ML20148E058
| ML20148E058 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/21/1997 |
| From: | Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | Callan L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 SECY-97-073-C, SECY-97-73-C, NUDOCS 9706020256 | |
| Download: ML20148E058 (4) | |
Text
..
-.- - - - - - ~
i f
f "" %
RELEASED TO THE PDR l
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COflMISSI 3
/ :h /
W [.l 10 wassincron, o.c. 2osss-ooa.
S I
date initialsv I
May 21, 1997 SECRETARY l
l MEMORANDUM TO:
L. Joseph Callan Exec i e Director for Operations FROM:
John C.
5 Secretary L/
SUBJECT:
STAFF REQUIREMENTS - SECY-97-073 - COMMENTS ON THE U.S.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S ADVANCE NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING FOR.THE DECISION ON WHETHER THE WASTE I60LATION PILOT PLANT COMPLIES WITH THE 40 CFR PART 191 DISPOSAL REGULATIONS AND THE 40 CFR PART 194 COMPLIANCE CRITERIA This is to advise you that the Commission has not objected to i
sending the proposed letter to EPA, subject to the comments provided below and the changes indicated in the attachment.
1)
The letter should state the central point of Comments 11 and 12 of the attachment to Enclosure 1 of SECY-97-073 in a direct and simple manner.
More specifically, the letter should make it clear that maximum contaminant levels were derived on the basis of technology that bears little, if any, relationship to either ground water protection or ground water remediation and for that reason their application to either purpose is inappropriate.
2)
The letter should attach SECY-97-073 since it provides a' thorough and detailed discussion of the background and technical issues associated with the standards for WIPP.
3)
To the degree that it is necessary to provide more up-
]
to-date information than that contained in SECY-97-073, l
the staff should attach a detailed set of comments to P
4 the letter, including, but not limited to:
/
a) groundwater issues, l
b) appropriateness of the dose standard, and l
c) concerns raised by the technical community and whether the staff finds those concerns to be valid.
f SECY NOTE:
THIS SRM AND SECY-97-073 WILL BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE 5 WORKING DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS SRM.
eT(1J--
i G2G062 i) b &If r,$}1 g\\\\\\\\\\\\Q\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\Y\\\\.\\\\
9706020256 970521 PDR 10CFR PT9.7 PDR
4)
Also, a list of recent NRC/ EPA interactions on the major technical issues should be attached to the letter.
5)
The letter, with attachments, should be distributed to appropriate Congressional committees.
Attachment:
As stated cc:
Chairman Jackson Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Dicus Commissioner Diaz Commissioner McGaffigan OGC CIO CFO OCA OIG Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ACNW, ASLBP (via E-Mail)
l DRA,T Ms. Ramona Trovato. Director Office of Radiation and Indoor Air U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 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 Disposal Regulations and the 40 CFR Part 194 Compliance Criteria."
Part 191 applies to sites not characterized under Section 113(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. [i.e..
geologic disposal of spent nuclear fuel, high-level and transuranic radioactive wastes at sites other than 4 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 Aci.. the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission may eventually need to license other facilities that must comply with 40 CFR Part 191. as well as YM. which may have to comply 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 1974: the Compliance Application Guidance; and the characteristics of both the WIPP site and of the waste to be disposed e4.
These factors necessitate that EPA decisions on' specific elements of the U.S. Department of Energy application. and the decision on whether to certify WIPP. need to be considered as being applicable only to WIPP. The_refore. NRC considers that. decisions made by EPA during this rulemaking.;particularly. decisions'concerning how compliance:with Part 191 standar'ds will.be demonstrated, establish no precedent ofrany. kind 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 with which WIPP must comply.
NRC commented extensively during the development of these standards, including its April 12. 1993. comments on the ]roposed standards Jublished at 58 FR 7824 Specifically, NRC noted that t1e technical community las raised significant concerns regarding the scientific basis for, and the appropriateness of. EPA's 1985 standards.
EPA chose, in its 1993 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.
Enclosure l'provides detailed comments describing:NRC?s concerns with Part 191.
g.._..
i l
In addition, EPA and NRC have consistently disagreed with respect to the need to include separate groundwater protection criteria in high-level waste (HLW) disposal standards.
Separate groundwater protection requirements are a component of Part 191.
NRC believes that individual protection criteria, which take into account all pathways. are sufficiently protective of the groundwater pathway, and represent a more uniform and comprehensive approach to protecting public health and safety.
Further, NRC continues to believe 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 appropriate justification.
NRC has raised similar concerns with EPA's application of MCLs in draft standards applicable to HLW disposal at YM.
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 led to the EPA staff's increased awareness of the NRC concerns related to the implementation of EPA HLW standards.
Iamprovidinf"ali'stiofthese interactions lCeW6en NRCiandiEPAlin" Enclosure To fufther this' understanding. I would'be pleased to meet with@you regarding the staff's positions on Part 191 and groundwater protection for HLW facilities.
Sincerely.
Carl J. Paperiello. Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Enclosures 1 1;
1 Comme.ntsionPartl191 2.
List of: NRCTand EPA fInteractio'ns cc:
Docket No. A-93-02 (two copies)
Air Docket, Room M-1500 (LE-131)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 401 M Street S.W.
Washington DC 20460