
.. y l
Lt I Wouldn't the EPA requinti.cas bs available? r,biRC rejul2tions. ( 2{ gr, carnell, yes, i 31 Mr. Cummings. Senatcr. these regulations can be prepared ( 4 contemporaneously cince these regulations will take some time 5 co prepare as well. I don't think it will be quite as long as G Kevin suggested for subtitle c regulations to be premulgated. 7 They ought to be preoposed early next year. 8 I think one of the elanents of this propocal is to push 9 that along a little bit to assure that with respect to the 10 uranium mill tailin;rc in particular that occurs in a timely 11 fashion. 12 Senator Culver. Ecw tould you evaluate the relative I 13 Y captbility tf the IPA, en-tha me -h2.nd, and URC to =trry ont thid 14 commission? 15 Mr. Cummings. There are three different matters. One is is the nonradiological and one is the radiological, and the 17 othcr is the enforcement capacity. The nonradiclogical, NRC 18 has no capability whatscaver in my opinion. EPA is charged to
- s develop that. They have a substantial effcrt goinc into that.
20 The radiological, EPA is responsible under the law for T 21 general environmental radiological standarde, oft'ite standards 22 That authority has been criticized, and EPA told us in earlier
/ 23 hearings, told the subcommittee that they intended to upgrade 24 that function. That is sorely needed in the area of permitting
( 25 enfer 2 ment. And URC has an enforcement svstem in place for
N 1
. . 4 \ l 1; N '
h 1 5 this. i 4 1l EPA will be creating c:le which they vill ints N: l 0 other snforcement prcgrams, such at :he Water Act discharge 4 permit program and so forth, yhere are adninistrative effi-5 ciencias in having URC do permittinc and enforcement. G Senator Hart. Let me ask the staff a cuestioit that may 7 help with what ue are tryinc to do here, which is somewhat S analogous. 9 What happens on licensing and regulations of nuclear power 10 plants? In a sense, as the staff previously sugcested, NRC
- ~
="A 11 o ;erates inside the cates EPA outside the gates.
12 Mr. Cornell. It probably can be with that. In recards 7 13 to the nuclear pcwar plants, I'PA sets general criteria standards. y 14 which are onforced by the Unclear Reculatory Commission for 15 one power plants. And the same type of relationship is con-16, tamplated in this case. 17 Senator Demenici. Could I ask a clarifying question now,
$3 again?
19 ! Tith reference to remedial activities, the entent that we 20 cra involved in in :his bill is to make the final stabilization
'21 program subject to ragulation by the NRC on remedial; 13 that 22 correct?
23 Mr. Cornell. *1es. 24 Senator Doraenici. And that merely means that if we get d ( 25 national bill to stabiline the existine sites that when they are i A
, h gh' *4, . - UNITED STATES
,r,j *. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON D. C. 20555 5
ef si'
**** August 9, 1978 Mr. James K. Asselstine Minority Counsel Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation }
Committee on the Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, D. C. 20510 Je *
Dear Mr. Ass stine:
As I promised this afternoon, I have attached the following two documents relating to the agreement reached between the Environmental Protection Agency and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on the division of responsibility between the two i agencies for the continuing r.eSulation of mill tailings: (1) S,tatutory language '(modeled on provisions of the Udall and Dingell bills in the House) describins the division ...
, of responsibilities. ,
(2) A-short statement of how NRC. believes the responsi- ' bilities of the agencies should be discharged, in practice. . l This approach was agreed upon by EPA and NRC staff members and ratified in telephone conversations between EPA Administrator Castle and NRC Chairman Hendrie yesterday. As you know, however, the Commission would prefer that the
. EPA have a consultative, rather than concurrin5 role in the development of NRC's Solid Waste Disposal *Act' requirements.
If you have further questions, do not besitate to contact me. Sincerely, I M " Carlton R. Stoiber
~ Assistant General Counsel
^
i Attachments as stated
, ( . ( ;
i
- I i\
"Sec. 84. Authorities of Commission Respecting Certain Byproduct Material.--
i "a. The Commission shall insure that the management of . f any byproduct material as defined in section 11 e. (2) is carried out in such manner as--
"(1) the Commission deems appropriate to protect ,
the public health and safety and the environment;
"(2) conforms with applicable standards promul-gated by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency under section 275 of the Act; and !
"(3) conforms to general requirements, established
- by the Comunission with the -concurrence d .the' Adminis-
~]
trator, which are to the maximum extent practicable con-sistent with requirements applicable to the possession, , transfer, and disposal of similar hazardous material I regulated by the Administrator under the Solid Waste Disposal Act.
"b. In carrying out its authority under this section, the Commission is authorized to:
f
"(1) by rule, regulation, or order require persons, i officers, or instrumentalities exempted from licensing under section 81 of this Act to conduct monitoring, perform remedial work, and to comply with such other measures as it may deem necessary or desirable to
- ( -
I
( I t, (- ' protect hekith or to minimize danger to life or property; and
"(2) make such studies and inspections and to conduct such monitoring as may be necessary.
"Any violation by any person other than the United States or any officer or employee of the United States of any rule or order of the Commission established under this section shall be subject to a civil penalty in the same manner and in the same amount as' violations subject to a civil penalty under section 23h. .Nothing in this section affects any authority of the Commission under any other provision of this Act.".
.C (b) The table .of contents for .such chapter 8 is amended g
,. i by inserting.the fbliowing new. item after the item relating to section 83: .
"Sec. ,84. Authorities of Commission respecting **
certain byproduct material.". Authority of EPA Respecting Certain Byproduct Material Section 206.. Chapter 19 of the Atomic' Energy Act of 1954 is amended by inserting after section 274 the following new section:
"Sec. 275. Health and Environmental Standards for Uranium Mill Tailings.--
"(a)(1) As soon as practicable, but not later than one I
fear after the date of enactment of this section, the (.
i ( !
! i I
, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (here-inafter referred to in this section as the ' Administrator') shall, by rule, promulgate standards of general application i for the protection of the public health, safety, and the onvironment from radiological and non-radiological hazards l cssociated with residual ~ radioactive materials (as defined , in section 101 of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978) located at inactive uranium mill tailings sites and depository sites for such materials 4 selected by the Sec'retary of Energy, pursuant to title I
, of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978. I
"(2) Jus soon as practicable, 'but not later than eighteen f
Danths after the enactment of .this section, the Administrator
- shall,. by rule, promulgate . generally applicable stasdards for the protection of the public health, safety, and the environment from radiological and non-radiological hazards associated with the processing and with the possession and transfer of byproduct material, as defined'in section.11 e.
I
'(2) *of the Act at sites at which ores are processed primarily for their source material content, or which are used for the disposal of such byproduct material.
"(3) The Administrator may from time to time amend, modify, or change any standard promulgated under this section, xcept that any amendment, modification, or change in a l
. .q_ ; 's standard promulgated pursuant to subsection b. shall only be applied by the Commission to any person holding a license issued by the Commission for byproduct material, as defined in section 11 e. (2)'of.thit Act, prior to.such promulgation upon renewal of.such license.
e 6 e m%gs, f4 e e .j e
& O
. O % g e
0 e 0 i ( . O
~
s t - ~ Uranium Mill Tallings Control Act of 1978 Under Title II of the proposed legislation, EPA would be responsible for establishing generally applicable standards and criteria for the protection of the general environment, considering radiological and non-radiological aspects
.the boundaries of the tailings sites. ,
The EPA standards and criteria would be developed to limit the exposure (or potential exposure) of the public and to protect the general environment from either radiological or non-radiological substances to acceptable levels through uch means as allowable concentrations in air or water, quantities of '.the substances released over a period 'of time, or by specifying maximum allowable doses or levels , to individuals in the general population. Generally appli-cable environmental standards would not incorporate specific - . . - - - . . . . . . _ _ _ ._ technology, engineering methods, or procedures to be employed to achieve the desired level of controls for limiting public exposure and protecting the general environment. For example, the standards and criteria should not be of a nature that _ would specify exclusion area
-~
restrictions on site boundaries,
~ . _ _
surveillance requirements, detailed m-- engineering methods. . . (such as linings for tailings ponds, depth, and type . of J
;ailings cover), population limitations, or institutional ;
l
i N\
\
_2_ s
- . s arrangements such as financial surety requirements or site i
security measures. The EPA standards and criteria would ! not incorpora_te any requirements for permits or -li.cnnses :
. _ _ . . . . - -~. _
l to avoid duplication of NRC regulatory authority over_.the j tailings sites. _, The NRC would be responsible for implementing 3 these EPA standards and criteria. , Through its regulations and licensing process, NRC must cssure that the technology, engineering, methods, operational , controls,. surveillance requirements and institutional arrange-ments employed at the sites provide the necessary barriers ; and controls to limit public expo.sure and prot.ect the !
.. ..q
-environment from radiolod e=L.and +ee e m-maciclogical .
tubstances. associated with mill. tailings materials. With . .
. . . i' respect to non-radiological matters, the NRC, through its environmental review under NEPA mandate, has the authority to impose controls on toxic non-radiological materials.
