ML20129B268
| ML20129B268 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/26/1984 |
| From: | Asselstine J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20129B225 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-84-709 NUDOCS 8506050170 | |
| Download: ML20129B268 (19) | |
Text
_
3 cce. w.Grar
~
- w. tm N 0"T '
T I' 0 N V0iE h
+-
QA 1
U pil RESPONSE SHEET 4
T0:
SiMuELJ,CHILK.,SECRETARYOFTHECOMMISSION
~
FROM:
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE
SUBJECT:
SECY-83-523 - PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO URANIUM MILL TAILINGS REGULATIONS AND ADVANCE NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING APPROVEDx ~ As Modified DISAPPROVED ABSTAIN'
' NOT PARTICIPATING REQUEST DISCUSSION COMMENTS:
I approve the 4-24-84 drafts of Enclosure A-2 and Enciosure B, and the Implementation and Enforcement Policy, as modified with the attached.
I also' propose that we deal with the EPA jurisdictional issue as described in the attached comments.
N WM Project O6) nE Docket No.
g N
PDR LPDR D
No Distribution:
S$ls? Cd DRA&a x t ne
?
& / O ( 'e n C
[Returri to WM,623-SS)
/7
./
g/
,, y 850312 gggg g 10 O%
-709 pDR BEgICE
.-j, DAll I
i SECRETARIAT NOTE:
PLEASE ALSO RESPOND TO AND/OR COMMENT ON OGC/0PE i
MEMORANDUMIFONEHASBEEN1SSUEDON
('
NRC-SECY FORM Dsc, 80
Commissioner Asselstine's Comments on SECY-83-523:
I would address the question of whether the EPA mill tailings standard exceeds EPA's jurisdiction in the proposed Implementation and Enforcement Policy.
I would also include the Implementation and Enforce-ment Policy in both rulemaking packages.
We should squarely face the jurisdictional question.
I would suggest the following as an outline of the approach for addressing the jurisdictional issue.
A reasonable argument can be made that the Congress did not intend that EPA develop the type of standard contained in 40 CFR 192. The legislative history of the provision when it was first. adopted by the. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee indicates an intent that EPA establish a general environmental standard for both radiological and nonradiological hazards.
This legislative history indicates that EPA was not to establish such elements as cover requirements or liner requirements as part of its standard. However, the legislative history is contradictory in that some other statements indicate a Congressional intent that the EPA standard include such requirements.
Given these conflicting statements in the legislative history, the Commission is left with the question of whether the EPA standard consti-5 1
tutes a reasonable approach for mill tailings disposal.
I conclude that the EPA standard is a reasonable approach in the circumstances.
Unlike a power reactor or other operating facility, a mill tailings disposal 4
.c site is not intended to have a fixed and permanent site boundary.
Rather, the emphasis is on stabilization of the pile in a manner that will assure icng-term protection after institutional controls such as fences and guards are gone.
In such circumstances, on-site and off-site distinctions appear to make little sense, and it is difficult to argue that the types of requirements adopted by EPA, including' radon emanation limits, groundwater limits and groundwater control measures, are legally impermissible. I would therefore not question EPA's jurisdiction to adopt the types of requirements contained in 40 CFR 192, even though there is some basis for concluding that this may not have been what Congress had in mind.
~
However, there'is one aspect of EPA's standard that I believe clearly exceeds its jurisdiction, and we should say so.
That is the requirement for EPA concurrence in NRC case-by-case deviations from elements in the EPA standard.
In essence, the EPA position establishes a system of dual regulation that clearly was not intended by the Con-gress.
Section 84 of the Atomic Energy Act, in my view, gives the NRC exclusive authority to allow case-by-case deviations from the EPA standard based upon a practicability determination.
I would suggest 3
that we assert our exclusive jurisdiction in this area, point out that
~
we believe EPA has exceeded its jurisdiction in this regard, and state
-that we do not intend to seek EPA concurrence on these case-by-case determinations.
8 6
e
IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT POLICY (NOTE: LANGUAGE WHICH MIGHT BE USED IN ONE OR ALL OF THE LETTERS TO LICENSEES AND AGREEMENT STATF.S, IN THE FOLLOWING:
ANFRM ON FURTHER REVISIONS TO APPENDIX A OF PART 40, OR IN A FORMAL POLICY STATEMENT.)
h$
Y W
THE COMMISSION BEllEVES THAT BOTH THE NRC AND THE AGREEMEN ARE LEGALLY OBLIGATED kNDER SECTION 275D OF THE ATOMIC ENE TO IMPLEMENT.AND ENFORCE THE EPA STANDARDS FOR URANI,UM AND THORIUM MILL TAILINGS IN 40 CFR 192, SUBPARTS D AND E.
SINCE THE 1
EFFECTIVE DATE SPECIFIED IN THE EPA STANDARD WAS DECEMBER 6, 1983, THE COMMISSION BELIEVES THAT THE LEGAL OBLIGATION FOR NRC AN AGREEMENT STATES INCLUDES ENFORCEMENT IN THE INTERIM WHILE CONFORMING AND IMPLEMENTING RULE CHANGES ARE MADE.
f i
1
- 1) BE IN COMPLIANCE N IMUp CCMMISSION LICENSEES ARE EXPECTED TO:
WITH THE EPA STANDARDS IN 40 CFR 192 OR, 2) BE WORKING TOWARD COMPLIANCE, OR 3) SUBMIT PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES FOR COMMISSION 40 REVIEW lN COMPLIANCE WITH DATES ESTABLISHED IN CFRX192.THE COMMISSION BELIEVES THAT LICEN5EE PROPOSALS FOR ALTERNATIVES CAN BE AN IMPORTANT AND EFFECTIVE WAY TO HELP DEAL WITH THE PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WI H IMPLEMENTING THE NEW EPA STANDARDS.
NRC'S CURRENT REGULATIONS LACK NECESSARY IMPLEMENTATION FEATURES CALLED FOR IN THE PREAMBLE TO THE EPA STANDARDS AND CONTAIN PROVISIONS IN CONFLICT OR INCONSISTENT WITH THE EPA STANDARDS.
NRC IS UNDER" CCNGRESSIONAL MANDATE TO MODIFY ITS RULES TO CONFORM TO EPA'S STANDARDS'AND DEVELOP' GENERAL REQUIREMENTS COMPARABLE, TO '.'/
MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICABLE, TO REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO SIMILAR HAZARDOUS MATERIALS REGULATED BY EPA UNDER THE SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ACT, AS AMENDED.
THE COMMISSION EXPECTS THAT IT MAY
~
REQUIRE SEVERAL YEARS TO FULLY MEET THIS DUAL MANDATE AND EXPECTS TO USE THE FLEX 1BILITY PROVIDED BY SECTION 84 IN THE INTERIM TO i
CCNSIDER AND APPROVE ALTERNATIVE PROPOSALS FROM LICENSEES.
SECTI:N 84 C ?ROVIDES NRC SUFFICIENT AUTHORITY TO INDEPENDENTLY AF::.CVE ALTERNATIVES 50 LONG AS THE COMMISSION CAN MAKE THE
^
- E;L'::ED DETERMINATICN.
(
e
Re: tester's ID:
. JPK Authe 's Name:
DRA30NEITE K C::; ent'Oc.,ments:
Draft FRN en Revised Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40
[,dc.t.osult6 8-2 0F S TA l f
~
p s-Tg D 3 2 lW 4 M Ob l '* I d b Ad 6 M D 9 ; 5 c q.c.T / o d 5 4 lI90
- b
., >g g
pn arc COM i ntf A TI Vs I5%1
?
T5WS6 Ar/D BAT 5 CHApg 55 go T M M gg b,
GTilaf{
CH hMG 55 Cho wy. ryg ggetgc7-4l19 l ?+
Di S C 4 s s t ou.s, su PM Ti c 4L nit
/
/
SEG PkG65 i
10, II 2b A lo
/
/
)
a ll
.e
,,e.,
m - ----
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR FART 40 Uranium Mill Tailing Regulations:
Conforming NRC Requirements to EPA Standards AGENCY:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACT:0N:
Preposed rule.
SU.vyARY:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to amend its regulations governing the disposal of uranium mill tailings.
