ML20133A531
| ML20133A531 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/22/1983 |
| From: | Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Gilinsky, Palladino, Roberts NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20133A479 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-84-709 NUDOCS 8507200108 | |
| Download: ML20133A531 (3) | |
Text
.
se ne:
c.
4
'o,,
UNITED STATES y
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{
j WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555
.....*'f DEC 2 21983 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Chairman Palladino Commissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Asselstine Commissioner Bernthal FROM:
William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
STAFF PLANS FOR REVISING URANIUM MILL TAILINGS REGULATIONS The purpose of this memorandum is to advise the Commission about the staff's plans for revising its regulations applicable to uranium mill tailings management.
Background
The NRC has two statutory mandates requiring revision of our regulations appHeable 1.s arasiasteill tailiags.
(1) NRC's FY83 authorization bill requires that NRC conform its
.s' regulations to final EPA standards within six months of the promulgation. of the final EPA standards. The final EPA standards were promulgated September 30, 1983. Thus, NRC is required to conform its regulations by March 31, 1984.
(2) The Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA) requires the NRC to establish regulatory requirements for mill tailings comparable, to the maximuai extent
/
practicable, to requirements for ground water protection set by /
EPA for hazardous chemical wastas under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
There is no time limit -
soecified for +Mc action.
However, EPA's final standard identifies specific portions of RCRA regulations for hazardous waste which should be applied to man' aging uranium mill tailings. All changes to NRC regulations to establish RCRA-comparable requirements must be concurred in by the EPA Administrator.
Contact:
-REC'D cgREMartin, WMLU 427-4032 25feC 63 1.; 14 si 8507200103 850502 1
/
BERICK84-709 PPR
x p
' The NRC staff, with Commission approval, commented on the proposed EPA standard.
The principal NRC comments and EPA's response in the final standard are summarized below.
l Design lifetime of stabilization measures -- The NRC comments indicated that the 1,000 year design lifetime and 200 year minimum j
time for stabilization measures were reasonable and implementable, Radon releases -- The NRC comments suggested a risk-based general 1
environmental standard instead of a limit on radon flux from the tailings.
This suggestiog was not adopted and the radon release //
limit was set at 20 pCi/m /sec.
y Ground water protection -- The NRC commented that further evaluation was needed before applying specific ground water provisions from EPA's RCRA regulations to uranium mill tailings.
The comments also suggested several areas related to ground water protection where j
more flexibility should be provided, such as the flexibility to use j
clay liners, in lieu of man-made liners, for impoundments. These comments on the ground water portions of the. proposed EPA standard were for the most part not accepted.
Several sections of the RCRA i
hazardcas waste regulations were included in the final EPA standard, by vekmaan, in essentia11y namedified fors.
la the pranak1s to
(
the Wun stantfard, WA also ey.med the view that MC 1must N
address virtually all of the RCRA regulations to meet NRC's UMTRCA responsibilities.
EPA explicitly included in its final standard specific sections of the RCRA regulations as examples of what NRC must address.
SECY memorandum COMJA-83-8 dated December 7, 1983 directed the staff to prepare a rulemaking package for Commission consideration on a schedule intended to meet the statutory deadline of March 31, 1984.
It sho'uld be noted that the final EPA standard is applicable to NRC and f
AgreementStatelicenseeseffectiveDecember6,1983,regardlessofthe{
status of NRC's conforming regulations.
Thus, both NRC and the Agreemen States have an obligation to enforce the EPA standards in the interim while conforming changes are being made. NRC staff are taking steps to ensure necessary implementation in the interim prior to incorporation of the EPA standards into NRC regulations.
Discussion In order to meet the two statutory mandates requiring revision of our regulations, the staff plans two rulemakings.
The first would conform Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40, and incorporate into NRC regulations those non-RCRA requirements imposed by EPA (e.g., radon releases and design Mm>
e, ee
..~
e 3-f p
f lifetime of stabilization measures).
This action would be comoleted by March 31, 1984, and meet the six-month deadline.
