ML20198D689
| ML20198D689 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/26/1987 |
| From: | Knapp M NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY |
| References | |
| FRN-52FR36000, REF-WM-3, TASK-TF, TASK-URFO NUDOCS 9801080251 | |
| Download: ML20198D689 (39) | |
Text
V~
I g $$ 91 On1TOPP NU 1
222eg Mk QCT 1
f'
[yy CentralDocketSection(LE-130)
N f
E U.S. Environmental Protection A ency N
N O-Attention:
Docket Number R-87 1
Washington DC 20460 k4 9 tug 6
. Gentlemen:-
On Thursday, September 24, 1987, theU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA) issued
-sites (proposed ground-water protection standards for Title ! 9ranium recovery 52FR36000),whicharebeingremediatedbytheDepartmentofEnergy (DOE)undertheUraniumMillTailingsRadiationControlActof1978(UMTRCA).
The.U.S.' Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has a direct interest in the standards in view of the Commission's role in concurring with DOE's performance
-of the remedial actions and licensing the sites for long-tem maintenance and
-Q:
surveillance under UMTRCA.
The Division of low-level Waste Management and Decommissioning (LLWM) staff has identified issues raised by the proposed rule and has developed the following preliminary responses to the specific questions posed by EPA in the notice.
The proposed standards represent an important step in removing-uncertainties associated with ground-water protection and lleanup aspects of the remedial-action programs. The decision-making process embodied in the standards is simplified when compared to Title !! standards in Subparts D and E of 40 CFR Part:192 because the standards do not call for EPA concurrences in site-specific decisions.
The standards provide flexibility to consider natural restoration and institutional controls in ground-water cleanup and protection.
The adoption of:the ground-water protection standards of 40 CFR 264 including the alternate concentration limit provisien, as well-as the provision for supplemental standards, helps provide the flexibility to deal with ground-water contamination problems at. existing sites.
Further,-the LLWM staff notes the n
EPA approach of recognizing design lifetime limitations in detemining M
. compliance with the ground-water standards.
The LLWM staff review has identified several significant issues with the proposed standards that should be addressed prior to. promulgation. These
-issues cover implementation, clarity, absoluteness, the applicability of these standards to vicinity properties. and inconsistencies'between the UMTRCA Title
-! and Title II: standards for ground-water protection.
Preliminary draft LLWM staff comments are provided in Enclosure 11 however, I would like to highlight two features that will likely. impact our ability to reasonably and practicably-implement the-standards.
NRC concurrenes that DOE has completed the remedial actions in accordance with EPA standards is necessary before NRC can issue the license called for in UMTRCA.. Under the
'0FFICIAL DOCKET COPY p3u '""PDR g
e e
2 I
proposed Title I standards, completion may be delayed bv ground-water restoration activities for periods of up to 100 years while the established concentration limits are achieved.
In addition, the provision for post-disposal monitoring to confirm design performance and corrective actions to restore contamination levels to established concentration limits also extends the time before remedial action is completed.
EPA indicated that periods of at' least 30 years may be involved in this post-disposal demonstration period.
Such extentions may require Congressional approval to extend DOE's authority
-and funding to conduct such activities.
Congressional action may also be needed to clarify when NRC is to issue a license and for which parts of the i
remedial action.
Thus, it appears that the proposed standards need to take into account that legislative changes may be needed to implement the long-tem aspects of the proposed standards.
O To resolve a number of uncertainties we have concerning the intent of the U
proposed standards and to discuss options to resolve how the standards should be implemented by NRC, we need to meet with EPA staff.
Such discussions should help us better formulate our coments and recommended solutions. There may be a number of ways to resolve apparent implementation difficulties and we would like to work with EPA to identify and discuss alternative solutions. contains preliminary draft staff responses to the specific questions EPA posed on this ruleraking.
Because of the site-specific nature of the remedial action decisions, the staff responses encourage flexibility in the standards.
In addition, the draft responses urge EPA to proceed quickly to final standards to avoid additional delays in the program.
We appreciate the opportunity to coment on the proposed rule.
In order to support the 30-day comment period, we have forwarded the staff's preliminary comments on the proposed standards. We are continuing to move these comments p
through the agency to obtain Commission comments. The agency may have V
additional comments or changes from the additional review or as a result of issues raised in the October 29, 1987 hearing in Durango, Colorado.
We reauest time to appear at the October 29 public hearing in Durango. Michael Weber is expected to speak. We also request a 90 day period following the public hearing to provide Comission comments. We propose to meet with EPA staff within 30 days of the public hearing to discuss the proposed rule and then plan for Comission cocents to be transmitted within 60 clays of that meeting.
1 h
,,m, r
y-
i e
TITLE 1/KSD LTR 3
If you have any questions about our coments, please contact Kitty Dragonette (4274763) or Michael Weber (427 4746).
Sincerely, (Original!!gud by
_)
Malcolm R. Knapp, Director Division of low-level Waste Management and Decomissioning Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards n
Enclosures:
V 1.
Staff Coments 2.
Answers to Questions cc:
Floyd Galpin, EPA J. Craig Potter EPA Kurt Feldman, EPA James Turi, 00E l
t l
DISTRIBUTION: w/ encls.
I LLWH'sf:
406.3 RFonner, OGC NMSS rf NJensen LLRB rf HThompson MKnapp RBernero JGreeves MFliegel MKearney GGnugnoli es(,)
PLohaus DSollenberger JSurmeier MWeber RBoyle MHaisfield, RES KDragonette DSinith' LEHawkins.
il/
r.
- LLRB:ki s
- LLRB WM
- LLWM
/V
........ :....../. f L:
...:......,..L..:...........:..
- E :KDrag'on'ette :MKearney
- JGre s
- MKnapp FE 187/10/~4
- 87/10/g(o
- 87/10/
- 87/10/g 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY
444JL--
e M.4MSM. = h A3=hhm mmme h i
t t
e
)
9 4
1 ENCLOSURE 1 i
s t
O s
4 L
4 1
O.
O h
4 e-I
[
I r,_,
s.._,.
PRELIMINARY ORAFT NRC STAFF COMMENTS ON PROPOSED EPA TITLE I GROUNO-WATF.R PROTECTION STANDARDS 52 FR 36000; SEPTEMBER 24, 1987 1.
General comments.
The applicability of the provisions in subparts A-C is not completely a.
clear from the text and preamble.
Subpart A appears to apply at any location O
where DOE disposes of residual radioactive material, s Thus, it would apply to existing impoundments and new disposal sites where the contents of existing impoundments or vicinity property materials are disposed of.
Subpart B appears to apply to existing contamination at impoundment sites where tailings are stabilized onsite, vicinity properties, and designated processing sites where the tailings or wastes are removed to a new disposal site, including vicinity properties where the wastes are removed.
Subpart B would then apply to all circumstances except new disposal sites unless the new disposal sites cause new
'J contamination in excess of the ground water protection standards established for the site.
The preamble and Background Information Document deal only with the existing and new impoundment sites.
The applicability of the standards and their impacts on vicinity property cleanups should be explained and evaluated.