~
Title II of the bill would clarify the rel,ation of NRC and EPA authority'in this area, by providing that NRC would develop and apply general requirements for mill tailings which, to the maximum extent possible, are consistent with those adopted by EPA for similar substances under the Solid Waste Disposal Act. EPA would have a con.currence [NRC_ prefers consultation) role in the NRC's development of such require-1 [\ ments, which could include engineering methods, management . l l
- . . - - , . , . - . - . - . , - . . - - , ~ -.. ., ,
( , ,. , , - -.-- i f practices and other institutional arrangements. NRC Agreement States would be expected to establish comparable controls on toxic non-radiological materials in tailings through th31r required environmental analyses. 6 9 9
* ' es ==,,
t e
- 6 e
e e
.m A
b,, n narco, l f c l May 5, 1983 NY,$
% n- g SECY-83-172 l
i POLICY ISSUE ! (Notation Vote)
! Fer: The Commissioners :
i ii From: William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations
Subject:
URANIUM MILL TAILINGS REGULATIONS; PROPOSED SUSPENSION OF l SELECTED PROVISIONS
Purpose:
To request Comission approval to publish a proposed action suspending portions of the Commission's rules for licensing l uranium mills and disposal of mill tailings and waste.
~Cntecory: This paper involves a minor policy matter. .
j Discussion: The NRC Authorization Act for FY 1983 (Public Law 97-415 signed January 4, 1983) contained a provision requiring NRC review and possible suspension of certain portions of the Commission's uranium mill tailings regulations. Specifically, the Act amended the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act o,f 1978 (UMTRCA) to add: l
"(2) Following the proposal by the Administrator of standards under subsection b., the Commission shall review the October 3 regulations, and, not later than 90 days after the date of I such proposal, suspend implementation and enforcement of any
! provision of such regulations which the Commission determines l after notice and opportunity for public comment to require a l major action or major commitment by licensees which would be unnecessary if--
. Contacts:
Robert Fonner, ELD 492-8692 Kitty Dragonette, NMSS 427-4160 l4 E e
- 4 e
0\ : i. G. l
.c -
'The Commissioners 2
"(A) the standards proposed by the Administrator are t
promulgated in final form without modification, and
"(B) the Commission's requirements are modified to conform to such standards.
Such suspension shall terminate on the earlier of April 1, ' 1984 or the date on which the Commission amends the October 3 regulations to conform to final standards promulgated by the i . Administrator under subsection b. During the period of such suspension, the Commission shall continue to regulate byproduct
, material (as defined in Section 11.e(2)) under this Act on a 4 licensee-by-licensee basis as the Commission deems necessary to protect public health, safety, and the environment."
4 The proposed standards referenced are general environmental standards for mill tailings management and disposal to be issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Title II of UMTRCA. The EPA published proposed standards on April 29, 1983
. (48 FR 19584). See Enclosure B.
The October 3 NRC regulations referenced are contained in Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 40, " Domestic Licensing of Source Material." The staff has identified four major strategy differ-ences between the Commission mill tailings regulations and the proposed EPA standard. The differences cover.the areas of ground water protection, design lifetime for stability of tailings control measures, long-term maintenance, and radon releases. Ground water differences are related to the application of Solid Waste Disposal - Act/ Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (SWDA/ RCRA) regulations for hazardous materials. The EPA proposed standard' mandates that ; disposal not degrade the ground water or aquifers. The NRC rule is based on not degrading the aquifer use category. Considering the aquifer use category provides additional flexibility. For l
. example, acceptable levels of contamination in brackish aquifers could be higher than those permitted for potable aquifers since
. the water is ~already unsuitable for drinking. The design lifetime differences relate to the length of time the cover and.
- other tailings control measures should be effective. The EPA proposal specifies effective controls for 1,000 years, to the
. extent reasonably achievable, and for at least 200 years. The
. NRC rule is based on stability for thousands of years. The EPA -
proposal references a SWDA standard requiring minimized maintenance after closure for nonradiological hazards. The NRC rule assumes . no active maintenance after closure. Control of radon releas.es j is fundamental to both rules, but the EPA proposal would not
; e reduce radon releases to background levels as the NRC rule
. . effectively does. i . l w * - - - - e.n-y.m ,--w--, 9 ,s, ,.m,a -
,.-. m-.ww,__ _ _ , - _ _ _ _ _ . . . .
The Commissioners 3 The staff has reviewed the provisions of Appendix A against the statutory mandate to suspend portions of the.. regulations that potentially would require unnecessary major action or major commitments of licensees. Enclosure A is a proposed Federal Register Notice detailing the results of that. review and recom-mended suspensions. The rationale for each recommended suspension is specified in the proposed notice.
.c- -
The staff also discussed the recommended suspension with EPA staff. The major concern expressed by EPA staff was that NRC
- '. staff had attached too much significance to the differences in
-n time-frames in the two rules and the different wording on maintenance. A paragraph was added to the Commission Approach section of the Federal Register notice to reflect that the significance of the different approaches is still under review and will be reflected in anticipated conforming changes.
The staff approached the task with the goal of fully meeting the requirements of the Congressional mandate while retaining those
. portions of the regulation for use in future licensing and enforcement that present no potential for misdirected and costly efforts by licensees. The Continuing Resolution for Appropriations (Public Law 97-377 signed December 21,1982) continues 1.. effect the Stratton-Schmitt amendment embargo on the use of appropriated funds to implement or enforce the mill tailings regulations promul-gated October 3, 1980. A new section of the.NRC Authorization Act for FY 1983 lifted the embargo, with certain limitations, but the Continuing Resolution still prohibits expenditure of funds.
If an NRC appropriation bill is enacted that does not include the embargo, then the new section of the Authorization Act would allow use of the October 3,1980 (Appendix A) regulations in licensing and enforcement. It is also possible under the Continuing Resolu-tion for the Committee on Appropriations to. approve the use of
. the presently embargoed regulations.
1 The staff believes that we have responded to the Congressional
. mandate in the proposed suspension but would like to emphasize two points. One, the proposed suspensions are not intended as I comments on the proposed EPA standard. This point is also
- made as an agency position in the proposed Federal Register notice. Second, while the proposed EPA standard is less stringent
- than Appendix A in certain areas, it is more stringent than j '
Appendix A in certain other areas, particularly for ground water i protection. Since compliance with the more stringent ground water ! requirements will be difficult for most licensees, the staff expects
. that the. proposed EPA standard will be controversial.
i
. 1 i
l -
1 The Commissioners 4 EPA has provided a 30-day comment period for public and other agency comments on the proposed standard. Staff plan to submit , comments on the proposed EPA standard to the Commission in a separate paper. Recommendations: That the Cocuission:
,i
- 1. Approve publication of the proposed suspension of portions of Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 40 for public comment as set forth in the draft Federal Register Notice in Enclosure A.
- 2. Note:
- a. That in view of the fact that the suspension is not a rule change and is suspending rather than adding or removing regulatory requirements, no Regulatory Analysis
. is needed or was done.
- b. That in view of the staff conclusion that the suspension itself is of a temporary procedural nature and involves ,
i no significant environmental impacts, no environmental impact statement or assessment is needed or was prepared. ,
- This conclusion is discussed in the draft notice under the heading NEPA Considerations.
j c. That the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (PL 96-354) do not apply to the proposed suspension. However, if published as effective, the suspension will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The basis for this position is summarized in the enclosed draft Federal Register Notice (Enclosure A) under the Reculatory Flexibility Analysis heading.
- d. That the Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation of the Senate j committee on Environment and Public Works, the Subcom-mittee on Energy and the Environment of the House Committee
, on Interior and Insular Affairs, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power of the House Committee on Interstate , and Foreign Commerce, and the Subcommittee on Environment, Energy and Natural Resources of the House Committee on Government Operations will be informed by a letter similar'
, to Enclosure C. l l
- e. That Rep. Samuel Stratton, Chairman of the House -
l Procurement and Military Nuclear Systems Subcommittee, will also be informed by a letter similar to Enclosure C. i 6 i
The Commissioners 5
- f. That in view of the suspending and administrative
. nature of the action and since r.o. changes to informa- , tion collection requirements are involved, no review by the Office of Management and Budget' is required.
j . i g. That a Public Announcement such as: Enclosure D will be
.t issued on filing of the notice of proposed action with
[i. , . . .__ . the Office of the Federal Register.
- , . h. That copies of the notice will be distributed to all Commission uranium mill licensees and copies will be 1 provided to all Agreement States for distribution to their uranium mill licensees. Copies will also be distributed to the American Mining Congress, Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc...Phillips Uranium Corporation, Kerr-McGee
! Nuclear Corporation, United Nuclear Corporation, and Western Nuclear, Inc., which are the parties in the
, ongoing legal challenge to the NRC's mill tailings regu-lations. Copies will also be sent to environmental and l , public interest groups. Union Carbide has petitioned for rulemaking on Appendix A and will also be provided l .
a copy. i ! Schedulino: The Congressionally mandated 90-day limit for final action on this matter' dictates prompt Commission action. The notice of proposed action must be published in the Federal Register by May 19, 1983 to allow a 30-day comment period and analysis of l comments received. (Enclosure E is the schedule developed for this effort.) To meet the May 19, 1983 publication date, Commission approval of the enclosed notice is needed no later than May 12, 1983. 1 9 j m .A w.---- y j TV
. / wC~% .. -
, . William J. Dircks [ , Executive Director for Operations 1
Enclosures:
A - Federal Register Notice
, of Proposed Rulemaking B - EPA Proposed Standard C - Draft Congressional Letter
- D - Draft Public Announcement E Day Schedule . .
