ML20134B927
| ML20134B927 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/27/1997 |
| From: | Fliegel M NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Federline M NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| References | |
| REF-WM-1 NUDOCS 9701310157 | |
| Download: ML20134B927 (2) | |
Text
-
January 27, 1997 MEMORANDUM T0: Margaret V. Federline, Deputy Director Division of Waste Managemant, NMSS THROUGH:
Joseph J. Holonich, Chief Uranium Recovery Branch, DWM FROM:
Myron Fliegel, Senior Project Manager Uranium Recovery Branch, DWM
SUBJECT:
MEETING WITH EPA ON COMPARABILITY OF URANIUM REC 0VERY REGULATIONS On December 20, 1996, we met with representatives of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in Crystal City, Virginia, to discuss comparability of uranium recovery regulations.
Section 84a(3) of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) of 1954, as amended requires that NRC's regulations for uranium mill tailings be comparable to EPA's requirements that are applicable to possession, transfer, and disposal of similar wastes under the Solid Waste Disposal Act.
Section 84a(3) also requires that EPA concur in NRC's determination of comparability.
In 1989, NRC completed its evaluation of the comparability of the relevant EPA and NRC regulatory programs and transmitted its report to EPA on August 8, 1989 and October 11, 1989, requesting EPA's concurrence on comparability. NRC has raised this issue in several meetings with senior management of EPA's Office of Radiation and Indoor Air (0RIA).
In these meetings EPA management indicated that ORIA had no objection regarding comparability but coordination with the EPA Office of Solid Waste would be required for a formal response.
NRC staff initiated the December 20 meeting to discuss NRC's request for concurrence on comparability. At the meeting it was concluded Sat no formal response would be forthcoming in the near term because of other priorities at EPA. A summary of the meeting is attached.
Attachment:
Meeting summary DISTRIBUTION: Central File DWM r/f JGreeves MBell JAustin JHickey NMSS r/f URB r/f PUBLIC DOCUMENT NAME: S:\\DWM\\ URB \\MHF\\AEA84A3.MTG OFC URB M^C URB \\h h
MFlie'gkl b Jdnkch NAME DATE
/ /f797
[
\\A997
\\k 0FFICIAL' RECORD COPY
} ;
LSS : YES N0 x A/l,li ACNW: YES N0 IG
- YES NO X Delete file after distribution:
Yes No x PDR : YES N0 7 7- / fr 9701310157 970127 Wd PDR WASTE Alphf/
WM-1 PDR
/
~
s MEETING
SUMMARY
Date/ Time of Meetino:
December 20, 1996, 1:30 p.m.
Location of Meetino:
Environmental Protection Agency Crystal City, Virginia Attendees:
Robert Dellinger, Associate Director and staff Office of Solid Waste, EPA Larry Weinstock, Director and staff Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, EPA Margaret Federline, NRC Joseph Holonich, NRC Myron Fliegel, NRC The meeting was held to discuss U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) interactions with respect to Section 84a(3) of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) of 1954, as amended. That section requires that NRC's regulations for uranium mill tailings be comparable to EPA's requirements that are applicable to possession, transfer, and disposal of similar wastes under the Solid Waste Disposal Act.
Section 84a(3) also requires that EPA concur in NRC's determination of comparability.
In 1989, NRC completed its evaluation of the comparability of the relevant EPA and NRC regulatory programs and transmitted its report to EPA on August d, 1989 and October 11, 1989, requesting EPA's concurrence on comparability.
NRC has raised this issue in several meetings with senior management of EPA's Office of Radiation and Indoor Air (ORIA).
In these meetings EPA management indicated that ORIA had no objection regarding comparability but coordination with the EPA Office of Solid Waste would be required for a formal response.
NRC staff initiated the December 20 meeting to discuss NRC's request for concurrence on comparability.
NRC staff noted that NRC has been conducting its uranium mill tailings regulatory program for over a decade without encountering any problems related to its regulations that could be attributed to lack of comparability with EPA regulations.
EPA staff stated that it did not view the determination of comparability as high priority.
However, EPA stated that it could not base a comparability determination solely on NRC's regulatory experience.
EPA would have to independently review both sets of regulations and it would require a considerable amount of resourcas for to EPA perform that review, including
, and make its own determination on reviewing the NRC 1989 evaluat comparability of regulations.
ter further discussion, both agencies concluded that the effort required to address the comparability issue would not be justified by the benefits to be derived and that it would not be a productive use of resources to pursue action on comparability at this time.
l I