The proposed standards could require an extensive expansion of the project by requiring ground-water monitoring and potential cleanup.at more than 6,000 vicinity properties that have been identified to date.
EPA should consider use of a concepts section that describes the important assumptions behind the PRELIMINARY DRAFT
PRELIMINARY ORAFT i
standards and clarifies their applicability.
A concepts section would not impose any legal requirements but would preserve EPA's intent in the rule itself.
See, for example, NRC's 10 CFR 61.7 Concepts.
a b.
On page 36006, Column 1, of the preamble, the text states that 00E will have to determine if additional work will be necessary to comply with the new ground-water protaction standards at tailings sites where remedial action is substantially comp 16te (i.e., Canonsburg, Shiprock, Lakeview, and Salt i
O Lake).
The text states that add (tional remedial action may be necessary to cleanup contaminated ground water at these sites.
The text and the standards do not state, however, whether EPA intends DOE to enhance containment at these disposal sites if 00E cannot demonstrate that the sites comply with the disposal requirements as proposed in Subpart A.
EPA should clarify in the E
4 l-standards and the preamble to the final rule whether existing stabilized sites are " grandfathered" with respect to the proposed disposal standards in Subpart A.
c.
Although EPA discussed some of the differences between the Title I and Title Il ground-water standards, the differences were not systematically addressed.
The different nature of remedial action and operating sites does justify a number of differences but regulatory requirements should be generally consistent.
Important differences between the Title I and II standards include
. provisions for natural restoration and institutional controls during
. ground water cleanup for Title I but not Title II.
Title I standards also PRELIMINARY ORAFT
.i PRELIMINARY ORAFT include the provision for supplementary standards.
For Title II, the only flexibility provision included in the standards is EPA approval of alternative standards for thorium. Animportantdifferencethalwasnotadequately justified was the addition of monitoring to_ confirm ground-water design features and the addition of the whole concept of a post-closure period to accommodate this requirement.
(Thisprovisionandothersarediscussedinmore detail.under the specific provisions.)
l -Q -
l The_ rationale; for converting a performance standard, i.e., the secondary, 1
ground-water protection standards from 40 CFR 264.92-95, into a design stan'ard d
tis not clear.
Under Title II, these provisions are a performance standard to-be applied when the primary impoundment design standards fail to protect ground water.
The specific provisions for point of compliance (i.e., 264.95) were imposed for Title I and but not for Title II thus limiting the flexibility for site-specific judgments for implementing the standards at Title I sites.
More Q -
(flexibility in the' Title I equivalent of the Title II primary d i.e.,264.221) is acknowledged.
Some discussion of tne difference in closure phase design requirements is included.
These' differences stem in part from the lack of _an operational. phase and include emphasis on-cover design for Title I as opposed to the Title II emphasis on features such as protection of dikes from wave action.
The differences in added constituents and limits is clear but should be more fully justified.
The monitoring requirements are much more comprehensive for Title I as are other imp 1 m ntation details.
Under Title II, compliance with section 264.111 is specified for nonradiological hazards but PRELIMINARY DRAFT
PRELIMINARY ORAFT applied to both radiological and nonradiological hazards for Title I.
The 1000/200 year p6tiods for design similarly apply only to the radiological controls for Title !! and to both for Titic 1.
The intent or significance of f
this difference is not explained.
Title I contains a more general and internally cross-referenced corrective action requirement while Title-11 i
incorporates 264.100.
Section 264.100 has more implementation requirements and this difference was not addressed.
In summary, EPA has not adequately l
O identified, assessed, and justified the differences between.the Title I and Title II standards.
s i
2.
Comments on specific provisions of the proposed rule changes,
- s. Subpart A 40CFR192.01(a):
EPA indicates that the references to various
- O parts of 40 CFR will be replaced with the actual text as codified January 1 1983.
NRC staff supports this plan because it will facilitate understanding and use of the standards and help assure consistency between Title I and Title II.
(Title II standards incorporate EPA standards as codified on the same date.) The final rule should explicitly state that all references are to the standards as codified January 1, 1983, not just terms.
If EPA plans to insert
- all of the referenced text to make Subparts A-C self contained such statement would not be necessary.
The reference to. paragraphs (a) and (b) of Section 264.111 in 192.02(a)(4) illustrates the potential for confusion.
Section PRELIMINARY ORAFT
PRELIMINARY ORAFT 264.111 as codified in January 1983 contained only paragraphs (a) and (b) and nowitcontainsa(c).
The Title 11 standards contain a simple reference to Section 264.111. Based on this example, the reader could conclude that the references mean the cited regulation as it exists when reading the standard.
40CFR192.01(i):
The definition of " post-disposal period" refers to the completion of the requirements in Subpart A and ending with completion of the monitoring requirements estabitsbed under 192.02(b).
The proposed Subpart (V
'\\
A contains requirements for design in 192.02(a), monitoring in 192.02(b), and correctiveactionin192.02(c).
The reference to completion of the requirements in Subpart A could be interpreted to mean completion of (a) or (a)-(c) and should be clarified.
40CFR192.01(j):
The definition of " ground water" is different from the definition in the January 1983 rules and should be justified.
r~T V
40CFR192.01(general):
EPA should add definitions of " residual radioactive material" and " list W constit /.t" and a reference to the existing definition of " processing site" in 192.Js t.
aid readers.
The term " listed
~
constituent" is used in 192.02(a).. It appears that " listed constituent" means the same as " hazardous constituent" under EPA rules in 40 CFR Part 264.
The use of different terms may introduce confusion between.the hazardous waste and uranium mill tailings regulatory programs and between-the regulatory programs for Title I and Title II uranium tailings.
In addition, the practice of PRELIMINARY ORAFT
' PRELIMINARY ORAFT putting definitions in each Subpart can be confusing to readers; and you may wish to consolidate them unless the terms have different meanings in Subparts A, B, and C.
EPA should consider substituting the term " hazardous constituent", as used in Subpart F of 40 CFR 264 and Subparts 0 and E of 40 CFR 192, for " listed constituent" and consolidating all of' the definitions in the same subpart.
40 CFR 192.02 (general): With the addition of ground-water provisions to the design standards and cleanup standards, the inter-relationships between the subparts become more complex. Application of the secondary ground water operational or performance standard of 40 CFR Part 264 as a design standard also contributes to the difficulty of understanding, i
It is not clear how the potential impacts of cleanup actions for existing contamination are to be factored into the design standard.
It is not clear that the design should reflect plans for partial cleanup and natural restoration and institutional controls as described in Subpart B.
()
'~
Consideration of these factors would be important in setting. alternate concentration limits (ACL's) that are compatible and consistent with cleanup ACL's in Subpart B.
EPA should clarify that only one ACL is to be met at a site for each constituent and EPA should consider simplifying the standard to provide a single ground water protection standard, Distinction between new disposal sites and processing sites where residual radioactive materials are stabilized might help clarify this matter.
PRELIMINARY ORAFT
PRELIMINARY ORAFT 40CFR192.02(a)(3):
" Conform" should be replaced by " Provide reasonableassuranceofconformance"inordertobeconsistentwith(a)(1)and (2) and 'Subpart B and to provide flexibility for technical judgment.