' e l l m - ,s a,,-n_w- n,,,,- ,, _ , , , , , . . , , , , , - - - , , . , , , , , , - , , , _ _ , _ , , , . . . , , , - . , , , -y---, _,v , --w-- - , . ,
o . , , 6 As requested by the EDO, Commissioners' comments or consent should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary by c.o.b. Thursday, May 12, 1983.
.. Commission Staff Office comments, if any, should be submitted to the Commissioners ASAP, with an information copy to the Office of the Secretary
~ i DISTRIBUTION:
- Commissioners
- OGC i OPE.
; OCA OIA OPA REGIONAL OFFICES EDO ELD ACRS ASLBP ASLAP SECY e
0 4 4 6 h e , e V e e e e
gwpm r=mc-mmes2mm-mmm.m. gb8 AIG(p e [ $*te 5 !
\...../
May20,1ss3 RULEMAKING ISSUE szer-83-19s (Notation Vote) For: The, Commissioners From: . William J. Dircks ' Executive Director for Operations
Subject:
STAFF COMMENTS ON EPA PROPOSED STANDARDS FOR URANIUM
- . AND THORIUM MILL TAILINGS AT LICENSED COMMERCIAL
- PROCESSING SITES
Purpose:
To request Commission approval to transmit to EPA the staff's comments on the proposed standards. (See Secretary's memorandum of February 7, 1983) Discussion: Pursuaitt to S 275b. of the Atomic Energy Act, as
. amended, EPA published, on April 29, 1983 (48 ER 19584) its proposed general environmental standards for active uranium mills and tailings (Enclosure A). The staff has major comments on the three primary areas of the EPA +
proposed standards as follows: the groundwater protection sta6dard, the tailings stabilization standard, and the radon release standard. The staff also has minor comments on four other areas of concern to EPA. Details of the staff comments are contained in the draft comment , letter .and its attachments (Enclosure B). A general summary follows: Contacts: Ralph Wilde, HMSS X74155
' Robert Fonner, ELD X28692 e
}
._n, i
. +
,f a V n
7 .. . The Commissioners . The Groundwater Protection Standard EPA proposes to apply selected sections of -- -- 40 CFR Part 264 (referred to herein 'as RCRA _ _ - . _. standards) to uranium mill tailings . impoundments. -- ~ -~~ The incorporated RCRA standards strategy includes, l (1) no degradation of the nearest aquifer below the - tailings, (ii) the use of impermeable liners, and
, (iii) a complex monitoring and remedial action compliance program. The staff has concluded from -
preliminary examination of the applicability of the
~
! EPA proposal to current NRC licensees that the RCRA standards for groundwater protection are not
- practical and nearly impossible to implement with existing technology and reasonable cost as general standards. The staff believes that virtually every licensed tailings disposal area would have to be exempted through the difficult and lengthy exemption procedure in 40 CFR Part 264 and, under the EPA proposal, with EPA concurrence.
~
The Tailings Stabilization Standard
~
Th.e EPA standard for design longevity of tailings disposal area reclamation and stabilization is 1000 years, to the extent achiev'able, but in no case less than 200 years. It appears to NRC staff that site-specific cover for tailings disposal areas can
. be designed to last for several hundred or 1000 years. The EPA performance standard allows the NRC licensing staff considerable flexibility in reviewing cover designs on a site-by-site basis, and would appear to be a workable standard.
Radon Release Standard The EPA proposed radon. release standard is
- 20 picoeuries/m2/sec from the covered tailings. The selection of this standard appears to be primarily directed at compelling a cover thick enough to
. minimize human intrusion into and misuse of the i .
tailings over the long term, rather than addressing the acceptability of the radiological effects from O e
3 -' The Commissien rs . exposure to radon from covered tailings. The staff believes that the issues of human intrusion and - - - misuse should be, and are better addressed by the
.,' 1000 year longevity stabilization standard. The EPA proposed standard of 20 pCi/m2/sec also inhibits flexibility in that such a standard would be applied .j:...' ' - . _ without consideration of site-specific factors .
t affecting health risk. The proposed radon release
.4.7.
~
~ '
. standard would define the thickness and ..
. characteristics of the cover, regardless of what . .
variation may exist in site features, such as the . . : ..
.! j . . ~~ .
. . size of the tailings pile, population patterns, -
' 3 ~: climate, and accessibility. There may be instances where a radon release rate greater or less than the EPA proposed standard might be justifiable on the '
basis of health, safety, environmental needs, and , . economic costs depending on the level of risk protection to be achieved. Therefore, the NRC staff is suggesting as an alternative a generally applicable environmental standard for radon based on . health risks of 0.3 pCi/1 that would be applied to the highest exposed individual or at the site
-~---
boundary, that would be used in conjunction with the - - -- -
- stabilization requirements, and cupplemented by
- NRC's consideratien of ALARA. (See enclosure to comment letter, " Radiological Analysis of Mill s
Tailings Control Requirements," which explores the rationale and methodology for establishing a risk
. based standard for radon release. This report was developed by the " fresh look" task force established in NMSS in response to the Chairman's memorandum of ~
October 13, 1982.) The comments on the groundwater protection standard and
- the radon standard are not supportive of the EPA proposed
- rule and the staff has informally discussed the issues - -- - - -
involved with EPA staff. We believe that NRC comments, .
~
if adopted by EPA, will provide NRC with standards that 4 are supportable by established methodology and capable of effective, fair and uniform application in licensing. . I !i . . e e 1 en
The Commissioners - 4-The staff comments represent a consensus of the task force that was established to take a fresh'look at the
~
NRC mill tailings regulations and other 1.nterested staff elements. One of the members of the task force has expressed diagreement with some of the positions taken by
~
the task force. A summary of his views:fs attached
~ ~ ]. ,
(Enclosure C).
~
The close of the comment period on the EPA proposed standards for mill tailings is May 31, 1983. The staff ! ii--- is briefing the Commission on the issues on May 23, 1983. i Commission comments on the staff's proposed letter are ~2 needed by May 27, 1983 to meet the EPA deadline. Recommendations: That the Commission
- 1. Approve the proposed staff comments on the proposed EPA standards.
- 2. Note that on approval the Director, NHSS,.will forward the comments to EPA as staff comments.
- 3. Note that the staff's proposed comments were reviewed by OGC and changes were made in response to their verbal comments.
- 4. Note that several parameters in the " Radiological Analysis of Mill Tailings Control Requirements" report (such as, truncatign of collective dose at individual risks below 10 s, a 500 year integration ,
period, and a population risk limit based on the recently adopted policy statement on a safety goal for nuclear power plants) were used by the staff for analysis of this problem only. The use of these parameters in this paper does not constitute a general staff endorsement for their use in a broad spectrum of situations. e 9 e O
,-%. -.__~-- - . - *.-. ..-i-.---,-- .-.e, - -._,w, _y --._,, ,.-,,---e .,. . _ _ . . , ,,-p y,_,,,_y - - . , , ,, .--. , , - , - p
I ..
. o The Commissioners 4
. 5. Note that should the proposed recommendations be adopted by EPA, substantial changes in Appendix A, 10 CFR Part 40, would be required. Particularly.
the requirements for radon flux and a minimum of three meters of tailing cover would be eliminated.
- 6. Note that NRC comments on the basis for the EPA -
mill tailings standard suggest approaching the
'-I' '-
situation on the basis of the "most exposed
.. .. individual" rather than on the basis of population 1-
. - - - doses. NRC comments on the proposed EPA high level -
waste standard endorsed the population dose approach -- due to the high uncertainty of identifying the "most exposed individual." Schedulina: EPA is allowing only a 30-day comment period on the proposed standard. Thus, Commission action should occur by May 27, 1983, in order for the staff to meet EPA's comment deadline. n. f Williak lJ. Dircks Executive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
A. EPA proposed standards B. Draft staff comment letter
. (with enclosures)
C. Separate views of task force
- j' member Dan E. Martin, dated May 16, 1983 m
l
6-Commissioners' comments or consent should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary by c.o.b. Friday,'May 27, 1983. Commission Staff Office comments, if any, should be submitted to the Commissioners NLT Wednesday, May 25, 1983, with an - information copy to the Office of the Secretary.: ,If the paper is of such a nature that it requires additional time for analytical review and comment, the Commissioners and the Secretariat should be apprised of when comments may be expected. _ ?"~i' DISTRIBUTION: ::-
- - Commissioners *!
' ~
OGC OPE OCA
. OIA OPA REGIONAL OFFICES EDO ELD ACRS ASLBP ASLAP
,, SECY - 9 6 m L-
F
- e
- ,4 9
4 e as-e. 6 miig -- M = m 9 y- . . e a , a su a , en W $ e- ** e w e ENCLOSURE A e b o S e F e. e 0 e
{_ . jd 0*4 hhI l/' , I UNITED STATES ' E 7, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REFER TO: M830523B g .g WASHIN GTON. D.C. 20555
#,e
% ,, May 27, 1983 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 1
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD
. O FROM: Samuel J. Chilk,Secretark g
SUBJECT:
STAFF REQUIREMENTS - BRIEF [N ON NRC COMMENTS ON EPA PROPOSED TITLE II STANDARDS (URANIUM MILL TAILINGS), 10:30 A.M., MONDAY, MAY 23, 1983, COMMISSIONERS' CONFERENCE ROOM, D.C. OFFICE (OPEN TO PUBLIC ATTENDANCE) The Commission was briefed on SECY-83-195, " Staff Comments on EPA Proposed Standards for Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings at Licensed Commercial Processing Site." Chairman Palladino urged the Commissioners to provide comments on the paper as soon as possible in order to meet the May 31 comment deadline. ,, (Subsequently, the comment deadline was extended to June 14 and the Commissioners were requested to vote by June 10.) cc: Chairman Palladino
, Commissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Ahearne Commissioner Roberts commissioner Asselstine Commission Staff Offices EDO PDR - Advance
', DCS - 016 Phillips ,
- , Os
' e no 4
; e gP- .
