ML20147J253
| ML20147J253 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/02/1997 |
| From: | Callan L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| SECY-97-073, SECY-97-073-R, SECY-97-73, SECY-97-73-R, NUDOCS 9704140029 | |
| Download: ML20147J253 (18) | |
Text
a n___n n
.n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n 4
g"u RELEASEDTO THE PDR s
.r o
"Y. YO $7 M-4 initials v
s
\\*****#'
!...date POLICY ISSUE April 2,1997 (NEGATIVE CONSENT)
SECY-97-073 FOR:
The Commissioners FROM:
L. Joseph Callan Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
COMMENTS ON THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S ADVANCE NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING FOR THE DECISION ON WHETHER THE WASTE ISOLATION PILOT PLANT COMPLIES WITH THE 40 CFR PART 191 DISPOSAL REGULATIONS AND THE 40 CFR PART 194 COMPLIANCE CRITERIA PURPOSE:
To advise the Commission of the staff's intention to transmit to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the attached letter providing staff comments on the Advance Notice of Pro)osed Rulemaking (ANPR) for the decision on whether the Waste Isolation Pilot 31 ant (WIPP) complies with the 40 CFR Part 191 disposal regulations and the 40 CFR Part 194 compliance criteria.
BAC(GROUND:
On October 30, 1992. Congress passed the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act (LWA)
(Public Law 102-579). The WIPP LWA altered EPA's authority over the development of high-level waste (HLW) standards in several ways:
(1) EPA was given certain oversight responsibilities for WIPP:
(2) EPA's 1985 remanded radiation protection standard (Part 191) was reinstated for disposal sites other than Yucca Mountain (YM), Nevada, except for the individual and groundwater protection criteria that were g j the subject of the 1987 Federal Court Remand:
Nf CONTACT: James R. Firth. NMSS/DWM NOTE:
To BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE 415-6628 WEN THE FINAL sRM Is MADE AVAILABLE b
/H/p>344 d
< a $/#"T lil.lil.lil.lill. lit.is. i.m.
l
/asg c o m ooie W Ae M MMMMzzzzzassma
Th3 Commicnionora 2
(3) EPA was directed to promulgate final disposal regulations:
(4) EPA was directed to 3romulgate compliance criteria for the certification of compliance with tie final disposal regulations; and (5) EPA was required to certify by rule, whether the WIPP facility will comply with the final disposal regulations.
On February 10. 1993. EPA published 3roposed amendments to the " Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for t1e Management and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel. High-Level, and Transuranic Radioactive Wastes" (58 8 7924).
(
These standards apply to HLW and transuranic (TRU) radioactive waste disposal sites not characterized under Section 113(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (1.e., sites other than YM). Staff comments on the amended standards were provided to the Comission in SECY-93-073 and formal comments were submitted to EPA on April 12. 1993 (Attachment 1).
EPA published final amendments on December 20, 1993 (58 8 66398).
On February d.1994, staff informally provided EPA with coments on the January 28, 1994, working draft of the compliance criteria for WIPP.
Subsequently (January 30, 1995). EPA formally published for comment its l
proposed " Criteria for the Certification and Determination of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant's Compliance with Environmental Standards for the Management and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel High-Level, and Transuranic Wastes" at 60 8 5766.
Draft staff coments on the com)liance criteria were developed and. with Comission approval, staff briefed EPA on the draft l
. comments on June 14. 1995. These coments were )rovided to the Comission in SECY-95-217.
Subsequent to the development of t1e comments, but before Commission action on SECY-95-217 the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) published its findings on the technical bases for YM standards, in August
~
1995, and a bill to amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (HR 1020) received increased attention in the House of Representatives. These l
developments caused significant uncertainty in many aspects of HLW disposal.
l Therefore, the staff believed it appropriate to withdraw its coments and, in October 1995. SECY-95-217 was returned to the staff.
EPA published the final compliance criteria on February 9, 1996 (61 FR 5223).
l DISCUSSION:
On November 15. 1996. EPA published for comment the ANPR. " Decision to Certify Whether the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Complies With the 40 CFR Part 191 Dis)osal Regulations and the 40 CFR Part 194 Compliance Criteria" at 61
.R 58499 (Attachment 2). The ANPR addresses the rulemaking process for j
certifying whether WIPP complies with Parts 191 and 194.
The comment period closed on March 17, 1997. After the receipt and evaluation of comments and an evaluation of the compliance certification ap)lication. EPA will propose for comment its decision on whether to certify WI)P.
The staff is following EPA certification of WIPP to identify issues of relevance to potential NRC activities.
In the context of the WIPP certification and because of continuing NRC concerns related to EPA standards for HLW disposal, the staff has reviewed the ANPR and believes that several l
I
Th3 Commissionsra 3
comments should be transmitted to EPA (Attachment 3).
The principal staff comment is that EPA's decisions during the certification process do not set a precedent for future NRC licensing activities. This comment is necessary so as to retain NRC regulatory flexibility for potential-licensing actions related to HLW or TRU disposal (e.g., YM).
In addition. NRC may have to make determinations of compliance with Part 191 for sites other than WIPP.
Therefore, the staff believes that it is both relevant and important to reiterate earlier comments it made on Part 191 and restate Commission policy on groundwater protection as expressed in the February 7.1997, letter from Chairman Jackson to Administrator Browner.
Therefore, the staff proposes to comment to EPA that:
The technical community has raised significant concerns regarding the scientific basis for. and the appropriateness of, the Part 191 environmental standards. The NAS recommendations on the technical bases for standards applicable to the proposed repository at YM reiterated some of these concerns.
NRC remains concerned about the technical basis of some requirements in Part 191.
NRC remains concerned about the EPA approach to implementing ground-water protection, including:
The need for separate groundwater protection requirements in environmental standards for HLW disposal: and The use of maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for HLW disposal, as found in 40 CFR Part 141, is fundamentally incompatible with their derivation and a continuation of EPA's practice of using MCLs without appropriate justification.
RESOURCE IMPACTS:
There are no resource impacts associated with the proposed action.
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY IMPACTS:
There are no information technology impacts associated with the proposed action.
The Commissioners 4
COORDINATION:
The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed this paper and has no legal objection.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff intends to send the attached letter and comments to EPA within ten working days from the date of this paper, unless instructed otherwise by the Commission.
seph Callan Executive Director for Operations Attachments:
1.
NRC's letter dated 4/12/93 on ANPR 2.
EB notice dated 11/15/96 3.
