ML20151B564
| ML20151B564 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/15/1988 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8807210021 | |
| Download: ML20151B564 (64) | |
Text
_
l t
j&
(
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
BRIEFING ON MATTERS OF COMMON INTEREST BETWEEN NRC AND EPA IN THE REGULATION OF RADIOLOGICAL HAZARDS Location:
ONE WHITE FLINT NORTH, ROCKVILLE, MARYLAN D Date:
FRIDAY, JULY 15, 1988 Pages:
1-38 1
l Ann Riley & Associates Court Reporters 1625 i Street, N.W., Suite 921 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950, p@I eso7210021 eso715 1 #
f,yy,7 I
ecc 4
--n~--.-w,-,-w---n-,-.
e,_,m,,
nam..,,+-.~,e---wew,,-
,,wm,-,,,, -, - - -,,,. - - -. - -,, -
T e,*
~
DISCLAIMER This is an-unof ficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Muclear Regulatory Commission held 7-15-88 on in the Commission's office at One White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland.
The' meeting was
~
~
open to public attendance and observation.
This transcript has not been rev'iewed, corrected or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.
The transcript is intended solely for general informational purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or 1nformal record of decision of the matters discussed.
Expressions of opinion in this transcrir.
do not necessarily reflect final determination or beliefs.
No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in any proceeding as the result of, or addressed to, any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize.
I e
l
T
+ o 3
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
4 Briefing on Matters of Common Interest Between NRC and EPA 5
in the Regulation of Radiological Hazards 6
~
7 PUBLIC MEETING 8
9 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 10 One White Flint North 11 Rockville, Maryland
~
12 13 Friday, July 15, 1988 14 15 The Commission met in open session, pursuant to 16 notice, at 10: 01 a.m., the Honorable LANDO W. ZECH, Chairman of 17 the commission, presiding.
18 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
19 LANDO W.
- ZECH, Chairman of the commission 20 THOMAS M. ROBERTS, Member of the Commission 21 KENNETH CARR, Member of the Commission 22 KENNETH ROGERS, Member of the Commission 23 24 25
_e,-
n,-
e 2
1 STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT THE COMMISSION' TABLE:'
~
I 2
W.
PARLER 3
A.
BATES
'4 V. STELLO 5
R.
BERNERO 6
M. KNAPP 7
M.
BELL 8
K.
DRAGONETTE 9
10 AUDIENCE SPEAKERS:
11 J. MACRIS
~
12 F.
GALPIN 13 14 15 t
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
4 3
1 PR0CEECINGS 2
(10:01 a.m.]
f 3
COMMISSIONER ZECH:
Good morning ladies and 4
gentlemen.
Today the Commission will be briefed by the office r
I 5-of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards'on the interactions 6
between the NRC-and the Environmental Protection Agency on 7
radiological issues.
I understand there are representatives of
~
8 the Environmental Protection Agency here with us today who 9
would be willing to answer our questions later on.
10 The Environmental Protection Agency is responsible 11 for developing many of the radiological standards which the NRC 12 has to' implement in our regulations.
The EPA and the NRC 13 interact in several areas such as mixed low-level waste, high-14 level waste, uranium mill tailings, in the area of residual 15 radioactivity.
16 This latter area impacts our activities in 17 decommissioning and in the area of below regulatory concern 18 matters.
Because of our dual jurisdiction requirements in l
19 several of these areas, it is important that the NRC and the 20 EPA work together cooperatively to assure consistency in our 21 regulations.
22 There's currently an EPA NRC Interface Council whose 23 responsibility it is to facilitate the-coordination and 24 resolution of these issues.
The Commission would be very 25 interested to learn how this interface council is working and 1
i
~
e 4
1 to review the status of resolution of issues that are being 2.
discussed between the NRC and the EPA.
3 I understand there are copies of the viewgraphs at 4
the entrance to the meeting room.
Do any of my fellow 5
Commissioners have any_ comments that they would like to make 6
before we begin.
If not, Mr. Stello, you may proceed.
~~
7 MR. STELLO:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'll turn to 8
Bob Bernero who is deputy director of NMSS and is our 9
representative on the coordinating council you spoke of and has 10 first hand information on the relationships of the two 11 agencies.
You are correct in your opening statement where you 12 indica'ted there are a number of areas where we have dual 13 responsibility for regulation and that does present a challenge 14 to two agencies to assure that the system of regulations are 15 compatible, that we work out the detailed procedures.
From 16 time to time this is a complicated and time-consuming task and 17 does indeed take quite a bit of effort to resolve.
18 Mr. Bernero will be giving you some-specific examples 19 of those in the briefing and to talk about in general the 20 framework of regulation in the NRC and EPA and what it is that 21 the law speaks to in terms of responsibilities for the two 22 agencies that create this problem.
23 With that brief introduction, Bob, why don't you j
24 begin?
25 MR. BERNERO:
Yes, sir.
I'm going to be talking as
s 5
1 you indicated and I want to emphasize that, on the radiological 2
interfaces between us and EPA.
In early August you will have a 3
briefing where we go into the nonradiological area where FEMA 4
and OSHA are involved with our regulatory jurisdiction.
We 5
have been in touch with EPA during the preparation of this 6
briefing.
We did not intend for EPA to make a separate 7
statement or give any separate briefing however, Dr. Floyd 8
Galpin from the Office of Radiation Programs in EPA is in the 9
audience should there be any question that needs to be pursued.
10 The two regulatory agencies have their own 11 independently set missions and different statutes to implement 12 and th'is complicates matters for us both.
I'm sure the 13 Commissioners will recall from time to time we have regulatory 14 matters that come up, commission papers come to you, 15 rulemakings or some other activities wheroin it is evident that 16 EPA jurisdiction is involved and so is ours.
17 We have a most recent one that you just got about the 18 Church Rock Uranium Mill, a memorandum of understanding.
- t's 19 a very frequent occurrence and what I hope to illustrate for 20 you today is the broad areas of our interaction to give you 21 some idea of how the two missions and the two organizations i
22 function and '-
'he Commission to come away with a better 23 understanding at the complexity and what we are doing to deal 24 with that complexity, to continue to satisfy our mutual 25 responsibilities with a minimum'of wheelspinning, with a
-r..
.~.. -
b a
1 minimum of difficulty.
2
[ Slide.]
3 May I have slide number three, please.
We've passed 4
out photocopies of a small booklet on the EPA which I find to 5
be an excellent source.
Slide three illustrates the EPA 6
mission as portrayed in there.
It's a very broad mandate.
If 7
you look at the EPA mission, the few words we captured on the 8
screen here, "Protect the Environment."
It sweeps in the 9
entire environment -- air, ground and surface water and land.
10 This broad mission given by the Congress is in 11 contrast to -- if you look at slide four, the NRC mission is a 12 much m' ore narrow one.
True, "Protect the Public Health and 13 Safety and the National Security Interest,"
but our focus and 14 you recall in the NARM briefing we emp'hasized this too, our 15 focus is on the uranium fission process or the fission process, 16 technically other fission would be also.
17 We look at source by products, special nuclear 18 material, but it's a much more narrow focus than EPA has and 19 consequently, our statutory base is also much more focused, j
20
[ Slide.]
21 If we turn now to the next slide and we look at EPA's 22 major statutes and I apologize, Mr. Chairman, I know your t
23 sensitivity to alphabet soup and it's very difficult to discuss i-24 the many statutes that EPA is required to implement without 25 resorting to alphabet soup.
A little later on I have a table
o 7
1 that might help that.
