ML20138P577

Forwards Draft Memo Re Respective Agency Authorities Under Atomic Energy Act & Re Div of Responsibility for Continuing Regulation of Mill Tailings

ML20138P577
Person / Time
Issue date:	03/29/1984
From:	Dircks B NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To:	Asselstine NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML20136D839	List: IA-84-709, Requests Options Paper Assigned on 840103 Re SECY-85-450 on United Nuclear Corp Vs EPA, Before Commission Decision on Conforming NRC Regulations to EPA Stds ML20136D842 ML20136E826 ML20138P410 ML20138P429 ML20138P445 ML20138P449 ML20138P459 ML20138P470 ML20138P481 ML20138P541 ML20138P556 ML20138P577
References
FOIA-84-709 NUDOCS 8511070250
Download: ML20138P577 (21)

Text

-

' ' p .

,g* .% a UNITED STATES

./pa meg \ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[ wasweenTow. o.c. aosss

• • • • • March 29,1984 opsics er Tus EXECUTivt DIRECTCM POM OptmATIONS 1

Note to: Commissioner Aiselstine Jim:

2 As per our discussion, this is'the m'aterial that Larry Boggs and George Rice left with us when they met with us on Tuesday, March 27.

We advised them to meet with the individual Commissioners and with OGC to discuss the .

issues contained in the attached material.

\

~

11 Dircks/EDO j

Enclosures (3)

CC: Chairman Palladino l

Commissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Bernthal k

1 8511070250 851018 ..

PDR FOIA BERICK84-709 PDR i

(

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

,,, *e n

March 27,1984 MEMO RE: RESPECTIVE AGENCY AUTHORITIES

! -UNDER THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT, AS AMENDED c

SUMMARY

. J The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) active uranium min site standards, 3

! 48 Fed. Reg. 45,926 (October 7,1983), promulgated pursuant to section 206 of the Uranium Min Tallino R.Ji tion S Control Act of .1978'(UMTRCA), 42 U.S.C. 52022(b),

r

exceed the authority graged EPA by Congress and are, therefore, IUegal. In particular, EPA's active site st indhds intrude upon regulatory authority specifically reserved by statute to the Nucler._Rugulatory Commission (NRC).

f Section 275(b)(1) of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA), as amended by UMTRCA, I

' authorizes EPA "to promulgate standards of reneral aoolieation for the protection of I

public health, safety, and the environ [entk1 (sic) from radiological and non-radiological hazards associated with" uranium 11 ta ings. Section 275(b)(2) states that such "generany applicable standards prom rsuant to this subsection for nonodiologi-

)

l

! cal hazards" shan be " consistent with standards required under subtitle C of the Solid 1

l Waste Disposal Act, as amended, which are applicable to such hazards." Finauy, section

! 275(d) states that " Implementation and enforcement" vi ZF A's radiological and non-radiological standards "shan" be the responsibility of N(C1/ and Agreement States, ,

i i respectively.

I i As demonstrated by the legislative history, Congtssa carefully chose the language l of section 275 to limit EPA's jurisdiction with respect to both the potential radiological i and non-radiological hazards of uranium mill tallings. By the use of the term " standards >

I 1  :

) i ,

7 r"~

jf .In 1974, Congress transferred the licensing and related regulatory fun < tions of AEC i to NRC. Sg, 42 U.S.C. $5001, el sec.

i 4

~

i

. 1

- c cf general applicability," Congress precluded EPA. from setting standards that were Gffective wagin the boundary of faculties licensed by NRC or that established site specific d gn . enyneering, or implementation criteria. In short, Congress affirmed

! l .

In UM"RCA the traditional division of responsibuity between EPA and NRC established L

on Plan No. 3 of 1970 (1970 Reorganization Plan)$ and extended it to in Remad' include non-radiological, cs wen as radiological, standards.

Thus, where EPA's active site standards require implementation of soecifle enri-neering and desien e,6.m - such as. Installation of liners for the protection of groundwater - rather thh generanv appilcable_ standards, and where EPA's standards regulate inside the IIcensitk b undaries_ of a uranium mJl1 tauings site - such as at the l

edge of the pne, EPA tas ugp_ ped the authority Congress reserved specifically to NRC.

L De 1970 Reorganization Plan Established Hat EPA Could Promulgate Only Generally Applicable Environmental Standards To Be Effective Outside Site Betsidsries Whleh AEC (NRC) Wouhhlmplement Prior to 1970, the Atomic Energy .,om ission (AEC) exercised exclusive regulatory authority in the field of nuclear ene .b 's authority over the production and use of atomic energy was first exercised ours% to the Atomic Energy Act of 1946, 60 Stat. 755. Congress substantially broadened AEC's authority in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Pub. L. No.83-703, 68 Stat. 919, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 52011, et seq. (1976 and Supp. V 1981). Punuant to this authority, AEC ests.blis by regulation maximum permissible releases of source, byproduct, and special nue . ear mgterials into the environ-ment by licensees. 10 C.F.R. 520 (1960). These general radiation protection standards, I I as amended periodicany, governed, and continue to govern, licensee activities although '

the primarv authority to promulgate such standards for the protection of the general pubile and environment was subsequently transferred from AEC to EPA.

In 1970, the President established EPA and, in so doing, consdiG.WC i various i

diverse federal environment'ai regulatory programs. See 1970 Reorganiza tiod Plan, 5 l

,3 .

U.S.C. App., p.1132. Among the functions transferred to EPA were the non-regulatory, guidance f.unchions of the Federal Radiation Council (FRC). 5 U.S.C. App., p.1133.

Additionaly,the Q70 Reorganization Plan transferred to EPA certain responsibilities j .- .

formerly exercised by AEC. Section 2 of the 1970 Reorganization Plan states:

l l

[T]here are hereby transferred to the Administrator:

s e .

(6) The functions of the Atomic Energy Commission under the AtoW Nrgy Act of 1954, as amended, administered through its nlyis'bn of Radiation Protection Standards, to the extent t1at juch functions of the Commission consist of establishing rendrally aopilcable environmental standards for the protec 6f the general environment from radioactive material. A id herein, standards.mean limits on radiation exposurer od1 vtis, or concentrations or cuantities of radione-tive matertitls; tn the general environment outside the bound-aries of locations under the control of Dersons oossessing or using radioactive material.

5 U.S.C. App., p.1133 (emphasis ad In his message accompanying the 1970 Reorganization Plan, the President em hasi ed that AEC was to " retain responsibility for the implementation and enforcemenho radiation standards through its licensing authority." 5 U.S.C. App., p.1135 m is added).

Thus, both the 1970 Reorganization Plan and the President's accompanying statement establish a clear dichotomy between EPA's regulatory authority with respect to radiation standards and AEC's implementation and ertforcem ent duties to be carried out through its retained licensing authority. Congress' adopb of the '1970 Reorganiza-tion Plan specifically recognized and codified this divisio1 of authority. 116 Cong.

Rec. 33,871-33,884 (1970).