The proposed rule changes are intended to conform existing NRC regulations to -he regulations published by the invironmental Protection Agency for b
the protection of the environment irem these wastes.
This action is
\\ m to ccmply with the legislative mandate set out in the Uranium Mili. Tailings Radiation Control Act and the NRC Authorization Act for d-G~w.
un n ssa.1u-n,[4.'
4 /w c4 Mi
~
g,44 0 4 /.-
DATE:
The comment period expires on (30 days after publication).
Comments received by the Commission after that date will not be considered.
C RESSES:
Mail comments to Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commis-s':, Washington, DC 20555, Attention:
Docketing and Service Branch.
!sver comments-to Room 1121, 1717 H Street NW., Washington, DC between 5:*.i a.m. and E:00 p.m. weekdays.
i i
t 1
i i
j
~
-:tadiation Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA).
Under Section 18(a) of Pub.
97-45, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Authorization Act for fiscal years 1982 and 1983, the Commission was directed to conform its reguia-
.ior.s to EPA's by no later than. March 31, 1984, with notice 4 d opper-tunity for public comment.
Today's proposal addresses that responsibility.
3-evious Actions In keeping with Section 18(a) of the NRC Authorization Act, the Commission suspended portions of its October 3,1980 mill tailings regu-lations after notice and opportunity for public comment (48 FR 35350; August 4, 1983).
As required by the Act, this suspension terminated automatically. April 1, 1984 Those portions of the Commission's regula-tions which were suspended were those that were determined to be in
~
conflict or inconsistent with EPA's proposed requirements.
More s'pedfically, the sdspended portions were those that would require a major commitment or major action by licensees which would be unnecessary if (1) the EPA proposed standards were promulgated in final form without modification, and (2) the Commission's regulations were modified to conform to the EPA standards.
The objective of the suspension was to avoid a situation where a licensee or applicant might make a major co=mitment or take a major action which would be unnecessary or ill-N acvised af ter subsequent rulemaking to ermanently odify the existin I
egulations on the' basis of EPA's final standards.
The final EPA standards are very similar to those that were proposed.
Neve-theless, the Commission has reconsidered the appropriateness of changes
- enetx A.o 10 CFR Part 40 in ligh cf -he new EPA stancards, and -he i
e 4
4 3
6
,,.._._v_.,__,._,.v_
ene: for aeditienal supporting documentation.
The changes proposed today a e.:re m: dest than the previous suspension.
5:::e of-This Crocosal In. addition to conforming its existing regulations to new EPA sta
]
dar:s, under the provisions of the UMTRCA, the Commission has a further leg'slatec-responsibility
- it,must establish general requirements, for
.he management of byproduct material, with EPA concurrence, which are, to -he maximum extent practicable, at 1 east comparable to requirements applicable to the management of similar hazardous material regulated by
-he EPA under the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA), as abended. The c= mission deliberated as to how best to deal with thes'e re5ated rule-making needs and decided on the course of action resulting in this pro-
- esti and the accompanying ANPRM.
This proposal addresses all the char.ges to the existing Commission regulations in Appendix A.to 10 CFR Part 40 that can be legally promulgated without additional supporting d cumentation.
Other changes to the Commission's regulations for mill tailings management resulting from the EPA standard are t'he subject of the accompanying ANPRM.
The centen; of these two rulemakings also may be characterized in erms of the need for EPA concurrence, although that was not the deciding
'a: :r.
This proposal consists of modifications not requiring EPA con-
- u-ence, including conforming changes to existing NRC rules and incor-
- -atien of EPA recuirements not ceriving from the SWDA.
Those modifi-
,, :a.':ns -hat are -he subject of the ANPRM a: companying this preposal 4
- e '.'.; #
. ne SWDA recuire EPA :.:urrence pursuant te se:: ion 84 of
/
- e 4: ': Ene ;y A:.
Mcdificati:ns adcressed in tne WEM 'n luce t
t
- tacix A criteria.
The due date originally set for submittals is past.
1 is :ve da a fer revised submittals is not considered necessary.
(c)
Add the following paragraph at the end:
Licensees or applicants
.ay repose al.ernatives to the ~ specific requirements in this Appendix.
Such alternative proposals may take into account local or regional condi-tier.s, including geology, topography, hydrology, and meteorology.
The Cc--ission may find that the proposed alternatives meet the Commission's re:;irements if the alternatives will achieve a level of stabilization and conta.inment of the sites concerned,.and a level of protection for public health, safety, and the environment from radiological and nonradio-O s
log':al hazards associated with such sites, which is equivalent to, the v
extent practicable, or more stringent than the level which would be (
achieved by the recuirements of this Appendix and the standards pre.uigated by the Environmental Protection Agency in 40 CFR 192,
~
Sut: arts D and E.
Reason:
The flexibility to propose alternatives to the Commission's and EPA standards was included in Pub. L.97-415 changes to the AEA. The added paragraph paraphrases the language in Section 84c.
The added paragraph explicitly acknowledges the legislative intent and provides licensees 1
and applicants the opportunity to propose alternatives as a routine dr licensing mat.er.
Licensees would have to provide site-specific rationale g
Ca W ?stis.a.To M k N
- inable the recuired C...
i.a..i.
finding.
This generic approach was taken 4
' s ead of r. edifying individual criteria to provice flexibility.
A generic a:: ca:h avoies.ne chance of not iden-ifying all areas where flexibility
.sy :s.eece: a.d preserves the existi g support for Appendix A.
Admin-is-a 'vely, a':erna:ives are easier :: crecess uncer an explicit :revisien t-ex:s: ': s vies.
7
- e;. a.iens, Part 440, " Ore Mining and ;ressing Point Source Category:
E#.er.-Li.ita-icns Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards, 5.: tr. C, Uranium, Radium, and Vanadium Ores Sub:stegory," as codified
- r Jar.cary 1, 1983."
Reason:
These new paragraphs incorporate EPA requirements imposed u..:er 40 CFR 192.41(d) and 40 CFR 192.32(a)(3), respectively.
E.
Criteria 2, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 12 are net affected by the new EPA star.dards or editorial changes and no modification is proposed for any p r. ion o,{ those criteria.
Im:act of the Procesed Amendments Compliance with Subparts 0 and E to 40 CFR Part i EPA's regula-tier.s is.
- lished requirement.
Under tion 275d. of the Atomic emmission believes that it is oblicated E.ergy Act of 1954, as' sofDecember6,1983[,
te icplement and enf
.he new -
nda.r the date t ecame effective.
This Ccmmission ity is being
- =
.ed out on an ad hoc, case-by-case basis in individual lic actions.
The Ccomission's action in proposing these modifications to its regu-lattens in Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40 is to conform them to the new EPA s.ar.dards.
These changes are for.the purpose of avoiding conflicts and
' :: sister.cies, and for clarifying previously existing language se as
- s : moa-ible w'ith the new requiremer.ts.
The action prcposed be-e :y
- e *:=.issicn is a consequence of previous actions taken by tr:e C:r.; ess a : -he EDA, a-d is legally mandated in Section 275b(3) of *he A::-*~
l E t ;y A:. :f '.954, as amended.
l.
j 13 l
C:mmission action in this case is essentially nondiscretionary in
.a-.re, and for purposes of environmental. analysis, rests upon existing envircnmental and other impact evaluations in the following documents:
(1) " Final Erivironmental Impact Statement for Standards for the Control of Eyproduct Materials from Uranium Ore Processing (40 CFR Part 192),"
Veltmes 1 and 2, EPA 520/1-83-008-1 and 2, September 1983, and (2) "Regula-tery Impact Analysis of Final Invironmental Standards for Uranium Mill Tatiings at Active Sites," EPA 520/1-83-010, September 1983, both prepared in support of Subparts D and E of 40 CFR Part 192, and (3)' " Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Uranium Milling," NUREG-0706, September 1980, prepared in support of Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 40.
The Commission believes that these supporting analyses for the new EPA standards and the
. existing Commission regulations provide a more than adequate environmental eview for the standards addressed herein, and that no additional impact e',
analysis is barranted by the conforming actions proposed herein.
The-EPA NM8
\\..
engaged.ia and completed a r.e4+en:d d::':':m:E Mg process with full con-
/ */
sideration of environmental concerns, and for the purposes of this rule-s I
\\g
[
making action, can be viewed as the lead agency.