2 COMMISSIONER ZE0H:
I appreciate the' fact that you've 3
at least given us the names in clean English anyway.
4 MR. BERNERO:
If you look at theirs, we have 5
involvement with many of the things that EPA has and many 6
people forget that EPA is also responsible for implementing 7
part of the Atomic Energy Act when they were formed in the
~
8 reorganization -- not an act by the way, it was a 9
reorganization plan, number three, of 1970.
They were given 10 some of the functions of the AEC-NRC -- what is now the NRC and 11 they had their organization drawn from any number of federal 12 agenci'es and then on that new agency was this broad l
13 environmental responsibility put.
14 You see the sort of legislation they deal with.
The 15 Clean Air Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Superfund -- they're i
16 very, very broad environmental protection statutes.
f 17 (Slide.]
18 If you turn to slide six, you see things that are 19 very broad -- Toxic Substances Control Act.
You also see 20 things that explicitly and specifically come in congruence with 21 NRC's mission.
The Uranium Mill Tailing Radiation Control Act.
22 We're deeply involved in that with EPA.
The Emergency Planning 23 and Community Right to Know Act of 1986 gets them more and more 24 into emergency planning.
25 Chemical hazards, sort of, emergency planning as an
^
ra :
4 8
1 example.
So'many of their statutes -- very, very broad 2
statutory base they have and many of them involve us.
3
[ Slide.)
4 Our statues if you look at slide seven -- our 5
statutes are narrower just as our mission is narrower.
Of 6
course the Atomic Energy Act-and the corresponding Energy 7
Reorganization Act and the Environmental Policy Act to a 8
limited degree -- the only place where the Congress seems to EI 9
have gone into the detailed prescriptive mode with the NRC as I
y 10 they have with EPA in my opinion is in the various waste acts, 11 in waste management, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, the 12 Amendm'ents Act.
13 We get a flavor there of the sort of legislation that 14 EPA has to implement.
It's detailed.
It tends to be 15 prescriptive and not necessarily 100 percent consistent from 16 one act to the other.
You know, this sort of iterative 17 legislation.
So if we turn for a moment, I gave you a copy of an 18 E[j 19 organization chart in the' handout and if we could get that on P
20 the screen for the audience to look at.
i 21 (Slide.]
22 The subheadings, titles, are not really legible in 23 that, certainly on the screen, but it's important for you to 24 appreciate the EPA tends to be organized along statutory lines.
i
)
25 The assistant administrator for water, the assistant 1
l i
)
~
9 1-administrator for solid waste and emergency response, the l
2 assistance administrator for air and radiation and so on.
They i
i 3
tend to implement in the EPA organization according to the 4
statutos that are being implemented.
5 We on the other hand are perhaps somewhat more 6
functional in our organization.
You know, the reactors in one 7
and all the other in another line office, in the research 8
office function.
The result is you don't have a clear 9
interface betwe<P the two agencies.
10 On that chart that you have before you, we've circled 11 the principal organizations within EPA with which we interface.
1
~
[
12 You see it is sort of spotty.
It's not a consistent pattern.
13 p
To a very great extent, we're not clean either -- for EPA to 14 look at us, they have a lot of dealing with NMSS.
That's why 15 I'm here doing the talking.
i 16 They do have dealing with AEOD on emergency response.
17 They have dealing with NRR on certain matters, you know, the i
18 effluence releases and things like that.
So, what we have 19 between the two regulatory agencies is not a clear interface.
20 It's not a very simple thing.
That's one of the reasons we r
- 21 have this interface counsel I'll describe later, is to 22 facilitate the communication.
To make sure the right people 23 can talk to the right people.
24 (Slide.)
25 We turn to slide number nine.
One can summarize the 4
.b 10 1
areas of interaction in three basic categories.
In the first 2
place, both agencies being regulatory agencies, put out 3
standards, regulations, guidance, the sort of documents that go 4
with regulation and because of our congruent mission, they S
frequently cover the same subjects.
6 They frequently have to deal with subjects against 7
our respective statutes in very similar ways.
Another form of 8
overlap is where Presidential guidance is involved and probably 9
the most dramatic example of that is EPA's responsibility to 10 give Presidential guidance on protective action guidelines.
11 This is the levels of radiation in emergency 12 situat'~ ions at which protective action is warranted.
Whether 13 sheltering, evacuation, things like that.
EPA puts out such 14 guidance in the so-called PAGs, protective action guidelines.
15 We in our regulation of nuclear facilities, implement the
(
16 establishment of emergency plans that are based in part on 17 taking action as appropriate to use those protective action 18 guidelines.
19 The last area is the very complex one of licensing or 20 permitting.
It is simply a matter of choice.
We license our 21 agents or facilities and EPA grants permits.
The licensing, 22 permitting and operations involves a good deal of interaction 23 between NRC and the EPA.
24 (Slide.)
l 25 Now what I'd like to do is go into some areas of t
11 1
overlap and interaction...By discussing some examples, 2
illustrate some of the difficulties we have and 1f you look at 3
slide ten in your package there, I have an acronym key.
We'll 4
start with mixed wastes which is one of the more difficult 5
interaction areas and this acronym key lets 'you have quick 6
reference to what is RCRA, what is CERCLA and so forth.
~~
7 The people in the field use these acronyms or these 8
pronounced acronyms so glibly and it's often difficult to 9
follow.
Let me ask for the figure which comes right behind I
10 slide ten.
It's an illustration of mixed low-level waste in 11 particular and EPA programs in it to give you an idea of the 12 many a'nd repeated places where the EPA Ltatutes are involved 13 and thereby I hope you get an appreciation of the complexity.
14 If you look at the circle going clockwise from 15 generation of wastes through transportation, storage, treatment 16 and disposal, the little acronyms are flagged there and you can 17 see right off the bat, the CAAs appearing frequently in the 18 generation facility, the treatment, the disposal, the clean Air l
19 Act, the air regulations are often encountered and they need to 20 be satisfied.
21 The.se statutes are there.
22 It applies to generation of mixed waste here.
It 23 could be one of our facilities such as say Sequoia Fuels.
24 There is similarity indeed to things like a nuclear reactor.
25 If you look at the water things', CWA, the Clean Water Act, L
l V
i j.
12 l
[
1 there are many -- or the Safe Drinking Water Act, SDWA -- many.
L.
2 requirements of those are imposed as well as these other j
3
- statutes, 4
Now one of recent interest and it is a word of -- by 5
the way, Jim Macris of EPA'just came in and he's available-too 6
in case there are questions -- if you look in the 7
transportation there is a little cartoon of a spill there and 8
I can never remember what CERCLA stands for.
I'll 9
refer to the acronym.
But CERCLA applies to accidental release
)
10 and just as it does here in this transportation accident have l
1 11 coverage, it also applies to facilities.
+
l
~
12 So again, if I make analogy to Sequoia Fuels, there 13 are CERCLA requirements that go with that and so you can see 14 the very complex things here in this example of mixed waste.
c 15 If I could go to slide twelve.
16 (Slide.)
17 I'd like to talk about mixed waste itself as an issue 18 of overlap.
We have identified problems in dealing with mixed 19 waste that can be summarized as we have here.
First of all, we 20 have this dual regulation to get a clear definition of what it 3:
[
21 is.
Secondly, there are institutional problems about -- you i
l 22 know, the states do some of this and when do they do it and how I
23 do they do it.
The timetables, the standards -- is,the second 24 problem.
Then a rather knotty one that faced us early on --
25 the EPA liner technology -- their design standards appeared to s
e 13 1
be almost contradictory to NRC's.