,p ~
\ 't ' Y j i
.. jer rg + i STATE OF UTAH Scorr M.Linzsox orrecE or Tsc coVERNoR 3
**" *" s A LT L A K E CITY 84114 i
l June 30,1983 . l Hon. Nunzio J. Palladino Gairman , Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washituton, D.C. 20555 - Mr. G airman: I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the NRC's proposed suspension of a portion of 10 CFR Part 40. W e articles to be suspended are those the Commission deems to be in conflict with parallel regulations proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency for mill tailirgs. he state of Utah has several concerns regarding the proposed EPA regulat Lons and the proposed NRC regulatory suspension. Our fundamental position is that it is the responsibility of this generation of decision makers is to ensure that our decisions and actions do not result in the need for remedial action by future generations. his position requires that the proposed standards do not, in effect, underregulate uranium mill tailings. , he following examples illustrate several instances in the proposed suspension where such underregulation occurs. Criterion 1 i he NRC proposed regulations in Criterion 1 "... isolating the tallings....for thousands of years....", is ambiguous, but not significantly less so than the EPA regulations which maintain, that actions, "...be effective for one thousand years, to the extent seasonably achievable, and, in any case, for at least 200 years....". We think that 200 years is unreasonably short and
- that the regulations should state that tailings control measures be effective for at least 1,000 years.
, We believe that since there is no guarantee that our political and social institutions will survive intact for the required ; e control period of at least 1,000 years, that the control i measures for tailings be such as to not require perp,etual maintenance. We therefore concur with the NRC and discourage' .-
planned reliance on~ active maintenance. We do not believe that this larguage should be removed from the NRC regulations. s.
&=
i[pq Mf3 . ,. , n ,- uys 5ft,,
Mo n ** e, - Hon. Nunzio J. Palladino June 30,1983 Page 'No ! We concur with suspending the word " usable" from the phrase
" usable groundwater sources". We cannot know with certainty what groundwater sources will be usable or not in the future and i
we should not allow contamination of any groundwater sources. j Criterion 3 We do not concur with the suggested suspension of this criterion. h e design objective should be for "at least 1,000 years" and for virtually all sites, below grade disposal is the only acceptable standard. Since it can be argued, that given enough time, any tailings dam for above grade disposal will fail, the best and most reliable method is below grade disposal. Bere may be exceptions to this position, but the exceptions from below grade disposal should be allowed only on a case by case basis which proves the exception. h e rule should be below grade disposal. Criterion 4 Since our position is that active maintenance be discouraged, we do not agree with suspending paragraph (a). We agree with the NRC that the Probable Maximum Flood is the appropriate design criteria. We do not agree with the proposed suspension of the other particulars for Criterion 4. Since we feel that control should exceed 1,000 years, all these standards should apply. We do, however, recognize that a specific site may be more qualified than others and therefore may require consideration for exemptions of part of Criteria 4. h is must be determined on a case by case basis. Criterion 5 In paragraph (e), we agree with suspending the word " usable" where it modified " groundwater". W e standards should apply to all aquifers. Criterion 6 In (a), we generally agree with the 20 picocurie per meter squared per second standard for radon emissions. h e two picoeurie standard is difficult or impossible to measure under most conditions.. Since there is a factor of 10 difference
- between the NRC and EPA standards, we suggest that this standard be modified to act as.a performance as well as a design standard.
Hon. Nunzio J. Palladino June 30,1983 - Page ihree (b) Since our position on an effective lifetime standard is at least 1,000 years, we disagree on the EPA standards.for synthetic layers in replacing part of the earthen cover over tailings. We agree with NRC and their reservations;on the durability of such materials. l Criterion 12 l '
- As previously stated, there can be no guarantee that our political and social systems will be preserved in their present i form for.1,000 or more years required for active maintenance of tailings sites. Therefore, these sites should be designed so that maintenance is not required. This leads to more stringent regulations concerning other standards, however, if the goal of properly disposing of tailings is to be achieved then stringent standards are necessary.
We are constantly gaining greater insights regarding the effects of our nation's nuclear programs. In many cases these effects have proved adverse to the citizens of Utah. This is particularly true for uranium mining and milling, perhaps the mcst dangerous phases of the nuclear fuel cycle. The commitment made in recent years to regulate, uranium mill l tailings has provided us an opportunity, both nationally and within the state of Utah, to clean up the mistakes of the past and wisely plan l mitigation measures for our future endeavers. To accomplish this we must ! insist on standards which provide both a safe margin of error for the i calculations which our generation is making and disposal me,thods which l will last until the wastes are safe. In this way, we can be sure that we do not pass our responsibilities on to future generations. f
/ ncer Si ly,
- j. hm%
Governor SMM:je cc: Docketing and Service Branch
.-l #}s a** . ' Guq'c, UNITED STATES
~j
)- [M
; .4
- c. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION wAsmNGTON. D. C. 20!!5 l
\....../ JUL c 1333 1
Central Docket Section (LE-130) Environmental Protection Agency ATTN: Docket No. A-82-26 i Washington, 0..C. 20460 Gentlemen:
, The Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) staff is responding to the request ,
by the Environmental Protection Agency '(EPA) for 'coments on the proposed environmental standards for management of uranium and thorium mill tailings at licensed comercial processing sites (48 FR 19584). These coments , 2 address separately the two major parts .of the proposed standards. The first part includes standards that govern tailings management during mill-ing operations and would require additional protection of groundwater.
- The second part specifies the goals that are to be achieved by final dis- ~
posal and governs the design of disposal systems for closure and long-term , stability. These two parts of the standard are applicable to separate and ' distinct functional phases of mill life, i.e., during processing c::erations and after closure. The standards also address two separate and distinct problems: protection of groundwater during operations, and design of tailings disposal measures to achieve long-term control of the raciciogical j hazards from tailings. . We note that EPA proposes to apply to mill tailings management cer ain groundwater protection elements of its regulations in 40 CFR Part 25a,
" Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities." These regulations implement the Resource
- Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), as amended, which amenced the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA), and would be applied to uranium recovery operations without modification. The elements of the RCRA regu-lations that would be applied encompass groundwater protection standards, corrective action programs, impoundment design and operating requirements, and closur; performance standards.
NRC's licensing practice has been to assure that water quality be maintained within the existing potential use category, regardless of
\ current us'es, and employ cest-benefit considerations in determining appro-priate control or remedial action requirements. The RCRA standarcs are essentially nondegradation standards and apply to all groundwater regard-less of quality or use potential. A primary part of the RCRA groundwater strategy is to require the use of liners for this purpose. We have sup-ported the use of cost-effective clay liners as being essential to
. adequate.s.ite-specific programs of groundwater protection. However, we are not aware of any liner technology capable of meeting 40 CFR Part 264 liner design requirements for zero leakage, or alternatively, zere migra-tion of hazardous constituents to adjacent soil or groundwater at any time.
2 D * . h
?g. l!
~
. t .
2 Under the proposed rules, there is also a requirement for EPA concurrence in all hazardous constituent exemptions or alternate concentration limits proposed by NRC on a site-specific basis. Preliminary analysis of cur-rently active mill tailings sites indicates that none can comply with the RCRA nondegradation standard. As a consequence of the impracticability
! of implementation of the nondegradation standard, NRC will be required to consider exemptions in practically every case, not just occasionally.
l This, in turn, under proposed 40 CFR 192.32(a)(2)(i'v), will draw EPA into the site-specific licensing process because of thi proposed requirement for ' EPA concurrence in all exemptions and the required use of EPA exemption procedures. However,.this involvement of EPA in individual licensing cases appears to be in conflict with the proviso in Section 275 b.(2) of the ~ Atomic Energy Act, as amended, that no EPA permit is required. It is the NRC staff's belief that the division of functions between EPA and NRC pro-vided for in the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA) was intended to give NRC the sole direct licensing function. See Section 275 d. of the Atomic Enercy Act, as amended. This comment also - applies to the provisions dealing with thorium byproduct material under proposed 40 CFR Part 192, Subpart E. While.the sthff has no objection to consultation with EPA with regard to
, specific exemptions, a concurrence role fo.r EPA on each site-specific i license appears contrary to the intent of Co.'.gress, since, for all practi-cal purposes, a concurrence role in these circumstances is equivalent to the issuance of an EPA permit. In sum, we agree with the observations in l -
the preamble to the proposed rule that EPA's legal role is limited to j . setting standards and is unlike EPA's SWDA function in that it does not include an implementing responsibility (48 FR 19592). We find the reser-vation of concurrence authority based entirely upon SWDA procedures (see 48 FR 19594) inconsistent with the limitation on EPA authority. We also note that only a relatively few isolated chemical sites have been brought into conformance by EPA's application of RCRA to sites under their immediate jurisdiction. Thus, the rule which NRC would be required to implement would be the first instance where RCRA would be applied to a broad industry category. This leads us to conclude that the feasibility x of technical alternatives needs further study before the specific RCRA
~
standards are directly applied to uranium mill tailings. With res'pect to groundwater protection, we believe that the requirement in Section 275 b.(2) for nonradiological hazard standards, "... consistent with the standards required under Subtitle C of the Solid Waste Disposal Act...," l _can .be met with modified standards that take into account the limited number I and type of the hazardous constituents in mill tailings. Under Section l 84 a.(3) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, stancards of the
+ .
