ML20137N225

Staff Analysis of Public Comments on Proposed Rule Changes to 10CFR40

ML20137N225
Person / Time
Issue date:	04/30/1985
From:	NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
To:
Shared Package
ML20136E683	List: ML20136E674 ML20136E756 ML20136F959 ML20137M731 ML20137M739 ML20137M747 ML20137M750 ML20137M757 ML20137M791 ML20137M831 ML20137M840 ML20137M847 ML20137M854 ML20137M861 ML20137M864 ML20137N130 ML20137N172 ML20137N189 ML20137N206 ML20137N225 ML20137N275 ML20137N289 ML20137N296 ML20137N326
References
FRN-49FR46418, RULE-PR-40 AB50-2-25, NUDOCS 8512040088
Download: ML20137N225 (380)

Text

. . . . . . - - _. . . . . . - _ . - . _ _. - --- . . _ . .

t

~

URANIUM MILL TAILINGS REGULATIONS; j CONFORMING NRC REQUIREMENTS TO EPA STANDAROS i

STAFF ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC COMMENTS ON PROPOSED RULE l CHANGES TO 10 CFR PART 40 1

l i

I J

l 1

i ,

i i

Division of Waste l Management i NMSS

April 1995 i

i 851204008B B51115 PDR PR 40 49FR4641B PDR

TABLE OF CONTENTS fagg

1. INTRODUCTION AND

SUMMARY

......................................... 1

2. LIST OF COMMENTERS............................................... 5 1

3. GENERAL ISSUES................................................... 7 i

a. Commission Authority and Responsibility Statement ........... 7 i

b. Procedural and Juri sdictional I ssues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

c. Scope of Rulemaking ......................................... 14 i d. Comments on 40 CFR 192 ..................................... 23

e. Other ....................................................... . 24

4. CCMMENTS ON SPECIFIC PROPOSED CHANGES TO APPENDIX A 0F 10 CFR 40....................

........ ......................... 28 a.

b.

Introduction ..................... .......................... 28 C r i t e r i o n 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

c. Criterion 3................................................ ............ 34 d.

e.

Criterion 4 ................................ ................ 35 C ri t e r i o n 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............. 36 f.

Criterion 6 ......................... ....................... 44 4

g. Criterion 8 .... ............................................ ............ 53 4

n. Criteria 2, 7, 9. 10, 11 and 12 ............................. 55 APPENDIX A - PROPOSED RULE FR NOTICE APPENDIX B - CCMMENTS i

i 4

04/19/85 11 STAFF ANAL PUBLIC COMMENTS

1. INTRODUCTION AND

SUMMARY

On Monday, November 26, 1984, proposed changes to 10 CFR Part 40 were published in the Federal Register for public comment (49 FR 46418). See Appendix A. The comment period originally expired on January 10, 1985 but was extended until February 10,1985 (50 FR 2293, January 16,1985).

Twenty-four commenters responded with 26 sets of comments (see Section 2).

Copies of the responses are included in Appendix B. Six environmental groups, seven states, two Federal agencies, seven industry representatives, one pro-energy (i .e. , pro-nuclear) group and one individual responded. One environ-mental comment provided references only and two industry comments were endorse-ments of other industry comments only.

The proposed rule changes were intended to conform existing NRC regula-tions for uranium and tnerium mill tailings to regulations puolished by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The action was taken to comply with the

legislative mancate set out in the Uranium Mill Tailings Raciation Control Act (UMTRCA) and NRC authori

ation Acts. The EPA standards are contained in Su carts 0 and E of 40 CFR part 192 (49 FR 45926; October 7,1983).

Coments were offered on botn general issues and the specific changes in the prooosed rule notice and reflectec civerse views.

r-The general issues addressed the Commission Authority and Responsibility

) Statement, procedural and jurisdictional issues, the scope of the rulemaking, fF the validity and merits of the EPA standard, and other miscellaneous topics.

$/-

p i g Commenters on the Commission Authority and Responsibility Statement were ~

E divided. The environmental groups (ECNP, Sierra Club, EPI, and EDF) and EPA I disagreed with all or part of the statement. Inoustry advocated an alternate approach relying on general agency roles. One state (WA) supported the flexibility in tt.a Statement.

04/18/85 1 10 CFR 40 CHANGES C

. J' 4

4' Procedural and jurisdictional issues raised included industry challenging any 1 conforming action to an EPA standard that is improper on jurisdictional grounds and delaying conforming action until the Tenth Circuit cases are settled (ECNP

/ and AMC). The Sierra Club, EPI, and EPA challenged the legality of not meeting I the six month date:to coniorm and conforming in two steps.

~

f Comments on the scope of the first step rulemaking included general views that NRC should undertake completely new rulemaking and a number of specific addi-

' ~

tional changes. One environmental group (ENCP) and industry (AMC and Kerr-McGee) urged NRC to undertake new rulemaking to replace both EPA and NRC rules.

\ Additional conforming changes suggested included tailings cover specifications, reliance on active maintenance, and changes based on the earlier suspension of portions of Appendix A and initial staff recommendations to the Commission.

• All categories of commer,ters suggested additional changes to 10 CFR 40,

{ Appendix A not related to conforming to the EPA standard.

A Virtually all categ 6tes of commenters expressed dissatisfaction with the EPA

-[ stancards in 40 CFR 192 as either too lax or too stringent.

g\

A number of.other miscellaneous topics were raised including Agreement State implementa*. ion of the alternativas provision which tracks the languaga in Section 84c of the AEA.

Comments ;i the addition of the flexibility provisions of Section 84c of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) to the Introcuction generally die not take issue with ne accition itself since it paraphrasec the law. States and environmental groups expressed concerns about implementation. Some of the industry commenters favorec extensive supplemental rulemaking to reduce the Durcen on licensees to f .. develop alternatives.

Cornents on proposed changes to Criterion 1 on the time frame for protection reflected confusion on goals or objectives versus recuirements and disagreement l

on wnat the times and reliance on active maintenance should be. State and environr. ental comments urged times greater than the 1,000 year EPA design 1 E standard on cover longevity v:d no reliance on maintenance. Industry favored

, a 200 year goal and reliance o., maintenance.

\

04/18/85 2 10 CFR 40 CHANGES s 7 I

I Comments on the proposed change in Criterion 4 to replace " maximum possible flood" with " Probable Maximum Flood" reflected divergent views on the appro-priate design flood to be used in analyses. Environmental commenters favored maximum conservatism and industry advocated less conservative assumptions than either the existing or proposed language.

t proposed changes to Criteria 1, 3, and 5 were all intended to reflect that the EPA standard starts from a premise that no seepage from new or expanded impound-f ments or degradation of groundwater are allowed and that all groundwater is to kp be protected regardless of quality or use category. Industry strongly opposed N protecting non-usable groundwater, recommended deferring all ground-water changes, and argued that the EPA ground-water standards are invalid because they fail the Congressional test of comparability to standards for wastes of

similar hazard (for example, mining wastes). EPA commented that more Jistinc-t tion between existing and new sites is needed.

Commenters objected to incorporation of the EPA longevity and radon design standards into Criterion 6 in general and opposed specific aspects of the

proposed changes. Many of the arguments were directed against the EPA standard as being too lax to adequately protect health and the environment or more stringent than warranted by the risks. Several commenters urged NRC ta keep its more restrictive raden limit and 3-meter minimum cover. Industry opposed including any EPA standards for thorium byproduct material.

l Several state anc environmental commenters objected to the incorporation of tne EPA footnote qualifying the longevity and racon standarc as a design stancard not recuiring confirmatory monitoring. Averaging provisions and disregard of the radon from cover materials were also of concern on Criterion 6 changes.

1 Commenters questioned implementation aspects of the Criterion 8 change to add the as low as practicable goals for radon releases during. operations. One

! commenter argued for the current terminology reflected in 10 CFR Part 20 for )

keeping releases as low as reasonably achievable TLARA) as the true EPA l f intent.

04/18/85 3 10 CFR 40 CHAh*ES

i After consideration of the comments, staff concluded that the basic two-step ,

rulemaking approach is still feasible and advisable. The major differences '

between the proposed rule and the final rule recommended by staff are:

(1) Addition of an insert to the Introduction requiring consideration of risks and costs in site specific licensing decisions; (2) Addition of an ' insert to Criterion 5 clarifying the appsicability of 40 CFR 192; (3) Clarification of the general goal of permanent isolation of tailings in Criterion 1; (4) Clarification in Criterion 6 that the radon flux limits are to be met for the effective design life of the reclaimed impoundment; (5) Clarification in Criterion 8 that doses from radon emissions are to

/.

• be as low as is " reasonably achievable" rather than as is

" practicable"; and (6) Addition of changes to 10 CFR 150 to clarify Agreement State options to accet alternatives uncer Section 274o of the AEA. .

Other minor clarifying anc editorial cnanges are also recommenced.

l 1

04/18/85 4 10 CFR 40 CHANGES l

-O

2. LIST OF COMMENTERS Docket No. Commenter Abbreviation

1. Ecology / Alert None

2. Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power ECNP

3. Sierra Club None

4. Environmental Policy Institute EPI

5. Environmental Defense Fund EDF

6. Attorney General State of Illinois IL

7. Colorado Department of Health CO

8. Marvin Lewis None

9. U.S. Department of the Interior DOI

10. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPA

11. Texas Department of Health TX

12. Utah Department of Health UT

13. Washington Department of Social and Health Services WA

'~~

14 New Mexico Environmental Improvement Division NM

15. Environmental Defense Func (see 5 also) EDF

16. Piecmont Environmental Council PEC

17. Western Nuclear, Inc. WNI

18. Kerr-McGee Corporation: Kerr-McGee Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation and Quivira Mining Company

19. American Mining Congress AMC

20. Environmental Policy Institute (see 4 aise) EPI

21. Homestake Mining Company HMC

22. Umetco Minerals Corporation UMC 1

23. Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality WY

24. Access to Energy AE

25. Dawn Mining Company Dawn

26. Parsons, Behle & Latimer for Rio Algom Corporation Rio Algom Copies of the comments received are reproduced in docket number order in Appendix B. The commenters fall into the following categories:

I 1

I 04/18/85 5 10 CFR 40 CHANGES i

Environmental Proenergy

)

Ecology / Alert Access to Energy ECNP Sierra Club EPI Indivivuals EDF Marvin Lewis PEC Total 6 Industrial l WNI l Kerr-McGee MC I HMC UMC Federal igencies f Dawn DOI Rio Algem " 'g*P A l

Total 7 Total 2 State IL CO TX UT WA i

NM WY Total 7 l

04/18/85 6 10 CFR 40 CHANGES

, , - - - , , , - . - - - - . . . , - - - , . . . - , - , , , , , , ,, - , , . , ,,-,.,---.,,n- , ----,,n_,.. . -.v,,,-.,

)

3. GENERAL ISSUES

a. Commission Authority and Resconsibility Statement The notice included a statement on " Commission Authority and Responsibility." The statement summarized the Commission's policy on the exercise of its responsibility and authority for mill tailings, including the authority to approve site specific alternatives proposed by licensees under Section 84c of the Atomic Energy Act.

Commenters were divided on .this issue. The environmental groups (ECNP, Sierra Club, EPI, and EDF) and EPA disagreed with all or part of the statement.

Industry (AMC and supporters) advocated an alternate approach. One State (WA) supported the statement.

ECNP strongly opposed the statement asserting that NRC is proposing to essentially deregulate mill tailings disposal on a site specific basis. The Sierra Club disagreed with the view that Section 84c gives NRC authority to approve alternatives to "any or all environmental standards" and expressed the view that Section 84c only provices for approval of alternatives to NRC rules.

The Sierra Club also objected to NRC's 'ntent to ignore the explicit concurrence provisions contained in EPA's standarc. EPI disagreed with the statement and arguec that Section 84: "is not a new grant of autnerity for tne Commission to alter its nealth and safety nr environmental protection requirements nor to alter its enforcement of :ne E?A standarcs." ED: also suggested that tne policy statement inferred that EPA concurrence uncer Sections 84(c)(3) or 275 is precluced. In summary, EDI's view is that 84c flexibility applies only to alternate engineering and technical specifications to those in NRC rules. EPI argued that Agraement States can adopt alternate standards, not NRC, and that NRC's site specif'c approach is an attempt to circumvent the required finding on equivalency or more stringency in Section 64c. EDF also disagreed that Section 84c grants NRC authority to consider a .ternatives to the EPA standards.

EDF argued that the language of the statute and the legislative history support its position. The legislative history cited included EPA's role to issue general environmental standards and NRC's role to implement them as described in Section 84(a) of the AEA.

04/18/85 7 10 CFR 40 CHANGES

EPA also disagreed with NRC's interpretation of Section 84c. EPA stated "Section 84c does not confer on NRC authority to approve or employ alternative standards or to substitute its judgment for EPA's regarding the level of protection necessary to protect public health and the environment. Rather it authorizes NRC to approve or employ licensee proposed alternatives to NRC's own general implementing requirements . . ." Further, EPA argued that its standard that requires EPA approval of site specific alternative concentration limits is within its authority, not NRC's under Section 84c. In EPA's view, NRC must also establish specific requirements before it can consider alternatives to them.

WA supported the need for NRC and Agreement States to review and approve site specific alternatives to standards without EPA concurrence.

AMC and its supporters asserted that NRC is trying to avoid the jurisdic-tional issue by relying on Section 84c. The AMC advocated an entirely different approach as discussed in the following sections on Procedural and Jurisdictional Issues and Scoce of Rulemaking. 'I'n AMC's view, reliance on the basic require-ments of UMTRCA with respect to the jurisdiction of the agencies would be a stronger legal position and eliminate the need to rely on Section 84c.

Response

A cetailec legal analysis of the merits of the EPA objections to the Statement and of AMC's jurisdictional arguments is contained in SECY-85-125 catec April 10, 1985. The Commission asked the Office of the General Counsel (OGC) to prepare tnis information paper. The paper includes an indepencent review of the legislative history surrounding this issue. The response to this issue and the AMC jurisdictional arguments in the following section (b. Procedural and jurisdictional issues) are summarized from SECY-85-125.

OGC concluded that the Commission it Ruthorized under section 84c of the AEA to grant exemptions from EPA's standards without obtaining EPA's concurrence. The basis for this conclusion covers four points. First is the belief that " specific Commission requirements" can be deemed adopted without a rulemaking proceeding. Section 84a(2) requires the Commission to ensure that l

l 04/18/85 8 10 CFR 40 CHANGES i

tailings are managed in conformance with EPA"s standards. Section 84a(2) creates a statutory obligation by the Commission to enforce EPA's standards incependent of whether the Commission adopts regulations which would clarify how the Commission would enforce those standards.

Second, section 84c explicitly states that the NRC may approve alter-natives which, to the extent practicable, would achieve safety levels equiva-lent to those which would be achieved by compliance with NRC's requirements and EPA's standards. Thus, the NRC is authorized to approve an alternative which does not provide the same level of protection of public health, safety and the environment which would be achieved if EPA's standards were complied with fully. Third, UMTRCA does not use the phrase " implementing requirements." Section 84c refers to only " specific requirements adopted and .

enforced by the Commission." This phrase is clearly intended to include all recuirements adopted by the Commission to regulate mill tailings. The source of the adopted requirements is immaterial to the statutory scheme and may incluce EPA's detailed"stancaros. Finally, EPA's comment does not effectively respond to the Commission's argument that EPA site specific concurrence in exemptions contradicts the prohibition on EPA's issuance of a cermit in section 275b.(2) of the AEA.

Comments questioning NRC's motives or intent are offset by the findings reouired of the Commission in section 84c in order to exercise the flexibility to aporove alternatives. Assertion of legal right does not equate to an intent to aouse a rignt.

As indicated in the next section, OGC believes that EPA generally has acted within its jurisdiction to set generally applicable environmental standards which include generic onsite implemencation provisions. Thus the AMC view is rejected.

b. Procedural and jurisdictional issues.

Procedural and jurisdictional issues raised included challenging any conforming action to the EPA standard on jurf sdictional grounds, delaying 04/18/85 9 10 CFR 40 CHANGES

4 action until court suits are settled, other references to pending proceedings, objecting to NRC failure to meet the six-month congressional timeframe for conforming, and questioning the two step process.

The AMC presented extensive legal arguments on the EPA /NRC jurisdictional issue. HMC, UMC, and Rio Algom supported the AMC comments in all respects.

The AMC comments focused on the following legal points:

Since its ratification of Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, consis-tent Congressional policy has been to limit EPA standard setting authority for NRC licensed facilities to " generally applicable standards," meaning standards that are applicatile outside site boundaries and that impose no site specific design, engineering or management requirements.

Congress, in the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (UMT.RCA), adopted the division of jurisdiction beween EPA and NRC first established in the 1970 Reorganization Plan.

EPA's standards are not " generally applicable standards" and are therefore beyond the jurisdiction of EPA. Consequently, the EPA standards are a " mere nullity" of no legal force or effect and NRC is not legally bound to conform to the standards.

Resconse:

The staff consicered the AMC arguments and concluced tne arguments are fundamentally AMC's brief in the Tenth Circuit suit challenging the legality of the EPA standard. NRC is not a party or participant in the Tenth Circuit proceeding. If EPA is sustained, the arguments are immaterial. If AMC is sustained, then NRC will be required to conduct additional rulemaking. Staff does not agree that the arguments are sufficient grounds for NRC not to conform absent resolution in court and has proceeded with this analysis.

04/18/85 10 10 CFR 40 CHANGES

As noted earlier, 0GC concluded that EPA generally acted within its jurisdiction and found the AMC arguments flawed. OGC examined VMTRCA and its legislative history and summarized its findings as follows:

1. Before UMTRCA, EPA, not NRC, had primary authority over both the radiological and non-radiological impacts from uranium mill tailings;

2. During Congressional deliberations over UMTRCA, NRC attempted to reduce substantially EPA's authority over radiological hazards of mill tailings by limiting it to EPA's " traditional" authority under Reorganization Plan No. 3, i.e., authority to promulgate only generally applicable, non-site specific radiological standards, applicable only outside the boundaries of the tailings sites;

3. EPA opposed the NRC's attempt to transfer to itself EPA's authority to regulate mill tailings. EPA's efforts were partially successful and resulted in a Congressional compromise which precluded EPA from promulgating Mf.e specific standards but which did not restrict EPA to standards applicable only outside site boundaries. EPA was also given concurrence authority over NRC regulations for controlling non-radiological hazards.

4 Except for one instance, EPA acted within its jurisdiction under UMTRCA in setting environmental stancards for managing racioactive emissions and hazardous chemical wastes from uranium mill tailings; and

5. EPA exceedec its jurisdiction by stating that its concurrence would be required before the NRC could grant site specific case-by-case exemptions from NRC regulations for implementing EPA's standards. We believe that such a concurrence role by EPA also contradicts the 1983 amendment to UMTRCA which adced Section 84c to the Atomic Energy Act.

The Sierra Club, EPI, and EPA commented on the legality of not meeting the 6 month Congressional mandate to conform by April 1,1984 and conforming in two steps. The Sierra Club, EPI and EPA asserted that NRC's action is illegal and does not meet the explicit intent of UMTRCA. The Sierra Club also inferred that a four year rulemaking on ground-water delays compliance with EPA's ground water 04/18/85 11 10 CFR 40 CHANGES l

requirements. EPI argued that NRC had ample warning, time, and regulatory base to fully comply in 6 months for both groundwater and non groundwater aspects.

As a minimum, EPI argued that interim rules to conform should have been pub-lished. EPI objected to NRC's position that conforming to EPA's ground water standards should be combined with developing a rule that fully meets the mandate in Section 84(a)(3) to have general requirements that are comparable to EPA's requirements for similar materials regulated under the Solid Waste Dispusal Act. EPA argued that the EPA standards in 40 CFR 192 already meet this require-ment to be comparable and even if they did not, NRC should conform to the ground-water standards in 40 CFR 192 immediately. EPA stated that NRC should conform quickly to all of the 40 CFR 192 standards, including groundwater, in the first rulemaking. EPA argued that the same nondiscretionary approach should be used and that the second rulemaking can fulfill the requirements of Section 84(a)(3).

Response

The decisions regarding whether and how NRC should conform to the EPA standards. involved complex legal, jurisdictional, and policy issues. The Commission carefully consicered the implications of several alternatives and its authority and responsibilities before deciding on the course of action evicenced by the notices of proposed rulemaking and advance notice of proposed rulemaking.

The commenters are correct that Congress intended conformance to be suffi-ciently straightforward to be completed in 6 months and so stated in the legis-lation. However, the legislation O d not anticipate the complex nature of the EPA standard or the direct effectivenu s on licensees beginning December 6, 1983.

Congress also did not impose any penalty if NRC failed to meet the 6 months as it did with the loss of authority if EPA failed to meet its October 1,1983 date.

No health and safety or environmental impacts have resulted or will result from delay or lack of interim rules since staff believes that NRC and the States are required to implement and enforce the EPA standards under Section 275d of the Atomic Energy Act in the interim until final conforming regulations are in 04/18/85 12 10 CFR 40 CHANGES l

t

place. NRC has so informed its licensees and Agreement States and is imple-menting the standard.

The scope and timing of the second step rulemaking is still under consi-deration. Comments on the ANPRM are being analyzed. A simple rule change to incorporate the specific ground-water protection provisions of 40 CFR 192 is one option being considered. However, such a change in scope to the present action would probably require a reproposal to allow public comment and would delay removing conflicts and inconsistencies. Thus staff rejects EPA's comment.

The insert developed for Criterion 5 cealing with 40 CFR 192 ground water protection will clarify the situation in the interim.

The ECNP incorporated by reference the full records of the NRC's Consolidated Reactor Proceeding and Three Mile Island, Unit 2, Operating License Proceeding.

The ECNP's focus is on radon risk issues in the proceedings. They also incorpo-rated a number of documents related to their suit against the EPA standard. C0 noted that the State is a party to litigation on the EPA stancards in the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Kerr McGee acknowledged the pending Tenth Circuit litigation against the NRC rules in one case and against the EPA standards in a second. AMC also provided documents related to the Tenth Circuit suit against the EPA standard and mace frequent reference to issues in that proceeding.

Response

Other than showing the active legal climate surrounding both NRC and EPA rules anc the general dissatisfaction in many sectors, these references have no bearing on the conforming action at hand. In the absence of specific citations to matter in these voluminous referenced documents, the NRC has no obligation to comb through them for material arguably germane to this rule-making proceeding.

The ECNP and AMC and its supporters urged that NRC delay action until the legal challenges to the EPA standard in the Tenth Circuit are settled. AE j urged NRC not to conform to the EPA standard until it is revised to address "the genuine hazards posed by radon."

04/18/85 13 10 CFR 40 CHANGES

, i

Response

Since timetables for court action are highly uncertain and because the

, EPA standards are Jeing implemented and enforced, staff sees no reason to delay conformance by rule. Obviously, if court action sets aside all or part of NRC's or EPA's rules, additional rule changes will be required. The Commission believes the EPA rules would have to present a clear and real threat to public health and safety for NRC to unilaterally set them aside. Environmental argu-ments are based on hypothetical effects and industry arguments on jurisdiction, costs, and practicality. None of the comments suggested a threat to health and safety in implementing the EPA rules or going forward with the conforming rule changes.

c. Scoce of Rulemaking Ccmmenters offered a wide range of views on the scope of the rulemaking.

Several commenters (e.g. , EPA) objected to the two step approach. Reascns cited included legal ones surrounding the Congressional mandate as discussed in the preceeding section (EPA, EPI, and the Sierra Club) and licensee / applicant confusion in the interim (NM).

ECNp, Kerr-McGee, and AMC urged NRC to undertake independent new rule-n a king. ECNP advocated more restrictive rules using the EPA standard as a minimum baseline on radon control and issue regulations that " fully protect the puolic for the duration of these wastes". ECNP advocatec complete revision of 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, as issued in October,1980 to provide more protection from radon and referenced the Consolidated Radon proceedings for details on deficiencies. The AMC argued that NRC must undertake a completely new independent rulemaking to replace both the EPA and NRC rules because EPA's standards are not adequately supported by analysis relating costs and risks and are outside EPA's jurisciction and therefore null and void and because NRC has provided no analysis establishing that Appendix A of Part 40 requirements are reasonably related in terms of cost, risks, and benefits. AMC advocated a scope and approach for the new rulemaking in which NRC would (1) focus on stabilization of tailings for a reasonable period of time instead of focusing 04/18/85 14 10 CFR 40 CHANGES

on radon emissions, (2) assure, after public comment, that the costs of require-ments are reasonably related to risks, and (3) provide for explicit distinctions between existing and new sites and allow maximum site specific flexibility.

Kerr-McGee expressed similar views on the need and basis for NRC action. A key point in the AMC and Kerr-McGee arguments against Appendix A was the 1983 Pub.L.97-415 addition to Section 84a(1) of the AEA on risk and costs. The addition began with the word "taking" in revised Section 84 a(1):

"a. The Commission shall insure that the management of any byproduct material, as defined in section 11e.(2), is carried out in such manner as -

(1) The Commission deems appropriate to protect the public health and safety and the environment from radiological and nonradiological hazards associated with the processing and with the possession and transfer of such material taking into account the risk to the oublic health, safety, and the environment, with due consideration of the economic costs and such other factors as the Commission determines to be accrocriate." (Emphasis supplied).

The industry arguments imply that this addition mandates a total reconst-deration and revision of NRC rules. Industry also noted the depressed economic state of the industry and early stabilization plans that have resulted since the 1980 rule.

The industry arguments on site specific flexibility and existing site distinctions were based on Section 84c and legislative history.

Response

EPA developed and issued the standards in 40 CFR 192 under the following

, authority and mandate in Section 275b(1) of the AEA:

"b. (1) As soon as practicable, but not later than October 31, 1982, the Administrator shall, by rule, propose and within 11 months thereafter 04/18/85 15 10 CFR 40 CHANGES

promulgate in final form, standards, general application for the protec-tion of the public health, safety, and the environment from radiological and non-radiological hazards associated with the processing and with the possession, transfer, and disposal of byproduct material, as defined in section 11e.(2) of this Act, at sites at which ores are processed primarily for their source material content or which are used for the disposal of such byproduct material.

In establishing such standards, the Administrator shall consider the risk to the public health, safety, and the environment, the environmental and economic costs of applying such standards, and such other factors as the Administrator determines to be appropriate."

NRC is conducting the present action uder the mandate in Section 275f(3) of the AEA:

"(3) Not later than 6 months after the date on which the Administrator l promulgates final standards pursuant to subsection b. of this section, the i Commission snall, after notice and opportunity for public comment, amend j the October 3 regulations, and adopt such modifications, as the Commission deems necessary to conform to such final standards of the Administrator."

! Two points are clear in Section 275. One is EPA was explicitly cha*ged to consicer risk and economic costs. The second is that no mention of an indepen-cent risk / economic cost finding is explicitly recuired of NRC in conforming.

EPA has the leac responsibility and staff believes it must assume that EPA met the mandate. Staff notes that AMC's arguments on risk are directed primarily at the EPA standard and seem to reflect its legal brief for the Tenth Circuit.

NRC's obligation to consider risk and economic costs was added to Sec-tion 84a(1) as noted earlier. Section 84a(1) requires NRC to insure that the management of the radiological and nonradiological hazards from tailings protects the public and environment. Staff views the mandate in 84a(1) to cover all aspects of implementing the EPA standard and Appendix A. The mandate should impact all site specific licensing decisions including routine actions, 84c alternative requests and alternate concentration limit decisions. Staff 04/18/85 16 10 CFR 40 CHANGES

believes that it can fulfill this mandate without further rulemaking to make Appendix A either more or less restrictive. Staff also believes that the Congressional intent for site specific flexibility and distinction between existing and new sites can be met in site specific licensing decisions based on 84a(1) and Section 84c. Consequently, Section 84a(1) should also be emphasized in Appendix A to make it clear that the NRC will in fact consider risks and economic costs and site specific needs in general. An insert to the Introduc-tion following the proposed insert on Section 84c would explicitly empha. size this point.

Other factors relating to the staff position include the general ALARA mandate applicable to all exposures and releases and industry failure to demonstrate that generic relief is appropriate or needed. Flexibility to consider site specific practical problems is the whole thrust of Section 84c.

Rulemaking tailored to the problems at one or two sites is a counterproductive use of time and resources. Industry comments on the depressed state of the industry are valid and licensees are faced with early reclamation. However, staff believes that this situation only emphasizes the site specific decisions needed and does not succort the need for generic rulemaking. Early reclamation will impact practicable aspects anc cost considerations but on a site specific basis.

The insert recommended below paraphrases Section 84a(1) and clarifies that implementation of "practicaole" will be consistent with the intent of Section 84a(1) anc current Commission policy in 10 CFR 20.1(c). The second sentence parapnrases the meaning of ALARA in 10 CFR 20.1(c).

NM indicated that decisions on licensee's teclamation plans are impacted by the two-step approach since it postpones having " definitive Federal standards."

Licensees don't know "to what standards the plan is required to conform."

Response

Staff is sympathetic with the appearance of regulatory uncertainty caused by the two-step rulemaking. However, when the first step is completed, all conflicts will have been removed (e.g., 2 versus 20 picocurie flux limits) and 04/18/85 17 10 CFR 40 CHANGES

o .

decisions on groundwater can be made based on the basic nondiscretionary provisions of 40 CFR 192 since it applies directly to New Mexico licensees whether or not the State has conformed to NRC's rules or the EPA standard.

TX noted that " point of compliance" was not included in the proposed changes and asked if this was intentional.

Response

Yes. " Point of compliance" is a concept in the EPA ground water protec-tion standards and is therefore beyond the intended scope of this rulemaking.

The insert to Criterion 5 should help clarify this point.

Commenters advocating specific suggestions to expand the scope of the proposed rulemaking generally fell into three categories-those advocating:

(1) additional changes needed to conform to the EPA standards, (2) additional changes that would make 10 CFR Part 40 more explicit or more protective of public health, safety, and environment but that are not directly related to conforming to the EPA standards, and (3) additional changes that would make Part 40 less restrictive or conform to the collective intent of Congress expressed in various legislation and hearing records rather than the EPA standards. Comments in the first category will be responced to. Comments in tne latter two categories will be considerec along with comments received on the accompanying ANPRM. However, they will be summarized in this section.

The overall flavor of the comments expressed a general dissatisfaction with betn NRC's and EPA's regulations for a wice range of reasons.

EDF, EPA, and industry suggested additional changes that should be made to conform to the non groundwater provisions of the EPA standard. EDF commented that the Commission should require that design calculation. for covers incor-porate a design margin to explicitly account for changes in moisture content and porosity, external erostonal forces, and internal chemical reactions. Such requirements are needed to meet the reasonable assurance provision of the EPA radon and longevity standard over the long term. EDF presented technical arguments on the critical role played by cover moisture, the merits of multi-layered covers, and concern for salt migration from tailings to the cover. EPA 04/18/85 18 10 CFR 40 CHANGES

, o also suggested considering additional cover specifications but did not identify any specific topics.

Response

Staff generally agrees that the type of factors that EDF identified are important to consider in evaluating expected cover performance. In fact, the staff uses the computer code for multi-layers referenced by EDF in its calcula-tions. However, such factors are very site specific and represent a level of detail that NRC normally relegates to guidance or procedural documents. It is also difficult to speculate on the number and importance of all factors which

might impact design at a specific site. The design margin recommended by EDF is essentially applied in the staff's use of conservative material parameters 4

in the site specific evaluation of the design of soil and rock covers.

EDF also urged that an active monitoring program for tailings cover stabil-ity be added to the Commission's rules. The EDF recommended program would last r

for cecades until the cover has demonstrated its stability or remedial action i

has been taken and the remedial action's effectiveness affirmed.

Response

Criterion 12 of the Commission's rules nas a minimum requirement for annual inspections by the custodial government agency to confirm the integrity of stabili:ation ano the need for any maintenance. Criterion 12 also has an l cotton for more frequent inspections. Any monitoring neeced prior to transfer to the government agency can be incluced on a site specific basis in the reclamation plans.

Industry comments (WNI, AMC, UMC) that reliance on active maintenance should be allowed are addressed under Modification 2(a) changes to Criterion 1.

WNI and AMC recommended a number of changes based on the Commission's earlier suspension action and changes originally proposed by staff in SECY-83-523. The recommended changes and rationale for action were essentially the same as presented in the suspension notices and SECY-83-523. Little or l 04/18/85 19 10 CFR 40 CHANGES l

no new information was provided. Examples include deletion of below grade or equivalent as the prime option in Criterion 3, deletion of prescriptive require-ments in Criterion 4, and deletion of radium content restrictions on cover materials in Criterion 6. Kerr-McGee also recommended deletion of the radium content requirement.

Response

Since the additional conforming changes suggested by WNI, AMC, and Kerr-McGee suggested offered no new bases not already considered and rejected and no l substantive supporting information on why they are needed on a generic basis versus site specific treatment, they are rejected for the first step rulemaking.

A wider scope of changes was co::sidered by the Commission and rejected before I

publication of the proposed rule, on the ground that,. requirements established through extensive rulemaking cannot be set aside merely because they may not be

! required. The intent of this action is nondiscretionary conforming changes to

(

eliminate conflicts and inconsistencies, add imposed standards or Congressional j direction, or make minor editorial or clarifying changes. Industry comments j were mainly statements or claims based on "may not be reouired" and would require extensive new rulemaking and are thus considered outside the scope of I the present action.

i f

A numeer of comments proposed specific or general changes that are not directly related to conforming to the EPA standard but would take Apoendix A

more explicit or pr

tective. Tne following ciscussicn summari:es these ecmments.

l Ecology / Alert suggested using 5 ton rock slabs as cover material. EDF urged the Commission to adopt specific requirements on when final stabiliza-tion must take place, on interim stabilization for closed mills, on addition j of fluids during closure, on use of dust suppressants during closure, and on

{ phased closure during operations. EDF also advocated mandatory state-of-the-art waste treatment and operations as reflected in conceptual proposals

! prepared for potential deve.. . ment of mining and milling in Virginia. Lewis stated that numerical criteria in Criterion 5 would make the stronger ground-water protection requirement more enforceable. 001 suggested amplification of

04/19/85 20 10 CFR 40 CHANGES

the requirements in Criterion 12 for the custodial government agency's monitor-ing programs. DOI suggested adding provisions on maintaining ground water sampling wells and on how long inspection and monitoring would continue.

WY suggested that cleanup standards for adjacent lands be developed to define when they can be released for unrestricted use. WY questioned whether the one year baseline in Criterion 7 is adequate, suggested clarifying

" unrestricted areas" in Criterion SA, questioned the compatibility of Crite-rion 9 with self bonding in Wyoming, and expressed misgivings on the Criterion 11C provision on not aquiring all subsurface rights.

Industry commenters viewed the proposed conforming rulemaking as an opportunity to reiterate objections to any or all parts of Appendix A and advocate less restrictive provisions. Many issues identified in lawsuits and petitions for rulemaking were repeated. WNI and AMC proposed changes to Criterion 8 on checking parameters to control yellowcake emission to allow reliance on alarms. WNI and AMC objected to the Criterion 8A 10-day reporting reoutrement and " qualified engineer or scientist" inspector requirement. AMC advocated checks only when tailings are being added. Changes to Criterion 9 to recuce the licensee's liability and amount of firancial assurances were also proposed by WNI. Self-insurance was advocated for C*iterion 9 by AMC and WNI.

WNI urged flexibility in the minimum long term care charge, no inflation acjustments, and reliance on state funds for comparable purposes in Crite-rien 10. AMC expressed similar views on relying on state funds. Kerr-McGee ccmments reflected a similar position on Criteria 8, 9, anc 10. AMC argued against the Ifa real interest rate in Criterion 10. AMC succorters (HMC, UMC, and Rio Algom) by reference support AMC's position in all respects.

Kerr-McGee and AMC proposed specific additional changes not related to conforming but mandated in their view by legislation inacted and other events subsequent to promulgation of Appendix A. The basis is essentially the same as noted above in the discussion under Scope of Rulemaking on their generic recommendation to undertake an independent new rulemaking. Kerr-McGee argued that Criterion 3 should be modified or deleted so that existing sites do not have to consider below grade disposal. Kerr-McGee argued that rock covering to meet the specifications in Criterion 4 is impractical in parts of the 04/18/85 21 10 CFR 40 CHANGES

Southwest because the rock would have to be imported and the alternative vegetative cover is also impractical. Similarly the gentle slope requirements in Criterion 4 are not practicable at all existing sites because of soil supply and land ownership and should be deleted in Kerr-McGee's view. Application of the siting criteria to existing sites must involve both short and long-term risk and cost balancing and Appendix A does not make this application clear,

'in fact Criterion 1 contradicts it, according to Kerr-McGee. In effect, Kerr-McGee advocates developing separate rules for mills where operations have ceased and no plans to restart are involved. These separate rules would address all aspects of Appendix A including siting. Kerr-McGee also suggested eliminating the first listed item in Criterion 5 dealing with liners since it might be read to require liners at existing sites. Kerr-McGee and AMC urged deleting the ,

restriction on credit for thin synthetic layers to reduce radon emissions in Criterion 6.

AMC provided extensive additional suggested revisions to Appendix A. The suggested changes would revise Appendix A to follow the approach outlined for NRC to take in a new independent rulemaking as discussed above. Suggested changes included adding site specific optimi:ation for stabilization in the Introduction, distinction cetween existing and new sites in Criterion 1, provision for cost / benefit judgments in Criterion 1 and planned reliance on maintenance in Criteria 1 and 12. AMC provided rewrites of Criterion 3 to reflect 210 year stabilization and Criterion 5 to reflect its views on risk, costs, site specificity, and existing vs new site distinctions. AMC suggested changes to Criterion 3 to include reliance on institutional controls and celetion of references to controlling radon during operations witnout regard to risk.

Dawn proposed changes to Cr terion 4 dealing with the slope of embankments d

and covers. Dawn suggested more flexibility, a Sh:1V instead of 10h:1V design basis, and more site specific flexibility.

04/18/85 22 10 CFR 40 CHANGES 1

Recommended Rule Change:

Add the following paragrach at the end of the

Introduction:

All site specific licensing decisions based on the criteria in this Aopen-dix or alternatives proposed by licensees or applicants will take into account the risk to the public health and safety and the environment with due considera-tion to the economic costs involved and any other factors the Commission deter-mines to be appropriate. In implementing this Appendix, the Commission will consider " practicable" and " reasonably achievable" as equivalent terms.

Decisions involving these terms will take into account the state of technology, and the economics of improvements in relation to benefits to the public health and safety, and other societal and socioeconomic considerations, and in relation to the utilization of atomic energy in the public interest,

d. Comments on 40 CFR 192 Commenters offered a number of comments on the validity and merits of the EPA stancard. The majority reflected dissatisfaction. The dissatis-faction was reflected in general comments, references to proceedings, and in arguments on many of the general issues and specific proposed changes.

Commenters represented virtually all categories of commenters.

Ecology / Alert apolauced tne EPA approach of protecting all cualities of groundwater from contamination. UT challenged the technical base for the racon limits for snorium Oyprocuct material and urged NRC not to adept nem (see modification 6(c)] and EPA to change them. ECNP expressed the view that EPA failed to meet "its statutory responsibilities" in issuing 40 CFR 192. Il challenged the legality of EPA issuing a 1000 year engineering design standard.

Kerr-McGee made repeated references to its position that the EPA standards are invalid and fail to meet the risk / economic cost test. AMC's similar position was addressed in the two previous sections. AE challenged the radon hazard basis for the EPA standard as inadequate when balanced against indoor radon levels from energy conservation.

04/18/85 23 10 CFR 40 CHANGES

. o

Response

As noted in the accompanying ANPRM (49 FR 46427), the Commission must focus on choices and decisions it must make on actions within its discretion.

i Until or unless court action sets aside the EPA standards, they are bincing on NRC and Agreement State licensees. NRC licensees are faced with two sets of effective regulations that contain conflicting or inconsistent requirements.

Under law, NRC must implement and enforce both.

As implied by the Commission Authority and Responsibility statement, the only provision of the EPA standard the Commission does not plan to implement and enforce is the provision in 40 CFR 192.32(a)(2)(iv) requiring EPA concur-rence on site specific decisions. The staff believes that removing conflicts and inconsistencies in the two sets of regulations and using site specific alternative authority to deal with occasional site specific problems represent the best way to deal with these conflicts and inconsistencies and meet the minimum requirements of the Cor.gressional mandates.

In view of the above, comments on the lawfulness, merits, and value of the EPA standards were considered outside tne scope of this action and were not a factor in recommending a final rule,

e. Other Other general issues raised cy the commenters inchded views that NRC snouic be more stringent snan the EPA radon emission anc longevity standards, Agreement State implementation, and editorial suggestions.

The ECNP urged conservative independent action by NRC to keep and expand its more stringent requirements on radon emissions and longevity. In ECNP's view, more stringent requirements would provide absolute assurance that the EPA standards would be met and provide greater public protection over longer periods of time.

04/18/85 24 10 CFR 40 CHANGES

o .

Response

The staff agrees that it must have reasonable assurance that the EPA standards will be met but does not agree that highly conservative regulstions are needed to provide such assurance. Case specific reviews are the proper mechanism for such findings. For the non groundwater provisions of the EPA standards under consideration in this action, EPA carefully and thoroughly re-examined the NRC record and considered NRC and other comments and later technical and risks information. The staff therefore has no basis to set aside the EPA conclusions on these aspects of the standard. Licensees should benefit from this re-examination.

The State Of New Mexico, an Agreement State, raised questions about Agreement State implementation. NM questioned now the process of dealing with alternatives using the type of flexibility afforded by Section 84c of the AEA would work in Agreement States. Specifically, NM asked whether NRC must concur in Agreement State decisions on proposed alternatives and whether the status of the State's adoption of regulations equivalent to or more stringent than 10 CFR Part 40 Appendix A affects the process. NM also suggested that a cr;.ss-reference to 10 CR 150.31(b) in Appendix A might clarify Appendix A's applicability to Agreement States.

Response

Section 19 of Pue.L.97-415, tne NRC Autn0ri:ation Act for fiscal years 1982 anc 1983, accec tne following option to Section 274o of tne AiA for Agreement States:

"In adopting requirements pursuant to paragraph (2) of this subsection with respect to sites at which ores are processed primarily for their source material content or which are used for the disposal of byproduct material as defined in section 11e.(2), the State ma/ adopt alternatives (including, where appropriate, site-specific alternas ses) to the require-ments adopted and enforced by the Commission for the same purpose if, after notice and opportunity for public hearing, the Commission determines that such alternatives will achieve a level of stabilization and containment 04/18/85 25 10 CFR 40 CHANGES

1 I

l of the sites concerned, and a level of protection for public health, safety and the environment from radiological and nonradiological hazards asso-ciated with such sites, which is equivalent to, to the extent practicable, I or more stringent than the level which would be achieved by standards and ,

requirements adopted and enforced by the Commission for the same purpose and any final standards promulgated by the Administrator of the Environ-

, mental Protection Agency in accordance with section 275. Such alternative State requirements may take into account local or regional conditions, including geology, topography, hydrology and meteorology."

The text clearly states that the Commission must determine that alter-native standards adopted by the State achieve the required levels of protection.

Further the Commission must notice the alternatives and provide an opportunity to request public hearing. This option is available to the State if it is regulating cyproduct material without regard to the status of the State's adoption of Appendix A. It gives the state additional flexibility in adopting generic or site specific standards.

The suggestion to add a cross-reference in Appendix A is negated by tne explicit provisions of 10 CFR 150.31(b) wnere requirements are spelled out in context. However, the comment does point out that 10 CFR 150.31 should be amenced to add the option auoted above. Including the language in Part 150 is not legally recuired for the State to exercise the ootion, but additier woule clarify the situation and be consistent with existing Part 150 and the proposed addition to the Introcuction of Appendix A on alternatives.

I Recommended Rule Change:

Add a new 10 CFR 150.31(d) to read: "In adopting requirements pursuant to paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the State may adopt alternatives (including, where ppropitP., site-specific alternatives) to the requirements adopted and enforced by the Commissiun for the same purpose if, after notice and opportunity for public hearing, the Commission determines that such alterratives will

achieve a level of stabilization and containment of the sites concerned, and a I

04/18/85 26 10 CFR 40 CHANGES

I level of protection for public health, safety and the environment from radio-logical and nonradiological ha:ards associated with such sites, which is equiva-t lent to, to the extent practicable, or more stringent than the level which would be achieved by standards and requirements adopted and enforced by the Commission for the same purpose and any final standards promulgated by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency in accordance with section 275. Such alter-i native State requirements may take into account local or regional conditions, including geology, topography, hydrology and meteorology."

Ecology / Alert urged NRC to use plain concise language in all its regulatory writing and provided a sample rewrite of part of Appendix A.

Response

The Commission agrees with the thrust of this point but preferred and continues to prefer minimum word changes in the conforming process. This minimum change approach helps focus on the changes due to the EPA standard and is the simplest and most efficient.

Several commenters (EPA, WA, NM, TX) offered ecitorial suggestions and icentified typographical and transcription errors.

Resconse:

v est of the State comments were straigntforward and shoulc be adopted.

EPA's general ecitorial comment that tt.e term " site" is not usec consistently in Accendix A can be factored into subsequent rulemaking. Staff believes that no problems are presented by the use of " site" in Appenidx A that are signif t-cant enough to be addressed in this limited rulemaking.

No comments were received on the Regulatory Flexibility Certification or Paperwork Reduction Act Statement in the notice. No specific comments were received on the NEPA discussion under impact of the Amendments. However, comments addressed under topics b., c., and d. above address the adequacy of the EPA and NRC basis for action.

04/18/85 27 10 CFR 40 CHANGES

- . - - - . . - = _ .. .-

o .

4. COMMENTS ON SPECIFIC PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO APPENDIX A 10 CFR 40 The proposed rule notice listed the specift: modifications and rationale for each change. The list chronologically.followed 10 CFR 40, Appendix A. In the following analysis, each of the modifications are addressed and the number-ing system from the proposed notice is provided. See the notice in Appendix A of this document for the full text of the proposed changes,

a. Introduction i Modification 1.(a): Typographical error and no comments.

i

, Recommended Rule Change:

i j Change should be acopted as proposed.

Modification 1.(b): This proposed change deleted an outdated informa-i tion submittal requirement associated with the 1980 publication of Appendix A.

) ECNP objected to this change based on a misunderstanding. ECi4P expressed '

concern that the deletion would mean that detailed information on licensees' ,

, programs showing how they meet the criteria in Appendix A would not be required.

1 f, Response:

Licensee'ecepliance with Accendix A and the epa standards is being hcndled and documented in the routine course of licensing and enforcement activities. A specific or separate submittal is not needed and would represent an unwarranted burden on licensees. ,

Recommended Rule Change:

! Staff sees no reason not to delete the paragraph, i

Modification 1.(c): This change would add a paraphrase of the i

provisions of Section 84c of the Atomic Energy Act. The language provides 04/18/85 28 10 CFR 40 CHANGES

applicants and licensees the opportunity to propose alternatives to the specific requirements of Appendix A.

Comments on this proposed change expressed support, opposition, and the need for clarification. ECNP expressed a generic concern over site specific licensing decisions such alternative proposals would involve. The EDF and EPI did not object to the modification itself, but took issue with the interpreta-tion of Section 84c of the AEA that was expressed in the rationale and the Commission Authority and Responsibility statement. (See discussion under general issues.)

CO generally supported the flexibility but expressed hypothetical concern ,

about licensee or applicant abise. C0 suggested that NRC elaborate on the issue my develooing rule changes or policy on how NRC determinations on "equiv-alent to, to the extent practicable" will be made. CD referenced its review and position on an alternative proposal for dried tailings and liquid disposal at Spring Creek Mesa submitted by UMETCO for its Uravan facility. C0 determined ' ,

that tne alternative design and proposed operation was not equivalent and that better design was practicable. AccpyoftheState'sdetailedlicensingrevkew for U* avan was submitted with the State's comments on the accompanying ANPRM.

WA su:corted the flexibility. NM did not object to the flexibility but noted or cuestioned certain aspects. NM noted that the insert included no time frame for c:moliance with Accendix A requirements. NM correctly noted that only Commission approval is called fer, not EPA. NM suggested adding language to clarify tnat it is the licensee's or apolicant's resconsibility to provide the casis for demonstrating the acequacy of the proposed alternative. WY objected to the flexibility afforded by the language "to the extent practicable" and recommended deleting it but supported the change otherwise.

1 Kerr-McGee supported this modification but indicated that it was not sufficient and more specific changes are needed. HMC supported all Kerr-McGee's comments. The AMC and its supporters supported this change but only as a first step. The AMC indicated that primary reliance on this insert would result in regulation by exception. Dawn strongly supported the modification as proposed to provide needed site specific flexibility.

04/18/85 29 10 CFR 40 CHANGES

. o f

Response

l' Staff agrees with C0 that additional guidance on how to make decisions on alternatives proposed by licensees or applicants is needed. Staff is working on guidance but efforts to date indicate that abstract generic guidance is

-difficult tc prepare absent experience with specific proposals. NRC has used the 84c flexibility only once', ae C0 experience may hopefully serve as a second case. Staff is certainly in no position to propose rule changes at the 3 resent time.

While the staff agrees with NM that it is the licensee's or applicant's re:ponsibility to provide needvd information, rule change is not needed and might confuse the issue'ty explicit instructions here and not in other parts of Appendix A. Staff notes that Appendix A is an effective rule that is being implemented and enforced in the routine course of business. WY's recommendation te celete "to tne extent practicable" would be contrary to the legislation being paraphrased which explicitly includes-this provision.

Recommendec Rule Change:

Add the insert as proposed.

4  %

Criterion 1

b. ,.

Modffication 2.(a): This crange would delete tne stability design timeframe of " thousands of years" and acd the 1,000 year timeframe in the epa standard. Editorial errors confused the specifics of this modification. The first paragrapn of proposed modified Criterion 1 should have read:

"In selecting among alternative tailings disposal sitta or judging the adequac/ of existing tailings sites, the following site features which will determine the extent to which a program meets the broad objective of isolating the tailings and associated contaminants from man and the environment during operations and for 1,000 years thereaf ter, without o,ngoing active maintenance, shall be considered:"

04/18/85 30 10 CFR 40 CHANGES 1

u__

The ECNP strongly opposed this modification and suggested that design periods "of at least 20,000 to 100,000 years" are needed to guarantee that the EPA standard will be met and to acdress the.long term radon hazard. Il also strongly opposed this change based on arguments that (~1) the change imoacts the design goal for nonradiological hazards when the EPA standard does not apply the 1,000 year period to nonradiological hazards, (2) the EPA 1,000 year time is invalid, and (3) the hazards are so long-lived. NM objected to the deletion of "... during op6 rations and for . . " resulting from the editorial errors.

EPI opposed the change based on the longevity of hazards from tailings and on the contention that the existing language is entirely consistent with EPA intent reflected in the preamble to 40 CFR 192 and the intent of the " reasonable assurance" provision of the longevity standard. WY offered revised language to reconcile the EPA 1,000 year practical design standard with the general goal of permanent isolation and op70 sed any change that would reduce the design objec-tive to less than 1,000 years.

Kerr-McGee noted the editorial problems and claimed that the change must reflect the 200 year mi timum in the EPA design standard in order to 'ully conform. Ker.r-McGee cited EPA acknowledgement that designs cannot always be proven effective for a thousand years, hence the 200 year minimum, and Kerr-McGee's assertions that costs of designing for longer than 200 years results in unjustified " tremendous cost." HMC supported all Kerr-McGee comments. The AMC also advocated inserting 200 years instead of a thousand as the maximum reason-able period that assurances can be given by engineers. AMC stated that many factors in assessing stability such as gully erosion or land use cannot be predicted with certainty beyond 200 years. If NRC adopts the 1,000 year period, AMC urged that the phrase "1,000 years, where practicable, and in any case, at least 200 years" from the EPA standard be used. UMC questioned whether cover designs with no maintenance are realistic and suggested that NRC has provided funds for some maintenance. WNI, AMC, and Kerr-McGee recommended deleting the phase "without ongoing active maintenance" based on the EPA standard not flatly prohibiting some reliance on active maintenance.

l l

04/18/85 31 10 CFR 40 CHANGES ,

I l

I e

Response

WY's comments highlighted an important reason for the reactions to the existing language and the proposed change. The first paragraph of Criterion 1 is a statement of a very general goal or objective, not a specific standard or requirement. The proposed change anc associated editorial errors compounded the problem. The proposed change was not intended to set aside the EPA standard for nonradiological cor.iponents in 40 CFR 264.111 referenced in 40 CFR 192. It was not intended to repeat the specific design standard being added to Criter-ion 6.

l Staff agrees, that on a general goal basis, the existing language was not totally inconsistent with EPA's intent. However, the reference to thousands of years can and did lead to misunderstandings. Staff still believes that the language needs modification.

Comments attacking the 1,000 years and advocating 200 years are really directed more at the EPA design standard and now it will be imclemented in site specific actions than at siting implications. Staff disagrees with any position that would put the goal for protecting man and the environment from tailings at 200 years. Even site specific design decisions must assure that 200 will be met but only when 1,000 years is not practicable. The primary design stancarc is 1,000 years. Further, as a general goal, no planned reliance on active maintenance is consistent with the findings in the GEIS, the EPA stancard anc the Congressional intent in Section 161x(2) of the AEA that

"...the neec for long term maintenance anc monitoring. .will be minimized and, to the maximum extent practicable, eliminated." Since Congress cic not flatly prohibit maintenance, NRC may consider it, but the preference for no maintenance is clear. When clearly stated as a goal and not a requirement, the goal would not preclude relying on active maintenance if no other practicable solution exists. Keeping the goal for tse in future siting and design decisions where compliance can be planned for is entirely consistent with the ALARA principle and minimizing the burden to future generations.

Staff recommends clarifying Criterion 1 using a combination of existing language and WY's suggested rewrite to show the goal versus standard point and 04/18/85 32 10 CFR 40 CHANGES

to delete any specific time frame. Changing "shall" to "should" in the fourth paragraph of Criterion 1 will emphasize the status as a goal and be consistent with the reference to maintenance in the first sentence of Criterion 12.

Recommended rule changes:

1. Revise the first paragraph of Criterion 1 to read-

"The general goal or broad objective in siting and design decisions is permanent isolation of tailings and associated contaminants by minimizing disturbance and dispersion by natural forces, and to do so without ongoing maintenance. For practical reasons, specific siting decisions and design standards shall involve finite times (e.g., the longevity design standard in Criterion 6). The following site features which will contribute to such a goal or objective shall be considered in selecting among alternative tailings disposal sites or judging the adequacy of existing tailings sites:"

2. Change "shall" to "should" in the fourth paragraph so that it reads:

" Tailings should be disposed of a in a manner that no active maintenance is recuired to preserve conditions of the site."

Modification 2.(b): This cnange would delete the grouncwater mocifier "usaole" to be consistent with tne primary tnrust of the EPA standard to protect all grounewater.

The ECNP, IL, anc WY supported tnis cnange. WNI urgeo tnat "usaole" be left in Appendix A and that all decisions on ground-water protection be deferred to the second rulemaking. Kerr-McGee also opposed this change. Kerr-McGee argued that it is arbitrary and capricious to protect unusable groundwater since the costs would result in no benefit. Kerr-McGee urged that as a minimum, the option for site specific decisions on grouno-water protection be acknowledged.

HMC supported all Kerr-McGee comments. The AMC and its supporters opposed the change for reasons discussed under Criterion 5 modifications.

04/18/85 33 10 CFR 40 CHANGES

.. o

Response

The general thrust of the EPA standard is to protect all groundwater.

The proposed change was intended to emphasize this thrust, not set aside the site specific option to pursue alternate concentration limits which may be based in part on the existing and potential use of the groundwater. The existing language in Criterion 1 (i.e., "... isolation of contaminants from usable groundwater sources...") sets use category as the primary goal which does conflict with the EPA standard. The proposed insert for Criterion 5 discussed under Criterion 5 should clarify this point and alleviate concerns that use category cannot be considered in decisions.

Recommended Rule Change:

Remove " usable" as proposed cut add a clarifying insert to Criterion 5.

c. Criterion 3 Modification 3.(a): This change would delete the groundwater mocifiers "high Ouality" to be consistent with the primary thrust of the EPA standard to protect all groundwater.

The ECNP, IL, anc WY supported this change. Kerr McGee opoosed tnis change to recuire protection of nonusable groundwater for the same arguments stated earlier. HMC succorted all Kerr McGee comments. AMC and succorters opposec the change consistent with arguments elsewnere.

Response

As noted in response to modification 2(b), the thrust of the EPA standard is to protect all groundwater and consider quality as one of many factors in site specific alternate concentration limit determinations.

Recommended Rule Change:

04/18/85 34 10 CFR 40 CHANGES S

Remove "high quality" as proposed but add a clarifying insert to Criterion 5.

d. Criterion 4 Modification 4.(a): This change would delete " maximum possible flood" and insert " Probable Maximum Flood" (PMF).

The ECNP opposed this change and questioned the rationale given that the change represented the original intent of the provision. WNI recommended deletion of " maximum possible" with no replacement of modifiers. Kerr-McGee opposed this change and argued that neither the existing language nor the proposed change are appropriate. Kerr-McGee claimed that both are excessive and therefore, inconsistent with the 1,000 year longevity period in the EPA standard. Kerr-McGee claimed that stabilization can compensate for severe flooding. hMC supported all Kerr-McGee comments. AMC and supporters also objected to the existing modifiers and the proposed change and advocated a 200 year flood as cost effective and adequate to protect health and safety and the environment. WY supported the change as proposed.

Response

The intent of paragrapn(a) in Criterion 4 is to require that siting of tailings disposal areas minimize the upstream catchment area to reduce the

ctential for erosion regardless of the magnitude of the design flooc. The mocifiers " maximum possible" anc "probaDie maximum" are coth inappropriate since this criterion is not intended to discuss design flood requirements. In orcer to empnasize the primary purpose of tne requirement, staff recommends replacing

" probable maximum flood" with " floods." The resulting language would closely track a similar Commission siting criteria for low level waste sites in 10 CFR Part 61. (See 10 CFR 61.50(a)(6).) Comments regarding the size of the design flood are therefore moot. However staff notes that decisions on what specific design flood should be used in analysis are site specific and must be mace in the context of other site and design decisions.

04/18/85 35 10 CFR 40 CHANGES l

1

Recommended Rule Change:

Delete the modifiers " maximum possible" and replace " flood" with " floods."

e. Criterion 5 Several comme?.ters offered general comments on conforming Criterion 5.

NM suggested tht; tne nondegradation language stated in the rationale be incluced in Criterion 5. EPA expressed the view that, as a general matter, the proposed changes do not adequately reflect the EPA standard's distinction between new and existing sites. EPA specifically mentioned that the changes do not reflect the " existing portion" concept as defined in 40 CFR 192.3(j) and used in the primary standard in 40 CFR 192.32(a)(1).

WNI expressed the view that none of the changes to Criterion 5 should be mace based on Commission plans described under Scope of This Proposal in the FR notice. WNI apparently read the scope to mean that no conforming changes related to groundwater should be made. Kerr-McGee argued that all changes to Criterion 5 should be deferred to the second rulemaking and that all existing grounc-water requirements in Criterion 5 should be suspenced or deleted in the interim. Kerr-McGee argued that such deferral would avoid a fragmented approach and allow more benefit / risk analysis. HMC supported all Kerr-McGee comments.

The AMC expressed strong objection to incorporation of any of EPA's grounc water protection standards. The AMC oasis repeatec and expandea argu-ments nat ne EPA stancard is invalid on juriscictional grouncs. AMC assertec that the Solic Waste Disposal Act standards incorporated by EPA into 40 CFR 192 failed the Congressioral mandate to De comparable to requirements for similar bazardous materials, and provided legislative history to support the assertion.

The AMC view is based on the lack of EPA standards for similar high-volume waste such as mining wastes. The AMC concludes that the EPA standards are thus incon-sistent with law and NRC conformance violates Section 84(a)(3) of the AEA. AMC also offered objections to the standards based on practicality (e.g., all liners leak, so a no-seepage standard is impractical) and on no adequate cost / benefit analysis by EPA or NRC. AMC also noted that EPA comments on Appendix A when initially proposed did not challenge NRC's ground-water protection strategy.

I i

04/18/85 36 10 CFR 40 CHANGES  !

l l l l

AMC offered a complete rewrite of Criterion 5 to reflect its recommended approach to groundwater involving: (1) protection from unreasonable risks and considerion of groundwater use category, (2) distinction between existing and new sites, (3) costs commensurate with risk, and 4) site specific implementation.

WY generally supported all proposed changes to Criterion 5. WY also urged flexibility in requiring liners at all new or expanded facilities, and NRC investigation and inclusion of processes to dry tailings.

Response

The comments clearly reflect confusion about the status of the EPA groundwater protection standards, the status of 10 CFR 40 Appendix A require-ments, and the basis for proposing the few changes related to ground water protection in advance of more comprehensive rulemaking on groundwater. As discussed under the general issues, the EPA standards have been in effect and applicable in regulation since December 6,1983. NRC rulemaking is not required to impose tne EPA standards. NRC staff believes it has no option but to conform and implement and enforce the EPA standards. Staff thus believes that both the EPA standards and Appendix A are effective on licensees.

, :( W

< / The proposed changes to Appendix A, and Criterion 5 in particular,

(. ..d 7

I" / were all intended to reflect that the EPA standard reflects the RCRA grcund-7 '

/ water protection strategy and starts from a premise that no seepage from the \

imocunc :ents or degradation of groundwater is allowed and t".at all groundwater is to be protected regardless of quality or use category. The changes were k intendec to remove language that explicitly conflictec with this basic strategy.

k. They were not intended to fully conform to or to modify the EPA standard in any /

Y s The em gemrral-comment th.L um di stini.icri terwee,n new and existing sites was not reflected was based primarily on the brief rationale for the proposed change rather than the changes themselves. The rationale did not address the complex site specific options provided under the EPA standard (i.e., the use of site specific alternate concentration limits as the secondary standard). Staff carefully reviewed Criterion 5 as an ad'junct to the EPA 04/18/85 37 10 CFR 40 CHANGES

l standards. Staff concluded that Criterion 5, with the proposed changes, does l not impact the existing /new site provisions and site specific provisions of 40 CFR 192 and that no additional changes are warranted on this basis.

The AMC proposed rewrite will be considered as part of the ANPRM analysis and scoping. The AMC approach would require intensive analysis and support and would delay conformance.

The EPA standard itself and the proposed insert to Appendix A's Introduction provide for site specific decisions on any issue. Processes to dewater tailings are already listed as a consideration in Criterion 5, so no further action is needed to address this comment of WY.

Staff concludes that specific clarification of the regulatory situa-tion on groundwater is needed. A ninor change to provide a subject for the list of considerations in Criterion 5 is also recommended for clarity.

Recommenced Rule Changes:

1. Insert the following paragraph as the first paragraph of Criterion 5:

" Licensees and applicants are cautioned that the ground water pro-visions of 40 CFR 192, Subparts 0 and E, are cincing. The tnrust of the EPA stancards in 40 :FR 192 is noncegradation of all grouncwater. The primary grounc water stancarc in 40 CFR 192.32(a)(1), which applies to new or expanded

~

imoeuncments, does not include consideration of existing or future ground water quality. The secondary standard in 40 CFR 192.32(a)(2) applies to management of all byproduct material including existing and new or expanded impoundments.

In the secondary standard, several groundwater quality criteria are considered, especially in site specific decisions on applications for alternate concentra-tion limits. Criterion 5 supplements and does not conflict with or modify provisions of 40 CFR 192. Until or unless the Commission undertakes additional rulemaking as described in the advance notice of proposed rulemaking published in the Federal Register on November 26,1984 (49 FR 46425), licensees and l 04/18/85 38 10 CFR 40 CHANGES l

1

applicants must refer to both 10 CFR Part 40 and 40 CFR Part 192 for the complete set of applicable ground water protection requirements."

2. Make the proposed first sentence the second paragraph of Criterion 5 and revise it to read:

"In developing and conducting groundwater protection programs, appli-cants and licensees shall consider the follcwing:"

Modification 5.(a): This change would delete language implying that seepage to groundwater is acceptable if it does not change the use category.

The ECNP generally supported the change but expressed concern that this modification might preclude ceep burial. ECNP also questioned how the EPA standard for perfect containment will be implemented and enforced. EPA noted that the rationale did not acknowledge that only new disposal areas must meet the no seepage requirements. EPA also suggested that a footnote referring to the potential for additional changes from the second rulemaking De added. WNI recommended that the change not be made and that all changes related to ground-water be deferred to the second rulemaking noticed in the accompanying ANPRM.

WNI cited the severe impact on existing sites if no seepage and no consideration of acuifer use category are allowed. Kerr-McGee supported deletion of the first sentence based on the commenter's position that nonusable groundwater does not need protection and the sentence requires mitigation of all seepage, not just seepage that would contact usaole groundwater. Consistent with this position, Kerr-McGee opposec celetion of :ne seconc sentence. Kerr-McGee outlined tne benefits from disposal of tailings as backfill in the underground mines from which the ore came and expressed concern that deleting the reference to pre-serving ground-water use category would eliminate such a proposal. Kerr-McGee correctly notes that the primary groundwater water standard in 40 CFR 192.32(a)(1) applies to surface impouncments only and the mine backfill opera-l tion would not be subject to the primary standard. HMC supported all Kerr-McGee comments.

I i

AMC opposed all proposed Criterion 5 modifications. Dawn opposed the

{

change because, in its view, the change set aside the flexibility built into the 1 04/18/85 39 10 CFR 40 CHANGES

EPA groundwater standards. Dawn referenced the secondary ground water standards referenced in 40 CFR 192 that provide for degradation of grourdwater when public healtn and safety and the environment are not at risk. Dawn supported the need for flexibility based on practicality, remoteness of sites, and aquifer use potential.

Response

The ECNP and industry reservations and concerns about Criterion 5 and its implementation seem to stem in part from a lack of understanding that groundwater protection recuirements are defined by both Appendix A of 10 CFR 40 and the EPA standards. The proposed changes were intended only to make Appen-dix A stand alone only on non groundwater matters and remove conflicts with the EPA ground water standards. The insert outlining the dual reouirements described in the general discussion on Criterion 5 should alleviate much of the concerns.

It will not alleviate dissatisfaction with the EPA standard itself, however.

The insert also addresses EPA's point on referencing the second step rulemaking.

The option for underground mine backfill disposal advocated by Kerr-McGee is a unique and site specific circumstance not precluced by NRC or E?A rules. Since it is not precluded, staff does not believe that specific require-ments or changes are neeced te be able to address this option in a site specific licensing cecision.

Recommendec Rule Change:

Delete the language as procosed and rely on the Criterion 5 insert.

Modification 5.(b): This change would delete language referring to bottom liners of " low permeability."

The ECNP also generally supported this change with similar reserva-tions expressed for modification 5(a). Kerr-McGee objected to this change on the grounds that the remaining language could imply that synthetic liners must be installed under existing tailings piles. Kerr-McGee stated that such installation is not required by the EPA standard since existing portions are ,

l 04/18/85 40 10 CFR 40 CHANGES 1 l

i

exempted under 40 CFR 192.32(a)(1) and furthermore is neither cost effective nor justified. HMC supported all Kerr-McGee comments. AMC opposed all proposed Criterion 5 modifications. Dawn opposed this modification on technical grounds.

Dawn pointed out that no material is totally impermeable and that state of the art liners have permeability ratings on the order of 10 12 m/sec.

Response

The Kerr-McGee and Dawn comments are the only ones involving issues not addressed elsewhere. Kerr-McGee's concern that synthetic liners would be required under existing tailings impoundments does not stem from the proposed deletion of modifiers. The proposed deletion results in having to consider installation of bottom liners instead of low permeability bottom liners. Staff does not see how this modest change impacts the resolution of what type of remedial ground-water protection action may be required at existing sites.

Dawn's observation that in an absolute and theoretical sense even syntnetic liners are not impermeable, is technically correct. The only way synthetic liners can meet the EPA standards in 40 CFR 192 is in consideration that the synthetic liner requirements aoplies only to the operation and closure phases (20-30 years), not to the long term post closure phase. Staff concern is that most people reading the reference to " low permeability" will not consicer the absolute or theoretical concept. Staff believes tnat most reacers woulc consider clay as low permeability and synthetic materials as impermeable.

Deletion of " low permeability" leaves the issue of wnat type of liners are acceptacle to tne more specific EPA standards.

Recommended Rule Change:

Delete " low permeability" as proposed.

Modification 5.(c): This change would delete a reference to potential use category as a standard.

The ECNP supported the change but questioned implementation aspects.

Kerr-McGee opposed NRC's nondegradation rationale for this change but supported 1

04/18/85 41 10 CFR 40 CHANGES

6 o the change. Kerr-McGee claimed that restoration to use category may be unjusti-fied and stated that the deletion would leave the issue of degree of restoration open. HMC supported all Kerr-McGee comments. AMC opposed all proposed changes to Criterion 5. Dawn opposed the change arguing that the existing language is inconsistent with considerations allowed in determining alternate concentration limits under the EPA standard and that deletion allows NRC to be more restric-tive in degree of restoration than the existing rule. Dawn indicated that situations at existing facilities will require flexibility to consider ground-water quality in restoration decisions.

Response

Staff agrees that deletion of the requirement to restore to ground-water "to its potential use before milling operations began to the maximum extent practicable" leaves the degree of restoration open. This was the intent of the proposed change. Staff also agrees that the degree may be more or less restrictive than use category preservation. The degree of restoration will be determined in a site specific basis in accorcance with the EPA groundwater protection standards. The insert at the beginning of Criterion 5 should help empnasize the dual requirements.

Recommended Rule Change:

Delete the phrase as proposed.

Mocification 5.(c): This enange would celete references to use category and tailings in contact with grounawater.

The ECNP supported this change. EPA suggested that this language referring to protecting groundwater by isolation of tailings and tailings solutions be retained. Kerr-McGee opposed the deletion for the same reasons  !

noted for modification 5(a). HMC supported all Kerr-McGee comments. AMC opposed all proposed changes to Criterion 5.

04/18/85 42 10 CFR 40 CHANGES

Response

The only new issue in comments on this proposed change is EPA's suggestion to keep the isolation goal. The general goal of isolation is included and emphasized in the revised first paragraph of Criterion 1. (See Modification 2(a) discussion.)

Recommended Rule Change:

Delete the paragraph as proposed.

Modification 5.(e): The groundwater modifier " usable" would be deleted.

The ECNP supported this change. Kerr-McGee opposed the change and indicated that the change would ic?ose costly ;aonitoring or other requirements for nonusable groundwater. HMC supoorted all Kerr-McGee comments. AMC opposed all proposed changes to Criterion 5.

Response

No new issues or information were identified in comments on this change. The change would result in having to characterize the wnole ground-water regime at the site but coes not impose any monitoring. Sucn characteri-zation woulc be necessary to sup:: ort any requests for alternatives to synthetic liners or proposals for alternate concentration limits under 40 CFR 192 ground-water requirements and is thus consistent with the EPA stancard.

Recommended Rule Change:

Delete " usable" as proposed.

04/18/85 43 10 CFR 40 CHANGES

f. Criterion 6 Modification 6.(a): This change would delete the two picocuries per square meter per second radon flux and minimum 3 meter cover thickness provisions and insert EPA's radon flux and longevity and stabilization standard.

ECNP and AMC oppos9d these changes in their entirety. The ECNP strongly opposed these changes based on views that the EPA standard inadequately protects the environment. ECNP further expressed the view that even the more restrictive NRC requirements proposed for deletion may not be adequate protec-tion. AMC opposed incorporation of the EPA standards based on jurisdictional

~

~

arguments, i.e. the standards apply inside the site boundary and are the~refore invalid. AMC also argued that no limit on radon emissions is warranted based on risk and therefore that any limit does not adequately balance co'st and risks. The AMC repeated arguments that active maintenance snould be included to allow higher racon flux values by relying on limited access to sites and that the stabilization period for uranium tailings should be 200 years, not 1,000, if included.

Response

The basic arguments expressed by ECNP and AMC were acdressed generi-cally under general issues dealing witn comments on the EPA stancard itself.

Commenters also specifically opposec includng the EPA 20 picocurie flux stancard. EDF, IL, anc Lewis objected to celeting tne Acpencix A 2 pico-curie flux value and adoption of the 20 value in the EPA stancard as being too lax. The EDF argued that the 2 picocurie flux is ALARA, is easily met based on the Department of Energy's Title I research experience and is cost effective.

WNI objected to incorporation of the 20 picocurie flux claiming that costs to comply far outweigh any benefits.

Response

Comments objecting to the 20 picocurie flux generally used the same arguments as used against the EPA standard addressed under general issues.

04/18/85 44 10 CFR 40 CHANGES

The one exception is the EDF reference to Title I research. The DOE Title I research experience compared costs for different types of cover strategies; however these studies didn't perform analyses which would result in conclusions on the warranted levels of radon releases from covered tailings. To truly investigate whether the meeting of the 2 pCi/m2-sec flux criterion is ALARA would require a cost-benefit analysis, which EPA did in its Final Environmental Impact Statement for Standards for the Control of 8yproduct Materials from Unranium Ore Processing (40 CFR Part 192), Volumes 1 and 2, EPA 520/1-83-008-1 and 2, September,1983 and Regulatory Impact Analysis of Final Environmental Standards for Uranium Mill Tailing at Active Sites, EPA 520/1-83-010, September, 1983. As a result of the EPA analysis, the additional deaths avoided didn't warrant the reduction of the criterion below 20 pCi/m2-sec from a cost benefit standpoint.

It should also be noted that although laboratory and field experience by both DOE and NRC confirm that the 2 pCi/m2-sec criterion can be met, it is difficult to prove that it can be significantly maintained over the long-term due to weathering, settlement anc ether defect generating mechanisms. Moreover, the proximity of the 2 pCi/m2-sec flux to the natural radon flux from background sources allows for too mucn uncertainty in the predictive methodologies and ranges for parameter input values. Little relief can be obtained by actual monitoring, since, monitoring data results at these low radiation levels can be of marginal value, due to the levels of uncertainty involved. The uncertainty is acdressed in the design stancard oy the " reasonable assurance" implementa-tion criterion, wherecy NRC utilizes reasonably conservative paramete- values in predicting tne long-term racon flux. The resulting flux levels are usually much less than a factor of 10 above the 2 pCi/m2-sec flux criterion usec in the past.

Three commentors argued against deleting the minimum 3 meter cover requirement. Lewis objected to deletion of " requirements for specific ground cover", i.e. , the 3 meter minimum, and expressed the view that Criterion 6 "is destroyed." EPA recommended that the 3 meter minimum cover requirement be kept "to provide reasonable assurance of adequate long-term performance of the cover under erosional and other stresses." The EPI similarly objected to deletion of the 3 meter minimum cover requirement based on the protection depth 04/18/85 45 10 CFR 40 CHANGES

affords against erosion and intrusion. EPI also argued that " reasonable assur-ance" of meeting the 20 picocurie flux requires a thicker cover than one that merely meets the 20 limit.

Response

Comments objecting to deleting the 3 meter minimum cover focused on the need for erosion and intrusion protection as adequate reason for 3 meters independent of any radon flux consideration. As noted in the rationale for the proposed change, the specific thickness of 3 meters was derived from radon flux considerations. These considerations were based on meeting the 2 pico-curie or twice-background performance criteria and are clearly inconsistent with the 20 picocurie value. Staff agreed in the GEIS and agrees now that effective covers are needed for long term protection. Site specific experience and further research and analysis on long term stability (e.g., NUREG-3397, " Design Considerations for Long-Term Stabilization of Uranium Mill Tailings Impound-ments") have indicated that effective alternatives to total reliance on soil thickness are feasible and may make more environmental and economic sense.

Well designed rock covers on the tops and side slopes of reclaimed tailings can provice sufficient erosion protection so that a soil cover of less than 3 meters may be acceptable.

Deletion of the minimum cover thickness does not relieve licensees from the requirement to provide effective covers. It provides for site specific alternative designs to accomplish the same erosion and intruder protection. While staff agrees that " reasonable assuran:e" requires some cegree of conservatism, staff coe= not agree that " reasonable assurance" cictates a factor of ten conserva. ism, as EPI's arguments indicate.

CO objected to inclusing the 200 year minimum longevity requirement based on the small incremental costs and practicality of meeting the longer (1,000 year) time and the lensevity of the hazards from tailings. Ecology / Alert questioned the 200 year " loophole." As noted earlier, AMC advocated a 200 year standard.

04/19/85 46 10 CFR 40 CHANGES

Response

The 200 year minimum longevity requirement provides relief in those unique reclamation situations where the 1,000 year criterion can be shown to be too much of a cost hardship to satisfy. Staff views the EPA longevity standard to be 1,000 years unless site specific circumstances preclude meeting 1,000 years. Staff rejects the AMC assertion that the standard is or should be 200 years with no attempt to meet 1,000 years. The language and intent of the EPA standard proposed for insertion in Criterion 6 is clear in this regard.

IL objected to NRC's proposed use of design standards and suggested that NRC rules explicitly require proof that the design has been met by the reclamation actions. In support of its position, IL cited epa /NRC jurisdiction, disposal and engineering experience, and the long-term hazards.

Response

The EPA longevity and radon standard is written as a design standard.

Requirements to confirm adequacy of design during and after construction have merit out will be very site and design specific. Normally, key design features and quality control would be specifiec in site specific license conditions.

Normal inspection and enforcement activities would include cuality control and compliance with designs approved and specified in license conditions. The site specific conditions and levels of uncertainty in the design mign result in some need to confirm design parameters af ter the fact but such a need shoulc be tne exception. Expressing the standarc as a cesign stancarc does not preclude such site specific findings. The related issue of radon flux monitoring is discussed under the next modification (6.(b)).

Thr.ee commenters offered clarifying suggestions. EPA recommended clarifying tne reference to " permanent disposal". NM recommended defining the term " disposal area". WY suggested that NRC address how it will implement and apply the longevity design standard and make findings. WY also suggested that the standard be clarified to make it clear, that to the extent practicable, the cover would still meet the 20 picocurie flux limit at the end of the 1,000 year design period.

04/18/85 47 10 CFR 40 CHANGES e, n

Response

Staff agrees with the EPA suggestion to clarify " permanent disposal" and recommends the change listed below. The " disposal area" definition is addressed indirectly in the third paragraph of the proposed Criterion 6. The third paragraph picks up the threshold activity limits that define when the longevity and radon requirements on post-closure apply. EPA defined disposal area" only in terms of the applicability of 40 CFR 192.32(b)(1). Staff sees no need for additional definition. The WY sugges'; ion to address implementa-tion would result in a level of detail in the rule nort. ally relegated to NRC guidance documents. Existing guidance documents on reclamation planning and design may need some followup modification. The NRC is planning to review or has reviewed existing documents and is exploring the need for additional implementing guidance.

Staff agrees with WY that the EPA standard is not completely clear that the flux limit is to be met throughout the effective design life to the extent practicable and proposes the cnange listed below, Kerr-McGee supported the change for uranium byproduct material but opposed including thorium byproduct material standards. Kerr-McGee correctly coserved that its West Chicago facility is the only current thorium facility subject to the thorium standards and urged that the generic standards should not be applied or tnat at least explicit flexibility for site specific decisions srould ce incluced in Criterion 6. Ker--McGee did not identify specific prob-lems anc casec its arguments on inacequate analysis by EPA in issuing the stand-ards. HMC succorted all Kerr-McGee comments. The AMC objected to including thorium byproduct material provisions and suggested a 50 year stabilization time period for thorium if included. The short time period was supported by arguments on shorter lived radionuclides [in the thorium 232 chain] and reli-ance on institutional controls. UT's comments on the technical basis for the EPA thorium values are discussed under Modification 6(d).

Response

The comments opposing incorporation of the EPA standards for thorium byproduct material are generally expressing dissatisfaction with the EPA stand-ard itself. The EPA standard in 40 CFR 192.42 provides for substitute generic 04/18/85 48 10 CFR 40 CHANGES

provisions to those in Subpart E, but with EPA concurrence. Thus a rulemaking on different thorium standards would be totally discretionary on NRC's part and require extensive supporting analysis. The thorium standarcs proposed for insertion are alraady in effect on NRC and state licensees and are nondiscre-tionary. NRC repetition in 10 CFR 40 has no bearing on their status. Staff does not consider rulemaking for the one site subject to the standard for the foreseeable future to be warranted. NRC has the authority to consider and approve site specific alternatives if the finding in Section 84c can be made.

Staff believes that the objective of having 10 CFR 40 be complete on all non-groundwater protection requirements justifies repetition of already binding standards. As a technical observation, staff notes that AMC arguments on shorter periods of control required do not take into account the real world mix of naturally occurring isotopes of natural thorium and the presence of uranium and its daughters in most thorium ores. The complexity of the mixtures high-lignts the site specific aspects and the difficulty of developing alternative generic standards.

Recom enced Rule Changes:

1. In the first sentence of proposed new Criterion 6, delete the words "In cases where waste byprocuct material is to be permanently disposed, an earthen cover snall be placed" and insert "In discosing of waste byproduct material, licensees shall place an earthen cover"

2. Insert at tre end of the first sentence of proposed new Criterion 6 after (pCi/m2 s) the pnrase "to the extent practicable throughout the effective ::esign life determined pursuant to (i) above" Modification 6.(b): This change would add the two radon flux modify-ing footnotes from the EPA standard that specify that no monitoring is required, averaging is allowed, and cover materials do not have to be considered in meet-ing the flux limit.

The ECNP opposed adding the EPA footnotes because the footnotes state that no monitoring of the radon flux is required and that averaging is allowed.

The EDF aso argued that radon releases should be monitored for 40-50 years after 04/18/85 49 10 CFR 40 CHANGES

reclamation. IL, CO, NM and EPI also objected to no monitoring of flux levels.

CD objected that the averaging provision is too vague. Il expressed concern that the language clarifying that cover materials not be considered in the 20 picocurie flux (alculations would result in the use of high radium content soils for covers.

Kerr-McGee noted that the changes are consistent with the EPA standard but repeated the view that the EPA standard is invalid. HMC supported all Kerr-McGee comments. The AMC agreed with including footnote 1 as proposed since it clarifies that the standard is a design standard, but because of AMC's position that no limits on radon flux are warranted, footnote 2 should not be incorporated.

Response

The footnotes quoted from the EPA standards in 40 CFR 192 are necessary to define how EPA intended the longevity and radon standards to be used. The footnotes set the conditions which EPA supported as a reasonable balance of cost and benefit that would be achievable with present state of the art.

While NRC does have the authority to require monitoring of flux levels as the comments note, the practical problems which led EPA to issue a design stancarc and NRC excerience in racon attenuation measurements and calculations convince staff that flux monitoring should not be mandated. Measurement of flux levels in the field is difficult and subject to wide variations due to factors sucn as sensitivity to measurement methods, meteorological variations, non-nomogeneity of tne tailings piles, and disturoance of tne radon releases by the monitor'Ag process. Monitoring flux levels in controlled experimental situa-tions can provide useful data with sufficient precision to evaluate the relative importance of design considerations such as moisture content or vegetative pene-tration. However, f.e difficulties and variations in measurements and measure-men't techniques convince staff that the EPA design standard should not be imple-mented as a performance standard. NRC's current method for providing reasonable assurance that the EPA flux standard will be met focuses on the selection and application of parameters and calculational methodology for radon barrier design. Experience and researen to date have included development and valida-tion of standardized calculation methods and determining the relative importance 04/18/85 50 10 CFR 40 CHANGES

of individual parameters. Some parameters affect calculated cover requirements very little from site to site. Others are very site spec'fic and may require field and laboratory data. Parameter values must be chosea to represent the expected long-term conditions of the cover. NRC's approach is the approach EPA intended, involves conservative site specific resolution, and commits NRC and DOE or licensee resources up front to properly design the cover before the reclamation work begins. Further, NRC expects to review quality assurance records during construction to assure that the approved design is implemented in the field. In summary, staff believes that current design and review methods provide ample assurances. Staff notes that Agreement States such as C0 can adopt more restrictive standards than EPA or NRC and may mandate monitoring if desired.