2 Basically if you study our regulations for low-level l
3 waste disposal the concept that comes cut of that if you would summarize it is a stable well-drained configuration -- a trench 4
5 full of material with some sort of cover, ground cover, a crown 6
on the top of the trench, a stable thing that's not supposed to 7
subside, and well-drained.
~
8 The philosophy that underlies it is that if you look 9
at EPA design standards for mixed waste, it's completely around 10 the other way in attacking it.
It's.a closed thing with 11 drainage capture.
Sort of a sealed thing, a basin, a cup.
12 Therein lies an apparent contradiction.
13 If one would say the NRC standards would have you 14 drain the facility, the EPA standards would have you not drain 15 the facility.
So these are the problems we saw at the 16 beginning of the mixed waste overlap.
17 (Slide.]
18 Now if we turn to the next slide, number thirteen, wo 19 can look at some of the progress we've had to date.
It's good 20 progress.
Not without difficulty.
Certainly not through the j
21 problem.
There's more to come.
We have had what I think is 22 significant success in putting together and promulgating joint 23 guidance for how to reconcile the drainage anomaly.
24 For what the definitions are.
For guidelines on 25 siting as well as design.
So we have had good progress there.
\\
I 14 1
We have also put out an information notice in order to sort of 2
extend ALARA in here.
Mixed waste is a troublesome issue and 3
we'd like to minimize the generation of mixed waste so we are 4
so exhorting our licensees.
5 The states and the compacts of states have met some 6
progress on the site development milestones.
There's some J
~
7 success there.
But what I don't say here's the success that 8
should be flagged, there's more to come.
First of all, the f
9 process will be credible when licensing and permitting are in 10 place and we actually have mixed waste disposal sites in 11 operation where these problems have been brought up and 12 resolv'ed.
13 Possibly we might even go into further details there 14 in accomplishing this whereby say standards for sampling and 15 testing of mixed waste would be develop and promulgated but the 16 proof will be when we have existing sites.
When we're in
' 17 operation there.
18 Now underlying this and there was an item of interest 19 that came to you about a week and a half ago and I would like 20 to recall it for you, the American Society of Mechanical 21 Engineers h'as a major effort underway on mixed waste.
It is 22 probably best described as constructive lobbying.
They're 23 talking to us.
They're talking to EPA and others.
Basically 24 what they would like te see is a single statute and a single 25 agency to regulate mixed waste.
i 15 I
1 Of course, that would require legislation because 2
right now the laws are what they are.
We have been meeting 3
with the American Society of Mcchanical Engineers and this 4
dialogue is going on but basically we think it can work the way 5
we're working it.
That's the way we're proceeding.
I think 6
EPA is acting on the same pattern.
7 So this activity will undoubtedly go on for awhile as 8
the ASME seeks to change that and seeks this alternative 9
legislation.
10 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
In the meantime, it's my i
b 11 understanding that we're trying to work togather with EPA and f
12 making' considerable progress as you're pointing out without 13 legislation.
That's what we're attempting to do.
It looks to 14 me like from what you've told me in the area of mixed waste 15 that we are making progress; is that correct?
16 MR. BERNERO:
Yes.
I think so.
I think that's a 17 fair characterization.
It's not without difficulty. It's a 18 complex area.
19 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
We're waiting for legislation but 20 we're trying to make it work without that, j
i l
I 21 MR. BERNERO:
That's right.
22 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
Would EPA have the came 23 comment?
24 VOICE:
I think so.
25 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
Excuse me.,Would you mind coming
.h
e 16 1
to the microphone and identifying yourself for our reporter?
2 MR. MACRIS:
My name is Jim Macris and I've been 3
working with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on the NRC-EPA' I
4 Interface Council along with Floyd Galpin and some others from
[
5 EPA.
I think that what the purpose of that interface has 6
achieved is that there are no bombs sitting out there that 7
nobody knows about.
Every issue is kind of disclosed among our ~
8 agencies at a fairly early point.
9 I think it's facilitated, this kind of agreeing on 10 things in the process before positions get entrenched and 11 disagreements start to emerge.
I think the last year has 12 indica'ted a very clear way 'of exchanging information quite 13 early in the process even sometimes before any direct l
14 regulatory actions.
15 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
So from EPA's standpoint, you 16 would agree that progress is being made.
17 MR. MACRIS:
Absolutely.
18 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
Thank you very much.
19 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Just how do you stand on the 20 conceptual design difference?
21 MR. BERNERO:
We have put out joint guidance which is 22 we believe in sufficient detail so that a site developer, you 23 know, some company developing a design for a site, would have a L-l 24 clear idea of how or what alternatives might satisfy both i
25 requirements, both sets of requirements.
r
17 1
We think the guidance is clear.
We think the 2
guidance is sufficient.
It's out there now jointly promulgated 3
with EPA but as I say, the proof of the pudding is in the 4
doing.
When we see a couple of sites that have looked through 5
that guidance, that have developed it and do have their 6
licenses and permits and are operating.
I'll feel a lot more 7
confident of them -- of the situation.
8 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
All right.
Let's proceed.
9 MR. BERNERO:
Now if we turn to slide number 10 fourteen, we'll go through a completely other example area of 11 interaction.
This is the EPA high-level waste standard.
In 12 other'words, the environmental standard for control of the 13 release of radioactivity from a high-level waste repository.
14
[ Slide.)
15 The EPA promulgated that standard in 1985 but it was 16 remanded by the courts in 1987.
This is very important to us
~
17 because this standard is a basis for our regulation, part 60, 18 and it is also thereby the basis for the whole DOE repository 19 program in the high-level waste repository, you know, the Yucca 20 Mountain development.
-21 To an extensive degree, it is the technical basis for 22 the DOE's program at WIPP, the Waste Isolation Pilot Program.
23 Now, from a legal point of view, as you know, the NRC has no 24 direct involvement with WIPP.
We don't regulate that.
We 25 don't review it.
The legal basis or legal applicability of the h.
f
- ,^
t 18 1
EPA standard to WIPP is certainly questionable but DOE is 2
acting on the basis that that standard or its equivalent is the 3
appropriate standard of acceptability for the development of 4
that repository.
5 (Slide.[]
6 Now if you turn to slide fifteen, we saw when the 7
standard was remanded that there would be some change 8
obviously, in it and EPA is working on that change.
They have 9
a timetable of approximately three years to revise the standard 10 and revisit it.
The issues are principally as indicated here, 11 involving consistency with the Safe Drinking Water Act and i
12 technfcally is a repository a deep well injection or how do you 13 reconcile that.
14 We suspended our rulemaking.
We had a rulemaking in 15 progress where we were going to fully conform with the EPA 16 high-level standard.
For instance, there's a table of 17 radionuclides and their release limits.
We were going to 18 incorporate that table in our own standard -- in our own part 19 60.
20 We have suspended our rulemaking pending the 21 resolution of the EPA standard.
However, we have a planning 22 assumption that is very important.
We told you of this bc. fore 23 in the high-level waste briefings.
We're confident that the 24 changes to the EPA standard will not' overturn the fundamental 25 thrust and content of the repository program and that's an 9
. m m
1 19 1
important planning assumption.
2 We think it's a good one.
3 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
Will EPA agree with that 4
assumption too?
i 5
MR. GALPIN:
Yes.
6 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
Could you come to the microphone 7
and identify yourself for the reporter?
Thank you very much.
8 MR. GALPIN:
Lloyd Galpin from the Office of 9
Radiation Programs, EPA.
