ML20137M750
| ML20137M750 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/20/1984 |
| From: | Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Asselstine, Gilinsky, Roberts NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20136E683 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-49FR46418, RULE-PR-40 AB50-2-08, AB50-2-8, NUDOCS 8512040004 | |
| Download: ML20137M750 (7) | |
Text
un ns:
?$ ND
'M F% 9 W i UNITED STATES 3
d o
E
,,(f g ft' 6 50 - ?
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Re cAsHINGTON, D. C. 20555 gpp9g
%p C,T /
< Davie April 20, 1984 Kerr,SP WM 00g C0NTROL GCunninghas CHAtRMAN p
f;&*'#
Y
- 84 AP? 25 Fl?:%
MEMORANDUM FOR; Commissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Asselstine Commissioner Bernthal g
FROM:
Nunzio J. Palladino
/
SUBJECT:
TENTATIVE ~ RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING' MILL TAILINGS RESULTING FROM MEETING ON APRIL 19, 1984 As we had previously agreed, Commissioner Asselstine and I met with members of the staff in order to arrive at a recommended course of action relative tc mill tailing issues currently before the Commission.
Sheldon Trubatch from OGC also participated in the discussions.
Attached for your review is a set,of draft recommendations for an overall course of action that~ resulted f rom the-meeting.
I am requesting that you review'the draft and provide my office with your comments by April 25.
I will compile the comments and circulate'i' final' draf t for review' by April 30.
At the meeting, the staff committed to provide two additional documents for our review.
These are: 1) draft letter informing Congress of our intended course.of action; and 2) a concept 0a1 outline of'a memorandum'of
~
understanding that I would sign for the Commission with Administrator Ruckelshaus.
The staff recommended, and Commissioner Asselstine and I concurred, that the letter to Congress would be jointly signed by me and Administrator Ruckelshaus.
I will circulate these two documents at the same time that I circulate the final draft recommendations on the course of action.
h
{f,((
Enclosure:
OPA Dis h rw ED0 V 2 EE P h 'rd -- O usw e a rrc IItNii.vv. 623:SS)
_____ f W 8512040004 851115
'[4 4
46418 PDR
=
DRAFT 3 Draft Tentative Recommendations from NRC Deliberations on April 19, 1984 Regarding an Overall Course of Action for Resolution of Mill-Tailing Issues Before the Commission I.
General The most important feature of the meeting is that, because of progress made to date in negotiations between NRC and EPA staffs, there is optimism on working out suitable arrangements between EPA and NRC regarding flexibility on groundwater and liner re-quirements. -
Based on the staff negotiations carried on thus far, we believe that the following premise for proceeding with NRC actions seems reasonable.
II.
Premise Th,e draft tentative recommendations presented herein are based in large part on achieving the following agreements with EPA.
1.
That EPA and NRC would agree to a delay in implementation and enforcement of RCRA based groundwater requirements (this may require an EPA rulemaking extending over 3 to 6 months) long
2 enough to permit development by NRC of its confirming rule.
During the intervening period until NRC's final rule is in place, EPA and NRC will agree on:
4 (a) a protocol stating the methodology under-which NRC will proceed to make decisions on the type of liner needed at a particular uranium mill tailings site; and i
(b) a protocol under which NRC can establish alternate concentration limits:for off-site,.
4 contamination-at a particular site without
~ ~
epa concurrence.
2.
Issuance of a. joint NRC-EPA letter-to Congress signed by EPA. Administrator and NRC Chairman-(after Commission approval) confirming the above.
3.
With eventual implementation of the above in NRC rules which requires EPA concurrence, NRC would not need to get further EPA concurrence on any of its licensing actions.
I l
(
,,--,--,,e--
3 III. proposed Recommendations for NRC Action 1.
It is recommended that we' pursue the following approach to NRC rulemaking:
(a)
Issue for comment, as soon as possible, a proposed rule conforming NRC regulations to EPA standards on radon emanation and tail-ings pile. stabilization (Enclosure A-2 of the Dircks memorandum dated March 2, 1984).
Enclosure A42 is the-minimum conforming change recommended by.0GC.and.does not delete a number of the prescriptive pro-visions that were suspended prior to -
April 1, 1984.
It should be modified to eliminate the present-3 meter of: cover prescriptive requirement as agreed to by OGC in their March 14, 1984 memorandum.
The proposed rule in Enclosure A-2 would also emphasize NRC willingness to consider alternative approaches proposed by licensees, consistent with the Act.
This rulemaking will be scheduled for completion within approximately six months.
I l
1
4 (b)
Issue for comment an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) on conforming NRC regulations to EPA standards referencing RCRA requirements on groundwater and liners.
(Enclosure B of SECY-83-523).
This ANPRM hould also include a specific request for-s comments.on.the need to consider further modifications to the prescriptive require-ments which were retained in the rulemaking noted-in-1(a)-above.
'(i)
After receipt of public.commentsson the.
- above, prepare and. issue.for comment a proposed composite rule on g'roundwater, liners;~ monitoring, and any additional modifications to the prescriptive requirements applicable to radio 1~ogical emanation, and pile stability retained in the rulemaking noted in 1(a) above.
(ii) This rulemaking will be scheduled for completion within approximately 3 years.
)
5 2.
Get Commission approval on the following issues prior to Ch:irman's meeting with EPA Administra-tor scheduled for May 8, 1984 (a)
Proposed approach to rulemaking.
(b)
Concept of MOU to be negotiated alcng the lines outlined in the Premise stated above-4 (item II).
(c)
Signing of joint NRC-EPA statement to be
~
sent to Congress on item II-2.
' (d)
A Commission tentative view that it does not intend to challenge EPA jurisdiction -
(provided that progress continues toward reasonable resolution of issues with EPA as desc'ribed above.)
Thus the Commission would not now take part in the AMC lawsuit against EPA.
This approach leaves open the question of whether NRC believes that the EPA stan-1 dard exceeds EPA's jurisdiction under UMTRCA.
1
-~
6 IV.
Contingency Considerations If an MOU cannot be developed to the satisfaction of the NRC, we would:
1.
still go ahead with proposed rulemaking as described in III; 2.
continue witt, our current groundwater monitoring and mitigating program; and I
3.
still make case specific decisions on granting exemptions on details of groundwater monitoring and mitigating programs and on liner requirements without seeking EPA concurrence; and 4.
give further consideration to whether EPA has exceeded its jurisdiction, together with possible legal remedies and strategies, including legisla-u tive requests.
.