Staff experience also supports the need for averaging over the impoundment. The tailings are not homogeneous. Airborne transport of radon offsite results in mixing before members of the public are exposed so that doses are reflected by average values. Also, the averaging minimizes the effects of variability in the values of parameters and reduces the need to specify error ranges. Details on calculation methods are more appropriate in guidance documents that can be tailored to site specific conditions and track state of the art and experience.

IL's concern about high radium content of cover materials is addressed in the second paragraph of the proposed mocified Criterion 6. The second para-graon contains the requirements on low racium content that were alreacy in Appendix A. The footnote only clarifies that the EPA standard applies to the tailings flux through the cover and that radon from cover materials are not to be included in demonstrating compliance with the 20 picocurie flux.

Proposed Rule Change:

z Add the footnotes as proposed.

Modification 6.(c): This change would correct a typographical error and delete the 3 meter requirement.

04/18/85 51 10 CFR 40 CHANGES

ECNP, IL, and EPI opposed deletion of the 3 meter minimum earth cover requirement as noted under Modification 6(a). Kerr-McGee and AMC and their supporters generally supported the change.

Response

See Modification 6(a).

Proposed Rule Change:

Correct typographical error and delete 3 meter requirements as proposed.

Modification 6.(d): This change would add the threshold radium levels for applicability of the inserted EPA standard on longevity and control of radon releases.

ECNP opposed this change and advocated an absolute nondegradation standard for radon releases. C0 expressed the view that since averaging over 100 square meters allows highly contaminated small areas to be ignored, it is insufficiently protective. UT offered a number of technical arguments relating tu radon production on why the threshold radium 228 values for thorium byproduct material should be different from uranium values. UT suggested that the tnorium limits from the EPA standard not be added to NRC rules since they are unjustifiably high.

Kerr-McGee did not specifically cornent on this change but its posi-tion on Modification 6(a) and (b) would imply that no thorium provisions should be included. AMC opposed the modification based on jurisdictional arguments and the lack of technical consistency between the threshold values and the 20 pico-curie flux limit. AMC stressed that the allowable radon releases from the tail-ings is higher than the radon releases that result from contamination at the j threshold limits. AMC also argued that institutional controls had not been l adequately considered by EPA in setting the limits and that the limits were

{

not based on realistic risk assessment. '

04/18/85 52 10 CFR 40 CHANGES m

Response

The language proposed for insertion is needed to reflect the condi-tions under which EPA intended the longevity and radon standard to apply. The modification as proposed would allow NRC to be more restrictive if warranted by site specific conditions. NRC may require some degree of control for areas contaminated above background but below the threshola levels. EPA acknowledged this option in its rulemaking. Such site specific decisions would be a part of the NEPA review of licensee's reclamation plans. Explicit mention of this option in Appendix A is not required to maintain the option for controls and the proposed change does not preclude additional controls. All other comments were directed at the EPA standard, not NRC options.

Recommended Rule Change:

Add the paragraph as proposed.

g. Criterion 8 Modification 7.(a): The change would add the EPA standard language on the as low as practicable goals for radon releases during operations.

The ECNP expressed reservations about implementation and enforcement of the as low as practicable goal anc the lack of specific time limits for completion of stabilization and racon control after operations cease. EOF expressed more pointec concerns on time limits anc proposec additional changes to address their concerns. WNI had no objection. Kerr-McGee had no objection other than general objection to the EPA standards. AMC and supporters recom-mended that the word " practicable" be deleted and the phrase " reasonably achievable" be inserted to more accurately reflect EPA intent. AMC cited EPA's intent as described in the preamble to final 40 CFR 192 (48 FR 45933) to implement the Federal Radiation Protection Guidance of May 13, 1960. As EPA recognized in the preamble, "this guidance is currently known as the 'as low as reasonably achievable' (ALARA) principle". AMC also noted that the language change from practicable to ALARA is reflected in Commission rules in 10 CFR 20.

04/18/85 53 10 CFR 40 CHANGES

Response

As noted earlier, discretionary additional changes sw h as time limits, interim stabilization, and phased disposal recommended by EDF and others were considered outside the scope cf this action.

Staff agrees that EPA's intent was to impose the Al. ARA principle and that ALARA is more consistent with Commission radiation protection policies as reflected in 10 CFR Part 20. The actual language in a standard has higher legal force than the preamble stating intent, but in this case since numerical values or other specific provisions are not involved, the Commission has more flexibility in conforming. Staff agrees that the intended general guidance is more accurately ALARA.

Recommended Rule Change:

Add the proposed modification but delete " practicable" and insert

" reasonably achievable".

Mocification 7.(b): These changes would add language from the EPA standard imposing 40 CFR 190 equivalent limits for therium byproduct materials and compliance with 40 CFR Part 440, Subpart C.

The ECNP objected to the " reasonable assurance" language in the text addec from the EPA stancard and suggested that NRC was replacing actual stan-darcs with this insert. WNI noted no comment on this change. Kerr McGee opposed including the thorium byproduct standards for the same reasons noted and responded to under Modification 6(a). HMC s';pported all Kerr McGee comments.

The AMC recommended that waiver provisions from a recent EPA rulemaking under the Clean Air Act (50 FR 5190, February 6,1985) be incorporated into the thorium dose limits. The AMC also opposed adding the language requiring compliance with 40 CFR Part 440, Subpart C stating that these regulations arc invalid since EPA lacks authority to regulate byproduct m.terial under the Clean Water Act.

04/18/85 54 10 CFR 40 CHANGES

d .

Response

The proposed text was quoted verbatim from the EPA standard in 40 CFR 192. No deletions or modifications of existing NRC rules are involved. The proposed change incorporates for clarity standards that are already binding on NRC licensees for clarity and eliminates t'he need to refer to 40 CFR 192 for any requirements otner than groundwater protection. While the waiver provision suggested by AMC may have merit in censidering site specific situations, the staff does not believe that such a generic discretionary rulemaking is warranted.

Staff has no basis to act on AMC arguments that 40 CFR 440, Subpart C, is invalid.

I Recommended Rule Change:

Add the modification as proposed.

h. Modification 8: Criteria 2, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 12 not affected by -

proposed changes.

EPA noted that the second step rulemaking on groundwater and other provisions to be comparable to SWDA requirements may affect th?sk criteria.

No response to this correct observation is needed. Changes to these criteria recommended by commenters are addressed under Scope of Rulemaking as a general issue.

1 04/18/85 55 10 CFR 40 CHANGES

$Eo*k 7,1983 A 85'd -7._

fhR 40 $

k 9 Ff Qjf e  :

i j

Part IV Environmental l Protection Agency I

Environmental Standards for Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings at Licensed Commercial Processing Sites; Final Rule l

i i

45928 Federal Register / Voi. 48. Ns.196 / Friday. October 7.1983 / Rules and Regulations ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AcoRESSES: Background Cocumer%- State in which the sita i.s lowed. when AGENCY Background information is given in the tMs State is an Agreemer.t Kita cf th.-

Final Environmental Impact Statement NRC under Section 274 of it e Atomic 40 CFR Part 192 for Standards for the Control of Erergy Act).

Dyproduct Materials from Ura. sum Ore Tangs at the inactn e uranium I AD-N-2431-8) Processing (40 CFR Part 1921. EP.\ 20/ milling sites are defined in 2dTRCA m.

Env!ronmental Standards for Uranium am and the RmNm residual radioictive materals. The and Thorium Mill Tailings at Licensed npact AnaW of F.NmW pmp 6inee mes cows &

Standards for Uranium Mill Tailinas at Commercial Processmg Sites disposal cf Mungs ar.d the cleam.p r.t .

Active Sites. EPA 520/1-83-010 (RIA). onsite and effsite locations AGENCY: Environmental Protection Single copies of the FE!S and the RIA. as contaminated with tailings. Finai Agency. available. may be obtained from the cleanup and disposal standards for the ACTION: Final ru!e. Program Management Office (ANR-45al. inactive sites were published by FPA on Office of Radiation Programs. U.S. January 5,1983 (ta FR 590). The U.S.

SUMMARY

These are final health and Environmental Protection Agency. Department of Energy (DOE)is environmental standards to govern Washington D.C. 20160: telephone responsible for carrying out these stabdization and control of byproduct number (703) 557-9351. activities in conformance with these materials (primanly mill tailings) at &cketr Docket Number A-82-26 standards, with the concurrence of the licensed commercial uranium and contains the rulemaking record.The NRC, and in cooperation with the States.

thorium processing sites. These docket is available for public inspection standards were developed pursuant to Tailings at active uranium milling between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.. Monday sites are defu ed in UMTRCA as Section 275 of the Atomic Energy Act (42 through Friday, at EPA's Central Decket tranium byproduct materials. The U.S.C. 2022), as added by Section 206 of Section (LE-130). West Tower Lobby. program fc,r active sites covers the final Pub. L 95-604, the Uranium hfill Tailings Gallery I. 401 h1 Street. SW~ disposal of tailings and the control of Radiation Control Act of1978 Washington. D.C. 2tM60. A reasonable effluents and emissions during ead after (UMTRCA). fee rr ay be charged for copying.

The standards apply to tailings at milling operstioris. UMTRCA requires FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: EPA to establish standards for this locations that are licensed by tho Mr. Jack Russell. Guides and Criteria program, and that standards for Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

Branch (ANR-460). Office of Radiation nonradioactive hazards protect human or the States under Title II of the Programs. U.S. Environmental Protection health sad the environment in a manner UMTRCA. The standards for disposal of Agency. Washington. 0.C. 20400: consistent with standards established tailings require stabilization so that the telephone number (703) 557-a2:4.

health hazards associated with tailings under Subtitle C of the Solid Waste suppt.wswrARY INFORMATION: Disposal Act, as amended (SWDA). The wdl be controlled and limited for at NRC or the licensing Agreement State is least one thousand years. They require I. Introduction that disposal be designed to limit responsible for assuring compliance On November 8,1978. Congmsa with the standards at active mill sites.

releases of radon to 20 picocuries per enacted Pub. L 95-604, the Uranium Mill square meter per second. averaged over On January (1983. Congress Tailings Radiation Control Act of1978 amended UMTRCA to provide the surface of the disposed tailings, and (henceforth designated "UMTRCA"). In require measures to avoid releases of additional guidance on the matters to be the Act. Congress stated its finding that considered in establishing these radionuclides and other hazardous uranium mill tailings "* *

• may pose a substances from tailings to water. The standards and to establisn new potential and significant radiation deadlines for their promulgation:"In standards for tailings at operating mills, health hazard to the public. * *

• and prior to final disposal, add two elements * *

• that every reasonable effort establishing such standards the and a measure cf radioactivity to the Administrator shall consider the risk to should be made to provide for the public health, safety, and the ground water protection requirements stabilizatiorm disposal and controlin a now specified under the Solid Waste environment, the environmental and safe and environmentally sound manner economic costs of applying such Disposal Act as amended. Existing!?A of such tailings in order to prevent or standards, and such other factors as the regulations and Federal Radiation minimize radon diffusion into the Administrator determines to be Protection Guidance currently environment e.nd to prevent or minimize appropriate." The Act (Pub. L 06-415) applicable to tailings remain unchanged. other environmental hazards from such established a deadline of October 1.

The Agency will monitor continuing tailings."The Administrator of the development of technical and economic 1983 for promulgation of the standards.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) These final standards conform to the infor' nation as the Department of Energy was directed to set "* *

• standards of above requirements.

proceeds with disposal of the inactive general application for the protection of tailings piles, and revise these standards the public health, safety and the 11. Summary I the Final Rule if this informat~on suggests that environment * * *" to govern thi, modifications are warranted. This final rule modifies and clarifles procees of stabilization. disposal, and some of the provisions of the proposed This notice summarizes the comments control.

received on proposed staccards standards because ofinformation ChfrRCA established two programs obtained dunng the comment period and published on April 29.1983. and to protect public health, safety, and the at public hearings (May 31.1983, in provides a summary of the Agency's envirx. ment from uranium mill tailings. Washington and June 15-16.1983, in consideration of major comments- one for certain designated sites which Detailed responses to comments are Denverl.

are now inactive (i.e., at which all EPA received a wide range of contained in the Final Environmental mdling has stopped and which are not Impact Statement. comments on the proposed ' standards under license) and another for active and the supporting documents. Several DATE:These final standards take effect sites (those sites licensed by the Nuclear hundred letters were received and 34 on December 6.1983. Regulatory Commission (NRC) or the individuals testified and/or submitted

s Federal Register / V:1. 48. N .196 / Frid.y. Octobir 7.1983 / Rults end R gulations 45927 .

comments at the public hearings. when the normally required levels will water erosion. which may spread Comments were received from a broad be satisfied no further from the edge of radioactive materials offsite.

spectrum of participants, inch ding tail:ngs than the site boundary. or within As of January 1983, there were 27 500 meters of the tailings. whichever is licensed uranium miils, of which only 14 private citizens. public interest groups.

members of the scientific community. less (m. stead of requiring EPA were operating. By early 1983. the representatives of industry. and State concurrence. as proposed). amount of stored tailings had reached and Federal agencies. EPA has carefully (8) Requires corrective action to about 175 million metric tons (MT). The restore grourdwater to its background size of individual tailings piles ranges reviewed and consideved these comments in preparing the iEIG. the quality to be in place within la months from about 2 million MT to about 30 RIA. and in developing ths 3 iinal of a determination of noncompliance million MT.

standards. EPA's responses to n.sjor (Instead of the proposed 12 months). The future demand for uranium is comments are discussed in this (9) Requires equivalent levels of pmjected to be almost exclusively for preamble" and comments are electrical power genera tion. Based on protection for wet sites (where recent DOE projections, it is estimated discussed in detail in the FEIS. Section precipitation exceeds III of this preamble summarizes the evapotranspiration) as for dry sites (by that at least an additional 175 million maior considerations upon which these MT of tailings will be generated by the deleting the exception permitting a standards are based. and in Section IV ncnperneable cap at wet sites). year 2000 in the United States. Tnis we discuss the major issues raised in projection is for the conventional milling (10) Requires the same level of f uranium described above. A small pubhc comments. our responses to them. protection at all sites n gardless of quantity of uranium is also recovered as and the specific changes in the cumnt Iocai popu1ations.

standan.s that tesulted from our a secondary product in the extraction of consideration of public comments. (11) Establishes equivalent other minerals. such as phosphate and requirements for thorium byproduct copper, and also by solution (in situ)

These standards are divided into two parts.The first part applies to materials. mining methods. Foreign sources of management of taih,ngs during the active IIL Summary of Background Information uranium may also influence demand life of the pile, and dunng the projections for the domestic uranium subsequent " closure pr ad." i.e after A. The Uranium Industry industry, especially since some foreign cessation of operations but prior t . The major deposits of high. grade deposits are richer in uranium. which completion of final disposal includmg uranium ores in the United States are permits lower pricing.

the period when the tailings are drying located in the Colorado Plateau, the The United States Government out.These are standards tnat govem Wyoming Basins, and the Gulf Coast purchased large quantities of uranium.

m mg peranons. Plain of Texas. Most ore is mined by primarily for use in defense programs.

He second part specifies the either underground or open-pit methods. from IM3 to 1970. Many of the conditions to be achieved by final At the mill the ore is first crushed. producers of this uranium continued blended. and ground to the proper size operating after 1970 to supply the ti tie ed out d g eeo ue f r the teachin8 process which extracts commercial demand for uranium. In period to assure adequate final disposal uramum. Several teaching processes 4re most cases the tailings from They are standards that govern the mcluding acid alkaline and a Government and commercial purchases design of disposal systems. use(bination cm of the two. After uranium is were mixed and stored in the same pde The major provisions of the final rule These mixed tailings are now referred to are summarized in the following list. leach xi from the ore it is concentrated from the leach liquor through ion as " commingled" tailings. There are with changes from the prcposed rule about 51 million MT of defense-related enhange or solvent extraction.The noted.%e final rule: CJncentrated uranium is then stripped or tailings commingled with approximately (1) Applies to management and extracted from the concentrating 74 million MT of other tailings at 13 of

' disposal of byproduct materials at sites the sites which are now lirmsed for medium. precipitated dried. and where ore is processed primarily to milling uranium ore.

packaged.The depleted ore. in the form recover its uranium or thorium content. of tailings,is pumped to a tailings pile as B. Hazards Associated with Uranium (2) Applies to the regulatory activities a slurry cued with water. Byproduct Materials of NRC and the States that license uranium or innrium mills. Since the uranium content of ore The most impcrtant of the hazardous (3) Requi:es that ground water be averages only about 0.15 percent. ,

essentially all the bulk of are mined and constituents of uranitun mill tailings is protected han uranium tailings to radium, which is radioactive. We background or drinking water levels to processed is contained in the tailings.

estimate that currently existing tailings preserve its future uses by incorporating These wastes contain significant at the licensed sites contain a total of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA) quantities of radioactive uranium decay products, including thorium-230, radium. about 90.000 curies ' of radium. Radium.

rules. in addition to bdng hazardous itself.

(4) Requires that disposal of uranium 226. and decay products of radon-222.

Tsilings can also contain significant produces radon, a radioactive gas tailings pdes be designed so that, after whose decay products can cause lung disposal, radon emissions will be limited quantities of other hazardous cancer. Because of the long life of to 20 picocuries per square meter per substances, depending upon the source of the ore and the reagents used in the thorium-230 (about 75.000 years half.

second. life), the amount of raJium in tailings.

[5] Raquires that the disposal of milling pcocess.Most of the tailings are and therefore the rate at which radon is uranium tailings be designed to maintain a sand-hke material and, because such produced, will decay to about 10 percent its integrity, in most cases, for at least matenals are attractive for use in construction and soil conditioning, have of the current amount in several 1000 years.

(6) Requires liners be used fer Fround been improperly used in the past, thereby contributing to spreading the

' ^ c""' 'h' '* ""' *f '*di *c'i" "*

water protection.

(7) Permits the regulatory agency to radioactive materials offsite. Tailings $',!,$li$,$oY,$g",((Y',"*[]Q'yi "'

issue alternate gr md water standards materials are also subject to wind and cond.

. \

45928 Federal Register / Vol. 48. No.196 / Friday. October 7.1983 / Rules and Regulations i

i hundred thousand years. Other low doses is directly proportional to the underground miners over the balance of 1 potentially hazardous constituents of risk that has been demonstrated at their expected lifetimes. These facters I tiilings include arsenic, molybdemun. higher doses. We recognize that the data were explicitly considered by the 1980 selenium, uranium, and. usually in lesser available preclude neither a threshold NAS BEIR Committee. Although the cmounts, a variety of other toxic for some types of damage below which NAS Methodology differs from that substances.The concentrations of all of there are no harmful effects, nor the employed by epa. their numerical these materials vary from pile to pile. possibility that low doses of gamma estimates of risk due to lifetime The radioactivity and toxic materials radiation may be less harmful to people exposure are essentially identical to in tailings may cause cancer and other than the linear model implies. However, those of epa. The most recent and diseases, as well as genetic damage and the major radiation hazard from tallings complete assessment of the miner data, teratogenic effects. More specifically, arises not from gamma radiation, but that performed for the AECB yields a tailings are hazardous to man primarily ratheris due to alpha radiation from result within 20 percent of the EPA because: (1) Radioactive decay products inhaled redon decay products. As value. Numerical estimates of risk by of radon may be inhaled and increase pointed out by the National Academy of various other observers differ by up to a the risk of lung cancer: (2) individuals Sciences'(NAS) Advisory Committee on factor of eight. We also considered the may be exposed to gamma radiation the Biological Effects ofIonizing views of these other observers and from the radioactivity in tailings; and (3) Radiation (the BEIR Committee) in its discuss their results in the ITIS.

radioactive and toxic materials from 1980 report, for"* *

• radiation such as The uncertainties in risk estimates for tillings may be ingested with food or from internally deposited alpha-emitting exposure of miners to redon decay water. Our analysis shows the first of radionuclides. the application of the products arise from several sources.

these hazards to be by far the most linear hypothesis is less likely to lead to Exposures of miners were estimated important. overestimates of risk, and may, in fact. from the tima spent in each location in a As noted above. the radiation hazard lead to underestimates."- mine and the measured radon decay from tailings lasts for many hundreds of Our quantitative estimates of the risk product levels at those locations.

thousands of years, and some due to inhalation of radon decay However, radon decay product nonradioactive toxic caeminis persist products are based on our review of measurements were infrequent and indefinitely.The hazard from uranium epidemiological studies, conducted in often nonexistent for exposures of tnilings therefore must be viewed in two the United States and in other countries, miners prior to the 1980's.The ways. Tailings pose a present hazard to of underground miners of uranium and uncertainty increases when data for human health. Beyond this immediate other metals who have been exposed to miners are used to estimate risk to but generally limited health threat. the radon decay products. We have also members of the general public, because t ilings are vulnerable to human misuse considered reports by scientific groups, there are differences in age. physiology, cnd to dispersal by natural forces for an such as Health Effects ofAlpha Emitting exposure conditions, and other factors .

essentially indefinite period. In the long Pdtticles in the Respimtory Tmet (197sf between the two populations.

run the future risks to health of and The Effects on Pbpulations of We must also make numerous indefinitely-extended contamination Exposure tolowLevels ofIonizing assumptions to estimate the radiation from misused 'and dispersed tailings due Radiation (1980) by the NAS: the report dose to individuals and population t2 inadequate control overshadows the of the United Nations Scientific groups due to uranium mill tailings, and short-term danger to public health. The Committee on the Effects of Atomic these introduce additional uncertainties.

congressional report accompanying Radiation (UNSCEAR) entitled Sources For example, we make risk estimates for U1WIRCA recognized the existance of and Effects ofIonizing Radiation (1977); individuals who are assumed W reside long-term risks. and expressed the view Report No. 32. Limits for Inhalation of at the same location for their life spans, that the methods used for disposal Radoa Daughters by Workers (1981) of and we further assume that people will should not be effe::tive for only a short the International Commission on ~ continue to have the same life period of time. It stated:"ne committee Radiological Protection (ICRP); and Risk- expectancy as the U.S. population did in believes that uranium mill tailings Estimates for the Health Effects of 1970. Nevertheless, we believe the should be treated * *

• in accordance Alpha Radiation by D.C. Thomas and information available supports with the substantial hazard they will K.G. McNeill (1982), a detailed review estimates of risk which are sufficiently present untillong after existing prepared for the Atomic Energy Control reliable to provide an adequate basis for institutions can be expected to last in Board of Canada (AECB). Details of our these proposed standards.

th;ir present forms * * *" and,in risk estimates are provided in a previous It is not possible to reduce the risk to commenting on the Federally-funded EPA report. IndoorRadiation Exposure zero for people exposed to radiation or, program to clean up and dispose of Due to Radium-226 /n Florida for that matter, to many other ,

tiilings at the inactive sites. it stated Phosphate Lands (EPA 520/4-78-013). carcinogens. To decide on a reasonable

• The committee does not want to visit and in the FEIS. level of incremental residual risk, we this problem again with additional aid. Although the studies of undergmund evaluated the practicality and benefits Tha remedial action must be done right miners show that tuere is a significant of different levels of control. We also the first time." (H.R. Rep. No.1480. 95th risk oflung cancer from exposure to considered technical difficulties Cong.,2nd Sess., Pt. L p.17 and Pt. II, p. radon decay products, there is associated with implementing different 40 (1978).) uncertainty in its magrtitude. Our levels of control.

For the purpose of establishing estimates of the risk due to inhalation of Uranium mill tailings can affect man standards for the protection of the radon decay products ext.eed.those of through four principal environmental general public from radiation, we the ICRP and UNSCEAR by a factor of pathways:

assume a linear, nonthreshold dose- at least two. Ifowever. neither group + Diffusionofmdon-2:'2 thedecay i

effIct relationship as a reasonable basis considered continuous exposure for the pmduct of mdium-226 tailings into for estimating risks to health. This duration of a person's lifetime nor indoor air. Dreathing radon-222. an inert I m:ans we assume that any radiation documented that they properly projected gas, and its short half-life decay I dose poses some risk and that the risk of the risk observed to date in groups of products, which attach to tiny dust

i 1

Federal Register / Vd. 48. Nc.196 / Fridg. October 7.1983 / Ruhs r,nd Rigulitions 45929 -l particles, exposes the lungs to alpha focuses largely on crurent levels of risk tailings because their number is more radiation (prmcipally from polonium- to man from tailings through air and difficult to predict, even though risk to 218 and polonium-214). ne exposures water pathways. However, these current individuals from such tailings may be involved may be large for persons who risks could be expanded by future somewhat greater than from direct have tailings in or around their houses, misuse of tailings by man and by radon emissions. By the year 2000, we or who live very close to tailings. uncontrolled future effects of natural estimate that, without control, the Additional, but smaller, exposures to forces. Our disposal standards reflect amount of tailings existing then would alpha radiation may result from long- consideration of both current and cause approximately 600 tung cancer i lived radon-222 decay products potential future nsks from tailings. deaths per century. Approxanately one-(principally lead-210 and polonium-210). half of these deaths are projected to

1. AirPathways occur less than 50 miles from the piles.

Exposure due to radon from tailings in or around buildings is best estimated We estimated the hazards posed bY This increase is small due primarily to from direct measurements of its decay emissions to air from tailings piles or the large amount of unused capacity at products in indoor air, irnpoundments and from tailings used in present sites. so that most new tailings

• Dispersalofradonandofsmall and around houses. For the first case we could be placed on top of existing

- particles of tailings materialin air. used standard meteorological transport tailings. This analysis assumes that this Radon emitted from tailings is widely models and considered exposure of will be the actual case, although it is dispersed in air, and exposes both people in the immediate neighborhood possible that ground water nearby residents and those at greater of the existing tailings sites, the contamination problems would be  ;

distances.nese doses are population in local regions, and the .

severe enough to require some piles to '

predominantly to the lungs. Wind remainder of the national population. be closed. If this is the case, this erosion of unstabilized tailings creates For the second. we drew largely upon estimate would be increased.

local at.orne tailings material.The experience from houses contammated There is substantial uncertainty in l predominant dose from airborne tailings by tadings in Grand Junction. Colorado.

is to the bones from eating foods Four sources of exposure were these estimates because of uncertainties .;

in the rate of release of radon from contaminated by thonum-230, radium- considered: inhaled short-hved radon tailings sites, the exposure people will 228. and lead-210 and is small. decay products, gamma radiation. long- receive from its decay products, and Exposure due to airborne transport of lived radon decay products, and from incomplete knowledge of the radon and particulates from tailings airborne tailir.gs particulates.

effects on people of these exposures.

usually can be directly measured only From this analysis we conclude:

(a) I.ung cancer caused by the short- The values presented here represent near the pile or impoundment. but may lived decay products of radon is the best estimates based on current be reliably estimated for larger distances using meteorological transport dominant radiation hazard from tailings. knowledge. In addition, these estimates models. Estimated effects of gamma radiation. of are based upon current sizes and ,

long-lived radon decay products and of ge graphical distnbutions of

• Direct exposure togamma radiation. Many of the radioactive airbome tailings particulates are p pulations and estimated production of decay products in tailings produce relatively less significant, although high tailings to the year 2000. As populations continue to increase in the future, and as gamma radia' ion. The most important gamma radiation doses may sometimes occur. production continues beyond the year are lead-214. bismuth-214. and 2000, the estimated impacf will be thallium-210. Hazards from gamma (b) Individuais who have tailings in or radiation are limited to persons in the around their housa ef9e have large larger.

immediate vicinity of tailings piles or exposures to indoor radon and hence Many commenters addressed the need removed tailings. Exposure due to high risks oflung cancer. For example, to prevent misuse. Most concluded that gamma radiation imm tailings is readily in 50 percent of a sample of 190 houses misuse was the most hazardous aspect estimated from direct measurements. with tailings in Ctand junction, of tailings and should receive foremost

• Waterborne transport of rodioactive Colorado, we estimate that the excess attention. Although most concluded that and toxio material. Dispersal of lifetime risk to occupants due to misuse should be discouraged through unstabilized tailings by wind or water, exposure to short-lived radon decay means of passive controls, some or leaching, can carry radioactive and products prior to remediation may have concluded that misuse could be other toxic materials to surface or been greater than 4 chances in 100. adequately controlled by institutional ground water. Current levels of (c)Individualsliving near an means. We conclude that a primary contamination appear to be low at most uncontrolled tailings pile or objective of standards for control of sites. However, contamination of impoundment are also subject to high hazards frcm tailings throughair surface and ground water and risks fom short-lived radon decay pathways should be isolation and consequent intake by animals has been products of radon emitted directly from stabilization to prevent their misuse by identified at three locations. Potential tailings. For example, we estimate that man and dispersal by natural forces; exposure due to this possibility of people living continuously next.to some such as wind. rain, and flood waters. A ground and surface water contamination tailings sites can have incremental second objective is to muumize radon is highly site-specific and can generally lifetime lung cancer risks as high as 2 emissions fmm tailings sites. A third only be determined by a careful survey chances in 100. objective is the elimination of significant program. (d) Based on models for the exposure to gamma radiation fmm Our assessments of risks from tailings cumulative risk to all exposed tailings.

deal primarily with risks to man.This is populations, we estimate that, without

2. Water Pathways because risks to other elements of the control. the radon released directly from biosphere are judged to be mush less all tailings currently in existence at Water contamination does not now significant, and would therefore be presently (1983) licensed sites would appear to be a significant source of controlled to acceptable levels by cause about 500 lung cancer deaths per radiation exposure at most sites.

measures adequate to protect man. In century. This figure does not account for However, in addition to radionuclides, addition, the following discussion any deaths from misuse or windblown nonradioactive toxic substances, such

45930 Federal Register / Vol. 48. No.196 / Friday. October 7,1983 / Rules and Regulations as arsenic, molybdenum, and selenium, exceed one mile per year. For these can be leached from tailings and measures discourage disruption by man, reasons, contaminants from tailings may and by the resistance of control contaminate water. Such contamination not affect the quality of nearby water could affect crops, animals, and people, measures to such natural phenomena as supply wells for decades or longer after earthquakes, floods. and windstorms.

Process water is used to carry tailings to they are released. However once the piles or impoundments as a slurry, and to chemical and mechanical contaminated. the quality of water processes in the piles or impoundments.

Rainwater also may collect on the supplies cannot usually be easily tailings. The greatest threat of (" Piles" commonly means tailings restored simply by eliminating the simply piled up on the ground, and contamination appears to be from source (although, in some cases.

process water discharged with the " impoundments" means piles removing or isolating the tadings may constrained by dikes made of other tailings from the mill. although. in contribute to improving water quality).

principle,it could be from the gradual Based on results from the NRC generic materials. We will use the term " piles" effects of rainwater over the indefinite model for mill tailings, it is likely that to mean both henceforth.) Prediction of future. Most of this water eventually the long. term integrity of control the observed cases of ground water evaporates or seeps away. Elevated contamination result from seepage of the methods becomes less certain as the concentrations of toxic or radioactive IIquid waste discharges from the mill, period of concern increases. Beyond substances in ground water have been several thousand years. longer-term and can be controlled by preventing this geomorphological processes and observed at many active sites (seven are seepage until the tailings dry out by identified in the FEIS), and in some natural evaporation. Additional future climatic change become the dominant standing surface water ponds (but only contamination of ground water after factors. Methods are available for rarely in surface running water). Any these liquid wastes are dried up should projecting performance for periods up to future contamination of water after be much smaller, and in most cases about 1000 years. A recent report disposal would arise from the effects of would be expected to be eliminated by prepared for the NRC (" Design rain or through flooding, from measures required to control misuse of Considerations for Long-Term penetration of tailings from below by disposed tailings by man and dispersal Stabilization of Uranium Mill Tailings ground water, or from leaching of by wind. rain, and flood waters. 'llese Impoundments." Colorado State tailings transported offsite. measures should also effectively University 1983) provides an up-to-date A theoretical analysis performed for eliminate the threat of contamination of detailed review of these matters.

the NRC of a large model tailings surface water by runoff or from leaching Methods to prevent misuse by man impoundment with no seepage control of tailings transported offsite. and and disruption by natural phenomena showed that contamination of ground provide a degree of protection of surface may be divided into those whose water by selenium, sulfate. manganese, and ground water from contamination continued integrity depends upon man and iron might exceed current drinking by flooding. However, at some sites, and his institutions (" active" controls) water standards over an area 2 espe aHy a as of h r a1 and those that do not (" passive" kilometers wide and a to 30 kilometers 8" , controls). Examples of active controls long. More than 95 percent of this are fences, warning signs. restrictions on projected contamination was attnbuted t t al ture c n minat on of ground land use, inspection and repair of semi-to uutial seepage of process water water may be needed in designing permanent tailings covers, temporary discharged with the tailings dunng mill .

disposal systems. For example, some dikes. and drainage courses. Examples operations. commenters suggested incorporation of f passive controls are thick earthen We recognize that the NRC generic the SWDA rules forimpoundment caps covers, rock covers, massive earth and modelis only one of several that could for wet sites. Others pointed out that for r ck dikes burialbelow grade,and be applied to transport of contaminants new piles careful site selection would m ving tailings piles out oflocations in groundwater. Other models could provide protection of ground water. highly subject to erosion. such as predict greater or less risks of ground We conclude that the primary unstable river banks.

water contamination An example of objective of standards for control of Erosion of tallings by wind, rain, and greater risk is a plume of contamination hazards from tailings through water flo ding can be inhibited by contouring that, undercertain circumstances could pathways is to prevent loss of process the pile and its cover, by stabilizing the still move cohesively towards a water water through seepage, prior to closure. surface (with rock for example) to make supply after the flow of liquid through A secondary objective is to avoid it resistant to erosion, and by the tailings has stopped following surface runoff and infiltration both constructing dikes to divert rapidly closure of a pile. before and after disposal. moving flood waters. Erosion can be In general. the movement of C Controlo/Hazardsfmm Tailings Inhibited even more reliably by burying '

contaminants through a pile and subsoil tailings in a shallow pit and/or by l to ground water depends on a We consider methods for control so as locating them away from particularly 1 to assess the achievability, economic flood-prone or otherwise geologically combination of complex chemical and impact, and reliability of controls to .

physical properties, as well as on local unstable sites. Thus, especially in the meet alternative standards. As noted case of new tailings piles, shallow burial l precipitation and evapotranspiration 1 rates. Chemical and physical processes above, the objectives of tailings disposal and sites with faverable long-term I (and of tailings management prior to characteristics should be given preferred can effectively remove or retard the disposal) are to prevent misuse by man, consideration.

flow of many toxic substances passing to reduce radon emissions and gamma through subsoil. However, some radiation exposure, and to avoid the Methods to inhibit the release of contaminants, such as arsenic, radon range from applying a simple contamination of land and water by molybdenum. and selenium, can occur in preventing erosion of tailings by natural barrier (such as an earthen cover) to <

forms that are not removed. Typically, s'uch ambitious treatments as processes and seepage of waste process embedding tailings in cement or l ground water can move as slowly as a water. The longevity of controlls few feet per year, and only in coarse or processing them to remove radium, the particularly important. This can be cracked materials does the speed precursor of radon. Covering tailings affected by the degree to which control with a permeable (porous) barrier, such l

-p Wral Register / Vol. 48. No.196 / Friday, October 7,1983 / Rules and Regulations 45931 as compacied v :ays radon of the tailings and cover at equ. librium, a gene ally feasible option since it diffusion so tl <

af it decays in and anti the measured diffusion would require excavation of most. if not is therefore eft ..e:y retained by the chamcteristics of cover materials. The all of the tanhngs to assure mixing, and cover. In additiGn to simple earthen DOE and NRC have conducted studies may not immobilize all hazardous covers, other less permeable n.aterials which provide a basis, at least within a constituents. Ground water such as asphalt clay, or sod cement limited range of control and (usual!y ie combination eth earthen contaminntion is known to have preda.:abili*y. for address.ng :hese accwred oi seen sites, and may be covers) rsu!d be used. The mare facters in the design of tailings coven r,crar ng t,t n.any others. It may not be permeable the cove *:ng matenal the based on locally available materials and possible to cieanup the ground water at thicker it must be to achieve a given climate. some sites. In the worst cases a new, reduction in radon release. However. Methods that control radon emissions lined tailings pile may be required to maintaining the intag-ity of control ,if will also prevent transport of prevent (crtaminution from new radon by thin very impe meable covers, particulstes from the tailings pile to air tailings. In other cases, existmg tailings such as plastic sheets is unhkely, even or to surface water. Similarly, pe meable piles may release essentially no over a period as shart as several covers sufficiently thick for effective contaminants to ground water b.ecause decades, given the chemical and radon control will also absorb gamma the type of soil they rest on acts as an physical stresses present et piles. radiation effective!y (r !though thin effective liner. We have discussed the The most likely constituents of co er impermeable covers will not). range of possible costs for cleanup of for disposal of tailings are locally Two methods may be considered for ground water in the IT.IS and RIA. In available earthen materials. The protecting ground water at new tailings practice, we expect most tailings piles effectiveness of an earthen cover as a piles. The first is the placement of a will fell somewt:ere between these two barrier to radon depends most s: angly physia! barner, called a liner, between rstrsnes. I.eu expeve corrective on its moisture content. Typical cwy the tailings and the aquifer one, to action then a new hner may be soiis in the uranium culling regions of prevent water containing hazardous suffic:ent to sansfy ground water the West exhibit ambient moisture constituents from entering the aquifer. standards for hazardous constituents at contents of 9 percent to 12 percent. For Either clay or plastic liners can be many sites. Fw example, an active nonclay soils ambient moisture contents installed at about the same cost. Both water management program may be range from 6 percent to 10 percent. The have shortcomings. Plastic liners are employed to reduce the quantity of exact value depends upon the matenal impermeable. but may be subject to water m the tailings and thus reduce the involved, and on local climatic rupture th*ough poor installation or driving force for ground water conditions. The following table provides uneven loading. Clay liners are contamination, or back pumping of an example of the changes in cover permeable to some constituents, and water around the piles may prevent thicknesses that might be required to may require use of additional measures, losses to the surrounding ground 8

reduce radon emission to 20 pCi/m s for such as partial neutralization of the environment. Actions such as these are the above ranges of soil moisture. Four tailings, especially at acid teach mills, to already being taken at certain sites examples of tailings are shown that satisfactorily protect ground water, but (Cotter Mill. Canon City. CO, and cover the probable extreme values of are expected to retain their effectiveness Homestake Mill. Grants. NM. for radon emission from bare tailings (100 to for long periods of time. The second example).

1000 pCi/m*s): the most common value method is treatment of process water to Control of possible long-term low-for old tailings is approximately 500 modify its acidity or alkalinity, if such pCi/m8 s. and for new tailings is level contamination of ground water treatment were shown to prevent may sometimes be difficult. In cases approximately 300 pCi/m8s.

contamination. At a neutrallevel many where intrusion of contamination into EsTwATED COVER THicxNESS* (iN METERS) llazardous Constituents of tailings ground or surface water is a potentially To hEve 20 h*s.. hquids become insoluble and thus not significant problem. liners and caps may

__ available to contaminate ground water, provide a good degree of protection for p.e.ii n

,. cm.

• However. not all hazardous constituents at least many decades. Ilowever, more

"**" *W,,*g" "*9' .

are so affected, and the action of permanent protection may,in such e

e i io } it rainwater, certasa weathering processes, cases, require choice of(for new and mineralization of the soil or rock tailings) or removal to (for existing

$ M M U matrix can upset this neutralization over tailings) a site with more favorable soo

"" l.

se as-32 2o 2*

is time, thereby releasing contaminants.

ia hydrological geochemical. or ,

There is littie difference in costs for meteorological characteristics.  !

w com m. these two methods. Liners (either clay or

" Very effective long-term inhibition of l Z**.", j,"*jZ,G,, 7ic synthetic) are currently required by NRC misuse by man, as well as of releases to huungen san ==.f,"c",,*,",",,",,0l"c'g; n, ,a,, am

, as a matter of good engineering practice air and surface water, could be achieved a.m m , . e . for most new taihngs impoundments.

• by burying tailings in deep mined

,",.",,",',',."",",,,$,*,***O"",,**J'*,'o',',", O epa does not believe it is cavities. In this case, however, direct g

a 'g, gg a,,;*g=*g= = = <=oecw- environmentally desirable to require all contact with ground water would be riew wastes at existing sites to be difficult to avoid. The potential hazards These values are for homogeneous placed on new piles because new piles of tailings could also be reduced by covers, and assume the tailings have the would increase raden emissions, at least chemically processing them to remove same moisture content as the cover. In until the pre-existing pile is covered, and contaminants. Such processes have practice, somewhat thicker covers would permanently contaminate more limited efficiencies, however. so the would be required to provide long. term land. Satisfying ground water standards residual tailings would still require some assurance of satisfying any particular at existing tailings sites that do not have control. Furthermore, the extracted level of control. Some of the factors that liners, however, will require widely substances (e.g., radium and thorium) must be considered for predicting long- . varying actions from site to site. would be concentrated. and would term performance are moisture content Neutralization of existmg tailings is not themselves require careful control.

. 45932 Federal Register / Vol. 48. No.196 / Friday. October 7,1983 / Rules and Regulations We analyzed the practicality of a comparable regulations. We note that number of possible control methods. Act for existing and new sources in a the NRC regulations specified design These are desenbed in the FEIS and the number of ore mining and dressing objectives that is, the values specified subcategories. Out of 27 mills in the RIA. The total cost of disposal by were to be achieved based on average uranium, radium and vanadium ores surface or shallow burialis affected performance: whereas these EPA rules most strongly by the type of material spectfy standards, which designers must subcategory existing at that time, only used to stabilizer the surface of the one was discharging directly to surface plan not to exceed, with a reasonable trailings against erosion and to inhibit water. In view of this, the regulations misuse by man, and by the water degree of assurance. The NRC has noted did not establish best available that any changes necessary will be protection features required. Total costs techno!ogy (BAT) limitations for existing made when these EPA standards are sources in this subcategory. The one tre less sensitive to the amount of cover promulgated. and has already required to inhibit radon release. In uranium mill directly discharging suspended those portions ofits general, costs of covers using man-made effluents is currently regulated by a materials (e.g., asphalt) are somewhat regulations which are affected by these discharge permit in accordance with higher than costs for earthen covers, and standards (48 FR 35350; August 4,1983). p eviously existing best practicable the reliability is lower. Active control Under the Agreement State program, control technology (BFT) effluent m:asures are usually less costly in the States can issue licenses for uranium limitations contained in 40 CFR Part 440.

short term than are passive measures, processing activities, including control The new source performance standards and disposal of by-product materials. (40 CFR 440.34(b)) were based upon the but are considered much less reliable in th2 long term. Deep burial of tailings The NRC has enumerated in 10 CFR Part demonstration of no discharge to piles or use of chemical processing to 150 the authorities reserved to it in its surface waters at the 26 other mills.

relations with Agreement States under. These standards apply to locations extract radium are much more costl Y the provisions of UMTRCA. and has where the annual evapotranspiration thin for surface or shallow burial (below grade) disposal using covers, and specified conditions under which rate exceeds the annual precipitation th2 practicality is not demonstrated, Agreement States may issue licenses rate (as is the case in most uranium under UMTRCA (45 FR 65521). NRC's milling areas D. Environmenta/ Standards and conditions include the specification that of process wa),ste water to surfaceand requi Guidance Now Applicable to Uranium State licenses must ensure compliance Tailings waters from mills using de acid leach.

with EPA's standards. Some Agreement alkaline leach, or combined acid and

" *. tab 8 States can adopt more stringent rules alkaline teach process for the extraction C3 8"[' , [*,s i ea , than those adopted and enforced by the of uranium. For locations where there is subject of governmental regulation and NRC including requirements that are more precipitation than h:s taken into account, where relevant. m re stringent than EPA's standards. evapotranspiration process waste water the existing schemes and levels of EPA promulgated 40 CFR Part 200 et can be discharged up to the difference protection in developmg these seq., " Standards for Owners and between annual precipitation and st:ndards. Operators of Hazardous Waste evapotranspiration.

EPA promulgated to CFR Part 190. Treatment. Storage, and Disposal Solution extraction, or "in situ"

" Environmental Radiation Protection Facilities." under Subtitle C of the Solid mir.mg. is a processing method in which Strndards for Uranium Fuel Cycle Waste Disposal Act. as amended on July uranium is recovered from ore without Operations." on January 13,1977 (42 FR 28,1982 (47 FR 32274). Although moving or disturbing the ore body. In 2858). These c!andards specify the upper radioactive materials controlled under limits of radiation doses to members of the Atomic Energy Act of1954. as this method holes are drilled at selected the general public to which normal points around an ore body and a solvent amended, are not covered by the is pumped into some holes and the operations of the uranium fuel cycle SWDA. UMTRCA requires that the must conform. They cover radiation resulting solution out other holes. The standards proposed herein provide for solvent passes through the ore, dissolves doses due to all environmental releases protection of human health and the the uranium, and carries it back to the of uranium by-product materials during environment from nonradioactive tha period a milling site is licensed, with hazards in a manner consistent with surface. The uranium is then stripped the cxception of emissions of radon gas from the solution and concentrated.The and its decay products. applicable standards promulgated under solvent, which is stored in holding The Nuclear Regulatory Commission Subtitle C of the SWDA.The Act also ponds, can be treated and reused or promulgated rules in 10 CFR Part 40 on requires the NRC to ensure conformance discarded. Although this method to "* *

• general requirements produces no sandy tailings,it does Oct ber 3.1980, which specify licensing requirements for uranium and thorium established by the Commission, with the produce sludges that contain many of concurrence of the Administrator, which the same radioactive and milling activities, including trailings and are, to the maximum extent practicable, w:st:s generated from these activities at least comparable to requirements nonradioactive substances found in (45 FR 65521). These rules specify tailings piles. Consequently, the above-applicable to the possession, transfer, ground wastes from in situ mining are technical, surety, ownership, and long. and disposal of similar hazardous term care enteria for the management covered in these proposed standards.

and final disposition of by-product material under (Subtitle C of SWDA)." We note that because in situ mining and EPA promulgated 40 CFR Part 440, conventional milling currently are done mrt: rials. Some of these rules are " Ore Mining and Dressing Point Source affected by these standards. For in the same regions of the country, Category: Effluent Limitations ex:mple, they specified a design disposal of sludges on tailings piles may Guidelines and New Source often be arranged, objective of 2 pCi/M's and a longevity of grea ter than 1000 years for disposal of Performance Standards. Subpart C- Rules for protection of ground water trilings. Due to congressional actions. Uranium Radium and Vanadium Ores from the underground operations ofin thIse regulations have never been Subcategory." on December 3.1983 (47 situ mining are provided by the l

FR 54598). The purpose of 40 CFR Part l enf;rced by NRC, although some Underground Injection Control program Agreement States have enforc=d 440 is to establish effluent limitations promulgated under Sections 1421 and and standards under the Clean Water 1422 of the Safe Drinking Water Act.

~

Federal Register / Vol. 48. No.196 / Friday. October 7,1983 / Rules and Regulations 45933 ne associated regulations. 40 CFR Parts environmental and economic costs and comply with the requirements of this 144.145. and 146 impose administrative benefits in a way that assures adequate rule regarding ground water protection, and technical requirements on such protection of the public health. safety, essentially all radon emissions will be operations. through either approved and the environment:(2) can be from existing piles, which have an State programs or EPA-implemented implemented using presently available average area of'about 70 hectares. as programs.These regulations are not techniques and measuring instruments: shown in the FEIS. In addition. radon latended to apply to the underground and (3) are reasonable in terms of may be emitted from on-site areas ore bodies depleted by in situ uranium overall costs and benefits. contaminated by windblown tailings.

mining operations. The legislative record shows that We conclude the area of piles has been in addition to these rules established Congress intended that EPA set general overestimated at most by a factor of under UMTRCA. EPA is required to standards and not specify any particular 1.16.

establish emission standards under the method of control. "The EPA standards and criteria should not inter ect any The emission rate of radon per unit

. Clean Air Act (CAA) for hazardous air pollutants. Although there are no final cetailed or site-specific requ[irements for area of taihngs is directly related to th activity of radium-226 in tailings.

stalidards for air emissions applicable to management, technology or engineering Several factors which are not well mill tailings piles, a proposed rule for methods (H.R. Rep. No. 1480. 95th Cong 2nd Sess Pt. I. P.17.) UMTRCA understood influence this emission rate.

radionuclides has been published in the Federal Register (48 FR 15076) on April gives the NRC and the Agreement States In the report cited above. the NRC 6.1983.The relationship of the Clean Air the responsibility to deciae what concluded:"Considering the variation Act ohhis rule is discussed in more methods will assure these standards are observed under differing conditions at a satisfied at specific sites. [Hcwever. number of sites, the staff has elected to detaillaterin this pteamble- apply conservative specific flux values Finally, radiation protection guidance EPA must concur with NRC regulations established to implement Section 82a[3] of 04 [pCi of radond22 per square to Federal agencies for the conduct cf their radiation protection activities was f ISURCA.) Herefore, our analyses of meter.second/pCi of radium-228 per risk. control methods, costa, and other gram of tadingsj for wet tailings and 1.0 issued by the President on May 13.1960 peninent factors emphasize the general for dry taihngs and ta count moist and published on May 18.1960 (25 FR characteristics of uranium mill tailings tailings as dry in making the 4402). Federal Radiation Protection caiculations. EPA agrees with this ,

Guidance 8overns. the rep 2lation of and the affected sites.

radioactive matenals by the NRC and conclusion and believes no correc: ion IV. Resolution of Major Issues Raised in which assumes that some tailings are Agreement States, agncludes the Public Comments permanently wet is appropriate for this followmg guidance: every effort should be made to encourage the A.The Basis foe the Standards factor.

maintenance of radiation doses as far 1. Health Risk Models Regarding transport models.

below {the Federal Radiation Protection measurements are consistent wie se Several emunenters expressed the transport and dispersion models we Guides) as practicable * * *" and "There g view that the models used by EPA used. This is discusse<l in detail in the cceptab e el o ou without verestimate health risks from breathing FEIS.The method used by EPA has been xpo . t s ould 8ene 1 pract ce A un e est ated th nsk or es i ationI r ears n , th example. the American Mining Congress to reduce exposure to radiation. and " ' ts of *" * *rt positive effort should be carried out to ( AMC) stated that " EPA has assessing atmospheric transport of <

systematically overestimated the factors fulfill the sense of [this Guidance}. It is which determine potential health effects basic that exposure to radiation should fro n mill tailings. In the aggregate. thesc result from a real determination ofits overestimates combine to yield an

.ena n. a given g d local wind necessity." nis guidance is currently sma Accura y se usual overestimate factor of about 60." These annual average concentration is about a known as the "as low as reasonably 88 8 echievable" (ALARA) principle. It is 811'8'd f8 factor of 2." Furthermore, these 1 particularly suited to minimizing dispersion estimates are based on an radiation exposure under conditions ,,,,,,,,,,,,,n,,,,,,, ,, empirical approach that is inherently ,

that vary greatly from site to site, or a.smeno.,wwas , __ _ ,a unbiased and that should therefore be j ame.*

from time to time, and is an integral part [ganana p, ,, as likely to overpredict as to of NRC and Agreement State licensing a. ce uno cane., to underpredict.

determinations. No*

• aa" " ,e = u"**=a It should be noted that we are not The standards published here will modeling background concentrations of supplement the above standards. The total radon emitted from tailings radon. While it may be experimentally guidance, and regulations in order to is approximately proportional to the difficult to demonstrate the increment satisfy the purposes of UMTRCA to "*

• surface area covered by tailings. EPA l above background due to a tailings pile

• stabilize and control * *

• tailings in a used the same area that NRC used in its at distances greater than I km. there is safe and environmentally sound manner FGEIS. 80 hectares, to estimate radon no reason to believe that the basic <

and to minimize or eliminate radiation emissions.ne AMC prefers 50 hectares, physical principle of conservation of l health hazards to the public." and points out that NRC (in NUREG- mass does not continue to be valid. 1 UMTRACA does not provide specific 0757. Feb.1961) later revised its estimate Once released to the atmosphere, radon. I criteria to be used in determining that to 50 hectares. However current which is a chemically inert gas, these purposes have been satisfied. projections of uranium production dispersus freely until it is removed by EPA's objective, when not preempted by indicate that very few new mills or piles, radioactive decay. We conclude that our other statutory requirements. has been if any, will start up between now and dispersion estimates provide a .

I to propose standards that:(1) Take the late 1990's.Thus unless a significant reasonable basis for calculating ,

account of health, safety, and - number of existing piles are unable to atmospheric concentrations of redon.

I 1

45934 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No.196 / Friday, October 7,1983 / Rules and Regulations nere appears to be a misconception " Final Generic Environmental Impact example, they would compare the 6 tung about the conditions to which EPA's Statement on Uranium Milling"(FGEIS). cancers per year that EPA estimates assumption of a 0.7 equilibrium fraction The second population, identified as for (see FEIS) could result from for radon decay products applies. (The a " rural" site. is that for the Edgemont, uncontrolled tailings piles after the year

" equilibrium fraction" expresses the S.D. site, and is bru,ed on 1970 census 2000 with; the 21.000 such cancers a amount of radon decay products data. We assumed that a mix of six commenter estimated as caused actually present relative tc the " rural" and 17 " remote" sites would annually by background radiation:

maximum theoretically possible. This properly represent the 23 sites modeled deaths from motor vehicle ac.:idents fraction is important sinct the health in the DEIS. We have just received the (50.000 per year) and home accidents risk is primanly due to radon decay results of a 1983 population survey for (25.000); tornadoes (130); etc. Based on products, not to radon itself.) Most of all 52 mill tailings sites performed for us such comparisons, these commenters the data cited by commenters to support by Battelle Pacific Northwest concluded that the risks from radon a lower equilibnum fraction are for I.aboratories. His survey, which was emitted from tailings are not situations in which the source of radon limited to individuals within 5 km of the significant.and that EPA's standard is diffusion into houses from underlying piles, shows that the total population at should not limit such emissions.

soil. In this situation the initial decay the 28 active sites was 2054 within 2 EPA believes these comparisons are product equilibrium fraction is :ero. For kilometers of all active tailings piles. misdirected and do not address a the airborne radon from tailings piles and 14.737 wPhin 5 kilometers. central purpose of the legislation that considered in EPA's estimates, the We have ie-evaluated the local and requires this rulemaking, which is to decay product equilibrium fraction in regional health risk based upon this re-

~ *

• make every reasonable effort outdoor air approaches 1.0. beyond the survey of current populations within 5 to * *

• prevent or mmimize radon vicinity of a pile. After taking into cccount periods of time an individual km and from populations 1970 80 km on results diffusion 5 to census fo[the into the 26 * *

• from * *

• tailings."

spends indoors and outdoors penods of active sites. The re-evaluat:on show a environmcnt time a house is well-ventilated by small decrease in calculated local EPA recosmzes that radiation background and other common hazards outdoor air. and the fate of radon and effects. and'an increase of equal size in calculated regional effects. (Our cause far greater total annual harm than decay products in outdoor air when it infiltrates a house, we conclude use of estimates of risk to more distant anyone would reasonably estimate populations,i.e to the remainder of the might occur from uncontrolled radon an avertge value of a.7 for the effective equilibrium fraction for exposure of Unite emissions from tailings. However, these people to airborne radon from pdes is data m,d States, are unaffected.) Theseother risks are not the subject of this dicate that our amtial estimate of appropriate for distances far from total health effects to populations is rulemaking. Comparisons of the type tailings piles. This value is therefore suggested may be useful for setting correct. (We note that we have assumed pnorities for efforts to reduce the retained for calculations of totalimpact that there will be no increases of populations at these sites over the next variety of hazards to public health (to of radon releases from piles. Very close 1000 years, a clearly nonconservative the extent that they are avoidable) but ta tailings piles. however, the decay they are not useful for deciding the product equilibrium factor in outdoor air assumpdon.)

is low. We conclude, therefore, after in summary, we do not believe the appropriate level of control for a specific taking the same indoor / outdoor factors ' ta es e sn e S haa source of hazard. That decision must be b- d ate ,9f bout based upon the specifica peculiar to the mto account. that an average effective decay product equilibrium fraction 1.16 due to a slightly different average hazard under consideration. The a is y 8 existence of other hazards does not.

about one-half as large is probably more (le a ej9n e ses absent Congressional direction. justify appropriate next to pdes. This lower value should be applied to estimates of accounted for in our estimates) within UA's delaymg these standards until all the first few decades of the lifetime of ther centrollable hazards are the maximum individual risk next t pdes. the hazard posed by these tailings. The addressed, or justify EPA's ignoring estimate of maximum individual risk for Congress will that standards be set.

The EPA estimate oflung cancer risk a model pile is affected principally by The fact that the health impact of from radon decay products is based on our assumption for the equilibrium radings is in large part attributable to studies of uranium and other heavy small radiation doses delivered to large m;tal miners. is consistent with the fraction for radon daughters and should be reduced by about a factor of two. We numbers of people over long periods of most recent recommendations of the believe this change is insufficient to time was recognized when UMTRCA I

I NAS BEIR Committee (1980), and is within 70 percent of the value warrant changing our basic conclusions was enacted. The then Chairman of the recommended for use in a recent, regarding the nsk from tailings. NRC testified as follows:"The health

2. Significance of Risk from Radon effects of this radon production are tiny exhaustive study conducted in Canada as applied to any one generation, but the for their Atomic Energy Control Board Emitted by Tailings Piles sum of these exposures can be made (1982). We have noted our difficulties Several commenters argued that EPA large by counting far into the future.

with the assumptions which underlie has not demonstrated that the risks large enough in fact to be the dominant other estimates cited by commenters in associated with radon emissions from radiation exposure from the nuclear fuel our detailed responses to comments in tailings are significant, and observed cycle. Whether it is meaningful to attach th2 FEIS. We conclude the EPA value i that much of the health impact sigmficance to radiation exposures I should be used in the absence of any attributed to tailings accrues to very thousands of years in the future, or convincing evidence that another value large numbers of people at very low conversely, whether it is justifiable to is more appropriate. levels of individual risk. They suggested ignore them, are questions without easy EPA used two regional populations for that the proper test of significance is to ans wers. The most satisfactory its risk estimates; the first population, compare such risks with common approach is to require every reasonable identified as for a " remote" site. was hazards. such as the risk from the effort to dispose of tailings in a way that hypothetical, and was tagen from NRC's natural background radiation. For minimizes radon diffusion into the

Federal Register / Vol. 48. No.196 / Friday. October 7,1983 / Rules and Regulations 45935 a tmosphere." (H.R. Rep. No. 1480.95th inactive mill sites. Of the 52 sites populat'oas). a considerable degree of Cone. 2nd Sess., Pt. II, p. 25.) We have sveveyed, only 7 had no people living protection against misuse, and a concluded that maximum individual within 5 kilcmeters (3 miles). Another 6 sigadicat part of the inticipated total lifetime risk (estimated as 2 in 100) and sites had to or fewer people living term of e:fective protection from all the lorig-term cumulative impact on within 5 kilometers. Collectively, hazards, due to the greatly reduced populations (potentially many tens of however, the mill sites have a normally thickness of the cover. We have thousands of deaths over the long term) distributed continuous range of local cenced. Werefore, indcpendent of due to radon (missions from tailin<;s are populations. and it is not poss:ble to o;her cc. sMerations, that when costs for c!early significant enoagh to justify distinguish a special set of sites. The institu:! anal control .ind compliance controls. As discussed in the FEIS RIA. definition of a remote site is therefore with SWDA closure are added and the and,a later section of this Preamble. cur diff; cult to achieve, unless it is done net saving i: applied to only those sites anazysis shows that t.:ilinas can, at a arbitrarily, in addition, demographers that in.ght be defmed as " remote", the reasonable cost. be disposed ofin a have concluded that it is not possible to potential total cost saved is not manner that provides, amor g other determine that a population ut a specific sigmficant enough in comparisorr to the benef;ts. greatly reduced radon location will remain low in the future, if benefits foregone to justify separate emissions. it is low now. Therefore, a choice of two standards.

3. Standards Based on Current dificrent standards implies a need for Finally, with regcrd to the Agency's Populations institutional oversight of future legal authorization to establish a population shifts and for having to se,arate level of protection at remote During the review of the standards for upgrade the disposal at those sites that sites by issuing two sets of standards, the mactive sites by certam Federal agencies, questions were raised t ml srace cnterion of " remoteness? L" trFCA r!early contemplates that Fn umably, the State or Federal inese standarcs be adequate for the lang regarding the appropriateness of the custodian would be responsible not the term and that they shieve the benefits control standards for general original owner. of radon control. Regarding those objectives, we are aware of no site that we sg ted hat Ns estnc i e .The motivation for conside mg is umnhabited and can also reasonably standards might be appropriate for sites re and standards at " remote" sites is to that are in currently sparsely-populated reduce the cost of disposal. Our analysis be assumed will remain uninhabited.

areas. Other reviewers suggested that shows that any potential cost saving nor are we aware et any scientific basis we consider a radon standard that fr m less restnctive standards at such for concluding that there is no impact on applies at and beyond the fenced sites is not commensurate with the loss national populations due to radon boundary of such a site. Le., a standard f benefits. In a later section we report emissions from remote sites. We that relies in part on dispersion and the costs for several relaxed radon conclude. therefore that relaxed institutional maintenance of control over standards.These results show, for the standards for " remote" sites are not access. EPA requested public comments case of no radon emission limit (case feasible on demographic grounds are C1) and with no provision for the added not defensible on legal grounds. and are on these issues for the inactive sites (48 FR 605 January 5.1983). These issues c sts of mstitutional centrol through not attractive. in any case, on the basis

- are most simply stated as:(1) Should the fencing. land-use control, and land of cost. effectively achieving the varioits degree of radon control after disposal acquisition (to avoid unacceptably high public health and environmental goals depend in part on the size of the current individual doses to nearby residents), of this rulemaking.

local population. and (2) Should and with no provision for increased

4. Passive vs. Institutional Controls implementation of the disposal costs to meet closure requirements standards be permitted to depend under SWDA (discussed beiow). that 40 As noted above. EPA also requested primarily or in part on maintenance of percent of the cost of disposal at the comments on whether a radon limit institutional control of access (e.g., by level required by these standards (case applied at the boundary ("fenceline") of fences)? We also specifically requested C3) would be potentially recoverable. the Government. owned property around comments on these issues in the April We have examined the added costs a tailings pile. i.e., a " dispersion" 29.1983 notice of proposed rulemaking required for institutional control and

• standard. would be an appropriate form for active mills. conclude that they may vary from about of standard for the sites with low nearby Most commenters who addressed the 10 to 50 percent of these potentially populations. (Such consideration could first of these issues opposed different recoverable costs, depending mostly on also apply to some more populated standards at remote sites (although most the cost of land acquisition at specific sites.) Such a dispersion standard could industry comments favored less sites. Costs for conformance to RCRA be satisfied largely by institutional restrictive standards for all sites). Many closure requirements for a cap under methods. i.e, by acquiring and raised the " equity" con:ideration, i.e.. I 264.228(a)(2)(iii)(E) range from about maintaining control over land. The the fairness of protecting a few people 50 to 140 percent of these potentially proposed disposal standard. by less just because o! ahere they live. recoverable costs. depending upon comparison, would require generally Others commented snat many of these whether or not the pile has an mere cnstly physical methods (such as sites are locations where people are impermeable liner under it or not. (This applying thick earthen covers) that unlikely to live, or, conversely, that the SWDA requirement was excepted under directly control the tailings and their sizes of populations in the future are not the proposed standards, on the basis emissions with minimal reliance ca predictable and cited examples of recent that it would interfere with the moisture institutional methods (i.e.. It is a changes. Finally, commenters who required for radon control.This basis " control" standard). EPA also requested addressed the issue of whether EPA is would no longer exist in the absence of comments on the adequacy of such a authorized to set different standards a radon limit.) Any savings through radon "fenceline" standard to meet the based on " remoteness" denied that the deletion of radon control would be objectives of the UMTRCA.

Agency has such authority. achieved by forgoing approximately Comments on this issue ranged from in 1983 EPA counted the num.ber of one-half of the annual benefit (the entire strong support of primary reliance on people living close to all the active and impact on nonregional national passive stabilization for periods greater

/

45936 Federal Register / Vol. 48. No.196 / Friday. October 7.1983 / Rules and Regulations than 1.000 years to protection for only a ownership of tlie sites is assumed to B. DisposalStandards few decades wih primary reliance on preclude such inappropriate uses.

institutional controls. A majority of 1. Design Requirements for Long-Term

5. Control of Radon Releases Dunng protection commenters recommended retaining hilling Operations primary reliance on passive control Comments on this issue were greatly rather than on institutional control. The proposed rule anticipated that the divergent. Some commenters believed Those that favored use of institutional regulatory agency apply the "as low as controls should be required to last for control (principally of misuse and reasonably achievable" (ALARA) thousands of years while others thought ma ximum individual exposure) argued pnnciple of Federal Radiation Protection a few decades would be adequate.

for limiting public access through use of Guidance in establishing management Comments from experts in the fields of fences and administrative control of pr cedures and regulations to control civil engineering and geomorphology land use. nose opposed cited the lack radon from operating mills. This were useful in resolving this issue.

of reliability of such control, especially approach was proposed because EPA Standard design practice for through use of fences in remote areas of concluded that a numerical standard to structures that, should they fail, could the western United States. control radon was inappropriate for. lead to loss oflife or significant -

application during operations. This is destruction of property is based on the EPA considers that protection from because practical methods for reducing the long, term hazards associated with likelihood that a sufficiently disruptive radon emissions during operations of event (e.g., a flood or hurricane) might radioactive waste should primanly rely existing mills and piles vary in on passive control methods. We note. in occur within a specified time. For effectiveness with time:it is very example, a bridge may be designed to this regard. the mtent of Congress as stated in the congressional report difficult to measure, quantitatively, their withstand all disruptive events that efficacy; and different methods are accompanymg UhtTRCA: "The appropriate for different sites. The have more than 1 chance in 100 of committee believes that uranium mill occurring within, say. 50 years.

pnmary means for controlling radon tailings should be treated in accordance emissions from existing tailmg piles Commenters noted that rushing water with the substantial hazard they will during operations are to keep the caused by very high rainfall events present untillong after existing tailings as wet as possibile or to use might damage or destroy a tailings institutions can be expected to last in phased disposal containment system that lies in its path their present forms. ' In addition, as Some commenters indicated that the (floods that merely cover or wet a pile noted in the proceeding section, the provisions of the proposed rule were are not as significant). Therefore, they costs ofland acquisition to hmit inadequate to assure that the pubhc sugges.ted, the disposal method should maximum individual exposures can would be protected. They argued that be designed to withstand any such easily negate a significant fraction of EPA has the responsibility under both ra potential savings through use of thinner UhrmCA and the Clean Air Act t n kelihoo of oc gd g he

~

covers. However, institutional controls provide suitable health protection to all peri &r whi6 contro1is to be can play a useful secondary role in members of the public.ney suggested . reasonably assured. Expert supplementing passive controls and in that requiring certain work practices or Hoods greate emnmenje; noted ,, , gg assuring dunng the early period of tailings management practices would 8" Y ,

disposal, that passive controls are provide greater public health protection example. as they are generally defined, adequate to achieve their design than the provisions of the proposed rule. have a high likelihood of occurring objectives' For example, they note that " staged" or within 1000 years. nus, in order to

" phased" disposal of tailings and good provide reasonable assurance that a pile Section 202 of the Uhf1'RCA requires will withstand all floods that have more water management practices could be the Federal Government or the States to than some small chance of occurnng acquire and retam control of these effective and reasonable.

EPA will consider further the within 1000 years, the control system tailings disposal sites under licenses. must be designed to withstand much feasibility and practicality of providing The licensor is authonzed to require greater assurance that radon releases rarer events, such as a " probable performance of any maintenance, maximum flood." In practice, they will be minimized during milling monitoring, and emergency measures operations than would the proposed suggested, adequately protecting piles that are needed to protect public health rule. The Agency has not sufficiently for even a few hundred years requires and safety. We believe that these analyzed work practice and tailings designing control systems to withstand institutional provisions are essential to management techniques to determine all events that are likely to occur within support any project whose objective is whether they are suitable for this thousands of years. Furthermore. the as long-term as are these disposal purpose and which alternatives are best. maximum rainfall that might be operations, and for which we have as Therefore, the Agency will publish an expected to occur within thousands of little expenence.This does not mean we Advance Notice of Proposed years is very nearly the maximum believe that pnmary reliance should be Rulemaking under the Clean Air Act for possible rainfall. Therefore, in practice, placed on institutional controls: rather. condideration of the control of radon the system would have to be designed that institutional oversight is an emission from uranium tailings piles for approximately the same (i.e.,

essential backup to passive control. For 'during the operational beriod of a maximum) rainfall whether the control example, as long as the Federal uranium mill. The ANpR will enable the period is 200 years or 1000 years.

Government or the States exercise their Agency to gather information on the As discussed above, we believe ownership rights and other authorities feasibility, effectiveness, and cost of protection for only a short period (a few regarding these sites, they should not be various alternatives that would control decades) is inconsistent with the intent inappropnately used by people. In this radon releases from operating mills. of Congress. Some commenters argued regard. even with the disposal actions This will eitable EPA to be better for periods longer than 1000 years. We required by these standards it would not informed when judging whether believe that the specification of a design be safe to build habitable structures on standards are needed, and.if so, the period of 1000 years will achieve the the disposal sites. Federal or State most suitable requirements. objectives of these commenters, while at L-

• ^

Federal Register / Vol. 48. No.196 / Frid:y. October 7.1983 / Rules and Regulttions 45937 -

the same time giving engineers who particulates. Therefore, the only higher levels, and the hkelihood that must carry out these standards a design quantitative estimates of effects control to a level of 20 pCf/m% is criterion reasonable to assess. We note discussed are those for radon emissions. reasonably achievable.

that commenters did not identify any We believe, however, that effects from The risk to people who live specific design features that would flow misuse or water contamination could be permanently very close to tailings piles from a greater than 1004 year criterion comparable to those from radon can still be relatively high. up to 1 in that would not already be required to emissions iflong-term protection is not 1000 for lifetime residency, for a limit of satisfy a 1000-year requirement. afforded. 20 pCi/mi. However, the practicability Based on these considerations we The primary concern of commenters of providing more radon control by conclude that the time over which who thought the proposed radon requiring design for lower levels of protection should be provided should be emission standard was too lax was the emission falls rapidly below 20 pCi/m%.

specified as proposed. risk to nearby individuals. The We note that no pile has ever been A closely related matter is the degree estimated added lifetime risk of fatal protected by such a cover; that is, covers of assurance with which controls can be lung cancer for someone living 600 with defined levels of control and designed to meet the longevity meters from the center of a model pile is longevity are undemonstrated requirement. Some failure modes can be 1in 1000 due to radon from a tailings technology. The design of covers to meet well quantified (e.g., performance of pile emitting radon at the level of 20 a specific radon emission limit at these dikes etc.) and others may not be as pCi/mS. if the coveris designed to just low levels must be based on well characterized (e.g., aging achieve that emission level without measurements of properties oflocal characteristics of rock used to stabilize employing additional control to provide covering materials and prediction of slopes). We recogmze that, in some reasonable assurance of achieving it for local parameters. such as soil and cases, it may therefore be difficult to 1000 years.

ta lings moisture, over the long term.

certify conformance m all respects to a Commenters who thought the 1000-year requirement for longevity of proposed radon emission standard is too Because of uncertainties in measuring and predicting these parameters, the control. For this reason we have strict contended that the cost of compliance would be too high. in view uncertainty of performance of soil retamed the flexibility of the proposed rule to certify for shorter periods (but in of the small contribution radon from co e nc s s rap di th no case less than 200 years). We leave tailings makes to a population s total ey , e9n equi ed increases. Thus, in t!.e case of lower the matter of fully defining what exposure to atmospheric radon. They constitutes " reasonable assurance" to also generally believed EPA had be I'je3y,th

, p mary co , ssuto ,

the implementing governmental overestimated the health effects from agencies, but expect that standard radon. We have addressed this last sta a for,x}uch leve s . d e_

s e e , , me s ticably e eering (design) cnteria will be used concern in an earlier section of this to ' 't the probabihty of failure over notice. information available re8ard5'8the the required longevit" period to a value Selectmg a limit for radon emission practicality of reduction of radon consistent with other design situations from tailings involves four public health emissions to levels approaching where public health and safety are objectives. in addition to reducing background. Tests conducted at a pile in important concerns. health effects from radon released Grand Junction. Colorado, showed that directly from the pile. These may all be test plots of 3-meter thick covers made

2. Radon Emission I.imit from four different earthen combinations achieved by using a thick earthen cover, Quantitative estimates of health which serves to inhibit misuse of reduced radon emissions to values effects from tailings can reasonably be tailings to stabilize taihnen against ranging from 1.0 + 1.1 to 18.3 + 25.2 pCil made for radon emissions and erosion and contaminatio"n of land and m%.The efficiencies of these covers windblown particulates. Health effects water. to muumize gamma exposure, ranged from 88.8 percent to 99.7 percent.

from misuse of tailings and water and to avoid contamination of ground These results apply to the first two contamination cannot be quantified water from tailings. A radon emission years after emplacement, and do not becaure of the extremely high degree cf limit of 20 pC1/m% or less would requirs reflect performance after long-term uncertainty associated with the use of a sufficiently thick earthen cover moisture equilibrium is achieved (some likelihood and extent to which misuse to achieve all of these objectives. A limit moisture contents were still and contamination might occur and the of 60 pCi/m% or greater could be considerably elevated over prevailing consequent degree to which people will satisfied in many cases by a cover too levels). We believe results like these can consequently be exposed to radiation thin to effectively inhibit misuse. Such a generally be expected. because the and toxic substances. (For example. cover would also permit higher radon control characteristics of earthen tailings used as fillin unoccupied areas individual risks (up to 3 in 108) and materials used for covers will vary from would not result in direct human would leave 20 percent of the potential site to site.Three of the four covers exposure. Using tailings as fill for health Impact on populations studied satisfied 20 pC1/m% with a residential buildings carries a high uncontrolled. Our analysis shows that a reasonable degree of certainty over the probability of very significantly limit of 20 pCl/m% is also cost-effective term of the test.The other cover elevating rad $ tion exposure and risk. for eliminating most (95%) health effects (18.3 + 25.2 pCi/m2s) was uncompacted The degree to which people might be in regional and national populations and its poor performance can therefore exposed to contaminants from tailings from radon released directly from the be dispounted. Exactly how much through waterborne pathways is subject pile. Such a limit would also reduce thicker these covers would need to be to to similarly high uncertainties.) maximum individual risks to residents reliably achieve a lower limit (e.g 6 or 2 The likelihood of health effects from near tailings piles to less than one in pCi/m%)is not known. Experts exposure to radon and its decay 1000. We concluded that levels higher commented during hearings on the products is, considerably greater than than 20 pCi/m% are not justified. based standards that, although covers can be from particulates, even when external on the cost-effectiveness of reduction of designed to meet such levels as 20 pCi/

radiation and food chain contnbutions cancer deaths in populations, the high m%. estimation models are not reliable are included in the estimates for maximum individual risks involved at at significantly lower emission levels.

l l

45938 Federal Register / Vol. 48. No.196 / Friday October 7,1983 / Rules and Regulations We concluded that achieving revising these standards if subsequent roots are to be averaged over, since it is 1

i conformance with a radon emission technical and economic information the net radon from the entire tailings I standard that is signihcantly below :0 shows modifications are warranted. pile that is of significance to health.

pCi/m5 (6 or 2 pCi/m2s. for example) The standard requires that disposal be Second. the averaging is specified to clearly would require designers to deal designed to provide " reasonable apply over a time period of at least one with unreasonably great uncertainty for assurance" that radon emissions will year. Thus, daily and seasonal  ;

this undemonstrated technology. That is not exceed 20 pCi/m 2s (averaged over variations in radon emission are to be particularly so because EPA is already the disposal area) for 1000 years. Some averaged over. since these are also not i

requiring a margin of safety in calling for commenters expressed the opinion that of significance to public health. Finally, any control system to meet the the meaning of this term was not clear. this averaging may extend over longer j

designated emission level with A key word in this requirement is periods to accommodate normal reasonable assurance over 1000 years. " designed." since we do not intend fluctuations in soil moisture content due Given the predictive uncertainties in compliance with a 1000-year to short-term climatic variations. Thus, designing to meet this standard. EPA requirement to be determined hf the lowest recorded values of soil judged that to force an accounting for a monitoring. " Reasonable assurance" in moisture content should not be used:

second set of predictive uncertainties by the design of covers means the radon rather, the average values are forcing the standard to very low emission limit should be expected to be appropriate. Such averages should not.

nominallevels would be to exceed the achieved. over the required term, with a however, extend to times as long as the limits of reasonably available degree of assurance commensurate with normal human lifespan, since that could technology. the " reasonable assurance" oflongevity result in a significant alteration in the The risk from radon emissions discussed in the preceding section. Thus, level of protection of public health.

diminishes rapidly with distance from in designing the cover the uncertainties Similarly. averaging performance over the tailings pile (declining by a factor of in attenuation characteristics of material the entire period oflongevity of the three for each doubling of the distance used should be taken into account in a coveris not within the meaning of the beyond a few hundred meters). There conservative manner. This will tend to standard.

currently are only about 30 individuals increase the cover thickness required living so near to active piles that they 3. Relationship to the Clean Air Act over that calculated from "best might be subject to nearly maximum estimated" values, which would yield an Emission Standard Requirements annual post-disposal risks. We expect approximately equal probability of The Clean Air Act also requires that that the actual number of people who achieving above or below the design EPA provide public health protection might experience near maximallifetime level. An example of uncertainty to be from air emissions frorn tailings piles.

risk will be smaller, since they would considered is that in the long-term Further. EPA is publishing an ANPR to have to maintain lifetime residence in equilibrium value of moisture to be consider additional control of radon the land area immediately adjacent to a expected in the cover material (i.e over emissions dming the operational phase tailings piles. In sum, we believe that the 1000 years), even though the cover of mills.This discussion relates to the probability of a substantial number of material may be sprayed with water disposal phase.

individuals actually incurring these when it is laid down and compacted. The Clean Air Act requires that the maximum calculated risks is small. and layers of coarse materials Administrator establish a standard at We conclude that it is not reasonable introduced to inhibit capillary action. the level which in his judgment provides to reduce the emission standard below Such spraying and layers increase the an ample margin of safety to protect the 2

20 pCi/m s because of:(1) The moisture (and therefore attenuation) of public health from hazardous air uncertainty associated with the the cover in the near term, but it is the pollutants.The Agency published feasibility ofimplementing a long-term equilibrium moisture content proposed rules for radionuclides as requirement for a significantly lower which governs the performance of the National Emission Standards for standard. (2) the smallincrease in total cover over most of its useful life. Other Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) health benefits associated with such factors include uncertainty in measured on April 6.1983 (48 FR 15076). The thicker covers, and (3) the limited diffusion characteristics of the particular proposed rule addressed all of the circumstances in which the maximum earthen materials used (for given sources of emissions of radionuclides risk to individuals might be sustained. moisture content). and in the long-term that EPA had identified. The proposed As noted above. the 20 pCi/m 2s equilibrium moisture content of the rule either provided standards for mission limit was selected to meet the tailings themselves. In summary, we various source categories or proposed stated objectives of reducing the intend that the design requirement for not to regulate them and provided likelihood of misuse. spreading due to " reasonable assurance" should lead to reasons for that decision.

erosion. and control of radon emissions thick durable covers that have a In the proposed NESHAPS for cfter a thorough evaluation of the substantiallikelihood of maintaining radionuclides EPA did not propose current existing information on the radon emissions below the 20 pCi/m 2s additional standards for uranium mill technical and economic aspects of limit for 1000 years. tailings, because the Agency beliesed altemative levels of control. EPA A related matter is implementation of the EPA standards to be established recognizes the limitatfors inherent in the specification that the standard for under UMTRCA would provide the this information. since no pile has yet radon emission applies to the " average" same degree of protection as required by been disposed of. Better information value of the release rate.This averaging Section 112 of the Clean Air Act.The may well become available within the is to be carried out in two ways. First. it Agency explained that Congress did not next several years as DOE proceeds applies over the spatial extent of any desenbe the degree of protection that with the disposal program for inactive disposal area. Thus anticipated provides an ample margin of safety, nor l piles. Therefore. consistent with Section variations due to different did it describe what factors tho l 275(b)(2) of UMTRCA. EPA intends to concentrations of radium in different Administrator should consider in I continue to monitor these efforts over parts of the pile, or minor cracks or the making judgments on the appropriata i the next several years and will propose effects of burrowing animals and plant standard. The Agency indicated that it l

Federal Register / Vol. 48 No.196 / Friday. October 7.1983 / Rules and Regulations 45939 did not believe that it was reasonable to even though. if the maximum individual The Administrator can conclude that "it establish standards for nonthreshold dose were considered alone one might is not feasible"if a hazardous pollutant

. pollutants like radionuclides at levels conclude that no further controls are cannot be emitted through a conveyance that preclude any possible risk. EPA needed. For mill tailings, although or the use of the conveyance would be concluded that it should follow an population doses and health impacts contrary to laws. or if measurement approach that would allow it to consider were an important part of our methodologies are not practicable due to various factors that influence society's consideration. doses to the ranst technological or economic limitations.

health and well being. Therefore. EPA exposed individual were equally As noted above, we will consider the chose to consider the following factors important. need for such standards for the in deciding whether standards are In addition. EPA considers the operational phase of mills.

needed and the appropriate level of such potential for emissions and risk to' With respect to these disposal standards: increase m, the future, even though the

1. The radiation dose and risk for current projected maximum individual standards EPA has concluded that nearby individuals: design to provide reasonable assurance and population risks may be very low.