In Congressional hearings on the 1970 Reorganization Plan, Dr. Glenn Seaborg, Chairman of AEC, testifying before a Subcommittee of the House Committee on Government Operations, stated that AEC would retain its traditional 'm;Iemertation role while transferring its authority to set generally applicable environmental standards I to EPA: 1

\ l l

1 l

. - __ . - . . ~ . . . - - - - - -,___._.. --- _. _ _ . - . . - - - . _ . . . , _ _ . . . , . _ . . . . . . _ , , _ _ . .

I would now like to discuss the relationship which has existed between AEC and the FRC and the transfer of certain AEC

_ gnetions to the new agency.

• *

• l l

That part of the AEC's authority, as administered bv its

- DNision of Radiation Protection Standards, to develop and Mt generally aoolicable environmental radiation standards for the protection of the reneral environment would be trans-ferred under Reorganization Plan No. 3 to the Environmental Protection Agenev. The Division of Radiation Protect' a Standards presently has a staff of 19 persons and less ' ?

half of the total manpower available in this division is dev 'l to this fu w.. g The AEC wMd $ontinue to have the resoonsibility for the implementation $nd enforcement through its licensine and regulatorvi au'thority of the environmental radiation standards which woald Ibe develooed by EPA. In implementing these standards tthe EEC would establish regulatorv recuirements which would be applied to pers,ons who receive, possess, use or transfer byproduct, source, or special nuclear material, or who conduct or operate nuclear facilities. These recuirements would include such items as desien criteria, ooerating proce-dures, limits on radioactivit, i.uthe effluents released outside the boundaries of locations / undetr the control of the user and monitering to develoo data to demonstrate compliance with AEC recuirements.

As part of its enforceme"it n, the AEC would require its licensees to carry ouL cd m nitoring programs - both within and outside the boundaries of locations under the control of the licensee - as may be necessary to demonstrate compliance with AEC limits imposed on the licensee. These limits would, of course, be compatible with the standards developed by EPA. The AEC would carry out M :..'ependent monitoring programs as deemed necessary to y hat AEC limits are met, and would conect, collate, and p lish monitor-Ing data developed by its IIcensees in its refulatory programs and data developed by its contractors in its oper 4fng program.

Our understanding is that the Environmental Protection Agenev would be responsible for carrying out such monitoring programs as it deems necessary in the general environment outside the boundaries of locations under the control of persons possessing or using radioactive materials. . EPA would also be responsible for collecting, collating, and publishing monitoring data gathered in its programs. If data developed j by EPA should indicate that its environmental quality stan- '

dards are not being met, the matter would be referred (e-l the AEC for appropriate enforcement action.

---

,,--,-,-...--.,,----..5 . y..w.-m.,-.,_,-- g,.i%, ,, , ,,.e , p ,_,g_,- -,

Recreanization Plan No. 3 of 1970 (Environmental Protection Arenevh Hearines Before n Subecmmittee of the House Committee on Government Ooerations, 91st Cong., 2d I C Sess.131-I33 (August 4,1970) (emphasis added).

Similarly Paul C. Tompkins, Executive Director of the Federal Radiation CouncII, testifyiv "

I'J same hearing, confirmed that EPA's role would be to set general environmental standards. He stated:

The Administrator of EPA, as I understand, will conduct activities similar to the FRC and provide for the establish-ment of i,wou adiation protection guides. He will also 4

develop secondary standards to be processed through the Administrftivt P rpeedures Act; that is, among other things, formal pu5lic he4 rings.

i 3 . ,

I would espec t thit the appropriateness of criteria promul-gated by ttin_EP.A would be determined and continue'ly reex-amined as is done now by the FRC by use of panels of scientists from inside and outside the Federal Government to review and study data produced by investigators in the selen-tific community and to recommend specific areas where existing guidance may not propriate.

The EPA will use these o im _ radiation protection ruides in setting general environntenfal ttandards. By standards we mean limits on radiation excesures, or levels, or concentra-tions, or ouantities of radioactive material in the reneral environment outside the iboundaries of Iccations under the '

control of persons oossessing and/or using radioactive mate-rial.

Id. at 134 (emphasis added).

After 1970, the precise division of authority betwa en and NRC established in the 1970 Reorganization Plan was affirmed on numercus occasions i by the Office of Management and Budget, the two agencies, ar.d the U.S. General Accounting Office.

In October,1973, AEC objected 'to EPA's proposed uranium fuel cycle standards.

As a result, both agencies submitted memoranda to the President for his resolution of the dispute. AEC contended that EPA's proposed fuel cycle standards violated the divisien of responsibilities established in the 1970 Reorganization Plan. m , argued i

that EPA's proposed standards set forth specific rather than generah applicable l

. l i

\

i standards for specific facilities within the nuclear f0el cycle, such as standards for In plannec contq11ed discharges. from light-water-cooled nuclear power reactors.

n tddition, AFC argued, the preposed standards would impose "radionuelide release limits,"

dose 11 mitt and recuirements for imolementing such limits - matters which AEC claimed dressed specifically in AEC's licensing and regulatorv process . Thus, were AEC contended, EPA should restrict itself to setting' general ambient standards. See memorandum from Dixy Lee Ray, Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission, to the President re: AEC Position on Dia- y Responsibilities Between the Atomic Energy Commission and the Environmental Pr e ion Agency, dated October 19, 1973.

EPA disputed AEC%eorttentions and argued that the 1970 Reorganization Plan J recognized the need fot_pe: Hic environmental standards to .be set by EPA. However, EPA recognized that its authority to set such standards for exposure, concentration and quantity of radioactive materials could be effective only outside ifcense boundaries.

Further, EPA argued, its proposed standdrds onstituted " generally applicable standards."

EPA based this view on the fact that t gd ot proposed to set standards facility by facility. Rather, EPA claimed, it p e o et standards for categories of materials.

See memorandum from Russell E. Train, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agen-cy, to the President re: AEC opposition to EPA Radiation Standards, dated October 19, 1973.

On December 7,1973, Roy L. Ash, Director of t1e Dffice of Management and Budget, speaking for the President, resolved this jurisdictimes dispute. Specifically, Ash stated:

i a

m.< y y-- -p- w.- --

e -

w >-s-w e m->w em., y- -

ywe-i. y 7 -g-e ' ,+g----pie y ems-1ip-wie

EPA has construed too broadiv Its resoonsibilities. as set forth in Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, to set " genera 111y soplicable environmental standards for the protection of the general environment from radioactive material."

On befialf of the President, this memorandum is to advise ycu that the decision is that AEC should proceed with its i

' tn

- p}eco!,

for issuing uranium fuel cycle standards, taking intount the com l I

EPA; that EPA should discontinue its preoarations for issuing, now or in the future, any standards for types of f acilities; l I

and that EPA should continue, under its current authorit3 l to have responsibility for setting standards for the total amount of radiation in the general environment from all f acilities cumuumd in the uranium fuel evele, i.e., an ambient standard which would have to reflect AEC's findings as to the practicabilitvlof emission controls.

I k EPA can ironEttue to have a major impact.upon standards for facilities sei by AEC through EPA's review of proposed standards,. luring which EPA can bring to bear its knowledge and perspective derived from its responsibuity for setting ambient radiation standards.

Memorandum from Roy L. Ash, Director, Office of Management and Budget, to Administrator Train and Chairman Ray r : R ponsibility for setting radiation protection standards, dated December 7,1973 (e phksi added).