3 Commission fo'r the same wastes need only to be comparable, to the maximum extent practicable, to RCRA standards. We suggest that a consistent reading of Sections 84 a.(3) and 275 b.(2)' allows EPA some latitude in formulating a groundwater protection standard that is less rigid and more realistic for uranium mill tailings impoundments than the referenced sections of 10 CFR Part 264. In addition, we do not believe it is appropriate to implement as RCRA standards the maximum contamination limits of the Safe Drinking Water i Act. These limits are applicable at the point of public supply and should not be applied to underground aquifers which.are unlikely. to be used as .... public water supplies by virtue of thejr falling within a degraded use ' category. The proposed standards for final disposal have two key sections, one - dealing with effective cover life,10 CFR 192.32(b)(1)(1), and one dealing with radon releases,-10 CFR 192.32(b)(1)(ii). The NRC staff considers the l section of the standard requiring pile stabilization to be designed to "be effective for cne thousand years, to the extent reasonably achievable, and in any case, for at least 200 years," to be a practical approach and consis-tent with the primary stabilization objective of limiting dispersion by erosion and misuse of tailings solid materials. Reasonable measures which prevent the misuse of tailings in construction will avoid the primary health hazard of radon associated with tailings, that is, the potential increase of levels of radon decay products in occupied structures. Such misuse is the
- major health problem that has been identified in the remedial action program i now being conducted in Grand Junction, Colorado.
An ongoing NRC study of design considerations for long-term stability of mill tailings impoundments indicates that the specific type and amount of i cover required to achieve long-term stability for a particular site is likely to be site dependent and that opt.imum cover designs will be based upon a number of parameters including types of materials available, local meteorological conditions, and the siting of existing and future tailings piles. We believe, therefore, that the kind of performance standards pro-posed by EPA' for effective cover life will allow the flexibility needed to
- permit lifensees to design and NRC to analyze site-specific cover designs i for compliance with the standards. The study referred to above will be published soon. We will provide you with a copy of the report when it is s available. .
We believe that a generally applicable environmental standard based on health ' risks to individuals would be consistent with the flexibility that Congress provided in the recently enacted NRC Authorization Act, P.L. 97-415, which amended Sections 84 and 274 of the Atomic Energy Act of-1954, as amended, and would be preferable to the more prescriptive standard
~in the prbp~osed rule controlling raden releases from the tailings pile.
+ ..
t 4 Such flexibility is permitted by amended Secticn 274 of the Atomic Energy Act which provides that Agreement States may acopt alternatives to require- , ments of the Commission that will achieve apprcpriate levels of stabiliza-tion and containment and of protection of the public health, safety and the environment and that.are generally equivalent to Commission requirements. Likewise, under amended Section 84 of the Act, licensees may propose similar alternatives that take into account local or regional conditions, including geology, topography, hydrology, and meteorology, as weil as local demography, both present and as projected in the future. , 2 The EP'A proposed standard of 20 pCi/m /sec inhibits flexibility in that such a standard would be applied without consiceration of site-specific , factors affecting health risk. The proposed radon release standard would define the thickness and characteristics of the cover, regardless of what variation may exist in site features, such as the size of the tailings pile, population patterns, climate, and accessibility. There may be instances , where a radon release rate greater or less than the EPA proposed standard might be justifiable on the basis of health, safety, and environmental needs, and economic costs, depending on the level of risk protection to be achieved. The NRC ' staff suggests that EPA consider promulgating a radon standard that addresses the need for' additional protection for those persons at greatest risk on the assumption that adequate stabilitation will be provided by application of the 1000-year longevity standarc to protect against disper-
, sian and misuse without need to refer to an additional radon relgase rate design standard. Accordingly, as an alternative to the 20 pCi/m /sec
; cover design standard, we suggest that EPA consider an environmental stan-dard for radon of 0.3 pCi/1, based on risk that could be applied to the highest exposed individual or, alternatively, at the site boundary. The health protection provided by the NRC staff recommended standard would result in an annual risk of less than 10-* to the maximum exposed individ-ual (using assumptions that overestimate the true risk such as 100 percent occupancy of a residench at the point of exposure). The actual risk to both local individuals a~nd the populations as well as distant populations will be further reduced by the NRC's application of ALARA considerations in the licensing process and in its implementing regulations.
In implementing this standard, NRC would apply ALARA using, among other things, the 1960 Federal Radiation Council Guicance. This standard would also be consistent with EPA's standard of 0.5 pCi/l for inactive mill tailings sites.
~
. 3 P.
If such a standard were adopted, the NRC staff would suggest a three-tier'ed approach to design of tailings closure and cover requirements. Each tier would constitute a separate and independent basis for imposing tailings closure and cover requirements. The first tier would be the design for the 1000-year stability standard in terms of erosion control and prevention of intrusion and misuse. This would require a minimum cover thickness and
.would include design features governing such elements as cover materials and contours that are necessary to prevent dispersion and misuse. These requirements could be specified in NRC implementing rules or in the licensing
' process. Such cover would also result in some attenuation of the radon flux i rate. The second tier would be the inclusion of ~ design features to control '
radon release as required to meet the risk-based standard. The third tier would be the application of ALARA principles to further reduce the doses to individuals at highest risk, local populations and distant populations. - l ALARA,..whi.ch_ includes cnll acti.v.e_ dose assessment, would be applied in the Commission's implementing regulations or in the licensing process to take into account site-specific considerations. In October 1982, prior to the enactment of P.L. 97-415, the NRC staff was directed by the Chairman to take a fresh look at our uranium mill tailings licensing requirements. One product of that reevaluation is a radiological analysis of mill tailings control requirements that explored the considera-tions necessary for establishing a risk-based performance standard for radon release. Our comments on the proposed standards are supported by this recent analysis and, for this reason, are not entitely consistent with our current requirements in Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 40. Enclosed are the responses of NRC staff to EPA's request for comments on four specific questions concerning the proposed standards. . The NRC staff will be pleased to assist EPA with any clarification on these comments or in the preparation of the final standards. This response has been reviewed and approved by a majority of the Commission. Commissicrer Ahearne provided separate comments to you on June 29, 1983. Commissioner Gilinsky indicated that he is in general agreement with the EPA standards. s - ncerely, - J hn G. Davis, Director
~" " '
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards i
Enclosure:
NRC Staff Comments on Specific Questions Concerning the # , . , Proposed Standards
ENCLOSURE
. NRC Staff Comments on Four Specific Questions Concerning the Proposed Stancarcs
- 1. Should the radon control standards require a specific level of control of radon from tailings prior to disposal, and, if so, how?
The proposed standard requires control of radon releases during
- - operations to a level that is as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA),
which is consistent with existing general Commission requirements in 10 CFR Part 20. While there are certain ways' to control operational i radon releases, their applicability and cost-effectiveness is site-specific, making a uniformly applicable numerical limit inadvisable. ~ Under the proposed ALARA standard, consideration would have to be given to effective control techniques on a case-by-case basis. Where appropriate, individual decisions would be made to require control measu.res or other techniques which would reduce radon releases from ' active tailings piles.
- 2. Should the health ~ and environmental goals for standards for remote sites be different from those in more populated areas, and, if so, how?
- The NRC staff has recommended that EPA adopt a risk-based standard that could be applied to the highest exposed individual or at the site boundary. Such a standard would provide flexibility for dealing with mill tailing disposal on a site-specific basis. Since the goal of. a risk-based standard would be to limit the risk to individual
. members of the public to an acceptable level, the standard would apply equally well at both remote sites and those in more populated areas. '
- 3. Should the provisions of these proposed standards for a liner under tailings (new or existing) be modified, for this specific category of wastes, and, if so, how?
The proposed standards should be modified to prohibit degradation of N off-site groundwater below its existing potential use category, during
- the operational period, and to require restoration of. any affected on-site groundwater to its pre-operational potential use category, to the
~
maximum extent practicable. Such a standard should recognize the cur-rent state-of-the-art of liner technology and groundwater protection as applied to uranium mill tailings management, thus allowing the use _ _. .of clay. lin.ers even though they do not represent a zero-leakage design. Since groundwater woul.d still be protected within its pre-operational potential use category, there should be no significant effect on health, safety or the environment.
+ v .
)
2
- 4. Should implementation of the dis osal standards be permitted to depend primarily or in part on maintenance of institutional control of access (e.g., by fences)?