2. The cumulative radiation dose and In this case, we do not anticipate that the release of radon will not exceed health impacts in populations: sigmficant future increases in the size of to pCi/m's for a period of 1000 years is

3. 'I11e potential for radiation this industry, although populations apprcpriate.The level of the standard emissions and risk to increase in the around these sites may increase, as the was selected after considering potential impacts both on individuals and large 4 Tine availability, practicality, and e avafia i$i y a d$a icality of p pulaticn groups. We consider that the cost of control technology to reduce control technology are impor+ ant in uncertamties mvoived m, design to emissions, and judgmg how much control ot emissions Vd" Pus laels and durations of control

5. The effect of current standards to require. EPA believes that the are important factors. Potential under the Clean Air Act or other standard should be established at a increases in the number of mill tailings applicable authorities. level that will, at least, require use of piles due to future needs for uranium The first three factors are used to best available technology. Additional were also considered. In addition, the

• assess the likely impact of emissions on cost and socio-economic impact of the actions, such as forcing the use of the health of individuals and large undemonstrated technology, closure of a standard and other alternatives were populations and to estunate the facility, or other extreme measures may considered. In light of all of these potential for significant emissions in the be considered if significant emissions considerations, EPA judges it future. The fourth factor enables EPA to remain after best available technology is appropriate that the standard require a assess whether state-of-the-art control in place or if there are sigmficant level of control not heretofore applied, technologies are currently in use and emissions and there .a no applicable but for which the design uncertamties whether there are any practical means demonstrated control technology. EPA that must be accommodated are within of reducing emissions through control defines best available demonstrated the range of practical feasibility.

technology or other control strategies. technology as that which. in the It would be desirable to reduce The last factor allows EPA to assess judgment of the Administrator,is the potential maximum individual risk whether regulations or standards that most advanced level of controls further. However, the uncertainties have been established to control other adequately demonstrated, considering associated with attempting designs to pollutants are also minimizing releases economic, energy, and environmental of radionuclides. achieve assurance of conformance to a impacts. We concluded that requiring significantly lower standard through use The dose and risk for the m, dividuals the use of undemonstrated technology of thicker covers are, we believe, nearest a site are often the pnmary was appropriate for mill tailings, since considerations when evaluating the unreasonably great, and would impose their emissions are significant and there large and unpredictable costs.

need to control emissions of is no applicable demonstrated control radionuclides. Controlling maximum technology. Somewhat thicker covers than bare (or individual dose assures that people average) compliance with a 20 pCI/m's Finally, EPA believes it is reasonable living nearest a source are not subjected to consider whether other EPA standard would require will, moreover.

to unreasonably high nsk. Further. be called for by the requirement to standards are achieving approximately provide reasonable assurance of protecting individuals often provides an the same goal as the Clean Air Act. l.e.,

adequate level of protection to compliance. (Other types of control are protecting public health with an ample even more costly and do not provide the populations !!ving further away from the margm of safety. In cases where other source. comprehensive protection thick covers standards are providing comparable EPA believes that cumulative dose control. EPA believes it is appropriate pMel Conscquedy, we have and health impacts in populations are not to propose redundant standards c ncluded it would be unreasonable to also an important factor. The cumulative under the Clean Air Act.There would be impose a standard below the 20 pCi/m's radiation dose and health impact are no benefits because the public health required by this rule.

determined by adding together all of the would already be protected with an The Agency believes that the individual doses and risks that everyone ample margm of safety, but there could standards for the disposal of uranium receives from an emission source.This be unnecessary costs associated with mill tailings established in this rule factor can sometimes be more important implementing an additional star.dard. provide protection of public health than the maximum individual risk in The Clean Air Act specifies that the comparable to that which might be deciding whether controls are needed. Administrator promulgate emissions established under the Clean Air Act, particularly if an extremely large standards to protect the public health. because the considerations on which population may be exposed at low The Administrator is also authonzed to these standards are based are levels. The aggregate dose and promulgate design. equipment, work comparable to those the Agency uses in population impact can be of such practice, or operational standards. or a establishing standards under Section magnitude that it would be reasonable combination. ifit is not feasible to 112 of the Clean Air Act. llowever, the to require a reduction in the totalimpact presenbe or enforce emission standards, final determination will be made in the s

l

. . l l

l 45940 Federal Register / Vol. 48. No.196 / Friday. October 7.1983 / Rules and Regulations Section 112 rulemaking on land which will be converted to radionuclides. accompanying the proposed standards government ownership upon closure, that if uranium mining and milling is

4. Radon Concentration vs. Emission since a govemment agency could control conducted in wet regions. the adequacy Rate I.imits use of the land. Atra. they argued that and appropriateness of the star.dards even if the government allowed use of may have to be reviewed. particularly A radon emission rate limit was the land, including residential use. "no proposed as a design standard for the the water protection requirements.

disposal of tailings. Some commenters reliable evidence exists to indicate that Based on tnis statement the commenters levels exceeding the proposed cleanup were concerned that EPA intended to suggested that we should instead standard would necessanly convert to apply less stringent standards for establish a concentration limit for radon indoor radon daughter exposures of tailings control at wet sites.

In air at locations where people would sufficient magnitude to constitute be exposed. They expressed the view Our remarks concerning wet sites in significant health risks."

the preamble for the proposed standards

)

that EPA should establish standards - epa believes there are good reasons i based on health risk alone and that a were intended only to acknowledge that concentration limit applied where not to leave contaminated land (other all current U.S. uranium mills are '

than areas meeting the disposal people can live is therefore more located in arid and semi-arid areas and standards) at former milling sites. First, suitable. the contamination may spread further. that we have less experience with many -

A, design limit for emissions addresses and thereby necessitate cleanup of of the control measures needed to a pnmary goal of these standards, the adjacent land or propertfes. High indoor comply with the standards under wet placement of a thick. durable earthen radon levels clearly can result if houses than under dry conditions.

cover over the tailings, because the limit are built on contaminated land. Second. We have modified the final standards relates directly to the thickness of the there are significant radiation risks t require envir nmentaI and health cover and requires direct control of * " g ns (identified in the FEIS and DEIS) from radon emissions. it also is in a form pathways other than inhalation of de o 3 the as c g nd which conforms to the requirements of indoor radon decay products, mcluding water protection provisions in these the Clean Air Act, which specifies direct externa 1(gamma) radiation and r s or nati 3 control of emissions from a source.

Under the suggested air concentration inhalation of windblown particulates. (a g , si es. h e rce Finally, the government agency Performance Standards. 40 CFR 440.34' limit. transport calculations would be accepting ownership of contaminated pr tect surface water by prohibiting needed to estimate emission rates for land would have to impose additional discharges from new mills except for the use in determining cover thicknesses. amount by which precipitation may control and. possibly, incur the costs to We believe no purpose is served by exceed evapotranspiration. Any introducing the uncertainty of this extra maintain such control. EPA has decided not to change the proposed levels which discharged water must satisfy (transport) variable into the calculations define on. site land that need not satisfy concentration standards corresponding for cover thickness. In addition, the to use of the best availabb the standards applicable to disposal thickness of the cover required to satisfy areas. demonstrated treatment tecutology. We such a standard could be arbitranly Finally, some commenters suggested have modified our proposal to .'ot apply reduced (to zero in many cases) by use the requirements of 40 CFR 264.228 that that we issue standards for the cleanup of fences to restrict access. Such a of any off-site land and buildings that are referenced by 40 CFR 264.221 situation would be unsatisfactory may contain tailings from licensed mills. (" Design and Operating Requiremencs")

because it would: D) Require permanent There was an implication in some in order to avoid the post. closure (for 1000 years) control of access by comments that establishing the bathtub" effect that could otherwise institutional means. and (2) would not responsibility of any party to perform occur in wet locations. For mills require a cover sufficient to deter misuse. In summary,if such a standard remedial actions for such sites could be locationed in regions of net precipitation affected by whether or not EPA had the final standard applies 40 CFR is comparable to an emission limit. It is issued cleanup standards. EPA has needicssly complex. due to the 264.228(a)(2)(iii)(E). which requires the issued cleanup standards (40 CFR Part closure cover to be less permeable than introduction of transport calculations. lf 192. Subpart B1 for the Federal cleanup any liner beneath the tailings so the pile not. It affords less protection by program for off. site tailings from 24 permitting dispersion instead of control. will not fill with water.

inactive processing sites that was We believe these and the other

5. Cleanup Standards established under Title I of UMTRCA. provisions of the final standards provide Commenters expressed confusion Sites for which a license for uranium or adequate protection for wet and dry thorium production was in effect on or areas. considering differences in both regarding the purpose and applicability after January 1.1978, are excluded from of the proposed j 192.32(b)(2). We net precipitation and population density.

coverage under Title 1. We note, intended this section to distinguish however, that the standards (40 CFR C Ground WaterStandards disposal areas for tailings piles from Part 192. Subpart B) we have already other land areas on disposal and/or 1. Summary of the Proposed Standards issued for the Title I program would be licensed sites that are sufficiently suitable for application to off. site uncontaminated by tailings as to not Consistent with the standards EPA contamination from active mills. issued under the SWDA for hazardous require application of the disposal

6. Wet Sites vs. Dry (Arid) Sites wastes (47 FR 32274-388. July 26,1982) standards of $ 192.32(a).The definition the standard for tailings piles has two of " disposal area" and the language of Several commenters from Virginia and parts:(1) A " primary" standard that i 192.32(b) have been revised to clanfy Illinois expressed concern regarding the requires use of a liner designed to these objectives. applicability of the standards to wet prevent migration of hazardous Some commenters objected to the sites, f.e.. locations where annual ,

substances out of the impoundment, and I proposed defimtion. On the assumption average precipitation exceeds annual (2) a " secondary" ground water that it was a cleanup standard they average evapotranspiration. EPA stated protection standard requiring. in effect.

argued it is not necessary to clean up in the Federal Register notice that any hazardous constituents that 1 ,

)

Federal Register / Vol. 48. No.196 / Friday. October 7,1983 / Rules and Regulations 43941 leak from the waste not be allowed to large impoundments. Other commenters and the ensironment. They noted that degrade ground water. The primary noted that thicker plastic liners than under the proposed standard virtually standard applies to new portions of new that have been conventional or double all existing mill operations would have or existing waste depositories. The liners would be more successful. A to either request exemptions and secondary standard applies to new and number of commenters argued that clay alternate standards and/or begin existing portions, the point of liners may have important advantages remedial actions. Commenters stated compliance being at the edge of the over plastics, but questioned whether that regulating by exceptions is waste itmpoundment. The specific clay licers could satisfy the conditions mappropriate. NRC and others further hazardous substances and for an exemption. argued that an EPA concurrence role for concentrations (i.e., background levels! The rulemeking record does not exemptions and alternative standards that define noncompliance with the establish that either clay or plastic secondary standard at each site will be that would be invoked at virtually all liners have urequivocal advantages or existmg mi!!s was inconsistent with established for uranium mill tailings by disadvantages. EPA considered these NRC and Agreement States. The SWDA UMTRCA's foreclosure of any EPA technologies when it developed the permitting for tailings under UMTRCA rules, however. permit alternate SWDA liner requirement and decided to or SWDA.

concentration limits to be established require a liner that is capable. as a when they will not pose " * *

• a We have made modifications of the matter of engineering, of preventing rule to both improve its administration substantial present or potential hazard migration of waste into the ground and and clarify its objectives.

to human health or the environment" as water. The fact that failures may occur long as the alternate concentration limit EPA considered a wide rarge of did not justify establishing a less is not er eeded. The rule also allow alternatives before adopting the protective standard. Recognizing that

" hazardous constituents

• to be such liners may sometimes fail. EPA secondary =tandard. including a policy exempted from coverage by de perrmt similar to NRC's. When EPA ;ssued the also issued the secondary standard to based on the same cntenon. EPA limit the consequences of such failures, SWDA rules. it recognized that many determines the alternate concentration existing hazardous waste sites had UMTRCA requires standards for tailings standard or exemption under the operated for many years without liners to be consistent with the standards EPA SWDA: EPA's concurrence would be established under SWDA. We have and would not immediately satisfy the required under the proposed standards secondary standard. EPA created the concluded that commenters md not for tailings. establish that conditions at tailings opportunity for exe'nptions and EPA recognized in proposing these impoundments are sufficiently different alternative concentration standards to standards that UMTRCA continues the from conditions EPA considered in avoid remedial actions where such dual regulatory system for uranium fuel developing the SWDA standard t exceptions would "not pose a cycle facilities under which EPA sets lustify departures from that standard. substantial present or potential hazard."

health and environmental standards and Under these standards. all new waste In establishing such exemptions or NRC establishes implementing storage areas (whether new waste alternative standards the SWDA rules technical, engineering and management facilities or expansions of existing piles) require EPA to consider specified fate-regulations. Under the SWDA. EPA are subtect to the primary standard-the f,I"'d h performs all such regulatory functions liner requirement. If new wastes are jated ac cr (s e M (b) and for chemical hazardous wastes, added to an existing pile, however, the 264.94(b. " Fate" refers to the destiny of UMTRCA promotes uniform Federal pile must comply with the secondary contaminants mieased from de waste regulation of wastes, however, by standard-the ha::ardous constituent under site-specific Fynrogeochemical requireing NRC's regulations for these concentretion standards for health and c eMas. wastes (i.e uranium and thonum mill environmental protection. Whether for a EPA agrees that admmistrative tailings) to be " comparable" to new or existing pile,if the secondery burdens related to e dus! regulatory requirements EPA establishes for similar standards are found not to be satisfied system under UMTRCA should be hazards under the SWDA. and subsequent corrective actions fail to minimized. We have concluded that it is

2. 'I2ie Primary Standard athieve compliance in a reasonable appropriate under UMTRCA that the The primary standard. 40 CFR 264.221 time. the operator must cease depositing regulatory agencies (NRC and waste on that pile. Agreement States) perform or approve can usually be satisfied only be using analyses of fate, because this involves liner materials (such as plastics) that 3. The Secondary Standard and the Complementary Roles of EPA and NRC pnmanly technical and site. specific can retala all wastes. Exemptions judgments. EPA does not believe, permitting use of other liner materials Commentere correctly noted that however, that it can or should delegate (such as clay) that may release water or virtually all existing tailings piles have its responsibility for setting health and small quantities of other substances or, contammated ground water beyond the environmental protect!on standards.

i in some cases, permitting no liner may edge of their impoundments. The reason This was the reason for proposing to be granted only if migration of is that many of these piles were require EPA's concurrence with hazardous constituents into the ground constructed without liners and before exemptions and alternative J water or surface water would be NRC increased regulatory requirements concentration standards recommended prevented indefinitely. in the late 1970's. NRC's recent by regulatory agencies for site-specific Some commenters stated that no liner regulatory practice has been to require licenses. Therefore. in determining technology is available which would l remedial actions on a cost / benefit basis situations requiring concurrence. EPA cchieve the goal of the primary when underground contaminant plumes standard. i.e preventing waste from will consider the health and threaten to degrade or hau already environment-related factors in entering the ground or water. They degraded the potential usefulness of stated that synthetic liners would tear $ $ 2S4.93(b) and 284.94(b). offsite water. Administrative burdens can be further under the strains of tailings and heavy Many commenters. includmg NRC. equipment or that they could not - reduced by permitting the regulatory argued that the existing pracalces for agency to exercise discretion, pursuant reliably be properly installed in such tailings piles sufficiently protect health to the requirements of 40 CFR 264.04(b).

9 45942 Federal Register / Vol. 48. No.196 / Friday. October 7,1983 / Rules and Regulations ~ for establishing alternate concentration Administrator, upon promulgation of 40 CFR 264 95 Potnt of compliance limits, as long as any contamination these standards by EPA. permitted will remain close to the pile 40 CFR 264.96 Compliance period Many of the factors that must be and is within the boundaries of the considered by NRC in carrying out its 40 CFR :64 9r General ground water licensed site. Such situations can be responsibilities for enforcing EPA's m t nns requirements identified solely through analysis of fate, standards are discussed in the pertinent 40 CFR 264.98 Detection momtonng program and we have decided not to require section of the notice proposing these concurrence in such cases. This avoids 40 CFR 264.99 Compliance momforing standards (48 FR 19522-5). For program the dual administrative process for convenience, we repeat here the listing alternative concentration standards of sections of the SWDA's regulations it. Subpart G; under conditions where they certainly which relate to the separate EPA and would be requested and granted. We 40 CFR 264m Post-closure care and use of NRC responsibilities. EPA's . property believe this is appropriate. De responsibilities to establish standards contamination would be very limited in under Section 206 of UMTRCA are lii. Subpart K: extent and concentration, can be carried out through adoption of all or 40 CFR 264.226 Momtonng and inspection expected to eventually dissipate after part of the following sections of the (of impoundment liners), as applicable the site is closed in accordance with our SWDA regulations: closure standard, a:Id these sites will be i. Subpart F: 40 CFR :64.228 Closure and postclosure under effective government junsdiction care. as applicable. 40 CFR 264.92 Cround water grotection during this period. We have chosen 500 standard There are several of these SWDA meters as the maximum distance for the 40 CFR 264.93 f farardous constituents regulations that specify monitoring after purpose of this section of the rule. 40 CFR 264.94 Concentration limits closure of an impoundment. Monitanng because it limits contamination to a is a compliance activity conducted to small area, and. considering the size of (These three sections are modified and adopted as i 192.32(a)(2)) assure that health and environmental disposal areas, will provide an adequate standards are being met. The regulatory margm of distance to implement 40 Cm :64.too Corrective action program (nis section is modified and adopted as agency is responsible for establishing corrective action programs if they are such requirements, mcluding post. g 392,3y required to prevent offsite closure monitoring consistent with the contamination. ii. Subpart G: SWDA regu.ations. The period over The revised standard for existing piles 40 CFR :64.111 Closure performance which post-cicsure monitoring is should be implemented in a manner standard normally required under SWDA is 30 consistent with the following scenario. (This section is adopted as part of years.The regulatory agency should Monitoring wells should be established i 192.32(b)(1)) recognize, however, that monitoring of ct the edge of the tailings at the ground water for shorter or longer lii. Subpart K: compliance point.This monitonng periods may be needed for the specific location is unique in providing the 40 :64 1 s

                                                                    ,     g 9t u ace i                  sites where tailings are located and.

earliest practical notice of contaminants ments when appropdate, change this migrating from the impoundment. The (This section is modified and adopted as requirement. regulatory agency should determine I 28*'3*I*NIII through further monitoring and fate A difficult ennsideration regarding the NRC's responsibilities under closure of a tatlings impoundment is analysis whether hazardous constituent UMTRCA are to implement EPA's deciding when disposal must take place. levels now and in the future will satisfy standards and to "* *

• Insure that the the secondary standard within 500 management of any byprodbct material Several facters must be evaluated in this regard, including: (1) The likelihood that meters or any closer site boundary. * *
• is carried out in such a manner as a mill will resume operations: (2) the what corrective actions are appropriate * *
• conforms to general requirements to correct any on-site contamination, specific conditan of the tailings established by the Commission, with the impoundment, cuch as the fraction of and, if some contamination is found to concurrence of the Administrator, which be not practicable to eliminate, the design life remaining, and are, to the maximum extent practicable, environmental contamination proble'ms, riternate concentration limit at the edge at least comparable to requirements of the tailings to indicate the minimum such as windblown tailings and the applicable to the possession, transfer, practicable on-site contamination. If and disposal of similar hazardous likelihood that significant quantities of tailings might be spread by flooding: and environmental contamination is a material regulated by the Administrator realistic possibility (or fact) beyond 500 (3) the cost of maintaining releases from under the SWDA. as amended." EPA the inactive pile in conformance with meters (or the site boundary), remedial willinsure that NRC's regulations satisfy these admonitions through its the regulations which apply to operating cctions must be taken. or alternative mills pnor to disposal (including concentration standards (with EPA concurrence role. Relevant SWDA maintaining radon emissions at A1. ARA concurrence) are required. regulations are those embedded in levels). Evaluatmg these factors may be Unlike EPA's role in SWDA. EPA's Subparts A (except Section 264.3). D. C.

difficult and complex. However, role for controlling hazardous materials D. E. F. G. H. and K. Examples of areas although an adequate drying-ou- eriod from uranium tailings under UMTRCA is which NRC must address in dischargin8 makes possible long term isolation of limited to setting standards and does these responsibilities involve functions the tailings and stabilization of the piles, not include an implementing under the six sections listed immediately above which are radon emissions will be greater during responsibility. That responsibility is this period than before or after disposal. vested in the NRC and the Stetes as the incorporated into these EPA standards. licensing agencies under Title II of and the following sections of the SWDA For this reason the regulatory agency regulations: should require, once a pile is allowed to UMTRCA (Section 84a(3)) and will be begin to dry out, that disposal proceeds carried out through regulations set by i. Subpart F: in an expeditious fashion. and that new the NRC. with the concurrence of the 40 CFR 264 91 Reequired programs liquids are not introduced to the pile so

Federal Register / Vol. 48. No.196 / Friday. October 7,1933 / Rules and Regulations 45943 that a new drying-out pariod will be incurred. schedule for all sites. It is the regulatory established its pclicy under the SWDA agency's responsibility, however, to (47 FR at 222;6. July 20,1982). We do not

          %e period required for the tailings to       assure that necessary decisions are dry out is highly dependent un local                                                               think this rulemaking for byproduct rendered in a timely fashion. Acceptable materials is an appropriate forum in meteorology. This precludes establishing plans for corrective actions should offer a single fixed time for disposal of tha                                                            which to reconsider EPA's policies for a high likelihr.cd of achieving                     haudaus     w. ins.

tailm.ts. We have concluded that the compliance with the standards. . regulatory agency should exercise the Ft.rthermore, corrective actions which, 6. htralization of Taill,gs responsibility of determining when ence begun, show inadequate promise of d"posal should occur, by site- achieving compliance should result in Some commenters recommended that specifically judging the advantages and the regulatory agency's promptly EPA require neutralization of tailings as dernments associated with all pertinent a methed to p otect ground water. disallowing the addition of new tadings factors. This responsibihty is governed to a noncomolying tailings pile. Neutralization is chemical treatment by tha need to conform to regulations that would make the tailings neither established to satisfy the SWDA. by 40 5. Nonhazardous Materials acid nor alkaline. Wheritailings are CFR Part 190. and by the ALARA Comments were received on two neutrali::ed many hazardous requirement on radon emissions. matters regarding the contamination of constituents are taken out of solution NRC'a closure regulations must be ground water by nonhazardous and thereby are less prone to move comparable. to the maximurn extent materials. (They include chlor' des. through the earth and into ground water. practicable, to requirements under the sulfates, martranese, and tctal dm.,lved A EPA study of radings SWDA. wherein short closu e penods eclids. amoung others.) At high nemralitation in 1980, discussed 'n the (ao ar'd 180 days) are specSed. Drying coacentrations, these materials can FliiS. identified severalias ses wgarding out of piles yvill take much longer. make water unfit for use for other than p gg However, disposal should occur health related reasons. hazardous constituents in tailings form promptly when piles are allcwed to dry One view of these materials held that out. in addition. scme of the older mdl y"P/{x com ver wide rang s d y and several of them are more mobile than sites already contain essentially hazardous materials. Thus, they precede alkalinity. Selenium. arsenic, and completed (filled) tailings piles. The the hazardous material in contaminating m lybdenum-eul constituents of regulatory agency should promptly ground water. Ground water monitoring tailings-are particularly troublesome in identify and require disposal of such for these materials allows the prediction this regard. Adequate control would tailings. of future ground water contamination by require careful operation of the EPA and NRC are coordinating their neutralization process. Second, the costs hazardous materials. This detection efforts to insure health and scheme might therefore provide an early of neutralizing the tailings are environmental protection from uranium warning of ground water contamination significant. about the same as byproduct materials. In particular, we and allow early corrective actinns to be are working closely with the NRC to installation of a liner. ?.fost of the cost is taken, thereby effectively preventing due to the need fu a sh d:re storage assure that NRC's general requirements ground contamination by hazardous for ground water protection will be materials.  ! anon. Fina!!y e m.yc., would not preclude the en i i e.n. comparable. to the maximum extent EPA agrees with this comment. practicable. to EPA's requirements Analyzing water samples for the The structure c'r@icn established under the SWDA for simdat hazardous by UMTRCA cosam cf :enerally materials, substances from tailings that are arplica!)e entwucmcr.tal standards expected to be most mobile in a given estab'ished by EPA and regulations to

4. Timing of Corrective Actions gr und water environment is a very implement these by NRC. Requirements The proposed standard requires useful feature of site. specific monitoring for specific control methods, such as corrective actions for ground water to be requirements We note that i 264.98 neutralization, ate left to the initiated within one year after a already contains such a requirement and implementing agency, to be used, as noncomp!iance determination is made. that the implementing regulatory required. to ensure that EPA's general agencies may be expected to establish Commenters expressed concern that it standards are satisfied. In view of the such (or coa parable) requirements.

may take longer than one year to devise above. EPA has concluded that a and implement an effective corrective A second view held that much of the standard requiring neutralization of ground water in the Western States is action. for both technical and already contaminated with tailings is inappropriate. administrative reasons.pased on these nonhazardous materials to an extent D. Procedurallssues considerations. EPA has revised the time limit for implementatian of that it is unsuitable for use. These are primarily shallow aquifers (or 1. Molybdenum and Uranium Improperly corrective actions to eighteen (181 u;>permost aquifers) which would be the t.lsted Under SWDA Requirements months. We also note that i 264.99 of first to be contaminated by tailings SWDA regulations require submission Comments were received stating EPA of corrective action plan within 180 materials. Since these ground waters are improperly proposed listing already contaminated, the argument molybdenum and uranium as hazardous days. This provision remains unaffected by the above revision. goes, there is no need to prevent constituents, because SWDA listing additional contamination, procedures were not followed. Once corrective actions have begun. the regulatory agency should evaluate This comment would require changing EPA listed molybdenum and uranium the ground water protection policy EPA as hazardous constituents only for their effectiveness and determine whether to continue, alter, or has established for hazardous wastes purposes of controlling uranium and under the SWDA rules. UMTRCA thotium byproduct materials. EPA does discontinue the actions. Ilecause requires standards for tailings to be corrective actions are very site-specific. not intend in this rulemaking to add cor sistent with the SWDA standards, molybdenum and uranium to the SWDA such determinations cannot be made El% has alrendy considered the views under the same uniform. pre. established expressed in these comments when it list of hazardous constituents. 40 CFR part 261. Appendix VIII.Therefore.the

45944 Federal Register / Vol. 48. No.190 / Friday October 7.1983 / Rules and Regulations procedure we followed is proper. for each alternative to the health effect contaminating water and land is present Clarification of this matter has been estunates for direct radon emissions and contmues indefinitely, t.dded to i 192.32(a)(2) of the final alone. Although this analysis relates Alternative B. These are " institutional standard. only one category of benefit to the entire care" cases and represent situations in

2. Inclusion of Thorium in the Standards c st of disposal,it provides useful which maintenance is required to assure Several commenters pointed out that results to the extent that these benefits the standard is satisfied. B1 specifies no are found to be greater than the total redon emission limit, but requires the DEIS contamed no background cost of control. Second, we performed a control of wind. blown tailings and supporting information for the thorium cost. effectiveness analysis of gamma radiation. B2 specifies radon standards (Subpart E) and alternative standards which assigns recommended deleting the thorium controllimits of 60 pC1/m 8s and B3 different sets of arbitrary weights to the specifies 20 pCi/m8s: both require standards from this rule. Commenters entire range of benefits of tailings also stated that there are significant control of wind-blown tailings and disposal. To perform this analysis, we gamma radiation.

differer.ces in the physical and chemical also developed an index which characteristics and the radiological risk Alternative C. 'these are "long-term quantifies the relative effectiveness of passive control" cases and represent between uranium and thorium. They the disposal methods in providing concluded, therfore, the EPA should not situations in which design is for long-designated types of control which term protection using engineered. substitute the sarr . ~quirements for correspond to the benefit categories. passive methods requiring no continued thorium as for urante n. as was pmposed. The cost. effectiveness analysis does not maintenance. The radon emission limits The FEIS contains appropriate address whether the cost increases of examined are: tighter controls are worth incurring. C1 none discussions of thorium and a review of the implications of the radiological Rather, by examining the sensitivity of C 60 Ci/m8s the results to different choices of differences between thonum and weighting schemes for the various C3 20 Ci/m8 uranium for the level of protection provided. the cost of control, and the benefits in addition to identifying at C 6 #m8s what level additional gains in C5 2 pCi/m ss feasibility or implementation of these effectiveness start becoming Disposal methods would be designed standards. These effects are sufficiently to be effective for 1000 years in this small for EPA to conclude that the increas ngly more expensive,it points out to what degree the choice of case, in addition to providing control of thorium standards should be wind blown tailings and gamma promulgated as proposed. standards is sensitive to the relative Importance assigned to different types radiation. IV. Regulatory Impact Analysis of benefits. Dased in part on these Alternative D. These cases assume Under Executive Order 12291 epa analyses, we have made a qualitative staged disposal They do not require must judge whether a regulation is ainten ce and a ev judg .sent that the societal benefits of the coyejjg "Afajor" and therefore subject to the standards outweigh the societal costs, requirement of a Regulatory im ct considering the long. term continuing improved control of radon during Analysis. We have not classified this train of benefits to society from isolating operations at new tailings piles. The rule as major, since it will not cause these hazardous materials from man and radon emission limits examined are: significantly large incremental costs the environment. D2 00 pCl/m's above those which must be incurred in A range of alternatives was evaluated D3 20 pC1/m's the absence of these regulations. We for pmtection of public health and the D4 e pCl/m's have prepared a Regulatory Impact environment.These alternatives D5 2 pCl/m's Analysis (RIA), however, since there are included a range of control methods Disposal methods would be designed to wide variations in views on the extent fr m no control to high levels of control be effective for 1000 years in this case, of needed environmental controls in the and are summarized below. They do not in addition to controlling wind. blown uranium industry. include different levels of ground water tailings and gamma radiation. Further.

                             .                  protection. since those requirements           additional control of radon is achieved A. Benefit. Cost Analysis must be consistent with standards               during the operational period at new The RIA examines the benefits and        already established under the SWDA.            tailings piles through use of staged costs of selected alternative disposal       liowever, the length of time ground             disposal.

standards, for both existing and new wateris expected to be protected is The costs and the benefits for these tailings piles. As discussed earlier, most indicated in the assessment of benefits. alternatives are listed in the of the benefits of tailings disposal Drief descriptions of each alternative accompanying tables. We examined the cannot be quantified. The benefit we are follow: cost per death avoided from radon best able to estimate is the number of Alternative A. This is the "no emissions for alternative controllevels lung cancer deaths avolded by standards" case and represents the from several viewpoints. This range of contro!!!ng the radon emanation from reference case representing conditions if viewpoints included the length of time tailings piles. Since the other benefits of nothing is ,fone. The piles would remain over which health effects should be disposal-prevention of misuse, ground hazardous for a long time, taking about related to costs and whether nationwide water protection and prevention of the 205.000 years for the radioactivity to population effects should be included surface spread of tadings-cannot be decay to 10 percent of current levels. with regional population effects in quantified (let alone monetized), we The radon emission rate is estimated to making benefit. cost comparisons. We could not make a comp!etely numerical be 400 pCi/m8s from a typical pile. The conclude that the incremental cost per determination. within the traditional background rate for typical soils is radon death avoided at a 20 pCi/m 8s benefit. cost analysis framework. about 1 pCi/m85. The concentration of emission limit is a reasonable We first performed a partial benefit. some toxic chemicals in the tailings is expenditure under all scenarios. The cost analysis of alternative disposal hundreds of times background levels in range of incremental costs per death standards by relating the disposal costs ordinary soils, so that the potential for avoided at this controllevelis from i t I I k

Federal Register / Vol. 48, N3.196 / FrMay. October 7.1983 / Rules and Regulations 45945

  $130.000 (nationwide health effects           million dollars for all tailings which     intent of the Order. Any comments from estimated for 1000 years) to $2.5 million     exist today at licensed sites. If we       OMB to EPA and any EPA response to (regional health effects estimated for        melude all those tailings which we         those comments are available for pubhc only 100 years). For the next, more           estimate will be generated by the year     inspection at the docket cited above stringent. level of control. 6 pCi/m% the     2000, based on recent DOE projections,     under " ADDRESSES.

incremental costs are also higher: the total cost to the uranium milling

  $630.000 to $12 million per radon death       industry would be from Mo to 540           C    Regulotory Flexibility Analysis avoided. These costs are more uncertain million dollars. These costs are present              This regulation would not have a and more likely to have been                  worth estimates (discounted at a 10        significant impact on a substantial underestimated. For the next. less            percent rate) expressed on a 1983          number of small entities, as specified stringent level of control,60 pCi/mS.         constant dollar basis. The range m cost    under Section 605 of the Regulatory the incremental costs are lower $70.000      is due to different assumptions on what     Flexibility Act (RFA). Therefore, we to $1.4 million. Whether or not the          actions are needed to meet requirements have not performed a Regulatory expenditure for a controllevelis             for ground water protection for new        Flexibility Analysis.The basis for this acceptable depends on one's view of the tailings at existing mills.                       finding is that of the 27 licensed uranium talevant factors to be considered in              We estimate that increases in the      mills, only one qualifies as a small entity valuing the benefit stream. On a relative price of uranium could range f om 2 to 7       and this mill will not be impacted by the basis, the incremental cost increases by      percent. In light of the currently poor    standards. Almost all the mills are at least a factor of 5 for going from the     economic condition of the indurtry and     owned by large corporations. Three of 20 pCi/m% limit to 6 pC1/m%. and              the dreat of foreign competition. it is    the mills are partly-owned by companies increase by only a factor of 2 for going      unlikely thct mills will be able to pass   that could qualify as small businesses.

from 60 pCi/m% to :'9 pCi/m%. through substantialportions of the according to the Small Business The results of our cost-effectiveness disposal costs. Using our models and Administration generic small entity analyses, which incorporate different under,the assumption of an average definition of 500 employees. However, weighting schemes for all the benefits of cash flow, we estimate that if mills are under the RFA. a small business is one disposal, indicate that the incremental forced to absorb the entire cost of that is independently owned and costs per unit of overall effectiveness disposal, no mills would cease operation operated. Since these three mills are not are relatively insensitive to the choice of due to these standards. Under the independently owned by small weighting of benefits. He cost. conditions of no pass through and lower businesses. they are not small entities. effectiveness of obtaining increased cash flow, one small model mill may benefits beyond 60 pCi/m% decreases D. OAfB Regulations on me Paperwork close. However, we estimate that this monotonically by up to factors of two Reduction Act closure can be avoided with the limited for each incremental level of control for price pass.through stated above. . This rule does not contain any all weighting schemes examined. These costs and economic impacts are inf rmation collection requirements su e B.EconomicImpact Analysis b t ble to thes dards, {ot all a , hO e ne\'co1 U.S.C. In the RIA. we developed cases for probably occur in the absence of these 3501. et seg analyzing the industry. wide costs and standards due to other regulatory economic impacts assocuted witti requirements at most sites. These fen E i-Costs or ALTERNATIVE $raNoARoS tailings disposal methods assumed to be include existing NRC licensing rca Twncs CominOL TO THE YEAR 2000 required for compliance with the regulations and requirements twwcss or 1983 ocuAas) alternative standards. Each case established by agreement States, and p. m . m co m eio represented a different combmanon of - "*"""" disposal methods apphed to bmh regulations required under Section 84(a) (1) and (3) of UMTRCA. We did not awaa=

                                                                                                ""          m          W lw existing and new tailings. The estimated estimate the costs imposed by these                                " '

• l economic impacts include potential mill other requirements because that would '

a._.. o , , closures (on a model mill basisJ and require a site-specific investigation and s ' -- - - r ') 200 uranium price increases. We estimated the impacts for each case according to these requirements have been continuously changing in the past few U i -- - -

                                                                                                   -- %     'is es 250 different financial scenarios and

• different assumptions on the ability of years (mostly toward more stringent requirements). Therefore, we could only d ~ ~-  %

m

                                                                                                                       ',3 c4                            i .e        as companies to pass through tailings             estimate the upper bounds of cost and      C8 -               "3         '**         588 disposal costs to their customers. The results from this analysis are used to economic impacts imposed by these standards, and could not estimate the E_

m-7% a m I iae

                                                                                                                                   !"o a

ses represent the costs and impacts of the net impact of the standards. ' -- - 4 "' '** *' proposed standards. 'Illis regulation was submitted to the

• n= an ama aw'* ** ' wha
• at **

We estimate that compliance with the Office of h!anagement and Budget for .'t",O","off.,*JUil%".*k"a"'*7afin%T C standards,if other regulatory review as required by Executive Order D,$",r,, T,f,M"J jf f,"""",t',,*,; requirements did not exist, would cost 12291. We believe the analysis *= pcas nm =m = ea bai aa== be *= the uranium milling industry about 260 discus sed abovescomplies with the "uTT.','"f """" " ** '"*" ""' "'" ""'"'

45948 Federal Register / Vol. 48. No.196 / Friday, October 7.1983 / Rules and Regulations - TABLE ll-8ENEFITS OF ALTEnNADVE STANDARoS FOR TAsWNGS CONTE 10t TO THE YEAn 2000(*l seamesoa l year maeus , _ _ [] l Des ** hei $ [ ,c W ~ ~~~t - --- esmeeve s*vair3 Chance of rename Eroom e oooo M yd"*' [,y g

                        .                                                                                  __                L-"                         _
                                                                                                                                                                                 ~.

A. . . vey ukesy 0 _. 2sito*(or. ._ . 0 0 . . . . - . . 0 09 I n teat *09.. .. j DO 1fM _ _.. ,. . , _ MG j Leedy f Hunewes 62 , q Las iusy. . _ ,__aa . _. 4 et ec't996 j W ' t SM ._ _ _ _ . _ .. iao , In ' e

        --                    %.                                           ~ . -                                    --_                                 .. . . .

C2 ' Le,s ukesy * . 4 m 909805 4a0 umsy renauss._ Hw@eds C3 Urumesy.

• tet909954 _ $70 faris or viou mde I a00 C4 bery unskefy uarty suumands _ 3 m 10*(90 55 SM . Jo y t#)O CS. q . ._ da . da.. ,

l et t0*(99 51 M do _. .- . . _ _ _ _ . 2 9.000 Thounends 4 e fo'not *N Severas piousanas t .000 02 . Oremosy . o3 en Many emunanos t a t0*i35) ?to Tens 4 swi6ames > t.000 very urusesp 3 si 10'(36 Sh 690 . .do - > LOOO o4 Jo oS * = 1 en 10994 Sa 537 de > 1.000 Thees,, resueng kore corens at 26 encong pres and s presmand near past No aeds as tehea for evy enjhaenng selwy incsatt erwrermuso en pro ese enseems aen ce enim coes, e mi eus. sume answaso e sie s.=g soO merva kom camer at a snaasi teerve pen.

    %fs standard is promulgated on the                          Uranium Mi'!Teilings Radiation Control Act                      purpose of t}us Subpart.

date signed. of Wa Pub. L 05-604, se amended. (c) Controlmeans any action to stabilize. Inhibit futurL misuse of, or Ust of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 152 , , . . e reduce emissions or effluents from Air pollution control. Radiation uranium byproduct materials. protection. Hazardous materials. Sut>part D-Standards for (d) Licensedsito means the area Uranium. Environmental protection. Management of Uranium Byproduct contained within the boundary of a Hazardous constituents. Croundwater Materials Pursuant to Section 84 of the location under the control of persons protection. Radon. Radium. and Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as generating or storing uranium byproduct Horium. Amended materials under a license issued Dated: September 30.1983. 9 192.30 ang ac.muty, pursuant to Section 84 of the Act. For ,, purposes of this subpart. "!! censed site Mass D. Rhus. This subpart applies to the is equivalent to " regulated unit'* In Administretor. management of uranium byptoduct Subpart F of Part 2s4 of this chapter. In 40 CFR Chapter I. Part 192 is materials under Section 84 of the Atomic (e) Disposalsite means a site selected amended by adding Subparts D and E as Energy Act of1954 (henceforth pursuant to Section 83 of the Act, follows: designated "the Act"), as amended. (f) Disposalatea means the region during and following processing of within the perimeter of an impoundment PART 192-HEALTH AND uranium ores, and to restoration of or pde containing uranium by product ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION disposal sites following any un of such matenals to which the post. closure STANDARDS FOR URANIUM ANO sites under Section 83(b)(1)(B) of the requirements of i 192.32(b)(1) of this THORIUM MILL TA!UNGS Act. subpart apply.

 *       *      *        *        *                                                                                                (g) Regulatory agency means the U.S.

1192.31 DennPtions and Croso<eferences. Nuclear Regulatory Comm!ssion. References m this subpart to other (h) Closure period means the period cf D- .mandard for parts of the Code of Federal Regulations time beginning with the cessation, with Management of Uranium Byproduct Materials Purwant to Section 84 of the are to those parts as codified on January respect to a waste impoundment, cf 1,1983. Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as uranium ore processing operations and Amended (a) Unless otherwise indicated in this ending with completion of requirements subpart, all terms shall have the same specified under a closure plan. Sec. meaning as in Title 11 of the Uranium (1) Closureplan means the plan 192.30 Applicability. Mill Tailings Rediation Control Act of required under { 264.112 of this chapter. 192.3t Definitions and Crossoferences. lW8. Subparts A and D of this part. or (i) Extstingpertion means that land 192.32 Standards. parts 190. 200. 281 and 264 of this '

                                                                                                                                                                           *f"'

192.33 Corrective Action Programs. chapter. For the pu4oses of this impoundment on which significant 192.34 Effective Date- subpart. the terms " waste,,,,, hazardous quantities of uramum byproduct waste." and related terms, as used in materials have been placed pnot to Subpert E-Standards for Management of Thorfum Byproduct E. arts 260,261, and 2S4 of this chapter promu!ganon of this standarti. wll apo!y to byprorfuct material. Matertais Pursuant to Section 84 of the 5 192.32 Stancaros. Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as (b) Uranium byproduct material means the tellings or wantes produced (a) Standards for application during Amended by the entraction or concentratton of pmcossiq opervtions anderror to the 192.40 Applicabdity. urarmm from any are processed end of the closum permd. (1) Surface 192.41 Provishns. pnman!y for its source material content. Impoundments (except for an existing 192.42 Substitute WoWoris Ore bodies denleted by uranium portion) subject to this subpart must be 192.43 Effectae Date. solution extraction aperations and designed, constructed. sad installed in Authonty: Sec. 275 of the Atomic Energy which remain underground do not such manner as to conform to the Act of 1954. 42 U.S.C. 2022. as added by the constitute " byproduct material" for the requirements of I 264.221 of this chapter.

Federal Register / Vol. 48. No.196 / Friday. October 7,1983 / Rules and Regulations 45947 except that at sites where the annual (4) The regulatory agency, in i 192.34 Effective date. precipitation falling en the impoundment conformity with Federal Radiation Subpurt D shall be effective Dece.mber and any drainage area contributing protectien Guidance (FR Wy 18.1960. 6.1981. surface runoff to the impound nent is pgs. 4402-3), shall make every effort to less than the annual evaporation from maintain radiation doses from radon T4sts A the impoundment. 'he requirements of emissions from surface impoundments i 264.228(a)(2)(iiij(E) referenced in of uramum byproduct materia!s as far i 264.221 do not apply. ______ .a 80""' below the Federal Radiation Protection c (2) Uranium byproduct materials shall Guides as is practicable at ea.:5 license 1 .  ; , be managed so as to conform to the site. c.mN

                                                                                                                .c. uu. m meu.cm.aon co i ground water protection standard in                                                                                      ---H                 '5 (b) Standards for application after the i 264.92 of this chapter, except that for    c/osure period. At the end of the closure the purposes of this subpart:                period:                                             Subpart E-Standards for (i) To the list of hazardous (1) Disposal areas shall each comply           Management of Thorium Byproduct constituents referenced in i 264.93 of        with the clasure performance standard this chapter are added the chemical                                                             Materials Pursuant to Section 84 of the elements molybdenum and uranium,              in i 2M.111 of this chapter with respect           Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as to nonradiological hazards and shall be            Amended (ii) To the concentration limits         designed 8 to provide reasonable provided in Table 1 of I 2S4.94 of this                                                          '"                **

chapter are added the radioactivity assurance of control of radiological hazards to This subpart applies to t% limits in Table A of this subpart. (iii) Detection muitoring programs (i) De effective for one thousand years. management of thorium byproduct required under i 264.98 to establish the to the extent reasonably acNevable. materials under Section 84 of the Atomic standards required under i 2M.92 shall and. in any case, for at least 200 years. Energy Act of 1954, as amended, dunng and, and following processing of thorium be completed within one (1) year of promulgation. (ii)I.imit releases of radon-222 from ores, and to restoration of disposal sites uranium byproduct materials to the following any use of such sites under (iv) The regulatory agency may establish attemate concentration limits atmosphere so as to not exceed an Section 83(b)(1)(B) of the Act. (to be satisfied at the point of average 8 release rate of 20 picocuries 9 192.41 Prowls;ons. compliance specified under i 2M.95) per square meter per second (pCi/m% The provisions of Subpart D of this under the criteria of f 2M.94(b). (2) The requirements of Section part, including ii 192.31,192.32. and provided that, after considering 192.32(b)(1) shall not apply to any 192.33. shall apply to thorium byproduct practicable corrective actions. these portion of a licensed and/cr disposal material and: limits are as low as reasonably site which contains a concentration of (a) Provisions applicable to the achievable. and that in any case, the radium-220 in land, averaged over areas element uranium shall also app!y to the standards of 8 264.94(a) are satisfied at of 100 square meters, which. as a result all points at a greater distance than 500 element thonum: of uranium byproduct material. does not (b) Provisions acplicable to radon.222 meters from the edge of the disposal exceed the background level by more shall also apply M radon-200; and area and/or outside the site boundary. than: and (c) Provisions aoplicable to radium. (i) 5 picocuries per gram (pC1/g). 226 shall also apply to radium-228. (v) The functions and responsibilities averaged over the first 15 centimeters fd) Operations covered under designated in Part 264 of this chapter as (cm) below the surface and those of the " Regional Administrator" 1192.32(a) shall be conducted in such a (ii)15 pCl/g. averaged over 15 cm manner as to provide reasonab!e with respect to " facility permitsshall thick layers more than 15 cm below the be carried out by the regulatory agency. assurance that the annual dose surface. equivalent does not exceed 25 millirems except that exemptions of hazardous cons'tituents under i 264.93 (b) and (c) of I n2.33 Corrective Action Programs, to the whole body,;'5 millirems to the this chapter and alternate concentration thyroid, and 25 millitems to any other if the ground water standards organ of any member of the public as a limits established under i 2M.94 (b) and established under provisions of Section result of exposures to the planned (c) of this chapter (except as otherwise 102.32(a)(2) are exceeded at any discharge of radioactive materials, provided in i 192.32(a)(2)(iv)) shall riot licensed site, a corrective action radon-220 and its daughters excepted, to be effective until EPA has concur td program as specified in 264.100 of this the general environment. therein. chapter shall be put into operation as (3) Uranium byproduct materfar s shall soon as is practicable, and in no event i 192.42 substitute provisions. be managed so as to conform to tb later than eighteen (18) months after a provisions of: The regulatory agency may with the finding of exceedance. concurrence of EPA. substitute for any (a) Part 100 of this chapter. provisions of i 192.41 of this subpart

     " Environmental Radiation Protection              i73. tandard applies to design. Menitonns fo,  alternative provisions it deems more Standards for Nuclear Power                   radon-222 afterinstallation of an apprepnateiy     pracdcal      that will provide at least an Operations" and                               d"'ened covee te not reqwed.

(b) Part 440 of this chapter. " Ore '*"""*" hall apply to the enna urface of equivalent level of protection for human health and the environment. Minin8 and Dressin8 Point Source "'"d***"'"P""d'*I'""'Y but hort compared to too' years. Radon will come ' Category: Effluent I. imitations from both uranium byproduct mat.nale end from 5 192.43 Effective date* Guidelines and New Source

• Subpart E shall be effective December covenns matenals. Radon emissions from covenns Performance Standards. Subpart C. matenale should be estimated as part of developens 6.1983.

Uranium. Rad *p,*3 ',",'L('*/,',',*,ch da how""' Subcategory.,ium, and Vanadium Ores on ' I t u d Int om p-mn Bled m aos sq ma,enai, to the atmosphere, e:LL no coos esee se.as

E a .;-,m AB s'0 -L URANIUM MILL 7AILINGS REGULATI*NS; Ph CCNFCRMING NRC RECUIRE.MENTS 'C E. A STANCARCS Pg A 4c

                                                      + 9 FR      4 q (f' STAFF ANALYSIS CF PUBLIC CCMMENTS CN PRCPCSED RULE CHANGES TO 10 CFR PART 10 3...

Civision :f aste w anagement WSS Ace 1 *335 l l

TABLE OF CCNTENTS cace

1. INTRCCUCTICN AND

SUMMARY

......................... ............... I 2 -- -- L.e S i u rL.- .v w. .eN. i :a s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c.. . . . . 2. G EN E RA L 5 5 U E S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7. . . . . . . .

a. Ccamission Authority and Res:ensibility Statement ........... 7 b.

c. Prececural and Juriscictional Issues ........................ 9 S e c o e o f R u l ema k i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

d. Ccaments en 40 CFR 192 ........................ ....... 23

e. Other ......................................... ..... .. .......... 24 4

CCMMENTS CN SPECIFIC PRCPCSED CHANGES TO APPENDIX A 0F 10 CFR 40....................................................... 28

a. in:rccuction ............................. 28

3. Criterien 1.................................................. 30 c.

c. Criterien 3 ................................................ Criterien 4

                                                                                                ..................                 34
                                   ............................                                                                    35 e.

f. CriterienE............................................... 36 Criterien 5 ................................................. 44 CriterienS.............................................. g.

                                                                                                ...../...........                  53

h. Criteria 2, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 12 ............................. 55 AP:ENDIX A - PRCPCSEC RULE FR NOT:CE AP:ENCIX 3 - CCMMENTS

 ;4/*.3/35                                                 ft STAF: ANAL :UBL:C CMMENTS f

1 1 l

i

1. :NTRCCUCTICN AND

SUMMARY

t Cn Moncay, Novem er 25, 1934, procesec :nanges :: 10 CFR 3ar: 10 4ere

uclisnec in the . eceral Register for pu lic ::mment (19 FR 4613). See a :encix A. The c:mment ;erice originally ex:ir,ec :n January 10, 1985 Out

     .as extencec until Fe:ruary 10, ;985 (50 FR 2293, January is, 1955).

Twenty-four c:mmenters res;cnded with 25 sets of c:mments (see Section 2). C oies of ne res:enses are incluced in Apcencix 3. Six environmental grou s, seven states, two eceral agencies, seven incustry re resentatives, one pre-energy (i.e., pr -nuclear) grou: anc one incivicual resconced. One enviren-mental c:mment crevicec references only anc two incustry c:mments were encorse-nents of ::ner incustry c:mments cnly. The pre csec rule enanges were intencac :: c:nform exist ng NRC regula-ti:ns for uranium anc thorium mill tailings :: regula:1cns u:lisnec y ne Envir:nmental Pr:tection Agincy (EPA). The action was taken :: ::maly witn :ne

• legislative mancate set out in the Uranium Mill Tailings Raciati n Cente:1 Act (UMTRCA) anc NRC autnori:ation Acts. The EPA stancarcs are c:ntained in Su:: arts 3 anc E of 10 CF; ;ar: '92 (49 F; 15925; Cc:::er 7, '983).

=ments ere efferec en Oo n general issues anc :ne s:ecific :nanges in :ne

r::csec rule notice anc reflectec civerse views.

• The general issues accressac :ne 0 mmissien'Au:ncef:y anc Res:ensibility Statement, =r:cacural anc juriscictional issues, :ne se::e of :ne rulemaning,

ne valicity anc merits of :ne EPA stancarc, anc ::ner miscal'ane us :::1:s.

mmenters :n :ne C:= mission Autacef:y anc Res:ensi:111 y 5:atemen: .ert

ivicec. The envir:nmental ;rcu:s (EONP, Sier-a C'uc, EP:, anc ECF) anc EPA

isagreec ita all ce :ar Of :ne statement.

• ncustry acvecatec an alte-nate a::reacn relying :n ;enerai agency :les. One state ('4A) su::cetec :ne flexibilt:y in :ne 3:atement.

C a/ ;3,' 35 1 '.0 FR 10 0'iANGEi

Drecacural and jurisdictiona' issues raisec incluced incustry nalienging any c:nf:rming action to an EPA stancard sna: is im re:er en jurisci::f onal greuces anc ceiaying conferming action untii :."e Ten n Cir:ui: cases are se::lec (ECNP anc AMC). The Sierra Cluo, E:I, and EPA :nallensec :ne legality Of no: meeting

ne six month case to conform and :enf:rming in two steps.

Ocmments en the scope of the firs stes rulemaking included general views that NRC snould undertake c:mpletely new rulemaking and a number of s:ecific addf-tional enanges. Cne environmental group (ENCP) and industry (AMC anc Kerr-McGee) urged NRC to undertake new r alemaking to repla:e both EPA and NRC rules. 1 Adcisional conforming changes suggested included tailings cover s:ecifications, reliance on active maintenance, and enanges based en the earlier suspension of crtions of Ap:endix A and initial staff rec:mmencations to the Commission. All categories of c:mmenters sugges:ed accitional enanges :: 10 CFR 40, t A :encix A not related to conforming to the EPA standard. i j Virtually all categories of c:mmenters expressed dissatisfaction with the EPA j standards in 40 CFR 192 as either too lax er tc' o stringent. A numcer of other miscellaneous : pics were raised including Agreement State im:lementation of ne alternatives pr: vision wnien tracks the language in Section 34c of :ne AEA.

mments :n :ne accision of the flexibilt:y provisions of Section 54c of the A :mic Energy Ac- (AEA) :: the Intracuction generally cic ac: take issue witn

ne accision 1 self since it parapnrasec :ne law. States anc environmental i

ge:u s ex:ressac concerns about imclementa: ten. Scme of :ne incustry ::mmenters favorec extensive sucolemental rulemaxing :: recuce :ne :urcen en licensees ::

evele: alte natives.

C:mments en :reposec enanges :: Criterten 1 en :ne time frame for protection reflected ::nfusion en goals or ecjictives versus recutrements anc disagreement on ana the times anc reliance en active maintenance sneule :e. State anc envie nmental ::mments urgee :imes greater : nan the 1,0CO year EPA cesign stancarc on ::ver I:ngevity are no reliance on maintenance. *ncustry favorec a ICC year g:41 anc reliance en maintenance! 1 4/ !/s5 2 :o :PR 40 CaAncEs l l l

C:mments On :ne proposec :nange in Criterien 4 :: re:Iace " maximum ;cssible ficcc" wita " reca:le Maximum Fl: c" reflectac civergen views :n :ne a::r:- Oriate casign ficed :: be usec in analyses. Envir:n=en al ::: centers 'avorec maximum ::nservatism anc incus ry acvecatec less ::nservative assum::icns : nan eitner :ne existing er re:osec language.

       ?-:: sec :nanges :: Criteria 1, 3, anc 5 were al.1 intencac 0 reflec: :na: :ne EPA stancard starts from a remise :nat no see: age from new or ex:anced im cunc-ments er cegraca-ton Of groun water are allcwed anc :na all ge:un water is ::

be crotected regardless of :uality or use category. Industry str:ngly cc:osed protecting non usacie grouncwater, rec:mmenced ceferring all grounc water enanges, and arguec :na: the EFA grounc water standards are invalic because they fail the Congressional test of com ara:111:y :: s ancarcs for wastes of similar na: arc (f r exam:le, mining wastes). ??A ::mmentec that mere cistinc-tien to: ween existing and 9ew sites is neeced. C:mmenters : fected :: inc:r:crati:n of the EFA lengevity anc rac:n cesign stancarcs into Criterien 5 in general and 00:osec s:ecif t as:ects of the pre: sec :nanges. Many cf :ne arguments were directed against the E?A standard as :eing ::c lax :: acecuately :retec- heal n and :ne environmen: Or more stringent : nan warranted by :ne ris(s. Several :: menters urgec NRC :: ket: its more restri:-ive racen limit anc 2-meter minimum ::ver. *n cus ry ::: sec inclucing any EPA stancar:s for ncrium Oy:recu:: materiti. Several state anc environmental :: menters ::jec:ec :: tre n::r::rati:n f :ne

• EFA f:ctnc:a :ualifying the *. ngevity anc racen staccar: as a :esign s ancard 9c: *ecuiring ::nfirmatory menit: ring Averaging revistens anc :tsregar: :f

ne -ac:n f t:m ::ver ma arials .ere rise :f ::ncarn :n Cr* e-icn 5 :nanges.

C:=menters :ues:tened im:lementation as:ects of :ne ~r': eat:n 3 :nange :: ace

ne as icw as rae:icacie g:als for rac:n releases :uring :: era-fans. One c: eentea arguec for One curatn: termincicgy aefiacted in .* CFR Sar: 23 f:r kee:ing eleases as i:w as reas:naciy tenieva:1e ( AL1AA) as ne true E?A in enz.

y g n 9 04

r After considera:f cn of the comments, staff concluded : nit the basic two-steo rulemaking approacn is still feasible and acvisaole. The major cifferences between the pec;csed rule anc :ne final rule recommenced y staff arei (1) Adcition of an insert :c :ne Intrccuc:fon requiring consiceration of risks and costs in site specific ifcensing decistens; (2) Addition of an insert to Criterien 5 clarifying tne amplicacility of 10 CFR 192; (3) Clarification of :ne general goal of permanent isolation of tailings in Criterion 1; (1) Clarification in Criterion 6 nat :ne raden flux 'mits are to be met for the effective design life of ne reclaimed imacuncment; (5) Clarificatten in Criterien 8 that doses from raden emissions tre to be as icw as is " reasonably achievable" rather than as is

               " practicable"; and (5) Addition of changes to 10 CFR 150 to clarify Agreement State oct'icns to acco: alternatives uncer See:icn 274o of :ne AEA.    .

Ctner minor clarifying and eciscrial enanges are also recommencec. i C4/12/35 4 *0 CFR 10 CHANGE 5 I

2. i..t.e c.c r. .v.v.e..sb

                              .        . :a5 Cocke: Nc.                                 :mmentar                          Ab:rev'a: ten

1. Ec:1cgy/Aler None

2. Environmental Coalition en Nuclear : wer ECN?

3. Sierra Club Ncne 4 Envircnmental Dolicy Institute EP! '

5. Environmental Cefense Func ECF

6. A::ceney General State of Illinois IL

7. Colorado Ce:artment of Health CO

8. Marvin Lewis Ncne l 9. U.S. Ce:artment of the Interice CCI

10. U.S. Environmental Prc action Agency EPA

11. Texas Cecar ment Of Heal n IX

12. Utah Ce:artment of Health UT

13. Wasningten Ce:artment of Social anc Heal:n Services WA 14 New Mext:: Environmental Imcrevemea.: Division NM 15.

Environmental Cefense Func (see 5 aisc) ECF

16. Piedmont Envir:nmental Council PEC

17. Western Nuclear, Inc. WN!

t 13. (err-McGee C:r:craticn; <ert-McGee '<er--ScGee Chemical Car:cra:1cn and Cuivica Mining C:m:any

19. American Mining Congress AMC

20. Environmental Policy Institute (see a aisc) EPI

21. Hemestake Mining C: meany -MC

22. 'J e:cs Minerals Cer:cettien 'MC Y

I2. Wycming Ce:artment of Environmental Cuality ' WY 21 Access to Energy AE

25. 04wn Mining C:::any Cawn

26.  : arsons, Eente & Latimer for Ric A1;:m C:r:cra 'en Ric Algem

tes of : e ::mments receivec are rece:cucac in ::cAe: n'.meer :rcer 19 A encix 2. The ::mmenters fall int :ne f:li: wing : stag:r*es:

g Y

                                                                              $   SO          YO

l Envfrenmental -cenergy 4 Ecclegy/ Alert Ac:ess to Energy ECNP Sierra C'ub

                                                 ~

E?I Indivicuals EOF Marvin Lewis ! PEC j. Total 6 9 Industrial

                      ,          'nNI l                                 Kerr-McGee AMC                             ,

HMC UMC Federal Acencies Dawn COI Rio Algem EPA J Total 7 Total 2 ! $ tate IL CC

n

• l

                                'JT
                               'dA                             i NM
                               'dY Total          7 I

04/12/35 6 10 0FR 40 CFANGE3 i .

3. c.:.NgqAL ..e.en.e.:

l i a. C:mmissien Auther*:v anc Rescensici'i v sta:emen: The notice inclucee a statement en "C = mission Autn0rity anc Res:ensi:ility." The statement summari:ed ne "c=missi n's :cli:y :n :ne exercise of its rescensibility anc authcrity for mill tailings, inclucing :ne autnerity := approve site s:ecific alternatives reccsec by licensees uncer Secticn Sac of the Atcmic Energy Act, s e C:=menters were divided en this issue. The environmental ge:v:s (ECN?, . Sierra Club, EPI, anc EDF) anc EPA disagreed with all or par: of the statement. Industry (AMC anc supaceters) acvecated an alternate acproacn. Cne State (WA) succerted the statement. ECN? strongly ep csed the statement asserting na: NRC is =r::csing to essentially deregulate mill tailings cis:csal en a site s:ecific basis. The Sierra Cluc disagreed with :ne view :nat Section 34c gives NRC autnerity o a: reve . alternatives to "any r all environmental stancarcs" anc expressac the view that Secticn S4e only revices for acpreval of alternatives :: NRC rules. The Sierra Cluc also Ocjectec := NRC's intent to ignere :ne ex:lici: ::ncurrence

revisions ::ntainec in EPA's stancard. EPI cisagreed witn :ne statement anc arguec sna: See:1:n 5ac "is not a new grant of authority for :ne C:mmissica to al er its real n anc safety or envir:nmental :r:tec-icn recuirements 1er ::

ai ar 1:s enforcement of ne EPA stancarcs." I?: also sugges ac :na: ne  ;

cif:y statement inferrec na: EPA ::ncurrence uncer Sections 3?(a)(3) Or 275 is reclucec. .n summary, EPI's view is na: 3dc flext:ility acclies Only l

al arnate engineering and tecnnical s;ecificatiens to :nese in NRC rules. EP: l { arguec na: Agreement States can ace:: alternate s ancarcs, nc NRC, anc :na: NRC's si a s:ecific ac:reacn is an a: am:: :: cir:umvent :ne ecairec fincing

n ecu1 valency or more stringency in Section 34c. ECF also cisagreec na:

See:f=n 34c grants NRC au:ncri y c ::nsicer al:ernatives :: ne EPA s ancarcs. ECF arguec :na: :ne language cf ne s atute anc :ne legislative nist:ry su::ce i s :esition. The legisia-ive history ci:ec inclucec EPA's :!e :: issue generai envirenmental stancarcs anc NRC's c:le : 'm:lemen: :nem as cescrd:ec in Section Sa(a) Of :ne AEA. i l l

     -  1/ ...:i ..c                                  .

i

                                                                            . n ..: n.< 0 ..u.m. i4G:.:

E?A aisc cisagreed with NEC's inter:retati:n Of See:f on 34c. EPA stated "Section 3ac coes not Confer On NRC authority to a:preve or emol y alternative stancards or :: substitute its juc; ment for EPA's egarcing :ne ievel of pectec:1cn necessary :: pr:tect puol f health anc the environment. Ratner it autneri:es NRC to a:preve or em: ley licensee :r :csec alternatives :: NRC's cwn general im:lementinc recuirements . . ." Furtner, E?A argued that its stancard that recuires E?A a::reval of site specific alternative ::ncentration limits is within its authority, not NRC's uncer Section 34c. In EPA's view, NRC must also estaolish specific requirements before 1: an ::nsider alternatives to them. WA su:;crted the need for NRC and Agreement States to review and acprove site s;ecific alternatives to stancards without E?A concurrence. AMC and its su:cceters asserted that NRC is trying to avoid the jurisdic-

fonal issue ey relying en See:fcn 34c. The AMC acvocated an entirely different a: preach as discussed in the f:llcwing sections en ?rececural and Jurisdictional Issues and Sc:pe of Rulemaking. In AMC's view, reliance en the basic require-ments of UMTRCA w1:n rescec~: to the jurisciction of the agencies would be a strenger legal ;csition and eliminate the need :: rely en Secticn 34c.

Resconse: A cetailec legal analysis of :ne merits of :ne E?A : jec-icns :: :ne 5:atemen: anc of AMC's juriscictional arguments is c:ntainec in SECY-55-125 - datec Acrii C, ;985. The C:mmission askec the Cffice Of :ne General Counsel (CGC) :o :recare :nis information :acer. The :acer incluces an indepencent review of ne legislative nis:Ory surrouncing this issue. The response :: this issue anc :ne AMC juriscic fcnal arguments in :ne felicwing section (b. Or:cecural and juriscic:f =nal issues) are summart:ec fr:m SECY-35-;25. CGC ::ncluced that :ne C:mmission is autneri:ec uncer section Eac cf the AEA :: grant exem :icns fr:m EPA's stancarcs witncut :::aining EPA's concurrence. The casts f:r :nis c:nclusion :: vers f ur =cints. First is :ne

elief :na: "s:ecific C:mmissicn recuirements" can :e ceemec acoctec witncut a rulemaking :receeding. See:1:n 34a(2) recuires :ne Ccemissi:n :: ensure :na:

l i 04/13/35 5 10 CFR 40 CHANGE 3 i I t

                                                                                              ~

 . e tat?' gs are tanags: in ::sf:rmance ei:n EPA"s stancarcs.

Sec- en iaa (2) Oreates a s a u:Ory :ligati:n :y :ne :=missi:n :: enf r:e EFA's s anca- s ince:encen Of *ne*ner One C:=missi n ac00:5 *eguiati:ns wn :a acui: : ' a r' #y new :ne C:= mission woul enf:rce :nese s:ancar:5. See:re, secti:n 3ac ex: licitly states : a- ne NRC may a::r:ve ai ar-natives wni:n, :: the exten Oractica:le, woulc achieve safety levels ecuiva-ien: ::

nese wnien would ce acnievec by ::: liance witn NRC's recuirements anc E?A's stancarcs. Thus, the NRC is autacri:ec : 3::reve an alterna-tve

       .nien d:es n: Orovice the same level of =retec icn of :telic neal:n, safety ace One envir:nment wnten wcule ce acnieved if EPA's stancar:s were ::meliec witn fully. Thire, UMTRCA coes nc use ne :nrase "ia:lementing ecuiremen s." Secti:n Sac refers :: Only "s:ecific recuirements ac:: ec anc enfor ec :y :ne C:= mission." This :nrase is clearly intancec              incluce all recuirements ace::ec Oy ne C:mmission :: regulate mill tailings. The source of ne ace:  --

ec recuirements is immaterial :: the statut ry scneme anc may

       ,nc..uce crA,s catai.led stancarcs. .-ina.ly, i
                                                          -,A,s c:mment : es not effect,.vely cr res: enc :: the C:=mi ssion's argument ina: EPA site s:ecift: ::ncurrence in exem: icns centracicts ne cronititten on EPA's issuance of a :ermit in sec-icn 275b.(1) of the AEA.

mments Ouestioning NRC's actives or intent are Offse: Oy ne fin ings recuirec of ne C:= mission in section Sac in Orcer : exercise one 'lexibili y

a::reve al arnatives. Asscr:ica of legal r'gn: :es net ecua a :: an inten

a:use a rignt.

As incicatec in ne nex: section, CGC :elieves na- EPA generally has actec *itnin its ;urisciction set generally a: I':acle envir:n= ental s ancarcs .nien incluce generi: :nsite im:lementa: n Or:v si:ns. Thus ne d AMC view is ejectac.

. :rececural anc jurisci::i:nal issues.

                      ?rececural anc 'urisci -i:nal issues af sec inciacec :nal'enging any ::nf:rming a:-ion :: One EPA stancar: On jur' sci:-icna! gr uncs, celay'ng s gj ..:j::
            ..                                      2
                                                                            . u- ..:s :u~.
                                                                                        .a.mNG:.-

action until c:ur; suits are settled, c:ner references :: :ending preceecings, Ocjecting to NRC failure to mee: :ne six-menth ::ngressional timeframe f:r conforming, and cuestioning ne two stec Or: cess. The AMC presented extensive legal arguments en the E?A/NRC juriscictional issue. hMC, UMC, anc Rio Algem supported :ne AMC ::mments in all respects. The AMC c:mments f cused on the follcwing legal goints: Since its ratifica ten of Reorgani:ation Plan No. 3 of 1970, consis-ten: Congressional policy has been to limit E?A standarc setting authority for NRC licensed facilities to " generally applicable standards," meaning standards that are apolicable outside site boundaries anc that impose no site s:ecific design, engineering er management requirements. Congress, in :ne Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA), ac cted the division of jurisdiction beween EPA and NRC first established in the 1970 Reorgani:ation Plan. EPA's standards are not " generally applicable standarcs" and are therefore beyond the jurisdiction of E?A. C:nsecuently, the E?A stancarcs are a " mere nullity" of no legal force or effect and NRC is not legally bounc to ::nform to one stancarcs. Rescense: The staff c:nsicerec :ne AMC arguments anc c:nclucec one arguments are funcamentally ANC's brief in tne Ten:n Circuit sui: cnallenging the legality of the E?A stancard. NRC is not a : arty or participant in :ne Tent $ Circuit preceeding. If E?A is sustainec, the arguments are immaterial. If AMC is sustained, then NRC will be recuired to concuct acditional rulemaking. Staff coes not agree :na: :ne arguments are sufficient grouncs for NRC no: to ::nform acsent resolution in c:ur anc nas proceecec wi:n :nis analysis. 04/18/35 10 10 C.:R 10 CHANGE 3 i l

As notec earlier, CGC ::nclucec that E?A generally ac ac 41:nin its furisciction anc f enc ne AMC arguments 'lawec. CGC examinec UMTECA anc its legislative his Ory anc summart:ac i s fincings as f:ll ws:

1. Eef:re UMTRCA, EPA, no: NRC, hac :rimary au ncrity Over :c n :ne raciciegiesi anc n:n-raciclegical im: acts frem uranium mill tailings;

2. Curing C ngressional celiberattens ever UMTECA, NRC a em::ec ::

reduce suestantially EPA's authority ever radiological na: arcs of mill tailings Oy limiting it :: EPA's "tracitional" authority under Recrgani:atien Plan No. 3, i.e., authority :: pr:mulgate only generally a::licaole, ncn-site s:ecific raciological standards, a lic'aole Only cu:sice the :cuncaries of the tailings sites; 3. EPA 0: csec :ne NRC's attemet :: :ransfer :: itself EPA's autnerity regulate mill tailings. EPA's efforts were partially successful and resulted in a C ngressional c: :remise wnien preclucec EPA frem remulgating site s ecific stancarcs but wnica cid not restrict EPA :: stancards a::lica:le only cu: side site :cuncaries. E?A was aisc given ::ncurrence authority over NRC regulaticas for c:ntrolling non-radiclogical hazarcs. 1 Exce:: for :ne instance, EFA actac witnin 1 s ;urisci:-f en uncer LMTRCA in se ting envir:nmental s accarcs f:r managing racicac-ive emissions anc na: arc:us :nemical wastes fr:m uranium mili :atiings; anc

5. EPA exceecec its jurisdiction by s ating na- 1:s ::ncurrence sculd e re uirec :ef:re ne NRC ::uic grant site s:ecific case-:y-case exem::f:ns fr:m NRC regula:f ens for im lementing EPA's stancards. We believe :na: sue.a a

ncurrence role y E?A also ::n ract: s ne '953 amen ment ;; UMTRCA -aien accec Secti:n 34c :: :ne At:mic Energy Ac..

i l The 31erra Clu , EPI, acc E?A ::=centac en :ne legality Of act meeting One ,

month w. ngressional mancate : : nf rm :y crii.. . .:=- .

                                                                          ., .... anc ::nt rm'ng in we j

sta:s. The Sierra Clu=, E?! anc EPA asser:ac :na: NRC's acti:n is i'iegai anc

es nc: mee :ne ex:it:t- inten: of CMTRCA. The Sier-a Clu: also infer ec :na: l a f:ur fear ulemaxing On gr unc-water ceiays ::m i f ance .1 n E?A's gr:unc .ater l

l

      ..                                                                                                               1
      . - , . . . . . .. -/ ::                               ..                                                         '
                                                             ..                        . 0 ...s-       ,0 ..,.ANG::

l recuiremenis. E?! argued that NRC hac amole earning, time, anc regula:Ory base to fully c mply in 6 months for ec n grouncwater and non gr:unewater ascects. As a minimum, E?! argued that interim rules : c:nform sncule nave been :uc- j lishec. EFI objected to NRC's ;:esition that c:nforming to EPA's grounc-water i l stancarcs should ce ::moined with cevelocing a rule that fuliy meets ne mancate in Section 84(a)(3) to have general requirements na are ccm aracle to EPA's recuirements for similar materials regulated under the Solid Waste Cis:csal Act. EPA argued that the EFA standards in 40 CFR 192 already mee this require-ment :: be c:mparacle and even if they did not, NRC should conform to the gr und water standards in 40 CFR 192 immediately. EPA stated that NRC snould c:nform quickly to all of the 40 CFR 192 standards, including grounewater, in the first rulemaking. EPA argued that the same nondiscretionary a;::: reach should ce used anc :nat the second rulemaking can fulfill tne requirements of See:1cn 34(a)(3). Res;:ense: The cecisions regarding whether and how NRC should conform to the EPA stancarcs involved c molex legal, jurisdicti:nal, anc ;:clicy issues. The C:=missien carefully considered the implica icns of several alternatives and its authority and res::ensibilisf es before ceciding on tne c:urse Of action evicenced by ne noticas Of pr:::osec rulemaking and advance notice Of :: reposed rulemaking. The c:mmenters are c:rrect :na: C ngress intended c:nformance to be sufff-ciently straign forward to be c:m:leted in 6 mentns anc so statec in :ne legis-laticn. Mcwever, :ne legislation did not anticipate :ne c:mplex nature af :ne E?A standard or the direct effectiveness en licensees beginning Cecem er 6,1983. Congress also cid not im ose any ;;enalty if NRC f ailec to mee: :ne 6 men:ns as it cic witn the loss of authority if E?A failec :: meet its Cc ::er 1, 1933 date. No healtn and safety or envircemental im: acts nave resuitec or will result frem ceiay er lack of interim rules since staff :elieves sna: NRC anc :ne States are recuirec to im:lement ene enforce :ne E?A staccards uncer Sec: ten 2750 Of

ne A::mic Energy Act in :ne interim until final c:nforming requiations are in Oc/'.3/35 ;2 10 CFR 20 CHANGES

Olace. NRC nas se inf rmec i s licensees and Agreement States anc is i le-menting :ne stancarc. The s:::e anc -iming Of ne sec0nc s e: rulema(ing is 5-iil uncer ::nsi-cera-icn. C mments en ne ANPRM are :eing analy:ec. A sim:le rule c.ange inc:rt: rate ne 5:ecific cr0unc wa ar retecticn ; revisions of 40 CFR 1.02 is :ne :::icn :eing ::nsicered. Mcwever, such a.:nange in s ::e :: :ne present action wculd precaoly require a recre:csal :: allow puclic ::mment anc woulc delay removing ::nflicts anc inc:nsistencies. Thus staff rejects EPA's ::mment. The insert cevel::ec for Criterien E cealing wi:n 40 CFR 192 gr:und water protection will clarify ne situation in the interim. The ECNP inc:r; crated dy reference One full rec:rcs of the NRC's Consolicatec Reac::r Preceecing and Three Mile Islanc, Uni- 2, C:erating License ?receecing. The ECN:'s f0cus is en racen risk issues in the :r:ceecings. They also incor:c-catec a nemeer of cecuments reia ec :: :neir suit agains: ne EFA s ancarc. CD nc ec :na: :ne 3:ste is a : arty :: litigation en :ne E?A stancarcs in :ne U.S. Court of A;:eals for :ne Tenth Circuit. Xerr McGee ackncwlecged tne :encing Ten n Circuit litigation agains: :ne NRC rules in one case anc agains: :ni EPA stancarcs in a sec:nc. AMC also reviced dccuments relatec :: :ne Tenth Circuit suit agains

ne E?A stancarc and mace frecuent reference := issues in :na:

creceecing.

                ~

ses::nse: , i C ner : nan snewing ne ac-ive legal : lima:e sur uncing :ctn NRC anc E?A rules anc :ne general cissatisfac-icn in many sec :rs, nese references have n : earing :n :ne conforming ac:f =n a nanc. :n :ne a:sence of scecific citati:ns : matter in nese volumincus referencec c:cuments, :ne NRC Mas n:

liga-icn :: ::m

nreugn nem for ma arial argua:1y germane : :nis ruie-making creceecing.

l The ECNP arc AMC anc its su:: rters urgec :na- NRC ceiay ac-icn until One I l legal enailenges :ne EFA s ancarc in :ne Ten n Circui are settlec. aE urgec NRC ne: : ::nform :: :ne EPA stancarc until i- is revisec :: accress "One ;enuine a: arcs ::sec Oy acen."

   - e , ...: e<
                                                   . .n                     .~...:
                                                                             . sag .u..;ng:.-

Rescense: Since timetables for court action are nighly uncertain anc :ecause ne EPA stancards are being im lementec anc enforcec, staff sees no reason to celay c:nformance by rule. Cbvicusly, if court action sets asice all Or : art Of NRC's or EPA's rules, additional rule changes will Oe required. The Commissien

elieves the EPA rules wculd nave to present a clear anc real threa: to :ublic health and safety for NRC to unilaterally set them aside. Envircnmental argu-ments are based en hypothetical effects and industry arguments en furisdiction, c:s:s, and practicality. Ncne of the comments suggested a threat to healtn and safety in implementing the EPA rules or going ferward with the conforming rule changes.

c. Scece of Rulemakine C:mmenters effered a wice range of views en the sc: e of the rulemaking.

Several c:mmenters (e.g. , EPA) ebjected to the two ste: a =rcach. Reasons citec incluced legal ones surroun'cing the Congressional mancate as discussed in the preceeding section (EPA, EPI, and the Sierra Club) and licensee / applicant c:nfusien in tne interim (NM). ECNP, Kerr-McGee, anc AMC urged NRC to uncertake ince:encent new rule-making. ECNP acvocated more restrictive rules using :ne EPA stancard as a minimum Oaseline on racon c:ntrol and issue regulations na " fully protect ne uclic fer :ne curation of nese astes". ECNP acvecatec c:m=lete revision of 10 CPR Par: 40, A encix A, as issued in Cet:cer, 1950 :: pr vide more pectaction frem racen and referencec :ne Consolicated Racon :r ceecings for ce: ails n deficiencies. The AMC arguec that NRC must uncertake a c:==letely new incecencent rulemaking to re: lace ctn :ne E?A anc NRC rules because EPA's stancarcs are nc: acecuately se::cr:ec Oy analysis relating c:s:s anc risks and are cu:sice EPA's juriscietien and therefore null anc void and because NRC nas crevicec ne analysis estaclishing :na: A :encix A of Par: 40 recuirements are reasonacly relatec in terms of cost, risks, anc benefits. AMC acvecatec a sc :e and a :rcach for :ne new rulema(ing in wnica NRC wcule (1) focus en stacili:stien of tailings for a reasonacie ;erice of time ins:eac of focusing CA/IE/55 la 10 CPR 40 CHANGES

en racen emissions, (2) assure, after :uclic c:mment, na: the cos s f eeutre-ments are reascnacly rela:ec :: risks, and (3) Or:vice for exciicit cistincti0ns

etween existing anc new si es anc alicw maximum site s:ecific flexibili y.

Xerr-McGee ex ressac similar views On :ne need anc : asis f:r NRC action. A key :cint in the AMC anc 4 err-ucGee arguments agains: A::encix A as :ne '953 . Puc.L. 97-415 acci fon :: Section 34a(1) of tne AEA en risk anc c:s:s. The accitien began with the werc "taking" in revised,Sec-ion 34 a('):

               "a. The C:mmission shall insure that the management Of any cy rocuc-material, as cefined in section 11e.(2), is carriec cut in sucn manner as -

(1) The Commissien ceems a :recriate to protect the puclic health and safety and ne environment fr:m raciclogical and nenraciclegical nacards associated witn :ne processing and with the ;cssession anc transfer of such material takinc fnto acc unt the risk t: the uclic realth, safety. Inc the envircement, with cue c nsideration of the ec:ncmic c s s and sucn :ner facters as the Commission cete-mires : be accrocriate." (Em:nasi s su:clisc). The incustry arguments imply -ha: this accition mancates a :ctal rec:nsi-ceration anc revision of NRC rules. Industry also notec :ne decressac ec:ncmic sta e of ne incus ry anc early stacili:ati:n clans ina nave resultec since the 1950 rule. The incustry arguments on site s:ecific flexibility anc ext s ing site cis-inc-icns were basec on Sec-fen Sac anc legislative his ry. Res:ense:

            - EFA ceveiccec anc issuec :ne stancarcs in c0 C.:R 192 uncer ne following au:ncef:y anc manca:e in Secti:n 275b( ) of the AEA:
             "5.   (1) As scen as cracti:acle, ut not 'a:er : nan Cc ::er 31, 1982, One Acministra:Or snall, :y rule, :re:cse anc '41 nin '.' men ns inereafter
     .-f .:j .:.:
                                                . :.                     .n. . .:3 cavc.u. . Ang:-

pr mulgate in final form, standards, general a::lica:icn for :ne protec-tien of the public health, safety, anc the environment fr:m raciological anc nen-raciclegical na: arcs ass:ciatec wi:n :ne pr: cessing and witn :ne possession, transfer, and dis:csal of typr0 duct material, as cefinec in section lle.(2) of this Act, at sites a .nicn cres are cr0 cessed primarily for :netr scurce material c:ntent or wnich are used f0r the ciscosal of such bypr0 duct material. In estaclishing such standards, the Acministrater shall c:nsicer the risk

o the public health, safety, and the environment, the environmental and econcaic costs of applying such standards, and such c:her fac:crs as the Acministrator determines to be appropriate."

NRC is conducting the present action uncer the mancate in Section 275f(3) of the AEA:

      "(3) Nc: later : nan 6 mentns after the case on wnien :ne Acministra:cr pr:mulgates final stancards pursuant to subsecticn b. Of this section, the Commission snall, after notice and opcortunity for public c:mment, amend the Cc:ccer 3 regulations, and adept such modifica icns, as the C:mmission deems necessary to conform := sucn final standards of :ne Acministrator."

Two ;:cints are clear in Section 275. One is EPA was ex: licitly enarged to c0nsider risk anc econcmic c:s:s. The sec:nc is that no mention of an incecen-cent risk /ec:ncmic c:st finding is explicitly recuired Of NRC in c:nforming. EPA nas :ne lead res:ensibility and staff celieves it muss assume :na: E?A me: One mancate. Staff notes tna: AMC's arguments en risk are cirected rimarily at ne EPA standard and seem to reflect its legal Orief for :ne Ten:n Circuit. NRC's cDligation to c:nsicer risk anc ec0ncmic c:sts was adcec :: Sec-tien Saa(1) as noted earlier. Section 8aa(1)recuires NRC :: insure :nat the managemen: Of the raciological and nonraciological nacarcs fr:m tailings protects the public and environment. Staff views ne mancate in 34a(1) to cover all as;ects of imolementing :ne EPA stancarc anc Accencix A. The mancate snould im act all site s:ecific licensing cecisiens inc!ucing routine actions, Bac alternative recuests, anc alternate c ncentra:ica limit cecisiens. Staff C4/13/35 16 1C CPR aC CHANGE 5

believes :na: 1 can fulfill :nis manca:e withou fur ner rulema(ing : mate A :encix A eitner more or less res rictive. Staff also believes ina; tne C:ngressional intent for si a 5:eci# ic flexicili y anc c:stinction :e ween existing anc new sites can :e met in si e s:ecific licensing cecisions :asec :n 34a(1) and Section 34c. C:nsequen !y, Section 34a(1) snculc also be em:rasi:ec in A :encix A : make 1: lear na: ne NRC .111 in f act ::nsicer risAs anc ec:ncmic ::sts anc site s:ecific neecs in genera,1. An insert :: :ne Inte:cuc-tien follcwing :ne pr :csed insert on Sec:icn 34c wcule explicitly em:nasi:e nis ;cint. Ctner fac: Ors relating :: ne staff position incluce the general ALARA mancate acclica:le : all er:csures and releases and industry failure :: cemenstrate that generic relief is a::repriate er neeced. Flexibility := c:nsider site s:ecific practical pre:lems is the wncle nrust of Section 34c. Rulemaking tailored := the pr: lems at ene er two sites is a ::unter: reductive use of time anc rescurces. Incustry ::=ments en the ce:ressed s a e of the incustry are valic anc licensees are facec with early reclamation. However, staff believes that this situation only em:nasi:es the site s:ecific decisions aeecec anc coes not sue:crt the need for generic rulemaking. Early reclama-icn will i=:ac ;racticable as:ects and c:s: :ensicerations but en a sita s:ecific basis. The insert rec:=mencec ce10w : ara:nrases Secti:n 34a(') anc OIarifies :nat im:lementation of ";ractica:le" will be ::nsistent wi:n :ne intent of Section 34a(') anc curren: C:= mission policy in 10 CFR 20..'(:). The se::nc sentence

ara:nrases ne meaning Of ALARA in *.0 CFR 20.'(:).

NM incicatec :na cecisiens on licensee's reclamat:en plans are im:ac ec by ne wo-ste a: reach since i = cst:enes naving ":efinitive Feceral s ancards." Licensees cen't knew "to wna: stancarcs :ne ian is equirec :: ::r: f : rm. " Res:cnse: Staff is sym:atne-1: wi n :ne a::earance Of egula:Ory uncertainty causec y ne wc-s e ruiemaking. ~-cwever, wnen ne firs sta: is ::meletec, all i

nfit: s will nave :een removec (e.g. , 2 versus 20 cic: cur's flux 'tmits) acc

     :'- ': f:=
                                                    ->                      'O. FR 10 CHANGES
                                                    ._.                                ~

decisicns en grouncwater can be mace based on :ne :asic nonciscretionary revisions of 40 CFR 192 since it applies directly :: New Mexic: licensees nnetner er net the State has ::nf:rmed :: NRC's rules Or ne EPA standarc. IX noted that ";cint of :m:liance" was not included in :ne pre:csec nanges and asked if this was intentional.