I think Mr. Bernaro's assumption is 10 correct.
The measures by which the court determined that they 11 had to remand the standard are ones that we think we can handle 12 withou't changing the basic thrust of the standard and therefore 13 they can report and we've also told this to DOE relative to i
14 their actions.
l 15 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
Thank you very much.
We 16 appreciate it.
Let's proceed.
17 MR. BERNERO:
With that -- it's an area of attention, 18 an area of strong interest but with we think appropriate 19 caution, we're optimistic that thct won't turn around and bite 20 us.
21 COMMISSIONER CARR:
That was three years from what 22 date you said that?
23 MR. BERNERO:
Well, roughly three years from 1988.
24
- It would be about 1991 and that's still well in advance.
In 25 the waste briefing of a month.
In May.
I think it was May or
l 20 1
early June.
There was a parallel schedule that showed the 2
repository nominal schedule and the EPA standard.
Given that 3
planning assumption, that it is not going to turn around to 4
some wholly different form or content or standard, it's timely.
5 We can live with it.
6 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
All right.
Let's proceed.
7
[ Slide.)
8 MR. BERNERO:
If we turn to slide sixteen we get to a 9
subject that is quite complex and the source of not a little 10 bit of controversy from time to time -- uranium mill tailings 11 issues.
Now uranium mill tailings issues are divided into two 12 basic'or broad categories -- inactive sites and active sites.
13 The term doesn't apply to whether or not they're 14 doing milling on the site.
It applies to whether it's a 15 licensed facility or not.
The inactive sites are the very old 16 ones, some dating back even before there was an Atomic Energy 17 Commission, NRC.
The active sites are the licensed ones.
In 18 the inactive site arena -- you had a briefing on this program 19 from Mr. Baublitz of the Department of Energy in June, early 20 June, June 3.
21 The EPA issued the standards for that in 1983.
Their 22 groundwater standards were remanded in 1985 but reproposed and 23 the way the law is written, DOE must comply with the, proposed 24 standards so when I say there "DOE must comply" DOE is the j
25 agent to implement remedial actions at these inactive sites.
E E4e.
21 1
They must comply with the proposed standards and NRC reviews 2
and concurs.
3 EPA doesn't have a a site-specifjc role here.-
You 4
know, they don't do site-specific concurrence.
As was 5
mentioned in the briefing of June 3, cost-and schedule impacts 6
are big.
This is a very costly program.
We're approaching $2
~
7 billion for the remedial action program on these inactive
~
8 sites.
9 (Slide.]
r k
10 If you turn to slide seventeen we're talking about-
)
l
/
11 the active sites and this is in essence all the licensed mills I
12 whethe'r agreements state or NRC licensed.
Few of them are in 13 production now.
In fact I think that's a misnomer.
I don't 14 think more than one is in production right now.
They're very, 15 very inactive in this country due to foreign competition and 16 the decreased demand for uranium.
17 EPA issued standards for these in 1983 and NRC in its l
18 regulations is required to conform to the standards and that's t
[
19 been done.
We conformed the nongroundwater standards in 1985 i
20 and the groundwater standards in 1987.
21 Now that 1987 rulemaking you may recall that was a c
22 very extensive one.
It was late 1987 and you voted on it not 23 so long ago.
Both those rulemakings are complete.
They 1
24 incorporate the conditions that were legally imposed.
They 25 leave now an area which we call discretionary conformance.
l
q 22 1
That's what I say about the next lineithere.
EPA would like us; i
2 to go beyond.that and conform in other areas beyond legally
[.
3 required constraints and we look at that and from time to time, i
i 4
we think it might be useful if we had-that but that's resource-F r
5 intensive work.
6 To some extent, whether or not we go in that i
7 direction depends on the state or the destiny of the uranium 8
milling industry.
Think for a moment about this and newness or 9
continuation is not a new license or a new mill.
It would be 10 new impoundments.
So if there are to be.few if any new 11 impoundments, the whole thing is a retrospective, a backfit, or
{
a retr'ospective evaluation and there's little benefit to go on
[
12 f
[,
13 into further resource expenditure for rulemaking.
?
14 If on the other hand the uranium milling activity L
15 vere to resurge in the United States and we would have many new i
i i
16 impoundments, then there might be some merit in pursuing this i
17 kind of further rulemaking.
18 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
Would EPA care to comment on 19 that?
i l
20 MR. MACRIS:
Floyd, do you want to comment on that?-
1 21 MR. GALPIN:
Probably in the area of the uranium mill 22 tailings we've had more discussions than in any area, more 23 difficulties here than others.
The problem in the matter is 24 some very convoluted wording in the act which talks about the 25 necessity of uranium mill tailings, radiation standards an'd EPA i
~-.
I 23 1
it is sort of like a double negative -- to be not inconsistent 2
with the resource conservation and control act.
3 There are some difference I believe in just what that 4
may mean in terms of to what extent one handles things like 5
selecting alternate concentration levels for a specific site.
6 Certainly our RCRA people are much involved in this 7
as is the Office of Radiation Programs somewhat in the middle.
8 I don't think we feel that we've seen the bottom line on either 9
side of the issue as yet but I do feel very much that the two 10 offices are working at it.
11 COMMISSIONER'ZECH:
They're working to resolve the 12 issue." All right.
Thank you very much.
You may proceed Bob.
13 MR. BERNERO:
The last item here of EPA's desire for 14 site-specific concurrence on alternate concentration limits, 15 that was written out of that 1987 rulemaking that you approved 16 not long ago.
However, the NRC methodology for alternate 17 concentration limits is out for comment now and we are working 18 with EPA in the hope that we can satisfy them that that 19 methodology suffices.
That there is no need for them to 20 continue pursuit of site-specific concurrence.
21 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
You're still working on that 22 issue too, then.
23 MR. BERNERO:
That's still working.
24 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
All right.
Thank you.
25 (Slide.)
L.
.m m
..m
i 24 1
MR. BERNERO:
If I could turn to number eighteen, I'd 2
like to take a few subjects still.
The Superfund or CERCLA --
3 we have over14.pping problems here and there's a very timely _
4 thing -- I believe just a few days ago you received a 5
Commission paper on the memorandum of understanding betvocn the 6
NRC -- well actually, it's a region-region understandi7g -- the, 7
EPA region and our folks -- on the Church Rock Uranium Mill.
i 8
It's one of these cases where because the site was put on the 9
national priorities list, we have dual jurisdic'Olon explicitly h*
10 present.
k l
11 The Superfund list or national priorities list, EPA 12 has ve'ry strict control, once a site is on that list, it can't 13 be waived off.
It's very difficult to get a site off of it 14 short of doing the remedial action -- whatever is appropriato.
15 They do have a policy which avoids undue dual 16 regulation.
The EPA policy is that if a site is regulated by 1
17 the NRC they won't put it on their.'ational priorities list j
18 because it's already under surveillance or control.
19 This particular sit'e was turned over as part of an 1
20 agreement state program to the State of New Mexico and when the 21 uranium industry had its aifficulties, the agreement state l
22 program in New Mexico had its difficulties and this site was l
23 put onto the Superfund list.
There was a regaest made.
It was 1
j l
24 one of two sites that were put on at that time.
l 25 So what we have here we think is an effective r
t 25 t
l 1
memorandum of understanding that can resolve this.
It is 2
certainly not a procedent for putting sites on the Superfund
[
~
3 list so we can negotiate MOUs to get them off.
I mean wo don't r
4 vant to do that.- ' EPA doesn't want to do that.