The NRC staff believes that any consideration of institutional controls
, should recognize the unique state or federal custody in perpetuity l vested in UMTRCA. The minimal institutional controls implied by govern- , mental custody should be effective in preventing long-term occupation of a tailings disposal area, and sicnificantly reduce the probability of intrusion, misuse, and dispersion by people.,
4 4 Commissioners Asselstine and Roberts believe that implementation of the disposal standards should not be permitted to depend on the active main- . tenance of access control measures such as fences, guards or barriers. However, they also believe that some consideration should be given to the requirement for state or federal custody in perpetuity under VMTRCA. For example, it may be permissible to consider the contribution of minimal institutional controls imolied by governmental custody (i.e., infrequent but periodic checking of the site) in preventing long-term occupation of a tailings disposal area, and in reducing the probability , of intrusion, misuse, and dispersion by people. 0 D h e N
- i c . . ,
1
. . 1
* ** I i
. g taco
- d 'c UNITED STATES
!% . NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION )
! Ed [41. En WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 5 o* ,
%* July 20, 1983 CHAIRMAN 1
The Honorable Morris K. 'Udall, Chairman Comittee on Interior and Insular Affairs United States House of Representatives j Washington, D.C. 20515 j
Dear Mr. Chairman:
This is in response to your letter of June 27, 1983. The draft letter prepared by the staff regarding coments on proposed Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards for uranium and thorium mill tailings and containing coments on the legislative record was reviewed by the Comission. The Comission, in approving the final letter to EPA, deleted the reference to the Congressional record. Subsequent to Comission coments on the letter, but prior to its being sent to EPA, your letter was also reviewed by the Comission to determine if further changes to the EPA letter were appropriate. A copy of the final letter sent to EPA is enclosed. We appreciate your advice on this matter. . Sincerely . Thomas M. Roberts Acting
Enclosure:
As stated cc: Rep. Manuel Lujan ' e e n ,.7 ax- u,. v/
-. _ _ . ~ . _ ._- . _- _ ._
f nog , l
~* *
- f. j% UNITED STATES j $ %;. c . g i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
; .g d/. j WASMNGTON. O. C. 20255
- JUL e 'i333 -
Central Docket Section (LE-130) Environmental Protection Agency ATTN: Docket No. A-82-26 i Washington, D. C. 20460 p Gentlemen: The Nu". lear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is responding to the request j by the Environmental Protect 4on Agency (EPA) for ' comments on the proposed
; environmental standards for management of uranium and thorium mill tailings at licensed commercial processing sites (48 FR 19584). These coments address separately the two major parts of the proposed standards. The first part includes standards that govern tailings management during mill-ing operations and would require additional protection of groundwater.
The second part specifies the goals that are to be achieved by final dis-posal and governs the design of disposal systems for closure and long-term stability. These two parts of the standard are applicable to separate and distinct functional . phases of mill life, i.e., during processing operations - and after closure. The standards also address two separate and distinct problems: protection of groundwater during operations, and design of tailings disposal measures to achieve long-term control of the radiological hazards from' tailings. We note that EPA proposes to apply to mill tailings managemint certain groundwater protection elements of its regulations in 40 CFR Part 264,
" Standards for Owners and Operators' of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities." These regulations implement the Resource .
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), as amended, which amended the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA), and would be applied to uranium recovery operations without modification. The elements of.the RCRA regu-lations that would be applied encompass groundwater protection standards, corrective action pr'ograms, impoundment design and operating requirements, and closure performance standards. NRC's licensing practice has been to assure that water quality be ' maintained within the existing potential u'se category, regardless of current uses, and employ cost-benefit considerations in determining appro-priate control. or remedial ' action requirements. The RCRA standards are essentially nondegradation standards and apply to all groundwater regard-less of quality or use potential. A primary part of the RCRAWe groundwater have sup-strategy is to require the use of liners for this purpose. ported the use of cost-effective clay liners as being essential to
. , , adequate site-specific p'ro; grams of groundwater protection. However, we are not aware of any liner technology capable of meeting 40 CFR Part 264
. liner design requirements for zero leakage, or alternatively, zero migra-tion of hazardous constituents to adjacent soil or groundwater at any time.
- =_ -. . _ _ _ _
2 4 Under the proposed rules, there is also a requirement for EPA concurrence
< in all hazardous constituent exemptions or alternate concentration limits proposed by NRC on a site-specific basis. Preliminary analysis of cur-3 1 rently active mill tailings sites indicates that none can. comply with the RCRA nondegradation standard. As a consequence of the impracticability of implementation of the nondegradation standard, NRC will be recuired to consicer exemptions in practically every case, not just occasionally.
This,- in turn, unoer proposed 40 CFR 192.32(a)(2)(iv), will draw EPA into j the site-specific licensing process because of the proposed requirement for EPA concurrence in all exemptions and the required use of EPA exemption procedures. However, this involvement of EPA in individual licensing cases appears to be in conflict with the proviso in Section 275 b.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act, as amended, that no EPA permit is required. It is the NRC staff's belief that the division of functions between EPA and NRC pro-vided for. in the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA) was intended to give NRC the sole direct licensing function. See Section 275 d.. of the Atomic Energy Act, as amended. This comment also applies to the provisions dealing with thorium byproduct material under i proposed 40 CFR Part 192, Subpart E. . While- the staff has no objection to consultation with EPA with regard to specific exemptions, a concurrence role for EPA on each site-specific license appears contrary to the intent of Congress, si~nce, .f.or all practi-cal purposes, a concurrence role in these circumstances is equivalent to the issuance of an EPA permit. In sum, we agree with the observations in the preamble to the proposed rule that EPA's legal role is limited to setting standards and is unlike EPA's SWDA function in that it does not include an implementing responsibility (48 FR 19592). We find the reser-vation of concurrence authority based entirely upon SWDA procedures (see 48 FR 19594) inconsistent with the limitation on EPA authority. We also note that only a relatively few isolated chemical sites have been brought into conformance by. EPA's application of RCRA to sites under their i'mmediate jurisdiction. . Thus, the rule which NRC would be required to implement would be the first instance where RCRA would be applied to a broad industry category. This leads us t'o conclude that the feasibilit'y of technical alternatives needs further study before the specific RCRA
. standards are directly applied to uranium mill tailings. -
With respect to groundwater protection, we believe that the requirement in
.Section 275 b.(2) for nonradiological hazard standards, "... consistent with Act...,"
the standards required under Subtitle C of the Solid Waste Disposal can be met with modified standards.that take into account the limited number
' and type of the hazardous constituents in mill tailings. Under Section t
84 a.(3) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, standards of the
3 , Cor=ission for the same wastes need only to be comparable,.to the maximum extent practicable, to RCRA stancards. We suggest that a consistent reading of Sections 84 a.(3) and 275 b.(2) allows EPA some latitude in formulating a grouncwater protection standard that is less rigid and more ;rea.listic for uranium mill tailings impoundments than the referenced secti'ons of 10 CFR Part 264. In addition, we do not believe it is appropriate to implement as 3' RCRA standards the maximum contamination limits cf the Safe Drinking Water Act. These limits are applicable at the point of public supply and should not be applied to underground aquifers which are unlike'ly to be' used as i public water supplies by victue of their falling within a degraded use category. The proposed standards for final disposal have two key sections, one dealing with effective cover life,10 CFR 192.32(b)(1)(1), and one ' dealing with radon release.s,10 CFR 192.32(b)(1)(ii). The NRC staff considers the section of the standard requiring pile stabilization to be designed to "be effective for one thousand years, to the extent reasonably achievable, and in any case, f.or at least 2.00 years," to be.a practical approach and consis-tent with the primary stabilization objective of limiting dispersion by erosion and misuse of tailings solid materials. Reasonable measures which prevent the misuse of tailings in construction wil-1 avoid the primary health hazard of radon associated with tailings, that is, the potential increase of levels of radon decay products in occupied structures. Such misuse is the major health problem that has been identified in the remedial action program - now. being conducted in Grand Junction, Colorado. An ongoing NRC study of design considerations for long-term stability of mill tailings impoundments indicates that the specific . type and amount of cover required to achieve long-term stability for a particular site is
'l.ikely to be site dependent hnd that optimum cover designs will be based upon a number of' parameters including types of materials available, local meteorological conditions, and the siting of existing and future tailings piles. We believe, therefore, that the kind of performance standards pro-posed by EPA for effective cover life will allow the flexibility needed to permit licensees to design and NRC to analyze site-specific cover designs for compliance with the standards. The study referred to above will be published s.oon. We will provide you with a copy of the report when it is available.
- We believe th'at a generally applicable environmental standard based on.
health risks to individuals would be consistent with the ' flexibility that Congress provided in the recently enacted NRC Authorization Act, P.L. 97-415, which amended Sections 84 and 274 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and would' be pre.ferable to the more prescriptive standard
- in the proposed rule controlling radon releases from the tailings pile.