Response

Yes. " Point of ::mpliance" is a c:nce:: in the EPA ground water protec-tien standards and is therefore beyond the intended scope of this rulemaking. The insert to Criterien 5 should help clarify this point. C:mmenters advecating specific suggestiens to expand :ne scope of the cre:osed rulemaking generally fell into three categories-: nose advocating: (1) additional changes needec := conform to the E?A stancarcs, (2) adcitional changes that would make 10 CFR Par: 40 more ex 11 cit or =cre protective of public health, safety, and envir:nment but sna: are not directly related to

nf:rming to the EPA stancarcs, and (3) additional changes :nat would make Part 40 less restrictive or conform Oc the collective intent cf Congress ex:ressac in various legislation and nearing records ratner inan the E?A stancards. Comments in the firs: category will be rescencec : . Comments in

ne latter two categories will be c:nsicerec alcng witn c mments receivec on

ne ac::mcanying ANpeM. Mcwever, ney will be summari:ed in :nis secti n.

t The overall fiavor of the c:mments expressed a general cissatisfaction with *

n NRCi s anc EPA's regulations for a wice aange of reasons.

ECF, EPA, and incustry suggestec acditional enanges sna snculc te mace to conform :: the non grouncwater revisions of :ne E?A stancarc. EOF c:mmented

tha

:ne Commission snould recuire :na: cesign calculations f:r :: vers int:r-t

 ; crate a cesign margin Oc ex: licitly ace:unt for cnanges in =cisture ::ntent and :or sity, external erosi0nal forces, anc internal enemical reacti:ns. Sucn l

l requirements are needec :: meet the reasonacle assurance Or:visien of the EFA I raden and icngevity stancarc ever the long term. ECF :resentec tecnnical arguments en :ne critical role playec :y ::ver meisture, ne merits of multi-layerec : vers, and c:ncern f:r sait migra:icn ' rem :ailings :: :ne ::ver. E?A C /13/35 13 10 CFR 40 CHANGES

I also suggested ::nst:ering acci icnal ::ver s:ecifica:icns Ou: :1c nc: 1:entify any s:ecific :: ics. Res:ense: Staff generally agrees :na: :ne tyce cf fac::rs :na: ECF icentiffee are imccriant to : nsicer in evalua:!ng ex:ected ::v,er cerformance. In fact, :ne staff uses the ::m: uter ::ce for multi-layers ref'erenced by EDF in its calcula-tiens. Mcwever, sucn fac: Ors are very site specific and re= resent a level of cetail that NRC normally relegates :: guidance er procecural cccuments. It is aise difficul :: speculate en the numcer and imccr:ance of all factors whien might i= act design at a s:ecific site. The design margin rec:mmenced by ECF is essentially a liec in the staff's use of : nservative material parameters in :ne site specific evaluatica of the cesign of soil anc rock :: vers. EDF also urged sna an active monitoring cr: gram for tailings cover stacil-1:y :e accec to :ne Commissien's rules. The EOF rec:=menced program would last fer cecades until the ::ver has cemenstrated 1:s stacility or remecial action nas teen :aten anc the remecial action's ef fectiveness affirmec. ' Res:ense: Cri erien 12 cf :ne Commissien's rules nas a mif.imum recuirement for annual ins:ections Oy ne cust:cial governmen: agency :: ::nfirm :ne integrity of stacili:ati n anc the need for any main enance. Criterion 12 aisc has an

-fen f:r mere f ecuent ins:ec: tens. Any teni : ring neecec :rier :: transfar

ne ;cvernment agency can :e included :n a site s:ecific : asis in :ne reclama:1cn plans.

ncustry c:cments (%NI, AMC, UMC) that rei f ance :n active main:ananc:

{ sncuic :e aliewec are accressac uncer Mecification 2(a) :nanges :: Criticien .*. WN! anc AMC rec:mmencec a numcer of enanges casec :n :ne Comaission's l earlier sus:ensi:n ac-icn anc :nanges originally r::csec ey staff in SECY-32-E23. The rec:mmencec :nanges anc ratienale f:r ac-icn .ere essen:faily l ne same as :resen:ec in :ne sus:ensi:n ne ices anc :. ...Y :.. :ca.

                                                                       ... .it .e :r                1
                                                                               .                    1
   .a/.:f:.:
                                               . c.                      .aa c:. nao ..u;NG:.:

p I

                                                                                               -- ~

no new information was provided. Examcles include celetion Of belcw grace er , equivalent as the prime :sfon in Criterien 3, celetion of prescriptive recuire-ments in Criterion 4, anc celetion of radium c:n:en: restrictions on ::ver materials in Criterion 6. Kerr-McGee also rec:mmenced dele:fon of the racium centen: recuirement.

Response

1 Since the additional conforming changes suggested by WNI, AMC, and Kerr-McGee suggested offered no new bases not alreacy considerec and rejected and no substantive sucporting information on why they are noeced on a generic basis versus site scecific treatment, they are rejected for the first step rulemaking.

• A wider scope of changes was censidered by the Commission and rejected before publication of the proposed rule, on the ground that, requirements establisned

!   through extensive rulemaking cannot be set aside merely because they may not be required. The intent of this action is nondiscretionary conforming changes to eliminate conflicts and inconsistencies, add imposed stancards or Congressional direction, or make minor editorial or clarifying changes. Industry c:mments were mainly statements or claims based on "may not be requirec" and would require extensive new rulemaking anc are thus considered Outside the scope sof the present action.

A numcer of c:mments precosed scecific or general changes that are not directly related to conforming to the EPA stancard Out woulc make Appendix A more explicit or protective. The follcwing ciscussion summart:es these c:mments. Ecology / Alert suggested using 5 ton rock slaos as cover material. EDF urgec the C mmission to adcot specific requirements on when final stacili:a-fon must take place, on interim stabilization for closec mills, on accition of fluics curing closure, on use of cus: sucpressan:s during closure, and on phased closure during operations. EDF also acvocatec mancatory state-of-:ne-art wasta treatment anc operations as reflected in concectual preposals preparec for potential development of mining and milling in Virginia. Lewis sta ted ':na numerical cetteria in Criterion 5 would make the stronger grounc-water protection recuiremen; more enferceable. COI suggested amclification of l

  '04/19/35                                  20                      10 CFR 40 CHANGE 3

the recuirements in Criterien 12 for the cust:cial government agency's monitor-ing crograms. CCI suggestec accing er:visiens :n maintaining grounc water sa== ling wells anc en how long ins:ec-ten anc menit:rdng wouic ::ntinue. WY suggestec tha leanu: stancarcs for acjacen: lancs te cevel :ec := cefine wnen ney can ce releasec f:r unrestrictec use. WY cuestionec wre:ner the one year casaline in Criterien 7 is acecuate, suggestec clarifying

      " unrestricted areas" in Criterien SA, questioned the ccm:atibility Of Crite-rien 9 t:5 self bencing in Wyoming, and ex=ressed misgivings en ne Criterion 11C prevision en not aquiring all subsurface rignts.

Incustry c:mmenters viewec the pr:cosed conforming ruismaking as an op:ortunity to reiterate objections to any or all parts of Accencix A and acvocate less restrictive prov1siens. Many issues icentifiec in lawsuits anc petitions for rulemaking were repea ec. WNI anc AMC Oro csec :hanges to Criterien 5 on checking parameters to centrol yelicwcake emission to allcw reliance en alarms. WNI and AMC cojected to the Cri erien 3A .'C-cay reporting retuirement and "qualifiec engineer er scientist" inscector requirement. AMC advecated cnecks only when tailings are ceing acced. Changes to Criterien 9 to recuce the licensee's liability and amount of financial assurances were also Orc:csec Oy %NI. Self-insurance was acvocatec for Criterien 9 by AMC anc WNI. WNI urgec flexibili y in the minimum long term care cnarge, ne inflation adjus ments, anc reliance on state funcs for ccm:aracie pur:cses in Crite-rien 10. AMC ex:ressed similar views on relying on state funcs. Kerr-McGee c:mments reflectec a similar ;csition n Criteria 8, 9, and 10. AMC argued agains: the 1% real interest rate in Criterien '.0. AMC sue cr ers (HMC, UMC, anc Ric Algem) by reference su :ce: AMC's ;csition in all res:ects.

             < err-McGee anc AMC precosec s:ecific acci:icnal cnanges no; relatec c conforming Out mancatec in neir view Oy legisla-icn inacted anc 0:ner events sucsecuen: Oc promulgation of A::endix A. The basis is essen-tally the same as notec above in the ciscussion uncer Sc:ce of Rulemaking :n :neir generic rec:=menca:icn :: uncertake an ince:encent new rulemaking. Ker--McGee arguec
     -ha: Criterien 3 snculc :e mccifisc or cele ec 50 na: existing si es :c not nave : c nsider below grace cis:csal.          <er--McGee arguec :na: Ock ::ver'ng i

l is im:ractical in :ar.s Of ne i

mee :ne 3:ecifications in Criterien  !

l c at ..:,i:..= .v. m .:-. , :v u;na.:.

                                                                                                )

I i i

Soutnwest because the rock would have to be im:ceted and tne alternative vegetative cover is also im:ractical. Similarly tne gentle sic:e recuirements in Criterion 4 are nct practicaole at all existing sites :ecause of soil su: ply and land ownership and should be celeted in Kerr-McGee's view. Acclication of the siting criteria to existing sites must involve both snor and long-term risk and cost balancing anc Appencix A does not make this applica:ica clear, in fact Criterien I c:ntradicts it, according to Kerr-McGee. In effect, Kerr-McGee acvocates developing separate rules for mills where ocerations have ceased and no plans to restart are involved. These separate rules would acdress all aspects of Appencix A inclucing siting. Kerr-McGee also suggested eliminating the first listed item in Criterion 5 dealing with liners since it mignt be read, to require liners at existing sites. Kerr-McGee anc AMC urgec celeting the restriction on credit for thin synthetic layers to reduce raden emissions in Criterien 6. AMC provided extensive additieral suggested revisions to A::endix A, The suggested changes would revise Appendix A to follcw the approach cutlined for NRC to take in a new indecendent rulemaking as discussed abcve. Suggested changes included adding site specific optimization for stabilt:ation in the Introcuction, distinction between existing and new sites in Criterien 1, provisien for cost / benefit judgments in Criterion 1 and planned reliance on maintenance in Criteria 1 and 12. AMC provided rewrites of Criterion 3 to reflect 200 year stabili:ation and Criterion 5 to reflect its views en risk, costs, site specificity, and existing vs new site distinctions. AMC suggestec cnanges to Criterion 8 to include reliance en institutional c:ntrols and cele:fon of references to controlling raden curing ocerations witncut regard to risk. i Dawn procesec cnanges to Criterien i dealing with :ne slece of emcankments l and covers. Dawn suggested more flexibility, a Sh:1V insteac of 10h:1V cesign l basis, 'and more site specific flexibility. 1 l 04/13/35 22 10 C.:; aC CHANGES

Rec mmentec sule Change: Acc :ne f:17: wing :aragra:n 1: ne enc f -he *.n r: uc-1:n: All site s:eci#ic licensing :ecisions :asec :n :ne :-iteria in nis A: pen-cix Or alternatives Or0 csec Oy licensees Or a: lican's will take in ac::un

ne risk c :ne ;uclic health anc safety anc :ne environment itn ue consicera-tion to ne econcaic 00sts involvec and any other facters one C:mmission ceter-mines t0 be ac r0priate. In im lementing this A :encix, ne C:mmission will consicer " practicable" anc "reasonacly acnieva:le" as ecuivalent erms.

Cecisions involving these terms will taxe int 0 act:unt ne state of technology, and tne economics of improvements in relatien to cenefits 0 -he ;uclic health and safety, anc other societal anc scciceconomic : nsiceraticns, and in relation to ne utilt:atien of at:mic energy in -he pu lic interest.

d. Cemments en 40 C.:R 192 C:mmenters offerec a num er of commen s en the validity anc meri:s of ne _r,A = stanc. arc. ice major . ty reflected cissatis.acticn. ..

ine cissatis-faction was reflectec in general c:=ments, references to preceecings, acc in arguments en many of :ne general issues anc s ecific prc:asec cnanges. C:mmenters re: resented virtually all categories of ::mmen:ers. E:01:gy/Aler; a::laucec tne E?A a::rcacn of pectecting all cualities of grouncwater from : ntamination. UT enallengec :ne technical case f:r :ne racen limits for thorium Oycrocuct material anc urgec NRC nc: : acco: :nem Isee mocification E(c)] anc E?A :: nange nem. ECNP expressec the view :na: E?A failec :: mee "i s statu:Ory rescensibilities" in issuing 40 C.:R .'92. IL

nallengec :ne legaifty of E?A issuing a 1CCC year engineering cesign stancarc.

              < err-McGee mace receated references to its position :nat ne EPA stancarcs are invalic anc fail 0 mee: the risk /ecenemic cost tes . AMC's similar

osi-ion was accressac in -he two =revious secti:ns. AE :naliengec ne racen ha arc basis f r ne E?A stancard as inacecuate *nen :alancec against nccor i acen ,:eveis from energy nservatten. 1 l

l l l i I c c f . 2 /a.: .: ..- .w v .:q a-v..u.ANG:.t l l 1

                                                                                                      .J

1

                                                                                     . e l

i l

Response

1 As notec in the accompanying ANPRM (49 .:R ac 427), :ne Ocamission must focus ci cnoices and cecisions it must make on actions within its ciscretien. Until or unless court action sets aside the EPA stancarcs, they are cincing on NRC and Agreement State licensees. NRC licensees are facec with two sets of effective regulations that contain conflicting er inconsisten: requirements. Uncer law, NRC must 1.rplement and enforce both. As implied by the Commission Authority and Responsibility statement, the only prevision of the EPA stancard the Ccmmission does not plan to implement . anc enforce is the provision in 40 CFR 192.32(a)(2)(iv) requiring EPA concur-rence en site scecific decisions. The staff believes that removing conflicts and inconsistencies in the two sets of regulations and using site specific alternative authority to deal with occasional site specific problems represent the best way to ceal with these conflicts and inconsistencies and meet the minimum requirements of the Congressional mandates. In view of the above, ccmments en the lawfulness, merits, and value of the EPA stancards were considered outside the scoce of this action and were not a factor in reccmmencing a final rule.

e. Other Other generai issues raised by the commenters included views tha: NRC shoulc be more stringent than the E?A radon emission anc lengevity stancards, Agreement State i=clementation, and ecitorial suggestions.

The ECN? urged conservative incepencent action oy NRC te keec and excanc its =cre stringent recuirements on racon emissions and longevity. In ECNP's view, more stringent requirements would provide absolute assurance that the EPA standards would be met and previce greater pucite protection over lenger cerices of time. G4/13/35 2a 10 CPR 40 CHANGES

e .. i n Mescense; 1 i l The staff agrees na: it must have reascnacle assurance :na: :ne E?A stancarcs will :e me: Out coes not agree na higniy conserva-ive eguia-icis are neecec t: provice sucn assurance. Case s:ecific reviews are :ne :r::er mecnanism for such fincings. F0r the acn grouncwater Or: visions Of the E?A standards uncer censicera:f on in this action, E?A carefully anc :ncreugnly re-examined the NRC rec:rc anc consicered NRC and other c =ments anc later tecnnica,. and ris(s ,.nr.crmation. .he t start.. nerefore nas no ,as,.s 0 set as,.ce ne EPA c nclusiens on :nese ascects of the stancarc. Licensees sncule :enefit from this re-examination. The State Of New Mexico, an Agreement State, raised cuestiens a: cut Agreemen: State im:lementation. NM questioned new the Or: cess of cealing with alternatives using the tyce of flexibility afforced by Section Sac of :ne AEA woulc work in Agreement 5 a:es. Scecifically, NM asked whether NRC must concur in Agreement State cecisions on proposec al ernatives anc wne her :ne status of ne State's ace::1cn of regulations equivaient to er more stringen than .'0 CFR Par- 10 A::encix A affects the p~rocess. NM also suggestec tna a cross-reference o 10 CFR 150.31(b) in Accencfx A mign: clarify A pendix A's acclicacility to Agreement States. Res:ense: See:1:n 19 cf ?uc.L. 97-415, -he NRC Autheri:ation Ac- f:r fiscal years 1982 anc *923, accec the felicwing c:-icn to Section 27ac of :ne AEA for Agreement States:

                "In aco::ing requirements :ursuant t: =aragrapn (2) Of :nis sucsection witn res:ect to sites at wnica cres are crecessac :rimarily for :neir source material c:nten cr wnicn are usec for ne cis:csai of cy;recuct material as cefinec in section 11e.(2), ne State may acco alternatives (inciucing, wnere a::recriate, site-scecific al ernatives) : :ne ecuire-ten s ace::ec anc enforcec :y ne ::mmission for ne same :ur::se if, af tar nc fce anc Occortunity for :ucli: 9 earing, :ne C:=missien Oe ermines na sucn alternatives nili acnieve a levei of stacili:a-ion anc ::ntainmen-s-.:<==                                         .:                              ., ... ,
                                                                                       .a   ..s -0     ...NC--::
                                                                                                       .r

1 l cf the sites c:ncernec, and a level of prc:ection for puclic health, safety and the envircnment from radiological and nonraciological ha: arcs asso-ciated with such sites, wnich is equivalent ::, :: the exten: Orac1:able, or more stringent than the level which would be acnievec by stancarcs anc requirements ad pted and enforced by the Commission for the same purpose anc any final standarcs promulgated by tne Acministrator of the Environ-mental Protection Agency in accordance with section 275. Sucn alternative State requirements may take into account local or regional conditions, including geciogy, topogra:hy, hydrology and meteoroicgy." The text clearly states that the Ccemission must determine that alter-native standards adopted by the State achieve the recuired levels of protection. Furtner the Ccmmission must notice the alternatives and provide an opportunity to repuest public hearing. This option is available to the State if it is regulating byproduct material without regard to the status of the State's adoptien of Appencix A. It gives the state additional flexibility in acepting generic or site specific standards. The suggestien to add a cross-reference in Appendix A is negated by the explicit provisions of 10 CFR 150.31(b) where requirements are spelled cut in context. Hewever, the c mment does point out that 10 CFR 150.31 sncule be amended to acd the option quoted above. Including the language in Part 150 is not legally recuired for the State to exercise the eption, but addition would clarify the situation and be consistent with existing Part 150 and the pre:csed addition to the Introduction of Appendix A on alternatives. Rec:mmenced Rule Change: , Acc a new 10 CFR 150.31(d) to reac: "In ace: ting requirements cursuant to paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the State may acect alternatives (inclucing, where a:procriate, site-specific alternatives) to the requirements acepted and enforced by the Commission for tne same curpose if, after notice and op cr unity for cublic hearing, the Commission determines tnat sucn alternatives will achieve a leve". Of stacili:a:10n and containment of the sites concernec, anc a l 04/15/35 26 10 CFR 40 CHANGES i l

level of Orc: action f r :uclic nealtn, safety an- ne environmen frem raci - logical anc nonraciciegical ha: arcs associa:ec wi n su:n sites, nic is ecuiva-lent t0, :: :ne exten Oractica:le, er nere s rdngent :nar. :ne 'evel wnica oculc be acnievec by stancarcs anc recuirements acepted anc enforcac by :ne mmission for the same ;ur;cse anc any final s ancarcs pr:mulgatec Oy :ne Acminis ra cr of

ne Environmental Protection Agency in ac::rcance witn section 275. Such alter-native State recuirements may take into ac: unt local er regicnal c:ncitions, inclucing geology, tecogra:ny, hycr:Icgy anc meteorciegy."

Ecclegy/Aler urged NRC to use plain concise language in all its regulatery writing anc pr0vided a sam le rewrite of part of A; encix A. nes:ense: The Commissien agrees with the thrust of this =cin; bu: Oreferrec anc continues to prefer minimum word changes in the conforming ; recess. This minimum change a: preach helps focus en :ne cnanges cue to -he EPA stancard and is -he sim lest and most efficient. Several c:mmenters (E?A, WA, NM, TX) offerec eci 0 rial suggestions anc icentifiec ty:cgra:nical anc transcription er*0rs. ses ense: 1 Mos Of the S ate c mments were s raigntf rwarc anc snculc be acc :ec. EPA's general eci crial c:mmen :na: ne term " site" is not usec ::nsis ently in A :encix A can be factored in : sucsecuent rulemaking. Staff :elieves :na no Or0clems are : resented by One use of " site" in A :enicx A that are signifi-cant encugn :: ce acdressec in :nis limitec rulemating. No c:mments were receivec :n the Regula Ory :lexibility ~ertification or Pa:e rwcr( Recucticn Ac Statement in :ne notice. No s ecific c:mments were receivec n :ne NEPA ciscussion uncer Im ac cf ne Acencments. Mcwever, c mments accressac under :: pics ., c., anc c. accve accress :ne acecuacy Of ne E?A anc NRC =asts f:r action. 1 1 i

     -s a-   / :/ ::

2,/ ;0 0.:R AC CHANGES

A. CCMMENTS CN SPECIFIC PROPOSED MCDIFICAT:CNS TO APPENDIX A 10 CFR 40 The preposec rule notice listed the specific :cdifica: ices anc ra:icnaie for eacn enange. The list chronologically foliewec 10 CFR 40, Accencix A. In the ic11cwing analysis, eacn of the modifications are accressec anc the numcer-ing system frem the proposed notice is previcec. See the notice in Acpencix A of this document for the full text of :ne procosed cnanges.

a. Introduction Modification 1.(a): Typographical error and no comments.

Recommenced Rule Change: Change should be adopted as pecposed. Modification 1.(b): This proposed cnange celetec an cutdatec informa-tien submittal requirement asscciated with tne 1980 cublication of Acpendix A. ECNP ebjected to this change based on a misunderstanding. ECNP expressec cencern that the deletion would mean that cetailed information en licensees' pr0 grams showing how they meet the criteria in Accencix A would not be recuirec. Rescense: Licensee ccmoliance with Appencix A anc the EPA stancards is being hancied anc documentec in the reutine course of licensing anc enforcement activities. A scecific or separate submit al is not neecec anc woulc represent an unwarrantec burden on licensees. Reccmmended Rule Change: Staff sees no reasen no: to celete :ne caragracn. Modifica:icn 1.(c): This enange woulc acc a caracnrase of :ne previsiens of Section Sac cf :ne Atomic Energy Act. The language crevices 04/13/55 23 '.0 CFR 10 CHANGES 9

      .-.~i<
        .      .a ... ,
                          . ~

o

                               . .-. . ,e ,.s ..
                                              . ~ .,. ....
                                                                                       ..w se s.. n ...i./,.,. ..
                                                                                                  .. . . .         .. . ...e-     a.en.a.sa recui enents of 1::encix A.
                      ^

mmen s On nis Orc:csec :nange ex:ressac su::cr , :::csi-ion, Inc

ne neec #0e clarification. ECND ex ressec a generic ::ncern Over si a s:ec-#fc licensing cecisions sucn alterna-ive pro:csais acuic invcive. ' e ECF anc EPI -

cic no ocject : :ne mccifica-icn itself, but teck issue with :ne 'nter:reta-tien of Section 3ac of :ne AEA :na: was expressec in :ne ra:icnale anc :ne C0mmission Autnerity anc Rescensibility statement. (See ciscussion uncer ceneral issues.) CO generally.su:per:ed the flexibility but ex ressac hy:ctnetical c:ncern accut licensee or a=clicant acuse. CO suggestec na NRC ela:c-ate on the _ issue y cevelcaing rule cnanges or policy on new NRC ceterminatiens On "spuiv-alent ::, :: ne extent practica:le" will be mace. CO referencac 1:s review anc

     =csition en an al ernative procesal for criec tailings anc liquic cis:csal at Spring Creek Mesa su:mittec by UMETCO for 1 s Uravan facility.                                              CD ceterminec tha: :ne alternative cesign anc pr::csec c=eration was net ecuivalen anc tha better cesign was =ractica:le. A c: y of :ne State's ce:ailec licensing review for Uravan was su:mittec witn :ne 5: ate's c:mments on :ne acc ::anying ANPRM.

WA su::crtec :ne flexibility. NM did not c ject to the flexi:ili y bu notec 4 Or cuestionec cer ain as:ects. NM noted na :ne insert inclucec no time frame for ccmciiance wi n A :encix A recuirements. NM c r ectly notec :na Only Commissicn a:Oroval is callec fer, not EPA. NM suggestec accing language :: clarify na- it is -he licensee's or a::licant's rescensiciit ty :: Or:vice the basis fer cemenstrating the acecuacy of the Or::csec alternative. WY : Jectec to the flexibility afforcec by the language " : ne extent racticaole" anc rec:mmencec cele-ing it but sue:ce ec :ne change c nerwise. Ker--McGee su::cr:ec :nis mccification ut incicatec :na- 1; was not suf ficient anc more s:ecific changes are neecec. HMC su::cr:ec ali Ker--McGee's c mments. The AMC anc 1:s su:per:ers -su:pertec :nis enange bu Only as a first ste . The AMC incica ec :na primary reliance en :nis inser: ocuic esult in reguia-1:n :y exce: icn. Dawn s r:ngly su::cr ec ne mcci'ication as :reccsec to prov'ce neecec site s:ecific 'lexicii' y.

       ~i . .::.:
           . .                                                            .- :.                              . .n . .n

1.s .. .: v<C.:-

Respense: Staff agrees witn CO that acci-1:nal guicance en new :: maKe cecisions On al ernatives pre:csed by licensees or a: licants is needec. 5:af# is wor (ing on ;uicance Out efforts c ca:e incicate tha aostrac gener c guicance is i cifficul  : prepare aosent experience with 'scecific prc:csals. NRC has usec

ne Bac flexibility only once. The CD ex:erienca may he:efully serve as a seconc casa. Staff is certainly in no cst:icn to pro cse rule enanges at the present time.

While the staff agrees with NM that it is tne licensee's or at:licant's responsibility to provide neeced information, rule change is not neecec and mignt c:nfuse the issue by ex licit instructicrs nere anc not in otner parts of A :encix A. Staff notes that A pencix A is an effec-ive rule na is being implemented and enforcec in the routine course of cusiness. .WY's recommencation 0 celete "to the extent practicicle" would be contrary c :ne legislaticn Oefng para:nrasec wnich exolicitly incluces this Orovision. Rec mmendec Rule Change: Acd the insert as pectosed,

c. Criterien 1 Mcdifica-icn E.(a): This enange wcuic celete ne staotiity design timeframe of ":ncusands of years" anc acd the 1,000 year timeframe in the E?A stancard. Edf crial errors c:nfused the s:ecifics of this mecifica:icn. The fi rs: paragra:n of pre osec modifiec Criterien 1 shculc have reac:

      "*n selec-ing among alternative tailings ciscosal si es or jucging :ne acecuacy Of existing tailings sites,     ne folicwing site features whicn will cetermine :ne ex en: :: .nich a Or gram meets the bread :bjective of iscia-ing ne tailings anc asscciatec centaminants f em man anc :ne environment curing ::eratiens anc f:e 1,000 years nereafter, 41 ncu-engeing ac:fve maintenance, snall :e consice-ec:"

C4/*3/35 20 '. OFR c0 CHANGE 5 r

The ECN? strongly a::esec this recift:aticn anc sugges.ed na: cesign

erices ":f at leas 20,000 :: '00,0C0 years" are neecec guarantee na: ne EPA stancarc will :e met anc to accress .ne long term racen :a: arc. I' ai sc strongly ::csec nis enange :asec :n a guments na- (1) ne cnange im acts :ne cesign goal for nonracici:gical ha: arcs wnen :ne EPA stancarc dees not a::iy the 1,000 year pericc c nenraciological na: arcs, (2) the E?A 1,0C0 year -ime is invalid, and (3) the na:ards are so long-lived. NM ebjectec :ne celetten of " .. during ocerations anc for ..." resulting from the editor'al errors.

E I c;posec the enange casec on tne longevity of ha:ards from tailings anc en

ne contention tha :ne existing language is entirely c:nsisten w1:n EPA intent reflectec in the preamole to 40 C.:R 192 and the intent of the " reasonable

 ' assurance" provision of the icngevity standard. WY Offerec evisec language o reconcile the EPA 1,000 year practical cesign stancarc with -he general goal of permanent isolation and cocosed any change that woulc recuce the cesign Ocjec-tive :: less snan 1,000 years.

Kerr-McGee notec che ecitorial pe:blems anc claimec that the change must reflect the 200 year minimum in the EPA design stancard in Orcer to fully conferm. Kerr-McGee citec E.:A ackncwlecgement that cesigns cannc always :e proven effec:fve for a thousand years, hence the 200 year minimum, anc Kerr-McGee's asser; ions that costs of designing for longer : nan 200 years results in unjustified "tre": enc 0us c st." HMC sup;cr:ec all Kerr-McGee ::=ments. The AMC a'so acvecatec inserting 200 years instead of a :ncusanc as ne aximum reasen-acle perice na assurances can be given by engineers. AMC statec that many fac crs in assessing stability such as gully er0sion or lanc use cannot be precic:ac wi:n certain y beycnc 200 years. If NRC accets :ne 1,000 year ceried, AMC urgec tha: ne :nrase "1,000 years, where practicable, and in any case, a-least 200 years" from ne E?A s ancarc be usec. UMC cues-icnec wnether c:ver cesigns vi:n no maintenance are realistic anc sugges:ec na: NRC has crevicec funcs for scme maintenance. WNI, AMC, and Kerr-McGee rec:mmencec celeting the

  ; nase "wi-heut ongoing ac:tve maintenance" basec on :ne E?A stancarc not fictly renibi-fng some reliance on active maintenance.

vaf..:f.:.- .-. .cs ...::. aa .u.mys:.:.

Res:0nse: l 1 4

               'sY's ::mments highligh ac an im:cr: ant reasco for ne sactions :: :.ie i

existing language anc :ne preccsec cnange. The firs: :aragra:n Of Criterien 1 l is a statement of a very general scal Or cojective, not a s:ecific stancarc r re:uirement. The :reccsed change anc associatec edi:Ortal errors ccm:cunced One Orcolem. The preccsed change was not intenced to set asice :ne E.:A stancard for nonraciclogical c:m;cnents in 40 CFR 254.111 referenced in 40 CFR 192. I was not intancec to repeat the specific cesign stancarc being adced to Criter-icn 6.

                     ~

Staff agrees, that en a general goal basis, the existing language was nc:

ally inconsistent with EPA's intent. However, the refe ence to thousancs Of years can and cid lead to misuncerstancings. Staff still :elieves :na: the language neecs mcdificatien.

C:mments attacking the 1,000 years anc acvecating 200 years are really cirectec mere at the EPA cesign stancard and how it will be inclemented in sita specific actions than at siting imolicaticns. Staff cisagrees with any

       ;csition that woulc put the goal for =rotecting man and the environment from

ailings at 200 years. Even site s:ecific design cecisions must assure :na:

200 will :e met but eniy wnen 1,000 years is no: practica:le. The rimary cesign stancard is 1,000 years. Furtner, as a gener al g al, no :ianned -siiance , on active maintenance is ::nsistent with the fincings in tne GE!5, tre E?A staccarc anc 'e Congressional inten: in Section 161x(2) of :ne AEA :na:

         . . .:ne neec for long term maintenance anc moni:Oring. . .will be minimi:ec at.c.

:ne maximum ex:ent prac fcacie, eliminatec." _Since 00ngress cic no: fla:1y renibi: maintenance, NRC may c:nsicer it, but the preference for nc maintenance is clear. When :learly statec as a goal anc not a recuirement, :ne goal acuic not precluce relying on active maintenance if no c:htr :ractica:le scluti n exists. (eeping the goal f:r use in future siting anc cesign cecisions wnere comoitance can :e lannec for is entirely c:nsistent wi:n :ne ALARA princi:le anc .ninimi:ing :ne :urcen : future generations.

Staff ec:mmencs :iarifying Criterien 1 using a '::mcinati:n of existing language anc WY's suggestec rewrite :: snc~ :ne scal sersus stancarc : in: anc Ja/.3/35 32 *0 "FR 10 CHANGES

0 e to cele:e any s:ecific -ime frame. Changing "snall" :: "sncuic" in tre f:ur:n aragra:h of Cri arien I will em:nasize ne status as a g0al anc :e c':rsis en: wita ne reference : maintenance in :ne firs sentants of Cri arien ;2. Rec 0mmencec rule Onanges:

1. Revise the first paragra:h of Cri erion 1 :: reac:

s "The general goal or broad Objective in siting anc cesign cecisions is-permanen: 1 solation of tailings and associated c:ntaminants by minimi:ing cistur:ance and dispersion by natural forces, and c de so witneu: cngoing maintenance. .or: practical reasons, specific siting cecisions'and' design stancards shall involve finite times (e.g. , the longevity cesign s ancarc in. Criterian 6). The following site features wnicn will c:ntribute to sucn a ^ goal or objective shall be consicered in selecting amcng alternative -tailings cis:csal sf es er judging the adequacy of existing ailings sites:"

2. Change "shall" to "shoulc" in the four-h paragra:n se tna: im reacs:

   " Tailings snculc be cis:csec of a in a manner :nat ne active maintenance is requirec to preserve conditions of the site."

Mccifica:icn 2.(b): This enange aculd celete ne gr:uncwater mccifier "usaole" to :e c:nsis ent with tne primary tnrus Of :ne' EPA stancarc to pectact all gecuncwater. The ECNP, IL, and WY sup cr:ed tnis enange. WNI urgec na "usacie" be left in A::endix A and tnat all cecisions en ground water prc:ection ce cefer se

-he second rulemaking. Kerr-McGee also :: csec :nis enange. Kerr ScGee argued tna: it is arbitrary anc ca:ricicus to cratect unusacie ;- uncwater since One 00s:s woulc resul; in nc benefit. Kerr-McGee urgec tna; as a minimum, the cetion for site s:ecific cecisions en grounc water protection be acknowlecgec.

HMC su::cr:ec all Xerr-McGee ::mments. The AMC anc ::s su::ce:ars :::csec :ne

nange for reasons ciscussec under Cetterien 5 mecifications.

t r i l C4/;3/S5 22 1C C.:i IC CHANGES

e . Mes:cese:

                        ~9e general :nrus: Of tne 5?A stancar is : Or: a: III ;rcuncwa:er.

The are: sec Onange was intancec':0 em:hasi:e nis inrust, a-se asice :ne si a s:ecif t: :-icn p :ursue alterna a ::ncentrs-fon limi s nien may :e

asec in : art on :n[i.iisting anc =ctential use of ne grouncwa er. The exi sting language in- Criterien 1 (i .e. , ". . .i sclation of contaminants from i

usaole grouncwater sources...") sets use categcry as :ne primary goal anicn cces conflict witn :ne EPA stancard. The cr esec insert f:r Criterien 5 discusscc uncer Criterien 5 should Clarify :nis Ocin: anc alleviate concerns that use. category cannot be censicerec in cecisions.

                       .              .-       n sec:mmencec nule change:

Remcve " usable" as reccsed but acd a clarifying inser  :: Cri erien 5.

c. Criterien'3

                - .            Mcdification 3.(a): This cnange woulc celete One grouncwater modifiers "_high cuality" to be consistent with the primary thrus of :ne E?A
  ,         stancard :: protec all~grouncwater.

The ECN?, IL, and 'dY su= crtec this enange. Kerr McGee :::csec :nis

nange :: recuire rotection of nenusacle gr:uncwa ar fer ne same arguments sta:ec earlier. HMC'su::cr:ac all Kerr McGee ::nments. AMC anc su::ceters 0; csec :ne :nange ::nsisten: wi n arguments elsewnere.

ses ense: As nc ed in res cnse : ,mocification 2(b), -he thrus Of :ne E?A stancarc i s t0 Or tec all grouncwa ar anc : nsider cuality as One of many fac;;rs in site s:ecific alternate c:ncentra-ion limi: cetermina-icns. Re::=mencec Rule Change: 4

           .$ d # 'i..$[$$
                         ..-                              .d                               *
                                                                                    .? $. . ,I"4 dO v ."U.k L..I.I

                                                                                       . o Remove "hign cuality" as r :csec but acc a clarifying inser:     ::

Criterien 5.

d. Criterien 4 Mccification 4.(a): This change woulc celete " maximum cssible ficcc" anc inser: " Probable Maximum .:lecc" (PMF). ,

The ECNP opposed this change anc questionec the rationale given :nat the enange represented the original intent of the provisien. WNI rec:mmencec deletion of " maximum possible" with no replacement of mcdifiers. Kerr-McGee eccesed this change and argued that neither the existing language nor :ne propcsed change are appropriate. Kerr-McGee claimec tnat both are excessive anc therefore, inconsistent with the 1,CCO year longevity perice in the E.DA stancard. Kerr-McGee claimed that stacili:ation can ::m ensate for severe ficeding. HMC su= ported all Kerr-McGee comments. AMC anc su:per:ers alse Ocjected :: the existing modifiers and the proposed :nange and acvecated a 200 year ficed as cost effective and acequate to protect health and safety anc tne envi ronment. VY supported the cnange as pec:csed.

Response

The intent of =aragra:h(a) in Criterien 4 is :: recuire na siting of tailings disposal areas minimi:e :ne upstream catenment area :: recuce the pctential for erosion regarcless of the magnituce of the cesign flced. The mecifiers " maximum =cssible" and "precacle maximum" are :c:n ina =recria:e since, this criterien is not intendec to ciscuss design ficed recuirements. In Orcer to em:nasize the =rimary purpose of the recuirement, staff sec:mmencs reciacing "croca:le maximum ficcc" with "fleeds." The resulting language 4culc closely track a similar C:mmissf on siting criteria for icw level waste sites in IC.CFR Part 61. (See 10 C.:R 61.50(a)(6).) C:mments regarcing the si:e of :ne cesign ficcc are theref:re moct. Mcwever staff notes that decisions on wna: s :e c i . : cesign flecc should be used in analysis are site specific anc mus: :e mace in :ne ::n:ex: of :ner site anc cesign cecisiens. 04/;3/35 25 13 C.:R 10 CHANGES 1 4 e

Rec menced' Rule Change: Cele e -he mociffers " maximum =cssi:le" anc ce:' ace "#' c"

• n "#icces."

e. Criter':n 5 Several c: amen ers efferec general ccm. gents on conforming Ced:erien 5.

NM sugges ec that -he noncecracation language statec in the rationale be incluced in Criterien 5. E?A ex ressec the view that, as a general ma- er, ne pr:cosac changes de not acequately reflect ne E?A stancarc's cistinction between naw and existing sites. EPA s ecifically mentienec tha: the changes ce not reflect the " existing portion" concept as cefined in 10 C.:R 1;2.3(j) anc used in the primary standarc in 40 CFR 192.32(a)(1). WNI expressec the view that none of :ne nanges : .Criterien 5 sneuic ce mace basec en Cc mission ians cescribed under Sc: e of This Prc csal in :ne

        .R notice. WNI a ;arently reac -he sc::e :: mean :na no c:nf:rming enanges relatec o grouncwater sneule ce mace. Kerr-McGee arguec that all changes to Criterien 5 should be deferred to the second rulemaking anc -hat all existing gr:unc water recuirements in Criterien 5 shoulc be sus;encec or celetec in the interim.         Kerr-McGee argued that such ceferrai wculc aveic a fragmentac a:Orcach i

anc all cw mere benefit / risk analysis. EMC su::cr:ec all Kerr-McGee cc ments. The AMC ex ressec streng ccjection :: inc recration of any Of EPA's grounc water protection stancarcs. The AMC basis re:eatec anc ex:ancec argu-men s :na the E?A stancarc is invalid en jurisci::icnal gr:uncs. AMC asser ec na :ne Sciid Waste Dis:csal Act stancarcs inc:r: crated :y EPA into 40 CFR 1;2 failec :ne C:ngressional mancate c ce c:::aracie : recuiremen s 'cr similar na arceus ma arials, acc revicec legislative nis cry : sce:ce- ne assertier..

                  ,y ine m C view is basec n :ne ,iack c:. ... cms ancarcs for s,.mi,iar nign-vciume easta sucn as mining wastes.          The AMC concluces na: :ne EPA stancarcs are :nus inc:n-sisten witn law and NRC c:nformance violates Sec-icn 5a(a)(3) of ne AEA. AMC also Offerec Ocjections 0 ne stancarcs :asec n Orac-ical':y (e.g., all liners Isak, sc a nc-see: age stancarc is im=ractical) anc n no acecuate c:s .'benefi t analysi s by E.:A Or NRC. AMC aisc nc ec :na: E?A c:mmen s :n A :encix A onen initially cre: sec cic ne: cnallenge NRC's gr:cnc wa ar cratection stra egy.

1 J -/ . - / O O *C

                                                                                ., .-.       ,n
                                                                                .J     .P5  -v  .... es
                                                                                                     . . .br - .0
        /

S 1

                                                                                                                               )
                                                                                                                               \

l l l AMC offerec a ccm:lete rewrite of Criterien 5 :: reflec: f:s rec:mmencac l a:Orcaca to gr0uncwater involving: (1) :retec:icn fr:m unreas nacle risks anc

nsicerien Of gr0un: water use catecery, (2) cistinction :e: ween existing anc new sites, (3) costs :=mensura:e with risk, anc 4) site s:ecif t im:lementatien.

WY generally su:00rtec all pec asec cnanges to Criterien 5. WY also urgec flexibility in requiring liners at all new;0r ex:ancec facilities, anc NRC investigation and inclusion of processes to cry tailings.

Response

The comments clearly reflect confusion about the status of :ne EPA gr0uncwater protection standarcs, the status of 10 CFR 40 A :encix A require-ments, anc the basis for precosing the few cnanges related c grounc water pectection in acvance of more ::merenensive rulemaking en groundwater. As discussed uncer the general issues, the EPA standarcs have :een in effect and a::itcable in regula:1cn since Cecem er 6, 1983. NRC rulemaking is not recuirec

0 impose the E?A standarcs. NRC staff believes it has no :::f cn but :: ::nform and implement and enforce the EPA stancards. Staff thus believes that Octn :he -

E?A standards anc Accendix A are effective en licensees. The reccsed changes :: A :endix A, anc Criterien 5 in particular, were all intencec :s reflect that the EPA standarc reflects the RCRA groun - water ;retection strategy and starts from a premise sna no see: age from :ne . im:cuncments or cegracation of gr:uncwater is alicwec anc :na all grouncwater is :: be Orc:ectec regarclass of cuality or use Oa:egory. The cnanges were , intencec to remove language na: explicitly :nflicted wi:n :his :asic stra:egy. They were not intenced Oc fully ::nform :: Or :: mecify :ne E?A stancarc in any way. The EPA general ::= ment tha: :ne cistinc fon :e: ween new anc existing sites was not reflectec was casec primarily en :ne brief rati:nale f:r :ne Or0:0sec nange ra ner than :ne :nanges :nemselves. The raticnale cic not accress ne ::melex site s:ecifi: :::icns previcec uncer :ne E?A s:ancarc (i.e. , :ne use of site s:ecific alternate ::ncentra:icn limits as :ne sec:ncary stancarc). Staff carefully reviewee Criterien 5 as an acjun:: :: :ne E.:A \ C ' / *.3/55 37 '0 CFR 10 C'4ANGE5 l F {

stancarcs. Staff ::nclucec :na- Cri erien 5, ei:n :ne pre:csec :nanges, Oces not im ac: the existing /new si e Orovisi0ns anc site s:ecifi: revisions Of 10 CFR 192 Inc :na; no acciti:nal :nanges are narrantec en :nis : asis. The AMC : reposed rewri e will :e ::nsicerec as :ar: cf :ne ANPRM analysis anc sco:ing. The AMC a:proacn woulc require intensive analysis anc sup;cr: anc woulc celay confermance. , The EPA standard itself and the croccsed insert to Accencix A's Intr cuction previce for site s;ecific cecisions on any issue. Processes :: cewater tailings are alreacy listec as a consiceration in Criterien 5, so nc turtner ac fon is neeced to acdress n..is comment of ,WY. Staff c:ncluces :na specific clarifica:icn Of :ne requia cry si ua-tien en grouncwater is neecec. A minor cnange :: provice a sudject for One its: Of ::nsideratiens in Cri erion 5 is also rec:mmencec for :!arity. 1

                        -                         o sec:mmenced n,ule u.u.anges:

inser :ne icllowing paragraon as one r. irs: =aragra:n of ur,. erien ::

                        "'icensees and a:plicants are cautionec :na: :ne gr:unc wa ar :r -

v,.s,.cns er .0 ux. ,e.2, s.uecarts D anc E, are cinc,.ng. ine :nrus: cr :ne :rA stancarcs in .0 v....n .

                                        ,c.c ,s noncegradat,.cn or al.i grouncwater. i ne :rimary grounc wa ar stancare in 40 CFR 192.32(a)(1), wnien a::ifes :: new cr ex:ancec im:cuncments, does not incluce ::nsicera:fon of existing er future gr:unc wa er c ua ,i ,. :y . The sec:ncary stancarc in ,0 u..,               ..    .      .
                                                              .x2 ,e.2.44(a)(:) acc :,es :: managemen-Of ali :y:r:cuc material inciucing existing anc new Or ex:ancec im:cun:ments.

n ne sec:ncary stancard, several greenewatar :uality :ri eria are ::nsicerec, es:ecially in site scecific decisions en acclications for alterna e ::ncentra-den limits. Criterien 5 su:clements acc coes nc; conflic itn er mocify revisions of 30 CFR 192. Untii er unless :ne :=missi:n uncertaxes acciti nal rulema(ing as cescricec in :ne acvance nc-ice Of ;rt: sec uiemaAing :uclisnec in the :ecerai 9s;dstea :n Ncvem er 25, 1924 (19 R 46425), 'f ensees anc u-i .:i ::

S .a - r,

                                                                                              - . , -u               :.
                                                                                                    - n . . .. -A. h- 2

acclicants mus: refer : be:n 10 C.:R ? art 40 anc aC CFR Par 192 for ne c ::lete se: cf a::licable ground water =r ec-icn recuirements."

2. Make ne pr ccsec firs: sentence One sec:nc :aragra:n of Criterien 5 anc revise i :: reac:

              "In cevelocing and c:ncuc-ing grouncwater protection programs, a:011-cants and licensees shall consider :ne following:"

Mccification 5.(a): This enange would celete language i== lying that seepage to grouncwater is acce :able if it does not change the use ca egory. The ECNP generally su persed the change bu ex:ressed concern tha:

-his modifica:icn mign: precluce cae: burial.       ECNP also cuestionec now :ne EPA stancarc for perfect c:ntainment will be im lementec anc enforcec.          EPA noted ina the rationale did not ackncwledge that only new dis:csal areas must meet the ne seepage recuirements. E?A also suggested tha a f 0:ncte referring ::

One Octantial for acditional changes frem the second rulemaking be accec. %NI rec:mmencec :na: :ne change not be made and that all changes related :: ground-water be deferrec to the sec:nd ruiemaking noticed -in :ne acc:maanying ANPRM. WN! citec tne severe impac en existing sites if ne see: age anc no c:nsiceration of acuifer use ca:ecery are allcwec. Kerr-McGee su :crtec cele-icn of ne first sentence basec en tne commenter's Ocsition that nenusa:le grouncwa ar b0es no neec ;ectacticn and the sentence requires mitigation of all see: age, not jus see: age Onat wculd c:ntact usa:le gr0uncwater. Consisten witn :nis Ocsi-icn, .< err-McGee 00;csec celetico of :ne sec:nd sentence. .<cer-McGee Outlinec tne

enefits frem disposal of tailings as cackfill in :ne uncergrounc mines from wnicn One ore came anc ex ressac c"ncern that celeting :ne reference pre-serving gr unc water use categ0ry wcult eliminate sucn a pr00csal. <er--McGee C:rrectly notes :na; :ne rimary grouncwater water stancarc in 40 CFR 192.22(a)(1) a: lies c surf ace imecuncments only anc the mine backfill c: era-tien sculc not be su ject One ;"imary stancard. HMC su::ce ec all (err-McGee

mmen s.

AMC c=cesec all ro:csec Criterien 5 mocifica:fons. Cawn ::: sec :ne cnange :ecause, in its view, ne crange set asica ne flexibili y :uil- fn : ne - , - - 4 ,a r J */ ..:/.: =. . c. .4 . .:% w . .u..pd u.: .-

EPA grouncwater stancarcs. Dawn refer ncec :ne sec:ncary gr:unc wa er stancarcs referencac in 40 CFR 192 na: :revice for cegracation of greenewater wren :ucite neal:n anc safe y sec the environmen; are 10: 1- risk. : awn su::cr se ne neec for flexibility basec on practicality, remoteness of si es, anc acuifer use potential. Response: . The ECN? anc incustry reservations anc concerns accu- Criteri:n 5 and its imclementa-fon seem to stem in par: fecm a lack of uncerstancing sna grcuncwater protec f on recuirements are cefined by both A :encix A of 10 CFR 40 and the EPA stancarcs. The proposed changes were intencec caly :: make A cen-cix A stand alene only en non groundwater matters and remove c:nflicts with the E?A grounc water s ancarcs. The insert outlining the cual recuirements cescribed in the general ciscussion.cn Cri erien 5 should alleviate much of ne concerns. It will not allevia e dissatisfaction with the EPA stancard itself, newever. The insert also accresses EPA's point en referencing the secenc ste: rulemaking. The option for undergrcunc mine backfill discosal acvecated by Kerr-McGee is a unicue anc site s ecific circumstance not Orecluced by NRC cr EPA rules. Since it is not preclucec, s aff cces not believe tha s:ecific recuire-ments or cnanges are needed be able := accress this 00:icn in a site s ecific licensing decision. Recommendec su le C.nange: Celete ne language as croposec and rely en :ne Criterion 5 f nsert. M0cifica:icn 5.(b): This enange oculc cele:e language refer-ing :: tottem liners of " low permeacility." The ECNP also generally su::ce ec :nis change witn similar reserva-

   -ices ex:ressec for =ccification 5(a). < err-McGee Ocjectec : nis cnange en
   -he grouncs :na: ne remaining language ::uic i=cly .na: syn:netic line-s must be instailec uncer existing tailings iles. Ker--McGee s a:ec na: sucn installation is no; recuirec :y :ne E?A stancarc since exis-ing =crti:ns are 01/~.5/55                                  10                        *0
                                                                       .  :,:q c :yAnGgs  l 1

i

exem::ec uncer 10 C.:R 192.32(a)(1) anc fur:ner:cre is neitner ::s effective ner Justiff ec. HMC su::cr:ec ali Kerr-McGee c:::ents. AMC :::csec all Oro:csec Criterien 5 ::cifics-f ons. Cawn ::::sec nis :ci'ica-icn :n acnnical gr:unes. Cawn :cin ac cut nat no ma arial is :: ally i :ermea:le anc na: s ate Of ne ar 4i 4.ners have permeabil 4. y *atings On :ne Orcer of nau --**m/sec. Res:cnse: . The Kerr-McGee and Dawn cc ments are the only ones involving issues nct accressed elsewhere. Kerr-McGee's concern that synthetic liners woulc be recuired under existing tailings im cuncments does not stem from the prc csed dele fon of mcdifiers. The precosec deletion results in having to consicer installation of bottom liners instead of icw permeacility ct :m liners. Staff Oces not see now nis mecest change im= acts the resolution of wna: ype of remecial ground-water protection action may be requirec at existing sites. Dawn's ecservation that in an absolute and theoretical sense even syntne:fc liners are not im ermeaole, is technically :ccrect. The only way synthetic liners can meet the E?A standards in 10 C.:R 192 is in c:nsiceration that the synthetic liner re:uirements a: plies only to tne 0:eration and cicsure phases (2C-30 years), not :: the long term post closure phase. Staff c:ncern is that mest people reacing the reference to "Icw permeability" will not

nsicer the atselute er theoretical concept. Staff believes na: ost rescers woule ::nsicer : lay as icw permeability anc syntnetic materials as i=:ermea:le.

Cele:icn f "Icw :ermeabili y" leaves :ne issue of wna: type of liners are aC:eptable to the acre sceCific 3?A stanCarcs. Rec:mmencec Rule Change: Celete " low :ermeacility" as proposed. Mccification 5.(c): This change would celete a reference to pcten-ial use category as a s ancard. t i The EC.1P su::cetec ne :nange :u :uestionec i=clementatten as:ects. Kerr-*cGee ::csec NRC's noncegraca-icn rati:nale f:r nis :nange :ut su::cr ec l 04/*.5/55 11 10 ^.:R 10 CHANGE 3 1

the cnange. Kerr-McGee claimec na res :rati:n :: use category may :e unjus-i-fiec anc sta ed :nat :na cele;1:n wcuic leave ne issue of :egree Of rest:raticn

en. -MC su=:ce:ec all .< err-McGee ::mmen s. AMC ::: sec ali :re::sec :nanges c Cri arian 5. Dawn :::csec :ne enange arguing ina :ne exis-ing language is inc:nsisten of n ::nsicerations allowec in cetermining al arna a ::ncentration limits uncer the EPA stancarc anc na: cele:icn aliews NRC to :e :cre restri:-

tive in cegree of res:cration : nan :ne existing r,ule. Dawn incicatec :na situations at existing facilities will require flexibility to c:nsicer grounc-water quality in restoration decisiens. Res=ense: Staff agrees -hat celeti:n of the recuirement :: restore : ;rcunc-water "t: its :ctantial use before milling opera-icns :egan c :ne maximum extent ract,.cac. - ie n leaves t.,.e cegree of restoration 0:en. ..rnis was the intent of -he ;re:csed change. Staff also agrees that the cegree may be mere or less restric:fve than use category preserva-icn. The degree of restera:f en will te determined in a site scecific basis in ac:Orcance with the EPA grounewater protecticn standards. The inser: a: the beginning of Criterien 5 should hel: em:nasi:e the cual recuirements. sec mmencec s,uie c.3.ange: celete the pnrase as procesec. Mccifica:icn 5.(c): This :nange wculc cele e references o use category anc tailings in ::ntac 41:n grouncwater.

ne :..,4P su==crtec :ni s Onange.  :. % suggestec :na- nis ianguage referring c Orcsectinc. 2arcuncwater :y isolation of tailings anc tailings solutions be re ainec. Kerr-McGee :::csed :ne cele:10n for :ne same reasons notec f:r mccificat'on 5(a). HMC su::cr:ec all (er--v Gee c  ::mments. AMC

csec ali pre csec :nanges : Cri erien 5.

l l 1

      *                                                                   .    .

• AldG

nesponse: The only new issue in c:mments en :nis :re::sec change is 5?a's sugcesti0n to kee: ne isolation goal. The general g:ai of iscia-icn is inclucec anc em:nasi:ec in -he revisec first :aragra:n of Criterien '. 'See . Mccifica:icn 2(a) ciscussicn.) Recommenced Rule Change: Celete the paragrapn as pr:posec. Mccification 5.(e): The grouncwater mecifier "usaole" woulc be celetec. The ECNP supportec this enange. Kerr-McGee 0 posac the change anc incicatec that :ne enange wculd imcose costly monitoring r : ner recuirements for nenusable grouncwater. HMC succortec all Kerr-McGee c:mments. AMC c::csec all proposec cnanges : Criterien 5.

Response

No new issues or information were icentifiec in comments en -his

 - change. The change acuid result in having : cnaracterize ne encie gr:und-water regime at the site cut cces not imcose any monitoring. Sucn cnaracteri-

stien acule be necessary c succor: any recuests for alternatives to synthetic liners or pr::csais for alternate concentration limi s uncer 40 C.:R 192 grounc-

  .ater recuirements anc is -hus.c:nsistent wita :ne EPA stancarc.

Rec:mmencec Rule Change: Cele e " usable" as ,recosed. t 3 < -

  .-/- . .: f =. .                               ::.                    $ g . .:sa 0
                                                                        .            ".u#".
                                                                                     .      .' G.: .

. .' I

f. Criterien 5  ;

1 i Mccification 6.(a): This enange ecuic cele:e the twc :ic: curies per scuare meter per seconc racen flux anc minimum 3 meter ::ver thickness provisions and insert EPA's rac n flux anc 1:ngevity anc s acili:ation stancarc. ECNP anc AMC Op=osec :nese cnanges in tneir entirety. The ECNP strongly c:cosed these changes basec on views that the EPA stancarc inadecuately protects the environment. ECNP further ex ressed the view :na: even :ne more restrictive NRC recisirements proposed for deletion may no: ce acequate protec-tion. AMC op csed incor;cration of the E?A standarcs based on juriscictional arguments, i.e. the standards a;;1y insice the site bouncary anc are :nerefore invalic. AMC also argued that no limit on racen emissions is warrantec basec on ris( and :nerefore that any limit coes not adequately balance cos: anc ri s ks . The AMC repeated arguments that active maintenance snould :e incluced

0 allew higner racen flux values Oy relying on limitec access to sites anc that the stacili:ation period for uranium tailings snculd be 200 years, nc:

1,000, if incluced. Res;ense: The basic arguments ex:ressec ty ECNP anc AMC were accressac generi-cally uncer general issues cealing ni:n c:mments n the E?A stancard itsel f C:mmenters also s ecifically ::cosed inclucng :ne E?A 20 =ic: curie flux stancard. EOF, IL, anc Lewis ecjected to celeting :ne A::endix A 2 Oic:- curie flux value and aception of the 20 value in the EPA stancarc as being ::c iax. The EOF argued that the 2 Oic: curie flux is ALARA, is easily met casec :n the Ce artment of Energy's Titie I researcn ex:erience and is ::st effective.

 %NI : jec:ec :: incer:cratien of :ne 20 :ic: curie flux claiming :na: cas:s :=

c moly f ar outweign any Oenefits. Rescense: C:mments ocjecting :: :ne 20 Ofcccur e flux generally usec :ne same d arguments as usec agains :ne .E?A stancarc accressac uncer ;enerai issues. Oc/ *.3/55  :: "0

                                                                    . CF; aC ; HANG?

The one exce::fon is -he ECF reference :: Title

• research. The :CE Title I researcn ex;erience 00m:arec c:s s for ci#feren; ty:es Of ::ver s rategies; however these stucies cicn't :erf:rm analyses wnicn wcu!: esui in ::nclusions an ne warrantec levels of racen releases frem ::verec ailings. Tc :ruly inves-igate wne:ner the meeting of :ne 2 ;Ci/m:-sec fiux criterien is ALARA woulc recuire a c:st-benefit analysis, wnica E?A cic in its ?!nai Environmental Impac: Statement for Stancarcs for one Centrol of Eyprecuc Materials frem Unranium Ore ? recessing (40 CFR Part 192), Volumes 1 anc 2, EPA 520/1-53-008-1 and 2, Septem er,1983 and Regulatory != act Analysis of Final Envir:nmental Standards for Uranium Mill Tailing at Ac-tve Sites, EPA 520/1-53-010, Septemcer, 1983. As a result of the E?A analysis, :ne acci:1cnal ceatns avoidec cicn't warrant the recuction of the criterien belcw 20 pCi/m2-sec fr:m a c:s: benefit stanc:oint.

It snould also be notec that althougn laboratory anc fiele ex:erience by both CCE anc NRC confirm that the 2 pCf/m:-sec criterion can be met, it is cifficul: to prove that it can be significantly maintained over tne icng-term cue :: wea:nering, settlement and other cefec generating mecnanisms. Mcreover, the proximity of the 2 pCi/m 2-sec flux to the natural racon flux from backgrow*nc sources allcws for sco much uncer:ainty in the precictive me:necclegies and ranges f:r parameter input values. Little relief can be :::ainec by actual menitoring, since, monitoring data results at these icw raciaticn levels can be of marginal value, cue :: the levels of uncertainty involved. The uncer ainty is accressed in the cesign stancard y One "reasonacle assurance" 'malemen a-tion criterien, wnerecy NRC utilices reasona ly ::nservative :arameter values in predicting the long-term racen f'ax. The resul-ing flux levels are usually muen less : nan a fac:ce of 10 acree :ne 2 :Ci/=:-sec flux cri erien usec in the ptst. Three c:mmen:ces arguec agains celeting re minimum 3 meter ::ver requirement.

• ewis cojected to celetion of "recuirements for scecific grounc c:ver", i.e. , :ne 3 meter minimum, and ex:ressed tne view :na: Criterien 6 "is cestr:yec " E?A rec:mmencec :na: :ne 3 meter minimum ::ver recuirement :e kect "to rovice reascnacle assurance of acecuate long-term :er#0rmance Of :ne c:ver uncer eresional anc c ner s resses." The EP! similarly ::jec ac ::

celetion Of :ne 3 meter minimum : ver astuiremen asec On 9e : rete:-1:n ce::n ,4 . i ". :.f :. .: 1:. +

                                                                        . g w .:-M    ar, .u.myge.:

8 afforcs against erosion anc in rusion. E?I also argue: :na "reascnacle assur-ance" of meeting :ne 20 :ic: curie ' lux requires a : nicker c:ver inan one :na-merely mes:s ne 20 limi . Rescense: Ccmments ccjecting to celeting :ne 3 meter minimum c:ver focusec en the neec for erosicn and intrusion prctection as acequate reascn for 3 meters ince encent cf any racen flux considera:1cn. As notec in :ne ra:icnale for ne prc=csec cnange, the s ecific :nickness of 3 meters was derivec from racen flux consicerations. These considerations were based on meeting the 2 pica-curie or twice-background =erformance criteria anc are clearly inconsisten: witn the 20 pic: curie value. Staff agreec in :ne GEIS and agrees new -hat effective covers are neecec for long term protection. Site s ecific ex erience 'anc further research anc analysis on long term stacility (e.g., NUREG-2397, " Design Consicerations for Long-Term Stabili:ation of Uranium Mill Tailings :mocunc-ments") have incicatec :nat effective alternatives :: total reliance on soil thickness are feasible anc may make mere environmental anc ec:ncmic sense. Well designed ecck covers en the tcps and side sic es of reclaimed tailings can provide sufficient erosion pectection sc that a scii ccver of less than 3 meters may be accectacle. Deletion of :ne minimum cover thickness cces not relieve licensees from the recuirement to provide ef'ective c: vers. It provices for site s ecific alternative cesigns to acc:molisn ne same ercsion anc intrucer Orctection. While staff agrees tnat "reasonacle assurance" requires scme cegree of c:nservatism, staff caes not agree na: "reascnacle assurance" cic ates a factor of ten conservatism, as EP!'s arguments incicate. CO Ocjec ed c inciucing the 200 year minimum longevity recuiremen; basec On :ne small incremental cos s anc prac-icality of meeting tne icnger (1,000 year) ofme and tne icngevity of :ne na: arcs frem tailings. Ec 1cgy/Aler: questionec the 200 year "locchcle." As notec earlier, AMC acvecated a 200 year stancarc. Oc/.* 9/55 16 *

                                                                       .0 CFR 10 CHANGES

                                                                                          . o Res:cnse:

The 200 year minimum lengevity requiremen: ;r: vices relief in :nese unicue reclamation situaticas enere :ne 1,000 year criterien can :e shown to

e tec mucn of a cos: nardsnip to satisfy. Staff views he E?A lcngevity stancarc to be 1,000 years unless site s ecific circumstances crecluce meeting 1,000 years. Staff rejects the AMC assertion th.a the stancard is or snculd te 200 years with no attem := meet 1,000 years. The linguage anc inten; of the EPA stancard pre osed for insertien in Criterien 6 is clear in this regarc.

Il cbjected to NRC's prc osed use of design stancarcs and suggestec that NRC rules explicitly require proof that the design has been met by the reclamation actions. In su ort of its ;csition, Il citec E?A/NRC jurisdic: ten, disposal anc engineering experience, and the long-term hacarcs.

Response

The EPA longevity and raden standard is written as a cesign stancarc. Recuirements to c:nfirm adequacy of cesign during and after construction have merit but will be very site and design s:ecific. Normally, key cesign features and cuality control would be s ecifiec in site scecific license concisions. Normal ins;ection and enforcement activities would incluce cuality con:rci and comoliance with designs a:Or0vec and scecified in license concitiens. The st;e s ecific concisions and levels of uncertainty in the cesign mign: result in some neec :: confirm design parameters af ter :ne f act but sucn a need shculc be One exce:: ion. Ex:ressing :ne stancarc as a design stancarc coes nc: Oreciuce sucn site s:ecific findings. The related issue of racen flux monitcring is discussed uncer the next mocification (5 (b)). Three c:mmenters efferec clarifying suggestions. E?A rec:mmencec clarifying :ne reference to "permanen: cis:csal". NM ree:mmencec cefining :ne term "cis:csal area". WY suggestec :na: NRC accress now it will im:lement and acoiy the longevity cesign stancarc anc make fincings. WY also suggestec :na;

na stancarc :e clarified :: make 1: clear, sna to :ne exten: Oracticacie, :ne cover ocule s:fil meet :ne 20 :ic: curie flux limit at tre enc of :ne '.,0C0 year cesign :ericc.

i i 04/*3/55

        .                                    47                      *0 C.:; 40 CHANGES I

Res:0nse: Staff agrees witn :ne E?A suggestien  ::arify ":ermanen cis:: sal" anc ree:mmencs ne cnange lista: celow. The "cis:csai area" :sfinition is accressec ir.cf rectly in :ne :nirc paragra:n of ne Orc:csec Criteri:n 6. The tnirc paragra n picks u: ne :nresncid activity limits na: cefine wnen :ne icngevi y anc raden recuirements en post-closure,a :iy. E?A definec cis:csai area" only in terms of the apolicability of 40 CFR '92.32(b)(1). Staff sees nc need for acdttional cefinition. The WY suggestion :0 adcress i=:lemen a-tien would result in a level of ce: ail in the rule normally relegatec :: NRC guidance documents. Existing guidance documents on reclamatien planning and design may need seme felicwu: mecification. The NRC is ianning to review or nas reviewed existing dccuments and is expicring the neec for accitional imclementing guicance. Staff agrees witn WY that the E?A standard is no: :meletely clear tha: the fluy limit is to be met thecughcut the effective cesign life :: :ne exten: Oractica:le anc re:cses the cnange listec below. Kerr-McGee succor:ec tne cnange for uranium by recuct ma erial but ce csec including ncrium by recuct material stancarcs. Kerr-McGee cor ectly

servec that i s West Chicago facility is the Only current :ncrium facility subjec :: the thorium stancarcs and urgec :na the generic stancarcs snculd nc: :e a::liec or tna; at least explicit flexicili:y for site s:ecific cecisiens snculc ce inciucec in Criterion 6. Xerr-McGee cic not icentify scecific pect-lems anc asec its arguments on inacecuate analysis Oy E?A in issuing the stanc-arcs. HMC su::cr:ec all Xerr-McGee c:mments. The AMC c:fec ec :: inciucing ncrium by:recuc material previsiens anc suggestec a 50 year stact't:stien

      -ime :erice for tnorium if incluced. The snce ifme pe*icc was sue:crtec Oy arguments n shcr:ar lived racicnuclices [in -he incrium 212 Onain] anc reli-ance en institutional contrcls. UT's c:mments en :ne technicai tasis for tne E?A ncrium values are ciscussec uncer Mccification 6(:).
                     <es:ense:

The ::mments c::csing inc r:cra-icn Of : e EPA stancar s #0cEnce'um Oy:recuc material are generally excressing citia i sfa -icn witn :ne EP' stanc-arc itself. The E?A stancarc in 40 CFR 192.12 :revices f:r su:stitute ;eneri:

     , , . . . , - .                               .-                      ,-      .e u-i .:i ::                                   -c                       :a . .s -s -. sr ke --::

previsicas to those in Sce:ar: 5, but witn E?A c:ncurrence. Thus a ruiemaking on cifferen: thorium stancarcs woulc be ::: ally ciscretionary en NRC's : art and recuire extensive su::orting analysis. The acrium stancarcs Orc:csec for insertica are alreacy in effect :n NRC anc state licensees and are nonciscre-

10 nary. NRC repe:1:1:n in 10 CFR 20 has no bearing en :nete status. Sta f f cces.not c:nsicer ruiemaking for the one site sucject :: :ne standarc f0r he foreseeacle future :: be warrantec. NRC has thg authority to consicer and approve site specific alternatives if the fincing in Section S*c can ce mace.

Staff celieves that the cojective of having 10 CFR 10 be comolete on all non-grouncwater protection recuirements justifies recetition of alreacy bincing standarcs. As a tecnnical observation, staff notes that AMC arguments on shorter pericds of c:ntrol required do not take into accoun: the real world mix of naturally cccurring isotopes of natural thorium anc the presence of uranium 4 anc its daughters in most tnerium cres. The c:melexity of the mixtures hign-lignts the site specific aspects and :ne difficulty of developing alternative generic stancards. Rec:mmended Rule Changes:

1. In the first sentence of pecposed new Criterien 6, delete the words "In cases wnere waste Oycr0cuct material is to be :ermanently dis:csec, an earthen c:ver shall be placec" and inser: "In cis:csing of waste by:recuct material, licensees snall place an eartnen cover".

2. Inser at the end of the first sentence of pec=csad new Criterion 5 after (;Cf/m2s) :ne pnrase d:: :ne exten :ractica:le througnou:

the effective cesign life determinec ursuant :: (i) acove". Mccification 6.(b): Thi s change woulc acc the two racon flux meci fy-ing fco: notes fecm :ne EFA stancarc that s:ecify :na: do monit: ring is recuirec, averaging is all wed, and cover materi.als do not cave to e c:nsicered in meet-ing :ne flux limit. The ECNP cc:csec accing :ne E?A fec nctes :ecause ne footnctes state that no ment:: ring of :ne racen flux is recuicec anc :na: averaging is allowec. l' The ECF as: argued :na: racen releases sncuic :e tenitorec for 40-50 years after i

04/15/E! 19 10 CFR 20 1 MANGES l

t

       "eclamation. IL, CO, NM acc E?! also : jectec :: no moni:Oring of #1ux levels, 20 ::jectec that :ne averaging : revision is 00c vague, I' ex:ressec c ncern

na: :ne language :iarifying :na; ::ver materiais nc: :s ::nsicere: in :ne 20 =ic curie flux :alculations wouic result in :ne use of nign racium ::nten satis for :: vers.

Kerr-McGee notec tha: the :nanges are c:nsisten with :ne EPA stancarc but repeatec the view tha: the E?A stancard is invalid. HMC sue:crted all Kerr-McGee c =ments. The AMC agreec witn including factnote 1 as proposed since 1: clarifies that the standarc is a cesign stancard, but because of AMC's ;csition

na ne limits en raden flux are warrantec, fcotncte 2 should not be incor crated.

nes:ense: The fec:nctes auc:ec fr:m ne E?A stancarcs in 20 CFR 192 are necessary Oc define hcw E?A intencec :ne icngevity and racen stancarcs : be used. The fcc:nctes set the c:nditions wnich E?A su:;crted as a reasona le balance of :s anc ceneft; that woulc ce acnievable witn present state of the art, While NRC does have the autnerity to require monitoring of flux levels as the c:=ments note, the cractical Orc:lems wnich lec E?A :: issue a cesign stancarc anc NRC ex;erience in racen attenuation measurements anc calculations convince staff that flux moni:0 ring snculc no: ce mancatec. Measuremen: Of flux levels in the ff eic is cifficult anc su: Ject to wice variatiens cue : fac:ces sucn as sensitivity :: measurement me:necs, metecroicgical var'aticns, acn-nemcgeneity of the tailings piles, anc cistur:ance of :ne racen releases Oy ne monitoring pr: cess. Mcnitoring flux levels in c:ntrcilec ex:erimental situa-ti ns can ;rovice useful ca a witn sufficien Orecision Oc evaluate ne elative im:cr ance Of cesign c:nsicerations sucn as moisture ::nten: Or vegetative :ene-traticn. Mcwever, :ne ci#ff culties anc variations in measurements anc measure-ment tecnnicues c:nvince staff tha: :ne EPA cesign stancarc sncula not te im:le-mentac as a ;er#0rmance stancarc. NRC's cur en: methec for pr: vicing reasona:1e assurance sna: :ne E?A ' lux stancarc will :e me; focuses :n :ne selec-icn anc a: lica:f on of :arameters anc :ai:ulational me:nec01:gy for -ac:n :ar-ier

esign. Ex erdence anc researcn :: ca:e nave inc!ucec :eveic cent anc vali:a-tic.. of stancarci:ec calcula-ten me:necs anc cetermining ne relative fm:Or !nce C4/ *.3/35 5C .3 ?R aC l MANGES i

L ?

of incivicual :arameters. S me carame ers af#ect calculatec c:ver repuirements

                   ^

very li :le frem site :: site. Others are very site s:ecific anc may recuire

'ielc anc laceratory data. :arame:er values mus: :e enesen :: re:resen: :ne ex:ectec iong-term concitions of the cover. NRC's a:: reach is the a:Orcacn E?A intencec, involves c:nservative site s:ecific resolution, and commits NRC anc COE or licensee rescurces u: front :: pre:erly cesign :ne cover efore the reclamation werk begins. Further, NRC ex:ects to review cuality assurance rec 0rcs during construe:fon to assure that the a:prevec cesign is imclemented in the field. In summary, staff believes that current cesign anc review me:necs provice ample assurances. Staff notes that Agreement States such as CD can adopt more restrictive standarcs than EPA or NRC and may mandate monit: ring if desirec.

Staff experience also su perts the need for averaging over :ne imacuncment. The tailings are not hemogeneous. Airterne trans:ce: Of racen offsite results in mixing before mem:ers of the public are execsed so that cases are reflectec by average values. Alsc, ne averaging minimi:es the effects of variability in the values of parameters and reduces the neec to s:ecify errer ranges. Cetails en calculation metneds are mere a: pre:riate in guicance documents tna can be tailored to site s:ecific c:nditions anc track state of the art and experience. IL's concern accut hign racium c:ntent of cover materiais is accressed in :ne second paragracn of ne pre osed mccified Criterion 6. The sec:nc para-gra:n centains the requirements on icw racium c:ntent na: were alreacy in Ap:encix A. The fcc ncte only clarifies na :ne EPA stancarc a: plies :: the tailings flux :hrougn the cover anc :na: -acon from cover materials are no: :: be included in cemens: rating c:m:liance with the 20 :ic curie flux.

re csed Rule Change:

Acc the footnctes as =re:osec. Mccifica:1cn c.(c): This enange woul correct a ty gra:nical earer anc celete ne 3 meter recuirement. 04/,3/35 51 *C CFR :C CHANGEI

ECNP, IL, anc E?I ::csec cele:10n Of :ne 3 meter minimum earth C0ver recuirement as notec ancer M0cifica:10n 6(a). <er- V: Gee anc AMC anc tne:r su::ceters generally su::Ortec the :nange. Res:ense: See Mccifica ica 6(a). Dre;csec Rule Change: Correct typcgrachical error anc celete 3 meter recuirements as prc:csed. i Mccification 6.(d): This enange would acc the nresncic racium levels for acclicability of the insertec EPA stancarc cn icngevity and con:rci cf racon releases. I ECNP posec this change and advocatec an a: solute ncncegracation standard for racen releases. C0 ex:ressed the view :na: since averaging over 100 scuare meters alicws highly c:ntaminatec small areas :: te ignorec, it is insufficiently =rotective. UT offerec a numcer of tecnni al arguments relating Oc rac0n Or: duction en wny the :nresncic racium 223 values for thorium Oy:recuct material shouic de cifferent frem uranium values. UT suggestec :na: ne

ncrium limits fr0= the E.2A stancarc nc :e accec :: NRC rules since :ney are unjustifiably nign. -

Xerr-McGee cic no 5:ecifically 00mment On :nis enange :ut its csi-tien On M0cification 6(a) and (b) oculc imely that no incrium = revisions snculc

e inclucec. AMC 0:posec :ne mect'ication basec en juriscictional argumen s anc

ne lack of tecnnical ::nsistency ce: ween :ne nresncic values anc :ne 20 ic:-

curie fiux limit. AMC stressec :na: the alicwa:1e racon releases from :ne :aii-ings is nigner : nan tne racen releases nat resul; frem~::ntamina:icn at the nresncic ifmits. AMC aisc arguec :na: institutional c:ntrols hac no: :een acecuately : nsicerec by E?A in setting :ne limits anc :na :ne limits aere no :asec :n realistic risk assessment, i 4/ . .a / .::. :s

                                                    ..                        a -:-%a-
                                                                             .. ..           v ~. r. q:.:
                                                                                                  ..i-

Res:cnse: The language re: sec f:r inser:icn is neecac : reflec- ne ::nci-tiens uncer wni:n E?A intencec the longevity and rac:n s ancarc :: a: ly. The i mecifict:icn as pr::csed *culc allcw NRC : be more restric-ive if warran:ec f by site specific conditions. NRC may recuire some cegree of c:ntrol f0r areas

, c:ntaminated a:cve background but below the thresneld levels, EPA ackncwlecged 1

this 00 ion in its rulemaking. Such site specific cecisions would be a car: of the NE?A review of licensee's reclamation plans. Ex: licit mentien of tnis 00:10n in Appendix A is not recuired to maintain the Option for controls anc -he 4 pre:esec change does not precluce acditional centrols. All other c:mments were cirectec at ne EPA standarc, not NRC c ions. 4 Rec:mmenced Rule Change:

!                           Acd the paragra:n as procesec.

J

g. Cr4:er4cn 8 Mcdification 7.(a): The change would acc :ne E?A stancarc language

, en :ne as icw as practicacle gcals for raden releases during 0:erations. The ECN? ex:ressed reservations accut imolementation anc enforcemen: ' of :ne as Icw as Orac-icacle goal anc :ne lack of s:ecific time limits for ccm:letion of stabili:ation anc raden c:ntrol af ter c:erations cease. ECF ex:ressed mere ;cintec c:ncerns on time limits anc pr::csec acci-icnal enanges

address their concerns. WNI nad ne cojection. Kerr-McGee nac no ::jec-icn

her : nan general cojection : -he EPA stancarcs. AMC anc su::ceters rec:m-mercec :nat ne werc ";ractica le" :e celetec and :ne :nrase "reasona ly

! acnieva:le" be insertec :: more accurately reflect E?A intent. AMC citec EPA's

inten as describec in

ne creamole to final 40 CFR 192 (48 ?R 45933) to im:lemen: the :eceral Radiation Protection Guicance of May 12, 1960. As EPA

  -ec:gni:ec in :ne :reamcle, "this guicance is currently (newn as :ne 'as icw as reasona:ly acnievacle' (ALARA) princi:le". AMC also notec :na: :ne language 1

nange f-em Oractica:le ALARA is reflectec in Commission aules in *0 'FR 20. .

I a

...,.,.....b...:2

                                                                                          .  .s           u .. m

e. . / . : < . .::

                  . , _ . .           -- - ,_.    .-   -   _     ,    .,-._  e  ,,     .,       , _ . -        -     - - -   , . . _ . . _ - - .

I aesconse: As nc ed earlier, ciscretionary acci:icnal enanges sucn as ti e limits, interim stacili:ati0n, anc :nasec cis:csal -ec:mmencac Oy EDF anc c:ners were : nsicere: cutsice :ne sc :e of :nis ac:10n. Staff agrees na: E.:A's intent was to im:cse :ne ALARA Orinci:le anc that ALARA is more c:nsistent witn Cc=missien radiation pectec:f cn policies as reflec:ec in 10 CFR Part 20. The actual language in a standard has nigner legal force : nan the preamole stating intent, but in :nis case since numerical values er ether s:ecific provisions are not involvec, tne Ccamission has more flexibility in conforming. Staff agrees :nat the intancec general guidance is i more accurately ALARA. i Rec:mmencac Rule Change: i 1 Acc the crecesed mcdification but celete ":rac tcable" anc inser:

     "weasonably acnievable".

Modification 7.(b): These changes woulc acc language fr:m one E?A stancard im csing 40 CFR 190 ecuivalent limits for :ncrium by;recuc: materials anc c:: liance wita 40 C.:R Par: 440, Subcar: C. The ECNP cbjectec to ne "reascnable assurance" language in :ne text accec fr m the EPA stancard and suggestec :na: NRC nas re: lacing actual stan-carcs 41:n this insert. WNI noted no c:mment en :nis enange. < err McGee

csed inclucing :ne therium byprocuc staccarcs for :ne same reasons nctec anc rescenced ;0 uncer Mccificatten 6(a). EMC su pertec all '< err McGee ::=ments.

The AFC rec:mmencec :na: waiver crevistens from a recen EPA ruiemaking uncer

ne Clean Air Act (50 FR 5190, Fe:ruary 6, 1955) :e inc:r:cratec int: One

ncrium case limits. The AMC also 00 csec accing :ne language recuiring c meliance with 40 C.:R Oar: 410, Su::ar: C stating :na these regula:1cns are invai'd since E?A lacks autnerity :: egulate Oy:r:cuct material uncer :ne Clean Vater Act.

   ;4/*3/35
        .                                      54                    *C
                                                                     . OFR AC FANGES

ses:ense: The :r::csec text ,as :uctec ver:ati f em :ne E.:A stancarc in 10 !?R 192. No cele:f ons er mecifications Of existing NRC uies are invcivec. The preposec change inc:r; crates for :iarity stancarcs .9at are al eacy bincing :n NRC licensees for clart y anc elimina es ne neec :0 refer to AC OFR 192 for any requirements etner than grouncwater protec-icn. While One waiver Orevisien suggested by AMC may have merit in consicering site specific si uaticns, ne staff does not believe sna such a generic ciscretionary rulemaking is .arrantec. Staff has nc basis to ac: on AMC arguments tha- 40 CFR 440, Sub ar: C, is invalid. Rec:mmendec Rule Change: Adc the mccification as preposec. 1 h. Mcdifica icn 3: Criteria 2, 7, 9,10, l',

                                                          . anc 12 nc: affec ec cy pr::csed cnanges.

E?A noted tha :ne second ste; rulemaking on grouncwater and c ner

revisions to be ccm:aracie to SiCA recuirements may affect :nese criteria.