The a
. /'
rationale for why the provisions of 40 CFR 264.95 for the point of compliance were imposed for these Title I standards and not for Title II was not presented.
The standards should provide sufficient flexibility'for technical judgment in establishing the point of compliance to accommodate site-specific
-circumstances, consistent with the intent of the point of compliance.
In
' O l
addition, the technical and institutional circumstances are different for the materials at issue here.
The disposal site will be under Federal government control indefinitely.
Under the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA) regulations, no long-term government controls are mandated.
Protection of cover and stability features to control radon are also unique and different from the SWDA situation.
epa should consider these differences and revise the standards accordingly.
40CFR192.02(a)(3)(1):
The characteristic of gross alpha should be-added to the list of constituents to authorize setting of the standards for gross alpha in Table A.
40CFR192.02(a)(3)(iv):
Proposed 5192.02(a)(3)(iv) requires establishment of a monitoring program "upgradient of the disposal site" to determine background levels of listed constituents.
However, 00E may not be abletoestablishjbackgroundconcentrationsoflistedconstituentsby-PRELIMINARY ORAFT
1 PRELIMINARY ORAFT I-monitoring upgradient ground-water quality because (1) ground water upgradient
.from the site has already been significantly affected by residual radioactive materials or (2) it is difficult or impossible to monitor ground water upgradient from the site.
Therefore, EPA should revise the standards to
-require enly'that a monitoring program be established at the disposal site
)
adequate to determine background levels of listed constituents.
i i
F 40CFR192.02(a)(3)(vi): This 'aragraph should be reworded along the j
O i
lines "The' remaining functions and responsibilitias designated in referOced i
paragraphs of Part 264 of this chapter as those of the ' Regional' Administrator' with respect to ' facility permits' thall be carried out by'1). proposal by the l
4 Secretary 2) concurrence by the Commission, and 3) implementation by the-l Secretary after Commission concurrence." No NRC license or permit equivalent i
s 2
will exist at this stage, thus the requirement that NRC execute the l-
" permitting" activities of the RegionaliAdministrator'is' inappropriate.
NRC's c'.
oversight under UMTRCA is similar to the type of-interaction proposed in the i
standards for establishing alternate concentration-limits in the proceeding _
paragraph (v).
40 CFR 192.02(b) and (c) (general):
The proceeding parts of 192.02 l
are-stated as design' standards.
Paragraphs (b) and (c) are implementation requirements., NRC staff recognizes and supports the need to include t'
implementation _ aspects in the Title I. standards.
The standards apply to
' activities for which no NRC or EPA license or permit is required-and forthich -
4 PRELIMINARY ORAFT
'h,..,.
..,,..dy m,,_,...I.,,.
- w..y g,-,.,,,
,m.,,,.3,__,,,..-n..
vv~
_y,
,_ym-,
,,__,m'm.p,n
{
i PREl.!MINARY ORAFT i
no other regulations currently exist.
The clarity of the rule would be improved if the implementation provisions were collected in a retitled 192.20 in perhaps three parts:
1)thosedealingwithmonitoringandassociated requirements such as (b) and (c), 2) those addressing the requirements for the remedial action plan, and 3) those retained as implementation guidance. A careful. sorting by the authors to indicate clearly which provisions apply to implementation and which are standards would aid in assuring that the standards are consistent with the process established by Congress for the remedial action at the-inactive sites.
The post-alosure requirements being established by (b) and (c) appear to conflict with or duplicate NRC's licensing of long-term monitoring, maintenance, and emergency measures necessary to assure protection of the public health and safety and other actions needed to comply with EPA's standards as mandated in Section 104 (f)(2) of UMTRCA.
Under the SWDA 7 --
regulations, the post-closure period is used to assure 'that termination of the permit-is appropriate prior to release of the site operator and reliance on passive cont'ols.
In contrast, licensing under UMTRCA begins when the site has been transferred to the custodial agency for long-term care.
The monitoring and emergency measures provisions in Section 104 (f)(2) correspond to the monitoring and corrective action required in EPA's proposed standards.
If EPA
' considers assurances of ground-water monitoring and corrective action necessary during the long-term EPA should include these requirements in the PRELIMINARY ORAFT w
..re.,
.--r
-.-,s
= _..
PRELIMINARY ORAFT implementation section rather than in the standards section to avoid unnecessary duplication of the licensing provisions.
The preamble text on~page 36002, Column 3, states that monitoring of the disposal unit would be required for a period sufficient to verify the adequacy of the disposal to achieve its design objectives for containment of li:ted constituents.
The text also states that this period is intended to be comparable to the time period required under $264.117 for waste sites regulated O
underSWDA(e.g.,30 years).
However, ground-water monitoring programs may need to last decades to hundreds of years before DOE will be able to verify the
" adequacy of '.he disposal to achieve its design objectives."
For example, the r
ground-water travel time from tee edge of a tailings embankment through a low permeability hydrogrologic unit beneath the tailings to monitoring wells may far exceed the 30 years monitoring period envisioned by EPA.
?
Although the NRC staff endorses the option for ground-water monitoring at
\\ -
disposal sites after completion of the remedial actions, the staff does not agree that such monitoring is necessary to ensure protection of humans and the environment at all disposal sites.
In addition, the long duration af monitoring programs required to verify the adequacy of facility performance may result in large, unwarranted costs for sample analysis and monitoring system maintenance.
Therefore, EPA should include requirements for post-closure monitoring programs in the implementation section in a manner that allows PRELIMINARY ORAFT
i PRELIMINARY ORAFT post-closure ground-water monitoring programs to be tailored to site-specific objectives and characteristics.
40CFR192.02(b):
Proposed 5192.02(b) requires implementation of a, monitoring plan to demonstrate the adequacy of the initial performance of the disposal unit in accordance with the design requirements of S192.02(a).
The referenced design requirements, however, include radon emission limits and other design objectives for which EPA does not require monitoring to ensure V
adequate performance.
In addition, EPA stated its intent to implement monitoring programs sufficient to verify adequacy of disposal designs with respect to the ground-water protection stand.ards of 5192.02(a)(3),ratherthan the c!osure performance standards of 5192.02(a)(4)onpage36007.
Therefore.
EPA should revise the proposed standard in 192.02(b) as follows:
... in accordance with the design requirements of $192.02(a)(3)."
40 CFR 192.02(c):
The references to 192.02(a) in this paragraph are (V
not completely clear.
The paragraph begins "If the ground-water standards establishedunderprovisionsof192.02(a)...." This reference could be interpreted in at least two ways.
It could mean the design standards established under 192.02(a)(3) or those under (a)(3) in conjunction with (a)(4). Would (a)(3) be appropriate for existing sites and (a)(4) for new disposal sites? When and how does the transition to the general long-term +
standard in (a)(4) take place? The requirement to " restore the disposal to the
-design requirements of 192.02(a)" is also unclear.
The intent appears to be to PRELIMINARY ORAFT
PRELIMINARY DRAFT address design requirements associated with ground water, but as EPA acknowledges, the radon and intrusion cover is also an important aspect of the ground-water protection design.
