ML20129B288
| ML20129B288 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/10/1984 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20129B225 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-84-709 AB50-2-35, AB56-1-28, NUDOCS 8506050178 | |
| Download: ML20129B288 (20) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:* O / paans% UNITED STATES 6 Action: Davis, NMSS I
^
, p n NUCLEAR' REGULATORY COMMISSION Cys: Dircks Philips l
'W $ W ASHIN GTON. D.C. 20555 Roe B;saw l 1 Rehm Shel ton I
/ Stello i Aai_n DM ,NMi
%,*****/ July 10, 1984 GCunningham'tFragonette l WH BOCKET CONTROL
. orriCE or THE CENTES. Minogue NMSS-SECRETARY Kerr Felton MEMORANDUM FOR: William J. Dircks, Exect.cive Director fo Operations a
FROM: S muel J. Chilk, Secretary
SUBJECT:
SECY-83-523/523A - PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO URANIUM MILL TAILINGS REGULATIONS AND ADVANCE NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING This is to advise you that the Commission (with Chairman Palladino and Commissioners Asselstine and Bernthal agreeing) has approved the following course of action in regard to these papers:
- 1. The Commission agreed to address the question of whether the EPA mill tailings standard exceeds EPA's jurisdiction in a Implementation and Enforcement Policy Statement as described by Commissioner Asselstine in his comments (Attachment 1). The Policy Statement should be finalized and forwarded to the Commission for approval and publication.
(EDO/NMSS) (SECY SUSPENSE: 8/13/84)
'? . The Commission also agreed to issue the proposed rule and advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) based upon the at,tached April 24, 1984 drafts with modifications as indicated (Attachments 2 and 3). In addition the above imp 1w.enta. tion and enforcement policy should be incorporated into the Statement of Consideration for both rulemaking actions.
The revised proposed rule and ANPR should be forwarded for signature and publication in the Federal Register. (EDO/NMSS) (SECY SUSPENSE: 8/13/84) i 3. The appropriate Congressional Committees should be advised. (OCA) (SECY SUSPENSE: 8/13/84)
- 4. You should provide a copy of the proposed rule and ANPR to all affected licensees and interested parties and
, issue a press release.
(E9e/OPA) (SECY SUSPENSE: 8/13/84)
$ /n ecoid i VIM PrW:c:
6[ Docket No. _ Rec'd Off. EDO g PDL Date. . . . .. . ..w. Ti m e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LPDR I Distribution: I WPN /v 72 2# 8506050178 850312 D mA2'r rA (Return to WM,323 SS) _ L3_ NIC -709 PDR h/'
2 . s Commissioner Roberts approve,d, but preferred the proposed
.rule and ANPR presented in SECY-83-523.
Action on this item was completed _ prior to Commissioner Zech's Oath of Office. , Attachments: As Stated cc: Chairman Palladino Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Asselstine Commissioner Bernthal Commissioner Zech OGC OPE 9 .[ I i
'I i
l v 4 i
r .
-e l ,l- x . .1 -
~
b Consnissioner Asselstine's Coments on SECY-83-523: I ( I would address the question of whether the EPA mill tailings ( L 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 containe,d in 40 CFR 192. The . legislative history of the provision when it was first adopted by the Senate Environment and Public Works Comittee ht ! 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 indicete a Congressional intent that the EPA standard include such requirements.