( c . y j' e 4 Such flexibility is permitted by amended Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act which provides that Agreement States may adopt alternatives to recuire-ments of the Commission that will. achieve appropriate levels of stabiliza-tien and containment and of protection of the public health, safety anc the environment and that are generally equivalent to Commission requirements. j Likewise, under amended Section 84 of the Act, licensees may propose similar alternatives that take into account local or regional conditions, including geology, topography, hydrology, and meteorology, as well as local demography, j both present and as projected in the future. 2 The EPA proposed standard of 20 pC1/m /sec inhibits flexibility in that such a standard would'be applied without consideration of site-specific factors affecting health risk. The proposed radon release standard would define the thickness and characteristics of the cover, regardless of what variation may exist in site features, such as the size of the tailings pile, population patterns, climate, and accessibility. There may be instances where a radon release rate greater or less than the EPA proposed standard might be justifiable on the basis of health, safety, and environmental needs, and economic costs, depending on the level of risk protection to be achieved. . The NRC staff suggests that EPA consider promulgating a radon standard that addresses the need for additional protection for those persons at greatest risk on the assumption that adequate stabilization will be 'p'rovided by application of the 1000-year longevity standard to protect against disper-sion and misuse without need to refer to an additional radon relgase rate design standard. Accordingly, as an alternative to the 20 pCf /m /sec cover design standard, we suggest that EPA consider an environmental stan-dard for radon of 0.3 pCi/1, based on risk that could be applied to the highest . exposed individual or, alternatively, at the site boundary. The health protection provided by the NRC staff recommended standard would result in an annual. risk of less than 10-* to the maximum exposed individ-ual (using assumptions that overestimate the true risk such as 100 percent occupancy of. a residence at' the point of e,xposure). The actual risk to
~
both local individuals a'nd the populations as well as distant p,opulations will be further reduced by the NRC's application of ALARA considerations in the licensing process and in its implementing regulations.
'In implementing this standard, NRC would apply ALARA using, among other things, the 1960 Federal Radiation Council Guidance. This standard would also be consistent with EPA's standard of 0.5 pCi/l for inactive mill tailings sites.
e
, , . -,m.-,_, - - - - . _ - - - - - - - - , , - - -
. _( _ ,
d ' ' 5 - - If such a standard were adopted, the NRC staff would suggest a three-tiered approach to design of tailings closure and cover requirements'. Each' tier would constitute a separate and indepencent basis for imposing tailings closure and cover requirements. The first tier would be the' design for tr.e IC00-year stability standard in terms of erosion control and prevention cf
; intrusion.and misuse. This would require a minimum cover thickness ano would include design features governing such elements as cover materials ~ ~
and contours that are necessary to prevent cispersion and misuse. These requirements could be specified in NRC implementing rules or in the licer. sing process. Such cover would also result in some attenuation of the radon flux rate. The second tier would be the inclusion of' design features to control radon release as required to meet the risk-based standard. The third tier
. would be the application of ALARA principles to further reduce the doses to individuals at highest risk, local populations and distant populations.
ALARA, which includesc ' ollective dose assessment, would be applied'in the
. Commission's implementing regulations or in the licensing process to take into account site-specific considerations.
~
In October 1982, prior to the enactment of P.L. 97-415, the.NRC staff was directed'by the Chairman to take a fresh look at our uranium mill. tailings licensing requirements. One product of that reevaluation is a radiological analysis of mill tailings control requirements that explored the considera-
- tions necessary for establishing a risk-based performance standard for radon release. Our connents on the proposed standards are supported by this recent analysis and, for this reason, are not entirely consistent ,with our current requirements in Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 40.
f Enclosed are the responses of NRC staff to EPA's request for comments on four specific questions concerning the proposed standards.
' The NRC staff will be pleased to assist EPA with any clarification on these comments or in the preparation of the final standards.
This respcase has been reviewed and approved by a majority of the Commission. Commissioner Ahearne provided separate comments to you on June 29, 1983. Commissioner Gilinsky indicated that he is in . general agreement with the EPA standards. . . incerely, J hn G. Davis Director
. Office of Nuclear-Material
. Safety and Safeguards
Enclosure:
NRC Staff Comments .on . Specific Questions Concern'ing the i proposed Standards %
. ~ . _ .
1 1 EtiCLOSURE NRC Staff Comments on Four Specific Questions Concerning the Proposed Stancarcs
- 1. Shoulc the radon control standards require a specific level of controi j
of raoon from tailings prior to disposal, and, if so, how? The proposed standard requires control of radon releases during operations to a level that is as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA), which is consistent with existing general Commission requirements in 10 CFR Part 20. While there are ce.rtain ways to control operational 4- - radon releases, their applicability and cost-effectiveness is site-specific, making a uniformly applicable numerical limit inadvisable. Under the proposed ALARA standard, consideration would have to be given to effective control techniques on a case-by-case basis. Where appropriate, individual decisions would be made to require control measures or other techniques which would reduce radon ~ releases from active tailings piles.
- 2. Should the health and envircnmental goals for standards for remote sites be different from those in more populated area.s, and, if so, how?
The NRC staff has recommended that EPA adopt a risk-based :tandard that could be applied to the highest exposed individual or at the site boundary. Such a standard would provide flexibility for dealing with mill tailing disposal on a site-specific basis. Since the goal of a risk-based standard would be to limit the risk to individual
' members of the public to an acceptable level, the standard would apply equally well at both remote sites and those in more populated a.rea s .
- 3. Should the provisions of these proposed standards for a liner u.nder' tailings (new or existing) be modified for this specific category of wastes, and, if so, how? ,
The proposed standards should be modified to prohibit degradation of off-site groundwater below its existing potential use category, during
* - the operational period, and to require restoration of.any affected on-
- site groundwater to its pre-operational potential use category, to the ,
- maximum extent practicable. Such a standard snould recognize the cur-rent state-of-the-art of liner technology and groundwater protection as applied to uranium mill tailings management, thus allowing the use of clay liners even though they do not represent a zero-leakage design.
* " Since groundwater would still 'be protected within its pre-operational potential use category, there should be no significant effect on health, safety or the environment.
4
- J t 2
- 4. Should implementation of the disposal standarcs be permit ed to . depend primarily or in part on maintenance of insti .utional con.t.ol of access (e.g., by fences)?
The NRC staff believes that any consideration of institutional controls i should recognize the unique state or federal custody iri perpetuity vested in UMTRCA.. The minimal institutional controls implied by govern-mental custody shculd be. effective in preventing long-term occupation of a tailings disposal area, and significantly reduce the probability of
; intrusion, misuse, and dispersion by people..
1 i Commissioners Asselstine and Roberts believe that implementation of the
. disposal standards should not be permitted to depend on the active main-tenance of access control measures such as fences, guards or barriers.
However, they also believe that some consideration should be given to the requirement for state or federal custody in perpetuity under UMTRCA. For example, it may be permissible to consider the contribution of minimal institutional controls implied by governmental custody (i.e., infrequent but periodic checking of the site) in preventing long-term ' occapation of a tailings disposal area, and in reducing the p'robability of intrusion, misuse, and dispersion by people. n S S S t e . 'l b
$ g 1
- I
_..--,.-.r. - - , - - , . _ --
6~ nauta, e=. voa. sma es auma m. w.u. I
' 4NEN emmYouneNs maa. . $$$2 $5$~2 '
N '
'PJCnifeb Sfefes Semxtc COMMITTEC ON ENYlRONMENT AND PUB'. !C WORKS
( w. v.ac. en. anae=m swr omsm== WA3MINGTON. D.C. 2:510 ,
~
k . March 12, 19I4 The Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 l R Daar Joe. ,
- c. 1 9 Several matters have been brought to our attention regarding enforcement of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation m Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA), as amended bv the Nuclear '
" ~ Rngulatory Commission Authorization for Fiscal Years 1982 and !$ 1983 (P . L. 97-415), which we believe warrant prompt attention. x We understand that the Commission is now proceeding with , enforcement of the Environmental Protection Agency's recently ' j promulgated general environmental standards on an ad_ hoc basis o in ongoing, licensing activities, prior to conforming its own ia regulations to the EPA standards. o s .
,_.- *- mtaing to, en analysis de- 2 *ed *y :the Effice cof the ,_
dxecutive Legal tirector, Agreement ' States regulating uranium _ , mills are legally obligated to implement..and enforce the 7.PA c+=m*meds on an ad hoc. basis after December 6,1983. Similarly, -'
. $ wa und.erstand thE, based upon this same legal analysis, the
,y Commission has also informed its licensees that the Commission
- o yso 10 now under an obligation to implement and enforce the new EPA standards and will therefore apply these standards in all ongoing and future licensing reviews.
0 .a a b <u It. appears to us that the approach being taken by the f o. Commission--and, in particular, the decision to implement EPA's
'y " otandards on an a_d_ hoc basis prior to completion of the conforming 'u< process--is fundamentally at odds with the mandate of Public Law oo 97-415. The principal purpose of the 1983 amendments to UMTRCA y , was to restore order to a regulatory scheme that had fallen u= into disarray as a result of insufficient coordination between $" EPA and NRC in the regulation of uranium mill tailings. Indeed, .
j" wo have taken great care in the legislative history to point mu out that UMTRCA establishes a process for the orderly inte-gration of EPA's general environmental standards with NRC's datailed regulatory requirements that, if followed, should. earve to avoid the unfortunate absurdities that have already ftedlesslydelayedthisprogramand,intheprocess,. genera,ted u good deal' of confusion for the Agreement States and licensees. . nn - g. . m,
It is for this reason that the Congress set out, in considerable detail, the steps to be taken by EPA and NRC in g establishing the regulatory program for uranium mill tailings. , The legislation makes- it abundantly clear that UMTRCA . (- recuires a regulatory program censisting of both general environmental standards and detailed regulatory requirements, the former to be promulgated by EPA, the latter by NRC. And more importantly, we have gone to great length to point out that the process for coordinating the EPA and NRC req'uirements-- the so-called " conforming" process--is to be completed first, prior to implementation of the regulatory program. To approach this process in any other fashion--including the approach recommended by.your staff--is not only contrary to what the~1egislation' calls for, but will also subject licensees and Agreement States to the very same regulatory uncertainty
~
that we were trying to avoid in the firct place. Accordingly, we earnestly urge you to reconsider this matter. . We trust that, upon further reflection, the Commission - will be in a position to proceed with a sincle rulemaking.for. the purpose of conforming its regulations to the EPA standards-- . a rulemaking that will include both those changes necessary to reconcile any legal inconsistencies between the EPA and NRC requirements, as well as those changes of a discretionary. nature that may depend upon additional policy and technical justification. Once this rulemaking is complete, and following a suitable opportunity for the Agreement States to put their own > . - z*Fulmi.wy program in placa,'it is ecur view that this, than, ,.