In a second rulemaking, NKL woulo establish RCRA-comparable requirements to the maximum extent practicable, with EPA's concurrence, as required by UMTRCA. These RCRA-comparable requirements would be developed as amendments to 10 CFR Part 40.
Because of the complex nature of the RCRA regulations, the need for close coordination with EPA staff, and the requirement for EPA concurrence, it is not possible to meet the six-month schedule for_a final NRC conforming rule change which also incorporates RCRA provisions.
Although a detailed schedule for the RCRA amendments has not yet been developed, staff plans to begin the RCRA rulemaking by publication of an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in parallel with publishing conforming amendments to Appendix A.
A letter to the appropriate Congressional committees informing them of this will be included in the Commission paper on the proposed revisions to Appendix A.
Current schedule is to have the proposed changes to the Commission on January 4, 1984. -
,e
\\
William J. Dircks Essastive_Dicacter far 4lperations cc:
i 0
W
' eme ep e
ga atcg'o UNITED STATES
.S! j,s.,#k NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W ASH 1NGTON, D. C. 20555 March 9, 1984 o,
Mr. Joseph Cannon Assistant Administrator for Air, Noise, and Radiation U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D.C.
20460
Dear Mrg n:
s John Davis and I appreciated the opportunity to meet with.ycu and Sheldon Meyers on February 7,1984 to discuss issues related to the Clean Air Act, low-level waste and uranium mill tailings. Since that meeting, there seems to,
be some uncertainty between the staffs of our two agencies regarding what the 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 reading of the EPA standards, wnen requested by licensees,. pursuant to language in Section 84c of the Atcmic Energy Act (AEA) as added by Section 20 of Public Law 97-415, the NRC Authorization Act ior FY82-83. The apparent intent of that Elegislation was to.prwideothe Cexibilityin the licensing process,,but we
(
believe the opportunity to exercise such flexibility may P. ave t>een greatly diminished 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-case basis will usually be necessary, even considering the discretion given NRC within 500 meters of the surface impoundment. The requirement for a zero-leakage liner design is virtually 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.
I understand that when EPA staff people met with representatives of the Senate Environment Public Works Committee 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 this regulation allows, then that is something we can correct. However, we consider it
.uc,3 c"m,,, essential that EPA state in very clear terms where, and to what extent, this
"'fiexibility exists in dealing with groundwater protection under 40 CFR 192.
, m a n. put quite bluntly, there are three areas where we have major differences with LPA:
(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 discussion in its Federal Register notices for its regulations s
in 40 CFR 264.221, incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 192, plainly e-y i
2-l s
says that under existing technology, industry has no real alternative 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 detailed prescriptive engineering requirements that do not realistically allow us to consider exemptions unless we go back and get EPA approval of alternate concentration limits on a case-by-case basis. While the kind of regulation that has been promulgated may not be prohibited ut. der 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 staff.
I would appreciate anything 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, JigneSYTdIE:21L'E' N..
William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations cc:
J. Curtiss (thru OCA)
DISTRIBUTION:
B CC: Wha-irman Pallad'ino WJDircks Commissioner Gilinsky GHCunningham Commissioner Roberts RLFcnner Commissioner Asselstine KDragonnette, ONMSS Commissioner Bernthal JDavis, ONMSS SECY EDO R/F OGC EDO S/F OPE
.....:..____..____:__...sl_.___::EDO
]FC :0NM55
- 0 ELD.,-
4AME :JDavis
- GHCunningham:WJDircks
- ~
JATE :3/. /84
- 3/ s /84
- 3/
/84
(!
-+
-~
E N VIR O N M E NT A L P O LIC Y INSTITUTE i
August 29, 1984 Director FREEDOM OF INFORMATION Office of Administration ACT REQUEST U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
[OIjQ -/(/~2Df Washington, DC 20555 GDd htl4y Freed E Sf Information Agt Request Q
Dear Director,
This is a Freedom of Information Act requent by the Environmental Policy Institute pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552.