{
PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT STATEMENT i
l l
inis proposed rule does not contain a new or amended information 1
h
- cilec.icn recuirement subject to the requirements of the Paperwork i
- ecc:tien Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 e. seq.).
Existing requirements
. -ere a:pr.::ved by the Office of Management anc Bucget approval number
[
e 3'E;-:020.
1 34 e
Ee:;es::r's ID:
2. -.: ' s *.~ a e :
- 20
- *.ETTE.<
in- 0::. en:s:
........ _ *E~ Urn this sheet when sAmitting correctien3
--2' E..
6 ch c esse /
ln yj,g'Ce) cs A r.*/ n, art _
n, e s,~ /., s n
i.
(pni. i. O of al<<ft z-s&
I W
j i
5 i
fei*owing closure.
The EPA rule sets a performance standard for a limited
.ite peried.
In addition, the preamble to the EFA standard and the su::cr;,ing environmental evaluation indicate that the EPA consciously c:nsidered the acceptability of relying on active maintenance to provide sta:ili y felicwing closure, and did net prohibit it.
Rath'er, the EPA sta dard requires that, for nonradiological hazards the need for active mai..tenance only be minimized. NRC '.s A pfceo$k 4 f/4/ly pro AlA./s on c c. /.'se
- w :n fe a n c e..
m g l a n n e d < < l %,, c p
/ ihe Ccmmission requests comments on whether it should delete or I
modify additional provisions of Appendix A including prescriptive requirements for specific design features which may not be necessary to mee-the EDA standard, hn ;:rti.J,..,,iie ^m......;;ier w ::t'-a: + 9:-
(
..f
,,.._ w
,.<__.3
.t...__.__.
,,,... a. 2_.__--_._s_-._
.....____,.--..._....,,.x,,,,
.6,
- ': :d :: ; : ' ; w. 2 A. e
..;;:.d:d befer; A,..:'
'., ;3e The prescriptive requirements in question include those for minimizing up-stream drainage area, siting where there is good wind protection, reittiv~ely flat slopes, mandatory vegetative or rock cover, cobble size recr., high quality rock cover, and rock armoring.
The Commission also consioered deleting.the prohibition on reliance on active maintenance.
_-.' i :d modifying Criterion 3 mandating below grade disposal as the prile option, and deleting the requirement for backoround radium concentra-tiens in cover materials.
Relief frc= these retained pravisieris is vail-I to't -hrcugh case-by-case proposals by licensees as noted in proposed
% W1ssiaA $ e < k$. CD *4:WM dO% ?\\
N
-"="daa
, ';.;.:-; sufficient N
accitiens to.ne intreduction.n " ?
esi:ii'ty 'n v'ew of the Commission's intent te consider alternative
- ::csais as cutine licer. sing actions?
Y L
i.
~Subpart F:
<]
40 CFR 264.91 Required programs 40 CFR 264.95 Point of compliance 4
ctg 40 CFR 26a.96 Compliance period u
40 CFR 264.97 General ground water monitoring requirements V
40 CFR 264.98 Detection monitoring program
'40 CFR 264.99 Compliance monitoring program c
l ii.
Subpart G:
j 9
40 CFR 264.117 Post-closure care and use of property 4
iii. Subpart K:
1[c 40 CFR 264.226 Monitoring and inspection (of impounoment liners),
~
I i<.
as applicable
- Q 40 CFR 264.228 Closure and postclosure care, as applicable."
(
..The above quota,tions f rom the EPA's October 7,1983 Notice serve to.
clarify the substance of EPA's standards, the respective ~ agency respo(si-
__j dO bilities under the'UMTRCA, and the nature and scope of the rulemaking the
~
, 4 5,
f C*
NRC is herein considering undertaking.
The NRC has reviewed the language
[$
y Y
cuoted and elieves it to be factually correct and a fair representation I
1 9
.s k
~V-4 of the issues. addressed.
4 w
h JV 5-II.
Issues for public Comment s
3,%
The NRC re:uests public comment on the general question of how best
- receed to fuifill its resoonsibilities under the Atcmic Energy Act, w'tr. reste: :: establish'ng SWDA-ce=: arable requiremen s for the.anage-
.e-Of mW ai'ings, te -he maximum ex.er.t prac-icacie.
In this
- .me-ts a e re: es ec cr. cn:':es and ce:isions tne NRC must
- - ex,
Ii a
make concerning issues and actions that are within its discretion.
Comments on the' basic value, validity, lawfulness, or appropriateness of the EPA's SWCA regulations, the-SWDA, or the UMTRCA are not requested.
A.
Tentative NRC Aceroach for Ground Water Protection I
l The NRC has ceveloped a tentative approach to place SWDA-comparable requirements in its regulations, based on planning and development efforts conducted to date.
This approach is tentative, and is made a part of this public announcement so efforts spent in providing public comment might be better guided.
It involves the development of a block insert to
~
NRC regulations (either at the end of 10 CFR Part 40 or perhaps by crea-tion of a new part 41) which would contain the entire set of SWDA-ccmparable requirements.
The insert would be organized in terms of design, operating, closure, u
and post'-lilosure requirements, and would to the fullest extent feasib I
\\
be a complete statement of the requirements without refer to EPA requirements in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
In this way, the requi.rements could be stated in a self-contained, unified manner in ene place.
Coverage would include at least the SVDA requirements already imcosec by EPA (40 CFR 264.92-94, 264.100, 264.111, and '264.221),
and appropriate portions of the SWDA requirements mentioned by the EPA explicitly as " examples of areas which NRC must address" (these include IC CFR 264.55-99, 264.117, 264.226, and 264.228).
~
The'i. sert being censiderec for preposal by the NRC would likely Schde al' :f Suboart F (40 CFR 264.90-100), due to :ne close relatten-s.i: anc 9:ercecencency of :ne sesarate provisier.s, anc because tii :ut i
9
40 C.:R 264.90, " Applicability," is either imposed or mentioned as 'an exa"::Ie Dy the EPA.
The remaincer of the E?A's SVDA regulations, including Subparts k (exce:t Section 264.3), B, C, D, E, F, G, H, and K would be reviewed in ceveleping a proposal to determine which of those requirements would need to =e incorporated in NRC regulatiens to establish NRC requirements which l
I are 3 the maximum extent practicable, at least comparable to the EPA's l
SVDA requirements for similar hazardous material.
In developing this proposal the NRC would distinguish between substantive requirements and EPA's procedural permitting requirements because it does not believe the UMTRCA mandate requires the NRC to adopt any portion of the procedural permitting aspects of EPA's regulations.
The NRC's established procedures for licensing, inspection, and enforce-ment would be used with respect to implementation.
E.
Issues and Ouestions The NRC seeks public input with respect to all aspects of the ques-tien of how best to fulfill its respon'sibilities under Section 275 and 84 l
cf -he Atomic. Energy Act of 1954, as amended, for protection of ground TheNRCalsoseekspubliccommentwithrespecttothefollowirk
]
wa er.
issues and ques-ions (In providing public comment, comment,Yc s are recuested to provide the basis in fact for any cpinions offered or asser-
.icr.s mace):
1)
Shouic.he SWDA-ccmocrable re:;uirements to be placed in NRC e;;.atisns se ex: licitly restated ::
-ecisely duplica e EPA's language, c
s cuic su:s.ar.-ive receirements be : ara:hrased?
i
'C r
i y
sg.
i
I l
2)
Sheuid all of Subpart F be included? What should not be included?
hSbny
'\\.
3)
What shculd be included in a e '-: n of hazardous constituerg(
r for mill tailings to replace the 375-item long list in Appendix VIII to 40 CFR Part 261 referenced in 40 CFR 264.93?
Should constituents not usually present or not present above trace levels be incluced? What
\\ criteria should be applied to decid k what constituents should be included?
4)
The NRC must establish SVDA-comparable requirements to the maximum extent practicable.
In this context, what is practicable given current practice and the current state of technology?