Ne response to :nis c:rrect Ocservation is neecec. Changes ;0 :nese Ort eria rec:mmencec by ::mmenters are accressec uncer Sccce Of Rulemaking as a general issue, i

• I 4 # '

i

6 # 0 APPENDIX A i e k i

46418 Federal Regist:r / Vcl. 49. No. 228 / Monday. Novemb:r

25. 1984 / Preocsed Rules consideranon may not be given except opportunity for public comment. Today's for comments received on or celere mis proposal addresses that resconsibiitty.

date. p g g ,g g ,,, ' AOomesses: Mail comments to Secretary. U.S. Nuc! ear Regu!atorv b keeomg wuh section 1stal of tne i Commission. Washington. DC 205'55. NRC Authonzancn Act. de Commission ' Attennon: Docketing and Service suspended portions ofits Octooer 3. Branen. Debver con ments to Rocm 11:1. 1980 mill tailmgs regulations after nonce 1 17 H Street NW Wastitngton. DC and c;oortumry for puohe comment (48 between 8.15 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. FR 25350' August a.19831 As required weekcays. by the Act. this suspension terminated pom runTwsn imposuariou contact: automaucah W 1. N h Robert Fonner. Office of the Executive portions of the Commission's regulations Legal Director. telepnene (301) 492-6692- wmch were suspenced we*e those tnat or Kitty S. Dragonette. Divtston of were determined to be in confiset or Waste Management. U.S. Nuclear inconsistent with EPA's proposed Regulatory Commissiort. Washmston. reqmrements. More specifically. the DC 00535. telepnone (301) 427-4300. suspended portions were those that would require a maior commitment or supet.sassNTARY thecRMATIOss:The major acDon by licensees whicn would Nuclear Requistory Commission (NRC be unnecessary if:(1) The EPA proposed or Commission)is proposmg standards were promulgated in final modifications to its regulanons for the form without modificatton. and (2 the purpose of conformmg them to generally Cotntrussion's regulanons were mo) cified applicable requirements recently promulgated by the Enytronmental to conform to the EPA standards. The objecuve of the suspension was to evoid Protection Agency (EPA).These new a situation whers a licertsee or applicant EPA requirements are contamed m cught make a maior commitment or take Subparta D and E of 40 CFR Part 192 (48 a maior action wmch would be FR 459 6; October 7.1983). are unnecessary or ill. advised after applicable to the management of subsequent rulemakmq to modify uramum and thonum byproduct permanerttly tia exisung regulanons on ) matenal, and became effective for NRC l and Agreement State licensees and the basis of EPA's final stancards. ' license applicants on December 6.1983. The final EPA standards are very The acnon proposed herem would similar to those that were proposed. j modify previously existing regulanons of Nevertheless. the Commission has reconsidered the appropnateness of NUCLEAR REGULATCRY the Commission to conform them to the changes to Appendix A to 10 CFR Part new EPA requirements, and would COMMISSION 40 m !ight of the new EPA standards. incorporate certam of the new EPA requirements mto the Commission's and the need for additional supportmg to CFM Part 40 documentanon. The changes proposed regulacona. The affected Commission today are more modest than the l Uranium Mill Tailing Regulatione: regulan na are contamed m Appendix A previous suspension. M %mments to EM pro tetfm i form on Octeber 3. S**P* *N' N*P***I 1980 (45 FR 61521). Acasscw Nuclear Regulatory In addition to conformms its exisung Commission. The modificatons to Commission regulations to new EPA standards. regulanons propouc herem will under the provisions of the UMTRCA. ACT!ose Proposed rule. incorporate within NRC regulanons the Comnussion has a further legislated suesesAmy:The Nuclear Regulatory some of the new EPA requirements. The responsibilary:it must establian general Commission (NRC;is proposing to scuan that the Commission will take requirements. for me manasement of amend its regulanons govermns the with respect to the remamder of tese byproduct matenal wita EPA disposal of uratuum mill tailings. The new EPA requirements is the subiect of an Advanced Notice of Proposed concurrence. whica are. to the maximum proposed rule enanses are mtended to extent pracucable. at least comoarable conform existmq NRC regulations to the Rulemakmq (ANPRM). which requests to requirements applicable to the regulations puolished by the comment on that suoiect. also issueo management of similar hazardous Environmental Protection Agency for this day. These new EPA requirements matenal regulated by the EPA under the the protecnon of the environment from were developed and issued by EPA pursuant to secuan :75b. of the Atomic Solid Waste Discosal Act (SWDAl. as these wastes. This acuan is bems taken amended. The Commission deliberated to compiy with thelegssiative mandate Energy Act (42 U.S.C. :D:21. as added by as to how best to deal witn these related section ;06 of Pub. L 95-604. tne rulemakmq needs and dec:ded on the set out in the Urantum Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act and the NRC Uratuum Mill Tatlicts Radiation Control course of act:en resuitmq m inis Authorization Act for FY 1983. Act of 1978 (UMTRCA). Under section proposal and the accompanying DATE: The comment genod expires on 18(a) of Puo. L 97-415. the Nuclear ANPRM. This proposal addresses all the Regulatory Commission Authonzauon caanges to the exisung Commission January 10.1965. Comments received Act for fiscal years 1962 and 1963. the regulations m Appendix A to 10 CFR siter this date will be considered tfit is Comminion was directed to conform its pracncal to do so out assurance of Pstt 40 that can ce legaily promulgated regulations to EPNs with notica and without addinonal supporting

Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 228 / hianday Novemo' er 23. 1984 / Precosed Rules 4&n9 documentation. Other changes to the (21 Adhere to applicable recurrements Commission's regulanons for mill standards prcmulgated by the m 40 CG Part 440. " Ore Mmma and Environmental Protecuan Agency m 40 tailings management resulting from the Dressmg Pomt Source Category: Effluent CFR Part 132. Subparts D ano E." EPA standard are the subject of the t.:mitaucns C udetines and New Source accompanyma ANFRM. Recson: The flexibility to propose Performance standarcs. Subpart C. The content of these two rulemakmgs a!temauves to the Commission s and l'raruum. Radium. and Vanacium Cres EPA standards was me!udeo m Pub. L also may be charactented in terms of Subcategory." 97-415 changes to the AEA The added the need for EPA concurrence. although (3) Maintam releases of radon to the that was not the deciding factor. This annospnem cunng operanons as icw as paragrapn parapnrases the tanguage m proposal cor sists of moc'ifications not is practicable: SecMn 84c.The added paragraph requirtng EPA concurrence, mc!ud'ng (4) Close disposal areas so as to explicitly ack.,owledges the legislauve mtent and provides licensees and cortformmg changes to existmg NRC Pr0V'de reasonable assurance of rules and mcorporauon of EPA effective control for 1.000 years, to the applicants the opportunity to propose requimments not denvmg from the extent reasonably achievable, and. in alternanves as a routme licensmg SWDA. Those modifications that are the any case. for at least 200 years; matter. Licensees would have to provide subiect of the ANFRM accompanying (5) hmit avuage post. closure releases a site specific rationale to enable the this proposal denvmg from the SWDA of radioactive racon gas to no more thart Commission to make the required require EPA concurrence pursuant to .0 picocunes pu square meter p" finding. This genene approacn was second (pCi/m2.s): and taken mstead of modifying individual secuon 84 of the Atomic Energy Act. (O Set limits for residual entena to provide flexibility. A genenc Modifications addressed in the ANPRM approach avoida the chance of not include:(1)Incorporanon into NRC concentrauons of radioactive radium

    '                                                                                                      idenufying    all areas wnere flexibility regulations of SWDA requirements             left m soil above background,in onsite areas not subject to the closure                may be needed and preserves the already imposed by the EPA. (:) any I                                                                                                        existmq support for Appendix A.
    '         further modifications to NRC regulations requnements for longevity and radon                 Admmistrauvely.      alternauves are easier necessary to establish SWDA.                 miease    control.

comparable requirements as called for to precess under an explicit provision Proposed Modifications and Rationale than exceptions to rules. by the I.TMTRCA. and (3) any further modificanons needed to address In accordance with the above. the t. C stenon I presenprive provisions that were Commission proposes the followmg suspended pnar to Apnl1.1964 but not ir.adificauons to Appendix A to 10 CFR I*Ihth phrase e,firstforparagraph proposed for modification by thf s acnon. Put e thousands ofdelete years the

                                                                                                          * * * " and insert " * * * ."

This course of action was chosen to 1. Introduction Reason: The .housands of years allow the Commission to both conform language cortflicts with the 40 CFR its regulations to EPA's and incorporate (a)In the second sentence of the third non.SWDA provisions in a prompt and paragrapn. change "amendability'* to 192.30(b) standard of design of control orderly manner and deal with the "amenabil.tv.- measures to be effective for 1.000 years. complex of SWDA recunements and Reason: This change ccrrects a (b)In the second listed item of the typographical error. first paragrays. delete the word issues m a separate, comprenensive and umfied rulemakmg. (b) Delete the fourth paragraph in its "us a ble. entirety. Reason: Both 40 CFR :o42:1 and 40 Cootect of This Proposal Recsoninis change deletes an CFR ;04 o2. wruch are included by information submittal requirement reference in 40 CFR 192.3 (a), require

  ,              The new EPA requirements in to CFR Part 192. (44 R 45926) meluded by            which was established in connection             isolation of contammants from all with implementation of the ongmal               qualities of groundwater. not just usable reference several sections from 40 CFR       Appendix A cntena. The due date Part :64. promulgated by the EPA                                                             grounawater sources.

onginally set for submittals is past. A y c.gy,.,, y pursuant to authonty provided by the Resource Conservauon and Recovery new due date for revised submittals is Act (RCRA). wmch modified the SWDA. not considered necessary. m 0+, the monih-rs ~hnth au hn " l (c) Add the followmg paragraph at the for groundwater in the second sentence These SWDA (or RCRAI requirements end: "1.icensees or applicants may of tne second paragraph. (i imposed under 40 CFR Pstt 192 are propose alternauves to the specific Reason:The EPA standards require ' addressed in the ANFRM accompanymg . requirements in this Appendix. The protection of all qualines of this proposal. The few conformms alternative proposals may take into I cnanges to NRC's exisung Appendix A groundwater. not just high quality account local or regional concttions, sources. regulanons made necessary by these meluding geology. topography. newiy tmposed SWDA requirements are hydrology, and mete stology. The ,~g,,,,,,, addressed m this document. as are Commission may find that the proposed conforming changes and other changes (al Revise paragraph (a) by deletmq attemauvas meet the Commission s " maximum possible flood" and insertmg necessary to reflect and incorporate the requirements if the alterneuves will non.SWDA elements of EPA's new " Probable Maximum Flood." requirements. These non.SWDA acnieve a level of stabilization and Recson: Probable Maximum Flood contamment of the sites concemed, and reflects the appropriate hydrologic terms l provisions me!ude requirements to-- a level of protecton for public hesith. (11 Adhere to applicable requirements for a design bests anc the origmalintent safety. and the environment from of the provision wnen Appencix A was I m 40 CFR Part 190. "Enytronmental l reasolosteal and nonradiological promulgated.

      ,   Raoiation Protecuan Standaros for             hazarcs associated with the sites. wruch i   Nuclear Power Operations' for uranium         is equivaient to to the extent                 #   C'~##"#" #

byproduct matenal. and essentially the ptscucsole or more stnngent than the (a)In the first paragraph. delete the same requirements for thenum level wruch would be achieved by tne byprocuct matenal: first two sentences begmnmg " Steps requirements of this Appencix and the snail be taken * * *

• and endmg e 4h

46CD Fed:ral Resostar / Vol 49. No. 223 / Monday [ Novtmbzr

                                                                                                                                                            .i S.1984 / Procosed Ruks "potennel uses.* and the phrase " * * '        an earthen cover shall be placed over in order to accomphsh this objectivel* in tailings or wastes at the end of millmg                   (d) At Me end of Cntenon 6. add a me third sentence.                                                                              new paragrapn to read:"The design operanons and the waste oisposal area            requirernents m this Cntenon for 4eason:The EPA groundwater                                                                                                                     '

protecnon standards referenceo in 40 snail be closed in accoroance with a lansevity ano control of rsdon releases design 5 whion snall provide reasona'c le shall appiy to any portion of a hcensed ' CFR 192.3:(al co not permit any seepage I to grounowater. assurance of control of radioiogical ano/ar disposal site unless such portion I na u n s i., ni H if m ..n.c....- fI lb)In the first hsted item under the contams a concentration of radium m

          'Irst paragraph begmnmg with                   tnousand vears. to the extent reasonably lano. averaged over areas of 100 square achievaoie, anc. m any casector at least         meters. weich. as a resuit of byproduct          ' '
         "!nstallanon of * * *

• delete the words

         "!ow permeabihty" as a charactettsue of :20 years. and (ti) hmit releases of                    matenal coes not exceed the bottom Imers-                                  raden 2:2 from uramum bvproduct                  background level by more than:(i) 5 Recson: The EPA youndwater                matenais. and radon 200 from thonum              picocunes per grum fpCi/g) of radiurn.

protection standard referenced m 40 byproouct matenals. to the atmosphere :25. or, m the case of thonum byprt@ct CFR 192.3 fa) requires a Imer that so as to not exceed an average

• release matenal. radr.m 228. averaged over the prevents migratica of wastes on.t of the rate of 20 picocunes per square meter per second f pCi/m2sh" first 15 centimeters fem) beiow the impoundment mto the adiacent soil,and surface. and fii)15 pCilg cf radium 206.

groundwater. Low permeacihty impues Reeson: The change replaces previous 'or. :n trie case of thonum byproduct that some cugration is atlowed, Commnsion requirements for mmimum matenal, radium 2 8. averaged over 15 s felln the second paragraph begmnmg cover thickness and post closure radon cm thick layers more inan 15 c n below "Where groundwater impacts * * * " control with the EPA standards for the surface." delete the phrase "to its potential use lannenry and radon control The EPA 'Recson:This change incorporates the  ; before milling operations began to the staridard m 40 CFR 192.3:(b) for EPA requirements for site c!eenup environtnental protection after closure l 3 ,g e(eQac, ca outside the actual disposal area. in 40 CR spec:fies that the control method must areas where the longevity and radon provide reasonaale assurance that control closure standards are not te uires a cc ect ea in to ram to releases i redon 200 do not exceed 20 applicable (see 40 CFR 192.3:f b)(2) and restore groundwater to standards pic cunes per square meter ;er second. 192.41). is sta dar s s ent 11 nda the ckr ss of cover 11 ea '*### # nondegradanon standard. Restoration of func!: n ofI ngevity and radon release (a) At the end of the first full groundwater quahty only to the extent and will be determmed based on paragrapn. add a new sentence to read necessary to restore its potent:al use is meetmg the 20 value mstead of 2. The Dunng operanens and prior to closure. mconsistent with EPA standard. three meter =mimum precnpuve (d) Delete m its ent:rety the third radiation doses from redon emissions requirement was developed to achieve a from curface impoundments shall be paragraon begmnmg "While the pnmary 2 ptcocune emanation rate cased on the kept as low as is practicaele. method of protecttng g oundwater assumed typical soil condinons. be isolation * * '" and ending - ...shall (b) Add to Cntenon 6 the followmg Reason: nts enange mcorporates the EPA requirement tmposed under 40 CT3 from current or potential uses... two footnotes which accompany the 192.3:f al(4). Recson:The EPA standards for revised first sentence: footnote:(11"The (b) Followmg the third full paragrach groundwater protection m 40 CFR standard applies to design. Momtonns 192.3 f a) protect groundwater pnmanly of Cntenon 8. iust before Cntenon SA. for radon after matallation of an msert the followmg two new on the easis of background-level appropnately designed cover is not paragraphs: concentration limits for herzardous required." and footnote f2) "This "Millteg operanons productng or constitutents. and not in terms of current average stiad apply to the enure surface involving thonum by;roduct matenal or potential uses. The de!eted sentence of esca disposal area over penoda of at allowed consideranort of talings in Icsst one year, but short compared to shall be conducted m seen a manner as contact with groundwater. The EPA to prende reasonable assurance that the 100 years. Radon will come from oath annual cose equivalent does not exceed standard permits no seepage to uramum byproduct ma;enals and from groundwa ter. 25 milhrems to the whole bocy. *5 covenne matennis. Radon emissions millitems to the thyroid. and 25 (elin the first sentence of the fifth from covenng matenals snould be millitems to any other organ of any parseraph begmams *This mformanon , estimated as part of deveicomq a memoer of the public as a result of shall'be gathered * * '" delete the word closure plan for each site. The standard. exoosure to the planned discharse of

      " usable

• wnere it modifies however, aMlies only to emissions from "groundwa ter.- radioecatve matennis. racon 200 and its  ;

byproduct matensis to the atmospnere/* daugnters excepted. to the general Recson:The EPA bandard m 10 CPR Recson This enange fuity environment." 19;.::tal does not distmguisa between meorporates tne EPA radon control  ;

      "usaole

• and nonusa hlv seguifers. The standard.

                                                                                                          "Crantum and thonum byproduct              i groundwater protection standard                                                                  matertals shall be managed so as to (c!!n the fifth sentence of the first         conferri to the acpheable provisions of appites umversally to acquifers of any         paragrapn. replace "non soiled mth quahty of potential use.

Title 40 of the Coce of Federal

                                                    " con. coil." and replace the words "to           Regulanons. Part HJ. Cre Mimrg and

6. Catenon 6 recuce tasimgs covers to less than three Cressing P smt Scuree Category: Effluent meters ' wtth the worcs "as cover Larnitanons Cuadetmes anc New Source f al Ceiete the first sentence in matenala."

ennrety. cegmnmg with "Suffic:ent earth Performance Standaros. Subpart C. cover * * *

• and endmg with "* *
• Reason: The first chanee correcta a Uramum. Raetum. end Veneciam Ores typogractucas error. The secontiis an Subcategory, as coorfied on January 1.

meter per second.", and m tta place msert "In cases wnere weste bvproduct e6 tonal caanse to be constseent with 1943.* matenai ta to ce permanenuy c:sposed. the deienon of :he three meter mmrmum Reason: Sete new persgrsons requirement as esscuased m la) above. incorporate EPA requirements imposed l 2 1

                                                                       '                                                                                       1 I

I

                                                                                                                                                    ,  e Federal Register / Vol. 49 No. :~3 / Afonday. Novembe7 20.1984 / Pmposed Rules 4s Un under 40 CFR 19? Wdi and 40 CFR                  argards :rannzm mill taings sites and 1912"!e }{U. respectiveiy.                                                                     ni!emaking action. can be viewed as the have no broader connotanon.                    lead age:cy.

8. Cnte s 2. 7. 9.10.11. and 12 are not ne Cwmmission beheves 2.at affected by the new EPA standards or ' censee proposals fcr aitemauves can

                                                            .                                               Paperwork Reduc: ion Act Statement eettonal chanTes and no mec$ cation is           :e an important and eifecure way to              This pro:sonac raie oces not contam a proposed for any portica of &c.se               heip deal with de prooieme assoc:. aced ente.na.                                        wid t=ple.12.entag the new EPA new or amenced tnferrnation etheten requirement suoject to the regattements Commrssion Authority and                        standarca. The Commimon expects tnat of the Psperworz Raduencn Act of120 RnpensMey                                       it may require several years to have tts       R4 U.S.C. 25c1 et seq.l. Fxisung conformeg reguianons fuity in place. !t        recuirements were asgoved by the Secnoa 64c.of the Atomac Emergy Act         expects to use the !!exibility provided state theti A !.Jcensee may propose            by secton 84 in the intens to consider         Office of Mana6 ament and Bucast attematives to specific requirements                                                          approval nasacer J15040:0.

and approve attemative proposals from adopted and enforced by the licensees. Secnon 84c. provides NRC Regulatmy T!eMiy Canscadon Commiseton under 6ts act. Such suffic:ent authonty to mdspendently attemative proposals may take mto As required by the Regulatory approve attematives so long as de F!exibility Act of 1980. 3 U.S.C. 805[b), account Icesitar regional conditions. Commission can make the required the Commission certif.es that this rule inc!ccing geology, topography. determination. hydrology and meteorology. The will not. if promulgated. have a Com=tssica may treat sucn alternauves , sigm81 cant econocuc unpact upon a I as satisfytcg Comnussion requirements substantial number of small entities. The Commission's acten in proposmg Therefore, we have not performed a l if tne rimassion determines that such these mod 4 cations to its regulations in attematrves will acmeve a level of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40 is to Reg tietory F!rxibility Analysis. De I stabtiizacon and containment of the beets for this fmding is that of the i conform tham to the new EPA licensed urensum mills, only one sites concerned. and a levej of standards. These changes are for the protecton for peblic health, safety, and purpose of avoiding conflicts and quellfles as a small entity. Almost all

    }     Se envtronment from radiolog: cal and                                                          the mde are owned by large mconsistencies. and for cianfym9               corporacons.Three of the mills are nonradiological hazarcs associated with previously existmg language so as to be such sites. wnica ts equivalent to. to the      compatible with the new requirements.          partly. owned by comparues that could extent practicaele. or more sinngent            De ecnon proposed here by the                  qualify as small han=ames, according to than the level which would be scrueved          Commission is a consequence cf                 the SmallBusiness Aden=tratics by standards and requirements adopted                                                          genene ammu encty desanan of 300 previous actions taken ey the Congress         empicyees. However, ander the and enforced by the Commission for the          and the EPA. and is legaily mancatad in same purpose and any final standards           section 273b(3) of the Atomic Energy Act Regulatory Flex.ibthey Act. a sinail
    }    promuigated by tne Admimstratorof the of 1954, as amended.                                     busmess is orre that is independently E:vtronsectal P:ctection Agency m                                                              owned and operated. Since these three Commission acuoc in t2us case ta accorcance with secnon 275;                     esentially nondiscrettonary m nature,          mills are not mdependently owned day The Commission histoncady has had          and for purposes of enstrocenental             do not qualify as small enutjaa.

the authontv and responsibility to analysis, rests upon exisung I.Ist of Sabjects in 19 CFR Part 40 regulate tne acuvines of persorts environmental and other impact

         !icensed uncer the Atomic Energy Act of evaluattens in the followmg documents-                      Govemment contracts. Harardon.:

1954. as amended. Consistent with t at (1)"F.nal Environmental Impa .t matenais-tre n a== tanon. Nacisar autnanty and m accordance wita matenals. Penairy, Repomns and Statement for Standards for de Control recortikeeping requirements. Source secnon 84c. of that Act. the Commission of B)Traduct.\faten.ais from Granuun has tne discreuon to review and matenal. and Unnmm. approve site specic attemauves to Ore Procesur4 (40 CFR Part 19:l/* Volumes 1 and ? EPA 3:0/1-43408-1 (Jnder the Atoaue Ecese Act of 19M' stancarcs promulgatec ey the and 2. Septemoer 1981 and (21 as amended. the Energy Reorgaruzation Commission anc by rne Adm:nistrator of " Regulatory impact Analysis of Fmat . Act of 1274, as amenced. 5 U.S.C. 33J. the Environmentat Protection Agancy. In Enttronmental Standants for Unmum and the Uramum Mail Tatimgs Radiatten

        &e exerese of tbs authn :tv. Secnen             Mi!! Tailing at Active sites. EPA 5:0/1- Control Act of 1978 as amended. the 340. coes not require the Comrmssion to         83410. Sep* ember 1981 both pre;ared           NRC is proposmq the followmg obtam the concur ence of tre                    m support of Subparts D and E of 40            4mencments to m G Pan M Admmistrator :n any s:te soec:!ir CFR Paret 192. anc (31 " Final Generic attemat:ve wnich satisfies Comrn:ssan           F.:tvironmen.at Impact Statement on            PART 40-OOMESTIC L! CENSING OF reoutrements for de les el of pro:cetion        tramum Milhng." NUREC-4706.                   SOURCE MATERIAL for puoiic hea.m. safe'y. and 2e                Saotemoer 1980, precarec in eucpert of environment from raciciogical and                                                                  1. The authonry ettenon for Pan 40 is Appencix A of 10 CFR Part 40. The             revtsed     to read as follcws:

nontaciologrcai hazar s at uran: m mtil Commission oeiieves that these taWng sites. As an cumple. ene Authoney Seca ei n 64. u st. tat. tai suppomng analyses for the new EPA Commisson neec not seen concurrence isi taa. ea Stat. 931231935. S4a. Sn 354. standards and the eusneg Commission 9ss. as arr.enced secs. tiet:1. si at Puo. L of the Acmmistrator is case.cy-case teeulations provide a more Man 95.%4. 7: Stat. co:t1 sa arcanded. :o39. asc. determinattons of alter ta'tve ac'eqtiate environtnental review for Se :04. SJ S:at. 444. as amenced f 42 U S C. concentrat:en lim:ts and delistma of standards addresed hereta, and taat no m d:1. m m :094. m :111. :tt3. j hazarcons constitutents for specific additionalimpact analysis '.s warranted

   ,   sites. It snou:d be understood t at tne proposed conforrrung regulations deal by the conformmg actions prooosed Ij p,            (         ,

{.$*C, sec. :ct, as amecoed. ct :06. as Sist.1:41 herem. Tine EPA engaged m and with the exercise of tne Commission s completed a NEPA process with ful! as amended.1:44.1:4a (4:U.S.C. 5841. 5842, I responsiothly and aumonty uricer the consideration of environmental saasi. Secuan :?s. 3: Stat. 30:1. as asiended Atomic Energy Act of 1954. soiety as by P'ab. L 7*-415. 9e Stat. :06714:U.S.C. concems, and for the purposes of this to::1. u ab

46.C2 Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. :::3 / Monday. Novemb:r M.1984 / Preposed Rdes Secnon 401 also issued under Pub. L SS- take mto account local or resonal conditions. 601. ses 10.92 Stat. :S51142 USC 5831). (thit re. when the need for any spec:ady inclue:ng geology, topograpny, hydre!ogy. Section 431(g) also issued under sec 1:*. 64 and meteorotogy. The Camrtussion may fLnd constructed retenuon structure is eiiminated). Stat. 93S f 42 U.S.C ::3:1. Secuen 40.46 atso that the proposed alternauves meet the The etsiuation of alteraanve sites and issued uncer sec.134. 68 Stat 'M4. as isposai memoos perfor=ed by mia Ccmmission a recutrements if the siternauves cperators in suppon of their propopd tanhngs acrenced (42 U.S.C ?.: 41. Secton ao. t also wul acmeve a level of staoibzanon and issued under sec.18,*. Se Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C disposas program f;rovided in appucants centamment of the sitee concerned and a

• 37). 'evei of protectos fer puche hesith, safety. envtror. men:al recortat snad redect senous For the purposes of sec. 2:3. 68 Stat. 95& as and the environment from radiological and consiceration of tnis disocesi moce. In rome instances. beiow grade cisposai may not be amended (42 U.S.C. .*.13h ll 40.3. 40.0$ldl(ti- nonracioloccal hasards assocatec with de e most environmentaily sound approacn.

{31. 435(a W1. 40.41 (b) and (c). 40.46. 40.31 sites, whicn is equivaient to, to tas extent (a) and (cL and 40.S3 are issued under sec. practicable, or more etnngent than the level such as might be the case if a groundwater toth, as Stat. 94a. as amended. !42 U.S.C. wnich would be achieved by the formauen is reianveiy c:ose to the surface or

      *:01 fbi): and il 4023 (c) and (d)(3) and (4L         requirements of tjus Appendix and the               not very wetlisolated by overinns sods and 40.03(c)(t). 4GL35fel. 40 42. 40.61. 40.62. 40 64     standarda promulgated by the Environrnental         rock. Also. geologc and topopagnic and 4C 85 are issued inder sec. !sto. 68 Stat.       Protecuan Agency in to CFR Part 19L                  cenditions might make full beiow grade 950. as amended (42 U.S.C : 01(olk                   Subparts D and E-                                    buno' escracucabie: for example. bedrock may be sufficiently near tae surface that
      # geWin Q men M                                      L   I'Ch*C81C'#,n      ,                             blastma would be required to excavate a

2. Appendix A to Part 40 is revised to Critenon 1--In selectmg among alternaove "'"****""***"*"

read as follows tadmge &soosal situ or sudging tas '"Di'"***"'"""***did* adequacy of existmg tadmga sites. the Appendix A to Part 46-Criteria

• d* '" '

                                                                                                                      ',"$$,8,,d,' $",",*I y     ','

Relating to the Operation of Uranium [I*M','N'hich p'roy mua '"d '' '"d 'P" 'I 'I*P 'I Mills and the Disposition of Tailin5s of broad obiestve ofisolacas he tadirtes and

                                                                                                                ""****#'*               ** D * "*'" ' h*N eseocated contaminants from man and the             mmimized by excavauon to the maximum Wastes Pmduced by the Extract 2on or                environment for 1.000 years, thereafter.             extent reasonably achievable or approonste Concentration of Source Matertal From                without ongoms acuve mamtenance small be             given the geologic and hydrologie condinona Ores >             ' Prunarily for Their             considered:                                          at a site. b thue caen. It maat be Source Matertal Content

• Remoteness from populated aresa: demonstrated that an above grade disposal IneoAacties + Hydrologic and other naturel conctuons P'* 8I'* **II P'**'d * "'"* 05 Y '8"3I'"'

as cey contnbute to continued iscianon of de tadings from maniral cosional Every appilcant for a license to possess and use source matenalin contunction with temobilizanon from groundwaterand isolauon sources; and of contaminanta N'yC ,g ggg uranium or thanum mi.lms, or byproduct

• Potennat for mirumtzmg erosion. , gg, , ^8, matenal at sites fortnerty associated with &sturcance. and ispersion by natural forces or westes are disposed of soave or below suca mdhng. is required by the provtsions of over the long term. grade.

I to.3tfhl to include ta a bee .se applicauen The site setecnon process shall be an (a) Upstnam rainfau catchment snu must proposed specificauona relaung to mdlms cptimizanon to the maximum extent be anazed to decrease erosion potennal opersuona and the disposinon of tadings or reasonably achievable m terms of these and the size of the P*obable Maximum Flood ' wastee resulting from such miums actmnes. features. This appendix establishes techmcal which could erode or wash out sections of the In the selecnon of &sposal sites. pnmary taings dispesal area. financias, ownersnip. and long-term site emphasis email be given to isoisuon of (b) Topograpnic features should provide survedlance entena relating to the sitmg. tathngs or wastes a matter having long-term 3008 "'"8 PfC'""0"- operanon, cecontamtoauori. impacts, as opposed to consiceration ortly of (c) Embanment and cover slopes shall be decommisatorung. ano rociamaton of adla relauvely Cat after f!nal stabihzation to and tadings or weste systema and sites at snort term convenience or benefits. suc3 as mirumizauon of transportation or land anate posion potential and to provide wnica suca nulls and systems are located. As acquistuen costa. While isolaeon of tadings conservative factors of safety seeunns long-used in tais appendia. the term as low as is ressensely acnievable' has the same wn! be a funcnon of both site and engineerms term etabihty. The broad ooiecove snould be design. overndirig considerauon shad be to contout final siopes to graces wnica are as meaning as m i 21(c) of to CTR Part 20 of close as possible to those whicn would be - this caspter. given to sitmg features given the long. term nature of the taings hazards. prcvided if taiimes were disposed of below in many cases. Cexibdity is provided in the Tadtrigs snad be cisposed of in a manner Fade: tais coul1 for example. !eso to stones entens to allow acnievmq an optimum that no acave maintenance is required to ta&rtes 6sooaal program on a site specific aoovt to honzontal to i vertical (10h:1vi or preserve con &uons of the site. less steep In general slopes should not be basis. However. m suen cases the ooiecoves. Critenon NTo avoid prohferatton of smal: steeper tnan acout Sh:tv. Where steeter tocanical alternauves and concems wruca waste disposal sites and thereoy reduce siopes are proposed. ressor:s why a slope must be taaen mto account in developuts a perpetual survedlance ocligations. byproduct tess steep than Sh:tv would be inpracticaole teihngs program are idenufled. As provided matenal from m situ extracnon operanons, { by the provisions of i 40.Jilhl opphcations should be provided, and comcensatmg suca as residues from saiution evaporation or factors and condinons wnica roane suca for heenses must clearly demonstrate how contaminated contros processee. and wastes sioces acceptaose should be identified. the cntens have oeen sadnesed. from smad remote above g*ound extracuan 'd! A full seif.sustatning vegetauve cover The specificanons snad be developed operauons shallW dirposed of at existmg shad be establianed or roca cover employed considenne the expected full capacity of large md! tadmge disposal sites: umess, i tedings or waste systems and the lifetime of to reduce wmd and water erosion to considennt the nature of tne wastes, such as neeligibie levels. rtull operanons. Where later expansions of their volume and soec:f!c scuvity, and the avstems of operations may be b'm eiy tfor Where a fud vegetauve cover is not Lhaiy I costo and environmental impacts of to oc setf. sustaining due to chmanc or orner eiampie, wnere !arge quantines of ore now transporting tne wastes to a large disposal conoitions. sucn as in sempend and and l marginally uneconomicas may be stocapiled), site. suca offsite disposalis demonstrated to 1

 'he amenosodity of the disposal system to                                                                  resions roca cover small be employed on be impracticable or the savantages of onsite        stoces of the impoundment syste'n *he MtC (ccommodate increased capacities without               burial clearty outweign the betteilta of degradation m long-term stacility and other                                                                wiil consider eiaming this requiremest for               j reducing the perpetual servedlance                  extremely gentle slopes suen as tn:.ss which performance factors snad be evaluated.                 obligations.                                                                                                 I 1.acensees or appiscants inay propose                                                                 'new may eust on tDe top of the pde.

Cntenon hThe "pr.me opnon for The following f actors snail he considered allematives to the spec:fic recuirements m disposal of f admge is piacement below grace. m esta0issiing the final roca coser destt to this Appendtm. The attemanve proposais may either m mines or specially excavated pita a.oid d.splacement of roca parucles by, e

                                                                                                                                                         .        s Federal Retistir / Vol. 49. No. US / Monday. Noveder 26. 1964 i Procosed Rules                                                    46423 human and ammel traffic or by nelural                sosis ers io be relied upon Sr seccave                gerame'ers s,an es per*eetehty sh4l1 out be process, and to practude uncerruf ung and            controt. tests snail be minducied men Spice-                                                                                                     wer imed on l'e bas.s ofleburetory Mor*senta nse easiings solut.ons enc ciav

• Sheoe. site. composition and aredanon .nein.s of samcies ..cne. 4 suifbent tieteness to confrrm tnet no sisnificant 4maunt of neld tesnriin le a . sumo 'ests: snail of rock particles lencecitne oeddir's melensa devemormacn of Oraa'eenihty nr statisi v De conduis ~1 to assuc it ewei Tieid prescernes i

everage partic;es sese snest be at seest coonie srucerties wd! occur wem contmoss **cosar* s.za or greaters; .re .seu. .eig ondervoud. reshng sn nl !.e of clay no tenings solutrces Tesis seen ce *un

• Roca cover thicaness and zonma of r or , so;Ticient per'od of t:me io reveal any

                                                                                                                . uncected to hiuw estim une enemi.suranon parncies by site: ano                                 efrects .f inay ar* eas% 'o occur sin surne enenushun propernes ui .Neriying suis and rut a.
         * $4econess ul unde tyns savoes.                  cases deeartnranon nas neen onscrwd o individual roca fragmeries snett be cense-                                                                 e Locanon evenr. ausuiv. capacity and oe: cur rainer racicly efier enaut nine mnnins       ..urrent uses 2f ein groundweier et and near sound and resistant to ebrusion. and sadil be of esposurpil.

i n, ,,i,, free from cracks. seems. ertd other defec:s

• WI process desie's which grouce tne that would tend to unduly increase their manimum practic4 ole recycle of solutenns Furthermore. steps aheil be timen dunt:g destrucnon by water and frost actions Weam. ,socgg,gr.a of ore to minimize penetrehon of friaDia. or Lemioated aggregete snesi not be and conserveston of water to reduce the ne! radionachoes .nto undertymt suiis; suitable mput of hautd to the f athnts etnpoundment.

used.

• Dewevering of tashnes by process Tiethods inc4ude inning end/or compechon of Rock covenng of slopes may not be devices and/or m. situ oramate systems ( At ore Horne emes.

reovired waere top covers are very thich fon sew sites, tailmts snail be dewatered by 4

• Cettenon Wo cases wnee weste the orcer c( 10m or greaterr. impoundment drainase sysiem installed et the bottom of the bvproduci meienelis to be permanently slopes are very genue (on the order of 10 h.tv impoundment to lower the parestic surface disposed an eartnen cover snall be pieced or lessi; buik coser matenais have intierently and reduce the dnvmg heed for seepate. over taibrigs or wasies el the end of maihng favorable erosion resissanca cherectenstscs; unless teste show tailings are not amenable operanona and. the waste disposal area snell and, there is negngible draanage catchinent to such a system. Wheae in. situ dewesenng is be closed m accorcance with a oesign*

arte upstream of the pile and good wmd to be conducted. the impoundment bottom =hich shall provioe reasonable assurance of protect on es cescnbed in points (4) and Ibl snail be gruded to assure that the drains are control of radiosovcal hazarca to:lil Be of this Cruenon. at a low comt. The drsms snall be protec:ed effective for I.000 years to the exte.nt Furthermore. all uncoundmens surfaces by suitable filer meiertels to aesure that reuonably acnievable, and. m any case. for snad be contoured to avoid areas of drains remain free running The drammini as least l00 years. and in!lume rekases of concentrated surface rucoff or abrupt or system snell also be edequately siseo to g , sharp changes in slope grad 4ent. In addshon assure good drainegel. to rock cover oc sacoes, areas toward whsch

• Neutraliannon to pmmote immobiusehon *stenals, to the attmosohere no as to not surface runoff might be directed snell be weil ofionic suostences. oceed an awnW meeese rate od protected with subst4onal rock cover Ing Wbere groundwater impacts are occurrmg picocunn pu quan min pu second W rapt. In add 4 tion to providing for arabiinty of et an emisung site due to seepage. action snell m% in compuung mquired tailing covu the impounament system itself overail ce taaen to sileviate conditions that lead to **CA"""**"""'" ""*"'*I stabilaty. erosion potenual and excessive seepage imoscts and restore amounta found normaily in similar soils in geomorphology of surroundmg terrein sb411 groundwater quality. De speci0c seepage simdar circumstancu snad not be be evalcated to assure that there are not control and aroundwater protectron metnod. consioemd Dimet gemrna upoum %m me ongoing or potential processes. such as gully or combmetion of methods. to be used must taihngs or westes should be mduced to ereaicn. wnich would feed to impoundment be worned out on a site-soecific basis. bacutround levels. De effects of any thin metability. Tecnnical speci0 cations snail be precered to syntnenc lave snau not be f asen into le) The imooandment sh4H not be located controlinst4Hahon of seepaev contml account in oever'nmmq the casculated redon near a capsule fault that could cause a systems. A quaiety assurance. testing. and phasenon M If non.wil matenals am manimum credible earthouane larger than inspection program. wnica meiudes moooed as covu mateneh it must be that which the irrpoundment could supervisonn by a qualif;ed enetr'eer or demonstrated that such matensis will not reasonably be espected to withsiend. As craca or degrade by differential settlement.

scientisL stiad be estabhaneo to assure the ased in this criterton. the term " capable fault

• specaficanons are met. weathenng. or other mecrianism. over long.

has the same meaning es defined in secuan In support of a tadings disoonal system '"' " 'n tuv ais. Il!!g) of Appendia A of to CHt 1Co. The term propaeal. the appucantsooerstor small supply Near surface cover meterials li e.. within

   *mansmum credible earthquate* means tha              informahon concernirig the foHowing.                 the too men atml shad not include wure earthquase watch cause the maumum

• The cheencal and radioactive u men that contains einaw 4nts of vioratory ground mot'on based upon en cnaractensucs of the weste solutions. radium; sosis useo for neer surface cover evaluanon of earthquase potennal *De crierectenstics of the undertying soil must te essent:aisy the same. as far as considermg the regional and local geology and geosogec format ons particuierly es they fdd'oacuvny is concerned, es that of and se smology and spec;fic charactens'sa a wdl control transport of contaminants and surrounding surface sods Dis is to ensure of local ruceurface metenal
• solunona. Dis snail mctude cetailed that surf ace redon citialation is not (fl De empoondment, where fessible. '4"'I' candy above Decagmund becauw of informanon concernine estens. thicaness.

snould be designed to mcorporate features uniformity. shape. and onentation of me cour matemalituil wnich wdl promote ceposition. For esample, uncertymg strata. Hyd suisc gradierris and D

• d '5 '" *"'"*'"' ' * "" ' C f' *"0" design features wtuctt promote deposition of conductivities of the vanous formations sned fu tonmity and contmi of radon retenses veciment suspended in any runoff wnich be determmed. sned apply to a4 conion of a incerised and/

flows into the impoundment aree mieht be This talormation snail be gathered from or disposes site amiess such portton contams unNred: the ooiecs of sucfi a design feature bonngs and fiend survey metnoos tamen a concentranon of raoium in land, avneged wovid be to enhance ene thicaness of cover wnhan tRe proposed imooundment area and us er ttrne. in surrouriding areas wnere contaminienes Cntenon 5--De foHowing snail be he steno.ro socievs to aes.sn Monuor>na for mient migrate to grounowater. The r econ 4('er av.i..uan of an 4eoroprimi, an<swo considereo: mformanon garnered on boremotes snail roter ;s am mes

• Instadanon of bottom imers IWhe*e mchade born eeotoqic and geconysica logs in '%s ***fsse snel seoir o *e 'ahre eurfect 1I svninecc knees are used. a iesnese detectron suffic:ent numoer and cesree of 88:500**' or" *""88 08 4' '"" 1 7"r system snad be instailed immeeistety below sophisticanon to adow determining me onyec a ie a the lmer to ensure maior fadures are detected sgnificant discontinuities. fractures. and ,

 .f they occur TNs is in eddinon to tre               cnanneied deposits of heen hyorsube                   ,,,,,,,,,,,,g,,,n,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

aroundwater tnonstonng proerem condue'ed conduc*ivity if field survey methods are ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,n ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,m ,,,,, as provided in Catenon 7. Where etsy Imers , a,%,, ,,,, g , esca sae ne siancers no.e.er used. mey shouad be in addiuon to and soones oniy ca essas.ons from uraanse tearoe.cs are proposeo or eienvely thm. irt-situ clay enhfibrated witn corenoie loggir; Hycroiogic muros so ine atmoseam a

46424 Fed:ral Regist:r / Vol. 49. No. OS / Mondsy. November ;c.1984 / Proposed Rules over areas of 1N square meters. wetich. as a resuit of byproduct matenal does not exceed neeced ccrrecuse acuans have been based en Commission-approved cost icentf.ed and impiemented. All such the background level by more than:!!! $ esumates in a Commmeon approved pian met >cunes per g am f;C/g) of radium-CS, or. cassations. corrective actions. and re starta for tilCecentammanen and attad be reportec to the appregnate NRC he esse of thonum byproduct matend regionaloffice as mctcatec in Caterton 8A. m decommissiomns of miil ouddings and the radium-?.03, avers.co ;;ver 'he !!rst 15 muhng site to icveis wnica wouta adow wntiq. mtt.m 10 cays of the sucsequent centimeters (cml beiow the surface. and lial restart. unrestrteted use of these areas upon 15 rCi/3 of racium-CS. or m the case of decomoussiorung. and G1 the reclamation of To centrol dusting from tadmas. cat thonum byproouct matenal red um-01 tatimts and/or waste disposal areas in porten not coverec by stancmq uQuaes shall averaged over 15-cm tnics lay ers more taan accorcance with tecnnical critena definested be wento or chensicady stachzed to prevent 13 cm besaw the surface. m Section I of this Appendtm. The hcensee truerion 74 luu one tual mr prior ta or mmimize blowmg anc dustma to the I max 2 mum extent reasonaoly achieveole. This snad suomit this plan in centunction with an any maior site construcuon. a precapranonal enytronmental report that adcresses the momtones program snall be conducted to requirement may be reiaxed if tailmgs are effectively atteiterec from wmd. sucs as may excected environmentalimpacts of ce provide compiete basehne data on a milling be t*e case wnere they are disposed of below miding operation, decornmissionmg and site and its environs. Thtcugnout the tailings reclamanon. and evaluates construction and operaung paases of the rmll. grade and the rathngs surface is not exposed l to wind. Considersucs shad be given m alternanwes for mingsteg these impacts. Too an operational monitonn3 program shall be surery snall also cover ce payment of is plannmg taings discotel prograins to concucted to measure or evaluate comphance charge for long-term surve.llance and controk with applicaele standards and regulat ons: to methods which wou.d adow pnased covenn8 and reclamanon of taihnte impoundmenta requered by Crirenon 10. In estathshing evaluate performance of control systems and speedic surety arrangementa, the licensee's ) procedurest to evaluate environmental since cia wiu beip in controihng particulate i impacts of operetton: and to detect potential and radon emissions dunrig opersuon. To cost esumates shall taae mto account total 1 long term effects. control dust:fra from diffuse sources, such as costs that would be incurred if en tadings and ore pads where automauc independent contractor were hired to perform Critenon 8-Midleg operauons shall be contrats do not apply, operators shall develop the decornmissacrung and reclamanon work. conducted so that sit stroorne effluent la order to avoid unnecessary duphcanon written operating procroutes speedymg the retenses are recuced to leveta as low as is and expense. the Commission may accept reasonably acnievable. The pnmary means of methoca of control whica will be unlized.  ! Milhas operations procucing or tavoMn3 financial surenee that have been accomplishms tAta shail be by means of thonum byproduct matenal shall be conschdated with financal or sunty emission contnia. Insutuuonal controls. such concturten m such a manner as to proude arrangements estabbshed to meet as extendme the site boundary and exclusion requirements of other Federal or state area, may be employed to ensure that offsite reasonable seaurance that the ermuel dose equivaient does not exceed 3 mdhreme to agencies and/orlocal goverrung bodies for exposure linuta are met but only after ad practicable measures have been taaen to the who body. 73 nulhroma to the thynod, such decomnussionma. decontammauon. and 3 milhreme to any other orten of any nciamanon. and lay ter s site survedlanca controi enussions et ce source. Notwithstandmg the existence ofindividual member of the pubhc as a result of exposures and control provided such arrangements are dose standarca, stnct control of emissions is to the planned discharge of racioacuve considered adequate to dausfy these necessary to assure that popuisuon matenais redon-200 and sta dauahters ,,q,,.ements and that the poruon of the exposures are reduced to the maxtmum excepted. to ce geceral environment. surery which covers the d ommissioning extent reasonsoly scalevable anc to avoid Uraruurn and taonum byproduct matenals and.eclamanon of the mi mid todmss site site contammanon.The greatest potennel abad be managed so es to conform to the and associated aresa. and the long. term appbcable provisions of Title 40 of the Code funoing charge is clearly idenufled and sources of offsite radiation exposure taside from redon exposurel are dusttag from cry surfaces of the tathy aisposal area not of Federal Regulanona. Part 460. "On Miams and Dreums Point Source Category Effluent **['"',dh E'",','*'""

                                                                                                               , , , ,                              [,"*

covered by tathets sciunon and enussions lautations C.udelinee and New Source will be reviewed annually by the Commission from yellowcake crytng and packagmg Performance Standards. Subpart C. Uratuum. *"""" O*d#d

• operanona. Dureg operattons and pnot to Radiues. and Vanacium Ores Subcategory." ***d*"I I"'"*P"U N #' "*I'**"*"  !

closure, radieuon doses from racon as coedled on Jan* ary 1.1983. plan af c'e wwn had m'"W pehed h an I emissions from surface tmpouMments of Catena 8A--Dady mspections of tadities independent contractor. The amount of surery ) ursruum or tnottum byproduct matenals shad or waste ntenuon systems shall be uabsty should be adiusted to recognize any ) be kept as low as ta practicaole. conducted by a quahfied engmeer or scientist '"C" " " " d'*" " " '" u *8 Checas stad be maos and !ctged houriy of and documented. The appropnare NRC tafauon, enangu in engineenne plans. l all parameters (e g ddferenttaa preuures and regional offica as indicated in Appendix D of acuvines performed. and any other 10 CFR part :0. or the Director. Office of conmuons afectmg costa Regard!au d scrueber water Cow ratest wnica determtne Inspection and Enforcement. U.S. Nuc! car the efnciency of yeilowcase staca emission wnettu nciamauen is phased through de ] control equipment opera tion. It shed be Regulatory Commanica. Washington. CC hfe uf tae operauon or taxes place at tae end l determmec whether or not condiuons are 20555. shad be unmediately notified of any of cpersuont an apprepnate portion of withm a range presenbed to ensure that the failure in a tadings or waste retencon system surery habdity shad be retained untd firial equipment to operstmg consistendy near which ruults in a release of tashngs or waste comphance wita the reclamauon plan is pean efficiency: correcuve action shad be into unrestncted areas. and/or of any detummed. Bis mu yield a surety that is at taken wnen performance is outside of unusual condanons (conditions not Inst suificient at ad umes to cour de costa ) presenbec ranges. Effluent control devices contemplated a the design of me retention of decommissicrung and reciamauon of the systemi wruch if not corrected could mcacate areas inat are expected to be d2sturbed snail be operative at all times during drytag and packagmg cperations and whenever att the potennal or lead to failure of the system before the next bcense renewal. The term of is exhaustmg frem the yeilowcase stack. and result in a release of tathngs or waste the eartry mectatusa must be open ended. Drymg and pacmagmg operauons shall into unrutncted areas. V#dess it can be demonstrated tnet another termmate wnen controis are moperauve, 11.FinancialCntene arrangement wouid provide an equivalent When checks mercate the equtoment is not :evel of assuranca. This suurance could be (perstmq witam tae range ;resenced for Catenon 9-Jinancial surery arrartgements provided witn a surety matrument which is shad be estabbsned by esca mid operator wnttes for a specified penod of tirne te.g 3 pesa effic:ency, acuens sr.ad be tanen to prter to the commencement of operettorta to years) yet whica must be automaticady restore parameters to the presenbed range, assure that sufficient funds wiU be avadable renewed uruess the surery notifies the When uus cannot be done mtaout sautdown to car =y out the decontammanon and beneficiary (the Comnussion or tne State and repairs. crpng and pacmagmg operettone deconutussionmg of the cud and site and for snad cease as soon as precucacie. regulatory agencyJ and the pnncipal(the ce reclamauon of any tadings or weste Opersuons may not te re. star ed after licenseet some reasonabie tune (e.g.,10 days) disposal areas. ne amount of funas to be ;not to the renewal date of their tatention cessanon due to off. normal performance untd ensured by such surery arrangements saad be not to renew. In such a sit M

                                                                                                                                   .                           l   1

Feder:1 Register / Vol. 49. Na r3 / Monday. November 28. 584 / Prep::af Rules sc3 requirement std! entsts and the hcansee for de disocsal of any suca byproduct wound be required to submit an accapiscie ref ammg ultimate custody of the ate wnm replacemen, surery within a brief penod of material. or is essential to ensure the ior's tedinge, or wastes are stored to confirm tne term statehty of suca disposal site. Small be time to alkw at least 60 days for the .ntegrity of the staadised fashngs or waste regulatory agency to collect. transferred to the Umted States or trie Si4ie

n wasch suca larid is located, at the ootion of systems and to determine the need. .f.ny rer P=colof forietture muss not be necessary 'o mamien.nce stid/or monitoring. Resuits of coilect trie surety so that in the event that the . suca State. in view of tMe fact that pnysical the mspecnon snad be reported to ine bcensee couid not provide an acceptable isolation must be the prtmary means oflong- Commission witntn 60 days following esca term control, and Con ernment land aeplacement surety within the required time. inspection. De Commission may require the surety snad be automaticady codeced ownersneg is a desirable supplementary more frequent site mapections af. on the casas pnot to its espiration. The conditions meesure. ownersais of certain severaote of a site specific evaluation, sucn a tieed suasurface interests afar esemple. mmeral oescribed aoove wound have to be clearty acpears necessary due to the features of a stated on any surety instrument weien is not statal may be determmed to be unnecessary to crosect the puchc health and safety and parucular tashngs or waste disposai system.

open-ended.end must be ageged to by all parnes. Ftnancial surety arrangements the environment. In any case. however, the Dated at Weenington. DC. this .Tth day of acchcent/ operator muda demonstrate a genevily acceptable to the Cornmission ere: - lel Surety boncs: senmis etTort to obtam suca subsurface For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (bl C4in deposits: nants. and must.1 the event that certem Sanetsei l. Chdh, tel Cetmfica as of deposit: nsnts cannot be obtamed. provide Secretary o/the Commission. (dl Deposits oflowmment secunties: nonficanon,in local pubhc land records of the * % face 'nat the land is being used for the  % let irrevocable tetters or knes of credit; and if) Combinations of tne above or such other disposas of radioactive malenal and is tyges of arrangements as may be approved suotect to eitnet en SRC generei or specific lesense prohibitmg the disrugnon and by the Commission Howeser. selfinsurance, or aw errangement whica essenna6tv disturoance of the ladings. In some rare cases. such as may occur with deep bunal constarutes soif msurance te s e contract =nere no ongoing site surveillance wdl be with a state or Federal agencA wdl not sattsfy the suretv requirement since this required. surface land ownersnio transfer provides no additional assurance other than requiremente may be we,ved. For hcenses that wmch already esists througri hcense issued before Novembe* *.1981. the recuarter.ents. Commission may f aite into secount the statua of the ownersais of suca land, and interests Catenon to-A mimmum charge of therein. and the 4bdity of a hcensee to 3:30.000119*8 dot!4rst to cover the costs of transfer tule and custody thereof to the long. term survedlancasnail be paid by esca

               '             ein operator to one general treasury of the                United States or a State.

Umted States or to en apprognate State D If the Commission subse::uent to title agency prior to the termmauon of a utamum transfer determines that us2 of the surface or or inonum mdl tecense. suceurface estates. or both, of the land if site surveidance or control recuarements transferred to the United States or to a State et a panicusar site are determmed. on the wid not etsdanger the puchc hesith, safety, basis of a site.spectisc evaluJtion. to ce wetfare. or environment. the Commission may permit the use of the surface or segmficantly greater than those spectried m Criterion 12le p if fencing la determined to subsurface estates. or both. of such land in a manner soneittent with the provisione be necessarvl. sanance m fundtrig requirements may be scocfied by the provided in these criterts. If the Commission Commission. In any case. the tot 41 charge to permits such use of suca land. it =di provide the person wno transferred suca land with cover ene costs oflong term surseidance saad be suca that. with an assumed I percent t.he nght of first refuses wuh respect to such use of such land. annual real mrerest rate. the collected funda

                           .id yieta mterest in an amount suffic:ent to                    L Matenal and land transierred to the coser tne annual costs of site survedlance.               Umted Steies or a State en accordance with De rates charge =di be adsusted annuedy                   thn Catenon shall be transferred without pr*or to actual payrrent to recoganae mflanen.           cost to the Umted States or a State other than acmimstretn e and legal costs incurred in De inilanen rate to be used is taat indicated            carrymq out sucJe transfer.

Dv the Change in trie Consumer Pnce tnden publisned by the U S. Department of Labor. F.The provtstone of tnis Part respaenne transfer of ntle and custody to land and Bureau of Labor Stanstma. . taihnen and weetes anali not appiy in 'he ill. Sose and Byprtnruct Matertal Os norsnap ** ** *' i""** h*'d ' * * *' bY '*

• U"' **

Catenon 11- States for any Indian inoe or laside owned by A. Dese entena relannq to ownership of sucn Inotan tribe suciect to a restrictron fashngs and thev disposet sites Oecome against abenanon imposed by the United effecnve on November & 1981. and appiy to States. In the case of suca land? -%cn are ed hcenses termartened, issued. or renewed used for the alsoosal of b) product material. after enas date. es defined m tme Port. the hcensee snad

8. Any uremum or thonum mdhng hcense enter into arrangements with the Commission or fashnte heense snail contain suca terms as may be appropriate to assure the ionq.

and conoinons se the Comrmseion term surverdance of such lande by the Usuted States. determines necessary to assure that prior to termmanon of the hcense. tne hcensee wid 6 AJ"f#*""I'io Sums #ance comery witn ownersnio requirements of this Caterton 12-The final disposinon of cntenon for sites used for f ashnee disposal. C. T;de to tne byprodiact matertal hcensed 'athnge or westee at nuihng sues snouid be suca that ongoing ac:tve mamtenance is not under this Pen and land. mctudmq any necessary to preserve teoienos. As a mrereste theren tother than land owned by the Umsed States or by a Sistel wmen e used mmirnum annual mee ineoecnone shall be l conducted by the government seency 1 1

APPENDIX B: COMRENTS Decket No. Commenter Page

1. Ecology / Alert 1

2. Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power 2

3. Sierra Club 5 4 Environmental Policy Institute 6

5. Environmental Cefense Fund 7

6. Attorney General State of Illinois 14

7. Colorado Department of Health 16

8. Marvin Lewis 17

9. U.S. Department of the Interior 18

10. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 19

11. Texas Department of Health 21

12. Utah Department of Health 22

13. Washington Department of Social and Health 23 Services

14. New Mexico Environmental Improvement Division 25 15.

Environmental Defense Fund (see 5. also) 27

16. Piedmor.t Environmental Council 34

17. Western Nuclear, Inc. 35 .

18. Kerr-McGee Corporation; Kerr-licGee Chemical 46 Corporation and Quivira Mining Ccmpany

19. knerican Mining Congress 66

20. Environmental Policy Institute (see 4. also) 119

21. Homestake Mining Company 127

22. Umetco Minerals Corporation 127

23. Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 128 '

24 Access to Energy 131

25. Dawn Mining Company 131

26. Parsons, Behle & Latimer for Rio Algem 134 Corporation l

l 1

O uutset espante

• NelD@ -([ #iamato sult k[jf .4a4g asemana

                                                                   'esalag ging         -dd
         %M%    Ph
                          ,a          G M s w e)                    &&wO                                                  2-:- 2 F hes e ts.y. Se c 'y                                       8'e c 2%i E 4 g g.
                                                                                   .d .

Secret.ry Re s Proposed rule s - Lill a local mate r shorta68 et.or. the borough of Schles.d 33 Pe d et " gres ted einemater to its reeldente suc 35nsil laP f 089 2 - we que etten ATTs locks;TII G & sihVICE baAbcas Fe d ke g - Lov 2ti-6 4, pp the loophole per s tted in s riters on 6 re s ti e egosing of a, tallings at tes ". . . (3 ) se e ggee g g ,e gef,jogg k aki 4 y g years IL3he e xtent reta9Bahly_schltrahls _3A1!Lin any . c e ggm Gen tlemen = ISL aL.)1 gal 200 yettag" If anties.t Romas e could build squeducte that are still in Before commentirs nn the proposed re gula tions, a few rema rk e P*'*t8*" on ti.e de vi ou s, saroque language used in the balC's notice s. Spa n) why *II*F can't **'* II'en 1000 years. ( f or s aample, at Se go w s e, our Atodern Tecimology achieve at leest n (TLe folt ev statener.t in how 15 Fede ral magiste r - t e s de ve lop- *yeer eefe ty star.derd? sent of a pilot Integrited defe ty Assemener t Program - ese a I'* 8 the rock cover of a closed et te. alsyt it be femalble particular beauty. And ee'd love to see a pLoto of it's play who to encase it eith alsbo of rock melghin g at least (refted that one!) * "83881 5 tons each? It seems f airly obvious thle is a device to discou g e public n 88ka if it should delet.e or taedt sy prescriptive requi rement e for de stgr. featura e el.lch may not Le 8+e ce sam ry to ccesor.t. mee t IPA standerde. , inu t ha s tt.e bkC conside red how much time, money ar.d pape r silabt .In vlem of the far-reachirg coneqquences of a be saved by its steff, and the peop le who enset read and comply of these disposal sitee, fellure at one eith tt.e reguations, if the lar guage we re etspli fied? not a prudent, es sugges t tha t corne'.scuttirg sould

   *gnos

i. amole s Criterion 1 presently reade." In selecting es.org alte r. .

A save few estra 88 milltor.s opent doing a thorough job could well native s tellings dipposal et te e or judging tt.e adequacy of e st ating 88 billione in cleanup, and health and probe s t. lo s se s tallings attes, the following et te features, el.ich alli de te rmine in future years. th e e a tent to sr.tch a prograr mesta the broad objective of tao- , l a t ir g it.e taillrge and sesuclated contaminants from son and the . Ve ry truly, e nv i ros.mo n t for 1000 yea rs. the reaf te r. withou t orgoing active I - f mais tenance shall be conalde re d..." u s , li r t.d . a.o. : ,a,....a u...a.... site e.le etion ,or disposal of tellinge shall incorporate St.e followang features, jpg\

                                                                                                                                 ~

to teolete talltr.go and their ccntaminante from aan and the environment for 1000 years. ehile avoiding the need for ongoing ac tive maintenance..." e 8504070323 848:29 P Dat P A I . 40 4WH4 A43. PDft Ou r coe.ae n t e on S t.e proposed rule ss 1 - It's gratifying to learn the IPA hee ruled that all cualttles of 6round ester

• ehall be kept free of contar inntion.

An old spanleh(?) proverb ears. *0un't muddy the este r. Some day, yo u may have to drink i t.* 1 S t.e =ledos of thi s sea borr.e o ut some 3 or 4 years a.go, durlog anno =% samt ty cenf..J.MI %I l

                                                                                                              .i .

eema a eumatsPR-4o se .,. ENVsHONMtHI AL COntellOta ON fallCL E AM POWE R h M dbr i N/ (gg grief of Petitlener (sulrumeestal Te' ente feed an se filed in ti.e cae =.c e -- a e .. e . a a. e naa n e s.a a is

s. a . -.sa s . s c.a a. **ese sia aar aiue Our spect fic coerunts on ifc's Preposed rule at te esele falluw.

                                                                                      .r 4 .'; M'**

r* Jani.ary 7. ISC4 1 Me object to and oppose the aJe:tlea at t%8s tise of the proposed revisions le 10 Cf a 40 !.gpendia A. I'.e preposed changes are prematare Secretary of the Curemissten uhlle the (FA standards remain under revle.s 5y the Tents Circe lt. 7*C had Re: ig fa est 21. 1384 s.sspenJed the e f fectl.eness of its ese standards temwrarely pendlag t%e U.S. reclear Uashlagten. segulatory

                                              }.C 21555            Curmisstag5 m m gg ,,ia.             , , , , ,F.evamber
                                                                                                                   ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,                       mplett.a of (ex ralematlas la eror te %ene fit the ladus try.                            1.ie 34 Atta: Coctetlag and Servece Iranch                                                    Conforming h*C 'lequirements to                                "****'"I*D"**            *"*              '                 "    I"'#*"** *** '* 

• Poea 1323 ' i' V,CCn se;ils . ,P4

                                                                                                                                                            *         '""*"*              '""**#*             **             ******I"                  *"

g gg p Standards. Propusel Rule. tale a ajor action .e%Ich neuld be ennaecessarf er ill.edvised' after sub."# iissae sey.est acties .htch asy emJiff the (eA flaal 5tandards. Attlea by t'.e *;RC Cear Sir er radame: Ilsene coerents are belag filed en behalf of t%e Classen P.reep latervenors en Dcse prevleutly sus; ended regulatleas should slallarly be deleted untBI (*latereeners") la the !!vclear Regulatory Coenission's (*itf." or *Cosmission") the ~3ert ies reached its Jeteralaation sa (Se validity o f the (P4 '.tandarls. Conselldated Paden ProceeJing ('tacDodet *,es . 50 277 275. -320 354. -155) . he Ceasiltsten, la settle regulatless te vers the des t p. can. and the related In,ee nile Islead, tral 2 (-t il 2 3 :iC Cpersalag License " * * * <**"*l . pro 6eeJint (r.2C heet re. 323). and for the undersigned tre le Petitleners in censolidated proceedings be fore the Walted States Cous t o f Ippeals for p"a*=5 c.l 'a s a m" 8asuechat14a1 8W,consunds

                                                                                                                                                                                              **"*"** * ' "H     3 In' itsH'95    5 8Han cahula.

s standards for antactba of W pubHC free retteleghel

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             *6 8far.'s H 8and 8 8n**aalstins        *ad the Ienth CirCult (Case "ha. 24.Il$2 ceaselldated alth and under Case 10. El-2226                                                                           "" ' ' ' *             '"    " ' O      '**            I *"'9" "S" ""II" 'a Aserican flalag Congress e. Rudelshaus). la which me and other parties are                                                                            D "S at leve an adequate eargia of cesservatism, allt of necessity te c% allen; tag the ade quacy and legality o f the la,1reneental Protectlen Agency's                                                                   3r      . %nt and usMcun Man UA s standard, parHcularb la dew
       **CPA*) flaal StanJards for htlee Ursal.se and Iherius !*lll Iallings (*CPA                                                                          Sf @. s earlier ccasidered judgment that Its regulallens mere sette pesolde standards").13 CIA Pait 132 0 and C; 48 fit 45326. Cctober F.1981.                                                                                    '*'?"II''''''**

the original 134 2 36C license preceedings and the 3RC conselldated 3. *st is an Independent ugulaters agencf. directly charged :.y the radun pruceedings. la Seth of which me participated actleely, addressed the

• C3?*'/813 *f *t F I 8 *teiC ISeFI/ ICI t f IM 8. !s atende *. ISe Cu r;'f 'eorgaalaa.

quantity saJ health ef fects of raden ealsslems from uranlu.a alaes and mill N.ee Act o f 1178, and t%e 'Jaanla "llt !alltags f.eredial Attlen T.ct of l)?? taillags plies attrthutatie to the cassettlal nuclear fuel cycle. The Nkt  : 'T , as amendet to protect tie '.9alth ai* safetf e s t%. ptil(. ;he w ay 27.1323. la !*es4eraades and Creer til.33.II. decided Casat ssione rs , en a lss it.a is set bei.aJ ty E ** ar C.'t.'s acticas. *:pC is cna,;e 4 af *Im ta 4444t flaal actlen en these reden issues matll CP4 lassed its general el . ..s aastbilltp *a usc its discretl4.a ts ansare that tSe pAllt is staaJards for a6tive urentum and it.orius r.ill taillegs .. the HA st andasts ;s*;stl/ saJ fall / protec*a*. tanjer tSe 14tional !aelematal tal e;, *ct me.s mader challenge and reele,e in the f anth Circuit.

• FM. la additlen to these statu*es, f.etSernere t'e agacy rust camssjer grotectlen for tSe fell hasardcas life of t'.e conts lasted Ice :.aC Proposal aule aere addressed la response to ag F3 4Hl3 mould till tellia;s In question.

revise the :l:tt regulatleas alth respect to allt taillags 13 CI A 13. Aspendia 1  ;'.* Is stallarly require f to fulf tll its <Aa*utary regness'.s:s t s:s. In respense te IPA's prosa.lgat ten o f its standards an Octeter 7.1)f 3 Its f a*:as e la this regard .ht c's se and it? *.3 rs tena ent al *e feise f an J Savr 4C IR 45125. 3.sc.ge tet la the att ached Tenth Ciroit Srlets. Is ae *.stif 6 stle.n .Nats;e er t's lacorporate by re fersace as part o f tSese carients the full records of for De Z proposal . uleich regireseaf s a falltv2 by * ?e *a. .-I ss tua t a c ar rf the :iRC Irt.2 Operating tacense and Ccesulidatei Padan proceedle gs , and the ou* Its resecastbilities. la *eed. hare ;ellt *:s' ;r.s s.:res at e'.ssete

• felle Ing esacus.ents: * -us a . Comitment to its prieury e%ligat tua to t%e N.I?c a'flicta *.St. t%e bar *en of responsible regulatory acties f alls the care te ssit/ ussa ***C .

(a) Ceeventa o f the f avoron.catel Caelltlea en *.uclear neuer (*CbiP*hg in (FA (ecket T.o. A 62-M. Jated June 22/3 l)C); 4. hkC is capable of and s.ust andartise a f.It Ir. ?eeen des t .n s<c s s. e s t of tSe regulatory requirerents to carry out t*e Ise atica of ur:3 6 *. e a v! (h) Coments of Solar tobby la CPA Cedet .*:e. A-82 26. dated Juae 3a. lit 3; tSorium mill taillags. Cengress 4as ac 2,at:?? t%at et es ;eC. ,asher t%.a (c) *ta Analysis o f Centrol StanJards for t*.e long.ferm Cantainrent of e "*= Mch has the utdrate responsistif ts far settial fest is sisadaris and . Us anium f alltags* ty 'J. Sahe Junga. fulereJe Ceelegical Survey, and re;ulatleas that alli mort. la t%e CeasellJates Fades proceed:w, f ar ene,le. J *IRC 5taff aae lacustry .altaesses ef fered assursaces t%et sta'ellt:stica an d L,,a=rence,[.

                                               ,e,83 3, Osas.an Ceteraan Cloistaa of ! eter Pesources. dated                                  .             comin tem loues euine .de                 sie to . re.ent ra 2,oi. s fe, a o. ,e,4 4 el ti eus an.s e ,             ,e.,, . , a,,,m    so s.s juy.en     t ela, e..es
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    , C     s .e, (d) Preparea festl n/ et er. thaunce, reeford on *eholf of tSe later*,.

4, teac 1%a relevent tlse perled fcr *allings control far escaets **.e aaltrf 2*N* yeses.

                                            .eners, ter61as I 2. and 3;                                                                 -
                                                                                                                                                            .. c t%e 1000 je ars , med aJogted by (PA as les perled of c aca.m. Yr is not (e) 3 rte r o f Cr. Chaunces septerd and Dr. Judith u. Johnsrud, retitle','ers.                                             's;uire f ts back de=a and lastead s%euld l+ crease carsedip tte pertai of
                                                                                                                                                            '2a t '* 3 ' h l t h ' t * ** * ' G" ' d  ' 8 8 ** * " 9" h"'"           d 21'( n'*- PC hre   se. 19.1924; toGr   In u.5. Court an4 of Appeals. renth Circult, r.o. e4. lac 2 dated-                                      has the autSerity te lect spea (PA s flaal 5tandard as '.'c'r          - e ;lf a tasella,

{ H30 8140 339 lesolo , .lu 11 W 5aUnesaIa pya '"*** ****** *F **"* . %%% ee me

. e d e s r y . s t e ) e ,l t

• s ugest _ f t - n e t

e al s c n% us I. t aa e o. se s l . s- tl a a e v,tsat a ad a 3 g f l u onSt a eat J st

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               - u a n.                   wef s

8,a rc e Ide i l s e% al oc a e e s dtygCl ell n u,r s n d ,t3 ia*at n a l. ; s *1 y .

                           's s l ap
                                           's   t          ef nf a

leu or

e. - ig go e e *hd oati % :n.i tsesf t sr r u?

r eg y le%r l s lol e c t' seo yr r t g*s e e r asr e g d r o s dl r e' s.d r o. s e eg e, is u ' r r g a eo lt set? erS 't :s aee el e y 'a wg it f d .fA gi aa ya P a a gs te ee e r rt v t cld*

                                                                                                                                                                      *el gf                 ett a iJ e tanr al t s*                      @eae *.a                    u t           . gaJ, e

v t onleps(l aM,l d e g a e s t .I l eeo s iroe d c,A n*n a ae aap a s r t n r let dt sae d 't lic l lh yv petirt laas a o esf t e e e.lggle, a* eal a ur a r e erm f a .J lo cl s dats h' cb hl aa ftl a r  % a t t at e c c a n vgeicic e bl osed et e* r% qeh r t ss h c y

                                                                                                                          %         f d

ssai ns'ass i eumninsf ht aI ep

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             %    th te m%ss ;
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           *ae          n        e 1 a u                                                                                                                                                                           I ye is l.                                                                                                                                                                                                 smi.a t

r s sl p peluu e r s, s t,* t o e aeht r nn egr'Np ct a* uv o ti s" a e e s. te. a

                                                                                                                                                                                                                      . e'.nar t u:

t c ts a e t l apr a d 'j e ss sr W e. s i ah :at , t cgl t oac r ed e ,.lor a s a f r al c er a t, eel m c ma r net ad s as u es h :i t er g a l tsr usI seS r s a/t nt eoa

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     ,f u                    t    s    a n

e ea p a r sg s=>,e o l a se stl f sari al df us is lb i te t f o :6o p l l.n p a$ s59f e*a c s f 't as eust o aeas ail stl iarobae uI r r s n amoae r ao e sa e s td sesls at eflate ss l . e r t eua aeseeal 8' a ea ar , ecSatf o sett c s sh s a ep ia l th

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        'h t a g:t 'a vea S                                       c              e           es cl sd r acsca*

coonu a spad gth e i i ' .v t e t, c'd sn c ep it ra p* t etg ana to*Mcami,eper a*

• f ci s

ac2 s e. ti ao 't e  : ;l e r, o ,u e e in-d e1 lap, a a, s , ca caenMot l r ; ydr eb st nnst u'r m. u p - oc arleee' a r e. w t iseuf s ht rs er'e s l t el

• aiseeu a ne c o e ,,

d ri f c' s d f a m smngd e paeb b rt e psl ar cf t s e 5 e . pf im f a c a. ar estl l' e j e

                          *e. % d 'L fRI sor t eC o%

ct

                                                                               'wsg t n a o t e

f a iiv*4td a tr e litd t eoa iseCe raonl ec n d e sri n gal e Iti s mc e sPt smk

       .                                                       aus'h               eni                                                                  do*%                              l s mu uapf saea,at%                       ph t                                                                      te             sei         nt laaoFitaf!.l                      g es a*                    al                         ee lr         d . er                       t so l

vc 1 nioae o e,

                         ".e v( ce                   t e't nl e
                                                                                                         'C R       ul                e          a s, lep*f                                                  r                 o       *:      c)e eb me e

5t lt rt r ad e p esh lc 8 t imt ue f t r e ,a f ne - at a1 i% g r pl p f( o% d sef rt oe ra b 'A t

                    - dv aact eelh u r       t srrsa oeaae*f sll r eot a oa nel ti fl t

r it r t r h t J pjsl

                                                                                                                                                                    "    t vJ esagsl h e. 4 t e14 eeCt
                                                                                                                                                                                                                ,s R ap e5 l r f

st n e a rb e tl hf eai r . aCd pt np e ern(la ,a a c a. r sesmt t arilue*eol o sa a et ira t6 3 e e ".: e. nov g e i grsl det aef e si us pti st s aoot sd er uelviUlle fr.eb ar% ear s *l e ce. p e p u l e a tnnu"t n a3Ai" gt a# :J isa4 anM uds t sr sanl n gi tn a er I. re rst r h ea %it , ay ec s u s* d a v1 t *l o c eef nes eloa uetiveldnr sl ysurl r ga T sf sn , i oua, rlf y uao aus ' et ay a eo lv le. onb esf

                                                                                                                                                                                          %sor to             oee       adt ott nriiac              n e C 'a                     t ceee

• ct( r )t s rt ,

oh , rlF ee nr t8.ddl l em :e nlo are r n caus '** a e la ah lA;lbns a a ot uoprd t n 0e tP os s , amtl

       .                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    I h C eas0 ps                                                                       1                                                                                                                                   CdtI                         na                edi                                      s ear h airs            ri Ti    *pleI :psansloc t                                                  f                                                                                                                                                                                      (

r

• iro1 pee d1 or i

eer0e0d 3 m s ,, e ' t r att

                                                          .ef ac#t  a r

• ues : :e q% e r i tt 3 4l f u et t euh
• rt ad a

5 s *a d rtl yt u a% ' t eotaetanhee t f hae auy e qd g a c rel)S aa a nd e ads , mdIle e e ,,, hh e b lo,gclt l l d*e slal d n a pse er*.t sl eun ell sortd euo tt p2 n 0 e e t ta'oteesr ar ni e os t od g elMiila a(t g 4f rt a0btit p a ed l r ira s o aiet fI a wdn ha lesei eeS .t gab ua as r n .h rai s go rutl ot e eeenA t cs ul p 4h sudnus'. us e ep r ltf )h v c* uF C al ash stl t p a sd emg rs u fewed r tsso, u). on4i.llloec aa t lt g g0l at n rgc*.l cn u hf a r u iego u aQt a* edeat N' Jsb et ta d. t t aee t n rlf e oyf woh ons gtt eet sMest a eoed i, r u c dt ra s f l simrtt eao% elf wa fodsnoeCtt a n rh a ( m p s Co n, t a1li e p .8 t bli h e y e sshe rdostf a ' td nol ' 9'tsai et c Ce t s r e n' - ah e Cedool ns s a - r aees I ar va s ri r es e, n c s s s5 ' f..rt ec t a tf1 cd c e lrgcpe r e erlh rl not o a . yrua rgs , aea" . e e .a l . u r0andl " u r *s. F rias ec ocat t e y g9t.ed t t a e%! pp a r. fi0d *l ' - rtl c c4 e s i ed s s t en, nel t n t st ecr% flt I J fi l r ot oe cafb r2spps rl q e u 3.ea r ., te" e0t n 8 (" amlaw

                                                                                       "   t f

e e a le ef e

                                                                                                                                           ;rg s ol e*h h e
                                                                                                                                                       'l    '*t
                                                                                                                                                                   ' at j o

nd e e (s scaa h jaoerst ae tSIs dS ea u s e et rh fljaa ool t rae s ed uneo qadt r r t e o r p mf0 o2t 3l l e, a ,e

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              )

2 2

                                                                                                                                                                                                                   . .                                                    s2 e .                          g                                                                                                                              e              f                                        t t s                                                        s                                                                             ss                 r              g ca                ys ae                           ne                  e :                                       -                                              ua it        gt.                                                                    ea                a             er                                                  ?a tl aos                                                 ee              b g                 r t

e l s leit k sr icea hp gea c t o. y ohs r tf' aeeer

• d

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         ! a n              o               la S                     s          ueA                    saaa                                                                                                                                                                            f                            di orf e                             t A*

f eemw( P am ee" ef r e vt( inSl .f i f d af naenoCiaoms e g? .t h yaas dn!rf ert e ao ot a I et h t o t t v d o ll4lc oeeft i sc at ir'; itn*r e s e edl r aedI r Mdsc uf e la y

                                                  . r ei pl?                     tarl ul sop n sroatd s               lnaes d

e uee) -.cs ee s sal st ee

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   ,el          .

l r aaopr% eaue r t. f ao e ie e ,

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                % 3 rd a ler     d%
                 !                                         e8                                                                                 l'            drh c yi f                               . neeb airs                                        aa                             cpanomr aos rtd t n rpd s

p eeii L

 ~                                          ban 1r                                 e5s tl                        llaeo e l pp                       d                     g o     t ( S. soson f faesanb u s s% eeser                                                                              u              I ef lar e .sC cct                           ei e                                                              s el ode                                                   s     .

l ra e dt e c o e eeeit awt nt 2ea ic p t,1.a nrpl eed ragn ei ee

  ~                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     sat as t c a? ydt a yn                 nt            fd                  aaemegryesr                                                      s                                                                                         c             ih                 or saStIl a                                           h f
                    .t$a iont                 a             srh                t aib                      i p                o                                                                                                                  f ruel                                   nue
 -                ss                            on               m                 at sol a                             yh                     p              r n o eg c e e ai a c rnera ,                                           Coict                                                    dnoor                           lsl t         fi                                                 sp             ar r                nltA                          o                                                                                                                                                                               l     i
 ~                al ot ca             la isceJa s

e gf e m u , n e h e p e e ol ostl t%i afE P r t eet snt a aa%Sspc alt ueaov i* r ccads nn l a sR s1 v y a 5. heit tf see afI rr t wt e b t a s rt eene r neh m%dtl s t jgp u m it a 0 t eftt uo a ,i 4 ah a ct pt

                                                                                                              .ornh e

e l%i o shry t e a cob f e- rpt ar estll ae e i a '. iamrsao ti c s .iv ei feh t thieb e tl eavl r s .a. t er ( le td u a, cg yediot h aa;g t a f8logecuf ol ea

 ~               iugec                                                       in4f       rb r avi                                              t              smpasc                     et                       neettl                                f  ct,tf oas                     a o %, nar                                      a.

i ar al eaareai s n r gllgevr g ai gi e n e e s n e" r snb al h t ,d% ec r fi id ai e io k a#fth eeso scht u f o o af soit ud sl eg rst vif eare c . e.fo sdasl oecfr os e of e wea n ed s i oa aa* u gnt o cs noct s f o e s p f *er td

• rt neoast s eal v pydt d f n n eyue rt od c vs t ae e. t st hl ,lorc oel ait srool ash rguddeupe al pr eedel =t nin a r cerie sit aiqr n p I* os dee %k eo . itpet eude o lt saf pc a y vo nlia u% sf eoas a .eps o d .

it rh ' t adf s ra a enpsat s uA cl a taY omrs s lt uei ret al ottl ort et ys u b e, c c I aion % sc nC aa: lcd atl sel ltle o p e.taee t yl l e satDb uecsi a ctf te a u soca e If yrs u: r 2.vfeprear- o r net t ar s tl s u si l ps .ol ei0ra - t nat oary h  % c e st e ti ti gt se oa msa

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      ,t bt e          e%aeh e-
                                                                                                                                                                                    . at r rlacs      J% s y
                                                                                                                                                                                                                         .l                                                                                                 .$d nt ue esst                       ertibpu        ul a r

PC 4 pn a) yi l uh do e n ser rc .fualf ot" lat a p fat fo .nah3t rtsd ss ne aa us 3

              . s ser na              Ws u        e          j                4 2 el Cl t d11ht                          ece f t o

el a g et opsf sti seet eeo t1 olt i t5 r8 r gh en I eh leJop s 'A see n (t sd r ebrL

                                                                                                                                              'l

• e si c uars a nt h e

r 'A l p ;i% e a . enut o le i4l aa1l n . c e.otlscaset e t cs e itl o6 p

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            > c e e7 at wftCt f                                        o oPli cE at C;ct A          r         h               .l1 e0f s.r gasodf rlr                            a
                                                                                                                                              *f
                                                                                                                                                           *,l r canve 's    a
                                                                                                                                                                                        ) spuiolleSi rl saf g

3l el e1d a oIl tN}F 4 or p

                           %               1f et c o*c u
                                                                         . t a                   n . . pu              o ,lo a1.                i wasele. eei     al r                   cnr      ab t

ws est hh nt aT e l ,s a aeI ae laeco at uht hb l t aes5 ub 4 e *ea nCf ao5 e48

                                                                                                                                                           )                                                e pwlahet                               leoa                                                                  eh oin                       h s            t                  tel d       ooc ,drch wnS t                                o                h f.

b ( el

                                                                                                                                                              . efIl.f t oti                fivf f

fCanriJp t rs i d;gs . er st .ori s t usi e _ r ee t r a o s8 yse3 e usdd te oewes8 eea) .l pt sve u/t4 _ sct s r it, oI csh 1td ad a sl pn .dsden a r ra ad sc# v i e h a ns stor a. _ r eh ese t et e0ct e f'a 2 c f r nut ai l nu sa veht c

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      .aa*

it est ss dl u oeC a C bt ec sf I af a odfP vf adidt ne eIiett trl(l ee sl s tets 4 td la 2.Ca tlI'l scCsp s m eer* a J . t adr e8l ck cr a o .l nonC s e0 adt t6 s e sh ae #llya l ul d . e8 sl p5ii o4 s bas i grnat nE ga ts'. ae l n t l e u, al c ca3c eat as ja ua .s evsT d niual e ga ch 2f p 1 op1 a5l h eol s

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       .l

• ghm ue s2C c sene el t l

Js sipa>g t e , acneu at et eeeidrec Cd anh r # moe eelenot%f ep r t na 8 t c u4)o( iP ehit e f ct 8ditiol r seea%so s rit e i d s a c e mdl ueh oa cl t ss in c a p ea lal llaalol g a* a ct

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      .h r

e ls aaif h sh mear ae et et atr ssti e e th l at aopao% sf) 1 e ,%Cesnt c atlit eov C mr at h . mo

                %5t cr eotritlo(

Pt4h tt a( eeeyt rdk s a ct ra t a rt b. t rl e%iiac n n 't at os t r c e sa s* t e tleef o0 ufl d opf e poit a f ra y1inJdin e.*a u f eo t c0as ivh pi si6 sf cs rg aet uf aaef a s ariaoeeo .t o u ib i2hi nt rt es0 e t o s a. i a eyera , O l s% o t et t rt ec /ch Cmt aaar et ssoT h, tlirt e h oeot2 s t s d st e v aspcs eh e eil r v eel nJ wsnya cpl a t c. n s sel' s as a' e sefat1l - s l aa l

                                                                                                                                                 .a n              e e ;. % e p l, cacti eee1 a             r pj ,

abl .llus t uot - s pnel cl e une es c.

                                      %              /a eo 5 ads'                             d en u il sra 't da                                           a           ans a acss                                                                                                                                                  w d afice nl ot ycet d lssbl(

t eu gec it ld o t apt waes t s4 o efs a en 5 s n o si e

                                                                                                                                                                   , t s

usi et; ut erd ec :i s r t eC gt n 2. sri u ua gsr t b s g a c e e. l e o neob 't s .f et a6aed e rr e* r l .si m p. 4. c er e e e. eepa n i eeh e m eoi% e osr al t pf a ai a h P a e o ae e f arehl st s n bS sma sh st5 s' ct ;ti taes it u s :s aopml s t :: t nc mb po.C rt av* e i

e e I l i e I l

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  ~> .