Proposed ltr. to R. Trovato from C.J. Paperiello SECY NOTE:
In the absence of instructions to the contrary, SECY will. notify the staff on Friday, April 18, 1997 that the Commission, by negative' consent, assents to the action proposed in-this paper.
DISTRIBUTION:
3 j
. Commissioners 4
oGC oCAA
{
oIG-oPA oCA ACNW
'CIo CFo EDo SECY 4
i
a s.a APR 121993 i
Ms. Margo T. Oge, Director Office of Radiation and Indoor Air U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
~
Washington, D.C.
20460
Dear Ms. Oge:
Enclosed are U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) comments on the February 10, 1993, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposal to adopt certain environnental standards applicable to transuranic (TRU) and high-level radioactive waste (HLW) disposal facilities other than Yucca Mountain.
NRC notes, with regret, EPA's intent not to accept comments on those portions of its standards that were legislatively reinstated. As EPA is well aware, significant concerns have been raised within the technical community regarding the scientific basis for, and the appropriateness of, EPA's 1985 standards.
Some of those concerns will be addressed in the National Academy of Sciences' (NAS) study of appropriate standards for the candidate HLW repository site at Yucca Mountain.
When the NAS review has been completed, NRC believes it would be appropriate for EPA to review its non-Yucca-Mountain standards to determine whether additional amendments are warranted.
EPA solicits comments on the two specific questions shown below. NRC's views on these questions follow.
(1) Are there reasons for adopting i different regulatory time frame for the individual and ground-water protection requirements than the 10,000-year period of analysis associated with the containment requirements of 40 CFR 191.137 In 1987, a Federal court found that EPA had provided an adequate explanation for the 10,000-year time limit for the containment requirements of the 1985 standards.
At that time, EPA argued that a 10,000-year period was long enough to distinguish repositories with relatively good capabilities to isolate waste from those with relatively poor capabilities, and yet short enough so that major geologic changes were unlikely and repository performance might reasonably be projected.
In our view, the same reasoning would apply for~
protection of individuals and of groundwater. While we see no obvious reason why different regulatory periods should be adopted for different parts of EPA's standards, the appropriateness of th'e 10,000-year period of analysis will likely be a major focus of the NAS review. Thus, EPA adoption of this time period in any generally applicable environmental standard may warrant reconsideration once the NAS review is completed.
(2) In subpart C, the Agency (EPA] proposes to prevent radioactive contamination of " underground sources of drinking water" beyond the limits found in 40 CFR part 141--the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations.
The Agency is aware, however, that there could be some types of ground water that warrant additional protection either because i
l l
l J 84 2
they are of unusually high value or are more susceptible to
' contamination. Should the Agency adopt non-degradation requirements for
. especially valuable ground water? If so, what types of ground water warrant this extra level of protection?
EPA's current proposal is,.in effect, a non-degradation requirement.
EPA's maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) are so low that even very minor releases from an otherwise very good repository could cause groundwater concentrations to approach the MCLs. Any further restrictions on groundwater concentrations would be unnecessary for protection of public health, would likely prove unachievable for some disposal facilities, and should not be adopted by EPA.
As a related matter, the NRC is concerned about EPA's proposal to establish a
" moving target" for allowable contaminant levels in groundwater. Under EPA's proposal, design of a disposal facility would be very difficult since EPA could-revise the environmental standards for the facility at any time for reasons that have nothing to do with waste disposal. We strongly urge EPA to establish a fixed environmental standard for contaminant levels in groundwater l
near a disposal facility.
Specific NRC comments regarding EPA's proposed rule of February loth are enclosed.
Initial comments on EPA's draft " Background Information Document" I
and " Economic Impact Analysis" are also enclosed.
From the h? staff's l
- preliminary review, however, it appears that the " Background Information l
Document" employs a highly-simplified conceptual model. The analyses based on this model should not be viewed as a sound indication of whether EPA's release limits are achievable at any real repository site.
Additional comments on these supporting documents may be submitted after the NRC staff has had an opportunity to thoroughly review them.
Sincerely, Robert M. Bernero, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
Enclosure:
Comments on 58 ER 7924, February 10,.1993 cc: (two copies)
Docket No. R-89-01 Air Docket, room M-1500 (LE-131) i U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 401 M Street, SW
. Washington, DC 20460 i
i
I NRC COMMENTS ON EPA'S PROPOSED INDIVIDUAL AND GROUNDWATER PROTECTION STANDARDS GENERAL 1.
The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) description of the legal basis for Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) licensing authority (58 f3 7929) notes (NRC's) licensing role for Yucca Mountain under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA), as amended. However, NRC's authority is broader than this and has a different genesis.
The Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (P.L.93-438),
j which established NRC, is the fundamental authority for NRC licensing of facilities for storage (including disposal) of both defense-and comercially generated high-level wastes (HLW). Thus, NRC would have licensing authority for any repository for comercially generated HLW, including Yucca Mountain, that might be developed.
In addition, NRC would have licensing authority for any defense-only HLW facility that might be pursued separate from the provisions of NWPA.
Finally, the low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (P.L.99-240) authorized NRC licensing of disposal facilities for comercially-generated " greater-than-Class C" wastes, including any such wastes containing transuranic radionuclides. Thus, there exists a significant potential for NRC implementation of these proposed EPA standards, even though they do not apply to Yucca Mountain.
2.
EPA proposes to define " radioactive material" as "... matter composed of or containing radionuclides, with radiological half-lives greater than 20 years, subject to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended." This proposed definition is contrary to comon usage, since most people refer to all radioactive mate. rial as " radioactive material." More importantly, the qualifying terms seem to serve no purpose.
EPA proposes to use " radioactive material" to define environmentcl standards for limiting individual doses and groundwater contamination.
EPA's proposed criteria would apply to " disposal systems for waste an,d any associated radioactive material." However, the specific language proposed by EPA (sections 191.15 and 191.24) seems to refer to the impacts of all radionuclides, including those with short half-lives and those not subject to the Atomic Energy Act. NRC recommends that EPA delete this term altogether as it will only add confusion.
If EPA is concerned about Greater-than-Class-C waste disposal then the standards should be specific to Greater-than Class-C waste, and not try to encompass a wide range of materials or waste.
3.
Significant concerns have been raised within the technical comunity regarding the scientific basis for, and the appropriateness of, EPA's 1985 l
standards.
Some of those concerns will be addressed in the National Academy of Sciences' (NAS) study of appropriate standards for the candidate HLW l
repository site at Yucca Mountain. When the NAS review has been completed, NRC believes it would be appropriate for EPA to review its non-Yucca-Mounta,in standards to determine whether additional amendments would be appropriate.