5)
Should NRC retain.the basic sequence embodied in Subpart F where licensees who cetect ground water contamination progress through a graduated scale of action, from detection monitoring, through compliance monitoring, anc on to corrective action, with significant time delays allowed between steps while plans and programs are being de'veloped,.
reviewed. and imolemented?
buld it be advisable, practicable or appro-priate to reovire, for example, that all NRC licensees have approved compliance monitoring programs that are automatically activated and implemented when needed?
6)
Shouic the basic SVDA scheme for the timing and duration of a
" compliance" period, a " closure" period, and a " post-closure care" period be naintained? What modifications, deletions, acditions should be mace?
7)
To w at extent, now, anc under what conditions should leak 1
ce ectice sys ems uncer single-liner impoundments be allowed to fulfill
-he recut.re e. s for a detection monitoring crogram that einerwise 1
ecu' es a mer' cring well in the u;oe mos acuifer?
11 i
s E
8)
How detailed should NRC's regulations be, and what should and sneuid not be required in areas such as well construction, sampling and sameie analysis, determinations of annual average and seasonal background p
concentrations, minimum detection levels, statistical treatment of data and determinations of statistically significant differences, recordkeeping and reporting, quality assurance, etc.?
9)
To wnat extent must J.he NRC provide supporting environmental impact analyses considering the nature of the requiremen'ts under consid-eration, s.ome of which have already been imposed by EPA and are effective?
If supporting environmental evaluations are needed for SVDA-comparable rule changes except for the requirements already imposed by the EPA, shcuid the NRC continue to proceed with only a single rulemaking to estaolish a complete set of SWDA-comparable requirements?
-.10)
Is the flexibility cited in the proposed addition to the 2
Introduction of Appendix A 10 CFR Part 40-sufficient or should the NRC.
- t.
- ,-d i -.;;;;;
.;; r m t; develop and support additional modifica-tions to conform to the physical stability aspects of the EPA standard?
i e
12
(ATTACEMENT 2)
N 0"T A T'1 0 N V0TE RESPONSE S' RET 4
TO:
SiMutt J'.
CHILK., SECRETARY OF THE COM.w.I SSION FROM:
COMMISS10NER ASSELSTINE SU3 JECT:
SICY-8 3-5 23 - PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO URANIUM MILL TAILINGS REGULATIONS AND ADVANCE NOTICE OF PROPOSED 2ULEMAKING APPROVEDX As Modified DISAPPROVED A3 STAIN NOT PARTICIPATING REQUEST DISCUSSION COW alTS:
I approve the 4-24-84 drafts of Enclosure A-2 and Enclosure B, and the Implementation and Enforcement Policy, as modified with the attached.
I also propose that we deal'with the EPA jurisdictional issue as described in the attached comments.
i l
1 i
I
'I 1
i
//
/?/
YY Gl/
/
/zs, y. :f j h
. ccr-4. -=
.a.. p c
. t,
]
DAIt.
SECRETARIAT NOTE:
RLEASE ALSO RESPOND TO AND/OR COMMENT ON OGC/0?E MEMORANDUM IF ONE HAS BEEN ISSUED ON THIS PAPER.
e s
4 Co--issioner Asseistine's Ccmments er SECY-83-522:
4 I would address the question of whether the EPA mill tailings standard exceeds EPA's jurisdiction in the proposed implementatier. and Enforcement Policy.
I wo'uld also incluce the implementation anc Enforce-cen: Policy in bcth rulemaking packages.
1 We should squarely face the juriscictional question.
I would suggest the following as an outline of the approach for addressing the jurisdictional issue.
A reasonable argument can be made that the Congress did nct intend that EPA develcp the type cf standard centained in 40 CFR 192.
The legislative history of the provision when it was first adopted by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee ir.dicates an intent that EPA-establish a ceneral environmental standard for both radiological and nonradiolocical hatards.
This legislative
~
]
history indicates that EPA was not to establish such elements as cover
'I i
.requ rements or liner requirements as part of its standard.
- However, the legislative history is contradictory in that some other statements indicate a Conoressional intent that the EPA standard include such requi rements.
- Given these conflicting statements in the legislative history, the Com.ission is left with the question of whether the EPA standard consti-
}-
tutes a reasonable approach for mill tailings disposal.
I conclude that t
(
the EPA standard is a reasonable approach in the circumstances.
Unlike
).
a pr.wer reactor or other operating facility, a mill tailings disposal
v.
j r
site is n'ot intended to have a fixed and permanent site bouncary, j
i Rather, the emphasis is on stabilizatier cf the pile in a manner that will assure icng erm prctection af.er institutional controls suen as s
fences and guards are gon,e.
In such circumstances, on-site and eff-site distinctions aopear to make little sense, and it is difficul 'te argue that the types of requirements adepted by EPA, including radon emanation limits, groundwater limits and groundwater control measures, are legally impermissible. I would therefore n:t question EPA's jurisdiction to adopt the types of requirements contained in 40 CFR 192, even though there is some basis for concludine that this may not have been what Congress had in mind.
However, there is one aspect cf EPA's standard that.I believe clearly exceeds i;s jurisdiction, and we should say so.
That is the requirement for EPA concurrence in NRC, case-by-case deviations from i
elecents in the EPA standard.
In essence, the EPA position establishes 1
a system of dual regulation that clearly was not intended by the Con-l gress.
Section 84 of the Atomic Energy Act., in my view, gives the NRC f
exclusi7e authority to allow case.by-case deviations from the EPA I
i standard based upon a practicability determination.
I would suggest
.1 that we assert our exclusive jurisdiction in this area, point out that
~
j we b'elieve EPA has exceeded its jurisdiction in this regard, and state q-
{'
that we do not intend to seek EPA concurrence on these case-by-case I
detenninations.
l
- l q
t
i
! MP'.E ME NT AT I ON ND ENFO:.CEMEN-POL I CY 4
(NOTE: LANGUAGE WHICH MIGHT EE USED IN ONE OR ALL OF THE r0LLOWING:
LETTERS TO LICENSEES AND AGREEMENT STATES, IN THE ANPRM ON ?URTHER REVISIONS TO APFENDIX A 0F PART 40, OR IN A FOP. MAL POLICY STATEMENT )
hN
- ^ ~ -
d v.).
k L/
IHE COMMISSION EELIEVES THAT BOTH THE NRC AND THE AGREEMENT STATES ARE LEGA LY OBLIGATED UNDER SECTION 275D OF THE ' ATOMIC ENERGY ACT TO IMPLEMENT. AND ENFORCE THE EPA STANDARDS FOR URANIUM AND THORIUM MILL TAILINGS IN 40 CFR 192, SuEPARTS D AND E.
SINCE THE EFFECTIVE DATE SPECIFIED IN THE EPA STANDARD WAS DECEMBER 6,1983, THE COMMISSION BELIEVES THAT THE LEGAL OBLIGATION FOR NRC AND
~
AGREEMENT STATES INCLUDES ENFORCEMENT IN THE INTERIM WHILE CONFORMING AND IMPLEMENTING RULE CHANGES ARE MADE, j-i i
e 9
I EnCICSurt.
4
'l t'
_)
1)EEINCOMPLIANCE NJ IMUjf C;P.P 5510N LICENSEES ARE EXFECTED TC:
W: TH THE E?A STANDARDS IN 40 CFR 192 OR, 2) sE WORKING TowARD COMFL:ANCE, OR 3) SU3MIT PROPOSED ALTE?. NATIVES FOR COMMISSION 40 7.Ev!Ew : N COMPLl ANCE WITH 5ATES ESTAELISHED IN CFRX192, Igg CcMM:SSION BELIEVES T:iAT LICENSEE PROPCSA S FOR ALTERNATIVES CAh 4E AN IMPORTANT AND EPPECTIVE WAY TO HELP DEAL WITH THE PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH IMPLEMENTING THE NEW E?A STANDARDS.
NRC'S CURRENT REGULATIONS LACK NECESSARY IMPL EMENT ATION FEATURES CALLED FOR IN THE PREAMBLE TO THE E?A STANDARDS AND CONTAIN PRO.\\'ISIONS IN CONFLICT OR INCONSISTENT WITH THE E?A STANDARDS.