What we're 5
trying to do here is to resolve a fact of historic 6
circumstances -- something that actually happened.
7 You mir5t say it's a precedent for how to get out of 6
this bag but the important thing is we don't want to get into 9
this bag in the first place and EPA continues with their policy 10 of not putting our sites on their Superfund list.
11 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
We've just gotten that paper a i
12 few da'ys ago.
f 13 MR. BERNERO:
Yes, I just took the opportunity to tie i
f.
14 to it and --
15 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
We've got to review it and 16 consider it which I'm sure my colleagues will be doing when 17 they can.
We have just received that paper.
Thank you.
18 MR. BERNERO:
We won't plead for a vote at this 19 session.
20 (Laughter.)
21 (Slide.]
[
22 MR. 'dRNERO:
If I could turn to slide number s
23 nineteen there's a subject I know is dear to your hearts, 24 residual radioactivity.
We have a good deal of interaction 25 with EPA here.
Basically EPA with the responsibility for l.
'e 26 l
1 setting generic environmental standards for radioactive 2
materials interacts with us and is involved with us whenever we 3
look at something like decommissioning of nuclear facilities 4
where we would say, "that's clean enough to walk away from," or 5
"that's clean enough to send to a scrap yard for scrap 6
recovery,." or something likc that.
u 7
Their actions'and their timetables which, just like 8
ours, are resource constrained, don't meet our needs.
So right 9
now as I'm sure you're aware from the other briefings on this 10 subject, we're sort of running out ahead and trying to get 11 things done and get things into place and once again, we're 12 relyin'g on communication with the EPA to make sure that we can i
13 keep an open dialogue on it as we r
- ose things that are 14 certainly redundant or congruent with their jurisdiction.
15 We have the decommissioning rules which you approved k
16 not long ago and we're in the implementation process on them.
f 17 We have the policy statement on below regulatory concern.
That 18 work is going on.
We'll be back before you discussing that 19 very shortly.
We have a proposed international conference 20 coming up in early autumn.
21 In all of this activity, we're trying to keep very 22 open channels of communication with EPA in the hope that we 23 won't be sewing the seeds of later controversy with what we're 24 doing.
We're, pushing very hard on this and it is an area of 25 substantial overlap between us and the EPA.
N 27 l'
COMMISSIONER ZECH:
I'd just like to emphasize in the 2
below regulatory concern issue I appreciate your emphasizing.
3 that you are coordinating with EPA.
I think the Commission 4
will be very interested to hear if EPA has any concern in that S-area so I just emphasize that -- ask you to con'tinue 6
coordinating with EPA on that issue.
7 MR. BERNERO:
We will do so.
8 COMMISSIONER CARR:
What's your timetable for
?
9 solution-of that particular problem of residual radioactivity L
10 limits?
You think you and EPA -- are you working towards some 11
~
12 MR. BERNERO:
We don't have a clear timetable over 13 the necessary period of I would estimate three to four years.
14 Something ci that order.
In order to get at least prototypical 15 standards down for some key things.
There are activities going 16 on that suggest that we'll be able to draw a timetable up, that 17 is, between EPA dnd the NRC by something like next year.
18 EPA has taken certain initiatives with CIRRPC, you 19 remember the coordinating body on radiation standards, where 20 certain residual activity in soils, things like plutonium in 21 soil, and that sort of stuff, are being examined.
Its guidance 1
22 or tentative standards that EPA had developed in past years and 1
23 they're being brought up for a more rigorous evaluation and 24 I'll say a more formal adoption.
25 We're at the same time doing what we're doing.
I 3
L
j e
28 I
1 would say that both the philosophy of setting those standards
(
2 and the formal setting of at least prototypical standards is' 3
feasible within soveral years but it's not on anyone's
- 2. '
4 timetable that I know of -- not any-master plan.
5 COMMISSIONER CARR:
Are we waiting for 6
decisionmakers?
Are we waiting for research?
I don't
~_
7 understand why it takes so long.
8 MR. STELLO:
We are going to propose to the 9
Commission some specific policy and numbers for the conmission 10 to make a decision to adopt on behalf of NRC at this meeting 11 coming up.
So we'll have something on the table and perhaps
~
12 that can cause things to move faster.
13 COMMISSIONER CARR:
Well, I guess what I'm really 14 saying is that if you-need help in raising it on EPA's priority 15 list maybe we need to see if we can help.
16 MR. BERNERO:
We will consider that.
I would say it 17 is decision making more than research that is needed.
18 COMMISSIONER CARR:
It should be a solvable problem.
19 MR. BERNERO:
Yes.
20 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
We need the facts to go with it, of 21 course.
We appreciate the fact that you are working on that J
(-
[
22 problem.
Let's keep it up near the top of your list so that if h
7 23 the facts are in and if you are just waiting for a dec.ision, we t
24 will be given the opportunity to make that decision.
25 MR. STELLO:
Yes, sir.
29 1
CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
2 MR. BERNERO:
I think what we are doing now in the l
3 coming months with the BRC policy statement with the Commission 4
will be a very useful vehicle to illustrate this~and to te a 5
vehicle to go out exhorting EPA as appropriate.
6 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Yes, it sounds like it will.
Let's 7
proceed.
8
[ Slide.]
9 MR. BERNERO:
Let me turn to slide 20.
You have 10 heard mentioned earlier the EPA /NRC Interface Council, 11 recognizing the value of such regular interaction, the two
'1 agenci'es started in April 1986 to have informal structured 13 meetings. This thing sort of grew like topsy and we saw the 14 benefit of it and recently chose to formalize it.
This is not 15 a memorandum of understanding of individual regulation.
It 16 doesn't have that standing.
17 It is a procedural agreement.
In simple terms, it is 18 an agreement to maintain open lines of communication so that we 19 don't have ticking bombs on the shelf and nobody is aware of 20 them, that there is no communication.
21 We work with as NMSS has the larger part of our 22 interaction, I serve as the sort of principal management-23 representative to make sure our people, all NRC people 24 affected, NRR, Research, the general counsel and so forth, I 25 coordinated our need to make sure the appropriate players are v
s 30-1 there and Mr. Macris who is with the Office of Solid Waste and 2
Emergency Response generally tends to serve the same role over 3
in EPA.
4 What we have is a regular series of meetings on the 5
order of once a quarter and we work up an. agenda to make sure 6
that items of regulatory interest which overlap, interact or
~
7 contradict, if that be the case, are brought to the appropriate 8
attention and this serves to make sure there is an open line of 9
communication to resolve issues.
10 It has been very successful.
Mr. Stello has signed 11 the formal version for us.
The EPA has it.
It is in their 12 final ~ chain.
I expect to be' notified shortly that it will be j
13 signed.
We will have one more step facilitating this l
14 interaction with EPA and keep things going smoothly.
J 15 (Slide.]
l 16 MR. BERNERO:
CIRRPC, I'm the alternate NRC 17 repremontative to that body and I can never remember what i
18 CIRRPC stands for.
This is out of the President's office of 19 Science and Technology.
EPA, because of their statutory 20 charter, has a major role in that.
They are a representative 21 on the CIRRPC ' Executive Committee as well as the Full 22 Committee.
23 Under that charter, there is a good deal-of 24 interaction where it serves our interest of simplifying or 25 smoothing things with EPA.
It is another forum, perhaps not as m
=
=
. 4 31 1
day to day pragmatic as the Interface Council, but it is a very h
y 2
useful forum for us, too, in dealing with EPA on matters of 3
common interest.-
4
[ Slide.]