3 t a' t

                                                                                                                                                                          *-e4 b                                                      e4 m                                                              I
                                    +                                                                                                                                      9                                                      a e

• t-e *3 4 e g ee e g g e en e,t W m 9e w e

e= a=e z &E4* 19 d' p 3 en e . m  % 9 e= f 3 C* q 3 es e

• C en e e e.1 e' 'g' ase #e *, r%no e *a-w ** enb8 b 4 w me a= ** @% *e e en b = g

                  &4 g 9G                             Ce b                                    a g es 4               -             m e                  ==9 em S &.         g g               e o se e                             g          w% em % es as 5me en =* w e

A d %J w w m e 6 - es gmeega g en ha a= ep e (, e & =seaga gg

• eo & en 9 as T es e-h g om as e up - -ev w es . gem,e.gg ggtm ye gesg=en en gp ge g e. ee g g e.=

C#be & = *eed G SegA em aus Ephe ge ese (*. es e se - g g -e e to*g 4 g m e, ee vb 3 g g g S Sk 89 A es e f* ea g eee ee ee ww m# we eeT g es b  % *$ e- 3 t> d e d dT @ em 9 ==%

                                                                                =F9-er 4e 3 es V

e ed e =& m*es-ese&O A e' s se e ' 9 id W b es 9 4 en es a g e ep e 94 I e S9'e eseeergMe h am - ' t emG4 89 g 3 %d es @ - es 3 e - em eaW eeee es e d's

• es n g 19 a.= tus des

                 ,e ee.ea e- em t o g
                               . w r= 9          m==

S. es ed g emp r = =. 3 Igge m th

                                                                                                                                             *s G e                   a J

e C* I. esv U w => eg gw =s e he e e =W e, 4 es d.a-we 6 es es ee *--4*=g

                                     # seemem%d        e *S as er       as -      ee&C h ep                  D b g                    as                      es e

eea 8* P ft Op so*e We es m b g em e ao en e-STGe e m-3eA e= ge= es se 4 @ g *E8es 4Oe= r-e'efeh e dA& ease e. g g te op .

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      *=e          34 b+ (*ed e 9 e

• C *= & O C e e e e* **

93 e W& 9 4 Sin a de

                                         ***GS       Ce                    g es W eme bh em 9 eb eG 4 to We = 5" W 4% es                                  ege
                                                                                                                                               ] pe D G #sW W#       9                                   e8      e f &

W e4 @ *= o e ee - - Q -40 e 4d g, g go 4 3 a- e#' e eS e @ et am 3 ee &=d he$ 24 v f Pe *g a g et er e 419d g e en W em g g3 - $4 ed g g == er t e b W em'C 4e A 8 Sun e O k 9 f$ es e D $wb GJ m ag g j b er - D O 6.g W es -

• ig M he e e es to O1Jee CS.

eeg# m as een 49 eS e@/ bG = ebe m e *af9 e O m e a= - e $ t= e es e edd' e Dem C.e *b4J 4. F ee wg GwW gM g S43eE S es e & w s* e= ** bd V 3 %, e ed e* J g g 1 $ e 9 d- 4 4 em W In j = ed @ e e g em e 44 e g as em O.%e e W e Q$

                -ue               as en             T er g                     = e@          h De g 4                    h==                  9=              A. M 4,   .e #of
                                                                                                                                                                                    **                                            g ja ,es e e me k " 8m g       M F.E8"ef*
                *5 e* e                 eh M

• g 3 @ g qdt 9 gb gy ( 3 4 e es se O @em W eb P tw er F S f* 4 fe et es A enA d g9 3 g es em $ as e 4 op w 49 b Eh @ em 9b es et 91m5 w g 4 4 b g 99ed O /. um h gp %f
• O ' b as e =

f. E

                                                                                                                                                                               @ ee end am e e
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   - fb ee #9 e eB es     a 4                                                                                                                                        em 9       d e'd' b         g i

• es b u TI 8 9 er am e em q d en g g9-a 3e et a=e9e me y t# - sm= 3T e to es e e 4 en C & a em um e't b e SJ S

ef.t ese g g es e e* p gsee ep e-soee- 9 ge m-e3se e9 e e b se .

                                                                                                                                             -#     .S-e=%

• 9 e e. r e.e e.

ea& a =# e eoee-w y en se e e g == en gJ e* a-

                #     f 3% O m es b es w                       e          e tf         A e8 6 % en em m a-                                                                           ge me e e ep = = es 3                                        &=

• es e es en E a= em 4 #

es es e > e *g S S h &G *O to g a.s e.s ,3 em e .g.a.. e w e., .9 eme w s o g e. r:-

                  .                         . o. e. a.                    se 4 E..sgM C.                     e b4 90.-ese. 5             - e. r           . e              g b 0% e                3        % 09. 99                      6W                                                             g 4 **                er NO,Q w g am ein g g. g eg -ee6ed               a g*                                     e en                 g 36 g g3 me g as                      as W          es as v es # es se en e 3 es se ee g se es g ed e                 3=                  ee #        *b                   89 De te e 9                                                                   gf -
                  %e g g ber W kP S                                                                                 e d' [                    O 9mN 0                     b                                                                                          ein e

y Ge 4" ee b . es eme we 43 e1 e 49J"e

• et 3 w A g %d me bh 9 == m @

es ep as es e

• toPO es a g @ e ed 9tn er b b' @ ~ es g!

                                                                                                                                                                            *o- *s g T O

b= m J g es se e as- w a + e 8E D g =* A e as es s' eneseryg m gee3 S e a e u 3* t#eme V som es e es  %

b. 3 g enas a e as a en g r== (* es t

3 e == 3 3 9 s.o. e w e e te

                                                                               - en g W9w9A as b

es es e .9 @g de er g

                                                                                                                                               'l == e s e as an a= es                         b                                                                     g=

g Se S es % en S J"s 9 u= ab

• es d es as - e ' *e as e eyl r

w 4 as g - e e ng ag = > - e e %) e eJe en gega ed w e'e b as

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   , l beO                  & er          a          3 9J tse             4 ew                   Neo             ele 3 em e                      td
                  @ e8eus er E en we    =8 en         j ee 9 en v SS
                                                         ** e ee A f% 9 39 es &W E ee % 4 y en e

C e er e W e== es as t.*e= WX& e 3 h g ed = 9 ee == == f'l. me # S es g ee 9 a= 4 ee (* *W be-w a= a= ee g eos G)w-e* en y e e 6 - hp 9 ea Mb ee h et WD E b 6 e. ee4e. 4 gS e es a.e = ch D . e

• e= == *4$ amp

                                                                          @ f% 88WJ G                        =e b*  o%c&W e

4 3om g .y *@=: es e e et a 3 ge e e - L. f.e enog @ e.- a

• e.

g m

                -       ew e go b eb e W            d %fG d"88             % te 3ee em= 4m Wm P W==>

eee at ee N 3 9 - e es e 3 e V ** 4 e hJ ed

                                                                                                                                                         *E    ,e en                      *e 45                                                                          b         en e8 S WA                g e 94            als e9         $$ has f$ b $ ab eS

• Gde8e* O. e em yQ b est

                                                                                                                                                                *9 C g*e ed    4          ge                                                                        qe             g d umerte aup g eseso em OE es es es                   %d f% yefehgegam bfB09

• F* m en be. g 3 6 3g en se

                                                                                       *S= 9e                           EW w                        b                          b ag                                                                                  me q         ew w f 9 O h# C et to 9 bd e e e et e e == ==                                        O em V w owe e@re t-
                                                                                                                                                    *9 es g        =w =****C              eg                                                                          e e          e Se e e O tufh h %) e ed tul                                          O*    Q g% SED m3 O*              $ee40                                                                           $9 89        gaf g W %d 4 es F" %$ $4 @

I t M

• g Se g og g e

                **

• e 9 W@% g 3 h,--e g SU e e* es
• 19 8 **& 88 b  % 8
• 6 as g 9 8 es e e e
• S 40 W OE e da e e e #8 # W es g se to # 9e $
• s e- w b == ye h e p ,

                                      -es           es e C es               3ee me e                             e se            et &h a                                              e sin *g as

• ge,=3 so 3 m C, e bp-  % 9 e* Fee OO th a* = #13 er en en = 98 == g esce as snm g as gm 42 e,s .*b e-me aim, gs

         = or ao e                                  e ein e es an e                  e q%      G =et en.

a e aoh b ee Ae a g e ege.egyg g g g

v. e o e ao e o ee p

se g em as g e m.a .ase e en es weees e as 48 e == em t aun p e == w 3 3e == W wS 9 /t- U & em 4 sh* w tse

                                                                                                                 ==ees 3 up **

• es ed Q ee s es b h 4 L9 ese 8J 3

e ee g

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   % e e te             ,en es            **ep eeg       3 g =>           e ee em os aus a9'D                     @ O ee se
          % e) ee*                                                              - e #? &                                         3 to 3 ee                                  g e ha                    3    g e          *en e = w esao ege gte eg                              as g g w          #           w to 49            a *D C3 ee - eW.*f G                es            S              4R        es 9 F - g==                                                                                                       o g se g                sg 3 % es                S S S             e      efee                       ep *= #e O                 emh 6 eh 3 &W                              e           T        ** Jo en b es gq.

g U 3 b=. e , e, e, e,= be g e es e == en es e% 9 m A 42

                                                                                  *C e 8 9" %d== =en fb         8am#

39 e=wg 3e eh a b g g gg E e 3 %# e es go g ge g ,, g ese e et am p g g geg 3 e ene4 e es e3se b S d'h an h 9 eCwg eee T es A O b Q # #1 es to fe 9 e9 to - amm G et d e es ee g h e=e 3e# e A e :q

                                                                                                                                                                        = es en e g                  h  ga  M g   ame        **   meO       eA g==9 g g  gg             g g er gs ao Ce es et g ab to e9 g          e ed am      S    e D  "gJ
                                                                                          *4    e8

• T h es e ese se 4 44 = 4 ee g** O M e me ed g ed (
• g g w e g oe W 94 ( ed @ MJ =a e 88 G b M ** am ( 3 g Oh b ag (d 4 ge 9 gS b b 1* *b 9 e es em ge4 4

a ae , m w e' e.s e,# a e ge

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           ,Py td           is it e3              48 as
                                                         - G B ti a=

ga n g e4 .e s.-m e.m

enw .we, t ee . o.

                                                                                                                                                                                . en g ,e e. no og .,. ,       c.<.              4. bo        b.   . ca               .e v,bee r W
           . g
                       ,D e w e. se

e. e 6 e. r., . ., = T n . I3e5Eu

                                                    ..e waw                      s                      e n-         es g 4g- e .
                                                                                                                                           .-                               .. e g e, W e.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         &e g e
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       , e 3 n.e
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            ...e.e e..

ww g 4 . & %g-e6 e s, es - e v ,w. e. . ,3. e

                                                                                                                                                                                                          ,. n

r. e ** e e w ww e -e, g

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               .e
               .-3. g 4 es        e .-                            -                   o ta w as c ea G e m & a nfg a - ., # g ..

e ne = - oe s .s.o.,: g , W* g g e .ese . tw.. e 2 *m g ened

                                  =-

gm - er 9 3 Y er g@ e W G se As 9* *

                                                                                                                                                                      + te o
                                                                                                                                                                                          -e = e*

e { 98 e l4 eese @ g ,g m se 4e gp to p gg e w

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          -sq ?g es g
           *% es W 3gW $                            e#=        GeWWeG(SD te eb e @ao % em tT se e &b 1 te                                                                   e( en                    8BJ              'es to e m*                 $ g w4                        49 g
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          -es w g 49 =T *ep 9 g**3 gle                       w #9 # S#-                                 ==e* O we 9 a'S g M                                                     g #1 g sw a e +eteina e"s se e -                                     9 e g ,g g                                  ,e4 e

e& 3 as e emA w me e bww A 'N -e-ee h &9h s 4't ed e e ef% e ene*1tosam 3 g to og e, g e.ase e g== e es p-gg e g ggg

           %          9 6 em e e                     en                                                                                                                                              de                            e         4 g                           g g g b en                es G emp wa            m & G 4p                 g                                                                                 8 eedww     es - ed gd
         - g a v w es e e2          eww ee e ee . eaeea           s                          e    sw w   .e, :

I&

                                                                                                                                     = 4 a w e.*.* . e 8'E w          w-p e3e.e e.

J*-=.b. w ., & O. w

                                                                                                                                                                                                               *g u o e , . Jr &, =

w==se e - ewe e c. e e,

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   .ee-
                                                                  -amm e                                                                   & es e4                     4                   es e w ge                                              g ,,                     y 44 m3 g e e 9J es ad e t'h .m C                       g *4                                  as de th g     e le*

Mme w ed es eA tie in es 4en g D

                                                   -%eS  ee e g gg g g

• 3 as e es ==of4* es em a eO g a= h a= he .e
• 6

                                                                                                                                                                                      ) g re e g9
                                                                                                                                                                                           /? 48                C      B 9G 1 e3 as g G d 3 g ** W P. as G th* ese
                       % 9 w gp e e-e a= aun 9 ga                          em       O   -  as g has e as - to g e@      e   'See      g e   te 3   g   es    b    b3                *e             #5 se    #.e    et  w  a's    se        af                            **   O          9                  3 "q" esO #9 6 u% @ 80 g g's.===               - y w re ed t#en -meenQ                     $9g us                 tg ** ame G ,, se 4 9                                 y

• C g so w am e w db 4 b &y ao e

emes# an $ en% to =b G@4 =*

                                                                                                            = 4                 0$h                   go                                                               g eis            3 J em ,gm 4 g+                     g *%     e 3 W*      $ 3 3                                                                        -   e %# ee em b 95 a= = g e up                                                    O w ee .e ege                                                                       > w                  ew 4   a= em .& 4 @
           , g w o .-

A eg me === .e e. ge, weawwe g e a e a e c6-S we,=a. a p e #%. = c= = a .m 4 3 w no e=en =em- e , 3se . 3 es =eee4 == es st g ==

• e eg- 4 9 op te e em - em w e og y =eg eGe w 4e8 w e= so

                                                                                          <t pJe op t                 m a 85
                                                                                                            = =i =en=3 g m

• in es eis at em 4g m eb e>'deam == e a es , Ch 6-me a 4 e me as se e es to es eee m et e3 es e e e* 85 eJ se 4 6 ** === p we == b 3 e s == es y 9 to 9 3 e & %d b f1 49 3 to = 4oe a @W h eO @ 44e dT e ** e sq

         == 6   e en S     .*e ee                   es et @ aer 9 - 319                               e          eF ef S

• S $ ee g On te sese A9e gj w 3g e = w e op G - is == # h = e@ .

e esbs.g ee g g 9 4 e, 9w 6 en

• 3 g&Sg e ea eg w 9*g w me 3 es y ee

           . es af # ao3e.s es
                     .                 .e   3
                                                    .m
                                                     .             59.@
                                                                      .          .e .ews&.

3

                                                                                                                     .o e- e . .e O A e.
                                                                                                                     - .- . *J f.2 .b .- ~                              .J e.e . -me--

en

                                                                                                                                                                                              .Jer  .he        o      -og- . ww
                                                                                                                                                                                                                . aan .ep          m go &

G-g a s g % 2 ,g4e b

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                .e ae .i .w    f1 me =
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      . e3
          =. e. 6 .

3 e7 g e esem ap h =6g e g

                                                     **=e 4 m a=            4 e a se g *

• e == A dB G 4 a= 3 3 as W W M' %9 e w gg

                                                                                                                                                                ****e %

h g m-eb e && egg w gg g P

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            @ G *J e 'l es                                                                                                                                                                A & em C                 A e4                     4        es G                 3 *S                         h g         as ene w - es     ew 9>Cb             em o ae (" ed 93e*9 m8 as9%                          to e  w *
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     ** #waw g                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 e
                                                                                                                                                                                                                      #"* a g3 @ an e                               * -* * =e 9 u es a                                                                           0 g ed C e as 4"                                                     ep C D                                 E
          -w I! e a( ee3my                 a         g9e a e .e                                                                           89                                          as         e                                                                                   9**
                                                   %s g            g as &=9                    =           *Om 3 ee                                  %d 9 e ed 9

• b eea= es 85 4e g9 as 4 @=

9 . as g e 4.. as % W ee & 3e e i h W ** b m 3p 4 we g go d,i g, e eW4 g g= e se -enedesgg e e

• Ig

                         *mm en                        e                                              ee    %   es   G                ao   G   e    WB    eses       sg    ,   e
          .3                           4S                          W 3 ee 4 s == oe                     e

• 4 w*e= es e 5 s 9.e ed <6 ar w a a en U es =e 4ew g-.-a .ea 3e--

9emm, epe

                                  .e

e. e 6 oe,n,

                                                     == e
                                                                 .ee
                                                                            =3 w4 - ee      - ho * *3 e a . -s as a                        - e

• a-we6s.-=ew o se m aw eh

                                                                                                                                                                                                           -- = == -

wg . eg

                                                                                                                                                                                                       *

• me w 9 e es w er gaen .er a 3 e 3 --

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        # => a - - = a %d as .=3 e          3e.=

• ge3ed* == epso3 e % ** en @ W* *;=Ef = g to g t*

                             % am b 4                g         S em e                                                                                                                                                                                                      e 4

• W l

al E es e.s 'lk t9@ *6 .te.eo ,.45' w oe . e - .e as4 ** ,, g e er,e g .,.e o ,< 44 g

                                                                                                                                                                                  .e   .-e.ee.s. . ,e. . e *r . as eo.-

m. e.e .,

ea se 4 as 4 3 ese ..e

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            .r..- e-I             . e. en    . e.se e.mso   I  as     9-4 toS.e          ea                 ..a.81e,.             _                         - e e, e4

• se td E = gg g e-o ao sie e m em 9 ee i

e e g e.

                                                                                 -ee  9 e9 b e .6 4e'* ei*==&         g a
                                                                                                                           $        **a4mieJ

• gg g a*
• we e e.Elle ee au e Se e f m I. 9e.-s *5 e* * . == . ein.*-..=s g s= e *=
• i a 3 e s, e 3 = , .44. p e o_ e u eo-I emee w e. ad e 4 % ,b e m=aoeev-w c* ee wa=a en o

                                               -                       e                                                                                                                                                       ===g
                                                                = gee =                    w*-e                                  u= ee           e                                                        .

oe s e e e.e e-I t 3 oe eqe O

• c.

                                = = eb w    sa , == wee gp as e 9 . as g % 43 # g 3               %        -

Q gaus-e

                                                                                                                             *==48 e.

{ q 14 ase == 1 49 e a* et se Cb q 49 es v O em 9 3 W 9 *J d i g g en se W g gg g g g g as 3 amp E 4 gg g w p an e+ . J agg 3 J' a= 9

                                                                                                                           '3 e                                                                                                WWh @ 9                          e    f*        %E 3 er h as a b w                                                                                                                                      O i

g Ep es em ,, *J g 7 g 4== m 6' *d m er w e & 4 ** e' J G gt b e se g b @ st 3 e= W 3 g em f't Gg

            *J =             D tmp op e* er               es # $b 9 43 em W Gr A e                                    $* 9 O                           g
                                                                                                                                                                                                                               *S e == .7 9                    em*e              * * * **

e4 ed g eat **ese se == en *7 es es- em Mg b eo # e th**== s k 4 8 #% es a3 ew7 e e e sD l i e

c c .x.:u G-S ICLU13 E RRA5yW.c i'. j=<.3

                                                                                                                                      \
                                                                                                                                        /eueme        -~.fR-e e                                                  .. ..
                                                                                                                                                                                                                       .f
                                                                                                                                                                                                                           .t.. w....     .... se ....

h.. E-.. .a e - -f - th.. ... ._h ....._.. h. ... .

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           -t-            te t.- -..-e.
                                                                                                                                                                              ~                                      h. ......... .f ah. C - ..., - .. _ . . . . . . f...,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           ......... .f
                                                                                                                         ,,......t..,.                                                                           th. .... Th.. l_         .g. . . .. . . . ..... _ . p..t.
                                                                                                                                                              . . . e ,, 4 . , . . . . . . . . . . .
                                                                                                                                                                                                                .f ..s, _ ... b,t,                                                            .h. ps.....
                                                                                                                                                     -. --                                                      p.s....,.sl. ..         . C _ .... . f.r..c.t h. f .. .. .... . .. t h .. . . . . .

h ... .s... ..,.h. ..o .-...s p...._,_ O, . . . _ . _ _ , _ . - - ~ _ . - c , _..pg_ , e., _

                                                                                                                                                                                                                -..._t t e

_m..__.-_.._._.-._

                                                                                                                                                                                                                              .p.. . f . . Co... ... , _. . . . s . c . . . . e . . ..h. s . . . ,_ .
                                                .....t..T                                                                                                                                .

h. .... .... _ t p..t.. C._.... .mp, t..,_ .f th..

                                                ....                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               t...

l . . r .. .. . t o. Co_ . . . _ ..th....,..t. t .,..,... ..t t tk. - ...

                                                .......t_ ..C.. ..,,,

m ,m,m . ....ts.t.r. .. .s.ct .....t.. .. .h.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                ... ...t.t
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      ., _ ... .. .f       t..
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    ..., .t....... ...
                                                ..... _ ..t..g ... ..r.... .s _ .                                                                                                                                                                      ....
                                                .... . .t.         . ,_. ....                                                                                                                                   p..-..l   .. _. ... - ..h...t...                  r _ . ... t,.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                               . ...... . t ..s , _. .. t h t h. _ . . .t ..t ...
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    . . ...... th,.

t. .f C .s... .. .h.. .a.t...

1. . 0 t *,pe .

fM8(E'Q . 4 $(seg gm see le Cys part 40 ' S se urentian nall Talling pag.l.t&on.s Confers.Ing umC peq.ise. ente to RFA Staa.asd., 49 Fed. Beg. ale, 9,/26/04. pp. 464 48 Stacese,y, f f. . na us _s u. na u t.o n. . m. i.ts.o., cs 4-eter 'pret.c'ti _a  % co.es I..... 4e sea. p.g. ase, e s/as/ed, pp. 444as if. ,l.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     -        es h e i lJ, 9o e . v..,e W.htagtee pepseeentot tee Te Who. $t M.y Concesa, Enclosed pl_.e find the coemeente of the staar. Cl.h concerning the above-captioned Fedesal segt.tes mutace.

F.L. 91-415. Tne u. clear teg.l. tory Cu==8..len A.thorisation Act for f t.c.R yeese 1983 and 1981, reg.tred the Comete.tca to conform 4.. s eg.lett oa. for .cti ve ens.ai.m mill tag .ite. =t th the genese t ...ndarde 14..e4 by the Emetsonmental Psotectlee Agency en er befose Oct. 9 1904. 1he MaeC ceafosatag changes were to be floa t , ensnees the echedule dicts.e4 by die Act, within 6 month. of IPA *. pram.lg.taen. C3.a s t y, the psopo.e4 sh. age. list ed to th. F.d. ret magt.t.r. combined w8th the RNpp of the e.se date, f.41 to meet the r eq.i r e.ent e 14 8 4 down by Congsee. fos puc conformance. In.tead of psopo. tag and g,somelg. ting confesalag eineet ch.nge. within the ..at.tos y time pos ted, the Cum.4 e.t os bee, it months late. psoposed a s..tricted .et of confessing change., westle le.. tag the nos e impostent q.e.t tee of cumpl8ance witti tr.'s gio.ad-eter seq.isement. to a fot.se s lemahang which may take up to fe.s ye.se to c _ plete. ' The Storse C1.b bel 8 eve. thi. Propos*J proc.duse to be tilega! .nd unwn.e. a. well as ime.ff!ct.nt for the p.rpose. of the Dr.mii.e nt!! T.nllage Radiatica Control Act IDerf 81Ca l. a. ended by P.L. 97-e ll. as well se con. sept.tsag .a indef talte delay not emet.aoned. and in fact empseemly rejected, by the Congsee.tema! contesee., the Comente.le,o's

• AH&d malatain. that the Cceant.. lee be. 4.thestly to alto. the weleer of any es all envasemeental .tandesde inador section 441cl of the A.omic EnesTr Act. W Lelleve tht. to be e et.interpsetettee of the antent of Congse.. in am_48 ng L.fracA. The Conference Deport en p.L. 91-4,S. E.

sept. g)-see, cle.rly gr.at. the Cceant.. ton .he ..thesity, upon app!! cation by a licea.ee, to allow v.s!* ace. to St. owe .pecific 6.. .. , .e . t e ..

                                                                                                                                                     ******'* b.cenfN.l.l.?)RK s .. e s e m 6.4 .. . ,,.m .n.                                      4   e a, ,

hn.a.6 ate.4.e .e... 316 B 61.ee.e See teen nes. C ast .no 9esce dell)984 St.e of.o

Ud b .maumme m.kneelh gyy m ggg dd

   . ,w w.                                         ~q"Mc;           ~ ~~ "

E N V I It O N Mel4 N T A I. l' O Lyg I CmY INS q'liTUTE gt.fst a

                                                                                       '~ -

as

                                              . . . 7r                                                                              nj       r                                                  *

(lladyfM

                                                                                             ~

Commission now aagues must be the sublect of psotracted 1*- 8 sulemaktng. As the Commission states, this could *sequire ( taut te L - . * - - - _d January 10, 1985 , ,e fE gg q sevesel yeass*(49 rp 46421). In the Matter ois E Un Second, the Commission proposes to enescise authosity under Q Sec. 04(c) of the Atomic Energy Act as amended by P.L. 9 7-415 in 10 CFR Past 40  ; the interim during the conformance process to regulate uranium Uranium Mi!! Tat!!ngs Regulationes 15 J4al10 Pl; 42 p Conf roming NkC Requisements to EPA mill tallings. As explained by the Commission (49 rm 46421), ti e

• Sec. fitel authority would allows it to esercise segulatory Stardards, Proposed Rule

                                                                                                                       *Q..'
                                                                                                                                *h u

t1

                                                                                                                                        *f         *lleslWity" during the inter am period without LPA concurrence.

ey implication, this a u t t.o r i t y would also esist attes PSELIMINAkYCOMMtWTSOFTHEENVIRONMENTALPOLICYIN$TITUTE conformance. IntIQddGil@D The Commission essentially argues that Sec. 84(c) In sosponse to the Co m m i s s i on's publication of proposed constitutes a

• stand alone* authority which it may esercise rule s(49 FR 46418, Novembe r 26, 1904) to bring its uranium mill itsespective of any other requirements of law. Specifically, t he tailings regulations into conformance with those psomulgated by Commisslog interprets Sec. Stic) in such a manner as to preclude the Envaronmental Protection Agency in October, 1983, the the concurrence of tise EPA under Sec. 84(alfll or under Sec. 275.

Env i r o'ame nt al Policy Institute (the Institutet filed a request for As provided by Congress in P.L. 97-415, Sec. 84(cl is a an eatension of the comment period. The request was seceived by the Commienion on January 7, 1985. In enticipation of f ormal conf es s *an opportunity to propose approaches to mill tallings estension of the comment period by the Commission the Institute containment and stabilisation suited to regional or site specific makes the f ollowing preliminar y commer.ts. a

                                                                                                                                                 ' condistions which may very from engineering and technical specifications recommended by the Commission.*(u. ept. 97-884, Exc11sinaEs Comasota                                                      September 20, 1982). It is not a new grant of authos ity f or the Commission to alter its health and safety or environmental The proposed rula raises tyo critical questions concesning the                                                                 protection requisements not to alter its enforcement of the EPA Co m m i a s s on's intespretation of the Usanius Mill Tailings                                                                             standards.          To the estent that the specific Commission Radiation Contso! Act and the P.L.                                                              97-415tfY S1-01 HpC Authoriza-              requirements to which licensees propose alternatives concern tion Act) emendments to that Act*                                                                                                           matters related to the Solid Wasta Disposal Act, the Com e. a s s i on 1 doubly bound by EPA's regulations promulgated under Sec.

risst, the Commission is in vAelation of Sec. 18(al of P.L. I *"

• 9" " # "#"##*"#* '* ***8#8"A"9 97-415 sequa r ang HkC to confor m its 1990 uranium mill tallaugs f,"
• e s inity to se lin 3se conditions granted unh s Sec.

regulations to ti.e final EPA mill tallings segulationa(40 CPR 1921 within sia months of their promulgation by EPA. Sec. letal not only contains an esplicit directive for The Commission's interpretation of Sec. 84(c) in both t he conformance within sin months but a contains Jetailed posed rule and the advanced-potice-of-proposed-sulemaking, we procedure of interim suspension and ,lsoconformance,awith EPA e believe, is aimed at creatioq a st atutor y loop-hole t,y wl.icia NHC 1,roposed regulations. In establishing the multiple-step review, can avoid the EPA's requiremesd in 40 CFR Part 192 for EPA suspension, and conf ormance schedule contained in Sec. lata), . concurrence in the issuance of alternative concentration levels Congress cleas ty is.tenJed fos final NRC conformance to take place l Ide do not believe that such a loophole esists in statute nur did In the jsont expedient and efficient manner. The proposal and the Congress contemplate Sec. 84(c) creating such authority. accompanying advance notice-of-proposed rulemak angi 49 FR 4642), Novembe r 26, 1984) do not comport with tiets intent and imply a CODGlu2100 ngre son i intent. It is unfortunate that the Commission is nose psecccupied with " turf

• conf!! cts with the Environmental Protection Agency As stated 1,y the Commission in its rutemaking suspending its and the degree to which it must gain that Agency's concus s ent.e in segulationa anconsistent with EPA's proposed s ulel48 FA 15 350, regulating urar. lum mill ta111nge than in the timely prsaulgation August 4, 1983), Congress required HRC to begin esamination of of final m131 ta!!!ngs regulations as requised 1,y P.L. 91-415.

Its 1980 rules and their conformance with EPA regulations within The proposed rule appears to flaunt clear Congressional 90 days of the proposal of EPA's segulations( April 29,19 8 3). In directtves to expeditiously implement a rederal regulatory point of fact, HpC has had some 17 months since EPA first program to protect the public health, saf ety and the env a s onment propea.J 6es regulations to anticipate the conformance the f rom the radiological and non-radiological haamsde of ur anium mill tallings. - AdnowledgeJ i,y cang,,MM

                                                     ... m..- s s e .. _                              a w we,.t o.;. m .w..

e

                                                                  =         --
                                                                                           ~-

fy ~ au a !! f' .1 t i Jh" L (49 FL 4MIB) L E N V i R O N At E N T A L D E f L f4 5 E l' U N D The Instituto reserves its right to make more eatensive r_ n WM tecod comments in this matter upon formal entension of the public comment petiod.

                                                                                                      }'j~
                                                                                                         .Jr v<r          Ja{i te_               ::;* 7 . " ___ _

g, ,,9, g, gg,, ,[] ~ ~ , fg fl. g o g* ? i -m January 9 N #4 fe actfully submitted, AMk

                                                                                                                                                                                                        -no Q/3 Adr.w          pT4 . -                  -

5 l Secretary? . " -

                                                          ,                    g .                                                     .. .                    .._.I                             *          **

4.5. Nuclear Regulatory' Coa'mlesion' g' Washington, D.C. 20555 , y C h David Berick, Director u s-Huclear Waste and Safety Project Attna Docketing and Service Branch

• Environmental Policy Institute me Proposed pule to Conform Urenium Ha!!

Tallings segulettone to Standards Adopted by Environmental Protection Agency 149 Fed. Reg. 46410) Dear Sir or Madama On October 1, 1983, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published its final standards for stabt!!aation and control of byproduct materials at licensed commercial uranium and thorium processir.g ektes, pursuant to section 206 of the tiranium Hill Tallings Radiation Control Act of 1970, 4 2 U.S.C. section 2022. 4 0 Fed. pag. 459 26-459 4 7 (Oct.1,198 3) ito be codi f t.d at 40 C.F.R. Part 1925. El'A's standards became airective est December 6, 1983. As required by section 275 of the Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C. section 2021tfli31, the Nuc19er Regulatory commis a lon recently published a propweed rule to conform certain of its

                                .                                                                      uranium     mill tallinge re9ulations to the standards adopted by EPA, wl.dle sleuttaneously requesting public comment on the Commission's tentative process for conforming its regulatione to EPA's standarde for groundwater prot'oction.                49 Fed. Beg. 46410 iproposed ru t a l, 46425 indvance notice of proposed rulemaking) luov. 26                                1984).

em .. r*.ws i.m L n. OPPKr$ Me brW tore pft peeHomal ^^ .. t WAN.Io88 t* ,84 heL3LrY cA IUCHb.LM WA es4&DSR ro N h CsM. ,~ , ,,

EPA standards. That interpretat8cn does not comport wath either The Envaronmental Defense Fund's comments, concernsng the Comma ssion the language of the statute or its legastatave hastory. psoposed rule to comform its preesisting regulations to the EPA The stasting point for anterpretang the sear.ang of a statute standasda, are set out below. l 1s "the language of the statute itself." Untted States Mnes t in,c v: pladrige, 679 F.2d 940, 9 4 4 (D.C. Ci r.19 8 21. In tlats

1. COMMISSION AUTHORIT[ TO CRANT VARIANCES TO ETA STANDARDS instance, a careful parsing of the statute shows that Congress

                                                                                                                            ~~

dad not grant The rulemaking notice states that the Commission proposes to to the Commission the authority to author sse departures add a new pasagraph to the introduction to its existing regulations, f rom EPA's standards. Section 841cl of the Atomic Energy Act, upon which the Commission telles, provides that The purpose of the new paragraph is to make clear that that licensees and license applicants may propose alternatives for a licensee may propose alternatives to slacific reuuirement s aht eJ and enf orced by W Commi ssEn~ unTeUht s Act.. . The Commiselon may treat such7ternataves as satisfrang meeting the Commission's uranium mill requiremente. The language Commleston gguirements if the Commission deUrinEe7tGt of the paragraph to be added pasaphrases the terms of section such alternat Ives will achieve a level of stabilization and containment of the sites concerned, and a level of protection S tic) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 42 U.S.C. s ec t i on for public health, saf ety, and the environment from radio-logical and nonradiological hasards associated with such 2114(c). That provision of the Act does in fact permit urenlum antes, which la equivalent to, to the extent practicable, or more stringent than the level which would be achieved by all! licensees to propose to the Commission alternative means for standards and requirements adopted and enforced by the Commiselon for the same purgese and any final standards promulgated by (the EPA l.... achieving the Commission's specific engineering and design requir-42 U.S.C. section 2114(c) lemphasis adJedi. ements for protection of human health and the environment from That language could not be clearer. It provides that a the heaardous substances associated with uranium milling wastes, licessee may propose alternatives to Commission requirement e. The statute specs fically contemplates that such proposals for alternatives would take into account local or regional conditions e And it provides that the Commission may treat such alternatives

                                                                                                                                                  +

g that affect a uranium mill or mill tallings disposal site. Ilowever, the Commission's explanattom for this change seems alternative is aquelly as effective in protecting public health g as the Commiselon requiremente and the EPA standards. The Act to go 'much farther than the statute permits. The Federal pogister i g simply does not say that the !!censee may progene alters.atives to notice strongly implies that the Commission interprets section j g,, 84tc) to permit it to adopt alternatives not only to its own , g, specific requirement s for uranium mille, but also grants the l Commsssion authority to consider alternatives to the underlying That concluelon is constatent with the historical scheme f or g 2 3 g e *

                                                                                                                                                      .g-                                                           ,

e Atomac Energy Act, and wath the selevant legislatave history. In l e t al, resnforces than interpretataan. Ir Section 0 4 t a l mandates enacting the Uransun M111 Taa lings Radset son Control Act. Congress , , , caref ully delsneated between the roles EPA and the Comm6 ssion an such manner as ill the Commission deems appsopraate for g rotect son were to play, an keepang wath those agencies' historac regulatory of health, safety, and the environments and (23 conforms wath the responsibilitaas. The Act mandated EPA to paumulgate generally generally applicable standards adopted by EPA: and (3) conforma aE2nicable standards for protectaon of human health and the to the general requirements establsshed by the Commission, with environment from radiologia! and nonradiological basards associated EPA's concurrence, which are at least comparable to requirements

                                                                                                               , g , g,                , ,           ,      ,,          ,

with uransum mall taalings. Section 275 of the Atomac Energy , So!!d Waste Disposal Act. Act, 4 2 U.S.C. section 2022tb), as added by section 206 of the Those duties are listed in the conjunctive. Uranium Mill Taalings Radiation Control Act. However, HRC was to There is no hint in the statute that Congress intended to grant

                                                                                                                       ,,g,,g        ,                      gg retain its role as the regulatory, or licensing agencys                                                                                       g est by EPA.

Indeed, Congress empressly required EPA concurrence The HDC la also responsible for implementing general standards and criteria promulgateJ by the lEP Al. HSC must in setting requirements for protection of groundwater f rom materiale assure that the technology, engineering methods, operational that might controls, surveillance requirements and institutional leach f rom m111 tallings ponds to subourf ace atrata arrangements employed at the alte provide the necessary and to underlying aquifers, levels of control to limit public esposure, and protect the environment, .. as specified by the EPA standards and criteria. The statutory language is clear in this instance. Congress N R. Dep.14 8 0 (Par t II, 95th Cong., 2d Seas at 16 (1978). espected EPA to promulgate generally app!! cable standaada for { Thus, the statute and its legislative history demonstrate ' protection of human health from the harerdous substances associated that

                                                                                                             ,       ,       ,g                                       ,

Congress intended the Commission to develop the engineering and ette-specific requirements necessary to implement the EPA Commission to develop detailed engineering requirements necesary standards. Section 04c of the Atomic Energy Act reflects a to carry out the EPA standards, but recognized the need for a e

                                                                                                             ,,,, ,          ,   ,,g          ,

congressional recognition that differences in geology or hydrology may wa'trant flesibilaty in the Commiselon'is detailso require- , ments. But neither section 275 por section 44 cf the Atomic variances from the EPA standards that form the at asis for Energy Act permits a construction under which the Commission may segulation and licensing of uranium mille and waste disposal sites. authorise a departure from EPA's generally applicable standards. Section 64(a) of the Atomic Energy Act, 4 2 U.S.C. section 4 S

                                                                                                         .)*

ll. CulTERlON 6: DESIGN OF EARTMEN COVERS conducted fland tests on urannus mall taalangs piles an Grand [OR DADON ATTENUATIOs~~~ Junct&on, Colorado. The results of this comprehensive research A. patention of a 2 2Ci standard is Practicable and Consistent ate compelling. With the AIANA Psanciple J. Hartley, et gl., 1981 madon Barrter Faeld The Commassion's eussting m!!! tellings regulations requaro emplacement of an earthen cover over a final disposal area that raret, the field tests demohstsated that all thsee cover will result in a calculated reduction in surface enhalation of systems are ef f ective in reducing redon releases to near redon emanating f rom the tallings to less than 2 pC1/m /sec. 2 The Commassion selected that standard because it wi!! assure eahalation adobe-mancos shale system achieved an average 99.6 per cent sates within the range of those occuring naturally from most reduction in redon flum. An asphalt emulsion system achieved a so11a, and because it la consistent with a key principle of the 99.9 per cent reduction in redon flux. Both systems consistently Internataonal Commassion on Radiation Psotection--keeping individual reduced redon omhalation from thE covered pales to less than 2 2 7 ,,c, esposures as low as reasonably achievable. 1 F$nal Generic Envaronmental Impact Statement on Ursnium Hilline at 12-12 10.5. NBC) (Sept. 1980)(hereipsiter cited as CEISI. The ALARA principle different cover technologies. They found that the adobe-shale is a key part of the Commisalon's segulatory scheme as well. 15 I Eed. Reg. 18 38 5 (Dec. 3,1910.3 of all of the covers tested. Conversely, EPA's standard, which the Commission proposes to e This report is the most comprehensive and thorough study of adopt, sete a maximum radon erhalation rate of 20 PC1/m2 7,,c, cover design and cover effectiveness that the Envisonmental which is ten times the existing requirement and more than twenty Defense rund is aware of. It demonstrates that it is technscally 2 times the average exhalation rate f rom natural soils. Id at 12- /sec and that the

13. Before the Commission adopts the EPA standard, it should carefu,lly consider the feasibility of retaining its current standard the technology exists to reduce radon eahalation from tallings piles to or below 2 2 pC1/m /sec, consistent with the ALAkA of 2 pC1. In a recently pub!!shed study prepared for the Depart-principle, ment of Enesgy, several res'earcher's investigated a range of technologies for attenuating radon exhalations earthen cover The Commiselon clearly baa the authority to set licenssng systemas multilayer cover systesse and asphalt emulsion redon requirements more stringer.. than the standards adopteJ by EPA if barrier systems. As part of their work, these scientists also the Commisalon deems such standards appropriate to protect public 6

7

                                                                          -/O =

o

 ,     .                                                                 . ...- ...                             m. .

health and saf ety and the envasonment from the sadaologscal hazards assocaated w&th management of uransum m611 taalange. 42 lt ln practace, design techniques must take account of U.S.C. uncertaanties in the measured values of the spec 4f ac ent ton 2114411. As as described above, a recently materials used, the tas!!ngs to be covesed, and predacted long-term values of equilibrium maasture content f or the published report provides compelling evidence that it as specafic location, in order to assure meeting any given radon emission limit over the long-term. The uncertainty an feasible to dessgn covers to achieve an omhalation rate of 2 predicting reduction in radon flum increases rapsdly as the required ra on emiselon limit approaches background. Even pcs/m3 /sec. That report also demonstrates that the costs of such at 20 pCi/m a the uncertsinty may approach a f actor of three. ' designs are reasonable. At the esmo time, retention of the 2 pC1 ta 8-11 f citations omittedl. In his oral testimony bef ore standard would provide clear benefits for protection of the EPA on this subject. Dr. Vern Rogers stated that maasture content public f rom health ef f ects linked to redon esposure. Under these is a critical component in characterising the effectiveneas of a circumstances, the ALARA principle requires that the Commission particular cover material to attenuate radon eshalation. Dr. retain the 2 pC1 stanJard, pogers added tant under our present level of understanding, the B. The commission Should pyhs Iicensees to Take diffusion coefficient can be characterised within a factor of two. mnMaTWiTabTen a cover Performance Into account uowever, other f actors, such as the degree of compaction and EPA conceJes that there is uncertainty in estimating redon porosity of the system, as we!! as physical parameters such as diffusion coefficients and that the margin of error at 20 2 distribution of particle size, will influence the radon diffusion pC1/m /sec is as high as a factor of three. Moreover, a number coelticient. (Excerpts of Dr. Rogere's testimony are attached to of factors influence the effectiveness and long-term stability of these comments as Appendia A. I cover designs. In order to assure that final covers will be Recent research on cover designs shows that multilayereJ ef f ective in reducing radon exhalation to or below 20 pC1/m2/sec systems are f ar preferable to single-layer cover designe in for one thousand years, the Commission should require that design assuring long-term radon attenuattom and cover stability. Iligh calculations incorporate a design margin to account for changes clay content in covers tec clearly beneficial because of its water in moniture conter.t and porosity, enternal erosional f orces, and retention ability, since moisture in soi! le *perhaps the most antern,a1 chemical reactions. important factor upon which redon ettenuation depends." GEIS at

1. rectors affecting desten and long-term stability d *

• earthen covers can have a profound adverse influen:o on the attenuation In its Final Environmental Impact Statement for StandarJe properties of clays the diffuelon coefficient can increase by for the Control of Byproduct Materials f rs,m Uranium Ore two orders of magnitude with a twenty percent decrease in Processing (Sept. 19031. EPA stated that moisture content. GERS at 9-41.

I

• I 8

9

                                                                                                                       - El-

G. Psogwr cover desagn can accommodate the ef f ect of these Maskos, Geochenacal Mobility and Transf er of Cont am e na n t e en warnablea on cover integraty. Dr. Rogers has concluded that Uraque Mj,ll Ta t j angs (19791. The constituent compounds an tt.e mantuses of clay with coasser maternals appears to be highly pales--particularly the delaquencent salts--can feed to substantial beneficaal an manama sing cover def ects and in manant aing maasture movement of enterials f rom the interior to the surf ace, can setentson. V. Bogere 6 K. Nielson, UMTRAP Research on Cover create the conditions for emotherhic react aone, and can generate Desagn for Urarium Hall Tallinge. I Fe b. 1904) lattached as osmotic preneures of several atmospherte. These and other condations Appendnu B.B Moreover, Dr. Rogere has developed a computer model can lead to mechanical destabi!!aation of the piles themsel-ves IkAEcol that as capable of analysing a multi-layered cover system and the covers designed to isolate the piles frna the envaronment. In which each layer has a dif ferent dif fusion coef ficient, porootty, A!! of the f actore tutlined above may af fect the integrity . thickness, and redon source term. Id. Other researchere have of a cover system over hundrede of years. It is therefore reported that multi-layer covers provide *hydrau!!c isolation

• of essential that the Commiselon raquire licenseen to provide a the clay component of a cover. For maasple, a gravel layer * " reasonable assurance
• that covers will be ef f ective over the between the clay and the soil at the top of the cover sequence long term by incorporating in their cover designs tonservative will be ef f ective in maintaining the sositure content of the clay assumptions that account for the principal variables that affect cover designs layer without active maletenance. P. O'Brien, Ihe UMTRAP Technology pavelopmeit Program 'A Progress Report (1981) lattached as Appendix This wil! tend to increase the cover thickness seguired over that calculated f rom *best estimat ed* values, C.l At the same time, such a capillary barrier has been determined which would yield an approziaately equal probability of achieving at oc below the design level, to be ef f ective in retarding upward migration of water and salt s. 40 Fed. Bee. 45930. In short, the Comatoston should aequire that G. Gee, et a l., padon Control by Mulilayer Earth Barriayj 119811 the design requirement f or long-term survival of covere will le.a isttached as Appendi% D.)

to thick earthen covers that have a substantial likelihood of In addition to the variablee described above, cover integrity performing as designed for 2000 years. can also be algnificantly atf e:ted by forces generated f rom within' the taillmga aateria h , though much of the work on ta11&nge III. THE COMMISSION SHOULD REQUIaE MONITORING OP 'dADON RELEASE AND management and disposal assum.s, et least imp 1?oitly that the COVER STAaILITY material in inert unless acted upon by some outside force, there Part II of these comments, sucre, includes en enusos ation of la com!=11&ng av!Jence from the work of Markos that uranfwe allt f actore that may adversely af f ect cover performaace in attenuating tallinge are very unstable themically and thus, highay reactive. redon enhalation. In addition, EPA stated in promulgating ite 10 11

o standards that the uncertaanty surrounding cover design may approach a factor of thsee even at the 20 pCi level. Vaewed in that light, there as no rations! isants for not includang an the and given EPA's judgment that the effectaveness of covers can not s equarements for management and disposal of mall tallings a monatorang program designed to makeure radon eahalation and cover and capricious for the Commission to f ail to establish manamum stabality. The Commisalon, which exercises regulatory and criteria for monitoring the ef f ectiverses of covers. licenaang authoraty over such sites, should ancorporate such a Such a monitoring program need not continue fosev,r. Bstimates s equ a re men t in its regulations. of the f actors likely to contribute to the structural instacility Such a monitoring program should require annual site inspections of the covers can be used to determine a time period within which for the initial five year period after closure to detect phyelcal covars are not found af ter a number of decades, then geriodic changes such as cracking and erosion of the cover, side-elipping of embankment s, and so on. Site inspections 2,1o should require monitoring can be safely terminated. But when actual experience monitoring of radon flum at the surf ace t the pile and measure- with covers in use a!!ows us to conclude with a high d4 gree of ment of ambient redon concentrations at the boundary of the pile. certainty that the covers will remain efective, monitoring is the over the ensuang forty-five years, the Commission should require only means by which the public can be assured that the nealth continued site inspections af ter ma jor precipitatteio events, with protection goals of the Act are being achieved. a minimum f requency of at least one inspection every five years. IV. THE COMMISSION SHOUI,D DEFINE WHEN DISPOSAL If af ter f our or five decades of documented esperience with SHOULD TAKE Pl. ACE cover installation and monitoring, defects are found to develop that a!!ow radon releases in excess of the standards, these In promulgating standards for active uranium mills, EPA did def ects can be accounted for in the design of future covers, and not adJtens the question of when dielesal must take place. 40 red. Beg. 459 42(column 21. EPA recognited that during the remedial action can be taken to restore the ef fectiveness of covess,found to be less effective than needed to achieve the period when tallings are drying out, radon emissions and wind level of gmblic health protection required by EPA standards. dispersal of tallings particulates will be greater than before or

                                          .                                      Absent such a monitoring program, there is no way of ensuring the                                                                                              how  espeditiously a tallings pile should t,e etabillaed and cotest s adequacy of cover design, or the consistent performance of covers in compliance with the raJon release standasd. Given evaJence that the piles may not remain stable and that the structural                                  The Commision should f t!! this regulatory gap by adopting 12 Il

_g3

suual ausaahg specafac requaraments for empeditic,us dasposal of taalange. ensmanse OES 3 85 k [ oggggg oe gag ergommas e!=aang {,,99 pjy ggjg/j Ftrat, the Commiasson should require that !!censees begin final ** stabalt aaL&on of a pile within one year of the time whos. it is DMM!ll.N 6-** *" ** *** "Zf) CONTROL - 9 0 0 allowed to began drying out, unless the !! censes can demonstrate EYaN ****"**

                                                                                                                                                                                            'U .**; ii P 158 that additional time le needed to deweter the tailings.                                                                                                     Nest F. ll A R TIG AN Second,      *"~J.O 7='"                            d ' ' 0 "  E '

• E 8' E " ". .-

Q-*gy"= the Comaaeaaon ahouIJ proscribe the introductton of new I1quida svart or etteseoes g gg.- . . , . , anto a ptie once it haa begun to dry. And third, during Lhe {*,*,~,,,,,',*,*f*.*.*,*,",******** l ~g g ~"" . ag ..,w c.E.., e- *.~~.

                                                                                                                                      . . =. Y,==
                                                                                                                                             = se                                                                     *y I

pertod when the pale is drying but prior to placement of a cover, **=-*-***"a'* g; ,1 / the Commission should requare licensees to apply chemical duet ZR*2f EC80f a . _ . . ' - suppressants to reduce the dispersal of tellings' particulates by A f d,/rr/ J A.a /2 M. e a set Januar y 9, 1985(Pet a u .i J lt iis - wind.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          }

E n The Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comelselon h n% Washington, D. C. 20555 u Despectfully submitted, t2 Attns Docketing and Service aranch 3 1* e EkA4- A pas proposed Bute, 10 Cfn Part 40, AppenJim A.

                                                                                  'bart E. Yuhnke                                           49 ft 46418 Regional Counsel Dear Madae or Sirs M                A
                                                                                  * ** E*   " "

• The people of the State of Illinola, by their attorney,
• II C8""**I Neil F. martigan, Attorney General, subelt these comments with respect to the referenced proposal.

I. The People support the language of Criterion I es-cept for the replacement of the *theusands of years' l a ngin ag e with *for 1000 years'. Even if elellar language in the U.S. En-vironmental Protection Agency (*USEFA*l standards, 40 Cta St92.12tble coepelled this change in Appendia A, the USEPA lan-guage applies only to ' radiological hasards, aq ,to nonr adiologi-can hasardes the proposed change to Appendia A apparently applies to both. Second, this proposed change is not compelleJ by the *. g .* UStrA standards since the statutory mandate unJer which USEPA

• Assued them did not authorise USEPA to establish a design and engineering criterion like that enhedled in the 1000 year limita-

                                                                                                           '         ~              tions hence that USEPA standard is null and_ void. finally, there

• le no rational basis in any case for Italting protection to 1,000
• years when the contaminants of concern are *as long-lived as those Involved here.

2. The People support the change proposed for Cr itet ton 1.

1. The People object to the proposed ref erence in the test to design anJ footnote 1 of Criterion 6 these provisions atene.tHfeed by coet N.UlM b *

                                                                                                                       -#Y-

o s charact ts t as raJon control les terms of design rather than re-querement. These provisions are not coopelled by stattar lan- ygnally, the people object to deletion of the three-guage in the USEPA standards, for such provisions are clearly meter requirement for cover depth in the absence of a Jeaonst r a-matter s of design and engineering -- aatters which are outstJe tion that a thinner cover will prevent human intrusion into pales i USEPA's mandate under the governing statutes the UstpA provisions over the long term. are therefore null and votJ. Second, these provisions are con-trary to the very purpose of the Uranius Mill f allings paJiation pospectfully subattted, Control Act, P.L. 95-604, which is to assure safe disposal of 1 j mill *st!!ngs over the long tera. If the NBC regulations require only _ eat disposal sites be designed to achieve a particular - level and Juration of radon control rather than that they actual- ANNE RAPAIN ny achtest such level and duratton, the desired level and Jura- Assistant Attorney General tion may not in fact be achieved. Furthermore, if NSC does not environmental control olvision require post-closure monitoring, then neither it nor the p blic will ever know whather radon fles is actually within the limits the feJeral regulators have Jetermined necessary to protect AR/jin health and safety. Thls makes a sham of the standard anJ of the safety concerne purportedly underlying it. Design is only the first step In assuring safe and tell- . able disposal. As USEPA acknowleJged in proposing its standards, there are serious threats to the longevity of contaelnant control seasuresat tailings sites, e.g. human disruptions, weather. geological events, natural chemical and mechanical processes in . the piles 148 ra 19589). Furthermore, there presently esista no / engineered Jesign proven capable of permanently containing raJto-active or chemically hasard)us wastes buried in the ground. 40 ra 45937. InJeed, NBC is aware of waste migration problems at pac-licens.J Jisposal sites in Masey flats, Rentucky, Nest val-ley, New York, and Sheffle!J, Illinois. Given thle historical , esper tence as well as USEPA's own acknowleJgnent of the uncer-talntles of long-tera containment, the proposed footnote and design language ar e utterly ir rational. The People further object 2 pC'/m2 sec

                                                /   standard to a 20 PCl/a*(/sec standard.o the proposed change froma No basis la given for allowing raJon emanation at levels greater than back-ground, at least Ustph                 in areas where people reslJe close to the pile.

itself acknowleJged that even at the 20 pC1/m2/ sec release rate, the risk of fatal lung cancer to people *who live perma-neatly very close to tallings piles can still be relatively high, up to 1 la 1000 for lifetime residency.' 48 rn 45917. In this 4 connection, the People also object to proposed footnote 2 to Ctiterion 6, which apparently allows an even higher release rate than 20 pC1/m2 / sec depending on the radium content of the cover ! materials. This, of course, could lead to escessive radon * ] release

                                    ,to         rates seek out        and soils clean   assuresfor that use licensees      will have no incentive as pile covers.

4 l j5

                                                                        -ui .toest.                                                                                                                                        .

eeMJetD SUL1 g t v7 29.F4.4 Aa Hie) J.e..s , . nde

                                                                                                                                                                                                             ,ege ,

Cme.co te e

                           = LORADO DEPdRTNIENE      yete e -                 El#3 us.n M@LTH t.s a.o CotonaDo Dipaninint or araum C,e.e.ne,                                    i             ,,,

v 8.e.u.~ o. e. saianu Cutrei Olvistu L' , e '3 _ 1 Jesu,, e, n.1[ 3;g'a1&"

                                                                                   *4 ..

COF99f MTS ON ptop05f D CHANCES TO 10 CtB 40, arpemDig a

                                       ,    /

3.e .rees warrant to eet et tht. nee. Ceehemie se ii.e grued.watu-,eist ed a idonoce mence of pre,eeed .eisaales ni fone latu. MM pgg[m qj-hd? (g3 // N g A. We een rule proposed by NBC, to add gemette flestbtitty se selettee to

   .h
            . Secu to ry,                     ')

u 3 g q%.* 8 the eschescal criterte for taillage disposet, appears to be e cemetractive U.S. thaclear segulatory Cemeteelen boele. Someappraech to comelderles alternatives se e site eputtic Weehtegten. DC 20115 3 73 ettliculty le latespretattee to possible, bewevu. i Attet Dechettes and Service Branch E ',* The Deporteest's concere artees free setest Ceterade espertepce with the 3 g- Unlee Catbide Corporattes/Usetc. Hiserale Corposetten eastseetles deelges

                                                                                               "                         for the Spates Creek Mese alte. The federet etetutory werdles (Sec. etc ses Ursatum nitt Tettlege Repulettoes, 49 ft 4441.

of the Atente teergy act) essentially a(ates that alteteet tves te spetitle seguiremente may be accepted tis The preposed rulee cheesee unletztes letC's le CFR 40 Appendia 4, to era stuJude to 40 Cfs tsa, subparte D and a, appear coastatest =tth pas representattoes of NRC's statutory sendete, * "such

                                                                                                                                 ** *

• Ialternettves

                                                                                                                                           '*"' " *

• d
• I will

                                                                                                                                                             ' " 1achieve    d level of stabilf settee end

• I P'8**

utent gecticable, er more stategent than13 the @* ha' *

• _la.lhe Waved Efetenderde and requiremente adopted sad enferred by the leve G htch would be tecleaed are the CelereJe Deporteest of Neelth's commente'. Comatostoa. (emphaele added)

First, Coletado agrees that 'of fendtes applicante end licensees eppertunity to A P** * *' I

• I I"M * **"N propese lesevettve alternettua, se a routtee licessles setter, to highly u pesuth wittee with .neult fue septeleg the tachelret criterte pucticabt!Hy en a ettenpecute buses desirable. The seu lesseJucates pesegraph om alternettvea, without elaborettee, does poes a hypothetical concere--that a deer may be betag opened 1.

to jeterpretattee med difficulty se defeedtog licenotes attleas~when a lese From Cattutes W. disposal ette plutten le en ogsleasettee then emperter deelse le advocated at a tese thee optimal ette. Thte leeue for features alelegates distuabsou and eastatalog contateneet ebeejd be earted out before the fleet rule is preselseted. to defesti 8tte utentreerueoneW echeMe. No eletmum atendeed for la ettpulated. Second the State's poettiene se tachettel estterta touched by the propond seviatees are tecluded for your cemelderettee. * ! '***""

                                                                                                                                         ' I ' " **

I'8""****

                                                                                                                                                         * * " "*'I**
                                                                                                                                                                * ' 8 ' 8

• 8 # * * ' "' * * "
• 8 * *
• I

                                                                                                                                                                          *   *I*'I**   'I ** NI*8' I" .

• Commeste of the growed-water-related Advance Notice f proposed Rulemaktes tuacties of both alte chosectettetice and eagtmeerleg Jeeg g e..

atti follow later thle seath, 3 18 the eely feasible stre meer a etti to defleleet, engineeslag if you have any queettone about these commente, plasse comtect Een Weaver of destga beste the burden to easeira mieleum periessence etendende my etett. " *

4. Thus, should superter, ecceptable deelse ettessatives somet.o.

Stue-elT* be

                                                                                                                                          ).dged " Impracticable *, NBC's propeeed leegooge =t timt esplificettee, eight Imply al.et se safetter deelse be eccepted.
                                                                   /            {

(e t t J. Mas e, Dt acter segerdiese of pesformance levet, whee 'be proper actlee le sejecties of the alte see Jeolge regeseless. ReJ8ettee Ce tre! Oletales it.e wordtog of the federal statute end tka proposed sute resene A 888 dIW discret tee ~the Countesten "mey" treat each alternett vee as setteigtes requiremente. such detersteettoes. Mesever, 42 proposed ruld provides se detalle fu ealog facleeusee se ested If a generic prowleton le eJJed, the Cometselee would seed a defemelble Acknooledged by casd"""O*$- wesbles dettettles, la rule er policy, detteeeting when e lesser ettetsettve e. set, tener de f orce, be accepteeg thle Ill be needed 42IO EAST llTH AVErM3E DENVEH.COLOHADO 80220 Pitot 4E (303) 320-8333 ,

                                                                                                              -/0-

A

   ', '                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               a -- -         s--

4g

r. r_. . ; -

2 e 4..u. . . . . i,..

                                                                                                                                               .... ,                                                                                                 (49 FL -lM/E) coineaiso (tueuMTS )H tuoPOSID (HANCE $ TO to CFR 40. AFFtNDII A c                                                     tt.ned pg,A t[/ ffl                                                   b                 [8                2[                 J wh.s'.ver .. .ppi ts.et .r l ace..e. .ugg e.t e a b.t th. ett .up.rt.c                                                                                                                                                                                                       '
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          /'-

de.lgu. se.cht aa th. .le t.u. et.ed.e 4 lev.! .f c 1.v.t .,

                                                                                                                .t. bills.s t             .ad                                                                                                                                                               i'6 e Aps- waj
                            ..t ..A
                ...,t..

r.....t. . ,4 ,r.t.ct,.,.,..,

                                                                         ,.,r-a c.
                                                                                                 ,l.c ,e.it . ....t. ..d t,.

A ,r 4, .;4.u.g, .

                ,. pr.. .... t,.               C ...l .... t. .

De ps s a.e.t .i Neelsh b.. d.e. f.r $pring Creek Mee , t. reqult. th t ..y

                                                                                           .tr.. t,... .               8,. C.....d.
                                                                                                                                                                                      ,                                                                                            ~
                .etr..sdia.ry .Ites                                                                                                                                                                                                      +

4._e.t.d . .,,. .v.,..t i i. vecdee ..ols.. bed.....

                                                                                         .qu.1,.8. pe  t,..r s.r...c.
                                                                                                                            .r be t t e r ab.. .
                                                                                                                          ..t..

W p 4 g's ,A ./tigt.. c

                ,.r  I .., t e ,. e r.. .     .                        c..t r. l . . . , t .,l . .r tor.l.3 . pac titc.lly t. th. rules, c. 6. devel. ped ad docu.ent.4 for
                                                                                                              ,r..e.     . ,,r..c ,e e .                                                %d AM                                                      <#.e-a*</ d
               .or eet.ts.s c neu est. (Au uet 4.19et 1.st. .: a.

t.: unc .t.it, t. th. st.te . me. n..sc , c.p, .st.cned). .r Thu.. . e s t . .. , ... (Al ilh' 4 4 .av /*4 L

               .r..t       c..t r.: ..pect. .e                                  de.a na, lace..s.: et.ft a.e4 .. 6                              r.r                                          -

41. s.t. 4 6.t. .b. t the p. tents.1,r.c tsc.6:Ist, l phele, . 4 A s'ete 41/04 - for c..t.tn.e. .f gee.at.1 *..d u. t e r c..t ..t e . .t . - ~ ~

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                ~

f/ . c.a fully espect t. .U~.it e r5.'*t i ve. prep..e4 vbich7 NBC .ad 41 t. .eet th. St.t.

                                                                                                                                              .tel.u.                                       ~"f                                                                                          ~~~                      '~

requir..e.g., but .r. .dv- t ed t c.u.. .ther b.s t.: d..lg.e .s. - - - - - - - - e '/4.gh--- f - py- g -g--

               .uyp...dly e.t *pt.cticebt.* .t a giv.. es te.                                                                                                                                                                              -

Th. Dep.rt.est d e prefer th.c alt.-.p.cifi fgg

                                                                                   ..,n e t .r ct de            t.r.is.s t . c ce r.l.g
              .I t e r..ti ve.
              .e..r
                                   ....l.                               t,. ..r.

d i.. Ca t e n.. .. (n. Coi.r.4. .. r t.e.t .f me.i t 6 6.. ,r.v i.e.i,

                                                                                                       . r . . . -c . . t e r . .. .. . . . .
                                                                                                                                                                                      ~s                                    mg c,                 , y,.                               .                       _ __
              .t.t ed p..it t..e uht ch .r.

rewt.l.a. c f.s.t.s t. f,A*. 40 48a 192 (see ab. C.I.r.d. Dep c..t r.ry t. .t le.et tw. .f th. pr.p.eed jg m/ mu ., he.lth*. March 14, 1983 letter t. Sect.s.ty, NRC c ac.r. ass ,.rtme.t .i - ' - ' - - - saft-40-24, c.p, es t.ch.d ). TT.s Dep.rt.e.t d e . p.s t y t. litia.tl etttto. ~. -- - th.a. ..tt.r. (brief 4.t.4 Augues 8,1941, f.r C... W. 83-1014 AMC..v. C.s outh & c ..llJ.t ed c.es.. .ad br ie f 4.s ed Oc t.b. I6. 1984. C.e. u.. MS 3INb s-. M--.------- 84-1352. LD, v. 8vchel.h.u. & c.... lid.t ed c..e.. 51 be f.t. th. U.S. ' Court .f Appe.l., 10th Ct. cult). L. __ [ __ th. St.t. p lti Isab.cs '

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         -          ^ ~ ~ ~

1. Th. I.mse'l t y .t d.rd b. .t le..t 1000 ye.s. .t .31 ettee .ad '

f.ctlitle.g .e4 -

2. The ..i t cle..up et..d.r4 .e wri t te., b..e4 .. .ves.st.g f.r B.-224 .I v.lJ 2se.d Fer Ell ,q:st

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 =_  ,
                                                .. to to.uf fici..tly ,s.tectiv..

J Cf .m n _ _ _ _ __ g .1 h__

             . nuer        C.i.ra. .e,.u.a.: .,                                     e.io, r uc, c,.nc, .. .uia. ,.s
                                                                                                                                                                                                              ,9 - /-                        P_}i y                                                             J A ,q m--- - - y" ei.   ..i .e T.n.i..e           .a,etn.u                           v..t esnc.n,n..
                                                                                           .t .uu. n. e.         ien,.i    nul. , 4.t ed yyg gmg g p 1__ag                                                                       m g,y._ _ g a,r
             ,.b....,i,i,.            . ite..                             .     .,.a                                 t   .t.

3. m . t .r . .. ., ..u .. t

                                                                                  ..d.........r,..,..,l.
                            ,t e t..t.

r . c . .i ., ,r..d .. r ... c.. t . .. , s . t i.. . ,,r. it . . C. . .. .,.ea y

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               , L.Jep                                           ,.      g:

4. c y .-

Aver.gleg pr.vt.8.mo b. le.. v.ges. th.m th... Se f tn.te 2. e-- Mac 1. ..t precluded f r d.vt.tes .es. .pectile c.itert.. - M Id 4$ r-pf-

• 1

Ar.at' s"r.ng W39 88C"Q-4J g) 4g f ~% ( Y ff. b4/8) e *W Ufiited States Npartment of the Interior E Of f tCE Of THE SECRETARY WA$411NG10N. D C 202eo (S) HRC LR 84/5489 automaticallylicenses should asuvated andhave awroved comphance aumtwuq pasgrams that are g, j g

• 3 ' "
• JAll g g g yg * , $ ry Q
• haple mented when needed. The requirement of the

                                                                                                                                 .                      'J'       cs                   greihaatal seele of ectien sudt es that atipulatal in Sutpart F wouu provide a goud t,ese Secretary                                                                                           N N-.                 L . . , y ' ' ' '"' i                                  for corrective settons at the same time,it would evoad

• false alarms" that might deveh frons usary merely a detection program. 9 Nuclear kegulatory Commission, Washhqtan, D.C. 20111 p, 7 --- .

g}' a * 'y

                                                                                                                                                               ' p.,.y.,                                                              %We suggest alus that a repaarement of early preperstaan of a ecatingency plan for pensible future correcuve ecuan wauM eM in the
                                                                                                                                           - - - -- ~ 3 d'<. a ma                   constructican of a dhyceal site est la e(festive eneoatton of actractive metam. (6) The Dest Stra                                                         .t uffE h'dd                          _,, C-Q-y Q p~ .~._.~_                       ~*2r      h basse SWDA scheme far the timary and sharettom of a "compDenee* period, o "cluesre" p eriod, eras e 'postsl<mure cere" parted shouM be sne antaines-w eth apprwria te fit ri f3.ni og p                                                           J    T
                                                                                                                                                                   '~

modsfication af time periods to cope with differences in deposal prueedures and the We have revaewed the Proposed Rulemaking fo{r (Jeanham-84tt1.Tantrqs nature Regulallonsa of the westes. flaas, for example, St.s EP A's requirement of a post-clamare care Cmforralag NBC Requirements to EPA Standan$s, whidi sweerms in the November 26 period of 30 years may not be appropriate sw some constituents that can be leeche$ 1984, issue of the {eprol Reutster. froen taillrgs. caemJeration. The fotowhy comsnents are offered for youe (7) Property designed and maintained leakwletec tion syste ms weier sargle-itner We rete that annual site inspections are to be conducted try the governmeet agency impousements should fulfill the requirements fw a detectim-anmitsuq rystem <sdy if a retaintry ulthmate custody of a site where tatthys or wastas are stored (p. 4442SLgg thick section of undertymg naturst rock at sediments has se little inter granular w wouM t,e useful to arm 38cate what provtalons will be made to enmate that property located fracture permeablllty that leechstes is effectively sero. migration of redlonueudas w chemscal constituents of monitwarq wells will be kept in corsiltion to permit seaarste spot ehecks of grourd-weter quality inspecuan or acutitarhg sharing the annual would er perimile site inspeeuena and how losg any post-closure contimaa. (8) NBC% regulauons chauld be suffielently detaDed eencerning well constructlan to gnsure that eB mellarlig wells are cased la e manner tint ensures the integrity of the Our respasses to the numbered questions (p. 46438) are as fogows: outervation weR over the period of record, that the annulus between the hall of the boralmte erd the weD enstry is sealed above the sampling depth to prevent contaminatlas (l) We believe that awropriate omstantive requirements of the Solid Weste Disposal Act of the sample, and that truly representative semples een be obtained from the equifer. (SW DA) to be placed in the NRC regulations shouM be paraphased to apply directly to the mill talbrus situatim. This should avoid emissaan with the non-swucable portlens. (9) We believe timmt a single tsalemektry would to advisable to estanitsh a compteto set of SWDA-cormparable requirements. A slagte s.wironmental impact analysas coal then (2) Anybeofincluded. shouks the substantive pataans of Nepart F pertaining to grourd water proteetlan evaluate the potential tw impacts that snight readt from any sestantial chasgos from Itams referriry to the disposal ant /ar use of other types of soud previously established requirements. waste shouM swt be inchaded. The sectles on concentration units saight be ornatted, Li the puqose is to allow sero discharge to grooms water, that b Le requ6re anslatenance of (10) We have no comment regardhg this. preproject grourma-water quanty. Sincerely. (3) The 5 sting of hasardous coeistituents shouM include materaals represents 3 in raert those teste w hasardous t an trase amounts in the tathrys amt radioactive constituenta eseeeding the Environmental hwtection Agency's necepted mesima. We suggest that the sele:tlan of items for ties !!st of hasardass constituents shouM be taased on recorde of leechates from taBarge, analysin of leechable constituents faush$ in earlaus , '

                                                                                                                                                                                                .                                       /D          /,          ygyq types of enturgs, ami revlow of laanrdmas materials usal la proceming, some of which                                                                                                                                                 Bruce Blanchard, Director may be dhchargel with taDargs.                                                                                                                                                                                                        Envirmeental Project Review (tillsurruumshg of     in preatleable                     laats.      to estabush the hydrogeologieel charseterstles of a taBings site and rocks armi                                                 It is alas practlenble to determine attenuatlas prwerties of site sesuments-particularly fw tesle, hasardaus, and radioactive constituents.                                                                                               .I Grouns.weier pree    nce.                              mestcrug can be plannel, condistas, eres laterpreted using establbhed These furksamental elements of current technology shouM be retained la develcytry SWD A-cumperable requirements for urethase mill tauings.

r .p, ,,,,, Mi 4. me . _ pt *

                                                                                                                                                                         -l 6-                                                                                .

e

                                                                                                                                         - * ] ~~"
                                                  . . . . _                                                                                                      ^ ** ~
       . a., . .;,                                                                                                                       ,                                               ~" ~ ~ ^ '                  ~ ~
       . d"L                     (JNelED ST ATES ENys AOldaf fdTat PRCTE'isON AG8*JCY                                                       *

, IDT

       \~                                           wasen% Tor. O C 202c"                       adCREI humig
                                                                                                                     .bd                                                                       ~ ~
                                                                           ,gg g g g~~'c       G'einanin tuttw%m                   to i haC states that A( A Section 44c. enactec in l962. Confers authority to approve or employ

• alternatives" to (PA standards, includsag. but not Honorable Samuel Chilk j ' .g. .

s n e ene.a a a.ns linHed to. groundwater standards. MC's statement is based on a misin - Secretary a, terpretation of Sectlen 84c. Section 84c does not confer on het authority U.S. Nuclear seculatory Consisstan to approve or esplay alternative standards or to substitute its judgment Washington. D.C. 20555 for EPA's regarding the level of protection necessary to protect public health and the environment. anther it authorties haC to approve or AIIthil0h: Docketing and Service tranch  ; employ licensee-proposed alternatives to NAC's o se general taglementing reguirements when such alternatives would provide the leveI~or ToMinment

Dear Mr. Chill:

g siaimiiUon, and protection of health and the environment provided by

                                                                                                  ,                                     y             esisting NAC requirements and EPA standards.

In accordance with Section 30g of the Clean Air Act. as amended.  ! the U.S. (avironmental Protection Agency has restewed the proposed Uranium With respect to alternate concentration limits (Afts) and delisting Mill f allings Reg 41stluns; Conforming hAC Aequirements to (PA 5tandards of hasardous constituents. (PA established, consistent with Ita standards (4g it 46418. havent,er 26. 1964). under the Solid Weste Disposal Act, as amended, general mechanisms for alternate standards based on its judgment that such e.echantsas could 5ection Saa(2) of the Atomic Energy Act as amended (Af A). requires ensure equivalent protection of public health and the enviranaent. NHC MAC to ensure that uranium and thorium byproduct materials (tallings) are claims that (PA overreached, because, in its vleu. such mechanisms involve managed la conformance with (PA's standards (40 CFR Ig2. Subparts 0 and site-speciflc considerattens that MC believes Section Sec placed within g ). Nat's notice proposed certain changes in,Its regulations because of its esclusive purview. We disagree with haC's interpretation of Section . this conformamce requirement. However. HAC proposed to conform its 84c and of the concurrence issue. The fact that (PA's ste4dards (or any regulations to only a portton of the EPA standard, reserving conformance standards, for that matter) operate in a manner specific to sites do not - to the rematader of the standard for a subsequent rulemaking. The reasons render them subject to change or lavalid under Section 84c. The general haC cited for this deferral of conformance are not suf ficient in our criteria lavolved la carrying out these mechselses for alternate standards opinion, maC's notice states that the standards became ef fective for NRC require health and environmental judgments. These judgments are clearly and Agreement State licensees and license. applicants on December 6.1983. within (PA's purview. Moreover. such mechanisms were provided by the In view of this fact and the non-discrettonary nature of Section 84a(2). 56414 standards recogalaed la UMIRCA. and - as NAC is aware - EPA's con-the NRC should promptly conform its regulations to the entire (PA standard currence requirement need not be esercised site-specifically. -$ - for both uranium and thorlum tallings. Includlag the standards for nonrad-loactive as well as radioactive materials. Detag so would not laterfere More generally, in setting standards EPA esercised the ladependent with any sutsequent haC rulemakings necessary to comply with Sectio 4 judgment regarding practicability, which Congress required (PA and hGC 84a(3) of the AEA whose prowlstons relate to waste management requirements to esercise within their respective standard.settlag and implementation other than the stanJards (PA has issued for tallings. MC's proposed roles. Congress. did not thereby vest hAC with jurisdiction to set. auch course would unnecessarily delay a mandatory action and create confusion less apply, alternative health and environmental protection standards. about the status and requirements of final standards. MC's notice Section 84 merely authorites alternate hAC requirements to lee used at a acknowledges that these have been ef fective for hRC and Agreement State site when doing to represents maatsum practicable adherence to MC require-Itcensees and applicants since Decent,er 1983. ments and when doing so =culd else attain EPA standards. Subject to the above coauments on the scope of the relemattf@ Ve . in a related area, we believe the authority to apply alternatives believe that a separate rulemaking is appropriate for complying with th* Cannet be enerCiled in advance of establishing ' specific requirements separate requirements of Section 84s(3). [PA will provide comments on adopted and enforced by the Caunission" under the AEA. MAC's Advance Motice of Proposed Rulemaking (4g F.R. 46425. hovember 26 , j Ig84) shortly. .. As a general matter, the proposed changes de not appear to reflect or implement the layertant distinction between new and esisting wastes enbodled in (P A's regulations er. la that connection, to the "esisting . portion

• concept (40 CTR Ig2.31(j). Ig2.32(a)(1)). Relatedly, the term

                                                                                                                                                      *stte* Is used at times to refer to milling sites, and at times to refer to places where disposal takes place. The two are not necessarily the same.                                                                                           '

2 g ac kneatwigudbyemed[ sn3g rJ asse 830llUO W W #

     .             Pg g neesto           l'D"
                                                                                                                                          -I 4-

_ _ _ . .- ~

                                                                                                                                                                                                                     .         .------s---

t *

                                                                                                                                                                                               .s.
                                                                               .                                                    l
                     ,                                                                                                              l                                                             ,

I We =111 provide additional conments on the corpeisen advanced metece criterina 5 change _lal: While not objecting to the proposed change.

                                                     ~

we note anat hel,s stated reason for the change could confuse the public of proposed rulemaking lag F.A. a6425 et, seg.) snorIly. If you have any about the requirements of 40 CI A 192.12(a). hAC has described the standard questions concerning (PA's comments, please contact Dr. W. Alesander as not permittlag any seepage to groundwater. However, the standard utillans (382-5909) of my staff. requires only new disposal areas to be destened to prevent such seepage. The standard limits the grovadwater concentration changes caused by any Stacerely. seepage that may actually occur from either new er esistlag pertions of a f yN46)I talltags pile.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                 \

The haC should also consider addlag a footnote to this criterton; Allan Hirsch I Director ' espletalag that further changes or seu requirements may result from the second rulesuting.

• l Of fice of Federal Activities ,

9 Criterton 5, change _ldl: Except with respect to *esistlag portions.*

• the goal of luolation as a primary requirement is consistent with (PA standards and should therefore be retalmed.

Criterton 6. Change (al: This change is met required to conform to

                                           ~                                                                                    -

EPA's stamaards, match de act address the thickness or composition of a '# cover. A minimum cover specification would be consistent with the goals of the standard. MAC originally adopted the thickness requirement both te

• achieve a certain level of radon emission control (then 2 pCl/ mis) and te provide reasonable assurance of adequate long-term performance of the -

cover under erosional sad other stresses, such as plant roots and burrowing salmals (see NAC's (gel 5 for Ursalue Milling. huSEG-0706. Section 12.3.4.7). providlag reasonable assurance of conformance to the fles standard and its long-term malatenance are also important requirements f or implementing .

• the EPA standards (see 48 ft 45938. fifth paragraph). Therefore, we .. . "1; recuamend hAC act delete the thickness requirement, but adopt appropriate statsua techalcal cover specifications based on the FGil5 and consistent ulth EPA's standard.

the proposed language relattag to " material to be permanently disposed

• suggests that some seterial is to be disposed lepermanently or that some material may be ladeflattely stored. More probably. NaC latends only to refer to the commencement of the closure period. be suggest NAC clarify its latent.

5 Chance 8: Criteria 2. 7. g. Il and 12 may be affected by SWDA requirements relattag to the same subject matter. As EPA noted la its . pressele Sections A (escept Section 264.3). 8. C. D. E. F. G. N and E of - 40 Cf t 264 et seg. are relevant to MAC's rulemaklag by virtue of the prowlslons el lection 84(a)(3) of the AtomlC Energy Act. - e S

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             , 1       lll.ll
                                                                                  .                                   s g )4 a                                           n                                 s                            s t 0                                         o              t l a       s.

a s e to d o s ic r i e et t t J a a r f er dt s y a5 e .igr e t h o i oh u ect y b r( s ooy ee nt nn t sa t o r er neI p r ytl b mrd e a d e , pt r c g bl o ,0 uooe ias es eb oA n

                                                                                                                                 ,sd uir0e2tt eot t

• a w . s t s e t m t et s n ed c

nt a b e i w f eat o i rrat wql pa a irfus rdf g o w :o y auy l t v oer ae csepn ae c t ry sf m oa I sp

                                                                            .so                      d l

u l t o l et r s oee r ws a e rieon loy cti e a ut o gnt t rt r a e loia bi c t sh e n t s e df oaA h P ns l b e t t nE oi o n atl v a cl es hit e o ugag ot et h str . ey a ul eo - t D s e afta t hT sa d nd etf 4T es n y . i it e h encr o t aaa h a a t y: . f r iot t a 2 ie a e s t iot u t iJl ss a ct t h pesra oh .*tt g t s s ae tus ge t n e r o cue a h .f t t rs n o u ceys t n d t s s e c n o y. d e ne t t t y ob cr a tos 1 yee n a d e se c sdt gr aet s 3 eW m f d e dc t t s e a r r pd t n r e r e d e esttts ra aerad h t t se d dr ns sl s e rp or s act c si or uo o es e e m Ct gt N e i u d u eb hsbpsetu nt id s t len a l ae b oute u y ge f

                                                                                                                                                                                     ,d c o t

usd o en rp pho l s t p m o S q e t uo uf ap r re ga n rt ea d cip r e y e ,ro c snysropo ri c f oe r a noLL , pt a oi it r a ot r s on a ne er l gp n o c loe e me s nb m e a m u s o t d h e ct t sl e t es v a i s e t t r e t ee/y n epsr uea s s o i cl ent elatt bta siat v madh db l e t b st c s d e w sf t n rt s so 5 i u o o t a buaeot sA ognor 7 os r e yom l d a d nt cb spih* n a J mn epi 186st h e hpmer es o sbt .eete ve l l o es t u r ai i at oe av a o f l n o b s o eepl dh e ne wa e get e yt n e h e2 oam e ri eu f l i u h s on emt ui eo tRlf sn ot g t q e at s nrhre re si enh t h t mr o e F iooguh pb t gh c ict yypf et et b e acyl r t ne tsye

                                                                                                                                                                                    .l       rt e v         fC o

F e vor es u a t r ue m pr e ep l b t ca odl pe mti ocn a s a p oih rc 0l a. o e v tgd a r a et h niiht irsg t t 4 ef a 3 g h e;l e a ae s r p tl oeioyat t t o rl it ot s ao sea aocCt t- th rs h l c sn n p e b rd wnest wss t s oot n t a y e e o u po bs a t pt it o r r0r fi a w ar i s . S msl ti e e erdnIi t s oa eho ut ai t9 a ft o wpm t ed r wl r cml e v - tf ee, s c e e ee t t ye d eno vh oie wt a ne erb ptla . y eF n r r gVl vt

 ,                                                           .                                                                                                                     ,                                     eoe e              s         r          t                                                                                                                 t da e yyg R         aet                u                                                                                                                       a         o                         o c.

s P N h r t, /a o DA ar t t ais wt s wu npv eel tt o m tt u oi lrt ebd a aed t ai t t4 e i Wh n deeed scD s A rl p e r d n S p a e ntb g n s *o i us h ir icril ecoi al t raq e ed t aenm d o guS nJ i e uo o a er e nuirc uf por mpur t nj h ca r oenao e a qf ot d mb g np ebeo pc ne i

                                        .                 t         nrp oap                 s e

h a T p h T Crrpac m s.I"t t ne ur eyoues urs pwhcS ra t opopc

A t aa isoh y i g cpa Uct r u n m s ) )

a , i e os s l 2 ) ) r

a. Wci t d I ( ( j 4 e r ( (

r e a cg. g ea e . Sr 8 4 s. v. 4 r

• o n ae s s t a, r a i

e s a n " e g 4 d an d h n 4 5 a e" aa daa 4

                                                                                                                        ~

f o n t t n ei

                           ]M e s.                                                                                                        Ci                                a            f                           e         e e                                                                                                            t r

• o h w

                                                        '*n- a t                                                                                                                                   l
                      -                                                                                                                                    oao                      a                                           f b              m         t o
                                                                                                           .                                                                                                                     o R                           h- lm es.- ne          s                                                                                      t if                    r e
                                                                                                                                                                                               .            t a                    ao t

d s ny yl l r sM ~ d d r P 4e*e a e e, msVs a t ^ s g m oes tt t sf o s F d f a e oe r t o p tan ae e'c m e a t d m n ef d t J o ge0s w e 2. 3 e v mus e oe epw h " e el t rus e.AF coeheA re pa od bei

                                               *e      e es eeaa t

e ht n g a u s ADheD3 t d . %g nua o* a c m h a o t rg n h isng t n ot rou s n t ot r o ht J y h e f ad t y a aP - o e

                                                                                                             ~                                              c os                                            e b                 d                    i G

s t 9 / r o rl ut - e r. a au e sho c f

        ~      na l1 a3                                                    E                        J re .,                                 d 8t e                     npo o

du d e h n t cbaebleP af 3 ot s . _ l d t ede

                    ,h [4                                                                                                                                             w                      h                                                       t
       -        -    e e3                .                                                            sae                                    e e     e o              i t s nc ne                n e s          s o         e C    ea co qp                                     p h      l             t s c       re                                                   nPr b 0              t t                         _

h m o o l t i t

                             ,* Ha I                        e f                                    o rf o l

eis o n i t wopi 1 t t ua sf a o r _ f ;i 4 tn ,, po f r t i r, t a eat oNlu . t r q e e heh s iw r a, t ,. og

• ef h tat p d e 4 r n dg s e e

      -                             t   /se   ei .

el 4 a_ h t nS f a t r t n ooh e e hi s o t ps s me eihs gst e et t cS ms ne e n em o e m as

      -                             n 5Su         a r p. el 0 51      . s0 o        f e           t tT t                         oa n

aehr r h d da v g

                                                                                                                                                                 .f               oe                       r p W                  h st e 9 hs47 {-      { e.       n0 o7 t

ns o B g . ce8 nv dtT nAl e t CF nd eT h 4 aat mes m9 47g eg

                           ~                       s5           mt                                                                                        ma dn                  dae                       e .                                             .aha t

s a4 oS nhd rs s t s tf ml a a cro* e e 2 t r e s 3 WIIS s2 n) al s o h c ott c a t sd wt u o.enee9 h t eh1 eai rhlt me w *.s hi t C mt t

      -                             a       0n(

10es aS a R( t s n a ot e n tosy r se e oAN eo eot t t t r r ru rdM a r p1 u t B t l m u t pe ol a gd ne t ( aue n e A e m e yl t i co a ray c ot e ad y nagpePf o p i s*. o c l m d i pr h n ce l e a S ya au s _ o b t m C a nissuam oC

      .                                                                                                                                  i                                     t            u0                                                          I y             r v              ume                   s      ec0               oam n                   d       isasd 0 es on a                   r u e

t uh ehc0 s

                 + )8    /
                                ~D a x

e r5 o5 t5 a0 l2 u S d n a e rt t on pad pr e ouw ot a t' d e ees

                                                                                                                                                                                        .ta1 r

o t h at h t o e t e age mnh w teoit at er e l Ct aea sl uc e ar el t s" is c J' s tf e nn 4 T $ g e . g est h a s e st i ot poi f t t l y cv e ri a0 t sif i l t h aPM n e* f 0 R tl e on r odhe niniO 9 C. i rre rs r n . t e a eco ataiet n et et m 4 t nd su-s u P. C 1 rD a e , t e oa eon P r o' ei snt e a sl us wra e s an _ k f g vt t r u et a sL et5r a A t. l n c sis t n ga yf _ e i yco b a urh e eat h s e at wpo s e e l tut o ht ga _ s n eF F. P

                                                           ,~              .M       3 y                      r ut aN g

( r o y0l e r t t gt s a on m A dlA eaF ies or ost r s ni t na _ su s m9 0 4 r a te .i n s St s 3 ad ri tts oN t 1 oa 1 cC mrutC oa rt s a u rSh u r ntt s  : let a0) t ea

e. n nw(4 renss e4 AP repluet

                                           .                                                                         c          s       T       a        ar nn u e                                                          ,   s.              a                     e . a              i       e       h aoo                 l u

o

    .                                      .e- Jsg3*; ^ , go                                 J                      SUW                 a       D       TPCc                  I                        2)                  Ohcet(       os oE o atRP           aur

s. _

   ..                                      n e

e s

   ..                                     e.

e e _ sr

                                                                                                                                                                    . W.      t.*K*.'*.' . . . :
                                                                                                  =>

((h s uscefa [o /.f Secretary J a ary II. l985 _ i( 1

                                                                                                                 )        DEPARTMENT OF HE ALTH                                                  sn          . .. . ,m.g January 11. 1985                                   +.a. . s+4aie.         e s .:e 4. :j .. :.       .

transanaJsd by prop.or pond placeeemt. construct 4en, and design. We f eet tasecure relytag on a synthette itser as a primary means of groundwater protecties.