~
l l
2 10.000-Year Time Limit
-4.
EPA proposes to adopt a 10,000-year time period for application of the individual and groundwater protection standards, and solicits comment on whether there are reasons for adopting a different time period.
In 1987, a Federal' court found that EPA had provided an adequate explanation for the 10,000-year time limit for the containment requirements of the 1985 standards.
At that time, EPA argued that a 10,000-year period was long enough to distinguish repositories with relatively good capabilities to isolate waste from those with relatively poor capabilities, and yst short enough so that major geologic changes were unlikely and repository performance might reasonably be' projected.
In our view, the same reasoning would apply for protection of individuals and of groundwater, and there would be no obvious reason why different regulatory periods should be adopted for different parts of EPA's standards.
While we see no obvious reason why different regulatory periods should be adopted for different parts of EPA's standards, the appropriateness of the 10,000-year period of a;.alysis will likely be a major focus of the NAS review.
Thus, EPA adoption of this time period in any generally applicable environmental standard may warrant reconsideration once the NAS review is completed.
Individual Dose Limits 5.
In 1985, EPA established individual protection requirements of 0.25 mSv/yr (25 mrem /yr) for the whole body or 0.75 mSv/yr (75 ares /yr) for other organs. At that time, EPA did not provide a convincing basis of support 3
for those dose limits.
In 1985, EPA equated its dose limits to a lifetime risk of 5E-4.
However, EPA did not argue that SE-4 was the maximum level of risk that could be considered acceptable, nor did EPA demonstrate that its dose limits were reasonably achievable.
In addition, EPA never proposed its individual protection requirements for public coment.
(EPA's 1982 proposed standards solicited comment'on whether individual doses should be regulated, but did not propose specific dose limits.) Because of the sketchy history of the dose' limits in EPA's 1985 standards, it is inappropriate for EPA now to defend its current proposal on the basis of " consistency" with those dose limits.
- nstead, EPA should defend the current proposal on its own merits.
Specifically, EPA should identify the maximum individual dose rate that EPA would consider acceptable for future' exposures of individuals (e.g., that suggested in the following comment).
6.
The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) has recomended radiation protection standards for radioactive waste disposal in
.its Publication No. 46.
The ICRP recommends that no individual in the future should be exposed to more than 1 mSv/yr (100 arem/yr) attributable to non-l medical man-made radiation sources (or an equivalent level of risk if L
exposures are unlikely), and that each source of potential exposure should be allocated 'a portion of the overall limit.
(The basis for the ICRP l
recommendation:is comparison with risks now accepted by society.) The i
fundamental idea is to restrict each potential source of long-term exposure j
(e.g., a HLW repository) so that the total dose rate from all sources is I
\\
v i
I*
3 unlikely to exceed the recommended limits of the ICRP.
EPA should do two things: a) endorse the overall dose limit of 1 mSv/yr-(100~ mrem /yr) recommended by the ICRP, or_ explain why EPA prefers a different limit, and b) explain how EPA's proposed HLW and TRU standards are derived from an overall dose (or risk) limit for all sources of future human radiation exposures.
7.
EPA's proposed individual protection standards would restrict potential doses to "any member of the public." This seems to mean the most highly exposed member of the public.
In contrast, the ICRP has recommended that dose limits should be applied to the average dose within a " critical group" of the most highly exposed members of the public. The Federal Reaister notice does not provide the reasons for EPA's rejection of the ICRP's critical group concept.. EPA should clearly describe its reasons for restricting doses to the maximally-exposed individual rather than the average dose within a critical group.
8.
EPA states (page 7929) that use of groundwater within the controlled area need not be considered when evaluating compliance with the individual protection requirements.
EPA reasons that the geologic media within the controlled ' ta are an integral part of the disposal system. NRC agrees with this. view, t ; is concerned that the wording of EPA's standards might permit other interpretations.
Specifically, if withdrawal of groundwater from within the controlled area does not " disrupt" the disposal system, such withdrawal might be considered to be part of " undisturbed performance." To ensure that there is no ambiguity about this point, the existing (1985) definition of the term " undisturbed performance" should be altered to read:
" Undisturbed performance" means the predicted behavior of a disposal system, including consideration of the uncertainties in predicted i
behavior, assumina no withdrawal of aroundwater from within the controlled area. and assumino 44 the disposal system is not disrupted by human intrusion or the occurrence of =Mh'y natural events.
Note also that the word "unlikely" should be deleted from this definition.
EPA's existing definition of " undisturbed performance" is confusing because it
-includes disturbed performance to the extent that natural disruptions are likely to occur. Alternatively, if EPA wishes to apply the individual protection requirements to performance following likely disruptions, the term
" undisturbed performance" could be replaced with " anticipated perfomance" or some similar term.
9.
In sections 191.15(c) and 191.24(b), it would be helpful to :,ubstitute
" performance assessment" for " compliance assessment." The tem " compliance i assessment" is sometimes used to refer to a licendng agency's determination that an applicant's performance assessment is an adequate demonstration of compliance with a regulatory requirement.
Groundwater Protection Standards 10.
EPA proposes to require a disposal facility to comply with the provisions of whatever EPA drinking water standards are in effect at the time
l 4
when compliance is demonstrated.
This constitutes a " moving target" that will i
make it difficult to design a disposal facility.
It is also impossible to evaluate the stringency of the proposed s hndards or the technical or economic
{
practicality of achieving compliance with them.
Instead of a " moving target,"
EPA should determine the level of groundwater protection appropriate for HLW and TRU disposal, and should ccdify that level of protection in these standards.
11.
EPA proposes to require that groundwater adjacent to a TRU or HLW disposal facility be protected to the mcximum contaminant levels (MCLs) developed by EPA under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).
In our October 16, 1992, comments on EPA's proposed drinking water standards, we stated:
EPA should evaluate the indirect impact of the proposed MCLs. There are other activities, such as environmental restoration, to which the MCLs will be applied as default values for groundwater and surface water l
protection.
EPA has consistently adopted MCLs as groundwater protection criteria for high-level waste management and uranium mill tailings (and draft standards for low-level waste disposal) because the MCLs are established to protect humans in accordance with the Safe Drinking Water Act. Minimal justification has been provided by EPA in these individual rulemakings to adopt the MCLs as relevant criteria other than the fact that they have already been established as MCLs in 40 CFR Part 141.
These criteria include the MCLs for radium, gross alpha, and uranium, as well as the 4 mrem / year dose standard for beta and gamma emitters.