O The division of authority betwe NC d EPA was reaffirmed in an August ~ 27, 1973, Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the two agencies concerning special studies for the purpose of obtaining necessary information for establishing generally applicable environmental standards. This MOU again refe .J L the agencies' respective authorities as set out in the 1970 Reorganization Plan. Tllus, the MOU states:

I

1. AEC -licensed facilities are subject through .AEC licensing authority and requirements to EPA's geqerally applicable radiation standards, as defined in Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970. AEC will take appropriate action to assure that AEC-licensed facnities are operated in such a manner that routine radioactive discharges therefrom do not exceed gener-ally acalleable environmental standards established by EPA, outside the site boundarv, for the protection of the reneral environment from radioactive material.

i A

$ e l

38 Fed. Reg. 34,936 (September 11,1973) (emphasis added).

m a se nd 1973 MOU,.the 1970 division of authority between the two agencies is affirme( . This MOU, which consisted of guidelines for EPA entry into AEC facilities, states:

j k AEC facilities are subject to generally applicable environ-

' mental radiation standards established by the EPA, outside

' the site boundary, and such facuities will be operated under applicable law so as to comply with such standards.

38 Fed. Reg. 32,965 (November 29,'1973) (emphasis added).

In 1975, EPA si.ated the scope of its jurisdiction versus that of NRC in its proposed standards'for "Envi nmental Radiation Protection for Nuclear Power Opera-

~

tions" (the "25 mD11rert s midtrd"). 40 C.F.R. S190. See 40 Fed. Reg. 23,420 (May l

~

29,'l975). In its proposal, EPA stated:

Interagency relationshios. Reorganization Plan No. 3 trans-

> ferred to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the broad guidance responsibni f the former Federal Radia-tion Council and also trapsfer ed from the former Atomic

%e ngore exollelt resoonsibility to Energy establishCommission (AEC)bleAradiation renerally acolica standards for the en-vironm ent. However, the resp ibility for the implementa-tion and enforcement of bo ' th guidance and these stan-dards lies, in most cas . cles other than EPA as a part of their normal regulatory functions. For nuclear power operations, this responsibility, which had been vested in AEC, is now vested in the Nuclear Regulatorv Commission (NRC),

which will exercise the responsibility for implementation of these generally applicable standards throurhrthe--ssuance and enforcement of regulations, regulatorv guides. hanses, and .

other recuirements for individual facuities. t 1

40 Fed. Reg. at 23,420 (emphasis added).

The Final EnvironmentalImpact Statement for EPA L2) millirem standard explains (at pages 19-20):

M

- --__-___-a --, - - * - - , -a g- y egy-,--w w q.em-c9 yv -- ,p---, w-w--

l Two ooints are relevant to EPA's authority to set environ-mental radiation standards. First, although EPA is not limited l to specific criteria for setting such standards (e.g., require- l

[. mlmts for "best practicable" or "best available" technology, i

t l or for effluent levels having "no health effects"), the standards een acolv only outside the boundaries of facilities producing radioactive effluents. The recuired environmental protection can be provided within this constraint. By the same token. f this authority may not be used to set limits on the amount 4

of radiation exoosure inside these boundaries, consequently l regulation of occupational exposures of workers inside the boundary is carried out by the AEC (now the NRC) operating under existing Federal Radiation Protection Guides for occu-

! pational exposure.

Secondly,kPA-ca) only set standards; the authority to regu-late spec 15e fa cl}; ties was not transferred by Reorganization Plan No. 3 (2E Soplication and enforcement of these stan-l dards againsirspecific facilities is the responsibility of the NRC. The division of resoonsibilities between EPA and AEC (whose regulatorvtresoonsibilities are now carried out by NRC) 4 for carrving out these objectives was addressed soecifically  !

l by the President's message transmitting Reorganizatior. Plan l No. 3 to the Congress as follows:

Environmental radiation standards programs. 'The Atomic Energy Commfssio is now responsible for establishing environm ntal adiatica standards and emission limits for r di@c .vity. Those standards i have been based lar lyldn oad guidelines recom-mended by the F r lation Council. 'Ihe Atomic Energy Com[n.i, s authority to set stan-i dards for the protection of the general environment from radioactive material would be transferred to a

the Environmental Protection Agency. The functions of the Federal Radiation Council would also be transferred. AEC ~would retain responsiMIR.y f4 the

- implementation and enforcement of radia1;i.on !stan .

dards through its licensing authority. I This division of responsibility is not expected-te interfere J with effective administration and achievement of these pro-posed environmental standards (see, also, Crgptpr VI, Section l

D).

In 1976, the U.S. General Accounting Office's Offlee of General Counsel recog-nized the limit on EPA's authority established by the 1970 Reorganization Plan:

}

--r, -

w v., r w. - - - - ,,y -- w w -- e- - - - wm.w,,.-, .%,-e,-w -e ,e-, e#- ,--.,,.-ge+.---w,-.* ym e- m.-ww e+ + ..mv.-

The EPA is not autitorized to establish any standards for radiation producing faenities. It is responsible for setting sgandards for the total amount of radiation in the general

! environment, outside the boundaries of any soecific facilities,  !

i.e., an ambient standard which would have to reflect AEC's firdings as to the practicability of emission controls.

l Memorandte fym Geraldine M. Rubar, Senior Attorney, GAO-OGC, to Robert E. L.

Auen,*Jr., Assistant Director, CEDD,' re: EPA Radiation Programs Standards Setting and Monitoring (GAO No. B-166506), dated July 30, 1976.

As the foregoing discussion demonstrates, it has been repeatedly recognized that EPA's jurisdiction is 1 m!"v:!)o establishing generaHy applicable radiation standards outside the boundaries of iIRf licensed facilities, and NRC's role is to implement and

~\

enforce those standardo.

-.- l H. 'Ihe Uranium Mill Tallings Radiation Control Act Of 1978 (UMTRCA) Adopts 'Ihe Traditional Division Of - Authority Between EPA And NRC Established In The 1970 Reorgar** tion Plan in 1978, Congress enacted UMTRC . MTRCA speelficany adopted the tradition-al division of authority between EP gd NRC that was set forth in the 1970 Reorganization Plan and consistently a both agencies. As noted above, section j 275(b)(1) of the AEA, as amended by UMTRCA, authorizes EPA "to promulgate standards of general aoolication for the protection of oublic health, safety, and the environmental

[siel from radiological and non-radiologiecI hazards associeM . " uranium miH tailings. j Section 275(b)(2) states that such generaHy applicable 's1 andards promulgated pursuant i f

to this section for non-radiolocical hazards shan be " consist *with standards required under subtitle C of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amedd, which are applicable to such hazards." As a further Ilmitation on EPA's authority, section 275(d) of the AEA states exolleltly that " implementation and enforcement" of EPA's radiological and non- l

' radiolorical standards shan be the resoonsibility of NRC and Aereement States. respec-I I

tivelv. ^

l

. i

l Congressional intent to adopt the division of authority established in the 1970 i

Reorgeauau Plan is stated not only in the excress language of UMTRC. , but also in i l

isla te history.with respect to both radiolorical and non-radiolorical hazards.

its leg!