Corrective actions may impact the physical integrit.v of covers. Thus, the referencas to 192.02(z) in 192.02(c) are ambiguous and should be revised to provide a clear basis for implementation of
'the proposed standards,
- b. Subpart B a
40 CFR 192.11(b)(2):
Proposed S192.11(b) provides a revised definition of " land." The standards do not clearly state, however, whether this revised definition includes ground water contamination associated with residual radioactive material at vicinity properties.
The preamble and Background Information Document for these standards do not assess programmatic impacts associated with ground-water characterization, monitoring, and cleanup at more than 6,000 vicinity properties identified to date.
EPA should revise the definition to explicitly include contamination at vicinity properties er state that the definition of land is not intended to include g ound-water contamination' associated with residual radioactive material at vicinity properties.
If EPA elects the first option, EPA should develop the rationale g
for applying the ground water standards to residual radioactive material at vicinity properties.
PRELIMINARY ORAFT
, PRELIMINARY DRAFT 40 CFR 192.1:! N.
Pa'igrap, (e) defines " Class III ground water" and incorporates portions of EPA's ground-wa.ter classification guidelines published in December 1986 as " Guidelines for Ground-Water Classification under the EPA Ground-Water Protection Strategy." EPA has not yet finalized these guidelines, so it may be premature to incorporate draft classification criteria in the final standards.
In addition, the NRC staff identified several significant limitations to the classification system and its implementation as proposed by EPA in December 1986.
These limitations are described in the NRC staff h
comments that were transmitted to EPA in March 1987 as part of the formal commenting process on the draft guidelines.
(A copy of our comments are enc losed. ) These comments also apply to "'A's implementation of the ground water classification systen through the proposed standards for groundwater protection at inactive uranium tailings sites.
EPA should evaluate these referenced comments and revise the proposed standards accordingly.
~
40CFR192.12(c)(3):
See earlier comments on this procedural matter.
h 40CFR192.12(c)(4):
The introductory text refers to the " remedial period established under Subpart A".
Subpart A defines a remedial period but it does not require that one be established.
EPA should revise the standards to require establishment of the remedial period or delete the reference in 191.12(c).
40 CFR 192.12(c)(4)(ii): The reference to "wherever contamination by listed constituents from rasidual radioactive materials is found in ground PRELIMINARY DRAFT
PRELIMINARY DRAFT water, or is projected to be found" is somewhat unclear and potentially very absolute.
It could be read that areas must be restricted institutionally if even one molecule from the materials has or will be found in the ground water, flexibility to determine on a site specific basis which ground water requires institutional protection should be provided.
40 CFR 192.12(c)(4)(iv):
The reference to Subpart A is unclear.
Subpart A includes both the longevity, radon, and ground water design requirements and the post-closure ground-water monitoring requirements at
- tailings disposal sites.
Sc:ause post-closure monitoring and corrective action could extend beyond the time frame provided for in UMTRCA, DOE rsy not be able to demonstrate compliance with 192.12(c)(4)(iv).
Without legislation, the remedial period could not be extended up to 100 years to allow for natural restoration.
EPA should revise the standards by deleting this requirement from the list of conditions that must be satisfied in 192.12(c)(4) to extend the remedial action period.
O
- c. Subpart C
Title:
Suggest it be retitled to add "of Subpart A and B" for clarity, particularly if all the implementation requirements are consolidated here.
PRELIMINARY DRAFT
{
PRELIMINARY ORAFT 40 CFR 192.20
Title:
Suggest that it be retitled " Guidance and Requirements for Implementation." Such a title would more accurately describe the intent of the standards in this Section.
40 CFR 192.20(a)(2): Only the first sentence is guidance.
The second sentence is a monitoring requirement and the last is a design requirement.
This paragraph would benefit from sorting. With respect to the second sentence, see' (he earlier comment on 192.02(a)(3)(iv) concerning h
"upgradient".
The last sentence contains the absolute' phrase " prevent contamination" when requiring the use of liners or an equivalent if the tailings still contain water at greater than the level of specific retention or will be slurried.
The phrase " prevent contamination" is absolute and canno't be logicafly implemented.
A more implementable regulatory requirement would be to require a finding such as the finding for alternate concentration limits under 40 CFR 264.94 that liners or equivalents be used as needed to prevent present or potential substantial hazards to human health and the environment associated h
with ground water contamination from the disposal site.
Absolute assurance of contamination prevention cannot be achieved through design and assessment for long periods of time. The standard requires compliance for 1000 years, DOE will not be able to demonstrate with reasonable assurance that disposal sites will prevent contamination over this time period.
Natural processes over such long periods of time will leach and transport finite quantities of contaminants to the ground water, thus causing ground-water " contamination." EPA should also consider the potential for added moisture during the normal emplacement PRELIMINARY DRAFT
PRELIMINARY DRAFT process.
Remedial action construction may include adding moisture to facilitate compaction of the tailings to ensure long-term stability.
The standard should be generalized as described above to provide sufficient flexibility to determine disposal site designs on a site-specific basis.
40 CFR 192.20(a)(3):
This paragraph is a list of requirements, not guidance and should not be listed under guidance.
A sentence requiring a remedial action plan would codify th. current process to select remedial action on a site-specific basis.
40 CFR 192.22(d):
The need for tnis paragraph is not clear.
The referenced paragraphs include the decision criterion that restoration is technically impracticable from an engineering perspective without regard to costs, i.e. it is physically impossible.
It is not clear how action can be taken to restore contaminated groundwater if it is physically impossible to do so.
192.22(a) already provides that the standards are the goal and are to be h
met as closely as is reasonable under the circumstances.
EPA should delete 192.22(d).
3.
Comments on the preamble.
The NRC staff recognizes that the preamble has no legal. standing except for clarifying the intent of the standards themselves when the standards are unclear.
However, past experiences with concepts expressed and statements made PRELIMINARY DRAFT
)
-e
\\
PRELIMINARY DRAFT in preamble text prompt NRC staff to comment.
The following comments identify factual errors, inconsistencies and other matters that EPA may wish to clarify as the final rule and comment analysis are developed.
The following comments focus primarily on matters not addressed by specific or general comments.
Consideration of consistency with the points nade in our comments is assumed.
a, Page 36001, Column 1, Oraanics h
The. text states that although a variety of organic constituents have been used at the sites, no organics have been detected in the tailings.
Site characterization information collected by DOE, however, indicates that organic constituents have been found in the tailings and in contaminated ground water associated with the tailings sites, For example, organic contamination has been detected at the Grand Junction site in Grand Junction, Colorado. Although the source of the organic contamination is uncertain, site information at this time cannot preclude the possibility that the contamination was caused by the h
uranium mill at Grand Junction, b.
Page 36001, Column 2, Natural Restoration The text states that natural flushing of contaminated aquifers at the sites has been estimated to require time periods ranging from several years to many hundreds of years.