                                                                                                             's    u] ear segulatory Cossatssten
                                                                                                                                                                      ,; 4 ,

(St it is appropriate to have an approved, auteestlestly activated -.)[. W.. and leptemented coepitance maatterias pre 6rae la place. Alla: Bachellag and Service Granch 168 se taput to effered en this questlea. L r . . ..u.....- - -w - u d N-.---- ~ m ceamwerta the .epease taveived .ad the tafeasaitity of repaartas a systnetta timer under watuees of tatta, we downt that an underdrata leau detection syssee ueuld ever be appropetate.

                                                                                                          ,,,,,,,,,.                                                   v xi : "                          --.- _ . A

• We sine feel that artificist penetrattoaa to aquifers. which W utsh to phalt fu per constonetten the f alleulag comments could proeide for contaelnation algretten, should be used e aty conceralat the proposed changes la It CFA 40 publiched la the federal unere aquifer contaelmation is deterstaeJ. ty eeeputer modeltag.

to be a pessibility. pegister yet. 43. me. 220 en neaday November 26. 3984. (6) Crlteria 6 (pages 46423. 46424) telch is latended to contral the The arsas discussed would be more appropriately addressed la as raden eelssless free sell to less than 20 pCl/ets is said to

• apply mac assulatory Guide rather tsaa in the regulations, to any pertles of a licensed and/or disposal site unless such partlen 198 costalas a concentratten of radlue le laad, averaged ever areas of 100 We doubt that better supporttag eastreamental tapect analyses for square metHs. Wch does not esceed N background heel by mere tee SWO4-comparette rules can be produced. The document prepared than:

(1) 5 plcocerles per gram (pCl/el of redlue-226. er ja tht_itit my toe tra (tra saast-43-oost se as soud as any, atace some of eLiter12s_tyeredviL_esitthh fdism:22g. averaged over the first is the requirements, sucft as synthette pond liners as a primary centimeters (ce) belou the surf ace, and (ll) 15 pCl/g of radlem-226. tf. st and ard, are unsupportable. thter as requested la the Amte, h.lht. Hit _tf thM12E_t19f tskiL9fitfjaL_ gag]ge 228 averaged ever 15 ue are met caseenstag on *the taste value, vattdtty lawfulness, ce Wct layus e paa H ce beW the sedace* er appropriateness

• of 40 CF3 192.4 1808 Ne taput La offered on this questloa. ff this.criterla is latended to llett the raden eelssten facde sells, it cannet regelte the same concentratles llelt for 8a.228 as for 84 226 for the felloulas reassas:

if you have any gue sttens regarding the se comment s, pt' ease contac t us. tour ruly,

1. Saden.222 is celtted free Aa.226 ulth a half Ilfe of 3.02) days tAlle Sadea.220 comes free 84 228 (af ter 2 latermediate beta decays) talth a half.Ilid of 55.3 seconds.

g/ paiY. s 4

                                                                                                            - 2.      Sadea must diffese through the sell to reach the steesphere.

3evie K. Lacker. Celef Sureau of Radiatten Centret The elf fellen rate of both Stelopes are essentially equal.

ss g .e

                                                                                                        's     3. Ibe numbers of atoms of Saden per pCl is greatly dif ferent.

• sr. Donald a. hashauser et Jf fice af State Programs

                                                                                               }

N

. ( r U, Si 8

r S

                                                                                                                                                                    % . m yc.                    . S i n .g es aw =.e e oasno. . .m-e, r              -_--.e=

s e esu u,esi .eme= seneta . eeamcos. aseease tse. s=.sw. ass.e.rsev use e.e.s amas . emms J esa.

• e stesse s

                                                                                          .y.

• e

O

                                                                                                                                                                                          " ""*"PR-4o8 .. -' .
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      / -=
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         '""PR do @                             =

neuer to u 5. meC Jda"*'y II. lea 5

                                                                                                                                                                 .....,,,u...
                                                                                                                                                                      "+                 g9f2 464/B)                                                    f49F2 4642S.)                                    s      .

Page I.se - L 3 . .; O 4# ' g'A. TN" D IPARIMINT Of 50 Clad AND it! Atill SIRvlC15

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           ... ,.,es   ,,. ,~

M 22 P2 29 for so-226 a mA a - A6 . etr2 i la Jaavary 10. 1985

                                                                                                              .                                                                                                                                                                        *. Q't..    -
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               . d M. ..

m = y p

• y , % ,s 3.823 e s 24 ga3600g .

u . II.634.3 atoms aa-222/pC) for an-220 h e ] $4C a 55.1 set a . 2.55 stems Ra-220/pC) 08 Donale A. Mussbaumer

                                                                             - I pCl of an.222 has 5.913 times as osay atees as I pCl of
                                                                                                                                                                                     #'((*""  , , ,                   ,,,,

' ptfice of state Presrass atemsla as susenarlse. I pCl of Ra-220. I pCl of Sa-222 costales nearly 5.000 times as many . U.S. heclear H gulat m M u ten the same dlifesten rate as the to-220. It has near1As it dif fuses f rom the sell at essentially Washlagtaa. 0.C. 20555 long to get out before decaytag. 3 6.000 times as TCT - Dear Tr. "Nussbaumer Ihus one weld tapect atmospheric concentratlea of these reden isotopes ever sell having equal concentratleas of as-228 and An-226. to I ar. transmitting a copy of the cessaents made by Mr. Joe 5 tear. Ursalum Elli differ by a facter of ever a allilen, Program Hamager concernf ag the proposed rule to amead mac regelsteens to car.f ore te (PA 40 CFR 192 standards and the advanced metice of proposed v le helth these f acts la stad. how could the same standard be used for taalas dealsag ut ta grounc=ater protec tlen previlleas. fee connents repre-Reden.222 and madea.2201 ser.. Lee de2artment's pos6 tlea la regards to tae specific changes proposed. too reevest theCriteria het to remove Stacerely, Radtum-224 f ree L. We the referente to Saden-220 and aise request (PA to.receasider the therlos standard and revise it accordlagly. - 5lacerely, Mancy P. firmer. Supervisor bes te ranssement unit [-- , hp, "#EIS

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       ,%llon Centreg $,cge, Slaine n. Mmeerd. Certilled Health Physlcist Sereau of Radiatlea Centre)                                              Cc: JaCh Normer. Reglen V                             attiten Awdustrias Cong,g                                        -

8.ws*C 6 (F l] thM:cw 0..*e.a v.4 va5o4 cca Jack Russel. (PA. Washlagtes

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   's         s W.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      rNHfpd &*
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           . -* .Q f

23-

g *

                                                                                                             .                                                 s

• c
• i a -

r la er C l s u sr

                                                                                                                                              ,                e r                    lev                                                       t e                           I        le
        .                                                 e         le            a                         g                             t                          ss a                            it s a et        gf
         .                                               h           i            e                   Ces                   e             l o                  a    r. e             e            e                                                   w nc ae a

t. rgn

• t t f 0 t ri yr a . eeesd t la f r a v0 u s e

s e e1 lue gei nacl d t a t 9 s s l dce otl h a h e s od eu n

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       - pedi I o        tl wv*

llaaet t nsnot P t u g rh $ l nio a a c a. d t t eci d st ar n4 e6 i r1 tyne;r s ser et t e. r o e a c u nr ag t i s t b e a c es s s oe et rf e cn e a ec , p t s r ee lnct on eh 4 o Af c y t s t su. sc o s s teuT rh e*"

                                                       *               .          pr                             nre                      rd                        oses                          a              s r

e

                                                                    )            od                  lpaooc                               t n                 ecpn e                              m              a                  .

a A dGnt e uar a;C r e l rd pa t ct n u d aI p o m el iml h a ei ae d o y c na t t wA rl i nr luanrf t a l : taGbu s. 6 t r e s fweosc" t s I

• 4 f) Ftl a o c l : oo s g o d I ol omE l t s li u o d e l t r sse c a latP n ei i o r rp os s c a8 r

o g a c ea ef o

laoc or t e .

e mo b d a fl e ldset .sdoi a r y O ea 3 w et

                                                              . p,or. it ms eo rmee aord e ceah soo e

pr t urc opayr a ic a z o s re .' 4t naeclauI o0 r 8 s.** s hi t er at s t n t cra nor h Jl t c a n it at ss ldo gnt aeM*"# n 1are ei seel At ar e t s te, Isnt on r a 5 c a s a eh u osl

      .                                                t ei        1 l

c v no I dao smo rrs eei s t yet e e p 7 1 e c ee h sr saees' ht f ed h a ar seel , f na na u cl e v leo r t c v p t sr gs e vl roa d emt at u r l nt i F r t se G nN cm 12i h p d an o naaet er mh a rn e ae4 t eaee imgsp , t r h t e l a it e c ne - oS 4 t rpase' omi r ce 8 2h

                                                         ,e hr
                                                                     ,a        ei .

h tC epl eu h t letl h t ueu ssnl es t A r e r r iat oL t 8 a pgnbcI ar A 2 t pg t ct ira r yti t a ns ch i J t o no sE

    .                                                 4            ao                ea             ual                  t              aon                  oal ntl                           W               s                 c          n . *'

r bii e 6 a 4 tt r p g y at nt ooe rh qplf s e rei aon o ot c ss te c yt st t est ei oe e c n o a t e o" art act tm e' ct r ' a8 eu r spt bcsc t sg usatl e n f lat t 88 n et,e8 s g ae ps n a a p ec t t nry ee6 e l d bl sl u a ueso pas ea oer nl t e oae d nt G r ooet e al g a f : a - o l '

                                                                                                                                                                                                                     '         s f -

oe4 g4 tca e wt s-e e t e re mt r a r o ,t d ldph mt aspt uo sa oe y* t n s n ee' r e es tnr r o.de cdi ah pseea cr ue os o a eai hr l sbc

                                                                                                                                                                                    .e s u al d         t

• li*
• e m

l e5 lac 8 8 egh st mat e r, l

    .                  s                                .o       E o                nf                                                                                                                                                                                              t!

m gdr h et t el n ec e ti f et h i v r s; Dn 4 s 5 o

                                                                    .c        yui Motr n esa t nu o gd
                                                                                                                     ,P a

8 s Fl e

                                                                                                                                                ,s f nnrt o oae cseef n

ra al icF aI r iu ef

• di1 c8 sst as cnb t ol a #

tU

   .                   e                                   e                        ge p

u5 t e nk ea s e* t

hid Ai ne Wt ass

• tj n l c t ser eb uo t icn fio eS hI q

e ee* r p8 t e t n , nW S4 w r t m r I I t Sl al st ut  %' rf e a r i = pdit l I t a it t L R T s" af iss so e 9 1 o a r ee ire e1 t i s wa uyce1 egrsr

• pde bnf t t J se eaaoar cs ee es' I r c t c ;1 r e b eoie
• uae h r. h h tp pu .

e e M *a a e . n0 l i n re lef 6 asr pl a I rtdp* Sl r T t t sca Sq a b. c. .m.ua&U s r8 a ct c' a

                     $

• m n ees t y" o ne ao l df . . . . .

ya' r tt I s lt t t ht i 1 2 3 4 S c u' i - - t cc nn' d bie aa' e mnp hJ' A i"s 1 2

                          .                                                                                                                                                                                               r
                                                                                                                         ,f                                           s                                                   e                            t                          f e           p                             n               0          o          t ro0                                t          n         s                             v                                         a        f E e        4 le.                   s          o         a                         .i              s          a                 t          o                a          c.

ml j e r aye uasug rg irei rt g6 let c se t o eotl a f aaog r d r ba os 'A b e pdcli r sppd g g cnt af u n imnntl eeg esi v cf c u aeat v t y ss( ui es g h nf so t ie o o r st eiC io6 t r t c r s - bdooo t p{ t ap cf ip g iseur srt a e f at ce ao s t cosh s lde h srt ot llaap1 e r pe 0 c a t snh t t -* O i at npe n o t suf egoi5 r6 sn c 2 b ieot n r cuI erece st a C l 0 a o gi f g Dnt or se srsqa u- aa r n a es vt leoe ct v A D mnl e i a g e rnsrm t ea =u .h on f et h d , t ees et a c R N orucr dot esst l sr b as

e. y I t ti) e:

vS asc t A regi e 5 I f v et t di asap sAc e s aaess e tll oc ue! rre l r cah S oret so(I aeye 1 H 2 ng e C mu eic ra n f mb0 l l lou sq i ae h ef ect hbt rod n t as ar 9 t sA e $, rl o . e 1 A 1 gnN cn ne oa l toa0on2t nr se

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  = st at o ac          ,sf t                                                          a r

lao h i av r gae 2csna 9 oo3 t o ast n i e ih shA t d yct i - g t 1dpib r aso t r s rC ycs n l

                                          -                                                    t                      s aldg                                   eot$                                    eead                       f u                 enaR gne e e

- mD* l o al t a W gl usnAd t , at ra( icpr pree o les lo gi d3 reet na n eir a L t Ce oE el r at aenctl - .NA

                                .        r w       0
                                                    .                                         0 1

oea at r t rs

                                                                                                                                      ,h d a       0firA f spC 4 ah o gdtf iniao v nc u

o h at n( s Sf cl si a

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            )

w 1 rt art n ld t sff r uA - e y r r 5 E enrel a t eet ut f e oh T cl

                                                                                                                                                                      .l aaoo:s r ods ur ne dpas a

rt seso .yoysa ee t ol eoe t _ I n O t rf t S T a c uC , a u o s T I er nes l uoll2 I Adpt ns sose laj e h t sct r nl t sv e enA oa cp u5 0- s n et rl t s

                                         '        a it vi                 s       A t
                                                                                                                       ,cc          ee1 s9             d nsi
                                                                                                                                                               .aal s Ot 00aser
                                                                                                                                                                                                   ,s            ae
                                                                                                                                                                                                                              .d uc u

t e i g e al e ut tA h cr _ i J rn a u 4 somd aede n 94 ea y dis oaa tlaa

                              . f                               eU           rr           G                     8t t a                      R             gnc ee                        14l e                       ens                          b t nn                      g          e p            eg

_ O . ut S n go ar E R 9i 1 l aei shF cC Dnent m sh apes e r ar A2r a0 ucre er0raet s e m asrorear eior t

                                                                     ,c ei np a

C 8

                                                                                                                      .d  nihh0 0 ert w4 t c4 rhi r                u          u FF CC al oa3l 0.o s r           os tt t t r ael cf : r*

n eae ea _ re Ml s s cecoea h 1 me ad0cdq a _ N eg aa ,l i G r at add pe4 nie 00ds 44 aor crf a e e t rs

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       ,t M                              rn ia rp m

s n eom bt al ee ss so b s uoA co spF ol r oo rpotsf s tetsra oeir ne er crfp nrt e T oa i S e t t omi gi

a. ca s R

t M t v M k m escdio t ,sp oCA p eu d eealai dl p o eit me lacdptacl ea e serl ol A ye 5l 0 ce ur r 1.r p0( nl s ' s - P ct ns es a f u esdaop D ood s t e 1 g t c a r rt ert rlis eeast i a ias nirtf onmut - ns - X a e mW or JU o C sopaan pr nl e r ael s aacs o h dd h lal oiqe n aasccl ss o h cCt n e a o s *l. eatf a - I C r yt t p h trrd R pbSs m if tcif e eu l81) l l eA i oa oy t ssrl a h;t* r es. - I C m2 et u5 g o le f nq t e i234 i e yeev: l t ss C t oieec t111 t t h v ar aast M: E h ht1 s sas n s ttars t es lat ot fol !. l r D J S t eaEk e t brnt r n e rperi5 r aa t 0 1 A F U 5 ah rI al lt uC ss uaooao Spcndc yoph et e: s rf at p=r* r s. s+ _ s. i .

                   .^

rt a

                                .            ~

I d .

                                                                                                                                                        .JoraH E0hWS Nancy tiraer. 5 aervisor                                                                                                                                         .gj January 10. 1985                                                                                  *]                               '
                                                                                                                                                         "                                              TONEY aNaVA covaaNon Page three                                        .

t

                                                                                          <     =E m

d' [' N 8WIgf (( .gf g /g) i oeirsSE D FOH,

                                                                                              """ A     .I         b                               STATE OF NEW MEFICO                                   o.necica

5. ~. b

                                                                                                       - [-

• The hAC should continue to establish requiresents for post-closure 34 eg ENVIRON A4fNIAL IA4PROVEMENI DIVI $10N care la a manner that will alalaise rellence on active maintenance. Mt.'.

                                                                                                                     * . -lim               ,,,,,..s,.

7. ,m. m me The use of a leak detectlen system under a slagte liner impoundment ..

should De lef t to the discretton of the le3C and agreement states af ter review of site specific data ladicate this is a possible ' op tion. FeSruar's *. !!?! 4. Spectisc guidance on all items mentioned entsts la the regulatory li tera ture. The hBC's regula tloas should coattaue to allow f or w r. 54wel Chilk Sec etary site specllic requirements to tee laplemented by license condittoa s by the hAC and a*greechrat states. b.5. *;uc lear Seculatory Conwiss*::n VasPinaton. 0.C. 20555

9. No cesument.

10 AIIE*'Y ;0st: Dochet tag and Service Seanch Fleanbtlity cited la the proposed addettom should be sufflctent. fle ar "r . Secretary; as.g, a n henalf of the State of 'le. r es oco. we sutwait for consMerat *on our coas=ents 10 (F8 8 arton 40the orocosed

                                                                                                                                 -eoulat'oas       asenteents perta8aine        to thea-solum to active   luclear **nulatorv mill taila nosComunession's sites.

These coasrents also address the amoroach W 's tan teo ts s**oot confo-='as (19 It? fleetreculaticas rules a to the favironmental Protect'ce aaeacv's 'rer' an ssued na testenbee )n. 'aH. 8 e oSe ule,naeseaeral ort ceestao v th spec taeg goes.*ats en te e contents of the ornonted comument is e n S-ter as to the Conseessio 's fec o sto== to sollt its rulemanino activ8t tes latn two staaes: the f6rst "a'no s%e suhlect 9ule. and polemah taa ( ANPR S the second be'ae an Advance 4 '30t ece af P-ttose4 we understand that toitaddress 6 around wate acotection eco streerMs. V

• 1e matino process hv uttlia'ne 3 thethis Cannession's oroce4ure. lat*at 'o soeed wo the rule-

                                                                                                                                                                    'a near view (Se 1rac er.6er e chosen by NAC only further oostoones the ulttaate 2-r=ulmet t >e hv *sSr of defla'tive fece al standards. Such stari'ars's misst be la niece ref ore a licensee's r*clamat ton plan can be croner ir eval sates and scoroved, this rfurther delar on the cart of the 58C places an aere-ment State. such as New esico in a serv d6f ficult oos*t ton when confronted las -e are cresentiv.
                                                                                                          'Ay one 1ew Mestco licenseel =ith a reclamation olen by a licensee .no ass s to what standards the plan is re2utred to conform, the State

tarch 8 of Ise. Mee tto =til s > bast seoarate c3a ent s an the aNP8 by tre deadllee for Cominents. Our detailed comment s on the dealtno =6th amendment s to the (opsee ssion's ee %t ino "Octoberoeuoosed 1. **f0*

                                                                                                                                                                                                   %ule.

reoulettons #Aoocndla 4 to I'l (f 4 84rt 300 are as folla-U ft% let-ndu.t'on it': r~ In this caraerso . tre T'* g prooster euhit f *c at tra s MIows thaPIIceasees or soolicants ese o*ooose alte ast aves to the soeco86c recuirer**nts 6a t*t8s Aootn* s. -*- miedsed by card....me=a FEB119t% 1-- e m :.-c.n,.r-ee.::-e=

                                                                                            -2b

      *ar**t'ac gad $ ** v C e erante                                                                        9aC*pt'aq                        h
      * * , ..,v     2, 'ses                                                                                 r**,u ,,, r,tee..a?.gev'Ce **4et s ,a *

• 2,,* 3 ffe P e**e-eea *

                                                                                                                                   . Ped t*, *9* en gave *eatev 6s

• sete ***;**;*****se.

                                                                                                                   *. . . fu- ta9 operg!"Ses and dae . . * 'a 'a**** *1 **4
             'ai *k*s Cheare does eat 3rby * ?e e ( *** f e *=* fee C ame l

• 3*C P . *ndCa'ine 'a' wh *C% C%e***s the lamautoa 8;* seleet'** f****-*t

             '5'     !!s
                          *3pi' Cit *38 t1 e9 8st 'n1 *9e t *Ceasees #1* * *C e

• v ! scorevel fi' 39ter9t**e* tatI*ees disiasal s'tes' 'u-*1w. Sc( does eat **g* *1 3* :;se; alt ernst *ves *s Contr ac'C te1 'a the a*3e. '%e d
• st la te t
• 430 f tCa*
• I' t v af t*e s t i!ef e* **'t we ** t*e r** - * *f

                    *'934 sed *. les 8ad ag ,t*        te st on ly  **nFtss    d$srevet *S **nu'**d.

aC*'ve *Se'at*ons d owevee *%e 1:se #se ce *pe, go,,,n,, pa,'ng

                      *                                                      *eAa* er..C ates t*at            '3* #'"**'** '

• Ie PCr!*v6me (* *!ee'ra 4 in "e *:ecat able w* t h tre
• 1Eh $ome's t *pn acC Ihe III Ad*ladstra!D** % ConCurreate are r*1u'ref. Jh et h s the Boo *9aelate c*aantgat%on to Contact. art re1*s* *emarts of the $clid Waste $4523 sal aCt *1WOA' woulf *t act %e eg {G2 :opg3rsenCe **Su '**d ? advisable to state *soressly **st tre stande*e og *no deeradat*on af grsJrd = ate
• Sustity". *4the* 'hea f eaulne te 85 CruCt4I *atte" to

            'Cl Zaoli(at!C* Ti th* 2roersef *ule to pelsten9 It(ensees sa seC.                                     seatest refe erCes en the 'et odsCt *an to *a0 !F* oe * **? ss? s-'s

• 7071 *** ao s eemeat $ t sten is not made C l*ar.

aat i* asd/or e n e he ** tate ***t of *e asoas* .*'Ch aCt ann eae * .! a

• Arouabl e this *s act se*t of the Crite**on et sel8
• aC+'essec *a !G (fe seC. *50.31868 =%ICh *esuores that Aaree***t States % ave <eoulat *oas =h8Ch are esu8 valent to the estent 844 frate Ipa f
• o'sCti Cable, or mo-e st ineent than Comelssion eenslations am sell tatitans. Momever. 6t e61nt he adessable to % ave'en

                   *acol'Ca%e         tit v* note                                                                  8al la t%e f e e st sent**C* =ar** (* * * ** *on 6. **e ta'* "d' sons *e ar***

Anotades a egeulat tees.or Cr- ss referesCe to seC. 150.le8>* en the needs to he eeten *c. 'he ?2c ta assue ne ets asl staade-dt sa

                                   .                                                                                     the Federal P*e's*e* 't'al 48 *p. **4. a. atets*. (e8'ame thes tame sad 't soceers the 4** eeed, to da th* s ame *c- C l ar * * *C a t * *e
            'dt laspecif6C the ut el6 sat 6en of s6t'.soeC 6f tC *ercoosed alte' natives" to tre                            o**ooSes.
                                  *esulatore standa-es set forth in Accenols a **qulations the tef allows *tsel' an ?4eentstrative

• flee shellty* .hsCh cresupooset a situation whe<e the c ihn it 's recomenadec that featsote * *ne Cr etereo C of anage . A s e ommes sten . ell be evaluattne the *4*1uaC v cf alta-aat 8ves orooosed Sv ets ewa 46C e gees, deleted. A monttorina st'oulat *en for ese3n aftee installa* fon of relative to the Ano*nden A s t a+dards. Haw tees process sti aooly the Cover would he epee Cessistent m6th the
• post-C acsure Ca-**

to a e<eemeat State 18Ceasees es uncles . StaCe %ar gen, rally requirements of the 5'acA f or e-aund water, f681d naa8toreae reta'as author *ty to deC*de =nethe- loreceegt State eaverenaeatal should he reeutred after statellration to ve ef ,that the ces a= st andards e Comoat eble **th **deral sta9Ja ds. does th

• s *ent, Criterta reoutre=ents f ar adon *-gest eon
• ave *eea at taine1.

that %Rr .6 31 glsa r,ta s, Conc.,*eaCe botharity is c*C ide .hether a ose t iC.13- gate *siect'8C "o*rnated alte'ast'we* Suff'C*eett , lf we Can be of fu rther assistance. Cr s>>ulf you *eoutre Clar'f' Cat tua on 6ay of these Comments olesse feel *ree to ContaCl me ce 'r. Ke9 Pa cos of Cimol tes alth esa **um f eie*al st anda'es in Ae***ae9t S tates' With my staff at f505* 984 0020 est 27.*. respeC t IC IOCe9 sees Of an**e9ent 'tates rh eC%

• ave *ever hee
• a an-ove4 hv *PC 2% seC. 2071'on Agree-ent States, anat autho**tv sincerelv.

                  = ell t%* i40 orevere ta the Ae'ecapat 5 tate 'a eval,at'=q sita-scerifiC *sconose t alternat ives" g fj            ,a7**'

8e* *be prooosee 'ule does act Cles-Iv OIACe tFe burdee ucon the Eea0se fort 14Censee to oreve the adequaC s of the *ernoosed alte**at ive* to Director sat tsf y the reputreveats seeC 4fied se the Accendte A *e1ulat oons, 90941 lavironmental lmorovestat *1vesica b+srdenitofact provbeengadustable to provsde that the licensee has the the suf fiClenty of a procesed altercet tve by Of/fR1/Cve . *C lear sad C oa, e ng ine ey edegCe " e t C

• e

                                                                                                                                   ~
                                                                                                               *mf a0nate 8 ;-rrk

q hQ[Mggg~m 8ua PR-M g .

l E N V I R O N bl E N T A L DEFEN5E pranciple, the Commission shou!J retaan ats standard for cauon FUND exhalatton 8 2 pC1/m2 /s ec s. p[I M r ., Congress's implicat ratafacation of the Commaasson's 1980 !acensang requarements for urana:am ma lls rebruary e, 1985 provades further support for retentson of that standard. Secretary of the Commission

• Second. EDF's initial comments poanted out 12.5. Nucaear Regulatory Commission that field tests E shangton, D.C. 20555
• in Grand Junction, Colorado, have demonstrated that several cover Attns Docketang and Servace Branch desagne are capable of attenuating redon exhalation to 2 pCi/m 2 /

Res Proposed Rules to conform Uranium Hill sec. Taalangs Regulations to Standards These supplemenrJ! comments provide f urther evidence that Adopted by the Envaronmental Protection it is feasible to desagn and const'ruct covers that wall, t,a t h Agency (49 red. Reg. 464389 reasonable assurance, reduce radon exhalation to 2 pCa. Dear Sar or Madama On November 26, 1984, the Nuclear Regulatory Commisalon adopts, it should specify specific criteria that must be incorp-requested pub!!c comment on proposed rules to conform certain of orated in any cover design. For esemple, cover designs should its uranium mill tallings regulations to the standards adopted by #88 engineering assumpti ns that reflect natural conditions of the Environmental Protection Agency. 4 9 red. Reg. 46418 (Nov. e il e ist to c ntent rather than artificial moisture condations 26, 19446. The Environmental Def ense Fund submitted comments on * **#" E* " * **# * "I "**"* January 9, 1985, but also requested an entension of time for I. public comment in light of the importance of this issue. Sub-sequently the Commissaan decaded to entend the perjod for public The Commission's duty to protect human health anJ saf ety comment t February 10. f rom radiological a'nd nonradiological hazards assocasted wa th The Environmental Def ense rund's (EDFB supplemental comments uranium mitt tailings is founded upon section 44 of the Atomic on the Commissaan's proposed conforming regulations are set out Energy Act of 1954, 42 U.S.C. sect ion 2114. Section 8 4 t alt 21 below. These comments address three principal issues. requt res the Commission to manage uranium mill tailings in a Firste where necessary to psc tact human health and safety, the Commission manner that conforms to EPA's regulations. M addstion, sectaon 84tailli mandates that the Commission promulgate regulataons that has a duty to promulgate regulations more stringent than EPA's standards. In keepang wath that statutory mandate, and the AI.ABA are necessary to protect human health, safety, and the envaronment. Thus, while EPA's standards establish minimum, generally applicable m hdged by conf..me= limatstions for radon emanation f rom uranium mill taalangs, the s ees 4,,,. a m we, c .a. soma o.m ts ev ww , a vv ea.- .a e=% a.m masen,.cron oc assutstav cr sacuuowuTesom ..e esos vr m mamea co

                                                                      /I /Nd                         .

2,7=

9 Commassaan has an andependent duty to assess health raeks assoc. potential routine releases from the nuclear fuel cycle.' 45 FeJ. sated wath those standards and to ampose more restractive requare- Reg. 65523 c.1. The commission also found that esposure to monts af necessary to protect human health. sadon-222 and its short-lived decay products represents the single The Commassaon's own analysis of the Atomac Energy Act, as greatest contributor to risk to human health f rom urautua milling amended t,y the crannum sent! Taalings andlatson Control Act. and mill tailings. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1 Final - reanfoscas that concluanon. At the time the Commassion assued Ceneric Environmenta l imonet Statement oJ Uranium Hilling at 4 ats regulatsons to specaf y lacensing requirements for uranaum (Sept. 19801 thereinaf ter cited as *FGE15*l. ma!!ang actavattes (45 Fed. Seg. 65521-65514 (Oct. 1, 1980ll, EPA The scientific evidence that has become available since had not yet issued the genera!!y applicable standards required by issuance of the FCEIS reinforces the importance of taking all the Hill Tailings Act. 4 2 U.S.C. section 20 22(bl. As a result, feasible measures to reduce redon emissions f rom uranium mills ' eome commenters argued that the Commassion lacked the authority and from mill tailings piles. For emasple IPA concluded that to assue its regulataons until EPA had acted. However, the the major health hazard from te!!!ngs arises from alpha radiation commaannon s e lected that contenttons f rom inhaled radon decay products, citing a 1900 repost of a the Commassaon not only has the authority but also the subcommittee of the Nations! Academy of Sciences. 4 8 Fed. Beg. immediate duty to ansure that the management of uranium mill taalings is cars ted out in a manner that will protect the 45926, 4598 c.2 (Oct. 7, 1983), citing, The Effects on g palations publac bestth and safety and the envisonment.

• o J Exposure to, hw Eevels of Iontring Radiatione HQ (cc mmittee 45 Fed. Beg. 45523 c.2.

When its segulations were challenged in the Tenth Circuit on the Biological Effects of Iontaing Radiation. National Desearch Coas t of Ag: peals. the Commission renewed its argument that *lts prepared for the Environmental Defense rund, Dr. Julie over baugh authority to deal with the problems of uranium mill tailings is reviewed several more recently published epidemiological studies of greater than merely implementing and enforcing EPA regulations." underground miners esposed to elevated concen6 rations of redon, M McGee Nuclear Cy pg v. Nuclear M ulatory Commassion, 673 and found that the risk estimate given in BEIR III rapresents an F.2J 1124 410th Cir. 1982) lawaiting rehearing en bancl.

                                                                             '""          Utlimate-appropriate average.       J. Overbaugh. Discussion of the 1ung cancer ny the Tenth Carcuat uphelJ the Commassion's regulations, includ-M Pesulting From pedon Exposure to the ,Ceneral Popul st ion at 6 ing the sequarement that taalings covers be desagned to reduce (Sept. 1984) (attached as tahlbig 5-II.                  Wowever, Dr. Overbaugh saJon flus to 2 pCn/m 3/sec.                                                                                                  I also reviewed a study by Drs. Radford and RenatJ, who calculated When the Comma sa non assued it s regulat sons, it found that that lifetime follow-up of the cdhort within thef t study would
                       *radacactue releases f rom enasting malls const atute the largest
                                                                                                          ' result in a lif etime risk estimate of one excess case per 1.000 3

4

                                                                                                      -2 9-

e pe r WLM. Id. a t 7.

• In light of the compelling evidence of a positive correla- 18 9 8 2 l U.S. Code. Cong. & Ad. New s 3 61). As as empla nned more tion between exposIra to radon and an increased risk of carcino- fully in the reply braet filed by Envaronmental Defense rund. et

                                                                                                                                                                                   ~

a,1., in Envaronmental Defense Fund -v.Buckelshaus. No. 44-1352 genesis, tne Commission should esercise its authority under section Se of the Atomic Energy Act to retain a radon flum standard for mill tallings piles of 2 pCi/m2 /sec. That standard was clearly nuhtbat S-26, Conquess intended so permit the Commission and EPA supported by the adminastrative record that esisted in luce. The C n8td*c econ mic costs, but only if more strangent standards scientific evidence that has accumulated since then provides would not achieve further reductions in sagnaticant radiation additional and persuasive evidence for retaining a 2 pC1 standard in order to protect huoan health.I/ And perhaps most important for is especaally revealing to examine what Congress thought purposes of this psoceeding, Congress imp!!citly ratified the EI"* that Commission's standard when it enacted section 22 o* the Nuclear the commattee debates occured in August 1982 and the conf er-segulatosy Commisssion Authorization Act of 1982 an.1 1933, Pub. 1.* No* 97-415, g 6 S t a t. 2 0 6 7, 10 0 0 119 8 31. finst tailings disposal standards setting a redon flux standard of 2 pC1/m 2/sec. In proceedings before the Tenth Circuit Court Section 22 of that Act amended section 8 4 of the Atomic Energy Act to authoriae both this Commission and EPA to consider f Appeals, the NRC strongly defended that standasd and argued socnomic costs and other f actors in setting standards and promul- " gating regulations for management of uranium mill tallings. How- " " " ever, that amendment did not amend or modif y the central policy of tho '~ Hill Tallings Act to.* minimize oc eMainate ra&W to the Tenth Circuit's decision sustatning the Commassion's regu-health hazards to the public.* On the contrary, the conferees lations. Similarly, EPA initially had proposed a 2 pCA redon made it clear that they had no intent *to divert EPA and HRC f rom " their principal focus on protecting the public health and *" ' "*

                                                                                                          " " ' ' " ' ' " * * ' " " '*" '*"*    """'"*d-      " r a ass 2s62
   * * ' .*_'?:_'_ _ _"i ? ' "' " ' ": _" * " '""' " '  ' * " ' ' " '" ' " ' ' ' h IJ8"- 9* 19 81 L

1. The Com:sission's of ten-statej position--that protection of the public's saf ety and health is its primary mandate--also militates for retention of the 2 pC1 standard. General Electric These legislative materaals show that Congress envisaoned

• Co. . LBP-83-19. 17 NBC 573. 577 Q 98313 union Electric Q . LDP-IE31, 8 HNC 366, 372 119701. regulatory schese that ancluded a radon flus standard of 2 pcg, And in retaf ying the decisionmaking crateria that the Comma as son 5

6

                                                                                                    -2 9-

                                               .   .. . . . .          .       .. ._     .m.   ..

had used an selecting that standard, Congress amplien tly af firmed First, Mr. Sealy notes that tre response of natural soal and supported the Comma ssaon's deca s son. In light of both that mater nals to long-term changes in the natural environment support an the law, and the compelling evadence of health tasks cannot ne predicted with precaston. However, at as possable to associated wath redon exposures, the Comm6 s sion should reta an the 2 measure the range of response of natural soils to changes an the 2 pC&/m /sec redon flus standard in Appendis A to 10 C.F.R. Part natural envaronment. The estremes of ruch response ranges can be 40. ascertaaned with a high degree of confidence. These measuremensa then enable the desagn of taalings cover using the entreme values Several factoss ws!! affect cover performance over taas. ' " ' * * "* However, soa l maasture content plays a domanant role, while grain

• s a ae distr abut ton, porosity, and other parameter s play a As noted above, soit maasture content is the cratacas factor secondary role an affectang radon diffusion coefficients. V.
• Dogers & E. N&olson, UMTRAF Research on Cover Desm M Uranium M Tailanos 248-49 119448 lappended as Exhibit S-)l. One of H
• the prancapal reasons EPA selected a 20 pC1 radon flum standard
• over a more strangent standard was the agency's concern that uncertaanties an measurang and predacting these parameters make "
• conformance with more stringent desagn st'andards impractacable. '

40 red. seg. 45911 c.!: Environmental Protectaan Ages.cy, 1 Final 124." FGEIS at 9-41. See also v. Rogers et Env a roriment a l Impact Statement for Standards for the control al - ~ ~ ~~,A al. Hand-Dy-Product Maternals from Uranium Ore Processing .8-!! (Sept. book ~for

                                                                                                    ~ ~ the
                                                                                                        ~   Determination of Radon Attenuation Through Coverr
                                                                                                                                  ~

19811theretnaf ter cated as Active Mill Site @. However, the attached report by Curtis 0. Sealy, Professional Engineer, demon-strates that a cover can be designed and anstalled on a t.natings

• pale that wall, with a high degree of certaanty, achieve a radon emanataan rate of 2 pC1/m 2/sec. (Thas report, appended as Exhabit
• S-4, as an affaJavat Mr. Sealy prepared for anclusaon wath eor's reply braet an Environmental Defense rund v. Ruckelshaus, je m.

cluded, using an eight percent value as a design factor ancreases 7 d

                                                                                     -30" 9
                                                                                                                    .as,                                          ----

O the thackness of the cover, and therefore 4ts effectiveness, * *" * " "" "** I"** #"" aoove the manamum needed to maantain a redon flus at 2 pCaim 2 ,,e 7 W WWmcal caen neem to men a 2 W standad. Based for the long-term. In other words, the eight percent value is at * * " the entreme end of the range of ambaent monsture content for the manner used in the Grand Junction field tests (1.2 metere natural clay soalsa a system designed using that entreme value

• wou!J provade a h4gh degree of certaanty that it will reduce
• the mancos radon emanataan to 2 pC1/m 2js c, layer would be isolated f rom the zone of evaporetton In addition, hagher moisture levels can be maintained in and would retain a higher than ambient moisture content over the soil materaals that are isolated f rom the zone where soils are subject to climatac influence. Sealy Affidavit at 5 FGEIS at 9-41. * * "# * * "" "**#**** ""**

nr. Sealy's prof essional judgment is that the effect of surface "*" * **" evaporation is not significant at a depth of greater than seven ' " " * ""*"

• feats soil materaals below that 11 mat w!!! be dewatered only by *
• gravity drasnage, and can be expected to retain much higher "

motsture contents than eight percent. Thus, a cover of more than

• seven feet in depth will be significantly more ef fective in of a depth suf ficient to isolate a clay cap f rom the sone of reducing radon enhalation than was estimated by EPA. climatic influence will provide f urther asurance that the cover Finally, a recently pubitehed report of comprehensive field *
• tests of tailings covers demonstrates that covere can be designed to achieve the 2 pCi standard. J. Ha r t ly, ej ja.,1981 padon designing covers that will reduce radon emanation to 2 pC1/m 2/sec. Based on this evadence, S t. is clear that it is Barrier {teld Test at Grand Junction Uranium Tallings Pile

                     !!981llappended as Eahibat S-S t.                 The most effective earthen                                                                    *          *                          "

existing standard. cover tested in that project was constructed of a bottom layer of a It is equally clear that the 2 pC1 standard

                   , mancos shale and a top layer of adobe clay.                    Sealy poport at 7.                            of f ers significant advantages for protection of human health and Mr. Sealy states that an har experience, mancos shales typically have a moisture content of twelve percent, which is comparable to                                                                                 III.

the motsture content reported in the Grand Junctaan field tests, pegardless of whether it adopts a 2 or 20 pC1/m 2 7 ,,c, ,g,,, 9 10

                                                                                                                             -SI-

                   . . . . . . .      ..          ..           .    .-. ~   . . . .
                                                                                                                                                                                            .e Jard, the Commassaon should ancorporate in Appendia A to 10 C.F.R.                            Place. EPA decaded that the licensing agency should emas c a se the Part to technscal desagn craterne that will assure that cover responsabs tity for determanang when disposal takes place. 43 desagne wall be effectave an attenuatang redon exhalation over                                 FeJ. Reg. 45943-944.

the long term. As a result, there currently are no stan-Those design crateria shou!J address the key dards for controlling emiassons of redon and other raJaonuclides variables that affect cover performance. f rom all! taalings piles either during the post-operaczonal phase Tarst, Mr. Sea ly, Dr. Roger s, and the Comma ssion have iden. or Juring periods when a mit! la inactive. This is a regulatory tained ambaent sea t motsture as the key parameter that affects gap the Commassion should fill, redon daffusion. In addition, both Mr. Sealy and the Commassion The prescription for new uranium mi!! taa!!ngs piles is have observed that there is no certainty that artificial measures relatavely stratghtforward. The objective is to reduce the sur-taken to increase son! moisture wall be ef fective over the long f ace area of the piles that is esposed to the environment at any term. Therefore, the Commission should require that !!censees one time. The simplest means of achieving that is to requtre design taalings covers that include cIdy soils with high water that construction of new taillngs piles use a phased, or staged retentlon characteristics (such as the mencos shale tested at disposal system. Staged dasposal would not only reduce radionuc-Grand Junctioni. At the same time, the Commission's design

                                                                                                                  !!de emissione during the oportional phase, but would also assure craterna should rejuire that design assumptsons reflect natural that only a small portion of a pile rema!ns to be covereJ at the conditions rather than maintenance of artificial conditions.                                 time when a mitt closes, either permanently or for a substant aal .

Second, both Mr. Sealy's report and the FGEIS document the period of time. importance of desagnang taalings covers of a depth sufficient to Progressive reclamation schemos segment large tailangs areas isolate cisy layers from the sone of evaporation. The Commis. Anto a number of smaller ce!!s, and involve sequentaal construc-sion's design cr a ter na should require that covers be desagned of tion, filling, and reclamation. Such

• disposal programs substan-suf ficient depth to asolate the clay layer f rom climatic conditions, tially reduce the surface area of exposed tailings. 1 Active iMr. Sea ly's repor t describes a sample method for estimatang the Mill Ete RS at 7 -5. As a result, staged disposal can reduce effective !!stt of evaporation below which soals ws!! be dewa.

the amount of tallings dust by seventy percent. & at 7-e. It tered only by gravity Jrainage.) also will reduce radon entastons by seventy percent, and staged disposal schemes that IV* maxim!se the amount of tailings covered by At the tame it issued standards for uranium mill tailings, water can achieve a nanety percent redactaon in radon emanation. EPA deslaneJ to adJt ess the questar,n of when disposal must take Moreover, staged disposal ws!! reduce radon omassaons dur ang the post-operational phase by seventy percent. Q at 7-12. Il 12

e In short, staged disposal substantially reduces radaological are impressive. Letter of April 12, 1984, f rom Glen Sloblom (U.S. EPAl to Magy R. r anks to both neasby andividuals and regional populations, FGERS Spain (Commonwealth of Virginaalf this document, denominated as Exhiba t S-7, is beang suLestted under at 12, whale suostantially avoading the need to more precasely define when disposal must take place. And the Commission alr eady separate covect. EPA calculated that durang the operational has found that wath careful plannang, staged disposal can be phase, this operation would result in the release into the atmos-accompl a shed w a t hout ancurring costs that are much, if any, phere of 400 curtes of radioactive maternal per year. By compas - larger than cases where tailsngs are disposed of in a single ison, a typacak conventional mill in the West releases 4400 impoundment, curtes of radioactive materials per year. The disparity during Work that has been dos.e recently in conjunction with proposals the post-operattonal phase is even more significant. EPA esta-to mane and mall uransum ore an Virginia points out that industry mated that post-closure radioactive emisstons f rom t he st a te-of - the-art a s capable and w allang to employ disposal and reclamation techniques disposal scheme would be approulmately 0.04 cur ses per year, that represent sagnaticant advances over more conventional opera- while a typical tailings pile in the West would generate tions. One r e pos t in particular describes a state-of-the-art

• 7000 curies per year until final reclamation occurs.

system for tailings disposal. C. Baker, The Swanson Uranium As this proposal illustrates, the industry as capable of Protect (Marline /Umetco, Pittsylvania, Virginia Hthis document, dramatically reducing emissions of radioactive materials land consequent denomanated as Exhaba t S-6, is being submitted under separate health riskal f rom uranium mill tallings pales. The coverl. Commission should require, as part of its technical criteria, that such techniques be used for construction of new rarat, the licensee would use a belt filterang system to taalings partially dewater the tailings. Second, the licensse would use a sop 41sticated form of staged disposal in which three of the The question of when reclamation should commence at eaastang impoundment's four berms would be permanent while the fourth berm tallings piles is more difficult. As a first principle, the would intermittently advance as ta11&ngs are deposited. As that Commission should reiterate that at all times emissions and bara advances, the tatlings wou!J be continuously and rapidly radiation esposuse must be reduced to as much below applicable covered. The study's author s estimate that no more than ten regulatory limits as is reasonably achievable. Second, the Com m - acres of taalings would be exposed to the envaronment at any one lasson should require that licensees take all available and tama. f easible steps to control and reduce emissions f rom urantum mall tailings pties. The technical criteria should require that EPA reviewed thas proposal, and that agency's conclusions during operatton, and during periods when the mill is not dis-13 I* < -%3-

saucati a:Hsegg

                                                                                                                                                                                                                    = ~0               fPR-vo chargang tailange to the pale,                                  the incensee either keep the tallings                                                                                 . (49 Fe nog 0 wet, or that the lacensee anstall an inter am cover to reduce both                                                      n               ,,

a MNOM EWCWEstema a t h wus h a.s Nn- s u.m > . . ;a* n a radon omssasons as well as tas!!ngs dust a ng, or t.eg a n f ina l seclamation. f' anally, control of raJsologscal emassions into the ate s-e phare is directly related to prevention of groundvater contamana-

                                                                                                                                                .                       Secretary ston, sance wetting of the tailings also wall maintain the hydro-                                                        "'*****

U.S. :luclear Regulatory Comraission logic head that wall drave seepage of contaminants f rom the

                                                                                                                                                ""                      till H 5treet, X.W.

Washington. 0.C. 20555 impoundment. Therefore, the Commission's technical criterna E.'~~ L*""*. Ae: Docket No. P8 40 E shou 1J require that af a compliance monitoring program indicates

Dear Str:

that ground water contaminatlon is occuring, the licensee must *****""'"* a

                                                                                                                                               ,=*;;;-                          Ihe (avironeental Defense fund of 60ulder. Colorado asked us to either immediately t,egin reclamation of an existing tailings pale                                                  '*                      forward the enclosed materials for your inclusion in the adeln6strative
                                                                                                                                               ,,,--".t,,

u e record for the Comunission's proposed rules to conform tts uranma mill it corrective action will prevent further ground water tallings regulations to standards adopted by (PA (49fR46418),

• 7.* D

                                                                                                                                               ' - - - =

s contamination, or remove the tailings to a new, !!ned disposat Thank >cu for assistance in this regard.

                                                                                                                                              "".*m, impoundment for final disposal.                                                                                   8         *---

SlacereIy. c # Georgia H. Herbert

                                                                                                                                              '1*"*.'."                                                             5taff Attorney espectfull _a
                                                                                                                                              *L..'O*

p, R $ tt eJ _- Mdj

d. __

[.C .Z. *,.. WL d#s %s

                                                                                                                                                       *2.L'!.' *     (aclosures:                                                                                l
                                                                                                  \

James S. Martin . I. *The Swanson uranium Project" by Baker et als. Staff Attorney * ~ ~ ~ 2.

                                                                                                                                              ***"*"""                        Escorpts from

• Marline /lisetco fechnical Susmas y and 1984 Supplemeat'. August. 1984, hd'$'[- 3.

Letter dated ,12 April 1984 from Glen t. Sjoblom to Nry a. Spain.

                                                                                                                                              *:.~:LL
                                                                                                                                             .."..1."""

cc: James Martta. EDF.Soulder

                          ,                                                                                                                  ,C..'.*.'".'.

I

                                                                                                                                             'C.. C.  . . ~.'.!.""'

U. .*T~".* * ** plodans by csaf. (( -~~* 12 M I bennung lhe Ens eronmens in Es erses . 8 w.r., *

                                                                                                                                            -31f-

..e

• O areal RuNats i

                                                                                         ~

PR e WESTERta HUCl. EAR. lHC. 6f9&d444/gf Criterion e

                         ...:.         .."a
                          ,. ..-                                                                                                                    Te s t s
                          ..e..              a. : na.e                                                                                                              *In selecting among altaraattve t allings di sposat ns        .*e a ' '. v aes                                                                                                                sites or judging tne adeua cy of esistsag tallings sites, the f ollowing site f easares, unsch watt deteratne the essent to wnich a program meets the broad objective of isolating the tallings and February 7,               4905                                   's3         '

associated contaminants for l,000 years, thereaffrom ter, man and the environment without onguang active maintenance, shall os considered:

                                                                                                                                                                   - Nydrologic and other natural conditions as they Secretary,                                                                                                                                 contribute   to continued of contaminants               immobilisatton f rom grounJuater             ani isolatton sources.*

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20255 Comments in the first paragraph delete the phrases * ..for Attentions Duckettag and Service Branch 1,000 year s. . .* and * . . .wi thout ongo tag act ive maintenance....* RE: Comments Regesding NRC Proposed Rule (49 rR Reason: Although 40 CFR 264.188, which is included 46417) by reference in 40 Crp 192.32, requires that for

                                                                                                                                                               .nonradiological hasards the need for maintenance be To Whom It May Concerna minialted, the EPA standard itself is silent on maintenance for radiological hasard control measures Please find attached the Western Nuclear, Inc. comments and could thusfor maintanance        allow   some limited     limited periods    ofrettence time. The                 on active regarding the proposed regulations conforming NRC mall                                                                                      l.000-year period in the preferred alternattwo far licensing requirements                to EPA's Active site Radiological                                                                    enceeds the 100 year period the fPA views as Standards              (49 teJeral aegister              46417L                                                                            reasonable to rely on institutional controts to provide active maintenance. On this beats, the have we         anyappreciate questions, the   opportunity please        advise. to comment. Should you                                                             NRC should not flatly prohibit, in all cases. Planned reliance on active maintenance.

Si erely, hat recommends in any HRC proposed changes regarding groundwater protection, the proposed rules be j [_, postponed until NRC has received comments from its A'bd'1 ANPR regarding groundwater protection anJ other lasues as published in the Federal Reu t s t e r on Grey Sogden Mondav, November 26, 1984. 7M TNN~~99C seek s Director of Environmental input on how to best proceed to fulfill its

                                                                                    & Industrial Safety                                                          responsibilities involving groundwater protection in light of specitte SWDA requirements. Comments
                                                                                                   .                                                             generated by the ANPR will probably include the issue ces Larry Boggs, AMC                                                                                                                      of protection of groundwaters. The sablect of protection of

• usable
• groundwater as opposed to *all grounduater" is an area of great concern to the Industry.

i aa-a -aru = o 4... Its. t t

                                                                                                                                           -W-                                                            .

centerson I friterson 1 eit

                                                   *To avoid proiaferation of smakt waste insposal at:es                     Test and Enereby reduce perpetual surventlance                                             "The 'pr eme opt ion

• for disposet of t as tin 9s is contgations, byproJuct material from ta situ placement below grade, either in utnes or 6pectally estraction operations, sucn as restdues from sot atton escavated pits 4that is, where the need f 9r any evaporatson or contantnoted control processes, and specially constructed retention structure as wastes f rom small remote above ground estraction ellainated).

operettons shall be disposed of et ents.ttng large mill t a tlings disposa t sito sa unless, cons tdering the Comment _: The sentence has no ef fect otr.es than to label below-nature of the wastes, such as their volume and grade disposal as the ' prime option.' Thi s a s specific acttwity, and the costs and environmensag misleading and confusing in tnat it gives the l'preaeton that tapacts of disposal transporting the wastes to a targe atte, approved. above grade disposal could mot be such as offsite disposal in demonstrated to be impracticable or the advantages of Part 192, it Under the longevity standasd of 40 Cfp onstte buttat clearly outweigh the benefits of which determines acceptability,is durability rather than dispo reducing the perpetual surveillance obilgations.* Te s t

                                                                                                                                        .The evaluation of alternative sites and disposal comments WNI enJorses NAC Criterion 2.                                                        methods performed by att! operators in support of their proposed te!!!ngs disposal program (provided in applicants' environmental repor tst shall reflect sernous consideret ton of this disposal       mode.

instances, below graJe disposal may not be the In some most environmentally sound approach, such as might be the case if a groundwater formation is relattwety close soils and rock.to the surface or not very well isolated by overlying Also, geologne and topographic conditions might make full below-grade burial impracticables for eaample, bedrock may be sufficiently near the surface that blasttag .ould be required to escavate a disposal pit at escessive costs, and more sultable alternative attes are not avellable.* Comments ' nod i t-/ the second sentence wnere it reads,

                                                                                                                                   *  "... consideration of this disposal mode *

• to read,

                                                                                       .                                                 . . .conalderet ton of the below-g rade disposal mode.*

Although the requirement to consider below-grade disposal was prewtously suspended along with the rest of Critetton 1, a requirement for constJeration only is not taconsisteet with EPA's 40 Cra par t 192 and Western Nuclear, fac. believes it should remain. Delete the third end fourth sentences in their entirety, beginning with *In some instances, ... ending with *... 4re not available.*

• and The sentences are esplanatory in nature and do not properly reflect consideration of EPA's new requirements, especially for groundwater protection.

for this reason they are potentially atsteading and confusing.

                                                                                                               -3 6 -

_ _ _ _ , - _ m _ __ . _ __ e cratersoe 3 - cant a nued Craterton 4 Testa

                              *In taese cases, at must be demonstrate 1 Enat an above-trade desposal program wn!! provide reasonably                           Tesi:       "Th e following site and Jesagn Orttersa anali se equivalent tsolation of the tatlings from natarat erosional forces.*                                                                          adhered to whether tall,tage or eastes are dt sposed                of above- or below grade.

Csament: The sentence places a gener te burden-of-proof f al 8ipstream rainf all catchment requirement on above-grade disposal which is at odds minimited to decrease esoston potentareas aal must be with the acceptability standards estabitshed by E7h's ' of theout Probable Mastmum flood entch could erode os and tie site requerement for longevity of control in 40 CFR wasa sections of the tallings disposal area. l%2.12(bl. (bn Topographlc protection. features shou!J prov4Je good wanJ (c) Embankment flat after final stabiltaationand cover slopes shall be relat avely to minemaae ernston potential and to provide conservative f actor s of safety assuring long-term stability. The broad objective should be to contour final slopes to grades which are as close as poselble to those which wo ld be provided e this could, if tallings were disposed of below-grader for example, lead to slopes about 10 hortaontal to I wertical (10h:1vl, or less, steep. In general, Shelv. slopes should not be steeper than about Where steeper slopes are proposed, a slope less steep than Shalv would be impracticablereasons why should be prownded, and compensating f actors and conditions identified.whlch make such slopes acceptaole snould be (d) h full self-sustained vegetative cover shall be established or rock cover employed to s educe wind and water erosion to negilgible levels. Where a full vegetative cover is not Itkely to be self-sustatning due to climatic or other conditions,

                                                              '                                                       such as In sent-arid and arid regions, rock cover

• shall be employed on slopes of the espoundment system.

The Nec wt!! consider relasing this requirement for estremely gentle slopes such as those which may esist on the top of the pile. The following f actors shall be constJered an estantishing the final rock cover design to avond displacement of rock particles oy human and animal traffic or by natural process, and to preclude l

• undercutting and pipings J

4 l -s 1-1 k

Oraterton 4 tcontanueil Ersterson 4 (continuedi e 5hepe. st aa. compos a s son, an4 gradatson of rock pas t 6cles t escept sag belding matar sal, (f) The lepoundment. where feannble, should :e everage part4cles saae shall be at least designed to depostsson. incorporate f eatares wusch well promore cobble else or greateris For eeample, desngn f eatures wasch e promote deposttton of seJteent hock cover thiczness anJ aonang of part scles by enter and tanoff which flows into the t opoundmentsuspended an ant e Steepness of underlysng slopes. be utsisaeds the object of such a dessgn f eaturearea enght would ne to enhance time.* the thschness of cover over ladtvidual rock fragments shall be dense, sound. and centstant to abraston, and shall be f ree f rom Comments Mandatory deeign Criteria e as proposed by NSC an cracas, seams, and other defects that would tend to Celterson 4 are hetther practical nor cost unduly increase their destruction by water and effective, frost actions. Week, friable, or laminated aggregate shall not be used. Criterion 4 sets forth ein requirements that Rock covering of slopes may not be required where be adhered to* if tallings are disposed of *shall top covers are very thick (on the order of los or above-ground. While some of these opt suns may be greaterna napoundment slopes are very gentle (on appropriate for cartain mills, they clearly would not the order of 40helv or lesels bulk resistance cover materials should all be applicable universally. The criterion reflect have inherently favorable erosion meet that only the options necesary to characteristicas and these is negligible drainage NaC closure goals specified in Criterton 6 catchment area upstream of the pile and good wind shall be adhered to. protection as described in points (an and Ibt of Further, certain of the options are too specific this Criterion. and would tend to preclude Industry f rom developing turtnermore, all impoundsent surface's snail be other more ef fective approaches as technological sJeances are developed, e.g. the requ6 resent contoured to avond areas of concentrated surface self-sustatning wegetative cover or ripsap. for a runof f or abrupt or sharp changes in slope Another option shoutJ be added which would allow gradient. In a4Jttton to rock cover on slopes.

• license app!! cant to utiliae any otner tachelques a

areas toward which surface runoff eight be directed or methods which not NaC's closure goals. shall be well protected with substantial rock cover trip rapt. In adJ4 tion to providing for stability of the impoundsent Listed below are criterions specific comments and recommendeJ system itself, overall changea to the stability, eroston Potentaal, and geomorphology of surroundlag terraan shall be evaluated to assure that there are not ongosag or potentlat processes, such as gully erosion, which would lead to to dal readsevise

                                                                                                                       *To thetheestent first sentence. 6n its entarsty, necessary to meet the impounJoent instability,                                                       closure requirements in Critet ton 6. the applicant or    licensee    shall de, sign criterlas*      adhere      to the followtag site and ten The impoundme$nt shall not be located near a capante fault that could cause a maatsum credlDie                                    meason: The revision clarifles that easthquake larger than that which the lepoundment                               semainder of Critetton 4 applies only to the estent the would reasonaoly be espected to withstand. As used                              necessary to adhere to the Criterion 6 closure in this criterion. the tesa

• capable fault
• has the standards, which are proposed for revision in these same maanang as defined in section III(gl of
• Appendte 4 of 80 Cra 100. The tera *maalsum comments longevity of tocontrol re flect and the new EPA raJon standards for selease credible earthquake" means the earthquake which lim &tations.

lwouldl le ast cause the masamum vibratory ground motion based upon an evaluation of earthquake potent aal cons adering the regional and local geology and selseology and spectile characteristics of local subsurface material.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    ~

e Traterton 8 scontenueJt Crnterton 8 tcontanued) gbl Aevtse paragrapa tal by teplactng *3ansette4* ist 8eplace Paragrapn (c) as par agr apn (Ds. wata *sufficientif snail.* Jeteting *massaum possible.1 and adJang at the and *...so as to aessons provide reasonante assurance of meeting the for editoraal consast'ency. longevity standard In Cr iter son 6.* (gg Delete the first sentence of paragrape ici, Reason The changes reva se and clat a f y the be14antag ***

                                                                                                                                                                    "A full self-sustatning vegstatsve. .* and restractions placed on the upstream catchment area so es to be conenstant with the CPA longevit/

standard now reflected in proposed Criterion 6. Reasons Cover Vegetative The first to sentence mandates a rock or reduce eroston. outlines possible exceptions but the standardturther language (cl Del'ete paragraph (bl in its entirety. established by the first sentence, dhale a rocs' as menson: It may not be necessary for topographic cover or vegetative cover is a very ef fective way to f eatures to provide good wind protection in order meet the EPA standard, it may not be the only way to to aset the EP4 longevity standard. For esemple. meet tr.e 1000-year ef fective design objective. engineering methods (e.g. rock armoring t should b* Wul believes this and stallar language should be able to provide sufficient wind protection to meet tne CPA destga stanJard of 1000 years of ef fective deleted so as to provide easimum floathitity to mall cuatrol. operators in Jewising plans to aset the EPA longevity stanJard. tdl in the first sentence of paragraph (cl, elete the parase *...be relatively flat after final (hl Delete the second and third sentences of sanottlaatton to mantaise erosion potential and paragraph (cl beginning with "Where a full...* end ending wi t h *. . .p s le.

• ts..."

Aeasons The IOOO. year design lifetime in the EPA Reasons See id) and 19) above. longevity standard eight be set by engineering or (Il in the fourth sentence of paragraph idt other methods rather than *relatively flat

• beginning "The following f actor s.. .* replace the features, anJ lt may not be necessary to "minimise words *the final
• in the phrase * ...in establishing agoston potential. It may be acceptable urder the the final rock cover..." With *any."'

EPA standard, and more practicable, to apply a relattvely more esosive but thicker cover. acason See (gl above. Rock covering a s not flatly let Delete the remainder of paragraph (cl requtred. The words *the final" are modif teJ to clarif y tete e ttuation. beginning with *The broad objective..." and ending with *... identified." gj) go the first listed ites in paragraph idl. Reason: The deleted language is misleading amt at delete the parenthetical phrase *(escepting beJJang oJJs with the CPA longevity standard. Under the EPA material average particles stae shall be at least r equ a r s t.'at. cobble size or greatect.* acceptability is a function of overall durability rather than specific design f eatures. Reasons The phrase specifies t echnical requerement s Also, the language 83 unnecessary in view of the or rock size that may not be necessary to meet the proposed retainment of elements of Criterion 1 EPA design objective. This change will allow

• requiring that steepness of slopes be minielsed to floathility to use whatever stas rock meets the EPA the eastman estant reasonably achievable. standard.

(kl Delete in its enttrety tne four th paragt sph of paragraph (d) beginning with *indi 7tJual roca

craterson 4 sconannuedi craterson 4 scontsnued) f r aq2ent s shall. ..* and eno: q ws ;h *. .saal* not ne used.* Trt eason 4--T2 tse escent necessarf to a ,t se closure requirements bn Or tter son 4, tne applacant or seasons The fourth parage.ph specsfies technscal licensee small adhere to the following sate and design criteria: requirements on roca propertnes anat may act be necessary to meet the EP4 de sign ooject ges. The change retains flestullity to accept greater (al Upstream rainfall catchment areas must os quantaties of lesser quality rock, or other Jesigns sufficiently small to decrease erosion potestaat and an keepang with the EPA longevity standard. tne size of esctions ofthe theflood which tailings could erode disposal or as area so wasa to out (13 Delete the fif th paragraph of paragraph (dl in provide seasonable assurance of meeting the langevatf its enterety, beginning with " Roc k cov e r s a g . . .* and standard in Criterion 6. ending wa th *. . .of this Cr it erion." (b) Embankment and cover slopes shall proutJe Reason: The listing of requiremente neeJed to conservat stability. t wo f actors of safety assuring long ters suppor t a justification for not using a rock cover is at oJJs wath the form of the EPA longevity stanJard. (Cl The following factors shall be considesed .a (el Delete the first sentence of the last paragraph establishing any rock cover design to avoid of paragraph (d) beginning *Furthermore, alg displacement of rock particles by human and annual impoundment s. . .* and sading *. . . slope g radient.* traf fic by natural processes, and to preclude undercutting and piping: Reason: While contouring to minimize concentrated surf ace runof f or sharp changes in flow will enf.ance e Shape, else, composition and graJation of rock partlCless long-term stanalaty, such contouring to totally avoid

• prooles areas may act be required in aLL cases by the o EPA Jesign !!!stime standard of 1,000 year s to the Rock and staes cover thickness and soning of particles by estent practicable and 200 years in any case.

(n) In the sec >nd sentence of the last paragraph of e Steepness of underlying slopes. paragraph (J) de ete *An aJJttion to rock cover on slopes...* and *... with substantlat rock cover trip Areas toward which sur f ace runof f might be directed shall be well protected. rapt.* Deplace

• areas toward* with
• Areas toward.* In addition to providtag fc4 stability of the impoundment system Ltsett, acasons See (g) above. overall stabiltty, eroston potential, anJ geo*orphology of surrounding terr ain ana ti he (op Replace paragrapas (dl, le g , and (f t, as (c), evaluated to assure that there are not ongosag or (dl, and (el respectively. Potential processes, such as qu!!y erosion. wnsen would lead to impoundment Instability.

meason: For editorial consistency. (d) The impounJoent shall not be located near a capable fault With incorporation of the above recommended that than couldthat cause a masamum credible changes Criterion 4 should be revised as follows: earthquake larger which the impoundment could reasonably be espected to withstand. As used in this critecton, the term " capable fault

• has the
• same meaning as defined in $tII(g) of appenda s A of 30 CFR Port 800. The tera *masimum credible earthquake
• me ans t hat earthqueme which would cause the mas 8 mum vibr atory ground mot ion based upon an evaluation of earthquake potent a al cons sJering the regional and local geology and seismology and specific characterestics of local subsur f ace material.

i .

O e Oraterten 4 (cantanued) Craterson 5 get TSe tapoundment, enere faastule, should be on page 464tt 149 Federal desagned to incorporate featares ensch ptomote and

• Scope of this ProposaT!* peoisteel under itses *Pr evnous Act;Jas*

ENE~stateds deposat6on. For esample, desagn featuses whnch promote deposition of sedtment naspended an anY Test: "The final EPA standards are very samalar to those runoff which flows into the ampoundsent area migat ce that utiliseJs the object of such a des tqn f eatJre would were proposed. Ne v e r t he l e s s , the Commsssion has be to enhance the thickness of cover over time. reconsidered the appropriateness of changes to Appendia 4 to 10 CFR Part 40 in Light of the new CPA standards, and the need f or additional supporting

                                                                                                                  '                 documentation. -

The enanges proposed tooay are more modest tnan the previous suspensson. IEmphasis supplied.l Scope of This Proposal in addition to conforetag its esist ang regulatloas to new EPA standaeds, under the provisions of the UMTRCA, the Commission has a f urther lege st ated responetbility: it moet estantish__gne d requirements, for the management or ovocoduct maternal, witn EPA concurrence, wnten are, to the mastnum estens practacaote, at seast connarante to r equa rements appi acaole to t ne management of siiRTic hasarcous maternal regulated or the ZFE under tne 331ad waste oisposal-Icc TIUbat , as amended. The Commission delnoeratei as to now oest to deal ditn snene related rulemanang needs and decioed on ene course or action resuitang an ents sno tne accomoanying AR H C fSas proposal _grouosata M ieises att ena cmanges to tne esisting Commission regulations in Appendia A to 10 CFR Part 40 that can be lesally promulgated documen t a t non. without 4336 tion 44 supporting Otner cnanges to tne Eommassion's regulattons for mill tallings management resulting from the EPA standard are the subject of the accompanying ANPRN.* IEmphasis supplied. ) Comments MRC completely disregarded its position outlined above for its ANPRM Dy moving forward and making the foltoutng changes in Cr aterson 5. Tests *(al in the first paragraph, delete the first two sentences beginnang ' Steps shall be taken**** and ending ' potential uses. ' and the phr as e'* *

• t n order to accomplish this objective.' in the third

. sentence.' Comments WHI recommends NRC withhold the propused changes until comments on the ANPRN have been received and reviewed. The proposed changes suggested by NRC are definitely " closure standards

• af there is no

                                                                                                            - V/-

Centerton i econtannedt Crtterton 4 dis t taction be tween

• 4 sable
• and "non-usaate aquaters.* Tests If the *no-de tradation st andarJ* La *In cases enere opste oyproduct matertal ts to to implemented not allowing restoration of groundwater permanenti/ disposed, ao earthen cover shall be to les potentaat use before milling operations negan, placed over tailings or wastes at the en.8 of to the maatmum essent practicante,* tt want be mili tng oper ations and the weste disposet ar ea estremely dif ficult, .if not taposstole, to malataan shall be Closed in accordance with a design whtc3 the estating inJustry. shall provide reasonable assurance of coatsol of radiological hasards ton ill se effective for 3,000 years, to the estent reasonably achievaolo, and, an any esse, for at least 200 years, and (til niets r e l e a s e s o f r aJ in- 42 2 f rom t hor t ua bypr oduc t materials to the atmosphere so as to not escoed an average seter per release rate of 20 picoeuries per square second (DC1/m2.sg.*

Comments although, under the FFA standard, the thickness of cover is a functio 4 of both longevity and radon release, WH1 objects to a final redon-222 release rate of 20 picocuries per square meter per second on suchthe basis the peojected benefits, if any, of a performance the costs. standard are far outweighed by Tests

                                                                                ~~~
                                                                                           " Hearmeteral three      surfaceshalt cover notmaterials     (i.e., within the top include waste or to:k that contains elevated levels of radiums sotts used for nest surf ace cover sust be essentia!!y the same, as far as radioactivit/ is concerned, as that of surrounding surface soils. yhis is to ensure that surface todon eshalation is not significantly above background because of the cover marecial itself.*

Comment s Delete the second to last and last sentences, beglaning with "Near sur face cover eatsr ial s. . ." and ending with *... cover material itself.* Reason: protection EPA do standards not for post-closure environmental prow!Je for, or charactertae, the cover material in terms of raJioactivity, but only in terms of durability and capacity to reduce radon release from the tallings. However, the EPA standard does indicate in a footnote that the characternetics of the cover material site-specific basis. should be cons 6dered on a 9

e e Oraterson 3 Crsterson 4 Tests "At least one constructaon, fall year prior to any malor ante Tests a preoperat tonal mona tur ang progr am "Durang operations and pesor to closure, radiation shall be conducted to provsde complete beset tne data doses from radon emissions from surface napoundments on a attling site and its environs. Througnout the of uranium or thorium hyprodut materials shall be construction and operatang phase of the at ti, an k*Pt ao low as is practicante." operattonal monitoring program shall be conducted to _ Comments measure or evaluate compliance with applicable WNI has no objection to the adJ4tional wording. stanJards and regulations: to evaluate per formance of Tests control systems and procedures to evaluate " Checks shall be made and logged hourly of all environmental tapacts of operations and to detect Parameter s (e.g. , dif f erential pressures and scs ubber potentaal long-term effects.* water flow rateal which Jetermine yellowcake stack emission controt equipmentthe effictency of operation. Comments WHI maJorses WRC Critet ton 7. Commenta WWI suggests the following wosding to canntaan e f ficiency of operations where instr umentation use. is an

                                                                                                        *nti parameters (e.g., differential pressu.e and scrubber water flow ratest which determine the ef ficiency of yellowcake stack emission control equapsent operation shall be monitored at least hourly by recording and controlling equipment which either proeides an alarm in the event such parameture are outside of a nominal range for ef ficient operation   or le manually checked and legged on an hourly basis."

Tests

                                                                                               *nti such cessations, corrective actions, and restarts shall be reported to the approps tate NRC regtonal of fice as indicated in Criter ten SA, in writing, within 10 days of the subsequent restart.*

Comments This critetton requires reporting within le days to the NBC Regional of f te ' alt such cessations (of operat ions shut-Jowns due to of f-normal p*e f ormances ,

                                                ^                                             corrective     actions, and restarts.* WNI belleves unless there was an unusual event        tevolving a potentially significant harard to publte health and safdocument to    ety (see 40 CTR 21), it would be suttletent only such items anJ maintain the repot t on file for review by NBC dur ang normal inspections.

Tests

• Milling operations producing or involving thorium byproduct naterial shall be conducted in such a manner as to provide reasonable assusance that the annual dose equivalent does not esceed 25 etttorems to the whole boJy, 75 millitems to the thyroad, and 25 milltress to any other organ of any member of the public as a result of esposures to the planned discharge escepted, daughters of raJtoactive matet t ale, cajon-220 and. st s to the general environment.

                                                                     - Y.1 -

e 6 Craterson a scontenuell Craterton SA Ur antum and thorium byproduct aster n als si:all be Test: "Da6 ty inspections of taalings or waste recention managed so as to confore to the appl 6 cable prow 6stons systems saall be conducted by a qualified em9aneer or of 440Title 40 of the Code of federal segulat tons. Part sesentist and documented.*

                                                                *0ce Minang and Dresstag Point Source Categacy:

Effluent Llantations Cuidelines and New Source Comments WI dus not belie *e it is necessary to require that Performance Standards. Subpart C, Uraasua, AaJ8ue, ta81&ngs or waste tetents'% systems be &nspectej and vanadium Ores Subcategory.' as codified on J*****Y I* I'83* daily by "a qualtfled enganeer or scientist

• and such wording be dateted. Dasty surwelliance is the Comments teel has no comments to the additional proessions. crkttcal aspect of inspection by a qualified

                                                                                                                                                                                                                     *"'I or scientist.

G

                                                                                                                               +

8 1 e d k I i .

                                                                                                                            ~ yf*

e

e a c,g.,,gan , Craterson 9 #continueds west pa aposes the f ollowang revt s son to Cr a ter son 9: * * * *# *' ** " " "" #'# *"* '"" " '

• ranancial surety arrangements shall be estaolnshed The at amount of eurety Itanality may increase or by each mall operator to assure that suffacaent f ands decrease will be avas table to carry out the Jacontamanation and the predactedthe timeofoffuture cost 16 cense reneUIT recTImat son.nnoraccordance may remaan esth Jecommissioning of the mall and site and for the st at ic Jeoending upon tne licensee *3 =cosociel' net reclamation of any tallings or waste disposal areas. Tictor s agreettag reclamac aon cost esiinaies*TacTUder worth.

mall ooerator mag, submit a combsnation of financial 3 &nflation, increases in the amount of disturbed land, and surety arrangements wnsen. taaen to9etner, wall assure decommisaloning and reclamation that has been perfossed. enat suTracaent runds weia ne availaole. yhe amount of runds.co be ensured by suca surety arrangements shall be This will yield a surety that is at least suffscient at based on cost estimates in an approved plan for ist all times to cover the costs of decommassioning and reclamation of the areas that are espected to be disturbed decontamanation and decommiseloning of m!!! buildings before the ne.t license renewal. The term of the surety and the milling site to levels which would allow, to the estent reasonably practicable, ua> restricted use of these

                            ~

mechanism shall remain in effect until the reclamation program has been completed and approved, or until areas upon 3ecomm, asst 3 ming, and (21 the reclamation of egae as title to the site la transferred to the such ta6 tings anJ/or waste disposal areas in accordance with governmental agency r es pons t ole foi'lonu. term-- tecnnical criteria delineated in Section I of this survestlance, wascaever comes forst. Fanancial surety appendia. .;ss the pro ected net worth, icluding assets arrangements generaTIy accepta3fe~io the Commission eres whach may $e Iaquadate . of the 4scensee at ene tsee o suca Jacontaminaggon, decommissioning, or reclamatton.f a. Surety bonds Thould Ene Iscensee have sold urantum to the United . b. Self-insuri.ce Ytates praor to 1973, tne amount of surecy required .c. Guarantee by a state governmental agency, a unoer tais craterton shahT~be estaaltsne3 o_n a oro rata local governmental agency, or by a third party which basas suca enat the Incensee wait turnian surety only (or enat could d. qualify for self-insurance as spectfled in b. oor:non oc ane cost esc amates an ene accrowed Cash deposite paan watca see at:enoutaone to otaer taan suen sales, e. Certificates of Deposic yhe Incensee saaaa suonac enas plan an conjunctaan with f. Deposits of government securities an envaronmental report f i t an environmental isoact q. Letters or Lines of credtt _ statement is not reoutred) that aooresses L3e espected h. Combinations of the above or such other enetronmental ampacts of the milling operation, types of arrangements as may be apptowed by the NBC. decommassioning, and tellings reclamation, and evaluates

   .            alternatives for antigating these impacts. The suret y shall cover the payment of the one-ttee cha rge foe long-tern survestlance required Ey frTTerton so. In establishlag specific surety arrangements, the incensee's cost estimates shall take into account total capstal costs that would be incurred if an independent contractor were hired to perform the decommissioning and reclamation work but escluding costs ehach are attributante to anterim 3ecommassionang and reclamation Eng gerTorned av a lacensee durang mellang ooy atsons.

In oroer to avoto unnecessary duplacac aon and espense, the Commassion will accept financial surettes that have

• been consolidated with financial or surety arrangements established to meet requirements of other rederal or State ageneses and/or local governing bodies for such decommisssoning, decontamanation, reclamation, and long-term sate surveallance. The licensee's surety mechanaam will be revaewed f rom time to time by the Cosmassion (generally at the time of license renewall to assure sufficien4 funds foc completion of the reclamataan plam _tr_gw anJeoendent contractor were hired e

                                                                            -yP

kQ %qd%h2 }Mki&;k .gu,.isaPW *4si*k f 'a< CY e Y.% N T} r ? - t M a te. w io ..,.4 W 55 W % Q ib h h h M f M -f"a d'. u 4te wiel psoposes t'io follousnq changes to Cr star son 00:

                                                                                                                                                                            - . ,et.g.4m y,y . c . M f. m .2 v.. . .:.g -
                                                                                                                                                                                            . , JN- p ed..'fa Wp** r,E BEEORE..TIIE'WITED STATIS e,,                                                                                                                                                          .

a one-tame charge of $250.000 to cover the cost s of long-tera surves tlance shall be paid by each aall opegatog

                                                                                                                                                                                                      . ,f . '. ;,,.. 2p; s yg.r8*...,..

M A, REGULAID&.Y COMMI.SSb'D.e IOff 3

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    = *ap*

to the general treasury of the Unsted $tates or to an 'e' G., *i*s M , , (. * '. ...4Y ' J 5' E ' 4 ' * *

• f' g n '.,,.

appropetate State agency pcior to the termination of a *- ,. uranaum or tharaum aai! Iicense. If s&ta surwetILance "IsONb ** # U *h** E'- --

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           ?'

gg'd;p,$ *"4* DI ,."9'*sMf

• fbO ,

                                                                                                                                                                           "***                                                                                                                                 S          ' . / ** **.f '. PJ7g.

I.,..'9'*i f@'N N M' R M W W'*D'#. N}.I N N N N M 3 ** . requiresents bass e .-t as a particular site ese deteraaned, on'the

• b a es te-specific evaluation. to be signtitcantly ~.- -c i.WBC REGM. AIR 345M E24*. O Ylh M OME2O TO greater warsance or less than those specttled in CrSterson 42 jl. g Ol% C'5 RS Fas O,*4tIQ *. . '5- ' '

                                                                                                    .n funJin.3 requirements small be specified or the *kA.' Q'yMl4MSTA2,ARDS(F*'t.y'8'hj.tgr*                                             *+**'                                                                           *g,4Ml                              **.,

t..> Commaeston or other licensing authority. The total charge ! .

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     , .) 'd I,%yW[h,.0f    *$ D * **%j,,W. c.rD,                                                  .C,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  *'*M1*

to cover the costs of long-term survet!!ance shall be such '* .$,". tr- ff 8#"#fM$' M " '.' 'd *' y E.J'

• Q
• 31 3- @Mf** "" M" M D /Y-7,IJ.*;t s,d.4 that.

with an assumed I percent annual real interest rate. P-the collected funds wn!! yield interest in an amount j 9. . 4. ih e- " ** f'. h.de ']s;if.(,7 M'.jEliT3 ta

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   ,$ .Je dl N                 SW  l . d.~  E12k   .WMk, Np ir.rcupORATicit,Y.-1"*                                                         ehT** '

sotticient to cover the annual costs of alte surveillance. .Q.*%

                                                                                                                                                                               -- ;y(- 8**A               7.d         I

k. .* Kl'

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       .* h *BIL-McCEELCH
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  *AND*f9                VJtW tCAA 3%)E RORATIQti.                                                    **C'l dj,'*-      j"U% h                       [

D p , *I * *D.'rM.~i DiTM? CYWPANYa '* f' ja3 y , .; A I This surwettlance and control charge shall not be I *E "v' * * [

• l . .'. ,4. * * .**] '

reg red in case. .her. the stat. in which th. operatoss

                                                                                        .re iocated    pro.id.c         for th. coatection of a co.parania             tlg.g

e- @+Wr g g [. . .#.aa, W'sg.b'.i J'M MP

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               *   'dh  P Tr   . G.      rn
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                $     t  "h      '

r* K

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     .. . r

• kI - 1- - J f.e for the ea.e purpose.

i- . g g ig g ;;  ?  : i'

                                                                                                                                                                                        .p..                                  .