Although the $/ rem impact for the proposed standards is acceptable to EPA'for municipal treatment, since EPA has chosen to rely on the drinking water standards as sufficient justification for adopting these MCLs in other contexts, EPA is obligated to consider the potential impacts associated with establishing or changing the MCLs in 40 CFR Part 141.
In addition, this analysis should consider potential impacts on other activities to which the MCLs will likely be applied as relevant and appropriate criteria (e.g., for site cleanups under CERCLA), in the absence of alternative health-based criteria, EPA's current proposal is a continuation of EPA's practice of using the MCLs without appropriate justification.
12.
EPA proposes to require that radionuclide levels in offsite underground sources of drinking water not exceed such MCLs as EPA might determine to be appropriate.
EPA's past derivation of MCLs has been based on consideration of the technical capabilities of water treatment plants and of the cost-effectiveness of various types of water treatment. Specifically, EPA's MCLs have been derived to apply to public water supplies after treatment in a water treatment plant.
EPA now proposes to apply the same MCL levels to groundwater supplies before treatment.
In other words, EPA proposes to obviate use of the very water treatment technologies EPA has previously found to be technically practical and cost-effective. Not only is this use of the MCL levels incompatible with their derivation, it is inconsistent with the concept of
" endangerment," as used in the SDWA.
EPA notes (page 7930) that:
" Endangerment" occurs if an underground injection "may result in the
i l 1.,
[
5 4
presence [in) underground water which supplies or can reasonably be l
expected to supply any public water system of any contaminant,-and if
{
the presence of such contaminant may result in such system's not j
complying with any national primary drinking water regulation or may l
otherwise adversely affect the health of persons."
l I
Setting aside the question of whether repository disposal constitutes underground injection, " endangerment" would seem to occur only if contaminant i
levels in groundwater are high enough so that treatment by a public water system cannot reduce those levels to MCLs.
The NRC does not object to use of MCLs as general goals for groundwater protection. However, EPA should further consider the potential costs -
l associated with a rigid regulatory requirement for prevention of contamination
{
above MCLs.
In some cases, the technical or economic practicality of water i
treatment may be much more favorable than the practicality of prevention of groundwater contamination that only moderately exceeds EPA's MCLs. As EPA notes (page 7933), the technology for treating groundwater with high levels of j
" total dissolved solids" (i.e., salts) is advancing.
The same technology would presumably be effective in removing dissolved radionuclides from groundwater.
EPA should not require the expenditure of billions of dollars to prevent potential contamination of groundwater that would require treatment prior to use anyway.
Instead, EPA's standards should permit a decision to j
spend much smaller sums for water treatment in the event that such contamination should occur.
(
13.
EPA's proposed rule unplies that the MCLs have.already been implemented l
in standards to protect groundwater for uranium mill tailings sites and hazardous waste disposal facilities. However, there are flexibilities associated with MCL compliance in other programs that EPA has not provided for in the TRU and plW standards. Specifically, in the hazardous waste and uranium mill tailings disposal program, EPA has provided flexibility in meeting MCLs through the use of alternate concentration limits (ACLs) (cf. 40 i
CFR 264.94). ACLs may be applied in situations when compliance with MCLs is i
not feasible, provided that the environment is sufficiently protected and other conditions are met. Additionally, in accordance with SDWA sections 1415(a)(1)(A) and 1416(a), respectively, EPA or a State may grant a variance or issue an exemption to a public water system from any MCL requirement.
EPA concluded in'each of these programs that such flexibility was necessary and 1
appropriate. To the extent allowed by the legal authority under which EPA is proposing these standards, EPA should provide comparable flexibility in implementing drinking water MCLs in the TRU and HLW standards or justify why l
it is not necessary for TRU and HLW disposal facilities.
j 14.
In the " Supplementary Information" (page 7932), EPA references its groundwater protection strategy and indicates that the strategy recommends use of MCLs as " reference points" for protection of water resources that are i
i potential sources of drinking water.
EPA should explain why it has proposed i-to apply MCLs in these standards as absolute limits rather than more flexible l
reference points.
15.
EPA's proposed groundwater protection standards restrict the I;9mb.intd ll, L
_._. _ m _ ___ _. _ _. _ _ _ _ _. _. _ _ _.. _.
i i
6 concentrations of natural and man-made radionuclides from all sources. Thus, a site with natural radionuclide concentrations exceeding EPA's MCL levels could not be' used for waste disposal (unless groundrater cleanup were practical). This is a substantial departure from EPA's 1985 standards, which restricted the incremental increase in groundwater r.oncentrations. caused by a i
disposal facility. Arguably, rather than risking contamination of pristine' aquifers, EPA should encourage siting waste disposal facilities at. locations t
where groundwater is already unsuitable for consumption witho.ut treatment.
EPA provides no explanation for the change from the 1985 standards, nor does EPA even identify the change in the Federal Reaister notice. EPA should allow an incremental increase, above natural levels, unless EPA can demonstrate that doing so would unacceptably endanger the health of the public.
I 16.
The proposed standards' require (section 191.23(b)) that the analytical methods in 40 CFR Part 141 be used "...to determine the levels for comparison i
- with the limits in 40 CFR part 141." This requirement is inappropriate, since compliance with Subpart C (the groundwater protection criteria) must be demonstrated before a facility is placed in operation. A determination of compliance with Subpart C is to be made before a disposal facility is i
j operated, not after wastes have been emplaced. To the extent that Part 191 is l
being proposed under Atomic Energy Act authority, specification of use of l
l particular analytical methods is also inappropriate since such specification does not constitute a " generally applicable environmental standard."
l Anoendix B 17.
Appendix B appears to be based on ICRP Publication 60. This is inconsistent with current Federal guidance and the consensus developed in a Federal Interagency Working Group. The consensus of that group (chaired by EPA) is that the incremental benefit associated with adoption of ICRP 60 methodology is-not sufficient to justify the associated cost and regulatory burden. Thus, EPA's proposed Appendix B should be rewritten, based on ICRP-26 methodology, to be consistent with current Federal guidance and the practices l
of other Federal agencies, 18.
The symbols used in the equations of the proposed Appendix B i
l'
(" Calculation of Annual Committed Effective Dose") cause confusion.
In the l
Then, in the third e,. is used to denote the equivalent dose in tissue T.
second equation, "H quation, the same symb1 is used for both the integrated 50-year equivalent dose and the equivalent dose ut.t. The right-hand side of the third equation should use a symbol that clearly indicates the dose rate (i.e., the derivative of H, with respect to time).