Based on NRC reviews of sites to date, the NRC staff is unaware of any aquifers where several years of natural restoration would be PRELIMINARY DRAFT d
PRELIMINARY DRAFT expected to restore contaminant concentrations in ground water to levels that would meet the numerical limits in the proposed standards.
Inclusion of this statement in discussions may mislead readers about the expected duration of natural restoration.
c.
Page 36001, Column 3, Remedial Period It appears feosible for DOE to demonstrate compliance with the proposed O's /
disposal standards in Subpart A by the requested extended 1994 termination date of the program.
However, DOE will rot be able to demonstrate compliance with the proposed cleanup standards in Subpart,B in time to meet the 1994 deadline.
EPA acknowledges that restoration of ground water may require up to 100 years to attain compliance with the proposed cleanup standards in Subpart B.
- Thus, DOE will be required to extend remedial actions beyond the proposed 1994 deadline to attain compliance, s
k/
d.
page 36002, Column 1, Ambiguous Paraphrase The text states that ACLs could be granted provided that " after considering practicable corrective actions, a determination can be made that it satisfies the lower of the values given by the standard for ACLs in 5264.94(b), and the corrective action that is as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA)." This statement is ambiguous because it does not clearly state what values are referred to in the phrase " lower of the values." Does " lower of the values" PRELIMINARY DRAFT
PRELIMINA'RY DRAFT apply to corrective actions, contaminant concentrations achieved through
-implementation of practicable corrective actions or some other alternative?
-e.
Page 36003, Column 2. ACLs The text states that any ACL in Class I or II grounc water should be determined under the assumption that the ground water may be used for drinking purposes.
This assumption, however, substantially reduces the-flexibility provided by the
, gN-ACL provision and eliminates consideration of water use factors listed for consideration in 40 CFR S264.94(b) which have been incorporated in the 1
standards by reference.
This assumption requires. analysis of human exposure to hazardous constituents due to ingestion of contaminated ground waters with background Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) concentrations less than 10,000 mg/1, regardless of whether these ground waters would be considered drinking water This requirement is overly conservative-because ground water with resources.
TDS concentrations greater than 3,000 mg/l are not generally considered to be D
-k /
drinking water resources. Most drinking water supplies in the Unitec States f
have TDS concentrations less than 3,000 mg/1.
Consumption of water with more than 3,000 mg/l TOS would be expected to induce gastric distress, so the contaminated water with background TDS concentrations greater than 3,000 mg/l
.would probably;be' treated prior to its use as drinking water.
Thus, domestic and municipal water suppliers using groundwater with TDS concentrations greater than 3,000 mg/l would treat the groundwater prior to its use regardless of whether its contaminated.
Therefore assessments of human exposure due to PRELIMINARY DRAFT
PRELIMINARY DRAFT ingestion of contaminated ground water should consider a combination of site-specific factors that determine the potential for human exposure due to ingestion of cont'aminated groundwater, such as the potential effectiveness of treatment techniques in reducing contaminant concentrations.
Consideration of ACLs should provide sufficient flexibility to consider the site-specific factors identified in 40 CFR Part 264.94(b) in assessing potential human exposure, rather than generically n; quiring analysis of the ground-water ingestion scenario for all ground water with TDS concentrations less than 9
10,000 mg/1.
EPA should not state the assumption that all Class I and II ground waters may be used for human consumption in establishing ACLs.
Enclosure:
Ltr. to M. Mlay fm.
R. E. Browning dtd. 3/2/87 9
PRELIMINARY ORAFT
MAR 2 3R 406.3.5/MFW/87/01/21/GWP 4 Ms. Marian Mlay, Director Office of Ground-Water Protection U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 401 M Street, S.W. (WH-550G)
Washington, DC 20460
Dear Ms. Mlay:
SUBJECT:
COMMENTS ON GROUNO-WATER CLASSIFICATION GUIDELINES in response to EPA's Noi. ice of Availability published in the Federal Register on December 3,1986, NRC staff in the Division of Waste. Management has reviewed
" Guidelines for Ground-Watar Classification Under the EPA Ground-Water Protection Strategy" (Classification Guidelines) and is pleased t. /ansmit the O
following coments.
In general, we comend EPA's efforts to deve:
'E classification guidelines to provide for the protection of ground.r.d surface water resources of the United States. This letter summarizes our general coments and encloses more detailed technical comments.
Based on our review, we are uncertain about how EPA plans to implement the Classification Guidelines.
Although EPA states that the guidelines are not enforceable until they are legally incorporated into EPA prograits, the document does not describe EPA's plans for implementation of the guidelines. This uncertainty precludes assessment of the implications of the guidelines for NRC regulatory programs. The staff suggests that EPA consider revising the Classification Guidelines to describe how EPA intends to implement the guidelines in current regulatory programs (e.g., RCRA, CERCLA, TSCA, and FIFRA).
In addition, the document should describe how EPA intends to integrate the Classification Guidelines with other ground-water protection programs such as the Wellhead Protection Program under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
h Second, the Classification Guidelines do not clearly state EPA's intent for application of the guidelines in the two programs where the guidelines have alrnoy been implemented.
For example, the Classification Guidelines and EPA's regulations for high-level radioactive waste disposal in 40 CFR Part 191 contain similar, but not identical, wording referring to the replaceability and user population criteria for classifying ground water.
If EPA intends these criteria to be apnliad differently for Part 191 than for the guidelines, then EPA should consider discussing the intPnded differences in the Classification Guidelines. Alternatively, if the criteria are meant to be applied identically, then the Classification Guidelines should clearly state this intent and be revised to provide identical wording.
)
,7,.7 _ 7 ;. - - - - - - - - - -
~-.
q g
y
-406.3.5/MFW/87/01/?l/GWP 2
Third, EPA's definition of " irreplaceable" sources in the context of Niass I ground water" appears to be somewhat arbitrary because it includes a minimum population threshold of 2500 people. The number of persons using a ground water resource may have little or nothing to do with the replaceability of the resource. The Classification Guidelines correctly identify factors that-should be considered in determinino' comparable quality, (3) institutional constraints, whether water resources are replaceable asr (1) available quantity, (?)
and (4) economic feasibility.
The guidelines, however, do not provide an-adequate rationale for why the number of persons dependent on a water resource directly determines the replaceability of that resource.
EPA should consider s
revising the Classification Guidelines by removing the substantial population threshold from the definition-of " irreplaceable" in the definition of Class I ground water.
O' Fourth, the Classification-Guidelines should describe how uses o.' ground-water resources for purposes other than drinking water supply will be considered in
-applying the guidelines. Although EPA identifies other beneficial uses of ground water in Appendix 9, the guidelines do not describe special considerations-or review ; scedures that would apply to conjunctive uses.of-ground water.
For example,;the Classification Guidefines do not describe'how beneficial uses such as in-situ leach uranium mining would be considered in applying the guidelines.
EPA should consider revising the guidelines to describe-how ground-water classification will consider ground-water utilizatin
-for purposes other than dr'nking water supply.-
j Our last major coment focuses on the limitations of the. approaches identified by EPA to assess the vulnerability of confined ground water.