A .7.< g . 4.;;g,g, 1.. .t.et.w.W.w;.7.wq s:.g pm.g4;g;yu W.m

                                                                                                                                                                                                       .r.t...a    p. m.                        .w.                        .         u.e.

v. ;w s. . .p+ "h. XM u

                                                                                                                                                                                               '4 s 1.M                  :tW, M .c_F     . rw .w.,j .p.                   .m. .cy                                                                                   . ~. m .. .

e., . . ,, sc.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               ~. W                                                      e 6                    .

_s - .. 1 ' u .v. ..v. "

                                                                                                                                                                                                     . a ter ,,"d.atickles         . s-t . ~ e fw.e s.f*.d            iu .3 F n,,. 1 s p, ,; .. p,; .3. . ,a. '*r..t. ,S.9o
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 ~ , . ..                               ; ..
                                                                                                                                                                                              '" " Ric.* ard M.~ 'Me ser se -     .

• D.V.M J ' t g

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              . . . , g ,*W..//
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             * "M,.W'(t t *J cer F e s* dent aunt . ! . ,,
                                                                                                                                                                                     *Ma* '.,'  .%.**CoFingtond
                                                                                                                                                                                                .t          {Laya D- Mihner.          A Stn               , ding c.W" ?-*t,                    ** A Directar for EnvironmentE'. ..
                                                                                                                                                                                      ",'" /U I:01 Pennsylvania fyenus4 N.lt.1^.M,,.I#                                                                                                          smi'. lieet            i?tla$f       Manag 6 pbrissoms                            ev" s            N N.".<.h              .. Vam(L1agmuj'    at.a*=r75sa                     ..seN       q <>iQQ3.v 'Mi $. "c5 . Q v,,, 4 .. i a b D'.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        .l~' y ,                  'shus             h seaut.c.7.*                       *;" Cr*fMwr,,      , Qf.7;.
                                                                                                                                                                                                            .; .. r..
                                                                                                                                                                                   -f[                                                            -            ~ jCN.*e*[;
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   ,t '                    . .,.44WY                                 .en.o.

t% _p,N 8-Y! Nf.* 3.h'

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              , W.- AV M.*N h i,' h.h.

g Yd no I m kerstJtegsstatlostD4 rector, thsclear-Lices ermt t ed i [ httactor. ' Enva ronssen ta t i4-e W b: y .as.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     ,W
                                                                                                                                                                                   - %:M,fi)                 E Q. . f$                  %48Q.9, L . ' A. *6, g,, /O          ,.                  1'..,.'.'.                     <*~M          . n P.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    . . . '.*c,'T ,

M9q*0l'MF-i th4 #M$.if rTf5 '.*b@[Q;.V,M; $ttak

                                                                                                                                                                    /_3,.                       V..,'           * **         1,                                                 .;
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                ,at.ccQscGee.CheetcatCorporattor                                                                    

t

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    -o' ?.1234abert 3.; Eerr . Averuse-                                                   .. -.
                                                                                                                                                                           .: .*g. . ,. y,,,,.4.
                                                                                                                                                                                           ..                  , .w .:r" ,N. %w.*   . f7',9';ay ,,Apt4               .7 q        %:,.,, Jho.Okl aha-a Ci.tyg Ola.lahoma.7 23125
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 .t ._-. . ;s7 .. ty. ....
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                .a r*":~M                      w,,.u!',u~**:f                      s  w.t     .   .o     &,s.           _ df.                                                                                  m. . 3. n. ,. .
                                                                                                                                                                    ;    --                    + +
                                                                                                                                                                                           . . t '.$wn,t t
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  /               ,    ,af A            ..g . 7~ 9. %:.: - * ' sp..                                .
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         -       . n:.M.*

f R *.t X ~a t? ~ - ;* -- 'v

                                                                                                                                                                    '.                                ;; m.u*C-d h &.s:..'h,k W..Q& ~;n '.Q*-

• t. '

7t%{.* 9. '; *%g,. M meira.ry n,.er9es': O. *

                                                                                                                                                                            ~.                i..
                                                                                                                                                                                  $.'-hr

• a? ,'Y' Y *

                                                                                                                                                                                                                        .s.                                -

n. .

I . ~: g%gfe! ah e, pp.. .. S M :mc 7 w..M..1.e%@~y..w.W. . ash M R4 mv MH.1 Z Gir" n.T .. b J 'J%PhYd$ k

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             '~

Y.-V4- W e. h. U 'h' & - k $ $hW5Y .. $ ! ?.?5 ~ W "D Y b

e

                                                                                                                                                                                                                  .~~---

e

                                                                                                                                                                           . 2 s

EE!KE !EE C::;!!3 STA!!5 FA*C; EAR 3EOU* A!OAY CCP0l!!3:CN af f ec; act:;10:es at bo:n the A rasta Lane and West Ch::a;a fac ;;;tes. I UAA:tV.*M NELL TAILIMG I EEOULA7;;pS; C0t1 TOE 40G $O0PE OF THESE COMMENT 3

                                                                                           )   790f 05ED AME:::ME!ITS TO MEC RE ULA!;3N5 To E7A STA:CAEDS
                                                                                           )   to C.I.R. Far: 40                                   The promulga: an of regulat cts applicable :a I

I dispostt:an of ura=:um taalin;s and sesociated was:en et Licensed commercial processtag sites uncer the bran:us Mill CormEtr:S SY KIaa-i4c0KE CCEPORATIote. EE39-McCEE CHE!I! CAL CopFCRA!!OH, Tattings Radiacson Control Act ("UMTRCA") has involveJ seten-A O CutVIS% MIN!?fG CCMP'IfY sive previous administrative action. Teo previous rulemak:aq proceedings, one by NRC and one by the Envitarmental ?:otec. These comments address the amendments to the " Criteria tien Agency (*EFA*), have been completed at the administrative Rela:1ng to the Operetton of Urantum M111s and the Dispositica level' and are currently undergotag 3'udicial review an the of Tas!!ngs or Was:ss 7:aduced by the Entrac ton or Concentra-United States Court of Appeals f ar the Tenth C1 cuit. ' Fer - t:en of Source Material from Ores Processed Frt:arily far McCae has submit:ed a f all set of comments concerainq those The:: Source Materta! Content." 10 C.F.A. Par 40. App. A, regulatlocs to both the NRC and the EPA and is a party to the proposed by the IActear Regulatory Commission (*:IRC") at 49 Ted. Reg. 45414 ei seg. (November 26 1984). These comments judicial review praceeding with regard to the t19C criteria. in acdt:1on, Ear -McGee are octaitted on tena!! of Ker -McGee Corporacian and 1:a submit:ed comments in connect;on wa-h the NSC*s suspenaten of portions of the c:1:erta, substd:aties Kerg-McGee Chenacal Corpora::on and Qutvtra M1=:sg Company. Mert-McGee believes that its previously subnitted commente concerning the EPA standards and NRC c:1teria were Qu vtra Maatsg Company owcs and opera:as mines and e urantam m:11 at Amoras a Lake, New Nestco. Kert-McGee Chemi-and continue to be valid and w111 not repeat those arguments cal Corporation owns a former thorium and rare earths proces.

• The NEC regulations to which the current proposed amend-stag fac111:y an West Chicago. I11tnots. A !!ael closure plan ments are addressed were promulgated in October 1980. The final EPA regulattana, found at 40 C.F.A. Part 192, we:e for that f actitty as currently under constderation by the NBC. promulgated on Octooer 7, 1983.

8 The NEC C ::ert a a Appendia A to 10 C. T.3. Part 40, and the American Mining Congress v. Buclear 3egalatory Cocz: s-ston. No. 40-2271 ( Oth Cir.) (pending before the c ou r t en noendaects now proposed to those cc teria, if adap;ed, would banc); American Mi Ing Congress v. Env;ronmental Protec: ton Agency, No. 83-1226 and consolidated cases (!Oth Cir.).

                                                                                                                           -V7 --

_ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ . __ _ mm_

ha:e ' Ea er. assa .:=ren:s are 3 :e::a ac;s./ a:  ;;) 2:e !?A a:ar.dards an the ;933 2.r;y.A gen e en o, ne ., , n , ;

s p:: posed ::anies :: the c ::er:a -c :h ;2:;ar  : ::nt = repa re ;;ac =a reeva;Ja e 4:e praposal :o ensures I!) na:

ste c ::er:a :a ::s IPA stacca::s at Suhpar:s 3 and I ag ;; the c:::eria addrene a qn:!!: ant etase and :ha: the casts :f C.T.R. Pa:- 152; (2 3 aed:::acal changes Oat Ker -tecOee  : e c:::er:a bear a reasonable rela: o::an:p :s cr.eg: geneg;;e; se'. eve s ance.!d se = ace :a c:nfors the cr::ar a ta the IPA () a: the c

• tar:a pravide ou!*1::ent !!ssibilt:y to standa::s; an 13) add::::nal changes that Eer -:IcCae met e.ces Mas pan Mar ct.aracterts: cs and needs of eash are necessary := the c::teria as e result of eventa, 1=ctuding um a tes and (3) that the 'c ::eria dist ngut an be c-een the enac:ren; of amend =ents ta the relevant federst statutes,
• new and entstang ettes, in recognition of the greater dif-that have oc:urred als:e the original c ::erta were promut. " 78 8CCG8cda:Ang new rules at existing sites, ga:ed.

Far the purposes of these c:cments, therefore, 8t is Although EPA's 20 FC1/m's radon f;as standard is assu=ed cat NAC la bound to adopt regulations that confora to 8 78" C8PK :1Cus, Kerr-McOee supports the method ::at the IPA a acdarJa, even thouga Earr-Hccea pelieven stat the . RC to propos139 for incorporating that standard in the c ur: wt;* ult::ately racate , hose standar3s.* *"he 1: sited Crit *ria -- namely, the deletian of the J-meter cover reg::e-f acas of these cc:aects does act cons:::ste a waiver a **"" 13 f*'*r of a desti'n goal related to radon contral. A ncd 21 cat::n of Ker:-McCae's ;;eviously expressed vtews as to 88 118F 8pProach elsewhere would 4;utre the delet:cu or the underty:ng savalidt:y of the EPA star.dards and the NAC substantial revision of many of the dotatted requirements  ! c ::erta, e criteria, including, forexampke, the requirements rela:Ing SU.W RY ta below-grade disposal, alting, and erossen cantrol s. Taisen as a wnote, the proposed amendments de co: go Eerr-McCae also advoca:ee that NAC adopt a cautious policy toward the adoption at far ecouga :n c:cfar=:=q the c::ter:a ta the requt ssere a of this 12e of rigid repairement s re t a: Ing to groundwater protection, because ;8RC is carren:!y an the e We do reques:. however, that the cocaen:a suhms tted by process of conducting a total reevaluation of that area, Ees:-McGee concerning the EPA a:aadards be made part of the recard in th:s :Menae:ag. These camments prow:ce a techn: cal In short, as demonstrated la both the discuse on af and legal bacuc::p age::st kr. Ch to judge the adequacy of the NEC ::::er a. A sepy of the ccaments *a at act.ed. generic and par:1cular defects, the current :tRC proposal does

• not When the court acts, changes wait of course be requ::ed go nearly f ar encugh in revis nq the c :: aria to address in he N&C C:1:e;;a.

the requirements of the UHT3CA amend:sents. inceed. many aspects of the proposal actua117 HnjM uith the statate. O

e

                                         .s.

• s=

e 174 stanza: s. ar sc-h. A::::3: gif. Ker -M:Osa s ;es :e sma G results it:a a specift: 4::s=:::n by :te C:ng:ssa MEC to uacertade su stan::ai revt sten of the c:::s:: s so f:t s that :he NAC promulgate revis:: s.

21:a1 promulgat;ca. NAC Auth:: :a:::= Ac . 6 lital. Moreover. the Cong:ssa spectia:a!*y amended Sec:::n COMMENTS 04(a)(1) of the Atomic Ecorgy Act to requ::o the Nac, in f:!!alling its management respcssibit ty for :at11:;s. :a4 These c =sente estantash that substan :a1 rev a::n is required ta c a NAC c:::er:a. In Part I of :hese cammente a:amlej into account the risk to the puot:: h e a l th, safety, and :ne enytrocaent, with Jue we dtscuss certain generic defects of the NBC proposa!. In consideration of the econoalc costs and such other factors as the Commission determines to be appsspriate.' Part it. we tura to spectfac criterian-by-criterton ccaments,

14. 1 22(a). 96 Stat. at 2080. This amendment of the UMTSCA 1.

TEE tGC C3tT!3I4 MUST SE SU3s!MITI AL* Y REvtsig. requires NRC to revise the criteria to serve two purposes.

                  !a ker -McGee's view, the NBC crataria must be T!:st. the explicit direction that the NAC *take inta acc=unt awastantially revised as a result of events that have occurred                                                                  '         *                ""*

stace the crt:erta were ft:st pr:mulgated. Schs'e quen,t act:oes

• was ancended to assure that the criter:a would be rev sed so by the Cang:ses have imposed requireaants on NAC that the as to address only significant risks.' Second. the requtrement s1:ght mad!!! cations now ptsposed do not satisfy.

A. The 1983 Amendments To The UM72CA Require

• That The C:steria to Sevtsed So As Ta The Congrenstonal purpose is revealed in the following AdJ ess Only Significan: Risks And To colloquy oatween Senator Walicp and Senator Sampson; Est.olish A aeasonable Relationship of aMr. WALLOP. . . I la ay ur.derstanding that Cas:s And 3ene[11s. EPA ar.d flRC have stated that they felt The criter:a as orig:nally promulgated by HRC . ore compelled by the Mill Ta111ags Ac: to impose strangent requirements . 1 espective of 1:constatent wa th the UMTRCA and were unduly strangent costs. because of language in the preamble to and the 1978 M111 Tatling Act. From my readir.g burdensome. As a :esult. Congress suspended the enforcement of the applicable provistan, the 1978 act directed the agenctes to take 'every reason-of the troC cr$ teria on two occasions.' able effort' necessary to protect pubite Indeed. the instant health. Implicit in that language to a direction to esercise reasonante discretten.

Have the amendment (stcl dispe!!ad the Energy and Water Development Appropr:ation Act. masapprehenster. poin:P of the agencies on this 9 -48 F.L.

. IV. 95 Stat. 1135 1147 Act for fiscal years 15a2 and 1983 (1961); NAC Authcr :attor.

stat. 2061 2017-;t (1983) P.L. 97-415. t le(ag. 96 "Mr. 5*MP50H. I say that. in my best Act"). (hereina'ter *NRC Authart:attoa estimate. they have. The asenc;es-( footnote coct'd)

                                                                                    -V9-

e 9 ab .

                                                                                                               .I e

6e G e e ff

                                                                                                                                                                .e          e                                                                   J;        e4 to                                      e e

4 e e =e ge J: e e ed O 4 7 se g E W e n A e =e a -e eO e . O an e g se . g u to e g C = to y P ') be 3 41 e 0 0 e es e # 0g 09 0 e4 .Ue 6 7 ** 3 ** O o .ee e6 4 0 C as C a a es e 3 e ek C .O e f% e e 3 4=aene eU ee e OJU O e e h O U .UeC .3 am U o 1

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         >                        set er a a                           U          88       .Me          U         =4          he        e                 se e De       .*                            en g 9e to 9J 3 e                e es        2                                      ee       4            C         f           &        es
                                                                                                                                                                                                                           ==

0 A es to 7 e (b e 18 e>ee e la e * *e te 3C e 6e e e J; me.U s to J: eeee - J; y 68 e U (h 5 f: 68 = en

                                                  .a 4: e y es y                     g 6e              *=           68                                         la         .e                           e@                                      e         6e                            p .toe es

• C g; e g g u g 7 e
• 9 J: e :( 0 M e C e na U e6 s e a g,; ** C *g*O9) g eh w as te be g es to e a J; e e m
• O & ed o e COO 3 e G ef .O e e' = 0 -e s .e 3 as e wAe e. .s.e
• U Z 68 e T g "88 *e 8 te se w 3 .Ue e Q ==.

3 e e e eeUge oe e te te e e 1 e w eo U g u 4 e C 68 f! 4 4 5 ee O U to e a 4 eO

                                                 .Ue e w 0 C e J; W e to                                                                                       C

• fi te f*- fk gJ e e 0 O. CO ** re et we el' em C

e p U U ft .U* e e e*h 4 S to e o es en e M C te e e a g C 3 C se 4

                       ~*            tb te 88 he we ti e q e se U          EA > # >= e C U ==e se
                                                                                                                   **        .Oe se                     se                                      e                    e        .U* e e                         Ge3 U#

Ja @ ee C e =* Go J! V V of e ** Ce Ek O N *e 3 M e .tie es O O g .ese e 48 g: 6A eU se U es e C e 9* A C C .e e eC e e e4 to ;3 e E e ed e ed e Pe.e. e e e U we C .* IT Se 1 e k"f.he g es he tp

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             .toe                                 eO 8 Pe .C  *OLt .e         g                        e                   y                                                  3v.es                 3                           4) 6                         O te e W            e            le          e .* NJ: e to e                       Ug es e V e

e e e C Ja e e g3 g s v&g e M me 4 to ed e = ee 44 g 43 e,:me to .s e (1e 9 e E e e es es se e U e 7 .fte

                                                                                                                             .e e

es 4 e s(* e ee 0 e R S e a 93 to 4 4 C Be e gy to e me e 3. hee eC3 .De.U e C U w to to U g 3 y e be as es le e4 C 4 e e C 4 9 de e m ft g e{ A.eg .Ae e U Be se le e p U e e es e es 3 U h a he O u to S e 3 tJ et e th U S e C to O e te O C T e .O, w te vt U it he e . r; J: e se y to e g

                                                                                                    =e
                                                                                                                 .ee         e      e             A          e e                  e                  e ew                 e e               to        w be MeO N                                                     as        .e                       u        th                     U          se       na                  e see e              e                 .e         e
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               =

J ase e,: >= e U es >= .U as s.ee se as N e e 3 le C e e e e J3 e e Ja -e e e e O n a U = A *e =Pe # heN to es e e 't EP o J; w V. 0 = J; & to C en e e .Ce e V

                                                                                                    =            e e                                         na                  e          e#       00e                 p         g         &

ee a.to e e ne te

                                               .e ,1g g ge Ef si p 6J asc 48lee.e          me ee         es C       .N* eT 7e
                                                                                                                                                                       .e C                          h to E               1                  e        h 4

y W is

• e e e na e tj en 4 6.e O tP Ae o O =e es 8 ho me # 8* M e C Ik C e O 4 e S e U'

                                                                                                                                                                                           .C* e O 04 g am          Q          up        e       an         e               m"ete e Ue
                      .f.e         se          se    C ee . es o IPe O *f A 3 e                    M             e          e O          CL n

0 ik ** e8 C

                                                                                                                                                                                *e         tJ 43 O Gi                                       4         e         is              *e e )       #

ft e he e O to J" e e e T e see 4; wt 58 y a to e le C fe de a=e et W 48 U es u e

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     *e WeC e to ** e he e e e                                   d                     e V                                                   e                                                                  4                # le 43 e             e == 4AW -e 4 te                              C3e                            CL 3 f.

e as U De et 8C O te 3 ed g af e se'

                                                                                                                                                            &                   me         3 il                        l e C we e C                   tP                    U             e         to        O          e                      e        p          e se                  W        se                         CU             e

(;

                                              ==. e le e O Du si e ne *e                 C         e             e                   G.         he          e                   e De e

U 9 e C =e

9 e ei U JI W ee ** * *e te HL Q e e e J; sIJ' e C (P e e to .Ce et se se e Q, e

he 9 ed a 4 ee.ee

                    .e e

99 . tp & W 68 to Die e e >es e U e 9 he e = *) tp C C U ee a .ee C e 3 U . O C e ens as se ** O M as T g e 4 e e ee9 6e .ed e C O O e as g e U g e C e .ee U U C 3 to e ne = es o e . to fe O og U e e* e e a tP E e he tP e es O 3 es l'te U & ase e M .ue 3 C O es C n na e e e se a e me 4; O p ** O e V a"e te e J_ a al &# Q he 8C e U *A e a e))e i o 44 s e

8) e e #4 U

• 8 af er e e

7. eC e 8 8 U C Cto6e e 't e e e te e eeeee .ee s 4

p

                                 -e 3

7. e e .e*ee e U == to tP O ee es esa ey p te e e to e e Ja e e se .U e 68 ** C p y4 = C me Ja

                                 *#          e           88         e; e mese as se O .o e as Jae
                                                                                                                                                                                                                         .e g e  e   eI       U              e O e el Ce g C .e ..e.                                       tP    ==   3    Oe es             's         y                      se                                                  e                                                                                                                                  e   U re         e te                         g           M gh O gg tpfg3, es g .e                            61         9 48 C                  e        C his g                      es                                                                                                                                               e w & #3.m.                                    WIeeg
                                 .e
                                            .e                     as                            to                    ee                      9:                    O y gp g U q pe y                                                     3 es                                               e                              O           J' ' . .e                                                                                            g y g .a 9                                 43 g         g

• ee se C J: . eg .U J;..c' e .* O wt J: Le ce e eeCe 1

  '               #1 ee e         e             n es es e           .s. e ;3 e e e es 0                                   = a#   e e U . e e g e se e =.U e w n

e ne e'I en&s n Ce T6# 4 f! .se e a e8 fD 3U 3 gp g JJ e 33 g am g* %d g gg e 4 g pe ,es.ce e e 3J g a .ae e e w se C

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  .o e q ee             to          se          U                                  9e C;    ef             *eOuAU                        C              M aJ Oree'swteeC no                                         J1 ty to u              o **                    e fl es t$ e< Ut te g                          e O                   e4                                                          U                        IP '4s C= oe?* ** w se                es l                                 e               ese e C                                          .**e& e .f:ee e                         to           se        to                        s ee.U-se e ee.ee e e C e w' e                                                                        e o. ebe        3 la e e                    at         3                                                teig U O ed         Jt n. h e                  =* U O . me                . J3                0e e en .e e                          OC es q  e Og .&.

e 4; C 99 e .eet er-U .se es eg as fe 6. e es a e se aO Q qp C r; se e ts V e g

                                                                                                .e s            e to) OF. eeQ      C J! p t;
                                                                                                                                                                      .C   epee ee( eg se n g S ea                          . U po x e te es 04 e as el es e J.                        e tt e a JT 3 e e C e Uj es ci
                              **                        C                                                          e                                                      es et se C .ee 48       O         fJ ee ** O e                                88 9 io et g
                                           .te e

e u e e'O e e o ev ed 7 p =e se C ip es 3 es= D -e e n - p e.se a . se g sea J3 32, p4 ** S* 3 .is e edse e es .U e

                                                                                                     .*       es         IP g 9 4 e n                                         te es e e .e

• O= g .e ed Je to e e e e C ft 3 8 ** De t/

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               .MCe ft             W          48          =e        9                                                                                                  Q te e el h* O 4 is e U C ne =* U 3

• 9 y e **

eE U e se 4 ** O es egge e e ed to e e 6a$ ed ne . g w weg ad g gg e es 4 Cge e .n e es e Jff e' i

                                                                                                    .V.si O( et g ese e U U s' U J1                                   e e eeC se ,De c .U ge JJ                                   W"#

se.D e .e ti S JT y 4 e se . e. se e u O se se .seelm ,s.

                                                                                                             .         bd         ** g *e vi                       e se             e .e. J he op .ee se toe se                           e            se 4 U to w               e se          .e to 4                         6 si O ft 68e e e rD. st ee e e O 3 See
                                                                                                                               .O            4e                         =e 74 e .9     e .ee .== se;tofLe7e=-e>7 0e
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         *

• eee 3 -e e e Ji 1% U he o eeJ* tP C W g o's e O to ce . e g me g (P se ,ee C g e C O tP e 17 A t.J se ** a'* 4 se eC0 +e se O ee e jg e o e e e es .*

g 3 a4s e e JJ **MV es F. C J' ne C 4 se e d' .e s e > eis D,i e 9 e e**= e op e se e f3 U e e ne e O-(q

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         *J *I           O n              e           is          el        u                         e .e              ns           3 e.seese     a Ue VC                                                                           en e Jf 9                               68 e    e es            n                                    *
                                                                                               . p ue .ee
                                                                                                                                                                  =          to i.            .ne3.d e                                                 * * * .

es se .Ue to e .f.-.eim. e e ne y ee as Oe e

                                                                                                                                                                  @ me sd a J; U . e .e en                 o    v .h ae neeC e          .e     e             as el.63 m , em a se &# U Ja ed3e0Cee 94 es          O         th                                                6e ne p en g

e e se .e.e C w e l'. w . == 6 e e 6 u gea

                                                                                                                       .e e U J' J*
                                                                                                                             .e - o se a s                 e e e se en es
                                                                                                                                                                                         .eCe 3 ft e                           eee se to" 3 3
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      . te e g g' e
                                                                                                                                                                                 .e u se                                   . =u J - e                  C re e J.

e en e J e se .O. e

                                                                                               .ee r e C se e .U       eQ eebeUeu@        te e e vt ee                 U          ...U.             ewyeJv                             ne - el is >

e e e e t-.=6 .e. U C e .e K' (J J ' .W 9 Q O 7 68 sel ** e e # U Ut > ** 9

• e e 'J

                                                                                                                                                                 .et                        as e se e 63 e e; 9           e           C         ,1               am                  be     e    es     f; to or he e e 1

CeeQ O e e a 3 e ** e *4 1 C

              . e' -          el
                                         =A y

e th e .V 9 J. e [g .ee U 9e e O e & = .U.(4 en . Q 48 s e*! D= 6e == y er e EP e .C*C ed E' fMJ4 9 V s Ae

              'e             48          g            a                                                                                                                *p O g ee7                         ggeg&

g aj &e6e O sk *e

• e se W =* L7 e O el he eseeGl1 e *
• se 68 se 48 31 Ul e's f 68 CJ ho e S sa l e f* 44 +e n e,e es UW M e

                                                     'e                                                                                                       e 3 U g se         meDeeaO         e e ()

se U 11 O O El es s: e' . C *e O th :s . sg ONte 9 $ .O e sl e e .toe U esame 6#1DipeQ08A eib e De 'J e e

• ce O ** O

                          q            g           a g                                                                                                                                            &8 &                                                            USO e

($ g e e e g e Sal ML* .63 e& 66 es e

• eg es e .die esce8 e 4e tf (! he e es fel U g W e *e ed UgC .e as .ete w

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         . g e a:f *ee 64Q 0 eesede he e 6e                    fe                *8 et             es                       e                                                                                                                                      e e                                                         *l ee             gl           g           e te                O                                                                                'P C . 9eth .u. q                    G . 08 e .u.C T) =          884 se  e .e9 e         el es'e e9ee e 'oI (L                el                                                                              4 de 1) eet1y<*es e O P e                     le        e                 se                                                                                                                                          H             t          e8 e e            *e s e es                          k           @         6e                 0

() U tj es se (! e e@ e *..o W See e # U U l 4 e 4 C O e e S ee e .ee o M 68 ** e el e M Ce

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             . e,

' e 9 e O 4 te Ne 9) 68 #8 og g 4 es e (I e g e a y e e gg e I' 3 J3 Q #8 .me e J*. W ee ** F* e e IP se ce 7.&! e4 e e J) e meWl w 4 eeU s(U le .8 8 ed 33 U e *e * 'P M U e e i e

o

  -n.
                                                                                                                    -'lo -
                   "stis:na :ves w:L; ach;ece a la cet of sta: ,-                 white naanta:ntng ::s r:;;d c ::eria suts:an::a;;y un:nantes.

s:a::an acc canta:nment of the a::ss c:n. carned. and a level of pro:ect:cn 23: pu=1;c The SEC's half-hearted recsgnit := of sne c:n;;ses::na; hea;;h. safety. and the envarcr.nent fr:3 rac:alsg: cal and nonrad: stag: cal hazards dire ::ve is inadequate to mee: the cons:eestanal inten ." asa:c:ateo wa:h sa:h attaa. whica is equiva-lent at :s. Os

ngent :ne tne

nan e11ent level::watch set:cas13.

would or be more ;he curren: structure of the ;;;posal wall crea e ach;evec by standards and requiremente presu=;tions in f avc: of particula: meth:ds -- the noth:ds ad:;ted and ents :ed by -he Caanission for

                  -he same purpose and an pr:nutgates by {IF Al." y final standards                      defined in the bcdy of the c: :er:a -- and require a 1: ensee 42 U.S.C. l 2114(c) (emphants added). This amendment was the              to prove that alternative methods are more des :ania. Where the desirab111:y of such alternatives is at eady apparent, result of Cangressicnal concera that the NRC criteria provided insuf *1 stent flestbility for damiing with site-specific                 such a procedure will serve to de reas3 needed f*ex1hgtity.

problems, particularly at existing sites. E*e. g2g2 127 Csng. increa se cost s unnecessar11y. and create di st ncentives to the application of innovative or superior designs. To sat *sfy the Sec. 52973 (datly ed. March 30, 1942) (statement by Sen. congreestonal intent, Stspoon).' the criteria should focus primarily on goals, objectives, and standards, not on specific and rig d in :espaase to thss congressaanal concera. HEC now dest;n or operating requirements. Moreover, in areas -nere

      ;raposes only an addition ta the "Introduc: ton" ts the cri-the need for flemih111ty se now knoun. the criterna themselves teria that sculd authorite licensees and appttcants to propose must be revised.

alternat:yes. The language of the proposed addt en is eenen- Cnly in this way can the NRC satisf y the congressional intent that a licensee be permitted ta snplement stally identical to that of Section 44(c). The NaC thereby programs for contest and closure of sites that meet bes:c purports to provide flesibility through an exe'aption power. etandards for protec: Son of heelsh. safety, and the environ-ment through cost-effective designs tattored to the specafi=

           !a dtscussing the NBC criterta. Sena:or Simpson noteds characteristics of a site.

• Car:ata of the technical requiremente adopted by NAC . . are cast as absolu:e require-ments, and NRC has provided no flexibility in "

applying these requtrements at exist:ng sites Kerr-McGee recognizes that the NRC has requested comment 6here large quanta:!as of matt tatlings a' ready exisc. in 1:a advanced notice of proposed ruteaaking cancerning the "sufficiency of of theAppendia flexiblittyA.prov ded by the changes to the In adopting these absolute requirements. par-acula fy for ents:ing

• Int:3ducticn* 49 fed. Eeg. 46425 46426 stres. NAC does =ot appear to have 9tven 46424 (1944). The natter is sufficiently inportant as to su!!!cient attention ta censiderations of require immediate revision of the proposed rule .

practicabstasy such as the economic and environmental cost of meeting the require-ments.* e

                                                                      - F1-

3:e::-McGee sa;m::a :ha: :ta pt: poses deie::: ag :n. W. sus.. s d. an a h erna **te as ::pra:- :acie. :! :: :ypeas,;;, three-ce:er :sver rega::scen: in :: er::n 6 represe: s in many :ns:ances.'8 hi c ::stt:n pers :s a ~;censee :: pre: aa' y the type of change that should =e effected th: ugh-dev:a:e f 3m thge a e p;;=. op 3n only !! he can comonstra:e ou the c er:a. Se three-cater requirement -as oes q=ed to *8C an alterna: We will pravtde

• reasonably equivalent ecau:e a 2 FC /a's enanat on rate f ar rac=c-222. na EPA 1solat*:n of tai;ings *::m =atural erssional f:rces.* nere a:a: Cards ad:pt a 2C pC1/m's rate, and ths:s some change :n ene 8 e 13gic in 1: posing on a lisenses the hurden of dest;n :q c:::er :n was required an any event to reflect the higner a disposal method to compare favorably with a sethod tha-- a
• allowed racon flam.' Ifoweve r. Instead of adjus: ng the "*C

                                                                                                                                           *ppropriate for its site in Any event.          he licensee thickness of the required caver, the prcposed amendment sorely

• requt:es a cover des gned to meet the standard. This approach will persit the thackness of the cover at each site to be * .

destp.ed based on the composition of the cover materials and

                                                                                                                                                                                           * '        '*U     **

other :eievant fac:ars," wathout the need for exhaustive ments that enta11 eistlar pr:blems when applied in the rest cacpar: son of .he design to an arb10:ary requirement, world. For example. Criterton 4Id) squires disposat sites :s Ker -:tcGee asserts that stattar changes are in order

                                              *ar other asposts of the criteria that*requl e conformance                          cove ccaposed of rock f ragments with specific charactert s-with specific requirements that are known to be inappropriate

• for sacf sates. For example, C ::erson 2 ::aats below-grade ptions is practical. Due to the arid candit:ons of the disposal as the " prime option
• for disposal of tallings, even *

                                             "                                                                                   self-sustatning. At the same time. rock fragments of the type Eer -McGee rese   res its ooject:ons to the 20 pC1/m ,                            m standard, which 1:

e W cma uan1Me in ce aqton telleves was adopted by EPA ars;tra 11af and in the aosence of evidence either that radon from tailings and can be imported in sufficient quant 1ttee only at huge poses a sign 1* cant ::sk to health or the environment or -hat

                     .                       the tece!!ts of the standard are justif ted by the costa.                           cost.

In developang its 20 FC1/o's standard. EPA noted that the thickness of the cover needed ta seet such a standard would u very ac:arding to the charactert arace of the cover matertels. In fact, E7A, [ina{Jgvig?rsen a y;:act Statement fs: Standards *2E be an inappropriate requirementE7A*or speetfica11y f>und below-grade disposal to tu esisting s tes. 3 9s_S22:IsL_oLhggggge{l.,g33er131sjIgg to I-12 15ept. .943) theretna.:ar E7 gggg ). 7 :cns:y "A TE15, ore pp. 15-16 Infra. See

                                                                                                                            -St=

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - ^ - -

e

                                        . 12                                                                                                     The sicpe reTa :e=ents of :::er :n is:) are a;ao                                 '     *E#***"      ** * # 8 * *# # # "* " 3 ;# IA;8 :874;;'-

cent :s :=poss; ale to =ee n =any areas. Those reta::er.en:s - me

                                                                                                                 . n .m tat red f.e ::::ena is re.:;n::.

requare vast ancunto ci land, sance the grades envia;oced by *

• ecces et een new and extenng st:es.

the cra:erian wit! requ:re each tat t;ngs pale of any sign ft. E E ** *Il8 88 8h it 8f Crin91:q the criteria anta cant sa:e :a be spread aver a lar;e area. Many !!:ensees c:ept:ance with the *'aw* sa:p;y co not own tha t such

• acd. Moreover, such increases in 88 8" a .

s vertous area also lead ta a need for larger amounts of cover mate- 8 e

                                                                                                                                   .as occasionally acknowledged r:als, including sont. This can enta11 great practical                          .

f : the regulatary approach f ar esist:ng dt!!acut::es in areas wnere large amounts of cavar materials sites must be different from that for new sites. For emanple, cannot be read:!y obtained. 1 Sta anttial promulgation of the criteria, the NBC br:sfly yhese few examples are sufflctent to document a discussed the matter. 45 led. Reg. 65521. 65523 (1940). And fundamen:at flaw in the NaC approach. The optimal method for *9

• C ""*nt8 Tel8 ting to the suspensson of stanti::st en of taalings wall differ wadely from mate to e .

e stan absened tha: *st: tag only sa:e. O.e cri:er:a saould not spect!y requirements that are pplies to new o sitee or new disposal areas. " 48 Ted. Reg. known :s he often anappropr: ate. The practical difficuttles I* "* *** C e8 in Vain for any sugges-in stanti;; ng ta:11ngs are hurdensome enough without the tion in the criteria themset res as to how the application of creation of :erstatory contacles to the implementation of a differ from entsting to new sites. The sensible pragram. Cacmassion apparently anticipates that the praaleos assoc:ated C. T/.e cri terta Co Not Prov:de suff:cten with the application of the cisteria to extst;ng sites wt11 he fleatbs11ty for Dealing With Ex: sting 5ttes edJressed on a case-by-case basis. " Yet many such prooteos When UrCSCA das enacted in 1978 Cong:ses esplicitly are gengtig in natu:e and not site-spect!!c. It is the N C's

nstructed the N3C to " cons 14ar poestble dif ferences in obligation to address these problems now so that both requ!a=

app!! cab:11:y of requtrements ta ex sting tallings sites an8eae e 1e u dance as to how :s proceed. relative tc new :as tings en te s . '" The subsequent enactment of jeg 127 Cong. Rec. 52973 (daily ed. March 30 1982)

   **                                                                            (statement by Sen. 51specn).

124 Cong. Sec. E12969 (datly ed. Oct. 14 1978) (state-ment by Esp. Uda11). See g! so St.R. Rep. No. 1480 (7 . 23, " 15th Cang., 2d Sess. 4e jee 45 Ted. Reg. at 65323 !! NRC. U nal cererte traec-(19351 s H.R. Rep. No. 1480 (7t. 1), 9 5 :.'a cacg . , 2d Sess. 16 (1978l. gatement on Urant'ts Mt!!!na. A-90 (Sept. [S60).

                                                                           -5 5-

                                                                                                             ~5-D: exa: pts. : e many as;ecu.af the r :e::a                     sia e tapcsat f ar exist: q sites. ' E7A's ::::;us;::. 2 .               <a relating s s;;;:q are -holly inappecp : ate as bases far                   t e M C ::::erian an the po:::. use based on a careful cc s:,d-coal;:q w;:n faa:*1 :es that have already created -- ar.d attad             erat:a

f the actual costs that . auld be infotved gn appg). ng large p ar.:1ttes af ta:11 age. On their face, the c : erta *ie r 48 28941:ements (including that of below-grade di sposa

• 1 .

c uld he c :st: ed ta ::sa:e a presumpc en that such tat 11 age 3 **8: 39 si es as well as ta new ones. *: the 4:sence :f a mus; be moved if the a :: q requ1rements are not met. regard- cc= :adt::ary study by NBC, the critar a sh:u*.d fo11ow gyA* a less of whe: hor such a massively costly endeavor is r.ecessary * '

• to meet the basic health, safety, and onwtronmental goals
• toward whtch the IJMTACA is directed. If so, the application * '

of the examp e. sattag requirements to existing sites is arbitrary ar.d e con lict between the etape requirements of capricious. Indeed. any such app!! cation te directly contrary to Congress's acendment o' the IJMTACA to require that the c:::arta add ses only sagnaficant Itske and that their costs lar e quantities of ta111ngs already in existence. In some hear a reasonante relationsnip to benefits." su pp. 5-a cases. 11:ensees may not have enough space or access ta j su pa. sufficient quantities of cover zatorists to dispose of eits:1nc - Another area in which the c 1teria wall continue ta taillage in comp 11ance with that criterion. :much less ta apply ir.appropr: ate requirements to existtag attes, even if ' O.e praposed changes are adopted. As tr. the area of below- Taken as a whole, the c 1:stia fa:1 to reflect grade disposal of tattings. C:1:erton 3. E7A gave signift- adequate recognition of the fact that ta111:ss at existing cant consideretton to the issue of whether below-grada dis- " " posal should be a requ;:ed aspect of disposal programs and as easily as ta111sgo at new attes. j' tha c-*

                                                                                                                                 --  erta are ta c:ncluded that it would g,n be appropriate to require below-               comply with the statutary fracework created by Congress, t ey must be reforautated ts. reflect this fundamental f ac:.

The c ::erta were developed through an analysts centered assund a *aodel a:11' that did not have large tan 11:qs p1tes a :eady in estatence and hence did not address the added costa of sowing such piles. [ee !?A fEIS 5-2. EPA recacaended that below grade

                                                                                     ~

TE 5 S-2. 9-7. {e,e NBC TCE:5 chs. 5, 11; coosare E7A disposa1 be consadored for m tail:nge impoundments only,

                                                                            "     133 p. 13 suore.

e

                                                                     -ry-

e

3. Any Azer.:nents ie t a:ani :a Cr=une.atar tte aneninanta : na UMT3CA ad:pted :y C:n; ess :n 1i53 .e:e Si.culo Awas: the sesults of the !har:u;n Re-Eman:na::en Now 3e:nqJ'ecertaaen by

                            ;ge.

ntendes ta prevent eaactly :hese censequences. Ac:::d:ngly. Eer -ac0ee ur;ee that the currentiy p:: posed enanges :n the As discussed above. Cangress in 1913 direc:ad tne critetta : stating ta g :undwater he deferred. DAC ta rev;se the ::ter:a to b: ng them Ents confernance w:ch tne E7A standa:Os. MRC Author::st;on Act. 5 IS(a). :n 11. E*.*EM !! SU357MITIAL RECOMstDERA;;CH ;5 ;IOT

                                                                                                *ROESTAKIM. !MI PRC70 SAL MUST It $;33:nc1ALuf (wif a ttner.: of than obliga: ton, the Commissten has puolisced                       BEVISE3 en Advance Motice of Praposed Rutemaking. 49 fed. Reg. 46425                           As discussed above. Kerr-McOee asserte that the NAC (nov. 26 1964). nv ing comments on how HRC may best fulf111                1e obligated to undertaa*e a fundamental recons;deration and g:e responsabt11:tes for protecting groundwater at tallings                revtalan of the criteria. Even af it is assumed agguendo that attee.                                                                     the NRC can somehow avoid this responsibility, la 1:s notice. the Commission properly recogniaea the                                                  ,               many of the need to ensu:e that such regulatians are imposed in a compre-             particular changes proposed by the NRC and many aspects of         the hensive and cacerent manner.       la 11,ght of this action. Kerr-        criteria that the M3C has chosen not to change are incansa s:en McCes urges that att aspects of the criteria relating to                   with the UMT3CA. We therstare turn now to a criterlan-cy-gravnowater protect:an enould be deleted or suspended pending              criterian discussion. :: must ne noted of the outset, however, ccspletion of DRC* a comprs=ensive rutomaking in the area,                 that the fiawe in the criterte are so pervasive that even af Licensees should not be burdened with constantly shifting                  the NRC were to ac:ept and follow att of the f =11owing comments.

re;ulat: ens prceutgated in a piecemeal fashaon. NRC has the defecta discussed in Part 1 would still be inadequately addressed. sufficient author 4ty to ensure that individual licensees meet beats groundwater protection needs unt11 such time as a NRC " Int :ou ?aa*_ ta the Crt:st;a cocprehensave set of c ::eria are adopted, (a) NRC aro2osal Add the following paragraph at the enda " Licensees or app 11 cants may propose in addition, several of the changes relating to alter =acives to the specific requarements in this Append!s. g::undaster fati to address algnificant risks, w111 inpose take into accountThe alternative proposals may local or reg

• anal conditions, including geology, topography. hjdrol:gy. and increased costs of compitance f ar greater than any incremental meteorology. The Come:ssion may find that the prcposed alternatives meet the Commi s s a an's increase in beneft s. and will have the effect of drastica11y requirements if the alternatives will achteve a level of stabill:ation and con 4:nment of the ree::1c ing the alternat ves avaliable for disposing of sites cancerned, and a level of protect:en f::

pubite health, safety, and the envir:nmen: C :n tailings, particularly at saa sting sites. As discussed above. radiolog: cal and nonradiologica* hazards

                                                                            -ss-I

r e e

• e o

e e e) V =.8 e #: o e e

                             H e         se (e,          e                                               se              e                               e                               e e                          e et       fl          41                               y            no                                                                                            p.                    .Ue       ;;       v3                    es es        g         get                                             g                                                              es        le                    M        *e e        to r;        68       es                      .ae                                           e                     og            se                        g        gg
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            #8       .*                   ee
                               #8         e e                                                               *e          >                    U               Os             u         w        (s           he       u se                  >                    h          ak e                                                                                         e          se                    m                              ne        g e          ne       o         u.         u c

a. e it e N 4# C e- he es er $e 3

                                                                                                                                                                                               .e          we        U           Q.         O        ne        C                     e e            e                                          o           a w                   e          U                                     S ee.e                             J"           es        e                     De       & e                   g to      u ue                               a u                                           f.te       5                                                 3            e        u                                                               g O

en se er e: o IP n f.e as le e

                                                                            . o le e

e 6vn 3 8e e 8e

                                                                                                                                                            .e e O

e e up o 68. g n u

o. >.

ne e, u a se a -4 e e ei w ow u .o. > e .C . u e-

• G aC 4 4 Tt w ** :: u C a e 8

.* a 4 se a es = se == .Se e le r6 nhe o 3 e: .ooe u .oe e 3 3 > u ,,e e

• e$ te e e g .e g 3 g a Tg ay a -e A em C e 6.

N he f! e 6e y g 3 e es e a y ne fg .Ce g g se n eo o to u e e

                =0                    98 en         a          g
                                                                                                             . yW                 .e.n      43               *O            V         e       .be 68 e =*N 31
                                                .4                                  e

• e s: 19 e as 3 & 3 e ed S .ee et se W e 17 .ee se 6e e e 7 De one 4 4; w 9  ;*

9 99 * . g e 3 O

                                                                                                          .ee e =*

De %e Ce O e onetP g no W 43 A e r, w 3 J es he TJ *e M a O n4 th a ne vse to O n g as g O re O J3 as e > C U es g C = e R to g 4 3 9e g to e8 ep .o4 tp - .e 3 e e he e e 1=

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  &#                    e          O u         o       es                                                          C          la                    se              ee                                            3         et        es                   C
                                                                    -,s.e . :.e b

EL d' O 'J e e a me e . -e 3 4 9 e a e sI -nu 3 e8 3 * ,C * .e

                #                    4e        Ji          ee                                 e          a             e         o          e              e                                                   -C e

x oa2 e u .o* c 9 e e4 e

                                                                                   .0                     U          "I          C          gj             4; .ee        .ee e                                                           3 C

le a le to U e 3 s g e e e n te e f! e se 4 li U v3 4 .to o e e.ee e a Fm e 9 e 0 9 U

                                                                                                                                           .he                 tJ         M        .&e e                  so J3 U

48 me 3 e %e e .ee M C C ** . De ne a C C 3 *e V en

               .k4           e e> e                        le          se De e

e e 3 ee . O & a to e

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  & a                             9 c        se                                          e
                                                                                  %e                                            eJ         17                 A          H to                    e

• u n t' U e Q e e e e e f e e O
• 6e >

l'e: a n uw e o e as el C O e e w = w a. e

• e"*

U e 3 Ae aa e p u = v 9e ab .se le u S n o& u f3e .se se se a J.I. v S 4

                                               -t          e                      n                                             C          e               44 (P         U         U                              to
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             =             -e         e s.e                                                     em                                 o se                   o                                                                                           C                    (P        e e J$

IP e J. es e 4e

                           .e og          u          N,          ie                     o eI                       one .e,                                      e        th e             9              a                   es          e o        e           se m                              i o rs e6#                                                                              e       .C w                             a           C        a e                            s:

a w J3 Se e en D. .s4 n e A 3 ep A e e e 10 ** he J* t. th O O e w J:

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        . w 6:

19 't o e U e b *e 6e e to il g o8 w 88 n e et e 83 A E O .e*

• f3 p e A LP Fe e .* O 3 se u - rr.;:..* e es es .

u E u

                                                                                                                               .ee         3                   e         e        .Ue      g           C g

3 tp w e e e e C .ile U e A.= e o 3 ~ m

                                                                                 .ee e e a                                 e3 o e                        .o .se . u a o w . u                                     o        e , o o                                  C         .ee e=e        U         e O

J$ A 4 ee e e 3 PJt e 3: e S O e is e a - **- U p . ei n u e.4 e O J' me e W me 4 e e e it 5 C et U

              *e M
                            .       C e

e

                                                                       - oe                 O           C.        t{

t. eI e == o le q o r*I C e e 88 e es e ed g a N A e 9 = e & O 68 un

                         .e o        r!                       tP         e                     .e          R          .&

e 5 = C e es e .Oe &J O M e to g te e e e 44 4 3 3 *e 0 W

• es et m u e e se e te A e C V 9 & U C he aC Jt e == a se se se u na De 3 0 e es e :s 6.

                                                                                                                                .       13         C                            se                    a,8      se         h ise                .O                              E se 3          .e                      e         ne        e                             e                                                               e      4
                           . : toJ:                      et          to          e         p           se         e           e          e                                               .ee          rh 0                w                    e          e                    e est                  se                       e 4;                 v v                    e           o                                                 be                                         e                   e V                             **

e . .e .es e see p 3 e it f: 7

                                                                                                                                                                                .ee s                9         e          6e         .M

• d M tes e y es .e se (3 sa -e e8 *e ne g e C e . e e ees seer e as es ch se e e 43 4 3 e C g a e y v g 3 as W to J: O O O =e .n4 sr e Z .Gie a e e g O O es 3 u v 3 O C h 8

O 1A e 9 p N e .he g e e f ce rs o et s: g is y a J. e e

          . e .#1  e to te e

e se c . ee n n 3 se se e o es e e te .ee A e**O eh a 8: en to ee ne U e se o l se P e "e es se e at rf .ee e me e e ne 968 np e 0 00

           .e e e e; se e                                           e.         ti          g          y se o >                                                    ee                 to e                               >
                       .e se t! we                                  > ue                  se =                               p          o                                                                  a;        g                                        th13 r3. as he

("P o et e .ee o e

• e tp te e

e C es y a y *J e me e e u o et q . A u .Ce e * *s N a e a p C su o u n e st u re st e e y u o ** .c e a e g g awe s ee me u a - e u noe

          .e* si e            e o ei
                                                       .es
                                                                                         -e                      e tp =                                          e                           .n.           e         a re rg 68 se a e if                    e        e          e          to          c                                                                                                   G,         3 se se               e        se           e                               o                                             *
                ** u 7%. hee       e                  &            e           se         u         44                       e        m.ee                                                    g            ga e g                                             th
          .ff G              *e ** to                  .e          e           C          0         se         me            g                                   EP O                O                                        y           r.                 8I          Ce e           e                                                                                 e                   th e a e                                  g          as                       e
          .to e     ..tf 17 C to                                    N                      e e                    e e                   A.e                        to e               o         te e e                ne        g                              e 42 .oee 11                                3                      m                         e7                 e.        e                     e                      e e               es          op                     e          .fte tp                 e                                                                                                                                                 ne .

JJ s.eO 3thee 9 e t: 1.e 4: e. ty C e ** A .e* &C e th th

                                                                                                                                                                                                         .ae s M e                     C                  .v*eduese me
            . O'      :o th a t tot                    e          .ee          e         h          >= >                              se                         ua                 e sh                                          O                  W O sJ  Af ep 4*   sl .

e es e at p toe l} if G & .e o ep e .ee e U v g C .es e 9 h o (P to e te C .* O 3 e .eey J3 g e .ee e C O W 4, 3 ** s e H .4 .a eOQ 5 e 9 17 Q 0 -e

                                                                                                    -e         .Ce          e                                   .te. A              g        .ee          e                   e,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                              ,           e                             &

ne a to e he se 41 P e e e

• eg

          .e U e J!                    P              ri                      e                                                                        C                            U        S            e gg e 4 3 es 17                                 e

• e e A.* to 4 e Q g e8 ee>

k e W G Ji W G w 9 le h 3 ]e. p 41 e

• 4e e p e e rL=e %e te .8e e & ta %e 3 U

C C J*n e e 0 a e y u d W ee 3 e J4 eO9 .e4 > 0 .ee O e n d oet. Ja ed t p Ig 3 4 P e if 0 e e ** LF3g 48 On s e to y sg e ne as os e C *e Cee ee (! e e .tP*q sto #8 n e C e to e O .e 3 ee **

• J eeep3n

                                                                 .e e                      e          e           e                     se h

e me te e - .e sa le W e es se c it e a 33 e gg g e ee e e e Jl'

                                                                                                                                                                                                                 #          (ge            .               =e U               .e e et e e et y                            te                       .e                   i.se e -e

e. 3 y 3 19 e G es 4{

th .e u ee ee e ey .e u le S se aw 88 3 e di e le et to J3 e > h (b h see e le as 9 e e e4 9

         +3 e se e &                           O             +         es        na          e me                    e                          Q         ee                 5         e a                 41 =                   tF                 7e en) # =0 0 C               ft .*                                         me          e                     =e                         e e 68             ed      A C                   AJ                      C                            WPn e stesCg.to se                eee  se .ne e.           is u                     na        as          rg          e          .se e        e                          o e ne             e
                                                                                                                                                                                                                               +

g ese es e se s* iP es o seg e e -=P e c o se C p ee C . w a tf se se o e as to

         .ee e sI e g y                                                     4*                     $           th         U                                          6e e                   e e                  V          e           e                   e         eg en           d          .ee         e                                 .O*                       ses. gC            e     r:

u es to se a Tf a u .ee e e o th a e m es e .e* tg

s. of dj a se p e . e:LP et e . es u se g g et e .ti4 y v v e . o rt a Ch e et.

• W EP =e E e g es e o o e to o eI e e O e4 V to e e e e J; es u y .e > *e w se u tp se see e ** eee g se y es e ene gg es eu,J e e e to e 'O at; se u

e 5 a m o to y c n d' C g u as a e U m .ee e e O C e gh e e ea e C see .3e .S h e 4 h C 0 A y g sj 03u9 w we e as as o e y e en e e w e J) O O se se le 4 /1 0 he eP e A *e to .C

• ses e@ e

                                                   ;4           De                    g          as          as          y          e          ee                                                      e

8) e 9 e e dj to es C e as "W 9 e U se 29 se e Je e ee g a ee as et se (ie se e e 3 e**H+

19 (1 se t e e es te. O C G e u l'o t e e es y a ;1 sh e8e e

                                                               .ue         4 e
                                                                                        - ene a                          to u e o it
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       **                #3 :'                 a a                                                                 1                                           **          r = gb .*.                                         se=               a 1            se        g                     .e. e                  .ee         w                                          08          eI
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       'A
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      *e                        IP         to e LP           6e                   e is n                            se          IP                                        *e                               a            C                             eeE e            e        .o
                                                                                      . n                               a           e          ,e a                                   ou to          !4         e          se         .n4 O                   be         se
                                                                                                                                                                                          .e U          .ete      .e8         e           W e

• nghe 88 e

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              .;;; ce ;er::::a: .nen e-talustaan of a;* relevan: fact:rs snaws tha; a piac ::vot       q con act w::                                               The E7.4 a:ancares reguare : ;/ taa: ::e need ist

usaale g :und-ater is appropriate ts; a part:cular site. Earr-McGee tel: eves ac ::.f. sagn enance he " manas::ed.* 4C C.f.K. ll ;92.32that!).

25 4.11;t a) .

                                    ~

t=at Cacq:ssa has cenanced that the NEC prav:de such !!emi- fa: Lure :s delete the mandatary language :n :Ms t;;::y :s 11:ensees concerning att espects of the c ::erta. NAC c:::erta w:11 therefore result in an ::::sista==y be:-een L.: any reqs::eeent tha: cantact wa th conusable grou=cea:ar he :te c:::erta and the standards. This : cons:stency was prevented snould be spec;fically 8denti!!sd as an aspect of recogstrad by :ta C:=st seson when it suspenced this port:an of - the c 1:erta on which the NAC anticipates the coed for flent- Crtterion 1 (and sta:lar language in C 1:erion 12) in August b:11:7 1983. Je3 48 fed. Reg. 3$350. 3S354 ( Aug. 4. 1983). The (c) ger -McCae og3eogals Delete the phrase *with- Commission was carrect in suspending this requirement, whica out ongo::q ac:two maintenance

• from the first should now be deleted attagether.**

sentence. Delete the last paragraph reading "Ta:1&ces shall be disposed of in a manner that no active maan:enance as required to preserve (d) Earr-McGee OE2go3ats la the it:st paragraph, conda tions of the site.

• delete tive the parase 'la selec:::q among alterna-

allings disposal sites or judging the Kerr-McGee believes that these changes see required adequacy of exist aq ta:11ngs s tas," and inser:

in its place *1n selecting amarg alter-ta canfora the ::::erta ta the requirements of the I?A stan- n4: ves for new ta111sgs disposal sa:ss. .* dards and the relevant s:stutes. HRC is author: zed ta estaba As has been discussed above. the app 11 cation of the tasc rules to ensures sating requirements of C:1tecton 1 to entstang sites :s wnctly trappr=prtate.

• ha t the need for long ter2 In the suspension proceed 1:3, NRC rejected maintenance and sanitart q of (Catlings disposa1l Ear -McGee's suggestion that this c ::erton be suspended sates . . . after tera::attan of such license wall be a*.namjged and, to the east altaanaceo. gum estent p se::caole. because
• siting only applies to new attes or new disposal areas.*

42 U.S.C. $ 22C1(a)(2)(A). 48 fed. Reg. at 3$352. Kerr-McGee ag:ees that the HAC's blanket prohib:::en on sa active manatecance escoede thts statutary authority and section 84(c), which was enacted by Congress af ter the ignores Congress's recogr. tten that the complete elimination original of such ecriterna were mandatsry promulgated, also requ;;es ettatcat:cn squirement. of ac::ve mata enance is in fact got f e asable. flestbt!!ty requirement is to ensure thatThe entire purpose of the st:ss presenting special not meet disposal prcolemsin those prootees not anbeefficient locked tato methods that ce disposal program meets the basic health, manner. So long as a safety, and envtr:n. See 124 Cang. Rec. H:2969 (datty ed. Oct. 14 1978); 124 mental goals of the criteria, it should not Cang7'iec. 519037 (datly ed. Oct. 14 1978). hand merely because it is dest;nad t3 se rejected out of of actave malatenance. 1 cluce 11mitad elements

a r a e e " * . c r t e I t c p a a h r n * ' . d e n n , e op t s e d d e e o e

• c *

r. *

                                                                                             * " c  I Y

h c o s e

• Wi*

                                                                                                                                                                                                       *t o

• a c ar y e n :

a we u t n b - u c " I t h - r t a d " " .m ut n t s " d t e o p o h t e . ea rsn t d u  : * " y r o p a p a e c s a rs. ca na m n t t a nt eat v,sn oaa l r q e l e l l a h s e e

• e esssaeh o e b "
• t a t e t f c e  : epe: ,f u o cr
• o a o e .

                         =                 :                                     r                                    1                                                                      t                   n                                   t        c t

e a q i e u *

• e hsoesos

i o

• f y r  : t
• dl wcy.o et n d s g y q s u e e a n a s d 1

l c

e t f I" g e tfarpnt: l al st t

• e
• i m d

s  : r o n aohoaoia e r r e o e t a an t *

• 1 t s t ft r
• p a i t

c s o ht s p 1 sn e ner r a " g e t s n l i " 1 a eeegseno " e r e e s t e a r e n s

• t li

s1 etbs rt ep

• t a " r s

s u e ve at i d"*

• t

              .                           s a

e : a;te n i n

• e i a e r v l
• jalens- b d c pageorrra t

1 2 r f a A P o e l a h e *

                                                                                                  "*                t a        "*          n emtnd                       t *

• b e n
• a

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     "              r     b e

f E s t u t I " a se oie " o o e t n p " H t c flnno scf

• dl*

l p

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          "                        f         y

e c a c e e *

• i eyo r nr goe * *
• l

n a t e r p t o Eanacin u l n e a O f u a 8

• o a
• o r t

t r f e s e l

• e
• s sot no c s i e a o a  : *

                                                                                                 #

• e 3 rt :i v a e
• o
• t =

e : y atv a c]pah r t t p p d h : c na c t d e :: e s t 2 5 a M ** c

                                                                                                                                       '+.,l                   doa i                 s

i i l 1 r arect s f f r e.saes a - 3 i a u s a i e ss d e e e n

                                                                      . c                                                                          ettoai                                                                                         t v                                     "                                                                                                           a                                     s a :e c h                             o      ra a s        c

• uat ' t oapei t prn r a u b e

c 1 e f

• 8
• f j b
• F.t e t mot m ' f o e 13 v ao a

y e h t o s s

                                                                                                                                                                                                                       "                          o e r

h *. e i l n n

• s f w e i t

s t g s

• o
• 3

( o s s o n ' -r d e c i o o :

3 s e 8 t e

c e  : I" ts d e c t

• n a r f a e o a

a

• c r a
• s. t h re *l e d d t y P
• f n s n t r

a. C f u t e

• t o
• e h P m -

u g a t b e e s-g

 .                   :                                                         e                           n                                      .
 .                    a                  e -                                   r                          i e                            m                                                                             8           )

t ; t a a s e v 7 = 4 s

: d t e 1 1 -

s  : t t s s a T n d r d e 1 n a s r e : sx i h i w n = :  : o n e a

: : e o e r e- a t e C :

n o me 1 e s e c v g f a s e p 5 d n a g w  : n q e h a p s i o a s m n e 1 i r e o o r i h t t i :

                                                                                                                           "c          :          l        t       c h            e   d rh                  t         5           t         t
                    -          a        e h                                  e         u                          t         g t g              e                  t      s         !           s i h         :                :                                                                                        e n  d o         g e            s        a
                      . = ;

t n t i e q n a o a o r l g g d d o ! p  ! e :1 r  ; . o r r f o i te op er r s1 a t n er na e t e d y s C p a  ! a d A t e e 3 l e 1 d r  ! u t n P e n s  : l a o d o a se d y 1 e'. i o s n t t a f o h a c y t a t u* g o a n ga E - o e c p e t r i g h r t e h t f l . v t

        .         t           :                 r        e                  s n v e       l p

n

• o 'o a c a t

p : n ap v t i e p t e t f h e c . e d. t e n c. i c t n e on h t o

                   ;                                a                       n                  S         a        s        a          y t                                        r       r          r                            c         a s                   :       p h                          e          s                                                                                         a        e                i e                    a        t e          e        r       a                                      e                           e h                l                    v i                            f          y      t                     n s

h e n m

e g . a o l c t n ot a t e ) f  ! a , i i

- : , a o h a c g i  ! r e d e d c r n d c r t g n ng d a ef e pAS i a e i p n e r e

           -                                   n                            u h r                       g                  e l                   e n 1       t e                                                    P          s w

e

                           .y c                a        s                   q    c i o h m b : e 1              y r : s e                 o                   E          l 3       n          a         s se c e t

r e

                                                                                       , q u l               c e                 t           a :t na 1

d 1 a e . ) ( a t 2 i r s w n, s s t s e o h i c a t r g h h e 3

           -     : a                   i O              s          .       g          e r n w u eq s o ef                                               r         s f                          t          t         8          e c        e        s         n         t                                                                                    e o a A                                    :         5          t

4 c n a a f

no ss p E F r e i y e t 1 y o - : t t e p n e r l e r 2 t t e l v a r sa n oo r o e s . op t i r a ce c e c e e p r e r q s s g a h e e l . w g 5 p a g

a e a e s 1 e t n r e one r o rv e a e a r g e h d : r e e . o p u 3 t l n o t e s t b 1 n c y ; q  : q a n h t  :

e c o h r d h c t p d t 1 a i a a  : : : t t e r i t e

                                                                                                                           , e d d                a w

e t a e n e c a a J . a o : s

o e s :a e t f y e t (

s t t  : l p o d e i e a sh I e : o 2  : s l t t v t a 4 s d  : e y e  : r m n e t t n to no c  : a 13 t . :  : nc e y a a a u 9 l i r  : = t f 1 a u s a c na e v ic u l u a : a a a t c i o c : g t t d r e cs e a a t . d n : e g n s  ! a e h r t t n A t t c m er a a s s 0 l

= i n  !  ! t t  : o a a a g 1 i e 9 u

; d t e  ! a r F e c a na d s 5 o

                                     ; c a :                                        p r a a                                                                                                      J                 a                    h

e b a h : p p c .

g e r m n t . s . c l a h d r o h. cy  : e t a a e 4 , d . :

c1 e t : a a

( e a n a 3 g e C; a t s l r . ; e h e e e  : s ev r ta l R s

e e < epc e 4 :J e t

t r n t b t  : e s d t a n e 1 o n r a. e n : ; c a p s t a m e : 1 1

p o d e :

t

r. a f t t e : t s e : : n  :

c m u s a t o i a c c a e r : 4 w a

• c m i e h t T T 4

                                                                                                                                                                                          *ht s ::=s;; era;; s as ;ar :: alar;y reia. an:                                    s: ::ac::te a;;as.

sa a::en a: - ::a Se:h :::ense c:ste are no; r:stil:ad :f opere:::na nave ceased and 21aat stao:11:at :n to uncer-ay. any a;;a:fican: heal:t sais. Appt;:a::an of seca a resa:re an; A: ::at pa;= . nearly att of a 11:ensee* a cos:a may he charac:- ta es:st;ng e::ee woulf thersfare vistate the statu:ary er::s4 as short-ter: (par :cularly e:::e the cet ter:a prah:st: =anda:e that the casts af such a requirement hear esse reascn-act:te ma;;;acce as a fea ure of a disposal p* an). It acu14 acte rela:1anonap to the risk it la designed :a address. be 111og; cal ar.4 contrary to the : stent of the statute ta  != fact, betaw-grade disposal, parts:ularly as a require , auch costs to be disregarded aerely hecause they are to be 1 scarred r:gn away, tacker than at , of the criteria. some t!ae far in the As the Comassolon recogn:aed in the suspea* future. stan proceed 1=ge. *belcw-grade disposal t e no cecessary ta Crlterton 3 meet EyA's proposed longevt:y requirement.* 48 Ted. Seq. a: (e) tsc orsocagla Delete the zodt!!are "high 35352. qual :)"~3er groundwater la the Moreover, below-grade disposal actua!!y enhances cea of the second paragrapn. second sentence r:sk of misuse of ta111 age matergate. etace 15 conceals . Kerr-McGee opposes att such anandmente !n the ta:1:sgo p11ee and thus encourages future occupancy and use of c ::er:a that pran:ht: the disposal site. cantact w::h conusable groundwater. 143 pp. 20-21. suprg. At a alcimum. Cetterton 3 should be amended to ease (b) Earr-Mcdes prooosql Delete cetterton 3 in 1:e 1: clear that below-grade disposal dcas not have to be the ent: racy.

• prime op-ion
• for estating ettee.

As has been discussed aoove.as Kerr-McGee opposee the The Comm:ee:on has already stated se auch. 111 48 Tod. Reg. at 35352, but the cra:er:on requiremen; that below-grade disposal be considered the 'pttze option

• for disposal sites. Such a requirement la particu- as presently written drawe no distir.ction between ex:scing ar.d new attee.

tarty 2nappropriate far selectag sites. An amendment clarif ying that point to thersfare Tar example, at fac111 See such as L3.cee 13 New .Mexica, camp 11ance with auch a required if the Comat eeton does not fallow kerr-i4 Cao's recommendation that requirsment would accessitate nosament of large esisting the entire criterion be deleted. tatlinge pales at Critetton 4 enormous costo -- conceivably cn the order of $100.000.000 (a) gpCcro:ceal Revlee paragrapn (al by delet;ng based on COE eettmates far movement of taittage maatnua passable flood

• and taaer:: q *Prab-able Maximum T1ood.'

5e3 pp. !!-12, 15-16 euore. e

Ker -McGee :pposes :::s prapcsee are : en:. e:::e

  =st se:                                                                                   1:3     es... ~,.
                                                                                                            . a. _ ..-
                                                                                                                    . . . .g a .rs  -elete paragra;n (c3 =

the es; stars tar.guage cor ::e p:dposec =eu *acguage a e"***ety* represente an app::p :ste requirerent. A P:coaale Max:=ua areg apc IC) requires acbac4sent and caver s!cpes flood (fMT) is an as remely um...ety and tatally specula:1ve * ** * #* 7 at a er 1:a stas...zat an. Such a ' eve = . 1:e chance of cc:urrecce as cace:fe:asty toes than * *

                                                                                                          ** **** # ** ** *** ***'*                F"#E'** *#    I O...,per year, and . Le very u=.... 4ety := occa: :n a 200 year
                            .                                                   m ::st::=g erasian.

Under the Caiversal Soil Lose t'-'at:ca* bass e -- or even a 4.CCO year best e. Such a requirement as .ao&1 loss depends on a variety of factors heeldes steepcess of thue inconsistent with E7A's 1pagevity requirement. Most *

• pua capal stata systems and other flood control systems are coatsned octy for 100-year storas, even though the ha:ards .

resultang ,:>e he f atture of such systeme would be consid- pr viding more attrac-1ve locattans for future human use' essely larger than . hose !!kely to result f:na eroston of a The slope requirement of paragraph (ct shculd also at;l atta=ge p:le. e e ate . at least as applied to exist:ng e::es, because of

1. Le particularly 1sappropraate to 1 pose the the disproportionate caste such a requirement ut!! entaa! 4:

7::mable Maasmus flood requirement es an elemen: of atte

• selec ton. 1 to entirely pesetble to stabt!!:e a ta111sgo , (d) Eer -McCae prooosal Delete the first four p11e at a high FMT este so that there us11 be no appreciable paragrapne of paragrap'n (d), beginnteg "A ful!

self-suetatning vegetative . . .* and endaag erse:on evea af such an untakely event occure. Isclueton of " pointe (a) and (b) of this Criterton." such a requirement The asserted purpose of the language proposed to se as a site-selection criteriac as thus ashtt ary acJ caprtctous. deleted relates to the preventian of ernston. Houever, vegetative and rock cover are not the only measures availaote (a) Fort-McGee 1:e encarety.orsoosala Delete paragrapa (b) in for meettag this need. Other measures, such as contauring or Paragraph (b) provideo for selection of a site to terracing, may be more than adequate at some ettee. The en sure that scpographic features provide good u1:4 protection. c 1terna should not hamper the highly o!!e-specific juJgaects - Such a constrata: le not =ecessary to meet the EFA staccarce, se ibe Commaesten recosnaamd when the requirement uma sus-pended 1 August 1941. The paragraph should now be delete 1. }ee pp. 12 0 , tug a, ) S

                                                                          -Go-

                                                                                                                                                                                 .e
                                                                                               . - . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .      ...s     .-..,~ .         - - - . -

e

                                    - ;3 -
                                                                                                                                -. : :  :.e ::1- :; erat - Lat a4e u;;s it a; s:a::;;;a:::= ::

Kerr-:4cCae :elieves tha; ::a de.' stas: af the ae:::

pase :equ::soor.:s on;;h 4:e st: hor c:s:-;ustif:ed nor eactance as sat a;;;;;;; ate.

c:s -effet:rse. Ker -M:04e is ca :ernes ::a: :he deleti:n of th:s tacquage ccuid be :end as preclud: ; uran: s As has teen 4:scussed above, the spect:1: :sq:1:3

  =ents sand backf1111:3 as a sthod of dis;: sal. Sand backf 111:S is paragra;as (4) relata:q :e campos:: ton of rack c:'.er are   4=:sa;:sta:                                                                   a disposal method that entails return:sg tatitago :s the sace g:vec the Lcava:!astat y of such

• perfect
• undergraund sandstone aquater from w 1cn they were at:g::a;'y .

ch ta the areas where urannua as maned and attled. Since utnad, Studies have semanstrated that this prac 1:e has had, vegetative cover to also inapprop Sete in many such areas.

and will have. no ud: award ef fects on the groundwater in the tacensees should be encauraged ta develop more realtetic a 4 ,, cast-e!!sc ve eses:en cantrol techa: ques. aqatter 1: question.se Contaminants cantained an the ta: Lings are renoved by the else drainage system. The strong reductag (ep Terr-McGee oragosait in the !!!Lh paragrapa of

• paragrapa do), delete the to racs cover on slopeo . phrases envaransant in the aquifer -- the sane enviranaent that causes

                                                    . .* and "Ia

• addt :en

                                                                 . . utth s.cstar:aat rack = aver (rip :spp.*                             urantum and heavy metals to concentrate there ortganelly --                        i'*
                $n cc:sments 4tc) and (43. gu m .                                    wait over time resut la a retura ta the pre-stut:q hackgr:und                           .

Cr*:s :an 5 concentrations of the cantaminants as the agutfor recharges. tal haC 3:soonal: la the ::st paragraph. delete Sand backfilling has a nummer of sagat:1: ant bene-

e farst see sentences beg:ncing

• Etape shall to taken . . fits. first.

the parsee *. .*. and end:ng

• potential usee" and it protects overtytcq f armations f =a collapse

                                        . 13 order ta accomplish t=:s objec 14e* in the tht:3 sostence.                               and thus prevents crass-conmunication and possible lose of Ker:-McGee supports the deletion of'the first                         aquifers. Second. Si aests:s in assuttag worker safety by
 .em .nce .nd .b2 ec=s t. .e 1.tt.n ., =he .ec. d .ent.nce.          A.             preventing co11 apse of mine roofs and contratting radon decay has been discussed above. Eerg-McGee cpposes any limitation on                     products in underground anne workings. Tht d. it altows more coccast with graundwater that                                                      complete estraction of minerats by providing suppor:

is not currently or potentially to maced usaolo. The rega ement that seepage to groundwater be out areas, fourth, it virtually elistnotes radon releases ta a::: mazed as att cir: ass:ances to therefore inappropriate, and the atsesphere. Finally. At results in deep dtsposat of a signtitcent the it:st sent enc e should be deleted. Alt e rn a tive ly. NaC portton of the at t! tat t1=gs, thus re=oving shou 14 1: sert the eerd

• usable
• oefore " groundwater
• 1: that eentence. se See Append &aEar -McOee Tate 44, 49. Comments on EPA Standards at 95-97 & *

                                                                          -Lt=

0

 .. ... _.                   ._- . . . . ~ - .
                                                                                                                                     ; ::.ess :f erse: r..

em arnal rac:e::ac, acc fa:::e ::suse af ta:::=;e.a. Eer -M:0ae =s;ects :s :::a paragraph : :e e4:en: taat the rema :: ; la3Guage :a/ he 13:e: pre:ec se squ:::=;

                        !!e EPh requ::ement af na can-aG w:;4 S::urr.a:er refe:enced :: 40 C.F.3. % 192.32(a) app 11ee only ta surfac, 1:pe::een'e 1: ers :s to 1:stal ed at estating sites.

Any

cund

ente and thus ar. auld nat to applicaste ta eaco hac*a. such car.stract:s= s 1:c:: state == with EPA standar:s. wh ch spec:fically eserp: esisting s;tes fram its *;;;sarj" standa:a fat;; ;. La other cantes:s. EPA hea na th. past recast::ed

                                                                                         *ar pratect;on si graur. cwa:er. 40 C.F.a. 6 ;i2.32(alt!)a see L2e generally benef actat features of sand backf1111=g by                   44 fed. seg. at 45140-41.      Moreover, the requirement of a categar :gr.g such operettons an Class V for purposes of the synthett: liner under esteting ta111 age la not ;usifiable :

endergrawnd sc3es :an control program ur. der the Safe Drisktag water Act, Light of =ast and environnestal car.siderations. It to clear that hundreds of o1111ons of dollars could be required ta . A atner amount of seepage la necessar:1y associated obtain a cow site, construct a 11aer of clay and/or synthetic w::t Laat:a1 escd backf 111:q placement. However, such saternet, and relocate an estating ta111pga pale to the site. seepage, wh::h to acercepted by the aire draa= age erstem. Se further, because an esis: tag p11e cancet be moved befare it et fin;:e auratten and is relat:sely inst;nt facent.s' Sand dr es out. the movement cannot a:413 contrat =f water canta:1-back!1111ag operat:ans do not, therefore, result in any nation. The requirement would therefore provide no benefit :o appractaolo deterioration of groundwater. The crateria should the environnent er ta health protection. Such costs should cons =ue to persat such operat;ons as a viable alter:ative for not be d*sposal. taposed in the acosace of a demonstrated risk to health, estety, or the environment ar.d a show1:q that the (b) UsC_3tagosals la the first listed 1:ee under the f &rst paragrapa beginning wath *1sstalla- benefits are reasomanly related ta the costs, tion of . . .* selete the words " law permeabit. Sty

• as a character:st*c of bottoa 11:ers, Use of a synthetic 11:er may in f act he counter-productive in some tr. stances 1
• a ' bathtub e f fe::* Se created.

Many of these advantages were recogn: zed by EPA la its analso:s of disposal alter =attwee. Se3 EPA TE!S at 8 16,

           **                                                                         Moreover, use of synthetic !!ners is likely to require car.-

Such atter seepage le set prahabited by 40 C.T. A. t 112.32lbl(19. wc:ch incorporates the requarement of 40 C.f.3. 1 264.* 11 that the close:e

ued matstenance, a result the NEC has elsewhere ccndemned, etta :ste escape ta grou=dwater.

must can11ol, atnist:e. er (c) NEC afetosal la the bestdelete at q Where graundwater spectssecond paragrap.} the phrase *:o 1:s potential use.befste

                                                                                                                                             .. attling     .

operations began to the massaum antent pract . cable."

                                                                                 -(1-

ser:-Z:Cae suppo::s :he celes == sf :::s language == 07::er :n 5

ce a : ass ::a res:::a::aa of grec :wa:er sa 1:e po:en et (a) .yaC ::: osata ce;ete the first aan:ence .: ::a on::: sty and an its place : eer: =ew t ac quag e . a

• see :s :: :as? ::stacces mestrer coat-effec::ve zo cas:.

                                     ;us tif: aa.

W1:3 the escop-ton noted below. Eer:-M:ces supper:e Howe-ter. Eer:-McGee opposeo NBC's rati :s te f:: this propened change. As discussed aoove, Eer:-tucee : ;;ey.e

e are=arent. to ::e es:en: : hat it seeke ta 13:arpora:e a  : at NBC should use this acendmen: as a model for the type of e::::t racdes ace::en e:andard. Bes:oretton ta hackgrau 2 changes that should he made throughout the c :: aria :s t -

cocca::ste :s ta ally arat :ary and ea:a11e no e&gelficact crease the focus en goals and standards acd decrease the health or env :ansantal benefits. empnasts on rigid requirements to meet those goals. (43 Mac crecosali Delete la Ste entirety e :,::d Kerg-McCae objects however, ta the appiacattaa of paragrapa aegacmang

• Whale the primary method of protec: tag groundsager shall be teolat::a the Urantum M111 Licenetng seguaremente to thcr um fac111::es.

                                                              ...* sad endiaq *. . . from current er poten tal uses.

To our knowledge there le only ore 11:ensed :hartum f acal::7 ser -McGee oojects to th1e change to the essent tha t in entscence. Ker -McGee's processing ette la West Cht:aga.

any se at:erpreted as preclud1=g sand pacaftlisag opere-

ase. See pp. 3C-11. ,cora.

                                                                                                                             .s&C enould not topese generic ::: er:a that w !' ta f act antg be appittamie to a stegge sate.

Such an acticn would be :he tog pac.2:2 oeal In the f t sc sentence of the equivalent of an ad*udication of Eart-McGee's 1; hts ar.d f*[3(,*'*9'*P",'91 g "IS9d t

• 1 usante* where at modifies *graundwater. responesb111ttee cancerntag the Wee: Chicago fac:13:7 and not e true rutomaking at all. See U Kert-;tcOee opposes than change. It te wasteful to tad Sta:e3 v. {lognda Kang Caset Rv. Oa.

apose 410 U.S. 224 244-45 (1973). The law sequires coetty maastar:aq and related requ:resente for g;cund-that water that to got moable. such an adjudication provide pracadural pra:ac: tone to (f) Eer -McCae las:allattoo er: oeals Delete Kert-McGee that are not afforded by thte rutemasing proceeding. beg:sa:ag of .the,paragrape.

                                                                                              .. and end =g
                                                             *aame scaths of esposure.*                            ;        The criterte should therefore not be made app 11cante to The NAC enould elastaate any language suggesting                     thortua facilities.       The West Chicago facility should be that a 1:ner should he an absolute requirement, particata ly                            handlet on a 'stte-speca fic bast e through the 1:cenesng process.

at esta ang ettee. [e3 p. 32 susta. The tutt test of the proposed change to no: ::ctuced here because of 1:e tecsth. v

                                                                                                                     ~ s s-                  .

s

r m e

*AC ::ee e;e:: a a;;;y :te ::::ar:a :: :::::-:

(d) iarr-w ee  :::sep : ; :. ne :.4 son:,n=se fac ;;;;es. as 4:en:.en: onesid to ::: wde<a :ta: ePec ** a'*--/ en.N.sg* $ .

• recogs::ee .de pas:::a;a coe.1 gar g;eelb 11 y :n dea;::q wa:h

                                                                                                                              * *.e
                                                                                                                                   \ *"c:ve*r =a :* *e r:*s *! : :a a . f . * .*b*'*=

no e;=gse saca e::e ca::en:17 la em:e ecce. tt.ie langange :s not rew1:ec by :te EPA standarfe, 2.1e as neces-wa :h re'er merely 2a reductag flus to 20 pC /a's fra: bypraduct eary secause :te c ::er:a were des:gced to app .* ta a det mater:sts. Baden flus f::a esvar mater:sts poses a s: 2:a ut,t;2a a:1;. wa:h *1:ste 1: dependent c:as;deretten 4 vec to the eage.:f t:ss:!y 4:*:e:ect characterse:::e of ther ,.m f ac !*  :: ens and to of : euff t::en: st;n*ficance to .arran opec:ft: regulatary control. Sties. leg EPA FE*3 Appendia C. Moreover, because the ac:tyt ty of *es: ' (b3 raunding sette* varies widely in uranium dist:1 cts. Its deter-

                                    *spC o m enals Add a new paragraph at sta and.

This aaw paragraph directly Ancorporates the E7A m1=ettaa of whether the radium content of the cover to *eteva:es* will create needless centraversy. stac. tarde en thte subject, and al hougtn Earr-McGee betteves - that Criterton S these a:aadarde are stessolves tava!!d. Its proposed ctacqe appears ta to caceastant with the standar$- la) te10 Dracosals At the**" end of the first "J11 (c) go.. .,Cee arsoceals Cetete the sentence. "The operations and pr:er ta closure, raJ!attan

       - .                                                                                                     doses *r:a radon esteetons

• ram eurf ace ;3 effecto e2 any st: egn:tetic layer shall get pcundoente shalt be kept as low as to #:ac- - -

be ; asea tata accoun: in deteratateg the cable.' cat:41sted raeca enhetatien rate.' This amend:sent appeare ta te reqaired by :te E?g Eer:-McGee believes the: the ccataan.ed inclue:oa of stacdarde. Kerr-McGee reserves ste oo;ect ans to th2ee th:e langsage will tend ta preclude te developcent and use of standarde. new tectaology. " ore to 1:au"!!cten: basse is: presuaisq tb) pc mr=oc,g}s Ta!! awacs the third ful; para-that the rados ashalataea rate cannot be malatained with the graph of Criterton S. Just befare Crt erson SA. 13eert {two new paragraphal. use et than ayattatic layere ta all 1ssiacces-As stated above. Ferr-McGee opposes app 11:a::an of *

             "       for emacple.                                                           these criterte to thortua facil:::st. Ear -McGee reser*ree ite
 -           has a masch ste::ec mal *-life (aM is tius dispersed ever asta the:Sua decay product   raden-220 etjections to the EPA tiheren) stacdarde upon which stese aneccaants auch e.satter
             ;tedact     12 teareal uraatuathanchats.

redon-222. the equavalent decay are based. Calcatataans of *;opulat*on Elske* for d!**erent tortua *ac:1;;;ee are starefere sign * :antty fram tasse assectated with uran;um fac;11 :es. * * *

                                                                                   -d-

7 1 e

                                                                                                                            . ,                                         . w e

3; . -

                                                                                                                                          !he Cac=:sa.as has p :pase4 na ::stges La Or; area                  T.n ell /. th e requ; eren: a re;;r:

e.,

= w:::::g .g:h:a ;; 337

2. 1. 9 1C. 11. a:4 10.** Ear:-F.:04e te; eves that aed:::acal a ree:ar:

a.,:e; s'ru :::wn due ta a * *

• o rsa l p e r f o raa:c e . : e

nc :statest thesses are resa;:e la ease of these c ::er:a as we11 :a atta 2:2C require =en e *or :: hor 11:eceed f ac:1-1..es.

coc*ars : hem ta the E7A star.dards ace ta the relevant e:et. Repor. :q requ::esente :n other e::uaticne are c:ed :s uses.}}