Backaround Information Document (BID) 19.
EPA's proposed standards would restrict radionuclide concentrations in groundwater and potential doses to individuals outside a " controlled area" that is allowed to extend up to five kilometers from a disposal facility. The analyses of EPA's draft BID evaluate potential concentrations and doses at a L
2-kilometer distance, rather than the full 5-kilometer distance allowed by j
EPA's standards.
In EPA's analyses,.an individual is assumed to withdraw groundwater for drinking at a distance of 2-kilometers from a deep geologic j -
4 4
,m
.r,.
4 7
repository containing transuranic wastes.
In general, EPA's analyses show that no-impacts occur, even at the 2-k11ometer location, until about 50,000 L
- years after disposal. Then, doses to the individual are estimated to range l
from several tens of millirem / year to several res/ year, and to remain relatively constant until the end of EPA's analyses at 100,000 years after disposal. Had EPA estimated impacts at the 5-kilometer boundary of the controlled area,'rather than at a. 2-kilometer distance, few releases would have occurred within 100,000 years and estimated doses would have been reduced by radioactive decay and dispersion during transport through the controlled area. Thus, it would be inappropriate to interpret the results of EPA's analyses as a demonstration that a 10,000-year regulatory period is inadequate and as a rationale for extending the regulatory period for longer times.
20.
EPA uses essentially the same conceptual model for all four hypothetical I
repositories considered in its BIO. Using the NEFTRAN-S code, EPA uses a single " pipe" to simulate transport of radionuclides from a repository to an overlying or underlying aquifer, and then uses a second " pipe" to simulate transport to a groundwater well located 2 kilometers away. The coarseness of this model precludes _ simulation of fractures, failures of borehole or shaft seals, or other inhomogeneities in the geologic media. NEFTRAN-S may not be adequate for such purposes anyway, and a computer prograni implementing mathematical models of the appropriate processes would have to be used. Thus, EPA is unable to determine whether relatively rapid transport of small amounts of waste might occur, leading to potential violations of the proposed individual and groundwater protection standards.
21.
Some of EPA's simplifying assumptions may be causing EPA to be underestimating doses.- For example, Table 7.5-15 postulates an aquifer thickness of 2400 meters at a tuff site.
Even if the physical thickness of an aquifer were this great, the effective thickness within which radionuclides would be mixed and transported would be much less. Thus, EPA may have overestimated dilution of releases (and underestimated doses) by 1 to 2 orders of magnitude.
22.
EPA uses retardation factors originally developed for the National Academy of Sciences' 1983 Waste Isolation Systems Panel's HLW report. The waste form for EPA's current analyses is transuranic waste, which includes organic trash, chelating agents, etc.
EPA should explain why it thinks the retardation factors developed for HLW would be~ appropriate for transuranic wastes with much different chemical characteristics.
23.
The reinstated criteria of 40 CFR Part 191 define " undisturbed performance" as "...the predicted behavior...if the disposal system is not disrupted by human intrusion or the occurrence of ^unlikely natural events."
As noted in connent 8, use of the term " undisturbed performance" is confusing because it includes disturbed performance to the extent that natural disruptions are likely to occur. Comment 8 recommends that EPA drop the word i
"unlikely" from the definition of undisturbed performance. However, if EPA i
j retains the current wording, EPA should demonstrate that the limits of its L
standards are achievable for likely disturbances.
EPA's draft BID makes no attempt to even identify likely disturbances, let alone estimate their effects on repository performance.
If EPA is to provide a convincing demonstration 9
1 4
8 l
l that its proposed standards are technically achievable, EPA needs to identify likely disruptions and to evaluate the effects of those disruptions on the l
l performance of disposal facilities.
I 24.
Section 7.6.2 of EPA's BID seems to endorse use of elicited expert judgment in a performance assessment for demonstration of compliance with the proposed standards. While we recognize that use of expert judgment will be a necessary part of any demonstration of compliance with these standards, NRC staff believe that it is inappropriate to substitute judgment for data unless l
l data are not reasonably obtainable.
(
Reliance on expert judgment is a matter of implementation of the standards.
It would be more appropriate for EPA to offer its views regarding reliance on elicited judgments in conjunction with development of EPA's compliance i
criteria for WIPP rather than as part of these generally applicable environmental standards.
\\
25.
As noted in our cover letter, additional comments may be provided to EPA after the NRC staff has had an opportunity to thoroughly review the BID.
i l
i i
I l
l l
l I
i i
J':"
..h.~u' L *
~;.
,'.O.f,;.?
- -[..h f 1;,[e.J...'I e kT[4.x g
,: ~ -
- w
.l[. [.P -
Y
..Y 4
3 r.s.p., n.,,si.w: a. w m i Pna.,a,,eA@sn n[i P--aa m mw
. ;{
W N
.nsend: ocesher to,less; 1.%50* be paidlebed leithe Fadesaltaniseek.' the process of nuclear fission, chio8y S as,$d A.UHrkh,
- a. 4. " ch.OpfM*j provide public hearingindermetican 4 isotopes of lutonium.
P y
p AcceqgApposel M d=hs-ia < scW.a annanname. Comanents and sequests IEF*.
N EPAis utred by the WIPP e,.
IFR Doc. 94-288F3 FGod 11-14-ee: 8-45 and.*
should be subedtted,la4.Iand Withdre Act to evaluate and, _, e.
a sus,s som es m.,
~r
,to:
No. A-SS et. Aly" " odetify wbsther the WIPP will comply c
. P M S w' room M-1500 (I.5-131), U.S. u 3 with subparts B and C of 40 4
s,i EnvironmentalProemr41an Agency.401" 191--known as the " disposal
.-~
pent.ees u l
%.h '.
,.v..
".., w...%..e,d>. M street, S.W., Washington, D.C.;lW =
"These regulations limit
- [
204eedleeadditionaldocket 4- '%
ofradioecdvs materials from nus sees-Aces... N.M.ed, e % information la the suppeestrAny - m disposal systems for radioactive weste,
.0 CPR Part 1M.:a ;cy e O d u.T saponesances... u.>
- v Li and require implementation of measures
.y y, y., BM.M.M. pon runnen sepomear.asthowrAcTv '. to { wide con 8dence forcompliance
,e h
CorWy assier f
p g,, Co g nes unbar.
t
./ -
t,.
.g.,,,,,,,,,,, ",',',%'a',,,,,,,,u,e,,,,,,
' Meu Code sea aure.s:lindisoa.,,
ion oivi.io.. radia ~ me.ams of me 1
,,,,,..g c,,,
, g,,,,, s."