~
Given these conflicting statements in the legislative history, the ! Comission is left with the question of whether the EPA standard consti-l 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 i
^
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 long-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. " l' 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- I 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 that we assert our exclusive jurisdiction in this area, point out that i 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. 'Y 4
liiPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT POLICY i I (NOTE: LANGUAGE WHICH MIGHT BE USED IN ONE OR ALL OF THE FOLLOWING: LETTERS TO LICENSEES AND AGREEMENT STATES, IN THE l ANPRM ON FURTHER REVISIONS TO APPENDIX A 0F PART 40, OR IN A , FORMAL POLICY STATEMENT.) Ok THE COMMISSION BEllEVES 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, SUBPARTS D AND E. SINCE THE , EFFECTIVE DATE SPECIFIED IN THE EPA STANDARD WAS DECEMBER 6, 1983, THE COMMISSION BEllEVES THAT THE LEGAL OBLIGATION FOR NRC AND l AGREEMENT STATES INCLUDES ENFORCEMENT IN THE INTERIM WHILE CONFORMING AND IMPLEMENTING RULE CHANGES ARE MADE. 8 9 9
I N THUS COMMISSION j LICENSEES ARE EXPECTED TO: 1) BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE EPA STANDARDS IN 40 CFR 192 OR, 2) BE WORKING TOWARD COMPLIANCE, OR 3) SUBMIT PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES FOR COMMISSION A0 REVIEW IN COMPLIANCE WITH DATES ESTABLISHED IN CFPfl92. THE COMMISSION BELIEVES THAT LICENSEE PROPOSALS FOR ALTERNATIVES CAN BE AN IMPORTANT AND EFFECTIVE WAY TO HELP DEAL WITH THE PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH 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,.- CONGRESSIONAL MANDATE TO MODIFY ITS RULES TO CONFORM TO EPA'S STANDARDS' AND DEVELOP ' GENERAL REQUIREMENTS COMPARABLE, TO THE 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 FLEXIBILITY PROVIDED BY SECTION 84 IN THE lhTERIM TO CONSIDER AND APPROVE ALTERNATIVE PROPOSALS FROM LICENSEES. SECTION 84 C PROVIDES NRC SUFFICIENT AUTHORITY TO INDEPENDENTLY AP? ROVE ALTERNATIVES SO LONG AS THE COMMISSION CAN MAKE THE
~
REQUIRED DETERMINATION.
,- - - 6 mm-
' , ' ' ' ' Requestor's ID: N N ' '4 " '" T
~
JPK
~
Author's Name: - DRAG 0NETTE K Decument Comments: Drafi. FRN on Revised Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40
/
J5gc.t.osune? A ~ 2- ft SH W D & TS D 32h1 O - Ad S td o
, .p y pj5C4.<S/0 / 5 Af Y # ^'b
/ ._- -
TO Doc grc COMM A TI M I%) l
- 1 j 1 T~s us e AWD bnT5 cings g5 go 7 mm xey ,
OTH6f{ CH AMG 65 $ /fo Wiv' . THir r 46t=L 5ci'
# D / S C 4 s s / 04/5 ,
if /7 f f r Id PAlf T/ C G L 6/f
/ / /
SEG P fr G S S o' 10,1) 2s 2 (o l
/ /
l M
.o -
'o J3M FT~
+ z474 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION' 10 CFR PART 40 Uranium Mill Tailing Regulations: Conforming NRC Requirements to EPA Standards AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
.ACTf 0N: Proposed rule.
j
SUMMARY
- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to amend its regul'ations governing the disposal "of uranium mill tailings. The proposed rule changes are intended to conform existing NRC regulations I
to the regulations published by the Environmental Protection Agency for the protection of the environment from these wastes. This action is. N -- ::::- ., to comply.with the legislative mandate set out in the Uranium l Mili Tailings Radiation Control Act and the NRC Authorization Act for S" '
~
FY 1983. we 3 ,& s u d iu , h! $ ba c.< - - W5 4 j.'u t- ' .c /. ' DATE: The comment period expires on (30 days after publication). Comments received by the Commission after that date will not be considered. ACDRESSES: Mail comments to Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commis-si::r., Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Docketing and Service Branch. Deliver comments to Room 1121, 1717 H Street NW., Washington, DC between
. 3:15 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. weekdays.
1
Radiation Control Act of 19J8 (UMTRCA). Under Section 18(a) of Pub. L. 97-415, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Authorization Act for fiscal years 1982 and 1983, the Commission was directed to conform its regula-tions to EPA's by no later than March 31, 1984, with notice and oppor-tunity for public comment. Today's proposal addresses that responsibility. Previous Actions In keeping with Section 18(a) of the NRC Authorization Act, the Cc= mission 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 i autcmatically April 1, 1984 Those portions of the Commission's regula-tions which were suspended were those that were determined to be in . I conflict or inconsistent with EPA's proposed requirements. More specifically, the su'spended portions were those that would require a l-major commitment or major action by licensees which would be unnecessary if (1) the EPA proposed standards were pro =ulgated 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 commitment or take a major action which would be unt.ecessary or ill-N acvised after subsequent rulemaking to ermanently .odify . the existing eculstions on the. basis of EPA's final standards. The final EPA standards are very similar to those that were proposed.
'ievertheless, the Commission has reconsidered the appropriateness of changes o A:pendix A to 10 CFR Part 40 in ligh. of .he new EPA standards, and the 9
3
.. need for additional supporting documentation. The changes proposed today are more modest'than the previous susp'ension. .