5 MR. BERNERO:
Just to summarize what we see before 6
us, we have two regulatory agencies.
The EPA I think it can be 7
fairly said has a more complex and more prescriptive statutory
~~
8 mandate than NRC has.
If you look at their mission, radiation 9
safety is only a part, a rather minor part of their overall 10 mission.
It is the essential part of ours.
11 There is a certain asymmetry that you see but
~
12 recognizing that we each have our statutory responsibilities t
13 and a need to satisfy them, the NRC and the EPA are working on 14 these issues one at a time, methodically and persistently.
I 15 think the Commission can expect continued attention to these 16 interagency actions.
It is not going to go away.
The 17 interface is complex.
It will remain complex.
You can expect 18 further attention but it appears to us and the staff that the 19 problem is being worked appropriatcly.
20 This is not to say that we won't perhaps identify c
21 some really grave policy difference or something like that, b
g 22 that on its own merits in that own specific instance, might k
23 call for commission attention, Commission dialogue with EPA.
24 In the meanwhile, given the broad range of issues we 25 have to work with, we think the' interface with EPA on
32 1
radiological matters is working rather well and we hope to keep j
2 this up.
3 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Thank you very much.
l
[
4 MR. STELLO:
We are through, Mr. Chairman.
5 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Questions from my fellow 6
Commissioners?
Commissioner Roberts?
l 7
COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
CIR2PC, when was that 8
established?
9 MR. BERNERO:
It is the old Federal Radiation Council 10 and I think it must be getting on five or six years old.
I 11 stand to be corrected.
12 MR. MACRIS:
Early 1980's.
13 MR. BERNERO:
It is in this Administration.
j 14 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Commissioner Carr?
15 COMMISSIONER CARR:-
In the area of mixed waste, I understand there are two requirements for applying for a 16 i
17 permit, one for a permit and one for a license and we were 18 going to work together to see if we couldn't get one permit to 19 meet both requirements.
How a're we doing on that?
One request 20 to satisfy both our requirements.
21 MR. BERNERO:
I should have introduced the staff at 22 the table because they are very important in this program.
Mal 23 Knapp from the Division of Low Level Waste and Decommissioning.
24 Mike Bell and Kitty Dragonette on my right.
[
25 Mal, could you please answer that?
l
~*
4 33 1
MR. KNAPP:
Surely.
At this point, after looking at 2
that concept with some care, we are not pushing it real hard.
3 There are two reasons.
First, to develop that kind cf guidance 4
at this time would appear to be quite resource intensive.
We 5
could be talking about several FTE.
When we balance this
'6 against our current perception of the needed guidance, based on 1
l 7
the number of states that are developing low level waste
)
8 disposal facilities that are likely to deal with mixed waste 9
and that are regulated directly by the NRC and by EPA, our 10 current information is there will only be one.
11 The sort of procedural guidance that we would provide 12 would'not be particularly useful as we perceive at this time to 13 the states that are working as either NRC agreement states or 14 EPA authorized states or both because they have internal 15 procedures they must work out.
16 What we have done instead is to emphasize giving 17 attention to those specific states and provide help as much as 18 we can.
An example of that is what we have done in the State
(
19 of Washington, where the firm, U.S.
Ecology, that has a low 20 level waste disposal site, is quite interested in pursuing a l
21-mixed waste application.
We have worked with both the State of 22 Washington and EPA Headquarters and the Region, as well as U.S.
23 Ecology to provide any assistance we could.
We have met with 24 them both here and in the State of Washington to see what we 25 could do to expedite that.
l
y L
l 34 i
i If we perceive 1
That is where we are at this time.
2 that as development of new low level waste facilities goes 3
ahead,:more generic ~ guidance would'be useful, then I.would be 4~
inclined to move and put more resources into it.
5 COMMISSIONER CARR:
Give me a couple'of,words on.NARM 6
disposal, that EPA and us couldLfind a way to get rid of NARM
~
7 at low level waste sites.-
Are we working on that problem?
If 8
so, what is the prognosis?
9 MR. BERNERO:
I think we are working that. problem.
I 10 will defer to the General Counsel.
(
11 MR. PARLER:
He was looking'at me.
I give the legal 12 memorahdum and the legal memorandum indicated that it could 13 work that way but it was in this agency's discretion to.say no 14 if allowing the mixture would present from our standpoint.a 15 regulatory problem.
You have the discretion-to proceed and 16 whether or not you will proceed is not within my bailiwick.
17 COMMISSIONER CARR:
That's my question.
18 MR. BERNERO:
We have just read the Ger.eral Counsel's 19 memorandum on the subject and are discussing it within staff.
20 It appears to us that it is a logical solution.
The si 21 classification of NARM waste is technically consistent in 22 virtually every particular with our classification.
The 23 technical findings, we are not dealing with incompatible safety 24 matters.
We think that the system proposed in the EPA proposal 25 is manageable and doable.
I'm not sure whether we are going to 4
.,-e--e---e,.
w-
-e,
,1 e-e
- twe, en-
,-,---,,--mw,
-m-m.e-,,-me-u+
--,r,,n-
-w w
-,,,y
35 q
1 send a paper up to you or what, how to elicit your endorsement 2
of it, but on the surface of it so far, it appears workable to 3
us.
h 4
COMMISSIONER CARR:
Thank you.
5 l
5 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Commissioner Rogers?
F 6
COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
No additional questions.
~.
7 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Do oJr EPA representatives have any 8
other comments they would like to make?
9 MR. GALPIN:
Let me just rake a couple, one a 10 historic piece.
Mixed waste indeed has been a difficult one-11 for both agencies.
I just wanted to point out that in official 12 congre'ssional testimony, both agencies did ask the Congress to 13 try to avoid this duplication.
At that time, and I will speak h
14 from my impression, it was our impression that the opening up 15 of the Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act was such a scary 16 thing for various members of Congress to do for fear of what 17 might drop out of that, that they said, hey, can't you c.gencies 18 at least now go back and work out something to make this work 19 so we don't have to open up this can of worms in a legislative 20 format.
21 Both agencies were tcgether in asking the Congress to 22 see if they could not resolve that.
23 The other thing I would just mention; is in the area
?. 4 of --
1 i
l 25 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Before you go on, do you think we are
.y,
e 36 1
working together to resolve that?
2 MR. GALPIN:
Very much so.
It is tedious at times.
3 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Yes.
I understand.
4 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
That.is an understatement.
5 MR. GALPIN:
The other thing I would comment on is in-6 the area of below regulatory concern and this is just to 7
emphasize what I feel has been a very close working 8
relationship in the context of the low level radioactivity 9
disposal rules that EPA is just about to send to CMB.
10 We do have a consideration and a value set in terms 11 of an exposure for a below regulatory concern for that specific
)
12 practice of low level radioactive waste disposal.
This does 13 not represent a value that could be used in the decommissioning 14 in our view.
It is specific for that.
15 I will say that the staff at NRC has worked very 16 closely with us in looking at that.
We are still talking about
+
x 17 the implementation of it which is basically NRC's role.
There 18 has been a very close working relationship.
f 19 COMMISSIONER CARR:
That number would say what had to 20 be sent to a disposal site as opposed to what didn't have to I
21 be?
22 MR. GALPIN:
That is right.
The number that is being 23 used in the draft paper is four millirem per year as an.
24 exposure limit for any below regulatory concern.
In an 25 implementation mode, it could be interpreted in terms of e
b I
'o u,
37 h
1 concentrations of various materials and utilized as something i
L 2
to say what had to be regulated disposal for the-radioactivity 3
and what did not.