1, u.s. E u--+-3 N puhuc,ed pmmet smund wee
';' W
'M.. Psosassian A
, Washington, DCO resouscos by establishing mavimum Crierte w.e 4.. s e w idac.5 6 e20ee n.. n. m+ asa
,a, p
n V'
4'" concentrations forradionuc!!desin Aaency:Envira====**)Protecties.;. m supptaMENTANY' esp 0fud4TIcett%e Waists 7, ground watere
(
Agency (EPA)... g.r,;w.ni.'.o aO Isolation Puot Plant (WIPP) wee',"
N WIPP land Withdrawal,Act also,',
g Acnose:Advaace Nbtice of Proposed. X authoriend la 19e0, ander section F1) o(. calls for EPA to establish criteria.
e.I==aMag (ANPit).
. ir-i.
". the Deputment of fD0er Q, t, les *
"- the dis regulations..
i P e
et the WIPP. RPA pub Hnal
,. NationalSecurityand tery euessAeV:The Envisaadant.1 Protection ' Apple =#tana of Naciser
. _ G... criteria (40 CFR part 1M) on February
,t Agency (EPA) latends to certify whether' Authoriention Act of 1900 i
>t 164,93 Stat.1259,1355),"for the.'96,1 L
11,1996. See 81 FR 5224. Dus. EPA will -
er not the Waste lealetion Puot Plant
..al impl====8 its environmental radiation 4
(WIPP) will comply with WA'p-and L pose ofprovidlega resensci standesds,40 CFR part 191, empress pur j.
enviromnentalradiation on 7...
-- Incilgy;;
ying the WIPP compliana
'g.
y.
standards for the
'of radi6ective, Mhe ends disIposal ofrediencsive westes J ' cri 40 CFR part 1M, to the.
M weste.%e WIPP is being constructed by sesulting hem the defense activities and allapa=1 of transuranic f
the " r : t of Ensegy (DOE)near*'.
of the United States."h " ' r=d aan**ve weses at the WIPP. For more.*
Carlsbed. New Ed==i-as a potential < : ;
is constructed by the DCC informention about 40 CFR 4 C to Federal Register dar===part 391 refer ~
- ; ' -- for the seis disposal of vf.
near New Medes.us et 6' y
i
=e
~
treasuranic radioactive wesen.Purmesat.
to the 1982 WIPP land Withdrawal Acs. potendel repository for the esisdisposeli in ages (50 FR 38086-380e9, s t of treasuranic radioactive wesim
... 2 19,1985) and 1993 (58 FR e6395. -
es==== dad EPA must certify that the:
WIPP will cosaply with EPA's standards. The 1992 WIPP tand Withderwel Agt aeste, Dec. 30,1993). For unase.
f (Pub.J 102--679)'limi;s redleestivp, _.* informentiam about 40 CFR part 1M refer y
sedis,osai.e.denemamany..w
- i. e.WeFier-
,:i. sederei magins, da--*=
i P
. must be met,befuse DOE. gsodionssive weseosseassea. di p=haiah-d in s
1996 (61 FR 5224-5245 may====== disposal of sedioecsive delsnes related'acalvities.. - '
Feb,9,ISOS) and 1995 (80 FR 57e6-
~
weste et the WIPP. +. '.<. 5 ret.4 westeis ds8eed as weste$.
5791, Jea. 30,1995).
~.-
EPA will determine whether the WIPP containing more thsn 100 nano. curies "
no DCE may not begin to senplace wi!! comply with EPA's standsuds for.
gram of alpha emitting sodioactive i tsensuranic weste underground for dispess) based on the ;;"- " -
with half-lives greater them.N disposal et the WIPP until EPA certiSes submitted by the Soestery ofEmergy.
' twenty years and stamic numbess that the WE'P will comply with the DOE's complienes cereia=*i==~4 m m9 yester thee 92.He Act_hutber' *F D disposal _ ' '="n and all other epplication was neceived by the EPA esa stipuistes abat :=dianred== waises aball..p !a n
roquir====e= of ear *ian 7(b) of the WIPP (Mahar 29,1993,a' ndW insybeF ** mot be tsensuranic westelf sudi Westt7 found in EPA's (see.*MI
' also seests the dea =leir= athigh IsveL@ been satis 8ed. As by section.
K Additteent leforenellen at aberv.. radioecalve wasta, has been ap=re-th
- 9(d) of the====d-d land.
y and of this noths) no-Ad=i=4=*==*-r aussapted hasa segulatinut wish aba r.c ~ Withdsewel Am.IFA's decision an. *
- will make a deter==l==*Ia= es tolbs'.. r concevueoe of the Ad-d=6=s-ene, er has y
cosopisesanes of the appuestion in the:.4 een approved for== ala-aste mistbed *: whether the WFP complies with the t,
b
. disposal segulations will be h
of dispoemt by the Nuclear Reguisterf N =mamphahed by r ' *: =.
.7 near Astmo and wiltnotify the ee rTr na===i==i-no transmesseMM acondence wah am nouco In -
secreerF,la wrines, when thu Assacy nd-f(
deems the appliceuse "m==yl=e= " EPAi radioactive weses proposed Serdisposal=====* requirements of the will evaluate the "compises c - " ". ' " la tbs WIPP consists of materials soc 4L. ~ Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C.
tpplicauen in C "-- wbstbar tbm1 es sags, equipsnamt, teels pretective' M t
t WIPP will cosaply with the :=de=*ia= n",L goat, and sludges that beve becemoW64 _553). In addition to these genermI ~
I'
~. EPA developed sped 6c f pron = rela = =*-ad==A= fordispossL De -
cour==*==ted during atomic onesgf W 8 ans for public involvemostt in the j-Agency requests public -=P===4 en au e defense activities. Mos=dEaadive~.* W complianos certi$ cation espects of the DOE *e appikatism. A g u se asespeneet of tremeurenic wenn emesises rul==== Hag.no public participation N, onas: t'a====ts la reopeast to tode$ of seen-smede elememes esses'd desing"D' criterta immed im i sse.al, g 1M.s2, 4
C
'"*"*"'C V
domment and en DOE's Mereh1 A '.ine esas wed1mina'Afd' " P'"*usadii rasewed w 51 seas, emit 51 Mar of the W
> ' applica6en man be
- afteria provide time beW gn' 'y""*.'dg?
gg*1 17,1997.Public bearisp will per6 ads for public=====mt, allow
,' oppostasities for Fehlic bearings, and,' ' '
)
New Mexico during the pubEccomment esie s n,es a.e e.,gs,ag g I
period. A seperses==Pa======8 WE L Y==rsesy e. " awrp~
otheroineendde peblictenases to-e R[hd
~
. @ f,5 C.J i M 8.abment 2 ~
.._-f.