I Discussing EPA's authority under UMTRCA, the House Report of the Committee on Interior and TMsular Affairs states:

AUTHORITY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

,i It is the responsibility of the Environmental Production [ sic]

Agency tc lyh generally apolicable standards and criteria for the t>roteetien of the general environment, considering radiological and nDn-radiological aspects of tailings. The EPA exposure) sure of the public and to protect thestandardsland c teria should be (or gotemi(a]

general enviror mont from either radiological or non-radiologi-cal substance g acceptable levels through such means as allowable concentrations in air or water, ouantities of the substances released over a period of time, or by soecifving maximum allowable doses or levels to individuals in the general pooulation. The EPA standards and criteria should not interject any detailed rer-site soecific reoutrements for management, technolorv of engineering methods on licensees or on the Deoartment of Eherrvi Nor should EPA incorocrate .

l any recuirements for per: nits on licenses for activities con-cern!nr uranium mill tallinss which would duolicate NRC regulatory authority oved thttailines sites.

\

i. .L / .\ .

Section 206 requires the Environmental Protection Agency to set general standards and criteria for the orotection of the environm it outside the boundaries of mill 6 ..a discosal sites. The standards and criteria would be aoolicible to both radiological and non-radiolorical hazards in the olles. Authori-ties of the EPA under other laws would not be abridged by the new requirements.

H.R. Rep. No.1480, Part 1, 95th Cong., 2d Sess.16-17, 2: (emphasis added).

Discussing NRC's authority under UMTRCA, the House Report states:

l

' AUTHORITY OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

~

In es'tablishing requirements for promulgating regulations for

licensing or for oversight of the Department's (Department

- / of Energy) remedial activities, the Commission must set all standards and requirements relating to management conceots, specific technolorv. engineering methods, and procedures to be employed to achieve desired levels of control for limiting public exposure, and for orotecting the general environment.

The Commission's standards and requirements should be of

to specify, for example. exclusion area restrie-such n-em tions ol si.te lundaries, surveillance recuirements, detailed engineering treQuirements, including lining for tailings ponds, depth. knd'"I'voes of tailings covers, pooulation limitations. or institutionel airangements such as financial surety recuire- ,

j ments ior (site Isecurity measures. The Commission should issue a5 nycyary permits or licenses for uranium mill tallings sites. f The NRC is also responsible for implementing reneral stan-dards and criteria otomulgated by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection-4ency. NRC must assure that the technolorv, engineering \ methods, ooerational controls, surveillance recuiremen15 and institutional arrangements em-ploved at the sites provide the necessary barriers and levels of control to limit public excesure, and protect the environ-ment from radiological and totic non-radiological substances associated with urani t tgilings materials, as specified by the EPA standards d c. ria.

H.R. Rep. No.1480, Part 1, 95th Cong., 2d Sess.16 (emphasis added).

l In August 2,1978, hearings on proposed urani',m mm tailings legislation, held before the Subcommittee on Energy and Power of the Hpse Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, Joseph M. Hendrie, Chairmar of ERC, and William D. Rowe, EPA Deputy Assistant Administrator for Radiation Propans, testified that the language of H.R.13650 had been drawn largely from the 1970 Reorganization Plan. In so doing, Hendrie and Rowe provided a contemporaneous construction of their respective duties which demonstrated that their traditional roles had been retained. Dr. Rowe testified:

, l i l 1

-g-,w, ,,y , , - - - . - - - - ,e,-.,..n

---w.,,n, --,,_,,,,-,--,,-.-m.-m..,---,--,-n.,r--2,-. . ,,,,,r,.vne, , ,-,,e--

To better assure the control of uranium mill tailings, we

\ recommend that uranium as licensable material under the mill tailings Atomic themselves Energy Act. This be named could be done by specifically naming residual radioactive

' malerials from the production of source material as licens-able,'or by broadening the definition of byproduct material to include uranium mill tailings.

However, any such legislative proposal should also provide for EPA to oromulgate general environmental standards for such material so that there will be consistency with the l

present authority of the Atomic Energy Act and Reorganiza-tion Plan No. 3 of 1970 which gives EPA such authority over present Heuble material Such authEty for EPA standard setting and NRC regulatory authority st oWd extend both to the radioactive and non-radioacetivegaspects of hazardous materials so that the control

~

of envitonmenttiimoacts from these materials will be handled in a consisterft manner with similar material from other extraettertidcustries which EPA may control under the author-ities of the RCRA and the Clean Air Act.

The proposed legislation, H.R.13382, which is the subject of these hearings, attempts address this problem. However, it falls short of resolving an of the problems we have noted.

l Furthermore, the admir trpti n does not support this legisla-tion since we have no hak! t e opportunity to fully resolve 1

the issues inherent in H.lf.1382. Let me point out some i of the deficiencies in th til)

First, the proposed legislation does not provide for EPA to set standards for either radioactive material or non-radiation j hazards associated with the tailings material. We are concern-ed about consistency of regulatory control relative to both of these types of materials.

At present EPA sets the generally aooli:ab e-environmental' radiation standard under the authority ofi the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. as amended, and 1970 Reorganization Plan 3 of 1970. These standards are implemented I bv NRC in its licensmg and regulation of source, specialhlear and bvprod-uct material, as currentiv defined.

Furthermore, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 have given authority to EPA to establish air pollution standards for these same materials.- It should be indicated in the proposed legislation that there is no intent to superse@ ^-

negate these authorities. ]

i e

- .._. y.- x- , - - , - . - _-c,,m.. .-m.,~,,4 ..-. 1-.- .-

3_____

5 l Uranium Mill Tailings Control Act of 1978: Hearirrs on H.R.11698. H.R.12229. H.R.

l 129d8. .E.Rh 12535. H.R.13049 and H.R.13650 Before the Subcommittee on Enerev and Powr c f the House Committee on Interstate and Foreirn Commerce, 95th Cong.,

2d Sessl._366 ,

(Augu-t 2,1978) (emphasis added). '

}

'inat Congress intended to adopt the traditional division. of authority between the two agencies in UMTRCA is indicated by the following exchange between Subcommit-tee on Energy and Power Counsel Finnegan and Deputy Assistant Administrator Rowe and Commissioner Hendtie:T 1

MR.F 'N!WG /N. . . . Is it your intention to set standards

for'ac tionsgb bond the boundaries of the active and inactive

{

mill at thle depository sites? - .

l MR. ROWE.% general, when we set applicable environmental i standards, thev are outside the boundaries of the sites. What we are concerned with is the exoosure to the general oublic l

who are outside the site boundaries.

e e MR. FINNEG AN. In ytm provision there are the-words.

" generally applicable ama s," which is a term that you use yourself on page of y testimony. What is encom-l passed by that?

l MR. ROWE. General [lvl apolicable standard is defined in the Atomic Energy Act. This is where the language comes from.

and it is the section that we use to set the standards outside the boundaries. It covers standards which enn be quantities, concentrations, and it is particularly defined here as concen-trations or quantities of material into 1 he feral environ-ment. That is how it has been defined o e e f

MR. FINNEGAN. Mr. Chairman, I wantec tv ask you whether you had any comments to make concerning section 275 lan-guage at page 27 of the bill and how EPA would set standards and how they would apply to sites, either active er inactive.