4 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
Thank you very much.
5 Let me thank the staff, Mr. Bernero and your 6
colleagues, as well as our representatives from EPA, for a very
~
7 informative briefing.
8 I think it is important that the commission be kept 9
informed on the current status of the issues that are being 10 worked between EPA and our staff.
As we.have heard today and t-11 as we are well aware, there is a significant relationship i
12 betwee'n our two agencies and it is important that We continue 13-this close working relationship to resolve these issues.
14 I would ask the staff to continue to work in these 15 areas we have discussed with EPA and we want to avoid if we can 16 requesting legislative fixes to these problems as long as we 17 can resolve them ourselves.
I'am pleased to hear and I know my 18 colleagues are, too, that is the effort you are pursuing.
19 I think it is important that we work closely with DOE ij 20 as well as our two agencies in many areas, especially the f t 21 reclamation of the mill tailing sites and also in the area of 22 high level waste to ensure there is consistency in our 23 regulations in all our agencies.
24 Also I think it is.important that we continue to 25 review the legislative schedules that have been placed on our-e
-9
~
n
--x-r r
w-
E -
38 1
agencies as well as DOE so that we are all trying to work 2
together to resolve whatever standards or issues that may be 3
raised in order to meet those legislative schedules.
4 With that, I thank again the staff for an excellent 5
presentation and our EPA representatives.for being with us.
We 6
would encourage you to continue this close working relationship 7
that obviously is producing renults that we all want to see and 8
we would encourage you to continue the strong staff 9
relationship you have and again including the DOE people in the 10 areas of their responsibility.
11 With that, we stand adjourned.
Thank you very much.
0 12
[Whereupon, at 11:00'a.m., the briefing was i
13 concluded.]
14 15 1
16 17 '
18 19 20 21 22 th 23 it 24 o
25 p
w w
r-
-v2 e
p.ey
+
.p
E e
CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIBER This is to certify that the attached events of a meeting of the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission entitled:
TITLE OF MEETING: BRIEFING 0N MATTERS OF COMMON INTEREST BETWEEN NRC AND EPA OM TJE REGULATION OF RADIOLOGICAL HAZARDS PLACE CF MEETING:
Washington, D.C.
DATE OF MEETING: FRIDAY, JULY 15, 1988 i
were transcribed by me.
I further certify that said transcription is accurate and complete, to the best of my ability, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing events.
I i
Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd.
O
l w.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY' COMMISSION and ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY INTERACTIONS ON RADIOLOGICAL ISSUES ROBERT 'BERNER0 NMSS JULY 15, 1988 4
1 j
1 rw-+
c y
e,w-e.-m---w---er-,-yee n--,.y,.-ve-,
-w..,,,..ww-,
,-3.-,,,-
--*e-<
,,e
..m.,
e,.,r----www--..w w. m m w-..,,
i
~.
i a
l i
J l
1 COMPLEX INTERACTIONS WITH ANOTHER FEDERAL AGENCY EPA AND NRC MISSIONS
.5 AREAS OF EPA /NRC INTERACTION EXAMPLES OF REGULATORY INTERACTION l
I 2
S
~~-,,mm-a
---,-,<ny
,-m,gn.g,,. men-,
,,,n-a,--+wm,nw.,,,v-me,.,,-...ws,gn w,,meew,w,-,,w,-r,w,,-mmm--,-mw,ee-s-e,+,,,,,w,-
~rw-
~
~
EPA MISSION IMPLEMENT THE FEDERAL LAWS DESIGNED TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT (i.e., THE AIR, GR0llND AND SURFACE WATER, AND LAND)
~
FOR EXAMPLE, RESTORE AND MAINTAIN THE "CHEMICAL, PHYSICAL, AND BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY OF THE NATION'S WATER" UNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT 3
,.. --,.-..~,,.-.-
l NRC MISSION PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY AND THE ENVIRONMENT THROUGH REGULATION OF THE RECEIPT, POSSESSION, USE AND DISPOSAL OF BYPRODUCT, SOURCE, AND SPECIAL NUCLEAR MATERIALS AND SAFEGUARDING MllCLEAR MATERIALS IN THE INTEREST OF NATIONAL SECURITY 4
4
.m.
m,,--
,-m.,.
EPA MAJOR STATUTES ATOMIC ENERGY ACT (REORGANIZATION ACT #3 0F 1970)
CLEAN AIR ACT, CLEAN WATER ACT i
SAFE DRINKING WA!ER ACT, COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE, COMPENSATION, AND LIABILITY ACT (SUPERFUND), RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT, FEDERAL INSECTICIDE,
{
FUNGICIDE, AND RODENT! CIDE'ACT, i
5
m.
EPA MAJOR STATUTES CONT'D T0XIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT, MARINE PROTECTION, RESEARCH, AND SANCTUARIES ACT
{
AND URANIUM MILL TAILING RADIATION CONTROL ACT; EMERGENCY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY RIGHT TO KNOW ACT OF 1986 0
6 O
v-e r- - - - * - e
.i.-*-
g tey
-W.,.
-,wr er-----7.--.c.
-e a.
-w%.
m.-_.
~~
j l
NRC MAJOR STATUTES ATOMIC ENERGY ACT AND ENERGY REORGANIZATION ACT, NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT, NU; LEAR WASTE POLICY ACT OF 1982 AND 1987, LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE POLICY AMENDMENTS ACT, URANIUM MILL TAILINGS RADIATION CONTROL ACT a
7
.. -.--.e
..w-
.. ~ -, -
3-
,.--,,-,y y-
,-..w
-.w-
.,.._.-r
..,., ~ _, -,. _,- _.._ -,,
)
9 B 5 8p oljl c,ill ill,
- 1 t
isp iL i te 1
'-j 7
Bs 3
Jg s-iij b
ll ai i,
fif 9.1 ilk H
i r
!l 13
&{
88l l Bjt 83
~
N si
!!!!1 '
all aj-ny a!i is lil
!!I 1],i
!]l11 lt
$I 3
(, ;,y p
. i!st!
ilie ne il it I ll IIIll ljil 111 51 8 f
~
8 i
5 V
i lJ-l g
s.
pi 8
e e
ip ini
.Li A
i
'L 2[
-i.l.
T a
gi p.
A; 1
i ili e
!l[
)l U
p 5,
)
I 8
I, ag l
3: ;.
~
V m
M N
N g.
b~
ch
'h=p !h iit 11 gg-lgl
!!l L
.f i
~
!Il TC p
si ai! iI!
,1 If II'!
! SE' i j ig asI a t a.
"Q 8
t i
-^
AREAS OF NRC/ EPA INTERACTION l
STANDARDS, REGULATIONS, AND GUIDANCE PRESIDENTIAL GUIDANCE LICENSING / PERMITTING AND-0PERATIONS l
l 9
+ -. -
2 m.
- -.. -..t
__,_,,,,__%w,_
,,,.,w,
-.._.,,_,,-,,,_ym
.. _,,,,,7
's
-l
\\
ACRONYM KEY RCRA - RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT CWA - CLEAN MATER ACT CAA - CLEAN AIR ACT CERCLA - COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE, COMPENSATION, AND LIABILITY ACT (SUPERFUND) 50WA - SA,FE DRINKING WATER ACT
!s
~
10
ICsaCLA l "C""
)
/
I CAA r
j j
y TRANSPORTATION c,
STORAGE RCHA r
l CAK.
M
{ACRA
.C.A
.C..