' Sco:e of This Proposal In addition to conforming its existing' regulations to new EPA stang L -
dards, under the provisions of the UMTRCA, the Commission has a further -
\ legi-slated responsibility; it must establish general requirements, for the management of byproduct material, with EPA concurrence, which are, to the ma,ximum extent practicable, at least comparable to requirements applicable to the management of similar hazardous material regulated by the EPA under the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA), as amended. The Commission deliberated as to how best to deal with these related rule-making needs and decided on the course of action resulting in this pro-posal and the accompanying ANPRM. This proposal addresses all the ,
changes to the existing Commission regulations in Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40 that can be legally promulgated without additional supporting documentation. Other changes to the Commission's regulatians for mill tailings mana,gement resulting from the EPA standard are the subject of the accompanying ANPRM. The content of these two rulemakings also may be characterized in terms of the need for EPA concurrence, although that was not the deciding factor. This proposal consists of modifications not requiring EPA con-currence, including conforming changes to existing NRC rules and incor-pora. ion of EPA' requirements not deriving from the SWDA. Those modifi-cations that are the subject of the ANPRM accompanying this proposal deriving f-em the SWDA recuire EPA concurrence pursuant to section 84 of / ths 2.:cmic Energy Act. Modificati ns acdressed in tne ANRM include t
. Appendix A criteria. The due date originally set for submittals is past.
A new due date for revised submittals is not considered necessary. (c) Add the following paragraph at the end: Licensees or applicants may propose alternatives to the specific requirements in this Appendix. Suchalternativeproposalsmaytakeintoaccountlocalorredionalcondi-tions, including geology, topography, hydrology, and meteorology. The Commission may find that the proposed alternatives meet the Commission's requirements 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-
\ th logical hazards extent practicable, associated or more stringent than with such the level whichsites, would bewhich is eq achieved by the requirements of this Appendix and the standards promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency in 40 CFR 192, Sub: 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 AE/.. The added paragraph paraphrases the language in Section 84c. The added paragraph explicitly acknowledges the legislative intent and provides licensees and applicants the opportunity to propose alternatives as a routine
. de licensing matter. Licensees would have to provide psite-specific rationale
'N Ca & Ntin.L Te m eA <.-k N to enable the 4recuired C... .....a finding. This generic approach was taken instead of modifying individual criteria to provice flexibility. A generic a:p cach avoids tne chance of not identifying all areas where flexibility may be needed and preserves the existin; support for Appendix A. Admin-i is--atively, alternatives are easier to process under an explicit or0 vision t.a exce;;ic.s .o rules.
l 7 l
~ * ' Reculations, Part 440, " Ore Mining and Dressing Point Source Category: Eff',uent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards, Subpart C, Uranium, Radium, and Vanadium Ores Subcalegory," as codified on January 1, 1983." Reason: These new paragraphs incorporate EPA requirements imposed under 40 CFR 192.41(d) and 40 CFR 192.32(a)(3), respectively.
- 8. Criteria 2, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 12 are not affected by the new EPA star.dards or editorial changes and no modification is proposed for any portion of those criteria. ,
Imcact of the Proposed Amendments Compliance with Subparts D and E to 40 CFR Part io' i EPA's regula-tions is c. lished requirement. Under .stion 275d. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,'as' a, commission believes that it is oblicated to implement and enf - one new : andare sofDecember6,1983[, - N. . the date t ecame effective. This Ccmmission -< ity is being
'N c- .ed out on an ad hot, case-by-case basis in individual lic h actions.
The Ccmmission's action in proposing these modifications to its rege-lations in Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40 is to conform them to the new EPA standards. These ch'anges are for.the purpose of avoiding conflicts and ir.censistencies, and for clarifying previously existing language se as to be compatible with the new requirements. The action proposed be-e cy the Commissien is a consequence of previous actions taken by :ne Cong-ess ard the EPA, and is legally mandated in Section 275b(3) of ne Ate-i: E..e gy Act of '954, as amended. 13
.- -=. ,
.r..