-MR. HENDRIE. Yes, Mr. Finnegan, I would like to comment.

i It seems to me the language I now read in H.R.13650 tndu i section 206 of the bill is an appropriate definition. I behe I the language has been drawn largely from the Reorganizatic,n i

Plan of 1970 which assigned to the EPA the authority for ,

radiological health protection in the sense of the establiss- i ment of ambient standards, generally aoplicable standards for l

, t l

the protection of health and it now comes down to NRC, from AEC to regulate under those general standards and to

\ lay soecific recuirements for licensing uoon.the facilities that '

we license to make sure that each of those facilities then

. meats the general standards.

It seems to me that the language, as laid out here, defines

~

/ that in a way which is comoatible with the Reorganization Plan 3 and that makes clear their authority to establish those generally aoolicable standards and at the same time also makes clear that, as you come inside ther site boundarv and "begin to talk about features of the particular f acility being licensed, that that becomes then the prooer province of the

' NRC in hal with soecific license provisions, means, methods, and so on to Ineet EPA's ambient standards at the site.

The lar,guage fhich you read a while ago to Mr. Rowe, I was

a little ec9elmed. It seemed to me that might lead to, in effect, a m xirg of the two jurisdictions and a confusion of the in1erface between us by in effect bringing EPA down into the-iae. titty, the specific provisions that ought to be made in licensing a facility and I think that would indeed be undesirable in the statute language.

I would give a vote for tpe 'a-" age now in that section 206.

MR. FINNEG AN. Ia not sure . totally agree with your interpretation of the gya , that 't is limited to outside the boundaries, as I ed),t what you are saying.

- I agree with you th ph 2, line 21, is limited to

outside the boundari tI 't think paragraph 1 is. As a matter of fact, at least the structure of the language in paragraph 1 is a separate paragraph and it lies both within and outside the boundaries and I think could be interpreted as allowing EPA to set standards that acolv to the sites themselves and going down to how much tarth ard everything else you are concerned about. j Is it vour desire that the orovisions of careeraohs 1 and 2 acolv to such standards oniv outside thei boundaries and therefore anything within the sites to meet those standards

! would be done through NRC - through 'itr' own rulemaking or licensing process?

MR. HENDRIE. That is the way I would both prefer that the arrangement be set up and would feel it would be an important feature in making clear the jurisdictions between the two agencies.

l I think as we come within site boundaries and begin to deal with soecific asoects of facilities that vou are very much into the NRC licensing domain and it is desirable that the

- .-~, -._-...-r, _y,~ , ,.--,s.,-y-,_-_w,-_,.,r,. mm.__~r_- _ . . . , , . - r- m , - . - . . , --_w.-

~

Interface between the agencies be outside that soecific ifcens-inc.

On our difference in reading subsection (aX1), I will have to givt.you legal precedence, Mr. Finnegan. I am not a lawyer and .can only say it seemed to our people that it read off the preceding language, EPA shall, by rule, promulgate and

/ so on - generally applicable criteria and standards, such standards shall apply to these sites. I didn't quite read it

, that way.

MR. FINNEG AN. Mr. Rowe, do vou have any comments?

MR.R"? Yes: I acree with Mr. Hendrie. Our intention is to work, outside the site boundarv.

- e e e MR. FjNh1 Ati. You are also in acreement that generally paragraohs ' and 2 should be orefaced bv the idea it means outside TITE Utbndaries.

Id. at 392-393, 396-397 (emphasis added).

The statutory language, the Feca Report and agency testimony demonstrate that: the 1970 Reorganization F1 div on of authority with respect to radiological standards remained unchanged and ashx nded to include non-radiological standards;

\

EPA was to promulgate only gen ra applicable environmental standards effective outside the licensed boundaries of mill tailings sites; and NRC was to implement and enforce those standards through site specific design and engineering requirements.

This contemporaneous administrative construction is aldo evident in an August 9, 1978, letter from Carlton Stroiber, NRC Assistan1 Gleneal Counsel .to James K.

Asselstine, then Minority Counsel, Subcommittee on Nuclei,r Regulation, Senate Commit-tee on the Environment and Public Works. In that letter, Stroiber describes an agree-ment between the Administrator of EPA, Douglas McCastle, and the Chairman of NRC, Joseph M. Hendries, regarding their agencies' respective roles under which EPA would promulgate generally applicable environmental standards, which NRC >:cu'.d %n imple-I ment. Stroiber states:

Under Title U of the orooosed lezislation. EPA would be

\ resoonsible for establishing generally soolicable standards andcriter ering radiological and non-radiological asoects outside the boundaries of the tailings sites.

i PA standards and criteria would be developed to limit i The  !

/ the exposure (or potential exposure) of the public and to protect the general environment from either radiological or I

l non-radiological substances to acceptable levels through such means as allowable concentrations in air or water, quantities l l

of the substances rele;ased over a period of time, or by ,

specifying maximum anowable doses or levels to individuals in the reneml population. Generally applicable environmental standards _wouh not incorporate specific technologv. engineer-ing methods, or procedures to be emoloved to achieve the I

i desired level /of controls for limiting public exposure and protecting thA general environment. For example, the stan-dards andleftiteria should not be of.a nature that would soecify exclusibn lared restrictions on site boundaries, surveillance i

requirement $ " detailed engineering methods (such as linings

for tailings conds, deoth, and tvoe of tailings cover), oopula-tion limitations, or institutional arrangements such as finan-

l cial surety recuirements or site security measures. The EPA  ;

standards and criteria w not incorporate any requirements for permits or licenses t a id duplication of NRC regulatory i

' authority over the tal s si s. The NRC would be resoonsi-l ble for implementing ese PA standards and criteria.

Through its regulatio and licensing process, NRC must i

assure that the techn lop, en ineering methods, operational controls, surveillance irements and institutional arrange-l

! ments employed at the sites provide the necessary barriers

' and controls to limit public exposure and protect the environ-ment from radiological and toxie non-radiological substances associated with min tallings materials. With respect to non- (

radiological matters, the NRC, through its epvironmental

' . review under NEPA mandate, has the aut y to impose controls on toxic non-radiological materi als. . itle U of the

- bill would clarify the relation of NRC and EPA authority in this area, by providing that NRC would develop and apply general requirements for mill tailings wh .ch, to the maximum i extent possible, are consistent with thcse-adopted by EPA for similar substances under the Solid Waste Disposal Act.

EPA would have a concurrence (NRC prefers consultation]

l^

role in the NRC's development of such requirements, which

.could include engineering methods, management practices and  ;

other institutional arrangements. NRC Agreement States would be expected to establish comparable controls on Wa

! non-radiological materials in tailings through their regged l '

environmental analyses.

l

t. 17

- - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . , , - , - -. . . , , , . - - - - , , - - - , . . . . - - , , -- .-,4~,, .-..--.7 ,,,,,..,.n.-,. ,,-.m,,m,3.-_r-,.y .mw e w y.

(Emphasis added).

Tbn krticular responsibilities allocated to each agency by the 1970 Reorganization C Plan also have bien preserved in other enviroamental statutes, such as the Clean Water Act, 33JS,C. S1251, g sec. In Train v. Colorado Public Interest Research Group.