The guidelines
-identify two alternative approaches to assess the vulnerability (cf ground-water resources to potential contamination:
the DRASTIC methodology quantitative) and professional judgment-(qualitative). The DRASTIC methodology-primarily :
emphasizes near-surface, unconfined aquifers. Thus, a confined acuifer would.
O probably not.be considered-vulnerable based on an analysis using DRASTIC.
In-
' addition,= the'DPASTIC methodology does not consider the vulnerability of ground water to contamination from subsurface sources.
In contrast, the-professional judgment. approach could account for subsurface sources and site-specific-
-characteristics of_ confined aquifers to estimate ground-water vulnerability.
.This approach, however, may be applied less consistently than an'obiective quantitative approach, so ground-water vulnerability. determinations may be determined more by. subjective. opinion than by the characteristics of the hydrogeologic system.
EPA should consider revising the Classification Guidelines to identify an approach that promotes consistent application, that considers subsurface sources of contaaiination, and that can be used to evaluate the vulnerability of confined and unconfined ground-water resources, i
1 406.3.5/MFW/8'i/01/21/GWP
-3 MAR 2 - 1987 We appreciate the opportunity to review and' comment on the Classification Guidelines.
Please contact Michael Weber of my staff at 427-4746 if you have any questions or comments about our review.
Sincerely.
Origine151sned by l
XICHAEL J. AETJa l
[RobertE.BrowningDirector Division of Waste Management Office of Nuclear Material Safety l
and Safeguards
()
Enclosure:
Detailed Comments t
h' e
~
v.
1406.3.5/MFW/87/01/21/GWP OETAILED NRC $7FF COMMENTS ON
" GUIDELINES FOR GPO!xA-WATER CLASSIFICATION UNDER THE EPA GROUND-WATER PROTECTION STRATEGY"
~
-1.:
Implementation of the Guidelines (Pace 7)
The Classification Guidelines state that-EPA has already implemented the -
guidelines in~two programs:. CERCLA; site assessments and radioactive waste disposal. The guidelines do not clearly state EPA's intent for isolementation -
of the guidelines in coniunction with EPA's. regulations in 40 CFR Part 191 at sites for high-level radioactive waste disposal.
Ambiguity in the guidelines is created by the use of similar, but not identical, wording-In the definitions of Class I ground water and "special source" of ground water in 40 CFR Part Q--
191.: For example,<the Classification Guidelines and the regulations'in Part 191 both identify irreplaceability as a criterion in determining whether ground
' water is Class I or a "special-source," respectively. The' Classification Guidelines provide a user population threshold of E500 people or a best, professional judgement approach to determine whether a ground-water resource is irreplaceable.
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR Part 191 idi.ntify a user population threshold of'" thousands of persons" as of a particular date.in determining-whether an aquifer is considered a "special source" of ground water.
It-is-unclear how the guidelines definition relates to the definition in 40 CFR 191.-
The regulations in Part 191 appear to-require that "special sources". of ground water are a subset of Class I-ground waters as identified in'accordance with
-the 1984 EPA ground-water protection strategy.
EPA should consider revising-the Classification Guidelines to explicitly clarify the intended implementation of the guidelines at sites for high-level radioactive waste disposal.
EPA.-
,should also consider revising the Classification Guidelines to discuss the intended. differences -in application of the user population thresholds and irreplaceability criteria when identifying "special sources" of ground water 1
within the category of Class-I-ground waters. This discussion should also identify any potential-revisions of the standards in Part 191 that would be necessitated by the new guidelines..
2.' : Redundancy of Uncommon Pipeline Distance (Pages 34 and 93)-
Inclusion of_" uncommon pipeline distance" as a criterion in the definition of irreplaceable sources of water in the definition of Class I ground water appears to be redundant with the economic feasibility criterion.
EPA's justification for identifying uncommon pipeline distance as a criterion is based on excessive costs associated with uncommonly long pipeline distances for community water supplies.
For example, the uncommon pipeline-distances listed in Table' 4-3 'are based on the 1% level of household income threshold. The cost of the pipeline from a water source to a community would be included in the Jtotal cost of providing an alternative source of drinking water to a comm"nity.
Thus, pipeline length would be directly considered under the economic feasibility criterion.
EPA should consider eliminating the uncommon..peline 9
.4
.406.3.5/MFW/87/01/21/GWP 5-distance criterion from the criteria used to identify irreplaceable s'ources.of ground water.
3.
Quality of Interconnected Surface Waters (Pages 21 and a5)
The Classification Guidelines s' tate that Subclass IIIA includes ground-water,
units that are highly to intermediately interconnected to adiacent ground-water
-units of higher class and/or surface waters.
The text, however, does not identify surface-water ouality as a criterion for consideration in classifying Jround-water -resources.
A ground-water unit of-poor quality (i.e., total dissolved solids concentration greater than 10,000 mg/1) should be classified as Class IIIB if the unit is interconnected with surface waters of similarly poor quality and does not recharge any ground water units of higher quality.
For example, shallow, poor quality ground water in the Basin and Range-O
- waters (e.g., TDS significantly greater than -10,000 mg/1). Physiograph The should allow such shallow ground water to be classified as Class' guidelines 1
IIIB even though the ground-water unit is interconnected with surface waters.
EPA should consider revising the Classification Guidelines-to. include surface-water
' quality as a criterion to be considered in classifying ground-water resources.
.4.
Sufficient Yield Criterion (Page 41)
Section 3.5.3 of the Classification Guidelines states that potential sources of-drinking water must yield sufficient quantities of ground. water to meet the long-terin basic needs of an average family.
The guidelines establish'a criterion of 150 gallon per day as a minimum threshold for sufficient yield.-
The guidelines, however, do not indicate how this threshold is to be evaluated.:
Although it may be. assumed that the yield would be. to a single well or spring, the text does not indicate how an interested party would demonstrate insufficient yield of a ground-water unit.
For example, the demonstration h
could.be based on a single specific capacity-test at a single well that is-completed in only a portion of the ground-water unit. Alternatively, EPA might require an interested party to conduct many single well tests in wcils that are fully penetrating end that have been sited in a manner that promotes larger well yields (i.e., siting wells based on fracture trace analysis).
EPA should consider revising the Classification Guidelines to describe appropriate
- demonstrations of insufficient yield.
5.
Classifying Institutional Constraints (Pages 35 and 98)
Although the general objective of the classification scheme for institutiona.1 constraints is clear, it is unclear why constraints such as " treaties, agreements among states, and decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court" are classified as "Probably Binding" rather than " Binding." In addition, using category titles such as "Possibly Rinding", "Probably Binding", and "Unlikely to be Binding," may introduce unnecessary confusion in the classification EPA should consider revising the guidelines to provide a system.
a
.y=
e e
406.3.5/WW/87/01/21/GWP classification scheme based on the difficulty o'f overcoming institutional constraints imposed by market conditions, regulations, or legal decisions.
1 6.
Evapotranspiration vs. Evaporation (Pages 31 and 1070 The Classification Guidelines plovide threshold DRASTIC' scores to determine the vulnerability of-ground-water resources to potential _ contamination.