. J
.,3..
?
. 4 '.,, y W..
4
,~
- of
-Q 7"?q1.~ 4.., j
,.g
.(}.;
z'.
g q
- .a,-
r,,.
a s
'58500 Federal Register hFol. 61. No. 222 / Prtday,' November 15,- 1996 /.. Proposed Rules g
information apar4Rr=Hy missed to EPA's 'New Mexico located in Albuqueeque,
' or postmarked on or befan this date in eartincation'rulemaking. he Agency _ eso p.sn.en, Monday through Thweday, 3
J. a ? New Mexico (open from 8:00 am.to. the preparation of the Baal rule.
'With today's document, t Acontests: Comments:You may hand.
annoimma its intention to mmmenca a 8 90 a,sa. to 5 00 pm on Fdday,9:00 deliver your comments to the Bureau of m.,
blic rulammHng to certify whether the. a.mL to 5:00 pa on Saturday, and 120. Land Management, Admtm=trative.
B facility omnplies witn the. e
~
pa to e:00 p.as. an Sunday);(3) EPA's -Record, Room 401,1820 L St., NW.,
- . ' disposal regulatione. On October 29, z.. docket in the Fogelson Library of the -
Washington.DC: or mail mmments to J ' 1996. DOE submitted an application for ' College of Santa Fein Santa Fe, New
- 'the Bureau of Land Management, certincation of compliance to EPA. A Mexico, located et 1600 St.Michaels
. Adminiarrative Recxird, Room 401LS, copy of the application is evallable for Drive (open fran s:00 a.m. to 12:00 1949 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 4.-
Inspection in EPA's puhuc dockeis' midalght on Monday through Nreday. 20240. You m'ry tr=namit mmments desaibed below. h Agency's 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 emmments on drah versions of b 'J 3.., a.m. to 5:00 pM.p.m. on Friday,9:00on Saturday,1:00 p.m.
Wnen-mantewn.bim. gov. Please electronically via the Intemet to:
H d, - '808BP anm certiScotionlication me,. to 9:00 p.an. on Sunday); and (4) EPA's.. include " attn: AC71" and your nama also availablein public h.
dodetIn the Municipal of and address in your mensege.If you do y l EPA will evaluate the compbte Carished.New Mexico, et 101 S.
not recalve a conformation from the i,
+ a Ya Hostion in determining whether the., Halogueno(o frosa 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 'eystem that we have recalved your. -
complies with the radiation.
p.m. on y through Thuredey, Intemet mesange, coated us directly.
_, protodion standards for disposalin. '
addftion, EPA will consider nblic
,y,,, -10:00 a.m. to 6:00 pm on Rdday and pon en sesone4ATEM CourTM."M - 'i Saturdsv, and 1:00 m to 5:00 p.m.on ' Erica Peteachi, Regulatory um ;3 "mant and other informe on. relevant Sunday {. As
. "'.WIPP's com llance. EPA in 40GR 2,
.1. p g, pureau of M Manage 5snt, e t W
88
,, =nnable sney b
.c,i,_,.#w e charged g,. ;.
- eni -
op.as of u s
l r-
- 3.,
aphication.A will make e determination la the. List of SeMecta la_es CPE Port leaf p suppLamastrAny seroneastmes:
I'Pubuc omi==ct Procedures -
~
c near future as to the completanaag of the Envirn=mantal pro ardan *
E.==A-
_-_ ' and run ia==6a= el Rule s
,T appikation, as e preliminary step in its Administrative ce and procedure,'
E1. Pinoodural Herture
.4 k.
more extensive technical review of the ? Nuclear me
, Plutonium, Radiation g PubHcComumentPrdadares ~
p. ! application.%e EPA may request ection. Radionuclides.
additlanal information as nar====>y --
..==w Urenlum, Weste treatment Widtten Commentr' -
. from DOE to ensure the com lateness of and di=pnaal "f r..
. M y y w, m m,
aon h gca a
+.. Dated: November 5,l'eseJp,N,*" rule abould be speci6c, abou@ld tse the cm y
ofits completeness determination. Att.M M h' o /4 /W N t,an=nnad w issu[esttogdm.
. y' ; corrompondence between EPA and DOE Mehkeener.. ? *
- r
- w. L Pr8 Posed rub, eh m ld =rp reperding the completeness of b t IFRDec 96-303s2FSed11-14-es;8:45emel reason be any r=N=n=nandad
^
Where pomlble, a====nts aha=
consphanos application will be placed eatees asas essees.e d-i reference the speciac section or
- ~ '
- in b pubuc dodma.
. EPA will make e Anal dar4= dan m
peregraph of the proposal which the J-certifying whether the WIPP Eardliey m
"-%.4
' wa====ilymoneider erinclude in the. -
"""'""""'I'~^
""" EIAE "'I "*" ~
' anests the disposal regulations sher' w.5, ~SEPARTRAEBfT' OF TM BffERKW A- -
tt...
3l
' se, mal addisonal reguinary sumeu et tana asenseement.===.
M=i=5 *=etin secord ser the Anal rub
{
' including *=r hnical analysis of s
,,..p+.,
nr===ents which BIAd reasives eher the Hcetion, tasuing a notice of proposed 43 CPRPart3830, a c,e
, class of the -==t od (ess Dates) in the Federal Register,.e gwo.-130 ' asMS-et th) j4u.y M#
4 W 4 ' _ er===-ats dah to en address J
providing additional -
r
.r~
'otherthen thom Hated abm (see
- My for i
- W M. - + ". ' u. v m
~ --
i,. t comment, holdYpuhuc d' "M N?^
~ ' W"
':M'W"*"1 W-% ' gi, m2 In New Mexico, analysing '.,u, 'gg,g, g, ami h ofRab 3
ad comment, and issuing a Snelsessi
- 5. ' -'
' h 8cPoses to ream 43 CR 2827-FederalRegisterthintis z s wrs AGANcyt &ueen amend "... - - ^
P t
-penica 37 a docmnant 2.e. s a nierior. - ~.m,m. w..+.'. bec=ues its Provisions am no kineer g,. muenmadsing and addressing 8niRaats.ec,, 'ACTeose: Proposed rule.w@'%
~
m,,
suomeneryer
=p=r
- r..
msnmenta.his "respanseao 1A g,
Partion 4' '
N:he Burem ofLand -
e,w regulations a lain requiresnents the -
k
- nn===nts"dnenment will be availabis ~ " ". ~ ^I8 lad)P'opcom toram m,$ tate amet ow when R in the public dockets. - -2.
e < t%
J.'
h applicatices forland under Alaska
==a= y,N. t e hgulations at 43 CFR subpart 2627 -
.W.. We'a=at Docket Infor=..