/

Inc. wrm.w,425 US.1, 48 L.Ed.2d 434 (1976), the Supreme Court, referring specifically .

to the 1970 Reorganization Plan, held that the legislative history of the Clean Water Act demonstrated that EPA had no authority to regulate the discharge into the nation's waterways of partiellarjublear waste materiah subject to regulation by AEC and its successors. The Supreme ourt's conclusion was, based, in part, on the legislative history of the Clean Wahr Act which, it ruled, reflected Congress' intention to preserve the pre-existing regtdatory plan under which AEC was given sole authority to regulate such materiah.

To have included these eriah under the FWPCA would have marked a significan alt ration of the pervasive restulato-rv scheme embodied in the .EA. Far from containing the clear indication of legislatik intent . . . the legislative historv reflects, on baleinedt ad intention to preserve the pre-exist 4ng regulatorv plan.

426 US. at 24 (emphasis added).

Congress has aho specified the same limits on EPA's authority to regulate radioactive materiah in the Clean Air Act, 42 US.C. 57401. el sec. The Conference l

Report on the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 sp that EPA's authority to l regulate radioactive air pollutants is limited to setting "outside-the-fence-lir - amission 4

, standard (s)." Clean Air Conference Report (1977); Statt: ment of Intent; Clarification u

of Select Provisions as appears in Suate Committee on Environment and Public Works, ll 95th Cong., 2d Sess., A Legislative History of the . Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, 320 (Comm. Print 1978).

In 1983, Congress adopted amendments to UMTRCA, which emdhasize $C's and Agreement State's special interest in and authority over site specific implementation e

l

of EPA general environmental standards. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Authorization Act of ISS2\and 1983, Pub. L. No.97-415,96 Stat. 2067 (1983). Under these amendments, I

Congrew au :ho.ized Agreement States to adopt " alternatives" to NRC requirements, subj e[ ct ,t_oRCF determination that such alternatives are " equivalent to, to the extent J

practicaole, 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 accordan:e sthh section 275." Similarly, the 1983 amendments authorized individual licensees to p:o se site specific alternatives to dRC requirements subject to NRC approval. 5echnu 19 and 20, Pub. L: No.97-415,116 Stat. 2067, 2078-2079.

In considering Agreermmt state alternatives and alternatives proposed by licensees, NRC is directed to take into account local or regional conditions, sch. ding geology, topogra-phy, hydrology and meteorology. @

A recent letter to Nunzio Pa adin , Chairman of NRC, from Senator Simpson, Chairman of the Subcommittee on N le Regulation of the Senate Committee on Envi onment and Public Works, and pr omenici, sheds additionallight on Congress' intent in enacting the 1982 and 1983 UMTRCA amendments. In particular, they state:

The principal purpose of the 1983 amendments to UMTRCA was to restore order to a regulatory scheme that had fallen into disarray as a result of insufficient joordination between l EPA and NRC in the regulation of urpniCnill tailings.  !

Indeed, we have taken great care in the 1<rgislative history l I

to point out that UMTRCA establishes! a ordcess for the orderly integration of EPA's general env rorimental standards with NRC's detailed regulatory requireme 1ts that, if followed, should serve to avoid the unfortunate absurdities that have already needlessly delayed this program and, in the process, I

generated a good deal of confusion for the Agreement States and licensees.

It is for this reason that the Congress set out, in considerable

' detail, the steps to be taken by EPA and NRC in establiWg the regulatory program for uranium mill tallings. The ledisla- _

l tion makes it abundantly clear that UMTRCA recuires la regulatory orocram consistine of both general environmental standarcs and detailed regulatorv recuirements. the former to be oromulgated by EPA. the latter by NRC. And more l

l

_a importantly, we have gone to great length to point out that the process for coordinating the EPA and NRC requirements the so-called " conforming" process - is to be completed

\first, prior to implementation of the regulatory program. To apgoach this process in any other fashion - including the approach recommended by your staff - is not only contrary to what the legislation calls for, but will also subject licensees

_ /and thatAgreement States we were trying to avoidto inthe thevery sameAccordingly, first place. regulatory uncertainty we earnestly urge you to reconsider this matter.

^

Letter from Sen. Pete V. Domenici and Sen. Alan K. Simpson to Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission re: 1983 amendments to UMTRCA, l

dated March 12,198 8 (on phhsis added).

Since its ince ption, fPA has been limited to establishing generaly applicable 3 .

environmental standa ds outside the boundaries of the licensed facility. EPA has been given no implementation aTthority because this authority was reserved to NRC.

These particular divisions of autherity were set forth in the 1970 Reorganization Plan which.was affirmed by Congress . ey have been consistently reaffirmed by the agencies themselves and their principa . El 11y, they have been reaffirmed by Congress and extended to regulation of non-r i i 1 hazards under UMTRCA, as amended.

\

l E.

l i

mesum i

' umTso s:ATss Me e i f:.I* "%[\ ,

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION w Asmoros. o. c. mosss

! .ti - 1

7. .

=%t- M ] l g' W** ** j - August 9, 1978 Fr. Ja=es K. Asselstine Kinority Counsel }

Subco. ittee on Ngelear Regulation Cor-4ttee on the Environment and .

Public Works Unite'. States Senate Washingten, D. C. 20510 .

Dear Fr. As ne:

As I promised'this afternoon, I have attached the following two docunents relating to the agreement reached between the Environmental Protection Agency and the Nuclear Regulatory Co=ission' on the division of responsibility between the two agencies for the continuing regulation of mill tailings:

(1) Statutory language '(modeled on provisions of the Udall and Dingell bills in the House) describing the division of responsibilities.

(2) A short statenent of how NRC believes the responsi-bilities of the agencies should be discharged, in practice.

Tnis approach was agreed upon by EPA and NRC staff members and ratified in telephone conversations between E?A Administrator Costle and NRC Chairman Hendrie yesterday.

As you know, bowever, the Com:nission would prefer that the E?A have a ec.sultative, rather tnan concurring 1 ole in the develcpment of N?.C's Solid Waste Disposal ~Act requirenents.

If you have further questions, do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely, Carlton R. Stoiber Assistant General Counsel Attachments as stated .

D 4Tenm7 iny .

9

_,..m m--,- , , - - , - - , , - - - - - . , - .- .-.,._,_._--..,.,,m.y -

, . , - , - . _ , - . , , _ _ , . , , , , , .,---.-.-y.,...,~.-:. -

t l

' "Sec. 84. Authorities of Co==ission Respecting Certain  : I

! l Ey;roduct Material.--

the mana5ement of "a. The Commission shall insure that .