Selection of the threshold score depends un the ratio.of the estimated annual potential evapotranspiration to the mean annual precipitation.. It appears, however, that
, i
" potential evapotranspiration" was-inadvertently-substituted for the. term
" potential evaporation."
Estimates of annual potential evaporation are-available for locations around the country.- Potential evaporation-depends on variables that can be established on a regional basis, such as temperature Ldistributions, ambient humidities, and solar radiation.
In contrast, potential evapotranspiration depends on these factors,. in addition to the type, density,-
l n
t -U-and-health of vegetation available to transpire moisture.
Values for these variables.are not established on a regiona'l basis. Thus, EPA should revise thei guidelines by substituting " annual _ potential evaporation" for " annual potential evapotranspiration "
t 7.
Consideration of Confined Acuf fers '(Page 83)
- The Classification Guidelines provide an example in Section 4.3.6 of-subdi'iding a-Classification Review Area for the purpose.of applying the guioviines.
Several confined aquifers are identified in the example case as-discrete ground-water units._
classification decisions only c %ough the text indicates that-actual the facility, the guidelines do..ot describe _ how potential effects ofider those units th facilities should be. evaluated to -detemine whether ground-water units need to-be considered.
1affected ground-water units should be determined-EPA should revise the guidelines
- Q-8.
Descriotion of the High-level Waste Program (B-13)
The Classification Guidelines describe alternative approaches that EPA
-considered for determining ground-water vulnerability to contamination.
In support of integrative methodologies. Section 3.3.2.5 identifies a-
-time-to-exposure criterion that has been established within the high-level
- radioactive' waste program.
A time-to-exposure requirement does not exist in
-the Department.of Energy's high-les el radioactive waste program.
If the text refers to-the ground-water travel time criterion in tha Department of Energy's Siting Cuidelines (10 CFR Part 960), the text should state that this criterion applies to pre-waste
-post-waste.emplacemen. emplacement.sround-water travel = times that may not equal t radionuclice travel times or time-to-exposure. The pre-waste emplacement ground-water travel time requirement originated in NRC's regulations for disposal of high-level radioactive waste icf.10 CFR Part 60.1131.
EPA should consider revising the text to describe the ground-water travel time criterion of the high-level radioactive waste program accurately or to delete ~it from the discussion.
y 9-
- e.
n
.e-=
4 8
s e
ENCLOSURE 2 O
1 I
e 9
4 g.
- i..
4
~
PRELIMINARY DRAFT Nuclear Regulatory Comission Staff Responses to the Fifteen
_ Questions Posed by the Environmental' Protection Agency er Proposed Uranium Title i Ground-Water Protection Standards 52 FR 36005; September 24, 1987 1.
Should a liner requirerent-always be imposed on tailings piles that are moved to a new location? Should a liner be required only if the DOE or '
the NRC conclude that it is needed to satisfy the ground-water standards for disposal?
- Response: - Pfo. ^ liners should not be reouired at all new tailings sites.
In the proposed rule, CPA is incorporating portions of the Solid Waste Disposal
- Act (SEA) standards in 40 CFp Part 26a.
These SWDA standards, when taken as a whole, allow exemptions to the liner requirement. More importantly, liners are reli'ed-_upon to prevent significant releases of hazardous constituents only p
'during operations rather than the long-term for which the proposed standards are intended to apply.
Yes, the DOE and NRC should be allowed to exercise:
site-specific judoment-in designing and approving ground-water protective measure,s at disposal sites. That? technical judgment should include as options h
the use of liners made'of natural materials (clay) and alternative designs intended to protect ground water.
- .l2.
For designated processing sites from which tailings have been removed, is-
- a specific recuirement that DOE clean.up the ground water before releasing
-the land to State or private owners needed to assure that such cleanup
-will occur?
Pesponse:
Proposed 40 CFR 192.12 appears to require cleanup of gronnd-water contamination' resulting from leaching of constituents from residual radioactive materials or tailings.
If this reading is correct, DOE would have to-take all practicable actions in order to satisfy the standard. NRC staff agrees that DOE:should remain responsible for the ground-water cleanup but'succests that DOE should be allowed to release processing sites for surfac,e use of the property if such surface use would not adversely impact the ground-water cleanup prograr.
PpELIMINARY DRAFT
PRELIMINARY DRAFT 3.
Should institutional controls be relied upen, for a limii J time, to prevent access of the~public to ground water in' order tc permit use of natural flushing of contaminants, as proposed? If so, what types of institutional controls should be allowed? Should these be specified in the rule? Is the proposed time period appropriate?
Response: Yes. The option to rely on institutional controls should be included..The standards: appear to provide fo' the institutional controls r
outside or prior to the NRC licensing period. The*e additional institutionel-measures-can provide necessary flexibility to optimize ground-water cleanup programs to protect the public health and safety and the environment. The
. types of controls should be determined on a site-specific basis, considering technical, legal, and administrative aspects of the controls available and the degree _of control needed. Acceptable types of controis should not be specified on a generic basis.
Further, EPA should,not delay the final rule to develop and support new prescriptive requirements for institutional controls.
P.eliance ion a 100-year period of active institutional controls for major activities is
-reasonable and. consistent with other NRC and EPA standards (e.g. '40 CFR 191 and-10 CFR 61). However, the law requires 00E to maintain site control i
-indefinitely-and conduct monitoring, maintenance, and emergency actions as needed at these sites indefipitely. This long-term institutional care must be.
' conducted under NRC license ~.
EPA should take care to recognize this Q requirement in any requirements developed and in any discussions of this matter.
PRELIMINARY DRAFT
l s
l PRELIM!HARY DRAFT 4.
Should the option to make use of natural flushing for cleansing of contaminants be limited to cases where some restnration of the ground water has already been carried out? Should the use of an alternate concentration limit (ACL) be permitted, as proposed, in the case of clean up to be achieved (in whole or part) by natural flushing?
Response
No. Decisions on active and natural restoration will likely be site-specific and the flexibility to use natiiral restoratier alone should be recained. The propnsed requirement in the standard that ACL's be as low as reasonably achievable, considering practicable corrective actions, assures that active measures will be considered and implemented, where appropriate.
The ACL provision should be retained.
Approval of the ACL means that the contaminant v
concentrations do not pose significant' present or potential hazards to humans or the environment (i.e., the finding requireo in $264.94(b)).
Natural flushing to reach background or drinking water levels would provide an additional margin of safety.
5.
'Are the proposed bases for supplemental standards for cleanup reasonable and adequate for the protection of public health? Should other bases be provided and, if so, what are they? Should the previsions for natural flushing and supplettertal standards for cleanup apply only to existing cortamination or should they also apply, as is prop'osed, to "new" contamination due to failure of the disposal design to perform as intended?
Q
Response
NRC staff have no comment on the proposed bases except that EPA should consider adding consideration of costs when costs would be unreasonably excessive in relation to the benefits to be gained from reduction of risks.
Maximum flexibility should be retained for selecting optimum site-specific solutions. Thus, the proposed flexibility to consider natural flushing and supplemental standards should be retained.
PRELIMINARY DRAFT
~
t PRELIMINAPY DRAFT
'6.