NRC 15 UNDER'.c CCNGRESSIONAL MANDATE TO MODIFY ITS RULES TO CONPORM TO E?A'S STANDARDS'AND DEVELOP GENERAL REQUIREMENTS COMPARA3LE, TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICAELE, TO REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO SIMILAR HAZARDOUS MATERI ALS REGULATED EY E?A UEDER THE SO DISPCSAL ACT, AS AMENDED.
IHE COMMISSION EXPECTS THAT IT MAY REQUIRE SEVERAL YEARS TO PULLY MEET THIS DUAL MANDATE AND EXPECTS t
TO USE THE PLEXIBILITY PROVIDED BY SECTION 84 IN THE INTERIM TO CCNSIDER AND. APPROVE ALTERNATIVE PROPOSALS PROM LICENSEES.
SECTICN 84 C PROv! DES NRC SUFFICIENT AUTHORITY TO INDEPENDENTLY
^
AP??.CVE ALTERNATIVES SO LONG AS THE COPMISSION CAN MAKE THE
--_.RMi,,m,_i10,,.
.-..,..-,s sti:
n n
u.--
i i
e i
n
~
~,. -
' T,a::ist.:r's -ID:
J:s l.'\\T. T's NL t:
- U.2:NECE K
- ar.
- C:==en s:
2P1ft EEh :S Ef vi stC' AppenCiX A 1010 CEE PE-. f.D
{A!CL.05kItC5
~L
'E 5-p D A-T5 D 3 2. lC i N
bl' l
,9 Q j5 Q pf5 / OWS S
I N'D
.y
~
fg p f,t 6 T C
(,OM ffr 8 h -l I Vc Iw %1 4
i emm=w"""
j.
IGWS&
Ar/D HAT 5 Cy4pg 55 jy o 7' M gg gc5 b,
r i
GTihiR CN AMGB5 G NO WW,
THr T~ d6FLRr r
I 4lI9 l ??
Yi SC 4 SS t Oy S,
.TU PAlf TI C kL fir?
//
556 P A-G S 5 i
I O' II 2b AG
/
l
}
d.
N
~
Yj 6 6. (~ i.1
.y Li. i..
.:..:...e. - :.....r. c
- v...e.c...,.
en 10 C:R :AR 40 Uranium Mill Tailing Reg.;ia-icns:
C:nicr ing NRC Receirements :: EPA S.andares
~
AGE!. Y:
Nu:i e a r Re gui a tocy Cc=mi s s i e a..
l r:;;sec ruie.
SU.vvARY:
The Nucitar Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing te amenc i s regulations governing the disposa.i 'of uranium mili tailings.
The
- r:;; set rule chances are intended :: ::nferm existinc NRC reguia-icns
- -he regula.icns publishec by the Er.vironmenta'. Protection Agency for
.he :r: ection of the environmen-f rc= these wastes.
This a:-ion is MC
\\
m.o ec=piy with the legislative mancate set cut in the Uranium v.iii.Tzilings Radiation Control A:. and the NRC Ac;herization A:: for 2
I Q~,y n l
.<.st 1
- )QJ a-Ac.ut ->~
- .Y
- gg3, m
- h..,.
Q
- i J.w. 4 / ~,1 e
^
~
e.~
a A
t & <<
. C w
DATE:
The comment period expires on (30 days after publication).
Cemments re:eived by the Cc==ission af ter that cate will no. be considered.
1.C3:.ES S..5 :
Maii es=ments to Secre ary, U.S. Nu: lear Regulatory Commis-si:, ldashingsen, CC 20555, Attention:
Decketing and Service Branch.
- e5'ver co= men s t'o Room 1121, 1717 M Stree: NW., Washington, DC between 5:*5.t... and 5:00 ;.m. weekdays.
e l'
s d
b i
e I<
(',
- a:'a-t'en Cen rei Act of 1978 ('JMTRCA).
Uncer Se:tien IE(a) Of Sub.
- L. 57-L' 5, the Nu:l et-Reguia cry ::=.issier. Au. :ri:a-i:.- A:: f:r fis:ai jet s.9E2 an: 19E2, -he 0:=mi s si:.
-a s dire::e: : ::ni:r-i s reguia-
-t:rs :: EFA's by n: la er snar Ma :r. 31, 1954,.i-h ne: ice and ep: r-
. uni y for public c:= ment.
Today's ;r::: sal acc esses that res:ensi:iitty.
ev'Ous A::ier.s In ~ keeping wi-h Se: tion IE(a) of the NR: Au-h: riza-icn A:, the C =missioj. suspended portions :f i s 0::ober 3,1580 mill tailings regu-ia-icr.s af er n:-ice and cppertunity for public ::= ment (48 FR 25250; Augus: 4, 19E3).
As rec.uired by the A::, this sus:ension terminated av::matically A:ril 1, 1984 These certions of the f,ommissier.'s reg.uia-tier.s which were suspended were these that were determined te be i.n
- nflict or ine:nsistent with EPA's pre;csec recuirements.
Mere spe:ifically, the su's' pended per-icr.s were th:se that would reedire a maj:t commitment er major action by li:ensees whi:5 would be unnecessary r
4 if (1) the EPA proposed standaros were romuscatec in final ferm without modification, and (2) the Commission's regulations were modified to 1
conform to the EPA standards.
The objective of the suspension was to I
i avoid-a-situation where a licensee or applicant might make a major I
g
- c=mi ment er take a major action which wcuid be unnecessary cr,ili-1 1
's,.
acy'. sed af ter subsequent ruiemaking to permanently. edify 'the existing s
e;u}a-ices on the basis of EPA's final star.dards.
The finai E?A standards are very similar to : hose tnat were pr,opesed.
' eve--heiess, -he Comt.ission has re:Or.sidered the appro:riateness cf chances I
-- :::er.
<.x A
- 10 CFR Par: a0 in ligh cf -he rew EPA stancards, and -he t
f:r acti-icnal suppcrtin; de:vmer.ta-i:-
Th: :han;os : :::seg
- g;.
ee:
5 i e
- e m: des-nan the previces sus:e si:r
- e :f This ;r:: sal In adcitier :: conforming i s exis-ing reguia-ions :: n e
- EPA s a re-(
- 1-::, under ne provisions cf the UMTR;A, -he C :missier has a furthe- -
'eg'sia ed res:ensibility; i mus es a':iisn general recu' emen:5, fer ne manrgemen cf byproduct ma erial, with EPA concurrence, wnich are, c -he maxt=um extent practicable, a-least comparable
- recuirements a::.icable c -he management cf similar hazar:cus ma erial regulated by
-he EPA uncer ne Sclid Was e Disposal A:: (SWDA), as amenced.
The
- :m-ission celiberated as ;c how bes:
- dea' wi-h these reia ad rui,e-
- a king neecs and de:ided on the ::urse :f a:-ion resulting in -his pre-
- sai and the a: Companying ANPRM.
This prep:sai adcresses zii the
- har.ges to -he exisding Commission regulations ir. Apper.cix A to 30 CFR Par-40 tha can be.lecally promulgated withcut additienai su::crting
- c entation.
Other changes te the Cc= mission's regulations fer mill tailines man'agement resulting f rom the E?A standard are -he subje:: ef the accompanying ANPRM.
l
~
Tlne conten; of these two rulemakings also mav be characterized in i
a
?
erms of -he need for EPA concurrence, altheueh that was ne: the deciding This ; oposal consists of =ccifications not recuiring EPA cen-1
- r.
i
- u-en:e, including conforming changes to existing NRC rules and incor-
- t-icn cf PA rec.uirements net ceriving f rom the SWDA.
These mocifi-l
- a-':ns -ha are the subje:
of the AN??.M a:::mpanying this pr posal f
- e-." ; # :- : e SWCA recci*e EPA ::.:urren:e :u scan- :: se:-icn St :f
- e.
- -T: Ene ;y A::.
Medificati:ns a::ressed ~in :ne ANFRM in: luce I
i i
- e.:tx A :r'. eria.
Int cue case orig'.na ty se:
,cr su:-t tals is :ast.
~1
- e. t:e :t e f:r revisec' su:mittais is.:: ::..si:e e: ne:essary.
(:)
A:d ne f:lieving :aragra;r a
- ne en::
Li:ensees er g::ii:gn.3 ty :r:: se ai ernatives t:
ne spe:t...: ra: irements in nis A::endix.