(2) is any byproduct material as defined in section 11 e. '

i carried out in such manner as--

"(1) the Cc==ission dee=s appropriate to protect the public health and safety and the environment;

"(2) conforms with applicable standards promul-  !

i sated by the Administrator of the Entiron= ental and Protection Agency under section 275 of the Act; I

"(3) conforms to general requirements, established

- by the Co

• ssion with the concurrence of the Ad=inis- '

trator, which are to the maximum extent practicable con-sistent with requirements applicable to the possession, I

transfer, and disposal of similar hazardous material ,

regulated by the Administrator under the Solid Waste ,

f Disposal Act. . .

i "b. In carrying out its authority under this section,  :

I the Commission is authoriced to:

"(1) by rule, regulation, or crder require persons, '

officers, or instrumentalities exempted from licensing i I

under section 81 of this Act to conduct monitoring, perfor= remedial work, and to comply with such other J

measures as it may deem necessary or desirable to i

l

i * ,

l

. T p'rctect hehlth or to minimize danger to life or

eperty; and ,

" [2) make such studies and inspections and to j conduct such monitering as may be necessary.

"Any violation by any person other than the United States or any officer or employee of the United States of any rule or order of the Co= mission established under this section shall be subject to a civil penalty in the same manner and in the sa=e amount as violations subj ect to a civil penalty under secticn 23h Nothing in .this section affects any authority of the Co==ission under any other provision of this Act.".

(b) The table of contents for such chapter 6 is amended .

by inserting the following new item after the ite= relating i

to secticn 83: , _

"Sec..,84. Authorities of Commission respecting certain byproduct material.". -

Authority of E?A Respecting Certain Eyproduct Material Section 206. . Chapter 19 of the. Atomic Energy Act of 1954 is amended by inserting after section 274 the following new section:

"Sec. 275. Health and Environmental Standards for Uranium Mill Tailings.--

"(a)(1) As soon as practicable, but not later than one year after the date of enactment of this section, the .

I

- - - . - , ,--n- -- - . - - - , - - . - - - -- g-_ - - ---, ---

---m.m-- - , - > - -.+,-n- ,,- . - - , ,vw.v-n---.mm.-

.. _3_

i l ,

Admid.i'strator of the Environmental Protection Agency (here- i

' Administrator')

inafter referred to in this section as the of general application lt shall, by rule,' pro =ulgate standards I for the protection of the public health, safety, and the .

environment from radiological and non-radiological hazards

< associated with residual radioactive materials (as defined ,

in section 101 of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control et of 1978) located at inactive uranium mill I

i tailings sites and depository sites for such materials l

selected by the Sec'retary, of Energy, pursuant to title I ,

)

of the Uraniu= Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978.  !

{

i

' "(2) As soon as practicable, but not later than ' eighteen I e

months after the enactment cf this section, the Administrater j shall, by rule, premulgate generally applicable standards -

i for the protection of the public health, safety, and the l*

environ =ent from radiological and non-radiological hazards ,

associated with the processing and with the possession and transfer cf byproduct material, as defined'in section 11 e.

(2) of the Act at sites at which ores are processed primarily i

f for-their source material content, or which are used for the

• disposal of such byproduct material.

"(3) The Administrator may from time to time amend, l

modify, or change any standard promulgated under this section, 4

except that any amendment, modification, or change in a i

I l

. . i

k-s t an.4 c4.

. . ..,Eate' "ru suant to subsection b. shall caly

,..w-- -

i i

he applied by the..Co=ission to any person holding a license 1

issued by the Co=ission for byproduct material, as defined

• in section 11 e. (2) of this Act, prior to such pro =ulgation upon renewal of.such license.

I 9

I i

• e 4

e e

l

c'

. i of Ic78 l

. Uranium Mill Tailines Centrol Act '

b Under Title II of-the proposed legislation, EPA would be respensible for establishing generally applicable standards I

t and criteria for the protection of the general envircnment, censidering radiological and non-radiological aspects outside the boundaries of the tailings sites. ,

The E?A standards and criteria would be developed ~ to limit the exposure (or potential exposure) of the public and to from either radiological or  ;

protect the general environment i i

'non-radiological substances to acceptable levels through I such =eans as allowable co5centrations in air or water, 9 .

quantities of the substances released over a period of time, er by specifying maxi =u= allowable doses or levels .

Generally appli-i to individuals in the general population.

cable' environmental standards would not incorporate specific technology, engineering methods, or procedures to be employed i

4 to achieve the desired level of controls f.cr limiting public Per example, l exposure and protecting the general environment. 2 the- standards and criteria should not be of a nature that I 1

' would specify exclusion area restrictions on site boundaries, surveillance requirements, detailed engineering methods (such as linings for tailings ponds, depth, and type of l

tailings cover), population limitations, or institutional I

a e

- , - , .- -- y- -,erm,- w-- ,- , , - - - . ,----,-i~---m.- y- viw., y e-- - - ------ rum---r - .

' ~ .

. ~ e ,

4 2.4 arrangements such as financial surety requirements er site ,

security =easures. The EPA standards and criteria would l

net incorporate any requirements for permits or licenses  ;

te, ave $d duplication of NRO regulatory authority over the l

tailings sites. The NRC would be responsible for implementing I these epa standards and criteria.

. - I Through its regulations and licensing process, NRC must ass'ure that the technology, engineering methods, operational i

a controls, . surveillance requirements and institutienal arrange-  !

i cents empicyed at the sites provide the necessary barriers  :

and centrols to limit public exposure and protect the  !

l environment frc= radiological and toxic non-radiological substances associated with mill. tailings materials. With .

respect to non-radiological matters, the NRC, through its t

f i

envircnmental review under NEPA mandate, has the authority i

i 1

~

to i= pose controls on toxic non-radiological materials. {;

E Title II cf the bill ioulh clarify the rel,ation of NRC i l

and IPA authority'in this area, by providing that NRC would 1

develop and apply general requirements for mill tailings t

which, to the maximum extent possible, are consistent with those adopted by EPA for similar substances under the Solid l Waste Disposal Act. EPA would have a concurrence [NBC prefers i 1

< I l

consultation) role in the NRC's development of such require- I

=ents, which could include engineering methods, management e

.k )

i  ! i l

ll

_..l

e.,,~.. . - . - . .. ___

. p5actices and other institutional arrangements. N?.C Agreement States would be expected to establish conparable centrols ,

en tcxic non-radiological materials in tailings thrcush their required environmental analyses.

i I

1 9

0 l

i.

e l

'I O S I

9 l

' .s , , . .,

y .

- 3 0 1976

~..

Assistant Director, CEDD - Robert E. L. A11en', Jr.r ,

~ '

l A1AU S. GC"2 Ko Senior Attorney, CGC - Ceraldine M. Rubar ,

. i EPA Radiation Programs for Standards Setting and Monitoring 2 - '[ (5-166506) .

t i Recently, you asked several legal questions relating to the i .

Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) function in the field of

'- radiation protection. Since then, Bob Crystal of my staff has spoken

. . with Bev Daniel of your staff and refined those questions as follows:

i  :

. CUESTION 1:

Does the law provide for EPA to assume a leadership role in radiation l

- protection in tems of directing and coordinating the work of other

• Todaral agencias? ,

1 .

CUESTICN 2:

Is EPA's role in for=ulating radiation standards limited to establish-ing an a=bj.ent standard which would have to reflect AEC's f,Ite=ic Energy Cocznissio_n/ findings as to the practicability of emission controis?

l ANSkTR 1

• The law does not provide for leadership by EPA in terms of directing and coordinating the work of other agencies. However, it does provide that the Ad=inistrator of EPA shall consult experts and shall advise the President with respect to radiation matters, including guidance for Federal agencies. 42 U.S.C. 12021(h) provides:

l

'%e Administrator of the En'tironmental Protection i

Agency shall consult qualified scientists and experts in radiation matters, including the President of the National Academy 6f Sciences, the Otairnan of the National Cocanittee on Radiation Protection and Measure-isent, and qualified. experts in the field of biology l

sad medicine and in the field of health phytics. .