W s
~
' k g.
sewA\\
mens mamsT
\\
GENERATION j
cwa l
C^^
i
,-/r-L h' nCnA l
1 SCRA j
{cowA f
~....
)
i i,
DISPOSAL 4
EPA PROGRAMS AND MIXED LOW-LEVEL WASTE t
I i
s
~
~
MIXED WASTE -
MAJOR ISSUES INITIALLY _IDENTIFI_ED NEED FOR CLEAR DEFINITION OF "MIXED WASTE" TO LIMIT THE WASTE SUBJECT TO OUAL REGULATION STATE SITE-DEVELOPMENT MILESTONES INCONSISTENT WITH EPA TIMETABLES FOR DEVELOPING LOCATION STANDARDS EPA LINER TECHNOLOGY DESIGN STANDARDS APPEARED TO CONFLICT WITH NRC'S 10 CFR PART 61 s
l 12 I
e
,r-.
,---n-..
MIXED WASTE PROGRESS TO DATE MRC/ EPA JOINT GUIDANCE FOR COMPLYING WITH BOTH EPA AND NRC REQUIREMENTS ISSUED FOR:
DEFINITION OF MIXED WASTE, SITING GUIDELINES, AND CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
~
INFORMATION NOTICE TO NRC LICENSEES ON i
MINIMIZING MIXED WASTE GENERATION COMPACTS AND MOST STATES ME'i 'sNUARY 1988 SITE DEVELOPHENT MILESTONE 1
13
Mb EP_A HIGH-LEVEL WASTE STANDARD STANDARD WAS PROMULGATED ON SEPTEMBER 19, 198.1 BUT REMANDED BY THE COUR15 ON JULY 17, 1987 STANDARD SET THE OVERALL rNVIRONMiNTAL RADIATION PROTECTION STANDARD THAT THE HLW REPOSITORY MUST MEET 14 I
~_
EPA HIGH-LEVEL WASTE STANDARD _iCONT'D1 NRC HAD PROPOSED TO REVISE ITS RULES TO CONFORM TO THE EPA STANDARD, t
BUT RULEMAKING WAS SUSPFNDED WHEN 5
EPA'S STANDARD WAS REMANDED ISSUES INVOLVED IN REMANDING THE STANDARD INVOLVE CONSISTENCY WITH EPA'S SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT AND DEEP WELL INJECTION STANDARDS AND LENGTH OF TIME AFTER DISPOSAL FOR APPLICATION OF THE STANDARDS 15
i URANIUM MILL TAILINGS ISSUES INACTIVE SITES EPA ISSUED STANDARDS 1983 GROUNDWATER STANDARDS REMANDED 1985 REPROPOSED 1987 DOE MUST COMPLY, NRC CONCURS LARGE COST AND SCHEDULE IMPACTS LIKELY EPA HAS NO SITE-SPECIFIC CONCURRENCE
\\
16 e
we,-m-,,,.
E- --,.,,,
,y,,-
,,--my,,-,,,,.,,,,.,,,,4--,,,.,,,,,, _,...,,,.,.,,,
y+,
URANIUM MILL TAILINGS ISSUES (CTD),
ACT!YE SITES EPA ISSUED STANDARDS IN 1983 j
NRC REQUIRED TO CONFORM CONFORMED NON-GROUNDWATER IN 1985 CONFORMED GROUNDWATER IN 1987 EPA WANTS NR0 DISCRETIdNARY CONFORMANCE EPA WANTS SITE-SPECIFIC CONCURRENCE ON ALTERNATE CONCENTRATION LIMITS i
17 j
t SUPERFUND OVERLAPPING NRC/ EPA GROUND-WATER PROGRAMS FOR CHURCH ROCK URANIUM MILL g
J MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT TO IMPLEMENT 10 CFR PART 40 ONSITE ALL LICENSEES SUBJECT TO COVERAGE BUT NRC LICENSEES NOT ON NFL AS MATTER OF POLICY REPORTABLE QUANTITIES RULEMAKING 18
.---,.,,,,,v.c--,.,.,.-...,,,.,.w.
--,,n-_- - _ _,,, -,,, -.,,-,..,,.,,,-,,,,,,,,,,...,,._-,,,
~_
RESIDUAL RADI0 ACTIVITY EPA ACTIONS AND TIMETABLES DON'T MEET NRC NEEDS M0 RESOURCES
}
f.
DECOMMISSIONING RULE IMPLEMENTATION
.0MMISSION DIREC*ED POLICY DEVELOPMENT FOR GENERIC BELOW TEGULATORY CONCERN AND INTERIM DECOMMISSIONING'
~
l 19 l
't
_.___._._.-._.____.___..:_.____._..-_..,____._,.-.-._____.__.____.f._._
r
.o EPA /NRC INTERFACE COUNCIL E5'.'ABLISHED IN APRIL 1986 PURPOSE IS INFORMAL CONSULTATION AND INFORMATION EXCHANGE AND-i CENTRALIZED COORDINATION ON ISSUES OF MUTUAL INTEREST NMSS LEAD BUT ALL KEY NRC 0FFICES REPRESENTED (i.e., NRR, RES, OGC, GPA, AND AE00)
^20 1
i
,4
,--,.--,,--,,=,--r
-,,,,,,,,,.7,
,w-,,. ~,,,
,w.,7,
,,,,.,r y-. -, --,,,
n,yg,-~,
~
COMMITTEE ON INTERAGENCY RADIATION RESEARCH AND POLICY COORDINATION
{CIRRPC)
PART OF THE PRESIDENT'S OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CHARTER INCLUDES COORDINATING RADIATION ISSUES, AND PRIORITIZING FEDERAL RADIATION RESEARCH AND OTHER EFFORTS 1
21 l
i
,4 I
~.
~
SUMMARY
- CONCLUSIONS EPA HAS MORE COMPLEX AND MORE PRESCRIPTIVE STATUTORY MANDATES THAN NRC i
i RADIATION SAFETY IS A MINOR PART 0F EPA'S MISSION BUT AN ESSENTIAL PART OF'NRC'S THE NRC CAN EXPECT CONTINUED ATTENTION TO INTERAGENCY ACTIONS WILL BE NECESSARY i
22 1
4dE%%%%%%df%%%%%%%%dW66%Wd%W(%tdfffffW g grfr4rg g g TPAHSMITTAL TO:
Document Control Desk. 016 Phillips j
ADVANCED COPY TO:
The Public Document Rocm 7//7!8 k
DATE:
i
/
[
FROM:
SECY Correspondence & Records Branch I!
Attached are copies of a Comission meeting transcript and related meeting i
document (s). They are being forwarded for entry on the Daily Accession List and i
placement in the Public Document Room. No other distribution is requested or j
required.
2-Meeting
Title:
/3 M A W vt [h e M Mm ' V TM 4 b M b 4d J
i e
a E
Meeting Date:
7/I/ff Open X
Closed -
E t
Item Description *:
Copies
', 8 Advanced DCS
_t_o_ POR Cg 1
- 1. TRANSCRIPT 1
1 a/ M y i
2.
3.
N 4.
D 8
al il 22
- s. '
g-3:;
E 3
g 6.
si
- POR is advanced one copy of each document, two of each SECY paper, y
- ]f C&R Branch files the original transcript, with attachments, withcut SECY fjff hfg 3
- papers, S
3 l
N 3[h g
h fMhMhPMhPMPMYMYMBYMYMhYMYMhyMBMMBBBYMhhBWYMMiyMi$MPMyMyMwd
_