. v m-
. Commission action in this case is essentially nondiscretionary in nature, and for purposes of environmental analysis, rests upon existing environmental and other impact evaluations in the following documents:
(1) " Final Environmental Impact Statement for Standards for the Control of Eyproduct Materials from Uranium Ore Processing (40 CFR Part 192)," Volumes 1 and 2, EPA 520/1-83-008-1 and 2, September 1983, and.(2) "Regula-tory-Impact Analysis of Final Environmental Standards for Uranium Mill Tailings 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-Ehvironmental 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
- e s review for the' standards addressed herein, and that no additional impact
.; 4y e analysis is warranted by the conforming actions proposed herein. The EPA Nff% engaged in and comple'ted a r.e4+ened d::':':r-d'r; process with full con-
\ 7p\
s / sideration of environmental concerns, and for the purposes of this rule-Y making action, can be viewed as the lead agency. L
-{
l PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT STATEMENT This prc' posed rule does not contain a new or amended information collection requirement sub.iect to the requirements of the Paperwork ieduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Existing requirements ere approved by the Office of Management and Budget approval number 315C-C020. i l
}L i
l
m A i i /4 L H n 6 N T e:;ues:cr's ID:
-.:- . JpK
- 3 At-her's Name:
ORAGONEi E K~ 00:::ent C:m.ments: You MUST return t.his sheet when submitting corrections 0
/
7 $' 5 dc y' b' 3
)~. n c,I O S de c i ch cl
,4, g,. ( , j cs
/
" Ap<. / n/ art .
3, /,- 3,m 7. . ., s. 7 ol< < ff L
' ( Tii~ I. (I ') 0Q .
e
/
5 u.b .e
~f yn s i. fd fC *n # W)
- c u[ n es e
e L m
following closure. TheEPIrulesetsaperformancestandardforalimited
-i=e period. In e.ddition, the preamble to the EPA standard and the
.sup:orting environmental evaluation indicate that the EPA consciously censidered the acceptability of relying on active maintenance to provide stability followin5 closure, and did not prohibit it. Rath'er, the EPA star.dard requires that, for nonradiological hazards the need for active mairtenance only be minimized. A/ AC I .s A ppea cbh /r f/4 / AJ predl$,Ns a8/ gla n n ed'ihe ni,ince en ec.f.'se M t w n e e.. '
Commission requests comments on whether it should delete ~ modify additional provisions of Appendix A including prescriptive I ( requirements for specific design features which may not be necessary to - meet the EDA standard. h. pcc.i A r se ....o;;i;n ac:t' : 'Se'ter t
. 4 . .--, ; -_ A ...s_ u .
,, m_ _
e_ m_ . ..-.,._--,.,.x,,----+_,m.4._..
,. . . , - . .. . _t,~-,,,
-c':td t: ;-c. w ..;-t b m n ..; rd:d befer: 'y . ' ' '. , '.5 5 4] T he prescriptive requirements in question include those for minimizing up- .
stream drainage area, siting where there is good wind protection, relatively fiat slopes, -andatory vegetative or rock cover, cobble size rect, high quality rock cover, and rock armoring. The Commission also i considered deleting the prohibition on reliance on active maintenance,
-e.ms 'd=-d modifying Criterion 3 mandating below grade disposal as the prime option, and deleting the requirement for background radium concentra- -
tiens in cover materials. Relief from these retained provisions is = 1 aole throuch case-by-case croposals bv licensees as noted in proposed
~
%.< W1NicyA $ e <k$ CD ^nW d5& It adciticos to the introduction. Tu -~="4-- ', ' m sufficient
. n
'lexibility in v'ev of the Commissiori's intent to consider alternative rt:csais as rou.ine licensing actions?
.l e
[ '
.i . Subpart F: -
40 CFR 264.91 Required programs .. 40 CFR 264.95 Point of compliance - q , h 40 CFR 264.96 Compliance period u 40 CFR 264.97 General ground water monitoring requirements g V 40 CFR 264.98 Detection monitoring program-40 CFR 264.99 Compliance monitoring program o5 ii. Subpart G: l y 40 CFR 264.117 Post-closure care and use of property 4 s- iii. Subpart K: lL. t.0 CFR 264.226 Monitoring and inspection (of impouncment liners),
. 4. as applicable ; 40 CFR 264.228 Closure and postclosure care, as applicable."
- k. The aboye quotations from the epa's October 7, 1983 Notice serve to
*d clarify the substance of epa's ' standards, the respective agency respo(si- ,g i+ ,
bilities under the UMTRCA, and the nature and scope of the rulemaking the o h N NRC is herein considering undertaking.
-l The NRC has reviewed the language cuoted and believes i.: to be factually correct and a fair representation 4
, 4 of the issues. addressed.