1 S u:r. alterna-ive ;r:;;sa.s may ake ir. : a:::unt 10:ti er regiong) : :,.,g i.
i
~
tiens, including ge:ic;y, :::cgra:hy, hy:rciogy, and meteereicgy.
The
- .--ission may #inc -ha the Or ::sec' alterna-ives mee-ne Co==issier's re:virements if the al. -.a-ives will a:nieve a level ci s abiit:a ien and centa.inment of the si es concerned, anc a ievei ef protection for
- ct".1 : heti-h, sa'ety, anc -he envirencen-fr:m racieiegi:si and nenra:io--
.$e
N with _ such si es, which is eceiva s.
i gi:a1 hazar:s asse:izte:
ex ent practicatie, er more s ringen-thar -he ievel-wri:h would be a:hieve,. by :n.e requiremen s c- -his n,;:endix and the s andards prc:9:ga e: -y tne :nv,.ronmental
.e r: e : l o r, e, g e n cy i r. a C c... 2,
.s
-n.:
Sut:ar:s 0 anc E.
netten:
ine t iext.,11,. y te propese al. ernatives to the Cc==i ssion, s anc :.a. s andards was included in rub.,.. ei-43.:- c.w.anges :e the ^,:_A.
ihe added paragraph paraphrases the languace in Section Sa.
The added ;aragraph c
exciicitly acknowledges the legislative intent and provides licensees
^
anc applicants the oppertunity to propese alternatives as a routine 6W j.
I':ensing ma ter.
Licensees would have te provice site-specific rationale, g
Ca.e=
- I Cia.J.To Md-.r 1
S s;
- anabie the re:ui red 0.- :.. '..a fi nding.
This generic appr:a:h was taken j
s s
4 11l-
'.steac ci tedifying individual criteria :: ;rovice flexibility.
A generi:
1 l
a:: :a:n av:i:5 :ne chan:e of n:t icentifying all areas where flexibility a
.ty :s.eece: and ; reserves the exis-tr.; su: pert for A;pendix A.
Admi n-s-a e ve'y, a' trna-ives are easier
- Or :tss unter an ex:it:it :r:vi si:-
i e
- a ex:e: d: s ules.
1 r
4
'I t
- e;.~t.icns, ar. 4 0, "Dre Minin; ar.c ressing 7:in-5:ur:e Ca eg:ry:
.. -..,.:.., s a..,
a.re, e. ve...--,
pg.<-.....,.t.,.. a..,
c
- z-....
...-..-..,.. a 3...., :ia '.., an.
Va..a.'....
.a.s (...-
..e...v,"
as
.,ce.
. s.... a.y c.c..u M e a s e.- -
These new ;aragra;ns in:: ::ra e EFA e:viremen s it::se:
- :n - 4 0.....
- 4. ( c. ) a n d 4 0 C r.R m..... ( a ( :.
resee:: vely.
.r.
.:4.
2
.e E.
Cri.e-ia 2, 7, 9,10, II, a nc~
- .2 a re n:
a f f e-.e: by :ne new EPA s a..:ar:s er e:itorial chances and no c:difica. ion is proposed for any
- r-ien ef. those cri.eria.
- :::- cf ne F-c:esed Amendments Cc :litn=e with Su: par s D and E :: 40 C:R. Cart "e
.f EPA's reguia-
-ices is...
-"lished re:uirement.
Under
.ction 275c. cf the A ::ic x
Et er;y A:. Of 1954, as
.a sc=issien believes :na: i is etiier at
-~-
.:premen. anc en-ne new :..
Enca.r.
s o. ve: ember 6, 3.... ca, g.
-he :t.e tb.
e:ame effec.ive.
This C:mi ssion.
~ 'lity is being
's
.ed cut on an ad hoc, case-by-case basis in incivicual lic. <
.'\\
acti:ns.
The C: mission's action in proposing these modifications. its regu-
,u lati:ns in Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40 is -to conform them to the new EPA l
l s ar.fs.rds.
These changes are fer..he ;;rpose of avciding confli: s an:
)
' ::. sis en:'.es, and for clarifying previcusly existing languz;e se as
- :s ::::a-it'.e with the new reovireme...s.
The acticn preposed : e e :y
+
- e.: miss'er is a consecuence of prev'ous acticns taken by - e 0- ?-m I
I a--..e E?A, a*.d is legally mancated in Se:. ion 175b(3) cf.ne -:--~-
i E e gy A:: :#.351, as amended.
h*
- :- # s si *r a:* i:* i n thi s Ca s e ' ' 8 *".tialiy n:Sti s:Te".icnary 'r
\\
g.,.. e...
... *'.
- s e s ^. #.
e. v '...*.... *. *. l c.. c . y.' '.t,
-****,-**x'.'s..*-
q
........ e
- i.... a C. e v s' '..,a *. *..- *..t
' r.
..'.s. #.c*.-'.".*-....*.....e-
,...........g.
f.,s n.r e. g *. :. e..
. V... n e. a..i. a,. c. a *. *.... *..*. *.
.C
- c* rr.*.* *.
- s #. *. *.8 L.**.*.*.*.i s.
a
.......... v.
...a.a'..
... L:,...... e..e
....sz.
. t.o. e:- p a.. s c. ), n
....e v.
...=
s
...s 7:1. es ; and 2, EPA 520/'-23-005-1 and 2, Se:.e::e
'.952, and (2) ":e;ula-
........ c. y s$,.. e. :5 3). n s. e.....,,.. a..c......,
- e. U. a.*. ': ".. v.. '. "i t
..s
...s...,..
,a
- ngs a ac-ive Sites,n trA.20/.
.. 0, Se; ember :. 54,.
c.: u t 0: n pre;arec in support Of Subpar.s D and E of 40 CFP. Par-192, and (2) " Final Generic Envir:nmen al '.:: a :: 5 a ement on Uranie: Wiiline," NUP.EG-0705, Se: e:ser
.980, pre,ared in su::cr; cf Appencix A of 10 CFF. Par-a0.
The Commission believes -ha. these su:per-ing anilyses f r the ne, E0A s.andar:s and the exis.ing C:: mission recula:icns provide a mere than ace:ua e env'ren ental review for the s andarcs addressec herein, and tha n: acciticrial imsa:t W
ana sys,.s is karrantec ey the conformine at-ions precosed n.erein, ine
,.x, c.
J g
\\
.m, encased.in and ::mple ec a
+a.+e -d d::': v; ': process with fuli :en-s
.. N.
i.
s
/
sicera-icn of environmental concerns, and f or -he purposes cf this ruie-s/
6 L
=aking action, can be viewed as the lead ac.ency.
L 1
1 1
PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT STATEMENT
~his ;r::csed ?uie does not con.ain a new or amenced infc ma-i:n
- e:-icn re:viremen. subject : the requiremen s of the Paperwork
- e:.:-i:n Ac: :f 1980 (aa U.S.C. 2501 e: sec.).
Existine reeviremer. s
-e a a::r:ved :y.he Of fice of Manageme.; and EU:;e; a;;r: val nu=ber e
4 3
4..
4 J
t l
t
.i
':e:.es : 's : :
I.*.*
- .1 E:
~ :**. :. - - :..
- . <--
- : ren:s:
- . ".!~
- nis !nea: unen sa: i::t n; ::--,:-i:ns C
h (5( Y - $3 ' YL 3 i
4O W
'~
r.is<v r.#
tv s v e
'n l
CS C. S C u GS C -
i.
.g;ud.
. e cs k u 'I'I
/f/frd.
J.
l-i 6^
l J
3f /, os/A e* M S f
/
l cl'e[i'A
'2,
//)
/.
(4 cv 1
+
e 4
1 l
- a. j. n e
'a(-
,,,,,. k e e
.'n n, < 3. n s C r. ; - )e e.s v,
I-I I
a.
g i
1 s
- '*.,ing *I:sure.
The UA ru' e sets i *e"f: m1*. e s.an:&r: for 1 lii'te:
.e :e ri 0.