The Environmental Policy Institute requests the following information and documents:
1)
All vote sheets, instructions to staff, policy and implementation statements, decision documents, corrections, editorial changes, substantive revisions, and all other documentation considered or approved or transmitted by any Commissioner in his consideration of, or by the Commission in its consideration of, SECY-83-523/5 23 A- "Propo sed Amendments to Uranium Mill Tailings Regulations and Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking" and/or the proposed rules.
2)
All memoranda, directions to staff, revisions, editorial or other corrections transmitted by any Commissioner, the Commission, or any Office of the commission including the Office of the Secretary and the Of fice of General Counsel to the NRC staff related to, or requesting revision of SECY-83-523/523A or the proposed revisions to the Commission's uranium mill tLilin9E t e pd a t i c n t discussed in SECY-63-523/523 A.
3)
The July 10, 1984 memorandum from Samuel J.
Chilk to William J.
Dircks transmitting the Commission's approved course of action regarding SECY-83-523/5 23 A and revision of the Commission's uranium mill tailings regulations, and all subsequent communications from any Commissioner or any Office of the Commission including the Of fice of General Counsel and the Office of the Secretary related to, or modifying, or amending, this memorandum and the approved course of action described in the memorandum.
4)
Any and all revisions of the proposed uranium mill tailings regulations and policy and implementation statements related thereto developed in response to the approved course of action i
described in the July 10, 1984 memorandum or subsequent
{
directive from the Commission or any Commissioner prepared by the NRC staff or any Office of the Commission including the Office of General Counsel related to the revision of the Commission's
_2%/MC/g 1
218 D Street, S.E. Washington, D.C. 2in NO (202) 544-2M1
uranium mill tailings regulations and related policy and implementation statements.
5)
All communications, in7oices, manifests from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission transmit. ting the proposed revisions of the Commission's uranium mill tailings regulations and related policy and implementation statements to the Office of the Federal Register for subsequent publication including all notices and letters to the public, interested parties, and members of congress announcing this action.
6)
All communications, invoices, manifests f rom the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to the Office of the Federal Register requesting suspension of publication of the Commission's proposed revisions of its uranium mill tailings regulations and related policy and implementation statements and any communications f rom the Commission or any Of fice of the Commission announcing this action.
7)
All communications f rom the Commission, the Chairman, or any other Commissioner or Office of the Commission including the Office of General Counsel concerning the decision to suspend publication of the proposed revisions of the Commission's uranium mill tailings regulations and related policy and implementation statements.
8)
All meeting minutes and communications f rom the Commission, the Chairman, the Of fice of General Counsel, the Of fice of the Secretary or from any Commissioner concerning revision, modification, continued suspension, reconsideration and any other action related to the suspended revisions of the Commission's uranium mill tailings regulations and related policy and implementation statements including minutes from the August 1,
1984 meeting of Commissioners Bernthal, Palladino, and Asselstine. These communications should include the August 3, 1984 rcre frcr Chairman Pa11ccir.o to the cther Cor mi ct ione r s explaining his vote and understanding of the Commission's course of action taken upon consideration of SECY-83-52 3/5 23 A.
9)
All entries in phone logs, meeting logs, correspondence logs, and visitor logs of the Commission or any Commissioner related to the Commission's consideration of SECY-83-523/523A and the proposed revisions of the Commission's uranium mill tailings regulations, the subsequent decision to publish the proposed revisions and related policy and implementation statements entries, and the subsequent decision to suspend publication including contacts from congressional staff and members of congress.
The Environmental Policy Institute is a non-profit, tax exempt public interest organization located in the District of Columbia. The Institute has monitored and participated in the Commission's development of uranium mill tailings regulations and implementation of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 and subsequent amendments since 1978.
2
The information the Institute hereby requests will be used exclusively in the public interest to assure that the Commission complies with P.L.95-604 and P.L.97-415 requiring it to promulgate regulations to protect public health and safety and the environment f rom the the hazards of uranium mill tailings in a timely manner.
The Institute therefore requests a waiver of fees under 5 U.S.C.
552 (a) ( 4) ( A).
Res
- tfully,
/-
k avid Berick Director, Nuclear Waste and Safety Project i
l
)
i i
i i
[
3