' Mdriessing grants made to the State of. Statehood Act.%e time period for s
ne Agency a cu,,
ly mainiaieng. a nb eubpert,esiain utary,
n ceaans unde,s.
M 34he following public iniorraattan.6;g ',;,' State of Aleaka Ales = plains ho.the w
- requirements and ex r.e=+
Act expired an
- u..
?!.
dockets:(1) Docket No. A-83-02,
=lar*= a 1, + L J
ePP 1caties mder the Alaska V,- 7 anuary a,1994r & y e.. -i.
"J, laceted in room 1500 (Aret floorin /s 1
- O A'edbetantial partlen'ef these.
{f.c weareide wall near the Wuhington o AAct and the Ai:t ofJannery 21,taas.:.:.. regulations simply restate the prov
'Information Center), U.S. Environmental (pniversity Grant). BIAd is proposing to.
of the Aleeksheahand Ad. Congress f
Protection Agency,401 M Street.S.W remove.43 Q3t 3827 boomune Ata. 6,9 dianged many provisions of the Alanka 7wa=hinFton, D.C.,20460 (open fress ::q' Provisions are outdated and not..... Statehood Ad in Section 906(e) of the 0
1
$r. ' a:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on weekdays);(2),===='y forprogram impla===ntation., ' Alaska Natimalinternet Lands..
- 7. EPA's docket in the Governament A
CosnmentrTsunmanuss amot 6 Pan =arvation Act,but the regulations,
f,JPublications Department o'the,[:lkyd{' satan:
x
[
=>1= nit cotzsnents byJanuary 14,1987. :, were never revised to reDem those
' 7J===rmen I,itpary of th, Univspre aUElai will consider comments neceived.gr dienges,n,yGy. M., '.op f
~
i
.:d n,. '...E;,...
f.,,;.,
Q ;; f., ;,> *,, ;y L &p,;:.'m% p Q [: ' Q.i.3 3. f M,
.f.? :%. R.' D &.,.v.
- ,..s ; *
~,f w cu..-
W-;
..g o.g,s j r&,,n.,. 4 y& &..,s. -
.v :.4w 4L;.,p. *.. 2....c. ' *-@rh
..:r. ::
.:g
-&.w &.,.-
~
.-y s
., c
.p y.,... ;, Q.m...... T., ;,.- :.: +-3.. %s c
w..
1 pM e
y i
UNITED STATES g
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION c
WASHINGTON D.C. 20086-4001 o
- g DRAFT Ms'. Ramona Trovato. Director Office of Radiation and Indoor Air U.S. Environmental Protection Agency I
Washington. DC 20460
Dear Ms. Trovato:
I am responding to the November 15. 1996. Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. " Decision to Certify Whether the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Complies with the 40 CFR Part 191 Dis i
40 CFR Part 194 Compliance Criteria."posal Regulations and the Part 191 applies to sites not characterized under Section 113(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. [1.e..
geologic disposal of spent nuclear fuel, high-level and transuranic radioactive wastes at sites other than (Yucca Mountain YM)]. Although the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is authorized to certify whether the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) complies with Part 191. under the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission may eventually i
need to license other facilities that must comply with 40 CFR Part 191. as well as YM. which may have to comaly with requirements similar to those found in Part 191. We recognize that EPA's decision on the certification of the WIPP will reflect the record before EPA and note that the record will be influenced by the contents of 40 CFR Parts 191 and 197: the Compliance Application Guidance; and the characteristics of both the WIPP site and the l
waste to be disposed of. These factors necessitate that EPA decisions on l
specific elements of the U.S. Department of Energy application and the decision en whether to certify WIPP need to be considered as being applicable only to WIPP. Therefore. NRC considers that decisions made by EPA during this rulemaking establi(h no precedent for NRC licensing actions.
In a related matter the staff considers it worthwhile to restate concerns previously provided to EPA regarding aspects of the environmental standards l
l with which WIPP must c'omply.
NRC commented extensively during the development of these standards, including its April 12, 1993, comments on the )roposed standards )ublished at 58 fR 7824. Specifically. NRC noted that tie technical community las raised significant concerns regarding the scientific basis for, l
and the appropriateness of. EPA's 1985 standards.
EPA chose in its 1993 l
rulemaking, not to accept comments -- including those from NRC -- on those portions of the standards that were legislatively reinstated. The August 1995 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) recommendations on the technical bases for YM standards reiterated some of these concerns.
NRC remains concerned about the technical basis of some requirements in Part 191.
i i
l*
l R. Trovato 2
In addition EPA and NRC have consistently disagreed with respect to the need i
to include separate groundwater protection criteria in high-level' waste (HLW) disposal standards.
Se component of Part 191. parate groundwater protection requirements are a l
NRC believes that individual protection criteria.
i which take into account all pathways, are sufficiently protective of the l
groundwater pathway, and represent a more uniform and comprehensive approach l
l to protecting public health and safety.
Further. NRC continues to believe i
that the use of maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) in HLW disposal is fundamentally incompatible with the technical basis EPA employed to derive these levels and is a continuation of EPA's practice of applying the MCLs found in 40 CFR Part 141 to other activities (e.g., HLW disposal) without j
appropriate justification.
NRC has raised similar concerns with EPA's application of MCLs in draft standards applicable to HLW disposal at YH.
The staff has been working with EPA to examine implementation issues associated with the NAS recommendations and the draft environmental standards for YM. Nevada.
I believe that these discussions have been fruitful, leading to the EPA staff's increased awareness of the NRC concerns related to the implementation of EPA HLW standards. To further this understanding, I would 1
be pleased to meet with you regarding the staff's positions on Part 191 and groundwater protection for HLW facilities.
Sincerely, I
i r
)
Carl J. Paperiello, Director i
Office of Nuclear Material Safety j
and Safeguards 1
cc:
Docket No. A-93-02 (two coaies)
Air Docket. Room M-1500 (LE-131)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency i
401 M Street. S.W.
Washington, DC 20460 1
I l
1
~
i I