Ir 10di".i n, *.ne :~e!SOie *: * *i E A s:L *.0& r" tr.: t '. e s.:::-ti n g e a.vi *
- P. e r.*.11 e vil.i t i r. i r.-i 1.e *..Z *..nt U A 00."s~i0usly i
i 4 " *. i v e..l i n.e n L *.: e *.: ;**Vice T
- r.sice"e0 *ne 1 *e:11Dili*y :7 re lyi nC CF.
s a:ility feilewing closure, an: cid n: pr:rici it.
Rt.rier,.he E?A I
s s*1.dtrd re: vires *htt, fOr nCr*E iclogi:1I na.&r:s *.he nee f:r 1 *ive i
i
- ti-er.an:e :n,iy se minimi:ec. A/,4C 's A n, c o. O 4 f le W ) r-n !.l4. p s l Cch se
",*C.e ren s n c s.
- a s.
Cl
- n n i:
f c l.* n C 9 on
,c=missier, recuests ::=ments en whe ner it, snould cele e or i
/ int s
\\
mod'fy ac'ditienti rovisions of A;;pendi: A including pres: rip-ive
(
re:viremen s f:r 5:eci,1: cesign et.u es vn en may nc-be necessary te t
i mee
.he E?A s.ancard. h.;;.n..dc.,..e
".,.... u : ;..-
.;:.': : '- " ' a r
..t............,..
-...........,....... p.:.:...-... =......
.s i
--f
- -: w :. e.-: m.
...+; -i; b : f : ; '..
'.,.:$] l ne l.
e prescrip.ive re:uirements in cues. ion inciuce these for minimi:ing u;-
1 stream drainage tret, siting where there is gocc wind retect. ion, reittiv'eiy fitt si: pes, mandat ry vece ative er to:k cover, c:tbie size rect, high quali y rock, cover, and ro:t a rmeri ng.
The C:mmission a.so i
consicered deleting the prohibition on reliance on ac-ive maintenance,
--. 'i :t modifying Criterion 3 mandating below grade disposal as the i
l prime c; tion, and deleting the recuiree.ent fer ba:kground radium concentra-
-':*is.in : ver materials.
Relief frc: these retained provisien's is @
l
'e -hreven :tse-by-etse proposals by licensees as noted in Oreocsed t:
% W *sssiaA s e <ks. CD-*"W dLAW' Y
~
i N
sufficient T '- -
-"'-4-*
N a::itiens to :ne in reduction. s
- e x '. :i i '.
- y i a, v'tw Of the C = mission's inten, *: :ensider alterna-ive
- :::stis as -:u-ine licensing a: f ons?
i l
6
m,
$ J::a ** E; 40 C.R 251.91 Re;uire: :.:;ra:s
-s s
40 C.:R 254.95 Peint :f ::::lian:e g4 Q
40 C.R 254.96 Cc=;itan:e peri:c gf u.
40 CFR 264.97 General grounc wa e m:ni orine re:u:rements
.g
\\J 40- :R 254.9E Dete::icn moniterin; :r: gram
'4C.CFR 254.99 C:::lian:e ::ni :ria; :r:;ra:
C
.=
' g:
1 ii.
Sub:ar-G:
\\,
40 CFR 254.117 Post-:lesure care ar.t use of property g
1 iii. Su::ar: K:
40 CFR 264.225 Monit: ring an: ins;i:-ien (cf ime:unement liners).
s I1 as a:;IiCable Y (,
40 CFR 261.22E Closure and pes ciesure care, as a;;iicable."
,e,E. Nc-ice serve ::.
a ne as:ve c.uotas,.cns,. re= the..., s Oc c:.er i,
- z. n L,
.8 clarify the substance of EPA's stancards, the res:ective agency res;: si-6t '
bili-ies under the UMTRCA, and the na ure a'nd 5::pe cf the ulemakine the 5
O NRC is herein considerine. uncertakinc.. The NRC has reviewec the language l s[*g*
)
cuoted and elieves it to be f actually : rrect and a fair re:resentation 4
'4 of -he issues. addressed.
te s
O
.5
~I.
Issues f:r Public Comment s
'I The NRC re:uests public :omment on the generai cuestion of how best
- :r::eec
- fuifill its res:ensibi~;ities uncer -he A::mic Energy A::,
w';r.
es:e::
esta:iishing SVDA-:c=: arable re:uiremen s f:r -he.anage-I.
.e-Of :.i'.' sailings, i:
ne maximum extent pra::ica:le.
In this
'I~~
- tex. ::- e-s are re:ues ac Or. :re':es and ce:isiens tne NRC mus:
1
make cence--
g issues anc acti:ns ina; are vi nin i 5 d's:retier..
- mmen s
- r. tr.e basic va*.ve, validi y. It-fviress, Or a:: ::-ia eness :f
-he EPA's 5WCA regula-i ns, ne SW A,
?
re UMIRCA a e.:
recues;ec.
A.
Tenta-ive NRC A::rea:n 'fer Grcunc Wa er Orete::ie-The,NR
.as cavei :e: a enta-ive a::r: :h
- :.a:e SWOA-:::: ara:ie requiremen s in i s reguia ions, basec en planning an: ceveic; ment efferts concuttec :: cate.
This a;; reach is tenta-ive, and is mace a part cf this publi: a r.n:un:eme nt se eff:r 5 spen-in providing :ubli: Ocmmen-might be be ter guide,..
1; invclves :ne ceveicpmen c; a Oicck insert ::
C.R Part 40 er perha:s by crea-NRC reguia-ions (either a the end Of 1:
tien of a new Part 41) which w:ulc c:n ain -he entire set cf SVDA-lcm; arable recuiremen s.
The insert would be crgani:ec in erms cf design, coerating, ciesure, and post'-dicsure requirements, and would to'the fulles; exten; feasib c,
'*NJ be a com;Iete statement of the requirements without ref er.ence to EPA receirements in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
In this way, the requi.rements could be stated in a self-contained, unified manner in ene pjace.
Coverage would include a: least the SVDA recuirements already im: see by EPA (40 CFR 264.92-91, 264.100,264.111,and'264.221),
and appropria e per-ions of the SWDA receirements mentioned by the EPA l
l explicitly as " examples of areas which NRC must accress" (these include i
10 C R 261.95-99, 264.117, 264.226, anc 264.228).
The i. sert being c:nsiderec fer pr::osal by the NRC wculd likely 3 :iude ai' :f Sub;ar-F (40 C.R 264.9C-100), cue to :ne ciese.reia:i:n-i s r. '. : ar.d 3 ser:e:encency of ne se:t ate ;tevisi:ns, and because tii Ou-
o 40 CF:. 264.90. "A::lica:i'.ity," is ei ner impesed r mer.-f:ned as an exan:in :y :ne EFA.
The e:ai.:er cf ne E3A's SWEA e;c'.ations, it.:.;:i.; Sut:ar s A
~(ex:e:- Se:-icn 264.3), 5, C, 0, E, ?, G, H, anc X <:cic :e reviewe: in cavel: ping a :r:; sai
- cetermine whi:n cf these reccirements w: ic nee:
s o ee in::r: ra ec in NR:
eguia-icns
- establisn NRC recuiremen s snich are *.
-he max # num eX*.e".
- Ta::i Catie, a-Iea s* 005: ara:le :: tr.e EPA's SVDA recuirements for similar ha:areces material.
In ceyele;ing this pr ;osai the NRC. would distin;Uish between subs antive requiremen s anc EPA's ;recedural permitting recuirements because it coes net believe the UMIRCA tancate re:cires -he NRC :: at:;;
any ;0r-ion of the pre:ecural permitting asse::s Of EPA's reguia-ions.
The NRC's es ablished ;rececures f:r li:ensing, inspec-ien, and enf er:e-ment wouic be used with rescec-t: imp l eme r.ta ti en.
c.
.ssues and Ouestions The NRC seeks public input with respect to all aspe: s cf the ques-tien of how best to fulfill its respensibilities uncer Se:-icn 275 and S4 cf the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, for ;rotection of ground water.
The NRC also seeks public comment with respe:: to the followi :
~
l issues and questions (in providing pubit: ccmment, commen crs are
}
l re:uestec to provide the basis in f ae 'for any epinions effered or asser-l
-tens mace):
l l
- )
Sh /.: -he SWDA-::::aratie re:uirements
- be piacec in NR.C e;c'.at'.:ns :e excit:itly restated :: : ecisely cc:li:1 e E?A's itnguage,
- r sneuic su:s antive e:uiremen s te : ara:r. rased?