The Special Assistant to the President for Sc.ience i

and Technology, or his designes, is authorized to attend meetings with, participate in the delibera-tions of, and to adv4se the Administrator. The

~

PCC/11a 0 '

9

'. , a* ,,.,

B-166506

.l..'; : '

. ~. \

. . ,. l Administrator shall advise the Preside ~nt with' *

• i respect to radiation matters, directly or .-

-indirectly affecting health, including guidance -

for all Federal agencies in the formulation of .-

radiation standards and in the establish:sent and

,! exicution of programs of cooperation with States.

j. The Administrator shall also perfonn such other '

- functions as the President may assign to him by Executive order." <

ANSVER 2:

The EPA is not authorized to establish any stand =rds for rsdistion ,

producing facilities. It is responsible for setting standards for the total amount of radiation in the general a=viron=ent, outside the boundaries of any specific facilities - i.e., an ambient standard uhich would have to reficct IIC's findings as to the practicability of scission controls.

Section 6 of Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970 specifically limits

. EPA's function in this area to establishing standards for the general

edvironment outside individual facilities. Section 6 transfers to EPA "The functions of the Atenic Energy Coccission under the Atomic Energy Act .of.1914.. aa. c= ended ..

' administer i through its Division of Radiation Protection W andards, to the extent that such functions of the Coscission ecnsist of establish-ing ge=crally applienble environmental standards for the protection of the general environ =ent from radiocctive inaterial. As used herein stan-

. dards mean ll=1ts on radiation exposures or levels, or concentrations or quantities of radioactive J

material, in the general environment outside the boundaries of locations under the control of persons possessing or using radioactive caterial."

According to page 5 of Senate Report No.91-250, Septa =ber 29, 1970, pertaining to Reorganization Plan No. -3 of 1970, the AEC "muld retain _ '

Its responsibility for the i=; le=entation and enforcement of ffacilit,y/

l.

! radiation standards through'its licens'y authority." i Since EPA is not authorized & st ',Lish radiation standards for individual facilities, but is tt } .aq .t at function to another stency, it cust be sure that any radiation standards it sets for the general environ =ent are practicable in terms of standards established for a l facility by the other agency.

cet _Hr. Eschwege, CEOD .

Hr. Pierson, CCC -2 -

Index and Files Index Digest

,c .

NNVIRONMENTAL POLICY INSTITUTE  !

August 29, 1984 Director M.EDOM OF INFORM A r c,>

Office of Administration ACT REQ U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission h y _UESTf(/.-7df Washington, DC 20555 Freedom af Information Aci Request Gedd hil4

Dear Director,

This is a Freedom of Infor mation Act request by the Environmental Policy Institute pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552.

The Environmental Policy Institute requests the following information and documents:

1) All vote sheets, instructions to staff, policy and implementation statements, decision documents, corrections, editorial changes, substantive revisions, and all other documentation considered or approved or transmitted by any Commissioner in his consideration of, or by the Commission in its consideration of, SECY-83-523/523 A- " Proposed Amendments to Uranium Mill Tailings Regulations and Advance Notice of Proposed J

Rulemaking" and/or the proposed rules.

2) All memoranda, directions to staff, revisions, editorial or other corrections transmitted by any Commissioner, the Commission, or any Office of the Commission including the Of fice of the Secretary and the Of fice of General Counsel to the NRC staff related to, or requesting revision of SECY-83-523/523A or the proposed revisions to the Commission's uranium mill tailings regulations discussed in SECY-83-523/523A.

3) The July 10, 1984 memorandum from Samuel J. Chilk to William J. Dircks transmitting the Commission's approved course of action regarding SECY-83-523/5 23 A and revision of the Commission's uranium mill tailings regulations, and all subsequent communications from any Commissioner or any Office of the Commission including the Of fice of General Counsel and the Of fice of the Secretary related to, or modifying, or amending, this memorandum and the approved course of action described in the memorandum.

4) Any and all revisions of the proposed uranium mill tailings regulations and policy and implementation statements related thereto developed in response to the approved course of action described in the July 10, 1984 memorandum or subsequent directive from the Commission or any Commissioner prepared by the NRC staff or any Office of the Commission including the Office of General Counsel related to the revision of the Commission's

~s. ,, , .,

OJsf,,V Y1/y 218 D Street, S.E. W.nhington,1).C. 2mu (202) 544-2m)

uranium mill tailings regulations and related policy and implementation statements.

5) All communications, invoices, manifests f rom the Nuclear Regulatory Commission transmitting the proposed revisions of the Commission's uranium mill tailings regulations and related policy and implementation statements to the Office of the Federal Register for subsequent publication including all notices and letters to the public, interested parties, and members of congress announcing this action.

6) All communications, invoices, manif ests f rom the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to the Office of the Federal Register requesting suspension of publication of the Commission's proposed revisions of its uranium mill tailings regulations and related policy and implementation statements and any communications f rom the Commission or any Of fice of the Commission announcing this action.

7) All communications f rom the Commission, the Chairman, or any other Commissioner or Office of the Commission including the Office of General Counsel concerning the decision to suspend publication of the proposed revisions of the Commission's uranium mill tailings regulations and related policy and implementation statements.

8) All meeting minutes and communications f rom the Commission, the Chairman, the Of fice of General Counsel, the Office of the Secretary or from any Commissioner concerning revision, modification, continued suspension, reconsideration and any other action related to the suspended revisions of the Commission's uranium mill tailings regulations and related policy and implementation statements including minutes from the August 1, 1984 meeting of Commissioners Bernthal, Palladino, and Asselstine. These communications should include the August 3, 1984 memo f rom Chairman Palladino to the other Commissioners explaining his vote and understanding of the Commission's course of action taken upon consideration of SECY-83-523/523 A .

9) All entries in phone logs, meeting logc, correspondence logs, and visitor logs of the Commission or any Commissioner related to the Commission's consideration of SECY-83-523/523A and the proposed revisions of the Commission's uranium mill tailings regulations, the subsequent decision to publish the proposed revisions and related policy and implementation statements entries, and the subsequent decision to suspend publication including contacts from congressional staff and members of congress.

The Environmental Policy Institute is a'non-profit, tax exempt public interest organization located in the District of Columbia. The Institute has monitored and participated in the Commission's development of uranium mill tailings regulations and implementation of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 and subsequent amendments since 1978.

2

The information the Institute hereby requests will be used exclusively in the public interest to assure that the Commission complies with P.L.95-604 and P.L.97-415 requiring it to promulgate regulations to protect public health and safety and the environment f rom the the hazards of uranium mill tailings in a timely manner.

The Institute therefore requests a waiver of fees under 5 U.S.C. 55 2 (a) ( 4) (A) .

Res ctfully, f .

k avid Berick Director, Nuclear Waste and Safety Project a

)

I i

( -

l

3'

. - - - - . . __