'is the point at which the Commission should procee5 vith imple-(s 2nentation of the UMTRCA regulatory program. We ree course, that the Commission is authorized to regul,mphasize,
. ate. uranium of '
~
mill tailings on a licensee-by-licensee b' asis should the need arise, in order to protect the public health, safety, and the environmen . We appreciate the opportunity to express our views on this matter and do very much look forward to the Commission's response. Most incer y, 1 J/ on
- %e V. Domenici Al .. . . si Msmber Chairman Subcommittee on Nuclear Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation Regulation
\
S
/
_ ,/
A ( . .- nyggeg j i , ,, . - - ~e c=sa y e-nov . touts imsua uum. Am.aser. ^***^""""""" i annum sazmi. A tu. -
~d39 === ~; :='J' ;;,,Y ~- COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR YufE="5a -
i W ~~~ 2 ~TA
-c- AND INSULAR AFFAIRS Twomy w.cuooes 3
Et IaI E Y Ecm75^
== g ama U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES neusUCAN COWSE j g4.auww e,a. g WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515
; eauca g y y ==segurm ,
=
I""I#."a. oma** " "u wcMio
$a 4 g gy==.g .
I u . March 23,1984 . " . ; Mun u 'iET
- am * -
i E E"sO E [ I 1lll".". 4"" w. n. f - s Y O EtTv.E ., i EUEinOO."' m
. r 3
E - _ E The Honorable Nunzio Palladino = E Chairman United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission y 3 Wahington, D.C. 20555 "g : 5
Dear Chairman Palladino:
5 ,
- 5 I am writing to express my concern regarding the. continuing .
i if inability of the NRC and EPA staffs to resolve differences ~ - E regarding NRC consistency with the EPA standards for uranium 8 mill tailings. control. A recent letter from NRC Executive - E ^ Director William Dirks tosummarized EPA Assistant Administrator Joseph -
$ major dif ferences in the
[ a Ei Cannon (copy enclosed)I would like to comment on several issues
@ negot.iations.
= E raised in that letter. .
;;a in providing for the Environmental
=
3 E Congressional intentProtection Agency a standards-setting role,'for uranium mil ~ E
==
tailings assumed .that such role would be defined by , interagency agreements developed pursuant to Reorganization ; Ei i5i Plan No. 3 of 1970. i
== .
3 3 . Under those agreements, the EPA standard would pertain to s ==
= containination or activities outsideinclude the boundary detailedofengineering the -
= regulated facility, and would not No subsequent 55 requirements or site-specific requirements. f the g
. interagency agreements have modified this definition o 55 t
EE EPA's standard-setting role , and substantial legislative i g ' history exist.s to indicate that Congress has continued to g;; endorse this approach.
~"
'~
===
In complying with the requirements of the Uranium Mill
- m Tailings Corttrol Act for conformance or consistency with EPA F = " standards, the Commission should bear in mind that this p
y y Z= requirement applies only to that which EPA has promulgated . = Z which meets the definition of a generally applicable While some performance or Qs environmental standard. implementation guidance may be relevant to conformance and r consistency, site . specific engineering detail requirements (. E .g;; E = would not. @c C F ==..s x
~
2p
n . - g _2_ The Uranium Mill Tailings Control Act and its legislative history clearly and strongly give to the NRC the primary licensing. role for tailings sites, and prohibit dual regulation or permitting by any additional Federal agency. Although the Administrator was given a concurrence role in NRC's standards conformance action, EPA concurrence on a license-by-license or s'ite-by-site basis was not intended and violates the lead agency regulatory system. In these instances, I am in agreement with the NRC staff position, and I urge,the Commission not to establish a
, precedent redefining the' agencies' respective roles by adopting EPA standards which are in conflict with them.
With respect to the " flexibility" issue, I an dismayed to see in the staff position an argument to which I vehemently objected earlier this year. The staff argues that P.L. 97-415 requires that licensees be given flexibility in meeting NRC and EPA regulations and standards for tailings control, and that therefore if alternate approaches are not available for meeeting a standard, the standard is in violation of the law. As I have clearly stated, the law allows licensees flexibility to propose alternate ways to meet the standards that are promulgated; it does not require that there be more than one way to meet any given st.sndard in order for the standard to be valid. The NRC and its licensees can work together to determine how standards can be met, as long as they are met. Concern among some of my colleagues about ,the clash between NRC and EPA on standards-setting issues will soon reach crisis proportions, if it has not already. We are also concerned that NRC regulations for tailings control go into effect without further delay. I advise the Commission to conform to that which is generally applicable in the EPA standards, to reassert the definition of roles now existing between the two agencies, and to promptly finalize and implement the tailings control requirements of 10 CFR Part 40. Sinegrel
$, MORRIS'K. UDALL Chairman Enclosure
', cc: Honorable Will'iam D. Ruckelshaus Administrator Environmental P,rotection Agency
~ ^ ~~' yw 4s,s cic .
[ {- c(f(k ,a g , T UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N WASH 5NGTON. D. C. 20555
;' ;# E ,
e il! . S . s-March g,1984
%,j _
Mr. Joseph Cannon Assistant Administrator, for Air, , Noise; and Radia_ tion ~
.U.S. Environmental Protection' Agency .
i Washington, D.;C. 20460 .
Dear n:
John Davis and I appreciated the opportunity to meet with you and Sheldon Meyers' on February ~7,1984 to discuss issues related to the Clean Air Act, low-level waste and urani,um mill tailings. Since that meeting, there seems to be some uncertainty between the staffs of our two agencies regarding what t'he principal issues in. the uranium mill tailings area are. Therefore, I would , like to take this opportunity to make clear our concerns. . The main issue concerns our ability to allow deviations 'from the strict rea' ding pursuant to language in of the EPA standards, when. requested Section 84c of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) as adde by licensees,d by Section 20 of Public Law 97-415, the NRC Authorization Act for FY82-83. The apparent intent of that
~
legislation was to provide the flexibiiity in the licensir.g process, but we
- believe the opportunity to' exercise such flexibility may have been greatly dimini'shed by certain prescriptive features of the final EPA standard.
- For example, the ability of NRC.to independently authorize alternate concentration -
limits is extremely limited; separate concurrence by EPA on a case-by-casa basis will usually be neces'sary, eiven considering the discretion given NRC within 500 meters of the surface impoundment. The requirement for a
- zero-leakage liner design is'vittually absolute, with relief available only
~
under very special conditions which are specified in the standard. We find these features, and others of a similar nature, to make the provision by NRC of - flexibility in.the licensing process difficult, if not impossible. a . I understand that when~ EPA staff people met with representatives cf the Senate Environment;Public Works Comittee they indicated that NRC was being overly restrictive in its interpretation of the EPA regulation. If this is so, and you believe we have more flexibility than our reading of tlMs regulation allows, then that is something..we can correct. However, we consider it essential that EFA state,in very clear terms where, and to what extent, this flexibility exists in deali,ng with groundwater prote'etion under 40 CFR 192. . Put quite bluntly, there are three areas wilere we have major differences with EPA: - _r . (1) EPA indicates there is considerable flexibility under 40 CFR 192. We believe that the language of the EPA standard rules this out. (2) EPA's discussio'n in its Federal Register notices for its regulations in 40 CFR 264.221, , incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 192, plainly [ ' ..Z
. )
- . * . ~ . c ,. .
~
says that under existing technology, industry".has no real alterna'tive to synthetic liners. .. Synthetic liners are the only feasible way that "no migration" can be achieved. An exemption is;provided for in 40
. CFR 264.221, but it uses a "no migration" standard.
(3) EPA just has not produced a general environmental standard. EPA has, in fact produced 3 detailed prescriptive engineering requirements that do not realistically hilow us to consider exemptions unless we go back and get EPA approval of alternate concentration limits on a case-by-case basi.s. While the kind of regulation that has been promulgated may not be prohibited under UMTRCA, we believe it is contrary to the intent of Section 20. I know from our meeting that both of us want to make this thing work. But somehow or another the word just did not appear to have gotten through to the . stnff. .- - I would appreciate anyt'hing you' can do to help solve the problem. Mr. Davis and I would like to include discussion of this matter during our forthcoming meeting with you and Mr. Thomas. Sincerely, , c . d( - William J. Dircks - .
- - - Executive Director . _.
for Operations cc: J. Curtiss , . 1 . es e c ,. 4 e@ h 9 , 7 .
*_r
- e
. .g
-______ _ _}}