2)
Shev'.d ali of Sv::ar-F Oe ir.:iuded?
Wr.at s..cuic net :e gn:,g,g7 le <,sG o
e n,,,
's 3) wha sn:uic :e ir.:iucec in a : - : :r :f a ar::us ::rs i ve...
s,.
f:r mill tailir.gs se re;iace :ne 3?~-i e-1:r.g list it. A::encix V' I:
00 CFR Part 25*. -eferen:ec ir. 00 CFR 250.52?
Shcuit ::ns-i ver. s n:-
usually presen er n:: p re s e r.: ab:ve ra:e levels ce i. :icced? Vna i
criteria sh:vi: :e a?pliec t ce:idhng wha
- ens-i ve"I*. s sn:vi: ce
'n:iuced?
- 4)
- The NRC mus establish SVDA-c::; arable ree.uirements :: -he maximum extent practicable.
In this cor.: ext, what is prac-ica:1e given curren prac-i:e anc the curren-s ate :f te:nnelegy?
5)
Sheci: NRC re ain :ne casic se;uen:e embodiec in Sv::ar F where licensees whc cc ect grounc water :en atina-i:r. ; regress snrcugh a gradua:ec s: tie Of action, f rem de ecti:n = r.itoring, through c:mplian:e monitoring, anc en te corrective a :icn, vi-h significan- -ime ceiays tilowed be ween steps while plans and programs are being ce'veicped, reviewed,.and im lemented?
Weuld it be advisa:le, practicabie or appre-pria e to recuire, for example, that ali NRC licensees have a;;rovec d
c:m;11ance monitcring programs that are autect scally activated inc imclemented when needed?
6)
Sheuic the basic SVDA scheme for the timing and duration of a
" :: iiance" period, a " losure" perioc, anc t " pest-:i:sure care" seriod t'
be aintained?
Wha: modifica:icns, deitticas, actittens sneuic de mace?
7)
To wna exten, now, and under what cor.ditions shoule leak
- e a::i:n sys ems under single-liner i=: undmer.:s be ailewed o fulfill i
the e: wire e..:s f:r a dete: tion monit:rin5 :r: gram sna c-he -wi s e e:.* es a.:r
- ring well in the u::ermCs: acuifer?
d 1
i
E)
H:w co.aiiec sh:ul NR 's e;.ia-i:ns be, ar.: what sh:ule and
~
s s r.:.. :.:
- e re:u re:. in areas su:.. as
-e.
- r.s.ru: i:., sam:lin; and sam:'e analysis, de erminati:.s cf annua
- ava age ar.: seas:nai :a:r.;r:en:
- .* e r.* r a
- i :n s. !T.i ". i mum c e
- e * *. i :T. l e v e l s, s *.a *. i s t i a l t re a.me nt f d& *,a an: ca erminatier.s of s.z isti:aily sign"ican cif f eren:es, e::-dies;ing anc' repersing, cutii y assuran:e, e :.?
- )
Tc wna, ex en mus:.he NRC : :vice su:pertin; envir:n= ental impac; analyses consicering.he na.ure cf.ne recuiremen.s uncer consic-tra-icn, ss:me of which have alreacy bee.. impesed by EPA an: are effec.ive?
If su:per-ing environmentai evaluatiens are needec for SCA-::mparacie rule changes exce:: f:r the re:uiremen.s alreacy imposec by the E;A, sh:uld the NRC continue :: pre:eed dish eniy a singit rulemaking ::
e
^
es.ablish a ccm:lete set cf SWA-ccm:trabia recuirements?
10)
Is ne fiexibility cited in :he pre:ese: aceitien te the Introduction of A:pencix A 10 CFR Part 40 suffi:ient or should the NRC A
e
- :;-f :....;;__.
..:r=
n develop apd sup ort accisional modifica-
.icns := conf orm to the physical stabili.y aspec s of :ne EPA standard?
l
\\
4 e
b 9
t 4
.2 l
(ATTACHMENT 3)
EDITED COMMENTS OF CORMISSIONER ASS.ELSTINE I
1 I
?
I f
\\
^^~
'^ ~
m; I) ns'eb f^5o
' Cornissicr-er Asselstine'Am bN;2-2:2:
v v
v dI
! !IC f<C"mo2s.*n
- c. cy, S, gygl
- /
we ne addraw the cuestien of wht her the E?A mill tailings i
I standard exceeds EPA's jurisdictienJ. in the pr.:pesed I piementa-ior. anc,
\\
\\
s the Iglem'entaqi.on a(r( Enkree s
. #orcement olicy.
would iso inci
] ment o.iicy in ' th ruits.akinc aces. ~
)
[Weshoul squarel face th jurisdicJonal qu'stion.
I wou d e
suggest the fol wing as n outline of the a,,,..cach. r addrrssinc \\ej m
ju {sdict.e.a1 issue;G i' reasonable arg:: ment can be made tha: the Congress did net intend that EPA deveic? the type ch standard contained in 40 CFR 192.
The legisiative history cf the provision when it was first. adopted by the, Senate Environment and Public Works Comittee indicates an intent that EPA establish a ceneral environmentai standarc for beih radiological and nonradiological hazarcs.
This legislative history indicates that EPA was not to establish such elements as cover requirements or liner requirements as part of its standard.
- however, the legislative history is contradictory in that some other statements indicate a* Congressional intent that the EPA standard include such
[
requirements.
i i
Given these conflicting, statements in the legislative history, the M e.y'f c.on s o'd'ved
}!
Comission i. '; -iit,h the question of whether the EPA standard consti-7% c..,,. 'u:.n tutes a reasonable approach for mill tailings disposal. / conclude /that the EPA standard is a reasonable approach in the circumstances.
Unlike a power reactor or other operating facility, a mill tailings disposal
4, 'r,. 4,,
s e. k b. k e,]
4e / c h d fa a e s.
p e.d A / 4, 3 <,- / c.
bcs,.sh nse ess"../
e
'y site i:
.--d'*-^'
- have a fixed and pe maner.
site beundarz.
Rather, -he emphasis is on stabili:atier. cf :ne ;ile in a manner that will assure long-te m protection after institutional controis such as fences and guards are gone.
In such cir:umstan:es,1bn-site anc off-site distinctions appear te make little sense, and it is difficul.t : a gue that the types of re:;uirements adopted by E?A, including rador emanation
~
limits, croundater limits and croundater control measures, are lecally
~
~
- -f e C e., s 0.'o 1 h a.s We,e hedu
- hdA
~
impermissible.4 '::v'.d ther:f c noduestion EPA's jurisdiction to adep the types of recuirements c:ntained in !.0 CFR 192, even though there is some basis for concluding that this may not-have been what
~
Congress had in mind.
l L c.--;ss :.., L., e.eDed Lf However,^ the. ; is one aspect of E?A's stancard
+5-'
' *~-"-
d'fA's espe r'-
clearly exceeds.'As jurisdiction" -:nd
- M"" e>y m.
Tnat is the d d e k.. a,i.on.s AaNeedc
~
~
recuirement for EPA concurrence in NRC case-b;v-case deviati:::
fre:
s.ddeldi,*; & hawdos cush%cdc-c on c eda lio s I,*J.s
- ,r--
e
. eD a e's ~'wd.
An essence, the E?A position establishes d-a system of dual regulation that clearly was not intended by the Con-
% Co- ~, *ss.'o., 's
/,e a gress.
Section 84cof the Atomic Energy Act, in -" "icw, gives the NRC e
s,'le spec.Cc- ' Hvn < o4r > f *f * * *=f Av I b ses exclusive authority to :grac-
..r c:::,ty 4i.
Je, stis.
fr a the EPA
"~
~
T1:e G--.*> s4 n l
I standard based upon a practicability de. termination.
Iwww1d,wgen i
pl~, 6.
-that = assert. owe exclusive jurisdiction in this area; d
- /s a
pekt :::: th;t e
I w; :,.1-;e 2 EPA h:: exceeded it: jur ;>d::tien i.. Gia,evero, ena ste.
thi. we do*'not intend to seek EPA concurrence on these case-by-case determinations.
.I e