ML20127H087
| ML20127H087 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/29/1983 |
| From: | Ahearne J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20127A611 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-84-709 NUDOCS 8506260201 | |
| Download: ML20127H087 (3) | |
Text
_
_m
.s 2 Kaog'o
/
UNITED STATES
/
LCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$ low
- 'E ej wAsHINoros,o.c.2csss o\\;M4/
CPPict OF THs comissionan June 29,,1983 4
,j I
Central Docket Section (LE-130)
Environmental Protection Agency Attn: Docket No. A-82-26 West Tower Lobby 401 M Street, S.W.
WLshington, D.C. 20460 l
Yhe Nuclear Regulatory Comission has not yet been able to reach agreement on a response 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). Consequently, I am providing my personal views.
First, I have some general comments on EPA's approach.
EPA proposes to apply to mill tailings management 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 (SPDA), and would be applied to uranium recovery operations j
without modification. The elements of the RCRA regulations that would be applied encompass groundwater protection standards, corrective action programs, impoundment design and operat,in'g requirements, 'and closure performance standards.
.NRC's licensing practice has been to assure that water quality be maintained within the existing potential use category, regardless of current uses, and employ cost-benefit considerations in detemining appropriate control or remedial action requirements. The RCRA standards are essentially non-degradation standards and apply to all groundwater regardless of quality or use potential. A ' primary part of the RCRA groundwater protection strategy is to require the use of liners for this purpose.
I believe the NRC staff has supported the u'se of cost-effective clay liners as being essential to 1
adequate site-specific programs of groundwater protection.
I understand that the NRC staff is not aware of any liner technology capable.of meeting 40 CFR Part 264 Ifner-design requirements for zero leakage, or alternatively, zero i
migration of hazardous con _stituents to adjacent soil or~ groundwater at any time.
I have been told the NRC staff believes that only a relatively few isolated chemical sites have been. brought into conformance by EPA's application of RCRA to sites under their imediate jurisdiction. Thus the rule which NRC would be requ, ired to implement w'ould be the first instance where RCRA would be applied to a broad industr'y category. This leads me to conclude the i
8506260201 850416 4
4 e
feasibility of technical alternatives may need further study before the specific RCRA standards are directly applied to ur.anium mill tailings.
The proposed standards for final disposal have two key sections, one dealing with effective cover life,10 CFR 192.32(b)(1)(i), and one dealing with radon releases, 10 CFR 192.32(b)(1)(ii).
I believe 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, for at least 200 t
years," is a practical approach and is consistent with the primary I
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.cf 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.
I understand that an ongoing NRC study of design considerations for long-term stability of mill tailings impoundments indicates that the type and amount of cover required to achieve long-term stability will be site specific and 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.
I believe, therefore, that the kind of performance standards proposed 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 soon.
I understand the NRC will provide you with a copy of the report when it is available.
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 report of mill tailings control requirements. This report explores the considerations necessary for establishing a risk-based performance standard for radon release.
I believe the NRC intends to provide a copy of the report for your information.
My responses to EPA's four specific questions are as follows:
1.
Should the radon control standards require a specific level of control o,f 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 radon releases, their appl.icability 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.-
6
'~
2.
Should the health and environmental goals for standards for remote sites be different from those in more populated areas, and, if so, how?
Given the length of time of conce'rn, remoteness may not be a characteristic over the control period.
Therefore standards should be independent of current population.
t 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?
l The proposed standards should be modifie,d to prohibit. degradation of off-site groundwater below its existing potential use category, during the operational period, if necessary for any currentiv existina piles based on available technology and to require restoration of any effected on-site groundwater to its pre-operational potential use category, to the maximum extent practicable.
Such a standard should recognize the current state-of-the-art of liner technology and groundwater protection as applied to uranium mill tailings management. Groundwater under existing piles would still be protected within its pre-operational potential use category and there would be no significant effect on health, safety or the environment.
4 Should implementation of the disposal standards be permitted to depend primarily or in part on maintenance of institutional control of access (e.g., by fences)?
Not for longer than about 100 years.
Sin erely,
~
John F. Ahearne Commissioner 9
9 e
9 0
e y
e
- - -. -,