V E 4 w dY-5 t- II. Issues for public Comment s 3N The NRC requests public comment on the general question of how best to proceed .o fulfill its responsibilities under the Atomic Energy Act, with respect to establishing SWDA-ccmparacle requirements for the manage-me r.: of mill tailings, to -he maximum ex.en oracticable. In this 1 centex , cc=mer.ts are recuested cn :noices and cecisions the NRC mus E
~
make concerning issues and actions that are within its discretion. Comments on the basic value, validity, lawfulness, or appropriateness of the EPA's SWDA regulations, the SVDA, or the UMTRCA are not requested. A. Tentative NRC Accroach for Ground Water Protection The NRC has developed 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-comparable requirements. . a The insert would be organi:ed in ter=s of design, operating, closure, and post-closure requirements, and would to the fullest extent feasibi ,
\ be a complete statement of the requirements withcut refer to EPA requirements in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. In this way, the requirements could be stated in a self-contained, unified manner in ene place. Coverage would include at least the SWDA requirements already imposed 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 40 CFR 264.95-99, 264.117, 264.226, and 264.228). g The insert being considered for proposal by the NRC would likely
'nclude all :f Scopart F (40 CFR 264.90-100), cue to ne close relation-sni; a'nd 'ntercecendency of ne secarate ;rovisions, anc be:ause all ou.
9
. - - _ . - - - . ~ . . -
g 40 CFR 264.90, " Applicability," is either imposed or mentioned as an
~~
~
example by the EPA. - The remainder of the EPA's SWDA regulations, including Subparts A (except Section 264.3), B, C, D, E, F, G, H, and K would be reviewed in ceveloping a proposal to determine which of f. hose requirement would need to be incorporated in NRC regulations to establish NRC requirements which are to the maximum extent practicable, at least comparable to the EPA's SWDA 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 mdndate 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. B. Issues and Ouestions The NRC seeks public input with respect to all aspects of the ques-tion of how best to fulfill its responsibilities under Section 275 and 84 o.f the Atomic . Energy Act of 1954, as amended, for protection of ground water. TheNRC'alsoseekspubliccommentwithrespecttothefollowir(
.Q/
issues and questions (In providing public comment, commer.tprs are
-requested to provide the basis in fact for any opinions offered or asser-tions made):
- 1) Shoule the SWDA-comparabie requirements to be placed in NRC regulations ce explicitly restated to ;'ecisely duplicate E?A's language, cr snould suos ar.-ive requirements be :araphrased?
IC
r.
- 2) Should-all of Subpart F be included? What should not be included?
N 3) What should be included in a : hofhazardousconstituer 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 included?' What
\ criteria should be applied to cecidM 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 detect ground water contamination progress through a graduated scale of action, from detection monitoring, through compiian'ce monitoring, and on to corrective action, with significant time delays allowed between steps while plans and programs are being de'veloped, reviewed, and implemented? Would it be advisable, practicable or appro-priate to require, for example, that all NRC licensees have approved compliance monitoring programs that are automatically activated and implemented when needed?
- 6) Should the basic SWDA scheme for the timing and duration of a
" compliance" period, a " closure" period, and a " post-closure care" period bemaintaineE? What modifications, celetions, accitions should be made?
- 7) To wnat extent, how, and under what conditions should leak detection systems under single-liner impoundments be allowed to fulfill the recuirements for a detection monitoring crogram that otherwise
- recuires a mon'toring well in the uppermost aquifer?
i 11 l
- 8) How detailed should NRC's regulations be, and what should and should not be required in areas such as well construction, sampling and sample analysis, determinations of annual average and seasonal background concentrations, minimum. detection levels, statistical treatment of data and determinations of statistically signific' ant differences, recordkeeping and reporting, quality assurance, etc.?
- 9) To what extent must the NRC provide supporting environmental impact analyses considering the nature of the requirements under consid-eration, some of which have alr'eady been imposed by EPA and are effective?
If supporting environmental evaluations are needed for SWDA-comparable rule changes except for the requirements alreacy imposed by the EPA, should the NRC' continue to proceed with only a single rulemaking to . establish a complete set of SWDA-comparable requirements?
- 10) Is the flexibility cited in the proposed addition to the >
Introduction of Appendix A 10 CFR Part 40 sufficient or should the NRC 2
- ;,$-d t'r , ;::: develop and support additional modifica- [,
'ss -
_::u ::: t: tions to conform to the physical stability aspects of the EPA standard? e 12
.}}