-Under these proposed standards, alternate concentration limits would be concurred in by the NRC. Should EPA establish generic criteria and/or
_ guidance governing the application of the provisions of $264.94(b) of this
' part to these judgments for these standards?
Response
No.
Section 264.94(b) provides a clear health, safety, and environmental f'inding and a comprehensive list of factors to be considered to protect ground and surface waters in establishing ACL's. NRC is currently developing a methodology for establishing ACL's at Title II uranium mill sites while complying _with the identical 9264.9a(b).
L.
7
- O Should EPA publish, as part of this standard, a restricted list of just:those radioac or. continue to rely on the entire list (supplemented as proposed) of constituents encompassed by RCPA regulations? Should the proposed list of additional. listed constituents be changed?
Response: 'A constituent list limited to those present at the site is a good
--idea but EPA'does not have the information reeded and it would-delay the-standards. The sites have not been fully' characterized.yet, so'new constituents could be identified in the' future. Therefore, it would be premature to constrain the list based on current information.- The existing previsions for DOE identification and NRC concurrence with the constituents provides sufficient flexibility to accomedate new constituents found at the inactive sites.
EPA O
should. net delay the standards to develop the comprehensive infonnation that would be recuired to justify the restricted list and repropose the standard.
9 PRELIMIF.RY DRAFT
/\\\\
e
~
PRELIMINARY DRAFT 8.
EPA could consider publishing a restricted list of just those radioactive and toxic constituents that are principal contaminants at the;e sites and specifying a limit for each of these, under the assumption that any minor contaminants would be taken care of in the cleanup of these principal contaminants. With such a restricted set of constituents and corresponding complete set of limits, EPA could then consider dropping the provisions for ACLs and relyino solely on the remaining provisions for exceptional cases.
Should EPA' adopt this approach?
E
Response
No.
Developing generic risk-based numerical limits would reouire O
significant effort ard may inappropriately constrain the flexibility needed to protect humans and the environment on a site-specific basis by implementing appropriate corrective and protective action. The site-specific ACL's provide g needed flexibility for implementation and should be retained.
In addition, inclusion of generic numerical limits in the standards would be inconsistent with EPA's apprcach in the SWCA standards in 40 CFR Part 264. Further, inclusion of such limits would certainly delay the final rule because EPA would have to repropose the standards prior to their promulgation.
9.
Should EPA specify a minimum or the entire period for pest-disposal ground-water monitoring in Subpart A, or leave'it to the DOE and NRC to detemine this perind on a site-specific basis, as proposed?
If EPA should specify a period, what lencth would be ap;: apriate to demonstrate conformance to the disposal design standard, and on what basis should this value.be chosen?
s g Response:
NRC staff suggests that this provision be deleted because it is duplicative and inconsistent.
If it is retained, EPA should provide performance objectives for the post-disposal ground-water monitoring period rather than establishing prescriptive design and duration requirements that do not provide sufficient site-specific flexibility to consider the factors that affect the post-disposal monitoring program.
9 0
0 PRELIMINARY DRAFT i
PRELIMINARY DRAFT 10.
For tailings regulated by NRC under Title II of the Act, section 84(a)(3) requires the NRC to develop regulations to confom to general requirements applicable to the possession, transfer, and disposal of hazardous materials regulated by the Administrator.
Should the standards proposed here incorporate such requirements for tailings regulated under Title I?
Response:* Since the subject EPA provisions are undergoing a number of refinements as they are being implemented and since NRC has not looked carefully at which requirements should be applied in the Title II case, such action may be premature.
However, NRC can identify some of the EPA requirements that would be inappropriate. One example of an inappropriate recuirement concerns firancial assurances.
Regulations for financial absurances to stabilize a site are Q inappropriate for Congressionally funded activities by a Federal agency.
Another example follows from the fact that tailings and residual radioactive materials will not be transferred to multiple parties. Thus, cradle-to-grave manifests and transportation and storage reouirements are not needed. The proposed rule includes a reasonable level of detail for the implementation requirements and reflects emphasis on perfomance or purpose of the recuirements. Development of generic requirements suited to Title I and supportino technical and environmental bases would delay the final rule and require reproposal.
11.
Is it appropriate tr, base the uranium contaminant limit on radioactivity p
alone or should the chemical toxicity of uranium result in a more d
restrictive value?
Response
This cue. ion is still under review.
O PRELIMINARY DRAFT m
.e PRELIMINARY DRAFT 12.
Should the Agency consider revising the Title II regulations to incorporate those portions of the Title I regulations that are different from the Title 11 regulations, e.g., the additional contaminant limits in Table A?
Response
EPA should consider revisions to the Title 11 standards to reflect the flexibility provided for Title I decisions, where circumstances are similar. Many of the current Title II decommissioning efforts at existing sites are more like Title I remediation in that the tailings were generated before the standards were established and that many mills I h i not operated to any significant extent for years. Title II options for implementing i
supplemental standards, natural restoration, and institutiona,1 controls may be O austifiable and core eauitabie and consistent with Titie I.
The vaiu s and rationale for the additional constituents can be factored into Title II ACL decisions without rule change and are not sufficient reason for rulemaking by themselves.
13.
Are the estimated costs of implementing these proposed standards accurate and based on reasonable assumpt %ns?
j
Response
HRC staff has nc comment on the specific cost estimates presented.
However, NPC notes that three areas w e e not addressed. One is the long-term
, costs of monitoring to confirm design and complete ground-water restoration.
The long time periods involved could make these costs significant.
- Secondly,
. O the cost est4 mates should 4ncioee incrementa, rosts assoc 4ated with protection of ground water at new disposal sites.
Finally, if coverage of vicinity properties was intended, EPA should provide cost estimates for these activities.
PPELIMINAPY DRAFT
1cH - o-.
e PRELIMINARY DRAFT
- 14. 'What criteria should be used to ' judge " technically-impracticable from an engineering perspective?".Can and should these criteria be specified in:
- the rule or should they be11 eft to the judgment of the Department of Energy and the Nuclear. Regulatory Commission?
Response: Thesedecisionsshouldbelefttothe-judgmenthfDOEandNRC.
However, NRC notes that. opportunity exists-for public-input'into the
- site-specific decisions made concerning'the sites independent of EPA rulemeking..For example, DOE must follow the noticing recuirements associated with the National Environment Policy Act with respect to Environmer.tal Impact-Statements and Assessments. Negotiation of the toeperative agreements with the-l States or Indian Tribes provides anothe:, opportunity. ' DOE-also holds public O
meetings near the sites.
- 15. The criteria proposed-here-to specify ground water as Class-III, and therefore cualified for supplemental standards,= are based on-draft proposals still under consideration by the Agency..Are these criteria
. appropriate for this. application, or would;others be more apprcpriate for tuse at these sites?
Response:=-Seestaffcommentson40CFRjl92.11(e)andthereferencedletter dated March 2, 1987, for a discussion of NRC staff views on. changes and additional considerations concerning the ground-water classification.
)
o 9
u 0
6 PRELIMINARY DRAFT
.